WHEN DOES "OLD AGE BEGIN?

:
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH DEFINITION

Old age has been a frequent topic of discussions, reports, and governmental
policy making in the 20th century ~ and interest in it is likely to increase as the

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

century progresses. If the low birth rate persists, as the current working-age
population grows older, the age balance of the total population will inevitably
shift to the older end of the spectrum; England, like many other western
nations will have, in the last quarter of the 20th century ~ a larger proportion of
old people in the population than ever before. This situation already is
promising to raise new social issues and to generate new problems which will
require national responses. If the responses are to be adequate there must be a
general and full understanding of the basic questions involved. One of the most
basic questions is when does old age begin?
For the early stages of human development there are reasonably clearcut
physiological phenomena which can be used as the basis for establishing age
categories, such as first and second dentition and the onset of puberty.
However, at the moment, there is no similiar physiological basis for a sound,
clearcut definition of old age. Lacking such a definition, the sociologists,
behavioural scientists, and other investigators involved in the study of aged
have tended, as has 20th century society in general, to accept the government's
"pension age" or "retirement age" as the convenient dividing line between
mature adulthood and old age. For example, entirely typical of the investigators
working in this field after World War II~ Rowntree decided to include in his
study men over 65 and women over 60 "as these ages have been established by
the Widow~s~ Orphan's, and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts of 1925 and
1940 as the earliest ages at which State pensions are paid, and in consequence
most published statistics relating to old age take the pensionable ages of 65 and
60 as being synonymous with the beginning of old age."!
Other investigators, in both England and elsewhere, adopted a similar
approach. For example, the study of the aged and society published in 1950 by
the Industrial Relations Research Association assumed that "the aged" were
people over 65.2 Peter Townsend, for his well-known work, The Family Life of
Old People, used a group of people over 60 and 65 as his sample.' Even much
medical and physiological research on the aged has made the social assumption
that the aged are those over 60 and 65 as its starting point. Many investigators,
studying topics such as psychoses among the aged, the treatment of older
diabetics, senile osteoporosis, and even arteriosclerosis and neoplasms in older
Canadian Eskimos, have simply taken as their experimental sample of "the
aged" groups of subjects over 60 or 65 years of age.4 By the later 1960s some
417 journal of social history

researchers were beginning to question the basic assumption, but their queries
were neither numerous, nor clearly constructed, and thus they caused few
ripples in the mainstream of opinion.' Historians are only beginning to
investigate the role and nature of the aged in modern society. Possibly partly
because they work in time periods before the modern conviction that old age
begins at 65 was well entrenched historians have tended to be less restricted by
this idea. In his study of the aged in France, Stearns directly poses the question
of what constitutes old age," while in his American study, Fischer approaches it
more obliquely through a plea for the reevaluation of compulsory retirement
ages.7 However, even historians tend to slide into the niche of convention and to
define the aged, particularly for statistical purposesf as people over 60 or 65
because, as Rowntree noted, it is convenient to do so.

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

This pragmatic, convenient approach is supported by the expectation that the
State had good reasons for its actions when it adopted 60 and 65 as its
definitions of the onset of old age. If the State did have good and logical reasons
then indeed these ages might be taken as being "synonymous with the
beginning of old age." If, however, the State's choice of these ages was not
determined by an adequate study of the age at which old age begins, or if it was
determined by factors external to the nature of old age, there then is no
justification for assuming that they are valid bases for current studies or social
assumptions. Given the interest in the old, both present and projected, it would
be well both to know how valid 60 and 65 are as definitions of the
commencement of old age, and to examine the process by which the State
arrived at these definitions.
Before the "retirement age" or "pension age" became the accepted
definitions of old age, most people seem to have acted on loose, and very varied,
definitions," Official attitudes mirrored this approach. The Elizabethan Poor
Law required the parish authorities to provide for '''the aged and impotent
poor," among others, but it set no specific age at which a person was to be
automatically considered "aged." Like most people before the 19th century,
the Poor Law architects and administrators seemed to consider old age more a
question of function, or lack of it, than a question of precise calendar years.
The aged were those who were infirm, frail, and suffering incapacities of body
or mind to the extent that they could no longer fully support or take care of
themselves, and who also gave the appearance of being old. The assumption
was that people could be advancing in years, or they could be incapable of
supporting themselves, but it was only when the two conditions came together
in one person that that person was considered "old" by the authorities. The
chronological age at which this conjunction happened to different individuals
varied widely, and this probably helps account for the lack of a generally-
applied "old age" definition.
The lack of a single, official definition made it possible for the Poor Law
authorities to judge each case on its merits, and this appears to have been done
without any feeling that there should be a standard definition of old age.
Surveys like Eden's work on the poor in the late 18th century and the responses
to the questionnaires of the 1832 Poor Law enquiry indicate that there was a
wide range of ages at which the "aged and infirm" label might be applied,
WHEN DOES OLD AGE BEGIN? 418

ranging generally from the late 40s or early 50s to the 70s and 80s. Eden's
parish surveys were made before data collection became an official obsession
and its provision an expected private function and so one must view even the
ages the respondants gave with some suspicion, but they do suggest the wide
range of ages at which people were considered to be old. His survey of Hesket in
Cumberland, for example, indicates that even people who might be expected to
have enjoyed modestly prosperous lives - those described as "farmers,"
"malsters and farmers," and "farmers' widows" - sought parish relief in their
70s and 80s.1O Private organizations, too, varied in their definition of old age.
Eden gives numerous examples of the requirements concerning old age applied
by Friendly Societies. For example, one in Caldbeck, Cumberland gave old age
allowances to members over 70,11 as did another in Stapleton,

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

Gloucestershire, 12 while that in Kirby Lonsdale, Westmoreland, gave 4 shillings
a week to members over 60 whether they could work or not. I3 It was generally
accepted that individuals aged in the sense of increasing functional incapacity
combined with advancing years, at different times and rates, although there
was a general assumption that working class people, as a group, tended to age
sooner than the higher ranks of society.l" Some suggestion that it might be
possible to narrow the rather broad age range, at least for the working classes,
was offered by a witness before an investigating committee in 1825. He had
observed that it was rare for people to take out an annuity which began after
age 70: "The industrious classes appear to think this period of life too late; the
annuities combined with sickness are restricted to the age of 65, since that may
be chosen as the period at which support in old age becomes necessary; and the
period of 60 was selected as the earliest period of life at which an assurance
against the natural decline of strength should be granted to the industrious
classes."!" Similarly, one of the earliest proposals for a national annuity scheme
was that suggested to the younger Pitt by John Harriott which provided for a
small allowance to be paid starting at the age of 65.16
The Poor Law investigators of 1834 assembled a mass of unscientifically
collected but nevertheless voluminous information in the appendices to their
Report. The responses to their "rural queries"17 and "town queries'lI8 provide
volumes of poorly organized and undigested material which occasionally
includes something on the elderly. This scattered evidence suggests, as did
Eden's surveYl that while local authorities varied in their opinions about the
age at which a person became old, most considered people "aged" if they were
in their 50s or 60s and unable to support themselves.!? The reports of the
Assistant Commissioners, which are more comprehensible if not more accurate,
add to this general picture. Chadwick's own report on the reformed workhouse
of the parish of Hatfield, whose rigour he much admired, drew attention to the
fact that although all persons except women were to be employed, "Persons
above the age of 50 may be employed in such work as is not capable of being
measured . . ."20 It was the custom in workhouses in many parts of the
country to allow aged inmates a few luxuries, and the age at which these were
permitted give a strong suggestion of local definitions of old age. In the
Harwarden Workhouse in north Wales, for example, "'A distinction is made in
the treatment of the impotent and able-bodied, in favour of the former . . .,"
419 journal of social history

those over 50 being allowed a little tobacco or snuff, and women over 70 having
a little tea, sugar, and butter added to their diet. 21 In the Chester workhouse a
similar arrangement prevailed, with inmates over 50 being allowed a few extra
luxuries, includin~ some of the "old paupers" even being permitted to have gin
in addition to ale.2
The 1834Report and the Poor Law Amendment Act which followed it did not
produce a general national definition of age. The Commissioners and the
legislators were only peripherally concerned with the aged. Their overriding
concern was with the able-bodied poor who, they felt, produced children and
otherwise lived in idleness on the parish rates. If they were involved in
producing definitions at all, it was simply to separate out the able-bodied poor
from the rest. They avoided the whole issue of defining old age, not in order to

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

beg the question, but rather because, given their terms of reference, the aged
were not a part of their central task. They looked on the old as a sub-group of
those who were not able-bodied, the "impotent poor," whom they defined as
"all those who are prevented, by disease of body or mind, by old age, or by
infancy, from earning a part or the whole of their subsistence . . . the
diseased, the aged, and orphan and deserted children."23 As their concern was
with the able-bodied paupers who fell outside this category, they offered little
guidance about what was to be done with this motley collection of "impotent
poor," and they certainly did not take pains to refine definitions.
The Poor Law Amendment Act established the Poor Law Commission, a body
which was to oversee the operation of the Act. Once a national bureaucratic
structure was established", it was not long before a uniform national definition
became an issue. The early Poor Law Commission found the diet in some
workhouses to be better than that of the poorest labourer outside. Anxious to
rectify this situation, which conflicted with the central principle of less
eligibility, they issued suitably austere dietaries; but the notion that the aged
should have a few luxuries persisted. The Commissioners wished to allow for
this in their regulations, but that required them to set an age limit at which this
relaxation of the rules could be permitted. In 1836 the Commissioners stated
that paupers in the workhouse who exceeded 60 years of age should be allowed
to substitute tea, butter, and sugar for certain other less desirable items in their
diet if they wished to do so.24 The choice of 60 as the age at which old age might
begin to claim its privileges seems to have been based on nothing more than the
general impression of the Commission that it was, if not a good choice, at least a
common choice in the past. They might have picked 50, another very common
choice in the past, but setting the limit at the more advanced age was more in
tune with the firm, if not severe, tone of the administration of the time. The
fact that those over 60 were allowed a better diet qUickl~ created a general
impression that the "aged and infirm" were people over 60. 5
The diet regulations did not mean, howver, that the national government had
chosen 60 as the age at which old age began. As the Royal Commission on the
Aged Poor concluded, "neither by statute nor order is any limit of age fixed at
which a man or woman is to be regarded as no longer able-bodied.T'' The Chief
Inspector of the Local Government Board, the descendant of the Poor Law
Commission, emphasized this point to the 1899 Commission. Responding to the
WHENDOES OLD AGE BEGIN? 420

·assumption on the part of one Commissioner that 60 was the line at which old
age officially began, Knollys said, "No, there is none. The Local Government
Board always declines to fix an age, because one man may be quite able-bodied
at 70, and another man may not be able-bodied at 65."27 Despite the official
position, "the guardians ordinarily adopt 60 years as the dividing line, "28,
although there were exceptions, as in St. Pancras, where the guardians chose
65, and Whitechapel, where a committee of guardians decided on the merits of
the individual case?)
Legislation of the 1870s and 1880s fixed an age limit of sorts for those private
organizations which were very much concerned with when old age began, the
Friendly Societies. The Friendly Societies Act of 1875, and the amending Act of
1887, stated that as far as the operation of these Societies was concerned "old

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

age is defined as any age after 50."30 Despite this, the pension schemes of most
societies began at 65. This added to the confusion about the official definition
of old age because it meant that people could be old at 50 if they belonged to
some Friendly Societies whereas if they did not, they were subject to no official
old age definition, although they were generally assumed to be old at 60. The .
Royal Commission of 18g5 was aware that the definition of the Friendly
Societies Acts was lower than that which was generally assumed and
recommended: "That section 8 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, should be
amended by the word "sixty five' being substituted for the word "fifty'."31 This
suggestion would have brought the Friendly Societies' definition more into line
with contemporary opinion.
The matter of an official, national definition of the onset of old age became
an important question only when serious discussion of a State old age pension
scheme began in the 1880s and 1890s.1t arose because if the government was to
~ve pensions to old people, it had to come up with a generally applicable
definition of an old person. Opinions were sought as to what this definition
might be. It soon became evident that attempts to achieve a definition on the
traditional basis - that of function combined with age - would not lead to
uniformity, The ability of an individual to support himself at an advanced age
varied according to the individual and his occupation. For example, by the
L890s men over 50 who lost their jobs because of illness often found it difficult
:0 find work when they recovered; miners generally could not work past 60; the
oest wages in the iron and steel trades were made between 25 and 45, and by 55
1 worker's earnings were generally reduced by one third to one half; puddlers
n Staffordshire could not generally follow their trade past 55; dock labourers
)f 50 found work hard to get unless trade was particularly good.32 The
\malgated Society of Engineers provided for superannuation benefits for
nembers beginning at 55; the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners
'ixed its superannuation age at 50;33 while the Union of Glass Bottle Workers in
.ancashire provided for superannuation payments at 40.34 There was a similar
liversity of opinion about the age at which women became functionally old. For
.xample, the metal trades of Coventry, were generally conceded to be "hard"
md women in them were "practically worn out at 50 years old for factory
vork." In those trades, "The age most generally fixed by the women
hemselves is 55."11 The Women's Trade Unions League, which represented a
421 journal of social history

broad spectrum of working women, felt that the pension age for women
workers should be no higher than 60.36 Nurses in Queen Alexander's Imperial
Nursing Service could retire at 50, and compulsory retirement began at 55.
Nurses at Guy Hospital had similar arrangements, while those at the London
Hospital were eligible for retirement at 45.37 In addition to the variation
between occupations, there was the general difference between town and
country. As Booth put it, "In one way or another effective working life is 10
years longer in the country than in the town, or, speaking generally, is as 70 to
60."38
Examinations of foreign precedents did little to help resolve the problem. In
Germany, old age pension payments, as distinct from invalidity payments,
began at 70; in Belgium, miners' superannuation began at 55 or 65 depending

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

on the district; in France, superannuation payments began at 70 for Friendly
Society members, 55 for miners, and after 25 years of service for womenr'" and
in the city of Copenhagen in 1892, the old age relief system came into operation
and provided for allowances, under certain conditions, for those over 60.4()
There was enough evidence available to support almost any age past 40 as a
suitable one for the beginning of old age, but in the 1890s, ages between 60 and
75 were those most often put forward as being realistic State pension ages. In
1895 it was suggested that "the public demand points to the age of 65."41
Failing to find any valid basis for choosing one age rather than another as the
official definition of old age, the 1898 Old Age Pensions Committee simply fell
back on citing this unscientifically estimated and vaguely perceived "public
opinion." The committee justified its choice of 65 as the pension age in its
"Scheme A"by saying, "The age of 65 is adopted as the pension age in this
scheme, and the sum of 5 shillings a week as the measure of income and
pension, because, from the schemes and evidence before us, this age and this
measure appear to be those as to which there is most concurrence of opinion. "42
One member of the 1899 Committee, Sir Walter Foster, tried to go a little
further and develop something like a supportive theory, although this too was
rather vague; HI think one merit of the age of 65 is this, is it not, that the man
who has lived up to 65 and comes under the terms which make him eligible for
a pension, is prima[acie a person who by his industry has contributed to the
welfare of the State?"43 Charles Booth, the leading social investigator of this era
and a very influential figure in the pensions debate at the turn of the century,
saw poverty as the central issue in the process of definition and felt that
pensions should be related to the age at which poverty levels increased sharply:
"The most desirable age for a State pension is put by various authorities at 60,
65, 70, and 75. If we consider solely the usual working powers of men, 60 is
now late enough in most manual industries, but some employments press less
hardly, and in most cases industrial breakdown precedes the financial
breakdown by several years, so we find 65 to be the age at which pauperism
increases by leaps and bounds and thus this age has been commonly chosen as
representing the time 'when strength is gone and money spent and pensions are
most excellent.'''44 Initially, Booth had argued in favour of 65 as the pension
age on this basis~45 but later, while still pointing to 65 as the age at which
WHEN DOESOLD AGE BEGIN? 422

poverty increased markedly, he produced a scheme with 70 as the pension age.

He supported this revision by claiming that, given limited national resources,
people over 70 were in greater need of allowanees.l" Booth's original schemes
would have cost about 22-112 million pounds. His later scheme enabled him to
reduce the estimated cost to 16 million pounds a year, a saving of almost 30%.47
As the pressure to institute a State pension scheme mounted and pensions
became an important political issue, finance increasingly entered into the
question of age definition, urged on by practicality and the current, relatively
limited idea of how much the State could afford to spend on social services. In
1900 a Treasury Committee reported on the cost of a national pension scheme
such as that suggested in 1899, producing cost estimates based on pension ages
of 65, 70 and 75. The total cost of a scheme using 65 as the pension age came to

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

7,550,000 pounds, an appalling sum at the time, while one using 70 produced a
more palatable estimated total of 4,200,000 pounds, and one using 75 would
cost a mere 2,050,000 pounds.f" A ~ension age of 70 had in its favour a saving
of 3,350,000 pounds per annum, 44~ less than a pension age of 65.
In the Commons debates on the 1908 Old Age Pensions Bill, the opposition,
as would be expected, fired many broadsides at the Liberal Party's proposal for
a national pension scheme which would provide 5 shillings a week beginning at
the age of 70. Much of the criticism was levelled at the definition of-the pension
age, which many M.P's felt to be too high, especially for industrial workers.
Henry Broadhurst, for example, had urged that the age be lowered to 65 for the
sake of industrial workers; for "The fact is, after a man has been working 20
years or so under such conditions the nerves of the human frame become
unequal to the continuous strain, and men become old 20 years sooner than
those who pursue avocations in the open air."49 Another M.P. insisted that the
age limit would have to be lower for the sake of the working classes; for "It
could not be denied that the manual labourers died more rapidly than the
professional classes."50 Yet another M.P. cited the precedents of the
superannuation ages of various trade unions and insisted that in setting the a~e
limit at 70, the government was ""flying in the face of experience." 1
Nevertheless,the government seemed most impressed by the financial
calculations of the Treasury Committee, and Lloyd George, whose responsiblity
the Bill was, made it clear that the main reason why the government had chosen
the age limit of 70 was economy. Citing the German precedent, he insisted that
poverty before that age was more a question of disability than old age as such,
and announced that the government would take up the disability issue in the
near future: " ... but we are now simply providing old age pensions, and I think
they ought to begin at 70 - old age pensions as such - that is my answer to the
proposal to reduce the limit from 70 to 65. It is because of the fact that it costs
more, that is my answer at the moment. "52
The debate about the pension age did not cease with the passage of the 1908
Act. The Royal Commission on the Poor Laws said in its minority report in
1909, "So long as the pensionable age remains at 70, the widest scheme of
national superannuation allowances will fail to meet the general need. It is
between 60 and 70 years of age that the majority of those who have hitherto
maintained themselves in independence, succumb to the dread necessity of
423 journal of social history

submitting to the paupers fate ... the effect of all our evidence appears to us to
support the now generally admitted contention that any age limit above that of
65 - we might even say over 60 - will do little more than touch the fringe of
the problem of old age pauperism. "53 After World War I, a Treasury Committee
heard a good many arguments for lowering the pension age, including those
presented bI representatives of organized labour5 4 and county pension
committees.' Despite the reservations of some of its memhers.t'' the majority of
the Committee concluded that "The age of 70 was advisedly adopted by the
Government in 1908 . . . as the point at which old age, as distinct from
invalidity, determined the need for State assistance." The Committee also noted
that, while cost was not (,(,the predominant consideration," the cost of reducing
the pension age even to 65 would be very great. 57

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

In the 1920s the demand for the reduction of the pension age was supported
less by a concern for old-age poverty than for the working-age poverty caused
by unemployment. After a brief post-war boom, England entered a period of
chronic depression and unemployment and there was a growing feeling that the
pension age should be reduced, partly in the interests of the elderly, but mainly
in the interest of unemployed younger people. All political parties made the
lowering of the pension age a major election issue in the mid-1920s58 in the
hope that this lowering of pension age would reduce unemployment. In
evaluating the benefits likely to emerge from such schemes, The Times
expressed a popular opinion when it said "In the first place the scheme is
expected to bring about a reduction of unemployment ... As the old men retire
room will be made for younger men, amon~ whom, it must be remembered, the
problem of unemployment is most grave."
There is no doubt that the government shared these ideas. Chamberlain,
when introducing the Pension Bill in 1925, said that "this scheme is going to
bring about a reduction of unemployment." He noted that, at the time, about
350,000 men and about 50,000 women over 65 were earning wages, and
expressed the opinion that many of them would be glad to retire but could not
afford to do so, "and so they keep on working away in order to get enough to
live upon, and while they are doing that they are keeping off young fellows at
the other end who are finding it impossible to get work of any kind."60 Some
people questioned the validity of the notion that old age began at 65, while
others wanted to undertake a more precise analysis of the issuer'" but solving
the unemployment problem proved to be more urgent, and the Widow's,
Orphan's and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act was passed without this being
done. This Act added to the current scheme pensions for both men and women
between 65 and 70. Unlike the 1908 Act, the structure it created was a
contributory one and the award of a pension at 65 depended on prior individual
contributions. It was felt that, under current economic conditions, the nation
could not afford to extend the non-contr' .tory scheme past 70.62 The Act also
provided pensions for widows with yo' ng children and for certain other
widows. This aspect of its provisions W f ~xp. -nded by an Act of 1929, which
gave pensions to widows over 55.63
As the depression deepened in the 1930s there was continuing pressure to
WHEN DOESOLD AGE BEGIN? 424

lower the pension age further in order to open up even more jobs for younger
workers. In 1934, for example, the Labour Party produced a plan to reduce the
pension age to 60.64 Many of the arguments advanced in the discussions of this
decade echoed those which had been produced in the 1920s and established
even more clearly the connection between the pension age and unemployment
levels; "Decreasing unemployment is one of the reasons hon. Members
opposite give for increasing old age pensions. They admit that some 36,000
people over 65 are at present in insurable employment, and they claim that
from that number about 25,000 would retire if pensions were increased.~~65 As
was the case in many French unions, in effect, "The young were dictating
retirement to the old. '~66
In the late 1930s the issue of defining a suitable pension age for women

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

added a new dimension to the question. The demand for a lower pension age for
women was spearheaded by the National Spinsters Pensions Association, which
wanted pensions for working women on the same terms as those for widows,
namely at the age of 55.67 A committee of investigation pointed out that widows
got fensions because of their widowhood, not because they reached old age at
55.6 Despite the Committee's rebuttal of virtually all the N.S.P.A.'s arguments,
the feeling persisted that "the spinsters" had a point somewhere.P'' The
demands of the N.S.P.A. had some bearing on the decision to lower the pension
age for women, as did the desire to remove "an anomaly" in the 1925 Act.70
Throughout the 1930s there had been complaints that many elderly couples ran
into financial difficulties when the husband reached 65 because the wife had
not yet reached pension age and, as a result, they had to try to live on a single
pension. Given that generally, husbands were older than wives, numerous cases
of this type came up, generating a demand for revision." In introducing the
Pensions Bill in 1940, Walter Elliot, the Minister of Health, announced, "we
propose to lower the general pension age for women to 60. This will give
pensions to women in their own rights 5 years earlier than they secure them
today. It will also give the wives of insured men the pension when they are still
5 years younger than their husbands of 65, and this single change . . . will
bring up from 28% to 63% the proportion of cases in which husbands and wives
both qualify for a pension when the husband reaches 65."72
Reducing the pension age for women to 60 years of age provided no
immediate help for couples in which, when the husband reached 65, the wife
still was less than 60. Such couples made up 37%of the total. The problem could
have been solved for all elderly couples, whatever the age of the wife, by some
simple administrative device such as automatically giving married men of 65
the pension allowance for a couple. Similar precedents already existed in the
unemployment insurance structure, but instead of following these precedents,
the government adopted the awkward and less than satisfactory measure of
lowering the pension age for women. This by no means solved the problems of
all elderly couples, nor did it entirely meet the demands of the N.S.P.A.~ but it
went some way towards killing both these birds with one stone. To that extent, it
was expedient and, given the wartime emergency, time was pressing.
Nevertheless, it was a less than practical, less than rational attempt to solve
425 journal of social history

current problems and was quite inappropriate as a legitimate contribution to

the process of defining when old age began.
Since World War II no serious depression has occurred to generate pressure
to lower the pension age in the interest of expanding employment opportunities
for the young, and nothing, such as a serious labour shortage, has generated
pressure in the opposite direction, so pension ages have remained as they were
set in 1940. The current pension ages in England are, therefore, the products of
a process which began in the late 19th century. They were initially based upon
the age suggested by studies of late 19th century poverty rates as modified by
early 20th century notions of what the nation could afford to spend on social
services. After the First World War the pension age was reduced in response to
the demand to get older people out of the labour market in order to open up

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

jobs for younger people, and so reduce unemployment. The further reduction
of the age for women resulted from administrative problems caused by both the
general age discrepancy within married couples and the popular confusion
about the nature of widows and old age pensions. At no stage in this process was
any real consideration given to the definition of "old age" as such, and so it
might be suggested that the convention of accepting "old age" as beginning at
the official pension age should be questioned. Those currently involved in the
study of the aged might give some thought to the legitimacy of the idea that old
age begins at 60 and 65, and examine rather than employ that assumption as a
basis for research.

University of New Mexico Janet Roebuck

FOOTNOTES

1. B. Seebohm Rowntree, Old People: Reportof a Suroey Committee on the Problems of Agingand
the Care of Old People, published for the Nuffield Foundation by Oxford University Press, London
1947,1.

2. The Agedand Society, Industrial Relations Research Association (1950), Champaign, Ill.

3. Peter Townsend, The Family Life of Old People: An Inquiry in East London (London, 1957,
reissued 1967).

4. These illustrations are taken from the papers of the 5th Congress of the International
Association of Gerontology, Aging Around the World, Vol. 3, Nathan W. Shock, ed., The Biological
Aspects of Aging, Vol. 4, Herman T. Blumenthal, ed., Medial and ClinicalAspects of Aging {New
York,1962).

5. See, for example, Rosamonde R. Boyd & Charles G. Oakes, eds., The Foundations of Practical
Gerontology (Columbia, 1969). The volume begins with some questioning of established age
definitions by Maddux and Albrecht, but later papers in the same volume, such as those by
Verwoerdt and Spain, continue to make the assumption that old age begins at 65. Examples are
legion and may be found in virtually any issue of publications dealing with the aged. More recent
samples include articles in The Gerontologist (April, 1978), and The International Journal of
Aging and Human Development, Vol. 8, No.1 (I 977-78).

6. Peter N. Stearns, OldAge in European Society: The Case of France (NewYork, 1976), 16.
WHEN DOES OLD AGE BEGIN? 426

7. David H. Fischer, GrouingOldin America (New York, 1977),211.

8. See, for example, Stearns, 15,54, 126,and Fischer, 24, 142,177,205.

9. For the purpose of his study of the aged in pre-industrial societies, Simmons says, "the only
reliable criterionfor the onsetof old ageseemed to be the social and culturalone. The simplest and
safest rule to follow was to consider a person as 'old' whenever he was so regardedand treated by
his contemporaries." Leo W. Simmons, The Role of the Aged in Primitive Society (New Haven,
1945),15.

10. Sir Frederick Morton Eden, The State of the Poor, 3 Vols., Vol 2 (London, 1797) 82.
(Examples are numerous;seealso 83, 94).

II. Ibid.,51.

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

12. Ibid.,215.

13. tu«. 775.

14. This idea was repeated frequently throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. See, for
example, Report of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor 1895 [c7684l, XIV, XV, v.2, 58;
Reportof the Committee on OldAgePensions, 1898, [c8911], XLV, 14.

15. Rev. John Thomas Becker, Select Committee Report: LawsRespecting FriendlySocieties, 1825
(522) IV,27.

16. Sidney & Beatrice Webb, EnglishPoor LawHistory: Part2, The LastHundred Years (London,
1929),36.

17. Report of the Commissioners on the Administrationand Practical Operation of the Poor Laws,
App. B.l, 1834 (44) XXX-XXXIV.

18. 1834Poor LawReport, App. B. 2, 1834 (44) XXXV-XXXVI.

19. See,for example, 1834Poor LawReport, App. B.l, 1834XXXI, pt. 2, 3b, 4b, 4Ob, 86b,631b.

20. 1834Poor LawReport, XXIX, Assistant Commissioners Reports, 63A.

21. Steven Walcott, in 1834Poor LawReport, 170a.

22. Capt. 1.1. Chapman, in 1834Poor LawReport, S08A.

23. 1834 Poor Law Report XXVII, 249, Supplement No.3, Instructions to Assistant
Commissioners.

24. Reportof the Committee on the Poor Law AmendmentAct, 1838(681) XVII, pt. 1,32.

25. See,for example, William Harrison, Governor of the Bishop Waltham Workhouse, 3rd Report
of the Committee on the Poor Law AmendmentAct 1837 (138) XVII, 98; Edward Culson,Assistant
Poor Law Commissioner; 3rdReportof the Committee on the Poor LawAmendmentAct 1838(138)
XVIII 22-3.

26. 1895R.C. AgedPoor, xii.

27. William Edward Knollys responding to Lionel Holland, Report of the SelectCommittee on the
AgedDeseroing Poor 1899(296) VIII, 118.
427 journal of social history

28. Sir Hugh Owen, 1895 RC. AgedPoor. Vol. 2, 3.

29. 1895 RC. AgedPoor, xii.

30. Ibid., lxii.

31. Ibid., lxii.

32. 1898 Old Age Pensions Report, 170. Examples are numerous: see also, 1895 RC. Aged Poor,
Vol. 2., 307, 466, 468: Vol. 3, 737, 799, 814, 816, 909, 925. English working class attitudes
regarding aging are very similar to those reported in France. See Stearns, chap. 2 "Old Age in
French Working-Oass Culture," particularly pp. 46-51, 63-65.

33. 1895 RC. AgedPoor, Vol. 3, 925.

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

34. 1898 OldAge Pensions Report. 170.

35. Amy Hurlston, 1895 R.C.AgedPoor, Vol. 3, 892, 896.

36. Gertrude Tuckwell, Secretary to the W.T.U.L., 1899 Reporton AgedDeseroing Poor, 100.

37. Paper by Ina Stansfield, Assistant Inspector to the Local Government Board, Report of the
Royal Commission on the Poor Lawsand Relief of Distress. 1909, CAI. 4499, App. lA, 541.

38. Charles Booth, The AgedPoor in Englandand ffules (London, 1894),321.

39. 1899 Report on Aged Desen)ing Poor, 23, 34, 37. See also, Report from the Board of Trade
(LabourDepartment), Provisions for OldAge Abroad1899, (c9414), XCII.

40. Edith Sellers, "The Working of the Old Age Relief Law in Copenhagen." Nationaland English
Review, Vol. 28 (November, 1896).390-391.

41. Mr. Hardy, Actuary, 1895 RC. AgedPoor. Vol. 3,638.

42. 1898 Old AgePensions Report, 10.

43. 1899 Reporton AgedDeserving Poor, 123.

44. Charles Booth, Old Age Pensions and the Aged Poor: A Proposal (Macmillan, London, 1899,
reissued 19(6), 45. Like many American reformers at the turn of the century, Booth saw the
problem of old age mainly as a problem of poverty. See Fischer, 161.

45. Ibid.,66.

46. Ibid; 50, 64-66.

47. 1899 Reporton AgedDesennng Poor, xxx.

48. Reportfrom the Departmental Committee on the Aged Desennng Poor 1900, (Cd. 67), X, xxv,
xlii, xlv.

49. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, Official Report, ("'Hansard"). Vol. 105.462 (19
March 1902).

50. J.W. Taylor, Hansard, Vol. 190,654 (IS June, 1908).

51. Harold Cox, Hansard, Vol. 190, 59i (IS June, 1908).
WHEN DOES OLD AGE BEGIN? 428

52. Hansard; Vol. 190,575 (15June 1908).

53. 1909n.c. Poor Laws.919.

54. G.H. Stuart Bunning, Reportof the Departmental (Treasury) Committee on OldAge Pensions,
1919, Cmd. 410,XXVII, 118;Mrs. KM.Lowe, in Ibid.,223,226.

55. George K Russell, in Reportof the Departmental (Treasury) Committee, 83.

56. Ibid., 14.

57. Ibid., 10.10shillings a week at 70,cost41 million, at 65 it would cost70 million.

58. The Times, 19May 1925, 17b.

Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 16, 2015

59. Ibid., 17b-c. Seealso R,J. Meller, Hansard; Vol. 184,157(18May, 1925). For further examples
see Major Alan McLean, Hansard, Vol. 184,360 (19 May, 1925); E.A. Harney, Vol. 185,2562 (1
July, 1925): Charles Edwards, Vol. 185,157(18May, 1925).

60. Hansard, Vol. 184,90 (18May, 1925). Seealso, Ibid. 1062 (25May, 1925).

61. See, for example, Hansard; Vol. 184, 1335, (19 May, 1925); Lt. Col. Francis K Freemantle,
Hansard; Vol. 184,344 (May, 1925), Hansard; Vol. 184,117(18May, 1925), 117. __

62. See, for example, David Lloyd George, Hansard; vol. 184,108-15 (18May, 1925).

63. For an explanation of the reason for this, see, R,J. Meller, Hansard; Vol. 184, 154 (18 May,
1925).

64. Euan Wallace, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Hansard, Vol. 341, 1836 (23 November,
1938).

65. Mavis C. Tate, Hansard; Vol. 341, 1813 (23 November, 1938). See also, Hansard; Vol. 350,
1802 (27 July, 1939), Hansard, vol. 357,1231 (20February, 1940).

66. Stearns, 147.

67. Reportof the Committe on Pensions for Unmarried Women, 1939Gnd. 5991,2, 22, 6t.

68. Ibid: 24.

69. See,for example, Capt. George S. Elliston, Hansard., Vol. 350,1732 (27July, 1939).

70. See,for example, Jennie L. Adamson, Hansard, Vol. 357, 1269(20February, 1940); Florence
Horsbrugh, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, 1411 (21 February); Geoffrey
Mander, 2141 (28February).

71. See, for example, John 1. Tinker, Hansard; Vol. 341, 152 (8 november, 1938); Ellis Smith,
1799(23 November): Mander, 1818(23November).

72. Hansard; vol. 357, 1200 (10February, 1940).