"I think the statesmanship of Joseph Chamberlain is the most
comprehensive and instructive since that of Bismarck," said a
passenger on an ocean steamer to an Englishman of considerable
distinction in the world of letters.
"I fail to see the statesmanship," said the latter; "will you kindly
point it out?"
"Why," said the admirer of Chamberlain, "the British Empire needed
unifying; it needed to be bound together by ties of sentiment, by all
those means which consolidate a nation. Its connections were too
loose. Chamberlain has, by the Boer War, begun its unification.
Canadians have fallen on the same field with England's soldiers.
"Australians have poured out their blood as a common sacrifice for
England's flag. The empire has been knit together by a common heroism,
a common sacrifice, a common glory, and a common cause. It should not
be hard to induce all portions of the empire to unite on a great
scheme of parliamentary representation. I call that great
statesmanship."
"Yes, indeed it is," said the English litterateur, "but Joseph
Chamberlain never had such a thought."
The point of the conversation is that, whether Mr. Chamberlain had
this thought or not, the _materials for the thought existed_.
Pages:
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290