policy. The policy he supported was the policy that was carried out, and included support
for the Boer War, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the Entente Cordiale, the agreement of
1907 with Russia, the Morley-Minto Reforms in India, and the increasing resistance to
Germany. When he retired in 1912, he was knighted by Asquith for his important
contributions to the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 and was made a member of the
Royal Commission on Public Services in India (1912-1914). He remained in India during
most of the First World War, and, indeed, made seventeen visits to that country in his
life. In 1916 he was one of the five chief advisers to Lionel Curtis in the preparatory work
for the Government of India Act of 1919 (the other four being Lord Chelmsford, Meston,
Marris, and Hailey). Later Chirol wrote articles for The Round Table and was a member
of the British delegation at the Paris Peace Conference.
Chirol was replaced as head of the Foreign Department during his long absences from
London by Leopold Amery. It was expected that Amery would be Chirol's successor in
the post, but Amery entered upon a political career in 1910, so the position was given
briefly to Dudley Disraeli graham. graham, a former classmate of many of the
Kindergarten at New College, was a foreign correspondent of The Times for ten years
(1897-1907) and Chirol's assistant for five (1907-1912), before he became Chirol's
successor in the Foreign Department and Grigg's successor in the Imperial Department,
thus combining the two. He resigned from The Times in 1914 to become editor of the
Daily Telegraph in Sydney, Australia, and was subsequently a very important figure in
Australian newspaper life.
This account, by no means complete, shows clearly that the Milner Group controlled
The Times, indirectly from 1912 if not earlier, and directly from 1922. The importance of
this control should be obvious. The Times, although of a very limited circulation (only
about 35,000 at the beginning of the century, 50,000 at the outbreak of the First World
War, and 187,000 in 1936), was the most influential paper in England. The reason for this
influence is not generally recognized, although the existence of the condition itself is
widely known. The influence depended upon the close relationship between the paper
and the Foreign Office. This relationship, as we are trying to show, was the result of the
Milner Group's influence in both.
This influence was not exercised by acting directly on public opinion, since the Milner
Group never intended to influence events by acting through any instruments of mass
propaganda, but rather hoped to work on the opinions of the small group of "important
people," who in turn could influence wider and wider circles of persons. This was the
basis on which the Milner Group itself was constructed; it was the theory behind the
Rhodes Scholarships; it was the theory behind " The Round Table and the Royal Institute
of International Affairs; it was the theory behind the efforts to control All Souls, New
College, and Balliol and, through these three, to control Oxford University; and it was the
theory behind The Times. No effort was made to win a large circulation for The Times,
for, in order to obtain such a circulation, it would have been necessary to make changes
in the tone of the paper that would have reduced its influence with the elite, to which it
had been so long directed. The theory of "the elite" was accepted by the Milner Group
and by The Times, as it was by Rhodes. The historian of The Times recognizes this and,
after describing the departure from Printing House Square of Bell, Chirol, and Buckle,
says, "It is a valid criticism of the 'Olaf Gang' that they had not realized that they were in
the habit of valuing news according to the demands and interests of a governing class too
narrowly defined for the twentieth century." It was on this issue that the "Old Gang"
disputed with Northcliffe in the period 1908-1912 and that Dawson disputed with
Northcliffe in 1919. Although the new owner protested to all who would listen, in 1908
and later, that he would not try to make The Times into a popular paper, he was, as The
History of The Times shows, incapable of judging the merits of a newspaper by any other
standard than the size of its circulation. After he was replaced as chief proprietor by
Astor, and Dawson re-occupied the editor's chair, the old point of view was reestablished.
The Times was to be a paper for the people who are influential, and not for the masses.
The Times was influential, but the degree of its influence would never be realized by
anyone who examined only the paper itself. The greater part of its influence arose from
its position as one of several branches of a single group, the Milner Group. By the
interaction of these various branches on one another, under the pretense that each branch
was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was increased through a process
of mutual reinforcement. The unanimity among the various branches was believed by the
outside world to be the result of the influence of a single Truth, while really it was the
result of the existence of a single group. Thus, a statesman (a member of the Group)
announces a policy. About the same time, the Royal Institute of International Affairs
publishes a study on the subject, and an Oxford don, a Fellow of All Souls (and a
member of the Group) also publishes a volume on the subject (probably through a
publishing house, like G. Bell and Sons or Faber and Faber, allied to the Group). The
statesman's policy is subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a "leader" in The Times, while the two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary
Supplement. Both the "leader" and the review are anonymous but are written by members
of the Group. And finally, at about the same time, an anonymous article in The Round
Table strongly advocates the same policy. The cumulative effect of such tactics as this,
even if each tactical move influences only a small number of important people, is bound
to be great. If necessary, the strategy can be carried further, by arranging for the secretary
to the Rhodes Trustees to go to America for a series of "informal discussions" with
former Rhodes Scholars, while a prominent retired statesman (possibly a former Viceroy
of India) is persuaded to say a few words at the unveiling of a plaque in All Souls or New
College in honor of some deceased Warden. By a curious coincidence, both the "informal
discussions" in America and the unveiling speech at Oxford touch on the same topical
subject.
An analogous procedure in reverse could be used for policies or books which the
Group did not approve. A cutting editorial or an unfriendly book review, followed by a
suffocating blanket of silence and neglect, was the best that such an offering could expect
from the instruments of the Milner Group. This is not easy to demonstrate because of the
policy of anonymity followed by writers and reviewers in The Times, The Round Table,
and The Times Literary Supplement, but enough cases have been found to justify this