Extracted from  The Anglo-American Establishment, from Rhodes to Cliveden,  (1966)
"...Curtis defined the distinction between a commonwealth and a  despotism in the following terms: "The rule of law as contrasted with the rule  of an individual is the distinguishing mark of a commonwealth. In despotism  government rests on the authority of the ruler or of the invisible and  uncontrollable power behind him. In a commonwealth rulers derive their authority  from the law and the law from a public opinion which is competent to change it."  Accordingly, "the institutions of a commonwealth cannot be successfully worked  by peoples whose ideas are still those of a theocratic or patriarchal society.  The premature extension of representative institutions throughout the Empire  would be the shortest road to anarchy."[20] The people must first be trained to  understand and practice the chief principles of commonwealth, namely the  supremacy of law and the subjection of the motives of self-interest and material  gain to the sense of duty to the interests of the community as a whole. Curtis  felt that such an educational process was not only morally necessary on the part  of Britain but was a practical necessity, since the British could not expect to  keep 430 million persons in subjection forever but must rather hope to educate  them up to a level where they could appreciate and cherish British ideals. In  one book he says: "The idea that the principle of the commonwealth implies  universal suffrage betrays an ignorance of its real nature. That principle  simply means that government rests on the duty of the citizens to each other,  and is to be vested in those who are capable of setting public interest before  their own." [21] In another work he says: "As sure as day follows the night, the  time will come when they [the Dominions] will have to assume the burden of the  whole of their affairs. For men who are fit for it, self-government is a  question not of privilege but rather of obligation. It is duty, not interest,  which impels men to freedom, and duty, not interest, is the factor which turns  the scale in human affairs." India is included in this evolutionary process, for  Curtis wrote: " A despotic government might long have closed India to Western  ideas. But a commonwealth is a living thing. It cannot suffer any part of itself  to remain inert. To live it must move, and move in every limb. . . . Under  British rule Western ideas will continue to penetrate and disturb Oriental  society, and whether the new spirit ends in anarchy or leads to the  establishment of a higher order depends upon how far the millions of India can  be raised to a fuller and more rational conception of the ultimate foundations  upon which the duty of obedience to government rests." 
These ideas were not  Curtis's own, although he was, perhaps, the most prolific, most eloquent, and  most intense in his feelings. They were apparently shared by the whole inner  circle of the Group. Dove, writing to Brand from India in 1919, is favorable to  reform and says: "Lionel is right. You can't dam a world current. There is, I am  convinced, 'purpose' under such things. All that we can do is to try to turn the  flood into the best channel." In the same letter he said: "Unity will, in the  end, have to be got in some other way. . . . Love-call it, if you like, by a  longer name-is the only thing that can make our post-war world go round, and it  has, I believe, something to say here too. The future of the Empire seems to me  to depend on how far we are able to recognize this. Our trouble is that we start  some way behind scratch. Indians must always find it hard to understand us." And  the future Lord Lothian, ordering an article on India for The Round Table from a  representative in India, wrote: "We want an article in The Round Table and I  suggest to you that the main conclusion which the reader should draw from it  should be that the responsibility rests upon him of seeing that the Indian  demands are sympathetically handled without delay after the war. "[22]
What  this Group feared was that the British Empire would fail to profit from the  lessons they had discerned in the Athenian empire or in the American Revolution.  Zimmern had pointed out to them the sharp contrast between the high idealism of  Pericles's funeral oration and the crass tyranny of the Athenian empire. They  feared that the British Empire might fall into the same difficulty and destroy  British idealism and British liberties by the tyranny necessary to hold on to a  reluctant Empire. And any effort to hold an empire by tyranny they regarded as  doomed to failure. Britain would be destroyed, as Athens was destroyed, by  powers more tyrannical than herself. And, still drawing parallels with ancient  Greece, the Group feared that all culture and civilization would go down to  destruction because of our inability to construct some kind of political unit  larger than the national state, just as Greek culture and civilization in the  fourth century B.C. went down to destruction because of the Greeks' inability to  construct some kind of political unit larger than the city-state. This was the  fear that had animated Rhodes, and it was the same fear that was driving the  Milner Group to transform the British Empire into a Commonwealth of Nations and  then place that system within a League of Nations. In 1917, Curtis wrote in his  Letter to the People of India: "The world is in throes which precede creation or  death. Our whole race has outgrown the merely national state, and as surely as  day follows night or night the day, will pass either to a Commonwealth of  Nations or else an empire of slaves. And the issue of these agonies rests with  us."
At the same time the example of the American Revolution showed the Group  the dangers of trying to rule the Empire from London: to tax without  representation could only lead to disruption. Yet it was no longer possible that  45 million in the United Kingdom could tax them selves for the defense of 435  million in the British Empire. What, then, was the solution? The Milner Group's  efforts to answer this question led eventually, as we shall see in Chapter 8, to  the present Commonwealth of Nations, but before we leave The Round Table, a few  words should be said about Lord Milner's personal connection with the Round  Table Group and the Group's other connections in the field of journalism and  publicity.
Milner was the creator of the Round Table Group (since this is but  another name for the Kindergarten) and remained in close personal contact with  it for the rest of his life. In the sketch of Milner in the Dictionary of  National Biography, written by Basil Williams of the Kindergarten, we read: "He  was always ready to discuss national questions on a non-party basis, joining  with former members of his South African 'Kindergarten' in their 'moot,' from  which originated the political review, The Round Table, and in a more  heterogeneous society, the 'Coefficients,' where he discussed social and  imperial problems with such curiously assorted members as L. S. Amery, H. G.  Wells, (Lord) Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, (Sir) Michael Sadler, Bernard Shaw, J.  L. Garvin, William Pember Reeves, and W. A. S. Hewins." In the obituary of  Hichens, as already indicated, we find in reference to the Round Table the  sentence: "Often at its head sat the old masters of the Kindergarten, Lord  Milner and his successor, Lord Selborne, close friends and allies of Hichens to  the end." And in the obituary of Lord Milner in The Round Table for June 1925,  we find the following significant passage:
  
 The  founders and the editors of The Round Table mourn in a very special sense the  death of Lord Milner. For with him they have lost not only a much beloved  friend, but one whom they have always regarded as their leader. Most of them had  the great good fortune to serve under him in South Africa during or after the  South African war, and to learn at firsthand from him something of the great  ideals which inspired him. From those days at the very beginning of this century  right up to the present time, through the days of Crown Colony Government in the  Transvaal and Orange Free State, of the making of the South African  constitution, and through all the varied and momentous history of the British  Empire in the succeeding fifteen years, they have had the advantage of Lord  Milner's counsel and guidance, and they are grateful to think that, though at  times he disagreed with them, he never ceased to regard himself as the leader to  whom, above everyone else, they looked. It is of melancholy interest to recall  that Lord Milner had undertaken to come on May 13, the very day of his death, to  a meeting specially to discuss with them South African problems..."