230 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ March 24,1687. 
Benefit and Provident Society, and the Leeds Gardeners’ Society. If 
the Orphanage is to be united to the G.R.B.I., other men, who are doing 
equally well for themselves and society generally by supporting other 
deserving societies, will not be likely to join heartily in its support with 
the fact staring them in the face that the “ Bairns would be placed on 
the list by ballot similar to the pensioners,” as Mr. Abbey puts it. No, 
I think it should stand on its own basis, and that a beginning be made 
with whatever money is subscribed, be it in ever so humble a way. 
With regard to site I hope they will look further afield than the 
“ London smoke.” Why not settle on a piece of forest land that might 
be bought for a tenth of what would be asked for nearer 
London ? or take on lease a small farm with a good old farm 
house on it, which might be altered and small cost to suit. Here the 
“ Bairns ” would have fresh air, can be supplied with plenty of fresh 
vegetables, milk, &c., &c., all very necessary to their welfare. I hope 
the scheme may be wrought out on a foundation that will deserve and 
receive the support of all gardeners.— R. Inglis. 
Unity is strength, and there is no doubt that if all the gardeners, 
head and under, could be induced to work harmoniously together and 
subscribe, and continue the same yearly, a great benevolent object might 
be accomplished. But difficulties of a character present themselves, 
perhaps no more in this than in similar charitable schemes, in raising 
ample funds to start so deserving an institution and to maintain it 
afterwards. There may be no difficulty in reaching all the gardeners, 
but can they be induced to support such a worthy institution as the 
one proposed ? I do not believe they can, or they differ widely, I might 
say nobly, from any other class of the community. I do not question 
for a moment that many willing and generous persons will come for¬ 
ward to render all the assistance in their power. These are ever ready 
to lend a helping hand in any good work. These, I hope, largely pre¬ 
dominate amongst gardeners ; but there may be many who are willing 
to give, but who are not in a position to do so, and therefore I do not 
believe one-half of the gardeners in the United Kingdom could be relied 
upon to subscribe 5s. annually, or half that amount. If we glance for a 
moment at the majority of the charitable institutions of a like nature 
we find that they are not supported by the majority, but are mainly 
sustained by a small minority. Those who give liberally and freely are 
appealed to for support to aid every object that may be started, whether 
charitable or otherwise, while the majority of the community escape 
without rendering the slightest assistance. They may be appealed to, 
and frequently are, but it is unheeded. If we contemplate for a moment 
the humane work of the Gardeners’ Royal Benevolent Institution in 
striving to aid the disabled and distressed members of our craft, we 
cannot fail to be surprised at the lack of help and encouragement it has 
received from the class it is intended to assist. Had it not been for 
outside support it:could never have accomplished the good work that it is 
doing. 
With regard to the Orphanage, I hope that gardeners generally will 
put their shoulders to the wheel and subscribe their mite, and use 
influence with others to do the same. Funds ample for a " home could 
not be raised and sustained by the subscriptions of gardeners only, out¬ 
side support would be largely needed from all lovers of gardens and 
gardening. I am no advocate for arriving at hasty conclusions, even on 
such a worthy project, but the bases upon which it is intended to launch 
the scheme should be before the public as early as possible. 
I strongly appeal to gardeners and others to make a special sacrifice 
and exert themselves to raise a good round sum. I do not believe that a 
gigantic institution can be started all at once ; all that could be raised 
would be swallowed up in the building and management, while needful 
cases would thus be practically unprovided for. If worked on the same 
principle, or in connection with the Gardeners’ Royal Benevolent Insti¬ 
tution, a good start might be made, and the funds increased by special 
appeals from year to year, until ample had been raised to meet all 
deserving cases that come within its scope. 
I must confess that I am no advocate for the founding of an 
orphanage to be dependent upon annual contributions, for many who 
might subscribe at the first would perhaps from a variety of causes be 
unable to do so afterwards. Such a state of things would most certainly 
cripple the institution and perplex the responsible committee, but much 
care and responsibility would be removed if they had to deal with a 
fixed income proceeding from invested capital. If the funds afteiwards 
could be increased by yearly subscriptions all the better. 
I would rather contribute one guinea as a donation at the commence¬ 
ment than pay 5s. or even 2s. 6d. annually, and I daresay many others 
would do the same ; further donations being made from time to time as 
our finances would permit. It appears to me that the sum mentioned 
by Mr. Penny would be inadequate for building or buying a “ home 
and managing it on the grounds set forth. Generally speaking I am not 
in favour of these “ homes,” for to my mind the inmates are rendered 
too conspicuous, or singled out from the rest of the community by 
dressing the whole of them alike, very frequently in the most unbecoming 
manner. The time certainly comes when children realise their unfor¬ 
tunate position, and I think their early life should be made as happy 
and agreeable as possible. It is to be hoped that there are not many 
cases where father and mother are removed almost together ; if so, the 
cases are fewer still where there are no friends who would care for them 
and train them. To all such I am in favour of outside support. A few 
shillings weekly would be of greater advantage to the widow than 
taking from her one of her children and rearing it after the foimal 
manner-practised in,“ orphanages.” This scheme I will willingly support 
and give a guinea to commence with, and undertake to collect fori the 
same. Combined with this, “ D., Deal's ,” scheme is an admirable [one 
for all who may be left homeless and friendless. Outside support to the 
widows and friends of children who are left with them in straightened 
circumstances would at once meet many deserving cases which would 
have to be postponed to some very distant date if the building of a 
“ home ” is undertaken. Then those who are left homeless and friend¬ 
less could be established in existing homes as “ D., Deal,'' pointed out.— 
Wm. Bardney. 
I have read the various letters that have appeared in your columns 
on the above subject with considerable interest. I felt very doubtful at 
the commencement whether such an institution was needed, but as so 
many correspondents consider it to be necessary I will say no more on 
that point. But, if a fund is really necessary for this purpose, why 
spend the greater part of the money in erecting a costly building as 
many propose.!? If this was done it would then cost quite as much to 
maintain a child, and possibly more, than it would cost the mother at 
home. I consider the better plan would be to invest all the money that 
is subscribed at starting, add the interest of this to whatever is collected 
annually, and distribute this in certain portions to as many of the 
children as possible. This would prevent the mother—if living—from 
breaking up her home, reduce the expenses of management to a minimum, 
and if £20,000 or [£30,000 can be obtained, which l very much doubt— 
instead of such a large sum of money being spent on a building and 
bringing no return, £600 to £900, or more, would be available as interest 
every year to add to the annual subscriptions. And if the annual sub¬ 
scriptions were reduced after a time, which is sometimes the case, this 
sum of money invested would do more to prevent the whole affair col¬ 
lapsing than would be done by a costly building.—W. H. Divers, 
Kcttun Uall. 
As Mr. Barron of Chiswick has been appointed Secretary pro. tern. 
I ask my friends who have so kindly promised their support in this 
matter to be good enough to forward their subscriptions and communi¬ 
cations to him direct.— J. Udale, Eljord, Tamivorth. 
Mr. Penny deserves great praise and credit in trying to promote 
such a desirable object as the above. At the same time I concur in the 
remarks made by Mr. Abbey and •* D., Deal," in last Thursday’s issue, 
respecting the Gardeners’ Royal Benevolent Institution. It is certain it 
would require a large sum of money—many thousands of pounds—to 
build and partly endow an Orphanage of any pretensions, and, as Mr. 
Abbey says, there are many excellent orphan institutions already in 
existence. If Mr. Penny and Mr. Barron, or a central committee in 
London, opened a subscription list I think it would meet with a fair 
amount of support. If enough were subscribed for an Orphanage well 
and good ; if not, it could be handed over to the Executive of the Gar¬ 
deners’ Royal Benevolent Institution as a Jubilee offering for the pension 
fund for aged and distressed gardeners or their widows. There are many 
calls upon the purse this Jubilee year for local and other purposes, that 
I for one certainly think that if gardeners give subscriptions to mark 
their appreciation of our good Queen’s fifty years’ reign, it could not be 
better invested than in the above Royal Benevolent Institution.—A. 
Harding. 
I have read with no small interest the various letters in the 
Journal relating to the Gardeners’ Orphanage. Like Mr. Thomson, I 
should be sorry to do anything that would in any way weaken the two 
present existing institutions, each of which I support. I cannot under¬ 
stand gardeners possessing such an institution to wish for another. I 
would beg to suggest that the capital raised be attached to the “ Royal,” 
as I have every confidence in the management of that institution, and I 
believe the members have generally.—S. Boyd, Ballugan. 
A meeting was held in the Royal Horticultural Society’s Conser¬ 
vatory at South Kensington on Tuesday afternoon, to consider the Gar¬ 
deners’ Orphanage scheme, which has been discussed in the horticultural 
press during the past few weeks. Mr. G. Deal occupied the chair, and 
about thirty representative horticulturists were present, including Mr. 
Penny, the promoter of the scheme. After some consultation it was re¬ 
solved that it should be entitled The Gardeners’ Orphan Fund. The 
sense of the meeting was strongly against the erection of a building, the 
object being to obtain a fund the interest of which could be employed 
in obtaining admission for orphans to existing homes, or in affording 
assistance in other ways, to be determined at subsequent meetings. A 
provisional Committee was then appointed, comprising Dr. M. T. Mas¬ 
ters, Shirley IPibberd, G. Deal, J. Douglas, J. Fraser, C. Penny, C. H. 
Sharman, Harry J. Veitch. J. Roberts, J. Woodbridge, A. F. Barron, 
R. Dean, J. Matthews, B. S. Williams, W. Richards, and J. Wright. 
Mr. W. Richards was elected Honorary Treasurer, and Messrs. A. F. 
Barron, J. Wright, and B. Wynne Hon. Secretaries. It was arranged 
that a meeting should be held on Friday next to consider the best 
mode of creating a fumd and the method in which it shall be employed. 
[We find that the firm of Messrs. Sutton & Sons, Reading, was 
omitted from the list of supporters of the project that was supplied to 
us last week. We are also requested to correct the name of Mr. “ White- 
ley ” to Mr. Whibley. The list seems to have been hurriedly compiled 
and probably Mr. Penny’s clerk had a difficulty in deciphering some of 
the names. We corrected several. We do not think our correspondents, 
