'The necessity which is thus imposed on the government to interfere in the question of labour, should not, then, be considered an objection to the debt which society owes to the poor workmen.'
And you will remark well that in his arguments, M. Billault has not the least intention of being sarcastic. He is no Free-trader, intentionally disguised for the purpose of exposing the inconsistency of the Protectionists. No; M. Billault is himself a Protectionist, _bonâ fide_. He aims at equalizing our fortunes by law. With this view, he considers the action of the tariffs useful; and being met by an obstacle--the right of property--he leaps over it, as you do. The right of labour is then pointed out to him, which is a second step in the same direction. He again encounters the right of property, and again he leaps over it; but turning round, he is surprised to see you do not follow him. He asks the reason. If you reply--I admit in principle that the law may violate property, but I find it _inopportune_ that this should be done under the particular form of the right of labour, M. Billault would understand you, and discuss with you the secondary question of expediency. But you raise up, in opposition to his views, the principle of property itself. This astonishes him; and he conceives that he is entitled to say to you--Do not act with inconsistency, and deny the right of labour on the ground of its infringement of the right of property, since you violate this latter right by your tariffs, whenever you find it convenient to do so. He might add, with some reason, by the protective tariffs you often violate the property of the poor for the advantage of the rich. By the right of labour, you would violate the property of the rich to the advantage of the poor. By what chance does it happen that your scruples stop short at the point they do?
Between you and M. Billault there is only one point of difference. Both of you proceed in the same direction--that of Communism: only you have taken but one step, and he has taken two. On this account the advantage, in my eyes at least, is on your side; but you lose it on the ground of logic.
For since you go along with him, though more slowly than he does, he is sufficiently well pleased to have you as his follower. This is an inconsistency which M. Bitlault has managed to avoid, but, alas! to fall himself also into a sad dilemma! M. Billault is too enlightened not to feel, indistinctly perhaps, the danger of each step that he takes in the path which ends in Communism. He does not assume the ridiculous position of the champion of property, at the very moment of violating it; but how does he justify himself? He calls to his aid the favourite axiom of all who can reconcile two irreconcilable things--_There are no fixed principles_. Property, Communism--let us take a little from both, according to circumstances.