"But this abundance ought to be the result of _national labor_. If it were the result of foreign labor, national labor must receive an inevitable check." Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism). "What, then, ought to be the course of an agricultural and manufacturing country? It ought to reserve its market for the produce of its own soil and its own industry." Here is the object. "In order to effect this, it ought, by restrictive, and, if necessary, by prohibitive duties, to prevent the influx of produce from foreign soils and foreign industry." Here is the means. Let us now compare this system with that of the petition from Bordeaux. This divided articles of merchandise into three classes. "The first class includes articles of food and _raw material untouched by human labor_. _A judicious system of political economy would require that this class should be exempt from taxation._" Here we have the principle of no labor, no protection. "The second class is composed of articles which have received _some preparation_ for manufacture. This preparation would render reasonable the imposition of _some duties_." Here we find the commencement of protection, because, at the same time, likewise commences the demand for _national labor_. "The third class comprehends finished articles, which can, under no circumstances, furnish material for national labor. We consider this as the most fit for taxation." Here we have at once the maximum of labor, and, consequently, of production. The petitioners then, as we here see, proclaimed foreign labor as injurious to national labor. This is the _error_ of the prohibitive system. They desired the French market to be reserved for _French labor_. This is the _object_ of the prohibitive system. They demanded that foreign labor should be subjected to restrictions and taxes. These are the _means_ of the prohibitive system. What difference, then, can we possibly discover to exist between the Bordalese petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One, alone; and that is simply the greater or less extension which is given to the signification of the word _labor_. Mr. de Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, in favor of _protecting_ every thing. "Labor," he says, "constitutes _the whole_ wealth of a nation. Protection should be for the agricultural interest, and _the whole_ agricultural interest; for the manufacturing interest, and _the whole_ manufacturing interest; and this principle I will continually endeavor to impress upon this Chamber." The petitioners consider no labor but that of the manufacturers, and accordingly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to admit to the favors of protection. "Raw material being entirely _untouched by human labor_, our system should exempt it from taxes. Manufactured articles furnishing no material for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation."