We have been wrong, says Rossi, in reproaching Quesnay for his famous laissez faire, laissez passer, which is pure science. We, also, are of opinion that the reproach was ill founded, for it proceeded from a wrong conception of the principle itself. But it seems to us that, far from condemning this doctrine in its serious application, the historical method may serve to explain and to justify it. Employing less of rigidity and dryness in form, it reaches consequences more in harmony with social life. But it is not to be imagined that we do not meet in this way with many ancient and glorious precedents. The great principles of industrial liberty, as well as those of commercial liberty, originated in France. Forbonnais was right when he said: “We may congratulate ourselves on being able to find, in our old books and ancient ordinances, wherewith to vindicate for ourselves the right to that light which we generally supposed to have been revealed to the English and Dutch before us.” The further Forbonnais carried his researches into our annals, the greater the number of traces of opposition to the prejudices in favor of exclusion and monopoly, so long made principles of administrative policy, did he find.41

The famous axiom, laissez faire, and laissez passer, the subversive tendencies of which people affect to condemn, was not invented by Quesnay. He only gave a scientific bearing to what was the inspiration of a merchant called Legendre. The latter, consulted by Colbert on the best means of protecting [pg 037] commerce, dropped these words which have since become so celebrated.

We must not lose sight of their real meaning, nor misunderstand the intention which dictated them. What Quesnay said was this: “Let everything alone which is injurious, neither to good morals, nor to liberty, nor to property, nor to personal security. Allow everything to be sold which has been produced without crime.” And he added: “Only freedom judges aright; only competition never sells too dear, and always pays a reasonable and legitimate price.” Far from being the absence of rule, liberty is the rule itself. To laisser faire the good is to prevent evil.42

There is need of institutions to complete the exercise of the independence acquired by labor, and of laws to regulate that exercise. The laisser faire and laisser passer of economists is, in no way, like the absolute formula, which some have denounced and others sought to utilize, as relieving authority of all care and all intervention.

To understand this maxim aright, we must go back to the oppressive regime of ancient society. Quesnay's formula was, first of all, a protest against the restraints which hampered the free development of labor. But it did not tend to abrogate the office of legislator, nor to deprive society or the individual of the support of the public power which watches over the fulfillment of our destiny.

It may have seemed convenient to find in the gravity of a politico-economical principle, an excuse for the sweets of legislative and administrative far niente, but it is generally conceded that the role of authority has grown, rather than diminished, under the regime of the liberty of labor. The task is, in our days, a hard one, both for individuals and nations; for liberty dispenses its favors only to the masculine virtues of a laborious and an enlightened people.

Liberty is not license. It refuses to bend under the yoke, [pg 038] but it submits to rule. The mission of authority is not to constrain, but to counsel; not to command, but to help accomplish; not to absorb individual activity, but to develop it. It does not pretend to raise a convenient indifference on the part of government, nor the indolent withdrawal of all protective influence to the dignity of a principle. To say, on the other hand, that the laisser faire and laisser passer of the economists means: Let robbery alone; let fraud alone etc., is to amuse one's self playing upon words, and to argue in a manner unworthy of any serious answer. Under pretext of painting a picture of economic doctrine, we are given its caricature. Such has never been the system, to the elaboration of which the purest hearts and noblest intellects have devoted themselves. A negation does not constitute the science of Political Economy.

It is very convenient to inclose humanity within a circle of action, drawn with rigorous precision, and to govern movements seen in advance. But such artificial conceptions mutilate the activity of man. To guarantee man all liberty, and prevent its abuse—such are the data of the problem. The work is a great and difficult one. Far from yielding in point of elevation to ideal systems, it is superior to them in extent and variety of combinations. Those who ignore its bearing, yield, it may be, to a certain indolence of intellect. Restrained within its natural limits, the famous laisser faire and laisser passer of the Physiocrates deserves even to-day our respect and our confidence. It ought to be preserved in the grateful memory of men, side by side with the maxim which Quesnay succeeded in having printed at Versailles, by the hand of Louis XV himself: “Pauvres paysans, pauvre royaume; pauvre royaume, pauvre souverain.”43