The scandal of child labour is well known, but the plight of the older worker remains largely hidden. Although life expectancy remained low until the 20th century, many family trees contain at least one ancestor who lived to a ripe old age. Before industrialisation, outdoor relief would have helped such elderly people, but in the early 19th century, the population began to expand and the centuries-old poor relief system came under strain.

By this time, savings societies had become established and some workers were able to contribute a few pennies a week to a Friendly or Provident Society as insurance for times when they could not work. This was helpful for accidents or illness, but managing money so that it could be paid out perhaps decades hence called for financial acumen that many societies did not have. An association might disappear well before a pension was due, leaving contributors out of pocket and with no provision for their old age.

Workers who were able to save would have been skilled men in occupations which paid a reasonable wage. Unskilled labourers had less chance of putting any of their meagre income aside. Given that many people died before their 50th birthday, some would have preferred a fund that helped bereaved dependents, rather than trying to provide for an unlikely old age.

With a prevailing culture of self-support, those who made it to old age were often forced to try to scrape a living together, unless a benevolent former employer gave them a small pension. Women offered their services as childminders, perhaps dosing young children with opiates or sending them out to play unsupervised. The 1841 census for Scotland reveals a handful of men and women aged 75 and over still toiling underground in coal mines, probably handicapped by the ill health that the industry was notorious for producing.

Even if a worker avoided industrial injury, the health of many would be impaired by the ageing process. Some employers accommodated this by giving an older worker a job that did not demand too much physical strength, irrespective of whether they were competent in the role.

In 1841, some teenage girls were interviewed by the Children’s Employment Commission at the pit where they worked, along with 68-year-old pit steward Martin Gommersal. A few months later, three of the girls and a male colleague died in an explosion as they began work. The inquest jury returned a verdict of accidental death but also criticised Gommersal who had not checked in person whether the mine was free from gas before allowing workers underground. Given his age, it may be that he was no longer capable of carrying out his duties well.

To address some of the problems of obtaining a pension from a savings association, the Post Office was empowered to sell small annuities in 1854. As the purchase money had to be paid over as a lump sum, this was not especially helpful to workers. In 1864, the Annuities Act allowed workers to save the lump sum by a series of small contributions. Pensions obtained through the Annuities Act probably explain the number of older people on late 19th-century censuses who are ‘living on own means’.

Employer-administered pensions, generally funded at least in part by subscriptions from employees, were also developing. In 1863 it was reported that The Times had benevolently erected some houses in Berkshire where compositors could live in old age on a pension. Employers, though, were able to operate a fund high-handedly. Contribution levels could be set in an arbitrary manner, length of service could be difficult to establish if an employee moved and benefits could be withheld at the whim of the employer or a management committee, as the treatment of Inspector James Miller by the Chief Constable of Surrey in 1868 demonstrates.

Miller had years of exemplary service and was reportedly close to being able to obtain a pension when he was dismissed by the Chief Constable for reading the Police Service Advertiser, a newspaper which the senior man considered seditious. Dismissal meant that Miller lost his entitlement to a pension from the Police Superannuation Fund. The injustice provoked a question in the House of Commons but the government minister showed no interest. Members of the public subscribed to a fund for Miller’s benefit, though this could not replace the pension that had been denied. In the 1881 census, aged 65, he was still working, the head attendant at the local asylum.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, late-Victorian society found itself with a social policy that required veterans of the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny to report to the workhouse if they had no other way of keeping a roof over their heads. Conditions for old and infirm paupers were generally more humane than for able-bodied occupants but the associated stigma seemed a poor reward for soldiers, especially as survivors of the Charge of the Light Brigade by now had a heroic status in public opinion.

Meanwhile, arguments for a publicly funded old age pension which did not carry with it the taint of pauperism were being put forward by workers’ associations and political groups. In 1889, several newspapers derided German plans to introduce compulsory old-age insurance, considering that workers in Britain were better served by personal thrift than state support, but change was in the air.

By the time Edward VII became king in 1901, it was accepted that older people who needed assistance should receive a modest cash payment rather than be forced to enter the workhouse, unless there were extenuating circumstances, such as there being no one prepared to give them a home. Private members motions for an old-age pension were discussed unsuccessfully in parliament. Supporters pointed out that although national wealth was rising substantially, two out of three people over 65 were paupers. The cost of providing a pension to all eligible people was stated to be £17 million. Opponents considered that this sum was not affordable and that such a socialist measure might result in other areas of expenditure, such as the armed forces, having to be cut.

By 1905, it was apparent that reforms relating to poverty were needed and a the Royal Commission for Poor Law and Relief of Distress began to study the various issues. Members were unable to agree. The majority judged that individual responsibility was paramount and, where necessary, deserving people should be helped by private philanthropy. A small but articulate minority recognised that many aspects of poverty arose from economic conditions that a worker was powerless to control and that public welfare should be available.

With no practical advice coming from the committee, the Liberal government took the initiative by introducing a modest and means-tested old-age pension for people aged at least 70 from 1 January 1909. Unlike parish relief which was the responsibility of local ratepayers, the pension would be paid by the government, through the Post Office. This prevented it having any stigma of pauperism and set it in a similar context to self-provided annuities.

In practice, those who were eligible for the new pension and those who had to be supported by poor relief were virtually indistinguishable but the government did not intend local ratepayers to transfer any costs of supporting the indigent elderly to national funds. Nor did it intend to help people who had a modest level of other income or savings. A bureaucratic mechanism for determining eligibility became operational in October 1908. People who thought they qualified had to apply to a local committee and demonstrate that they were not in receipt of poor relief, that they were of good character and their annual income was less than £31 10s 0d. One snag was that a voluntary allowance from a family member could constitute income, penalising those who had prevented relatives becoming a burden on the local rates.

By 1 January 1909, more than half a million pension applications had been approved. Single pensioners received up to 5 shillings a week (approx £25 at current value) and married couples could obtain 7s 6d. This was not generous but it enabled anyone who was living with a family member to contribute towards food and living costs.

Despite dire warnings about public welfare eroding individual responsibility, the introduction of the old-age pension did not have this effect. The pension offered protection against destitution to those in advanced old age. It was not intended to provide a good lifestyle and anyone who wanted more than a safety net remained responsible for providing this themselves.

Where the old-age pension did break with the past was in acknowledging that there was a point at which old people should be spared the responsibility of trying to maintain themselves. As such, many hard-working individuals who had never asked for any assistance avoided the indignity of becoming a pauper, if their circumstances had made it too difficult to put money by for their old age. It marked a shift in official attitudes towards social issues and provided a foundation for more changes in the century to come.