Report from the Select Committee on Aged Deserving Poor ; together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, and appendix.

Great Britain. Royal Commission on the Aged Poor

Date:: 1899

Credit: Report from the Select Committee on Aged Deserving Poor ; together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, and appendix. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

144/466 page 94

$.15 June 1899.] Mr. GtEaham. [Continued. Sir Fortescue Flannery—continued. 1738. I observe that under your scheme yx)u discriminate between those who are deserving and those who are not deserving. Are you of opinion that a universal pension system would be wise?—Most unwise and most immoral. - 1739. Do you consider that those who have not deserved well of the community are pro- vided for already by the Poor Law ?—Ajid ought to be. 1740. And should oontdnue to be ?—Certainly. 1741. But that those who have passed or who are able to pass some test of merit, such as thrift, should be provided for in some way other than the degradation of the Poor Law?— Certainly. Chairman. 1742. You stated just now that in your opinion 999 out of every 1,000 imembers of friendly societies were strongly in favour, you thought, of a system of old age pensions?—^Yes; that means say 1,000 out of our 900,000 members. 1743. Your are aware that in the Appendix 10 to the Report of the Rothschild Committee there is an abstract of certain questions which were addressed to 179 of the principal friendly societies prepared by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and among those questions was one to this effect: Has the society ascertained the opinion of its members on the question of a State-aided old age pension system for the industrial classes, and with what result ? That was in 1896. To those questions answers were received from 34 societies, and among them I observe that the Man- chester Unity fumisheid a resolution passed by 290 votes against 244 at its annual meeting in favour of a scheme. Has there been any change that you are aware of on the part of the 244 who voted against it?—None whatever, it has never been challenged; I answered Mr. Holland to that effect. Sir Fortescue Flatmery. 1744. I think you have not understood the question. The Chairman's question was, has there been any change in the opinion of the society during the three years that have elapsed since that resolution was passed?—I beg your pardon. Chairman. 1745. Yes. What I wanted to point out to you was this ; that there was a resolution passed by 290 votes in favour of pensions with 244 against it. Have you any grounds for supposing that the 244 who were against it have now be- come in favour of pensions ?—I should say a very large number have. 1746. Have there been any resolutions passed since then?—No. 1747. Then it is only your own opinion?—It is my opinion gathered from going through the country and mixing with my brethren and being in close touch with them and also the recent ©lections I named. \Chairman—continued. 1748. That is all you have to allege against the hostile record of 244 against it?—On tha/t particular point it is. 1749. Then again, I observe that there was on the part of the Oddfellows, at a meeting of theirs, 84 votes in favour of pensions and 50 against it. Then I come to a resolution passed by the Ancient Order of Foresters at Dundee in 1896, which was to this effect: That in the opinion, of this High Court Meeting, State-aided pensions would be detrimental to the best interests of friendly societies, and that was carried by 328 votes to 5'6. Then again there was another, the Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Union, in which they stated that 99 per cent, of the members were thoroughly opposed to these schemes, and so on in this Appendix it points out that there were five other orders Vho declared themselves, in a less formal way, against State-aided pensions. Have these different societies changed their opinion since that date? —I am bound to say I believe the schemes which were then before the country, and referred to there, are all exploded schemes. 1750. Is that your reason for stating now that in face of this evidence, 999 out of every 1,000 are in favour of it?—The point, as I said before, is that every scheme had what was called the interference clause with the societies, and many schemes had the Poor Law clause, in con- nection with the giving of the pension. Those two points are fatal to any scheme propounded for these friendly societies. 1751. You will understand I am pressing you upon this point for information because, of course, the view you have expressed is very directly in opposition to the resolutions of a great many orders and friendly societies ?—^Yes, upon the lines that prevailed in 1896. Mr. Lionel Holland. 1752. The only question I should like to ask is with regard to these questions which were sent to these friendly societies. Did not every other question which was sent to them suggest inter- ference with the friendly societies, and also were ithey not (all on .ithe supp'osition tha/t a man should contribute throughout his life to the pension ?—Yes, and those would both be fatal, the contributory clause would be fatal, and the two others with reference to the Poor Law and the interference; those three would be all fatal. Chairman. 1753. Then it is the fact that clauses of that description were contained in the proposals then before the friendly societies, which led to their opposition ?—I should say most decidedly so. 1754. And with regard to the proposals without those clauses, you have every reason to believe from your experience that there has been a great change of opinion ?—I think there is a very great change of opinion.$