Empire Lost - Andrew Stewart [102]
The debate itself was recorded as having been marked by some 'plain and straightforward speaking'. There were 27 speakers on the first day, drawn from all the parties, including in their ranks Messrs Winterton, Granville and Shinwell, each notable contributors to the wider debate that had taken place throughout the war. Added to these was an intriguing mix, some from rural wards, others from large cities, some self-avowed Imperialists, others talking of the shameful exploitation that had been suffered by the Colonial Empire. At the end of this opening salvo Hugh Dalton finished on behalf of the government. Time and again he returned to the central position, the forthcoming meeting was to be informal in nature 'conducted between equals at the family council table'.26 Fourteen new speakers rose the following day to add their observations, reflections and, more often than not, their advice as to how the 'Imperial Idea' should be developed in the years to come. Beverley Baxter, Canadian by birth, journalist by trade and Conservative by calling, made perhaps the most telling observation when he noted: 'The neglect of the Empire over the last 25 years is not one of the proudest moments of this great Assembly. It did not matter in those fateful days between the two wars what the particular subject of foreign affairs was, it drew this House like a striptease revue. But once the Dominions or the Empire was being discussed, the indifference was chilling to a degree.' As he concluded, all sides had been as bad as one another and if there had been greater interest in all things Empire, both at home and abroad, it might have been the case that Hitler would have been restrained and the Nazi party would have collapsed.
When Churchill finally rose he did so to tell the House that the debate had been a great success. There followed an opportunity for him to wax lyrical on his understanding of Empire, ideas extolling the spirit of Kipling and sprinkled liberally with historical and anecdotal metaphor. It was the by now traditional tour de force although low on harangue, instead much more soothing in tone and structure. The British Commonwealth and Empire had never been more united but the system needed to be modernized so that those nations involved could be better advised of world events and better aware of what each was thinking. It was a surprisingly progressive speech, in light of many of his wartime observations and instructions, and would appear to have augured well for the conference soon about to begin. According to Time, 'for two days men of all parties hailed Commonwealth and Empire' and it had provided the prime minister with 'a jubilant stage ... in his imperial role'. Even Shinwell, previously noted for his clashes with Churchill on Empire-related questions, seemed prepared to offer him his support. As the magazine noted: 'Every Churchillian turn got a cheer [as] he beamed, waved, chuckled ... Ever jealous of Empire, and now equally committed to world association, Churchill hoped for the best.' Nonetheless it was clear from his comments and the tone of his speech that he was still thinking of a Commonwealth centred in London where the British government could bring greatest influence to bear.27
The gathering of Dominion prime ministers followed shortly afterwards. Because the emphasis was on it being a personal exchange of views and not a full Imperial Conference, they did not bring any ministerial colleagues and were accompanied by a small staff. Fraser and Curtin travelled via the United States. The Canadians flew direct. Smuts flew in his own aircraft to Cairo, accompanied in the end by Sir Godfrey Huggins, the Southern Rhodesian leader, to whom it had been decided to