Letters written mainly by William Robertson, parliamentary agent on behalf of Perth town council, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth relating to the parliamentary court of enquiry into the Tay Bridge disaster and to speculations as to how these two events might affect the town of Perth
- Reference:GB 252 PE/19/Bundle59
- Dates of Creation:1880
Scope and Content
Includes:
Letter from Alexander Wilson, Perth to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth stating that he is holding the North British Railway Company responsible for any damage necessitated by reducing the height of the schooner Volunteer in order to comply with the emergency height restriction imposed upon vessels sailing under the Tay Bridge, 16 January 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to Robert Keay, depute town clerk, Perth intimating that “I act for the town council and police water and gas commissioners of Dundee and I have also done some things for the harbour trustees”. Adds that “I see from the newspapers that Dundee is in favour of the bridge being made a double line and of the height being reduced and that the railway company are to apply for leave to introduce a Bill into Parliament next session in reference to the bridge . . . . I am not at present employed for or against in any way”, 17 January 1880.
Notice of a special meeting of Perth town council to be held on 19 January 1880 “to consider as to proposed re-erection of the Tay Bridge and if necessary to resolve to memorialise the Board of Trade to the effect that before any application for authority to re-erect said bridge according to plans in any way different or varying from those formerly approved of and sanctioned is considered by the Board, the magistrates and council be heard for their interests”, 1880. (Printed.)
Telegram from J Walker, North British Railway office, Edinburgh to William McLeish, town clerk, Perth stating that he has been informed that “you or other parties have been in communication with Captain Robertson, harbour master, Dundee, as to the schooner with the eighty feet mast and that he has pointed out that there can be no difficulty in passing over sunken girders at high water” and asking that the ship’s captain be given this information,16 January 1880.
Telegram from Mr Noble, Tay Bridge to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth informing MacLeish that “we have only seventy feet headway at high water mark. You must strike the top gallant mast. My men will be ready tomorrow to assist”, 16 January 1880.
Letter from G B Wieland, secretaries department, North British Railway Company, Edinburgh to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth informing MacLeish that “the Company have instructed Mr Waddell, contractor, to get the fallen girders and columns of the Tay Bridge raised and removed and no unnecessary delay will take place in having the fairway of the river restored”, 19 January 1880.
Letter from David Osborne, town clerk, Newburgh to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth informing MacLeish that a Memorial is being prepared for Newburgh town council to be sent to the Board of Trade relating to the question of a reduction in the height of the Tay Bridge, 22 January 1880.
Letter from John Graham, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth relating to Perth town council’s declared intention to oppose any reduction in the headway of the Tay Bridge when reconstructed. States that “I think it not out of place that I should mention to you for your private information that I was the agent here employed in the opposition to the Bill of 1866 and to that of 1870”, 22 January 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth informing MacLeish that he has seen Messrs Grahame and Wardlaw, agents of the Caledonian Railway Company, and stating that “they are to advise the Caledonian not to oppose the introduction of the Bill as to the Tay Bridge as they think that any opposition would be unsuccessful”, 2 February 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth relating to the Tay Bridge and stating that “We will of course contend that the height ought not to be reduced . . . . We ought to strengthen our hand by getting as many others as we can to support the same view. How does Newburgh stand? They should go hand in hand with us . . . . The Caledonian Company would be very glad to see the bridge not restored”, 3 February 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth expressing the opinion that “If the company will spend enough money in the restoration of the bridge I do not suppose that engineers would have difficulty in making a bridge with 80 or 100 feet of height which would resist the force of all storms. It is a mere question of money”, 7 February 1880.
Letter from Captain David Edwards, Dundee to Thomas Richardson, Lord Provost, Perth enclosing a list of vessels of large tonnage built at Perth and Newburgh and the years they were launched and expressing the hope that “you will use your influence and see that the girders are properly lifted”. Adds that “the “Cottage Girl” founded today in coming through the present fairway at Southside of fallen girders owing to the way the stones are scattered about the pillars so far away from the foundation. Its publicly believed the last girder that was blown down when the bridge was all but built was never properly lifted”, 11 February 1880.
Letter from James Fairweather, consulting engineer, Edinburgh to Thomas Richardson, Lord Provost, Perth informing the Lord Provost that “should you require scientific evidence to defend your rights . . . I am at your service. As an uninterested person it seems to me that the Perth town council and chamber of commerce are the only public bodies that have spoken without fear regarding the rickety bridge. I look upon the action of the Dundee town council as rather a good joke”, 12 February 1880.
Letter from Messrs D and T Stevenson, civil engineers, Edinburgh to William MacLeish stating that “we shall be glad to act for the city of Perth relative to the Tay Bridge provided we can on engineering grounds support the views of the magistrates”, 16 February 1880.
Letter from W Brownlee, Provost, Dundee to Sir John Richardson, Pitfour Castle expressing his opposition to Richardson’s proposed alternative scheme for placing the railway bridge further up the Tay near Mugdrum, 17 February 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth relating to the Court of Enquiry into the Tay Bridge and observing that “I have hesitation in asking the Corporation to appear. I suppose that it cannot be disputed that the reduction of the height of the bridge would tend to the greater safety of the public. Does it not therefore come to this; are the interests above the bridge greater than those to be served by the reduction in height? Which of the two is to give way? . . . The court may report that the safety of the public would be more secured if the bridge were reduced in height but I do not see how they can recommend that it should be so reduced without having before them the interests above the bridge”, 28 April 1880.
Letter from H C Rotherey, Officer of the Wreck Commissioner, Somerset House, London to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth reassuring MacLeish that it is not within the scope of the enquiry to include in the report any suggestions for altering the height of the Tay Bridge or the width of the spans, 12 May 1880.
Letter from D and T Stevenson, civil engineers, Edinburgh to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth providing MacLeish with information regarding the number and tonnage of vessels visiting Perth in recent years, 19 May 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth stating that “the North British and all their advisers are I have little doubt fully satisfied that the bridge can be safely built of the height and with the spans authorized in 1870. Their main object is to save money in the reconstruction”, 20 May 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth informing MacLeish that “the North British presented last night to the Commons a petition for leave to deposit a petition for the intended Bill . . . . It was some time ago resolved that we should not oppose the introduction of the Bill”, 21 May 1880.
Petition of the North British Railway (Tay Bridge) to the House of Commons for leave to deposit a petition for a Bill, 1880. (Printed.)
Letter from William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth to Thomas Thornton, solicitor, Dundee stating that, “I find there is no hope whatever of your proposal to reduce the headway to 60 feet with the additional aids you promised being entertained by my constituents. If you take your stand at that figure therefore our negotiations for an amicable arrangement may be considered as terminated”, 1 June 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth revealing that “the bill has been deposited and it is to come before the examiners on the 21st inst. I have not yet seen the plans but I understand that they show a lowering of 15 feet . . . . We shall have I think until the first week in July to lodge our petition”, 12 June 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth observing that “I see that a bridge at Mugdrum would suit the Newburgh people best and Mr Cunningham does not see why it should not suit Perth, as all the bridges that have been proposed there have shown a headway of ninety feet”, 19 June 1880.
Letter from William Robertson, Westminster to William MacLeish, town clerk, Perth informing MacLeish that “the bill was read last night, the first time in the House of Commons and was referred to the examiners to report whether the shareholders of the North British Company had approved of it”, 29 June 1880.
Petition of Perth town council to the House of Commons against the North British Railway (Tay Bridge) Bill, 1880.
Conditions Governing Use
Reproduction is available subject to preservation requirements, copyright and data protection restrictions. Charges are made for this service. Applications should be made to Archive staff.