New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-06-18
A NEW PARLIAMENTARY HAND.

Partly because Of his ultra -Nonconformist
opposition to the Forster Education bill. partly
because Of his leadership in the birmingham
League and partly because OF the current de-
fusion that municipal ownership of gas and water
works and other municipal enterprises were
forms Of Socialism, Mr. Chamberlain was re-
garded, his advent at Westminster as one
Of the reddest OF red Radicals. There were those
wto almost expected TO see him enter ST. Ste
phen's Hall In his shrt-sleeves. with pipe in
mouth rampant and vocferous on every posi-
BILE occasion Instead, they saw gentleman OF
faultlees and even fastdous attire and Of quiet
and almost dfdent demeanor After time he
began to speak with moderation Of view, but
With exceptionally lucid and convincing force Il
expression. Nowhere Is real ability more quick
ly and generously recognized than In the House
OF Commons, and his case proved no exception to
the rule He soon reckoned a speaker whom
1t always worth whilefo hear. and TO hear
with respectful attention
His party standing in his frs. Parliament IS
worthy Of notice Lord Harrington was then
leader Of the three or four factions into which
the liberal party was for the time divided. Mr..
Chamberlain recognized him his leader in gen.
eral, though not to be implicitly followed in de-
tall. John Bright was the foremost member Of
the so-called Radical faction, and It might have
been supposed Mr. Chamberlain would follow or
affiliate with him. But he did not. From the be-
ginning there was marked divergence between
them. Brights Radcalism was the cold. mercl-
less laissez faire Of Golden and the Manchester
school. that believed so strongly in the survival
Of the 1ttest that II would not try to protect
the weak Mr. Chamberlain on the contrary,
believed 1t the legitimate function Of the State to
protect and promote the welfare OF the people by
benevolent and so-called paternal legislation. So
the public hearing that he did not agree with
Bright took II for granted that he was still
more Of an extremist, and, II such were the case,
what a terrible Radical Socialist Communist.
this new man from Birmingham must be-
Mr. Chamberlain himself years afterward I'M
Intentionally encouraged this false estimate Of
him by his famous, half-understood and almost
wholly mlsinterpreted speech about the ransom"
OF the rich. II regarded by many who should
have known better, as practically demand for at
least partial confscation Of wealth. 1t was. OF
course, no such thing did Mr.. Chamberlain
ever believe in any such thing. What he did and
does believe In relation to such matters ne has
himself expressed with admirable directness. and
with recalling Of his own words we may well dis
miss that phase Of the discussion: a. for one" no
said have never thought II possible or expedient
to bring everything down to dead level l have
never supposed you could equalize the capacities
and conditions OF men. The strong man and the
able man win always be first In the race. But
what say is that the community as a whole CO.
operating for the benefit of all. may do something
TO add to the sum Of human happiness, may do
something to make the life OF all It's citizens and
above all, OF the poorest OF them, somewhat bet
Ter, somewhat nobler. somewhat happier" II
that be Socialism, 1t is Socialism which the
stanchest Conservative may well approve.
Three more features of his early Parliamentary
career should also be recalled as bearing directly
upon his later development. One the encyclo-
paedic knowledge Of British affairs in South Afri
ca. which he displayed in connection with the Zulu
War; knowledge which must be OF the greatest
service TO him now In his dealings with the far
more serious Transvaal problem. The second was
his independence OF party guiding strings. as
shown In his open reputation Of Lord Harting-