The Cunningham Camp 1906 to 1912
By Jill Drower
The Cunningham Holiday Camp was situated in Victoria Road, Douglas, adjoining the area known as Little Switzerland. Until the arrival of the Camp, this part of Victoria Road was a quiet residential backwater on the outskirts of the town. Now the place was overrun with campers for the best part of the summer season and, not surprisingly, complaints began to flow in from those living nearby.
The majority of complaints concerned offensive smells and smoke from the bakehouse chimney, but there were also several objections to the conduct of the campers themselves. In the interests of decency, campers were expected to wear full bathing costumes which covered both chest and back. It was also customary for bathers to change in huts on the beach. However, campers, keen for a quick dip before breakfast, occasionally dispensed with the rigmarole of changing on the beach and nipped down in their swimming togs. This led to one or two angry remarks about nudity for, it was said, the campers did not always go about fully clothed and people could sometimes see their naked skins.
In July 1906, the householders of Little Switzerland signed a petition asking the police to do something about the noise and ‘general hooliganism’ at the Camp. This was followed by several letters to the Town Council. The Commissioner of Police for the Island stated that , whilst he was doing everything in his power to maintain order in the public thoroughfares, nothing could be done at the Camp as it was private property. Cunningham was in a precarious position. As a ‘comeover’ he might expect to be treated by the islanders with suspicion, and this was certainly not the right time to arouse local hostility. If he were to disregard complaints he could jeopardise the whole venture. He immediately took steps to curb the boisterous enthusiasm of his campers as, by September 1906, Councillor Craine reported that there has been a great improvement at the holiday camp during the previous month. Cunningham also made a point of being cooperative with the Council’s Sanitary Committee, agreeing to an inspection by the Medical Officer of Health and complying with any recommendations that were made.
Two of the most vociferous opponents of the Camp at this time were Mark Carine, a local builder, and William Ashburner, who owned a boatbuilding business. Towards the end of the year, they appeared before the Council to complain about the disorder and nuisance caused by the Camp. For Ashburner, who had the misfortune to live opposite the Camp, this was the beginning of a long campaign against Cunningham which he bravely fought despite ridicule in the press. It culminated over five years later in a distressing scene in the Council Chamber when Ashburner, by now elderly and frail, grew so excited over the camp issue that he was allowed to speak, despite the mayor’s ruling to the contrary, simply because the Committee feared for his health.
Unlike Ashburner, Mark Carine bowed out before the battle really began and in early 1907 he dropped the legal action he had started against Cunningham in favour of a private agreement in which neither party lost face. Cunningham denied the allegations made by Carine, but at the same time agreed to remedy them. He undertook to alter the bakehouse chimney: he promised that pig swill would not be carted by Carine’s house and he gave assurances that in future, carriages would not be allowed to pull in Victoria Road outside the camp gates. The agreement also included a paragraph relating to the conduct of the campers. On top of the existing Camp regulations, Cunningham was to enforce the following rules:
- No camper shall deal with any street trader, fruit seller, bootblack or pedlar in any part to Victoria Road within 250 yards of the Camp entrance.
- No camper shall proceed up or down Little Switzerland Road to or from the shore after 8 a.m. unless completely clothed.
- No camper shall sing or shout in the borough of Douglas except in the Camp Pavilion and then only between the hours of 7.30 a.m. and 11 p.m. and campers shall not march in file in the said borough of Douglas.
- No games shall be played by any camper in the roads adjoining the neighbouring residences in and off Victoria Road.
- No camper shall commit any nuisance in any portion of the camp grounds other than in the proper conveniences provided for the purpose.
- A breach by any camper of the foregoing rules shall render such camper liable to immediate expulsion from the Camp.
In return Mark Carine agreed never to support or encourage any future action taken against Mr. Cunningham or his camp.
Not everybody objected to the boisterous conduct of the Island’s holidaymakers. In the middle of August 1906, an article in The Isle of Man Examiner remarked on how well behaved most visitors were.
“The great majority of them are young and high-spirited and most of them have, for at least fifty weeks in the year, to toil under confined and not always wholesome conditions.”
The same issue mentioned the Cunningham campers. “ There are over 1,000 young ment under canvas at Mr. Cunningham’s young Men’s Holiday Camp and a large number of these have been the guests of Mr. Cunningham for several years in succession. The young fellows seem to find life comfortable and healthful amd a;; of them appear to be in high spirits. Evangelical services are conducted on Sunday evenings by the Hon. Camp Chaplain, Mr. J. Kirkpatrick. All seats are free and hymn papers are provided. The singing is led by the Camp Orchestra and is of a hearty character. On Thursday evenings entertainments are held in the Camp Pavilion to which the public and friends of the campers are invited.”
The local papers were never sympathetic to the anti-camp agitation and always commented enthusiastically on any innovations introduced by Mr. Cunningham.
“Mr. Cunningham,” wrote The Examiner in August 1907, “the enterprising and up-to-date proprietor of the Young Men’s Holiday Camp at Little Switzerland, has purchased a motor char-a-banc. The motor is to be employed in conveying campers from the landing pier to the camp and also for taking the young men staying at the camp on pleasure trips to various parts of the Island. It can accommodate 18 passengers and was constructed by Messrs. James and Browne; it has a four cylinder engine and develops about 20 horse power”
One year a fleet of warships visited the Island and the Examiner wryly described the stir caused by Cunningham as the flotilla steamed past Douglas Head: “The arrival of the torpedo destroyers occasioned considerable excitement, and a great crowd of persons gathered on the Promenade and observed with interest the spiteful but useful-looking craft. As luck would have it, a large balloon of cigar shape was at the time held captive in the air at a considerable altitude from the Cunningham Holiday Camp. Hundreds of people jumped to the conclusion that this was one of the air-ships that had been constructed at Barrow for the Admiralty and that it accompanied the flotilla. As a consequence, it was regarded with even more interest and curiosity than the torpedo boats until better informed folk made it known that the huge gas bag was but a very clever and effective advertisement of Mr. Cunningham’s wonderful undertaking”.
Following the Carine case, there was a lull in the number of objections to the camp, but the storm had by no means blown over. The Sanitaarty Committee of Douglas Town Council felt that legislative action should be taken to regulate holiday camps and, in September 1908, they appealed to the Lieutenant Governor, Lord Raglan, in the hope that he might step in. Lord Raglan made a point of consulting those living in the immediate vicinity of the camp and agreed that it was causing considerable inconvenience, but in his reply to the Committee he stated that, “…. No legislation short of prohibiting the institution altogether would prevent, at times, annoyance to the neighbourhood.” If local authorities wanted to impose more stringent controls, he concluded, it would have to be at their won expense.
Nearly a year later the Town Clerk read a paper to a meeting of the Douglas Municipal Association in which he argued for insular legislation. “For many years” he said, “camps in the Isle of Man were confined to small temporary camps, set up by parties of friends, or some comparatively small association such as boys’ brigades. They did not cause much anxiety to local authorities, chiefly on account of their temporary character ………. The camps of which I wish today to particularly direct your attention are those established and used for the accommodation of persons brought promiscuously together as lodgers, commonly known as “Holiday Camps”. As far as I know, there are only two such camps in the Island at present, one (a comparatively small one as yet) at Howstrake; the other within the borough of Douglas, known as “Cunningham’s Camp”, where provision is made for the accommodation of from 1,500 to 2,000 young men; but, whilst there are now only a few, we cannot tell how soon the success which has apparently attended these establishments may lead to others and not only for the accommodation of males, but for females as well. And further, whilst existing camps of this class are in the neighbourhood of Douglas and Onchan today, they may in the near future in our adjoining Ramsey, Castletown, Peel, Port Erin, Laxey or any other town, village or parish. It requires very little contemplation to realise the grave dangers, both to the public health and other, which would arise unless such institutions were established, controlled and regulated under sssuitable conditions and effective legislation…..”
“Camps of this nature should be prohibited from accommodating persons of both sex in the same camp, and reasonable distance should separate camps for males from those for females.
“Whilst I am bound to state that, in the case of Douglas, Mr Cunningham courts inspection and has at all times evinced an earnest desire to meet the wishes of the officers of the Corporation, and has I believe, taken precautions to secure good order, still complaints have been made. Differences of opinion as to what is necessary have arisen; and anyway, it cannot be ensured that all keepers of camps will be as reasonable as Mr. Cunningham. It seems to me quite clear that the registration of all camps, are necessary for every district of the Island, and that, therefore, any legislation to effect these objects should be introduced by the Government, and at the expense of the Insular Government.”
Up to this point, active concern over the Camp was mainly confined to those people whose lives were directly affected by its presence. Holiday Camp legislation was not likely to become a burning issue until the Douglas population identified more closely with its critics’ objections. By stressing the importance of the public health question the anti-camp movement could not hope to gain the support it wanted. The general public were not really interested in the size of drainage ditches or the amount of airspace in a tent. Nor did the panic-mongering over epidemics and “visitations or rats and fleas” catch the public imagination. It was common knowledge that a medical officer of health inspected the camp regularly and in July 1911 a report put before the Sanitary Committee described the Camp in glowing terms. Besides, many local people had visited the camp grounds and had seen for themselves how clean and tidy they were. It was hard not to be impressed by the smartness of the buildings and the neatly planted gardens. It was therefore difficult to create a sense of injustice about the sanitary arrangements and the sleeping accommodation. After all, campers slept in tents by choice.
But eventually the anti-campers touched on an issue which was close to the hearts of many householders: the rates. Cunningham’s rate assessment brought the whole question of holiday camps to the attention of the Douglas population and, in particular, the local boarding-house keepers. It provided an outlet for all the latent resentment of those who struggled to make ends meet in the tourist trade. In the short time that they had been on the Island, the Cunninghams has built up a thriving business and, in doing so, many felt that the camp had deprived them of custom.
The fear of competition from Cunningham’s Camp was understandable, but it was not based in fact. The cost of a Cunningham holiday was, by 1911, a guinea, still a lot less than the boarding houses charged. Many Cunningham campers could not therefore afford any other kind of holiday, but this did not prevent them from spending money in the Isle of Man. Excluding passenger tax, boat fares and board, campers were spending £30,000 on the Island in an average season towards the end of the Edwardian period.
If the Douglas boarding houses had anything to fear, it was competition from other resorts rather than from Cunningham. It is likely that most of Cunningham’s campers came to the Island as a direct result of recommendation or of his own publicity on the mainland. At this time, Cunningham was advertising almost twice as extensively as the Manx Advertising Board. He was therefore attracting visitors who might otherwise have chosen Blackpool or Skegness for their holidays. Campers would tell their friends about Douglas and would come back in later years with a family to stay in more conventional surroundings.
However, the Douglas keepers did not see it this way. In June 1911, opponents were describing the Camp Question as a matter which affected the bread and butter of the people. Ashburner complained of the number of ‘To Let’ notices in windows, which he directly attributed to the Camp. Oddly enough, it was at precisely at this time that Douglas was hit by an unprecedented number of visitors. On the first Saturday of August, 1911, the shortage of accommodation was so acute that many new arrivals had to wander around Douglas in the pouring rain in a vain attempt to find a bed for the night.
On the rates question though, the anti-campers were on surer ground. By virtue of the tents, Cunningham was paying very little; this was because the rates contribution was assessed at a time of year when few, if any of the tents were erected. The assessment was therefore based on just the permanent buildings, the tent site being counted as agricultural land. This must have seemed very unfair to boarding house keepers who were assessed on the number of bedrooms they had.
The disparity in the water rate paid by Cunningham was more glaring. A meter was installed for a short time to get a rough idea of the amount used and, in following years, Cunningham was charged by estimates based on that reading. According to camp opponents, this meant that a hotel on the Front, catering for 80 or 90 guests, would pay 32/- per head, while Cunningham, who could take 2,500 campers was only paying five and a half pence per head. In fact, this estimate is exaggerated because at this time it was only at the very height of summer seasons
that all the tents were taken, but it gives some idea of the financial advantage canvas had over bricks and mortar.
It was as early as 1909 that Ccouncillor Quayle, a strong opponent of the Camp moved that: “….. the attention of the Assessment Board be directed to the valuation of the land and buildings of the Holiday Camp, which, in the opinion of the Council, are largely undervalued”. He argued that the Camp was not a temporary, but a permanent institution and that if something were not done it would be a scandal. His view met with very little sympathy in the Council Chamber and after the vote was taken, the Mayor announced that the “Noes” had it. Councillor Quayle was stopped in his tracks; “Has this motion been passed?” he asked. “No”, was the Mayor’s reply. “It has fallen to the ground. I said the “Noes” had it”. “Then that means that this motion is rejected?” Quayle asked again, to everyone’s amusement. “Certainly” replied the Mayor. Quayle was clearly surprised by this reception. “And these are the representatives of the people of Douglas!” he exclaimed.
This was just the beginning. Over the next few years the opponents of the Camp were to meet with the constant derision of their fellow councillors, but they were not deterred and they gradually won the support of a large section of the Douglas population.
It was easy enough for the anti-camp agitators to arouse public indignation at protest meetings with stirring speeches, but quite another proposition for them to win over their fellow councillors and in this they failed dismally. Ashburner’s opposition to the Camp became too much of a personal campaign and lost him support where it really counted – with the press and in the Council Chamber. In the formal staging of a council meeting his dogged attempts to force the issue seemed more like emotional outbursts. This gave the anti-camp meetings a theatrical quality and made the anti-campers and easy target for the press. By faithfully recording a blow by blow account of all the bickering and interruptions of these meeting, the local papers turned the anti-campers into figures of fun. “Councillor Ashburner thrashes a dead horse” wrote The Examiner in July 1911;
“What is all this tomfoolery for?” wrote The Isle of Man Times in August. And by November 1911 the press was describing the anti-camp agitators as, “Campophobes – a very impatient, discontented, noisy and unreasoning folk”.
|In fact, the two major complaints against the Camp were not unreasonable. It was becoming increasingly obvious that steps should be taken to regulate the expansion of the holiday camp trade. It was also quite justified to feel that Cunningham Camp, which derived considerable advantages from its urban setting, should contribute more in the way of rates. But the good arguments go lost amongst a host of petty objections and irrational proposals. For example, in complaining that gravel under the tents could become a breeding ground for rats, Ashburner was forgetting the Health Inspector’s advice that gravel would improve drainage and help prevent damp.
Cunningham’s proposal to build a subway under Victoria Road also met with an outcry from the anti-campers. The idea of a tunnel was to connect one part of the Camp with another. Cunningham had got the approval of the adjoining landowners, and as owner of the land on each side of the road, also owned the road itself. The Corporation merely owned the road surface. This would make disapproval of the plan not only unreasonable, but also extremely difficult. Where would it end, demanded the anti-camp faction, Mr Cunningham had privileges that would not be granted to any other person in the borough.
The tunnel was clearly to everybody’s advantage. By taking campers off the main road, Cunningham was reducing the danger of traffic accidents and making the campers less conspicuous to local residents. The anti-campers lost this battle and the subway was built soon after, but this kind of blanket opposition to anything and everything which would help the smooth running of the camp gave the impression that the agitators were opposed to the success of the camp rather than just its shortcomings. This, to the impartial onlooker, must have seemed too much a case of sour grapes.
At the beginning of the 1911 season, the anti-campers were calling into question the legality of the tents. At a council meeting in May, Ashburner drew the Council’s attention to the Local Government Act of 1888. According to the wording of the Act, Ashburner argued, a tent came under the definition of a building and as such, should be subject to the same bye-laws as any other building. The Town Clerk replied that a tent could not have such things as walls, materials or plans so that, even if a tent could be defined as a building, it was still not the kind of building to which the bye-laws applied.
Ashburner continued to maintain that a tent was a building. “The Act clearly lays down what a building is”, he insisted, “and what its material must be. A building made of material of felt and paper would be condemned because the material is illegal”. Unfortunately for the anti-campers, the majority of the councillors refused to take this argument seriously. “I am led to the conclusion from Mr. Ashburner’s remarks,” someone broke in, “that an umbrella would be a building!”. “It would have to be a big one”, added another, “to keep your feet under it.”
In June 1911, the ratepayers of Douglas were invited to attend a protest meeting. The meeting was packed, with local hoteliers and boarding house keepers prominent in the audience. Councillor Ashburner’s opening speech was greeted with loud applause. Then Councillor Quayle got to his feet. “I have nothing against Mr. Cunningham;” he said, “He is a splendid businessman and a splendid man to open a bazaar. He is also a very good friend in the way of trade to some of our councillors.” He followed this accusation with a comparison of the rates paid by three hotels on the Promenade with the valuation of the camp rates. The meeting concluded with a stirring speech by J.H> Kelly. “As sure as the sun is in the heavens”, he said, “We will succeed. It is wrong that one man should place 2,500 people on the slopes there, while other people are struggling to make a bare living. Mr. Cunningham is a great dictator, coming here and telling us what what he can do”.
The resolution was that the Cunningham Camp had no legal standing in the Borough. The meeting called on the Town Council to make the buildings comply with the bye-laws and resolved itself in to a committee which would see that the resolution was carried out.
The resolution was carried with an overwhelming majority and a Special Meeting fo the Council was called to discuss it. However, the meeting was so poorly attended that, despite anti-camp objections, it was adjourned. Councillor Ashburner was incensed. “I say it’s nothing less than a scandal and a disgrace!” he cried, “It is a trick”. These remarks caused some indignation. “I mean it” he went on, and he proceeded to spell out the word, “T-R-I-C-K”.
As it happened, the Council had taken its own legal advice and the considered opinion of the lawyers was that the Council would have no chance of succeeding in action taken against the Camp along the lines called for at the public meeting; and to lose such a case would be a costly affair. To order the Camp to be removed within a certain number of days would put the Council in the awkward position of going against its own advisors.
When, a fortnight later, the matter was discussed, the anti-camp resolution failed to get through by four votes to eight.
Feeling was now running very high. The anti-campers publicised another protest meeting again and the hall was filled to capacity.
In councillor Ashburner’s opening speech he described what he called a
conspiracy of silence. The Council was a brutal majority who put down the wishes of the ratepayers and defeated the resolutions he proposed. At this, a woman in the audience called out “The bold scamps!” He went on to say that the value of the camp buildings was no less than £60,000. A gasp went round the audience. According to his estimation, the hotels on the front were proportionately paying seven times the rates of the Camp. “Shame!” cried the audience. Was that fair? “No!”. Was it honest? “No!” Was is right? “No!”
When Walter Kelly’s turn came, he spoke of the camp as detrimental to the community. He asked why action had not been taken against a certain individual who put up several hundred buildings (he meant tents) without plans.
Mr. J.H. Kelly went further in his speech. He suggested that the camp should be tested as a test case. All the Council had to do, he said, was to go up to the Camp and pull the tents down. Then it would be up to Mr. Cunningham to take proceedings with the Corporation and the defendants. Kelly did not suggest, however, what the consequences might be if the Corporation lost its case, nor did he venture a guess as to the amount Cunningham might claim in damages for loss of income at the height of the summer season.
The resolution, demanding that the Corporation carry into effect the demands of the last protest meeting, was carried with an overwhelming majority and, as and irate audience filed out of the building, a scuffle broke out on the stairs.
As the Summer wore on, arguments for and against the camp were hammered out ad nauseam. The pro-campers accused their adversaries of jealousy and said that the camp was bringing over tourists who would not otherwise come to the Island. Meanwhile, the anti-campers appealed to the Home Secretary in London. The reply they received was non-committal. The only way to resolve the matter, advised the Home Office, was through the Courts and should litigation prove successful, the in was a matter for Tynwald and not Westminster. The anti-campers braced themselves for a court case.
Oddly enough, the Cunninghams did not involve themselves in the public debate. They just watched quietly from the sidelines. One thing was certain; all this publicity was providing a big advertisement for the Camp. Despite the eventual outcome of the agitation, in the battle of personalities, Cunningham was winning. After all, the fact that existing legislation did not cater for the advent of holiday camps made him lucky, not bad. It was not as though Cunningham prevented anybody from looking over the camp. When the anti-campers made their own inspections, pacing out the size of the tent site, checking one drainage ditches and measuring the amount of water in the stream that ran through his land. He was quite cooperative. This defused the anti-camp line that Cunningham was a man with something to hide. Long after the storm had blown over, it was to be the over-zealous attitude of the anti-campers that was looked on with scorn rather than Cunningham’s prosperity.
Nevertheless, for the time being, the anti-campers had the public behind them. The 1911 season ended and still the battle raged on. The Douglas Municipal elections, which took place in November, were fought and won on the anti-camp ticket. However, action by the anti-campers in the courts was pre-empted by Lord Raglan who set the wheels turning with insular legislation. He asked the Attorney General to prepare a Holiday Camps Bill and, in December 1911 it had its first reading.
The Bill gave Local Government Boards considerable powers in their control of holiday camp arrangements. It dealt with powers of entry and inspection, infectious diseases, the provision of water and camp sanitary arrangements (one WC was required for every 25 campers). It stipulated that bell tents should be used for sleeping accommodation and that no more than four campers should be housed in each tent. Clause 10 gave the Governor of the Island the power to provide a special police service at the expense of the proprietor, should the need arise.
Most notable, in its reflection of attitudes was Clause 3 dealing with camp regulations. It was felt that camps for women were undesirable. It was decided that, while ladies would not be prevented from camping “at their own sweet will”, they should not be allowed to pay fro their board and lodging. Just why they saw such camps as, “Not in ladies’ interests, we shall never know, because the issue did not provoke any discussion. The “No ladies” Clause went through without a raised eyebrow. Only a small aspect of the wording was altered so that the term ‘ladies’ camps’ became ‘ladies holiday camps’ – to distinguish them from amateur expeditions. This gave rise to the first ever official definition of holiday camps as those camps erected for gain’.
Cunningham did not object to the measures proposed in the Bill. In fact, many of the specifications (e.g. for permissible drainage systems) were based on what was already in existence up at the camp.
The anti-campers looked on the Bill with dismay. They accused Lord Raglan of checkmating them. They saw the proposed Bill as a means of legalising holiday camps. A petition, signed by 130 boarding house keepers, was presented in the House of Keys in February 1912. The objection was on three grounds. Firstly, it was argued, the Bill interfered with pending legislation. Secondly the camp was prejudicial to the community. Mr. Farrant, arguing for the anti-campers, compared the camp to a rotten tree, “No sensible man would allow it to remain to the detriment of his house”. His third argument, still a very sore point, was that the Bill made no provision for proper rating. This was the anti-campers’ last valiant attempt to defeat the holiday camp. It was heard out, but made no difference to the outcome. Holiday camps were here to stay.
Mr. Cormode agreed to take charge of the Bill on the condition “that if the anti-campers do away with me, the House will provide adequate compensation for my wife”. The antis were not satisfied but the whole issue had burnt itself out. After five and a half years of wrangling, Britain’s first ever holiday camp legislation was on the statute book.
Photo: Collection of Mike Kelly