THE GLOBE. TUESDAY. JANUARY 17, 1882. THE EXHIBITION SITE.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2428, 17 January 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY. JANUARY 17, 1882. THE EXHIBITION SITE.

The question of the site for the Exhibition is at present a matter of the greatest importance, because it really appears as if there were some danger of the whole affair falling through unless Messrs. Joubort and Twopeny see their way clearly in the matter, or unless the citizens as a body are prepared to stand by them. As matters are at present, a number of private sites have been offered to the promoters, but there are objections against all of them, while the really only good sites are those of Cranmer square and the Park, and those are public property. To dispose of the private sites first, Mr. Twopeny has in a letter to a morning contemporary shown his reasons for thinking that none of them would do. Mr. Anderson’s paddock is too small; Mr. Raven’s is badly shaped and too expensive; the Cemetery site is out of the way, so is Mr. Matson’s paddock, and so is the Agricultural Society’s ground. The promoters are fully alive to the fact that the Exhibition, in order to pay, must be centrally situated. The “ Press” newspaper has advocated the holding of the Exhibition in the Agricultural Society’s ground, because the promoters would be safe there. We cannot hold with this opinion, being confident that the site is altogether too far away. People who visit the show would either have to wait for a tramcar or to tramp down a long, weary, and most

•uninteresting stretch of dusty roa ■ Such a necessity, after the first W 00 " 1 0 the Exhibition had worn off, would have the effect of choking off all except the most enthusiastic. No —to us it seems clear that the promoters know their own business very well when they say tha the only chance of the affair being a success is by having the great show xn a central spot. Mr. Raven’s paddock not being what is required, we are driven to the conclusion that the Exhibition will either have to bo held in Oranmer square or in the Park or nowhere. It certainly appears to us that the Park is altogether the best site. There is plenty of room there ; it is only a couple of hundred yards or so further than Oranmer square; it would be out of the heat and dust of the town ; and with a very small expenditure the general tout ensemble of the Exhibition might be made exceedingly attractive. With a small amount of co-operation on the part of the Park and Domain Board, tho promoters might surround their edifice with a few accessories which might make it really picturesque. There are several parts of the Park which are quite level enough for the purpose required, while, were the Exhibition placed any whore near the river, an abundant supply of water is a thing not to be overlooked. In Oranmer square, of couise, the room being limited, the square itself would bo entirely filled with tho necessary buildings, and the promoters would naturally have to adapt their building to the square, which would hardly be so satisfactory for them as to build as their knowledge of the requirements of the Exhibition would lead them to.

As to the availability of the Park for the purpose, we really cannot see that the Park and Domain Board could refuse that such an Exhibition as the one proposed should be held there. They certainly have no power to reserve any part particularly for Messrs. Joubert and Twopeny, but they have the undoubted right to say to the promoters, “ Yon can place your building in any part of the Park yon like at your own risk, and you will have to take your chance respecting the paying question.” Now, injunctions are talked of with regard to Cranmer square. Certain residents there are, wo believe, afraid of being shaken out of the vegetably even tenor of their ways by the sound of profane hammers during the course of erection and by the creaking of machinery when the building is complete. These individuals would calmly sit under badly played cathedral bells with a smile of utter self-content-ment, and would say that they felt soothed and completely tranquil. But an exhibition at their doors is too much for them. The sight of troops of welldressed persons bent on amusement and instruction would be quite too overpowering. Again, other citizens appear to be afraid that their delicate offspring will be murdered in the vicinity of such an institution as an Exhibition in Cranmer square. These interesting youngsters on their way to school would miss the breezy walk across the square, and exhibitors might seize them, stuff them and place them in glass cases. So that altogether it seems likely that a rather strong opposition may be got up against the Cranmer square site. But the Exhibition, if placed in the Park, could not possibly interfere with anybody, and an injunction would bo an act of shore malice which no citizen would be likely to commit. Nobody ever now walks in the body of the Park, and the holding of the Exhibition there would not interfere with a soul. We have all along been the strongest advocates against the people’s right in the Park being in any way interfered with. But the Exhibition is for the people—not only for the people of Christchurch or Canterbury, but for those of New Zealand—and the people would show a remarkably small appreciation of their own privileges if they were not willingto allowMessra JoubertandTwopeny to erect a People’s Exhibition in a place where nobody would be interfered with. Moreover the Exhibition is a temporary affair. As to the question of precedent, there appears to us to be nothing at all in it. The holding of an Intercolonial Exhibition does not afford a precedent either one way or the other with respect, to the holding of a circus. The Exhibition of 1851 was held in Hyde Park, but we do not find that it was made a precedent for holding circuses there —we do not, for instance, expect to ■ see the typical “ Courier of St. Petersburg,” with his six bare backed horses careering down Rotten row. The only sort of show the holding of the Exhibition in the Park could be made to influence as a precedent would be another such Exhibition which might be proposed on some future occasion. The precedent, therefore, would not be a dangerous one. If the Park and Domain Board were to persist in their refusal to allow the promoters to use the Park, we must say that they would not deserve well of their country. The view they would take would be remarkably narrow and prejudiced, and one quite unworthy of a body of men entrusted with considerable public interests. If there is any difficulty about the Cranmer square site wa would certainly like to see the promoters applying to the Park and Domain Board for a re-consideration of their verdict, and we think the citizens would have every right to complain if that body did not say to Messrs. Joubert and Twopeny, “By all means use the Park, on the understanding that you do so at your own risk.” As for any cantankerous individual who might refuse to pay for his entrance when the building was put up, we fancy the general public would make his lot an unenviable one.