The following is my foreword only to an analysis of the recent Churchill College panel, by Zewditu Gebreyohanes and Andrew Roberts. They followed a maxim of Randolph Churchill in the official biography: “I am interested only in the truth.” Every Churchill scholar is in their debt.

Foreword

Eighty-eight years ago Hitler became Chancellor of Germany and the Oxford Union passed a resolution: “That this House refuses in any circumstances to fight for King and Country.” A week later Winston Churchill said: “We have all seen with a sense of nausea the abject, squalid, shameless avowal made in the Oxford Union. We are told that we ought not to treat it seriously. The Times talked of ‘the Children’s Hour.’ I disagree. It is a very disquieting and disgusting symptom.”

Eight decades later Churchill himself is the target of disquieting and disgusting symptoms. Last year the Oxford Union resolved: “This House believes the British Empire is a national disgrace.”Three speakers argued the affirmative. The lone aberrant was the historian Zareer Masani. “I single-handedly contested a blatantly partisan motion and was constantly heckled,” he writes, “with no attempt by the chair or secretary to maintain order.” (Dr. Masani’s doughty riposte can be seen here.)

This year on 11 February, Cambridge, Oxford’s sometime rival, chimed in with a panel, “The Racial Consequences of Mr. Churchill.” The title spins off John Maynard Keynes’s 1925 critique, The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill. The difference was that Keynes, a scholar, offered a serious intellectual argument.

The racial imaginarium

Unlike Oxford, Cambridge, didn’t bother to hold an alleged debate. No panelists were historians. One confused Ernest Bevin with Aneurin Bevan. All three, and the moderator, agreed. Sir Winston was a racist basking in the wartime legend he created. The British Empire was worse than the Third Reich.

Herewith two fastidious seekers of truth, Andrew Roberts and Zewditu Gebreyohanes, respond to the Cambridge panel, point by point.

As in 1933, there are those who tell us not to take this seriously. Trimmers who profess admiration for Churchill excuse it by saying that, after all, it’s only free speech. A better description would be flagrant injustice. We can argue all day about the pros and cons of Winston Churchill or the British Empire or the American Founding. If we do it seriously, with respect and intellectual curiosity, we advance our ability to draw our own conclusions.

But “a seat of learning,” as Charles Moore wrote in the Daily Telegraph, “must uphold learning.” To salt a panel with prejudiced speakers, presenting only the negatives, allowing no contrary opinion, is not serious academic enquiry. It is blindness by those who never hear the other side, don’t want to hear it, and don’t want others to hear. It’s character assassination. Or at least, confession of the weakness of the argument.

“If all you have is a hammer…”

The reaction to Roberts/Gebreyohanes was not long in coming. Instead of engaging on any single one of their points, it consisted of pejoratives. They produced “a dishonest and racist paper.” They want “academics of colour who challenge the Empire shut down.” In other words: disagree with us and you’re a racist.

An old saying provides the answer to that: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Click here to read Roberts/Gebreyohanes.

In 1966, the ESU Philadelphia Branch hosted an exhibit of my Churchill biographical stamp collection at the Philadelphia National Bank. It was the first public appearance of whatever limited Churchill knowledge I then had, my “awakening” as a Churchillian. I have a warm memory of the experience—but doubts about that secondhand quote.

Why secondhand?

It’s secondhand because it’s from a second party—not something we can track to Churchill’s published works. I searched Hillsdale College’s digital scans of 75 million published words by and about him. This includes his own 20 million words and over 50 million about him. It includes all his published books, articles, speeches and papers, along with biographies, memoirs and studies by others. Neither the full quote nor its components could be found.

There were no hits for “speak in this country.” There were 15 hits for “you can do anything,” and one came close. This was a speech in the House of Commons, 22 August 1916. (Robert Rhodes James, ed., Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches 1897-1963, III, 2490.) He was referring to the successful organization of war tribunals: “You can do anything in this country,” he said,  if you have the will and the intention to do it.”

Obviously that’s not good enough, I advised the ESU. So their quote seemed to be another example of secondhand invention—”Churchillian Drift.”

A Solid source

Think again! Natasha Goodfellow of UK branch of the ESU took those comments and raised me one with excellent research. Quintin Hogg, Lord Hailsham, reported the remark in 1975, she wrote. She sent a newspaper cutting from The Observer of 11 May 1975. While the quote remains secondhand, the evidence gives it real validity—and some current interest.

On 5 June 1975, Britain held a referendum on membership in the European Union. Its successor, the European Union, is what Britain has now just left. The 1975 vote was 2:1 in favor of what was then, of course, a Free Trade association. The more objectional developments came later, with the Maastricht Treaty and subsequent loss of sovereignty. Hailsham was a judge for the 17th John Smith Memorial Mace Award for the Schools Debating Association. The winner defeated the motion, “That this House disapproves of the Referendum.”

In criticizing the debaters, Lord Hailsham said most students spoke too quickly. “Even if the speaker thought his audience was incompetent, it was not wise to make that clear.” Hailsham had further advice: Avoid Latin quips (Churchill certainly did that). Avoid clichés (like “Ship of State”). Imitate nobody (Churchill imitated his father). Above all, he added, “remember what Churchill told him” after “a magnificent speech at the Oxford Union: ‘If you can speak in this country, you can do anything.’” (The italics are Hailsham’s.)

When secondhand is valid

Given Ms. Goodfellow’s evidence, I at once advised the ESU to consider this quote genuine—provided they include the italics, which add authority by sounding exactly like Churchillian phraseology. What clinches it, however, is the reliability of the source.

Lord Hailsham (1907-2001) was a distinguished Parliamentarian. His first role in Whitehall was as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Air in the 1945 Churchill government. He later served as First Lord of the Admiralty, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council. He was a a candidate to succeed Harold Macmillan as prime minister in 1963, and renounced his hereditary peerage to be eligible. But he was passed over in favor of the Earl of Home. He was created a life peer in 1970 and served as Lord Chancellor, the office formerly held by his father, until 1987.

The validity of secondhand quotes depends on the reliability of the quoter. Lord Moran and Lord Boothby, for example, tended to exaggerate and elaborate. Their reported diaries contained much that was not contemporary, written long after the fact. Churchill colleagues and confidants like Lord Soames or Sir Anthony Montague Browne were more fastidious, almost invariably reliable. Lord Hailsham belongs in the latter category.

I will gladly add this second but reliable quip to the 500 new quotations in the next edition of my book, Churchill by Himself, “if there is one.” (As Churchill reportedly said, but didn’t, to George Bernard Shaw about the next performance of a new play.)

A remaining question…

It would be nice to know which Oxford Union speech this was. Perhaps a kind reader will care to speculate? Clearly, Churchill said this after swimming against the tide—as he almost always did at the Union.

Update for 2019

Assault and battery…

* * *

* * *

Nearly forty years ago an equally great Churchill performance, Robert Hardy in The Wilderness Years,  was received with equal acclaim by press and public. Most importantly, there was no chorus of hate, no trumped-up charges, no hint that Churchill’s overall record was in anything except positive. Alas times have changed.