Ardrossan - On This Day In History

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

When reading about the inability of the Ardrossan and Troon lifeboats to render any service to the disabled vessels off these ports during the recent gales, the well-known expression, “A regular sou-wester” (as applied to strong winds), comes to recollection.

Now, looking to the fact that the Ayrshire coast faces the west, it stands to reason that most, if not all, services rendered from the Ayrshire ports must, to a greater or less extent, be formed against the wind and sea.

Not being a nautical man, I may be entirely astray in my reckoning, but it seems to me that Lamlash is the place from which lifeboat services should be rendered to vessels in distress off the Ayrshire coast.

At first thought it may seem absurd to have to wait for relief to come some 20 miles, but as a lifeboat from Lamlash would be aided rather than retarded by the wind, I think it may be assumed the Arran boat would have been alongside the Ardrossan and Troon wrecks when the crews at these places were struggling to get their boats round the pierheads.

Ardrossan, Irvine, Troon, and Ayr each possess a lifeboat though there are only half a dozen miles between each port, but I have never heard of Lamlash being in that proud position, and as its bay is much sought by vessels during rough weather, and the narrow passage at King’s Cross is a considerable source of danger, I think one of the Ayrshire boats might with advantage be transferred to Arran, if there is not one there already.

I am &c.,
SOU-WESTER

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

I don’t think there is much room to find fault with the form of the inquiry, or for that matter with the inspector’s finding provided the local committee give due consideration to the points brought out, and take steps to prevent further failure.

It was proved, first, that although a wreck was known to have occurred, and that portions of the vessel’s masts were above water, no attempt was made to launch the lifeboat until life was seen on the wreck, about two hours after the wreck was reported. Landsmen like myself have hitherto believed that lifeboats went out on the first sign of wreck, on the chance of accomplishing a rescue.

Mr. Graham found in Clause 2 - “That the willingness of the coxswain and his crew to render all assistance was shown by the prompt way in which they assembled.” Well, I don’t dispute this. A cantankerous critic might say that a mere assembling did not show much, but no one in the district is prepared to question the courage of the men, and it was only in respect of efficiency and training that it was thought a good deal was wanting.

On this point I would suggest to your correspondents, and more especially to the local committee, that they should carefully reconsider Mr. Graham’s report and get at its true meaning.

Clause 4, for instance, indicates misjudgement in the launching of the boat. When first brought to Ardrossan it was thrown over the quay wall just to show how the thing could be done, but when required for actual service, over the quay wall was not a practicable way for the boat, and steam had to be got up on a launching crane.

Clause 5 says – “I do firmly believe that during the strength of the gale coxswain and men did the utmost in their power, according to their views, to reach the wreck.” Agreed, but what does the qualification mean? We all believe that the men did their best, but the same might have been said of a crew of courageous, yet incompetent cowboys, and what the public want to know, if its confidence in the service is to be maintained, is whether in the hands of an efficient crew the lifeboat could have been taken out.

The Clause also says – “It would have been more satisfactory if, when the gale abated, the lifeboat had made another attempt.” This seems to me to be no small consideration in itself, as there were then nine lives in danger instead of three, the small boat having gone out.

Clause 6 leads off with the statement – “I am extremely doubtful whether during the height of the gale the boat could have got out of the harbour without the assistance of the tug.” Everybody agrees with the inspector here; indeed, he might have declared that during the height of the gale no tug or lifeboat could have gone out. A lifeboat might have gone off a weather shore on the chance of doing work to leeward and setting ashore where she could, but from a lee shore no boat could have gone out.

This Clause, however, entirely applies as the gale had abated before the lifeboat made any attempt. As a matter of fact, all danger by the gale was done long before the lifeboat made its attempt. This will not be disputed by anyone, and what I and others there would like to know is, whether in the comparatively moderate weather after 11.30 a.m. the lifeboat was capable of being taken out. If we are to believe that the boat was unfit for such work, the conclusion we must come to is that she is a sorry tool, and belies her appearance very much.

I hope, however, the institution won’t put a steamboat in her place, as it would probably have to be kept afloat in the dock, and might get locked up.

It was too bad of one of your correspondents to drag in the other poor can’t-go-out- without-a-tug-ahead (Troon) lifeboat. Like the Ardrossan one, she had a crew of dock employees, but at Troon there was no Horse Island to windward, no smooth-water round in which a small boat could effect a rescue on half a chance.

As the gentleman is a member of committee, and also interested in the safety of shipping to and from the port, it would be wiser in my opinion to try and effect improvements suggested by Mr. Graham’s report than to maintain that all is right at Ardrossan because an unfortunate failure had also occurred at Troon.

I am &c.,
INCHES

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1900

DEATH

REID: At the Commercial Hotel, Ardrossan, on the 11th instant, Wilhelmina Montgomerie Reid, aged 3 years 3 months, youngest daughter of William and Elizabeth Reid.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1903

CURLING
ARDROSSAN v. WEST KILBRIDE

Result: - West Kilbride, 137; Ardrossan, 68.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1903

STRIKE AT ARDROSSAN HARBOUR

The strike of dock labourers came to an end yesterday, and the men returned to work.

The strike arose out of an attempt by the Harbour Company to abolish gratuities which the men were in the habit of receiving in addition to their wages for work done on Saturday evenings.

Yesterday the men returned to work on the understanding that gratuities were abolished, and that the following rate of wages would be paid, namely 3d per ton for discharging ore, round limestone, and pig iron, and 3½d per ton for discharging crushed limestone. A penny additional per ton will be paid for overtime on Saturdays between one o’clock and five, and 2d additional per ton for work done after five o’clock on Saturdays.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1905

ARDROSSAN – LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION

The annual meeting of the subscribers to the local branch of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution was held in the chambers of the honorary secretary and treasurer, Mr. Thomas Guthrie, solicitor, 43 Princes Street, Ardrossan, on Saturday forenoon – Mr. R. L. Alpine, vice-president in the chair.

Apologies for absence were submitted by the secretary, who afterwards read the minutes of the last meeting, which was approved and signed by the chairman.

Then followed the report for the last year’s work, from which it appeared that the services of the lifeboat had only been requisitioned once and that the boat and all connected with it had been reported upon by the inspector as in excellent order.

The subscriptions had also equalled the previous year, but for this special thanks was due to the honorary secretary, who in the face of several removals from the district and lapsed subscriptions had been successful in replacing these by new subscribers, so as to maintain the same satisfactory financial position.

The sum of £35 was voted to be sent to the parent institution.

The claims of the institution on the liberality of the public was urged, as although our own particular needs may not be great there were other districts which claimed a brotherhood for assistance because of the greater demands made upon them.

The office-bearers were reappointed, and the committee had the names of Provost Blakely and Councillor Bogle, Saltcoats, added to replace removals, and at the request of the Lifeboat Institution the chief captain of the Coastguard of the district was also put on the list.

A cordial vote of thanks to the honorary secretary and treasurer brought the proceedings to a close.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
16 JANUARY 1906

DEATH

ALLISON: Suddenly, at Ardrossan, on the 15th instant, Archibald Hunter, aged five years, youngest son of the late William Allison, formerly of Greenock, and Mrs. Allison, Bellevue, Ardrossan.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
17 JANUARY 1859

NEWRY AND GLASGOW VIA ARDROSSAN

The steamer MYSTERY will not sail from Ardrossan to Newry on Monday 17th instant; but her sailings will be resumed on or before the 24th instant, of which due notice will be given.

JOHN MOFFAT,
ARDROSSAN.

[Hughie]

And that's how we believe my Irish granny McGregg and her three sisters with associated families left their native Newry and landed in Ardrossan.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
18 JANUARY 1908

AN OVERLOADED STEAMER

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court yesterday – before Sheriff Mackenzie – JOHN McCARTE, master of the British Steamer SLATEFORD, registered at the port of Glasgow, was charged with having, in November last, overloaded his ship, which was about to make a voyage between Ardrossan and Preston.

He pleaded guilty. Previous convictions at Hull and Essex courts were recorded against accused.

The Procurator Fiscal said that from information he had received it appeared that the ship had been loaded when a heavy swell was on, and that it had been difficult to fix when the correct loading line had been reached. The captain had proceeded to sea for a short distance, but owing to the stormy weather he had to return. The ship was overloaded by about forty tons, and was submerged five and half inches below the statutory line.

Accused said he was not aware that the ship was overloaded until his attention had been drawn to it by a Board of Trade officer. He had been on the dock that morning till about three o’clock, and it was after twelve in the day before he returned on dock. When he was informed that the ship was overloaded he had expressed himself as willing to do whatever the officer desired in the circumstances.

The Sheriff said that this was a very serious offence, because the accused had endangered the life of others as well as his own. The fact that he had been twice previously convicted might have compelled him to impose the full penalty allowed by the Act, namely £100, but taking into consideration what accused had said himself and what had been stated by the Procurator Fiscal as to the possibility of a mistake having occurred, the Sheriff thought the ends of justice would be met by a fine of £40.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
18 JANUARY 1833

INTREPIDITY

On Friday last, when the EARL OF EGLINTON packet was on her way from Ardrossan to Lamlash, a young woman and a child of three or four years of age were thrown overboard by the boom suddenly traversing the deck; under ordinary management both must have been left to perish in the deep, for the packet had no small load with her, and at the same time was going right before the wind, which blew afresh; the vessel was, however, tacked about with remarkable celerity, and JAMES BLACK, the master, tying a cord round his waist, threw himself into the sea, and swimming towards the helpless sufferers, with much exertion got hold first of the woman and the of the child, just as they were sinking to rise no more, and thus saved them both from a watery grave.

It is but proper to mention that this same James Black, when at Rothesay about four years ago, saw a man on a dark night fall over the quay there, and instantly sprung after him, and with much difficulty and imminent danger saved his life.

Such actions surely ought not to pass unnoticed or without reward.

[Penny Tray]

GLASGOW HERALD
19 JANUARY 1895

Sir,

THE ARDROSSAN LIFEBOAT

In reply to my letter which appeared in your issue of the 12th instant, in which I narrated the course of procedure at the recent so-called public inquiry as to the failure of the Ardrossan lifeboat to rescue the shipwrecked sailors from the LOVEN on the 22nd ultimo, several letters in defence of the lifeboat coxswain, and crew have since been published.

As two of these letters are signed by responsible officials connected with the harbour and National Lifeboat Institute, I propose to confine my reply to those meantime, as they are enthusiastic in their praise of the lifeboat crew, and may fairly be supposed to have said all they possible could in their favour and defence.

Captain Shields, harbour master, has made some unwarranted assertions, which I do not propose to answer by counter-assertion, but from the published evidence, and by his own statements at the inquiry. I will then confidently leave your readers to judge as to my alleged misstatements.

Mr. John Craig’s (harbour manager) letter I shall also deal with after the same manner. I judge this to be the most satisfactory way of meeting the statements of these officials.

Captain Shields and Mr. Craig both affirm in their letters that I “have been guilty of a gross misstatement in saying that the public were prohibited from either submitting or asking any questions at the inquiry, and were therefore wholly unrepresented.” As I attended this inquiry in the hope that I would be allowed to ask some questions, I surely ought to know whether I was prohibited or not; but I allow the chairman (Mr. Graham) to reply for me. When opening the proceedings the chairman intimated the course of procedures to be followed: -

“I (Mr. Graham) question the witnesses, and then my colleague, Lieutenant Foote, will continue the examination. To prevent indiscriminate questioning from the hall, I must request the members of the committee if they have any further questions to ask, to submit them to me on a sheet of paper, and I will put them to the witnesses.”

Only the committee therefore, were allowed even the privilege of submitting written questions to the witnesses. I think I need not comment further on the point. The facts as experienced by myself, together with the quotation from the chairman’s opening speech, are amply sufficient to justify my statement.

Messrs Craig and Shields further jointly deny that Captain Shields has charge of the lifeboat. As there seems to be disagreement amongst the lifeboat officials and harbour authorities at Ardrossan on this important point it is quite possible that we have now solved one of the causes of delay in getting the lifeboat launched. I am not in a position to decide this matter, but the officials in London ought to do so now that the question has been raised.

On this point I again turn to the published evidence which shows how matters stand. The coxswain said at the inquiry – “I was sent for by Mr. Craig and Captain Shields, whom I asked, ‘Are you going to launch the lifeboat?’” He (Captain Shields) said, “No.” Mr. R. L. Alpine, assistant secretary of the local branch of the Lifeboat Institution said, “One or two individuals came forward to me asking if anything could be done to facilitate the launching of the boat. I said the boat was at present under the control of the coxswain and the harbour master, Captain Shields said that it was not my duty to interfere.”

I can only give the foregoing quotations from the evidence to justify the grounds upon which I stated Captain Shields had charge of the lifeboat at Ardrossan. As is well known, the lifeboat is housed within the harbour docks. Captain Murphy, the coxswain, is I believe, an employee under Captain Shields, who is the harbour master overall. The coxswain’s evidence goes to prove that had his intention been allowed to be carried out, and as suggested to him by the chief of the coastguards (Mr. Joseph Trout), the lifeboat would have been launched from the north beach at 11.30 a.m., for which purpose he had already secured five horses, and it was only after he consulted Captain Shields that this was departed from.

The harbour master seems anxious to be freed from all responsibility in connection with the whole failure connected with the lifeboat, and says he is not even on the committee. His evidence at the inquiry does not harmonise with this contention. In his examination by Mr. Graham he said – “Mr. Craig and I sent for the coxswain, and we talked over whether it would be prudent to take the boat out, and we come to the conclusion that it would not be possible in such a gale.”

Only one other point on Captain Shield’s letter calls for remark. He says – “I would like to explain that on this occasion the lifeboat was manned and manoeuvred by men of undoubted experience.” In his evidence at the inquiry when questioned by Mr. Graham on this very point as to the handling of the lifeboat crew, he said – “I did not see the performance of the lifeboat after she was launched.” Therefore his latest testimony as to the competency of the crew to manage the lifeboat after she was launched must be taken by the public for what it is worth.

I must now turn to Mr. Craig’s letter and, in like manner, answer him from his own evidence. Now, we have in Mr. Craig a gentlemen who admits that he is officially connected both with the lifeboat and with the harbour management at Ardrossan.

At the outset of his letters he complains that I appeared anxious to disparage the lifeboat crew. Surely by this time of day Mr. Craig must have realised that this was not necessary for me to do so; surely their work speaks for itself.

His testimony is – “Braver men than the coxswain and the crew he had with him on the occasion of the wreck of the LOVEN you will find nowhere, and that they should be branded as otherwise by an ignorant critic is unbearable.” His righteous soul is vexed.

Where were this noble crew, and what were they doing while the crew of the small boat was battling with the storm, risking their lives to save the others?

I here let George Fabian, one of the rescue crew, reply as per his evidence at the inquiry – “When we got back from the wreck the lifeboat was still lying at anchor.”

And earlier in the day, according to the coxswain’s evidence they did not find sufficient depth of water to allow of them using the drop keel. The CHARLES SKIRROW is acknowledged by Mr. Craig to be a “splendid boat.”

I am further informed that there is not a better equipped lifeboat in the service; she is fitted with all the latest improvements including “drop keel” as already referred to. In addition to 12 oars she has also sail outfit. The crew consisted of 14 men. On the day of the misfortune the wreck with the men hanging to the rigging was lying inside of the Horse Island, and the wind being from the north-west the water in the neighbourhood of the ship was quite smooth. In such circumstances I maintain, supported by the actual rescue by the scratch crew, that the lifeboat crew and not the lifeboat, and neither the tugboat nor the want of steam on the crane must be held accountable for what has happened.

Mr. Craig at the inquiry in tones of “what’s-all-the-talk-about,” said “The work of the small boat was done very quickly, and it was back in a very short time.”

The Chairman – “Do you think the crew of the lifeboat could not have been able to follow the small boat in case of accident to her (having six men in her going out and nine returning)?”

Mr. Craig replied – “Possibly, but really before the lifeboat could have got under weigh, the small boat would have been back in the harbour. I don’t suppose the service of the small boat was longer than 20 minutes or half an hour.”

Now, Mr. Editor, this is surely the kind of crew that is wanted for the lifeboat; men who can in the face of such a storm, and at a distance of three-quarters of a mile, succeed in doing what they accomplished, and be back with their rescued comrades in the harbour before the ideal crew of the CHARLES SKIRROW, according to Mr. Craig, had time to lift their anchor and get their oars into the water, or under weigh, to use his own words.

Let me now, in conclusion, say a few words, supported by the evidence given at the inquiry, as to why the lifeboat failed to reach the wreck.

Mr. Joseph Trout, chief of the Coastguard, said – “I believe the lifeboat would have got out in the height of the gale if she had been double banked.”

Thomas Nibbs, also of the Coastguard, said – “I have repeatedly been on wreck service in lifeboats in very severe weather. I think if the boat had been double banked she could have been pulled out to the wreck.”

William Pllu (of rescue crew) said - “There was nothing to hinder the lifeboat going out with sails. If I had been in charge I could have gone out without any trouble at all. The sails were not well set, they were only half set. She could have gone out quite easily with the sails at 11.30 a.m. I would have launched the lifeboat from the quay, and not waited on the crane. There were dozens of men on the quay who could have taken the boat out as well as me quite easily, I say that without fear of contradiction.”

Duncan Rodman, rescue crew, said – “If sail had been properly set in the lifeboat, they could have gone out in two reaches to the wreck.”

In the foregoing I have, it will be observed, refrained from mere assertion, in replying to your correspondents, but have instead made use of the published evidence, which, I submit has been amply sufficient for my purpose, and cannot be gainsaid.

I had intended referring to the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Graham, but one of your correspondents has already very ably criticised the findings, so that it is unnecessary for me to so do.

I trust as an outcome of this correspondence, further inquiry will yet take place.

I am &c.,
GEORGE B. MAIN,
2 Dalzell Drive,
Pollokshields.