BRITISH PERSONALITIES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 144, 20 June 1931, Page 1 (Supplement)

BRITISH PERSONALITIES

THE CHAMBERLAINS (By T.CJJ.) Hereditary succession has provided Britain with some able leaders and illustrious statesmen. One recalls to mind the Cecils, the Stanleys, tho Russells, the Fox’s, the Churchills, the Chathams and the younger Pitt. It inis also furnished leaders who proved a hindrance rather than a help in the government of England and tho development of tho 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 tho 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 to calling the name of Chamberlain. From local polities 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 lie broke with his leader, Gladstone, who was never quite sure of his turbulent protege, presumably because of the Liberal’s Home Rule policy, but probably because he saw 7 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 Par. liament. 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 trade this was rank heresy. The Liberals saw in this breakaway the disintegration if not the dissolution of the Conservative Party, and rejoiced accordingly. What followed is well known political history. AH that need be said hero 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 1 complacent people’s attention to the potentialities of the Empire, ami brought home to them, as nothing had done before, a realisation that Hie overseas Dominions wore 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 Cham berlain hhd again missed. To-day Austen is regarded as a spent force, as a man who had had great opportunities but has failed to take full advantage of them; as a frank and honest man, with an arresting dignity am’ simplicity, but without the force and strength necessary in a successful political leader. In the House of Com mens he sits, or rather sprawls, on the scat with his silk hat cocked on one side, following the proceedings through a monocle in a detached, disinterested way, as if tho political game as played at Westminster was all a bore and :> waste of time. When he stands up tv speak ho removes his hat, displaying a small, well proportioned head, and a kindly, thoughtful face. His manner is courteous and considerate; ho would not consciously hurt anyone’s feelings, even his opponents’, which may be one reason why he has “missed” in public life. His brother Ne.ille seemed to have been east in a different mould. He has all the “fort it er in re” that his bro ther 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 ami to blast by irony. ITe, too, has a record ot public service that is highly impressive—Lord Mayor of Birmingham. Postmaster | General, Minister for Health, (Tian cellor of the Exchequer. and now Stan ley Baldwin's right-hand man. He is I credited with being a first class politi , cal organiser, and to him more than ; anyone else outside of Stanley Baldwin j Unionists are looking to bring the j Partv into power at the next elections. Neville is a capital speaker, a good | “mixer,” ami a trusted leader. Ho I has all the qualities of his father to- • get her with a finer balance and,a more accurate perspective. Wore there no Stanley Baldwin on the scone, ready to [ lead his party to victory when the op- [ portunity arises, Unionists might do worse than I urn to Neville I'bauibe: Jain to carry their banner. 1