James B. is the possessor of fifteen francs, the fruit of his labour.  He is now free.  What does he do with his fifteen francs?  He purchases some article of fashion for ten francs, and with it he pays (or the intermediate pay for him) for the hundred-weight of Belgian iron.  After this he has five francs left.  He does not throw them into the river, but (and this is what is not seen) he gives them to some tradesman in exchange for some enjoyment; to a bookseller, for instance, for Bossuet’s “Discourse on Universal History.”

Thus, as far as national labour is concerned, it is encouraged to the amount of fifteen francs, viz.:—­ten francs for the Paris article, five francs to the bookselling trade.

As to James B., he obtains for his fifteen francs two gratifications, viz.:—­

1st.  A hundred-weight of iron.

2nd.  A book.

The decree is put in force.  How does it affect the condition of James
B.?  How does it affect the national labour?

James B. pays every centime of his five francs to M. Prohibant, and therefore is deprived of the pleasure of a book, or of some other thing of equal value.  He loses five francs.  This must be admitted; it cannot fail to be admitted, that when the restriction raises the price of things, the consumer loses the difference.

But, then, it is said, national labour is the gainer.

No, it is not the gainer; for since the Act, it is no more encouraged than it was before, to the amount of fifteen francs.

The only thing is that, since the Act, the fifteen francs of James B. go to the metal trade, while before it was put in force, they were divided between the milliner and the bookseller.

The violence used by M. Prohibant on the frontier, or that which he causes to be used by the law, may be judged very differently in a moral point of view.  Some persons consider that plunder is perfectly justifiable, if only sanctioned by law.  But, for myself, I cannot imagine anything more aggravating.  However it may be, the economical results are the same in both cases.

Look at the thing as you will; but if you are impartial, you will see that no good can come of legal or illegal plunder.  We do not deny that it affords M. Prohibant, or his trade, or, if you will, national industry, a profit of five francs.  But we affirm that it causes two losses, one to James B., who pays fifteen francs where he otherwise would have paid ten; the other to national industry, which does not receive the difference.  Take your choice of these two losses, and compensate with it the profit which we allow.  The other will prove not the less a dead loss.  Here is the moral:  To take by violence is not to produce, but to destroy.  Truly, if taking by violence was producing, this country of ours would be a little richer than she is.

VIII.—­Machinery.