Alas! it was still the banner of monopoly which they followed! a monopoly, only a little more sordid, a little more absurd than that of which they seemed to desire the destruction! Thanks to the Sophism which I would now endeavor to deprive of its disguise, the petitioners only reproduced, with an additional incongruity, the old doctrine of _protection to national labor_.

What is, in fact, the prohibitive system?
We will let Mr.de Saint Cricq answer for us.
"Labor constitutes the riches of a nation, because it creates supplies for the gratification of our necessities; and universal comfort consists in the abundance of these supplies." Here we have the principle.
"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_.