Ardrossan - On This Day In History

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
12 JANUARY 1899

ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION – ARDROSSAN BRANCH

The annual meeting was held in the Eglinton Arms Hotel – Mr. John Craig, secretary, Ardrossan Harbour Company, presiding.

The financial report, submitted by Mr. John Emslie, solicitor, showed a credit balance of £43 10s 6d, after remitting £20 to the parent institution.

It was agreed to remit £20 of this balance (additional to the item of £20 already mentioned) to the institution.

The hon. secretary, Mr. Emslie, stated that the new lifeboat was expected to be placed at the station in June. The boat is in the course of construction, and is of the same type as the new boat at Campbeltown – a non-self-righting one – and in the opinion of the officers of the institution is better fitted to contend with heavy seas that boats of the self-righting type.

Mr. Emslie also bore testimony to the efficiency of the crew of the lifeboat as shown in recent exercises.

Office-bearers were re-elected.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
13 JANUARY 1894

DEATH

CHISHOLM: At 17 Glasgow Street, Ardrossan, on the 12th instant, aged 56 years, after a lingering illness, Donald Chisholm.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
13 JANUARY 1915

ROYAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION

At the annual meeting of the Ardrossan Branch of the Royal Lifeboat Institution – Mr. John Barr, J.P., presiding – Mr. T. Guthrie, treasurer, intimated that the total income of the branch for the year amounted to £86 0s 7d. The station was in excellent order and the new boat was giving great satisfaction.

Provost Chrystie was appointed chairman for the ensuing year.

[George Ardrossan]

13 JANUARY

WEST AMATEUR SNOOKER TITLE
Illness again prevented as player from fulfilling an engagement in the first round of the West of Scotland Amateur Snooker Championship at the Nile Rooms, Glasgow, last night. Influenza caused E McLeod, Elderslie, to scratch and J Cunningham, Ardrossan, thus goes forward to the second round.
The Scotsman, 13 January 1937

FORTY-FIVE YEARS MINISTRY – FAREWELL GIFTS TO RETIRING ARDROSSAN PASTOR
Last night, the Reverend Dr R M Adamson (shown below), Saint John’s Church of Scotland, Ardrossan, who has retired from the full charge of the congregation after a ministry of forty-five years, was presented at a social meeting of the congregation with a wallet and Treasury notes and a wireless set. Mrs Adamson received a gold watch from the Women’s Guild. Dr Adamson, who was educated at Edinburgh, Leipzig and Jena Universities, has been a prominent member of various standing committees of the General Assembly and took a particularly active part in the Union negations. He is the author of many theological writings, including a volume The Christian Doctrine Of The Lord’s Supper. In 1931, the Senatus Academicus of Edinburgh University conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Divinity. Dr and Mrs Adamson are taking up residence in Edinburgh.

The Scotsman, 13 January 1938

George

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
14 JANUARY 1936

FORMER ARDROSSAN BANK AGENT

The death took place at his residence in Dunblane yesterday of Mr. John Edward Hill who was in his 82nd year, served in the navy in his youth, and afterwards went into the banking profession, being agent for the Bank of Scotland, first at Buchlyvie and afterwards at Ardrossan.

[Penny Tray]

Magic stuff, Laurence!

Mr William Pllu, coxswain of the small boat, acknowledged the gifts on behalf of his crew, mentioning incidentally they had been instrumental in saving 47 lives during his lifetime.

There were one or two hints in the full Glasgow Herald article that things weren't exactly 'comfortable' in the aftermath of the rescue - viz. why was a public subscription raised as opposed to official recognition from the Town Council or the Royal Humane Society?; What circumstances prevailed that resulted in William Pllu and his crew achieving something the lifeboat crew didn't?; Did the Provost of Ardrossan really need to be absent?; and why, in his absence, was the Provost of Saltcoats making a presentation in Ardrossan?; and why did the presentation such as it was last "little longer than five minutes"?

This earlier letter to the Editor of the Glasgow Herald, which I've now discovered, is therefore all the more interesting -

12 JANUARY 1895
THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

Sir - Regarding the report just published referring to the wreck of the Loven at Ardrossan on the 22nd ult., would you kindly permit me to say that the recent so-called public inquiry into the conduct of the lifeboat crew was a solemn farce from beginning to end.

The utter failure of the lifeboat crew to render the assistance expected of them on the above date, together with the uncontradicted statements of many of your correspondents, that the last was actually the third or fourth time that the Ardrossan lifeboat had been similarly handled, so stirred the public indignation as to demand a Public Inquiry. To meet this demand it was immediately advertised that a public inquiry would be held.

To any ordinary mind this implied that it would be conducted by an important court, upon whose finding the public might place implicit confidence.

Who constituted the court but the very officials who were implicated, presided over by Mr Charles Cunningham Graham, Deputy Chief Inspector of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, assisted by Lieut. Foote, District Inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, supported by Captain Shields, Harbourmaster (who has charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan), and Mr John Craig, deputy harbourmaster, and the Lifeboat Committee, all and each of whom were responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat.

At this season of the year subscriptions are being collected for the support of the Institution, and hence the urgent necessity of setting the public mind at rest by a public inquiry. This could only be accomplished by a reassuring report such as has now been made public.

Being resident in Ardrossan at the time of the wreck, I made a point of attending the inquiry. Mr Graham, lifeboat official, presided in various capacities - as, first of all, a high officer of the R.N.L.I., also as senior counsel and judge, with Lieutenant Foote as his junior colleague and cross-examiner, supported by Captain Shields. The public were prohibited from either submitting or asking questions, and therefore were wholly unrepresented. Their witnesses consisted of the lifeboat crew, who agreed in their evidence. Mr Graham had always staring him in the face the hard fact that the lifeboat crew and officials had failed to rescue the three poor fellows who had been hanging on to the rigging of a sunken ship in their full view and within shouting distance, with only a short bit of rough sea between, for about eight hours. Had they dropped off then his difficulty was cleared away, but a small open boat, manned by a brave set of men as the world could produce, sailed out past the lifeboat, and in about an hour afterwards returned safely with the rescued men, who when they were reached were ready to perish.

I should still like to have an explanation from Captain Williamson, of the Glasgow and South Western Steamers, as to the instructions issued to those in command of his steamers, which prevented the Glen Rosa's lifeboat being available for the saving of life when asked for.

One of the objects in this letter is to call public attention to the bravery of the Saltcoats crew who rescued the sailors.

Naturally it should have fallen to the Provost of Ardrossan to urge their claims upon the public, but for unexplained reasons the heroic deed of these brave men is being passed over.

Ardrossan having failed to do its bare duty even in this case cannot the popular Provost of Saltcoats take the matter up.

I am &c

GEORGE B MAIN
3 Dalzell Drive
Pollokshields

GLASGOW HERALD
14 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

May I crave the privilege of being allowed to pen a few sentences in reply to the letter signed by Mr. George B. Main, and which appears under the above heading in your issue of today (12 January 1895).

At the outset Mr. Main characterises the recent inquiry as a “solemn farce,” and the ground on which he houses this characterisation is that those who constituted the court were “the very officials who were implicated, presided over by Mr. Charles Cunningham Graham, deputy chief inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, assisted by Lieutenant Foote, district inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, supported by Captain Shields, harbourmaster (who has charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan), and Mr. John Craig, deputy harbourmaster, and the Lifeboat Committee, all and each of whom were responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat.”

Captain Shields has not the charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan; Mr. John Craig is harbour manager, not deputy harbourmaster; and though the Lifeboat Committee are the local representative of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution there is only one man who is responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat when in practice, and that is the coxswain.

In consequence, presumably, of the display of “public indignation” in your column, the Institution resolved to hold a public inquiry.

The Ardrossan Lifeboat Committee heartily concurred, and by advertisement in your columns and posters exhibited throughout the town, the public were expressly invited to come forward and give evidence. There was no response whatsoever, the public repressing their indignation on the occasion on which, if it really existed, its expression would have been most effective.

The inquiry was conducted in the only manner in which such an inquiry, if it is not to be a farce, can be conducted.

The crew of the lifeboat were not charged with any infringement of civil or criminal law. Indeed there was no regularly formulated charge of any kind preferred against them.

An inquiry was held in the usual course. The actions of a body directly dependent for existence on public support must in fairness have the fullest publicity given to them. The public were freely admitted and where the “farce” comes in can only be apparent to people with a more finely developed sense of humour than the ordinary Scotsman cares to lay claim to.

I humbly submit, Sir, that the view Mr. Main has taken of the whole circumstances which gave rise to the inquiry is entirely illogical. In one sentence he states that “the lifeboat crew and officials had failed to rescue the three poor fellows who had been hanging on to the rigging of a sunken ship in their full view and with shouting distance, with only a short bit of rough sea between them, for about eight hours,” and in almost the next sentence he says, “One of my objects in this letter is to call public attention to the bravery of the Saltcoats crew, who rescued the sailors.”

Now, Sir, if it was such a trifling matter to reach the wreck wherein consists the bravery of the crew (they were not all Saltcoats men) who rescued the sailors? The crew of the small boat displayed heroism of a very noble kind, and their heroism consists in that they risked their lives in a gale so strong and a sea so heavy that a short time previously the lifeboat was unable to make headway against them. Not a man in the small boat would cast the slightest aspersion on the capacity or the courage of the lifeboat crew. To do so would be to belittle their own. Ardrossan has not failed to do “its bare duty” in the case.

A fund was opened on behalf of the rescuers over a week ago, and a considerable sum has already been contributed. Mr. Main and any others who feel disposed to contribute can do so by communicating with Mr. A. Guthrie, Herald Office, Ardrossan.

I am &c.,
ONE WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE INQUIRY

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
15 JANUARY 1896

ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL

Polling for the election of a representative of the burgh to the County Council took place in Ardrossan yesterday. The polling place was No. II Public School.

The candidates were Messrs Arthur Guthrie, publisher, and Thomas Kirkhope, solicitor.

[Penny Tray]

Magic stuff, Laurence!

There were one or two hints in the full Glasgow Herald article that things weren't exactly 'comfortable' in the aftermath of the rescue - viz. why was a public subscription raised as opposed to official recognition from the Town Council or the Royal Humane Society?; What circumstances prevailed that resulted in William Pllu and his crew achieving something the lifeboat crew didn't?; Did the Provost of Ardrossan really need to be absent?; and why, in his absence, was the Provost of Saltcoats making a presentation in Ardrossan?; and why did the presentation such as it was last "little longer than five minutes"?

This earlier letter to the Editor of the Glasgow Herald, which I've now discovered, is therefore all the more interesting -

12 JANUARY 1895
THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

Sir - Regarding the report just published referring to the wreck of the Loven at Ardrossan on the 22nd ult., would you kindly permit me to say that the recent so-called public inquiry into the conduct of the lifeboat crew was a solemn farce from beginning to end.

The utter failure of the lifeboat crew to render the assistance expected of them on the above date, together with the uncontradicted statements of many of your correspondents, that the last was actually the third or fourth time that the Ardrossan lifeboat had been similarly handled, so stirred the public indignation as to demand a Public Inquiry. To meet this demand it was immediately advertised that a public inquiry would be held.

To any ordinary mind this implied that it would be conducted by an important court, upon whose finding the public might place implicit confidence.

Who constituted the court but the very officials who were implicated, presided over by Mr Charles Cunningham Graham, Deputy Chief Inspector of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, assisted by Lieut. Foote, District Inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, supported by Captain Shields, Harbourmaster (who has charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan), and Mr John Craig, deputy harbourmaster, and the Lifeboat Committee, all and each of whom were responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat.

At this season of the year subscriptions are being collected for the support of the Institution, and hence the urgent necessity of setting the public mind at rest by a public inquiry. This could only be accomplished by a reassuring report such as has now been made public.

Being resident in Ardrossan at the time of the wreck, I made a point of attending the inquiry. Mr Graham, lifeboat official, presided in various capacities - as, first of all, a high officer of the R.N.L.I., also as senior counsel and judge, with Lieutenant Foote as his junior colleague and cross-examiner, supported by Captain Shields. The public were prohibited from either submitting or asking questions, and therefore were wholly unrepresented. Their witnesses consisted of the lifeboat crew, who agreed in their evidence. Mr Graham had always staring him in the face the hard fact that the lifeboat crew and officials had failed to rescue the three poor fellows who had been hanging on to the rigging of a sunken ship in their full view and within shouting distance, with only a short bit of rough sea between, for about eight hours. Had they dropped off then his difficulty was cleared away, but a small open boat, manned by a brave set of men as the world could produce, sailed out past the lifeboat, and in about an hour afterwards returned safely with the rescued men, who when they were reached were ready to perish.

I should still like to have an explanation from Captain Williamson, of the Glasgow and South Western Steamers, as to the instructions issued to those in command of his steamers, which prevented the Glen Rosa's lifeboat being available for the saving of life when asked for.

One of the objects in this letter is to call public attention to the bravery of the Saltcoats crew who rescued the sailors.

Naturally it should have fallen to the Provost of Ardrossan to urge their claims upon the public, but for unexplained reasons the heroic deed of these brave men is being passed over.

Ardrossan having failed to do its bare duty even in this case cannot the popular Provost of Saltcoats take the matter up.

I am &c

GEORGE B MAIN
3 Dalzell Drive
Pollokshields

GLASGOW HERALD
14 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

May I crave the privilege of being allowed to pen a few sentences in reply to the letter signed by Mr. George B. Main, and which appears under the above heading in your issue of today (12 January 1895).

At the outset Mr. Main characterises the recent inquiry as a “solemn farce,” and the ground on which he houses this characterisation is that those who constituted the court were “the very officials who were implicated, presided over by Mr. Charles Cunningham Graham, deputy chief inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, assisted by Lieutenant Foote, district inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, supported by Captain Shields, harbourmaster (who has charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan), and Mr. John Craig, deputy harbourmaster, and the Lifeboat Committee, all and each of whom were responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat.”

Captain Shields has not the charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan; Mr. John Craig is harbour manager, not deputy harbourmaster; and though the Lifeboat Committee are the local representative of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution there is only one man who is responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat when in practice, and that is the coxswain.

In consequence, presumably, of the display of “public indignation” in your column, the Institution resolved to hold a public inquiry.

The Ardrossan Lifeboat Committee heartily concurred, and by advertisement in your columns and posters exhibited throughout the town, the public were expressly invited to come forward and give evidence. There was no response whatsoever, the public repressing their indignation on the occasion on which, if it really existed, its expression would have been most effective.

The inquiry was conducted in the only manner in which such an inquiry, if it is not to be a farce, can be conducted.

The crew of the lifeboat were not charged with any infringement of civil or criminal law. Indeed there was no regularly formulated charge of any kind preferred against them.

An inquiry was held in the usual course. The actions of a body directly dependent for existence on public support must in fairness have the fullest publicity given to them. The public were freely admitted and where the “farce” comes in can only be apparent to people with a more finely developed sense of humour than the ordinary Scotsman cares to lay claim to.

I humbly submit, Sir, that the view Mr. Main has taken of the whole circumstances which gave rise to the inquiry is entirely illogical. In one sentence he states that “the lifeboat crew and officials had failed to rescue the three poor fellows who had been hanging on to the rigging of a sunken ship in their full view and with shouting distance, with only a short bit of rough sea between them, for about eight hours,” and in almost the next sentence he says, “One of my objects in this letter is to call public attention to the bravery of the Saltcoats crew, who rescued the sailors.”

Now, Sir, if it was such a trifling matter to reach the wreck wherein consists the bravery of the crew (they were not all Saltcoats men) who rescued the sailors? The crew of the small boat displayed heroism of a very noble kind, and their heroism consists in that they risked their lives in a gale so strong and a sea so heavy that a short time previously the lifeboat was unable to make headway against them. Not a man in the small boat would cast the slightest aspersion on the capacity or the courage of the lifeboat crew. To do so would be to belittle their own. Ardrossan has not failed to do “its bare duty” in the case.

A fund was opened on behalf of the rescuers over a week ago, and a considerable sum has already been contributed. Mr. Main and any others who feel disposed to contribute can do so by communicating with Mr. A. Guthrie, Herald Office, Ardrossan.

I am &c.,
ONE WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE INQUIRY

GLASGOW HERALD
15 JANUARY 1895

Sir

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

I will esteem it a favour if you will give me space in your paper to correct a lot of gross misstatements in Mr. G. B. Main’s letter of the 12th instant on this subject.

Before entering into details of these statements, I would like to explain that the lifeboat on this occasion was manned and manoeuvred by a man of undoubted experience, accustomed to handling boats in all kinds of weather. Part of them require to board vessels both day and night, in an open boat in their capacity as pilots. Some hold masters’ certificates, and one of them at least (the coxswain) is known to have had charge of a ship’s lifeboat, which saved the lives of a ship’s crew at sea during a heavy gale of wind under exceptionally dangerous circumstances, for which service he received a handsome silver medal from the Board of Trade, (inscribed “for gallantry in saving life at sea,”) accompanied by a cheque for £25.

All honour to the brave fellows who, at the risk of their lives, took off the three men of the ill-fated LOVEN (in the small lifeboat). But I am safe in saying, without fear of contradiction, that had they formed part of the Ardrossan lifeboat crew on the occasion named the results of the lifeboat’s efforts would have been the same. Had the tugboat which is always kept available to tow the lifeboat to windward not been disabled in the earlier part of the terrific gale then raging, which also prevented the dock gates from being opened to let the other tug out, I feel sure there would have been no occasion for this correspondence, and that Mr. Main would not have had an opportunity to air his literary abilities.

Now for his misstatements. He says that “the recent so-called inquiry into the conduct of the lifeboat crew was a solemn farce from beginning to end.” Again, that “the public were prohibited from either submitting or asking any questions, and therefore, wholly unrepresented,” also, “their witnesses consisted of the lifeboat crews.” He thus leads the public to believe that these were the only witnesses called. Now, if Mr. Main was, as he says, present at the inquiry, and if he subscribes to the press, these must be wilful representations, as advertisements were for several days previous to the inquiry inserted in the Glasgow and local press requesting those who had interested themselves by writing, and others who witnessed the efforts made, to come forward and give their names and assist at the inquiry.

Moreover, in his opening address, the chairman stated he would be glad to put to witnesses any questions handed to him in writing by those present at the inquiry. Of this privilege myself and others took advantage. Why did not Mr. Main do the same?

As regards his insinuation that the lifeboat’s crew were the only witnesses, I beg to state that only four out of fifteen of the lifeboat’s crew gave evidence, whereas ten others, who were principally eye witnesses also testified. How does Mr. Main reconcile his misstatements with these facts?

If the gentleman he names as chairman, with the assistance of his colleagues, and inviting by advertisements the assistance of the outside public, are not the proper parties to conduct an inquiry of this sort, will Mr. Main kindly inform us who are!

He says that I have charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan. This is not the fact; I am not even on the committee, the boat being entirely under the charge of the coxswain. He also says that I supported the Court, which is also erroneous. I was simply there in the capacity of a witness, the same as others.

Mr. John Craig is general manager of the Ardrossan Harbour, and not, as Mr. Main says, deputy harbourmaster.

In conclusion, I would advise Mr. Main, before he again rushes into print, to make himself conversant with the facts of the case about which he is writing, and adhere to them.

I am averse to taking part in a newspaper correspondence, but feel compelled to correct misstatements made in Mr. Main’s letter.

I am &c.,
R. Shields,
Harbourmaster,
Ardrossan.


GLASGOW HERALD
15 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

I regret to notice in your issue of this date (12 January 1895) that this matter has been made the subject of a letter signed George B. Main.

As a person of some little experience in matters of this sort, though unconnected with the Ardrossan lifeboat or the Lifeboat Institution, I would call the attention of the public to the following, as Mr. Main in his letter betrays an entire ignorance of the most important facts of the case, as well as an extraordinary want of common sense.

It will be admitted that in newspaper, as in other such correspondence, one of the chief points to be aimed at is a rigid regard to fact. This principle Mr. Main seems to have forgotten. He begins by sneering at the constitution of the Court of inquiry held at Ardrossan on the 4th instant. Would it not have been more to the point had he named the Court that should have sat in judgment on the servants of the Lifeboat Institution?

Mr. Main states that Captain Shields has charge of the lifeboat, while it is the fact that that gentleman has nothing whatever to do with either the lifeboat or the institution; also that he supported Lieutenant Foote as cross-examiner, whereas Captain Shields appeared as a witness, his large experience naturally causing his evidence to receive its proper value in the inquiry.

Mr. John Craig, who also appeared as a witness at the inquiry, is general manager and secretary of Ardrossan Harbour Company, and not deputy harbour master, as your correspondent states.

Mr. Main also affirms that the witnesses called were the members of the lifeboat crew. Anyone present at in inquiry (and Mr. Main states he was) should know that the members of the small boat’s crew, as well as Mr. Craig, Captain Shields, coastguards, and others all gave evidence.

Mr. Main seems to forget that he or any other person was invited by newspaper advertisement to come forward and give evidence, and it would have been more manly had he done so, and not written that the public were unrepresented at the inquiry, which was called at the instigation of the institution. How far it has succeeded in vindicating the Ardrossan lifeboat crew must be left for right-minded subscribers to judge. The plucky action of the small boat’s crew is fully appreciated by the public, and is such as does not require to be boosted by Mr. Main or anybody else.

The wreck, instead of being within shouting distance, lay about three-quarters of a mile from the harbour, and dead to windward, and a hurricane blowing. But why should the Ardrossan lifeboat crew be censured any more than that of the Troon boat, which did not, or could not reach the wreck on the Lady Isle a week afterwards, when I think I am right in saying the wind was not so heavy.

Having seen the same thing occur 20 years ago when the CHUSAN was wrecked at Ardrossan, and when the lifeboat could not possibly get out past Winton pier head, and a small boat manned by a scratch crew succeeded in reaching the wreck (which on that occasion was almost within shouting distance), I have long since come to the conclusion that such lifeboats cannot under such circumstances be pulled to windward, and to get them out under sail from a place like Ardrossan is, in my opinion, almost as impossible.

Mr. Main states that the men rescued from the LOVEN were left clinging to the wreck for almost eight hours within full view of the harbour, whereas they were not descried, according to evidence adduced, until after 11 o’clock, and they were rescued by three o’clock or shortly after, their comrades having been swept off the wreck just after the vessel struck during the darkness of early morning.

Mr. Main does not seem to know that a subscription, in order to recognise the Saltcoats crew as he styles them, was started immediately after the creditable rescue they effected. I don’t see his name on any published list of subscribers.

Trusting that the above may annul any bad impression Mr. G. B. Main’s letter may have left on the minds of any not thoroughly acquainted with the actual facts.

I am &c.,
VERITAS

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
10 JANUARY 1894

BIRTH

GUTHRIE: At Seton Street, Ardrossan, on the 8th instant, the wife of T. S. Guthrie, butcher; a son.

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1894

DEATH

GUTHRIE: At Seton Street, Ardrossan, on the 14th instant, Agnes McCall, beloved wife of T. S. Guthrie.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1894

SHIPPING CASUALTY

A telegram from Ardrossan states that the steamer DOMIRA, of Glasgow, collided with the pierhead yesterday morning, damaging stern and causing vessel to make water.

[Penny Tray]

There were one or two hints in the full Glasgow Herald article that things weren't exactly 'comfortable' in the aftermath of the rescue - viz. why was a public subscription raised as opposed to official recognition from the Town Council or the Royal Humane Society?; What circumstances prevailed that resulted in William Pllu and his crew achieving something the lifeboat crew didn't?; Did the Provost of Ardrossan really need to be absent?; and why, in his absence, was the Provost of Saltcoats making a presentation in Ardrossan?; and why did the presentation such as it was last "little longer than five minutes"?

This earlier letter to the Editor of the Glasgow Herald, which I've now discovered, is therefore all the more interesting -

12 JANUARY 1895
THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

Sir - Regarding the report just published referring to the wreck of the Loven at Ardrossan on the 22nd ult., would you kindly permit me to say that the recent so-called public inquiry into the conduct of the lifeboat crew was a solemn farce from beginning to end.

The utter failure of the lifeboat crew to render the assistance expected of them on the above date, together with the uncontradicted statements of many of your correspondents, that the last was actually the third or fourth time that the Ardrossan lifeboat had been similarly handled, so stirred the public indignation as to demand a Public Inquiry. To meet this demand it was immediately advertised that a public inquiry would be held.

To any ordinary mind this implied that it would be conducted by an important court, upon whose finding the public might place implicit confidence.

Who constituted the court but the very officials who were implicated, presided over by Mr Charles Cunningham Graham, Deputy Chief Inspector of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, assisted by Lieut. Foote, District Inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, supported by Captain Shields, Harbourmaster (who has charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan), and Mr John Craig, deputy harbourmaster, and the Lifeboat Committee, all and each of whom were responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat.

At this season of the year subscriptions are being collected for the support of the Institution, and hence the urgent necessity of setting the public mind at rest by a public inquiry. This could only be accomplished by a reassuring report such as has now been made public.

Being resident in Ardrossan at the time of the wreck, I made a point of attending the inquiry. Mr Graham, lifeboat official, presided in various capacities - as, first of all, a high officer of the R.N.L.I., also as senior counsel and judge, with Lieutenant Foote as his junior colleague and cross-examiner, supported by Captain Shields. The public were prohibited from either submitting or asking questions, and therefore were wholly unrepresented. Their witnesses consisted of the lifeboat crew, who agreed in their evidence. Mr Graham had always staring him in the face the hard fact that the lifeboat crew and officials had failed to rescue the three poor fellows who had been hanging on to the rigging of a sunken ship in their full view and within shouting distance, with only a short bit of rough sea between, for about eight hours. Had they dropped off then his difficulty was cleared away, but a small open boat, manned by a brave set of men as the world could produce, sailed out past the lifeboat, and in about an hour afterwards returned safely with the rescued men, who when they were reached were ready to perish.

I should still like to have an explanation from Captain Williamson, of the Glasgow and South Western Steamers, as to the instructions issued to those in command of his steamers, which prevented the Glen Rosa's lifeboat being available for the saving of life when asked for.

One of the objects in this letter is to call public attention to the bravery of the Saltcoats crew who rescued the sailors.

Naturally it should have fallen to the Provost of Ardrossan to urge their claims upon the public, but for unexplained reasons the heroic deed of these brave men is being passed over.

Ardrossan having failed to do its bare duty even in this case cannot the popular Provost of Saltcoats take the matter up.

I am &c

GEORGE B MAIN
3 Dalzell Drive
Pollokshields

GLASGOW HERALD
14 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

May I crave the privilege of being allowed to pen a few sentences in reply to the letter signed by Mr. George B. Main, and which appears under the above heading in your issue of today (12 January 1895).

At the outset Mr. Main characterises the recent inquiry as a “solemn farce,” and the ground on which he houses this characterisation is that those who constituted the court were “the very officials who were implicated, presided over by Mr. Charles Cunningham Graham, deputy chief inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, assisted by Lieutenant Foote, district inspector for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, supported by Captain Shields, harbourmaster (who has charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan), and Mr. John Craig, deputy harbourmaster, and the Lifeboat Committee, all and each of whom were responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat.”

Captain Shields has not the charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan; Mr. John Craig is harbour manager, not deputy harbourmaster; and though the Lifeboat Committee are the local representative of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution there is only one man who is responsible for the conduct of the lifeboat when in practice, and that is the coxswain.

In consequence, presumably, of the display of “public indignation” in your column, the Institution resolved to hold a public inquiry.

The Ardrossan Lifeboat Committee heartily concurred, and by advertisement in your columns and posters exhibited throughout the town, the public were expressly invited to come forward and give evidence. There was no response whatsoever, the public repressing their indignation on the occasion on which, if it really existed, its expression would have been most effective.

The inquiry was conducted in the only manner in which such an inquiry, if it is not to be a farce, can be conducted.

The crew of the lifeboat were not charged with any infringement of civil or criminal law. Indeed there was no regularly formulated charge of any kind preferred against them.

An inquiry was held in the usual course. The actions of a body directly dependent for existence on public support must in fairness have the fullest publicity given to them. The public were freely admitted and where the “farce” comes in can only be apparent to people with a more finely developed sense of humour than the ordinary Scotsman cares to lay claim to.

I humbly submit, Sir, that the view Mr. Main has taken of the whole circumstances which gave rise to the inquiry is entirely illogical. In one sentence he states that “the lifeboat crew and officials had failed to rescue the three poor fellows who had been hanging on to the rigging of a sunken ship in their full view and with shouting distance, with only a short bit of rough sea between them, for about eight hours,” and in almost the next sentence he says, “One of my objects in this letter is to call public attention to the bravery of the Saltcoats crew, who rescued the sailors.”

Now, Sir, if it was such a trifling matter to reach the wreck wherein consists the bravery of the crew (they were not all Saltcoats men) who rescued the sailors? The crew of the small boat displayed heroism of a very noble kind, and their heroism consists in that they risked their lives in a gale so strong and a sea so heavy that a short time previously the lifeboat was unable to make headway against them. Not a man in the small boat would cast the slightest aspersion on the capacity or the courage of the lifeboat crew. To do so would be to belittle their own. Ardrossan has not failed to do “its bare duty” in the case.

A fund was opened on behalf of the rescuers over a week ago, and a considerable sum has already been contributed. Mr. Main and any others who feel disposed to contribute can do so by communicating with Mr. A. Guthrie, Herald Office, Ardrossan.

I am &c.,
ONE WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE INQUIRY

GLASGOW HERALD
15 JANUARY 1895

Sir

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

I will esteem it a favour if you will give me space in your paper to correct a lot of gross misstatements in Mr. G. B. Main’s letter of the 12th instant on this subject.

Before entering into details of these statements, I would like to explain that the lifeboat on this occasion was manned and manoeuvred by a man of undoubted experience, accustomed to handling boats in all kinds of weather. Part of them require to board vessels both day and night, in an open boat in their capacity as pilots. Some hold masters’ certificates, and one of them at least (the coxswain) is known to have had charge of a ship’s lifeboat, which saved the lives of a ship’s crew at sea during a heavy gale of wind under exceptionally dangerous circumstances, for which service he received a handsome silver medal from the Board of Trade, (inscribed “for gallantry in saving life at sea,”) accompanied by a cheque for £25.

All honour to the brave fellows who, at the risk of their lives, took off the three men of the ill-fated LOVEN (in the small lifeboat). But I am safe in saying, without fear of contradiction, that had they formed part of the Ardrossan lifeboat crew on the occasion named the results of the lifeboat’s efforts would have been the same. Had the tugboat which is always kept available to tow the lifeboat to windward not been disabled in the earlier part of the terrific gale then raging, which also prevented the dock gates from being opened to let the other tug out, I feel sure there would have been no occasion for this correspondence, and that Mr. Main would not have had an opportunity to air his literary abilities.

Now for his misstatements. He says that “the recent so-called inquiry into the conduct of the lifeboat crew was a solemn farce from beginning to end.” Again, that “the public were prohibited from either submitting or asking any questions, and therefore, wholly unrepresented,” also, “their witnesses consisted of the lifeboat crews.” He thus leads the public to believe that these were the only witnesses called. Now, if Mr. Main was, as he says, present at the inquiry, and if he subscribes to the press, these must be wilful representations, as advertisements were for several days previous to the inquiry inserted in the Glasgow and local press requesting those who had interested themselves by writing, and others who witnessed the efforts made, to come forward and give their names and assist at the inquiry.

Moreover, in his opening address, the chairman stated he would be glad to put to witnesses any questions handed to him in writing by those present at the inquiry. Of this privilege myself and others took advantage. Why did not Mr. Main do the same?

As regards his insinuation that the lifeboat’s crew were the only witnesses, I beg to state that only four out of fifteen of the lifeboat’s crew gave evidence, whereas ten others, who were principally eye witnesses also testified. How does Mr. Main reconcile his misstatements with these facts?

If the gentleman he names as chairman, with the assistance of his colleagues, and inviting by advertisements the assistance of the outside public, are not the proper parties to conduct an inquiry of this sort, will Mr. Main kindly inform us who are!

He says that I have charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan. This is not the fact; I am not even on the committee, the boat being entirely under the charge of the coxswain. He also says that I supported the Court, which is also erroneous. I was simply there in the capacity of a witness, the same as others.

Mr. John Craig is general manager of the Ardrossan Harbour, and not, as Mr. Main says, deputy harbourmaster.

In conclusion, I would advise Mr. Main, before he again rushes into print, to make himself conversant with the facts of the case about which he is writing, and adhere to them.

I am averse to taking part in a newspaper correspondence, but feel compelled to correct misstatements made in Mr. Main’s letter.

I am &c.,
R. Shields,
Harbourmaster,
Ardrossan.


GLASGOW HERALD
15 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

I regret to notice in your issue of this date (12 January 1895) that this matter has been made the subject of a letter signed George B. Main.

As a person of some little experience in matters of this sort, though unconnected with the Ardrossan lifeboat or the Lifeboat Institution, I would call the attention of the public to the following, as Mr. Main in his letter betrays an entire ignorance of the most important facts of the case, as well as an extraordinary want of common sense.

It will be admitted that in newspaper, as in other such correspondence, one of the chief points to be aimed at is a rigid regard to fact. This principle Mr. Main seems to have forgotten. He begins by sneering at the constitution of the Court of inquiry held at Ardrossan on the 4th instant. Would it not have been more to the point had he named the Court that should have sat in judgment on the servants of the Lifeboat Institution?

Mr. Main states that Captain Shields has charge of the lifeboat, while it is the fact that that gentleman has nothing whatever to do with either the lifeboat or the institution; also that he supported Lieutenant Foote as cross-examiner, whereas Captain Shields appeared as a witness, his large experience naturally causing his evidence to receive its proper value in the inquiry.

Mr. John Craig, who also appeared as a witness at the inquiry, is general manager and secretary of Ardrossan Harbour Company, and not deputy harbour master, as your correspondent states.

Mr. Main also affirms that the witnesses called were the members of the lifeboat crew. Anyone present at in inquiry (and Mr. Main states he was) should know that the members of the small boat’s crew, as well as Mr. Craig, Captain Shields, coastguards, and others all gave evidence.

Mr. Main seems to forget that he or any other person was invited by newspaper advertisement to come forward and give evidence, and it would have been more manly had he done so, and not written that the public were unrepresented at the inquiry, which was called at the instigation of the institution. How far it has succeeded in vindicating the Ardrossan lifeboat crew must be left for right-minded subscribers to judge. The plucky action of the small boat’s crew is fully appreciated by the public, and is such as does not require to be boosted by Mr. Main or anybody else.

The wreck, instead of being within shouting distance, lay about three-quarters of a mile from the harbour, and dead to windward, and a hurricane blowing. But why should the Ardrossan lifeboat crew be censured any more than that of the Troon boat, which did not, or could not reach the wreck on the Lady Isle a week afterwards, when I think I am right in saying the wind was not so heavy.

Having seen the same thing occur 20 years ago when the CHUSAN was wrecked at Ardrossan, and when the lifeboat could not possibly get out past Winton pier head, and a small boat manned by a scratch crew succeeded in reaching the wreck (which on that occasion was almost within shouting distance), I have long since come to the conclusion that such lifeboats cannot under such circumstances be pulled to windward, and to get them out under sail from a place like Ardrossan is, in my opinion, almost as impossible.

Mr. Main states that the men rescued from the LOVEN were left clinging to the wreck for almost eight hours within full view of the harbour, whereas they were not descried, according to evidence adduced, until after 11 o’clock, and they were rescued by three o’clock or shortly after, their comrades having been swept off the wreck just after the vessel struck during the darkness of early morning.

Mr. Main does not seem to know that a subscription, in order to recognise the Saltcoats crew as he styles them, was started immediately after the creditable rescue they effected. I don’t see his name on any published list of subscribers.

Trusting that the above may annul any bad impression Mr. G. B. Main’s letter may have left on the minds of any not thoroughly acquainted with the actual facts.

I am &c.,
VERITAS

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

I have carefully read over all the letters which have been published in reply to mine which appeared in your issue of 12th instant. In some of these is the question which, after all, is the chief point of my communication, satisfactorily referred to – viz. How was it that a scratch crew, in an ordinary ship’s boat, managed to accomplish the rescue of three men from the ship LOVEN, whilst the a Royal National Lifeboat, specifically built for the saving of life, was obliged to lie at anchor in the harbour in a sheltered position?

Before answering specifically the letters of Messrs Shields and Craig, and your other correspondents, I await further replies from those defending the inaction of the Royal National Lifeboat crew.

I am &c.,
George B. Main,
2 Dalzell Drive,
Pollokshields.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
17 JANUARY 1899

ARDROSSAN - INSPECTION OF LIFEBOAT AND CREW

The annual inspection, conducted by a representative of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution took place at Ardrossan in wintry weather. Lieutenant Stracey was the officer representing the Institution.

The inspection passed successfully.