The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-07-10 00:00:00

BOTANIC GARDEN

Mr. LASSELL then brought il;;;d the motion of which
he had given notice. It proposed that the Finance Com-
mittee should be instructed to reconsider their former reso-
lution—to the effect that they could not recommend any
grant of the public funds to the Botanic Garden, unless the
garden were thrown open to the public on Sundays, and to
consider whether some grant might not be made in consi-
deration of the garden having now been open for the admis-
sion of the public on two days in every week. Mr. Lassen
said that it was the duty of every government to provide for
the health and recreation of the people, and there could be
no doubt that the opening of the Botanic Garden on two
days in the week was a very great advantage to the public.
He could inform the council on good authority, that from
the Bth ult. up to Monday last, at least 35,000 persons had
visited the garden; and he should say from the obs; rvations
he himself made, when present one evening, that one-half
of the visitors then in the gardens belonged to the working
classes. It might also •he mentioned that by the opening
of the garden to the public an expellee of 20s. a week was
incurred. He alluded to the grant of £lOO to the Royal
Institution, on account of the museum having been opened
to the public twice in the mouth, and could not see why a
similar boon should not be granted to the Botanic Garden,
especially as the latter was opened eight times in the month,
and afforded an equal amount of gratification to the eye,
whilst it also tended to the promotion of health. He con-
cluded by stating that he should name no sum, for the pur-
pose of avoiding all discussion.
Mr. CURRIE, for the purpose of raising the discussion,
seconded the motion.

Mr. BOLTON thought that any grant of money by the
council to to the proprietors of the Botanic Garden, for ad-
mitting the public, ought to be looked upon by them in the
light of an insult. The family of Mr. Yates had for many
years opened their grounds to the public; but in what light
would Mr. Yates look upon a proposition that a pecuniary
allowance should on that account be made to him? He
thought that the clergy, the gentlemen, and the ladies, com-
posing the proprietary of the Botanic Garden, could not have
blunter feelings than the family of Mr. Yates. The Finance
Committee had already passed a resolution, adopted by the
council, that unless the garden was opened on Sundays they
could not concede any grant ; and until that resolution was
rescinded the Finance Committee could not stir. He thought
the subscribers to the Botanic Garden should put their hands
into their pockets, and at once free the concern from debt;
for that method must ultimately be resorted to, unless, in-
deed, they chose to borrow money, and pay the Interest
thereon. He himself would rather pay his proportion of the
interest than solicit the aid of the town.

Mr. SnEIL expressed his surprise that, without any change
of circumstances, this subject should have again been brought
forward, and seconded by the chairman of the Finance Com-
mittee—of that body which only two months ago passed a
resolution, that, unless the gardens were opened on Sundays
the public could not derive any benefit which would warrant
a grant from the council. A number of persons aught have
visited the gardens ; but it was a delusion to sappose that
the great body of the people would be able to attend, except
on Sundays. Mr. Lassell had alluded to the (Unger of the
establishment being sold if assistance were not rendered to
it, and had said that the whole property of the gardens was
vested in the proprietors. Now, if such were the case, the
old proprietors had sadly neglected their duty. But he
maintained that Mr. Lassell was incorrect; for, the moment
the land ceased to be used for the purpose of A botanic gar-
den, it reverted to the corporation. To prove this position,
Mr. Sheil briefly sketched the history of the institution,
stating that, when the old site, of which the corporation had
granted a lease, was allowed by them to be disposed of ; the
money thus raised (X 72,000) was appropriated to the pur-
poses of the new garden, and that, in consideration thereof,
the corporation were to have a reversionary interest, in case
the new site ever ceased to be employed as a botanic garden.
The whole property was therefore, in fact, lodged in the pub-
lic, and yet the committee had made a great business of
letting the people walk in the garden two days a week. Mr.
Sheil then went on to argue, that the contrary decisions come
to at the meetings of the proprietors showed that they could
not be depended upon from one day to another, and that the
opening of the gardens on week-days was no boon to the
great mass of the people. lie should therefore oppose the
motion.

Mr. JOHN SMITH said that when he r effected ou how many
occasions he had heard Mr. Sheil advocate the propriety,
nay, the absolute necessity, of the council administering to
the wants of the poorer classes of the inhabitants, he could
not but feel very much surprised at the line of argument
adopted by him on the present occasion. If those sentiments
were responded to by the council, the poor must in a great
measure be prevented from attending the gardens at all.
Because there were persons conscientiously opposed to open-
ing the gardens on Sundays ; becalige, forsooth, Mr. Sheil
could not carry his favourite measure of throwing it open on
Sundays, he, in the plenitude of his regard for the poor man,
would go to the greatest length to deprive that man of any
participation in the advantages held out by the garden. (No,
no.) He (Mr. Smith) said yes, yes. It was absurd for Mr.
Sheil, or any other man in the council to argue that the poor-
er classes could not find time to visit the Botanic Garden on
week days. One fact was better than many assertions. He
himielf went one evening, and he found there thousands of
the poorer inhabitants of the town enjoying with delight and
thankfulness the benefit of exercise and fresh air. Consider-
ing that the proprietors had opened the garden to the public
without in the first place stipulating for any grant, he thought
that the council would not be acting in the same spirit if they
did not give £lOO or £2OO a year to hinder that valuable in-
stitution from mouldering into decay.

Mr. YATES also begged leave to say that Mr. Shea was
mistaken on the point of the attendance of the working
classes. He (Mr. Yates) was at the garden one evening, and
he left at a quarter to eight. There were about 6000 persons
present that evening, and he examined them in order that he
might judge whether they were rich or poor. There were few
of what could be called the rich ; but there were a great num-
ber with decent clothes on; and perhaps one half of the whole
number were of the working classes. Now, this was a change
of the circumstances under which the previous resolution had
been adopted by the council. It was then thought that the
working classes would not be able to attend on the week days ;
but it was now found as a matter of fact that they did go, and
he should therefore vote for the motion. He certainly thought
with Mr. Bolton that it would be better if the proprietors
would release the institution from embarrassment by their own
means ; but Mr. Bolton ought to recollect that all men were
not blessed with a heart so liberal as his own.

The TOWN-CLEILK here mentioned that he had been out of
the room to make inquiries respecting the statements made
by Mr. Sheil, and he found that, when the old site of the
Botanic Garden was about to be abandoned, the proprietors
applied for a new lease for i 5 years, free of cost, in order
that they might dispose of the land, and apply the proceeds
to the forming of the new Botanic Garden, in consideration
of which it was proposed that the reversion of the new pro-
perty should be vested in the corporation—that is, so far
as to secure that the land should be used for a Botanic Gar-
den, in failure of which it was to go to the corporation.
Whether that proposal was legally carried into effect or not,
he_could not say. . .

Mr. Alderman EARLE, notwithstanding what had been
said to the contrary, thought it had been clearly proved by
Mr. Shell, that the working-classes could not now go to the
garden. A few, residing in the vicinity, might find their way
there, and perhaps a portion of the families of the poor; but
the great bulk of the people, in the north, the south, and the
centre of the town, were practically excluded. He denied
that it WAS on religious grounds that the great bulk of the