CANTERBURY DOMAIN ENCROACHMENT BILL.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 36, 11 July 1874, Page 3

CANTERBURY DOMAIN ENCROACHMENT BILL.

To the Editor of the Globe: Sir,—l am agreeably disappointed to find that the " Press" at any rate is not upholding what I must stigmatise as one of the most glaring acts of a proposed spoliation of public property that I think I ever heard of. The grounds upon which it is attempted to justify such an act are, bo far as I have heard them from some of those who are in favor of the spoliation, utterly untenable. One is, that there is a sound precedent in the fact that Christ's College was allowed nine acres, and, therefore, that in common justice the Canterbury College should have a site in the Domain also. Now, that is of all others the very worst argument that could possibly be used in favor of the proposal, as it would simply add to the Btring of precedents which would be set up in future years for farther encroachments. -We ought rather to lament that the slightest encroachment of any kind had ever been allowed, and be determined, as one man, not to allow any further such precedents to be established. But what surprises me more than anything connected with the question is to find a man like Mr Montgomery not only supporting such a movement, but doing so in such haste, that as yet yet there has been no chance of obtaining an opinion from those who are most interested. The last word in the preceding paragraph opens up a very wide question, which I shall only just touch upon now, i.c, look at the names of those gentleman who arc supporting this movement, and I ask this question : is there any one of the whole of them, that has any interest in keeping free from encroachment, any part of the public recreation grounds. I will venture to say, that as recreation grounds, there is not one of them who is interested in them. They are all persons who have either their horses or carriages, and good houses with gardens, <kc. and I will undertake to say, they do not nor do any persons in their position require such recreation grounds, and therefore they do not feel as those do to whom such grounds are of importance, the loss that such an encroachment as that proposed will inflict. Tbe persons to whom such open recreation grounds are of importance, are those who are occupied all day, and who have not the means of enjoying a ride in the country, and the retirement after the toils of the day, to a pleasant house with a nice garden and shaded walks where our friends the "encroachers," et hoc genus omne, can enjoy their evening strolls, and their post prandial cigars with a friend or two. Think of this view of the case Mr and Mr *—, and I rather fancy you will in your innermost conscience admit, that to take up the very entrance from the town to that most beautiful part of the whole of our public parks will be an irreparable loss not to you, certainly, but to all the great mass of the 50,000 inhabitants of Christchurch, referred to by Mr Montgomery. If these gentlemen would only look a little into the and think of the crowded streets and by-lanes of Christchurch occupied by the 60,000, I know they would be prepared to admit the imprudence there will be in destroying one inch of this the most convenient approach to the public grounds that can possibly be got. We can never again get a domain, but we can always buy a site for a college. I understand his Worship the Mayor will call a public meeting next week, in answer to the requisition I sent to him, and I hope the people of Christchurch will muster in strength to protest against any further attempt to deprive them of their garden. If there is not room enough in the Hall, I, for one, am quite prepared to support an open air meeting, and no better site can be found for such a purpose, than the one which I understand has been quietly appropriated, by the College trustees, as the best site for their purpose. I must apologise for troubling you at such length, but I feel a very strong interest in this question, and more especially as it is supported by those whom one would have expected to have been the ycij last to sanction such a step. Yours, &c, H. W?nn Williams.