232 BRITAIN FOR THE BRITON 



conceived, loosely framed, aud are of a nature undoubtedly 

 injurious to the commonweal. 



What, for instance, can be more inimical to the people and 

 disastrous to the nation than our land laws ? Af^es acjo, Avhen 

 land was supposed tu be rich enough to bear it, heavy burdens 

 were laid upon it to meet State and Church demands. 



Sixty odd years ago agriculture was sorely smitten by the 

 repeal of the Corn Laws and the introduction of Free-trade, 

 which was professedly set up by Cobden and his party to serve 

 manufacturing interests, and it may naturally be asked why 

 the national industry of the people was not given an equal 

 chance with manufactures, by removing from it altogether the 

 grievous burden of those tithes and taxes wliich were imposed 

 in the dim ages of the past, when the laud industry was con- 

 sidered rich enough to support both Church aud State. Or, if 

 the administration of Cobden's time did not care to venture so 

 far, why were not both land tithes and land taxes taken in 

 hand, duly considered, readjusted, and then equitably dis- 

 tributed over bcitli agriculture and manufactures ? It was 

 Cobden's avowed intention to serve manufacturing industries 

 at the expense of agriculture, and this l)eing the case, it becomes 

 clear that, as agriculture would suffer in the process, while 

 manufactures would benelit, it was the height of folly and a 

 gross injustice to force an impoverished agricultural industry 

 to continue bearing a burden which sorely tried it even in its 

 time of comparative prosperity. 



Why Cobden sacrificed Agkiculture 



The agricultural industry was sacrificed by the manu- 

 facturer-reformers of Cobden's time in a deliberate, cold-blooded 

 manner on the altars of Commerical-Industrialism, so that they 

 might become rich. There was not the least necessity for the 

 sacrifice, as has been shown in other chapters of this book, 

 nevertheless, it vjcts made, and the reformers became rich, as 

 they would have done under any circumstances. The 

 agriculturists became ])oor ! 



" I am afraid that most of us entered upon the struggle with the 

 belief that we had sonic distinct class-interest in the question," 



said Cobden in 1843, in speaking of the anti-Corn Law agitation. 

 This exactly describes the position, and after sixty years of 

 injustice the tardy question is being asked, fortunately by an 

 increasing number of fair-minded men each succeeding year, 

 " Whywas the outrage 'permitted V The answer is, " IJecause 



