PERSONALITIES MET

Southland Times, Issue 21428, 24 June 1931, Page 8

PERSONALITIES MET

THE CHAMBERLAINS.

(By

T.C.L.)

■ Hereditary succession has provided Britain with some able leaders and illustrious statesmen. One recalls to mind the Cecils, the Stanleys, the Russells, the Foxs, the Churchills, the Chat.hams and the younger Pitt. It has also furnished leaders who proved a hindrance rather than a help in the government of England and the development of the Empire. To the former category the Chamberlains . belong. They are not the descendants of a ruling family. Joseph Chamberlain’s father, in fact, was a humble shoemaker in the City of London, and Joseph himself learned the same trade. Later Joseph went to Birmingham, and established the screw business which was to make the family fortunes. Joseph was a pushing and forceful character, and in a few years became Lord Mayor and virtual king of Birmingham. Indeed one cannot think of Birmingham without recalling the name of Chamberlain. From local politics to national politics was a natural transition, and his forceful personality was to make its mark there almost as effectually as it had in the humbler sphere. A pronounced Radical, he vehemently attacked the nation’s cherished institutions—the House of Lords, the Established Church, the great landowners. Then he broke with his leader, Gladstone, who was never quite sure of his turbulent protege, presumably because of the Liberals’ Home Rule policy, but probably because he saw greater opportunities of political advancement with the Conservative Party. And, from that point of view, he was right. Austen, his son, was educated for political life, to follow in his father’s footsteps. He went to Rugby and Trinity, Cambridge, and finished at Paris and Berlin. He duly entered Parliament, and was subsequently given office as Civil Lord of the Admiralty, sitting on the same benches as his dominant father. Physically there was a striking resemblance between them, giving rise to the suggestion that the son was merely the echo of his father. But Austen showed that he had capacity and could “paddle his own canoe.” His chance came when his father resigned the Chancellorship of the Exchequer'in order to be free “to promote the cause which I have at heart from outside.” That cause was preference for Empire goods; in other words, protection. At a time when England was staunchly free-trade this was rank heresy. The Liberals saw in this break away the disintegration if not the dissolution of the Conservative Party, and rejoiced accordingly. What followed is well known political history. All that need be said here is that posterity will probably adjudge that Joseph Chamberlain had great vision and discernment, but that he was before his time. His work, however, was not wasted. It turned a complacent people's attention to the potentialities of the Empire, and brought home to them, as nothing had done before, a realization that the overseas dominions were a source of strength, not of weakness; that they were assets —most valuable assets—not liabilities. That fact was to be conclusively proved in the great crisis that was to overtake the Empire, and the world generally, in 1914. Joseph’s mantle fell on his son, Austen, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was therefore in the running for the leadership of the Unionists, and the crown of the Prime Ministership of England. But he missed. After a long sojourn in the wilderness with his Party he came back in the coalition war cabinet as Secretary of State for India, and subsequently after the war returned again to the Exchequer. In 1921 his chief, Mr Bonar Law, took very ill and retired from the leadership of the Party. Again it looked as though Austen Chamberlain would be his successor, with the Prime Ministership in his grasp. But the Unionists were chafing under the yoke of the coalition. An important section, under the comparatively unknown man, Stanley Baldwin, declared war on the coalition cabinet and all its works, and in the ensuing break-up Baldwin was elected the leader of the Unionists. Austen Chamberlain had again missed. To-day Austen is regarded as a spent force, as a man who has had great opportunities but has failed to take full advantage of them; as a frank and honest man, with an arresting dignity and simplicity, but without the force and strength necessary in a successful political leader. In the House of Commons he sits, or rather sprawls, on the seat with his silk hat cocked on one side, following the proceedings through a monocle in a detached, disinterested way, as if the political game as played at Westminster was all a bore and a waste of time. When he stands up to speak, he removes his hat, displaying a small, well proportioned head, and a kindly, thoughtful face. His manner is courteous and considerate; he would not consciously

hurt anyone’s feelings, even his opponents’, which may be one reason why he has “missed” in public life. His brother Neville seemed to have been cast in a different mould. He has all the “fortiter in re” that his brother lacks, and much of the dash and the political “abandon” of his distinguished father. He calls a spade a spade, and seems to enjoy a scrap, to storm through obstacles and to blast by irony. He, too, has a record of public service that is highly impressive— Lord Mayor of Birmingham, PostmasterGeneral, Minister of Health, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now Stanley Baldwin’s right-hand man. He is credited with being a first-class political organizer, and to him more than anyone else outside of Stanley Baldwin, Unionists are looking to bring the Party into power at the next elections. Neville is a capital speaker, a good “mixer,” and a trusted leader, He has all the qualities of his father together with a finer balance and a more accurate perspective. Were there no Stanley Baldwin on the scene, ready to lead his party to victory when the opportunity arises, Unionists might do worse than turn to Neville Chamberlain to carry their banner.