Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, vol 1 | Page 2

friend who had been,
in an incessant struggle for public duty and truth, of one heart and of
one purpose with him.
Those who have been familiar with Cobden's mind know how wide
was his knowledge, how true was his judgment of political events. The
vast majority of those who followed his public career had but a scanty
acquaintance with the resources of his sagacity and foresight. He spoke
to the people on a few subjects only. The wisdom of Free Trade; the
necessity of Parliamentary Reform; the dangerous tendency of those
laws which favour the accumulation of land in few hands; the urgent
need for a system of national education; the mischief of the mere
military spirit; the prudence of uniting communities by the
multiplication of international interests; the abandonment of the policy
of diplomatic and military intermeddling; the advocacy, in short, of the
common good in place of a spurious patriotism, of selfish, local, or
class aims, formed the subject of Cobden's public utterances. But his
intimate friends, and in particular his regular correspondents, were
aware that his political criticism was as general as it was accurate. The
loss then of his wise and lucid counsel was the greatest to the survivor
of a personal and a political friendship which was continued
uninterruptedly through so long and so active a career.
At the commencement of Mr. Bright's public life, the shortsighted
selfishness of a landlords' parliament was afflicting the United
Kingdom with a continuous dearth. Labour was starved, and capital
was made unproductive by the Corn-laws. The country was tied to a
system by which Great Britain and her Colonies deliberately chose the
dearest market for their purchases. In the same spirit, the price of
freights was wilfully heightened by the Navigation-laws. Important
branches of home industry were crippled by prying, vexatious, and
wasteful excises. And this system was conceived to be the highest
wisdom; or at any rate, to be so invincible a necessity that it could not

be avoided or altered without danger. The country, if it were to make its
way, could make it only because other nations were servile imitators of
our commercial policy, and, in the vain hope of retaliation, were
hindering their own progress.
The foreign policy of Great Britain was suspicious and irritating, for it
was secret, busy, and meddling, insolent to the weak, conciliatory, even
truckling, to the strong. The very name of diplomacy is and has been
odious to English Liberals, for by means of it a reactionary
Government could check domestic reforms, and hinder the community
of nations indefinitely. The policy of the Foreign Office was constantly
directed towards embittering, if not embroiling, the relations between
this and other countries. It is difficult to account for these intrigues,
except on the ground that successive Governments were anxious to
maintain political and social anomalies at home, while they were
affecting to support 'the balance of power' abroad. The abandonment of
intervention in foreign politics was the beginning of agitation for
domestic reforms.
Perhaps no part of the public administration was worse than that of
India. The great Company had lost its monopoly of trade in the Eastern
seas, but retained its administrative powers over the subject races and
dependent princes of India. Its system of finance was wasteful and
oppressive. Its policy was that of aggression and annexation. In practice,
the Government was irresponsible. Nobody listened to Indian affairs in
Parliament, except on rare occasions, or for party purposes. The
Governor-General did as he pleased. The President of the Board of
Control did as he pleased. If the reader wishes to see how the former
acted, Mr. Cobden's pamphlet, 'How Wars are got up in India' will
enlighten him. If it be necessary to inquire what the policy of the latter
might be, the disastrous and disgraceful Affghan War is an illustration.
Never perhaps was a war commenced more recklessly. It is certain that
when loss and dishonour fell on the English arms, the statesmen who
recommended and insisted on the war tried to screen themselves from
just blame by the basest arts.
The internal resources of India were utterly neglected. The Company

collected part of its revenue from a land-tax, levied in the worst shape.
In order to secure an income through a monopoly, it constrained the
cultivation of certain drugs for which there was a foreign demand; and
neglected to encourage the cultivation of cotton, for which the home
demand was wellnigh boundless, and to which the Indian supply might
be made to correspond. The Company constructed neither road nor
canal. It did nothing towards maintaining the means of communication
which even the native governments had adopted. It suffered the ancient
roads and tanks to fall into decay. It neglected to educate the native
gentry, much more the people.