Scotland in the nineteenth century

15. Transport

Section 15.6: Piers and harbours

A government grant of £10,000 was made in 1816 towards improving the harbour at Peterhead. The work was almost complete when the harbour was badly damaged by a storm in October, 1819. A memorial was drawn up requesting further sums to pay for alterations to protect the harbour from future storms.

[page 313]

A project for the improvement and enlargement of Banff harbour was also well underway when considerable damage was caused to the harbour, piers and fishing materials by the storm. The memorialists applied for further financial aid to increase the size of the pier of Banff harbour.

The Commissioners for Highland Roads and Bridges calculated that £3,384 was necessary for the completion of the pier at Peterhead, and £2,000 for the pier at Banff. They recommended that parliament should make a grant of £3,000 and the memorialists should raise a similar sum.

The report looked at changes that had taken place to harbours and why these changes had been made and by whose authority, how these changes could be stopped or reversed and if a law could be implemented to protect the public's interest in the future. Included in the report was information on the Rivers Clyde and Tay and the harbour at Montrose.

On the Clyde, 90 years before the report, only barges drawing less than three feet could reach Glasgow and manufactured goods had to be taken down to Port Glasgow or Greenock for export, with imports being transhipped in barges. A plan of 1755 to build a lock below the city and turn the Clyde into a canal was replaced in 1768 by one to narrow the river, thus achieving a depth of 17 feet of water at the city quay. By 1844, 13,919 vessels were arriving in the port with a tonnage of more than 1 million tons. In 1770, the gross harbour dues had been £147; by 1841, they had reached £50,292. William Bald, engineer to the Clyde trustees, explained that, because of earlier neglect to the river and no protection from central government, improvements had only been achieved at great expense (pp. 1-13).

The River Tay was not as commercially important as the Clyde but the Commissioners noticed its increasing importance with the growth of Dundee and Perth. Before 1834, the river was mainly a fishing river and the various fisheries had almost blocked the stream. In 1834, an engineers' report to the Perth Commissioners gave notice of the extent of the neglect and an Improvement Act was obtained to allow them to raise money for improvement. At Perth and Dundee, harbour works were built to take advantage of these improvements.

At Montrose (pp. 82-4), the trustees spent £42,000 on a wet dock only to have a wealthy landowner seize part of the tidal river, blocking the entrance to the dock.

After hearing the evidence, the Commissioners recommended that a law was needed to protect navigable and tidal waters from depredation and encroachment.

The returns covered the period 1841-45, giving the income of each of the ports and its yearly expenditure. Scotland pp. 43-870, Glasgow, pp. 53-6.

[page 314]

Appendix C carried the main body of information of the Scottish ports. The Commissioners found them, in general, to be better managed than those in other parts of the United Kingdom coasts, but still needed greater government protection.

Scotland had more than 140 main land harbours at which dues were levied but the debt of these harbours were eight times that of their revenue.

In total, they had registered 3,632 vessels of 503,040 tons.

Reports on individual Scottish ports visited (pp. 1-614).

The Committee was to decide if further grants of money were to be made available for harbours of refuge.

David Stevenson, a civil engineer (pp. 1-15), thought Wick would be the best site for a new harbour as it was, especially for fishing, the most important port on the east coast of Scotland. During the fishing season, 1,200 to 1,400 boats were based at Wick, compared to the 400 at Peterhead, and more merchant ships passed, making Wick the natural choice as a place of refuge.

"ordered that the Orkney and Zetland Small Piers and Harbours Bill be read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of five members."

There was a considerable trade in fish and cattle from Orkney. It was thought that the construction of additional piers and harbours would facilitate this trade and improve communications between the islands. Sir Leonard Lyell, a member of the Committee, pointed out that, "they are generally too poor a people and not sufficiently united to be able to undertake a harbour on their own account, or to be able to come to Parliament and get a Provisional Order" (p. 1).

The county councils on the islands refused to undertake works such as piers because the rate would have to he levied equally throughout the county. Some of the islands were already well provided with piers and harbours so this would cause opposition. The Bill proposed that the rate levied for the purpose of constructing harbours and piers should be limited to a smaller area.