Chapter Six

The Site Row, 1905 ... 19

THE Auckland University College was established too late for the economic boom of the eighteen-seventies, in part because of the dispute about using Government House, and was launched into the depression of the eighties,

when governments were in severe difficulties, and unable to do much to help it, so that it failed to thrive. But from 1895 until 1920 the Colony prospered, with only a brief recession in 1908. By 1900 the colonists boasted that their standard of living was higher than that of the Americans.1 Because of the 'site row' the College missed many of the opportunities offering in this very favourable period. By 1919 it still had only one 'permanent' building: the inverted commas signifying that at the College the most impermanent structures could assume unexpected longevities. It might almost seem that the College was cursed: far from being born with a silver spoon in its mouth, its nativity was greeted by some evil spirit pronouncing the dread words: 'Government House'. The fact that a century later the College could be thought to have won a war does not disguise the casualties incurred in the long campaign-from 1872 to 1969, nearly a hundred years' war! Many lessons may be learned from its history, about town and gown, about education and snobbery, or about provincialism and politics.

In 1898 the Council decided that, in addition to students' common rooms, the College required three more lecture rooms, so that what was needed was to add a new wing to the 'old Parliament House'. O'Rorke wrote to the Premier, R. J. Seddon, ask­ing for £1,000 for the extra rooms. He said that the College had sought no extra aid from the Government since it was set up, and had been extremely thrifty with government funds: when two chairs had recently become vacant, instead of advertis­ing the two at £700 each it had selected three professors, two at £500 and one at £400.

94

THE SITE ROW

Now, in more prosperous times, the Government provided the £1,000 and allowed C. R. Vickerman, of the Public Works Department, to draw up the plans and to supervise the construction. Council spent £1,213 on the new rooms. 2

In 1904 a member of Council, F. E . Baume, was elected to Parliament. He had been an undergraduate at the College, and was now a lawyer. More important, he was a Liberal, for the Liberals had held power, under John Ballance and R. ] . Seddon, since 1891. The College now had, once again, a useful champion in Parliament, for although O'Rorke was appointed to the Legislative Council in 1904, he was no longer active in politics.

Baume began making a fuss in the House about the very small government grants to the College-Auckland had had £7,000 for buildings whereas the new Victoria University College in Wellington had already had £30,000, and Otago £40,000. The income of Otago University was about double that of the Auckland College. Baume urged that Auckland should get funds for a School of Mines.3

In March 1904 Seddon announced that he was convinced that the College needed extra buildings, and that he was going to ask Parliament for the money. He put £5,000, as a first instalment, on the Public Works estimates in 1905.4 Not for the first nor the last time, the College let an opportunity drop. The Property Committee of Council was asked to look into the question of a site for the new buildings. The Graduates' Association recommended unanimously that the best site was the Metropolitan Ground-the 'cow paddock' adjoining Government House which had at one time been used as the central city football field and was still, depending on the whim of the Governor, sometimes used by the Auckland Grammar boys' teams. In 1894 the College students had been permitted to use it as a 'playground', but later ii: came to be used by the Auckland Grammar School boys. In 1901 the Hockey Club and the Football Club tried to get access to the ground but they failed. In 1903 the Earl of Ranfurly declined a further request from the College because the paddock would not stand additional play.5

In August 1905 the College Council resolved that the site must be in the central city, not in the suburbs, and that the Metropolitan Ground would do admirably.6 On this occasion Council received a great deal of support. The City Council voted unanimously that the Metropolitan Ground should go to the College.? Even the Herald, for once, agreed.8 Almost the only opposition came from the Auckland Scenery Preservation Society. 9

In October the Inspector-General of Schools, George Hogben, came up to Auckland and inspected ten possible sites. He concluded that the Metropolitan Ground was by far the best: it was near the Training College and, above all, it was near to the existing College buildings. Consequently new buildings could be erected one at a time. (Throughout all the long years of the site disputes this was always a crucial consideration to governments.) Hogben reported his views orally to Seddon, who among his various roles was Minister of Education.10 In reply to the Council's application for the 'Met.' site, he sent a telegram, 'Impossible'. It may be, as Council supposed, that Seddon had consulted the Governor, Lord Plunket, who had objected . 1 1 Or perhaps the Prime Minister had felt that the issue was too delicate to mention to the Governor.

The College Council was now helpless: it had no land on which to erect a building.

95

A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND

O'Rorke asked that the £5,000 should be kept on deposit until a site was found, but the grant lapsed.12 Hogben expected to put the sum on the estimates for 1906.13 In May 1906, however, Seddon died. Hogben recommended to the next Prime Minister, William Haii-Jones, that the College should get the Met. site, 1� but his was simply a caretaker administration because J . G. Ward was abroad, and he did nothing.

The lapsed grant became a legend, to be republished annually in the 'Historical Sketch' of the College in the Calendar. Nevertheless, the Council did not despair. When Ward became Prime Minister in August 1906, George Fowlds, an Auckland draper, became Minister of Education, and much was hoped of him. Gerald L. Peacocke, a lawyer who was a Council member, conceived the idea of acquiring the Choral Hall for the College. He wrote to Fowlds that it might facilitate the acquisition of the rest of the Metropolitan Ground.' s The Choral Hall stood on what used to be part of the block of Crown land where Government House and its paddock were situated. Investigation of the title to the Hall site revealed that it had never been the property of the Choral Society, which had been permitted to use it without payment for the purpose of building a hall for music. The land remained unalienated Crown land. O'Rorke induced Sir Henry Brett to buy up the rights of the Choral Hall debenture holders so as to facilitate a transfer to the College.16 Brett was a successful newspaper editor, part-owner of the Auckland Star. His partner was its editor, T. W. Leys. Both had come out to the Colony intending to join the non­conformist Albertland settlers to the north of Auckland, but had stayed in the town and become journalists. Leys had been educated at a 'People's College'-the Mechanics' Institute in Nottingham. Both men were authors as well as publishers; both were to be notable public benefactors in the town. Leys was a leading Liberal, associated politically with Grey, Ballance, and Seddon.

The Government gave the College £4,000 to buy the Hall and £500 for the erection of a temporary School of Mines building. Thus Fowlds to some extent saved the College from the effects of the lapsed grant of 1905, but not entirely so because, for want of a permanent site, no major building was erected. Later in the year, in a 'washing-up Bill', the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act, 1907, he transferred the title to the Choral Hall site to the College. 1 7 The College paid Brett a £500 deposit for his rights to the building, with a further £3,500 to be paid when the Hall became available, which was to be when the Auckland Town Hall was completed in 1911, providing alternative concert halls. Brett had driven a hard bargain. He had no title to the site and a Council valuation of the building was £2,000. One Councillor, Peacocke, wrote to Fowlus that the object of Brett's proposal was to his mind 'immoral'; he was demanding at least £1,000 more than the value of the Hall 'in order to allow him to pose as n public benefactor to the College, to the extent of donating to its funds £500.' Peacocke opposed accepting his price, but was over-ruled in Council. Brett eventually donated the £500, so that the College had £1,000 for a building for the School of Mines.18 Although it could not yet occupy the Hall, the Council could go ahead with construction, behind the Choral Hall, once it paid Brett the deposit.

The College thus had a title to two small pieces of land, one of one acre eleven perches on the site of the Parliament building and now another of three roods thirty perches, a small triangular piece of land which Council hoped might prove the thin end of a wedge. Behind the Choral Hall, in 1908, Council had built a temporary corrugated iron shed, which was to be used by mines, later by engineers and then by

96

THE SITE ROW

music and finally maintenance, not to be pulled down until the grounds were tidied up for an ANZAAS Conference in 1979.

Early in 1909 the Prime Minister, ] . G. Ward, wrote to Lord Plunket that the Government wished to use the land on which the Government House was situated to erect a University College and other public buildings. It proposed, instead of main­taining a second Government House, to provide £500 a year to the Governor for the payment of rent \vhenever he was away from Wellington. In view of the later heated disputes about the site, and especially because of public sentiment about guber­natorial traditions, Plunket's reply assumes an ironical dimension. He wrote that Government House was 'an old wooden building, the grounds . .. now overlooked in several places'. He recommended to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in London, that the Government's wishes should be accepted. One important consideration, from his point of view, was that the Governor incurred considerable expenses in having two houses. He had to entertain 1,100 or 1,200 people in Wellington and then some 700 during the 'second entertainment "season"' in

Auckland, a 'season' which had 'no real justification save the existence of a second house suitable for the purpose'. He wrote that it 'would probably be impossible to obtain' an equally suitable site for a college in the city. He was, however, much mistaken in one respect. He believed that, though there would be objection to the proposal, most of the townspeople would support the Government's action. Indeed, he felt that 'some Government in the near future will be unable to resist the pressure of public opinion' in favour of providing the suggested site for the College.19

He was soon to be disillusioned. J . G. Ward announced, almost casually, in his budget in 1909 that the Government House and its grounds would become the site for Auckland University Collego.3° There was a recession in 1908-9 and the Government was 'retrenching' all round. A new Government House \\'as being built in Wellington; the Government decided to demolish the Auckland house. The furniture was removed from Auckland and taken for the Wellington house. 21 A prolonged, very noisy and at times bitter agitation at once broke our to save Government House and its grounds, and to prevent the College from getting all, or indeed any, of its grounds. The most prominent leader of the opposition was T. W. Leys, editor of the Star. He wrote to Fowlds, 'it is preposterous to give our little College a monopoly over this magnificent reserve'. (Opponents of the Government's proposal persistently asserted that the Government House grounds were a public reserve or park, which they were not.) The professors, he wrote, wanted 'to m8ke a pretty little preserve for themselves'. He thought that the Boys' Grammar School, situated in Symonds Street, should have four acres for a playground, leaving the College the rest, about eight ncres. The grounds should nor become 'the possession of an exclusive "Varsity Club" '. He detected 'a tendency towards class exclusiveness there alrendy. ' In his 1909 annual report to the Minister, O'Rorke had urged the need for a residential house for female students.Z2 The critics of the College now alleged (without evidence) that this was to he built on the Government House grounds, and Leys foresaw that professors' houses would soon follow. He told Fowlds that n strong body of opinion favoured making the grounds a 'People's Park' and using the House as an Art Gallery.Zl The Star began att<lcking the Government's proposals with every argument it could find. J. W. Tibbs, Headmaster of the Boys' Grammar School, publicly demanded part of the land for playing fields. He wrote to Fowlds that he had met O'Rorke, who was Chairman of the Grammar School Board of Governors ac;

97

A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND

well as of the College Council, and told him, ' "unless you forbid me to do so, I intend to write to the Minister and ask him whether something cannot be found for the School in all that area." He laughingly replied, "You won't do any good: you had far better trust to the generosity of the College". ' Tibbs complained to Fowlds that 'the University, Training College and Technical School all have sumptuous provi­sion made for them', while the Grammar was neglected . 24 Although this remark would have aroused mirth at the College, Tibbs was to have the last laugh.

Fowlds was on friendly terms with Leys; there was nothing personal about his opposition. Other friends advised in much the same terms. William Speight, the grandfather of a future Chancellor, wrote that there would be great trouble if the University swallowed up all the grounds, and advised him to set aside a portion for the Grammar. There was 'a hub-bub here over the idea of turning the Govr. out at all', but a division would at least allay the indignation. 'I see you have heaps of trouble in front of you. God send you safe out of them, for man, I fear, will do little for you . '25 Fowlds's own feelings were expressed in a letter to Professor Segar: 'I need hardly say that I have been more than disgusted at the agitation . . . . I have been working steadily for three years to secure that site, and expected nothing but congratulations . . . but instead I receive mainly abuse and opposition.'26

Being wise after events is easy, but in view of the long delay that followed before the site was finally settled, it is arguable that the College should have compromised with the Grammar School, dividing the site between them. A Council member, Or W. C. W. McDowell, who had graduated B.A. at Auckland in 1885, then studied medicine at Edinburgh, and was now a local surgeon, recommended to Fowlds three concessions: to say that the public would have the right to 'promenade' through the grounds; to announce that the Grammar boys could use the Metropolitan Ground; and to reassure the public that another residence would be provided for the Gover­nor in Auckland.27 At that time McDowell and Peacocke were most hard-working and committed members of the College Council. The initial reaction of the College as a whole was, however, to reject all notion of compromise. The Professorial Board resolved that a boys' playing field adjoining the College would be an 'intolerable nuisance'. The Board put out a statement that the College would need the whole site. It envisaged preserving the 'ornamental ground' in front of Govern­ment House, putting the main building on Princes Street, with later buildings follow­ing on the paddock. Its prescience was not matched by tact. The Board said that whereas a university had a future of indefinite expansion, a secondary school should not have a roll larger than 360-which meant that the Grammar had passed its peak. With two dissentients, W. B. Colbeck and C. ] .. Parr, a city councillor, who was shortly to be mayor, Council resolved that a partition of the site would imperil the progress of the College. 28 The point of view of the College as a whole was summarized in a letter Or McDowell wrote to Fowlds: the Government House and its grounds had always been seen as the 'birthright' of the College, because of Oillon Bell's state­ment to the first professors; Fowlds generously gave the Choral Hall 'which as everybody was aware was the prelude to the gift of the Metrop. Ground'. He conceded, however, that there had been a reason why the College had not always been very demanding-the same reason 'that led us to speak even with bated breath about the Metrop. Ground-the susceptibilities of his Excellency the Governor in

98

AUCKLAND INSTITUTE AND MUSEUM

'An Actempc That Failed': Fowlds and Ward, in che act of carrying off Government House, are arrested by public opinion: a Weekly News cartoon by Trevor Lloyd

regard to the matter . ' 29 That was a factor throughout the site disputes, a delicacy about offending the representative of the Queen.

The agitation continued unabated throughout t910 and 1911, with large Press headlines, 'THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE PLOT', 'GOVERNMENT HOUSE STEAL', 'THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE RAID'. Now the Citizens' League entered the fray. It was a party which successfully put forward candidates in the City Council elections of 1909 and 1911. 3° Its leader was W. ]. Ralph, a man who had not previously shown any interest in the College, but who lived in Princes Street and, the Star alleged, feared his house would lose its 'view' if the College built there.31 Ward sought to calm the fevered Auckland breasts by a substantial offer: he said that the Government intended to spend about £100,000 on the College, 32 but the agitation increased in intensity. The Citizens' League called a public meeting in May 1910. Nearly a thousand people came to what proved to be a very rowdy meeting. According to the Herald the disorder was caused almost entirely by 'an organised band of 100 to 150 University students, the majority of whom are under the age of twenty-one.' .

Ormond Burton, a student who was present, recalled a speech by Albert Edward Glover, a local M.P. and 'a demagogue of the sloppiest kind.'

'My dear people! I went up the other day to Government House and oh! what do you think I saw? .... The wash hand stand of the great pro-consul (Sir George Grey) standing out in the rain.'

Here Albert nearly wept, and the social elite, and the very ignorant did weep.33

99

A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND

Later the President of the Students' Association, W. A. Gray, defended the students by pointing out that the only speaker who was so continuously heckled as to be inaudible was the College's only defender, Or Mc0owell. 34 Rather more convincing, however, are the reminiscences of Kenneth Dellow {later a leading Auckland headmaster), who wrote: 'The whole student body was there early, occupy­ing the strategic points in the hall. Speakers were dumbfounded to find deafening applause when they wanted jeers, and jeers when they wanted applause. Finally we converged on the front of the hall, sang full blast the chorus of the "Site Song" '.

That song, which had become the accepted College song, had been written, probably in 1908, by )ohn Talc and Paul Kavanagh . 35 It was sung to the tune of 'Waiting at the Church' from the 'Mother Goose Pantomime'. The first verse and chorus went as follows:

We want a site for our University (Doubtless you have heard the tale before),

Still we repeat it with great persistency, To emphasise the points that you ignore.

Lor! what a bonfire the 'Varsity would make ('Twas built of kauri wood in '51),

Should Guy Fawke's Day we celebrate with match anJ kerosene, Among the guys 'twouiJ fairly 'take the bun.'

CHORUS Here are we, waiting for a site, Waiting for a site, waiting for a site

That the Government is pretty tight, Really, you must acknowledge!

While they wait, we're growing out of Jate, Morbid and sedate. Melancholy state!

Do be polite nnd offer us n site­WE WANT A COLLEGE.

On this occasion, Oellow wrote, 'pandemonium ensued, with "ladies" from Freeman's Bay wielding umbrellas, and men their fists. By solid Rugby scrum tactics we finally got clear, battered but triumphant'. 36

The meeting was followed by a storm of editorials and dozens of letters from 'Unbiassed' , 'Spectator', 'An Old Colonist', 'Democrat', 'Waterloo', 'Commonsense Citizen', or 'Non Dormit Qui Custodit', which continued, with peaceful intervals, throughout 1910 and 1911. The College's chief defenders were Peacocke, Professor Segar, Gray, and his precursor as student president, Kenneth Sisam, who had just been elected to a Rhodes scholarship. Leys was much impressed by the fact that some great universities had small sites, and frequently gave examples in his editorials. Sisam did his homework and was able to show that Leys's figures were inaccurate. For this he was sneered at in the editorial column. Sisam was a Grammar old boy. The headmaster of the Grammar, ]. W. Tibbs, wrote in to the editor, 'I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.'37 AmiJst this mass of generally ill-informed correspondence there was one poignant statement. H. W. Segar, the mathematics professor, wrote in to the Herald, 'The Auckland

100

THE SITE ROW

University College owes probably less to the active support of the people around it during the twenty-seven years of its existence than does any similar institution in the world'. 38

The Citizens' League circulated a petition opposing the taking of any part of the Government House grounds for the College. When A. E. Glover presented this to Parliament 16,000 people had signed it, and, by the final count, 20,000.39 This was a very large petition indeed, and the Government began to weaken. When the new Governor, Lord Islington, indicated that he wanted to use the House, the Government announced that it would be refurbished at a cost of £2,000 to £3,000. It would keep its seven and a half acres of grounds, while the College would be left with the three and three-quarter acres of the Metropolitan Ground.40 By this time the College had announced a willingness to share the site with the Grammar, but now the Grammar was offered a new site in the direction of Mt Eden, where the first of its present buildings was erected.4 1 The new Governor announced that he was 'charmed' with the Auckland house and that 'As much of the furniture as possible will be purchased in Auckland, or, if it is necessary to have it specially manufactured, as large an order will be placed locally as possible.'42

These proceedings were earning Auckland a very bad press throughout the country. The Otago Daily Times thought Christchurch or Dunedin had a greater claim than Auckland to an official residence for the Governor.4 3 A 'victory for the Philistines', said the Christchurch Press,44 and the Spectator said, 'At the very thought of closing up Government House the Aucklanders took alarm. The Queen-street grocers, confectioners and drapes were interviewed to prove there would be an immense loss of retail trade .. . ,'4 5

The Council went ahead and had plans for the projected College building drawn up by local architects, feeling that the need was too urgent to allow for a competition.46 Now it was the Herald that campaigned against the College occupying the Met. site. The Scar supported the College. Leys had now been elected to the College Council. He wrote to Fowlds that he thought it was a mistake to build there, but that he was 'sick of the conflict over site'.47 The Herald meanwhile pressed the case for a site in Mt Eden, near where the Grammar was going-a mere ten minutes from town by electric tram.4 8 The Citizens' League went on protesting. But the tide

'We Have Eyes but No Site': students join the agitation, at capping 1908

A HISTORY OF THE UNlVERSlTY OF AUCKLAND

seemed to be turning. The College Council, with only two dissentients, voted for the Met. site.49 So, once again, did the City Council, by a majority of six to five. 50 Fowlds, who was in close touch with McDowell and Peacocke throughout, agreed with a suggestion from McDowell that a counter-petition in favour of the Met. site would be useful. 51 The secretary of the Students' Association organized a petition and collected over 4,000 signatures in a few days, mainly from doctors, lawyers, merchants, and students.52

On 29 August Fowlds wrote to Pcacocke that he hoped to get the second re�ding of the Auckland University College Site Bill 1911 through in a few days. 5 3 The College Council must have been bitterly disappointed when, quite unexpectedly and suddenly, Fowlds resigned from the Government in early September. In part he resigned because some government members had voted against a Town Planning Bill, but mainly because he thought the Government was not pushing ahead with radical Liberal reforms. 54 It is believed that O'Rorke's resignation from Cabinet and Fowlds's (and W. D . Stewart's in 1933) are the only examples of New Zealand cabinet ministers resigning over matters of principle.

Fowlds's resignation was a damaging vote of no confidence in the Government. Within a few months he had lost his scat to an Independent Labour candidate and the Government was on the brink of defeat . In mid-1912 the Liberals resigned, after twenty years in office, and W. F. Massey, the Reform leader, became Prime Minister. He had already said that he was glad that the Government had backed down over the Government House issue, and that it would have been better if another site had been selected.55

The College Council was left floundering. Various sites were being canvassed in the press, including one near Mt Hobson and one in Mt Eden and one across Grafton Bridge (approximately where the Medical School stands in 1983). Council took the unusual step of polling all the students to ask what effect the removal of the College out of the city centre would have on them. Of the 400 votes recorded (out of a possible 600), ninety per cent opposed moving. 56 The Herald ridiculed this procedure as Gilbertian and compared the Council to an ostrich, occasionally raising its head from the sand 'to send forth the old heart-rending appeal, "Give me Government House or I die" '.57 The Herald's columnist, 'Mercutio', wrote:

They have a choice of sires, superior sites, offering advantages in area and locality, which Government House grounds cannot lay claim to. Bur like the companions of Ulysses they have stopped their ears with wax, and are deaf to the Sirenic strains that would lure them from their purpose. They have shut their eyes to the attractions of more distanr fields, and thus blind and deaf they sit ail day chanting in monotonous unison their unvarying demand; 'We want Government House sire'.58

The new Minister of Education was James Allcn. He came up to Auckland and discussed the problem with Council, but all he could say was that he hoped to legislate, after he had brought conflicting opinions into agreement. Personally, he favoured giving the Met. site to the College, and indeed, he recommended this to Massey, but the Prime Minister and others had been influenced by the agitation in Auckland. On another occasion he wrote that the diversity of opinion in Auckland had prevented any definite decision being reached.59

102

THE SITE ROW

By 1911 the line-up of forces against the College having the Government House grounds, or even the Met. site, was formidable. In late 1911 they included both newspapers. The Farmers' Union, the Remuera branch of the Liberal-Labour Federa­tion, the Harbour Board, the Education Board, the Citizens' League, the City Coun­cil (in 1910 but not in 1911), and most of the local M.P.s were all opposed, although not Fowlds nor E. H. Taylor, the Member for Thames, who thought that the opposi­tion to the College was a 'shabby aristocratic bubble'.60 The Auckland Trades and Labour Council, representing 6,000 workers, was opposed. Arthur Rosser, a labour leader, told McDowell that a university education 'makes Tories out of the sons of the working men'.61 Influential individuals, like Tibbs and two consecutive presidents of the Chamber of Commerce, Bartholomew Kent and J. H. Gunson, also spoke out against the College's claim to the site. No doubt some of the Auckland merchants valued Government House contracts. But probably most important 0f all was the fact that Auckland 'society' wanted to keep Government House in Auckland. Bartholomew Kent asked, 'who has not many pleasant tender memories indeed of the happy hours spent in the beautiful grounds, and at the various functions held .. . in Government House?'62 The answer, of course, was-those not on the Governors' invitation lists. Or McDowell knew businessmen who 'quote rhe sentimental objec­tions of their women folk that in such and such a year I came out at a dance at the old Government House'. At Council the Rev. W. Beattie described such people as ' a fashionable clique', ' a poor, shoddy impersonation of the fashionable set at Home'.63

The elevated area where Albert Park lay had been selected by Felton Mathew, who originally designed the city, as the focus of his intricate and impossible network of quadrants and crescents. The leading gentlemen's club, the Northern Club, was there, as was the expensive hotel, the 'Grand', as well as Government House. It was about the most valued real estate in Auckland. Some of the wealthiest businessmen lived there. They included Sir Henry Brett (a friend of the College) and N. A. Nathan (whose home is the Registry in 1983) and Mrs W. Wils0n, the widow of the proprietor of the Herald. In short, Princes Street was the centre of Auckland snobbery, a force it did not pay to underestimate.

It is not surprising that the Government backed down, for the protesters were a for­midable array. Those favouring granting the site were few. According to Sir Robert Stout, the Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, in 1916, every Minister of Education since and including Seddon had come to favour the Met. site. 64 The College Council and Professorial Board agreed. So did the students. In 1912, in addi­tion to the poll of students, Council received petitions from about 100 Training Col­lege students, 100 law students and 100 commerce students, all urging the merits of the 'Metro' site. The engineering students agreed: most of them were part-time. 65 The Principal of the Teachers' Training College (in nearby Wellesley Street) agreed with the College Council. 66 So did many of the educated citizens, but they were not nearly as vocal as the opposition. The social forces were overwhelmingly against giving up Government House or its grounds to the College.

What arguments were advanced against the College's claims to that site? They tell us a great deal about how the community viewed the College-and vice-royalty. Many of these points were repeated over and over in letters to the editors and editorials.

103

A HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND

First of all it was said that Government House was a 'sacred relic'. This historical sentiment was, of course, quite genuine. Leys wrote to Fowlds that to give Government House to the College before other provisions were made for the Governor would 'be widely regarded here as an act of treachery to Auckland almost as grave as the original removal of the Seat of Government.'67 It was also very frequently, and incorrectly, alleged that the grounds were a public domain: in fact they were unalienated Crown lands. Alternatively, ir was repeatedly said that the grounds should become a park. The Citizens' League urged that they should be added to Albert Park. It was frequently said that if rhe College secured the grounds the public would be excluded. The students' journal, The Kiwi, made the point here that in fact rhe grounds were always closed to the public and would, for the first rime, be open only after they became College property. 68 The argument convinced few people, but one simple soul wrote to Fowlds:

I look upon this attempt to take away the Metropolitan Park as an act of cruelty to rhe present and future residents of Auckland. lt is the gem of the city and as such it ought to be guarded with religious care, future generations will bless the men who preserved this sacred spot for their wives and children. Then look at the use that will be made of it for charitable :�id functions, flower shows, reviews, etc. etc. But let me whisper in your ear that it ought to be de facto an university for the people by the Professors giving lectures to rhe masses on the summer evenings. The day is coming when this will be done.69

A southern newspaper referred to the Auckland 'megalomaniacs' who had forced the Ward Government to back down. 7° Certainly many Aucklanders sounded mildly paranoid about Wellington. Some correspondents and editorials listed Auckland's grievances, such as the fact that there was only one Aucklander in cabinet, or that Seddon had attempted to put a fever hospital in the Domain. A man wrote to the Herald that the land was being offered to the College 'for no other reason than to spite Aucklanders. '71

A favourite argument-notably used by Leys-against the College's claims was that a university did not need a big site, or that the College was so small that it was absurd for it to be so demanding. People were not impressed by the assertion that it would eventually need all the site. Most of the students were only at College at night. This 'palatial residence' was not needed for a mere thirty students, it was asserted. Tibbs had arrived at this figure by taking the number of students who passed the Terms examination, seventy-seven, thus excluding all unmatriculated students, all failures, all who were not required to sit Terms examinations, such as candidates for Masters' degrees, and anyone who had previously passed Terms but not sat for the degree, and several other groups. He then subtracted the forty-six students who only attended evening lectures. 72 It was argued that the four hundred Grammar boys had a better claim to the site, and that the school was more important than the College.73 According to an Auckland merchant who was Chairman of the Harbour Board, A. ]. Entrican, a block of land 650 feet by 250 feet would suffice for university requirements for 200 years!74

When the defenders of the Government House turned to attack the College directly, they argued that it was a 'class institution'. A member of the Education Board pictureJ 'the University students and the Professorial coterie' whiling 'the

104

THE SlTE ROW

happy hours away' and playing 'the game of high degree, while the workers pay .'75 In a letter more thoughtful than most, 'Democrat' wrote to the Herald in reply to a letter from Professor Segar which said that in Europe the workers looked to higher educa­tion for their advancement. Scgar was answering the local Trades and Labour Council which thought that the College 'represented a small and egotistical class'. Apparently speaking as a unionist, 'Democrat' wrote:

in opposition ro Professor Segar, we believe the University to be;:� class institution. What else can we consider it when year hy year we see its students, almost without exception, taking up the learned professions-law, medicine, teaching, ere? Certainly there are boys and girls from our own dass whose exceptional ability ;:�t the primary and secondary schools has carried them on ro the University, where they have achieved success, but the training they have received there, and the traditions :md influence of the college, have, in the vast majority of cases, resulted in their entering one of these learned professions. That 'culture' for which universities m;:�ke so strong a claim has removed them from us. They are no longer 'workers' in the sense that this is usually understood. Such a result may be inevitable, it may be desirable, but in either ca�e it proves my contention that the University is a class institution. Were this nor so we would find its students in the ranks of labour. The successful brick-layer, painter, builder, and manufacturer would be those who had gradunted at the University. So much for the fnct that the University is a class institution; and, further, I consider it at least doubtful that university training, as at present constituted, is a benefit to the working man. The study of dead languages, the research into ancient history, and the unapplied theories of science may constitute intellectual exercise valuable in itself, but their impracticable nature makes them of little value to industry and commerce. What we require in our foremen and managers is not so much abstract inrellccr as the knowledge gaineJ by actual work, shrewd common sense, the power to read men, and the ability to lead them, qualities which arc not pre­eminently rhe result of university training. 76

The defenders of the College argued that the 'class' accusation was absurd: most of the students worked for their living. But the criticism did not die. Leys argued that the Grammar was used to a much greater extent than the College by 'the sons of the masses of the peoplc'.77 Certainly this was untrue. There were few 'free places' in secondary schools. Only a small minority of children went to secondary school. A high proportion of the College students came from the Grammar Schools: and from at least moderately well-to-do families. In short, both institutions served the same section of society. The large number of non-matriculated students meant that the College was not 'exclusive', but it was preponderantly 'middle class'.

Some other arguments advanced by the defenders of the vice-regal presence were absurd. For instance, Auckland was going to become a naval base and it was said that Government House would be needed for the entertainment of naval officers. It was also suggested that the Admiral could live in Government House when the Governor was in Wellington. The Kiwi retorted that Auckland had twice built an Admiralty House 'but never caged an Admira1'.78 In general the arguments advanced against the College's claims were not anti-university or anti-education: it met not hostility but indifference. Large sections of the public did not care where the College was placed as long as it moved. Their arguments had almost nothing to do with educational issues. And there is another important point: the public did not feel that it was their own College. A letter in the Herald said, 'Professor Segar asks reproachfully what has

105

A H I S T O R Y O F THE U N I V E RSITY OF AUCKLAND

Auckland done for the University in the 27 years of its sojourn here. Why should it do anything for the nurseling of the Government?'79

The issue was, it is obvious enough, an extremely emotional one. The arguments put up by the College, while advanced quite as heatedly, were more mundane than those of its opponents. The College had to be near the Training College, from where it drew about 100 students, and near the business centre, from where 150 to 200 students came to the School of Commerce. Similarly about ninety law students came from the city. The College was ideally situated, in quiet surroundings, only ten minutes from Queen Street. It was near the Free Public Library, the Institute and Museum Library, and the Supreme Court Lihrary. But it was now grossly over­crowded, after thirty years in old wooden buildings. The College had spent £6,000 on the School of Mines and bought the Choral Hall. It wanted to expand where it was-on to the Met. site. Such arguments, while convincing to staff and students and

.

Council, were not such as to excite enthusiastic public support. The rest of this melancholy story, up to 1 9 1 9 when the site question was, for the

time being, resolved, may be more briefly told. All parties remained more or less frozen in their postures of 1911. In 1913 Alien recommended handing over the Met. site, but Cabinet decided not to approve of the transfer. Masscy .said that he had had a look at the site and that if the university were put there it would make Government House 'uninhabitable', which is what the Governors had thought.80 The College Council at last came to terms with what appeared to be reality and voted in favour of a Methodist Church property across Grafton Bridge, an area of six and three-quarter acres which would cost up to £40,000.81 The Government appointed three men to provide an independent report, but they reported in favour of the Met. site. The Grafton site was too small and too expensive.82

By now the College was in a desperate situation. In 1914, without consulting the College, the City Council had decided to push a new road for heavy traffic (later named Anzac Avenue) through Jermyn Street and Eden Crescent, which meant demolishing the old Parliament Building. The Council was taking over the site compulsorily .83 The College still had no site and was about to lose its main building.

Citizens now engaged in further sitemanship. ]. H. Gunson suggested a site at Orakei, now called Bastion Point. Another man suggested Hobson Bay. There followed further letters to editors about 'Filching the Parks'.84 O'Rorke, who was clearly in decline and often absent (when Council was chaired by Peacocke), produced before Council a draft private member's Bill to secure the Met. site. Who was to move it is not clear, for Council threw it out, only Peacocke voting with O'Rorke.85 A year later O'Rorke died.

The Government now offered a site of forty acres between Mt Eden Road and the Manukau Road. The Herald was lyrical: 'a princely gift, a munificent offer'.86 But Council, having concluded once again that the Met. site was the best, after all, decided to look this gift horse in the mouth. To go that far out of town would lead to a drastic fall in enrolments. Sir Francis Bell, while acting Minister of Education, told them to take it or go without a monetary grant.87 But now a wartime coalition Government was formed and ]. A. Hanan became the Minister. Council invited him up to Auckland to discuss the whole problem.88 At this time the City Council was also asking for an urgent decision.89 Even in wartime the dispute dragged on. The

106

MRS lJPTO�

THE SITE ROW

�,'!" "' ..

The now deserted old building af the Auckland Grammar School in Symonds Street

Mayor, ] . H . Gunson, fumed: 'To suggest that we are going to bring up a race of boys too tired, or too lazy, to go a relatively short distance . . . to receive their university education, is to libel the youth of our country. Our universities are expected to pro­duce an active, virile race . . . . and we are not going to turn them into mere night­schools with cramped conditions'.90 Supermen and women needed a big site. Now the Star was accusing the Herald of leading the agitation and causing the delay since 1905. The Herald's motives were not clear to the Star: 'We may say, however, that it is notorious that the objections raised by influential property holders in the vicinity of Government House grounds have carried a great deal of weight in the controversy.' According to the Star, the Herald 'sniffs contemptuously at our democratic ideals. Our University Colleges are only "an exalted form of night school" '. ln the eyes of the Herald a real university needed full-time students: 'Here we have the true Conservative ideal of a university as a "class" institution, which the "masses" need never expect to see organised for their benefit . . . .'91

Meanwhile the Methodists had leased out the Grafton site, so that option was gone.91 In 1 9 1 7 the Council decided to accept the now deserted old building of the Auckland Grammar School in Symonds Street as temporary premises. It was on a short lease. Some £2,000 was spent on doing it up, for instance by installing electric light. At the same time it was decided to add to and rebuild the Choral Hall to provide a substantial science building. For this work a tender of £14 ,700 was accepted. The College spent all its funds on this work, including the £ 1 7 ,000

107

A HISTORY OF THE U N I VERSITY O F A U C K LA N D

compensation from the City Council for its former site and £8,000 savings. The even­tual cost for building and equipment was £25,000.93 This was a decisive step.

It is obvious that Council was acting with a purposefulness and effectiveness lacking for many years, almost certainly because of O'Rorke's continued chairmanship when he had ceased to provide real leadership. From 19 1 6 to 1 920 T. W. Leys was Chairman. He had always believed that a university needed a small and central site, as in some northern British cities, and he efficiently helped to ensure that it got it. It was mainly through his influence on public opinion as editor of the evening paper and his negotiations with the Minister, the Prime Minister, and the Governor­General that the question was at last resolved.94 In 1919 he wrote a substantial pamphlet, Auckland University College. lts Claim to a Central Site and Adequate Buildings, which outlined the College's search for a site. In a foreword Sir Robcrt Stout, Chief Justice and Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, argued, 'If our industries are to be efficient, we must have higher education. '

The acting Prime Minister, Sir James Alien, performed the opening ceremony at the science building in June 1919. He appealed to Aucklanders to sink their differences over the site question and join forces to acquire the Met. site. He hinted that it was now a possibility as far as the Government was concerned. He had all along held that it was 'the diversity of opinion in Auckland' which had prevented any decision.95

The Choral Hall had been rebuilt, but adhering to the original style, with Corinthian pillars flanking the entrance, which was preserved. The main hall was now the chemistry and physics lecture theatres and some laboratory space. Two two­storey brick wings were added. It was regarded as a 'permanent home' for science. Though the building looks small today, it was thought to have 'a relative magnificence' by the students of 1919. An editorial in The Kiwi went so far as to assert that the building wns 'finer thnn any other of its kind in Australasia', and even

A relarit1e magnificence: che Choral Hall as rebuilt for science, 1 9 1 9

1 08

THE SITE ROW

T. W. Leys claimed that it was the best equipped in New Zealand.96 A third of the students now had a 'permanent home'.

By September 1919 Massey had agreed to provide the Met. site.97 The Auckland University College Site Bill had its second reading on 23 September. Massey said that he shared the sentiment about preserving Government House, 'which l think would be an act of vandalism to destroy', but that the College Council had assured him that it would not interfere with the House and grounds. C. J. Parr, the College Council member who most persistently opposed taking the Met. site, and who was shortly to be Minister of Education, thought the site would do for the present, though in the long run several hundred acres might be needed, as for an American university. A university, he said, should not be 'merely a night school for students to attend to hear lectures. As I understand it, that does not provide true university culture, though it is a necessary part of the work'. The Leader of the Opposition, Ward, thought that the whole of the Government House area would eventually be needed, but he supported the Bill.98 The politician least pleased was the Minister of Education, Sir Francis Bell , who said in the Legislative Council that he was still unconvinced but that Massey had changed his mind. Bell could not believe that trams were useless to students, or that ten minutes' travel mattered. He said that handing over the site was a 'now authorized sacrilege'.99

There was, in fact, no serious opposition. Why that was so is not clear. Perhaps people were simply fed up by the dispute, as Leys had become. Perhaps after the terrible toll of war no one had much appetite for petty local quarrels. Another circumstance was that people were well aware of the casualties former students had suffered. At the opening ceremony Alien had referred to the war-time contributions of the staff, both in the armed forces and in work for the Defence Department. Pro­bably the prestige of the College in the community was higher. In any case, at last the decision had been made. The Government also offered £1 00,000 to the College, so Council could begin planning for a building to house arts and commerce, and the small administrative staff.

109