§ MR. HAMMOND (Carlow)said in rising to move the Motion which stood in his name he could only regret that the fortune of the ballot had not placed it in more competent hands, He would, however, content himself with a brief review of the question, and his colleague the hon. Member for West Kerry, who was an authority on this matter, would make it quite plain that a serious wrong existed which ought to be remedied, and that the responsibility rested upon the Government to restore this fund to a state of solvency. He only gave expression to the general trend of public opinion in Ireland when he said that the national school teachers in Ireland deserved well of their country. Their work was highly appreciated, and exercised a large and permanent influence for good, and they themselves commanded the respect of the people. There had been, no doubt, in recent years a very great improvement in the position of the national school teachers, who had gained in credit and repute in the same ratio as education had been more highly prized, but under the present conditions they were unable to furnish for themselves adequate provision for their old age, when they could no longer carry on remunerative work. That was the disability under which the national school teachers of Ireland laboured. He contended that in this matter the Government had failed to do its duty. In the year 1879, under the auspices of two distinguished statesmen—Sir Stafford Northcote, at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Bristol, then Chief Secretary for Ireland—the National School Teachers Pensions Bill became law. Under the operation of that Act, £1,300,000 Fund became the nucleus of the pension fund, and when it came into force inducements 1343 were held out to the national school teachers to join it, and they were officially informed of the advantages that would accrue, and the amount of contribution they would have to make. The national school teachers, having devoted the best years of their lives to the service of the country, found themselves with not enough to provide for themselves and their families. They were public servants and were entitled to adequate and appropriate pensions on retirement. They deserved well of their country, and what they asked was that the maximum pension should be two-thirds of the maximum salary; that the full pension be optional for men after thirty-five years service and for women after thirty years service; that in case of enforced retirement owing to disablement in body or mind a male teacher should receive a pension of £20 a year, with £1 a year added for every year's service, and a female teacher should receive a pension of £15 per annum, with 13s . 4d. a year added for each year of service; and that all the disablement pensions should be provided by the State.
§ *MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.)said this was no small and unimportant question, whatever it might appear to those who had not considered it. Over £2,000,000 of Irish money was involved, and the provision for the old age of 12,000 Irish national school teachers was concerned. Education in Ireland was a question which was receiving the greatest attention in that country, and unless sufficient money was provided and primary education placed on a proper basis, it was useless to expect there could be any advantage to the country by the most fanciful and best planned schemes. The question of pensions for the teachers had in the past received less attention than it deserved. In 1879 an Act was passed which for the first time established a system of pensions for Irish national school teachers. Previous to that the teachers received on retirement one year's salary for every ten years service, which amount came from the Imperial Treasury. When, however, the Act of 1879 was passed, a sum of £1,300,000 was taken from the Irish Church Fund as a nucleus for the fund, and the British Treasury then 1344 ceased to contribute for eighteen years after 1879. A British actuary who had been appointed by the Treasury to look into the working of the fund, had stated that through the action of the Government in ceasing to contribute the fund had lost, and that the Treasury should now contribute £400,000. Although the fund had now grown to £2,200,000, and the balance over, last year, after paying all charges, amounted to £45,000 a year, the actuary appointed by the Treasury had stated that it was a bankrupt fund. The income of this fund was over £100,000 per annum, whilst the payment of pensions accounted for £55,000, which showed a balance in favour of the fund of £45,000 in the year 1903. In the year 1897 the fund possessed a balance of £127,000, yet the Financial Secretary, when asked last February why stock should be sold at a loss of £13,000, replied—
Pension stock is occasionally sold in order to enable payments to be made at a time when the receipts of a fund fall short of the amounts necessary for such payments.which could not be the case when there was a balance of £127,000. He hoped further inquiry would be made into that question.The Irish national school teachers had contributed during the last twenty years to the fund a large amount of money. The contributions, which commenced with £9,000, now amounted to £25,000, and the teachers during all those twenty years had been asking for an independent actuary, appointed by themselves, to go into this fund and see how it was being administered. When they saw how much was lost or spent it was only natural that the teachers should be suspicious, and if there had not been in the view of the Government something to hide in this matter, he was sure they would have acceded to the request of the teachers. In the year 1885 Mr. Robinson stated that the fund had a balance in its favour of £200,000 and that it was perfectly solvent and that there was no fear of its breaking down. Five years later the same gentleman stated that the fund was £200,000 in arrears. Another gentleman, Mr. Sutton, also appointed by the Treasury, said the balance against the fund was £837,000, 1345 and Mr. Finlaison put it at £924,000. Was it not natural under the circumstances that the teachers should inquire what was the cause and ask that they who paid in such a large amount to the fund should have access to what was their own. In 1895 Mr. Robinson put the deficiency at £1,186,000, and Mr. Finlaison stated that this deficiency amounted to £1,200,000. The national teachers of Ireland naturally felt under these circumstances that although they had contributed a considerable share of their limited incomes to this fund there was no possibility when they reached their old age of receiving any pensions
A Departmental Committee was appointed, and it reported and made three suggestions which seemed very characteristic in its injustice to a splendid body of Irishmen. They first of all agreed with the actuaries that the fund was becoming bankrupt, and that something should be done to prevent this. It seemed very strange that instead of recommending the British Treasury to vote an annual sum they shrank from doing so, and declared that it would not be suitable that any money should be given for the teachers' pensions out of the Treasury funds, but that it all should come out of Irish money. Their first suggestion was that the pensions of the men should be reduced from £88 to £60 and that the pensions of the women should be reduced from £63 to £47. Their second suggestion was that the teachers' premiums should be raised from £9,000 to £23,000 per annum, and, thirdly, that the retiang gratuities should be done away with. Those were the recommendations of the Committee which sat in 1897, and he did not think a better instance could be found to illustrate the cheeseparing policy of the British Treasury in regard to Irish affairs. The teachers naturally resented this treatment, because they were under the impression that the British Treasury had entered into an agreement with them that if they paid a certain amount out of their salaries they would get a fixed pension, if they complied with all the conditions laid down. An agreement of that kind between man and man would have been kept, but such an agreement be 1346 tween the British Treasury—which had no soul—and the Irish teachers was shamefully broken by the Treasury. At the time various opinions were obtained and legal authorities were consulted, and amongst others the Solicitor-General for Ireland was consulted, and he stated in regard to the action of the British Treasury that—
The rules are illegal from start to finish.He hoped that the Solicitor-General still held the same opinion, and that he would whisper a kind word into the ear of the Secretary to the Treasury to undo the mischief which had been done to the Irish teachers. In a letter to the Teachers' Journal the Solicitor-General wrote—The bargain I say, and say fearlessly, if it was made between man and man would be held good in any Court.He trusted that this illegal action which was perpetrated by the Treasury would be undone, and that justice would be meted out to the Irish teachers and that as a first step towards that end, the illegal and unjust rules of 1897 would be withdrawn.In considering this question it was well to compare the treatment meted out to Irish teachers with the treatment which English and Scotch teachers received. There were 800 teachers on the pension list in England, and this year's Estimates voted them £84,000, or an average of about £100 a year. There were 1,900 teachers on the fund in Ireland, and the British Treasury only voted them £18,000 or an average of less than £10. The English teachers were no better qualified and did no better work than the Irish teachers, and yet they were voted ten times as much by the British Treasury. Did freland get her proportionate share she should get from the Imperial Treasury for the pension fund not £18,000 but ten times that amount. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to look carefully over these figures, and to consider whether something more ought not to be done for the Irish teachers. The Irish teachers were an educated class carrying on the very responsible work of educating the youth of Ireland and training her future workers and citizens, and he thought they had at least equal claim to the Irish Constabulary. For the 1347 Royal Irish Constabulary £377,000 was voted out of the Imperial Treasury for pensions to a force comprising 11,000 men who had practically nothing to do, or in other words, there was voted every year for Royal Irish Constabulary pensions £34 for every man actually in the service. The Irish teacher had to spend forty years in one of the most trying occupations before he reached the maximum pension of £60 per annum, whereas the ordinary constable, whose education was very limited, had only to serve twenty-five years to reach his, maximum. In the Metropolitan police there was voted for pensions annually £32,000, though there were only 1,100 men in the force, or £30 per man actually in the service, while for 12,000 Irish teachers there was voted £18,000, or an average of £1 10s. per annum for every man in the service. The British Treasury said they had no more money for the teachers, and told them that they must put their hands into their own pockets. The first reform which the Irish teachers demanded was the right to appoint an actuary. He wished to know whether, after what had been said upon this question, the Treasury still refused this very reasonable demand. Before the Pensions Act was passed a teacher was entitled to gratuities from the British Treasury at the rate of one year's salary for every ten years service, and under those conditions the teacher was better off than when he was called upon to pay £3, £4, and £5 a year to the fund. He knew one case where a highly classed efficient male teacher, after twenty-four years service in Ireland, and who was compelled to retire through ill-health, got a miserable pension of £4 6s. 8d. per annum. An ordinary Irish constable, after twenty-four years service, would get about £60. He knew another instance where a female teacher, after twenty-six years service, with nothing against her, and who retired through ill-health, was offered a pension of £3 17s. 10d. This injustice ought to have been remedied long ago, and if they had had with any other body but the British Treasury they would not have had to wait for twenty-five years for such a disgraceful state of things to be remedied.
1348 This was more than a teacher's question. Anything which improved the character of the men and women who undertook the teaching of the children, made their position more secure, and took a way the horrible fear that they might have to spend the end of their days in the workhouse, brought to the service of the State a better body of men and women, and encouraged them to give their time more fully and more effectively to the training of the children. The salaries paid and the pensions granted had a good effect not only upon the teachers, but also upon the children and upon the nation, as it was only by giving good salaries and good pensions that the best men could be attracted to and retained in this most important branch of the public service. He hoped, therefore that this would be considered not merely as a question affecting 12,000 people, but as a question which vitally affected the future welfare of the nation. With regard to primary education something would have to be done if they desired to prevent a time coming when no good man or woman would stay or enter the teaching profession. The inspectors had stated that they found it almost impossible to get suitable persons to enter the training colleges the pensions salaries were so low and the pensions offered were so inadequate. Any nation which tolerated such a system for the training of its future citizens as that which existed in Ireland could not possibly get the best results. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would consider that this was a question worthy of his immediate attention. The teachers of Ireland demanded that their pensions should be placed upon a Civil Service basis. That was a reasonable demand, not alone just to the teacher, but essential to securing the best talent and service for the education of the youth of the country. As this was a question on which the House, and the country required enlightenment, he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury not alone to give an independent actuary to inquire into the solvency of the present fund, but also to appoint a small Committee of that House to inquire into the equally important matter the inadequacy of the pensions at present given, and the injustice and hardship caused by the 1349 time required to get the maximum. He would press very strongly for this Committee and he hoped it would be appointed as soon as possible after Easter. He did not see why the Treasury should refuse to give to Irish teachers what they gave to the English and Scotch teachers, and at least equal terms to those which they gave to the Irish constabulary and the Dublin police. He begged leave to second the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in consequence of the conflicting Reports of the Government Actuary on the Pension Fund of the National School Teachers of Ireland, the losses incurred in the management of this Fund, the reduction in the Pensions of this important and deserving body of public servants, and the anxiety as to the solvency of the Fund, upon which even their reduced and wholly inadequate superannuations depend, it is the opinion of this House that the Government should at once secure its solvency by making towards the Fund a grant from Imperial sources, as is done in respect of the Teachers of British Primary Schools, subject the Fund to more efficient management, and at the forthcoming quinquennial examination permit the Teachers, who are at once contributors to and sole beneficiaries of the Fund, to be represented by an independent actuary."—(Mr. Hammond.)
§ MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)said that if a debate in the House was the only thing to convince the Treasury of the justice of the demand, sufficient had taken place to convince every reasonable and sane person, much less the Treasury, of the necessity for conceding the demands contained in the Resolution He could not allow the debate to pass without associating himself entirely with the demands from the Nationalist Members, The Nationalist Party deserved the thanks of the Irish people for bringing the matter before the House, and he hoped before the end of the debate the Secretary to the Treasury would be entirely convinced of the justice of the demand. By the Act of 1879 £1,300,000 was granted from the Irish Church Surplus Fund and that was supplemented by 1350 premiums stopped from the teachers' salaries. He understood the present accumulated capital was £2,200,000. What surprised him was that, notwithstanding the necessity for the sale of stock in order to meet the liabilities the increase of the fund had gone on systematically every year. If on retiring after twenty-four years service a man received £4 6s. 8d. and a woman £3 17s. 10d., it was a libel to call it a pension, especially when they compared it with the pension of the English teacher, who through ill-health, after ten years service, got £20 a year and £1 additional for every year after that. They had every reason to complain of the injustice done to Irish national school teachers. It had been pointed out that the £18,000 put upon the Estimates for pensions was Irish money, and he quite agreed with that contention, and that they were under no obligation to this country for that money.
The demand of the Irish teachers was a very simple one, and one that would appeal to any hon. Member, viz., that in the examination that was to take place in regard to the fund next year they should have an independent actuary, and that when the examination of the fund had taken place the wrongs that had been existing in the past should be removed. He himself believed that the sale of stock was not necessary, and there was ground for suspicion that the money had been applied to some other purpose than that for which it was intended. If not, where was it? In 1897 stock was sold at a loss of £13,937, notwithstanding the fact that the income of the year was far in excess of the expenditure. Where was that £13,000? It had not gone to the teachers. Even in 1903 the loss on sale of stock was £67,000, notwithstanding the fact that the income was far above that amount. If they took the national school teachers' salary at £56 a year for a man and £44 for a woman and gave them a pension after twenty-four years of £3 or £4, it was not a tremendous inducement to get a practical man or woman to give primary education to the young in Ireland. There was no Member of the House who would not agree that the mover and seconder of 1351 this Resolution had made out a very strong case for the Irish teacher. He was quite sure that the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who always viewed Irish matters in a sympathetic spirit, would have something to say on the position. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not be frightened by the comprehensiveness of the Resolution proposed. The case which had been presented could not be denied, and it could not be got over by oratory from the Treasury Bench, false promises, or saying, "We will look into the matter," or, "It is under consideration." A definite and honest undertaking ought to be given from the Treasury Bench which would remove all doubt with regard to the future action in connection I with this particular fund. He associated himself entirely with what had been said by the mover of the Resolution. Whatever political differences there might be between the representatives of Ireland, he trusted that they would be in the unique position to-night of standing united on the question of the Irish national school teachers. There was no divergence of opinion among them with regard to the just and reasonable demand made, and he hoped it would be conceded by the Treasury.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said he was closely associated with the Irish teachers, and he was proud to say that a number of them were his personal friends. The superannuation fund was set up by the Act of 1879, which diverted £1,300,000 of the Irish Church surplus for the purposes of the fund, and authorised the taking of premium payments from the teachers. The fund was worked by a schedule, and this was a vital consideration. The schedule set up specifically what the teachers would get in the way of superannuation, what they would get on voluntary retirement before the superannuation stage, and what they would get by way of disablement allowances. It also stated very specifically what they would have to pay. This scheme was worked for twenty years, and when the condition of the fund was examined by a Departmental Committee in 1897 that Committee came to the conclusion that the fund was insolvent at that time. That was a very extra 1352 ordinary finding to come to, for it was contrary to several other findings. It was alleged that there was a deficiency of £1,200,000. He could not understand the data on which the Departmental Committee went in coming to that conclusion, for the fund year by year since the beginning had always had an excess of income over expenditure. In 1897, when it was reported to be insolvent, the fund was revolutionised. Notwithstanding the fact that in 1879 a definite undertaking was given that certain superannuations would be paid, and breakdown pensions would be paid, the fund was revolutionised as the result of the Report of that Committee. New premiums were set up, and new benefits arranged, and a new set of rules was issued during the recess of 1897, and the Irish teachers were compelled to agree to them by a certain date. The people who had entered the fund with the solemn assurance of an Act of Parliament that they would get certain benefits were obliged to accept these new rules. A more monstrous proceeding he had never heard of. It was legal, no doubt, because the Government was entitled to issue the rules, but, morally, nothing could be more indefensible.
What were the conditions which were thrust upon the teachers? The premium payments for superannuation allowances were trebled. They abolished gratuities, ranging from £52 to £282; they raised the retiring age five years; they sensibly reduced the superannuation allowances, and this he considered an acute point. The schedule of the Act provided a maximum pension of £88 for men. That pension was reduced to £60 under the new rules. The retiring allowance for women under the schedule was £63, and that was reduced to £47. He asked the House to contemplate the position of men and women who had their pensions reduced in this way. It was difficult for him to find Parliamentary language to express his view on the question. The breakdown pensions were subjected to the most abominable reductions. It was hoped that with the Treasury grant of £18,000 a year all would be well with the fund as the result of these reductions. The present accumulated capital 1353 was £2,191,887. The income both before and after the change always exceeded expenditure. In 1903, according to the last figures available, it was £46,743. The issue of the rules in 1897 was a gross breach of faith. The teachers had paid their premiums for many years of Parliament that they would get certain benefits and what had been done constituted a piece of very grave Parliamentary sharp practice. When Parliament met the hon. Member for Louth, on February 18th, 1898, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as it was doubtful whether a debate could be raised after midnight on the new rules affecting Irish teachers' pensions under the Act of 1879, the Government would afford an early opportunity for discussing the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied—
Personally, I should be glad if the matter could be debated soon, though there is no question of urgency involved, as the new rules are already law.It, therefore, appeared that during the recess the new rules became law. The hon. Member for East Cavan asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to a printed circular recently sent to the Irish national teachers, requiring them to sign their consent to acceptance of the new rules affecting pensions, and whether the teachers had by this circular been required to sign acceptance, notwithstanding that up to the present no opportunity of considering those rules had been afforded to the House of Commons or to the Irish Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Leeds, who was then Chief Secretary, replied—The Irish Teachers Pension Rules of 1897 were made under the terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1879, and these rules do not require confirmation by Parliament.Section 11 was as follows—The schedule to this Act shall be construed and have effect as part of this Act. The rules in the schedule to this Act may from time to time be revoked, varied, and added to by the Lord-Lieutenant with the consent of the Treasury.But Section 10 had been entirely overlooked, and he could not help think 1354 ing that it had been deliberately over looked. It said—At any time after the passing of this Act, the Treasury, with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant, may from time to time make rules for the administration of this Act. Copies of all such rules shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days from the date thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and if not then within fourteen days from the next reassembling of Parliament.The rules were issued the during the recess and the House was virtually told that they passed into law before Parliament met. That might be in accordance with Section 11, but it was a flat contradiction of Section 10. He was very doubtful whether these rules were legal now. The Attorney-General might smile, but he held his opinion all the same.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)They were discussed before the Court of Queen's Bench.
§ DR. MACNAMARAsaid that what was discussed was whether the Lord-Lieutenant had the right to alter the terms for any teacher then on the fund. That was legal, but he called it immoral. Under Section 10 the Government was compelled not to bring the rides into law until they had been fourteen days before both Houses of Parliament.
As to superannuation allowances under the new rules, which he still thought were illegal from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure, the Irish teacher, paid proportionally a little more premium than the Scotch, English, or Welsh teacher. The maximum superannuation allowance to the Irish teacher was £60 and the average was about £46. The minimum for the English or Scotch teacher, although proportionally he paid less, was £61. The maximum for the woman teacher under the 1897 scheme was £17, and only a few of these allowances were available; the average was £34. The minimum for an English or Scotch woman teacher was £41 8s. 8d. There was an invalid or breakdown pension which in Ireland for men was £11 15s. and for women £4 9s. 2d. The rules applicable to English and Scotch teachers 1355 for the corresponding disablement allowances were as follows,—
If the teacher is a man, £20 for ten complete years of recorded service, with the addition of £1 for each complete additional year of recorded service; and if the teacher is a woman £15 for ten complete years 13s. 4d. for each complet eddditional year of recorded service.The solvency of the fund ought to be guaranteed by the Treasury and a much larger contribution should be made by the Treasury. The money which was devoted to this purpose up to 1898 was taken from the Irish Church Surplus The contribution of the Treasury up till then had been nothing at all. The £18,000 a year was then given to set the fund on its legs. The contributions to the English and Scotch scheme which was set up in 1896 had been in 1900, £40,310; 1901, £52,405; 1902, £55,493; 1903, £62,075; and 1904, £68,775. If the Irish fund had a pro rata contribution instead of getting £18,000 it ought now to be getting £180,000.The Financial Secretary of the Treasury might say that the Irish teachers' conditions of service and wages were much better than those of the English and Scotch, teachers. No one who knew the Irish teachers could fail to be impressed with their zeal, devotion, and industry. What were the facts as to their treatment? The average salary of headmasters in Scotland was £176 14s. 3d., in England and Wales £151 9s. 11d. and in Ireland £102. The Irish headmaster received 33 per cent, less than the Scotch and 25 per cent, less than the English and Welsh headmaster. The same proportion was maintained through the different branches of the service. The Irish headmaster got £20 a year less than the English assistant master. The Commissioners would not pay the salary to the teacher direct. He was paid through the manager who might be on his holidays. Not only was the salary meager but the teacher had sometimes to wait months before getting it. The teachers had to produce every three months testimony of their good character. That might be all very well regarding the man, but it was a little contumelious regarding women. He would suggest to the new Chief Secretary that the rule 1356 regarding the three months good character might be struck out altogether. Very often, as the inspectors' reports stated, the Irish teachers had to pay the cost of fuel, and of cleaning and repairing the schools, and they had to buy prizes for the children—things absolutely unknown in England or Scotland. With regard to their houses he found the following in the current Report of the Commissioners:
The Commissioners expect that all teachers shall have done at their own expense the following, viz.:—Limewashing; cleaning and repairing glass; cleaning privies and ashpits; gravelling yards and walks, and keeping surface I channels in order; sweeping chimneys; making good any damage arising from carelessness or neglect; maintaining fences and gates, except damages from lapse of time; and, in cases of residences built by grants for teachers of national schools vested in the Board of National Education or in trustees, the Commissioners will inflict such penalty as they may deem adequate if the teacher fails to fulfil these conditions.That was rather a moderate demand, but among the "practical rules" to be strictly observed by the teachers of the national schools was the following:—To avoid fairs, markets, and meetings—but above all political meetings of every kind; to abstain from controversy—The instruction to abstain from controversy was the most self-denying ordinance that could be laid upon an Irishman, and if he only observed it he would be entitled to a pension. The Commissioner's Report stated in regard to the qualities they required that—National teachers should be persons of Christian sentiment, of calm temper, and discretion.That was a very good rule to apply to Chief Secretaries and Attorney-Generals—They should be imbued with a spirit of peace of obedience to the law, and of loyalty to their Sovereign; they should not only possess the art of communicating knowledge, but be capable of moulding the mind of youth, and of giving to the power which education confers a useful direction. These are the qualities for which patrons or local managers of schools, when making choice of teachers, should anxiously look. They are those which the Commissioners are anxious to find, to encourage, and to reward.When he considered the salaries paid to the teachers and the scandalous treatment they received it was the climax of hypocrisy to put into the 1357 rules conditions such as those he had read.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)said one of the rules which the hon. Member had read might be adopted in another sphere. He thought that before the quarterly salaries were paid Ministers should present a certificate of character. There was another rule which he was bound to say had a bearing on what had been a burning question lately, namely, the rule which enjoined teachers to avoid controversy. The frank absence of the Chief Secretary was a deliberate confession that the Irish Government was absolutely powerless where Irish finance was concerned, and that the Irish Minister, although he sat in the Cabinet, was subordinate to the Minister who represented the Treasury. Practically, Ireland surrended its revenues at the time of the Union into the hands of a Treasury clerk. He was far from saying anything disrespectful of the hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who was of noble lineage and belonged to a family long associated with Ireland. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when he had to represent the Treasury on Irish financial questions he should get a Treasury clerk to speak into a phonograph, put the phonograph on the table, and let it make the statement. In that way the hon. Gentleman would be saved from personal dishonour, and from involving himself in financial misstatements, which, if made by Whitaker Wright or Jabez Balfour, would entail prosecution by his colleagues at his side. If any ordinary man of business or board of directors issued a prospectus which contained statements which were false they were liable to be prosecuted as criminals. He did not take much interest in English frauds, but he read the other day of a remarkable scheme called the Nelson Tea Pensions, whereby a number of old women by paying for 2s. tea 3s. 6d. per pound were to become entitled to pensions for the rest of their natural life when they had bought so many hundred pounds. It was a splendid scheme, and at present the Government were engaged in prosecuting the authors. At all events they had been recommended for prosecution simply because they made an 1358 actuarial mistake. The worst thing they did was to issue a prospectus to the public and to sell tea at high prices. But their proceedings were not sanctified by an Act of Parliament. The British Government first seized this public Irish treasure to the extent of £1,300,000, and then said to the 12,000 national teachers of Ireland: "All you good people come to us, come to our schools, and we will teach you law and order and loyalty to the Sovereign; and then we will give you salaries, and if you consent to pay, not to Jabez Balfour, or Whitaker Wright, or to the Nelson Tea Pension Fund, but to the Lion and the Unicorn over which the Union Jack triumphantly waves—if you pay John Bull and Company so much a year, we, the British Government, whose flag floats on every sea, whose Army brings the true religion to Lhasa—we will guarantee you Protestant teachers as well as Catholic teachers"—for it was a fraud on the Orangemen in the North as well as on the idolator in the South—"we will guarantee to you, according to the schedule put into an Act of Parliament passed by a Conservative Government, pensions varying from £70 to £80 a year in proportion to your payments." And when these unfortunate men and women had spent ten, twenty, or thirty years under the most awful slavery, viz., the teaching of youth, on a miserable pittance, this great Government, a Government of hon. Gentlemen with names to which they were expected to attach every sentiment of reverence and respect, turned round on these unhappy men and women who had no redress against them, no law Court in which to drag John Bull and Company, and said: "We did not mean what we have said, and unless you agree before a given date to accept new terms and take £45 a year instead of the £80 a year which we guaranteed we won't give you a shilling." And this was the Government, remember, that expected loyalty and respect for the law in Ireland! They expected the flower of loyalty to grow out of the seed of discontent. That was why he invited the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury not to make himself the mouthpiece of the under clerks of Downing Street, whose one idea of business—he 1359 said this after twenty-five years experience in the House—was chicane. The late Lord Salisbury attributed nearly all the evils of England to the Treasury. That was said in the House of Lords, and the words were extant. What protection had they, the minority in the House? He asked if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had tried to go into this matter himself? Could the hon. Gentleman get up and say that he had given to this question one hour's honest thought, or would he say anything beyond what some puny whipster in the Treasury had written out by a typewriter that he, a man of noble birth, should read it at that box as if it were a fourth Gospel? He held that fraud was written on every line of the action of the Government in regard to the Irish national teachers—indefensible fraud.
What was the very modest demand put forward from those benches? They did not say, "Put us on a level with Englishmen. Oh, no, we are too pigmy for that. We do not even ask to be put on a level with Scotchmen. All we ask is, that a British actuary shall be allowed to investigate the doings of John Bull and Co. in regard to our own money." The Solicitor-General had put on record his opinion that the rules which the Treasury forced down the throats of the Irish teachers were illegal, and not binding. He asked the Government to say by what authority they enforced those rules when their own law officer made that declaration. Would the Secretary to the Treasury venture to rise at that Table and contradict the Solicitor-General? Which of them on those benches were they to believe? They were all honourable men! The Solicitor-General said that the 1360 rules were illegal and that teachers had for years been defrauded of their rights.
He had not seen till that day the Return referred to by his hon. friend the Member for Kerry, but in looking at it what struck him with astonishment was that, in a Return issued by the Treasury for the purpose of giving information to the House, care was actually taken not to put in the totals, so that anyone trying to make out the sense of it would have to add up something like eight columns of figures, so as to arrive at the facts. So far as he could understand, the fund originally stood at £;1,300,000, and something like £700,000 had been paid out. But the teachers' contributions had amounted to something like £1,000,000. Therefore the fund was better off to-day by £300,000 than it was when it was established. This was the fund which was declared to be bankrupt by the Treasury! If the fund was bankrupt to-day when it was £300,000 better than when it was started, what were they to think of the late Sir Stafford Northcote and other able men, who, in this House in the year 1879, said the fund was a competent fund to provide for all the pensions? He held that if the Government undertook to manage an insurance business, for that was what this fund was, they had a right to expect from them the same competence that they would get from any of the great insurance companies, like the Norwich Union, the Globe, or the Ocean. If ordinary human beings sitting as a board of directors could do their business competently, why should not the British Government? There was not the poorest friendly society managed by labourers, not to speak of artisans, and not to 1361 speak of such friendly societies as the Oddfellows and the Foresters, which would not be disgraced if it had to confess itself guilty of such malfeasance as the Government had had to own in regard to this matter. Such a society would render themselves criminally liable, and why was the Government, because it was a Government, to escape when poor humble people convicted and sentenced.
He himself would have put his demand higher than the Resolution went. He maintained that the Government ought to keep faith with these unfortunate teacher, and that every man and woman who had subscribed to the fund was entitled to get what was promised by the Act of 1879 Supposing they carried the Motion, and the Government gave them an actuary, would the actuary present a report of the same kind as in the Humbolt case in Paris? To his thinking they wanted something more than an actuary; they required that the promise of the British Government, on the faith of which the teachers paid their contributions into the fund should be kept, and the national teachers in Ireland would never cease to agitate until the British Government fulfilled its statutory contract.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said he should like, in the first place, to say that although the hon, and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, and the hon. Member for Camberwell, had put a little vigour into the debate, he personally had no reason to complain of the line they had taken. Although a good deal of the history of the fund had been recalled there had been 1362 no mention of the fact that in 1885 when the first valuation was made, there was a considerable balance of assets.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)Was he a Treasury valuer?
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHHe was. That valuation was followed by what he would call a distribution of profits Certain advantages were given to the teachers by way of benefits and of reduction of premiums. That latter fact ought to be borne in mind. In 1890 the actuary reported that there was a considerable deficiency, and that report was confirmed in 1895. A Committee was thereupon appointed. They investigated the matter and made several recommendations, three of which were that the deductions from the salaries of teachers, for the fund should be increased, that a grant of £18,000 should be made from the British Exchequer, and that part of a lump sum which voted for the purposed of Irish education should be allocated to the pension fund. At the same time the highest class of pensions was abolished. These proposals were discussed in this House, and they had the approval of the Irish National Board of Education. Rules were framed in 1897 in accordance with these recommendations, and they had remained in force until the present time. He admitted candidly that there had been cases of hardship; but it was only fair to point out that the teachers who were in the service on January 1st, 1898, had the option of remaining under the old rules or of coming under the new rules [Cries of "No, no" from the IRISH Benches.] He thought he was correct.
§ DR. MACNAMARAThey were compelled to accept the new rules.
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he was told that teachers in the service prior to 1898 had the option. He was unable, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Resolution, but he was ready to suggest a compromise. It was perfectly true that the other day in answer to a Question he stated that he did not think it would be advisable to have an independent valuer; but if it was only as an earnest and a proof that the Treasury was not quite so lax as hon. Gentlemen would have the House to believe, he was prepared to waive his objection on that point, to let bygones, be bygones and to accept an in dependent valuer appointed on behalf of the teachers at the forthcoming valuation at the end of the year. If that proposal would do anything towards bringing to a conclusion these disputes, which were raised far too often across the floor of the House, he would be only too glad. He would undertake, on behalf of the Treasury, that the report received on this valuation should receive the most careful attention, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite would confine their Resolution to the representation of the teachers by an independent valuer, he should not take any objection to it.
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he presumed so. He would not make any objection. Of course it was understood that everything would be done to diminish the expense.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (waterford)said he would like acknowledge the tone in which the hon. Gentle 1364 man had spoken, and the concession such as it was, which he had made. But when the hon. Gentleman asked the Irish Members to withdraw the Resolution and let bygones be bygones, that was a course which he could not advise his friends to take. This Resolution asked for more than an actuary. It asked that—
The Government should at once secure its solvency by making towards the fund a grant from Imperial sources, as is done in respect of the teachers of British primary schools, subject the Fund to more efficient management, and at he forthcoming quinquennial examination permit the teachers, who are at once contributors to and sole beneficiaries of the fund to be represented by an independent actuary.Therefore, he could not agree to the withdrawal of the Resolution, although he thanked the hon. Gentleman for his concession in regard to the appointment of an actuary.
§ MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)said that if the hon. Gentleman would assure them that he would put the fund in a condition to carry out the Act of 1879 then they ought all to be satisfied. He took that ground, not by referring to the pensions given to the Royal Irish Constabulary, or to the pensions given to the English and Scotch teachers but to the Pensions Provided for by the Act of 1879. It was on the faith of that Act that the teachers were induced to make their contributions. Without the smallest regard to sanctity of contract some gentlemen met together and said these sums should not be paid in future. That was neither reasonable nor fair. The hon. Member for Camberwell referred to the vital part of this matter when he mentioned the provisions of the Act of 1879, the advantages of which to the teachers 1365 had been destroyed. It was not denied that the fund was £200,000 richer than when it was created, but it had also to be remembered that the numbers had also increased, and they had a right to expect that when the investigation had taken place and the actuary had reported the Treasury would make good the deficiency to the teachers.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Dublin University)said the last speaker who had addressed the House was still under a misapprehension with regard to the actual facts of the case. The hon. Members in introducing and seconding this Motion did so in speeches characterised by great ability and great moderation, and, speaking as they did with actual knowledge and experience of the working of this system, the moderation of their language contrasted favourably with the extreme and exaggerated speech of the hon. Member for Camber-well. What were the actual facts as to what occurred in 1897? The Act of 1879 was passed on the assumption that teachers would contribute about one-fourth of the total amount to provide the pensions under that Act. Unfortunately, in assessing the amount which the teachers were to pay in order to produce that one-fourth these premiums were not assessed on the age of teachers on joining the scheme, the result being that the premiums were assessed at too low a figure. In 1885, when the quinquennial valuation took place, the actuary employed entirely overestimated the position of the fund, and owing to his sanguine overestimate a large distribution of the assets of this fund was made to the teachers who retired during those years to an 1366 amount far in excess of that which their premiums or the state of the fund justified. It followed that when the examination was made in 1890 it was found that the fund which in 1885 was thought to be in a very flourishing condition was then really insolvent. That condition of insolvency was found to have increased to a serious extent in 1895. The fund was then threatened with bankruptcy, and it became necessary to consider what could be done to put it in a solvent condition again. A Committee was appointed who recommended that the highest pension that was payable to first-class teachers in the first division should be abolished. The hon. Member for Camber-well made a complete mistake in supposing that these rules of 1897 deprived existing teachers of any right whatever in respect of that pension, because whilst the rules abolished that pension in the case of future teachers of the first division it wag expressly provided that any teacher of that class who paid at the old rate was entitled to continue to pay at that rate and to receive the pension on the old scale.
§ MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLinterposed to remark that only on the previous day he was informed of the case of a teacher in the first class who, when the rule came into force, was not retained on the first-class list.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he had the rule before him and it stated that any first-class teacher in the first division who had to pay the premiums on the old rate would have his rights secured. Rule 19, to which the hon. Member doubtless referred, expressly safeguarded that right. But in addition to that, and in order to save this fund from insolvency, 1367 Parliament agreed to vote in that year, and had voted every year since, a sum of £18,000. That sum was not fixed but might be increased or reduced according to the result of the quinquennial valuation. The next valuation would be made in a few months, and until that had been made they could not say whether the condition of the fund was healthy or insolvent. If unhealthy and it was thought that the £18,000 was insufficient, Parliament was not bound to that sum but could vote any additional sum that might be required to keep it in an efficient state.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Resolution before the House only asked that the fund should be put in a solvent condition.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLthought that the Motion was entirely premature because at present, so far as anyone knew, the fund was in a solvent condition. Its actual state would not be ascertained until they knew the result of the quinquennial valuation which would take place in a very few months. The Treasury had gone very far in their endeavours to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because all sections of the House were united in desiring to meet the wishes of the teachers and in recognising the efficient way in which they did their work. It was the general desire that justice should be done. His right hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had conceded their right to
§ have their interests protected by the appointment of an independent actuary at the next valuation. Why, therefore, should they anticipate that valuation? Why should the House be asked to commit itself to a Resolution calling upon Parliament to put this fund in a solvent condition when it might already be perfectly solvent?
§ There was another point to which he desired to call attention. The hon. Member for Camber well forgot to mention that whilst the national teachers in Ireland had been enjoying these pension rights ever since 1879, it was not until 1898 that either English or Scotch teachers were conceded any pension rights whatever. That was a fact which should not be overlooked. He agreed that the scheme under the Act of 1898 was somewhat higher for England and Scotland than for Ireland, but on the other hand Irish teachers had possessed these pensions for nearly twenty years before the same rights were conceded to their brethren in Scotland and England. He would suggest to hon. Members from Ireland that they had accomplished the purpose of the Resolution in obtaining the power to be represented at the next inquiry by an actuary of their own, and that the Motion might be withdrawn.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 133.)