cases (Minto and Linlithgow) in a rather peripheral fashion. Three of the eight were
members of All Souls. According to Lord Esher, the appointment of Lord Hardinge in
1910 was made at his suggestion, by John Morley. At the time, Esher's son, the present
Viscount Esher, was acting as unpaid private secretary to Morley, a position he held for
five years (1905-1910). From the same source we learn that the Viceroyship was offered
to Selborne in 1903 and to Esher himself in 1908. The former failed of appointment
because Curzon refused to retire, while the latter rejected the post as of too limited
influence.
Of the thirteen Secretaries of State, two were Labour and two Liberals. One of these
latter (Morley) was close to the Milner Group. Of the other nine, three were of the Cecil
Bloc (St. John Brodrick, Austen Chamberlain, and Lord Zetland), two were of the Milner
Group (Hoare and Amery), and four were of neither group.
The political and constitutional history of India in the twentieth century consists
largely of a series of investigations by various committees and commissions, and a
second, and shorter, series of legislative enactments. The influence of the Milner Group
can be discerned in both of these, especially in regard to the former.
Of the important commissions that investigated Indian constitutional questions in the
twentieth century, every one has had a member of the inner circle of the Milner Group.
The following list gives the name of the commission, the dates of its existence, the
number of British members (in distinction from Indian members), the names of
representatives from the Cecil Bloc and Milner Group (with the latter italicized), and the
command number of its report:
1. The Royal Commission on Decentralization in India, 1907-1909, five members
including W. L. Hichens (Cmd. 4360- of 1908).
2. The Royal Commission on Public Services in India, 1912-1915, nine members
including Baron Islington, the Earl of Ronaldshay (later Marquess of Zetland), Sir
Valentine Chirol, and H. A. L. Fisher. The chairman of this commission, Lord Islington,
was later father-in-law to Sir Edward Grigg (Lord Altrincham) (Cmd. 8382 of 1916).
3. The Government of India Constitutional Reform Committee on Franchise, 1919,
four members, including Malcolm Hailey.
4. The Government of India Constitutional Reform Committee on
Functions, 1919, four members, including Richard Feetham as chairman.
5. The Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill, 1919, fourteen
members, including Lord Selborne (chairman), Lord Midleton (St. John Brodrick), Lord
Islington, Sir Henry Craik (whose son was in Milner's Kindergarten), and W. G. A.
Ormsby-Gore (now Lord Harlech) (Cmd. 97 of 1919).
6. The Committee on Home Administration of Indian Affairs, 1919, eight members,
including W. G. A. Ormsby-Gore (Lord Harlech) (Cmd. 207 of 1919).
7. The Royal Commission on Superior Civil Services in India, 1923-1924, five
members, including Lord Lee of Fareham as chairman and Reginald Coupland (Cmd.
2128 of 1924).
8. The Indian Statutory Commission, 1927-1930, seven members, with Sir John Simon
as chairman (Cmd. 3568 and 3569 of 1930).
9. The Indian Franchise Committee, 1931-1932, eight members, including Lord
Lothian as chairman and Lord Dufferin (whose brother, Lord Basil Blackwood, had been
in Milner's Kindergarten) (Cmd. 4086 of 1932).
10. The three Indian Round Table Conferences of 1930-1932 contained a number of
members of the Milner Croup. The first session (November 1930-January 1931) had
eighty-nine delegates, sixteen from Britain, sixteen from the Indian States, and fifty-
seven from British India. Formed as they were by a Labour government, the first two
sessions had eight Labour members among the sixteen from Britain. The other eight were
Earl Peel, the Marquess of Zetland, Sir Samuel Hoare, Oliver Stanley, the Marquess of
Reading, the Marquess of Lothian, Sir Robert Hamilton, and Isaac Foot. Of these eight,
two were of the Milner Croup (Hoare and Lothian) and two of the Cecil Bloc (Zetland
and Stanley). The chief adviser to the Indian States Delegation was L. F. Rushbrook
Williams of the Milner Group, who was named to his position by the Chamber of Princes
Special Organization. Among the five officials called in for consultation by the
conference, we find the name of Malcolm Hailey (Cmd. 3778).
The membership of delegations at the second session (September-December 1931)
was practically the same, except that thirty-one additional members were added and
Rushbrook Williams became a delegate as the representative of the Maharaja of
Nawanagar (Cmd. 3997).
At the third session (November-December 1932) there were no Labour Party
representatives. The British delegation was reduced to twelve. Four of these were of the
Milner Group ( Hoare, Simon, Lothian, and Irwin, now Halifax). Rushbrook Williams
continued as a delegate of the Indian States (Cmd. 4238).
11. The Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, appointed in April
1933, had sixteen members from the House of Commons and an equal number of Lords.
Among these were such members of the Milner Group as Sir Samuel Hoare, Sir John
Simon, Lord Lothian, and Lord Irwin (Halifax). The Cecil Bloc was also well represented
by Archbishop Lang of Canterbury, Austen Chamberlain, Lord Eustace Percy, Lord
Salisbury, Lord Zetland, Lord Lytton, and Lord Hardinge of Penshurst.
12. The Cripps Mission, 1942, four members, including Reginald Coupland, who
wrote an unofficial but authoritative book on the mission as soon as it returned to
England (Cmd. 6350).
The chief legislative events in this period were five in number: the two Indian
Councils Acts of 1892 and 1909, the two Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935,
and the achievement of self-government in 1947.
The Indian Councils Act of 1892 was put through the House of Commons by George
Curzon, at that time Under Secretary in the India Office as the protege of Lord Salisbury,
who had discovered him in All Souls nine years earlier. This act was important for two
reasons: (1) it introduced a representative principle into the Indian government by
empowering the Governor-General and Provincial Governors to seek nominations to
the"unofficial" seats in their councils from particular Indian groups and associations; and
(2) it accepted a "communal" basis for this representation by seeking these nominations
separately from Hindus, Moslems, and others. From these two sources flowed ultimately
self-government and partition, although it is perfectly evident that neither of these was
anticipated or desired by the persons who supported the act.
The nominations for "unofficial" members of the councils provided in the Act of 1892
became elections in practice, because the Governor-General always accepted the
suggested nominations as his nominees. This practice became law in the Act of 1909.
The Indian Councils Act of 1909 was passed under a Liberal government and was
only remotely influenced by the Cecil Bloc or Milner Group. The Prime Minister,
Asquith, was practically a member of the Cecil Bloc, being an intimate friend of Balfour