^{page 267 note 1} Blackley, W. L., “National Insurance: A Cheap, Practical and Popular Means of Abolishing Poor Rates”, in: Nineteenth Century, Vol. IV (1878), pp. 840, 851–3.Google Scholar The size of the financial contribution to this scheme was later revised. In 1884 Blackley argued that a sum of £10 would be sufficient to provide a sickness benefit of 8/– per week and a pension of 4/– after the individual had reached the age of seventy. See W. L. Blackley, Thrift and Independence (1884), pp. 171, 175.

^{page 267 note 2} The main outline of Chamberlain's “Class III” pensions proposal was presented to the electorate of Birmingham in July 1892. See Foresters' Miscellany, August 1892, p. 142, quoting from Birmingham Daily Gazette, 15 July 1892.

^{page 267 note 3} Royal Commission of the Aged Poor, Vol. III, Minutes of Evidence [Parliamentary Papers, 1895, C. 7684–11, XV], qq. 12225, 12230.

^{page 268 note 1} Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. LIV (1891), p. 631.

^{page 268 note 2} Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, Vol. III, Minutes of Evidence [PP, 1895, C. 7684–II, XV], q. 10359. Booth argued that two-thirds of the class who had received low wages during their life-time resorted to the Poor Law at some time during their old-age. “This I consider too large a proportion of any class to make a sweeping condemnation of.”

^{page 268 note 3} 1st Annual Report of Organised Labour for Promoting Old Age Pensions for All, 1899–1900 [n.d.].

^{page 269 note 1} Professor B. B. Gilbert has graphically described the social structure of the friendly societies in the closing years of the nineteenth century. Although almost half of the adult male population of Britain were friendly society members in 1891, the movement “made no appeal whatever to the grey, faceless, lower third of the working class. Friendly society membership was the badge of the skilled worker.” Gilbert, B. B., The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain (London, 1966), pp. 166–7.Google Scholar In the early 1890s the Ancient Order of Foresters had 830,720 members and the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows 769,503. “The total numbers of all the branches of affiliated orders registered as such, and making returns [to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies], was 1,727,809.” See Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, Vol. III, Minutes of Evidence [PP, 1895, C. 7684–II, XV], q. 11033. In other words, over one third of the total membership of the friendly societies' movement was claimed by the two great Affiliated Orders.

^{page 270 note 1} Blackley later offered to drop that part of his scheme which dealt with the problem of sickness. Such a gesture however had no impact upon the friendly societies' implacable hostility to the whole of Blackley's plan. See B. B. Gilbert, op. cit., pp. 163–4.

^{page 270 note 2} The Quarterly Magazine of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows July 1883, p. 181.

^{page 271 note 1} Ibid., November 1885, pp. 329–30. Letter from the Rev. J. Frome Wilkinson. While, however, Wilkinson was opposed to pensions based on national insurance contributions, he was later to come out strongly in favour of Booth's plan. See on this point Rev. J. Frome Wilkinson, Pensions and Pauperism (1892).

^{page 271 note 2} The Quarterly Magazine of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, July 1883, p. 181.

^{page 271 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 271 note 4} The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1887, p. 204. This conference was convened by the Foresters and the Manchester Unity. Eighteen friendly societies were represented, with a total membership of 1,928,427. Ibid., pp. 195, 204.

^{page 272 note 1} This paragraph is based on Blackley's “The Effect of National Insurance on Sound Friendly Societies”, in: The Quarterly Magazine of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, July 1881, pp. 182–5.

^{page 272 note 2} The select committee of the House of Commons which was appointed to examine Blackley's scheme, presented its conclusions to Parliament in 1887. In Gilbert's words, “it was unable to agree that the scheme was actuarially sound and declared itself ‘disposed to wait on the future development of public opiniona’.” B. B. Gilbert, op. cit., p. 163. For friendly society reaction to this report, see The Odd Fellows' Magazine, September 1887, pp. 253–61.

^{page 273 note 1} Blackley, M. J. J., Thrift and National Insurance as a Security against Pauperism, with a Memoir of the Late Rev. Canon Blackley and a Reprint of his Essays (1906), p. 40Google Scholar, quoted in B. B. Gilbert, “The Decay of Nineteenth Century Provident Institutions and the Coming of Old Age Pensions in Great Britain”, in: Economic History Review, 2nd Series, Vol. XVII, No 3, p. 559.

^{page 273 note 2} JC 6/3/4/2 (Joseph Chamberlain Papers, University of Birmingham Library). Extracted from undated letter of Chamberlain to “The Rural Worker”. Because of the necessity of cultivating friendly society opinion, Chamberlain concluded that it would be “most inexpedient to include [in a pension scheme] any provision for insurance against sickness or accident”.

^{page 273 note 3} Chamberlain, however, was of the opinion that compulsory insurance for old age had much to commend it. He refrained from pressing it simply because the friendly societies would have destroyed such a plan. The Times 19 November 1891.

^{page 274 note 1} Foresters' Miscellany, August 1891, p. 158.

^{page 274 note 2} Ibid., September 1891, p. 178.

^{page 274 note 3} Ibid., August 1892, p. 142, extracted from the report of Chamberlain's speech in Birmingham Daily Gazette 15 July 1892. At this same meeting he outlined in detail his “Class III” proposal.

^{page 274 note 4} Ibid., February 1893, p. 343.

^{page 275 note 1} Ibid., May 1893, p. 37. The report was described as being “strongly averse to the acceptance of subsidies by Friendly Societies for the purpose of superannuation, either from Imperial or local taxation”.

^{page 275 note 2} Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, Vol. III, Minutes of Evidence [PP, 1895, C. 7684–II, XV], q. 12436. Evidence of T. B. Stead, Permanent Secretary of the Foresters. He was to be succeeded in his office by his son, J. Lister Stead.

^{page 275 note 3} Foresters' Miscellany, February 1895, p. 332. Chamberlain's speech to a gathering of Friendly Societies' members at Birmingham on 7 December 1894.

^{page 276 note 1} The Charity Organisation Society, founded in 1869 and a stern upholder of a deterrent system of Poor Law administration, exercised immense influence on society's thinking about general welfare problems during the last third of the nineteenth century. Although it opposed virtually every proposal to extend the scope of the state's involvement in the field of social welfare, it did play an important rle in the development of social casework. It tried to ensure that the multitude of private relief-giving agencies did not administer relief in an indiscriminate fashion. Relief, it argued, should only be given after a full and proper analysis of the applicant's background. It was too concerned, however, with trying to identify the operation of the principle of self-help with “character” to continue to exercise its powerful hold on public opinion after the emergence of statistical investigations into poverty and its causes. Booth and Rowntree between them administered a blow to its standing from which it was never to recover. Hereafter the Charity Organisation will be cited as the COS. For its history, see Mowat, C. L., The Charity Organisation Society 1869–1913 (London 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 2} Forester's Miscellany, February 1893, p. 343. Extract from policy statement of the Executive Council of the Foresters.

^{page 276 note 3} Ibid., August 1891. Speech of Bro. Radley, High Chief Ranger of the Foresters.

^{page 277 note 1} Ibid., December 1891, p. 271.

^{page 277 note 2} Ibid., September 1893, p. 179. Extract from the speech of Bro. J. Prembery, the High Chief Ranger, to the Annual Court Meeting of the Foresters. “There is”, he proclaimed, “real poverty upon the earth, and every worker ought to have the power in some lawful sphere to reap the fruit of his labour.”

^{page 277 note 3} Ibid., April 1892, p. 4.

^{page 278 note 1} Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, Vol. III, Minutes of Evidence, [PP 1895, C. 7684–II, XV], qq. 12425–6.

^{page 278 note 2} Ibid., q. 11373. Evidence of Reuben Watson, Actuary to the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows.

^{page 278 note 3} Foresters' Miscellany, March 1894, p. 379.

^{page 278 note 4} The root causes of the financial troubles of the major friendly societies in this period have been analysed by Professor B. B. Gilbert. Among other things they failed to understand the precise relationship between longevity and the pattern of sickness claims. Reform of their finances was also inhibited by the keen competition which existed for new members, the failure of their officials to impress on the rank-and-file the meaning of “actuarial soundness”, the payment of what was essentially a pension to their elderly members out of their sickness funds, and the upward movement of interest rates during the Boer War. See B. B. Gilbert, op. cit., pp. 171–180, and loc. cit., pp. 553–58.

^{page 279 note 1} Foresters' Miscellany, July 1894, p. 99.

^{page 279 note 2} Ibid., October 1892, p. 230.

^{page 279 note 3} Ibid., September 1893, p. 171 and September 1894, pp. 192–3. The Foresters in fact tried to persuade the Manchester Unity in February 1892 to agree to a concerted approach to this problem. The reply of the Manchester Unity was summarised in their Directors' 1892 Report. The Foresters had approached them “with the object, if possible, of finding a common ground of action in compelling future entrants to subscribe for superannuation. The Directors expressed the opinion that the principle contained in the suggestion cannot be carried out unless either collective action is taken by the whole of the Friendly Societies, or (and which would be the most effective means of accomplishing the object in view) by such an amendment of the Friendly Societies' Act as would limit sickness insurance to 65 years of age.” The Odd Fellows' Magazine, August 1892, p. 250.

^{page 280 note 1} Foresters' Miscellany, May 1894, p. 41, and February 1898, p. 296.

^{page 280 note 2} The Times, 14 May 1895.

^{page 280 note 3} Foresters' Miscellany, July 1896, p. 94; The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1896, p. 218.

^{page 280 note 4} This quotation is taken from the 1899 resolution, which argued that state pensions were “a necessary corollary” to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Times, 24 May 1899. The 1896 motion asked for 5/– per week pensions for “all members of friendly societies on reaching the age of 60”. B. B. Gilbert, loc. cit., p. 561.

^{page 281 note 1} The Odd Fellows' Magazine, November 1898, pp. 352–3; March 1899, p. 71; The Times 6 February 1899; Foresters' Miscellany, July, 1899 p. 471. Claverhou-se Graham attacked the idea of universal pensions in no uncertain terms. “Neither from a financial, nor even from a moral standpoint, could he agree that the thrifty and thriftless alike … should be provided and cared for, upon the same terms, in the same manner, and all at the cost of the nation alike. [Applause]. He was bound to say that in his judgment such would be a most immoral transaction. Therefore, he was not an advocate of universal pensions.” The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1899, p. 275. Claverhouse Graham was Grand Master of the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows in 1893–4.

^{page 281 note 2} Foresters' Miscellany, December 1899, pp. 628–9. There was, however, little substance in the assertion of the “traditionalist” lobby that the friendly societies in any meaningful sense stood aloof from politics. The major societies had Parliamentary Agents whose duty it was to safeguard their interests.

^{page 282 note 1} Ibid., September 1892, p. 194.

^{page 282 note 2} Ibid., June 1895, p. 67, and October 1895, p. 188.

^{page 282 note 3} Ibid., September 1896, pp. 179–80. The voting was 224 for, and 90 against, this amendment to a pro-pensions resolution.

^{page 282 note 4} Ibid., September 1897, pp. 147, 167–69, and September 1898, pp. 178, 181. There also took place in 1898 a debate on state pensions. An amendment was carried by 305 votes to 17 asserting that since the Order already possessed a pensions scheme, any question of pensions for non-members “must be relegated to others whose duty it is to secure the well-being of the community at large.” Ibid., October 1898, pp. 187–90. As the subsequent history of the Foresters revealed, this was not to be interpreted as an attempt to prod the government into immediate action. It was more likely a manoeuvre designed to remove the pensions issue from the arena of debate. To some extent it achieved a short-term triumph, for all pro-pensions resolutions were withdrawn at the 1899 High Court Meeting. Ibid., September 1899, p. 554.

^{page 282 note 5} The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1891, p. 219.

^{page 282 note 6} Ibid, July 1895, p. 230. The voting was 158 for, and 320 against, this proposition.

^{page 283 note 1} Ibid., July 1896, p. 218. The voting was 290 for, and 244 against the motion. Eleven representatives abstained, while a further 66 were absent when the vote was taken.

^{page 283 note 2} Ibid., July 1898, pp. 229–30. The voting was 241 for, and 301 against, the motion.

^{page 283 note 3} Ibid., June 1899.

^{page 283 note 4} The Times, 20 March 1899. This committee did include individual members of friendly societies such as George Abbott, editor of Foresters' Miscellany, but it did not meet with the formal approval of the Affiliated Orders. For its membership and its literature, see Old Age Pensions, A Collection of Short Papers (London, 1903).

^{page 284 note 1} 31st. Annual Report of the Council of the C.O.S. (2nd edition, 1900), p. 16.

^{page 284 note 2} Foresters' Miscellany, June 1899, p. 441. It is interesting to note that the National Conference of Friendly Societies gave its support to the 1894 measure. See on this point The Odd Fellows' Magazine, May 1894, p. 142.

^{page 284 note 3} The Odd Fellows' Magazine, January 1904, p. 8. Claverhouse Graham, the Parliamentary Agent of the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows, argued that the 1894 Act was favourably interpreted “by the great majority of Boards of Guardians”. It was only necessary to seek to amend the 1894 measure because of the minority of Boards of Guardians who refused to carry out the permissive clauses of the Act.

^{page 284 note 4} Foresters' Miscellany, March 1900, p. 71.

^{page 284 note 5} The Times, 24 June 1901.

^{page 284 note 6} Ibid., 16 March 1903.

^{page 285 note 1} Ibid., 24 June 1901.

^{page 285 note 2} Foresters' Miscellany, May 1904, p. 129. Perhaps even more revealing was the comment of E. F. Hind, Grand Master of the Manchester Unity, when the bill finally reached the statute book. Speaking at the 1905 Annual Movable Committee of his Order, he asserted that the measure had been made law, “notwithstanding the opposition of the Charity Organisation Society, which must have spent a considerable sum of money in their attempt to defeat the wishes of the friendly societies in this matter.” This speech was reported in The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1905, p. 244.

^{page 286 note 1} 1st. Annual Report of the National Committee of Organised Labour for Promoting Old Age Pensions for All, 1899–1900 [n.d.], p. 6; 2nd. Annual Report of the National Committee … July, 1900–July 1901, pp. 9–12.

^{page 286 note 2} Charity Organisation Review, July 1899, pp. 3–4.

^{page 286 note 3} The Aberdare Commission on Old Age Pensions which sat from 1893 to 1895, came out in favour, in its majority report, of a policy of leaving the pensions question to the friendly societies. The Rothschild Committee (1896–98) was only permitted to examine contributory pensions proposals. It was unable to recommend to the government any of the four schemes it scrutinised.

^{page 286 note 4} The Foresters' Miscellany, July 1901, pp. 520–4; September 1901, pp. 584–5.

^{page 287 note 1} The Odd Fellows' Magazine, April 1900, p. 113.

^{page 287 note 2} The Foresters' Miscellany, April 1901, pp. 452–3; The Odd Fellows' Magazine, April 1901, p. 105.

^{page 287 note 3} In 1900 the previous question was moved and carried. In 1901 the resolution was withdrawn at the end of the debate.

^{page 288 note 1} This paragraph has been entirely based on the Executive Council of the Foresters' Address on Old Age Pensions, The Foresters' Miscellany, February 1902, p. 40.

^{page 289 note 1} The Foresters' Miscellany, February 1903, p. 29. For the debate itself see The Foresters' Miscellany, April 1902, pp. 85–7, and The Odd Fellows' Magazine, April 1902, pp. 107–8.

^{page 289 note 2} The Foresters' Miscellany, February 1903, p. 29.

^{page 289 note 3} Ibid., April 1902, p. 87.

^{page 289 note 4} Ibid., February 1903, p. 29. It was published on New Year's Day 1903.

^{page 290 note 1} Ibid., p. 36. It is interesting to note that “any sum not exceeding 5s. per week from registered Friendly Societies or registered trade unions” was not to be counted as income. The sub-committee was thus early anxious to see this principle, embodied in a permissive form in the 1894 Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, extended to the sphere of state pensions. The National Conference was to succeed in 1904 in persuading Parliaments to compel Boards of Guardians to exclude the first five shillings of an applicant's income from friendly society sources when awarding him outdoor relief. This change formed the cornerstone of the 1904 Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Act.

^{page 290 note 2} The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1903, p. 352.

^{page 290 note 3} The Foresters' Miscellany, February 1903, p. 31.

^{page 291 note 1} Charity Organisation Review, January 1903, pp. 3–4.

^{page 291 note 2} The Times, 9 February 1903.

^{page 291 note 3} Foresters' Miscellany, September 1902, p. 266, and October 1902, pp. 284–5. The amendment was carried by 298 votes to 245.

^{page 291 note 4} Ibid., August 1903, pp. 224–6. Only 14% of the Order's United Kingdom membership participated in this referendum.

^{page 292 note 1} Ibid., October 1903, pp. 295–6.

^{page 292 note 2} Ibid., July 1902, pp. 182–3.

^{page 292 note 3} The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1903, pp. 352–3. The sub-committee's scheme was treated with equal nonchalance. The following motion was passed: “That until a scheme has been drafted which in the opinion of the A.M.C. can be submitted to the members it is not necessary to take steps to ascertain their opinions.” A leading article in the October 1903 issue of the magazine interpreted this motion as committing the Manchester Unity to vote against the pensions scheme at Brighton. It clearly involved no such thing. Ibid., October 1903, pp. 452–3.

^{page 293 note 1} For a detailed account of the Conference, see Foresters' Miscellany, November 1903, pp. 329–332. Two essentially wrecking amendments moved by the Foresters were lost by the crushing margins of 40 votes to 11 and 40 votes to 12. This report of the Brighton deliberations observed that “there were members of the Conference who did not take kindly to the amendments moved by representatives of the A.O.F., and by their votes defeated same by large majorities, but when the detailed discussion came on, the attitude of the representatives of the A.O.F. was fully justified and upheld.” For the internal divisions among the Odd Fellows' delegation see The Odd Fellows' Magazine, November 1903, pp. 496–98. That same source – p. 498 – recorded the fact that the thrift tests suggested by the sub-committee were replaced by a general clause. In effect this laid down that an applicant who had, “according to the judgment of the pensions authority, endeavoured, to the best of his or her means or opportunities, to be provident” should qualify for a state pension. A further alteration was to be made to the scheme at the 1904 National Conference. See Foresters' Miscellany, May 1904, p. 134.

^{page 293 note 2} 5th. Annual Report of the National Committee for Promoting Old Age Pensions for All, July 1903-July 1904, p. 7. “The fifth year [of our campaign] has been full of political excitement, which has not been helpful to us.” The National Committee's finances were at this juncture at such a low ebb that Frederick Rogers, its Organising Secretary, agreed to go for 12 months without a salary. He was clearly being paid and employed during this period of time by Messrs Rowntree and Sherwell in connection with their scheme of ‘Constructive Temperance Reform’. The Report concluded thus: “the work has been longer than we thought at first, but we have had loyal supporters and faithful friends, and if we all resolve to keep it steadily in the forefront of politics, it is the one piece of constructive legislation before the country today, and we shall yet see the reward for our labours”. Ibid., pp. 11–12.

^{page 294 note 1} 6th. Annual Report of the National Committee for Promoting Old Age Pensions for All, July 1904–July 1905, p. 7. It was recorded that Rogers, after working for a year on “Constructive Temperance Reform”, had returned as full-time secretary.

^{page 294 note 2} The Manchester Unity had broken with the National Conference of Friendly Societies over the question of the existing system of delegate representation. It felt that the system as it stood discriminated against the numerically powerful orders by giving to the smaller societies an influence out of all proportion to their membership figures. Only after the Manchester Unity had failed to persuade the 1904 National Conference to end this situation, did it take the decision to disaffiliate. See The Odd Fellows' Magazine, June 1904, pp. 310–3, and January 1905, p. 7. Individual members of the Hearts of Oak tried to argue that the root-cause of this defection was the victory of the pro-pensions forces at Brighton, see Hearts of Oak Gazette, 1 August 1904, and Hearts of Oak Journal, July 1907, p. 38. What, however, such assertions overlooked was that the question of withdrawing from the National Conference had first been debated before the Brighton Conference had ever met and that on that occasion – the 1903 Annual Movable Committee of the Manchester Unity, – the main grounds for recommending such a course of action had been the under-representation of the larger societies. Furthermore, when the decision to withdraw was finally taken, one of the most vehement supporters of the proposition was Claverhouse Graham, the founder of the Old Age State Pensions League. The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1903, pp. 311–5, and June 1904, p. 310. In the end only “about twenty hands” were raised against disaffiliation. Ibid., June 1904, pp. 312–3. The Manchester Unity voted to reaffiliate to the National Conference at its 1908 annual meeting. See Ibid., July 1908, p. 354. The voting was 284 for, and 237 against, reaffiliation.

^{page 295 note 1} Ibid., July 1907, p. 397.

^{page 295 note 2} Foresters' Miscellany, April 1907, p. 606 (extracted from Yorkshire Daily Observer 8 March 1907). “Force of circumstances, if nothing else, brings agreement with the views enunciated on behalf of the Government in the direction of practically universal pensions.” Ironically enough. Stead had been both a member of the 1902 National Conference pensions sub-committee and had presided over the 1903 Brighton Pensions Conference, although the Foresters were at that point in time opposed to state pensions. At Brighton, he had “appealed to the Conference to keep clear of partizanship, and suggested some resolution similar to that adopted by the Ancient Order of Shepherds, in these words – ‘That the question of providing maintenance for the aged and deserving poor is one for the statesmen of the country to deal with’, would meet the case, concluding with the hope that the various Societies would endeavour to improve and consolidate their own Societies.” See Ibid., November 1903, p. 329 and April 1907, p. 605.

^{page 296 note 1} Ibid., April 1907, p. 615. These sentiments were expressed in a debate about whether or not the National Conference's representatives before the 1905–9 Royal Commission could support a universal, non-contributory scheme. At the 1906 National Conference, however, it had been resolved to stand behind the sub-committee's plan in the form it had been amended in 1904. See Ibid., May 1906, p. 129.

^{page 297 note 1} These details are taken from Old Age Pensions (Non-Contributory Scheme) (Correspondence), [PP 177, 1908]. Those societies with more than 49,000 members who feared a non-contributory plan were the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners Permanent Relief Society (49,662 membership); the Northumberland and Durham Miners Relief Fund (165,981); and the Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity (205,789). The supporters of the non-contributory principle included the Rational Association (126,461); the Hearts of Oak (289,342); the Foresters (659,501); Grand United Order of Oddfellows (72,583); Loyal Order of Ancient Shepherds, Ashton Unity (124,638); and the Order of the Sons of Temperance (125,834). The National Deposit Friendly Society (169,100) and the British Order of Ancient Free Gardeners (52,794) refused to commit themselves one way or the other. The National Deposit Friendly Society argued that non-contributory pensions would have no adverse effect as “far as many Societies are concerned; but in Deposit Societies the effect might possibly be that the member would make less effort to save”; “would affect the thrift of the working classes though not to an appreciable extent. They might consider it less necessary to save”. The British Order of Ancient Free Gardeners found it “difficult to determine [the impact of non-contributory pensions on the friendly societies' world]. Societies with deficiencies might find such a measure of immense value, as it would enable them to decide on Sick pay ceasing at a given age.” Ibid., pp. 6–8, 10–11, 14–18, and 20.

^{page 298 note 1} Foresters' Miscellany, July 1908, p. 191. This resolution was adopted on 8 May 1908, the day after Asquith had made his proposals public in his Budget speech.

^{page 298 note 2} The Odd Fellows' Magazine, July 1908, p. 363.

^{page 298 note 3} Ibid., July 1908, p. 364.

^{page 298 note 4} Ibid., July 1908, pp. 438–9 and August 1908, p. 444. On 18 June 1908 Lloyd-George saw a deputation from the National Conference of Friendly Societies who urged him to embody this change in the government's pensions scheme. The non-committal reply of the Chancellor of Exchequer was equivalent to a rejection of this proposal. In the Commons on 30 June 1908 an amendment to exclude the first £40 per annum received from friendly society sources from the income assessment for pensions, was lost. For Conservative criticisms of the Pensions Bill, see The Times 16, 17 and 18 June 1908 and B. B. Gilbert, op. cit., pp. 222–3.

^{page 299 note 1} Foresters' Miscellany, August 1908, p. 213, claimed in a leading article that except for the age at which one was to be eligible for a state pension, the Liberals' proposals “carries out in a complete form” the 1902 National Conference of Friendly Societies' pro-pensions resolution. Under the government's plan pensions only began at 70 years of age.