Chamberlain, master of the Cordwainers' Company, was born at Camberwell
Grove, London, on the 8th of July 1836. His father was a well-to-do man
of business, a Unitarian in religion and a Liberal in politics. Young
Chamberlain was educated at Canonbury from 1845 to 1850, and at
University College school, London, from 1850 to 1852. After two years in
his father's office in London, he was sent to Birmingham to join his
cousin Joseph Nettlefold in a screw business in which his father had an
interest; and by degrees, largely owing to his own intelligent
management, this business became very successful. Nettlefold &
Chamberlain employed new methods of attracting customers, and
judiciously amalgamated rival firms with their own so as to reduce
competition, with the result that in 1874, after twenty-two years of
commercial life, Mr Chamberlain was able to retire with an ample
fortune. Meanwhile he had in 1861 married his first wife, Miss Harriet
Kenrick (she died in 1863), and had gradually come to take an
increasingly important part in the municipal and political life of
Birmingham. He was a constant speaker at the Birmingham and Edgbaston
Debating Society; and when in 1868 the Birmingham Liberal Association
was reorganized, he became one of its leading members. In 1869 he was
elected chairman of the executive council of the new National Education
League, the outcome of Mr George Dixon's movement for promoting the
education of the children of the lower classes by paying their school
fees, and agitating for more accommodation and a better national system.
In the same year he was elected a member of the town council, and
married his second wife--a cousin of his first--Miss Florence Kenrick
(d. 1875).
In 1870 he was elected a member of the first school board for
Birmingham; and for the next six years, and especially after 1873, when
he became leader of a majority and chairman, he actively championed the
Nonconformist opposition to denominationalism. He was then regarded as a
Republican--the term signifying rather that he held advanced Radical
opinions, which were construed by average men in the light of the
current political developments in France, than that he really favoured
Republican institutions. His programme was "free Church, free land, free
schools, free labour." At the general election of 1874 he stood as a
parliamentary candidate for Sheffield, but without success. Between 1869
and 1873 he was a prominent advocate in the Birmingham town council of
the gospel of municipal reform preached by Mr Dawson, Dr Dale and Mr
Bunce (of the _Birmingham. Post_); and in 1873 his party obtained a
majority, and he was elected mayor, an office he retained until June
1876. As mayor he had to receive the prince and princess of Wales on
their visit in June 1874, an occasion which excited some curiosity
because of his reputation as a Republican; but those who looked for an
exhibition of bad taste were disappointed, and the behaviour of the
Radical mayor satisfied the requirements alike of _The Times_ and of
_Punch_.
The period of his mayoralty was one of historic importance in the growth
of modern Birmingham. New municipal buildings were erected, Highgate
Park was opened as a place of recreation, the free library and art
gallery were developed. But the great work carried through by Mr
Chamberlain for Birmingham was the municipalization of the supply of gas
and water, and the improvement scheme by which slums were cleared away
and forty acres laid out in new streets and open spaces. The prosperity
of modern Birmingham dates from 1875 and 1876, when these admirably
administered reforms were initiated, and by his share in them Mr
Chamberlain became not only one of its most popular citizens but also a
man of mark outside. An orator of a business-like, straightforward type,
cool and hard-hitting, his spare figure, incisive features and single
eye-glass soon made him a favourite subject for the caricaturist; and in
later life his aggressive personality, and the peculiarly irritating
effect it had on his opponents, made his actions and speeches the object
of more controversy than was the lot of any other politician of his
time. His hobby for orchid-growing at his house "Highbury" near
Birmingham also became famous. In private life his loyalty to his
friends, and his "genius for friendship" (as John Morley said) made a
curious contrast to his capacity for arousing the bitterest political
hostility. It may be added here that the interest taken by him in
Birmingham remained undiminished during his life, and he was largely
instrumental in starting the Birmingham University (1900), of which he
became chancellor. His connexion with Birmingham University was indeed
peculiarly appropriate to his character as a man of business; but in
spite of his representing a departure among men of the front rank in
politics from the "Eton and Oxford" type, his general culture sometimes
surprised those who did not know him. In later life Oxford and Cambridge
gave him their doctors' degrees; and in 1897 he was made lord rector of
Glasgow University (delivering an address on "Patriotism" at his
installation).
In 1876 Mr Dixon resigned his seat in parliament, and Mr Chamberlain was
returned for Birmingham in his place unopposed, as John Bright's
colleague. He made his maiden speech in the House of Commons on the 4th
of August 1876, on Lord Sandon's Education Bill. At this period, too, he
paid much attention to the question of licensing reform, and in 1876 he
examined the Gothenburg system in Sweden, and advocated a solution of
the problem in England on similar lines. During 1877 the new federation
of Liberal Associations which became known as the "Caucus" was started
under Mr Chamberlain's influence in Birmingham--its secretary, Mr
Schnadhorst, quickly making himself felt as a wire-puller of exceptional
ability; and the new organization had a remarkable effect in putting
life into the Liberal party, which since Mr Gladstone's retirement in
1874 had been much in need of a stimulus. When the general election came
in 1880, Mr Schnadhorst's powers were demonstrated in the successes won
under his auspices. The Liberal party numbered 349, against 243
Conservatives and 60 Irish Nationalists; and the Radical section of the
Liberal party, led by Mr Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke, was
recognized by Mr Gladstone by his inclusion of the former in his cabinet
as president of the Board of Trade, and the appointment of the latter as
under secretary for foreign affairs. In his new capacity Mr Chamberlain
was responsible for carrying such important measures as the Bankruptcy
Act 1883, and the Patents Act. Another bill which he had much at heart,
on merchant shipping, had to be abandoned, and a royal commission
substituted, but the subsequent legislation in 1888-1894 owed much to
his efforts. The Franchise Act of 1884 was also one in which he took a
leading part as a champion of the opinions of the labouring class. At
this time he took the current advanced Radical views of both Irish and
foreign policy, hating "coercion," disliking the occupation of Egypt,
and prominently defending the Transvaal settlement after Majuba. Both
before and after the defeat of Mr Gladstone's government on the Budget
in June 1885, he associated himself with what was known as the
"Unauthorized Programme," i.e. free education, small holdings, graduated
taxation and local government. In June 1885 he made a speech at
Birmingham, treating the reforms just mentioned as the "ransom" that
property must pay to society for the security it enjoys--for which Lord
Iddesleigh called him "Jack Cade"; and he continually urged the Liberal
party to take up these Radical measures. At the general election of
November 1885 Mr Chamberlain was returned for West Birmingham. The
Liberal strength generally was, however, reduced to 335 members, though
the Radical section held their own; and the Irish vote became necessary
to Mr Gladstone if he was to command a majority. In December it was
stated that Mr Gladstone intended to propose Home Rule for Ireland, and
in January Lord Salisbury's ministry was defeated on the Address, on an
amendment moved by Mr Chamberlain's Birmingham henchman, Mr Jesse
Collings (b. 1831), embodying the "three acres and a cow" of the Radical
programme. Unlike Lord Hartington (afterwards duke of Devonshire) and
other Liberals, who declined to join Mr Gladstone in view of the altered
attitude he was adopting towards Ireland, Mr Chamberlain entered the
cabinet as president of the Local Government Board (with Mr Jesse
Collings as parliamentary secretary), but on the 15th of March 1886 he
resigned, explaining in the House of Commons (8th April) that, while he
had always been in favour of the largest possible extension of local
government to Ireland consistently with the integrity of the empire and
the supremacy of parliament, and had therefore joined Mr Gladstone when
he believed that this was what was intended, he was unable to consider
that the scheme communicated by Mr Gladstone to his colleagues
maintained those limitations. At the same time he was not
irreconcilable, and he invited Mr Gladstone even then to modify his bill
so as to remove the objections made to it. This indecisive attitude did
not last long, and the split in the party rapidly widened. At Birmingham
Mr Chamberlain was supported by the "Two Thousand," but deserted by the
"Caucus" and Mr Schnadhorst. In May the Radicals who followed Mr Bright
and Mr Chamberlain, and the Whigs who took their cue from Lord
Hartington, decided to vote against the second reading of the Home Rule
Bill, instead of allowing it to be taken and then pressing for
modifications in committee, and on 7th June the bill was defeated by 343
to 313, 94 Liberal Unionists--as they were generally called--voting
against the government. Mr Chamberlain was the object of the bitterest
attacks from the Gladstonians for his share in this result; he was
stigmatized as "Judas," and open war was proclaimed by the Home Rulers
against the "dissentient Liberals"--the description used by Mr
Gladstone. The general election, however, returned to parliament 316
Conservatives, 78 Liberal Unionists, and only 276 Gladstonians and
Nationalists, Birmingham returning seven Unionist members. When the
House met in August, it was decided by the Liberal Unionists, under Lord
Hartington's leadership, that their policy henceforth was essentially to
combine with the Tories to keep Mr Gladstone out. The old Liberal
feeling still prevailing among them was too strong, however, for their
leaders to take office in a coalition ministry. It was enough for them
to be able to tie down the Conservative government to such measures as
were not offensive to Liberal Unionist principles. It still seemed
possible, moreover, that the Gladstonians might be brought to modify
their Home Rule proposals, and in January 1887 a Round Table conference
(suggested by Mr Chamberlain) was held between Mr Chamberlain, Sir G.
Trevelyan, Sir William Harcourt, Mr Morley and Lord Herschell. But no
_rapprochement_ was effected, and reconciliation became daily more and
more difficult. The influence of Liberal Unionist views upon the
domestic legislation of the government was steadily bringing about a
more complete union in the Unionist party, and destroying the old lines
of political cleavage. Before 1892 Mr Chamberlain had the satisfaction
of seeing Lord Salisbury's ministry pass such important acts, from a
progressive point of view, as those dealing with Coal Mines Regulation,
Allotments, County Councils, Housing of the Working Classes, Free
Education and Agricultural Holdings, besides Irish legislation like the
Ashbourne Act, the Land Act of 1891, and the Light Railways and
Congested Districts Acts. In October 1887 Mr Chamberlain, Sir L.
Sackville West and Sir Charles Tupper were selected by the government as
British plenipotentiaries to discuss with the United States the Canadian
fisheries dispute, and a treaty was arranged by them at Washington on
the 15th of February 1888. The Senate refused to ratify it; but a
protocol provided for a _modus vivendi_ pending ratification, giving
American fishing vessels similar advantages to those contemplated in the
treaty; and on the whole Mr Chamberlain's mission to America was
accepted as a successful one in maintaining satisfactory relations with
the United States. He returned to England in March 1888, and was
presented with the freedom of the borough of Birmingham. The visit also
resulted, in November 1888, in his marriage with his third wife, Miss
Endicott, daughter of the United States secretary of war in President
Cleveland's first administration.
At the general election of 1892 Mr Chamberlain was again returned, with
an increased majority, for West Birmingham; but the Unionist party as a
whole came back with only 315 members against 355 Home Rulers. In August
Lord Salisbury's ministry was defeated; and on the 13th of February 1893
Mr Gladstone introduced his second Home Rule Bill, which was eventually
read a third time on the 1st of September. During the eighty-two days'
discussion in the House of Commons Mr Chamberlain was the life and soul
of the opposition, and his criticisms had a vital influence upon the
attitude of the country when the House of Lords summarily threw out the
bill. His chief contribution to the discussions during the later stages
of the Gladstone and Rosebery ministries was in connexion with Mr
Asquith's abortive Employers' Liability Bill, when he foreshadowed the
method of dealing with this question afterwards carried out in the
Compensation Act of 1897. Outside parliament he was busy formulating
proposals for old age pensions, which had a prominent place in the
Unionist programme of 1895. In that year, on the defeat of Lord
Rosebery, the union of the Unionists was sealed by the inclusion of the
Liberal Unionist leaders in Lord Salisbury's ministry; and Mr
Chamberlain became secretary of state for the colonies. There had been
much speculation as to what his post would be, and his nomination to the
colonial office, then considered one of secondary rank, excited some
surprise; but Mr Chamberlain himself realized how important that
department had become. He carried with him into the ministry his close
Birmingham municipal associates, Mr Jesse Collings (as under secretary
of the home office), and Mr J. Powell-Williams (1840-1904) as financial
secretary to the war office. Mr Chamberlain's influence in the Unionist
cabinet was soon visible in the Workmen's Compensation Act and other
measures. This act, though in Sir Matthew White Ridley's charge as home
secretary, was universally and rightly associated with Mr Chamberlain;
and its passage, in the face of much interested opposition from
highly-placed, old-fashioned conservatives and capitalists on both
sides, was principally due to his determined advocacy. Another "social"
measure of less importance, which formed part of the Chamberlain
programme, was the Small Houses Acquisition Act of 1899; but the problem
of old age pensions was less easily solved. This subject had been handed
over in 1893 to a royal commission, and further discussed by a select
committee in 1899 and a departmental committee in 1900, but both of
these threw cold water on the schemes laid before them--a result which,
galling enough to one who had made so much play with the question in the
country, offered welcome material to his opponents for electioneering
recrimination, as year by year went by between 1895 and 1900 and nothing
resulted from all the confident talk on the subject in which Mr
Chamberlain had indulged when out of office. Eventually it was the
Liberal and not the Unionist party that carried an Old Age Pensions
scheme through parliament, during the 1908 session, when Mr Chamberlain
was _hors de combat_.
From January 1896 (the date of the Jameson Raid) onwards South Africa
demanded the chief attention of the colonial secretary (see SOUTH
AFRICA, and for details TRANSVAAL). In his negotiations with President
Kruger one masterful temperament was pitted against another. Mr
Chamberlain had a very difficult part to play, in a situation dominated
by suspicion on both sides, and while he firmly insisted on the rights
of Great Britain and of British subjects in the Transvaal, he was the
continual object of Radical criticism at home. Never has a statesman's
personality been more bitterly associated by his political opponents
with the developments they deplored. Attempts were even made to ascribe
financial motives to Mr Chamberlain's actions, and the political
atmosphere was thick with suspicion and scandal. The report of the
Commons committee (July 1897) definitely acquitted both Mr Chamberlain
and the colonial office of any privity in the Jameson Raid, but Mr
Chamberlain's detractors continued to assert the contrary. Opposition
hostility reached such a pitch that in 1899 there was hardly an act of
the cabinet during the negotiations with President Kruger which was not
attributed to the personal malignity and unscrupulousness of the
colonial secretary. The elections of 1900 (when he was again returned,
unopposed, for West Birmingham) turned upon the individuality of a
single minister more than any since the days of Mr Gladstone's
ascendancy, and Mr Chamberlain, never conspicuous for inclination to
turn his other cheek to the smiter, was not slow to return the blows
with interest.
Apart from South Africa, his most important work at this time was the
successful passing of the Australian Commonwealth Act (1900), in which
both tact and firmness were needed to settle certain differences between
the imperial government and the colonial delegates.
Mr Chamberlain's tenure of the office of colonial secretary between 1895
and 1900 must always be regarded as a turning-point in the history of
the relations between the British colonies and the mother country. His
accession to office was marked by speeches breathing a new spirit of
imperial consolidation, embodied either in suggestions for commercial
union or in more immediately practicable proposals for improving the
"imperial estate"; and at the Diamond Jubilee of 1897 the visits of the
colonial premiers to London emphasized and confirmed the new policy, the
fruits of which were afterwards seen in the cordial support given by the
colonies in the Boer War. Even in what Mr Chamberlain called his
"Radical days" he had never supported the "Manchester" view of the value
of a colonial empire; and during the Gladstone ministry of 1882-1885 Mr
Bright had remarked that the junior member for Birmingham was the only
Jingo in the cabinet--meaning, no doubt, that he objected to the policy
of _laissez-faire_ and the timidity of what was afterwards known as
"Little Englandism." While he was still under Mr Gladstone's influence
these opinions were kept in subordination; but Mr Chamberlain was always
an imperial federationist, and from 1887 onwards he constantly gave
expression to his views on the desirability of drawing the different
parts of the empire closer together for purposes of defence and
commerce. In 1895 the time for the realization of these views had come;
and Mr Chamberlain's speeches, previously remarkable chiefly for
debating power and directness of argument, were now dominated by a new
note of constructive statesmanship, basing itself on the economic
necessities of a world-wide empire. Not the least of the anxieties of
the colonial office during this period was the situation in the West
Indies, where the cane-sugar industry was being steadily undermined by
the European bounties given to exports of continental beet; and though
the government restricted themselves to attempts at removing the
bounties by negotiation and to measures for palliating the worst effects
in the West Indies, Mr Chamberlain made no secret of his repudiation of
the Cobden Club view that retaliation would be contrary to the doctrines
of free trade, and he did his utmost to educate public opinion at home
into understanding that the responsibilities of the mother country are
not merely to be construed according to the selfish interests of a
nation of consumers. As regards foreign affairs, Mr Chamberlain more
than once (and particularly at Leicester on 30th November 1899)
indicated his leanings towards a closer understanding between the
British empire, the United States and Germany,--a suggestion which did
not save him from an extravagant outburst of German hostility during the
Boer War. The unusually outspoken and pointed expression, however, of
his disinclination to submit to Muscovite duplicity or to "pin-pricks"
or "unmannerliness" from France was criticized on the score of
discretion by a wider circle than that of his political adversaries.
During the progress of the Boer War from 1899 to 1902, Mr Chamberlain,
as the statesman who had represented the cabinet in the negotiations
which led to it, remained the object of constant attacks from his
Radical opponents--the "little Englanders" and "Pro-Boers," as he called
them--and he was supported by the Imperialist and Unionist party with at
least equal ardour. But as colonial secretary, except in so far as his
consistent support of Lord Milner and his enthusiastic encouragement of
colonial assistance were concerned, he naturally played only a
subordinate part during the carrying out of the military operations.
Among domestic statesmen he was felt, however, to be the backbone of the
party in power. He was the hero of the one side, just as he was the
bugbear of the other. On the 13th of February 1902 he was presented with
an address in a gold casket by the city corporation, and entertained at
luncheon at the Mansion House, an honour not unconnected with the strong
feeling recently aroused by his firm reply (at Birmingham, January 11)
to some remarks made by Count von Bullow, the German chancellor, in the
Reichstag (January 8), reflecting the offensive allegations current in
Germany against the conduct of the army in South Africa. Mr
Chamberlain's speech, in answer to what had been intended as a
contemptuous rebuke, was universally applauded. His own imperialism was
intensified by the way in which England's difficulties resulted in
calling forth colonial assistance and so cementing the bonds of empire.
The domestic crisis, and the sharp cleavage between parties at home, had
driven the bent of his mind and policy further and further away from the
purely municipal and national ideals which he had followed so keenly
before he became colonial minister. The problems of empire engrossed
him, and a new enthusiasm for imperial projects arose in the Unionist
party under his inspiration. No English statesman probably has ever
been, at different times in his career, so able an advocate of
absolutely contradictory policies, and his opponents were not slow to
taunt him with quotations from his earlier speeches. As the war drew to
its end, new plans for imperial consolidation were maturing in his
brain. Subsidiary points of utility, such as the formation of the London
and Liverpool schools of tropical medicine from 1899 onwards, were taken
up by him with characteristic vigour. But the next step was to prove a
critical one indeed for the loyalty of the party which had so far been
unanimous in his favour.
The settlement after the war was full of difficulties, financial and
others, in South Africa. When Mr Arthur Balfour succeeded Lord Salisbury
as prime minister in July 1902, Mr Chamberlain agreed to serve loyally
under him, and the friendship between the two leaders was indeed one of
the most marked features of the political situation. In November 1902 it
was arranged that Mr Chamberlain should go out to South Africa, and it
was hoped, not without reason, that his personality would effect more
good than any ordinary official negotiations. At the time the best
results appeared to be secured. He went from place to place in South
Africa (December 26-February 25); arranged with the leading Transvaal
financiers that in return for support from the British government in
raising a Transvaal loan they would guarantee a large proportion of a
Transvaal debt of L30,000,000, which should repay the British treasury
so much of the cost of the war; and when he returned in March 1903,
satisfaction was general in the country over the success of his mission.
But meantime two things had happened. He had looked at the empire from
the colonial point of view, in a way only possible in a colonial
atmosphere; and at home some of his colleagues had gone a long way,
behind the scenes, to destroy one of the very factors on which the
question of a practical scheme for imperial commercial federation seemed
to hinge. In the budget of 1902 a duty of a shilling a quarter on
imported corn had been reintroduced. This small tax was regarded as only
a registration duty. Even by free-trade ministers like Gladstone it had
been left up to 1869 untouched, and its removal by Robert Lowe (Lord
Sherbrooke) had since then been widely regarded as a piece of economic
pedantry. Its reimposition, officially supported for the sake of
necessary revenue in war-time, and cordially welcomed by the Unionist
party, had justified itself, as they contended, in spite of the
criticisms of the Opposition (who raised the cry of the "dear loaf"), by
proving during the year to have had no general or direct effect on the
price of bread. And the more advanced Imperialists, as well as the more
old-fashioned protectionists (like Mr Chaplin) who formed an integral
body of the Conservative party, had looked forward to this tax being
converted into a differential one between foreign and colonial corn, so
as to introduce a scheme of colonial preference and commercial
consolidation between the colonies and the mother country. In South
Africa--as in any other British colony, since all of them were
accustomed to tariffs of a protectionist nature, and the idea of a
preference (already started by Canada) was fairly popular--Mr
Chamberlain had found this view well established. The agitation in
England against the tax had now blown over. The Unionist rank and file
were committed to its support,--many even advocating its increase to two
shillings at least. But Mr Ritchie, the chancellor of the exchequer,
having a surplus in prospect and taxation to take off, carried the
cabinet in favour of again remitting this tax on corn. Mr Chamberlain
himself had proposed only to take it off as regards colonial, and not
foreign corn,--thus inaugurating a preferential system. But a majority
of the cabinet supported Mr Ritchie. The remission of this tax, after
all the conviction with which its restoration had been supported a year
before, was very difficult for the party itself to stomach, and on any
ground it was a distasteful act, loyally as the party followed their
leaders. But to those who had looked to it as providing a lever for a
gradual change in the established fiscal system, the _volte-face_ was a
bitter blow, and at once there began, though not at first openly, a
split between the more rigid free-traders--advocates of cheap food and
free imports--and those who desired to use the opportunities of a
tariff, of however moderate a kind, for attaining national and imperial
and not merely revenue advantages. This idea, which had for some time
been floating in Mr Chamberlain's mind (see especially his speech at
Birmingham of May 16, 1902), now took full possession of it. For the
moment he remained in the cabinet, but the seed of dissension was sown.
The first public intimation of his views was given in a speech to his
constituents at Birmingham (May 15, 1903), when he outlined a plan for
raising more money by a rearranged tariff, partly to obtain a
preferential system for the empire and partly to produce funds for
social reform at home. On May 28th in the House of Commons he spoke on
the same subject, and declared "if you are to give a preference to the
colonies, you must put a tax on food." Considered in the light of after
events, this putting the necessity of food-taxes in the forefront was
decidedly injudicious; but imperialist conviction and enthusiasm were
more conspicuous than electioneering tact in the launching of Mr
Chamberlain's new scheme.
The movement grew quickly, its supporters including a number of the
cleverest younger politicians and journalists in the Unionist party. The
idea of tariff reform--to broaden the basis of taxation, to introduce a
preference, and to stimulate home industries and increase
employment--took firm root; and the political economists of the
party--Prof. W. Cunningham, Prof. W. Ashley and Prof. W.A.S. Hewins, in
particular--brought effective criticism to bear on the one-sided "free
trade" in vogue. The first demand was for inquiry. The country was still
bearing an income-tax of elevenpence in the pound; it appeared that the
old sources of revenue were inadequate; and meanwhile the statistics of
trade, it was argued, showed that the English free-import system
hampered English trade while providing the foreigner with a free market.
Mr Chamberlain and his supporters argued that since 1870 certain other
countries (Germany and the United States), with protective tariffs, had
increased their trade in much larger proportion, while English trade had
only been maintained by the increased business done with British
colonies. A scientific inquiry into the facts was needed. By the
Opposition, who now found themselves the defenders of conservatism in
the established fiscal policy of the country, this whole argument was
scouted; but for a time the demand merely for inquiry, and the
production of figures, gave no sufficient occasion for dissension among
Unionists, even when, like Sir M. Hicks Beach, they were convinced
free-importers on purely economic grounds; and Mr Balfour (q.v.), as
premier, managed to hold his colleagues and party together by taking the
line that particular opinions on economic subjects should not be made a
test of party loyalty. The Board of Trade was set to work to produce
fiscal Blue-books, and hum-drum politicians who had never shown any
genius for figures suddenly blossomed out into arithmeticians of the
deepest dye. The Tariff Reform League was founded in order to further Mr
Chamberlain's policy, holding its inaugural meeting on July 21st; and it
began to take an active part in issuing leaflets and in work at
by-elections. Discussion proceeded hotly on the merits of a preferential
tariff, and on August 15th a manifesto appeared against it signed by
fourteen professors or lecturers on political economy, including Mr
Leonard Courtney, Professor Edgeworth, Professor Marshall, Professor
Bastable, Professor Smart, Professor J.S. Nicholson, Professor Conner,
Mr Bowley, Mr E. Cannan and Mr L.R. Phelps,--men of admitted competence,
yet, after all, of no higher authority than the economists supporting Mr
Chamberlain, such as Dr Cunningham and Professor Ashley.
Meanwhile, the death of Lord Salisbury (August 22) removed a weighty
figure from the councils of the Unionist party. The cabinet met several
times at the beginning of September, and the question of their attitude
towards the fiscal problem became acute. The public had its first
intimation of impending events in the appearance on September 16th of Mr
Balfour's _Economic Notes on Insular Free Trade_, which had been
previously circulated as a cabinet memorandum. The next day appeared the
Board of Trade Fiscal Blue-book. And on the 18th the resignations were
announced, not only of the more rigid free-traders in the cabinet, Mr
Ritchie and Lord George Hamilton, but also of Mr Chamberlain. Letters in
cordial terms were published, which had passed between Mr Chamberlain
(September 9) and Mr Balfour (September 16). Mr Chamberlain pointed out
that he was committed to a preferential scheme involving new duties on
food, and could not remain in the government without prejudice while it
was excluded from the party programme; remaining loyal to Mr Balfour and
his general objects, he could best promote this course from outside, and
he suggested that the government might confine its policy to the
"assertion of our freedom in the case of all commercial relations with
foreign countries." Mr Balfour, while reluctantly admitting the
necessity of Mr Chamberlain's taking a freer hand, expressed his
agreement in the desirability of a closer fiscal union with the
colonies, but questioned the immediate practicability of any scheme; he
was willing to adopt fiscal reform so far as it covered retaliatory
duties, but thought that the exclusion of taxation of food from the
party programme was in existing circumstances necessary, so long as
public opinion was not ripe. At the same time he welcomed the fact that
Mr Chamberlain's son, Mr Austen Chamberlain, was ready to remain a
member of the government. Mr Austen Chamberlain (b. 1863) accordingly
became the new chancellor of the exchequer; he was already in the
cabinet as postmaster-general, having previously made his mark as civil
lord of the admiralty (1895-1900), and financial secretary to the
treasury (1900-1902).
From the turning-point of Mr Chamberlain's resignation, it is not
necessary here to follow in detail the discussions and dissensions in
the party as a whole in its relations with the prime minister (see
BALFOUR, A.J.). It is sufficient to say that while Mr Balfour's
sympathetic "send off" appeared to indicate his inclination towards Mr
Chamberlain's programme, if only further support could be gained for it,
his endeavour to keep the party together, and the violent opposition
which gathered against Mr Chamberlain's scheme, combined to make his
real attitude during the next two years decidedly obscure, both sections
of the party--free-traders and tariff reformers--being induced from time
to time to regard him as on their side. The tariff reform movement
itself was now, however, outside the purely official programme, and Mr
Chamberlain (backed by a majority of the Unionist members) threw himself
with impetuous ardour into a crusade on its behalf, while at the same
time supporting Mr Balfour in parliament, and leaving it to him to
decide as to the policy of going to the country when the time should be
ripe. In his own words, he went in front of the Unionist army as a
pioneer, and if his army was attacked he would go back to it; in no
conceivable circumstances would he allow himself to be put in any sort
of competition, direct or indirect, with Mr Balfour, his friend and
leader, whom he meant to follow (October 6).
On October 6th he opened his campaign with a speech at Glasgow.
Analysing the trade statistics as between 1872 and 1902, he insisted
that British progress involved a relative decline compared with that of
protectionist foreign countries like Germany and the United States;
Great Britain exported less and less of manufactured goods, and imported
more and more; the exports to foreign countries had decreased, and it
was only the increased exports to the colonies that maintained the
British position. This was the outcome of the working of a one-sided
free-trade system. Now was the time, and it might soon be lost, for
consolidating British trade relations with the colonies. If the mother
country and her daughter states did not draw closer, they would
inevitably drift apart. A further increase of L26,000,000 a year in the
trade with the colonies might be obtained by a preferential tariff, and
this meant additional employment at home for 166,000 workmen, or
subsistence for a population of a far larger number. His positive
proposals were: (1) no tax on raw materials; (2) a small tax on food
other than colonial, e.g. two shillings a quarter on foreign corn but
excepting maize, and 5% on meat and dairy produce excluding bacon; (3)
a 10% general tariff on imported manufactured goods. To meet any
increased cost of living, he proposed to reduce the duties on tea, sugar
and other articles of general consumption, and he estimated that his
scheme would in no case increase a working-man's expenditure, and in
most cases would reduce it. "The colonies," he said, "are prepared to
meet us; in return for a very moderate preference, they will give us a
substantial advantage in their markets." This speech, delivered with
characteristic vigour and Imperialistic enthusiasm, was the type of
others which followed in quick succession during the year. At Greenock
next day he emphasized the necessity of retaliating against foreign
tariffs--"I never like being hit without striking back." The practice of
"dumping" must be fairly met; if foreign goods were brought into England
to undersell British manufacturers, either the Fair Wages Clause and the
Factory Acts and the Compensation Act would have to be repealed, or the
workmen would have to take lower wages, or lose their work. "Agriculture
has been practically destroyed, sugar has gone, silk has gone, iron is
threatened, wool is threatened, cotton will go! How long are you going
to stand it?" On October 20th he spoke at Newcastle, on the 21st at
Tynemouth, on the 27th at Liverpool, insisting that free-trade had never
been a working-class measure and that it could not be reconciled with
trade-unionism; on November 4th at Birmingham, on the 20th at Cardiff,
on the 21st at Newport, and on December 16th at Leeds. In all these
speeches he managed to point his argument by application to local
industries. In the Leeds speech he announced that, with a view to
drawing up a scientific model tariff, a non-political commission of
representative experts would be appointed under the auspices of the
Tariff Reform League to take evidence from every trade; it included many
heads of businesses, and Mr Charles Booth, the eminent student of social
and industrial London, with Sir Robert Herbert as chairman, and
Professor W.A.S. Hewins as secretary. The name of "Tariff Commission,"
given to this voluntary and unofficial body, was a good deal criticized,
but though flouted by the political free-traders it set to work in
earnest, and accumulated a mass of evidence as to the real facts of
trade, which promised to be invaluable to economic inquirers. On January
18th, 1904, Mr Chamberlain ended his series of speeches by a great
meeting at the Guildhall, in the city of London, the key-note being his
exhortation to his audience to "think imperially."
All this activity on Mr Chamberlain's part represented a great physical
and intellectual feat on the part of a man now sixty-seven years of age;
but his bodily vigour and comparatively youthful appearance were
essential features of his personality. Nothing like this campaign had
been known in the political world since Mr Gladstone's Midlothian days;
and it produced a great public impression, stirring up both supporters
and opponents. Free-trade unionists like Lord Goschen and Lord Hugh
Cecil, and the Liberal leaders--for whom Mr Asquith became the principal
spokesman, though Lord Rosebery's criticisms also had considerable
weight--found new matter in Mr Chamberlain's speeches for their
contention that any radical change in the traditional English fiscal
policy, established now for sixty years, would only result in evil. The
broad fact remained that while Mr Chamberlain's activity gathered round
him the bulk of the Unionist members and an enthusiastic band of
economic sympathizers, the country as a whole remained apathetic and
unconvinced. One reason was the intellectual difficulty of the subject
and the double-faced character of all arguments from statistics, which
were either incomprehensible or disputable; another was the fact that
substantially this was a political movement, and that tariff reform was,
after all, only one in a complexity of political issues, most of which
during this period were being interpreted by the electorate in a sense
hostile to the Unionist party. Mr Chamberlain had relied on his personal
influence, which from 1895 to 1902 had been supreme; but his own
resignation, and the course of events, had since 1903 made his
personality less authoritative, and new interests--such as the
opposition to the Education Act, to the heavy taxation, and to Chinese
labour in the Transvaal, and indignation over the revelations concerned
with the war--were monopolizing attention, to the weakening of his hold
on the public. The revival in trade, and the production of new
statistics which appeared to stultify Mr Chamberlain's prophecies of
progressive decline, enabled the free-trade champions to reassure their
audiences as to the very foundation of his case, and to represent the
whole tariff reform movement as no less unnecessary than risky.
Moreover, the split in the Unionist party brought the united Liberal
party in full force into the field, and at last the country began to
think that the danger of Irish Home Rule was practically over, and that
a Liberal majority might be returned to power in safety, with the
prospect of providing an alternative government which would assure
commercial repose (Lord Rosebery's phrase), relief from extravagant
expenditure, and--as the working-classes were led to believe--a certain
amount of labour legislation which the Tory leaders would never propose.
On the other hand the colonies took a great interest in the new
movement, though without putting any such pressure on the home public as
Mr Chamberlain might have expected. At the opening of 1904 he was
officially invited by Mr Deakin, the prime minister of the Commonwealth,
to pay a visit to Australia, in order to expound his scheme, being
promised an enthusiastic welcome "as the harbinger of commercial
reciprocity between the mother country and her colonies." Mr
Chamberlain, however, declined; his work at home was too pressing.
From the end of Mr Chamberlain's series of expository speeches on his
scheme of tariff reform, onwards during the various fiscal debates and
discussions of 1904, it is unnecessary to follow events in detail. The
scheme was now before the country, and Mr Chamberlain was anxious to
take its verdict. Time was not on his side at his age, and if he had to
be beaten at one election he was anxious to get rid of the other issues
which would encumber the popular vote, and to press on to a second when
he would be on the attacking side. But he would make no move which would
embarrass Mr Balfour in parliament, and adhered to his promise of
loyalty. The result was a long drawn out interval, while the government
held on and its supporters became more embittered over their
differences. Mr Chamberlain needed a rest, and was away in Italy and
Egypt from March to May, and again in November. He made three important
speeches at Welbeck (August 4), at Luton (October 5), and at Limehouse
(December 15), but he had nothing substantial to add to his case, and
the party situation continued in all its embarrassments. Mr Balfour's
introduction of his promise (at Edinburgh on October 3) to convene an
imperial conference after the general election if the Unionists came
back to power, in order to discuss a scheme for fiscal union,
represented an academic rather than a practical advance, since the
by-elections showed that the Unionists were certain to be defeated. The
one important new development concerned the Liberal-Unionist
organization. In January some correspondence was published between Mr
Chamberlain and the duke of Devonshire, dating from the previous
October, as to difficulties arising from the central Liberal-Unionist
organization subsidizing local associations which had adopted the
programme of tariff reform. The duke objected to this departure from
neutrality, and suggested that it was becoming "impossible with any
advantage to maintain under existing circumstances the existence of the
Liberal-Unionist organization." Mr Chamberlain retorted that this was a
matter for a general meeting of delegates to decide; if the duke was
outvoted he might resign his presidency; for his own part he was
prepared to allow the local associations to be subsidized impartially,
so long as they supported the government, but he was not prepared for
the violent disruption, which the duke apparently contemplated, of an
association so necessary to the success of the Unionist cause. The duke
was in a difficult position as president of the organization, since most
of the local associations supported Mr Chamberlain, and he replied that
the differences between them were vital, and he would not be responsible
for dividing the association into sections, but would rather resign. Mr
Chamberlain then called a general meeting on his own responsibility in
February, when a new constitution was proposed; and in May, at the
annual meeting of the Liberal-Unionist council, the free-food Unionists,
being in a minority, retired, and the association was reorganized under
Mr Chamberlain's auspices, Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne (both of
them cabinet ministers) becoming vice-presidents. On July 14th the
reconstituted Liberal-Unionist organization held a great demonstration
in the Albert Hall, and Mr Chamberlain's success in ousting the duke of
Devonshire and the other free-trade members of the old Liberal-Unionist
party, and imposing his own fiscal policy upon the Liberal-Unionist
caucus, was now complete.
During the spring and summer of 1905 Mr Chamberlain's more active
supporters were in favour of forcing a dissolution by leaving the
government in a minority, but he himself preferred to leave matters to
take their course, so long as the prime minister was content to be
publicly identified with the policy of eventually fighting on tariff
reform lines. Speaking at the Albert Hall in July Mr Chamberlain pushed
somewhat further than before his "embrace" of Mr Balfour; and in the
autumn, when foreign affairs no longer dominated the attention of the
government, the crisis rapidly came to a head. In reply to Mr Balfour's
appeal for the sinking of differences (Newcastle, November 14), Mr
Chamberlain insisted at Bristol (November 21) on the adoption of his
fiscal policy; and Mr Balfour resigned on December 4. on the ground that
he no longer retained the confidence of the party. At the crushing
Unionist defeat in the general election which followed in January 1906,
Mr Chamberlain was triumphantly returned for West Birmingham, and all
the divisions of Birmingham returned Chamberlainite members. Amid the
wreck of the party--Mr Balfour and several of his colleagues themselves
losing their seats--he had the consolation of knowing that the tariff
reformers won the only conspicuous successes of the election. But he had
no desire to set himself up as leader in Mr Balfour's place, and after
private negotiations with the ex-prime minister, a common platform was
arranged between them, on which Mr Balfour, for whom a seat was found in
the City of London, should continue to lead the remnant of the party.
The formula was given in a letter from Mr Balfour of February 14th (see
BALFOUR, A.J.) which admitted the necessity of making fiscal reform the
first plank in the Unionist platform, and accepted a general tariff on
manufactured goods and a small duty on foreign corn as "not in principle
objectionable."
It may be left to future historians to attempt a considered judgment on
the English tariff reform movement, and on Mr Chamberlain's
responsibility for the Unionist _debacle_ of 1906. But while his enemies
taunted him with having twice wrecked his party--first the Radical party
under Mr Gladstone, and secondly the Unionist party under Mr Balfour--no
well-informed critic doubted his sincerity, or failed to recognize that
in leaving the cabinet and embarking on his fiscal campaign he showed
real devotion to an idea. In championing the cause of imperial fiscal
union, by means involving the abandonment of a system of taxation which
had become part of British orthodoxy, he followed the guidance of a
profound conviction that the stability of the empire and the very
existence of the hegemony of the United Kingdom depended upon the
conversion of public opinion to a revision of the current economic
doctrine. There were doubtless miscalculations at the outset as to the
resistance to be encountered. But from the purely party point of view he
was entitled to say that he followed the path of loyalty to Mr Balfour
which he had marked out from the moment of his resignation, and that he
persistently, refused to be put in competition with him as leader. Even
in the absence of the new issue, defeat was foredoomed for Mr Balfour's
administration by the ordinary course of political events; and it might
fairly be claimed that "Chinese slavery," "passive resistance," and
labour irritation at the Taff Vale judgment (see TRADE UNIONS) were
mainly responsible for the Unionist collapse. Time alone would show
whether the system of free imports could be permanently reconciled with
British imperial policy or commercial prosperity. It remained the fact
that Mr Chamberlain staked an already established position on his
refusal to compromise with his convictions on a question which appeared
to him of vital and immediate importance.
Mr Chamberlain's own activity in the political field was cut short in
the middle of the session of 1906 by a serious attack of gout, which was
at first minimized by his friends, but which, it was gradually
discovered, had completely crippled him. Though encouragement was given
to the idea that he might return to the House of Commons, where he
continued to retain his seat for Birmingham, he was quite incapacitated
for any public work; and this invalid condition was protracted
throughout 1907, 1908 and 1909. But he remained in the background as the
inspirer and adviser of the Tariff Reformers. The cause made continuous
headway at by-elections, and though the general election of January 1910
gave the Unionists no majority it saw them returned in much increased
strength, which was chiefly due to the support obtained for tariff
reform principles. Mr Chamberlain himself was returned unopposed for
West Birmingham again. (H. Ch.)
CHAMBERLAIN, JOSHUA LAWRENCE (1828- ), American soldier and
educationalist, was born at Brewer, Maine, on the 8th of September 1828.
He graduated at Bowdoin College in 1852, and at the Bangor Theological
Seminary in 1855, and was successively tutor in logic and natural
theology (1855-1856), professor of rhetoric and oratory (1856-1861), and
professor of modern languages (1861-1865), at Bowdoin. In 1862 he
entered the Federal army as lieutenant-colonel of the 20th Maine
Infantry. His military career was marked by great personal bravery and
energy and intrepidity as a leader. He was six times wounded, and
participated in all the important battles in the East from Antietam
onwards, including Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the
Wilderness, Cold Harbor, Petersburg and Five Forks. For his conduct at
Petersburg, where he was severely wounded, he was promoted to be
brigadier-general of volunteers. He was breveted major-general of
volunteers on the 29th of March 1865, and led the Federal advance in the
final operations against General R.E. Lee. In 1893 he received a
Congressional medal of honour "for daring heroism and great tenacity in
holding his position on the Little Round Top and carrying the advance
position on the Great Round Top at the Battle of Gettysburg." After the
war he was again professor of rhetoric and oratory at Bowdoin in
1865-1866, and in 1867-1870 was governor of Maine, having been elected
as a Republican. From 1871 to 1883 he was president of Bowdoin College,
and during 1874-1879 was professor of mental and moral philosophy also.
Appointed in 1880 by Alonzo Garcelon, the retiring governor, to protect
the property and institutions of the state until a new governor should
be duly qualified, and acting as major-general of the state militia,
Chamberlain did much to avert possible civil war, at a time of great
political excitement and bitter partisan feeling. (See MAINE:
_History_.) In 1883-1885 he was a lecturer on political science and
public law at Bowdoin, and in 1900 became surveyor of customs for the
district of Portland, Maine. He published _Maine, Her Place in History_
(1877), and edited _Universities and Their Sons_ (6 vols., 1898).
CHAMBERLAIN, SIR NEVILLE BOWLES (1820-1902), British field marshal, was
the third son of Sir Henry Chamberlain, first baronet, consul-general
and charge d'affaires in Brazil, and was born at Rio on the 10th of
January 1820. He entered the Indian army in 1837, served as a subaltern
in the first Afghan War (1839-42), and was wounded on six occasions. He
was attached to the Governor-General's Bodyguard at the battle of
Maharajpur, in the Gwalior campaign of 1843, was appointed military
secretary to the governor of Bombay in 1846, and honorary aide-de-camp
to the governor-general of India in 1847. He served on the staff
throughout the Punjab campaign of 1848-49, and was given a brevet
majority. In 1850 he was appointed commandant of the Punjab military
police, and in 1852 military secretary to the Punjab government.
Promoted lieut.-colonel in 1854, he was given the command of the Punjab
Frontier Force with rank of brigadier-general, and commanded in several
expeditions against the frontier tribes. In the Indian Mutiny he
succeeded Colonel Chester as adjutant-general of the Indian army, and
distinguished himself at the siege of Delhi, where he was severely
wounded. He was rewarded with a brevet-colonelcy, the appointment of
A.D.C. to the queen, and the C.B. He was reappointed to the command of
the Punjab Frontier Force in 1858, and commanded in the Umbeyla campaign
(1863), in which he was severely wounded. He was now made major-general
for distinguished service and a K.C.B. He was made K.C.S.I. in 1866,
lieut.-general in 1872, G.C.S.I. in 1873, G.C.B in 1875, and general in
1877. From 1876 to 1881 he was commander-in-chief of the Madras army,
and in 1878 was sent on a mission to the amir of Afghanistan, whose
refusal to allow him to enter the country precipitated the second Afghan
War. He was for some time acting military member of the council of the
governor-general of India. He retired in 1886, was made a field marshal
in 1900, and died on the 18th of February 1902.
An excellent biography by G.W. Forrest appeared in 1909.
CHAMBERLAIN (O. Fr. _chamberlain, chamberlenc_, Mod. Fr. _chambellan_,
from O.H. Ger. _Chamarling, Chamarlinc_, whence also the Med. Lat.
_cambellanus, camerlingus, camerlengus_; Ital. _camerlingo_; Span,
_camerlengo_, compounded of O.H. Ger. _Chamara, Kamara_ [Lat. _camera_,
"chamber"], and the Ger. suffix _-ling_), etymologically, and also to a
large extent historically, an officer charged with the superintendence
of domestic affairs. Such were the chamberlains of monasteries or
cathedrals, who had charge of the finances, gave notice of chapter
meetings, and provided the materials necessary for the various services.
In these cases, as in that of the apostolic chamberlain of the Roman
see, the title was borrowed from the usage of the courts of the western
secular princes. A royal chamberlain is now a court official whose
function is in general to attend on the person of the sovereign and to
regulate the etiquette of the palace. He is the representative of the
medieval _camberlanus, cambellanus_, or _cubicularius_, whose office was
modelled on that of the _praefectus sacri cubiculi_ or _cubicularius_ of
the Roman emperors. But at the outset there was another class of
chamberlains, the _camerarii_, i.e. high officials charged with the
administration of the royal treasury (_camera_). The _camerarius_ of the
Carolingian emperors was the equivalent of the _hordere_ or
_thesaurarius_ (treasurer) of the Anglo-Saxon kings; he develops into
the _Erzkammerer_ (_archicamerarius_) of the Holy Roman Empire, an
office held by the margraves of Brandenburg, and the _grand chambrier_
of France, who held his _chamberie_ as a fief. Similarly in England
after the Norman conquest the _hordere_ becomes the chamberlain. This
office was of great importance. Before the Conquest he had been, with
the marshal, the principal officer of the king's court; and under the
Norman sovereigns his functions were manifold. As he had charge of the
administration of the royal household, his office was of financial
importance, for a portion of the royal revenue was paid, not into the
exchequer, but in _camera regis_. In course of time the office became
hereditary and titular, but the complexities of the duties necessitated
a division of the work, and the office was split up into three: the
hereditary and sinecure office of _magister camerarius_ or lord great
chamberlain (see LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN), the more important domestic
office of _camerarius regis_, king's chamberlain or lord chamberlain
(see LORD CHAMBERLAIN), and the chamberlains (_camerarii_) of the
exchequer, two in number, who were originally representatives of the
chamberlain at the exchequer, and afterwards in conjunction with the
treasurer presided over that department. In 1826 the last of these
officials died, when by an act passed forty-four years earlier they
disappeared.
In France the office of _grand chambrier_ was early overshadowed by the
_chamberlains (cubicularii, cambellani_, but sometimes also
_camerarii_), officials in close personal attendance on the king, men at
first of low rank, but of great and ever-increasing influence. As the
office of _grand chambrier_, held by great feudal nobles seldom at
court, became more and more honorary, the chamberlains grew in power, in
numbers and in rank, until, in the 13th century, one of them emerges as
a great officer of state, the _chambellan de France_ or _grand
chambellan_ (also _magister cambellanorum, mestre chamberlenc_), who at
times shares with the _grand chambrier_ the revenues derived from
certain trades in the city of Paris (see _Regestum Memoralium Camerae
computorum_, quoted in du Cange, s. _Cameranus_). The honorary office of
_grand chambrier_ survived till the time of Henry II., who was himself
the last to hold it before his accession; that of _grand chambellan_,
which in its turn soon became purely honorary, survived till the
Revolution. Among the prerogatives of the _grand chambellan_ which
survived to the last not the least valued was the right to hand the king
his shirt at the ceremonial levee. The offices of _grand chambellan,
premier chambellan_, and _chambellan_ were revived by Napoleon,
continued under the Restoration, abolished by Louis Philippe, and again
restored by Napoleon III.
In the papal Curia the apostolic chamberlain (Lat. _camerarius_, Ital.
_camerlingo_) occupies a very important position. He is at the head of
the treasury (_camera thesauraria_) and, in the days of the temporal
power, not only administered the papal finances but possessed an
extensive civil and criminal jurisdiction. During a vacancy of the Holy
See he is at the head of the administration of the Roman Church. The
office dates from the 11th century, when it superseded that of
archdeacon of the Roman Church, and the close personal relations of the
_camerarius_ with the pope, together with the fact that he is the
official guardian of the ceremonial vestments and treasures, point to
the fact that he is also the representative of the former _vestararius_
and _vice-dominus_, whose functions were merged in the new office, of
which the idea and title were probably borrowed from the usage of the
secular courts of the West (Hinschius, _Kirchenrecht_, i. 405, &c.).
There are also attached to the papal household (_famiglia pontificia_) a
large number of chamberlains whose functions are more or less
ornamental. These are divided into several categories: privy
chamberlains (_camerieri segreti_), chamberlains, assistant and honorary
chamberlains. These are gentlemen of rank and belong to the highest
class of the household (_famiglia nobile_).
In England the modern representatives of the _cubicularii_ are the
gentlemen and grooms of the bed-chamber, in Germany the _Kammerherr_
(_Kammerer_, from _camerarius_, in Bavaria and Austria) and
_Kammerjunker_. The insignia of their office is a gold key attached to
their coats behind.
Many corporations appoint a chamberlain. The most important in England
is the chamberlain of the corporation of the city of London, who is
treasurer of the corporation, admits persons entitled to the freedom of
the city, and, in the chamberlain's court, of which he and the
vice-chamberlain are judges, exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the
police court in determining disputes between masters and apprentices.
Formerly nominated by the crown, since 1688 he has been elected annually
by the liverymen. He has a salary of L2000 a year. Similarly in Germany
the administration of the finances of a city is called the _Kammerei_
and the official in charge of it the _Kammerer_.
See also STATE, GREAT OFFICERS OF; HOUSEHOLD, ROYAL; Du Cange,
_Glossarium_, s. "Camerarius" and "Cambellanus"; Pere Anselme (Pierre
de Guibours), _Hist. genealogique et chronologique de la maison royale
de France, &c_. (9 vols., 3rd ed., 1726-1733); A. Luchaire, _Manuel
des institutions francaises_ (Paris, 1892); W.R. Anson, _Law and
Custom of the Constitution_ (Oxford, 1896); Hinschius, _Kirchenrecht_,
i. 405 (Berlin, 1869).
CHAMBERLAYNE, WILLIAM (1619-1679), English poet, was born in 1619.
Nothing is known of his history except that he practised as a physician
at Shaftesbury in Dorsetshire, and fought on the Royalist side at the
second battle of Newbury. He died on the 11th of July 1679. His works
are: _Pharonnida_ (1659), a verse romance in five books; _Love's
Victory_ (1658), a tragi-comedy, acted under another title in 1678 at
the Theatre Royal; _England's Jubilee_ (1660), a poem in honour of the
Restoration. A prose version of _Pharonnida_, entitled _Eromena_, or the
_Noble Stranger_, appeared in 1683. Southey speaks of him as "a poet to
whom I am indebted for many hours of delight." _Pharonnida_ was
reprinted by S.W. Singer in 1820, and again in 1905 by Prof. G.
Saintsbury in _Minor Poets of the Caroline Period_ (vol. i.). The poem
is loose in construction, but contains some passages of great beauty.
CHAMBERS, EPHRAIM (d. 1740), English encyclopaedist, was born at Kendal,
Westmorland, in the latter part of the 17th century. He was apprenticed
to a globe-maker in London, but having conceived the plan of his
Cyclopaedia, or _Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences_, he devoted
himself entirely to it. The first edition appeared by subscription in
1728, in two vols. fol., and dedicated to the king (see ENCYCLOPAEDIA).
The _Encyclopedie_ of Diderot and d'Alembert owed its inception to a
French translation of Chambers's work. In addition to the _Cyclopaedia_,
Chambers wrote for the _Literary Magazine_ (1735-1736), and translated
the _History and Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris_
(1742), and the _Practice of Perspective_ from the French of Jean
Dubreuil. He died on the 15th of May 1740.
CHAMBERS, GEORGE (1803-1840), English marine painter, born at Whitby,
Yorkshire, was the son of a seaman, and for several years he pursued his
father's calling. While at sea he was in the habit of sketching the
different classes of vessels. His master, observing this, gratified him
by cancelling his indentures, and thus set him free to follow his
natural bent. Chambers then apprenticed himself to an old woman who kept
a painter's shop in Whitby, and began by house-painting. He also took
lessons of a drawing-master, and found a ready sale for small and cheap
pictures of shipping. Coming afterwards to London, he was employed by
Thomas Horner to assist in painting the great panorama of London for the
Colosseum (the exhibition building in Regent's Park, demolished towards
1860), and he next became scene-painter at the Pavilion theatre. In 1834
he was elected an associate, and in 1836 a full member, of the
Water-colour Society. His best works represent naval battles. Two of
these--the "Bombardment of Algiers in 1816," and the "Capture of Porto
Bello"--are in Greenwich hospital. Not long before his death he was
introduced to William IV., and his professional prospects brightened;
but his constitution, always frail, gave way, and he died on the 28th of
October 1840.
A _Life_, by John Watkins, was published in 1841.
CHAMBERS, ROBERT (1802-1871), Scottish author and publisher, was born at
Peebles on the 10th of July 1802. He was sent to the local schools, and
gave evidence of unusual literary taste and ability. A small circulating
library in the town, and a copy of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ which
his father had purchased, furnished him with stores of reading of which
he eagerly availed himself. Long afterwards he wrote of his early
years--"Books, not playthings, filled my hands in childhood. At twelve I
was deep, not only in poetry and fiction, but in encyclopaedias." Robert
had been destined for the church, but this design had to be abandoned
for lack of means. The family removed to Edinburgh in 1813, and in 1818
Robert began business as a bookstall-keeper in Leith Walk. He was then
only sixteen, and his whole stock consisted of a few old books belonging
to his father. In 1819 his elder brother William had begun a similar
business, and the two eventually united as partners in the publishing
firm of W. & R. Chambers. Robert Chambers showed an enthusiastic
interest in the history and antiquities of Edinburgh, and found a most
congenial task in his _Traditions of Edinburgh_ (2 vols., 1824), which
secured for him the approval and the personal friendship of Sir Walter
Scott. A _History of the Rebellions in Scotland from 1638 to 1745_ (5
vols., 1828) and numerous other works followed.
In the beginning of 1832 William Chambers started a weekly publication
under the title of _Chambers's Edinburgh Journal_ (known since 1854 as
_Chambers's Journal of Literature, Science and Arts_), which speedily
attained a large circulation. Robert was at first only a contributor.
After fourteen numbers had appeared, however, he was associated with his
brother as joint-editor, and his collaboration contributed more perhaps
than anything else to the success of the _Journal_.
Among the other numerous works of which Robert was in whole or in part
the author, the _Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen_ (4 vols.,
Glasgow, 1832-1835), the _Cyclopaedia of English Literature_ (1844), the
_Life and Works of Robert Burns_ (4 vols., 1851), _Ancient Sea Margins_
(1848), the _Domestic Annals of Scotland_ (3 vols., 1859-1861) and the
_Book of Days_ (2 vols., 1862-1864) were the most important.
_Chambers's Encyclopaedia_ (1859-1868), with Dr Andrew Findlater as
editor, was carried out under the superintendence of the brothers (see
ENCYCLOPAEDIA). The _Cyclopaedia of English Literature_[1] contains a
series of admirably selected extracts from the best authors of every
period, "set in a biographical and critical history of the literature
itself." For the _Life of Burns_ he made diligent and laborious original
investigations, gathering many hitherto unrecorded facts from the poet's
sister, Mrs Begg, to whose benefit the whole profits of the work were
generously devoted. Robert Chambers was a scientific geologist, and
availed himself of tours in Scandinavia and Canada for the purpose of
geological exploration. The results of his travels were embodied in
_Tracings of the North of Europe_ (1851) and _Tracings in Iceland and
the Faroe Islands_ (1856). His knowledge of geology was one of the
principal grounds on which the authorship of the _Vestiges of the
Natural History of Creation_ (2 vols., 1843-1846) was eventually
assigned to him. The book was published anonymously. Robert Chambers was
aware of the storm that would probably be raised at the time by a
rational treatment of the subject, and did not wish to involve his firm
in the discredit that a charge of heterodoxy would bring with it. The
arrangements for publication were made through Alexander Ireland of
Manchester, and the secret was so well kept that such different names as
those of Prince Albert and Sir Charles Lyell were coupled with the book.
Ireland in 1884 issued a 12th edition, with a preface giving an account
of its authorship, which there was no longer any reason for concealing.
The _Book of Days_ was Chambers's last publication, and perhaps his most
elaborate. It was a miscellany of popular antiquities in connexion with
the calendar, and it is supposed that his excessive labour in connexion
with this book hastened his death, which took place at St Andrews on the
17th of March 1871. Two years before, the university of St Andrews had
conferred upon him the degree of doctor of laws, and he was elected a
member of the Athenaeum club in London. It is his highest claim to
distinction that he did so much to give a healthy tone to the cheap
popular literature which has become so important a factor in modern
civilization.
His brother, WILLIAM CHAMBERS (1800-1883) was born at Peebles, on the
16th of April 1800. He was the financial genius of the publishing firm.
He laid the city of Edinburgh under the greatest obligations by his
public spirit and munificence. As lord provost he procured the passing
in 1867 of the Improvement Act, which led to the reconstruction of a
great part of the Old Town, and at a later date he proposed and carried
out, largely at his own expense, the restoration of the noble and then
neglected church of St Giles, making it in a sense "the Westminster
Abbey of Scotland." This service was fitly acknowledged by the offer of
a baronetcy, which he did not live to receive, dying on the 20th of May
1883, three days before the reopening of the church. He was the author
of a history of St Giles's, of a memoir of himself and his brother
(1872), and of many other useful publications. On his death in 1883
Robert Chambers (1832-1888), son of Robert Chambers, succeeded as head
of the firm, and edited the _Journal_ until his death. His eldest son,
Charles Edward Stuart Chambers (b. 1859), became editor of the _Journal_
and chairman of W. & R. Chambers, Limited.
See also _Memoir of Robert Chambers, with Autobiographic Reminiscences
of William Chambers_ (1872), the 13th ed. of which (1884) has a
supplementary chapter; Alexander Ireland's preface to the 12th ed.
(1884) of the _Vestiges of Creation_; the _Story of a Long and Busy
Life_ (1884), by William Chambers; and some discriminating
appreciation in James Payn's _Some Literary Recollections_ (1884),
chapter v. The _Select Writings of Robert Chambers_ were published in
7 vols. in 1847, and a complete list of the works of the brothers is
added to _A Catalogue of Some of the Rarer Books ... in the Collection
of C.E.S. Chambers_ (Edinburgh, 1891).