TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (STATE AID).

HC Deb 24 February 1893 vol 9 cc362-99

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

moved the following Amendment:— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a National State-aided system of Superannuation for Teachers in Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales should be established at an early date. He said he rose at an inconvenient hour, perhaps (8.40); but he also rose with some anxiety, because he knew how anxious a large number of persons were regarding the question, and he was conscious, also, of the intensity of the hope with which they regarded the proceedings of the House this evening, when in the terms of his Resolution he said "an early date" he did not mean to pledge the House to any particular time; and if there should be any objection to these words they could be easily omitted. The point was really to obtain the general sanction of the House to the principle, at least, of a scheme for the superannuation of teachers in England and Wales. It would be in the recollection of the House that very early in the Session he put a question to the Vice President of the Council who was the Minister for Education on this subject, and he was told that the matter was one of great importance, that it would involve a large expenditure of money, and that no hope could be held out that there would be time to deal with it during the present Session. He hoped that did not imply that the House was unprepared to take the great matter up when the time arrived.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

SIR R. TEMPLE

said that, in spite of the answer he had received from the right hon. Gentleman, he trusted that the House would on this occasion acknowledge the general principle of the scheme without pledging itself to carry it into effect at any particular date. The late Parliament appointed a Select Committee, which sat for two Sessions and acknowledged the principle, and he hoped and trusted that the present Parliament would accept the policy of its predecessor, because he must remind his Parliamentary comrades that if they expected that their authority would be acknowledged by their successors, they ought to show some respect for the authority of their predecessors. Now, the Select Committee appointed by the last Parliament, which was composed of Members carefully chosen from both sides of the House for their educational ability, sat for two consecutive Sessions. They took the evidence of the very best educationalists throughout the country. They consulted Mr. Sutton, the Government Actuary for the Friendly Societies, who was especially selected for that purpose, and he was glad to record his testimony of the value of Mr. Sutton's services and of the elaborate and exhaustive inquiry which that gentleman made. An elaborate Report was presented; the matter was worked out by the Members of the Committee by the sweat of their brows. The right hon. Gentleman the present head of the Education Department was a prominent Member of the Committee. Therefore he (Sir R. Temple) was introducing the subject under peculiarly favourable auspices. At this moment there were some 107,000 persons, including pupil teachers, engaged in elementary teaching, and they represented the teaching power for some 30,000 schools; but it was not to be supposed that all these persons came within the scheme, which was carefully limited to certificated teachers, who numbered 50,000 only, though that, indeed, was a number large enough. Now, these certificated teachers felt with the utmost anxiety that some superannuation scheme should be passed, and they were prepared to submit to very heavy sacrifices, or, at least, sacrifices which would be heavy to them. As regarded the policy of superannuating teachers, he might argue that there were personal reasons in favour of it, because these persons formed a most useful, meritorious, and interesting class. He hoped that the House would have pity upon their narrow circumstances, and extend a merciful consideration to all their toils, cares, and anxieties. There was no class of persons who deserved better the favour of Parliament than they did. But there was a further and equally great reason—namely, a public and governmental policy, because it was well-known to all educationalists that, after a certain time of life the teacher man or woman, lost his or her mental alertness, brightness, and vivacity, and ceased to be as efficient a teacher as he or she once was. Consequently, there were complaints already rising, and, in deed, they had arisen in the past, regarding the deterioration of a large number of our teachers as they advanced in life through no fault whatever of their own. The difficulty was not so great 20 or 30 years ago, when our schools were hardly one-third of their present number; but now that our schools had multiplied all over the land, this difficulty was increasing, and would shortly affect seriously the efficiency of the schools and imperil their educational vigour. Therefore, if they were to maintain the teaching strength of their teaching staff, there must be some mode of superannuation, because it was impossible to discharge and throw upon the world the teachers as they advanced in life. Of course, it it would be said, "Why should not the teachers provide superannuation for themselves?" Well, in the first place, their salaries were, unhappily, small. The House would be surprised if he went into details and showed how many teachers received salaries less than £50, £60, £70, and £80 a year. It was an extraordinary instance of the cheapness of purely intellectual labour in this country as compared with manual and skilled labour. And they had the fact that whether the teachers as a body ought to do so or not—he did not say they would not, because he believed that they would if they could—they did not make provision for old age. In their case there was almost a total absence of such provision. That was a fact which could not be denied, and they might almost say that unless some provision were made by State intervention many of the teachers would be brought in penury to the grave. Thus there was a real necessity for State intervention, and of such intervention they had not to go far to seek for examples. He believed that in almost every other nation on the Continent of Europe that had a system of State education had also a system of superannuation added to it. In England, whether it was a Department of the Government Service, or a firm, or large Corporation, or Company, they all had a system of this kind. The Education Department for England and Wales, in fact, was one of the few Departments that had gone on up to the present time destitute of a superannuation system. Having said so much by the way of general preface in favour of the scheme, he would in a few brief words explain the principles of the plan as proposed by the Select Committee which reported last Session. In the first place, they proposed a compulsory organisation—that was to say, an organisation which every future teacher must join. Then there was to be a subscription, of course, for the teachers and a subvention from the State. Two superannuation funds would consequently be established, one by the teachers and the other by the State. The one by the teachers would, of course, be managed by the Education Department, but, besides that, a second fund would be set up by the State itself. Though the system would be compulsory in the case of teachers appointed after a certain date, it would be optional as regarded existing teachers. It would be impossible to compel persons to enter a system who had not been engaged thereto on their entrance into the service. The subscriptions from existing teachers, as he would presently show, would be different to those from future teachers. The rate of subscription for the teachers would be reckoned, at about 4 to 5 per cent. on their salaries. This would be a heavy rate considering the small salaries which were paid to the great majority of teachers. The subscriptions and the subvention together were expected to provide a pittance only for the lower-paid teachers, and a bare subsistence for those who were better paid. It would be found that the Government subvention offered to the teachers was but slight, though he admitted that it would prove costly on the whole. He did not conceal that from the House. Then as regarded the age of retirement, that would be made compulsory. The age proposed was really too late for educational proficiency, that was to say, we should be retaining men and women in the service longer than they ought to stay if they were to teach with the energy he had already described. It was, no doubt, a hard condition for the teachers that they should be obliged to stay so long in the service in order to earn their pensions, but if we made the age earlier it would be too costly for the State, and would provide but too small a pension for the teachers. Nobody but those accustomed to actuarial figures could realise the difference which five years made when they got past 50 to the pension which a subscription would purchase, so they would propose an earlier age of retirement than the compulsory one, but that would be optional, and those who availed themselves of it would have to accept a reduced superannuation. Thus the two considerations would reflect one upon the other. To the teachers who would say that the provision they proposed was too low, they would say, "Ah, but look at the heavy cost involved to the State." To the House who might be inclined to murmur at the cost involved to the Treasury, he would reply, "Yes, but look at the narrowness of the provision which we have ventured to recommend." Thus these two considerations acted and reacted on each other, and one was justified by the other. He might add that they had not included in the scheme any provision for what was only too well known by the ominous name of "break-down." That was to say, they did not recommend any plan for those who were compelled to retire through ill-health through no fault of their own before the pensionable age. They had to their great regret found it difficult to make any such recommendation for this reason, that they could not reckon the cost. They had no actuarial data, and they hesitated to submit anything to the House which could not be justified in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Besides, the Reference to the Committee was as to superannuation, and when they got to the question of a break-down they travelled beyond the limit of that Reference. Such were the main ideas which were in the minds of the Committee, They formed their scheme, in consultation with the Government actuary. He would now go into the business details, for hon. Members would at once say to him, "All you have adduced is very fine in its way, the principles are undeniable, the groundwork is irrefragable, but what exactly do you propose; what are the rates and subscriptions; what are the benefits; what are the rates of the Government subvention; above all, what will the cost of it be ultimately to the Treasury?" Now, these several points he must advert to in the following order:—First, the subscriptions from the teachers; secondly, the subvention from the Government; thirdly, the benefits to be secured by the subscriptions and subvention together; fourthly, the conditions; fifthly, the cost to the State. Let hon. Members remember that the scheme referred only to certificated teachers, and it was assumed that the men entered the service at 23 years of age, and the women at 22. With regard to the definition of "future teachers," it would include those who were appointed after a certain date; but, in order to lighten the financial burden, they included in that category all the juniors now in the service and those who had less than ten years' service. The object was to lessen the category of existing teachers, because, as he would show, they were obliged to offer to them terms more favourable than those offered to future teachers. With regard to subscriptions, they proposed that every man should pay £3 annually, and every woman £2. This applied to all, whatever their salary might be, but those who enjoyed salaries of £80 a year and upwards were to pay £1 for every £25; that was, in fact, about 4 per cent. on the salaries all round. That was the calculation of the Committee, and he submitted that that was a heavy deduction. These deductions for men and women together would amount to over £150,000 annually. It would be nearer £175,000, in fact, and the House would admit that that was a large sum to deduct from the elementary teachers. He might be asked how he proposed that this sum should be collected from the 50,000 teachers scattered all over the country. It would be deducted from the Government grant to every school, and the managers would have confided to them the duty, which he was sure they could be trusted to execute, of seeing that the proper deduction was made from the salaries. As regarded the existing teachers who joined the fund optionally—an option, indeed, which would be universally availed of—they would pay the £3 and the £2 annually as before. After considerable consideration, the Committee had been unable to propose anything in the way of back payments. It was impossible to expect people, who only receive a salary equal to their wants in a respectable position in life, to pay up any large sum on account of back payments which they had never expected to be asked to pay. But still, if any of them should be willing to pay-down a sum in order to purchase a larger pension than they would otherwise obtain, it was proposed to allow them to pay the sum into the fund on the condition that they should not be able thereby to purchase by this subscription a pension of more than £100 a year. These terms were undoubtedly easy for existing teachers as compared with future teachers, but it was impossible to omit existing teachers from the general scheme. Their case, no doubt, constituted a difficulty, but that difficulty must be faced, because these teachers were a most meritorious body of people; they formed an advanced and influential section of the teaching body of England, and their claims, hopes, and aspirations; could not be overlooked. He came now to the Stale subvention. It was proposed that for future teachers, when they arrived at a pensionable age, 10s. a year should be allowed for each year of their service. For existing teachers a sum of 10s. annually would be allowed after they had joined the fund. The great point with regard to existing teachers was that they would receive a pension equal to £1 a year for 30 years of service and upwards. This would apply to both men and women. As to those who had served less than 30 years, it was proposed that they should receive a pension at the rate of 15s. for each year. Next, the benefits would consist of the actuarial value of subscriptions plus the State subvention already described. The House might like to have an example of how this would work. For all those who received salaries of less than £80 a year, the men would receive a pension of £23 from the subscription and £18 from the State subvention, or say £43 or £44 per annum altogether. Surely this was a modest and humble pension. The women would receive a pension of £11 from subscriptions and £16 from subvention, or £27 altogether, which was less even than a humble and modest superannuation. And, on the whole, about half of this would be derived from the annuitants' own subscriptions. This very low superannuation would comprise fully one-half of the total number of certificated teachers, or 25,000. The other, or better paid, half might, by their own subscriptions, only without any State subvention, be able to purchase pensions of from £70 to £90 a year. It would be found that the possibility of a man or woman obtaining a pension of £100 a year would be extremely rare. As to the benefits to be received by the existing teachers, the men would receive from £26 to £41 superannuation, and the women from £15 to £29. He asked the House whether anyone could propose to give less to people who were highly qualified and certificated, and who had spent their lives in the work of the education of the country. With regard to the conditions attached to the scheme, the men were to be retired compulsorily at 60 years of age, and the women at 55 years of age. He was sure the House would agree that it was but right to superannuate women a little earlier than men, considering the comparative tenderness and delicacy of their physique and the amount of nervous tension to which they were subjected. It was also proposed to give an option of retiring five years earlier, but in that case there would be reduced superannuation, and it would be found that the reduction would be so great that most teachers would probably be deterred from availing themselves of such option. The question of allowing teachers to withdraw from the service and to receive back either the whole or part of their subscriptions had been carefully considered. This was a matter which greatly interested the teaching world, for the House might be surprised to hear that 2,500 persons retired annually—the women no doubt largely upon marriage. It was proposed that if they retired with less than 10 years' service and in good health, they should be allowed to obtain repayment of their subscriptions subject to a certain deduction for cost of management. No other rebate was proposed—not even upon death, because it was contended that the plan was for superannuation only, and did not touch life assurance. No doubt the teachers would be somewhat disappointed at this, but he was sure the House would see that the cost of what was proposed was so great that it was impossible to recommend anything more than was recommended. He now came to the last point—namely, the cost. The estimate of expenditure was based upon the actuarial calculations of Mr. Sutton, than whom he submitted it was impossible to find a higher authority in England. It was assumed after careful inquiry by the Educational Authorities, that 1,000 men and 1,500 women, or 2,500 teachers in all, retired annually. As regarded future teachers, the charge would begin of course at a very small sum and would rise gradually until after 30 years it would amount to £359,000 per annum, at which amount it would remain permanently as far as the present establishment of 50,000 teachers was concerned. This would amount to 5 or 6 per cent. on the present educational expenditure of £6,000,000 per annum. He thought it was not too much to ask Parliament to add 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. to its expenditure for the great public and personal objects which he was advocating. There would of course be an additional charge for the existing teachers. It was reckoned that this charge would be £191,000 annually, and that 17 years hence it would have risen to £279,000. It would rise above this rate during certain decades and fall again during other decades, but on the whole it would average £279,000 for 30 years and then would disappear finally. Of course hon. Members would be inclined at first sight to add the one charge to the other and say that the total amounted to over £600,000 a year. He would remind them, however, that the two charges would not arise quite simultaneously. While one was high the other would be low. When 30 years had passed away all the charge for the existing teachers would have disappeared and there would be only the sum of £359,000 left. Even £600,000 a year would be only 10 per cent. of our educational expenditure, and therefore the scheme would cost the State 10 per cent. upon that expenditure for a limited term, and 5 per cent. afterwards. He submitted, with all deference to the august authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this was the true way of stating a charge of this kind. He was quite aware that there were other modes of stating it. Those who wished to magnify it till it loomed so largely as to stagger the imagination, adopted this cheap and easy method. They took the whole charge for a generation or half a century, and by the simple process of multiplying the annual charge by 30 or 50 produced a perfectly alarming total. Any charge, even the most modest, might be inflated to enormous proportions by this very simple arithmetical process. For instance, if he were to say that within half a century of the present time we should have spent £300,000,000, or within one generation £180,000,000, upon elementary education alone in England and Wales, it would sound quite alarming, but after all it only meant an annual expenditure of £6,000,000. The true way was to take the expenditure for each year and reckon its relation to the total educational expenditure of that year. Supposing that the figures he had given were even approximately correct, he submitted that the result was not so terrifying as some people imagined. Possibly, when the scheme came to be looked into by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer this Session, or next Session, or the Session after, some further actuarial investigation would show that something further should be added. But even supposing that the 5 per cent. in one case or 10 per cent. in another to which he had referred turned out to be 6 per cent. or 12 per cent., there would be no essential difference in the proposition he had adumbrated to the House. He submitted that the figures were relatively moderate, and contained no alarming or terrifying elements whatever. He next craved permission to refer for a few moments to the break-down provision. The Committee admitted their inability to propose any plan for providing for those teachers who broke down from sickness or other infirmity during their term of active service, or to recommend any plan whereby they might receive back the subscriptions they had paid. Yet the case of those people was so very hard and pressing, and the justice of their claim was so plain, that the Committee felt that sooner or later something must be done in the matter. Difficult as it was to make an exact calculation for superannuation purposes, it became still more troublesome to make one on the breakdown principle, and he feared that the experience, based upon the establishment of a similar fund in another part of the United Kingdom, would not be found favourable to any plan of this kind. His own personal belief was that the only way of dealing with it was to allot a certain sum annually for the purpose, say £30,000 or £50,000 a year, instead of the £6,000 which was now given, and which had proved to be utterly inadequate. If £50,000 a year were placed in the hands of the Education Department for this object he was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President would be able satisfactorily to deal with the greater portion of the meritorious cases. The sum might be voted annually and no difficulty need arise in connection with it. He thanked the House with all sincerity for the remarkable patience with which it had listened to his laborious and intricate explanations. He could assure the House that he had laid before it only a small portion of the vast number of figures and statistics contained in the Committee's Report, which was indeed a perfect armoury of facts, and a quiver well stored with figures. It thoroughly deserved the careful consideration of every hon. Member who cared for the future education of the country. This was by no means a party question. The majority of the teachers possibly belonged to the Party to which he was politically opposed; but that fact did not diminish the zeal which he and his colleagues entertained for their welfare. Nor did this question relate to any one section of teachers; it included the teachers of Board schools and of voluntary schools of all denominations. He did not ask the House to vote for any particular plan. He had submitted, with some detail, the plan of the Committee, but he had felt that a business assembly like that House would have reproached him if he had ventured to bring forward the matter, without giving some of the principal figures and data on which the recommendations of the Committee were based. And although the House might not be able to do anything practically in the matter this Session, yet if hon. Members would only affirm the principle they would gladden the hearts and raise the spirits of thousands of men and women all over the country, who were working laboriously for the welfare of the rising generation. It would, moreover, give great satisfaction to a vast body of school managers, and to large numbers of ministers and others of all denominations, as well as to the higher dignitaries of the Church and State, who were interested in the work, and it would shed a ray of hope throughout all branches of the Education Department. He could only, in conclusion, appeal to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to remember the work of the Committee, of which he was a Member, and now to come into line, standing shoulder to shoulder with those who had sat upstairs with him.

MR. MATHER (Lancashire, South East Gorton)

said, he seconded the Motion with very eat pleasure. He agreed with the last speaker that this was not a Party question, for the welfare of the children of this country, and the welfare especially of the children of the working classes, came near to the heart of every Member of the House. The teachers, too, deserved their sympathy in the performance of their laborious duties. The recommendations of the Select Committee formed a material part of the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been somewhat appalled on hearing that in this his. first year at the Treasury he was to be invited to find £500,000 or more towards this superannuation scheme. But it was not for them to enter fully into the facts and figures placed before them by the Chairman of the Committee which sat upstairs. He had long felt that the status of the teachers of this country required their earnest consideration. They formed a body of men second to none in the Public Service. They had endured for something like 20 years the toil and difficulty of their work with an amount of patience which deserved the highest credit. No one could say that the teacher had received a salary which was more than his worth for the labour performed. It would be agreed that the great body of them certainly were under-paid, when their position was compared with that of teachers in other countries. In France, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States provision was made to enable the teacher to save for old age, or else there was a State or Local Pension Fund for the same purpose, so that when they had been a certain number of years in the service they might be sure of adequate support. This had been very clearly set forth by Mr. Matthew Arnold, who, in 1886, at the request of the Education Department, visited Germany, France, and Switzerland in order to attempt to solve some important questions with regard to the pay and position of the teachers. He reported that in every country he visited the teachers had a retiring pension, to establish which a reduction was made from their salaries. In France, for instance, a pension could be claimed at 55 years of age, after a service of 25 years, and it practically amounts to three-fourths of the average salary. It was true that England began her system of national education at a later period than the countries mentioned, but that was no reason why we should delay longer than necessary the completion of our system in the sense in which foreign countries had completed theirs by providing pensions for those teachers who had spent their lives in the service of their country. Most hon. Members, probably, had something to do with employing clerks or skilled labour of some kind, but he believed there was no class of persons who were employed in skilled labour upon whom the mental and nervous strain was greater than it was upon teachers in elementary schools. The physical effort was not small, and when they considered that teachers had to carry day by day upon their shoulders the responsibility of forming the mind and character of the children committed to their care, they would agree that the anxieties of that occupation were not equalled by those of any other employment. If any further claim than that of humanity were needed to the consideration of this question, he would put it on the grounds of education itself. The elementary education of this country must be the foundation of the country's future progress among the nations of the earth, and the quality of the education must depend on the quality of the teachers employed. It was true that we in this country had not hitherto possessed the best possible system of training teachers for their work in public elementary schools. But of late years there had been a considerable improvement in that respect, and the extra training had involved an increased strain and responsibility on the teachers, who had felt it necessary to exercise greater control over the character of the children committed to their care. The calling to which the teachers had devoted themselves should be made not only honourable but dignified in every way as regarded social position, and therefore it was imperative on Parliament to put the teachers in a position where they would be free from anxiety in their old age. They ought not to be made to feel that the provision for their closing years depended upon any accident that might occur. It was admitted on all hands that some scheme of superannuation, State-aided or otherwise—must be designed for this useful body of citizens. He could quite understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking with dismay on such a proposal as that put forward by the hon. Baronet. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were other sources of money besides the Imperial Exchequer. In supporting the Resolution then before the House they were not pledging themselves to any particular scheme. All he could say was that from whatever source the money was obtained, whether from local rates or elsewhere, he hoped the House would declare that they were resolved that some pension scheme should be established in the future—and he trusted that the Government of the day, hearing the unanimous expression of opinion, would devote themselves to the question at once. The matter was urgent; it ought to have been settled ten years ago. A Royal Commission and two Select Committees by their Reports had sanctioned this demand, all interested in the public elementary education of the country had affirmed its justice. They could not sufficiently recognise the importance of teachers, male and female, in respect of the future interests of the country. It had been said that the hand that rocked the cradle ruled the world; that, speaking of mothers, was perfectly true; but it was equally true that those who formed the minds, the characters of the rising generation from infancy to the age of 14 or15 years, were at the same time forming the destinies of this country. Those destinies depended on the employment of the best possible system of education, that education involved sympathy and earnestness of purpose on the part of those engaged in directing it, and to secure these qualities they should pay the teachers such salaries as would enable them to make provision for old age, or at any rate would insure their independence when their working days were over. With these feelings deeply fixed in his mind he seconded the Resolution, in the earnest hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Vice President of the Council would give the matter earnest consideration, and speedily place this deserving class of public servants in the position they were entitled to hold.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a National State-aided system of Superannuation for Teachers in Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales should be established at an early date,"—(Sir Richard Temple,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby

I only rise to take part in the Debate for a few minutes. The educational part of the question will be dealt with far better than I could by my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education; but it is my duty, after what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen, to say a few words on the financial bearings of the question. The objects of the Motion, I venture to say, could not have been better brought forward or seconded, and with every word that has been said as to the claim of this class of the community on the sympathy of Parliament and the country I cordially agree. No public servants are more deserving of attention than the elementary teachers; but it is my duty to lay before the House the real nature, as far as I understand it, of the demand that is made. I was a little relieved to find that my hon. Friends did not nail their colours to the mast of the Report of the Select Committee, and was also a little astonished by the prudent deprecation of the hon. Baronet who made the Motion as to the system of capitalising values, because in another connection the House has heard of a sum of £17,000,000 which is taken as a capitalised sum. My hon. Friend apparently did not desire to alarm the House; but let me tell it the result of our examination of this question. It is that the cost of the proposal amounts to £25,000,000.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

The ultimate cost, not the present value.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The present value. But the State is bound to look to the whole charge, and not merely to the annual charge. The figures given by the hon. Baronet were £329,000 for the future teachers, and £270,000 for the present teachers. That gives a total sum of £600,000, which I am obliged to consider a large sum, though perhaps in better times it might be regarded as a trifle. If the sum is capitalised it will appear still larger. The hon. Member opposite has admitted that the figures he has given only represent a portion of the ultimate cost. The hon. Gentleman has not calculated upon an increase in the number of teachers, the cost of voluntary retirement, and a provision for teachers who have broken down. According to the information I have received, it would not be safe to capitalise the sum which the hon. Member asks for at less than £25,000,000. I do not pretend to say that you cannot afford to pay £25,000,000. This country is very rich—the rich are very rich, while the poor are very poor—and if this House thinks fit to incur a liability for that amount the country is capable of paying it. I do not say that you ought not to incur such a charge, and I am not going to offer any opposition to this Motion; but, occupying the position I do, it is my duty to tell the House what the consequences of agreeing to this Motion will be. There is one thing that the House ought not to do, and that is to consent to incur a charge of this nature and grumble when it is asked to provide the means for meeting it. I am afraid that the House, like private people, often likes to buy things, and afterwards object to pay for them. That is a tendency in human nature from which this House is not at all free, and, therefore, all I can say is that having acquiesced readily and freely in this Motion, I hope to find the House of Commons as unanimous when the time comes for making this proposal—I do not say it will be this year, or the second year, or the third year—but when the time comes I hope the House will vote the taxes that will be necessary for the proposal, for it will mean additional taxation unless you are so fortunate as to have a large surplus. The matter is entirely for the House to decide—I offer no opposition to the Motion. The hon. Member has put the Motion on a very proper footing. He has only demanded that there should be a contribution from the State towards the object, without defining the contribution or binding the House to any particular scheme. On referring to the Report of the Committee with respect to local contribution I read with satisfaction the evidence of a gentleman entitled to a good deal of weight, Mr. Hance, the Clerk to the School Board of Liverpool, who expressed the opinion that not only the teachers themselves, and the State, but also the managers of schools, and the Local Authorities should contribute to this fund. It seems to me that is an extremely reasonable proposition. I do not pledge myself to the scheme, but it is worth consideration. As I have said, I entirely agree with the object of the Motion of the hon. Member, and as he has wisely confined himself to declaring the principle without endeavouring to extract any proposal from the Government I cordially support the Motion.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

I am sure that every body on this side of the House will not only agree in congratulating the hon. Baronet on the favourable reception he has secured for his Motion, but also in thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the extremely sympathetic way in which he has spoken of the Motion. Undoubtedly the sum the right hon. Gentleman dealt with is a large sum, and I only rise to suggest one or two observations in modification of the very heavy bill he has drawn against the future. I think it will be of considerable interest to the House to hear from the Vice President of the Council, in a little more detail, by what process the Government pro- pose to deal with the Motion. It is clear that the country will have to bear the cost in one form or another if there should be a superannuation of teachers. It is well known to every school manager that the salaries of school teachers are rising every day, and that the difficulty of obtaining teachers at anything like the same rates as prevailed 10 years ago has very greatly increased. There are, roughly, 50,000 school teachers at the present time. A rise of only £10 in their salaries—not by any means an inconsiderable amount to take—would mean £500,000 a year; and that capitalised, being a charge for a time, brings us back to our old friend, the sum of £17,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that £25,000,000 is the final sum; and I am not prepared to say that the £17,000,000 represents the final sum to be paid by the British people. Therefore it is obvious that we shall be paying extra money in one form or another, and no one knows better than the Vice President of the Council that we shall not be achieving the same result. I am sure there will be sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his warning as regards making school managers recollect that superannuation and salary go together. I venture to press on the Vice President of the Council that this subject should be treated without delay. We are in a rather peculiar position. Some years ago he brought forward a Motion in favour of teachers appointed between 1846 and 1851, in relation to whom the Treasury acted, I will not say absolutely illegally, but unhandsomely, as was admitted by the late Mr. Forster and by the present President of the Board of Trade, who was then Vice President of the Council. This fact bears on the present situation, that in 1884, when I moved that Motion, these teachers' pensions were recognised, though in 1870 that right was disputed by the Treasury. I think I am right in saying that half the teachers appointed between 1846 and 1851 are worn out and unable to continue their work, and the point of that observation is, that we have arrived at a period when there is a larger number more who have arrived at a time when they cannot work. My hon. Friend has not based his Motion on the ground of charity; but mainly on this ground—that we have got in the schools a large body of excellent men, who have done long and excellent service, who would willingly retire but for the fact that in many cases they would have to face penury, and that you have school managers who are unwilling to dispense with their services on considerations of charity. One cannot doubt that if the Vice President were to announce to-night the acceptance of this scheme, we would have a large number of retirements to deal with in the next six months, but the longer these retirements are delayed the more the education of the children must be impeded and delayed. I hope the Vice President of the Committee will be able to give us an assurance either that he sees in the scheme of the hon. Baronet ground for action, or that he himself has been able to elaborate a scheme which he can lay before the country, so that we may feel certain that this great question of the superannuation of the teachers, in which the honour of this House is more or less engaged, will be properly and effectively determined.

SIR FRANCIS S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he did not think that those who were in favour of the system of superannuation could complain of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought he might say of the speech that it was actuated by a sense of financial sympathy. The maxim which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have in his mind was that which they used to hear so frequently in the old days, Volenti non fit injuria; or, in other words, if the taxpayers were willing to endure the burden, then it was for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to see that it should not be endured. He could not, however, help appreciating the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman, because while delicately suggesting that those provisions might sooner or later be painful to the taxpayer, he had suggested that a portion of the burden should be transferred from him to the ratepayer. He had seen the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions exhibit a tenderness which did not, however, always extend to the ratepayers of the country. He was not quite certain whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely appreciated the recommendation of Mr. Hance, clerk of the School Board at Liverpool. Mr. Hance had, according to the view of the Committee, exactly concurred with the view of the Committee, and his testimony ought to be quoted as entirely in sympathy with the advice of the Committee. He hoped before the Debate closed that the Vice President of the Council would afford some suggestions to the House respecting those unfortunate and melancholy cases in which teachers had broken down. The Committee had found it quite impossible to make any recommendation affecting those broken-down schoolmasters because they had no facts, and they were anxious to submit to the House in all things some basis for calculation. In the Report of the Select Committee it would be found that they proposed that the whole of the Superannuation Fund should be for the benefit of all the teachers alike, and there should be no preference or favour for voluntary school teachers or Board school teachers; and he was quite sure that in these days, when the work of education was shared by Board schools and voluntary schools, there must be complete fairness and entire impartiality between the two classes of schools when they come to deal with the subject of pensions. It was impossible to exaggerate the services of the teachers. He believed the teachers of this country in voluntary schools and in Board schools alike were equal to the elementary teachers of any country in the World. He had had the opportunity, not recently, but some years ago, of visiting many schools in America, and he could say that the result of these examinations was that the teaching and the teachers in our schools were greatly superior to the teaching and the teachers in the United States. There was no doubt that of all professions which were exacting and caused premature decay of vital forces, there was none so trying and none which caused decay more rapidly than the profession of teaching. This decay was very often of a sudden character; teachers broke down even before they knew that they were affected. He had often observed that the teacher would in one day appear to be in the possession of his full powers, and in the course of a week or a fortnight would become unequal to his duties. He need not say anything with regard to the effect of teaching on the scholar; that was obvious. They had, therefore, in this matter of pensions, to have regard to the teacher on the one hand and the scholar on the other, and he thought the time had come when the proper and wise rule of forming systems of pensions and superannuation which existed in various professions, in the Civil Service, and in railways, should be extended to the profession of teaching, where, indeed, it was most urgently required. They should bear in mind that this system of pensions of teachers was not a new system. They had in this country a system of pensions for many years, but it must be admitted by all who had made inquiries on the subject that the present most limited system was at once imperfect, disappointing, and unjust. It was imperfect because it only applied to few teachers; it was disappointing because those who most deserved pensions failed to obtain them; and it was unjust because in many cases merit did not meet with a sufficient or adequate reward. In dealing with this question there were no doubt great difficulties, because they had to regard not only future teachers but existing teachers. Future teachers might pay an annual contribution to a State fund, and create a superannuation annuity for themselves—not, perhaps, as much as they would wish to see them possess—but still a superannuation annuity of a limited kind. But when they looked to the existing teachers, those who had most claim on their sympathy, because they had laboured many years, and the time of their repose was near at hand, they found that there was no adequate provision for them. It was this difficulty which the Committee had to face, and they believed that it would be a most incomplete system which did not regard these deserving and meritorious men and women. The proposal of the Committee was that the country should make a general provision for these teachers of £1 for each year of service, instead of 10s., as in the case of future teachers, which, with the aid of other assistance they would be able to obtain, would ensure to them a future of moderate comfort. He did not wish to detain the House unduly, but he hoped he might be allowed to say they did not present their Report as the best scheme that could be devised, though he believed it was as good as any Committee of the House could have presented. Of course, no Committee could have the command of the means of investigation which were in the hands of the Government, and no Committee could have that power and that force which were at the command of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but if the Government were unable to grant them all their requests he hoped, at least, they might travel some distance along the same path. He did not think the Government ought to be appalled by the large figure of £24,000,000. A grant of £6,000,000 was now given for education, and to add to that grant an amount which if capitalised came to £24,000,000 was no overpowering enlargement. To his knowledge the teachers had waited long for this reform, and having waited so long he hoped they would wait no longer, but that the Government would either this year, or in a year not far distant, bring forward a large and comprehensive scheme; whichever Government was in power he hoped it would adopt this policy. He hoped he might appeal with some confidence to the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Acland) to make some declaration that would bring comfort to this most meritorious class, so that they might look upon their desires, though not fully accomplished, as so nearly within their reach that their fulfilment would not be much longer delayed.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OK THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,) York, W.R., Rotherham

Although there is no subject with which I believe we are more agreed in desiring efficiency than in national education, yet even our educational defects have sometimes had a controversial flavour about them. I find myself particularly happy on the first occasion I have had the honour to address the House as Vice President of the Council—to address it upon a subject upon which we are thoroughly agreed as to the principle we have adopted. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) on having secured so early an opportunity of bringing into action the work in which we and our friends were so long engaged in the Committee over which he presided. I think, whatever else we did, we cleared the ground and obtained a great deal of valuable information that will be useful to those who have to put the work into execution. The subject which is now before us is, after all, part of a large subject of provision for old age in various forms, which is interesting and exciting the minds of a great many persons in this country. In regard to education, the need of providing superannuation for good teachers has long been felt. In the Universities we find our colleges providing in their new schemes arrangements for the retirement of teachers at a certain age; our grammar schools we find providing in their schemes for the same object, and now this question is fully ripe to be brought before the House of Commons. I am glad it has been brought forward, because without the sanction and approval of the House of Commons I think no Chancellor of the Exchequer could have spoken in the sympathetic way in which my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) has spoken to-night on this subject. It is necessary for us to prove in the case of the teachers that theirs is a special case demanding special consideration, and I think we can prove that; I think we can show, in the matter of education, if there is a class of workers who need to be fresh and bright in their work it is the class of teachers; I think we can show, if there is a class of public servants who may cause disaster and misfortune by being inefficient through old age, it is the class of teachers. You may have here and there a single servant who may not be altogether fit for his work, in which case the State suffers to some extent; you may have here and there perhaps a policeman who is not quite so efficient as another policeman, though he might be perfectly fit for some easier job, where the safety of the public was not seriously jeopardised. But every teacher, if ineffective in his work, is directly affecting, to a certain extent, the welfare of future generations, and therefore from that point of view everything that adds to the teacher's anxiety—his anxiety about the future, his anxiety about his own family—everything that adds to the wear and tear of the teacher is a disaster, not only to him, but the country at large. I think we can draw no distinction between any class of teachers; all our teachers are subject to wear and tear of different kinds. There are the difficulties of town teachers through town life and some of the children they have to deal with. There are the difficulties of the country teachers through the great variety of work they have to do, passing from one class to another, and having to put up with a good deal that is harassing in their daily work. In either case there is great liability to that wear and tear, great risk to anxiety, if they fear the future is absolutely uncertain, and for that reason we all desire to give them some evidence of certainty about their provision when they shall retire in an honoured old age. There is a point which has been alluded to in this Debate which I think it important to notice, and that is that some people say that some of the salaries of these teachers are so good they could easily provide for themselves. That may be the case, but whether they make adequate arrangements for their own retirement or not, we should see that every teacher is provided for in old age, if we can, by some compulsory method, and for this reason you may find a teacher providing for himself what he thinks an adequate provision for the close of his life; the investment he has chosen breaks down, and he is in as bad a condition as if he had received the smallest salary all through his life. When the small pensions are administered by the Vice President and Lord President to teachers, again and again one finds lamentable cases of teachers who have had high salaries and who have done their best to provide for old age, but have chosen unfortunate investments so that all their savings have been swept away. In the cause of the children we are thinking of we must beware we provide for all cases alike, and make some arrangement by which we see that all the savings are properly and securely invested. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Brodrick) said something about existing pensions. Teachers who came into the service before 1851 are now on the unlimited list; the pensions are small it is true, but still all those who are deserving can receive one of these pensions. Teachers who came in from 1851 to 1862 are on a limited list, and the list is lamentably limited, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the late Vice President (Sir W. Hart Dyke) will agree with me there is no task more painful than attempting to select between the unfortunate cases brought before us for the giving away of the small pensions that are available. On this subject my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires me to say he is willing to make a reasonable addition that that provision, the £6,500, shall at least be reasonably added to with a view to our meeting many of the pressing cases brought before us.

MR. BRODRICK

What will be the limit in those cases, the amount of the individual pensions?

MR. ACLAND

The pensions are of three kinds, £20, £25 and £30. He will be aware the proposals of the Committee suggest more than that sum per teacher, but it makes a reasonable provision.

MR. BRODRICK

I was alluding to the original Minute from 1851 to 1862, and that from 1846 to 1851, which held out a hope of two-thirds of the salary.

MR. ACLAND

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, that was so when the original Minute was made, but all I am able now to do is to state that the £6,500 will be added to. It has been mentioned that almost all European countries have some time ago adopted a system such as that we are considering to-night, and one reason for that is that State education on a State basis is of older duration in those countries than in England. If this subject had not been introduced to-night it must have been brought before our notice at an early date, because in the course of a few years we should be face to face with the fact of the large number of teachers that had been appointed since the Act of 1870, and many of them will be verging on old age. In 1870, we had 12,000 certificated teachers, but at the present time we have 50,000, which shows the rapidity with which education has been growing since Mr. Forster's Act. In another 20 years it will be more pressing than now, and it is far wiser to grapple with it at present than leave it until it becomes more embarrassing. Something has been said about sources from which we can draw means for an elaborate scheme. I must say, and all who were on the Committee will agree with me, that the teachers, represented through the National Union of Teachers, showed a thoroughly willing and anxious spirit to take their part in making provision for themselves. They pointed out to us what is perfectly true, that the sum of £3 for a man and £2 for a woman was a very fair proportion of the very small salaries some of them receive at the present moment. Though salaries have risen during the last few years, we have between 4,000 and 5,000 certificated mistresses getting less than £50 a year, and nearly 4,000 masters getting less than £75 a year, that is to say, one-sixth of the certificated masters and mistresses get these very small salaries, and if they embark upon a contribution such as that suggested we can hardly expect them to do any more. We came to this conclusion: we must, if possible, arrange for a provision at least of a minimum salary, such as that the hon. Baronet opposite suggested, something approaching from £40 to £50. Then as to local sources, it was suggested to us in various quarters they ought not to be left out of any future consideration. There may be means of deductions from the grants, both in the case of School Boards and voluntary schools, in which the managers may be made to take their share. Already Scotland, which has a different system to ours—the universal School Board system—is allowed to make arrangements of that sort, and a certain number of the Board teachers are pensioned in Scotland by the Board schools themselves. But our system is different, and being what it is, with large numbers of voluntary and Board schools, there is strong argument for something in the nature of central management. Teachers pass from one kind of school to another, and one district to another, and we have felt over and over again it would be extremely difficult to arrange a system of local management and local contribution. I hope, at any rate, we have been able to show we approach the whole of this subject not in any grudging spirit. The hon. Mover of this Motion has said that he does not press the words "at an early date," and I am sure he will be aware they must be liberally interpreted with a view to preparing a scheme that will be solvent and secure. The example of the Irish scheme on this same subject has been alluded to as a warning to us. When we embark upon a scheme we must make sure it will be sound and secure to everybody. Mr. Sutton himself is not unwilling to give us his calculations. He has given us something like £22,000,000 as the total that will be involved in the next 40 or 50 years, and he told us his basis was made at 3 per cent.; but the Treasury is not willing to take that as the basis. That also, he told us, includes England and Wales. Then the most difficult of all questions, the break-downs, is left outside altogether, and I confess, from all I have seen from the work going on with our small pension scheme, it is impossible to leave out of sight the question of break-downs. If a man who comes into the pension scheme at 23 years of age were to break down at the age of 59, one year before he becomes entitled to his pension, is he to get nothing at all? The problem is a difficult one and requires careful consideration. Then we have to bear in mind the number of women teachers who get married, and they desire to have some scheme by which some part of their contributions may be returned on retiring from the service. These and many other considerations have to be borne in mind before we can arrive at a thoroughly satisfactory scheme. We must not enter into it too hastily, but after the approval of the House of Commons, which we have received to-night, I think we can begin to enter upon its consideration at once. In all these matters of national education we are willing to take the view that the welfare of the teachers is a matter of the highest consideration, and in paying attention to their welfare we are directly for their success and indirectly for the children's success, making one of the best investments we can. Anything, whatever it be, that affects the children in their surroundings must be good, whether it be teachers, instructors or buildings, their intelligence and their character depend absolutely upon it. We are bound, as a duty to those who come after us, to see to the interests of their teachers as well as the interest of themselves; to see to it that the children are not neglected because the teachers are over-worked and over strained in old age, and by considering carefully the welfare of the teachers as well as the welfare of the children fulfil that educational duty that is always cast upon us—namely, to give to all the children as complete an education as we can.

MR. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said, he thought all would agree with him that in the Vice President of the Council they had one who knew his subject, and they heartily congratulated him upon the important position he occupied. He cordially sympathised with the Motion of his hon. Friend, which related to a subject that had been before them for some years. The Liverpool School Board had taken a very prominent part in bringing this question before the public, and it was through the Liverpool School Board that a Conference of School Boards was held to consider the matter. So far back as 1891 the School Boards of Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, and Liverpool came to a resolution similar to the one before the House, and the views of these Boards were communicated to and endorsed by the majority of the great School Boards throughout the country. They had heard the very proper way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the subject. It was only right that the Chancellor of the British Exchequer should be careful how the money of the taxpayer was expended, but what appeared to him evident about the matter was that they had already established the principle that our public servants should be paid by pension as well as by salary. Teachers had become public servants since the passing of the Education Act of 1870, and inasmuch as they had very handsomely pensioned the constables and Civil servants, it was only right to go forward and pension those hard-working servants, the public teachers. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that it was essential to the proper discharge of their duties that the teachers should have full vivacity of mind and body, and when that ceased they were no longer fit teachers of youth, and should receive some consideration for their past services. If by any means they could bring about a gradual and sufficient flow of teachers they would be going far to improve the efficiency of the teaching of the country; therefore he looked upon this question not as one of charity, but as one of business. What he would suggest was that they should follow, as far as possible, the existing lines laid down in the Civil Service Pension Scheme. He believed that scheme involved a retiring pension in case of break down, but, any way, as far as possible, let it follow on established lines, and then there would be no heart- burning between different classes of public officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to an answer by Mr. Hance, the Clerk to the Liverpool School Board, stating that he considered the rates should bear some share in the scheme. In a further question put to Mr. Hance it was elicited that he meant that deductions should be made from the grants, and not that the local rates should contribute. While determining to give a pension they should see that it should not be too lavish, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) would steer clear of life assurance. He desired. to give a cordial support to the Motion.

SIR A. K. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

desired, before the Debate close 1, to say a few words in favour of the Amendment. What had occurred that night marked a great development in their educational policy, and those interested in education could not but express their great appreciation of the spirit in which the subject had been dealt with, both by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and also by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Vice President of the Council on Education. They were grateful to the latter gentleman for the small addition which would now be made to the Pension Fund, and which, they hoped, would soon be increased. It might be urged that the teachers ought to make provision for their own requirements from their incomes, but he would point out that 50 per cent of the male teachers had salaries below £100 a year, whilst in the case of the female teachers the salaries were even less.

MR. CREMER

asked, was the House to understand that 50 per cent. of the teachers were paid less than £100 a year?

SIR A. ROLLIT

believed he was justified in going beyond even that; but he was certainly justified in stating that to the extent of 50 per cent. the salaries, in the case of men were below £100 a year, and in the case of women even less It was clear that, under these circumstances, the teachers were not in a position to make provision for their old age, and the State was therefore bound to undertake the duty of doing so to a considerable extent, especially when the principle of the proposal included a large contribution from the teachers themselves, in the shape of what was really deferred pay. If the question of cost were referred to, then that point was by no means one-sided. In other departments of the State—the police, for instance— they made provision for those who sought the detection and punishment of crime. In this case they were now proposing to reward properly those who prevented a very large amount of the crime of the country; and when they remembered also that education was undoubtedly not only a preventive of crime, but some stay against poverty. They made an additional saving when they considered the burden that must otherwise fall in a great measure upon the rates of the country. When they spoke, therefore, of £17,000,000 or even £25,000,000, he said there was another side to the question, and that a far greater saving would be effected by liberality to their teachers. In this matter parsimony was not economy, and that liberality which the House was asked to exercise would be found in the end the truest economy in dealing with this problem. He recognised the great service which voluntary schools and voluntary action had rendered to education in this country, and provision for voluntary school teachers on the same lines as the provision for Board School teachers was most absolutely justified. The House was asked to carry out a well considered Report prepared by educationists of the highest standard, and it had given rise to an expression of opinion from the Treasury Bench, which they hoped would be fruitful, in an educational sense, to the country. On behalf of the teachers he represented he thanked the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment and the Members of the Government for the manner in which they had treated this subject, which was so important to the best interests of the country.

SIR F. MILNER (Notts, Bassetlaw)

said, there was a consensus of opinion that the claims of the teachers had been too long neglected by Parliament. The opinion was universal that there was no more deserving body of men than were the teachers. As had been truly said, teachers did more towards repressing crime than did the police. As a class they spent their lives in the service of the country, and they were entitled to some consideration when they were worn out. He did not think that sufficient attention had been paid to the claims of the teachers who were appointed before 1851. The lot of these teachers was a particularly hard one, and they had been badly treated by Parliament. He contended that on the facts these teachers had an absolute claim to an adequate pension from the Government. In 1846, the Committee of Council on Education passed a resolution— That it was expedient to give pensions to teachers after a certain length of service. Shortly afterwards they passed a resolution— That a retiring pension may be granted to any schoolmaster or mistress who shall be rendered incapable by age or infirmity of continuing to teach a school efficiently. Such teachers to have been engaged in teaching for 15 years, the pension not to exceed two-thirds of the annual income of the teacher while conducting a school. The object of the Pension Minute was clearly stated in an official letter, dated March 11th, 1847, in these words— My Lords being desirous to offer the strongest inducements to schoolmasters and schoolmistresses to render long and efficient services to the public, have opened the prospect of a retiring pension to this class of teachers. Pensions and other direct benefits were, by their Lordships' orders, held out to the best qualified scholars as inducements to become pupil teachers. Thus, in Volume 1, page 34, of the same Minutes they found it stated— Their Lordships request that in their ordinary tour of inspection the Inspectors will avail themselves of the opportunity to inform teachers and scholars of the advantages placed within their reach—namely, an offer of a pension. These Pension Minutes were debated in Parliament. They were passed in the House of Commons by 372 votes to 47, and in the Lords without division. Copies of the Minute of 1846 were sent for each apprentice, and a broad sheet, showing the benefits to pupil teachers, had to be fixed in a prominent part of the school, where it could be read by scholars and their parents. On this broad sheet Queen's Scholarships were promised to the best qualified pupil teachers, and appointments in Departments of the Public Service were to be open to the less successful teachers. Thus the less qualified teachers were sure of a suitable pension when incapacitated for work. Was it reasonable to suppose that the same benefit was not to be extended to those who showed superior qualifications? It could be proved to demonstration that teachers appointed before 1846 were induced to put forward extra exertions, and to go in for more expensive training on the distinct understanding that eventually they would receive a suitable pension. It was, therefore, a gross breach of faith on the part of Parliament to deprive them of what they were officially promised. It was true that a new Pension Minute was passed in 1851 much to the disadvantage of the teachers. The construction then put upon the 1846 Minute was altogether at variance with the object stated by the Secretary at the time and at variance with the Minute itself. He submitted that the alterations made in 1851 could not injure the claims of those appointed between 1846 and 1851. There was a remarkable fact that for several years after 1851 the Pension Minute of 1846 continued to be sent out to pupil teachers all over the country on their apprenticeship, and no intimation was given that the objects and intentions of the Government to them had undergone serious change, that pensions were to be of small value, wholly uncertain and no longer given as a reward. Thus teachers appointed after 1846, and indeed up to 1860, were also engaged upon the understanding as their predecessors, and such teachers had an absolute claim to a suitable pension. He trusted that Parliament even at this late hour would recognise their plain duty to this most deserving class of men. With regard to the teachers appointed after 1860, their case was somewhat different. They became Civil servants in every sense of the word, and they ought to be treated as such. What had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Vice President of the Council would give some encouragement to the general body of teachers, and he trusted that serious attention would also be directed to the case of the old teachers appointed before 1846.

SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

Before this Debate closes, I should like to say a very few words with regard to the discussion which has taken place on the Motion of my hon. Friend. I do not think a few hours of the time of Parliament could be very much better employed than in discussing a Motion of this kind, and, Sir, a high compliment has been paid to the cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston has so well espoused by the unanimity of the House concerning this very difficult and vexed problem. Our unanimity this evening is almost refreshing, and, Sir, there is only one difficulty which we have to face in drawing this Debate to a conclusion, and it is no new difficulty in this House. We are perfectly unanimous as to the object we have in view, and I have no doubt we shall all go home to-night in a most amiable frame of mind after this discussion, but there will be one thing absent to make our comfort complete—we shall not go home with the money in our pocket to carry out the scheme pourtrayed by my hon. Friend. I do not rise, however, to throw a note of discord into this Debate, for I think that, on the whole, we have no complaint whatever to make of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman met us very fairly, and I say so the more readily because we have some evidence, I think, of his sympathy and that of my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Acland)with the cause we are all espousing. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes immediately to make some addition to the small annual sum now awarded to these teachers. The right hon. Gentleman has somewhat terrified us by an actuarial calculation which has been made by Her Majesty's Treasury, and has threatened us at starting with an expenditure of £25,000,000. That seems a very terrifying amount, but I do not think that those of us who are anxious to carry our views to a practical end will complain of any scheme that may be ultimately adopted, provided that it fairly and honestly carries out the object we have in view, and carries out those objects quickly. If there is one thing more than another which strikes any man who is in the position of the Vice President of the Council, it is that this is a matter which will not brook delay. What has been the treatment of these unfortunate teachers as regards the question of pension? As my hon. Friend has reminded the House, it is now 47 years ago since promises of a pension were actually held out to them under the Minute of 1846, and during this whole period of years this unfortunate body of men and women have been following this Will-o'-the-Wisp of a pension without success, and following a most arduous occupation without the ray of sunlight which might be afforded them if they had a prospect of a small competence in their later years. I wish to press upon the House the necessity of dealing at once with this question of a pension to elementary teachers. I wish to point out how, since 1846, the demands on the teaching community have increased. During the late Parliament we completely transformed our educational system, and in a manner to cast an enormously heavier burden upon these men and women who compose our teaching staff. And what I also want to point out is this: that if it was necessary in 1846 to deal adequately and generously with these teachers—as was stated in evidence before the Royal Commission which considered this question—I say that that necessity has been considerably increased, that an additional strain has been put upon these persons, and that it is tenfold more incumbent upon us now under the new system—and a high-pressure system—in our elementary schools, to frame some scheme or other which will meet these cases of emergency as they may arise. There are two real reasons we ought to consider in urging this case. One is a reason of State, and the other is of a more charitable kind. The House of Commons has been unanimous to-day in the consideration of this difficult problem, and I acknowledge it is a very difficult problem to solve. My right hon. Friend, I know, will need all his energies to solve these difficulties, and I was pleased to hear him say it was impossible to deal with this case piecemeal, and that he must deal at once with all the teachers. There will be not only the cases of the existing and future teachers, but above all I hope he will deal generously with those teachers who break down from over-work and ill-health. I know it has been the habit of the House of Commons—and it is a very practical one—in dealing with all these cases, to search for a precedent before taking action. But to-night we have had the luxury of securing complete unanimity without a single Member of the House seeking for any precedent. I think we cannot wonder at this unanimity, because the more we conside what the lives of these teachers are, how constant and incessant their work is, how brain-wearing it is, and how much the future of this country depends, day by clay, and hour by hour, on their successful efforts. I say we cannot be too generous in regard to our dealing with them. My right, hon. Friend has remarked on the list he will soon have to go through in doling out this small pittance to our elementary teachers. There is no sadder or more miserable task for any public man to undertake than to have to go through this list of our elementary teachers and to deal with their claims. The Office which my right hon. Friend holds is one of the pleasantest which a public man can occupy, and the nature of the work and its results will amply repay any man for his efforts. But there is one portion of it which I think is the most miserable and sad that any man can undergo. It is to go through this list and see how few of the teachers out of this small sum of £6,000 can really be assisted when the emergency arises? It is a very sad state of things, indeed, that we have to face when a list of these applications must be gone through; but I am glad the Government have determined to take the matter in hand. It may be that the sum of money to be charged will be a large one; but, as compared with the sum we are prepared to spend on elementary education, it need not be considered very large. I hope the Government will not be niggardly in dealing with this great question, and that they will do their best to carry it to a conclusion.

SIR RICHARD H. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

said, they had in the Resolution a reference to a State-aided system, and he trusted there would be no doubt about the meaning of the phrase or as to its intention. The teachers would be glad to learn that it was the intention of the Government to take this matter in hand. He trusted they would do so at once, so that adequate provision might be made for the Public Service. The matter was one that required attention to be drawn to it, and he was gratified at the expressions of sympathy with the teachers that had been heard that night. The teachers would read with the deepest interest the proceedings of that evening. They would be rejoiced to know that the Resolution had the support of Her Majesty's Government, and that it was to be passed without a vote being taken. It was a duty absolutely incumbent upon the Government to deal with this matter, because it was one calling for immediate attention. It was only right that those who had the interests of children and of the community in their charge should be encouraged, and that they should be rewarded for services rendered in earlier days when they were able to perform the duties of their office; they should not be allowed to work in a manner which suggested that they had no provision for old age after years of toil. He had noted with satisfaction the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he arrived at a total of £25,000,000.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The figures of the Committee cover £18,000,000, but I did not include a number of contingencies that would have to be provided for.

SIR R. H. PAGET

said, he did not quite understand whether the sum indicated by the right hon. Gentleman included the cases which the Committee did not entertain. He would like to see the details. But whatever the sum was, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to go forward with the scheme. Was he prepared? That was the question that would be asked all over the country. He trusted to find before long that a substantial practical measure would be forthcoming, and that it would be carried into law.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I have only a few words to say upon this question, which has occupied my attention for the last few years. I cannot recognise as perfectly accurate the accounts which have been given to the House of the position of the teachers? Those teachers who came under the Minute of 1846 had great hopes, and even the certainty of a pension held out to them. But the scheme was modified by the Minute of 1832, which brought the amount of the award to a definite sum, and the teachers suffered a great deal of injustice for a long time afterwards. When I was at the Treasury I had the satisfaction of redressing that injustice by admitting the claims of the teachers who came in under the 1846 Minute. It is a mistake, therefore, to assume that these teachers suffer any injustice now. With respect to those who came in subsequently their claims were admitted. I am glad to find from the remarks of the Vice President of the Council that he has been able to admit the second-class teachers, if not to equal benefits, at least to a considerable increase of pension. I would say that that claim is recognised as a matter of expediency. The late Parliament had a very strong feeling against it. I am glad this matter has arisen now, because it illustrates for us the fundamental principle that in the organisation of the Civil Service, if you want an efficient Service you must recognise the necessity of making it efficient by having a system of pensions. It is so with respect to teachers. It is impossible to have an efficient system unless you do this. It is impossible to dismiss a teacher who is past good work unless he has something to fall back upon, and that is the ground, and the great ground, upon which we should agree to allow a teacher to obtain a pension on reaching a certain age. I am pleased to think that my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council —and no man is more competent to deal with educational matters—is going to grapple with the question. Those who pay the piper have a right to call the tune, and if we are to recognise these persons as servants of the State we should be prepared to give the Education Office and the Minister in charge of it some control over them. It seems to me that the step about to be taken does not appear to be fully comprehended. It is, however, a step which will revolutionise the whole system, and I may conclude by saying that it has my hearty approval.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, the matter which they were discussing was now treated in a much more liberal spirit than it was last year. It was, in his opinion, just as important to provide for teachers suffering from bad health, and who were obliged to retire from overwork, as for those who were entitled to retire at a certain age. This was a matter which he had tried (unsuccessfully) to urge upon the Committee of which he was a Member last year, who had considered the question of Teachers' Pensions. He hoped it would receive the favourable consideration of the Government. If people were allowed to struggle on trying to teach when they were unable to do so, they would bring injury upon themselves and upon their families, and, of course, it followed that the Public Service would suffer also. He congratulated the hon. Member who had brought forward the Resolution on the success which he had attained, and hoped the matter would receive immediate attention from the Government.

Question put, and negatived.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a National State-aided system of Superannuation for Teachers in Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales should be established at an early date.

SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.