Until the middle of the nineteenth century, the villages on the western shore of the Gareloch were poorly served with piers to connect with the frequent steamboat services from Glasgow and Greenock. The sometimes difficult means of boarding was by ferry boat and there were ferries at Rahane, Crossowen and at Roseneath. It was in 1845 that a pier opened at Roseneath, just south of the narrows that mark the boundary of the Gareloch proper. The good folk of the village of Clynder had either to walk to Roseneath or use the ferry at Crossowen, north of the village, where the ferryman was James Campbell, .

Archibald Chalmers was born on March 22, 1836, the son of James Chalmers and Sarah M‘Cunn who lived, along with other members of the Chalmers family at Little Rahean. He was baptized on May 5 of the same year. James farmed Little Rahean with his older brother Robert who also had a son, Archibald, a cousin to the Archibald Chalmers of this article, and two years his elder. By the time Archibald was born, James had older children, Donald (born in October 1825), and Peter (born October 15, 1833), and added further to his family with John born on December 19, 1840. On September 6, 1846, a further son, William was born. He was baptized on November 18 of that year by Rev. Robert Story. By this time, the family had moved to Barbour farm, near Peaton. Rev. Robert Story died in November 1859 and his son, Rev. Robert Herbert Story was called to the charge at Roseneath. He was inducted in February 1860. The new parish minister seems to have had little time for Archibald Chalmers. Rev. Story would later go on to be Principal of Glasgow University.

Archibald had an entrepreneurial spirit, and with a little capital—too little it will turn out— took over the leases of a number of cottages and villas in Clynder, advertising them to let for the season. By 1860, he was providing a carriage between Clynder and the pier at Roseneath, saving the summer visitors the hilly walk along the main road.

Glasgow Herald, April 18, 1860

A new hotel was constructed at Clynder in 1866 and Archibald was responsible. He had acquired some property on the main road that ran along the shore and aimed to develop it. The logical extension was the construction of a pier to facilitate visitors and improve conditions for the residents.

“Clynder.—Archibald Chalmers of Auchmar, Clynder, applies for a provisional order for the construction of a pier on the west bank of Gareloch, at Clynder, in the parish Roseneath, Dumbartonshire. The pier is to extend from the shore, in a direction eastwards, for a distance of about 270 feet. The promoter also seeks power to levy rates and to borrow money. The estimated cost is £979. There has been no opposition to this scheme, and the Board of Trade propose to proceed with the order.”—Greenock Advertiser, March 27, 1866

In fact, there was opposition, from the owner of the Barremman estate, to the north of Clynder.

“The petition of R.C. Cumming, of Barremman, in the county of Dumbarton, against the bill so far as regards Clynder Pier, was referred to the Select Committee on the bill.”—Glasgow Herald, June 13, 1866

Despite the opposition, Chalmers’ application was approved and the new pier opened on Tuesday May 14, 1867

“Opening of a new pier at the Gareloch.—We are glad at being able to announce that a new landing place at the Gareloch—called Clynder Pier—is to be opened for traffic on Tuesday first. The new pier has been erected by Mr Archibald Chalmers, the enterprising proprietor in the neighbourhood, and will prove a great advantage to families visiting and residing at these beautiful and favourite summer quarters. Passengers were in the habit of being brought to the shore in small boats, or any one disliking that, could land at Roseneath pier, either of which was very inconvenient; but with the erection of this pier by Mr Chalmers, which reflects much credit on him, these drawbacks will be done away with. Mr George Boyd, Renfrew, was the contractor for the landing stage, and has completed it in his usual satisfactory manner, in the short period of a month, so that visitors for the summer months will be able to take advantage of the Clynder Pier.”—Glasgow Herald, May 13, 1867

Clynder Pier (Valentine)

Major changes had occurred with the Gareloch services in the preceding years. The North British Railway had begun operating steamboats in 1866 with the Meg Merrilies and Dandie Dinmont but had ignored the Gareloch, preferring instead to compete with the new Iona, sailing to Rothesay and Ardrishaig in connection with the railway at Helensburgh. A new venture, the Greenock and Helensburgh Steamboat Company, had bought the old Garelochhead steamer, Nelson, together with the good-will of the Gareloch trade, and in 1866 introduced four new neat raised quarter-deck steamboats, Ardencaple, Rosneath, Ardgowan and Levan onto the river. These were the principal vessels to call at the new pier in its first years of operation.

Glasgow Herald, February 14, 1866

Greenock Advertiser, July 14, 1866

Greenock Advertiser, July 14, 1866

Glasgow Herald, April 23, 1866

In October, 1867, George Dodd, the proprietor of the Clynder Hotel applied for a license for the sale of excisable liquors. Archibald Chalmers is noted as the landlord. This appears to be the first application of many and was unsuccessful. The sale of alcohol in Clynder was limited.

Glasgow Herald, August 17, 1867

“To the Editor of the Greenock Advertiser.—Sir,—A remark was made the other day by Dr Lees on the happy parish of Rosneath, where, he said, no whisky was sold.” Mr Robert Little resides there, and should have kept the Doctor right. I was in Roseneath last Saturday at the Gareloch regatta, and I drank a glass of whisky from a cart by the roadside, sold by a man who came from another parish. I was also in the Duke’s Ferry House at Row last year, and saw whisky freely sold by a licence held by the tenant. But the anomaly is this—that, at the Clynder Hotel, kept by a most respectable man, not tenant of the Duke, no spirits or beer could be got, for the Justices refuse him a licence. This hotel, at the regatta, was crowded with visitors, not one of whom could get a draught of beer. They had either to walk a mile to the Duke’s ferry, or go down the road to the cart, and drink in the public highway. Dr Lees was not only wrongly informed, but, he has touched on a case which may illustrate some the features of a future Permissive Bill, if we are so left to ourselves as to demand and get it. Mr Little might have told him that, ten or twelve years ago, neither whisky nor beer nor wine were sold in the parish of Rosneath; and what was the consequence? The people sought it Greenock, Gourock, and Strone, going there in boats; and, while the exclusion lasted, some 12 or 14 persons were drowned in crossing to get the supply they wanted. Since a beer licence was given to Kilcreggan and Cove no life has been lost. At whose door, we may ask, lie the lives of the drowned men?

“The Duke and the teetotallers still withhold a publican’s licence at Kilcreggan, and travellers are there seen every day in scores going into the grocer’s shop and coming out with uncorked bottles in hand, drinking in the dusty road from the mouth of the bottle. Thus may be seen, one day, a very reverend principal of a university setting an example to his students, or a peer of the realm, nearly connected with the Duke of Argyle, refreshing himself, in naturalibus, or a poor labourer cursing the unequal laws of his country that so touch on the rights of the people in places dominated by aristocratic power. A Permissive Bill is a delusion. It would make more hypocrites and do more harm to morality than whisky has ever done.—I am your obedt. servant, Cynicus, 16th July, 1868.”—Greenock Advertiser, July 18, 1868

Glasgow Herald, May 20, 1868

Mr Chalmers also contributed to the “Letters to the Editor” with local observations and creating a little publicity.

“Lowest tide in the Gareloch.—To the Editor of the Glasgow Herald. Roseneath, March 29, 1869, Sir,—Allow me a corner in your widely-circulated paper to make known the fact that there occurred in the Gareloch last night the lowest tide in human memory or tradition. At high water yesterday the rise of the tide was unusually small for a spring tide, and at low water it receded until it was fully more than a foot lower than the lowest ever heard of before. Those of your readers who are accustomed to visit the Gareloch will be able to judge of the matter when I say that the little island near Clynder Pier ceased to be an island for an hour and a quarter, and the nearest approach to the like remembered by the oldest inhabitants was that once or twice in the last seventy years they had seen persons wade to it. As to the cause of such a rare event, I have no doubt that the violent north winds which prevailed in the South Channel a week ago, combined with the strong north-east winds which we have experienced here, will be sufficient to account for it.—I am, &c., A.C.”—Glasgow Herald, March 30, 1869

The service provided by the Greenock and Helensburgh company was wound up in 1869, just three years after its arrival on the scene but three of the ships were bought by a group of the partners and the service continued. The fourth steamer, Ardencaple, had been chartered in 1868 by Mr James Russell who owned a brazier and tin-smith business in Glasgow. He contracted to purchase the steamer but the sale fell through and the Ardencaple was sold at the beginning of 1869 to Captain John Campbell, whose nephew, Captain Robert Campbell, would play an important role in developing steamship services in the Gareloch and Holy Loch. Captain John Campbell died in May of 1871.

“Death of a Steamboat Master.—Yesterday, the various river steamers displayed flags half-mast high out of respect to the memory of the lately deceased Capt. John M‘Leod Campbell, one of the oldest steamboat masters on the Clyde. From boyhood Captain Campbell was connected with the river steamboat passenger trade, and commanded a number of steamers from time to time on various stations, and was universally esteemed for his uprightness of character and modesty of manner. His last command was the fine steamer Guinevere, on the Arran station. Mr Campbell was only 56 years of age. Erysipelas was the cause of death. He leaves a widow and family and a very numerous circle of friends to mourn his loss. The death took place in Glasgow on the 13th inst.”—Greenock Telegraph, May 16, 1871

Glasgow Herald, September 30, 1869

About this time Archibald Chalmers entered the steamboat trade with the purchase of the Victory from Messrs Gilles & Campbell who had taken over the Wemyss Bay sailing in 1869 and presumably found the small flush-decked steamer surplus to their requirements. Chalmers placed Victory on the Rothesay station in May but the excursions offered on Saturdays provided some traffic for Clynder.

Greenock Telegraph, June 26, 1869

“Helensburgh—Amusing Incident.— The town was very busy on Saturday because of the large influx of excursionists from various places. The steamers leaving our quays for Greenock and Glasgow were consequently very throng in the evening. An amusing incident occurred the steamer Ardencaple was leaving the quay. The stern line the boat had been cast off, the gangway withdrawn, and the steamer began to move, when a number of persons were seen to be running down the quay. By the time they reached the steamer it was impossible to get board of her, as she had drifted from the quay. Determined, however, not to lose the boat, a number of the strangers got hold of the bow line and pulled the steamer’s bow close to the quay, and, while one man held the vessel in, the remainder, two or three dozen, scrambled up the side and were dragged on board by those already in the steamer. The men could get up very well; but it was with a little difficulty that big fat women, of whom there were a few, were, as gently possible, partly shoved, partly pitched in. Babies and boys were also handed up, and all having embarked the steamer left the quay.

“Excursions Saturday.— The rise of the thermometer to about 60 in the shade seems to have set a considerable number pleasure seekers adrift. Mr Chalmers’s steamer the Victory, having landed a party from Glasgow at his quay at Clynder, went on to Rothsay, but comparatively few of either the Roseneath, Row, or Helensburgh people seemed to have taken advantage of the trip. The Victory and party returned to Glasgow in the evening. The Dandie Dinmont had about 300 on board at the midday trip, the great majority of whom came per rail from the Vale of Leven, Dumbarton, &c. The Gareloch steamers were well filled.”—Greenock Telegraph, June 21, 1869

Victory (Evening Citizen, Alasdair Macfarlane)

In 1870, Archibald decided to concentrate on his steamboat and other business opportunities and his brother, William was appointed pier-master in his stead. In 1871, the brothers were living at Clynder Park at the south end of the village. In the census of that year, Archibald, just 35 years of age, has steamboat owner as his occupation while his brother William at 25 years of age is pier master.

Archibald sold the Victory to Duncan Dewar early in 1871, and to replace her, he chartered the Ardencaple. During the tenure of the charter, the Ardencaple was involved in a serious collision. Two contemporary accounts are given here.

“Steamboat collision in the Gareloch.—On Tuesday morning, a violent collision occurred off Rosneath, between a new paddle steamer of 560 tons, named the Alice, built for the West Indian coasting trade, and belonging Gregor Turnbull, Esq., Glasgow, and the passenger steamer Ardencaple (belonging to the estate of the late John Campbell) resulting in the latter receiving such severe damage that she had run on the beach. The Alice was leaving the loch for a trial trip, and steamed towards the narrows with a strong ebb tide. As she neared Rosneath, the Ardencaple, Captain M‘Pherson, left the Rosneath Pier for Clynder, when the vessels suddenly sighted each other at the bend above Rosneath. Capt. M‘Pherson, seeing that could not clear the Alice, and that collision was likely backed towards the shore. The engines of the Alice were also stopped, but she struck the Ardencaple with considerable force on the port bow abaft the fore timber head, cutting her down almost to the keel, and the deck from the stem through the steerage to within a few inches of the forecabin. There were only a few passengers on board the Ardencaple, and some made their way on board the Alice before the vessels got clear of each other. The Alice backed clear of the Ardencaple, and then took on board the remainder of the passengers, who were landed at Rosneath. The fore part of the Ardencaple, including the fore cabin, filled quickly, but she is built compartments, and the water did not reach the engine room. She was backed on the beach above the perch on the Rosneath shore. At low water she is high and dry. The hole in her side is visible, and from the manner in which the side plates and woodwork of the deck are twisted it is evident that the force of the collision was severe. It is estimated that the damage to the Ardencaple will be several hundred pounds. The Ardencaple chartered by Mr A. Chalmers, Clynder. The Alice is a composite vessel and did not escape without damage, having had her cut-water carried away, and she is said to be making a little water about the stem. The passengers on board the Ardencaple escaped without injury, except one woman, who was slightly injured getting on board the Alice.”—Greenock Advertiser, June 15, 1871

“Steamboat collision in the Gareloch.—The Ardencaple beached.—About ten o’clock yesterday morning a violent collision occurred in the Gareloch, off Roseneath Pier, between a new peddle stearner named the Alice, built for the West Indian coasting trade, and the passenger steamer Ardencaple, resulting in the latter receiving such severe damage that she had to be run on to the beach to prevent her from sinking. It appears that the Alice had proceeded to the Gareloch on Monday to have her compasses adjusted, in charge of Mr Alexander, river pilot, Glasgow. She was leaving the loch yesterday morning to go on her trial trip, and after calling at Clynder to take on board her builder, Mr Inglis of Glasgow, she steamed down for the narrows with a strong ebb tide. As she neared Roseneath, the Ardencaple, which was commanded by Captain M‘Pherson, left the Roseneath pier on her return passage from Greenock to Garelochhead. When the vessels sighted each other, Captain M‘Pherson seeing that he could not clear the Alice owing to the strong easterly wind which was blowing, and that a collision was likely to occur, reversed his engines and backed towards the shore. The engines of the Alice were also stopped, but she came on to the Ardencaple with considerable force, striking her on an angle on the starboard side aft the fore timber head, cutting her down almost to the keel, and along to within a few inches of the forecabin. There were only a few passengers on board the Ardencaple at the time the vessels struck, and some of these made their way on board the Alice while they were sticking together. The Alice was enabled to back clear of the Ardencaple, and she then came round her stern, and took on board the remainder of the passengers, who were afterwards landed at Roseneath. The whole fore part of the Ardencaple, including the forecabin, filled quickly with water and began to settle down. Fortunately she is built in compartments, and the water did not reach the engine room. She was backed on to the beach a few yards above the perch on the Roseneath shore. At low water she was lying high and dry. The hole in her side was quite visible, and from the manner in which the side plates and woodwork of the deck were twisted up it is evident that the force with which the vessels came together must have been very great. It is estimated that the damage to the Ardencaple, which is one of the smallest class of river steamers, will take several hundred pounds to make good. The Ardencaple belongs to the executors of the late Captain Campbell, and is chartered by Mr A. Chalmers, Clynder. Considerable expense was incurred by her deceased proprietor in renovating and preparing her for this season’s trade. The Alice is a vessel of about 200 tons; and of much more substantial build than the river boat, but she did not escape without damage, she having had pert of her exterior stove in. This did not prevent her, however, from proceeding on her trial trip during the day. The passengers on board the Ardencaple escaped without injury, with the exception of one woman, who was slightly hurt in getting on board the Alice.”—North British Daily Mail, June 14, 1871

Glasgow Herald, July 1, 1871

Ardencaple (Evening Citizen, Alasdair Macfarlane)

Glasgow Herald, July 1, 1871

Glasgow Herald, July 1, 1871

It would appear that Archibald Chalmers also chartered the Athole to augment the Gareloch service.

Glasgow Herald, July 7, 1871

The following year, William Chalmers purchased the steamboat Hero from Captain Malcolm M‘Intyre who had been running the steamer to Arran by way of Rothesay and Kilchattan Bay. Her place on that station was taken by the newer Guinevere that had previously been sailing to Arran by way of Largs and Millport, the old M‘Kellar route. Captain M‘Intyre remained as master of the Hero on her new sailings to Rothesay. It was arranged that the steamer was chartered to Archibald Chalmers for the season at £400.

“River Steamboat Sale.—We understand that the Clyde steamer Hero has been bought Mr Chalmers of Clynder. It is believed she will be withdrawn from the Arran via Rothesay route, which was taken up by the Lancelot last season There are rumours that one or two of the over numerous fleet Clyde river steamers are about to change hands, and proceed to other rivers.”—Greenock Telegraph, February 24, 1872

In 1872 also, the North British Railway placed their new steamer, Gareloch on the Garelochhead route from Helensburgh. She would call at Clynder pier.

Archibald Chalmers’ exploits on land did not escape the attentions of the press. He was the proprietor of the Clynder Hotel that to that point was a temperance establishment, and there was some pressure from the Roseneath Parish authorities to have it remain that way. Indeed, the parish was virtually dry, with a single licensed grocer in Kilcreggan.

Clynder Hotel

“Important excise case.—At the Dumbarton Justice of Peace Court yesterday, before David Rogerson and Thomas Thomson, Esqs., Justices of the Peace, a case was concluded which has occupied public attention for some time past. The information was at the instance of John Laidlaw, one of her Majesty’s Officers of Excise, and charged Archibald Chalmers, proprietor of the Clynder Hotel, with selling two quarters of a gallon of beer by retail, on 3d October last, without having duly obtained a certificate and an Excise licence authorising him to do so, and also with not having painted in visible and legible letters his name at full length, and also the words “Licensed Dealer in Beer,” in some conspicuous place outside of the front of his said premises, the principal outward entrance door, and no more than three foot from the top of such door as required by the statute. Mr Boyd, of Inland Revenue, Bowling, conducted the prosecution; and Mr J. L. Lang, writer, Glasgow, appeared for the defence. The diet was first called on 26th November last, when two witnesses—Inland Revenue officers—were examined for the prosecution. Mr Garvie, one of these witnesses, deponed that on the 3d of October he visited Clynder and saw the defender there, and after some conversation asked him if he would stand a glass of beer, to which he agreed, and they went round to a cellar as the back of his house, where he gave the witness a bottle of porter and took a bottle of beer to himself. Witness drank the porter, and the defender refused to take anything for it. They had then some further conversation when the defender asked Garvie what firm he represented, and he answered, the “Crown Brewery.” That the defender then left the cellar and went into his house, and three plasterers came up to the cellar door asked for beer, which was given to them by a person who was in the cellar, and who the witness understood was a servant of the defender. After drinking the beer one of the plasterers handed a shilling to the man who supplied them. He got some change back. Witness then asked the man to refill the measures which he did, and the plasterers and witness drank it. Witness afterwards paid the man sixpence as the price of the beer, and at same time gave him another sixpence saying that this would pay for the bottle of porter he had had previously. The man said that he should not take it as they no retail licence, but he kept the money, Witness then left the miler. The other witnesses examined at the first diet gave evidence with regard to the second charge only. At diet yesterday Mr Lang adduced several witnesses for the defence, one of whom deponed that he was in the cellar on the 3d of October when the defender and Mr Garvie came in, that Garvie represented himself to be a brewer from Glasgow just taking a stoll around to see if he could pick up any orders, and asked the defender if he would allow him to taste his beer, and defender handed him a quarter of a glass, which be tasted and spat out, saying it was very good. After some conversation as to the price of beer, Mr Garvie took out a pound note and offered to pay for the glass of beer, which the defender declined to accept. Mr Garvie then wished to treat all who were present, but the defender said no. It appeared to witness from what occurred that a trap had been laid for defender. Shortly afterwards Mr Garvie and the others left the cellar, and the defender locked the door. On the same afternoon witness saw Mr Garvie leaving Clynder by the steamer, and he then said to the defender, “Good bye, old friend.” This was all witness recollected of having passed that day. This witness was corroborated by a mason who was present at the time. After hearing Mr Lang for the defence and Mr Boyd for the Crown, the Court found the first charge proven, and imposed a mitigated penalty of £5, and found the defender not guilty of the second offence.”—North British Daily Mail, December 7, 1872

The Hero on the left and Balmoral downstream from Benmore with her white funnel and canting ropes stretching across the river at the Broomielaw (Washington Wilson)

In 1873, the Hero was in a serious collision with the Greenock and Helensburgh steamer Craigrownie at Garelochhead and required considerable expense to be repaired. The accounts in the newspapers show some partisan leanings.

“Alarming collision in Gareloch.—Steamer Hero disabled.— On Saturday evening, at Garelochhead, a collision occurred between the steamers Craigrownie and Hero, which, although fortunately unattended with loss of life or bodily injury, was the occasion of great alarm, inconvenience, and anxiety to several hundreds of persons. The particulars we give of the occurrence have been gathered chiefly from statements of passengers by the Hero. The Hero had left Glasgow on Saturday afternoon on a pleasure excursion to Garelochhead, which was reached about a quarter to six evening. She had on board between four and five hundred passengers, who, after spending half an hour ashore, returned to the steamer, which was being canted or turned in the loch preparatory to the return trip, when the steamer Craigrownie, Capt. Alex. Campbell, with an excursion party from Greenock, approached on her way to the pier. Capt. Malcolm M‘Intyre called to the Craigrownie to keep off, at the same time stopping the engine of the Hero, but immediately afterwards the Craigrownie came into violent collision with the stern of the Hero, which was so much damaged that she speedily began to fill. Her small boat was at the same time cut in two. The Craigrownie was also lightly damaged forward. No person was injured, but a few narrowly escaped; one man who was sitting in the stern of the Hero, being pulled back in time to save him from probable death. The Craigrownie immediately came alongside the Hero, whose passengers were all safely transferred to her, and as the water continued to rush into the Hero, she was, to prevent her sinking, run ashore on the sand on the beach opposite the pier, where she lay with the cabin end filled, and her bow end above water. The shock of the collision was so great that the Hero shook from stem to stern, but it was not till after they had got aboard the Craigrownie, that many of the passengers realised the serious nature of the occurrence, and consequently the alarm amongst them was not so great as it otherwise might have proved. The Craigrownie having taken in the Hero’s passengers, touched at the pier and received those who had been awaiting her own arrival at Garelochhead, which she then left for Helensburgh and Greenock. The steamer was very crowded, but all went well, and on arriving at Helensburgh hundreds of the passengers went ashore, with the view of taking the train for Glasgow, whilst the rest proceeded to Greenock, many of those destined for Glasgow considering that they would have a better chance of getting a late train from Greenock than from Helensburgh. In both oases the last train for Glasgow had left, but the passengers, after some delay, were sent along by special trains; those from Helensburgh, after repeated detentions, particularly at Cowlairs, reaching the city at about a quarter to one o’clock on Sunday morning. As already indicated, the occurrence was the cause of great uneasiness to those who had friends on board the Hero, the non-arrival of which at Glasgow long after the accustomed hour filling them with alarm, and numbers were down at the Broomielaw making inquiries about the steamer till nearly one o’clock. The Hero, which is a well known river steamer, and owned by Mr Chalmers, Clynder, was built about 16 years ago, we believe, by Messrs Thomas Wingate & Co., Whiteinch. The Craigrownie, owned by Mr Hugh Keith, Oswald Street, was built in 1871 by Messrs Robert Duncan & Co., Port-Glasgow.”—North British Daily Mail, May 12, 1873

Craigrownie (Evening Citizen, Alasdair Macfarlane)

“Serious collision between two river steamers.—Beaching of the river steamer Hero.—On Saturday evening, a collision of a somewhat serious character, although fortunately unattended with loss of life or injury to the person, took place near Garelochhead, between the river steamers Hero and Craigrownie, the former sustaining so much damage that she had to be run upon the beach to prevent her a sinking in deep water. Both steamers were advertised to proceed to Garelochhead on Saturday afternoon with excursionists, the former from Glasgow and the later from Port-Glasgow and Greenock, and on leaving the latter port both vessels had a large number of pleasure-seekers on board. The Hero was first to arrive at her destination and after waiting some time at the pier, her passengers re-embarked between seven and eight o’clock to return to Greenock, Glasgow, &c. The tide at the time was very low, and in order to clear the beach near the quay, Cpt. M‘Intyre of the Hero found it necessary to back his steamer into the loch before proceeding towards Clynder. While the Hero was thus being backed, the Craigrownie, Captain Alex. Campbell, was approaching Garelochhead quay from Mambeg at full speed, and only a short distance from the former quay. Both, steamers were thus direct in each other’s track. It is stated that when Captain Campbell saw the Hero backing down upon him, he caused the engines of his steamer a to be stopped and reversed at full speed, but the master of the Hero, failed to observe the approaching steamer, or from some other cause, is stated not to have stopped his engines in time. The result was that the Hero ran into the Craigrownie’s bow with her stern, the former sustaining very serious damage above and below the water line. The alarm amongst the passengers, of course, was great; but when it was ascertained that the Craigrownie had sustained comparatively little injury, she was at once run alongside the Hero, and the passengers of the latter were transferred to her. It was then found that the Hero was fast filling. with water, and, in order to save her from sinking, she was run upon the beach. Fortunately no person was injured on board either steamer, although considerable alarm prevailed for some time. The Craigrownie had one of her plates partially stove above the water line, and a portion of her bulwarks damaged, but she sustained no further injury. The Craigrownie conveyed all the Hero’s passengers who presented themselves at the quays to Helensburgh and Greenock, but many parties who had come from Glasgow, not knowing what had happened at the head of the loch, continued waiting for the Hero returning and were thus left behind. The captains of both steamers are represented as being careful and attentive men. A full investigation will no doubt be made by the authorities into all the circumstances. The Hero belongs to Mr Chalmers, Clynder, and others, and the Craigrownie to Messrs Campbell & Keith, Glasgow. The Craigrownie, after landing her passengers at Port Glasgow, returned to Garelochhead same night.”—  GH May 12 1873

“The steamboat collision in the Gareloch.—The damage sustained by the steamer Hero on Saturday night, through being in collision with the steamer Craigrownie, was temporarily repaired on Sunday, and the steamer having been floated off the beach, proceeded down the loch. It was soon found, however, that the repair was insufficient to keep out the water, which began to rush in shortly after the vessel got “under weigh.” She was accordingly again beached. After some additional provision had been made for stopping the leak, the vessel was floated, and proceeded under steam to Glasgow yesterday morning, where the damage will be properly repaired.”—Glasgow Herald, May 13, 1873

“(To the Editor of the Glasgow Herald.) Sir,—With reference to the article in yesterday’s Herald regarding the collision at Garelochhead pier, on Saturday night, between the Hero and the Craigrowie, I beg simply to say that the statement that I failed to observe the approach of the Cragrownie is incorrect, and the fact of the Hero being cut into on the port quarter is sufficient to show that it was the Craigrownie which ran into the Hero, and not the Hero into the Craigrownie, as you stated.—I am., &c., Malcolm M‘Intyre.”— Glasgow Herald, May 13, 1873

The Hero was insured and was back in business before the end of the month, but required further repairs at the end of the season.

On land there was more misfortune for Mr. Chalmers and his brothers. The feuing of the lands around Clynder, and particularly on the Barremman estate was proceeding apace and Chalmers had taken some of the feus, likely as a speculation. In June 1873, one of the builders, Lowe & Brown of Greenock and Clynder, went into sequestration and Mr Lowe left the country leaving Chalmers with work undone. The following April, Archibald Chalmers was also placed in sequestration. He removed himself from Clynder, and his address was given as the Abbey of Holyrood, Edinburgh where he sought sanctuary to “avoid the diligence of his creditors”. Briefly, Archibald Chalmers had borrowed £650 from his brother, William, the pier-master, to be repaid on Whitsun 1874. The note had been acquired on discount by another brother, John, who was suing for £60 in an attempt to have the bankruptcy discharged. The three brothers were alleged to be complicit and this was in fact a fraud. Other creditors were involved. When partially resolved in January of 1875, the bond was reduced but left William Chalmers open to further action. In May, Archibald Chalmers apparently reached a settlement with his creditors, paying 10s in the £1 and his bankruptcy was discharged. His brothers William and Donald became cautioners. However, it was now William Chalmers, the pier-master, that led the interests in steamboat ownership. This intra-familial borrowing with notes that came due and could not be paid was the downfall of both Archibald and his brother William, and gradually, their elder brother Donald took over much of their holdings.

Glasgow Herald, April 3, 1874

Glasgow Herald, May 25, 1875

As an aside, William Chalmers was the subject of a robbery at Alexandria railway station in the Vale of Leven in February, 1876. In light of subsequent events, one might wonder what business took him there. It would be most interesting to know if he was visiting Mr Duncan Dewar who had purchased the Victory from Archibald Chalmers in 1871 and was at that time about to embark on Sunday trading.

“Dumbarton—Alleged Pocket-Picking.—Yesterday, before Sheriff Steele, in the Sheriff Court here Robert Bateson, a barber, and John Cooper, a hawker, from Glasgow, were brought up on a  charge of pocket-picking and committed to prison pending further inquiry. They are alleged to have robbed Mr Wm. Chalmers, piermaster at Clynder, of a pocket-book containing £8 while he was purchasing his ticket at Alexandria Station on the previous day.”—Glasgow Herald, February 5, 1876

“Daring Thieves.—Yesterday Sheriff Steele, in the Sheriff Court here, sent John Cooper hawker, and Robt. Bateson, barber, for sixty days each, for having picked the pocket-book of Mr Chalmers, piermaster at Clynder, on a recent date, on the platform of the railway station at Alexandria, and taken therefrom £10.”—Glasgow Herald, February 26, 1876

Glasgow Herald, April 17, 1875

Glasgow Herald, April 17, 1875

The Hero was sold to Donald Chalmers towards the end of 1873; presumably Archibald continued the charter with Donald. Eventually Messrs Keith purchased the steamer in January 1876. In the interim, William Chalmers had seen an opportunity to purchase an old but still useful steamboat, Prince of Wales, that he and Captain Duncan M‘Intyre brought to the Clyde from the Tay. Chalmers and M‘Intyre shared the purchase price of £400 equally. Chalmers borrowed his £200 from his brother, Peter to finance the purchase with his half of the steamer as surety.

“Sale of another river steamer.—We understand that the steamer Prince of Wales has now been purchased by Mr William Chalmers, Clynder.”— North British Daily Mail, May 27, 1876

The new partnership saw further opportunity when Messrs Brymner retired from the steamboat trade and placed the steamer Guinevere for sale. Guinevere had taken over the Arran by Kilchattan Bay route from another Brymner steamer, Lancelot, in 1873 after the latter had captured most of the traffic that the Hero had built up over the preceding years and forced her sale. The sale of Guinevere was agreed to and Chalmers and M‘Intyre took possession but failed to meet the sale requirements and their ownership of Guinevere was short lived. Guinevere and Prince of Wales were sold in July 1876, the latter for the Sunday trade and the former to Messrs Keith. Shortly afterwards William Chalmers was placed in sequestration.

“Interdict against the Guinevere—A petition was presented by Messrs Graham and John Brymner, merchants, Greenock, to recover possession of the Guinevere, which they sold, under arrangements in May last, for £6000, to Mr Duncan M‘Intyre, steamboat agent, Glasgow, and Mr Chalmers, pier-master, Clynder. It seems that by the arrangement between the parties the respondents were to pay £200 down and £1800 when the bill of sale was executed, the remaining £4000 being secured on the vessel. Two days before the date when the bill of sale was to be executed the respondents obtained possession of the vessel, in order to make a trial, and they still retain it. The petitioners say that the respondents have not carried out their part of the arrangement in its entirety; that only £800 of the £1800 has been paid, and that in consequence of the differences between them there is no likelihood of the petitioners being paid for the steamer. The respondents have been using the steamer for traffic between Glasgow and Arran, and refuse to surrender it, in respect that the respondents reside in different counties, and the vessel plies past three different counties. The Court granted interim interdict to be put in operation at any port for preventing the sailing from it of the vessel.”—North British Daily Mail, July 5, 1876

“Scotch Bankrupts—Wm. Chalmers sequestration—Wm. Chalmers, some time steamboat owner, presently residing at Clynder, Roseneath, in the county of Dumbarton.”—Paisley Gazette Sept 16 1876

The sequestration gives a good account of the shaky foundation on which the Chalmers’ ownership of steamboats was based.

“(Before Sheriff Lees.) Examination of Wm. Chalmers. The bankrupt was sometime a steamboat owner, presently residing at Clynder, Roseeath. There were present Mr John M‘Queen Barr, accountant, trustee; Mr Gavin Hamilton, writer, agent in the sequestration; Mr Charles France, writer, Mr Thomas Hart, writer, and Mr Allan Swan, for creditors, and several creditors.

“The bankrupt deponed—I was tenant of the pier at Clynder from 1870 to 1875, at a rental of £60 a year. This was the first business in which I was engaged, and at the end of the lease I think I would have gained £100. In 1872 I purchased the steamer Hero for £2300. She was mortgaged to the extent of £2000 or £2100, and the balance was paid in cash. The difference was paid with money which had been left me by my father and from the profit which I had made from the pier. I sold the steamer about 18 months after the purchase to my brother Donald for the sum of £2000. During the time I was owner the steamer was chartered by me to my brother Archibald. The charter was in writing. The terms were that he was to pay £400 for the season. During the time I had the steamer she was laid up in the winter months. The reason why I sold her for £2000 was that she required repairs. I paid to account of the mortgage about £400. All I received from my brother Archibald under the charter was about £700. The difference between the £400 to account of the mortgage and the £700 paid under the charter was applied in payment of interest on the mortgage, insurance, and necessary repairs in connection with fitting her out. The reason why I sold the Hero was that I had not sufficient money to execute repairs that were necessary. The sale to my brother was absolute. In 1875 I purchased one-half of the steamer Prince of Wales, which was then lying at Dundee. She was afterwards brought round to the Clyde. I paid £200 for my interest in this steamer. I raised the money by granting any acceptance to my brother Peter for £200, for which he gave me the cash. On being brought round to the Clyde she was put on a slip at Renfrew for the purpose of being repaired, so that she might be classed as a passenger steamer. I think the cost of these repairs amounted to £600, and over and above there was about £300 for repairing the engine and boiler, £60 for fitting up the cabin, and £20 for painting. All these sums were paid. Of these sums I paid £75 to the shipbuilders. This £75, which I paid, was advanced to me by my brother Donald, but to whom I gave no written obligation. M‘Intyre, who was the co-owner, and I granted a bill for £380, which was discounted by my brother Peter, and the proceeds were handed to me. This sum was paid to the shipbuilders to account of their debt, but it was not paid at one time. Bills were granted for the other sums. These were paid about six months afterwards. The money was raised partly from earnings from the steamer, and partly by getting bills discounted. A Mr Wallace discounted a bill for £120 with the City of Glasgow Bank, and after it became due that bank discounted a bill by M‘Intyre and me for £220, and out of this sum the bill discounted by Wallace was re-tired. My brother Peter discounted another bill for £150. Of the £380 there is still owing to my brother Peter £245 and the £150 above mentioned. At the time when my brother Peter discounted the bills and handed over the proceeds there was no arrangement to give him any security. When the bills became due we were unable to meet them, and he threatened to sell the steamer. In consequence of this I gave my brother as security in the form of a bill of sale for my half of the Prince of Wales. About the beginning of May last Duncan M‘Intyre and I arranged to purchase the Guinevere, but we were unable to implement the arrangement. She was ultimately sold for £5000, that being the upset price.

“After some questions had been asked by Mr France the examination was adjourned.

“The liabilities of the bankrupt amount to £2252 8s 6d, and the assets to £1700.”—Glasgow Herald, October 10, 1876

Glasgow Herald, May 15, 1877

At this point the steamboat ownership of the brothers Chalmers came to an end. However, a new problem for the brothers came to the fore. The estate of Barremman had changed hands in 1871, and the new owner, Mr Thom, who also owner the island of Canna, was in the process of developing his property and allocating feus. A pier on the estate would enhance the value of the feus.

Glasgow Herald, October 14, 1870

“Clynder.—The proposed pier.—On Tuesday, Mr Thom, of Barremman, proceeded to London to promote the bill lie has lodged in Parliament for the construction of a new pier at Crossowen—about 500 yards further up the loch than the present Clynder one. The bill is to be opposed by Mr Archibald Chalmers, as owner of the Clynder pier. Petitions for and against have been sent to Parliament.”—Helensburgh News, March 15, 1877

“The proposed new pier.—Mr Thom of Barremman has gone London to promote the bill he asks from Parliament for the erection a new pier at the point where the old Crosoween Ferry was before Clynder Pier was erected, but as the proposed site was only 500 yards further up the loch, the bill is sought to be opposed by the proprietor of Clynder Pier, and petitions have been lodged in Parliament by parties who think that if the two piers were in such proximity accidents might happen with steamers going in opposite directions.”—Greenock Telegraph, March 15, 1877

By this time, Archibald and his brother Donald were co-owners of the pier and the adjacent hotel that had been refused a licence to serve beer, wine and spiritous liquors. Despite the limitations and the impending erection of a new pier, they endeavored to improve and repair the pier and increase business.

“The Sunday steamer.—We understand that application has been made to Mr Chalmers, proprietor of the Clynder pier, to allow a steamer to call and land passengers on Sunday during the summer, but that the application has been refused. Mr Chalmers deserves well of the residents here for this, because if the steamers were allowed to land passengers here, on Sabbaths, the amenity of the place would be destroyed, and the result would be empty houses.”—Helensburgh News, March 22, 1877

“Clynder.—Pier—This pier is now receiving an extensive overhaul. All the old piles round the wharf are to be taken away and replaced with new ones made of the best pitch pine, and Mr Chalmers has instructed the contractor to cover with zinc that part of the wood which will be under water.”—Helensburgh News, April 19, 1877

The board of Trade granted a Provisional Order in favour of Mr Thom, and Donald and Archibald Chalmers appealed the decision.

“The Gareloch pier question.— On Monday, in the House of Commons, the referees on private bills heard objections against the petition of Messrs Donald & Archibald Chalmers, owners of Interellen Pier at Gareloch, on the Clyde, to be heard in opposition to the bill promoted by Mr Thom of Barreman, for confirmation of the Provisional Order obtained by him from the Board of Trade for the construction of pier Clynder, his estate on the Gareloch. Mr Anderson, who appeared for the petitioners, said that the present pier was erected by Messrs Chalmers in 1866, at an expense of £1,500, and had been found sufficient for all the purposes of the district. The traffic was entirely local, and chiefly confined to summer. The pier was worked by the petitioners, who obtained a livelihood from it, and there had never been any allegation that the public was not properly served. The pier now proposed to be constructed would only be 500 or 600 yards from the present pier, and would therefore be likely to abstract some the traffic which the Messrs Chalmers now enjoyed.

“Mr Davidson, for the promoter of the bill, said that Mr Thom had gone to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order to erect this pier solely for the purpose of developing and accommodating his own property. If he could get this pier erected, and facilities obtained for the local steamers calling, visitors from Glasgow and other places were likely to build summer houses on his estate.

“The referees said they thought they must allow locus standi to the petitioners in this case, and this was accordingly done.”—Greenock Telegraph, May 9, 1877

The deliberations concluded with approval of the new pier.

“Proposed new pier in the Gareloch.—The Select Committee the House of Commons to whom the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill was referred (so far it relates the proposed pier at Gareloch, on the Barreman estate) met on Monday—Mr Richard Bright in the chair. It appeared that Mr Thom has become the purchaser of the estate in question for a sum of £20,000, and obtained a provisional order for the construction of a pier at Gareloch. The confirmation of the order was petitioned against by Messrs Chalmers, Clynder, who are proprietors of a pier there, and who alleged that a second pier was not required, more especially as that proposed would be situated only about 600 yards from their own which was quite sufficient for all purposes. They further submitted that if the order were confirmed they would be subjected to unfair competition, and the navigation of the Gareloch would be impeded. In support of the order several witnesses were examined, and amongst them Mr M‘Kelvie, who is employed as a pilot on the Clyde, and who denied that the construction of the new pier would in any way impede the navigation the Gareloch. Capt. Dewar, master of the Prince Consort, Lochlomond steamer, gave evidence to the effect that the new pier would be better situated than the present one was. Mr Hugh Campbell, builder, and resident in Greenock, deposed that the new pier would be of advantage to the public. It would lead to the feuing of the Barreman estate. The Rev. Dr Story. Roseneath, and Mr John Cameron, of Clynder, spoke to the present pier being in a decaying state, and to the desirability of having a second pier. Mr Thom, the proprietor of the estate, deposed that one object of his in proposing to construct the pier was to develop his own property. The pier would, however, have the additional effect of being a convenience and benefit to the public. He had purchased the estate on the understanding that he would have the privilege of building a pier. It would be advantageous to the large shipowners on the Clyde, who were now in the habit of regarding Gareloch a natural harbour, and of using it as such. The committee adjourned.

“The Select Committee yesterday resumed consideration of the provisional order obtained from the Board of Trade by Mr Thom, with reference to the Barreman estate. Rev. Mr Rae, and Mr M. Henry, a London merchant whose family formerly resided Clynder, were examined, and gave testimony to the effect that the Clynder pier was not in a bad state of repair, and that it would not be to the advantage the public if a better structure were provided. Mr A. M‘Pherson, master of the steamer Hero, plying between Glasgow and Gareloch, also expressed his satisfaction with the existing pier. Mr Keith, shipowner, Glasgow, and proprietor of the steamer Hero, declared there was no difficulty in landing heavy goods at the present pier. Mr Duncan, superintendent of the Mercantile Marine at Glasgow, also testified that the pier at Clynder was amply sufficient for all traffic purposes. There was no need for another. In fact if another were erected so near to Clynder as was now proposed, danger would inevitably arise to the navigation. The steamers plying to and from the piers would sail in opposite directions, and a risk of collision would consequently arise. Clynder was purely place for the resort of pleasure seekers. Pleasure boats were largely used there, and if a new pier were constructed, the free use of these would be interrupted, and the value of the place be in consequence depreciated. Being questioned upon the condition of the existing pier, he declared that its condition was greatly exaggerated. It was not in such a state of dilapidation as was alleged, and was in fact quite equal to all the purposes for which it was used. Mr Archibald Chalmers, one of the proprietors of the Clynder pier, said it had been recently repaired at considerable cost, and that he and his brother only got a decent livelihood out of it. After slight deliberation the Committee confirmed the provisional order.”—Greenock Telegraph, June 13, 1877

The general population of Clynder was not happy at the erection of the new pier, fearing that they would lose the more convenient pier in the centre of the village. The best account of the meeting appeared in the more popular press. The second account, from the Glasgow Herald, is more subdued.

“The proposed new pier at Clynder.—Indignation meeting.—On Saturday night, the inhabitants of Clynder and the neighbourhood held a public meeting at the head of Clynder Pier, The meeting convened for the purpose enabling the residents in the locality to hear the evidence of Dr Story of Roseneath, as a witness in the House of Commons against the proprietors of Clynder Pier, and also to give them an opportunity of judging “whether the statements adduced by Dr Story were consistent with the real facts of the case.” By way of explantion, we may state that, in a private hill recently introduced into Parliament, Mr Thom (the promoter) requested statutory power to erect a new pier at Clynder, 600 yards farther up the loch than the present one. The matter was referred to a Select Committee, who heard the evidence of a number of witnesses as to the advantages which would be likely to accrue to the district by the construction of another pier, as, for instance, the letting of additional feus, &c. The Select Committee found the preamble proved, and invested the petitioner with the requisite power to proceed with the erection of the proposed new pier. Mr Chalmers—the proprietor the existing pier, of course, objects to the decision which the Select Committee have arrived, and he has accordingly resolved to appeal to the House of Lords against the judgment, and the meeting of Saturday, which was attended by about fifty persons (including message boys, servant girls, and visitors), was called with the view of ascertaining the feeling of the residents regarding the matter. At about 6.30 those who had gathered at the pier head unanimously agreed that Mr Barr take the chair, and that gentleman, in an exceedingly brief manner, explained the object of the meeting.

“Mr Galbraith moved the first resolution:—Resolved that the existing pier at Clynder is centrally situated, and amply supplies all the wants of the community and traffic, a new pier at a distance of 600 yards, or thereby, north of the present one is quite unnecessary and uncalled for.” The inhabitants of Clynder, he proceeded say, had had pier there since 1866—a very long time—a pier which, like the British flag, had stood “the battle and the breeze”—(laughter) and which he must say (to be poetic, as our national bard was), would be a pier when the new one was “a shapeless cairn.” (Renewed laughter.) There was another thing that must be said in defence of the new pier, and that was that there had not been “single solitary” complaint made by the residents of Clynder or elsewhere as to its not being sufficient for all the requirements of the place. Even in the evidence adduced before the Select Committee by those who were in favour of the new pier being erected somewhere about Crossowen, it was admitted in plain and terse language that the present pier had given every satisfaction from the year 1866 to the present time. What more, he asked, was required. He was not one of those who opposed the advancement of science (great laughter)—or any other thing that was for the welfare of the community anywhere; and if a new pier could be shown to be for the benefit of the community of course all opposition to would withdrawn. But it had yet to be proved that this new pier was to benefit the district. It was unnecessary to place a new pier so close to the present one as to make them only 600 yards apart. The proximity was too close. There would be collision, there would be rivalry, then would competition, and then would be ill-feeling. A new pier was also unnecessary, seeing that the present pier was in good order, and not in a dilapidated condition as many persons would wish them to believe. The present proprietor of the pier (Mr Chalmers) had been subjected to a considerable amount annoyance, though he (the speaker) was not there to blame any man for that. He did not know Mr Thom nor the Rev. Dr Storey, but he was willing to believe they were both very good gentlemen, and that what they had done, they had done with the best intentions. At the same time Mr Chalmers had been subjected to a considerable amount of annoyance by photographers, and shipwrights, and mechanics coming in a surreptitious way and taking dimensions of the pier early in the morning, perhaps when he was asleep—he was not wide awake for them it appears—(laughter)—and these men had come in the interests and in the pay of the gentleman who was about to erect the new pier. Now, this was done surreptitiously.

“A Voice—If he does not complain, how can it be annoyance?

“Mr Galhrarth—I complain of your annoyance until I am done. (Great laughter.) Proceeding with his remarks, Mr Galbraith pointed out that the present pier had been repaired only a few months ago, and that it had then been made in every respect secure end substantial. Mr Chalmers had said he was willing to erect a fixed light, if that was found necessary, in the winter season, while was also ready to put a crane on the pier. If this was the case, he thought then should be no outcry about the erection of new pier. The question, however, was one regarding which the people would require to form their own judgment. He was glad to know that the majority of the inhabitants had already adhibited their names to a petition to the affect that a new pier was unnecessary, only six persons in the district were found in favour of the proposal, and those six were interested on account their being proprietors, and having feus, the value of which would be very much enhanced by the erection of the new pier. The proposed proprietor of the new pier said he did not care whether the new pier would benefit the people of Clynder or not, or whether it would pay him or not—it would enhance the value of his estate. His (the speaker’s) motto was “Live and let live,” and would allow the rich man to live as well as the poor man. (Hear, hear.) In this case it appeared to be a struggle of might against right—of money against mediocrity—of riches against poverty; and he was sure the people of Clynder would not countenance such a thing. (Hear, hear)

“The evidence of Dr Story, given before the Select Committee, was then read. The rev. gentleman said that the present pier looked unsafe during last winter, but that he had not heard any special dissatisfaction expressed regarding it; that the present pier was more central than new one would be, but that, at the same time, the new pier would be of great advantage and convenience to the future population.

“The Chairman then seconded the resolution submitted by Mr Galbraith.

“On the resolution being put to the meeting, it was found that it had obtained 30 supporters, while only five voted in favour of the new pier. The motion was, of course, declared carried.

“Before the assemblage had broken up, Mr Galbraith said that he had not come there that day with any spirit of ill-feeling towards any person in Clynder. He knew no one there, and it could not be supposed that he had any self-interest in the matter; but he had come forward for the sake of justice and right and behalf of Mr Chalmers, whose pier was quite sufficient for all necessary purposes.

“This finished the proceedings, and the meeting quietly dispersed.”—Greenock Advertiser, May 25, 1877.

“The proposed new pier at Clynder.—A meeting the inhabitants of Clynder and district was held Saturday evening, to hear a reading of the evidence given by Dr Story before the Parliamentary Committee in reference to the new pier, and to protest against it. There was a good attendance of the inhabitants and residents, who seemed to take a lively interest in the matter. The chair was taken Mr Barr, who stated that the meeting had been called hear the evidence of Dr Story read, and to protest against the erection of the new pier; and he introduced Mr James Galbraith, who read over the evidence In question. In commenting upon it, he said that he considered the Doctor was exceeding the bounds fairness in advocating the erection of the new pier. He did not deny but what Mr Thom had a perfect right to erect a pier on his own property, but it was unjust to Mr Chalmers, who had erected the present one and spent considerable sums in keeping it in repair, and only made a livelihood out of it. Mr Chalmers was quite willing to extend the present erection, and put up cranes and everything else required, if necessary. In the event of the new pier being erected, it would deprive him of a livelihood, and at the same time would be no boon the district. Mr Chalmers was arranging to oppose the bill for the new pier in the House of Lords, and felt confident that, notwithstanding Dr Story’s statements, he would have the full support of the people of Clynder and neighbourhood in defending himself. It was then moved by Mr James Galbraith, and seconded by Mr Barr—“That the existing pier is quite sufficient for the district, and that the attempt to put up new one is unnecessary and uncalled for.” On being put to the meeting, 30 voted for the motion, and 5 voted in favour of the new pier. After a vote of thanks to the chairman, the meeting separated. The proposed new pier is intended to erected about 600 yards to the north the present one by Mr Thom, who owns the grounds, and who, having feued part of it for villas, is providing the pier for the convenience of the residents, and the improvement of his ground for building purposes.”—Glasgow Herald, June 25, 1877

Archibald Chalmers seems to have generated some business by mooring steamers laid up for the winter in the proximity of Clynder pier. Any watchmen on the steamers would naturally provide business to the local provisioners.

“Steamer Loughfoyle—This steamer, the property of Mr Ireland, Helensburgh, and which had been chartered by the Greenock and Gareloch Steamboat Company for the last three months, came to Clynder Pier on Monday to take on board Mr Arch. Chalmers to superintend the mooring of her.”—Helensburgh News September 13 1877

The new pier opened the following year.

“New pier on the Gareloch.—The new pier of Barremman, situated at Crossowen Point, the northern part of Clynder, on the Gareloch, was formally opened for traffic on Saturday. Mr Robert Thom, the proprietor of Barremman estate, has long contemplated erecting a pier at this point, alike for the convenience of feuars and the good of the locality. He obtained Parliamentary powers early last year, and plans having been drawn out (which have been approved of by the Board of Trade) operations were begun in the month of February last. The contract was secured by Bailie Hugh Kennedy, Partick, and the work has been very satisfactorily executed. The new pier is 101 yards long, the gangway is 14 feet broad, while the pierhead is 90 by 24 feet. The piles are all greenheart, which is the most durable description of wood for this purpose, as it is not attacked or injured by the sea worm. The waiting-rooms are large and commodious and the arrangements for landing horses and cattle are very complete. The pier is furnished with a large powerful crane, which cannot fail in being of great utility. Altogether it is one of the finest piers on the Clyde, and will be of great public convenience, while it will give an additional impetus to feuing, as it is situated on the centre of the Barremman estate. The average draught of water at low water is 12 feet, while at high water the average draught is 22 feet. Notwithstanding the state of the weather, which was somewhat inauspicious, a large-company of ladies and gentlemen assembled on the pier to take part in the opening ceremony. Amongst those present were Rev. Dr Story, Roseneath; Mr Thom, of Barremman; Provost Stewart and ex-Provost Breingan, Helensburgh; Bailie Kennedy, Partick; Mr John Campbell, of Peaton; Mr John Findlay, Rahane; Mr John Gilmour, of Mount Vernon; Dr Mackenzie Kilcreggan; and Leut.-Colonel John Kidston, Mr Robert Curle, of Barclay, Curle & Co.; Mr Donaldson, Mr John Cameron, Mr James Thomson, goods manager of the Caledonian Railway; Mr Q. V. Lawson, manager of the Union -Railway; and Mr George Wallace, Glasgow. Provost Stewart, in a few words, declared the pier opened, and in doing so remarked that they were all glad to see it finished, for it was one of the finest on the Clyde. The company cheered lustily in honour of the events after which an adjournment was made to the waiting-room, where cake and wine was purveyed by Mr John_ Forrester, Gordon Street, Glasgow.”—Glasgow Herald, June 10, 1878

Barremman Pier

“New pier at Clynder.—For some time past Mr Robert Thom of Barremman, Clynder, has been engaged in making arrangements for the erection of a pier in the Gareloch further west than Clynder Pier for the convenience of feuars on his estate. Negotiations having been entered upon, it was resolved that the new pier should be erected on Crossowen Point. The work was begun about six months ago, and was completed last week, but in consequence of the death of the Duchess of Argyll, the opening ceremony was postponed for a week. On Saturday a large company of ladies and gentlemen, among whom were Mr and Mrs Thom and a large party from Barremman; Mr Watson, Inchalloch, Row; Mr Maughan, Killarden; Mr and Mr Dick, Bonally, Rosneath; Mr and Mrs M‘Lellan, Craigmore, Shandon; Mr Curle, of Messrs Barclay, Curle & Co.; Mr and Mrs Walter M‘Lellan, Blairvaddich; Mr J. D. Campbell, Peaton; Mr J. B. Wright, Stronel Lodge; Mr Kidston, writer, Glasgow; Mr Purves, stationmaster, Helensburgh, and others, assembled on the new pier to witness the opening.

“Provost Stewart, of Helensburgh, said he had been asked open the pier that day in consequence his being the representative of one of the nearest burghs. He was sure they all felt pleased, like himself, that the pier had been completed, and that it was so substantial an erection—he believed there was not a better the Clyde. They all knew the Laird of Barremman. (Hear, hear.) He had an amount of energy which very few possessed. He felt it was necessary to have a pier at that place, that those who lived on his lands might enjoy a near approach to their residences, and accordingly had erected the pier they now stood upon. The Provost then, amid loud cheers, pronounced the pier open to the public.

“The company afterwards adjourned to one of the waiting rooms, where lunch was purveyed by Mr John Forrester, Gordon Street, Glasgow.

“The pier is built of pitch pine, supported on piles of greenheart. It is 14 feet wide, and the least depth water at the north end of the pier at spring tides is 7 feet, while at the other end it is 13 feet. The total cost is upwards of £2,000. Mr Hugh Kennedy, of Partick, was the contractor, and Mr Alley, of Glasgow, the engineer. The steamers running to Garelochead will touch at Barremman well as at the old pier at Clynder.”—Greenock Advertiser, June 10, 1878

Glasgow Herald, September 19, 1879

Glasgow Herald, August 7, 1882

The two piers ran in competition. The North British steamer that carried the bulk of the traffic on a daily basis called at both with a difference of four minutes between calls. Donald and Archibald Chalmers seem to have a major falling-out at the beginning of 1880, with Donald in sole ownership of the pier.

Archibald Chalmers persisted in attempting to obtain a license for the premises near his pier. The Licensing Court in Dumbarton no longer took the application with any seriousness.

“Licensing Court—Dumbartonshire.—This Court was held yesterday in the County Buildings—Mr Wm. Colquhoun, of Rossdhu, presiding. Archibald Chalmers, Clynder, applied for a porter and ale license for premises near Clynder pier. The premises had been certified by Mr Breingan, of Helensburgh, but he had omitted to certify as to applicant’s chracter. The Clerk said that this was quite fatal to the application, but if any of the Justices present would certify as to Mr Chalmers’s character the application might he considered. A long pause ensued, and the application was about to he dropped when Mr Burns of Kilmahew said he would fill up the schedule regarding applicant’s character. The case was then stated to the Court, when Mr Orr Ewing, M.P., asked if there was a petition in favour of the license. Mr Chalmers’s agent said no, that they were well-known throughout the district. (Loud laughter.) Dr Carnachan said he appeared to oppose the license, and was making a long speech when he was cut short by Mr M‘Nicol saying that there was no use as no one moved that the license be granted. The Doctor being nonplussed, gave up the talking. The application was unanimously refused.”—Glasgow Herald, October 26, 1881

At the end of November, 1881, Archibald Chalmers sued his brother, Donald, for £312 1s 7d, for the rent of a stable, board and lodging and coals between 1874 and 1881. He apparently received only £49 on account leaving the balance that was the amount of the suit. Donald averred that he rented the pier for £100 per annum to Archibald from Whitsun 1874 till February 1880 but Archibald failed to pay the rent and that the amount due was £374 besides being paid nothing as cautioner in the composition arrangement with his brother’s creditors and £40 of expenses in the associated litigation.—North British Daily Mail, November 30, 1881

Clynder showing the U.P. Church, built in 1881, and the manse

In the 1881 census, Archibald Chalmers is listed as unemployed and his brother William as coal merchant. They lived in the Chalmers Buildings, No. 6. Donald is listed as piermaster and lived in Glenderrig House with his wife Ann.

The extent to which the relationship between Archibald and his brother Donald had broken down can be judged by the lawsuit that emerged from the mooring of the old steamer Kingstown off Clynder at the end of the 1883 season. It is just possible that Archibald had been involved in superintending the mooring as he had previously with the Loughfoyle, otherwise his involvement seems strange. The upshot was that Archibald testified for the owner of the Kingstown against his brother.

“A hint to crossgrained shipmasters.—A couple of actions having reference to the working of the steamer traffic at Clynder pier were decided in Glasgow Small-Debt Court yesterday by Sheriff Lees. In the first instance Donald Chalmers, piermaster at Clynder, sued William Logan, house factor, Hope Street, Glasgow., for £10; for having allowed the river steamer Kingstown, of which he is owner, to be moored opposite Clynder Pier in such a manner as to obstruct the waterway and to stop the traffic at the pier. On various occasions between the 5th and 22d September, 1883, pursuer applied to the Sheriff of Dumbarton for leave to remove the vessel. This was granted, and it was taken out into the Gareloch, where it-was moored to the satisfaction of the harbour-master of Greenock, who was appointed to see that it was properly done. The Kingstown remained at the moorings in the loch for several weeks, but during a high wind was drifted over to the Shandon side of the loch into a position of peril. In order to prevent her driving on shore the owner was obliged to obtain a tug from Greenock and have her towed across the loch to a place of safety. For the expense thus incurred Mr Logan raised a counter action for £12. Captain James Bailie, harbourmaster, Greenock, said that when he first saw the vessel she was lying stern on to, and about 100 feet from, the quay. He thought it a very curious position. As the vessel stopped the traffic at the pier witness took the Kingstown out into the loch 200 yards north-east from the pier—from 8 fathoms of water to 13 fathoms. Q. Do you think that any judicious person would have left the vessel where you found her?—A. I certainly would not have allowed her to lie there any length of time without doing something to remove her. When witness saw the steamer at Clynder Pier she was attached to two moorings. One of the anchors he took on hoard, and was proposing to do the same with the other; but, on being informed that it belonged to a yacht, he attached a buoy to the mooring and left it. He used all the skill he knew in the re-mooring of the vessel, but there wasonly one anchor that he could use for the purpose. Q. Suppose it were alleged that you had carelessly and negligently remoored the vessel, what would you say to that?—A. Negligently! that is impossible. I used all the mooring tackle there was on board. After remoorlng the vessel I examined the Kingstown on the 24th of September. I reported to the Sheriff of Dumbarton what I had done, and recommended that, in case of storm, two anchors and 45 fathoms of chain should be procured at once in order to prevent the vessel from drifting. Thomas Blair, master ship-rigger, Greenock, also stated that the Kingstown had been left in a secure position. Lauchlan Campbell, the master of a river steamer, stated that the Kingstown had greatly obstructed the traffic at Clynder pier. She lay in such a position as to make it dangerous for steamers to use the pier, and he had ceased from calling there. Donald Chalmers, the piermaster, said that vessels were prevented from getting to the pier in consequence of the way in which the Kingstown was moored, and on the 19th, 20th, and 21st September the traffic was entirely stopped. The Glasgow steamer, with luggage was the only vessel that got in during the three days. At the period of September referred to the average drawings would be 15s a-day. Passengers were put to much inconvenience in consequence of the stoppage of the traffic. They could not depend on getting in or out at Clynder. Witness had occasion to go to Dumbarton in connection with the proceedings in the Court there, and on one occasion could not leave his own pier, but had to go to a neighbouring one. Captain Robertson, master of the river steamer Hero, also spoke to the manner in which the traffic had been obstructed. Archibald Chalmers, a brother of the piermaster, in the course or examination, declared that when the Kingstown was at the pier she was lying fully 300 yards distant from the quay. The Greenock harbourmaster first of all towed her a good way out into the loch, but finding the mooring tackle too short brought her back to within twenty yards of her former position. The vessel was at the present time at the moorings from which the Sheriff of Dumbarton ordered her removal, and no complaint was made about the traffic being stopped. The Sheriff, in giving decree in favour of the piermaster, said it seemed to him to be altogether out of the question to think that any cross-grained shipmaster when he chose could prevent a pier from being used by the proprietor or the public. His Lordship unhesitatingly held that the right of any shipowner to put his vessel at or near a pier was entirely subordinate to the rights of the piermaster and the public. He was of opinion that the evidence clearly showed that the Kingstown had prevented the pier from being used, and he considered that the piermaster’s patrimonial rights had been interfered with and that he had suffered loss to the extent of £2. As to the counter claim, when the vessel was removed out into the loch the new moorings could only be looked on as being of a temporary character. The cost to which Mr Logan had been put had been primarily caused by the captain of the Kingstown mooring the vessel improperly at the pier. The new mooring ground was chosen by the Sheriff of Dumbarton, and Mr Chalmers was bound to place the vessel there unless otherwise instructed by the owner. His Lordship repelled the counter claim and gave decree in Mr Chalmers’s favour for £2. with £2 6s 2d of expenses. Agents—Mr George M‘Nee, writer, Glasgow for Mr Chalmers; and Mr William Borland, writer, Glasgow, for Mr Logan.”—Glasgow Herald, February 20, 1884

In 1886, Donald Chalmers died of heart disease on April 9, 1886, aged 60. His wife was now the owner of the pier. It did not take long for Archibald and William to attempt to regain control of the structure.

“The Clynder pier dispute.—Decision of Sheriff Gebbie.—Sheriff-Substitute Gebbie of Dumbarton has given his decision in the action for interdict raised by Mrs Chalmers, widow of the deceased proprietor, pursuer, against Archibald Chalmers and William Chalmers, defenders, his brothers, and has found that they have no right or title to the pier, and makes the interim interdict already granted perpetual. As he remarks in the note appended to the interlocutor, Clynder Pier has been for long a bone of contention and a source of litigation in the Chalmers family. Five or six times within recent years it has been the subject of legal proceedings,. In the present case the defender William, in conjunction with the other defender, endeavoured to make himself tenant. He had been employed by the pursuer to act as her servant and assistant while she was unwell. At length he became defiant and refused to leave the pier when ordered by the pursuer. The police did not interfere in the matter, but an attempt made to put off the defenders by force, which ended in a free fight was unsuccessful owing to the superior force mustered by the defenders. The pursuer then raised this action. It was argued that William Chalmers was tenant by virtue of verbal agreement with the pursuer. The Sheriff takes the view that this was a piece of trickery on the part of William, in which he was aided by his brother Archibald, the latter having without authority made a return to the assessor setting forth William Chalmers to be the tenant of Clynder Pier, and himself the proprietor. The return, in the opinion of the Sheriff, is no evidence against the pursuer, however much it may operate against the defenders. The late proprietor by his will conveyed the pier to the pursuer. When the pier was advertised to let in the spring both defenders made offers. Considering the trouble the defenders had occasioned at former times, the pursuer consulted her law-agent, and it was resolved that before acceptance of either offer security should be found. That was not done, and the offer was not accepted. This the Sheriff considers militates against the defender William’s contention that he made a verbal agreement with the pursuer, seeing how extremely unlikely it was that she should deliberately receive him as tenant by word of mouth whom she had resolved not to accept without security. The judgment goes upon the footing that there has been ample ground for including Archibald in the present action; and in regard to the interim interdict granted at the outset of the case, the continued interference of William in the face of that interdict, says the Sheriff, presents a serious and unfavourable feature, which will probably require to be dealt with at a future stage. Agent for Pursuer—J. Fisher M‘Laren, Glasgow. Agent for Defenders-Wm. Kidd, Glasgow.”—Glasgow Herald, November 19, 1887

“A legal fight for Clynder Pier.—In the Second Division of the Court of Session William Chalmers and his brother, Archibald Chalmers, Clynder, were the defenders in an action brought in the Sheriff Court at Dumbarton by the widow their deceased brother to have them ejected from the pier at Clynder, Gareloch, which the pursuer was the proprietrix. The pursuer stated that she employed the defender William Chalmers as her assistant in collecting the pier dues; that he had refused to leave at her bidding; and that he and the other defender had taken possession of the pier. In defence, it was stated that the defender William was tenant the pier. Sheriff-Substitute Geddie, and on appeal Sheriff Muirhead, found that the defender William Chalmers had failed to prove that a lease had been granted in his favour, and granted warrant to eject, with expenses. The defender W. Chalmers appealed to the Second Division, which has now dismissed the appeal, affirmed the judgment of the Sheriff, and found the respondent entitled to expenses. Lord Young said it was really sad to see this litigation among relatives, especially as it was elicited by questions put to one side and the other that those who had been attending to the interests of the parties had not been at the trouble to ascertain whether there was anything to fight about. If the dues, minus a pound of wages to the collector, would give no more or little more than the rent, there was very little to fight about. The Court were told that there was a process of breach of interdict in dependence; but his Lordship hoped that, if there was any proceeding before the Sheriff Court at present, at the instance of the lady, to punish the brothers of her deceased husband, it would cease; and that the Sheriff would give no encouragement whatever to what would be mere vindictive proceeding by one relative against another.”—Greenock Telegraph, June 7, 1888

Glasgow Evening News, September 30, 1889

Ann Chalmers put the pier up for sale, and it was promptly purchased by Mr Thom.

Glasgow Herald, January 13, 1892

“Clynder pier.—This pier has been recently purchased by Mr Thom, of Barremman, and it is generally rumoured that it will soon be closed for passenger traffic. The pier, it is admitted, stands in need of structural repair, and already several of the owners of steamers plying on the Gareloch have declined to allow their vessels to call at it until it has been put into order, as they will not risk the danger that at present attends touching it. This will be a great inconvenience to those who reside at Clynder, for to walk from Roseneath or from Barremman, or have their goods sent to the village from these extreme points of the loch will entail not only additional labour but increased expenditure. There is a disposition on the part of the villagers of Clynder to approach Mr Thom and endeavour to induce him to put the pier in order, and in this way assist the shopkeepers and encourage summer visitors to patronise Clynder.”— Helensburgh News, April 7, 1892

Rothesay Chronicle, May 21, 1892

“The closing of Clynder pier.—The residents at Clynder, on the Gareloch, are suffering from a grievance, the details of which they are anxious the outside public should know. At the beginning of the year, Mr Thom, the proprietor of the ground upon which the village is built, acquired the pier, which had been erected 26 years ago at the most convenient spot for the inhabitants, and last month he closed this pier for traffic, with the view of inducing passengers to make sole use of Barremman Pier, which he built 14 years since, about 600 yards farther up the loch, and at the extreme northern end of the village. This action the villagers have strongly resented, on the plea that this latter pier is inconveniently situated for the great bulk of the population, and also that the certain result, already this season made evident, will be permanent injury to Clynder as a watering place. But although Mr Thom has been memorialised and urged to have both piers open as before, he has until now firmly declined to accede to the wishes of his feuars or of others interested. For defence of his position Mr Thom states that Barremman is the natural place for a pier to suit the Clynder people, and that the pier regarding the closing of which complaint is made is inferior, dangerous, and badly situated. In their extremity, the inhabitants sent a petition to the Board of Trade, and a week or so ago an official of that Board visited Clynder and examined a number of persons upon the subject of complaint. That gentleman has also been supplied with a report by practical men on the condition of the pier, on which £170 has been expended during the past three years, that report being to the effect that the pier is in quite a good and serviceable state. On this point, besides, the position of the residents is strengthened by the fact that an offer has been made to Mr Thorn to rent the pier at £65 per annum, with a condition that it shall be maintained in order and repair, which offer he declines to entertain. Thus the matter stands at present. The village is far from being so lively or so well let as in previous years, which is wholly attributed to the action of Mr Thorn, who is not likely to succeed after all, it is stated, in, diverting the traffic to Barremman Pier, because the most of the residents, when they have occasion to use the steamers, prefer to walk the longer distance to Rosneath rather than take advantage of Barremman Pier.”—Glasgow Herald, June 23, 1892

“The inhabitants of Clynder declare that the houses are not so well let this year, and that there is a general want of activity on accountof the traffic having been diverted to Barremman Pier. A petition has been sent to the Board of Trade, who have an official 1nquiry into the matter just now. An offer has also been made to Mr Thom to rent Clynder Pier at £65 per annum, but he declines to entertain the proposal. It is said that the majority of the inhabitants use Roseneath Pier in preference to Barremman.”—Glasgow Evening News. June 23, 1892.

The question was raised in the with the Board of Trade.

“Clynder and Barremman piers.—Captain Sinclair asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been drawn the fact that, whereas the piers of Clynder and Barremman (which lay contiguous to each other upon the Gareloch) had been, from the dates of their construction respectively, in regular use by the residents of those places, Clynder Pier, which was said to have passed lately into the hands the owner of Barremman Pier, had been closed by him to the detriment and the inconvenience of certain of the residents of Clynder; whether the Board had power compel the owner or lessee of Clynder Pier to keep open and maintain the said pier in the interests of the public; and if not, whether in future the Board would cause provisions to be inserted in pier orders and in deeds conveying Crown property to persons for such purposes in order safeguard the public interest in this respect, and in view of the fact that owing to the severance and removal of that part of the pier formerly leading to the public thoroughfare, there was now no access to the pier from the shore; whether, and if so, under what conditions the Board had power compel the removal of the remainder of the pier?

“Mr Mundella: My attention has been called to the facts stated, and one of the disputants has informed the Board of Trade that he is about to take legal proceedings against the others. In these circumstances it would not be proper for me to say anything at present as to these particular piers. The Board of Trade have no power to compel the undertaker of a pier to maintain it in the interests of the public if it is not remunerative, and I shall consider whether in future pier orders or in deeds conveying Crown property for pier purposes such provision as the hon. member suggests should be inserted. Under the Pier and Harbour Act, the Board has power, if a pier falls into disuse or decay, either to repair or remove it at the expense of the owner. In the case Clynder Pier, the new owner has intimated his intention of entirely removing it.”—Greenock Telegraph, July 26, 1893

The closing of the pier did not sit well with the people of Clynder.

“The Clynder pier case illustrates a fact which all of us were already aware of, that piers were built for their owners, not for the public. As legal proceedings are pending, and as Mr Mundella declined to say anything regarding the point in dispute, the closing of Clynder Pier need not be commented on. What is desirable is that Government should see its way to render such action impossible where it is for the public benefit that piers should remain open, and that in future the public should be studied more in regard to pier matters. The proper solution is that piers should not be private property.”—Glasgow Evening Post, July 26, 1893

Lady Clare approaching Barremman Pier

“Now that the Duke of Argyll is putting up new pier at Roseneath, the advantage of that pier to the residents and the summer visitors would be doubled if he also gave more direct access to the pier from the district which lies between Roseneath Pier and Clynder. That district up till the spring of last year enjoyed the use of the pier at Clynder, but after the proprietor of Clynder bought the pier and closed it the people who occupied houses, to the south of the Clynder Pier found themselves a long way from the pier at Barremman, and had to go by a hilly and circuitous road if they chose the way to Roseneath Pier. There is a footpath along the shore from Roseneath to Clynder, but it is known to few, and has in its course a nasty crossing of the Clachanburn.

“If the Duke sanctioned a little improvement of that near road, and it could be done at very little expense, he would confer a great boon on both residents and visitors at Clynder, and ensure a substantial addition to the revenues of his new pier.”—North British Daily Mail, March 22, 1893

The new pier at Rosneath

Within two years, Barremman Pier was renamed Clynder Pier in the steamer timetables.

Greenock Telegraph, June 8, 1895

An interesting postcard of the village of Clynder issued in the 1900s showing the hotel and the site of the original Clynder Pier that has been neatly erased revealing that this was a much older photograph probably by Poulton

Archibald Chalmers died on June 4, 1904 in Victoria Place, Clynder. He was 68 years old and his occupation is listed as boatman. He outlived William, his coal-dealer brother, who sadly went missing on February 3, 1896, at Row Point on the Gareloch. His body was recovered at the beginning of April. William was 48 years old when he died of drowning.

Barremman Pier, now renamed Clynder remained a vital part of Gareloch life despite the improvements in roads and reliability of road traffic. Most of the views of the pier date from the 1930s when the Gareloch was a popular destination for a quiet summer stay or a pleasant excursion.

Eagle III at Clynder around 1930 with some of the Ellerman Liners laid up during the trade depression

Lucy Ashton at Clynder around 1930

Lucy Ashton at Clynder in the 1920s (Reliable)

Lucy Ashton approaching Clynder in 1934 (Valentine)

The coming of the second world war and the increasing use of the Gareloch by the military, led to the its closing in September 1942. The structure remained until 1967 when it was blown-up by army sappers.

North of Clynder and the Barremman Estate on the west shore of the Gareloch, the next stop for steamers was Rahane. Rahane was a ferry point and never did have a pier. I have no view showing a steamer at the ferry but the wheeled jetty used by the ferry-boat can be seen at the shoreline. The Macfarlane family were ferrymen there for many years.

Rahane from the Ferryboat around 1900 (Gilchrist)

The children playing on the jetty in this delightful view are Alec Cree and Marjory Sandeman.

Rahane

I have to thank Iain MacLeod for the following information that he gleaned from his research. Alexander George Cree was born in 1891 and lived in Caledonia Road, Hutchesontown, Glasgow and his playmate, Marjory Sandeman, was born in 1893. The photograph was likely taken in 1896 when they were visiting their grandmother who lived in Rahane. Sadly Marjory died on January 1, 1897 but Alec lived until 1965.

The last calling place on the west shore was the pier at Mambeg. A pier was opened in 1857 to encourage feuing on this part of the Roseneath Estate.

Mambeg Pier

I am indebted to Douglas Brown for the photograph that I believe came from Mambeg Estate through Mr Ian Shannon. Mambeg pier was close to Garelochhead and indeed was used by the residents of Garelochhead when the pier there was closed for repairs at various times.

Rosneath Past and Present, William Charles Maughan, Alexander Gardner, Paisley, 1893

Annals of Garelochside, William Charles Maughan, Alexander Gardner, Paisley, 1897

Clyde Piers, Joy Monteith and Ian McCrorie, Inverclyde District Libraries, Greenock, 1982

Old Garelochhead and the Rosneath Peninsula, Keith Hall, Stenlake, Ochiltree, 1999