The Donors Humiliated

The statue was by now complete, time was running out and the situation was therefore critical.
On April 27th, shortly after the council’s rescinding of the grant of County Square, the by now desperate Burns statue committee wrote to the council asking for an urgent meeting and expressing their regret that the council had rescinded the grant of County Square, while at the same time having no intention of granting the centre site in Dunn Square.
On the same day the Clarks and Coats thread-making businesses amalgamated. This made headline news, but tucked away among the letters page in the Paisley Express were two letters which referred to the Paisley statue. In one, the first mention was made of the Fountain Gardens as a potential site, whilst the other (from James Wallace) went right to the heart of the problem by suggesting that the statues of Burns, Wilson and Tannahill should all be removed to the Brodie Park. He opines: “Keep the Dunn Square if you like for men of wealth; the Brodie Park for men of worth and intellect.”
The council responded to the desperate plea from the donor’s representatives by arranging a special council meeting for May 5th. In what must rank as one of the most shameful moments in Paisley’s long political history the Burns statue committee were made to wait outside, cap in hand, while the council decided whether they could be admitted. Finally they were allowed to enter the council chamber on the proviso that the council would not enter into any discussion with them.
Once admitted, the committee made one last plea for the grant of the centre of Dunn Square, in accordance with the wishes of the townspeople. Failing that, they requested that the council fix on a site acceptable to everyone.
When they withdrew, councillor Clark moved that, contrary to the wishes of his electors, the council should not approach Sir William Dunn for his permission to place the statue on the square. A counter motion was proposed, which proposed that Sir William should be approached. On a division the council split 10-10, but on the casting vote of the Provost, councillor Clark’s motion (not to approach Sir William) was carried. This petty, despicable and shameless episode of forelock-tugging by the council and their arrogance in refusing to exercise their ability to fulfil the known wishes of their electors is a stain on the town which should condemn the councillors and the MP who brought it about to everlasting shame.