Supposing the day's work to be worth one franc, it is evident that France could, by barter, procure a quintal of iron by eight days' labor taken from the labor of the nation.

Thanks to the restrictive measures of Mr.de Saint Cricq, sixteen days' work were necessary to procure it, by direct production.

Here then we have double labor for an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, measured not by the result, but by the intensity of labor.

Is not this pure and unadulterated _Sisyphism_?
That there may be nothing equivocal, the minister carries his idea still farther, and on the same principle that we have heard him call the intensity of labor _riches_, we will find him calling the abundant results of labor, and the plenty of every thing proper to the satisfying of our wants, _poverty_.

"Every where," he remarks, "machinery has pushed aside manual labor; every where production is superabundant; every where the equilibrium is destroyed between the power of production and that of consumption." Here then we see that, according to Mr.de Saint Cricq, if France was in a critical situation, it was because her productions were too abundant; there was too much intelligence, too much efficiency in her national labor.