CANTERBURY HALL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13934, 16 December 1905, Page 2

CANTERBURY HALL.

PROPOSED PURCHASE FOR THE MUNICIPALITY. A DEPUTATION TO THE MAYOR. . SPECIAL MEETING- OF THE COUNCIL TO BE CALLED. > A deputation.; consisting of Bishop Julius and Messrs Devenish Meares, A. Kayo, A. Ferguson, J. A. Frcstick and H. J. Marriner (who took tho place of Mr T. Garrard), appointed at a public meeting on Thursday, waited on the Mayor, yesterday, and placed before him a resolution stating that tho citizens would view with considerable regret the prospective loss of Canterbury Hall as a public hall, and that the meeting supported tho suggestion that the property should be secured by the city, and urged the Mayor to convene a special meeting of the City Council and obtain the opinion of .the ratepayers in regard to the purchase of the property. Mr ■Kaye said that the deputation would like to have the subject placed before the whole. Council, rather than before the Special Committee, as there was little time to spare. The question was of great importance to tho city, and perhaps councillors would now see that there was a kind of crisis, in which the question of a town hall or no towm hall would be decided. ' The Mayor would know whether it would be better to call a special meeting of the Council or a special meeting of tho committee appointed to deal with the matter, but he thought it should go straight to the Council. Mr Meares said that the desire was to do the best in the interests of the whole city. He pointed out that there was little time to lose, and he . therefore agreed with Mr Kaye that it would bo better to go straight to the Council. Mr Frostick said that he was there as a citizen and a ratepayer, and not as a director of tho Hall Company. It was asked simply that steps should be taken to submit the matter to the ratepayers. V The Mayor said that he would have pleasure in calling a special meeting of the Council, which would be better than calling a special meeting of the Special Committee. It would .not bo possible to take a vote of ratepayers until six, seven, or perhaps eight -weeks had passed, owing to the formalities that would liave to be gone through. He was not going to discuss the purchase then, but he might say that the genesis of the

whole trouble was with the directors of the Hall Company, who, if he might say so, had precipitated this agitation for the purchase of the hall. Only that day he had had an interview with one of the proprietors of the Theatre Royal, who intended to erect an up-to-date theatre in this city. If that project was carried out, and there was a guarantee that it would be carried out within twelve months, Christchurch would bo fully supplied in that respect. It would not want two theatres. It had a building that served the purpose as a concert hall and a hall for public meetings, and why should the city spend £2OOO or £3OOO in altering that building, spoiling what was at present a fairly decent concert hall and making it what would not, at the best, be much better than a second-class theatre? It might be better to approach the directors of the company and ask them td give up the idea of spending the sum proposed, and to preserve the building as a concert hall. Ho threw that idea out so that, in the event of the project not being entertained by the ratepayer's, members of the deputation might bring their influence to bear upon the directors. Mr Frostick was not present as a director, but as a lover of music, and, as a member of the Musical Union, he presumed. Mr Ferguson said that he, for one, certainly did not represent the musical people of Christchurch. He did not think that any member of the deputation represented the Musical Union. They all looked at the matter from the broadest possible point of view, and in the interests of the public. Mr Moares said that the deputation were there as citizens. The Mayor said that he would accept the assurances given. Ho said that the idea had been given colour to owing to the gentlemen who started the agitation, and others. He thought that the agitation was started by the Musical Union with a view to having the hall for concerts and so on. However, no good purpose would be obtained by discussing that point. He would agree to the request to call a special meeting of the Council next week. Mr Kaye said that no action had been taken on behalf of the Union really officially. The ‘ arguments used by the Mayor had been placed before the directors, but, as business men, they had decided against the city. They might make a success or a failure of their change, but that was their trouble. Mr Marriner said that the directors would soon proceed with the altera!lions, and he suggested that the Mayor should write asking them to hold their action. ’ The Mayor; I received a very curt letter stating that the matter was closed. T cannot therefore do as requested. I am not going to put myself in the way of being snubbed again. Mr Frostick: I must object to that remark. There has been no intention to snub the Mayor. The Mayor; I’ll show you the letter in justification of my remark. ' The Town Clerk brought the letter, and the Mayor read it, as follows: “ His Worship tho _ Mayor, Christchurch.—Sir.—l am instructed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th inst., referring *to the'proposed purchase of the Canterbury Hall, and stating that no discourtesy was intended by the action of your Council at its meeting on the evening of the 11th inst. Tho matter, therefore, is now closed.—Yours faithfully, H. H.. Secretan, secretary.” “ You can scarcely expect me to re-open negotiations after that,” the Mayor added. Mr Meares said he was sorry at the interpretation the Mayor had placed on the letter. It seemed to him that, at all events, the letter was capable of being construed the other way. ■ Tho Mayor agreed to call a special meeting of the 'Council for Thursday, and brought the conference to" an end by stating that the subject would be fully discussed at the meeting of the Council, and at the meeting of citizens later on. Bishop Julius stated that Bishop Grimes had asked him to apologise for his absence, but had expressed sympathy with the deputation’s object. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The interest I take in the retention of this fine hall in its present form impels me to make a'suggestion to those who are actively moving in this direction. There is a very real danger that if the City Council is driven, possibly against the wish of the majority of its. members, to take a poll the proposal may be lost. All who have had to do with, loan proposals know that there is a very large section of the community which is determined to check any expenditure Likely to increase the rates. Now, like Sir John Ball, I am an original shareholder in the Hall Company, and 1 know that most, if not all those who subscribed did so on public grounds. I think if the directors of the Hall Company would consent to call a meeting, it would bo found that the shareholders as a body would 1 be willing to take half tho face value of their shares on condition that the hall was .left intact. Individual holders

like Sir John Hall and Mr Garrard might be willing to forego their whole interest. I would mjnself. If this wore agreed to, the hall might be' offered to the city on such generous terms as would disarm opposition, and be advocated con amoro by the Council. • Sir John Hall and others have already spoken in this direction, but to bring the matter to a practical issue, I suggest that the committee set up at yesterday’s meeting should wait on the directors, armed if necessary with a requisition signed, as I am sure it , would ho signed, by a number of the shareholders. One otluVr point; if the hall is to be purchased by the city, it ought to be understood that the Council would run the property on business lines, and charge a reasonable rental for its use. It is so generally expected tuat the Council should give the free use of its Chamber for all sorts, of purposes that it would bo well to start with a clear understanding on that point. Conditions have changed since the Hall Company made their offer in 1903, and if the hall is acquired I would not now suggest that the City Council offices should bo moved there. I am, etc., HENRY F. WIGRAM. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ls it true that the Canterbury Hall will bo lost unless tho City Council purchase it? Some writers in your paper have tried to make us believe what we all know is not correct-. Tho Canterbury Hall will stay where it is no matter whether the city buys it or whether it remains tho property of the present owner®, and anyone who wants to use it can do so by paying rent -for it. There is, however, one important matter that people who want us to buy it seem to keep ia the background, viz., ’its acoustic properties. Tho owners may be able to delude themselves into believing that you can hear properly in the Canterbury Hall, but that is all moonshine. I have sat during different performances in every part of the hall, and I know that the front rows of the centre of the circle and the thirty rows in the front of the stalls are the only seats worth sitting in. The only possible course of action open to the owners is to pull down the 'concert hall and re-build it, whether as a theatre or a hall does not particularly matter, and it would pay them to import an architect from America, or Australia who has built other theatres, and who thoroughly understands the science of acoustics. _ The other question for us to consider is whether tho city requires a town hall. If it does there is plenty of land on which to build it, and it would surely be more satisfactory for the ratepayers to build a hall- entirely on plans to suit themselves than to take over at enormous cost what seems, from occasional reports, to he neither more nor less than a white elephant, and which to many people is an undesirable purchase.—l am, etc., * WHITE ELETUANT. Yaldhurst, December 15, 1905. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The ratepayers of this overtaxed city (other than the shareholders of the Canterbury Hall and a few musical enthusiasts) will, I am sure, feel gratified at the position taken up by his Worship the Mayor on the question of the purchase of tho Canterbury Hall by the mumpipality. The directors of tli© company have for a long time recognised that their investment was not a good one, and this is not the first time that an attempt has been made to shunt their “whit© elephant” upon the ratepayers. The question suggests itself, would the company have been so anxious to quit had their property been paying good dividends? I think not. How far ’are ,the ratepayers justified in entertaining the proposal ? It, must be admitted that the hall from an architectural point of view is a long way behind what a town hail of an important city like Christchurch should be, and in this connection it is, hard to iznderstand why Councillor Seager, the professed aesthetic champion of the artistic, should have supported the movement. The plea that the Exhibition organ will be lost to the city unless the hall is acquired savours too much of the red herring. What edifice, I ask. could ho so fitting a place for a noble instrument as the Cathedral, where all classes of the community could enjoy the grand music. Mr Garrard’s offer of his few shares in favour of the municipal hall is praiseworthy, but if he can secure the hall as it now exists to his pet. Musical Union, no doubt hut what his committee will think the money well given. I agree with tho Mayor that, if put to the vote, tho ratepayers will reject the scheme by a large majority.—l am, etc., RATEPAYER.