"And for that purpose, restrain by duties, and, if necessary, prohibit importation of the products of the soil and industry of other nations." Such are the means. Let us compare this system with that which the Bordeaux petition advocates. Commodities are there divided into three classes:-- "The first includes provisions, and _raw materials upon which no human labour has been bestowed. In principle, a wise economy would demand that this class should be free of duties_. Here we have no labour, no protection. "The second consists of products which have, _to some extent, been prepared_. This preparation warrants such products being _charged with a certain amount of duty_." Here protection begins, because here, according to the petitioners, begins _national labour_. "The third comprises goods and products in their finished and perfect state. These contribute nothing to national labour, and we regard this class as the most taxable." Here labour, and production along with it, reach their maximum. We thus see that the petitioners profess their belief in the doctrine, that foreign labour is injurious to national labour; and this is the _error_ of the prohibitive system. They demand that the home market should be reserved for home industry. That is the _design_ of the system of prohibition. They demand that foreign labour should be subjected to restrictions and taxes. These are the means employed by the system of prohibition. What difference, then, can we possibly discover between the Bordeaux petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One difference, and one only--the greater or less extension given to the word labour. M. de Saint-Cricq extends it to everything, and so he wishes to protect all. "Labour constitutes all the wealth of a people," he says; "to protect agricultural industry, and all agricultural industry; to protect manufacturing industry, and all manufacturing industry, is the cry which should never cease to be heard in this Chamber." The Bordeaux petitioners take no labour into account but that of the manufacturers; and for that reason they would admit them to the benefits of protection. "Raw materials are commodities upon which no human labour has been bestowed. In principle, we should not tax them. Manufactured products can no longer serve the cause of national industry, and we regard them as the best subjects for taxation." It is not our business in this place to inquire whether protection to national industry is reasonable. M. de Saint-Cricq and the Bordeaux gentlemen are at one upon this point, and, as we have shown in the preceding chapters, we on this subject differ from both. Our present business is to discover whether it is by M. de Saint-Cricq, or by the Bordeaux petitioners, that the word labour is used in a correct sense. Now, in this view of the question, we think that M. de Saint-Cricq has very much the best of it; and to prove this, we may suppose them to hold some such dialogue as the following:--