since the institution of competition in 1866, there was a lack of candidates. For the nineteen appointments offered only three candidates, it is said, were willing to present themselves for examination. So advertisements were hastily published in September 1906, announcing the bestowal of appointments by selection' in place of by competition; and all that was now asked for was a knowledge of chemistry, and of physics and mechanics. A knowledge of botany and German will not be insisted on.' This was surely a fearfully low matri culation standard for prospective honours men at any University; but apparently Oxford was so anxious to have these fifty or more students as tacitly to acquiesce in this degradation.

The next announcement was made in February 1907, regarding the appointment of eighteen probationers in August. The idea of competitive examination was then completely abandoned, and twentyone probationers were chosen on the advice of a selection committee' for the forest services of India and Ceylon. This selection committee consisted of Sir Philip Hutchins, member of the Indian Council; Sir Thomas Holderness, Revenue Secretary at the India Office; and Dr. Schlich. And in September 1907 it was announced that a similar procedure will be adopted for the selection of at least sixteen probationers' in the summer of 1908, and also that these will likewise have to go through a two years' theoretical course at Oxford and one year of practical work and touring in German forests. But the standard required under this selection system is far lower than formerly obtained under competition, and especially from thirty to forty years ago, when it was understood that a rupee meant two shillings, and that the ordinary pension every officer might expect was 500l. For example, when I passed in 1872, four appointments were advertised and over fifty candidates competed for them; and now that the rupee is worth only sixteen pence, it is very unlikely that mere selection will furnish as energetic a set of officers as were obtain. able under the old system of competition. Candidates now offering themselves for selection, however, need only give prima facie evidence showing that they must possess a good general education, and, if possible, a knowledge of chemistry, and of mechanics and physics'—which still seems a low matriculation test for prospective honours men at Oxford.

There is only one explanation for the sudden abstention from the competition in 1906, although the standard demanded was lower than it used to be; and this is that the salaries and the pension offered were insufficient inducements for the expensive three years' proba tionary course of training. And the unsatisfactory pensionary provisions must be taken to be the main reason, because this new and marked abstention was manifested immediately after a reorganisation of the Forest Service early in 1906, whereby a substantial increase was made in the salaries sanctioned for an establishment that was ultimately

The in

increased on the 6th of January 1907 to 245 officers.1 sufficient pension is therefore chiefly to blame. And certainly, in the matter of pension, the Forest Department has been shabbily treated.

But the question of forest pensions can perhaps only be considered fairly when its past history is taken into account. In 1874 the heads of the Forest, Public Works, and Telegraph Departments submitted for approval a joint scheme for improving the pensions and providing widows' annuities. This long remained pigeon-holed; but when financial pressure came in 1879, Government intimated that a favourable reply could not then be given. It was understood, however, that later on reconsideration would take place if the finances of India justified it. After joint action had been again unsuccessfully taken in 1882, the Public Works and Telegraph Departments in 1883 pressed their claims, and in April 1884 obtained the grant of extra pensions of 1000 rupees for all Superintending Engineers and Superintendents of Telegraphs, and of 2000 rupees for all Chief Engineers and the DirectorGeneral of Telegraphs; while the Forest Department, whose officers relied on the assurance given by Government rather than join in that agitation, was subsequently, in 1890, granted this boon merely partially, an extra pension of 1000 rupees being sanctioned only for the Inspector-General and the six Conservators of the first grade (out of a total of nineteen Conservators in India). Thus, for their loyalty and good faith the forest officers have suffered severely instead of being generously dealt with. There are still only nine such extra pensions of 1000 rupees sanctioned for the whole of the 245 officers, i.e. hardly one in every twenty-seven officers can ever hope to secure the extra pension; but even of these nine, two are only temporarily sanctioned for five years from 1906 (for the two Chief Conservators in Burma and the Central Provinces), thus leaving only seven permanent extra pensions actually secured to the Department, or only one extra pension for every thirty-five officers.

'Establishment sanctioned on January 6, 1907:

Considering the responsibilities resting on these administrative forest officers, it seems only fair (1) that all the nineteen Conservators, of whatever grade and whether substantive or merely officiating, should, like all the similar officers in the Public Works and Telegraph Departments, be allowed the extra pension of 1000 rupees per annum, now only granted to Conservators who have served for three years in the first grade; and (2) that a further extra pension of another 1000 rupees a year should be sanctioned for the Inspector-General of Forests after three years' approved service, on the same conditions as sanctioned for all Chief Engineers of Public Works and for the DirectorGeneral and the Deputy Director-General of Telegraphs.

The arbitrary pensionary distinction drawn between the Conservators of the first grade and those of the second and third grades is unjustifiable. Promotion is now mainly by seniority, and it is quite a matter of chance as to which Conservators happen to reach the first grade and thereby attain the extra pension of 1000 rupees. Yet it very frequently happens that the heaviest responsibilities and the most important work fall to Conservators of the second and third grades, for whom this extra pension has not yet been sanctioned.

The injustice thus done to Conservators of Forests of the second and third grades has been recently intensified by the granting of extra pensions to Deputy Inspectors-General of Police, who occupy a lower official status than Conservators of Forests. And this injustice is all the greater, seeing that until quite recently no police officers were appointed from home, and that even now they have not to undergo any expensive training before going to India. For forest officers the cost of the three years' special course comes to between 800l. and 1000l.; and during these three years the young police officer draws a total salary of at least 10,800 rupees; so, on joining in India, the forester is worse off than the policeman by from 1500l. to 17007. In equity, therefore, the forest officer would seem to have a far stronger claim to extra pension than the police officer; and yet the Secretary of State granted this extra pension to the Police Department after having previously refused it to the Forest Department and forbidden the Government of India to resubmit any further recommendation on behalf of the forest officers. And during the forest probationer's three years of training the young police officer has not only been earning salary, but also puts in three years of active service counting towards pension, and thereby earns nine months of furlough on half pay as well as three months of privilege leave on full pay. To the honour of the present Government of India, however, this unjust veto is now being ignored, and it is hoped that the renewed proposals coming before the Indian Council will receive the Secretary of State's approval. After Mr. Morley's striking eulogy of the Forest Department in his Budget speech of the 20th of July 1906, he cannot, without appearing strangely inconsistent, refuse to give

favourable consideration to what the Government of India are again urging as reasonable pensionary concessions.

As previously remarked, it can only be after the conclusion of the present contracts with Messrs. Schlich and Fisher, in 1910, that the results of the Secretary of State's acceptance of any or all of the recommendations that may be made by his Committee can be expected to take effect. But it is to be hoped that the Committee will take due measures to ensure obtaining a proper amount of independent and unprejudiced evidence, and that it will not rely solely or chiefly on the opinions of the 'experts' upon whose advice the Secretary of State transferred the probationary instruction from Coopers Hill to Oxford in 1905. This is all the more necessary seeing that the chief expert, Dr. Schlich, is not in a position to form, and cannot possibly form, any unbiassed opinion on matters so closely concerning his own personal employment and position and the special educational work in which he has been engaged since 1885. Since then he has never revisited India to have any proper opportunity of knowing the results of the Coopers Hill system of training, now continued at Oxford, and of ascertaining whether this still suits the Indian requirements at a time when there is a far more highly organised system of work than obtained when he left India in 1885.

While giving a fair and just appreciation to Dr. Schlich's work in educating the forest probationers during more than twenty-two years—a difficult, but an interesting and well-paid employmentit is no disparagement to suggest that the opinions of other Indian forest officers who have occupied or now occupy high administrative positions are also worthy of consideration, for these men know best what are the defects of the recent and the present training, and what changes seem necessary in the interests of practical work. And certainly there is strong feeling in India that an improved course of training is very desirable, as the following extract from the Indian Forester for September 1906 (p. 449) shows:

Should the opinion of almost any conservator be asked, he will tell you that, although the old Nancy and Coopers Hill men of the earlier years turned out as a general rule excellent practical officers, there has been a marked falling off of late years (though naturally there are brilliant individual exceptions); and if the course of instruction at Oxford is what has lately obtained at Coopers Hill, the close observer will find ample cause for grave doubt as to whether the results will prove satisfactory. It is evident that if we are not obtaining the men we require, and there is little doubt about this, the cause must be that the stamp of man coming forward leaves much to be desired, or that the method of training as judged by the results is largely capable of improvement. If the right stamp of man will not come forward, surely Dr. Schlich must, unless he has lost all touch with India, also recognise the fact, and, while doing so, must see that it is his duty to point this out to the Government at home and advocate radical improvements in the pay and prospects of the service and in this way co-operate with the Government of India. If, on the other hand, the method of training is a barrier to our obtaining the men we require, the course at Oxford should be VOL. LXIII-No. 374

UU

abolished, or at least new blood should be infused into that portion of the teaching staff responsible for the education in the forestry subjects.

Of recent years much has been done in Britain in the way of teaching forestry, although we have not many large woodlands. It has been taught at Edinburgh University since 1889, and at the Armstrong (Newcastle) and Bangor Colleges since 1904; and it is now being taught at Cambridge University since October 1907. Edinburgh, Newcastle, and Bangor give the degree of B.Sc. in forestry, and Cambridge confers a diploma of forestry, each of these academic hall-marks being only bestowed after a year's practical course, in addition to the theoretical teaching. Also, at most agricultural colleges (Cirencester, Downton, Aspatria, Wye, and elsewhere) forestry now forms a special branch of the instruction provided for students of estate management. And though none of these courses is so extensive and thorough as that now provided by the Government of India at Oxford (which also grants a diploma of forestry since 1907), yet they at any rate give a fair grounding in the scientific principles underlying every rational system of forestry, and they also provide good specialised instruction in the cognate sciences.

In trying to ascertain the best system of selecting and training probationers, it must be clearly understood that Indian forestry is mainly estate management on a very extensive scale. The success hitherto obtained has been mainly by conservators and deputy conservators endowed with good business instincts and full of energy, for indeed few of them (and these not the best) have been possessed of any really deep scientific knowledge. The Indian forester is far more of an accountant and a general revenue officer than anything else; and the Continental forestry he has been taught in Europe is in many respects inapplicable to the great stretches of woodland committed to his charge. His early impressions of Indian forestry must often, indeed, seem altogether opposed to the first principles he has been taught in Europe. At Coopers Hill, and now at Oxford, German forestry has principally been studied. British forestry-the copse method of growing standard trees, as prescribed by the 'Statute of Woods' (1543) and subsequent Acts-practically became a lost art soon after the introduction and the rapid development of steamcommunication by land and water, and of iron ship-building. As there is only one really large block of woodlands in Britain, the Forest of Dean, now (since 1897) being managed under a regular working plan, so also there is but little modern forestry practised extensively in Britain. Hence, if one wishes to study European forestry it must therefore be either French or German forestry, or both; and when Sir Dietrich Brandis and Dr. Schlich organised forestry instruction at Coopers Hill in 1885, it was quite natural that they, being Germans, would take a German system as their model. And certainly no one can deny that Germany holds the lead in forest science. But German