February 2, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
85 
GARDENERS’ ROYAL 
BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION. 
An Appeal to Gardeners. 
X 
H AVING- been elected a member of the Committee of the 
above Institution at the recent general meeting, I hope I 
may be excused for approaching my fellow gardeners for the 
purpose of endeavouring to influence their minds in favour of a 
more general and generous support of its funds. It cannot be 
said that I am asking others to do what I have not attempted 
to do myself, as I have contributed in one way or another 
between £70 and £80 to this great, good, safe and well-managed 
Ins'itution. 
It is difficult to understand why all gardeners do not rally 
round this splendid property of £29,000, especially when it is said 
that every shilling of it is their own. One would think that even 
from motives of selfishness, if from no higher, every gardener 
would strive to do all in his power to promote its usefulness and 
prosperity. 
There cannot be less than 30,000 gardeners, nurserymen, and 
others engaged in horticultural pursuits who are, or ought to be, 
interested in its welfare, and if as many of these as can afford it 
subsci'ibed their guinea a year, and if the remainder who are unable 
to do this were to collect small sums amongst themselves annually 
for the benefit of its funds, the question of old age pensions, as far 
as i*^^ relates to gardeners, would be solved. 
Objections have been advanced by many persons against the 
Institution because it is not founded on the lines and principles of 
a benefit society, where a member can claim help at any time in 
case of need. On the surface this may appear to be a reasonable 
objection, and I am afraid has been the cause of many not sub¬ 
scribing to its funds ; but I think on a little consideration that this 
objection may be proved to be an erroneous one, especially as 
in the case of gardeners whose wages are scarcely now stopped 
in time of sickness, and who, therefore, do not feel the pinch of 
poverty at this time like mechanics and others who are paid by 
the hour, and whose pay is stopped when work ceases. As 
bearing on this point, I may say I have been a member of a benefit 
society for upwards of twenty years, paying about 22s. a year, 
and if I am to remain a benefit member I shall have to go on 
paying that sum as long as I live, and in case of sickness and 
permanent disability from work I am entitled to 10s. a week for 
the first year, about Ts. the second year, and after that I believe 
the pay is reduced to Ss. per week for life. Let me ask my fellow 
gardeners who are still sceptical on this point to compare this 
with the advantages offered by the G-ardeners’ Royal Benevolent 
Institution, even from a benefit point of view, where after sub¬ 
scribing a guinea for fifteen years, or £10 10s. down, a member is 
almost certain to be placed on the pension list if he is of good 
character and incapacitated from work and in want, receiving with¬ 
out any further cost or trouble to himself £20 a year for life, 
whether his life be short or long. 
Another objection has occasionally been levelled at the lustitu- 
ti >n, viz., that some gardeners who had subscribed but little and 
othtri who had not subscribed at all were occasionally elected 
pensioners. On this point I may say that we must not lose eight 
of the fact that by far the largest proportion of the property of 
the Institution has been subscribed by people out of pure benevo¬ 
lence for the relief of aged and destitute gardeners, and I for my 
part would be very sorry to see this principle of benevolence 
infringed upon or curtailed in any way ; and I hope and believe it 
will not be allowed to impose a barrier to prevent subscriptions 
flowing in. The Committee, as is well known, have introduced a 
clause into their rules, giving almost absolute certainty of election 
to those who may have subscribed for fifteen years, and the new 
rule passed at the recent general meeting will give subscribers 
substantial advantages over non-subscribers, inasmuch that a sub¬ 
scriber for four years will have fifty votes credited to him, and fifty 
more added for every year subscribed afterwards up to fourteen 
years. 
My appeal in favoor of tbe Institution, even from a benefit and 
an investment point of view, will, I hope, commend itself to the 
jndgment of your readers. But I beg very respectfully to appeal 
to my brother gardeners from a higher level than a benefit one. 
That man’s life is a poor and a barren life who lives entirely to 
himself, and nothing noble or good has ever yet been accomplished 
without a sacrifice of some sort. 
The gardeners of the past half a century (and others interested 
in gardening and gardeners) have built up a noble standard of 
garden charity, which is now shedding gleams of joy and brightness 
round the declining life of many of our fellow workers who have 
fallen helpless by the way. Let me, then, appeal to all gardeners 
and others associated with them in the calling to rally round this 
splendid Institution, and to strengthen it with their active support, 
that all the deserving in our craft may claim a shelter under its 
wings in the time of adversity and want.— Owen Thomas, The 
Royal Gardens, Windsor. 
[We give the prominence to which we feel the strong appeal of 
Mr. Owen Thomas is worthy, on behalf of one of the soundest and 
most useful charities in the world. We do this in the hope that 
the Institution, strong as it is, will be still further strengthened, 
and be able to meet the claims upon its resources of many a once 
able gardener who can no longer labour and who finds it hard to 
live through his few remaining years. True, it is that the Institution 
sheds “ gleams of joy ” in the homes of those who are recipients of 
its benefits ; but correspondingly keen must be the disappointment 
and anguish of those candidates, equally worthy and needy, who 
fail each year to become participants in its funds. 
Having regard to the uncertainty of the lives of pensioners— 
and we all wish they may be long and happy—no other method of 
dispensing its funds than the present one could be resorted to 
without impairing its stability. We fear—indeed, have heard it 
said—that the Institution is rich, and that no gardeners who have 
supported it should suffer want. We rejoice in its strength and in 
the great good it has done and is doing ; but it is not rich enough 
to do what its officials so ardently wish with the amount realised by 
its funded property. 
The Institution is prudently and economically managed. We 
are proud of it, and should like for gardeners to feel it an honour 
to be enrolled on its list of subscribers. The new rule alluded to 
by our correspondent we hope will induce many who are able to 
spare a guinea a year to invest it in this charity, which is as safe, so 
to say, as the Bank of England. Sorry we are to know of many 
who work in gardens intelligently and well who find their family 
claims so pressing that they do not find themselves able to do what 
they would like in supporting institutions that might eventually be 
in the highest degree beneficial to themselves and their families. 
But while recognising the existence of difficulties of that nature it 
must still be a fact that a still greater number of gardeners could, 
by making some slight sacrifice, set aside about 5d. a week, or less 
than Id. a day, and so qualify themselves to become recipients 
of £20 a year, in case of need, to the end of their days, with a then 
possible grant of a large portion of that amount to their widows. 
If fortune should so favour that aid is not needed by the 
contributors, then will they have great cause for thankfulness, 
and in no more appropriate way could they show their appreciation 
No. 658.—Voii. XXVI., Third Series. 
No. 2314.— VoL. LXXXVIII., Old Series. 
