THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN’S COMPANION.— July 22, 1850. 291 
last election, T find that Robert Hodge, of Pocklington, 
Yorkshire, received on the first application the large 
number of 235 votes, while Benjamin Priest, of Brixton, 
received only 4; and William Jackson, of Kennington, 
on a third application, received only 90 votes, though he 
had subscribed nine years to the charity—so far tending 
to show that provincialism had a fair chance against 
metropolitanism. 
The third objection I have met with is what is called 
the injustice of placing the widow of a pensioner, if a 
suitable person, at once on the funds, “ without the 
trouble and expense of an election,’' even though her 
husband never contributed a farthing to the charity; 
while the widow of a member, who may have contributed 
for twelve or fourteen years, and in every respect as de¬ 
serving and needy a person, must go through the trouble 
and expense of an election. No doubt such a rule was 
framed from real kindness; and so far as wishes would 
go, we would all wish that the funds were so large, that 
every widow' who needed it might he placed on them. 
There can be no question of the propriety of the rule, 
if the Society was based entirely upon a voluntary bene¬ 
volence; hut as (I think, unfortunately), the Society has 
blended with this benevolence, just enough of the prin¬ 
ciple of a benefit club and of life assurance to he trou¬ 
blesome, “ the object being to give a decided preference 
to those who have been contributing to assist others,” 
it does seem hardly fair, that a widow of a pensioner who 
never subscribed should have such an advantage over a 
widow' like Ann Arnold, wdio has already' stood four elec¬ 
tions, and will have to stand a fifth or a sixth, though 
her husband contributed for eight years to the charity. 
In fact, the widow of such a pensioner as I have sup¬ 
posed stands exactly iu the position of a contributor for 
fifteen years, and like him, if a suitable subject, can de¬ 
mand admittance, according as the rule now stands, as a 
matter of right and not as a matter of benevolence. 
The fourth objection had not only a reference to 
the above, hut to the inconsistency of the result of the 
elections generally, with the professed object to give a 
decided preference to those who have been contributing 
to assist others, as non-subscribers frequently stood 
at the top of the poll, and got in with least trouble. 
It is seldom that a pure and simple benevolence can 
long go on harmoniously in unison with that benevo¬ 
lence that calculates the ultimate profit its manifestation 
w'ill yield. The originators of the Institution, no doubt, 
did their best to secure support. The title of Benevo¬ 
lent brought assistance from many who were not at all 
likely to want any assistance from it. Some of the 
rules, such as the sixth, were, no doubt, formed to entice 
those who might look for some return for their outlay. 
The two motives now come into collision, and com¬ 
plaints are made. One class contends that it has a per¬ 
fect right to vote for whatever candidate it chooses; a 
second class says you ought to vote only for a sub¬ 
scriber. The committee has no power to act one w r ay or 
the other. It leaves each party to act out its own con¬ 
victions. Many, no doubt, have acted as I have done. 
I knew none of the candidates personally. I have voted 
for subscribers; I have also voted for non-subscribers, as 
Messrs. Mearns and Blair. In fact, looking upon the 
Institution purely as a benevolent one, I did not enter 
much into the question of subscribing or non-subscrib¬ 
ing candidates. The last election was the first, I believe, 
in which a member was admitted as a pensioner with¬ 
out an election, he having contributed to the Institution 
for fifteen years. In such a case, according to the rule 
as it now stands, the duty of the committee is obvious. 
Were there enough of candidates who had subscribed 
fifteen years there would he no elections at all. Admit, 
as is here broadly done, this compensating principle as 
the result of subscribing fifteen years, and there is force 
in the complaint, that no number of years below the 
; fifteen can guarantee any advantage. If it W r as neces¬ 
sary to keep to this test of fifteen years, equity would 
seem to require that something of the nature of a sliding 
scale should he adopted, according to the number of 
years’ subscription. But just in proportion as this is 
done, you take from the Institute much of its title of 
“ the benevolent.'' Benevolence is the kindness that has 
manifested itself freely and voluntarily ; if asked for 
it must be as a favour, not demanded as a right. John 
Dicker, who subscribed fifteen years, and every other 
member, in similar circumstances, Who can satisfy the 
committee as to position and character, can ask to be 
received as a pensioner, not as a favour, hut as a right; 
and there is no benevolence in giving what cannot he 
withheld. Those who make complaints will see that 
without changes the committee are powerless to move 
either way in the matter. Prudence w’ould dictate 
j mutual forbearance. 
The last objection I would allude to is the whole \ 
\ system of canvassing for votes. None who have not j 
been engaged in such matters can know the excitement, 
! trouble, and expense of repeated contested elections. | 
The depression of disappointment cannot he avoided, 
| for all cannot he successful; hut nearly the w'hole of ! 
i the expenses incurred, being entirely a matter of usage 
and custom, could easily he saved, merely by the Society 
! resolving that there should be no canvassing. Just 
imagine a poor man. or his widow, much in need of 
the pension, not only being defeated, hut losing the 
election, after they had deprived themselves of neces- 
I saries. and been obliged to solicit all these friends to 
help them—for wllat? To pay for ever so many pounds 
I of postage stamps and envelopes—to canvass the voters ! 
! through the post, money all completely lost to the can- , 
J didate, and of no benefit whatever except helping the | 
| Post-Office revenue. In charities where the voting | 
1 members are very numerous twenty or thirty pounds ‘ 
j would he a very moderate sum ‘for postage merely to : 
| solicit votes; and thus it often happens that the real ! 
) charity of the subscribers is deprived of much of its 
I benefits to the receivers, and is a great total loss to the i 
; defeated candidate. Defeat is had enough, hut much 
worse when attended with a deeper sinking in poverty. ; 
Even in our Institution the writing to each member 
would cost from <£3 to £3 10s., and if answers are expected, 
nearly a double sum would he required to enclose a 
stamped envelope. In each renewed contest much of this 
must be repeated. Are these trifles to a poor woman i 
anxious to get £12 per annum, or a crippled old man 
to whom £16 is such a treasure? And what good does 
such canvassing serve? Would not a clear statement 
of the circumstances of each case by the committee j 
answer every purpose of any number of postage-paid , 
circulars and cards, and enable the voter to come to a > 
more serious decision than when tugged by an old 
acquaintance in behalf of a favourite candidate on one I 
side, and drawn towards another by the eloquent plead- | 
ings of some compassionate lady, until he wished, for 
once, that he had been blessed with riches to relieve the 
anxieties of all? 
I have no doubt hut that the most thorough and per¬ 
severing canvassing is generally the most successful; hut 
this is just a strong argument against its use, for the 
comparatively comfortable are able to canvass; the most 
needy cannot command the means, and therefore fail. 
As has already been mentioned, complaints have been 
made that two or three nurserymen can put in who the}' 
like. I do not believe it; hut do away with canvassing 
as a general practice, and their influence, if now excessive, 
will be rendered perfectly legitimate. As respects this 1 
and other charities, I have been told several times lately 
that, owing to tins expense of canvassing, and that re¬ 
peatedly, the trouble and the outlay counterbalanced 
the advantages. We profess to bring our benevolence 
