Quick Search
|
Search Results
You searched for: broadside links
6 items
items as
Brief Scene From A Drama
491 This satirical broadside presents the first act of a drama probably realised by a private citizen to denounce a current political issue. The first character of the drama, called "Ed.", sees no solution other than death to escape disgrace. He has not been able to prevent the "vile Duncan" from obtaining the favour of the people, despite Ed.'s numerous efforts. A High Civic Dignitary (whose name is "P--t") and his Clique, represented as rather naïve, try to ascertain whether Ed. is effectively deceased.
Unfortunately, since this document lacks a date or proper names, it is hard to understand exactly what matter it is addressing. The words "Links", "Duncan", "petition", "train" suggest that the broadside may refer to a rivalry between two competing railway companies' directors which occurred in 1856. Mr. Duncan (John Duncan), mentioned twice by the first character, had appealed to the public to obtain permission to build his railway line on the Links. He was denounced by his opponent for not having followed the legitimate procedure of lodging a Parliament Plan. More details on the question can be found in a broadside from our collection titled "Taking Lawless Possession", available here. Taking lawless possession
493 This broadside, dated 13th June 1856, relates to a rivalry between two competing railway companies' directors, James Adam, the author of the document, and John Duncan, his opponent. The Aberdeen Journal referred to this quarrel as "the case of the rival Buchan lines", begun in April that year. Both Mr. Adam's scheme, the "Formartine and Buchan line", and Mr. Duncan's, the "Aberdeen, Peterhead, and Fraserburgh scheme", failed to obtain permission to proceed until 1858, when Mr. Adam finally succeeded.
The broadside specifically addresses the question of the Links Branch, included in Mr. Duncan's scheme. According to the Aberdeen Journal, the Head Court of the inhabitants was meant to express its opinion on the matter on Saturday 14th June. Apparently, Mr. Duncan wanted to act before obtaining an approval from the Magistrates, and issued a Hand-Bill to complain of having been prevented from "staking off what he says are the Boundaries of his Line on the Links". Mr. Adam accused Mr. Duncan of being a "Dictator of Public Opinion" and reminds him that he cannot proceed without officially lodging a Parliamentary Plan.
Mr. Duncan tried to bypass the Magistrates appealing to the public opinion for his advantage, and was therefore publicly denounced by Mr. Adam. This document provides an interesting instance of how dynamics between private citizens and authorities worked in relation to public matters. Fellow Citizens, The Traitors are at their dirty work again!
506 This broadside refers to the construction of the Links Branch railway and it was probably realised in the 1850s. Mr Duncan was indeed a railway company's director who in 1856 was involved in "the case of the rival Buchan lines" (more details on the question can be found in a broadside from our collection titled "Taking Lawless Possession").
It is a severe attack against "the Traitors" who are not telling the truth regarding the expenses incurred by the Town Council. The author, "a hater of falsehood", invites the readers to avoid any swindle that would cause a high loss in investments' profits. Inhabitants' Petition
507 This broadside, entitled 'Defence of the Links. Inhabitants' Peition' was issue by J. Urquhart, of the Lemon Tree on 23rd June 1856. It refers to a dispute between two rival railway company directors, James Adam and John Duncan.
Duncan desired to create an Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh railway line, whilst Adam wanted a Formartine and Buchan line. The broadside dates to 1856, a year of fierce debates over the future of the railways. Permission was only granted for the construction of a line in 1858, and was awarded to Adam.
Duncan's line was particularly controversial for it desired to be built into the area known as the Links. Duncan had tried to begin construction before the inhabitants of the Links had discussed the issue. This caused uproar amongst the Links' inhabitants, particularly as Duncan was required to follow parliament's say on the matter before beginning construction himself. This broadside details the matter. Duncan is elsewhere denounced, here, for providing false information about the return value of his project for investors. This broadside defends the way in which attendees of a committee meeting were listed in a petition. This had been criticised by the Herald, as can be seen in this broadside. Links Encroachment
509 This broadside, entitled 'Links Encroachment' and a reprint of the 21st June 1856 edition of the Aberdeen Herald, refers to a dispute between two rival railway company directors, James Adam and John Duncan. Duncan desired to create an Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh railway line, whilst Adam wanted a Formartine and Buchan line. The broadside dates to 1856, a year of fierce debates over the future of the railways. Permission was only granted for the construction of a line in 1858, and was awarded to Adam.
Duncan's line was particularly controversial for it desired to be built into the area known as the Links. Duncan had tried to begin construction before the inhabitants of the Links had discussed the issue. This caused uproar amongst the Links' inhabitants, particularly as Duncan was required to follow parliament's say on the matter before beginning construction himself. This broadside details the matter. Duncan is elsewhere denounced, here, for providing false information about the return value of his project for investors. This broadside lists attendees of a committee in support of Duncan's construction plans. It criticises Duncan's party for enlarging the real number of attendees at the meeting. The Railway and the Links, a new farce in three acts
520 A broadside satire from the 1856 railway dispute between James Adam and John Duncan. |