These are the _means_ of the prohibitive system.
What difference, then, can we possibly discover to exist between the Bordalese petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction?
One, alone; and that is simply the greater or less extension which is given to the signification of the word _labor_.
Mr.de Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, in favor of _protecting_ every thing.
"Labor," he says, "constitutes _the whole_ wealth of a nation.
Protection should be for the agricultural interest, and _the whole_ agricultural interest; for the manufacturing interest, and _the whole_ manufacturing interest; and this principle I will continually endeavor to impress upon this Chamber." The petitioners consider no labor but that of the manufacturers, and accordingly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to admit to the favors of protection.
"Raw material being entirely _untouched by human labor_, our system should exempt it from taxes.

Manufactured articles furnishing no material for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation." There is no question here as to the propriety of protecting national labor.

Mr.de Saint Cricq and the Bordalese agree entirely upon this point.

We have, in our preceding chapters, already shown how entirely we differ from both of them.
The question to be determined, is, whether it is Mr.de Saint Cricq, or the Bordalese, who give to the word _labor_ its proper acceptation.

And we must confess that Mr.de Saint Cricq is here decidedly in the right.
The following dialogue might be supposed between them: _Mr.de Saint Cricq._--You agree that national labor ought to be protected.