GREAT STRUGGLE

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 147, 24 June 1933, Page 9

GREAT STRUGGLE

GLADSTONE'S ENEMY,

HOW CHAMBERLAIN FOUGHT

HOME RULE ISSUE

Mr. Garvin's second volume of the Life of Joseph Chamberlain reveals that Chamberlain to Mr. Garvin is a veal hero. He plays no Strachey tricks and pranks with his subject. Ho gives him, full limelight throughout his tremendous struggle with Mr. Gladstone, who, as this volume opens in. 1885, ought—by all the rules of mortality— to have been making ready to depart from tha political scene. ' Tho G.O.M. is a sublime protagonist; but ho leads' his Liberal Party straight to disunion and the pit, while always claiming to have received his direction from the Height, writes J. B. Firth in the London "Daily Telegraph." This volume, which describes the process of Chamberlain's transition from Radical leader of the Liberal Left and Gladstone's almost predestinate successor to the Radical .Unionist, who achieved what Lord Randolph Churchill tried but failed to do in democratising the Tory leaders, is in essence the story of the desperate struggle between Chamberlain and the G.O.M. As between the two men the result was a draw on points. Each could claim his successful rounds. What prevented a decisive, outright victory—which probably for tho country would have been far better —was not so much the wellmatched skill of the combatants as the decree of fate. Heaven, though often confidently invoked, would not have the result as either wished. It was, as often in politics, against them both. HOME RULE STRUGGLE. Mr. Garvin, in a striking passage, pictures them as they stood in deadly conflict during tho second Home Rule Bill debates:— "They contrasted now in every lineament and faculty. Gladstone's white head seemed larger than belongs to mortals —like those largo faces of the gods that poets have supposed— and his eyes were deep and gleaming. With jet-black hair t Chamberlain was among the many commanding men who have had small heads, and his own looked smaller by comparison, while his. eyes narrowed in combat, instead of opening like Gladstone's. The voice of tho one suggested! harmony and grandeur,* of the other bright steel. The ono had all tho amplitude, of expression and gesture; the other in both had an unrivalled economy, riveting attention, so that every sentence had its impact and its hearers could not escape for a moment from its argumentative grip." The enmity was rooted in differences of principle, but it was aggravated by personal dislike. Or was it rooted in dislike and aggravated by the political differences? It is hard to say. Glad- • stone, as the biographies of the time have revealed, disliked most of his ' lieutenants, even the most faithful—if they were possible successors and if tiny were Commoners. AT FARNELL'S PRICE. Chamberlain's "Unauthorised Programme," which he preached to excited Liberal audiences up and down the land in 1885, was anathema to Mr. Gladstone. It was a programme of Social Reform, long overdue. Gladstone distrusted it as heartily. as Salisbury distrusted Randolph Churchill's Tory Democracy. It seems almost incredible that" Gladstone, when forming his Cabinet in . 1886, should have offered Chamberlain ihe Admiralty! He tljanked but protested. Gladstone asked what office he would prefer. "The Colonial Office," was his answer. "Oh," said Gladstone, "a Secretary of State!" That was all, but it was enough. Tho slight was gross and was not forgotten. It was even aggravated by a petty stroke aimed at Chamberlain's faithful henchman, Jesse Collingsj who was offered an Under-Secretaryship at a reduced salary—£l2oo instead of £1500. Chamberlain protested hotly, and persuaded Harcourt to intervene also, and the G.O.M. gave way, observing that ha "yielded to Chamberlain's will, not to his reasons, which aro null." And he added: "As for me, in these matters of economy I am like Lot's wife, solitary and pickled on the plain of Sodom." And yet Jesses famous "Three acres and a cow" had won scores of county seats for the G.O.M. If Gladstono had turned to Chamberlain instead of to Parncll when he retired to Hawarden to think out a new Irish policy, English politics must havo pursued a vastly different course. %But, nervous of what might issue •om the disastrous coqiicttings of the -onservativo Government with the Nationalists, Gladstone was determined to outbid the Tories, and bought Parncll at Parncll's raised price. "JUDAS" TO LIBERALS. Why Chamberlain, so advanced and adventurous in most respects, steadfastly refused to follow the new Hawarden lead is stated in theso pages over and over again. It was because ho knew there was no securo halting place between an Irish Parliament and Separation. "I will never," he vowed, "recognise a scparato political nationality in Ireland." Chamberlain would havo accepted a Federal scheme of Home Rule All Round under tho clearly recognised supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. More than any other singlo person, it was Chamberlain who destroyed both the Home Rule Bills. Not only to tho Nationalists, but to devout Gladstonians ho was. "Judas," and much better hated than tho original. To the Conservatives he was a brand from the burning, a brilliant ally, but even as late as 1895 unloved and not yet completely trusted as wero Goschen and Hartington. His great administrative days were still to come. During these crucial ten years he was always the fighting gladiator. During the first six he was continually hoping against hope for the day of return. But the G.O.M. lived on and on.

Even in tho 1895 election Chamberlain had to put it very plainly to tho Tories that if they still wanted to use the Liberal "crutch" they must pay tho price, and give the Liberal Unionists a proper share of tho spoils of office. "My role in tho Homo Rule controversy has been to keep a number of strong Liberals and Radicals staunch to tho Union. To do this I havo had to give evidenco that I remain a Liberal at heart, though I am loyally working with thn Tories. I can sacrifice a great deal in tho way of opinion, but-1 cannot sacriflco everything without losing all the iuflurnco I now possess." The whole tangled talo is told anew, so candidly that ono feels the truth of Disraeli's saying that Biography is the only truo History. Chamberlain's part in the Dilke case is fairly argued. His friend's disaster was a. tragedy to him, for they had been as brothers. It was largely owing to Joseph Chamberlain's advice that Dilko did not resign from public life as soon as tho charge against him was made public. He gavo that counsel, of course, hecause he utterly refused to believe the accusation, and he stood best man to Sir Charles when Mrs.

Pattison, with splendid courage and loyalty, married him a few weeks later. But Chamberlain was not responsible for Dilke's not going into the witness box at the first trial. The entire responsibility for that rested with Dilke's legal advisers, and tlio legal technicalities at the second as at the ii rs t trial wore fatal to Dilke's reputation in popular estimation — whether ho was innocent or not. The vital -witness remained absent throughout. Dilke's counsel dared not subject her to cross-examination. j