Decline of Empire

"This is a day of triumph for all the timorous at home and the wicked abroad who want Britain to be small and weak and to count for little," cried Lord Beaverbrook's Daily Express. Last week in the House of Commons, Sir Winston Churchill, who in 1942 defiantly declared that he had not become Prime Minister "to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," sat glum and with bowed head as his government announced that Britain was withdrawing its troops from Egypt.

Socialists, who had suffered under Churchill's taunts of "Scuttle" when they advocated withdrawal from Suez in 1946, thoroughly enjoyed Churchill's discomfiture, greeted him with sardonic cries of "No scuttling." Below the gangway sat 40 grim-faced Tories, the "Suez rebels" sworn to vote against the government rather than accept withdrawal. The first question Opposition Leader Clement Attlee asked was barbed: "In view of the statements which were made by the present Prime Minister on the absolute necessity of having troops in Egypt for the defense of the Suez canal . . . may I ask whether this agreement has the Prime Minister's consent?" There was a roar of delight from the Labor benches; Churchill looked hurt. Slowly he rose, and the House fell quiet. He spread his arms wide and said simply: "I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary."

The Gallant Rebel. Next day from Churchill's own side, Captain Charles Waterhouse rose to speak for the Tory rebels. An ex-Guardsman who is seldom heard on the floor of the House, he was stern and resolved. "We speak in sorrow," he said. "In this piece of paper we have got all that is left of 80 years of British endeavor, thought and forethought." He complained of U.S. pressure: "For many years we have had a little American lamb bleating in Cairo, not helping and if anything hindering in most things. Well, he has got his way . . . We are becoming weary of our responsibilities . . . our burdens are becoming too irksome for us, and we are really losing our will to rule. If that is really happening, then, indeed, it is a sorry day for Britain."

Churchill was goaded to a reply. Said he: "I have not in the slightest degree concealed in public speech how much I regretted the course of events in Egypt. But I had not held my mind closed to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the whole strategic position in the world, which makes the thoughts which were well founded and well knit together a year ago utterly obsolete . . . Merely to try to imagine in outline the first few weeks of a war under conditions about which we did not know when this session commenced . . . would, I am sure, convince honorable gentlemen of the obsolescence of the base . . ." In other words, what Winston Churchill had learned about the H-bomb on his trip to Washington had changed his mind.

"Clear the Lobbies." Added Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden: "What we need now is a working base and not a beleaguered garrison . . . We have to adapt our minds more and more to the conception that countries, wherever they are, do not like to have foreign troops on their soil . . . More and more we shall have to base ourselves upon our own strategic reserve here and our ability to fly it to whatever quarter it is needed."

With fervor, Eden cried: "We shall be creating a new pattern of friendship throughout these Middle-Eastern regions . . . It is the only way we can hope to work with those countries. We cannot hope to work with them by putting 20,000, 30,000, 80,000 men there and telling them what to do. They simply will not do what they are told, and that leads to endless trouble for us all."

As the vote neared, the House was tense. If the Socialists decided to vote against the government (and their own convictions), the 40 Suez rebels could bring the government down. But at the cry of "Clear the lobbies," all but six Socialists sat stolidly in place, and not even all the rebels kept their resolve. By a vote of 257 to 26 (Socialists abstaining), Britain agreed to quit Egypt before it was pushed.

With Suez given up as a permanent base, the British-governed isle of Cyprus assumed greater importance. Last week the Churchill government announced a new constitution as a first step toward mollifying the restive Cypriots who have been demanding union with Greece. It was, said Minister of State for Colonial Affairs Henry Hopkinson, "a first step along the road of constitutional advancement." Did that mean the possibility of independence? It did not.

"There can be no question of a change of sovereignty in Cyprus," said Hopkinson with surprising candor. "It has always been understood and agreed that there are certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to their particular circumstances, can never expect to be fully independent."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.