The first great step, which bore centuries of bitter results, was the favouring of the townsman as against the countryman. The voter in Rome could push laws to his own advantage in the hurly-burly of the public assembly, while the countryman was working hard in his furrow miles away. The conquered provinces were a great temptation; they had to yield tribute, grain came pouring into Rome, and why should not this abundance benefit the citizen by being sold at a low price? They forgot the countryman. His toil was none the less because Carthage or Sicily or Egypt were being plundered. But his pay was much the less if his produce lost its market value. The cheap corn of Gracchus was the knell of the honest agriculturist, as Professor Oman has pointed out. The only remedy was to try to cheapen production in Italy. This was done by giving up the small farmer altogether, and running only big estates by slave-labour, the human machine which was to Rome what machinery is to us. This staved off the evil somewhat. But soon the townsman demanded more and more, and at last free doles of corn were given to him, and agriculture became impossible in Italy. What tribute-corn did to Italy, cheap transport has done to England. The townsman is always favoured at the cost of the countryman, and the country is being depopulated. Not only cheap bread, but doles of every kind—hospitals, wash-houses, music, games, libraries—all are given to the townsman, while the countryman cannot possibly share in such doles. A large policy of equivalent benefits to the countryman would be the only corrective to this one-sided and deleterious favouritism. But the votes carry it, as they did in Rome.