These are two acts proceeding from the same doctrine.
We do meet with men who, while they rejoice over the revelation of any great invention, favor nevertheless the protective policy; but such men are very inconsistent.
What is the objection they adduce against free trade?
That it causes us to seek from foreign and more easy production, what would otherwise be the result of home production.

In a word, that it injures domestic industry.
On the same principle, can it not be objected to machinery, that it accomplishes through natural agents what would otherwise be the result of manual labor, and that it is thus injurious to human labor?
The foreign laborer, enjoying greater facilities of production than the French laborer, is, with regard to the latter, a veritable _economical machine_, which crushes him by competition.

Thus, a piece of machinery capable of executing any work at a less price than could be done by any given number of hands, is, as regards these hands, in the position of a _foreign competitor_, who paralyzes them by his rivalry.
If then it be judicious to protect _home labor_ against the competition of _foreign labor_, it cannot be less so to protect _human labor_ against _mechanical labor_.
Whoever adheres to the protective system, ought not, if his brain be possessed of any logical powers, to stop at the prohibition of foreign produce, but should extend this prohibition to the produce of the loom and of the plough.
I approve therefore of the logic of those who, whilst they cry out against the _inundation_ of foreign merchandise, have the courage to declaim equally against the _excessive production_ resulting from the inventive power of mind.
Of this number is Mr.de Saint Chamans.

"One of the strongest arguments, (says he) which can be adduced against free trade, and the too extensive employment of machines, is, that many workmen are deprived of work, either by foreign competition, which depresses manufactures, or by machinery, which takes the place of men in workshops." Mr.de St.Chamans saw clearly the analogy, or rather the identity which exists between _importation_ and _machinery_, and was, therefore, in favor of proscribing both.

There is some pleasure in having to do with intrepid arguers, who, even in error, thus carry through a chain of reasoning.
But let us look at the difficulty into which they are here led.
If it be true, _a priori_, that the domain of _invention_, and that of _labor_, can be extended only to the injury of one another, it would follow that the fewest _workmen_ would be employed in countries (Lancashire, for instance) where there is the most _machinery_.