Part 9 (1/2)

A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of 10,000 francs

He divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following changes of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye As he needed for hirain, meat, and dairy-produce of the farht oil, flax, wine, etc The whole of his capital was yearly distributed in wages and payhborhood This capital was, froain returned to hi fully convinced that idle capital produces nothing, caused to circulate a classes this annual increase, which he devoted to the inclosing and clearing of lands, or to is He deposited so banker, who on his part did not leave these idle in his strong box, but lent them to various tradesmen, so that the whole caes

The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance, said to himself: ”It must be confessed that my father has, all his life, allowed hiht oil, and thus paid _tribute_ to Province, while our own land could, by an effort, be es, thus paying _tribute_ to Brittany, Medoc, and the Hiera islands very unnecessarily, for wine, flax and oranges row upon our own lands He paid tribute to the miller and the weaver; our own servants could very eave our linen, and crush our wheat between two stones He did all he could to ruin hiht to have been kept for the benefit of his own household”

Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow detere the routine of his crops He divided his farm into twenty parts On one he cultivated the olive; on another the mulberry; on a third flax; he devoted the fourth to vines, the fifth to wheat, etc, etc Thus he succeeded in rendering himself _independent_, and furnished all his faer received any thing froeneral circulation; neither, it is true, did he cast any thing into it Was he the richer for this course? No, for his land did not suit the cultivation of the vine; nor was the climate favorable to the olive In short, the family supply of all these articles was very inferior to what it had been during the tie of produce

With regard to the dereater than formerly There were, to be sure, five times as many fields to cultivate, but they were five times smaller If oil was raised, there was less wheat; and because there was no ht, neither was there any es , was now constantly direat part of it was necessarily devoted to nus and utensils, indispensable to a person who deter In short, the supply of labor continued the sa less, there was, necessarily, a reduction of wages

The result is precisely similar, when a nation isolates itself by the prohibitive system Its number of industrial pursuits is certainly multiplied, but their importance is diminished In proportion to their number, they become less productive, for the sareater nureater part of the circulating capital; that is to say, a greater part of the funds destined to the payes What remented It is like the water of a pond, which, distributed in a multitude of reservoirs, appears to be reater quantity of soil, and presents a larger surface to the sun, while we hardly perceive that, precisely on this account, it absorbs, evaporates, and loses itself the quicker

Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sureat, in proportion as obstacles are numerous There can be no doubt that protective tariffs, by forcing capital and labor to struggle against greater difficulties of soil and clieneral production to be less, or, in other words, diminish the portion of comforts which would thence result to eneral diminution of comforts, hoorkmen, can it be possible that _your_ portion should be increased? Under such a supposition, it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those who ed matters, that not only they subject theeneral loss, but taking the whole of it upon themselves, that they subains Is this credible? Is this possible? It is, indeed, a enerosity, and if you act wisely, you will reject it

XIII

THEORY--PRACTICE

Partisans of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and not relying sufficiently upon practice

What a powerful argu succession of distinguished ue of writers who have all differed from him; and Mr Say is himself conscious of this, for he says: ”It has been said, in support of old errors, that there enerally adopted by all nations Ought we not, it is asked, to distrust observations and reasoning which run counter to every thing which has been looked upon as certain up to this day, and which has been regarded as undoubted by so many ere to be confided in, alike on account of their learning and of their philanthropic intentions? This argument is, I confess, calculated to ht cast a doubt upon the most incontestable facts, if the world had not seen so nized as false, as universally es, their do passed since all nations, frohtened, and all men, the wisest as well as the most uninformed, ad this doctrine, which is, nevertheless, false, and to-day universally decried”

Upon this passage Mr Ferrier ely mistaken, if he believes that he has thus answered the very strong objections which he has hies, ht mistake upon a question of natural history; this proves nothing Water, air, earth, and fire, elements or not, were not the less useful to man Such errors as this are of no importance They do not lead to revolutions, nor do they cause mental uneasiness; above all, they clash with no interests, and ht, therefore, without inconvenience, last for resses as though they did not exist But can it be thus with errors which affect the overnment absolutely false, consequently injurious, could be followed for eneral consent of well-informed men? Can it be explained how such a syste prosperity of these nations? Mr Say confesses that the argument which he combats is calculated to make a profound impression Most certainly it is; and this impression remains; for Mr Say has rather increased than diminished it”

Let us hear Mr de Saint Chamans

”It has been only towards the hteenth century, when every subject and every principle have without exception been given up to the discussion of book-makers, that these furnishers of _speculative_ ideas, applied to every thing and applicable to nothing, have begun to write upon the subject of political economy There existed previously a systeovernments Colbert was, it is said, the inventor of it; and Colbert gave the law to every state of Europe Strange to say, he does so still, in spite of contempt and anathemas, in spite too of the discoveries of the modern school This system, which has been called by our writers the _ by prohibition or in productions as were calculated to ruin our manufactures by competition This system has been declared, by all writers on political economy, of every school,[12] to be weak, absurd, and calculated to impoverish the countries where it prevails Banished froe in _the practice_ of all nations, greatly to the surprise of those who cannot conceive that in what concerns the wealth of nations, governuided by the wisdo experience_ of a system, etc It is above all inconceivable to theovernhts of political economy, and maintain in its _practice_ the old errors, pointed out by all our writers But I a too much time to this mercantile system, which, unsustained by writers, _has only facts_ in its favor!”

[Footnote 12: Might we not say: It is a powerful arguainst Messrs Ferrier and de Saint Chamans, that all writers on political economy, of _every school_, that is to say, all men who have studied the question, come to this conclusion: After all, freedom is better than restriction, and the laws of God wiser than those of Mr Colbert]

Would it not be supposed fro for each individual the _free disposition of his own property_, have, like the Fourierists, stue, and chiovernment, some wild theory, without precedent in the annals of human nature? It does appear todoubtful, and of fanciful or theoretic origin, it is not free trade, but protection; not the operating of exchanges, but the custom-house, the duties, is

The question, however, is not here to coe of the merits of the two systems, but simply to knohich of the two is sanctioned by experience

You, Messrs monopolists, maintain that _facts_ are for you, and that we on our side have only _theory_

You even flatter yourselves that this long series of public acts, this old experience of Europe which you invoke, appeared i to Mr Say; and I confess that he has not refuted you, with his habitual sagacity

I, for ive up to you the domain of _facts_; for while on your side you can advance only limited and special facts, _we_ can oppose to them universal facts, the free and voluntary acts of all men