Ardrossan - On This Day In History

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
17 JANUARY 1919

EX-GERMAN SUBMARINE AT ARDROSSAN

The ex-German submarine UB96, which left Kingston Dock, Glasgow, last week, has arrived at Ardrossan for a short stay.

It will be officially open to the public from today.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
17 JANUARY 1899

PLAYING WITH GUNPOWDER

On Saturday, the Garth, Ardrossan, the residence of Colonel Hogarth, was the scene of an alarming accident. The children procured a flask of gunpowder, and set about playing with it. A match having been applied a very serious explosion followed, resulting in severe injury to a boy visitor and to Colonel Hogarth himself.

The latter came upon scene just as the accident happened, and was very severely burned about the face. At first it was feared he would lose the sight of one eye, but fears on this point have been allayed.

[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
18 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

As an eye-witness of the rescue, will you allow me to state, what seems to be the general opinion of the district, that at the time of the rescue and for at least four hours previous thereto the wind pressure at no point exceeded 40 miles an hour.

As regards “sea,” during the whole trip the hull of the rescuing boat was never out of range of vision. The wind was bitter, and there was a short, choppy sea – heaviest just outside the harbour entrance; but there the small boat remained in full view. It is not an uncommon spectacle to see during the stormy weather often prevalent in September the salmon fishermen going from Saltcoats to their nets, anchored at the inches, in a 16 foot open skiff with close-reefed lugsail, and through a sea in the trough of which the small craft, sail and all, is lost to view some seconds between every wave. Compared with this the “sea” between the wreck and Ardrossan Harbour after the wind veered to the north-west was practically nil.

Mr. Thomas Nibbs, coastguardsman, whose skill and experience in lifeboat work is probably greater than that of all the Ardrossan lifeboat crew put together, stated at the inquiry that at the time the lifeboat gave up he considered she could have been rowed-out if double-banked, and no amount of cross-questioning shook this skilled opinion, which in the estimation of the judicious must outweigh a host of Ardrossan Harbour officials.

Further, if the tug had been got out she could have effected the rescue alone, and probably much quicker than if hampered by an indifferently manned lifeboat.

Captain Shields and Mr. John Craig say neither of them has any charge or responsibility in connection with the lifeboat. Why did they send for, consult with, and instruct the coxswain if that official was alone responsible?

I am &c.,
WINTON PIER


GLASGOW HERALD
18 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

Although I have not the honour of knowing Mr. George B. Main, I rest assured that he is quite capable of replying to any letter which has yet appeared in your columns relative to this deplorable incident, and am glad to see from your issue of yesterday (16 January 1895) that he “bides his time.”

I would prefer not to form a third party to this correspondence; but surely this is a case when Mr. Main (a stranger to the locality) should have the assistance of junior counsel as it were, to work up the facts. To this end I would, with your permission, call upon the assistant secretary to the Ardrossan Lifeboat Committee, to give a full and complete list of those gentlemen who formed the committee, say on Friday 21st December last, and what changes, with the dates thereof, have been made down to this date.

I am &c.,
TERTIUM QUID

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
18 JANUARY 1890

ARDROSSAN INDEPENDENT CHURCH

At a social meeting of the members of this church it was reported by the treasurer that the funds were in a satisfactory condition.

At the beginning of the last year the balance on hand was £38, and they began 1890 with a credit balance of £58. During 1889 fifteen new members were enrolled.

Addresses were made by the pastor and deacon in the course of the evening.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
18 JANUARY 1892

ARDROSSAN CASTLEHILL CURLING CLUB

The Castlehill Curling Club met on the Mill Pond on Saturday to play their annual competition for the gold medal presented by the late Mr. Bryce Douglas.

The game was 21 ends, and finished thus: -

John McLean, 18; Rev. J. L. King, 17.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
18 JANUARY 1896

SHIPPING CASUALTY

Yesterday at noon, the steamer MAGGIE BAIN, Troon, after discharging a cargo of cement at the Eglinton Dock, Ardrossan, attempted to move to the old dock in the teeth of a west-south-westerly gale, but was driven some distance along the north shore by the force of the wind and the inrushing tide.

A tug put out to her assistance, but the tow-rope parted. Eventually the steamer made the Montgomerie Pier, and was towed round into the old dock in the afternoon.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
15 NOVEMBER 1895

ACCIDENT AT ARDROSSAN SAWMILL

Yesterday morning, shortly before nine o’clock at Christie’s Sawmill, on the harbour, a young lad named DAVID ROBERTSON, 14 years of age, son of William Robertson, carpenter, residing at the harbour, met with a sad accident while engaged at his work.

Robertson was in the act of doing something to the gear of the machinery, when the revolving wheel caught the lining of his jacket and pulled him in. Before the machinery could be stopped the unfortunate lad’s right arm was almost torn off from the shoulder, and his body badly hurt.

Doctor Allan was in attendance, and ordered his removal to Glasgow Infirmary.


ARDROSSAN & SALTCOATS HERALD
22 NOVEMBER 1895

DEATH

ROBERTSON: At Western Infirmary, Glasgow, on the 15th instant, David Robertson, son of William and Elizabeth Robertson, Harbour House, Ardrossan.


GLASGOW HERALD
18 JANUARY 1896

FACTORY ACT PROSECUTION

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court yesterday a case under the Factory Act was disposed of by Sheriff Hall.

William Christie & Company, sleeper manufacturers, Ardrossan, were charged (1) with neglecting to make secure the shaft driving a sleeper elevator, whereby a boy named DAVID ROBERTSON was killed on 14th November last; (2) with neglecting to report the particulars of the accident to the inspector and the certifying surgeon; and (3) with employing the boy Robertson for more than seven days without having obtained a certificate of his fitness from the certifyIng surgeon, the penalty in which they were liable being £100 pounds.

A plea of guilty was tendered. Mr. Kirkhope. Solicitor, Ardrossan, explained that the present Mr. Christie had only been charge of the works for two years, and that he was not cognisant of the provisions of the Act. It was stated also that the firm had paid compensation to the father of the boy who was killed. The Sheriff taking this and the other circumstances into account, limited the penalty to £10, with £1 0s 6d of expenses.

[meekan]

What price a young life? Worth remembering when hearing stories about the Health and Safety at Work act gone mad what conditions used to be like.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
19 JANUARY 1891

FOOTBALL
IRVINE RANGERS v. ARDROSSAN SEAFIELD
At Irvine

Rangers, 7; Seafield, 3.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
19 JANUARY 1882

DEATH

STEVENS: At Ardrossan, on the 17th instant, in his 81st year, James Stevens, surgeon there.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
19 JANUARY 1899

BIRTH

ROBERTS: At the Railway Hotel, Ardrossan, on the 17th instant, the wife of Daniel M. Roberts; a daughter.

[Penny Tray]

WIKIPEDIA
19 JANUARY 1987

ARDROSSAN TOWN RAILWAY STATION

Ardrossan Town Railway Station, having been closed-down on 1 January 1968, re-opened on this date.

Further detail on this Station’s history is included in the following link:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardrossan ... ay_station