Christchurch civic memorials 1914-45

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32898, 22 April 1972, Page 12

Christchurch civic memorials 1914-45

(By

W. J. A. BRITTENDEN)

The approach of Anzac Day will cause some readers to recall the parades of returned men, regular and territorial troops, nurses, senior cadets, school cadets, scouts, guides and other groups including brass and pipe bands who, in the years between the wars, paraded through the city on this “holy-day.”

Always, they marched over the Cashel Street bridge and, after 1924, under the arch. Some other readers will be able to remember watching World War I troops marching over the old, somewhat rickety, bridge. A steadily diminishing few will be able to recall their feelings as, in columns of four, they marched across on their way to the railway station and embarkation. It was immediately after the three days of official celebrations to mark the end of that war that, on July 24, 1919, a letter appeared in “The Press,” suggesting the erection of a “Bridge of Remembrance” over the Avon at Cashel Street. Today, the resulting bridge looks a little desolate and in need of cleaning to restore its creamy whiteness, while its narrow arch is probably more of a hindrance than an aid to modem traffic. Indeed, the bridge is likely to become even more lonely and desolate when a Durham Street bridge is erected nearby and the arched bridge will, in large measure, become what some of our forbears wanted all along—a completely non-functional memorial to those who had died for King and Country.

Large arches The letter to “The Press” signed “L.M.1.,” was written by Mrs J. Wyn Irwin, the wife of a school teacher who was later to become a wellknown primary school in-

spector and not, as some supposed, by the Hon. L. M. Isitt, M.P., Methodist minister and prohibitionist Prompted by Mr James Gray who had written two days earlier to suggest the retention of the several large arches erected as part of the peace celebration decorations, Mrs Irwin recalled “The Other Side of the Lantern,” a book in which Sir Frederick Treves described a delightful one-acre garden in which a charmingly named Bridge of Remembrance led to the Island of Leave-taking on which there were two stone lanterns. Support given If an arched bridge should be adopted, said Mrs Irwin, she trusted that the site chosen should be at Cashel Street, “the most historic bridge in Christchurch” because it was the one that all the soldiers had passed over. This idea gathered considerable and immediate support but many other schemes were also put forward. The returned men preferred a Hall of Memories and, for a time, considered acquiring the Provincial Council Chamber, but were less enthusiastic when it was explained that the hall would also be used for public functions. Many citizens felt that a Town Hall, a much-needed amenity, would be appropriate.

Henry Wigram suggested a Town Hall on the site of the Oxford Hotel to act as a background to a group of statuary on the comer of Cambridge Terrace and Kilmore Street, the site of the Sir James Hay theatre now being completed. Strong group A very strong group, led by Mr George Gould felt that only a purely non-functional memorial was appropriate and acceptable. The Mayor (Dr H. T. X Thacker) and his investigating committee came down with the following proposals: A Bridge of Remembrance with ornamental arch at Cashel Street Replacement of the existing tramway shelter in Cathedral Square with a monumental yet utilitarian structure. A ward or other additional building at the Public Hospital. A war museum, in conjunction with the Canterbury Museum, for housing war trophies. An outstanding monument upon some prominent point of the Port Hills. A monumental roadway along Armagh Street with ornamental bridges at Oxford Terrace and at the Hagley Park entrance, the reading being continuous through the park. A highway from North Cape to the Bluff (this to be a national monument to which Canterbury would contribute its share). Roadway to Lyttelton. A Hall of Remembrance and Peace. The Thacker committee’s final recommendations were the acquisition of the Provincial Council Chamber and its site and its transformation into a Hall of Memories, together with certain “completion” of the Chamber — notably the erection of a tower provided for in the original plans; the erection of a sculptured monument; and the building of a Bridge of Remembrance at Cashel Street . Public vote Not one, but all, of these proposals would constitute the Christchurch and Canterbury memorial. In the meantime, “The Press,” which favoured the bridge while the rival “Lyttelton Times” plumped for a Town Hall, came out with plans for a public vote — and offered a nominal prize for the reader who could most closely predict the order of preference shown in this

vote. On August 8, 1919, the results were published. The number of coupons received was very close to 2000 but the effective ones (allowing for lateness and the writing in. of options — "cenotaph” was a popular addition to the list) amounted to 1775, more than half of whom (958) favoured the Bridge of Remembrance. The Hall of Remembrance scored 263, the hospital ward 198, and the replacement of the tram shelter 104. The least popular, with 25 votes, was the roadway to Lyttelton.

Although the supporters, of each of the schemes were convinced of the superiority of their own particular choice, the two groups joined forces in 1920 to form the Joint War Committee, and by February 14, 1921, were able to report a total response of nearly £15,000 although each proposal had its funds accounted for separately. The “column" (sculptured monument) group faced considerable difficulties because the City Council would not grant permission to use the site in the centre of the Square vacated by the Godley statue in 1918 because a tram shelter had hidden it from view. Council decision But the bridge secured a decisive advantage when the City Council decided to provide the money to build a satisfactory (steel) understructure. However, it was not until January 23, 1923, that the contractors, Scott and Sons, of Christchurch, began work on the £16,078 contract The plans were based on a design submitted by Prousse and Gummer, of Auckland and Wellington, and selected from the 24 designs entered in a competition. The project was blessed by Archbishop Julius and the foundation stone laid, on Anzac Day, 1923, by the Governor-General (Viscount Jellicoe) who returned on Armistice Day, November 11, 1924, to open the bridge. The designing and construction of the bridge (especially the stone work) was made none the easier by the 30deg angle at which the Avon flows to Cashel Street but this angle was incorporated in the design so that all planes in the bridge are at 30deg or in multiples of 30.

Cross chosen Something has been said of the symbolism incorporated in the design — especially the significance of the bridge itself which was not only closely linked with the men it commemorates but was also seen by the planners as a reminder of the brief span of human existence. The cross, accepted as a symbol of sacrifice, was used as the keystone to the arch to suggest that sacrifice is the basis of human character.

The uplifted torches on either side of the main arch were included to typify the everlasting remembrance of the battlefields — Gallipoli, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, France and Belgium—engraved above, while the lions on the buttresses conveyed the spirit of the British Empire. Latin tag On the sides of the bridge are laurel wreaths for the victors and a Latin tag: “Quid non pro patria” (What will a man not do for his country?) above a bound bundle of reeds (fascines) denoting that union is strength. As a decorative surround is the rosemary plant which also appears on panels inside the smaller arches with the line from Hamlet: “There’s rosemary—that’s . for remembrance.” The carving and masonry work was earned out by the « late F. G. Gumsey who was years ago) and who had apprentice m nwa. Six years It, had taken six years from the cessation Of hostflitiesrto complete the Bridge of Remembrance. It took three times as long to reach the unveiling stage of the second

memorial—the Citizens’ war memorial in Cathedral Square. And so large are the figures on the base, 19391945, that the casual observer might be excused for believing that this is a World War II memorial. It was actually unveiled by Colonel S. C. P. Nicholls, Officer Commanding the Southern Military District, on June 6, 1937. But this monument might easily have been but a memory because, as early as 1928, strong arguments in favour of spending the funds on assistance for unemployed returned servicemen were being adduced. Central site The delay in erecting the second memorial was caused by the difficulties in securing a central site in the Square on which to erect a column which was wished to be not less than 100 ft tall and topped by, variously, winged Victory, Liberty holding a light, or a kiwi. Even the, site in the Cathedral grounds was not achieved without much negotiating—too intricate to relate here briefly. The Cathedral Chapter laid down ■ guide lines for the work, all of which were incorporated in the design by Mr G. A. Hart, architect, and Mr T. W. Trethewey, sculptor. The six figures, arranged in an impressive group round the cross on which the Chapter had insisted, took the sculptor three years to model.