Dilke and Chamberlain, once closely united through a long period of public life, had now been working apart for more than seven years. Strong minds, that in the collaboration of their earlier policy mutually influenced each other, had by a turn of personal fortune combining with a great political change followed divided destinies; and their evolution carried them far apart. They had met in private, had maintained the personal bond, [Footnote: 'At this time I was searching for a secretary, and Chamberlain found me Hudson, who, as he said, "fulfils all your requirements."' The connection between the secretary and his chief ended only with Sir Charles's death.] and in so meeting must inevitably have been prompted by a desire to minimize differences. But now they stood both again in the public arena--the one returning after the lapse of years, the other sustained by an unbroken continuance of Parliamentary activity--and the situation became difficult. There were not many men who could work with Mr. Chamberlain in equal alliance. For that a man was needed, confident enough in his own weight not to fear being overbalanced in the combination; great enough in nature to be devoid of jealousy; and wise enough to understand that restless activity was the law of his ally's being. Upon those conditions only was it possible for a cooler, more temperate, and, on some subjects, better instructed politician to steer the tremendous motive power which Mr. Chamberlain's personal force afforded. What was lost to the world when the crippling of Sir Charles disjointed that alliance can never be reckoned. Not only the alliance, but the personal intimacy, was broken when their political ways sundered on the Home Rule division. Friendship remained; but it was not possible that men of that mark, who had met incessantly in the closest confederacy, could meet easily when the very groundwork of their intimacy was gone. Sir Charles worked hard for a Bill specially interesting now to his constituents. On April 18th, 1893, 'I wrote to Chamberlain and to Randolph Churchill as to the Miners Bill, as its authors had asked me to lay plans for the debate. From both I had replies favourable to local option, and on my writing again to Chamberlain he answered: "The sentence about the Labour leaders escaped me because I am, I confess, impatient of their extremely unpractical policy, and also because I believe their real influence is immensely exaggerated. A political leader having genuine sympathy with the working classes and a practical programme could, in my opinion, afford to set them aside. Mr. Gladstone has no real sympathy with the working classes, and a perfect hatred for all forms of Socialism. His concessions are extorted from him, and are the price paid for votes, and therefore I do not wonder at the pressure put upon him."'