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),