Lords Sitting of 14 August 1913

BISHOPRICS OF SHEFFIELD, CHELMS FORD AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
GREAT HAYWOOD AND TOMPKIN CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITY BILL.
HATFIELD (YORK, WEST RIDING) CALVINISTIC CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
HULME TRUST ESTATES CHARITY BILL.
KINGSWOOD CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
PADIHAM HOREB UNION CHURCH CHARITY BILL.
ROE STREET (MACCLESFIELD) CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
WIBSEY (BRADFORD) INDEPENDENT CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to.
POST OFFICE BILL.
LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY BILL.
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY BILL.
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
AIRDRIE CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House, communicated to them on Tuesday last, on the subject of the East Ham Corporation Bill.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations, dated 12th August, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Rate of Interest on Sums in Investment Account) Regulations, 1913;
2. Provisional Special Order, dated 13th August, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order, 1913 (No. 4)
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 189.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 21) BILL.
Commons Message of Tuesday last considered (according to Order): Then it was moved to resolve—
That the promoters of the Bill which has been introduced into the House of Commons during the present Session of Parliament, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament., provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to the said Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session;
—(The Earl of Craven); agreed to: and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that the Lords had concurred with them in suspending the said Bill.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8 KINGSTOWN) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Message of yesterday considered (according to Order): Then it was moved to resolve—
That the promoters of the. Bill which has been introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which has passed this 1-louse and been sent to the House of Commons, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon, up to that period, be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to the said Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session:
—(The Lord Strachie) agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that the Lords had concurred with them in suspending the said Bill.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): These Amendments are not really new to your Lordships. They consist of certain Amendments which, when the Bill was sent down to the House of Commons, were put in brackets, and, I think, printed in italics, because they were of a privileged character. They are, therefore, well known to your Lordships, and are only in a technical and very formal sense Amendments on the part of another place.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be agreed to.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) BILL.
TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FINANCE BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION IN INDIA.
LORD AMPTHILL*LORD AMPTHILL rose to call attention to the public protest which had been made in regard to the appointment of Mr. Hornell as Director of Public Instruction in Bengal, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the facts of the case are these. In view of the impending retirement of Mr. Kuchler, the present Director of Public Instruction in Bengal, the Bengal Government have proposed the appointment of Mr. Hornell, a junior member of the Board of Education in London, in supersession of all members of the Indian Education Service. The Government of India and the Secretary of State for India have approved of this appointment. Mr. Hornell is already in charge of the office of Director of Public Instruction and is waiting to be confirmed when Mr. Kuchler's final retirement takes place in October. This appointment has

1931
aroused the strongest and the most widespread indignation in India. It has been denounced in scathing terms, not only by the English Press, but also by the vernacular Press, and has been made the subject of numerous memorials and representations to the Secretary of State himself. I am not going to repeat these public comments or to add the comments which I am tempted to make myself. I admit that it is a feeling of strong indignation which has prompted me to bring this subject before your Lordships. But I believe that it is not too late to remedy the injustice and to repair the mischief which has been done. I hope, therefore, to persuade the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India to adopt a course which is still open to him and which appears to most people who are aware of the circumstances to be the one and obvious method of putting matters right.
Let me say at once that nobody makes any imputation whatever against the Secretary of State for India. The noble Marquess is criticised, it is true, for want of firmness in not insisting on the rule of his predecessor, a rule which has been reaffirmed on several important occasions. I may add also that no charge is made against the Governor of Bengal, Lord Carmichael, of whom it has been a great pleasure to hear golden opinions. Lord Carmichael was new to his post when this appointment was made and was obliged to accept that which was already partly settled. But I believe it is a fact—I speak subject to correction—that when Lord Carmichael found that he had been misled in this matter he did his best to stop the appointment. If that is the case it adds another very striking point against the appointment of Mr. Hornell. But, my Lords, somebody must have been responsible. People in India naturally believe that Mr. Hornell, who I may say was formerly in the Bengal Service—he served for a short time as a junior officer and retired some five years ago—has some powerful patron who has influenced his appointment, and it is only natural that people should think this in view of the whole circumstances of the case. Rumours—very definite rumours—are current in India. I am not going to repeat them, because there is no object in doing so. They may or they may not be founded on fact. Still there it is. Somebody has been responsible for this. Somebody must
1932
have asked, or advised, or told the Government of Bengal to apply for the services of Mr. Hornell, and it is pretty obvious that there is nobody in India who could be personally interested in making an appointment of this kind; so it follows that there is a good deal of speculation which touches men in power in this country. If anybody is thus being wrongly accused, the best way to clear his character is to put the matter right.
What would you say, my Lords, if an Army officer who had resigned his commission while he was a subaltern in order to take up more congenial employment was allowed to rejoin the Army five years later, and was put in command of his former battalion right over the heads of all the senior officers? What would you say if such a thing were done in spite of pledges, express pledges repeated several times on the part of the War Office, that promotion should always be within the regiment if it were possible, and, failing that, from another regiment? Do you think that an appointment of that kind would conduce to zealous, efficient, or even loyal service? Do you think that if it were known that that kind of thing were possible good men would be encouraged to seek for commissions in the Army? And, my Lords, what if the man who was so promoted could be shown beyond question to have less experience than and inferior qualifications to the senior officer whom he had superseded? What if the officer superseded had already proved his capacity by temporarily commanding the battalion, and had actually received conspicuous praise and credit for the manner in which he had discharged his duties? This is exactly what has happened in this case. The senior officer in the Bengal Service, Mr. James, was not only conspicuously fitted for the post, but had been actually designated for it in more ways than one. Mr. Hornell entered the Indian Educational Service in 1902, and served for six years as a junior. He retired in 1908 in order to take up a post at the Board of Education in Whitehall, and now he is appointed in supersession of Mr. James, a much older, more experienced, and highly qualified officer, who has served continuously in the Bengal Educational Service; and not only in supersession of Mr. James, but also over the heads of all the other officers of the Bengal Service and of all the other officers of the whole Indian Educational Service.
The Government have given definite pledges that this kind of thing should not be done, and I should like to remind your Lordships of the nature of those pledges and when they were made. There was a scandal of a very similar nature in 1886. It also took place in Bengal, and aroused a storm of protest very similar to that which is raging at the present time. The result was that the Government of India, prompted by the. Secretary of State, passed a Resolution in the same year—1886—to the effect that these posts were to be reserved for the Educational Service. In 1896 Lord George Hamilton, who was then Secretary of State for India, slightly modified the Standing Order with a view to giving a wider discretion to the Local Governments. All went well for another period of ten years; but in 1906 there was again a scandal of precisely the same nature, and again it took place in Bengal. The Secretary of State for India of the time, Lord Morley, entirely endorsed the protest of the Education Department in India, and fie, again, moved the Government of India to pass a Resolution. The substance and effect of that Resolution passed in 1906 is to be found in the India Office List under the particulars of the Educational Service. I quote from that book, which is published with the authority of the Secretary of State—
"The posts of Director of Public Instruction are reserved for the Indian Educational Service so long as members of that service can be found well qualified to fill them"
Lord Morley's Despatch which brought this about has been regarded since 1906 as a sort of Magna Charta of the Educational Service of India. My authority for making that statement is Sir Alfred Crofts, who wrote a very strong letter to The Times on the subject. It was hoped in India that this kind of thing would not occur again, and the Education Service were looking forward with better hope and confidence to the future.
But now comes this appointment of Mr. Hornell, which seems to everybody in India to be a most flagrant disregard of those explicit and repeated promises. The question has been the subject of protest and inquiry in the House of Commons, and I should not have troubled your Lordships had it not been for the very unsatisfactory manner in which it was treated in the debate on the Indian Budget a few days
1934
ago in another place. The very temperate representations which were made not only by Sir Henry Craik but also by the Leader of the Opposition were dismissed in a very airy, and I may say inaccurate, manner by the Under-Secretary. The position, if you go by what the Under-Secretary said, seems to be this. The India Office put the responsibility on the Government of India; the Government of India put the responsibility on the Government of Bengal; and the Government of Bengal say nothing. At least we have not got at their views. My object in moving for Papers is to find out exactly what part was played by the Government of Bengal or by officers of that Government. Who was it who suggested this appointment to them? Who advised them to go out of their way to obtain the services of a young man from the Department in Whitehall when beyond question, indeed by their own admission, there were a considerable number of men in the Educational Service in India well fitted to fill the appointment? By their own admission, Mr. James was fit for the appointment because he was designated as second string if they could not obtain the appointment of Mr. Hornell. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State did remind the Government of India of the Standing Order of his predecessor. At least we have that from the Under-Secretary. But, unfortunately, it would appear that he did not insist upon it in the manner in which people had a right to expect that he would insist. The Government of India published a sort of apologia which has convinced nobody, and which, on the contrary, is so inconsequent and so utterly futile that it has provoked the utmost derision in India. The Governor of Bengal, I as I have already stated, is said to have done his best to stop the appointment when he found how he had been misled, and if that is true it is in itself a sufficient proof that the appointment is unsatisfactory.
I might call your Lordships' attention to the comparative qualifications of Mr. Hornell and Mr. James, but there is no point in doing that, as it would be difficult for your Lordships to follow a long statement of the kind. But briefly the facts are that Mr. Hornell is quite a young man. He is only thirty-four years of age. Mr. James is fifty years of age. Mr. Hornell served for some six years in India as a junior officer, and during that time had

1935
no experience whatever of Indian schools. He had only to deal with European schools, which are managed on a totally different system, and he acted as sort of personal assistant to the Director of Public Instruction, a post which is always given to junior officers. Mr. James is a man of very remarkable academic qualifications. He took a "Double First" at the University of Oxford. He has held high appointments, and he has also published works on education which have a very considerable reputation. But Mr. Hornell is put over Mr. James and in control of all the officers in the Educational Service in India up to the age of fifty-five, which is the age of retirement. You cannot get away from the fact that this is a cruel injustice to Mr. James, for, as I have already said, there is no question whatever about his qualifications. They have been amply and handsomely acknowledged on many occasions, notably by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal when Bengal was under Sir Edward Baker. He both privately and officially complimented Mr. James on the discharge of the duties of the office of Director of Public Instruction in which he was acting. So that Mr. James has actually had experience of this particular post, and has acquitted himself so creditably that he won special acknowledgment and praise from the Lieutenant-Governor.
But even worse than the injustice to the individual, which is always a serious thing, is the injustice to the Service. The Government of India, in their apologia, have east a grave and unfounded imputation on the whole of the Indian Education Service. They say, in effect, that there is no man in the country who is fit to take this post. That, of course, is nonsense. But to say so is to cast a slur on all the many capable and zealous and devoted officers of the Education Service in India, not only in Bengal but also in all the other Provinces, for the Education Service is one, and if there was nobody fit for the position in Bengal it would have been in accordance with rule that an officer should be appointed from another Province. Imagine the effect on a great Public Service of such an imputation as that which has been cast upon it by the Government of India Resolution! I cannot do better than quote some words from one of the former Resolutions to which I have referred, which laid down the rule that the highest posts were to be
1936
reserved for the Service. One of the reasons given was this—
"The selection of other than educational officers for the highest administrative office in this Department [the Education Department] must naturally cause discontent among officers who bel the Education Department, and discontent. st as a rule be followed by a diminution ozeal and consequently of efficiency."
There is the opinion of the Secretary of State and of the Government of India, and that is the effect which this appointment is actually having now in India.
Imagine the effect on the recruitment of the Service. It is difficult enough to get good men to go out to India, because service in India involves very serious sacrifices quite apart from the disadvantage of exile from home. Your Lordships know well what men who serve in India, and particularly what their wives who accompany them have to put up with on account of their exile. And, again, you have to consider the effect on public opinion. If it can be said that pledges given by the Government of India endorsed by the Secretary of State are of no effect, surely the result must be disastrous. People will believe that the promises of a Secretary of State are written on sand. Then good-by to any moral influence that we may hope to exercise in India. I will not seek to probe further who has actually been responsible for this lamentable mistake if only the matter is put right. That is still possible. The appointment of Mr. Hornell does not become effective and definite—he is in charge of the post at the present moment, but his appointment has not yet been confirmed—until October, when Mr. Kuchler finally retires. If Mr. Hornell is such a valuable expert in the matter of education that it is absolutely necessary to have him, why not make him available for the whole of India? It is not necessary to put him into this particular post and so interfere with the promotion of deserving officers and arouse all this discontent and bitterness and resentment. That is not a bit necessary. If the Government of Bengal really cannot do without Mr. Hornell, you can let them have his services in another way. Let him be attached to the Government of India and put on special service. That is a form of appointment which is very well known in India. Mr. Hornell can then go to Bengal, give his advice on these questions of developing a new system, which they have made their excuse for his appointment, and leave the

1937
administration of the Department to one of the officers of the Education Service; and then when he has done that work no doubt it might be an advantage that his services should be at the disposal of other Provinces in India who wish for higher expert knowledge than they can obtain from the members of the Education Service.
My principal object in calling attention to this question and taking up so much of your Lordships' time is to beg the Secretary of State to earnestly consider this suggestion. There is not much point in a mere protest or in scoring in debate in a matter of this kind. The principal object must be to remedy the wrong and to repair the harm. I believe that can be done, and I hope that the noble Marquess will see fit to adopt that course which seems obvious to all those in India and in this country who have concerned themselves seriously with the question of this appointment.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the appointment of Mr. Hornell as Director of Public Instruction in Bengal.—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I have no complaint whatever to make of the noble Lord opposite for having introduced this subject to the notice of the House. Indeed, I am glad that he has done so, because it gives me an opportunity of stating my views upon it. Although it may be generally and not unwisely held that the main duty of the India Office, as distinct from the Government of India administering India, is to deal rather with broad principles and matters of wide application than with individual cases, yet on the other hand a personal question of this kind, which, as the noble Lord points out, has aroused much comment, and not a little adverse comment, is one with which we are bound to deal here, since the particular appointment is one for which I am personally responsible. The noble Lord said that references had been made to this matter in the debate on the Indian Budget in another place, and he complained of the attitude taken up by my hon. friend Mr. Montagu. From my recollection of that debate the matter was introduced by Mr. Bonar Law, the Leader of the Opposition, who stated that he had
1938
no knowledge of the subject himself, or, indeed, of Indian matters generally, but that he had been informed of the complaints that had been made and he thought it right to bring the subject forward. The matter was then pursued by another hon. Member, Sir Henry Craik, who spoke with considerable warmth on the same lines as the noble Lord opposite, but with less restraint. Then the noble Lord complained that my hon. friend answered briefly, which, in a debate of that kind, was inevitable, and that he was inaccurate.
LORD AMPTHILL: I said airily, not briefly.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Lord must form his own opinion of my hon. friend's manner. I am speaking of his matter. When the noble Lord says that, he replied inaccurately I at any rate, from reading his speech, have not been able to trace any inaccuracy in what he said. This is, in substance, an instance of the very old controversy, which has gone on as long as graded appointments have existed at all, between promotion by seniority and promotion by selection. All of us who have had to do with patronage in any form have been continually confronted with that difficulty. It is by no means confined to the Service in India. The noble Marquess on the Front Bench opposite knows all about it in connection with the Service of which he was the distinguished head. When outsiders are introduced into the Diplomatic, Service the members of that Service are prone to consider that their chances of promotion are interfered with. But a rigid adherence to the rule of seniority there would have deprived the country of the services of such men as Lord Dufferin, Lord Cromer, and Lord Kitchener. The noble Lord opposite mentioned the Army. I think I shall be able, when I mention Mr. Hornell's services, to point out that his comparison to a man being called in from outside to command a regiment was not altogether an accurate one. Anybody who has any knowledge of the Army knows that precisely the same kind of complaint is perpetually raised where selection takes the place of promotion by strict seniority.
I can say—and I am quite certain that noble Lords opposite, including Lord Ampthill, will sympathise with the obser-

1939
vation—that of all the tasks that fall to the lot of a Minister or an administrator, that of the distribution of patronage is the least agreeable. We all know what happens when we make an appointment. We have to set on one side the somewhat tempered gratification of the recipient, who would probably in many cases have preferred something else; on the other side we have to set the unqualified disappointment of those who were also candidates for the appointment., who feel, or at any rate honestly believe they feel, that their whole career and possibly their whole life is blasted by their failure to obtain the particular' appointment. Therefore it is by far the easier path for the dispenser of patronage to go rigidly and unthinkingly on the rule of mere promotion by seniority. Nobody can actually complain, and comments of this kind are finally avoided. It is therefore only in the direct interests of the Public Service and in exceptional cases that those who have to make appointments will depart from that rule. And I venture to think that in criticising a matter of this kind words should be carefully weighed. Only in one or two instances did I think that the noble Lord opposite departed from that rule, for, as I said; he was far more moderate in his dispensation of blame to us than have been others who have spoken or written on this question.
So far as the Educational Service in India is concerned, this question of the method of appointment goes back a long way. I find that so far back as 1859 Lord Stanley, who was afterwards Lord Derby, then Secretary of State, drew attention to the principle of outside appointments to the Directorships of Public Instruction. A number of Indian Civil Service men had been appointed. In one case a military officer had been appointed, resigning his commission for the purpose, and in another case a practising barrister; and Lord Stanley then pointed out that preference ought to be given to the regular Educational Service. Then I notice that in 1885 Sir Alfred Lyell, who of all men of our time was the least likely to be neglectful of considerations attaching to culture and to education, appointed an Indian Civil Service man to the Directorship of Public Instruction in the North-west Provinces, as they then were; and Indian Civil Service men were then holding the Directorship in Madras, in Bombay, and in the Punjab.
1940
After that came the direction to which the noble Lord has alluded, which was made by Lord Randolph Churchill. He laid down the rule, which appears to me to be a thoroughly sound one, that where possible appointments should be made from the local Service, but where, for any reason, a local man was not forthcoming, an attempt should first be made to find a suitable man from some of the other Provinces in India, and that only in the third resort should a man be taken altogether from outside. Then, as the noble Lord has also pointed out, in 1896 Lord George Hamilton, the then Secretary of State, took a somewhat different view. He thought that the discretion of the Local Governments ought to be enlarged, and he laid down a rule accordingly practically giving them the choice of selection wherever they thought they could find the best men.
Then came the ease to which the noble Lord alluded, I think in somewhat exaggerated terms, as a scandal, which took place in the appointment of Mr Earle, now Sir Archdale Earle, the respected Commissioner for Assam, who, being a member of the Indian Civil Service, was appointed to the Directorship of Public Instruction in Bengal, for which, as far as I know, by common consent he was regarded as well qualified. But in spite of that fact strong protests, exactly the same kind of protests as we are receiving now, were received from the Educational Service in Bengal, and the result was the Despatch of my noble friend Lord Morley, in which he laid down the rule which still governs our proceedings at the India Office. That rule was that in ordinary circumstances the local Service should provide the man for the appointment of Director of Public Instruction. But it was publicly stated by everybody concerned that this must not be held to establish an absolute claim or to bar the selection of a man from outside if the special circumstances demanded. I may say here that I think that the terms in which the rule was worded were not fortunate. It was stated that a Director should only be sought from outside if nobody was qualified for the appointment in the local Service. I venture to think that the rule ought to have been, so to speak reversed, and that it should have been stated that the ordinary practice and custom would be to promote a man from the local Service, but at the

1941
same time a discretion was reserved in exceptional cases to appoint a man from outside. That has the advantage of not appearing to convey the imputation, which the noble Lord said he considered was laid upon the local Service, of possessing no qualified man. It is reasonable to say that there should be complete freedom of selection if you can find an exceptional man from outside, but that, of course, by no means implies that the taking of that step means that other people are unfitted for promotion, still less that they are people upon whom any kind of slight ought to be placed. I remember that my noble friend Lord Morley, in speaking of the kind of special cases which might be treated as exceptions, instanced that very case of Sir Archdale Earle, which the noble Lord opposite has spoken of as a scandal, as an exception of the kind which might be treated as justifying an appointment from outside.
Now, my Lords, I come to this particular case of Mr. Hornell. The noble Lord does not, I am sure, desire to depreciate unduly the personal claims of Mr. Hornell, but in order to make his case he was obliged to describe his career in a somewhat depreciatory tone. One would have supposed, from the account of the appointment given in another place and also to some extent, from the noble Lord's description, that Mr. Hornell was the kind of man who filled the responsible place, say, of a junior examiner in the Board of Education, who had been out in India for three or four years in a quite subordinate appointment, and then was fished out, after his return, from the Board of Education and placed over the heads of a large number of deserving persons. What are the actual facts? Mr. Hornell went out to India in 1901, being selected and nominated by Lord George Hamilton, the then Secretary of State, and his service was in Bengal. When he was in Bengal he filled the office which I think the noble Lord described as being a kind of clerk to the then Director of Public Instruction, but he was, as a matter of fact, Assistant-Director of Public Instruction from 1906 to 1908; and I note that in 1910 Sir Herbert, Risley, whose knowledge of India was greater than that, I should say, of any noble Lord in this House, and who had an opportunity of watching Mr. Hornell's work, said of him that he had filled an exceptionally heavy and responsible appointment there.
1942
Then the Board of Education, having heard favourable accounts of Mr. Hornell, induced him to come to Whitehall for the purposes of what is known there as the Department of Special Inquiries and Reports—a highly responsible appointment; and while he was there he was Secretary to the very important Imperial Conference on Education which took place in 1911, which, of course, gave him an insight into the practices of Colonial and Dominion education in addition to that which he had obtained of English education at Whitehall. Mr. Hornell also performed invaluable services to my Office, for he brought into order and altogether formulated the recruiting of our educational officers for India. The noble Lord will see that in doing that he kept himself in regular touch with the more recent developments of Indian education. The noble Lord compared his case to that of an officer who had left the Army and had afterwards been brought back to command a regiment. I should rather compare him to the not unfamiliar case of an officer who, in the middle of his regimental period, is called away to a Staff appointment of the greatest, importance, and returns thence to do a period of regimental duty; and I am inclined to think that a number of instances an be found where a man has commanded a regiment all the better from having ha kind of official experience parallel to which I venture to think Mr. Hornell obtained at the Board of Education.
LORD AMPTHILL: But you cannot find a case where a man had resigned his commission and was then brought back. Mr. Hornell had resigned the Indian Educational Service.
THE MARQUESS or CREWE: Technically, no doubt, he had. But I am always having impressed upon me the advantages of interchange. I am perpetually hearing, with illustrations brought from other Public Services, of the advantage it is for officers of the Indian Service to come back sometimes to the India Office and become for the time being English Civil Servants; while in many other cases, as the noble Marquess opposite knows very well, how popular, and, as I have every reason to suppose, successful, the system of interchange has become between the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office. Honestly

1943
I regard this as an extremely good instance of the possibility of interchange. I would ask another question. Supposing that some officer of our Service in India, some member of the Indian Educational Service, were offered a high post here, would the noble Lord say that that ought to be regarded as a monstrous grievance by people who are in the Educational Service in England? I will deal with the personal question directly, but so far as the two Services are concerned I confess I cannot see that any real or substantial grievance exists with reference to this particular appointment. It appears to me that the special experience of Mr. Hornell precisely fulfils the condition of those "special circumstances" which by all Secretaries of State, even by those who have been most meticulously careful of maintaining the proper claims of the Indian Educational Service, are admitted to justify an exception being made. Then, as we know, both the Government of Bengal and the Government of India strongly pressed for the appointment of Mr. Hornell. And when the noble Lord tells me that the Government of Bengal repented of their action and desired to reverse it, I can only say that I have no knowledge of any such circumstance.
LORD AMPTHILL: I did not say the Government of Bengal. I said the Governor, Lord Carmichael. I have seen it in the Indian newspapers.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: A great many things appear in the Indian as in other newspapers which ought not to be taken as absolute gospel.
LORD AMPTHILL: Is it so, or is it not?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In any case I am not prepared to separate my noble friend Lord Carmichael from the Government of Bengal, of which he is the head, and his views, I take it, are those of the Government of Bengal. I can only say that I have no knowledge whatever of that to which my noble friend alludes. The view which both Governments took was that a great movement, as we all know, is proceeding for the furtherance of education in India, and that the movement for the expansion both of primary and secondary education there could best be carried out
1944
by a man of the peculiar and quite special experience, partly Indian and partly, if I may say so, cosmopolitan, which Mr. Hornell possessed. I cannot say that the selection of Mr. Hornell implied the slightest reflection upon the gentleman whom the noble Lord has named who was the Senior Education Officer in Bengal. Mr. James is, as he stated, a man of great academic distinction and of great educational powers, but it does not surely necessarily follow that he was thereby the best qualified man—although I am quite sure that he would do very well in any work that he was asked to undertake—for this particular work of reorganisation in Bengal, in which the educational problem, as the noble Lord I am sure knows very well, is the most pressing and the most difficult of any Province of India. It does not necessarily follow that a man, however distinguished in education, is peculiarly fitted for that special work. It does not follow that in this country you would have selected a Thring or a Jowett to carry out a particular enterprise of that kind. Consequently it appears to me to convey no sort of imputation on either Mr. James's character or his powers if for this particular work, for the term of five years for which Mr. Hornell is appointed, Mr. Hornell should be placed there instead of Mr. James himself.
I am most anxious to reassure the Educational Service in India on the general question of their promotion, and I entirely agree that that is most important in a Service of that kind, which possibly, as I am afraid may be said of all our Indian Services nowadays, appears to offer less attractions to men who hope to make careers in England or in other parts of the Empire than it did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. I am very anxious that they should be reassured that a man of capacity and merit who goes out there will get his full chance and will not be passed over except in quite special and peculiar circumstances, with regard to which I venture to think every Administration must keep a discretion in its own hands. I do not think anybody will be found to say that any Department or any Minister should absolutely bind themselves or himself in all circumstances to promote the second in command to be the first in command unless he can be distinctly proved to be either completely incompetent or completely objectionable on personal grounds.

1945
That discretion, I venture to assert, ought to be and must be maintained. But I am prepared to say that it should be used only in the rarest instances; that it should not be possible for men who enter a graded Service of this kind to feel that their careers are at the mercy of caprice or the preferences of individuals. This particular case, I can assure the noble Lord, has been the subject of the closest thought and care, and I venture to think that when a little time has passed it will be recognised by the. Service generally, not only that we have clone our best to find a particular man suited to the particular work, but that we have succeeded.
Now with regard to the suggestion which fell from the noble Lord at the close of his speech that the Bengal appointment should not be confirmed, but that instead Mr. Hornell should be indefinitely attached to the Government of India as an adviser. I confess that the difficulties of taking such a course appear to me to be practically insuperable. I do not see what the relations of such an officer would be to the Directors of Public Instruction in the particular Provinces. In the case of Bengal, for instance, supposing Mr. James or some other gentleman were appointed to the Directorship, what would be his position in relation to a man having a kind of roving commission from the Government of India? The position I cannot but suppose would almost inevitable lead to friction of a serious kind. Except for mere purposes of report, if you place two men in such a relation one must be in a position to give orders and the other must receive and obey them. I confess, therefore, that I do not see my way to accept the proposal which the noble Lord, with the utmost good faith and I am sure with the fullest desire to settle this question in a harmonious manner, has put forward. I am open to receive any further arguments or observations that may be made on this subject, but I confess that the proposal does not appear to me to be anything more in essence than an attempt to induce the Government of India and the Secretary of State to reverse in practice the appointment which they have made, and to invent, in order to place a fairer colour upon the transaction, au appointment for which no very reasonable claim can be put forward and for whose holder no very definite functions could be found.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should be inclined to say that as a general rule questions such as that which we are discussing this evening would be best left to the judgment of the Government of India and that no useful purpose is achieved by discussing them in Parliament. But certainly in this instance so much public attention has been aroused, and the case on the face of it seems so strong, that I think my noble friend is entirely justified in bringing it before your Lordships' House, and I think the noble Marquess himself admitted that; at the commencement of his speech. On the face of it this appointment is a distinct violation of the accepted rules of the Service. The rules of the Service are to the effect that in making these appointments it is the duty of the responsible Government to look, in the first place, inside the Service, and only to go outside the Service if no suitable man can be found within its ranks. That is perfectly clear. The noble Marquess said that in his opinion the regulation was rather infelicitously worded. He would have liked to turn it the other way. Not that you should give the appointment to the Department if the Department can provide a competent man, but that you should give it to the Department unless you can find a better man outside. That is a very different thing. I will not say which rule is the better, but the noble Marquesses version is not the rule which is now in force and it is not the rule on which the Service at present relies, and which, as my noble friend said, the Service regards very much in the light of its charter. It is obvious that, when the rule is disregarded and a man is brought in from outside over the head of perfectly competent members of the Service inside the Department, that the greatest discouragement and disappointment must be occasioned. And it is not only discouragement and disappointment. It is really putting a slight upon the Service, because it is, in effect, announcing that the Service has been searched and searched in vain for a competent person to whom the post might be given. With regard to the merits of the two gentlemen whose names have been mentioned, I can only say that to an ordinary reader the claims of Mr. James seem very strong and it certainly seems rather a violent thing to pass him over in favour of a junior, the more so when it is in evidence that Mr. James has been selected by the Bengal Govern-

1947
ment itself to act pro tem as head of the Department and that his name is put forward as the second string in connection with this particular vacancy. I will not say one word in disparagement of Mr. Hornell, but there the fact remains. Mr. Hornell actually resigned the Indian Service in 1908. He was no longer a member of it, and he is brought back for the purpose of superseding his competitor.
Both the noble Marquess and my noble friend used analogies. Analogies are always a little dangerous. I do not think my noble friend's analogy was a good one when he suggested that this was like the case of a regimental officer who had left the Service and then been brought back to command the regiment. I do not think that holds water. Nor, again, do I think that the noble Marquess's analogy holds water. I do not think this is at all a case analogous to that of a regimental officer who has gone on to the Staff without leaving the regiment or the Army and who is brought hack to his regiment after performing valuable service on the Staff. The noble Marquess rather appealed to me. He said he was sure that I recognised the importance of occasionally relying upon selection rather than seniority. I respond to the appeal readily. And then the noble Marquess said, "Look at what has happened in the Diplomatic Service; you have had Lord Cromer, Lord Dufferin and Lord Kitchener brought in from outside with excellent results." I am not quite sure whether I recognise in Mr. Hornell, even upon the noble Marquess's estimate, quite that superiority which was discernible in the three eminent public men whose names tile noble Marquess mentioned just now. But as far as I can remember, what has generally been considered necessary is that when you bring in a man from outside in supersession of members of the Service you should clearly establish that the man whom von bring in from outside is conspicuously superior to those whom he supersedes, and that the particular individual whom he supersedes is less competent for the appointment than his rival.
I am afraid there is no doubt that this episode has created a great deal of irritation, and I should have been glad if the noble Marquess could have told my noble friend that some means would be discovered for putting the matter right. I was very sorry to hear from the noble
1948
Marquess that the particular suggestion which my noble friend made—namely, that Mr. Hornell should be attached to the Government of India on special duty—does not seem to him to be a practical one. But, of course, we are helpless in the matter. I did, however, hear with satisfaction, and I think others will hear with satisfaction, the noble Marquess's distinct assurance that this appointment was not to be regarded as establishing a precedent for other supersessions of a like kind, and that it was justified in his view only by circumstances of a wholly exceptional character.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I moved for Papers, but the noble Marquess has not told me whether he can present any. There is that question still outstanding. Then I should like to say that the noble Marquess's explanation failed in one very important point. He did not make any attempt to show that application had been made to other Provinces. That, surely, is an absolutely indispensable condition of the fulfilment of the rule. He rather claimed that the rule had been observed, but it cannot have been observed unless the Government had tried every other Province and drawn blank. I understood the noble Marquess to say that he had not heard that Lord Carmichael had attempted to stop the appointment when he found that it was a mistake. I have that information from various quarters, not merely from the newspapers.
The noble Marquess compared such appointments in the Diplomatic Service as those of Lord Cromer, Lord Dufferin, and Lord Kitchener with this appointment. He ignored the fact that there has been no pledge and that there was no protest in the case of these diplomatic appointments. As far as I know there is no definite pledge that no outsider should be appointed to the Diplomatic Service, and when eminent men have been appointed there has never been any protest comparable to the protest made on this and on the previous occasions in Bengal. The noble Marquess rather found fault with me for describing the appointment of Mr. Earle as a scandal. I dare say we are not agreed as to the meaning of the term or the manner in which I intended to use it. I did not mean it in any disagreeable sense. I meant a scandal in the sense that it aroused indignation and resentment. And what

1949
was the immediate consequence of the protest which was made in the case of the appointment of Mr. Earle? The rule was reaffirmed, and Mr. Earle was transferred as soon as possible to another appointment, and the man in the Service whom he had superseded, Mr. Kuchler, was appointed Director of Public Instruction. Therefore the noble Marquess has a good precedent for adopting the suggestion which I have made to him.
The noble Marquess says that the difficulties of doing so are insuperable, and he cannot understand what the relations would be between this officer placed on special service and the officers of the Local Government. We have had ample examples. Lord Curzon appointed a number of expert European advisers, and India is now quite accustomed to dealing with these experts appointed for special purposes. Why, then, should the noble Marquess hesitate to undo an action which is regarded so generally as a mistake? And why should he say that if Mr. Hornell is appointed as special adviser to the Government of India no very definite functions could be found for him? I thought that the whole point of the noble Marquess's case was that there is sonic special work that requires doing in Bengal for which no officer of the Indian Civil Service is qualified. It is simply a case of difference of method. You could appoint Mr. Hornell to the Government of India, and the. Government of India could lend him to Bengal for this special purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House. I have no desire to touch upon all the points which the noble Lord mentioned. But when he says that appointments from outside are made in other Services without protest, I should like to ask the noble Marquess opposite whether it is quite true that members of the Diplomatic Service have not made formal protests when gentlemen have been appointed from outside. Anyhow it is not as a rule supposed that they have been particularly pleased. I happened to mention three very distinguished names, but there are names of other people whom I could mention, like, for instance, Sir Henry Drummond-Wolfe, whose reputation was purely Parliamentary; and more could be found. And I think that the noble Lord opposite, who knows the Colonial Office,
1950
is not unaware that at times, either when he was there or when I was there, when gentlemen have been introduced to important posts from outside, although of course round robins are not received, yet protests certainly reach the ears of either the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State.
I think I ought to deal once more with the positive suggestion which the noble Lord made. The difficulty appears to me to be this. The noble Lord puts it in this way, that there is special work to be done in Bengal, and it might be done by an officer of the Government of India while leaving the ordinary administration of the Department to a gentleman of the Bengal Service. That would mean that for this particular purpose the Inspector-General, or whatever he might be who was appointed, would have to be the superior officer of the Director-General, and I cannot conceive that such an arrangement would he regarded, particularly in the existing circumstances, as productive of agreeable personal relations, or of harmony between the two Departments working concurrently. As regards the production of Papers, I am not certain that there are any that could be produced. My hope is that this controversy may die down, and I cannot think that any valuable purpose will be served by producing anything for Parliament. There is a great deal, of course, of a purely confidential character as between Departments which could not be produced. I will, however, look again; but I am very much afraid there are no Papers which would serve in any way the noble Lord's purpose or the public interests.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee considered (according to Order).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE); My Lords, this Report is in print on the Table. I do not think there is anything in it to which I should draw your Lordships' particular attention. I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BISHOPRICS OF SHEFFIELD, CHELMS FORD AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL. (No. 190.)
Read 1a, and to be printed.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that in previous sessions this House has approved of a Bill bearing the title "The Bishoprics Bill," which was rather wider in its scope than this Bill. This Bill, however, is on the same lines and provides for the institution of three particular bishoprics. Therefore I venture to hope that your Lordships will not only give the Bill a Second Reading, but will allow it to pass through all its stages to-day. I think we may congratulate ourselves that the Bill has successfully passed through the other House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure that your Lordships in all parts of the House will share the noble Earl's feeling of satisfaction that this Bill has at length passed through the House of Commons and has now come up for your Lordships' assent. I ought to say, on behalf of noble Lords sitting on this side of the House and also on behalf of many Churchmen who are deeply interested in the question outside, how deeply grateful we are to the Prime Minister for the personal interest he has taken in this matter and the efforts he has made in a busy session to get the Bill through. I believe this Bill to be of the greatest importance to the dioceses concerned. The truth really is that it is absolutely necessary that something should be done to relieve the overworked Bishops. It is almost impossible in some cases to believe that a Bishop who thoroughly does his duty can do so without the greatest peril to his health. The effort is almost unexampled. I regret to think that many noble and devoted Bishops have sacrificed their health, and indeed their lives, in an effort to keep abreast of the tremendous work imposed upon them. I hope the general Bill, the Bill to which the noble Earl referred, will before long be passed into law, by which it will be possible without coining to an overworked Parliament to gain relief, to obtain such changes in the division of dioceses as are really absolutely
1952
called for if the work is to be efficiently carried through.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
GREAT HAYWOOD AND TOMPKIN CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITY BILL. (No. 191.)
HATFIELD (YORK, WEST RIDING) CALVINISTIC CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 192.)
HULME TRUST ESTATES CHARITY BILL. (No. 193.)
KINGSWOOD CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 194.)
PADIHAM HOREB UNION CHURCH CHARITY BILL. (No. 195.)
ROE STREET (MACCLESFIELD) CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 196.)
WIBSEY (BRADFORD) INDEPENDENT CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 197.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have full information with regard to these Bills, which are all of the same kind and have been promoted by the Charity Commissioners. I shall not, however, venture to intrude the full particulars upon your Lordships unless any member would like information with regard to either of these Bills, in which case I shall be happy to supply it. I understand that there are a few more of the same kind of Bills, also promoted by the Charity Commissioners, which are on their way now to your Lordships' House.
Read 1a and to be printed: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 2a: Committee negatived: Bills read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
The LORD SAYE AND SELE—Chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL. (No. 198.)
PRESTON, SOUTHPORT AND GATLEY CHAPELS SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 199.)
BOSDEN WESLEYAN TRUST PROPERTY CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 200.)
BOURNEMOUTH HOSPITAL SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 201.)
ALFRISTON CHAPEL CHARITY BILL. (No. 202.)
Read 1a, and to be printed: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 2a: Committee negatived: Bills read 3a, and passed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Eleven o'clock.