MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S RESIGNATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12402, 26 October 1903, Page 6

MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S RESIGNATION.

HOW THE NEWS WAS RECEIVED. A PROFOUND SENSATION IN ENGLAND. [from OTJR OWN correspondent.] London, September 18. Me. Chamberlain has sprung, upon us another surprise. His latest coup is even more sensational than was his previous stroke when he made open declaration against- free trade and in favour of preferential tariffs. The publication on Wednesday of Mr. Balfour's pamphlet completely threw everybody off the scent. It produced a general impression that while Mr. Chamberlain had induced his leader to declare definitely in favour of emancipation from the fetters of unqualified free trade, he had consented to postpone meanwhile his own movement in favour of preferential tariffs with the colonies..

So completely was the world in general blindfolded that even last night the ablestLiberal journal, when commenting on Mr. Balfour's pamphlet, was rash enough to say: " Mr. Chamberlain remains immovable and impenitent in regard to his own particular proposals. Whoever else may resign he at any rate will stay, 1 and will abate nothing of Ids food taxes or his preferences." And that was what, every Radical fondly and conscientiously believed! There could not have been a more unfortunate forecast. Never was the dictum that it is never safe to prophesy unless you know more strikingly justified. For much within twelve hours after that sentence was in print the announcement of Mr. Chamberlain's resignation was in the hands of all the leading papers. As a matter of fact, the resignation had been an accomplished fact for more than a week before the Westminster Gazette so emphatically declared that such a resignation was one of those things which most certainly would not happen, whatever else might. Once more a great political secret has been kept with astonishing fidelity. In these days when such remarkable ingenuity is displayed in ferreting out all that is intended to be withheld it comes quite as a shock to discover that this great historic event was in progress nine or ten days ago, and 'was definitely consummated more than a week back without the outside world being the wiser by the faintest hint of what was impending. To say that this morning's announcement of Mr. Chamberlain's resignation created a profound sensation in this country is to put the matter very mildly indeed. It might also be said that a profound sensation was created throughout the entire civilised world, for I. am certain that the news has been read I in New Zealand this morning with quite as much interest, and excitement as in Lon- 1 don, where for the moment nothing else is talked or thought of. But the situation, both in general and in particular, needs a few words of further elucidation as to points which could not well have been dealt with by the two statesmen themselves. It will strike most readers at the outset as strange that Mr. Chamberlain is resigning at the precise moment when the Prime Minister lias unreservedly committed himself to the first step on the road of abandoning free trade as an imperative national j creed.'' Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain both agree that Great Britain should no longer be bound by the fetters of free trade rules, and should be free to negotiate with other nations as may seem good without being hampered by the complication of considering how far any policy deemed advisable in British interests may conflict with the abstract principles of free trade. Mr. Chamberlain thinks it better to step aside for the present. He does not wish to damage or endanger the Unionist party, but at the same time lie is not going to give up his own views. He means to enter upon a course, of active propagandise, in order to " educate" the electorates up to his new policy, and he is conscious not only that he can do this best when freed from the trammels of office, but also that unless freed from the trammels of office he. would be practically unable to adopt, this course at all. And so he. goes. The Radical speakers and writers who have been so cleverly " drawn" by Mr. Chamberlain into showing their whole hand and exhibiting every card that they can or will play in opposition to his preferential tariff lead, are now, somewhat divided in feeling. The more sensible ones are beginning to feel "sorry they spoke." The mere windbags are endeavouring to get up a chuckle of triumph over Mr. Chamberlain's admission that they have in effect forced his resignation by their opposition to his proposals. But the Liberal party as a, whole is as yet too completely stunned by the boom of this thunderbolt .to form any precise conception either of the situation or •;;f its probable development. So far they are simply trying to think the matter oat, and to this end are actively engaged in comparing notes one with another.

In conversation to-day with one of the most experienced Liberal agents, he expressed the firm conviction that, a dissolution would take' place in the coming spring. Ok my suggesting to him that the Liberal party was not very well prepared to go to the country, as at present their only line was oue of negation to the Government proposals, and as they were practically leaderless, my friend remained significantly silent. On my pressing the point he observed somewhat reluctantly : — " Mr. Gladstone once said in my hearing that a party leader did not really lead, but was virtually impelled by the'zeal of his own followers acting as a motive power. lie believed that to be his own case. Of course he was quite wrong, because he "really did lead us, which no one has done since, and which no one at present seems likely to do. There was a time no doubt when a leader was an essential to a party, but we seem to be finding out in these days that a party can get on almost as well without a leader as with one. I am inclined to think that is rather the case at the present moment." My suggestion that the Liberal party in power with Sir Henry Oampbell-Bairneroian as Premier was purely "unthinkable, once more had only a significant silence in response; but my friend went on to remark as if spontaneously and almost irrelevantly : '' Mr. Asijuith will be our man if only he can be got to do the fighting." Our'best man, Mr. John Morley, is impracticable: Sir Henry Fowler is too old; Sir Edward Grey lias abundant capacity, and will assuredly be heard of in the future, but at present there seems to be a sort of prevalent idea that his hour is not yet come. So for tine present we shall have" to ignore the personal side of things and content ourselves with fighting the Government on the score of their past in connection with the war and their future as foreshadowed, ill attacking free trade."