125-100-75-50 YEARS AGO125 Years Ago:Autumn 1876 • Age 1"I Have the Crown<strong>of</strong> England in My Pocket"Safe in the c<strong>are</strong> <strong>of</strong> his nanny, Mrs.Everest, infant <strong>Winston</strong> was blissfullyunaw<strong>are</strong> <strong>of</strong> the tempest swirlingaround him. His father, Lord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph<strong>Churchill</strong>, was reaping that autumn theharvest he had sown in the spring. Theproblem had arisen when Lord Blandford,Ran<strong>do</strong>lph's older brother and heirto the Duke<strong>do</strong>m, became involved inan illicit affair with Lady Aylesford—whose husband, like Lord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph,was a close friend <strong>of</strong> the Prince <strong>of</strong>Wales. Lord Aylesford had been travelingwith the Prince in India when theinfidelity was disclosed to him in a letterfrom his wayward wife.A public divorce was threatened byLord Aylesford and Lord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph unwiselyintervened on his brother's behalf.As <strong>Winston</strong>'s son Ran<strong>do</strong>lph laterwrote: "Accordingly [Lord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph]took upon himself to call on thePrincess <strong>of</strong> Wales. He was accompaniedby a young newly created peer, Lord Alington.They pointed out to thePrincess that it would be undesirablefor divorce proceedings to be institutedand <strong>they</strong> asked her to tell the Prince tostop Aylesford continuing with his divorceplans. At the same time, LordRan<strong>do</strong>lph let it be widely known thathe had in his possession certain letterswhich the Prince <strong>of</strong> Wales had writtento Lady Aylesford; and Sir CharlesMichael McMenaminLord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph <strong>Churchill</strong> in 1876Dilke recollected that he said: 'I havethe Crown <strong>of</strong> England in my pocket.'"The Prince was incensed to hear <strong>of</strong>Lord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph's visit to his wife, and <strong>of</strong>what Celia Sandys accurately characterizesin her biography <strong>of</strong> her grandfather'schildhood as "b<strong>are</strong>ly disguisedblackmail." The royal displeasure wasoccasioned, in part, because the Prince'sletters demonstrated that her dalliancewith Blandford was not the first instance<strong>of</strong> infidelity by Lady Aylesford,i.e., the Prince had preceded Lord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph'sbrother.In the event, Prime Minister Disraeliwas asked to intervene, and persuadedLord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph's father, theDuke <strong>of</strong> Marlborough, to become theViceroy <strong>of</strong> Ireland. Lord Ran<strong>do</strong>lph leftwith him as his unpaid private secretary,an assignment which effected the exile<strong>of</strong> <strong>Winston</strong>'s p<strong>are</strong>nts from Court andSociety for over three years.100 Years Ago:Autumn 1901 • Age 26"A Particularly Interestingand Rather Amiable Figure"Acentury ago <strong>Churchill</strong> was huntingstags in Scotland with the Kingwho, a quarter century earlier, had ostracizedhis father. He spent most <strong>of</strong>November and early December huntingand shooting as <strong>we</strong>ll. In bet<strong>we</strong>en, hegave a series <strong>of</strong> speeches highly critical<strong>of</strong> the government's prosecution <strong>of</strong> thewar in South Africa.On 4 October he criticized thegovernment's <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>of</strong> amnesty for Boerswho had surrendered by 15 September.By that time, the British had defeatedthe Boer armies in set piece battles an<strong>do</strong>ccupied their capital towns. But, as<strong>Churchill</strong> observed, "[I]t was one thingto defeat the Boer armies and quite anotherto conquer the Boer people." NoBoers had surrendered by 15 September,exposing the government toridicule and abuse in European newspapers;"...what disquiets me, for it is <strong>of</strong>serious and alarming import, is that theGovernment in August should haveknown so little <strong>of</strong> the real situation inSouth Africa," <strong>Churchill</strong> said.<strong>Churchill</strong> attempted to absolve thegovernment <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> its responsibility,blaming instead the miliary counsel<strong>they</strong> <strong>we</strong>re receiving: "All war is a prolongedmuddle, and when a Governmentembarks on war it has to put itselfin a great degree into the hands <strong>of</strong> itsmilitary advisers. And these military adviserssometimes give very peculiar andcontradictory advice."In November, <strong>Churchill</strong> received aletter from the popular science fictionwriter and socialist, H.G. Wells, whoselatest book <strong>Churchill</strong> had criticized."That you should find my estimate <strong>of</strong>the rapidity <strong>of</strong> development excessive,"FINEST HOUR 112/32
125-100-75-50 YEARS AGOWells wrote, "is simply due to the differencein our social circumstances. Youbelong to a class that has scarcely alteredinternally in a hundred years. Ifyou could be transported by somemagic into the Household <strong>of</strong> your ancestors<strong>of</strong> 1800, a <strong>we</strong>ek would makeyou at home with them....But <strong>of</strong> thefour grandp<strong>are</strong>nts who represented mein 1800 it's highly probable two couldnot read & that any <strong>of</strong> them would findme and that I should find them as alienas contemporary Chinese. I really <strong>do</strong>not <strong>think</strong> that your people who gatherin great country houses realize the pace<strong>of</strong> things."In a second letter a few days later,Wells wrote: "It will interest metremen<strong>do</strong>usly to make your acquaintance.To me you <strong>are</strong> a particularly interesting& rather amiable figure....Ispeculate whether you anticipate thatwhen you <strong>are</strong> sixty you will be in orupon a Conservative Party with a Liberalopposition & an Irish Corner in aBritish or Imperial Parliament & if notwhere you expect to be."75 Years Ago:Autumn 1926 • Age 51"Lapped up like CatsDrinking Cream"<strong>Churchill</strong> was preoccupied with mediatingan end to the coal strike,something which did not happen until20 November. Despite his anti-laborreputation, <strong>Churchill</strong> was far moresympathetic to the miners' plight thanother Tories. But he saw both sidesclearly, including the fact that an earliergovernment subsidy had been soughtby the owners solely to buy labor peace.As Sir Martin Gilbert writes: "Havinggone much further in his efforts at mediationthan several <strong>of</strong> his colleagueswanted, and having exposed himself totheir anger, <strong>Churchill</strong> was disappointedby the miners' refusal to accept hiscompromise, and became increasinglyangry at the attitudes now a<strong>do</strong>pted byboth the miners and the owners. Bothsides, he believed, had only been preventedfrom reaching a settlement because<strong>of</strong> extremists in their ranks."This is illustrated by <strong>Churchill</strong>'s responseto a young Conservative MP,Robert Boothby, who had written WSCencouragingly on 9 October. <strong>Churchill</strong>replied: "The Miners get 10 l/2d out <strong>of</strong>every shilling <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>its calculated on anagreed basis. If this is not good enoughfor them, <strong>they</strong> ought to find somethingelse to <strong>do</strong>. There <strong>are</strong> t<strong>we</strong>lve hundredthousand living on the same coal-outputwhich sustained a million t<strong>we</strong>ntyyears ago. There <strong>are</strong> too many miners.In trying to divide work <strong>they</strong> have dividedwages. Anyhow the rest <strong>of</strong> thecountry is not going to pay a shilling tokeep the miners on an artificial level. Somuch for the economics."In a speech on 28 October, WSCsaid: "I am going to tell you a secret. Iam not in favour <strong>of</strong> the mine owners orthe miners. I am against both. They <strong>are</strong>thoroughly unreasonable in the attitude<strong>they</strong> have taken from beginning toend....Both sides lapped up the [coal]subsidy like cats drinking cream andthought no more <strong>of</strong> the future thanthose <strong>do</strong>mestic animals...."Earlier that month, to the Institute<strong>of</strong> Actuaries in Lon<strong>do</strong>n, <strong>Churchill</strong> gaveone more <strong>of</strong> his many prescientspeeches in the T<strong>we</strong>nties. Using statistics,he forecast what England wouldlook like in 1970: "[w]e will see a smallincrease in the total population, a verymarked increase <strong>of</strong> aged persons, an increaseparticularly in women after middleage, and an actual decline in theproportion <strong>of</strong> adult males. But let usnot be discouraged. Science and civilizationwill bring with them, if diey <strong>are</strong>properly used, compensatory resources."50 Years Ago:Autumn 1951 'Age 76"Hanging in the Balance"<strong>Churchill</strong> kicked <strong>of</strong>f his fourteenthGeneral Election Campaign with aspeech on 2 October at the stadium inLiverpool, where he set the tone forwhat was to become a bitter campaign:"I never had the same feeling—no, noteven in the war—that I have now thatthe future <strong>of</strong> our country is hanging inthe balance....A mood <strong>of</strong> deep anxiety,mingled with bewilderment, oppressesthe nation."In a radio broadcast on 8 October,<strong>Churchill</strong> summed up the party differences:"Our opponents say: 'The morecontrols and restrictions <strong>we</strong> have thene<strong>are</strong>r <strong>we</strong> approach the Socialist ideal.'The Conservatives say: 'The fe<strong>we</strong>r <strong>we</strong>have the better for a vigorous and expandingBritain.' The difference bet<strong>we</strong>enour outlook and the Socialistoutlook on life is the difference bet<strong>we</strong>enthe ladder and the queue. We <strong>are</strong> forthe ladder. Let all try their best toclimb. They <strong>are</strong> for the queue. Let eachwait in his place till his turn comes."The Socialists retaliated with anasty campaign accusing <strong>Churchill</strong> <strong>of</strong>being a warmonger, but the tactic probablybackfired. In the election, althoughthe Conservatives lost the popular voteto Labour by less than 250,000 votesout <strong>of</strong> over 28 million, <strong>they</strong> won 321seats in Parliament to Labour's 295.<strong>Winston</strong> was back.<strong>Churchill</strong> set about with great energyto put together his new cabinet,naming himself once more as Minister<strong>of</strong> Defence, on which he addressed theHouse December 6th. In the debatewhich follo<strong>we</strong>d, <strong>Churchill</strong> rose to paytribute to his opposite number,Emanuel Shin<strong>we</strong>ll, the former Minister<strong>of</strong> Defence: "We have our party battlesand bitterness...but I have always feltand have always testified, even in moments<strong>of</strong> party strife, to the Rt HonGentleman's sterling patriotism and tothe fact that his heart is in the rightplace where the life and strength <strong>of</strong> ourcountry <strong>are</strong> concerned. Tonight he hasmade a speech which was the moststatesmanlike, if he will allow me to sayso, that I have heard him make in thisHouse in those days that <strong>we</strong> have gonethrough. I am so glad to be able to saytonight, in these very few moments,that the spirit which has animated theRt Hon Gentleman in the main discharge<strong>of</strong> his great duties was one whichhas, in peace as <strong>we</strong>ll as in war, added tothe strength and security <strong>of</strong> our country."<strong>Churchill</strong> might have said histheme was: "change the tone." $5IFINEST HOUR 112/33