Will you not read my defense?
I am not mistrustful.

When a man writes or speaks, I believe that he thinks what he says.
What is the question?
To ascertain which is the more advantageous for you, restriction or liberty.
I believe that it is liberty; they believe it is restriction; it is for each one to prove his case.
Was it necessary to insinuate that we are the agents of England?
You will see how easy recrimination would be on this ground.
We are, they say, agents of the English, because some of us have used the English words _meeting_, _free trader_! And do not they use the English words _drawback_ and _budget_?
We imitate Cobden and the English democracy! Do not they parody Bentinck and the British aristocracy?
We borrow from perfidious Albion the doctrine of liberty.
Do not they borrow from her the sophisms of protection?
We follow the commercial impulse of Bordeaux and the South.
Do not they serve the greed of Lille, and the manufacturing North?
We favor the secret designs of the ministry, which desires to turn public attention away from the protective policy.
Do not they favor the views of the Custom House officers, who gain more than anybody else by this protective _regime_?
So you see that if we did not ignore this war of epithets, we should not be without weapons.
But that is not the point in issue.
The question which I shall not lose sight of is this: _Which is better for the working-classes, to be free or not to be free to purchase from abroad ?_ Workmen, they say to you, "If you are free to buy from abroad these things which you now make yourselves, you will no longer make them.

You will be without work, without wages, and without bread.

It is then for your own good that your liberty be restricted." This objection recurs in all forms.

They say, for instance, "If we clothe ourselves with English cloth, if we make our plowshares with English iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if we wipe our hands with English napkins, what will become of the French workmen--what will become of the _national labor_ ?" Tell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier at Boulogne, and said to every Englishman who landed: If you will give me those English boots, I will give you this French hat; or, if you will let me have this English horse, I will let you have this French carriage; or, Are you willing to exchange this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock?
or, again, Does it suit you to barter your Newcastle coal for this Champagne wine?
I ask you whether, supposing this man makes his proposals with average judgment, it can be said that our _national labor_, taken as a whole, would be harmed by it?
Would it be more so if there were twenty of these people offering to exchange services at Boulogne instead of one; if a million barters were made instead of four; and if the intervention of merchants and money was called on to facilitate them and multiply them indefinitely?
Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale to sell again at retail, or at retail to sell again at wholesale, it will always be found, if the matter is followed out to the end, that _commerce consists of mutual barter of products for products, of services for services_.
If, then, _one barter_ does not injure the _national labor_, since it implies as much _national labor given_ as _foreign labor received_, a hundred million of them cannot hurt the country.
But, you will say, where is the advantage?
The advantage consists in making a better use of the resources of each country, so that the same amount of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being everywhere.
There are some who employ singular tactics against you.