§ MR. BRODRICK, in rising to call attention to the position of Elementary School Teachers appointed in 1846–51, and the great disadvantage to the cause of education resulting therefrom, and to move—
That the position of School Teachers in public Elementary Schools, appointed 1846–51, in respect of pensions, is detrimental to the host interests of education, and requires the further consideration of Her Majesty's Government,said, that the Motion which he had to make that evening related to a subject which was not unfamiliar to the House. On a previous occasion the Vice President of the Council had promised that he would take the subject into consideration; but, despite any consideration that might have been given to it up to that time, no action had been taken upon the subject. The interest which was felt on that subject was enormous, and he had received a very large amount of correspondence about it—more, indeed, than he had been able even to acknowledge. To those unconnected with the Teaching Profession it might not be an interesting subject; but it was one which had to be dealt with upon its prosaic details. A certain number of school teachers had been appointed in 1846, when the state of public education had been a matter of very serious consideration to Parliament, and when there had been a considerable difficulty in obtaining adequate teachers. Parliament had then put the matter on a definite footing; and it had been resolved that it was expedient to make provision by retiring pensions for those teachers who were disabled by age or illness. This had been followed by another Resolution, by which authority was taken to grant the required pension, but under certain qualifications to be possessed by the teacher. He thought that if they took the case of any other service where a retiring pension might be granted on certain terms, it was understood that when the man had fulfilled those provisions the pension would be given accordingly; but this was not the view taken by the Committee of Council, before whom the matter arose again 940 in 1851. The Committee of Council appeared to have been frightened at what it had done; and it had been resolved that, the object having been to secure competent teachers, and that object having been obtained, the sum of £6,500 should be voted annually as a retiring pension, although the number induced to join had already reached 700 or 800 persons. It must be obvious to the House that during these five years, from 1846 to 1851, a number of teachers had taken office in the belief that no such limitation existed. Ten years later the matter had again come under the consideration of the Council. At that time Mr. Lowe was Vice President of the Council, and seemed to have been seized with the same violent desire for economy by which he had afterwards so distinguished himself, as he had deliberately declared that the pensions were no longer to be granted under any circumstances. After all the promises made, these very limited pensions were taken away, and no pensions given at all. It would hardly be possible to imagine a grosser breach of public faith, and it even seemed as if the moment chosen was specially selected to emphasize this view, for until 1861 no teacher appointed in 1846 would have completed the service necessary for a pension; so that the pensions were taken away by Mr. Lowe at the very moment when the State might be called on to pay them. Of course, the Council might shelter themselves under the words which made it permissive and not compulsory on them to grant pensions. The Vice President of the Council might say he was making an appeal ad misericordiam; but, even if the teachers had been under a mistake, they still had grievances of which to complain. Coming to the Committee of 1872, he would not admit that the Report of that Committee was in any way conclusive. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) would admit the accuracy of what he was saying. The Committee had met late in 1872; they had held a few meetings and examined a few persons. At the end of the Session they had issued a short draft Report, and asked leave to be reappointed in the subsequent Session. That reappointment had never been made, and that draft Report was the one upon which reliance had been 941 placed by those who opposed these claims. The Committee had not taken a tithe of the evidence which could enable it to judge on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had confessed that the Committee ought to have been reappointed for the consideration of these affairs. Many Members of the House had spoken on the subject under great misconceptions, owing to the incomplete nature of the Report; for before 1872 there was no organization of the teachers to secure a proper statement of their views, and no evidence was given before the Committee of the views held by statesmen at the time of the Minute of 1846 as to the interpretation which they put on the undertaking given by the Government. He would, with the permission of the House, read one or two extracts, to show the view taken of this obligation by statesmen of that day. The Marquess of Lansdowne said—I do think that any extension of the system of education in this country will be imperfect, which does not, to a considerable extent, ameliorate the condition of this class, and excite the hopes of reward. It is therefore proposed that a provision, small, undoubtedly, at first, but still which will be considered a very great object as a provision, however small, for old age, shall be made for well-conducted schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, who shall be reported as having for 15 years conducted unexceptionally schools of a certain size.… This, no doubt, will prove a very useful stimulus.Lord John Russell, who was then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, on April 19, 1847, said—I ask the House with confidence, whether it be not most important that the schoolmasters, to whom we intrust a task which it is so necessary they should discharge efficiently, should be able to look forward to some reward and emolument, not perhaps commensurate—for nothing can be commensurate in such cases—but more so than their reward is now, to the great and responsible duties they have to perform, and the importance of the situation they hold in life? With a view to these considerations, there is a proposition—on account of which no money will be required in the present year, but on account of which, in future years, if the grant should be continued, some may be called for—to provide retiring pensions for schoolmasters who may work themselves out in the service, and who, after performing the important duties I have referred to, might find themselves at an advanced age with no provision for the future, and with scarcely bread to eat."—(Ibid., [91] 959.)Mr. T. Duncombe, in moving an Amend- 942 ment to the Motion of Lord John Russell, said—He begged the House for a moment to pause and consider the amount of patronage that had already been created.…Then look at the pensions and gratuities that would be at the disposal of Government and the Privy Council among the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses under the scheme. He wanted to know what necessity there was for schoolmasters, at the end of 15 years' service, having any pensions at all? There were many poor curates who had worked from 20 to 30 years, who had no pensions; and yet a schoolmaster, who should enter as a teacher at an age of 20 or 25, was not only to get gratuities during his service, but a retiring allowance at the end of 15 years.…What he wanted was that this unconstitutional body (Committee of Council on Education) should not have the power of granting gratuities and pensions to the extent of some £2,000,000 of the public taxes."—(Ibid., 995–6.)Therefore, Mr. Duncombe had argued against the imposing of millions on the public taxes for teachers; whereas the actual sum to which the generosity of the Government had extended was £6,500 annually for a limited period. He thought it must be apparent to the House that, since the Committee of 1872 had not received evidence on this subject, the House had not been in a position to give a decision upon it. That was not all. He had evidence from these teachers to show that the Committee of Council in 1847 issued a broad-sheet to be hung up in the schools containing a statement that the Committee would grant pensions to schoolmasters if they would fulfil certain conditions. He had made a great effort to get hold of one of these sheets. The distance of time, however, was so great, that he had not been able to do so, but the Committee would take it that the fact was beyond a doubt. He desired, however, to pass to the reasons why this matter, having been reconsidered in 1875, should now be reconsidered again. In 1875 the noble Viscount (Viscount Sandon) said that after the debates of 1846 it was felt that the teachers had a moral claim which it would be unwise for any Government to disregard; and Lord Advocate Gordon declared, as to its legal aspect, that he should be sorry to be obliged to argue against it. If the teachers had a moral claim, that claim could not be discharged by granting a small portion of it only. A small sum—£6,500—was put aside for that purpose, and no doubt when the grant was made 943 it was thought that it would meet the demands of the case—the teachers then had not been so long in the service, and consequently retirements were not so numerous. How were their claims met now by the sum voted in 1875? He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman had no more unpleasant task to fulfil than to select two or three cases in every 100 deserving applicants for pensions. On the last occasion there were 70 applicants, and out of these the right hon. Gentleman was only able to grant two pensions of £30 to men who were taught at the beginning of their career to expect that they would receive two-thirds of their salary. The very fact that Lord Sandon, in granting £6,500, also relaxed the conditions under which the pensions were granted, showed that he could not have contemplated such a condition of things. He had evidently hoped to pension all those affected, or he would have increased rather than relaxed the stringency of the rules. It was necessary also clearly to state that these men had had no opportunity of saving, for there was too much belief in these days that persons appointed early in life at very small salaries, on getting the advantage of the grant of 1870 or 1872, would be able to save something. It was very desirable that provision should be made by persons saving something from their incomes rather than by looking forward to pensions; but that was no reason why the Council should not carry out the promises they had made, and meet their legal claims. How did the case stand? These teachers, on first appointment, 35 years ago, were receiving from £40 to £60 a-year, the wage of an agricultural labourer; and how was it possible for any man to keep up the position of a schoolmaster, especially if he was married and had a family, and to save anything? That brought them to the gigantic evils they had now to face. His Motion was in the interests of education at large. People who had joined an honourable profession, after 40 years, had to choose between the charity of friends and the workhouse. If they had saved nothing, the workhouse was their only resource; and if, by great self-denial, they had been able to put by a small sum, they were absolutely in a worse position than those who had not been so provident, for their chance of obtaining a pension 944 was diminished by that fact. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that any pension in his power went to the most needy, and not to the most deserving. Almost all these men when they were married had large families, like the clergy; no doubt for the same reasons, as they married early, and brought up their families as best they could. None of those who communicated with him had less than five, and some of them as many as 15 children. Many of them in their old age were afflicted with bodily infirmities—loss of sight, of hearing, and so forth—and they were perfectly ashamed to continue in their situations; but, as he had said, they had nothing to choose except to remain or to go to the workhouse. His request was not an indefinite or vague one; it was this. From the years 1862 to 1875 the grant, small in itself, but admitted by the Committee of 1851, and again in 1875, was withheld; if that grant had been given through that period, they would not have reached their present position, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to restore the grant for that period of 13 years. These men had been 40 years in the service; and although he knew that when a man obtained a pension he always lived a long time, still, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to make the allowance, it would have a very considerable effect—at all events, it would mitigate the hardship for the present, and if a sum of £13,000 in all were given annually for 13 years, seeing the age of those concerned, there would be no difficulty afterwards in returning to the present grant. He did not by any means desire to increase the present charges of taxpayers any more than of the local ratepayers; he felt as bitterly as anyone the enormous amount of rates which the school boards and education in general demanded; but he would be prepared to get up in any assembly in the country, even of ratepayers, and if the case was fairly stated to them, he believed they would feel that this was a bitter grievance, and a violation of public faith, and in that sense he submitted his Motion to the House.
§ MR. C. T. D. ACLANDseconded the Motion, which, he said, would not require many words from him after what had fallen from the hon. Member. The request of the teachers was very definite 945 and precise. They did not ask for a general scheme of pensions; their request was limited to persons whose claim had already accrued, or must very shortly accrue. They asked that pensions should be granted to persons who were appointed teachers between 1846 and 1851. The total number of such teachers could be easily ascertained, and it was diminishing every year. He believed that the total number originally was 1,362, of whom 893 were males and 469 females, but that they afterwards decreased to 378, of whom 268 were males and 110 females. During the last 12 years these numbers must have fallen off still further; but he had been unable to ascertain the numbers. No doubt, the Education Department could easily give them; but he found that in 1872 only two pensioners had died out of 48, and nine other pensions had lapsed. If the right hon. Gentleman urged that what had been done was the work of Parliament, he replied by saying that the Minutes of 1846 and 1851 had just as much Parliamentary sanction and force as the Revised Code of 1861 itself. It might be said that those school teachers were not public servants in the ordinary sense; but he maintained that they were practically, to all intents and purposes, servants of the State, because, although they were employed by the managers, they were placed by the State under regulations so minute and precise that their position hardly differed, except technically, from that of servants of the State. Those who had studied the terms of the Minute and the evidence of Mr. Lingen, who drew up the Circular letter which explained and enforced the Minute, would see that the Privy Council, when it issued the Minutes of 1846 and 1851, was inspired in the first place, and mainly, by a desire for the good of the schools, and that the second consideration was the claim of the teachers on the public. The Minute of August 6, 1851, spoke of the removal of the teachers being effected in a manner consistent "with their claims on the public." So in each case their claims on the public were recognized. It might be alleged that the whole sum of £6,500, which was contemplated in the Circular of 1851, was not granted in any one year up to 1861. But, on the other hand, it should be recollected that the original offer made in the Mi- 946 nute of 1846 was one which contemplated pensions being given to those deserving teachers who should earn them by long and meritorious service, and whose claims could not accrue until the cessation of that service; and it was now that those claims were coming upon the public. Whether or not they were to have the £6,500 a-year for the 13 years during which the money was not paid, he thought the House might at least be asked to join in pressing for such au extension of the limited sum of £6,500 as would enable the Privy Council to meet the just claims of the teachers who entered the service during the five years between 1846 and 1851. The original grievance complained of rested entirely on the Committee of Council's interpretation of expressions used by themselves in previous years. The documents indicated a sort of feeling on the part of the Department that it was necessary to hedge—to use a colloquial phrase—as it had committed itself a little further than it was able to go, because it was said that their Lordships took powers, but did not pledge themselves that any pension should be granted as a right. The House would be able to read between the lines, and would perceive that their Lordships felt that in an unguarded moment they had not sufficiently limited the offer held out in 1846. The teachers had been induced by the offer then made either to enter the service or to remain in it on lower terms than, they would have done if they had not had a right to expect a pension. Successive Vice Presidents of the Council had recognized the justice of the appeal now being made, and he believed that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) felt it strongly. He hoped that it would be admitted that the small amount of the previous Votes of the House did not afford any criterion of what ought to be the amount under the altered circumstances and the accruing claims of the present time. Considering the high moral character of those whose case he was pleading, their self-sacrificing labours, and their well-deserved influence with the rising generation, he thought the matter might be safely left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the position of School Teachers in public Elementary Schools, appointed 1846–51, in respect of pensions, is detrimental to the
947
best interests of education, and requires the further consideration of Her Majesty's Government."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he would only intervene for a very few minutes between the House and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), than whom no one was more competent to give an opinion upon the case now before the House; but he desired to say a few words in explanation, or addition, to what he had said in July of last year, when it fell to his lot, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), to press the claims of these teachers upon the House. But, in the first place, he must congratulate that hon. Member for having had an opportunity, of which he had most ably availed himself, of stating this case fully to the House. When he (Sir Henry Holland) addressed the House last year it was late at night, and many other important educational points were pressed upon the Vice President at the same time, which naturally weakened the effect of the cause for which he then pleaded. After the full statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick'), he would not, of course, go into any details; but he desired to point out how, in one respect, he had not last year done full justice to the views of the teachers. He had then frankly stated that, as regarded the strictly legal view of the case, he was not quite prepared to agree with the teachers. The language of the Minute of 1846 was, no doubt, misleading; but he was of opinion that the Committee of 1872 had placed the right construction upon it, and that there was no absolute pledge in terms on the part of the Education Department to pay pensions to all teachers who fulfilled certain conditions. He had then stated that he was not surprised at the construction which they put upon the Minute; and he now desired to state that he thought, after reading the speeches made by certain Noblemen and Members of Parliament in 1847, which had not then been brought to his notice, that they were most amply justified in the view they had taken, even though it was not strictly legal. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had cited some of these speeches; but he desired to refer to a speech which had not been cited, but which appeared to him the strongest 948 of all. In February, 1847, Lord Lansdowne—then, he believed, President of the Council, but, at all events, the person of all others most qualified to explain and interpret the Minute of 1846—after pointing out that there
Was no class of men better entitled to the attention and favour of Parliament than the great mass of the schoolmasters of England,said, with reference to this very Minute—It is therefore proposed that a provision, small, undoubtedly, at first, but still which will be considered a very great object as a provision, however small, for old age, shall be made for well-conducted schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, who shall be reported as having for 15 years conducted unexceptionally schools of a certain size.It would be observed that this was an unconditional statement, except as to length of service and conduct; and that it was eminently calculated to induce teachers, and did doubtless, in fact, induce teachers, to enter the service upon the sure reliance of having pensions secured to them. Putting aside, then, the legal aspect of the case, these speeches gave the teachers an overwhelming moral and equitable claim to pensions. The Committee of 1872 evidently felt the strong nature of this claim, although these speeches were not, as far as he could make out, brought under their notice. That this feeling existed was shown by two facts. First, that an Amendment in favour of the teachers was only lost by a majority of two; and, secondly, that the Committee suggested their reappointment, with a view to their being enabled to consider and report upon various schemes of superannuation in favour of the teachers, which had been brought before them, but which they had not time to deal with. When replying to his (Sir Henry Holland's) speech last year, the Vice president of the Council promised "to make an appeal to the Treasury;" and he felt sure that the Vice President had acted up to that promise, and had made a bonâ fide appeal to the Treasury. He was afraid, however, that that appeal must have failed, otherwise this debate would not have been allowed to take place, and the successful result of that appeal would have been stated. If such were the case, he and others who supported the claim of the teachers must now apply direct to the Secretary to the 949 Treasury, whose absence he regretted, and they must endeavour by constant dropping to soften his stony heart. He would urge upon him that though Parliament was jealous, and very justly jealous, of any increase of expenditure, and especially, perhaps, of any increase in respect of the Education Department, still that Parliament would be ready to recognize any good grounds for such increase; and that there were, in this case, good grounds, public and private, for an increase to meet these pensions. The moral claim of the teachers constituted the private ground; and the public ground—namely, the promotion of education—was equally strong; for no one could doubt but that the cause of education suffered from the fact that these teachers were obliged to keep on, although incapacitated from health or age from doing the good service which, until so incapacitated, they had honestly performed. Although the schools over which they presided must necessarily to a certain extent suffer, these teachers could not retire, because, without pensions, they would have to drift into the workhouse. It was most painful to read the list of cases of teachers—some 133 in number—who were applying for annuities to the Church Benevolent Institution, on the ground of old age and ill-health. He was satisfied that the country would not grudge well-earned pensions to such teachers; and he, therefore, heartily supported the Motion now before the House.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was true that the Report of the Committee appointed in 1872 could not be construed in favour of the Motion. In 1875, however, when Mr. Whitwell brought the matter forward again, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that since the time of the Committee fresh evidence had come out, and that strong speeches had been made in both Houses, which it was impossible to read without admitting that the teachers had a great claim. He was quite prepared still to adhere to that statement. The original Minute on the subject said, "A pension may be granted" under certain circumstances. The question was whether "may" meant "must;" and, in the opinion of the Committee, it did not do so. When, however, he read the speeches that were delivered at the time when it was first proposed to grant pensions, the case seemed 950 to him to assume a very different aspect. The words of Lord Lansdowne, who at the time spoke with more authority on matters of education than belonged to anyone else, excepting, perhaps, the then Prime Minister, could only be interpreted as a promise that pensions would be given to schoolmasters. An appeal was now made to the feelings of hon. Members; and it was said that it was undesirable that men and women should be compelled to continue working as schoolmasters and schoolmistresses when they arrived at an age at which they ought to retire, and that it was a great disappointment to them not to obtain the pension upon which they had counted. These were very good grounds for an appeal ad misericordiam; but there was also room for an appeal on the ground of public faith. The question was, what was the temptation that was held out to men and women to become masters and mistresses? He thought there could be very little doubt that a pension was part of the temptation. There was a much more important matter than the expenditure of public money to be considered, and that was the keeping of good faith. There was, in his opinion, an actual, positive claim on the part of masters and mistresses to whom the Motion referred to a pension under the conditions on which it was offered; and that was the reason why he spoke so strongly in 1875, and why he ventured to speak so strongly now. If they meant to keep good faith, the only question they had to consider was whether that Minute of Viscount Sandon's of £6,500 was sufficient; and he thought his hon. Friend who had brought the Motion forward had shown that it was not sufficient. He was sure all of them would feel, and that the State and their constituents—much as they might dislike the expenditure of public money—would feel, that the servants of the country ought not to be worse treated than the servants of any respectable business firm. For these reasons he most strongly supported the Motion.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that at the end of last year, and at the end of a very long night's debate, he made a promise that he would renew his appeal to the Treasury in favour of some additional aid for the purposes of pensions for teachers. The Mover of the Motion before the House had said that although 951 he (Mr. Mundella) had made the promise, no action had been taken upon it. But the promise was made during last year, and immediately after the Recess he had communicated with the Secretary of the National Union of Elementary Teachers, and asked him to place before him a full statement of the claims of the teachers, and the arguments offered in support of them, and that statement was not sent in until the 14th of November. Since that time there had been no allotment of pensions, though the time for allotment was now at hand. There had, therefore, been no laches on his part, and no one had suffered up to now. He could assure the House that the allotment of these pensions was a very painful duty to him, as no doubt it had been to his Predecessors; whilst the number of pensions to give did not increase, the number of applicants was largely increasing. He might say that there were, in fact, no pensions to give except those created by the death of previous holders of them. At the last half-yearly allotment he had but two at his disposal, and there were over 70 applicants, all meritorious, all deserving oases. He had made his appeal to the Treasury, and had submitted the facts to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who, he was glad to say, had not met him in any haggling way. His hon. Friend, however, was unable to admit that the teachers had any legal claim to a pension, and that view was also supported by the evidence of Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, Sir Ralph Lingen, and Sir Francis Stanford before the Committee in 1872. Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth had said every teacher had the same sort of claim to a pension, as every barrister had a hope of becoming Lord Chancellor. The Minute of 1846 was in itself so ambiguous as to be misleading, and although one thing might be in the minds of the framers of the Minute, another thing was in the minds of the teachers who read it; and he was bound to say he thought the latter were justified in forming a conclusion that every teacher who fulfilled the conditions of Minute had a fair claim. There certainly was every thing to justify the teachers in their claim. Between 1846 and 1851 a number of teachers were attracted into the profession by the pension which was then promised; and it was not until 1851 that the Lord President of the 952 Council became frightened at the amount which these pensions would reach, and placed the limit of £6,500 a-year on the pensions to be given. Up to the year 1851 there was, in the mind of the teachers at any rate, no limit on the amount of pensions to be paid. The Secretary to the Treasury had given this matter a good deal of consideration, and he (Mr. Mundella) was thankful to find himself in the position of being able to accede to the case laid before the House by the hon. Member. No man in the House, or out of it, would enjoy more than he the change he was about to announce, for hitherto almost every Member in the House had applied to him, and brought before him, the claims of different teachers to pensions. He had submitted to the Treasury a proposal that they should make a grant for the purpose of these pensions; but the Secretary to the Treasury replied that this claim was either a sound and fair one, or it was not. Between 1846 and 1851 there was a great influx of teachers, and any definite grant that might be made might not be sufficient to meet all the cases. Of course, he only referred to the cases of those teachers who entered the profession between 1846 and 1851. Those who came in after 1851 came in on distinct terms, and they knew that the pensions were limited to £6,500 a-year. In 1861 pensions were abolished, and there was no claim, for pensions in respect of teachers who joined since that year. Their position was altogether altered. But in respect of those teachers who joined between 1846 and 1851, with the distinct understanding that they would have pensions, the Treasury would find the money to give them the pensions to which they were entitled. The teacher at the present time was not in the position of a civil servant with a fixed salary. He had a position of independence, and could make his own bargain, with the school managers. His pay was greatly increased, and the prizes of the profession were far more numerous than before. He hoped that these prizes would go on increasing in number, and this they would do in proportion as the English idea of education was raised. The improvement in the salaries of teachers even in very recent years was very remarkable. Thus, in 1874 the number of teachers whose salaries were under £100 a-year was 4,300, and in 953 1883 the number was 5,900. In 1874 the number whose salaries were above £100 and under £200 was 3,885, and in 1883 it was 7,740. In 1874 the number whose salaries were between £200 and £300 was 251, and in 1883 it was 994. The number whose salaries in 1874 were over £300 a-year was 18, and in 1883 the number was 191. Similarly, in 1874 there were only 492 schoolmistresses whose salaries were over £100; in 1883 the number was 3,095. The position of the teachers had been a rapid and steady advance since the passing of the Education Act. It was most important that it should be so; and he hoped that teachers would, by a combination of intelligence and association, make for themselves ample provision, and would not have to come to Parliament for any assistance in their old age.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTcongratulated his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey on the satisfactory result of his Motion. He wished, however, before the debate closed to understand exactly what the right hon. Gentleman had given to the teachers. He understood the concession amounted to this—that the teachers who entered between 1846 and 1851, and between 1851 and 1862, were to receive pensions, but in differing ratios. With regard to the first class, they were to have the whole of the pensions to which they were entitled—namely, two-thirds of their salaries.
§ MR. MUNDELLAOh, no, no; in accordance with the Minute of 1846.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTbelieved that was one of the terms of the Minute of 1846.
§ MR. MUNDELLAThat was the maximum allowance.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTThen were the teachers who entered between 1846 and 1851 to receive pensions equal to two-thirds of the emoluments they received?
§ MR. MUNDELLANo.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, then he did not think the teachers had got what in the course of the debate hon. Members had been led to expect they would get, or that the teachers ought to get. Were they, then, to receive a pension the amount of which was to be determined by the right hon. Gentleman himself or his Successor in Office, and according to the circumstances of each particular case? It might be one- 954 third or one-sixth, but in no case could it exceed two-thirds.
§ MR. MUNDELLAThere is a fair guide as to the rate of the pension by the 200 pensions fixed in 1851. It is impossible to give a larger pension than that given to teachers in the past.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTWere they, then, to understand that the teachers in the first class—those appointed between 1846 and 1851—who had a strong Parliamentary and official claim, if they had not an absolute legal claim—were to be raised to the footing to which he now understood the remainder of that class was to be raised? The House would observe that up to this time there were a considerable number of teachers surviving who were appointed between 1846 and 1851, and very few of those teachers had received any pension at all up to this time.
§ MR. MUNDELLAThe hon. Gentleman forgets that there are 270 pensions running now, and those teachers have their full share.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTBut of the total number a very small proportion had received that pension. He understood, however, that the whole number appointed between 1846 and 1851 were to receive a pension if they fulfilled the conditions required of them, and that the amount was to depend upon the opinion which the Vice President or his Successor formed of their services in each particular case. What was to happen, then, to the teachers appointed between 1851 and 1861? They had not so strong a claim as the former class, but they had a strong claim on the Government for pensions in their turn; and he wished to know how much they might expect to receive of the amount obtained by the right hon. Gentleman from the Treasury? What were the real facts of the case with regard to the class of pensions referred to in the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick)? Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth in 1846 made a statement on the subject, which was worthy the attention of the House. In 1846 a pamphlet was published entitled The School in its relation to the State, issued as "an explanation of the Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education, in August and December, 1846." It was generally admitted that this pamphlet was written by Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, who was at that time Secretary 955 of the Committee of Council. In that pamphlet he said—
Their Lordships desired to render the profession of schoolmaster honourable by raising its character, by giving it the public recognition of impartially awarding certificates or diplomas, and by securing to well-trained or otherwise efficient masters a position of comfort during the period of their arduous labour, and the means of retirement on a pension awarded by the Government.There was no mention here of pensions which they themselves had subscribed for. The pamphlet goes on—Their Lordships have, therefore, rendered superannuation pensions accessible to masters distinguished by long and efficient services, and who, by age or by any disabling infirmity, are compelled to retire. It cannot be doubted that such arrangements will raise this profession in public estimation by increasing its efficiency and respectability.He would quote one more piece of evidence which was admitted to be written by Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth. In a letter dated March 11th, 1847, addressed to Mr. E. Salter, Secretary of the Manchester British Schoolmasters' Association, he said—I had yesterday to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th instant, in which you inquired whether masters of the elementary schools who have not been trained in a Normal school under the inspection of the Committee of Council are admissible to the advantages offered by their Lordships' Minutes of August and December last, provided that upon the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools my Lords find such masters to be efficient and deserving.…I informed you also that my Lords, being desirous to offer the strongest inducements to schoolmasters and schoolmistresses to render long and efficient services to the public, had opened the prospect of a retiring pension to this class of teachers.He thought, if they were to haggle about the meaning of words, and to ask whether the claim was a legal or a moral one, they were pursuing a course of conduct very unworthy the House of Commons. [Mr. MUNDELLA: All that is admitted.] It was not admitted a few months ago; and if it was now admitted he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite candid when he quoted against his opponents the evidence of Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth before the Committee of 1872. This was not a Party question, however, and he was sorry that during a portion of the time that this iniquitous state of things had been going on—he said it with shame—a Conservative Government had been in 956 Office. He trusted that the manner in which those teachers had been treated during those 13 years would never again be imitated in the Public Service of this country.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he thought the Treasury and the Government had acted in a fair spirit in regard to the claims of the teachers appointed before 1851. He presumed that the pensions awarded would be something like those in the Code—namely, pensions of £20, £25, or £30. He thought the Department should give pensions on the more liberal scale of £30 a-year to those teachers of old standing who entered the profession before 1851. He hoped that the Department would not, for the sake of a small annual sum, disappoint the expectations of those teachers who joined between 1851 and 1862, during which period the Vote of £ 6,500 was suspended.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he understood that the teachers appointed before 1851 would receive pensions; but if that consumed the £6,500, he understood the teachers between 1851 and 1862 would receive no pension. What he wished to know was, how the Government proposed to deal with the teachers between 1851 and 1862? Supposing the pensions to the other teachers consumed the £6,500, were they to have pensions or not?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman proposed that pensions should be given up to the amount of £6,500 in each year, but that if after that allotment had been made any of the teachers appointed between 1846 and 1851 had not got a pension, then they would have a pension irrespective of the £6,500. [Mr. MUNDELLA: That is so.] He hoped the concession would be carried a little further, and that the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the claims of the teachers appointed between 1851 and 1861.
§ MR. COURTNEYexplained that the Government were not going to make any concession which might countenance a general claim to pensions. As he understood, all were agreed in repudiating a general system of pensions. The action of the Government had reference strictly to the Minutes that had been quoted. The teacher who came in between 1846 and 1851 was entitled to appeal to the Minute of 1846, and to say—"I came in with the expectation that in certain con- 957 ditions I should receive a certain pension; but subsequently the amount to be allotted to pensions was diminished, and after that for a time suspended altogether; that was in derogation of the expectation I had a right to look forward to, and so far you have wronged my moral expectation." The Government met that position by saying—"Whatever you had a moral right to look forward to shall be conceded, whatever burden maybe thrown upon the Treasury." The teacher between 1851 and 1862 had the right to look forward to the chance of a succession to a pension in certain conditions, provided the total allotted to pensions did not exceed £6,500 a-year. The appeal of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) might be good as an appeal ad misericordiam, but the Government rejected it; they were only conceding those which were moral claims; and the moral claim between 1851 and 1862 was to a contingent share in £6,500. The Government restricted themselves to the full satisfaction of the moral claims. They all renounced the idea that pensions should be conceded to teachers as a class, and the Government were giving them only to those who entered the service on the faith of the Minutes; and to that extent they gave all that was demanded.
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, he must express his acknowledgments to the House and the Government for the spirit in which his Resolution had been met, and before withdrawing it he would only ask for a further explanation as to the way in which the pensions would be distributed. When the total exceeded £6,500, would teachers appointed after 1851 have to wait till it fell again to that level, or would they compete on even terms with the teachers appointed in 1846 to 1851 for any vacant pensions in the original sum? If not, the teachers appointed in 1851 to 1862 would be in a worse position by his Motion.
§ MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, that to the earlier class of teachers—1846 to 1851—pensions would be given in meritorious cases without regard to the total.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the pensions would be on the same scale as under the present Minute.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to make a protest against the theory that there was no hope in the future 958 for a general system of pensions for teachers. There seemed to him no serious difficulty about devising a scheme of regular insurance under State supervision, by which a fixed percentage of each annual salary should be put by. After a sufficient period of service the teacher might retire upon an annuity thus provided for, with the addition of a bonus from the State proportionate to the length of service, and perhaps to his past efficiency in the profession. This would be similar to the State assurance proposed by Prince Bismarck for Germany.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.