HC Deb 06 March 1879 vol 244 cc284-97
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

rose to call attention to the existing Regulations for the opening of Kew Gardens to the public; and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Royal Gardens at Kew should be opened to the public at 10 a.m. on week days, with such reservations as may be found expedient. In bringing this subject before the House he disclaimed all feeling of hostility, or even of indifference, either to the interests of botanical science or of Kew Gardens. On the contrary, he had always taken great interest in botanical and horticultural pursuits, and he regarded Kew Gardens as being the most successful botanical establishment in the world. His only motive, therefore, was to further the interests of the English public in this matter. The outlay of public money on the Gardens was very large. Last year it was, in round numbers, £20,000, and this year it was somewhat over £18,000. This constituted one-sixth of the whole amount voted by Parliament for the Parks and pleasure-grounds of the United Kingdom. The number of visitors to Kew Gardens was constantly increasing. In 1877 it was 678,972, being considerably larger than the number of visitors to the British Museum, exclusive of the Reading Room. On the occasion of two Bank holidays last year close upon 60,000 visitors entered the Gardens in one day. One proof that good had been done by the movement for extending the hours during which the Gardens were open to the public was afforded by the fact that on Bank holidays the Gardens were now open at 10 o'clock, instead of 1 o'clock, as was formerly the case. That the change was appreciated was shown by the circumstance that on Easter Monday 4,000 people, and on Whit Monday 5,000 people, entered the Gardens before 1 o'clock. In another matter the movement for an earlier opening had done good—for owing to it the regulations for the admission of botanists and horticulturists, during hours when the Gardens were closed, had been put upon a regular footing, and they no longer had the scandal of such people being refused admittance. While agreeing with the Director that in all matters connected with Kew botanical science had a paramount claim, he showed by quotations from the Reports of Dr. Linley and of Sir William Hooker, that the Gardens ought to become an efficient instrument for refining the taste and for increasing the knowledge and rational pleasure of the middle and lower classes. The Gardens covered an area altogether of about 400 acres; the botanic portion consisting of 75 acres, the pleasure-grounds of 275 acres, and the Royal Reserve, which was not much used, of 40 acres. He desired that increased facilities should be given for the enjoyment of these Gardens. They were opened throughout the year at 1 o'clock, with the exception of Christmas Day, and closed at sunset. Thus in the winter season they were opened about two hours and three-quarters, and about seven hours in the summer, during the longest days. At Dublin, however, the Botanical Gardens were open from 10 to 6 all the year round. At Edinburgh the Botanical Gardens were open daily, except on Sundays, from 6 to 6; from daylight to dark in winter; and from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. in June, July, and August. The Jardin des Plants at Paris was open daily from 8 o'clock till dark. The Botanical Gardens of Berlin were open for nine hours every day, except Saturday and Sunday; but although they were entirely closed on two days of the week, they were in the course of each year open for a longer period than Kew Gardens. At Hamburg the Botanical Gardens were open from sunrise to sunset; and at Geneva they were open every day during daylight. The Botanical Gardens at Rouen, Lyons, Caen, and other places in France were also open daily during daylight. Sir Daniel Cooper, formerly Speaker of the House at Sydney, stated that at Sydney the Botanical Gardens were open from 6 a.m. till 8 p.m. in summer, and while there was daylight in winter, adding that they were a general resort of residents of the city during all hours of the day. All these Gardens were open much more liberally to the public than those at Kew; and when it was said that it was impossible to do at Kew what was done elsewhere, he might fairly ask why it should be so? It was alleged that there was no real demand for the opening of the Gardens except a local demand. But the Vestries and local bodies of the West of London and the suburbs, almost without exception, had memorialized the House in favour of an early opening. He himself presented last year one of the largest Petitions he had seen presented since he had become a Member of the House for the early opening of the Gardens. Then, it was said that opening at 10 o'clock would interfere with the students and the workmen. As regards students, in proportion to its size, there were few at Kew compared with Edinburgh, where 389 attended lectures and botanical demonstrations in 1877. The students at Edinburgh were also able to carry on their studies without any inconvenience from the attendance of visitors, who numbered nearly 80,000. Then, as to the work of the Gardens—which consisted mainly in rolling a large extent of paths, mowing a quantity of grass, and raking and keeping the beds in order—he appealed to the common sense of any gentleman who had experience in such matters, whether the presence of people in the Gardens was likely to interfere with that? There was one respect in which he regretted very much the view taken by the Director, and that was as to the behaviour of the people. The Director stated that on one of the Bank holidays, "no sooner were the gates opened, than a swarm of filthy children and women of the lowest class invaded the Gardens." He (Sir Trevor Lawrence) went to the Gardens in order to see the character of the visitors on this very Bank holiday, and they appeared to him a most decent, respectable, and orderly set of people. The Director also brought the serious charge against the people that they resorted to the woods for immoral purposes in great numbers. If the House considered that that was on an occasion when there were 60,000 persons in the Gardens, he would put it to them whether that was likely to be the case? He did not rely merely upon his own observation, but put himself into communication with the police on the subject; and the Inspector reported that, having made careful inquiry, all the police on duty agreed that they had witnessed no disorder or immoral conduct, nor had they heard any complaints except as to smoking and carrying baskets. He remembered himself, 25 years ago, making protestations of unalterable affection to a lady in a garden, and a more appropriate place for such declarations he could not imagine. With regard to the charges which had been made against the conduct of the people, he might fairly quote our national motto, Honi soit qui mal y pense. Then it was said that the expense would be very much increased—the people would want so much looking after. He did not think the people of this country required to be looked after so much. He had a report from the police authorities stating that there would be no necessity for additional men, and that all that would be required would be a refreshment allowance to the existing number of constables. The earlier opening of the Gardens would only entail an extra cost of £130 per annum, and for that money the use of the Gardens by the public would be extended three hours a-day. It was not necessary that the whole of the Gardens should be thrown open; that might not be desirable. The botanical portion might remain closed, as now, till 1 o'clock; while the pleasure-gardens, which comprised 270 acres, were opened at 10 o'clock. It appeared to him that another reasonable compromise would be that for six or eight months in the year the Gardens should be opened at 10 a.m., instead of 1 p.m. He appealed to hon. Members from Scotland and Ireland to assist him in getting the advantages which were enjoyed in their countries. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.

MR. T. CAVE

seconded the Motion. He believed the great obstacle to any concession in this matter arose, not from public, but from personal reasons. Sir Joseph Hooker and his staff, whom he wished to speak of with all the respect they deserved, had been engaged in a most unpleasant correspondence with their neighbours. He was not complaining of the course they had taken; but the fact was, that they had built a very ugly wall in the face of some very pretty villas, at which the inhabitants of those villas were naturally irate. He was afraid that the language and the spirit which had been manifested on both sides were not such as to conduce to a settlement of the question. In consequence of that discussion a bitter feeling had been established between the parties; and Sir Joseph Hooker was determined to do all he could to prevent his neighbours from getting from the House the concession they desired to get. He (Mr. T. Cave) resided in that district; he had a large family and received many friends, and nothing pleased him better than to take his friends to the Kew Gardens. He was accustomed to enter them, not only from the public road, but by the entrances from the River; and he could say, without fear of contradiction, that he had never in his life seen or heard of the slightest approach to immorality. But if it was true that there was immorality, the earlier hours would rather tend to decrease than increase it; because he knew that much intemperance resulted from people going down to Kew in ignorance of this strange and arbitrary rule. People went down in large numbers, and were compelled to remain in public-houses for two or three hours before they could gain admittance. In the interests, therefore, of temperance, of science, and of morality, he cordially seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Royal Gardens at Kew should be opened to the public at 10 a.m. on week-days, with such reservations as may be found expedient,"—(Sir Trevor Lawrence,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GERARD NOEL

said, he had little to add upon this question to what he had stated when it was brought forward last year. The question had been very carefully considered by the Department, and there were two very strong reasons against the proposal. In the first place, it would very materially add to the annual expenditure; and, in the second place, it would altogether alter the character of the Gardens, and the purpose for which they were originally established. The gardeners went to work in the morning, and remained till 12 o'clock, when they went to dinner; after that they appeared in the Gardens as constables, and if the Gardens were opened at 10 an increased staff would be necessary, at an expense of from £1,500 to £2,000 a-year. Were there any sufficient grounds for this additional outlay? He was informed, on the best authority, that the majority of those who visited the Gardens did not go there till long after the time the Gardens were opened. On Bank holiday in August last year the Gardens had been opened at 10, when the number of visitors was about 58,000. Of that vast number, not more than 4,000 entered before 2 o'clock. Between 10 and 11 only about 600 were admitted; between 11 and 12, 1,200; between 12 and 2, about 2,000. This, he thought, clearly showed that the public had no particular desire to enter the Gardens before 1 o'clock. And, indeed, how was it possible for artizans and labourers to go there before that hour? Very exaggerated statements were made in the papers last August about the number of persons kept waiting at the gate; and he had, therefore, had a Return prepared on the subject. In August, 45 presented themselves before 2 o'clock; in September, 32; October, 12; November, 4; December, 3; January, (1879), 3; and February, 3; and in March, 4. He had no doubt that a number of nurserymaids would like the arboretum opened in the morning; but as it was planted with the most costly shrubs, it would be a sad thing to throw it open merely as a public park, and if it were so thrown open from 25 to 35 additional men would have to be added to the staff. With respect to other places which were public property, the time was limited during which they were open. For instance, the British Museum was open to the general public four days a-week; Windsor Castle, five days; the National Gallery, four days; Hampton Court, five days; South Kensington Museum, the most popular institution in London, was open three days free, on the other days the public had to pay; and the Tower of London, two days; while Kew Gardens were open every day of the week, Sunday included. They were open until dusk, which meant half-past 8 o'clock in summer, and they were closed only on one holiday—namely, Christmas Day. There really was no ground of complaint, for there was no other institution in the country from which the public derived so much advantage, or to which they were so freely admitted as Kew. Persons taking a special interest in botany and horticulture were admitted at 8 o'clock in the morning. The earlier opening of the Gardens to the public would involve considerable expense, and it would also alter the character of the Gardens, and deprive them of the scientific character which it was originally intended they should maintain. In 1840, a Treasury Committee was appointed to report on the condition and management of Kew Gardens in connection with the arrangements made as to the Civil List in 1838. The result was, the botanical gardens, the pleasure-grounds, and the deer park were transferred from the Lord Chamberlain's Department to the Woods and Forests, and the botanical gardens were given by the Queen to the nation for scientific purposes, for the culture of plants from all parts of the world, for the instruction of the public, for the propagation of useful plants for distribution to India and the Colonies, and for furnishing the Government with general information on such subjects. In 1841, Sir William Hooker was appointed Director, and was furnished with a copy of the Report for his guidance. The arboretum was maintained at the cost of the Civil List up to 1846, and then was given up to the public in the same way, and on the same condi- tions, as the botanical gardens. The Gardens were really never intended to be a recreation ground like Hyde Park. He had given his own reasons for thinking so, and he should like to quote a few words from what had been written by Sir Joseph Hooker, when asked for his opinion in reference to this Motion. He said— It further follows that the opening of the Garden and grounds to the general public throughout the day would be to assimilate them to the Metropolitan Parks; it would deprive teachers, students, artists, and scientific visitors, together with the officers of the establishment, of any time for the undisturbed pursuit of their avocations. I have stated that the original objects of the institution were purely scientific, utilitarian, and instructional, and that to these has been superadded the recreation of the general public; but it must be recollected that when the arrangements for the latter were sanctioned it was under the distinct understanding that they were to be carried out only so far as this could be done without prejudice to the original objects of the institution—that is to say, without detriment to the collections, without interference with the claims and privileges of those whose pursuits would be interrupted by the admission of the general public. It would be superfluous to dwell upon the grievance which earlier opening would be to teachers, students, artists, and gardeners, and others who are now admitted in the forenoon. If public hours are extended to the forenoon, I have no hope of maintaining the collections and grounds in any but a most unsatisfactory condition. With dispirited and hampered workmen the whole will fall off, Kew will lose its character for ornament as well as for utility, and the public will be profoundly dissatisfied. The Kew Arboretum, though still in its infancy, is the finest in the world; its formation has cost a quarter of a century of assiduous labour and scientific knowledge and zeal. If the completion of this noble national project is to be carried out, those intrusted with its management must have the morning hours uninterfered with by visitors. If, on the other hand, it is thought advisable to make the arboretum available for the day's-long recreation of pleasure parties from the Metropolis, I should advise its abandonment as a scientific or utilitarian department. These views of the Director were concurred in by a great number of hon. Gentlemen who had studied the question, and he was sure they were endorsed by almost all botanists and people who took an interest in horticulture. He had received deputations on the subject, and also memorials signed by 500 of the most eminent botanists in the country and abroad, who one and all urged the Government not to assent to this proposal. One of these Memorials, signed by Fellows of the Royal Horticultural Society, the Geographical Society, and the Royal Society, was as follows:— We, the undersigned persons, who are well acquainted with the details of horticultural operations and the conditions under which large botanical establishments can be successfully managed, desire to express an opinion that the Royal Gardens of Kew could not be maintained at their present state of efficiency, which we believe to be entirely unique, if the public are allowed unrestricted access to them from early morning till dusk, and the staff have no period in the day when work can be carried on unimpeded by the presence of visitors. We further desire to express our opinion that the indiscriminate admission of the public would, by necessitating the abolition of all special privileges for the study and examination of the collections during the morning, inflict a serious injury on a large class in whose interests, as well as in those of the public at large, the Royal Gardens were made a public establishment. The presence of crowds of visitors is incompatible with the work of the scientific staff. This work is carried on from morning till noon, and it requires not only activity but organization to complete it within the time available. From the hour at which the general public is admitted serious work becomes impossible. It had been said that at one time, under the late direction, Kew Gardens were opened at 10 o'clock; but that was when Kew Gardens consisted only of 11 instead of 300 acres, before there were railroads to Kew, and when people went in tens instead of thousands. Yet, even under these circumstances, the late Director found the practice so inconvenient, and so destructive of the objects of the institution, that he was compelled to withdraw the privilege in 1846. If it could not be continued then, how was it possible it could be granted now? No doubt, a great number of Petitions had been presented in favour of this proposal; but it was easy, with proper organization, to get signatures to such Petitions. The British public was only too glad to write its name anywhere, especially where no liability was connected with the act. The hon. Baronet spoke of a "movement" in support of his proposals. The fact was, the agitation was a purely local one, got up by the people in the neighbourhood, who had entered into building speculations, built villas and large public-houses, and they knew that if Kew Gardens were opened all day the value of their property would be immensely advanced. But what the Government had to consider was the interests, not of the builders, but of the public. There was no one who was more anxious to make Kew useful and enjoyable than Sir Joseph Hooker; but he wished, also, that it should continue to fulfil the purpose for which it was established as a scientific institution; and he was naturally anxious that, after he had laboured 25 years there, and the Gardens had earned such distinction and admiration, the labour of his life should not be thrown away. No doubt, the Motion was brought forward with the best intentions, but it would be disastrous to the best interests of the Gardens; and he therefore hoped the House would support him in opposing the Motion.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he was greatly disappointed with the answer of the Chief Commissioner. It seemed trilling with the House to tell them that to allow people to walk about the arboretum before 2 o'clock would injure the trees. The Gardens might be divided into two portions, and that which was purely botanical could be closed while the rest was open, and three or four policemen would afford complete protection to the arboretum in the early part of the day. Some prejudice was introduced by speaking of this as a local agitation; he had no local interest in it, and he felt that it was no argument at all to say that local residents, who did nothing wrong by living at Kew, should be denied a privilege because it would improve the value of their property. Such a plea was equally frivolous and ungenerous. There was no case in which any injury had been done to a public institution that had been thrown open freely. His own belief was that the more recreation which was provided for the people, the less would be the pressure of that tide of democracy which some hon. Gentlemen appeared so much to fear. The argument of the Chief Commissioner of Works was inconsistent, for he said that nobody went when the Gardens had been thrown open at 10 o'clock. There was, therefore, no danger of any injury being done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would review his decision.

MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHUR

supported the Motion. Other gardens of a similar nature were thrown open to the public, and the same might very well be done at Kew. It was a poor compliment to the people of the Metropolis to say that they could not be trusted in these Gardens a few extra hours every day. The compromise proposed by the hon. Member might very safely be entertained.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

also supported the Motion. He suggested that if the number of visitors prevented operations in the arboretum, the gardeners might very well begin their work earlier than 10 o'clock. London was the only great town in Europe that did not give its gardens the whole day to the public. The allegation of increased expenditure, which, it was said, would result from adopting the proposal now before the House, rested solely upon the ipse dixit of Sir Joseph Hooker.

MR. FAWCETT

said, the subject was one of general, and not of merely local, interest. No evidence whatever had been adduced to show that scientific research would in any way be interfered with. He had carefully considered the subject, and he had come to the conclusion that if the Gardens were opened at 10 o'clock, with the reservations which his hon. Friend (Sir Trevor Lawrence) proposed, there would not be the slightest interference with scientific research or scientific pursuits. The First Commissioner of Works had spoken as if a crowd of filthy children and loose women was certain to be found at the gates at half-past 9 in the morning, waiting anxiously for 10 o'clock, in order to rush in and knock over the whole scientific collection. They were told that a Memorial against the proposal had been signed by 500 scientific men. He had great respect for the claims of science, but he could not help remembering there was such a thing as scientific enthusiasm. He had some experience of scientific Memorials, and he knew that when one or two eminent signatures were obtained it was very easy to get a number of others to follow. Experience in other places afforded them no reason to suppose that any harm would be done by admitting the public to the Gardens. The filthy children and the women of low character were simply paraded for the purpose of frightening two classes—the scientific men, and the economists who objected to increased expenditure. The First Commissioner of Works, when speaking of the great expense that would be incurred by the proposed change, almost in the same breath emphasized the fact that the early visitors would probably be very few; so, from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view, the argument from expense was inadmissible. As for the arboretum, Sir Joseph Hooker's communication was an admirable argument for shutting it up altogether. The truth was that it was simply a question of expense; but the increased outlay would be so small as to be hardly worth the consideration of the House.

MR. A. MILLS

pointed out that it was evident, from the experiment that had been already tried on a Bank holiday, that a very small proportion of the class which it was sought to benefit were likely to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded. Of 58,000 Bank holiday visitors on a recent occasion, no fewer than 54,000 entered the Gardens after 2 o'clock. It was, therefore, a delusion to suppose that to open the Gardens early would be to confer a boon on any considerable number of persons. After all, the question was, as a matter of fact, a conflict between botanical science and the owners of villas at Kew and the neighbourhood, and the House would have to decide whether the Gardens were to be kept up in such a way as to reflect credit on the directors and on the nation.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, that when such a question as the Repeal of the Test Acts was agitated, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) presented Memorials and attached great importance to the signature of Professors, while on the present occasion he laughed at the Memorial of 500 men of science, and asked the House to give it no consideration. Now, as it was admitted on all hands that the early visitors to the Gardens would not be very numerous, the question narrowed itself to this—whether the convenience of the inhabitants of Kew outweighed the disadvantages of the proposed change? He would remind the House how high was the character of Kew Gardens, and how deserved was the great reputation of the scientific staff there employed. The Gardens were celebrated for the great amount of scientific research that had emanated from them, which scientific research had made them the admiration of the world. He believed that the volumes which had issued from the Kew Gardens considerably exceeded 100 in number. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Motion asked the aid of Scotch and Irish Members, because their gardens were open at other hours. Had the hon. Gentleman ever been to the Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh, as he (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had been, he would find students studying there in the morning; but he would not meet any of the general public, unless accidentally one or two ladies using the Gardens for walking. The people who went there early were University students of Edinburgh, whose object was study. The supporters of the Motion had dealt somewhat unfairly with what had fallen from the First Commissioner of Works with regard to expense; for the point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that after the admission of the public the gardeners ceased to be gardeners and became watchmen, thus necessitating an increase of the permanent staff. They were hardly justified in making the change for the convenience of a few of the Kew residents; though he considered it might be practicable to open the Gardens at 12 instead of 1, an hour sufficiently early for visitors from London.

MR. CUBITT

thought that if the Gardens could be opened early on each Monday during the summer months, at the time the excursions trains were running, it would satisfy the desire of the working classes, and would not interfere with the work of the scientific staff. If the right hon. Gentleman could not hold out any such prospect, he should vote for the Motion.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought the interests of the taxpayer in this matter ought not to be overlooked. The House ought to consider what it was that the money was voted for. It was not to maintain Kew Gardens as a park; if that were so, he should be glad to give every facility to the public. The object was to maintain Kew as a scientific establishment—and men of science engaged in the administration, and other scientific men who knew what the administration ought to be, said that the scientific object would be considerably frustrated if the students did not have the Gardens to themselves for half the day. He thought they were bound to pay due deference to such an opinion. Believing that the money was not given solely that beautiful gardens might be provided for the public, he much regretted that he could not support the Amendment.

SIR HENRY PEEK

said, the reason why so small a number entered the Gardens before 1 o'clock on former occasions was because it was not generally known that they were opened. He thought that if his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner would assent to the opening of the Gardens on Mondays as on Bank holidays, he would, to a great extent, meet the wishes of those who were in favour of the Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 94: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 36.)