DR HILL’S REPORT MEETS CRITICISM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18547, 22 August 1928, Page 6

DR HILL’S REPORT MEETS CRITICISM.

MEETING OF GARDENS CURATORS DISCUSSES NATIONAL GARDENS

The report submitted to the Government by Dr A. W. Hill, Director of Kew Gardens, London, after his visit to the Dominion early this year, was the subject of s>*mg criticism at the conference of gardens, parks and reserves superintendents held in the City Council Chambers yesterday. # The discussion was opened by Mr J. M’Pherson, of Invercargill, who studied at Kew Gardens, and has an extensive knowledge of public gardens in England and on the Continent. In his report Dr Hill said that he was strongly in favour of the establishment of a national botanical garden in New Zealand, but he did not think any one centre was suitable. He advocated having the garden in two parts—one in Dunedin and one in Wellington or Auckland. Against this the claims of Wellington and Christchurch had to be considered. To get over this difficulty he advocated the appointment of a director of botanical gardens in Wellington, to supervise and have control over the gardens in the other centres. It was against this latter plan that the opinion of the meeting was so strong. Mr M’Pherson said that it was one of the dearest wishes of his life to see a national botanic garden established in New Zealand, but no superintendent of public reserves, or any municipality governing those reserves would tolerate interference from an outside body. “ Dr Hill failed altogether to understand New Zealand conditions,” he added. “ Gardens here cannot afford to concentrate too much on the purely botanical side. The public demands a good display, and our gardens also have to serve the purpose, in a measure, of playgrounds. I have been informed that Dr Hill made a recommendation to the Horticultural Institute that all plants in the gardens should be properly labelled. Well, I, for one, am only too anxious to do this—the trouble is to get the money to do it with. “ Another thing, Dr Hill made no mention of the valuable work that is being done in the chief centres in training horticultural students, though this is one of the things he came out to report on. We have not received proper credit for what we are doing in this respect.” The hurried nature of Dr Hill’s tour and the unsatisfactory arrangements made for it were mainly responsible for the friction and unfortunate display of parochial feeling that it caused, said Mr M’Pherson. Had Dr Hill been able to meet them all in conference they could have settled things to the satisfaction of everybody. “ I hardly feel like saying anything, after what Dr Hill said about the Christchurch Gardens,” remarked Mr James Young. “ I have been in the gardens at Kew, Edinburgh, Dublin and Glasgow, and I am of the opinion that just as good work is being done in New Zealand as in other parts of the world.” The chairman, Mr D. Tannock (Dunedin) said it was a great pity Dr Hill had not consulted the association in reference to the proposal for the establishment of national botanic gardens. Mr J. S. M’Kenzie (Wellington) : I’ve often wondered why Dr Hill came here at.all. „ The conference decided to support the establishment of a national botanic garden, but not necessarily on the lines suggested by Dr Hill. It was also decided to urge that Government support be given to the gardens already established that had done most to develop the botanical side.