CHAPTER XIX

THE AGED POOR

In "Riches and Poverty," edition 1905, I passed at this point to the consideration of the cruellest phase of Poverty, the poverty of the aged. Since 1905 Mr Asquith has given us an Old Age Pension Act, and it is happily unnecessary to repeat in full the pleas which were advanced in these pages in 1905. It is well, however, again to record the known facts with regard to poverty in old age.

If we did not know our country, and had never encountered its poor in the flesh, in what condition could we expect to find the aged labourer in view of the terrible extent of the Error of Distribution? It is not alone that the majority of our people have the slenderest incomes. To narrow wages is in most cases added uncertainty of employment, the greatest enemy of thrift, while the period during which the average workman draws the full rate of wages recognized in his trade has ever been short, and tends with the increased strenuousness of modern industry to grow shorter.

There are about 2,100,000 persons aged 65 and upwards, in the United Kingdom, but these are not divided between rich and poor in the proportions shown in the frontispiece. We have to remember that the poor are slain by their poverty. In the "comfortable" and "rich" classes the span of life is much greater than in the case of the poor. It is impossible to say precisely how the 2,100,000 persons are divided in point of income, but probably, some 1,750,000 of them belong to the classes whose incomes are below the income tax exemption limit. As to a considerable proportion of them we have the clearest evidence of grinding poverty.

In 1890 Mr Thomas Burt, M.P., moved for a parliamentary return showing the number of paupers of 60 years of age and upwards, distinguishing indoor from outdoor relief. It appears from this return that the total number of paupers over 60 years of age in receipt of relief on August 1st, 1890 (excluding lunatics in asylums, vagrants and persons who were only in receipt of relief constructively by reason of relief being given to wives or children), was 286,867.

The number of those persons who were in receipt of indoor relief, the number in receipt of outdoor relief, and their ages as stated, are given in the table on the following page.

The notable fact which emerges is that of 286,867 paupers over 60, as many as 245,687 were over 65. Old age as a cause of pauperism is strikingly illustrated by a comparison of the two numbers. It is clear that death at 64 would mercifully have saved over two hundred thousand poor old men and women from the stigma of pauperism.

According to the census returns, in 1891, the following year, there were 1,372,974 persons (606,960 males and 766,014 females) at and over the age of 65. On August 1st, 1890, the date of Mr Burt's return, therefore, there were 245,687 persons out of about 1,372,000 persons 65 years old and upwards or say 1 in 5½ in receipt of poor relief.

But Mr Burt's return related to the paupers relieved on one day only. What ratio does the number of aged paupers relieved in one day bear to the total number relieved in the course of the year?

PAUPERS OVER 60 YEARS OF AGE (ENGLAND AND WALES ONLY) ON AUGUST 1ST, 1890

----------------+----------------------+------------------------+ | Indoor. | Outdoor. | Ages. +------+--------+------+-------+--------+-------+ |Males.|Females.|Total.| Males.|Females.| Total.| ----------------+------+--------+------+-------+--------+-------+ 65 to 70 | 9,468| 6,339 |15,807|10,567 | 35,866 | 46,433| 70 to 75 | 9,953| 6,856 |16,809|17,633 | 43,266 | 60,899| 75 to 80 | 7,086| 5,298 |12,384|16,474 | 32,021 | 48,495| 80 and over | 4,949| 4,803 | 9,752|12,456 | 22,652 | 35,108| +------+--------+------+-------+--------+-------+ Total over 65 |31,456| 23,296 |54,752|57,130 |133,805 |190,935| 60 to 65 | 8,018| 5,354 |13,372| 5,959 | 21,849 | 27,808| +------+--------+------+-------+--------+-------+ Total over 60 |39,474| 28,650 |68,124|63,089 |155,654 |218,743| ----------------+------+--------+------+-------+--------+-------+

----------------+------------------------ | Total Paupers. Ages. +-------+--------+------- | Males.|Females.| Total. ----------------+-------+--------+------- 65 to 70 | 20,035| 42,205 | 62,240 70 to 75 | 27,586| 50,122 | 77,708 75 to 80 | 23,560| 37,319 | 60,879 80 and over | 17,405| 27,455 | 44,860 +-------+--------+------- Total over 65 | 88,588|157,101 |245,687 60 to 65 | 13,977| 27,203 | 41,180 +-------+--------+------- Total over 60 |102,563|184,304 |286,867 ----------------+-------+--------+-------

This question is answered by a further parliamentary return, asked for in 1892 by Mr (afterwards Lord) Ritchie. This return shows for England and Wales the number of persons of each sex aged 65 years and upwards, and the number between 16 and 65, also the number of children under 16 years of age, in receipt of relief (_a_) on January 1st, 1892, and (_b_) during the twelve months ended Lady Day 1892. As in Mr Burt's return, vagrants and lunatics are not included. The return differs from Mr Burt's, however, in distinguishing those persons in receipt of medical relief only.

This return of Mr Ritchie's showed that while 700,746 paupers of all ages were in receipt of relief on January 1st, 1892, the number relieved during the year ended Lady Day 1892 was more than twice as great, viz. 1,573,074.[60]

Mr Ritchie's return relates to all paupers, whereas that of Mr Burt related to the aged only. It is difficult to say which fact in Mr Ritchie's return is the more saddening, the relief of 401,904 aged paupers in a single year, or that in the same period 553,587 _children under sixteen were pauperized_.

The following table (p. 276) summarizes the facts elicited by the return as to the paupers relieved during twelve months. (It should be observed that, of the 1,573,074 persons enumerated, 211,082 were in receipt of medical relief only. Of the 401,904 paupers over 65, however, but 25,447 were in receipt of medical relief only.)

PAUPERS RELIEVED IN ENGLAND AND WALES DURING THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING LADY DAY 1892

+------------------------+--------------------------+ | Indoor. | Outdoor. | Ages. +-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+ | Males.|Females.| Total.| Males.|Females.| Total.| -----------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+ 65 and over | 68,490| 45,654 |114,144| 95,140|192,620 | 287,760| 16 to 65 |134,561| 97,723 |232,284|141,826|243,473 | 385,299| Under 16 | | |111,782| | | 441,805| -----------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+ Totals | | |458,210| | |1,114,864| -----------------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------+

+-------------------------- | Total Paupers. Ages. +-------+--------+--------- | Males.|Females.| Total. -----------------+-------+--------+--------- 65 and over |163,630| 238,274| 401,904 16 to 65 |276,387| 341,196| 617,583 Under 16 | | | 553,587 -----------------+-------+--------+--------- Totals | | |1,573,074 -----------------+-------+--------+---------

Comparing the number of paupers in England and Wales, as shown by the figures on p. 276 with the census population of 1891, we get:

TOTAL PAUPERS IN 1891 COMPARED WITH TOTAL POPULATION (ENGLAND AND WALES ONLY)

Total Paupers relieved 1,573,074 Total Population, Census 1891 29,000,000 Paupers per 1,000 54

Thus the paupers of all ages relieved in 1891 amounted to one in every eighteen of the population of England and Wales.

What of those over 65? The facts are:

PAUPERS AGED 65 AND UPWARDS IN 1891 COMPARED WITH TOTAL POPULATION OF THAT AGE (IN ENGLAND AND WALES ONLY)

Total Paupers aged 65 and over 401,904 Total Population aged 65 and over 1,372,900 Paupers per 1,000 292

_Thus of the population of England and Wales aged 65 and over in 1891, one in every three was in receipt of poor relief!_

In 1899, and again in 1900, the Local Government Board published returns relating to aged pauperism in those years, and Mr Burt, in 1903, obtained a second return in continuation of that of 1891. We are thus enabled to compare _one-day_ returns for five different periods and this is done in the following table:

PAUPERS, INDOOR AND OUTDOOR, RELIEVED ON CERTAIN DAYS DURING A PERIOD OF THIRTEEN YEARS (ENGLAND AND WALES ONLY)

Ratio of Paupers Paupers Paupers 65 and over to aged 16 aged 65 total population and over. and over. of that age. (Per Cent.) 1890 (1 Aug.) Not known 245,687 18.0 1892 (1 Jan.) 471,568 268,397 19.4 1899 (1 July) 469,939 278,718 18.7 1900 (1 Jan.) 494,600 286,929 19.2 1903 (1 Sept.) 490,513 284,265 18.3

[_Note._—In the Returns for 1892, 1899 and 1900 the numbers include persons in receipt of relief constructively by reason of relief being given to wives or children. In the Returns for 1890 and 1903 (Mr Burt's returns) such persons are excluded.]

Apart from seasonal changes—the number of paupers is, of course, always higher in the winter than in the summer—it will be seen that the proportion of paupers over 65 years of age to the total population of that age has not varied much. On August 1st, 1890, there were 245,687 paupers of 65 years and upwards, or 18 per cent. of the total population of that age. On September 1st, 1903, there were 284,265 paupers of 65 and upwards, or 18.3 per cent. of the population of that age.

We have only the figures of the 1892 return to throw light upon the number of aged paupers relieved during one year. If we assume that still the same proportion of aged pauperism exists, viz.: 292 in each 1,000, then, in the present year, out of a total population in the United Kingdom aged 65 and upwards of about 2,100,000, as many as 613,200 persons are pauperized.

This number includes both indoor and outdoor paupers, and the ratio of indoor and outdoor paupers varies greatly in different places because of the varying policies of Boards of Guardians. But this point need not detain us. Outdoor relief may in some cases be injudiciously given and in other places most cruelly refused. The fact remains that, taking the country as a whole, we have the clearest evidence of the existence of 613,000 exceedingly poor aged persons.

More important it is to remember that, for one poor person who obtains either indoor or outdoor relief, several who justly might claim it refuse to avail themselves of the tender mercies of the Poor Law. The poor, as a rule, will exhaust every penny of their savings and pawn every stick of their furniture before they seek the workhouse door. Moreover, the amount of genuine charity bestowed by the poor upon the poor is wonderful. If, then, there are 600,000 aged paupers either inside workhouses or receiving outdoor relief in the course of the year, we may be quite sure that at least as many more are as urgently in need of succour, and obtain it by increasing the poverty of their poor friends rather than by seeking from the Guardians the loaf, the 2s. 6d., and the insults which too often constitute outdoor relief.

The reader will see how probable it is that, of the 2,100,000 persons aged 65 and upwards now living in the United Kingdom, fully 1,750,000 are in a condition of poverty which at the worst is pauperism and at the best is sore need. Some 613,000 of them are certainly in receipt of poor relief during the year. Probably another 600,000 are only deterred by horror of the workhouse from recourse to the Guardians. For the remaining third, as for the other two-thirds, the life which has for three-score years been a constant struggle with poverty meets its hardest and cruellest phase at the close.

A certain number of extraordinary men exist who contrive to rear a family upon 30s. a week, and to save enough to provide for their old age. These are the few who are not merely themselves of a most frugal disposition, but who have chanced to bestow their affections upon a girl as abstemious and as thrifty as themselves. A pair of such character, blessed with perfect health and not more than two or three healthy children, may contrive to meet first the fall of earnings after 45 or 50, and finally old age itself, with a light heart. That such cases are rare will only surprise those who have never had occasion to practise thrift. Only a little less rare than the comfortable aged workmen are those who contrive to provide for themselves a tiny pension for their declining years, through the continuous sick pay of friendly society or trade union, or through the superannuation benefit of the latter. There are only 38 trade unions which provide a superannuation benefit, and these have a membership of about 600,000. They pay between them about £200,000 a year in old age pensions to about 25,000 members. How small this number appears when we compare it with the total number of persons over 65 in the United Kingdom, which is about 2,100,000 at the present time!

The value of the practice and experience of Trade Unions is very great. Summing them up, I showed in "Riches and Poverty," edition 1905, that workmen who earn their living, not by the mere exercise of physical strength, but by skill, are usually used up by the age of 60, and not infrequently by the age of 55. The latter age may be regarded as the limit of full-earning capacity for the average skilled workman. After 55 he is in the greatest danger of dismissal when trade becomes slack. From a considerable number of inquiries, I arrived at the conclusion that the full wage-earning capacity of the average skilled workman begins at 25-30 and ends at 50-55. Before 25-30 a man is inexperienced and not valued so highly as after that age. After 50-55 the age factor again begins to tell, and the workman trembles at thought of the future. Each grey hair is a deadly enemy to his livelihood.

If the skilled workman can hope to earn the full wages of his trade (full wages, it should be remembered, means about 40 to 46 weeks' pay per annum in most trades) for but 20 to 30 years, what of the men who are hewers of wood and drawers of water? The answer is that after 45 good wages are difficult to obtain, and that for the rest of their lives, if not mercifully ended by death, the earnings are poor in the summer, and often at zero in the winter. If we look at the "occupations" (with what irony the term is used in this connexion) of the inmates of workhouses at the census of 1901 we find:

WORKHOUSE INMATES (OVER 10 YEARS OF AGE) AT CENSUS OF 1901

MALES

Clerks 1,079 Coachmen and grooms 1,848 Carmen, carriers 1,546 Seamen 2,052 Dock labourers 2,355 Agricultural labourers 9,469 Gardeners 1,232 Coal-miners 1,570 Blacksmiths 1,381 Carpenters, joiners 2,274 Bricklayers 1,212 Bricklayers' labourers 1,397 Painters, glaziers 2,487 Cotton operatives 1,218 Tailors 1,594 Shoemakers 3,061 Costermongers 1,521 General labourers 22,129 Other occupations 31,287 Without specified occupations or unoccupied 16,151 ------- 106,863

FEMALES

Domestic servants 15,630 Charwomen 8,176 Laundry and washing service 4,554 Cotton operatives 2,128 Tailoresses 1,245 Milliners and dressmakers 1,642 Shirtmakers, seamstresses 2,814 Costermongers, hawkers 1,159 Other occupations 7,681 Without specified occupations or unoccupied 32,220 ------- 77,249 ------- Total male and female 184,112 =======

The large proportion of "general labourers" is very striking, while those describing themselves as dock, bricklayers' and general labourers together form one-fourth of the whole. It will also be noticed that 9,469 agricultural labourers "followed the plough to the workhouse door." In passing, I may remark that in the list of female "occupations" the presence of 15,000 domestic indoor servants should not go unnoticed.

The almost universal approval which the proposal to grant Old Age Pensions elicited would probably have carried it to fruition long before the date of the Old Age Pension Act, 1908, but for one thing and one thing only—the question of cost. It is amusing to note that the "Small Committee of Persons Interested in the Controversy respecting Old Age Pensions,"[61] practically a Committee of the Charity Organization Society, who actively opposed Old Age Pensions in 1899-1902, placed in the forefront of their "objections" the following:

"That the cost would be an insuperable difficulty, for to grant 5s. a week at age 65 in respect of the population of England and Wales only, would involve about £20,000,000 per annum for the present recipients, and by 1941 the figure would have risen to £36,000,000."

In "Riches and Poverty," edition 1905, I said:

"Our examination of the National Income and the manner of its distribution disposes of this objection. The question resolves itself into this—Ought the 5,000,000 persons who have an aggregate income approaching £900,000,000 to be taxed to the extent of £15,000,000 to provide pensions for the aged poor? If the facts illustrated in the frontispiece of this volume could be brought home to every elector there would be no doubt whatever as to the decision of the country on the subject. With the gross assessment to Income Tax at £900,000,000 the expenditure of £15,000,000 on a small provision for the aged strikes one, not as extravagant, but as an exceedingly modest proposal to mitigate the evils of the Error of Distribution.

"I have named £15,000,000, and that is all that the scheme would cost. It is not a universal superannuation scheme that is wanted; I find it difficult to regard very seriously the proposal that, for fear of "pauperization" we should pay every person, rich and poor, aged 65 and upwards, the sum of 5s. per week. The idea appears to be that if the scheme is not made universal some stigma will attach to those who are pensioned. Surely this is an exaggerated view. The majority of those aged 65 are poor, just as the majority of the whole population are poor. If there is a stigma in such a case it attaches to those who go to form the top part of my diagram—to those whose absorption of an undue share of the national income connotes poverty for millions at the other end of the scale.

"My own feeling is that we should make the pension, like the superannuation benefit of Trades Unions, _claimable_ by those aged 65 and upwards who have not an income of more than £1 a week or property valued at more than £250. We should then probably have to provide for about 1,400,000 to 1,500,000 pensioners, at a cost of £18,000,000 to £20,000,000. Administration would cost about £500,000 and we should save about £4,000,000 in poor rates. Thus the net addition to taxation would be about £15,000,000."

Mr Asquith's Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 made the receipt of an Old Age Pension a citizen right, claimable by every person filling certain statutory conditions. These conditions are:—

(1) That the person must have attained the age of 70.

(2) That he is a British subject.

(3) That his yearly income does not exceed £31, 10s.

The receipt of poor relief (medical relief excepted), habitual idleness, lunacy or conviction for crime, are statutory disqualifications.

The amount of the pension varies from 1s. to 5s. per week according to the following sliding scale:

Rate of Income of Pensioner. Pension per Week. £ _s._ _d._ _s._ _d._ Not exceeding 21 0 0 5 0 £ _s._ _d._ Exceeds 21 0 0 but does not exceed 23 12 6 4 0 " 23 12 6 " " 26 5 0 3 0 " 26 5 0 " " 28 17 6 2 0 " 28 17 6 " " 31 10 0 1 0 " 31 10 0 No pension.

It was expressly stated in the Act that the disqualification of those who had been in receipt of poor relief was to cease on December 31st, 1910, and the Budget of 1910-11 accordingly made provision for the payment of the pensions to such paupers after that date.

The following statistics show the payments under the Act at December 31st, 1909 (the Act having come into force on January 1st, 1909):

THE FIRST YEAR'S WORKING OF MR ASQUITH'S OLD AGE PENSION ACT

Position at December 31st, 1909.

Number of Amount Payable Pensioners. per Annum. England 405,755 £5,043,332 Scotland 76,037 966,370 Wales 26,972 337,254 Ireland 183,976 2,335,764 ------- ---------- 692,740 £8,682,720 ======= ==========

It was a defect in the Act that the possession of a certain amount of property, as well as the possession of a certain income, was not made the disqualification that I suggested it ought to be. A man with £500 of property, yielding an income of £20 a year, ought _not_ to be qualified for an Old Age Pension.

It is notable that, in introducing his Budget of 1908, Mr Asquith, in expounding his scheme of pensions, estimated that it would cost not more than £6,000,000 a year. As we have seen, the cost has proved to be very much greater. It is fortunate that the under-estimation was made. If Parliament had known that the cost would be £9,000,000 instead of £6,000,000 Old Age Pensions might not now be law, so slowly is the lesson learned that, to a nation of 44,000,000 people, with an aggregate income of nearly £2,000,000,000, an expenditure of £9,000,000 is a small matter, relatively as small as though the reader expended a few shillings.

But it is, of course, a misnomer to speak of "expenditure" in this connexion. The National Dividend is not diminished by the transfer of £9,000,000 from the well-to-do to the poor. No more is _spent_ through the transfer; all that takes place is a transfer of the power of call for commodities, and a consequent change of the _form_ of a certain part of the National Dividend, not a change of its _size_. The production of luxuries is slightly—very slightly—stemmed; the production of necessaries is slightly—very slightly—increased.

Mr Asquith's valuable Act needs to be amended by the reduction of the pensionable age to 65 and to be supplemented by a State scheme for sickness and invalidity insurance. (A minor defect which has revealed itself is the continued disqualification of a man whose wife is in receipt of relief.) The case for the amendment has been already discussed in these pages; the case for invalidity insurance is that old age is not the only determinant of dire poverty for the wage earner. The facts adduced in Chapter 10 are eloquent of the need for succour which exists in tens of thousands of cases.

[Footnote 60: The Royal Commission on the Poor Laws called for a similar "year count" of paupers for 1907. It revealed that in that year of good trade 1,709,436 persons were relieved by the Guardians in England and Wales. This is 47.7 per 1,000 of the population. The later count fully confirms that of 1892.]

[Footnote 61: This description is their own. See "Old Age Pensions" (Macmillan & Co.) Introduction.]