Volume 12, Number 2
February - March 2005
A Short History of
The Round Table
A confidante of
Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner was another supporter of
imperial federation, which he saw as but a means to perpetuate
British power in the guise of a supranational state encompassing the
UK and all its Dominions.
ALFRED MILNER: SERVANT OF EMPIRE
Having such considerable political and economic power at his
disposal, Cecil Rhodes had the luxury of being able to delegate
responsibility for realizing his vision to other figures within the
British Establishment; of these, Alfred Milner was to become his
Of English and German parentage, Milner spent his early years in
Germany before moving to England in 1869. He attended Oxford as an
undergraduate from 1872 to 1876, becoming one of its more
distinguished students. He was president of the Oxford Union in 1875
and later achieved first-class honours. Although at Oxford at the
same time as Rhodes, and even in the same clubs, remarkably there is
no evidence that they actually knew each other at that time.
His post-Oxford career also followed a somewhat different path to
that of Rhodes. In 1881 Milner became a journalist for the
Gazette, working with William Stead and eventually rising to the
position of assistant editor. In the mid-1880s he dabbled in
politics, making an unsuccessful run for Parliament in 1885. Milner
then moved into the public service, attaining a number of senior
positions befitting an Oxford-educated man, including: private
secretary to George Goschen, Chancellor of the Exchequer;
Undersecretary to the Egyptian Ministry of Finance from 1889 to
1892; and, on his return to England, Chairman of the Internal
Revenue Board. In February 1897 he was appointed High Commissioner
for South Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony, a dual appointment
that was to prove to be one of the highlights of his Government
Unlike Rhodes’s, Milner’s exposure to the idea of imperial
federation can be definitively traced to individuals he met while
studying at Oxford. The primary source of this inspiration was
prominent Canadian author George Parkin, who visited Oxford in 1873.
Parkin had impressed and inspired Milner at an Oxford Union debate
where he had argued for "a closer union between England and her
colonies" in the form of an "Imperial Federation".42 They
subsequently became lifelong friends, and Parkin’s vigorous advocacy
of imperial federation had a strong influence on Milner. Just before
taking up his post in South Africa in 1897, Milner wrote to
telling him that he had been "greatly influenced" by his ideas and
that in his new position he would feel "more than ever" a need for
Parkin’s "enthusiasm and broad hopeful view of the Imperial
Milner also alluded to Parkin’s influence in his book The British
Commonwealth (1919), noting that it was at Oxford where he had been
"first stirred by a new vision of the future of the British Empire".
In his Parkin-inspired vision, the Empire became a "world-encircling
group of related nations... united on a basis of equality and
partnership, and... by moral and spiritual bonds".44
Post-Oxford, Milner’s support for imperial federation received
further reinforcement during his time as assistant editor at the
Pall Mall Gazette. As we saw in part one, William Stead, the
Gazette’s editor and later friend of Rhodes, was an enthusiastic
supporter of reforming the British Empire and of a much closer
Anglo-American relationship. This was reflected in the Gazette’s
"Gospel", a lengthy document which endorsed the "political union" of
all the "English-speaking states" on the pessimistic grounds that:
"The Federation of the British Empire is the condition of its
survival. As an Empire we must federate or perish."
also stated that "inevitable destiny" would compel Britain and the
US to "coalesce". When he left the Gazette, Milner remained on good
terms with Stead and in frequent contact, even while posted to
Egypt, with imperial unity often the topic of their
Milner’s definitive personal statement of his support for imperial
federation is his so-called "Credo", a document written late in his
life and not published until after his death in 1925 by the
Times—then under the editorship of fellow Round Table member
Geoffrey Dawson. The Credo expressed Milner’s thoughts about the
British Empire that he had held since Oxford. It was also an
affirmation of Milner’s belief in the inherent superiority of the
British people as a race and culture. The Credo was also
way of definitively identifying himself as British, effectively
repudiating his German parentage. In the Credo, Milner declared
himself a "British Race Patriot" and "a Nationalist and not a
cosmopolitan". Milner, however, recognized that Britain was "no
longer a power in the world which it once was" and he expressed the
hope that the Dominions could be "kept as an entity". He redefined
the British state from a purely geographical unit to one based on
race: wherever British people were in appreciable numbers should be
considered part of Britain.46
For Milner, imperial federation was but an end in itself—one that
would preserve and perpetuate British power in the guise of a
supranational state encompassing the United Kingdom and all its
Dominions. He had made this sentiment quite clear as early as 1885
in a speech he delivered while campaigning for Parliament. Milner’s
speech not only expressed views that he would retain for the rest of
his life—as revealed in his Credo—but also exposed his apparent
conviction that imperial federation would hasten world peace.
…I am no cosmopolitan… I think we can foresee a time when the great
Anglo-Saxon Confederation throughout the world, with its members
self-governing in their domestic concerns, but firmly united for the
purposes of mutual protection, will not only be the most splendid
political union that the world has ever known, but also the best
security for universal peace.47
However, unlike Rhodes and Stead,
skeptical that an
Anglo-American re-union was possible. In fact, he was wary of
American intentions and did not believe the division caused by the
American Revolution could be so easily reversed.
"No doubt a great
many Americans are thoroughly friendly to us," Milner was to write
to a colleague in 1909, "but a great number are hostile. The best
thing we can hope for is to keep on good terms with them. I neither
anticipate nor desire anything more."48
For Milner, preserving the
British Empire in some new form was the highest priority; the goal
of recovering the US he regarded as an unrealistic distraction.
More importantly, Milner did not share Rhodes’s obvious enthusiasm
for enlarging the British Empire. In 1884, for example, Milner
explained to the Secretary of the Oxford Liberal Association his
I am not anxious to extend the bounds of an Empire already vast or
to increase responsibilities already onerous. But if I desire to
limit the sphere of our actions abroad, it is in order that within
this limited sphere we may be more and not less vigorous, resolute &
Serving the British Empire in Cairo, Milner maintained this view in
1890, telling colleagues that he had always been "for strong
unwavering masterful assertion of our power within reasonable
limits" and had "no sympathy with the lust for unlimited Empire".50
Noting the erosion of Britain’s imperial footprint in China, for
instance, Milner recommended against attempts to limit the
expansionist aims of other imperial powers. "The true answer to
them," Milner wrote to his former employer Goschen in 1898, "is to
strengthen our own position in quarters, where we on our side, can
be masters if we choose…"51
In a 1906 speech, he was more explicit:
Our object is not domination or
aggrandizement. It is consolidation
and security… [W]e wish the kindred peoples under the British family
to remain one united family forever.52
Consolidation was Milner’s aim, and
imperial federation was a means
to that end.
In a piece praising Milner, written by one of the Round Table’s few
American members in 1915, it was claimed that he favoured "a
genuinely democratic conception of government".53 But, in reality,
Milner was contemptuous of democracy. Despite his earlier service to
parliamentarians, his own political aspirations and his later
service in Lloyd George’s War Cabinet, he was scornful of that "mob
at Westminster". "I regard it as a necessary evil,"
Milner wrote of
democracy in a letter to fellow Round Table member Lionel Curtis on
27 November 1915; "I accept it without enthusiasm, but with absolute
loyalty, to make the best of it."54
Milner was also a socialist, though some observers suggest he
adopted more of a Germanic or "Bismarckian state socialism" that favoured the application of political will or state planning rather
than natural forces to achieve desired outcomes. According to Stokes, Milner sought to fit people into a "pre-arranged scheme of
society"; the people were not to be involved in its creation.
Milner’s enthusiasm for this state-socialist model stemmed from his
"early faith in a planned society conceived and ordered by the
scientific intelligence". Influenced by Otto von Bismarck’s methods
of uniting the Germanic people under one state, Milner had as his
goal the consolidation of all the British people through an act of
political will rather than through popular consent.55
Rhodes was no longer Prime Minister of the Cape Colony when
arrived to take up his new posting, but he remained a powerful and
influential figure. That the two men dealt with each other regularly
is confirmed by most accounts, but they do not seem to have been too
close. Milner claimed that he got on "capitally" with
professed to admire his abilities as "a great developer", although
he found the Colossus of Africa "too self-willed, too violent, too
sanguine, and always in too much of a hurry".56
There was also suspicion: despite his admiration for Rhodes,
privately admitted to finding him "enormously untrustworthy", and
believed Rhodes would "give away" Milner or anybody else "to gain
the least of [his] private ends".57
Rhodes, in contrast, seemed to have few such qualms about the wily
Milner. According to Rhodes’s private secretary, Philip Jourdan, the
Colossus "had the highest opinion of the abilities of Lord Milner as
an administrator" and the two "frequently met in South Africa and
discussed political matters".58 Such was
Rhodes’s regard for the
bureaucrat that in July 1901 he asked Milner—who was already privy
to Rhodes’s secret society scheme—to become one of his trustees.
Milner was suitably obliging, accepting with a letter expressing his
"complete sympathy" for Rhodes’s "broad ambitions for the [British]
race".59 It was perhaps inevitable that the more reliable
steeped in the ways of the British Establishment and possessing a
more level-headed personality and unstinting devotion to the cause
of imperial unity, became Rhodes’s preferred heir to realize his
dream of imperial federation.
As for the easily overawed and socially crusading Stead, Rhodes
removed his name from his final will, citing Stead’s "extraordinary
eccentricity"—a reference to both his support for the Boers and what
Whyte describes as Stead’s newfound "obsession with spooks".60
During the 1890s, Stead had developed a growing fascination with the
paranormal, including clairvoyance, ghosts and communicating with
He was a Theosophist and had met the founder of Theosophy,
Madame Blavatsky, in 1888 when she came to London.
Stead admitted to being
both "delighted with" and "repelled by" Blavatsky, but the
relationship was such that she later sent the Theosophist Secret
Doctrine to his offices for review.61 These interests had diminished
his public standing and had obviously raised doubts in Rhodes’s mind
as to his overall reliability. Milner, in contrast, had no such
stains on his public reputation or eccentricities.
VISIONS OF IMPERIAL UNITY
The identification of Milner and Rhodes with the cause of
federation is not because their vision was unique, but because of
the means by which they sought to achieve it. Indeed, the idea of
imperial federation was not the property of Milner, Rhodes, Ruskin, Parkin or Stead, but had a history stretching back to the time of
the American War of Independence. Adam Smith, for example, raised
the idea in his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations (1776). Recognizing that the dispute stemmed from the
American colonists’ refusal to be "taxed by a parliament in which
they are not represented", Smith advocated that representation be
ensured through "the union of Great Britain with her colonies".
To this end, he envisaged an "assembly which deliberates and decides
concerning the affairs of every part of the empire" and which would
"have representatives from every part of [the empire]".62
Smith’s vision was, however, very much ahead of its time, and the
idea of imperial union or federation did not re-emerge in Britain
until the 1820s when an increasing number of colonies appeared to be
agitating for self-government. Fearing that the Empire might break
up, a growing number of British parliamentarians, journalists,
businessmen and other influential figures endorsed the idea of the
colonies having some form of direct or indirect representation in
The debates over this issue canvassed three options for "Empire
parliamentary—the colonies having sitting members in
Westminster, while retaining their own legislature
extra-parliamentary—the colonies being represented in Westminster by
agents acting alone or together as a Colonial Board
super-parliamentary—the imperial federation model of a central
These debates were short-lived, though, once it became
apparent that relatively few colonies were sufficiently well
established or at odds with London to want to break away from
The idea surfaced again in the 1870s and 1880s, then in reaction to
the threat posed to Britain’s great power status by Russia, the
United States and Germany. During this new round of political
debates over imperial federation, the concept of an imperial council
emerged as the most popular option.
In a speech in 1872, for example, Benjamin Disraeli, then Leader of
the Opposition, endorsed the idea of a "representative council" in
Westminster "which would have brought the colonies into constant and
continuing relations with the Home Government".
Other advocates suggested the creation of a special Colonial Council
or a Colonial Committee in the Privy Council.64
At the forefront of these late 19th century efforts to promote
imperial federation was one of the Round Table’s predecessors — the
Imperial Federation League (IFL). Founded in 1884 by
Francis de Labilliere, an Australian lawyer, and Sir John Colomb, formerly of
the British Royal Navy, the League aimed to "secure by Federation
the unity of the Empire" by uniting Britain with its colonies in
Parkin and Milner were both involved in the IFL;
Milner’s role was
indirect, while Parkin’s was as a full-time agent of the group,
conducting tours of Australia and New Zealand on the
and later becoming its chief speaker and propagandist. Following the IFL’s demise in 1893, Milner was instrumental in raising funds so
Parkin could continue to promote the cause of imperial federation,
although the funding was insufficient to sustain this effort for
THE "SOCIETY OF THE ELECT"
Rhodes took his own first steps towards imperial federation on 5
February 1891 when he and Stead agreed on the structure of the
secret society, or "Society of the Elect", that he had sought since
1877. Like Weishaupt’s
Illuminati, this proposed
secret society had
an elaborate hierarchical structure, based on that of
which comprised: at the top, the position of "General of the
Society"—a position modelled on the General of the Jesuits—to be
occupied by Rhodes, with Stead and Lord Rothschild as his designated
successors; an executive committee called the "Junta of Three",
comprising Stead, Milner and Reginald Baliol Brett (Lord Esher);
then a "Circle of Initiates", consisting of a number of notables
including Cardinal Manning, Lord Arthur Balfour, Lord Albert Grey
and Sir Harry Johnston; and outside of this was the "Association of
Helpers", the broad mass of the Society.67
One of the puzzles surrounding this meeting is whether the "Society
of the Elect" actually came into being. Quigley claims in
and Hope (1966) that Rhodes’s "Society of the Elect" was not only
"formally established" in 1891, but also that its "outer circle
known as the ’Association of Helpers’" was "later
Milner as the Round Table".68
In his posthumous book, The Anglo-American Establishment (1981),
Quigley insists that the Society had been formed and that the
disappearance of the secret society idea from Rhodes’s sixth and
seventh wills in favour of the scholarships was only a calculated
ruse. The scholarships were "merely a façade to conceal the secret
society", which had remained Rhodes’s objective right through to his
death.69 Other researchers, though, have been less certain.
Billington, for example, challenges Whyte’s contention that the
organization was "stillborn", acknowledging the Society "did organize in a provisional sense" between 1889 and 1891, yet he
argues that Quigley ignored its ineffectiveness and eventual
Evidence that for a time the Society did exist in some form can be
found scattered in various places. For instance, Stead had already
formed the "Association of Helpers" by 1890, when he founded
of Reviews as a means of making Rhodes’s secret society idea—in
another Illuminati-like touch—"presentable to the public without in
any way revealing the esoteric truth behind it" (Stead).
his contribution with the Review and the Helpers, Rhodes
enthusiastically told Stead: "You have begun to realize my idea..."
Further progress appeared to have been made in 1891 when Lord Esher
and Milner, according to Stead’s account, both agreed to participate
in the Society.71
There are other tantalizing fragments of evidence, though they are
incomplete. According to Marlowe, for instance, it was while
visiting England in April 1891 that Milner saw Stead, who "talked to
him about Cecil Rhodes and his scheme for an imperial secret
society". Yet Marlowe cannot tell us if Milner decided to join.
He also notes that Milner met with George Parkin, Lord Roseberry and
Lord Esher, all named by Quigley as known or suspected
"initiates".72 In addition,
Rotberg records that Rhodes met with Esher during his 1891 visit to Britain and later corresponded with
him about forming a secret league of "the English race", in which
each member would be required to find two more supporters. "It could
begin with you," Esher wrote to Rhodes, "and might well roll up
We also find, in an exchange with Stead in April 1900, in which he
explained that Stead would no longer be a trustee (because of
Stead’s opposition to the Anglo–Boer War), that
the existence of their "Society":
How can our Society be worked if each one sets himself up as the
sole judge of what ought to be done? Just look at the position here.
We three are South Africa, all of us your boys. I myself, Milner and
[F. Edmund] Garrett, all of whom learned politics from you—and yet
instead of deferring to the judgment of your own boys you fling
yourself into violent opposition to the war.74
Yet in this very exchange, which Quigley cites as evidence of the
enduring nature of the Society, we can also see the signs that
Society was not functioning as effectively or as smoothly as Rhodes
had envisaged. Milner, Esher, Stead, Rothschild and
there is a dearth of evidence that any of the others named in
Rhodes’s wish list was approached or agreed to participate in his
More importantly, it would appear that events in southern Africa,
coupled with Rhodes’s growing health problems, were of greater
concern to his thinking than his broader imperial schemes. Thus in
1894, citing his increasingly onerous financial commitments in
southern Africa, Rhodes refused a request from Stead to provide a
promised income of £5,000 a year to the Association of Helpers, by
then in rapid decline, effectively killing that part of his
Judging this apparent fiasco, we can best surmise that Rhodes’s
infectious enthusiasm in this case clearly exceeded the practicality
of his idea. But it would be a mistake to conclude that he abandoned
THE RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS
Rhodes did not lose his enthusiasm for Anglo-American leadership of
an imperial federation, but, as his health deteriorated and events
in southern Africa continued to dominate his time and thinking, he
turned to other means of achieving his goal posthumously. By the
late 1890s, instead of a secret society Rhodes embraced the idea of
a scholarship for white men drawn from the British Empire and the
United States. In choosing this course, Rhodes appears to have been
influenced by the arguments of Astley Cooper, editor of the
periodical Greater Britain and an ally of Stead, and Thomas Beare,
from the University of Edinburgh.
During the 1890s, Cooper and Beare had advocated the concept of
"Empire scholarships", with the aim of strengthening "those
invisible ties... which will keep together... the Anglo-Saxon race".
Rhodes ruminated on the scholarship idea throughout the last decade
of his life, eventually incorporating it into his sixth and seventh
wills. However, it was in his final will of 1 July 1899 that the
idea took its penultimate form as the "Rhodes Scholarships".76
Rhodes’s detailed instructions for the scholarship scheme provided
for 60 students from the Empire, 32 from the United States and a
smaller number from Germany to be taught and accommodated at Oxford
for one year. The primary objective of the scholarships, according
to Rhodes’s will, was to instill in the minds of the students "the
advantages to the Colonies as well as to the United Kingdom of the
retention of the unity of the Empire".77
While his vision of imperial unity has not been achieved, Rhodes’s
scholarship scheme has become one of his more enduring and
successful legacies. A disproportionate number of its candidates
have achieved high office. For example, prominent Rhodes Scholarship
alumni include the former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke and US
President Bill Clinton, as well as at least 9 senior officials in
the Clinton Administration and 11 in the Kennedy Administration.
This has prompted some observers to claim that the Rhodes
Scholarships have produced a "permanent party of government as it
exists in law, business, intelligence, diplomacy and the military" (Hitchens).78
While such claims are debatable—there appear to be few Rhodes
Scholars in the current Bush Administration — there can be little
doubt that the Rhodes Scholarships have advanced the careers of many
aspiring politicians and bureaucrats to a remarkable degree.
Although the "Society of the Elect" failed to eventuate in
lifetime — itself cut short by heart failure in March 1902 — Milner,
with his so-called "Kindergarten", had inadvertently planted the
seeds of its realization in southern Africa.
The Kindergarten was a group of young Oxford graduates, mostly from
New College, who had been drawn to southern Africa to serve in the
British colonial administration during and after the Boer War
(1899–1902). They included J. F. (Peter) Perry,
Lionel Curtis, Hugh
Wyndham, Patrick Duncan, Geoffrey Robinson (who took up the surname
Dawson in 1917), Philip Kerr, Lionel Hichens,
Richard Feetham and
Robert H. Brand. This group of recruits, almost all in their
twenties and unmarried, came with a belief in the superiority of
English civilization and a strong commitment to imperialism,
fulfilling Milner’s criteria of having "brains and character". They
served under Milner to reconstruct the devastated Boer republics and
were all inspired by his visions of a united South Africa and an
imperial federation. For the members of the Kindergarten,
"the centre of their world" (Kendle); he was their "father-figure
and Socrates", whom they considered "the fountainhead of political
wisdom and the greatest statesman of the Empire" (Nimocks).79
Milner had first ventured to southern Africa convinced that it was
the "weakest link" in the British Empire; to "prevent it snapping"
and to maintain British supremacy in Africa, he believed that waging
war on the Boers would be necessary.80 When
Milner retired in April
1905 in the wake of bitter controversy over his plan to import
indentured Chinese labour, he returned to Britain deeply pessimistic
about South Africa’s future in the British Empire. This view was not
shared by the Kindergarten, whose members remained convinced they
could finish the work that Milner and Rhodes had started (it was
their machinations that had contributed to the outbreak of the Boer
War) and integrate the now devastated and defeated
Boer states into
To push the cause for closer unity in South Africa, the
employed a number of measures aimed at shaping popular and elite
opinion. Drawing on a range of funds, including The Rhodes Trust,81
the Kindergarten kept out of public view as much as possible while
carefully managing their propaganda organs, seeking to create
support for union. These methods of organized propaganda included
their periodical The State, which Kindergarten members edited from
1907 to 1909, and the formation of Closer Union Societies, which
further propagated unification propaganda but under the guise of
bipartisan political leadership. Finally, a united South Africa was
popularized in the lengthy propaganda pieces The Selborne Memorandum
and The Government of South Africa, both written by Kindergarten
member Lionel Curtis (1872–1955).82
It is questionable, though, that the Kindergarten’s role was as
pivotal as its members chose to believe. Well before the
Kindergarten had launched its campaign, Britain was already
receptive to the idea of a united South Africa. Moreover, key
leaders Jan Smuts and Louis Botha, confident that they would in time
dominate the proposed union, had also embraced the concept.
According to historian Norman Rose, for example, despite their "at
times, hysterical lobbying", which often did no more than soften the
opinion of British settlers, the Kindergarten in fact played "a
Nimocks, in his detailed history of the Kindergarten, is more
dismissive of the movement’s impact on South African unification:
It is obvious… that Milner’s young men did not unite
Their efforts were important in bringing closer union to the
attention of the general population and keeping it there. And
members of the group did exert some influence upon those, both
British and Boer, who determined the final form of the constitution.
But forces far more powerful than anything the kindergarten could
muster were responsible for South African unification.84
But in the overall scheme of things, such observations are perhaps
redundant, for, as Kendle notes, the Kindergarten "left
convinced of the merits of organized propaganda and
behind-the-scenes discussion", which they now hoped to apply to the
unification of the British Empire as a whole.85 Having consolidated
the colonies of southern Africa, they now set their sights on the
41. Walter Nimocks, Milner’s Young Men: the "Kindergarten" in
Edwardian Imperial Affairs, Duke University Press, 1968, pp. 8-10;
John E. Kendle, The Round Table Movement and Imperial Union,
University of Toronto Press, 1975, pp. 6-7; and Robert I. Rotberg
with Miles F. Shore, The Founder: Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of
Power, Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 106.
42. Quoted in John Evelyn Wrench, Alfred Lord Milner: The Man of No
Illusions, 1854–1925, Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd, 1958, pp. 44-45.
43. Quoted in Kendle, The Round Table Movement, p. 6.
44. Quoted in Nimocks, Milner’s Young Men, p. 13.
45. Frederic Whyte, The Life of W. T. Stead, Jonathan Cape, 1925,
vol. II, pp. 12-13, 322-323 (including quotes); Nimocks, Milner’s
Young Men, p. 14.
46. Quoted in Kendle, The Round Table Movement, pp. 7-8.
47. Quoted in A. M. Gollin, Proconsul in Politics: A Study of Lord
Milner in Opposition and in Power, Anthony Blond, 1964, p. 130
48. Quoted in Wm Roger Louis, In the Name of God, Go!: Leo Amery and
the British Empire in the Age of Churchill, W.W. Norton & Co, 1992,
49. Quoted in Eric Stokes, "Milnerism", The Historical Journal, vol.
5, no. 1 (1962), p. 49.
50. ibid., p. 50.
51. ibid., p. 51.
52. Quoted in George Louis Beer, "Lord Milner and British
Imperialism", Political Science Quarterly, June 1915, p. 304
53. ibid., p. 301.
54. Quotes in Norman Rose, The Cliveden Set: Portrait of an
Exclusive Fraternity, Pimlico, 2000, p. 48; and Gollin, Proconsul in
Politics, p. 314.
55. Stokes, "Milnerism", pp. 51-52 (including Milner quotes).
56. Quoted in Wrench, Alfred Lord Milner, pp. 186-187; and John
Marlowe, Milner: Apostle of Empire, Hamish Hamilton, 1976, pp.
57. Quoted in Rotberg, The Founder,
58. Philip Jourdan, Cecil Rhodes: His Private Life By His Private
Secretary, John Lane, 1911, p. 234.
59. Quoted in Marlowe, Milner: Apostle of Empire, p. 115.
60. Whyte, The Life of W. T. Stead, vol. II, p. 210 (including
61. See W. T. Stead, The M. P. for Russia: Reminiscences &
Correspondence of Madame Olga Novikoff, A. Melrose, 1909, vol. I,
62. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth
of Nations, University Paperbacks, 1961, vol. II, pp. 137, 139
(first pub. 1776). See also David Stevens, "Adam Smith and the
Colonial Disturbances", in Andrew Skinner and Thomas Wilson (eds),
Essays on Adam Smith, Clarendon Press, 1975, pp. 202-217.
63. Ged Martin, "Empire Federalism and Imperial Parliamentary Union,
1820–1870", The Historical Journal XVI(I) (1973), pp. 65-68.
64. ibid., pp. 88-89; Disraeli quoted in W. D. McIntyre, Colonies
into Commonwealth, Blandford Press, 1968, 2nd edition, pp. 121-122.
65. Seymour Ching-Yuan Cheng, Schemes for the Federation of the
British Empire, Columbia University Press, 1931, pp. 37-39.
66. Nimocks, Milner’s Young Men, p. 14.
67. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 131; and Whyte, Stead, vol. II,
68. Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 131.
69. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes
to Cliveden, Books in Focus, 1981, pp. 33, 34, 38; excerpts at
70. David P. Billington Jr, "The Tragedy and Hope of Carroll
Quigley", The American Oxonian, Fall 1994
(found through the Wayback Machine Internet archive at
Whyte, The Life of W. T. Stead, vol. II, p. 210.
71. Stead and Rhodes quoted in Estelle W. Stead, My Father: Personal
& Spiritual Reminiscences, William Heinemann, 1913, p. 240.
72. Marlowe, Milner: Apostle of Empire, p. 21.
73. Quoted in Rotberg, The Founder, p. 416.
74. Quoted in Miles F. Shore, "Cecil Rhodes and the Ego Ideal",
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Autumn 1979, p. 256. Garrett,
the Pall Mall Gazette’s correspondent in southern Africa and later
Editor of the Cape Times, is described by Quigley as an "intimate
friend" of Stead, Milner and Rhodes (The Anglo-American
Establishment, pp. 43-44).
75. Rotberg, The Founder, p. 416; and Billington, "The Tragedy and
Hope of Carroll Quigley", ibid.
76. Rotberg, The Founder, pp. 664-668.
77. Quoted in Rotberg, ibid., p. 667
78. See Christopher Hitchens, "Minority Report", The Nation, 14
December 1992, pp. 726, 743. See also William F. Jasper, "Reviewing
the Rhodes Legacy", The New American, 20 February 1995.
79. Milner quoted in Rose, The Cliveden Set, p. 2; Kendle, The Round
Table Movement, p. 21; Nimocks, Milner’s Young Men, p. 132.
80. Quoted in Kendle, The Round Table Movement, p. 8.
81. Through Milner, £1,000 was secured from the Rhodes Trust in
1906, but on the condition the funding source be kept secret; see
Marlowe, Milner: Apostle of Empire, p. 206.
82. Kendle, The Round Table Movement, pp. 22-45; Nimocks, Milner’s
Young Men, pp. 54-108.
83. Rose, The Cliveden Set, p. 65.
84. Nimocks, Milner’s Young Men, pp. 121-122.
85. See also Kendle, The Round Table Movement, pp. 22-45.
Return to Contents