THE GODLEY STATUE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9211, 14 April 1908, Page 1

THE GODLEY STATUE.

VIGOROUS PROTESTS AGAINST REMOVAL. CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION. THE STATUE TO REMAIN. The matter of removing the Godley statue came before the City Council last ovening. A letter was received from the Beautifying Association, asking the Council to defer for the present any steps to remove the Godley statue from its present position, in view of the probability tliat various interested bodies might desire to approach the Council on the matter, and to make representations in favour of keeping the statue where it was. A combined deputation, consisting of Messrs \V. H. Montgomery and R. Mj. Proctor, representing the Art Society, G. Humphreys and J. Jameson, for the Beautifying Association, H. G. Ell, M.P., and G. R. Hart and the Hon. E. C. J. Stevens, for the Old Colonists' Association, waited on the City Council to protest against the removal of the statue. Mr Montgomery said he viewed, the matter, from the historical and the artistic point of view. Taking the latter aspect, it was of paramount importance that the open spaces in the city should be retained. The designers of yhristchurch had obviously intended it to be a beautiful place; the open spaces were restful to the eye among the buildings of the city, and should be preserved. But, having violated the Square by the erection or the shelter, they must still consider the principle involved. Once admitting that a tram-

way shelter might be erected in one place others might be erected all over the Square, wherever the statue was placed ; he had heard it suggested that even a municipal fish market should take the central position. The non-re-moval of the memorial was the only guarantee that the open space would be maintained. He maintained that while there must be a tramway shelter in the interests of convenience, it should be in the best place, and he could not see that a ticket and lost luggage office were of greater importance than the open space in that position. The deputation would suggest that the enclosed ends of the shelter should not be allowed to remain, and that the rest of the building should be divided and spread, so as to leave space for the statue to show clearly through. Mr Hart spoke at length upon the sentimental need for leaving the statue in its- present position. When~it was originally handed over to the city, the then Mayor promised that, in gratitude to the founder of the colony, it should ietain its central position for ever, and he did not think any Council had the right to violate that pledge. in reply to questions, Mr Montgomery said there should be no question of what was the second best place for the statue: it should undoubtedly have the best place possible. He did not think it would bo right to turn the statue round, as suggested by Councillor Sorensen: it. would make it turn its back upon the Cathedral Mr Godley was so intimately connected with. The deputation, then withdrew. Later in the meeting, Councillor Cooper moved in accordance with notice — "That the motion carried at the last meeting of this Council, authorising the removal of the Godley statue to the Cathedral grounds, be rescinded." The Mayor pointed out that it was out of order, sufficient notice not having been given, but the standing orders were suspended to allow the motion to be taken.

J Councillor Cooper said that the deputation had practically said what he wished to say. Nobody seemed to know who gave permission for the erection of offices in the shelter. The Square had been far too valuable for that sort of use. It had been said that a certain chairman of a committee had done so, but he could not be found. To split the^ shelter into two parts would make it far more convenient than at present for the passengers, and, would greatly [ relieve the congestion and risk at the j centre of the Square. Even if the monument was removed, the shelter should still be divided, in order to provide a '• beautiful avenue straight through the open square. Councillor Loughnan seconded the motion. At the last meeting, he said, recognising that the shelter could not be moved, he had advocated shifting the statue. But the , mover and the deputation had indicated that the shelter was not fio stubborn an obstacle as was thought at first. It should never have been permitted, and he did not see why those few who went north should have a shelter, while those going by other lines had none. Certainly the shelter should never have been allowed to extend to offices. He supposed the Council would have to go cap in hand to the Tramway Board and ask it for permission to remove the shelter, for the Board, of course, would not do that work, or pay for it. If the Board did grant permission, 4i&-Tvould propase'p'utP ting the halves a little further west, running no<t north and south, but east and west, where they would be comparatively out of the way and unobtrusive.

The Mayor spoke indignantly, saying that Councillor Cooper himself had moved that the shelter should be erected in the Square, and he protested against Councillor Cooper changing his mind m this way. Now he said he had wanted the shelter at the sides of the bquare, and that idea was proved impracticable on account of the wind and the fact that the underground conveniences must not be blocked. No matter what improvements were made it seemed as if someone was sure to grumble. He had no feelings at all regarding tho shifting of the statue, and he believed no more appropriate place could be found for it than that offered by the Chapter, where it would be seen by everyone. He had been much annoyed by the fact that trams had, by stopping in the Square, blocked the traffic in a way private vehicles would not be allowed to do, and that in spite of repeated protests. Now the Board had Becured offices there, saving them roundly £150 a year, and however convenient they might be to the public it was a usurpation that was not authorised, and might give the Board a preemptive right to part of the city reserve. The Councillors were not wishful to perpetrate any vandalism at all, and whatever had been done had been done with the best of intentions. He believed the shelter had been a great boon to women and children, and he could not altogether admit it was a mistake. Now it was the Council's desire to put the statue where it could be seen again.

Councillor Morris supported the resolution. He confessed that he was very much asleep when the proposition in favour of the shelter was passed, but he would support it again if the proposal was made under similar circumBtances. The shelter was badly wanted and had fulfilled a useful purpose. He could not agree that it was very unsightly, either. Those who wanted to see the statue could see all above the knees, and the only place where the view was obstructed was directly in front of the shed, where people waited for trams, and not to see the statue. He thought the removal of the statue was quite unnecessary, and he hoped that the resolution would be passed. It did not commit the Council to anything very dreadful, and left the way open to any other step in the future. Councillor Sorensen supported the resolution, and said that, instead of splitting the shelter, he would have the ends cut off. The plan he saw first provided for no enclosures at all. The Council had no right to allow the Board to keep the offices there, and should not only ask, but should demand, that the Board should at once have them removed. It would, be impossible to divide the shelter, but it would be a great improvement to cut off the ends. If the statue was removed, he believed that the Board would probably put some more rails there. The Council had probably made a mistake, and should try to correct it. Councillor Otley said that the Council had given the Board permission to put in a carriers' telephone. He did not think the Council should go back upon its decision in favour of a necessary shelter, which ho could not admit was a disfigurement. Councillor Williams said that to divide the shelter would make it a greater disfigurement. The greatest honour possible towards the statue would be to place it where it could be seen. Ho would keep to his previous vote and oppose Councillor Cooper's motion. Councillor Hyde also opposed the motion. The Council, in reversing its work at the next meeting, would make

itself a laughing stock. The shelter was most convenient, provided a fine light and was a picture' at night. Councillor Horsley also opposed the motion, considering that it was . an honour to place the statue in such an appropriate place as the Cathedral grounds. He had spoken to many citizens on the subject, and not one had disagreed with him. Councillor Allison expressed his determination to adhere to his original vote. If a popular vote were taken, the result would almost surely be in favour of removing the statue. Mr Hart's statement about the Mayor's pledge might be correct, but he did not think a Mayor could pledge future generations, and Mr Godley himself would be the first to decline to stand in 1 the way of public convenience. He, as the chairman of committee hinted at as having permitted the erection of offices, denied having given that permission. Councillor Taylor said that no other claim to that plot of land could be made greater than that of the Godley statue, and no reason had 'been shown for shifting it. Councillor/ Parsons said that the statue should stay where it was j and if the shelter was divided, the Board should carry out the work. Councillor Hall said that the arguments put forward were sufficient to justify leaving the statue where it was from sentimental motives. The Council must fully consider the need for the shelter, and he would vote for the resolution. Councillor Forrester also supported the resolution. ' Councillor Cooper, in reply, said that he had never changed his opinion. He had from the first desired to have the shelter divided and he had supported the moving of the statue simply for the sake of those who desired the tetter riejr_o£-_ike- statue. . H© denied "kb&o-"' lutely having moved in favour of the erection of the shelter. The motion was put and carried, the Mayor and Councillors Otley, Horsley, Allison, Hyde and Williams voting against it.