In the first of the two following tables are the twenty Branches which have the largest total contributions for 1924.

The second table gives simply a selection of Branches from different parts of the country, which have a striking per head contribution.

First Twenty Branches in 1924: Total v*oninuuuuns.

Manchester & Salford City of London Branch * Port of Liverpool Bradford & District Glasgow Birmingham Edinburgh, Leith & Grantou Leeds Bristol Southampton Belfast Dublin Oxford Douglas * .

Eastbourne * Hull .

Isle of Wight * .

Dundee Poole, Bournemouth, etc. * .

Leicester .

PopsIaMoH.

1,100,000 — 950,000 390,000 1,060,000 919,000 510,000 600,000 377,000 210,000 395,000 410,000 147,497 — • — • 330,000 159,105 — 234,190 Total Collec- Cotlec- ijf . -,-,, tion i r iiiuu, TTpart 1924. ueaa" £ i 15,983 10,385 5,113 3,113 2,747 2,161 1,945 1,873 1,483 1,393 1,323 1,206 1,109 932 896 820 807 697 691 689 3J 2.

— IJd.

Ifrf.

$d.

£d.

Leicesf 2.

Id.

Id.

%d.

id.

£d.

d.

- • — - Id.

—Jd.

* Floating population, so that no calculation per head is possible.

The most interesting fact, when the two tables are compared, is that Manchester and Salford is not only at the head of the first table, but is the only one in that table of the twenty highest totals to have a per head collection sufficiently high to appear in the second.

Two other facts should be noted in examining these tables. The population given in each case is the population of the Branch area. It is not necessarily the population of the city or town which gives its name to the Branch. In certain cases, like seaside towns, no perhead figure is given. To calculate this on the permanent population would be unfair to the town which is not a holiday resort, as these seaside Branches make their appeals with the definite idea of obtaining the support not only of residents, but of the large number of visitors.

Contributions Per Head in 1924.

Cullompton (Devonshire) .

Brightlingsea (Kssex) .

Romsey (Hamp- shire) Henley & Shiplake (Oxfordshire) .

C o n g l e t o n (Cheshire) Manchester & Salford (Lancashire) Hinckley (Leicesf tershire) .

Bridgnorth (Salop) Salisbury (Wilt- shire) Gaildford (Surrey) Alloa (Clackman- nan) Population.

3,000 4,500 4,826 Collec- Collection, tion per 1924. Head.

£ 115 U.

148 7} Z.

151 7J i.

8,500 222 Gd.

11,764 ii 221 4Jd!.

1,100,0001 15,983 3id.

13,644 5,143 37,000 24,927 206 3Jrf.

77 3|d.

388 2J 2.

203 2d. • 30,000 1 262 2 Z.

One other important point remains.

Neither a high total contribution nor a high contribution per head is of value, except on paper, if the expenses incurred in raising it are relatively high. As our Hoflorary Secretaries know, economy in the*methods of collecting is a matter of great importance, on which the Committee of Management have always been very careful to insist, and in those rare eases where Branches have exceeded the maximum of expenses laid down in the regulations, the Committee have drawn their attention to it at once. This being so, it is hardly necessary to say that all the Branches in the two tables have kept well within the limit.

As a general rule, in fact, the Institution has found that those Branches which are the most successful in raising money, are also the most economical doing it..