The origins of Innellan date from the 1840s. Before that time the coastal area, five miles or so south of Dunoon, was sparsely populated. There were a few secluded summer homes for some of the wealthy businessmen from Paisley and Glasgow but the coast was in a state of nature. The name Innellan supposedly refers to the Perch, a rocky island off the coast but its present spelling derives from the time, around 1850, when feus were made available.

Greenock Telegraph, December 28, 1849

Greenock Telegraph, August 30, 1850

“The New Watering Place.—Innellan promises to become a favourite locality for summer retirement. It is only a week or two since it was proposed to feu there, and we hear that already almost a dozen feuars are forward, and as there is a certainty of many tasteful villas making their appearance in that quarter in the course of the next two or three months. Innellan is situated about five miles below Dunoon, and is part of the Dunoon Estate, the property of Mr. Campbell of Dunoon, of whose liberality to his farm tenants, by providing them all, since his succession to the estate, with superior dwelling houses and offices, we have on more than one occasion taken notice. Possibly there is no part along the river better adapted for summer houses than the picturesque coast between Dunoon and Toward. The shore ground is generally backed by a well wooded bank or ridge, (above which too, there are admirable sites for houses,) the public road is level, and runs close along the water, and the view extends from the Argyleshire range of mountains on the one side, to Ailsa Craig on the other. Several streams intersect the ground to be feued, and while the open and principal part of the beach is superior for bathing, that portion which is rocky and precipitous is by its numerous romantic creeks, admirably adapted for the harbouring of boats, or the placing of private bathing-boxes. We observe that when a number of houses are built, it is proposed to put a pier out at Knockamillie point, which is a little nearer Dunoon than the present ferry, and placed there, a pier will extend its influence to several miles of the finest feuing land. In the meantime Mr. Shearer’s ferry, long known as a well regulated and safe one, is about to be improved by having large, floored, passenger boats, similar to those used at the upper ferries on the Clyde, put upon it, and the charge has been reduced to grown up passengers—children under 10 years of age being landed free. Having just had an opportunity of inspecting the Feuing Plan of Innellan by Mr. Andrew Macfarlane of Glasgow, we are of opinion that he has laid off the ground with his usual taste and prudence.—Greenock Advertiser.”—Glasgow Herald, January 25, 1850.

A pier was constructed in 1851 by the ferryman, Mr. James Shearer, who served as the first piermaster. In contrast to the piers at Dunoon and Kirn farther up the coast, the pier was to be free to encourage feuing and otherwise aid in the development of visitor traffic.

Greenock Telegraph, May 16, 1851

However, the new pier took some time to become a regular call.

“To the Editor of the Greenock Advertiser. Greenock, 8th December, 1851. Sir,—I went to Innellan last Saturday evening, with the intention of remaining over Sabbath and returning up Clyde by the steamer that should have left Rothesay at seven o’clock this morning, she being advertised to touch at Innellan for passengers. The morning was very blowy, and this, together with its being dark, may account for the Craignish Castle, Capt. Gillies, being half-an-hour later than the regular hour of getting to Innellan. I and other passengers waited on the steamer coming in to the quay, and that there might be no mistake, the person who has charge of the pier was requested to hold up a light to show the steamboat people that there were passengers waiting to get on board. What was my disappointment on going to the end of the pier to see the steamer passing quite close (none of us having the least doubt but she would touch), and not making the slightest attempt to come in for the passengers. Now, Sir, it was perfectly calm at Innellan pier at the time, and there was nothing to hinder the boat coming in. I had a particular engagement up Clyde which, of course, has been frustrated, and I do think that I entitled to make an example of such misconduct on the part of the steamboat proprietors or their servants, by claiming damages at court of law, seeing they advertise to call at the quay. And as such instances of incivility are much against the spirited proprietor of Innellan and his excellent factor, I hope they will see to get good opposition on the Dunoon and Rothesay station next season, as the incivility of many connected with the Castle steamers was proverbial during last summer; and I am certain that good steamers with obliging servants will be fully supported by frequenters of the coast. I may mention that since May last 20,000 persons have landed on Innellan quay—a number whose convenience ought not to be disregarded by the owners of steamers.—l am, &c., A Feuar at Innellan.”

“[Every man in business will feel that our correspondent has very sufficient reason to be displeased in the circumstances, which, however, we hope, admit of explanation. While giving admission to this complaint, it may fair to mention that the proprietors of the same boats are at present affording a much needed accommodation to the inhabitants of the Kilmun shore. The steamers Pilot, Ardenteeny, and Eclipse—which during the summer drove a profitable trade—have of late been all withdrawn from the station, so that the locality referred to, but for the liberality and spirit the Castle Company, would be in even a worse position during the winter months than if steam navigation did not exist, as we have now no other means voyaging. The Company’s fares are also one-half lower than the other boats were charging. These facts, so honourable to the proprietors, ought not to pass unnoticed and unrewarded, while omissions and faults are freely commented on.— Ed. G. A.]”—Greenock Advertiser, December 12, 1851

Innellan in 1853

One of the iconic buildings of Innellan, the Royal Hotel, was built in 1853, securing the village a role as a sedate watering place.

“Opening of the Royal Hotel, Innellan.—This spacious and magnificent hotel was opened by a public supper and ball on the evening of Friday last. We (Dumbarton Herald) observed, among others, Dr Taylor; Messrs Lymburn, feuars, Innellan; Baird and Hart, Paisley; Leitch, Greenock; M‘Intosh, Glasgow; Walker, Glasgow; Adam and Fleming; Greenock ; Brownlie, Glasgow; Councillor Arbuckle, Greenock; Messrs Thorne, Lawson, Hunter, and Douglas, Greenock; Lochead, Toward; Carmichael and Bennet, builders, Innellan; Rutherford, Dunfillan; Turner, postmaster, Innellan, M‘Gregor, Toward Castle; Dunlop, contractor, Innellan; M‘Neillige, Newton Park, the oldest tenant on the Dunoon estate; Reid, baker, Innellan.

“At supper, John Lymburn, Esq., most ably and pleasantly discharged the duties of the chair; Dr Taylor acted croupier. The Chairman, in calling upon the company to drink prosperity to the house, under the roof which they were now assembled, passed high eulogium on Mr Shearer, the spirited landlord, for the enterprising spirit he had shown in erecting so splendid a hotel at the new town of Innellan. He sincerely hoped that so auspicious a beginning would have a successful ending, and that throughout his whole occupancy of the hotel, great prosperity would attend the undertaking, and that he would continue to prosper with the prosperity of Innellan. Mr Shearer replied in short speech, characterised by good sense and proper feeling.

“The Croupier gave Mr Campbell of Dunoon, the gentleman who had the principal interest in Innellan, whose liberality was well known, and who had provided excellent accommodation for landing passengers, without being obliged to put their hands in their pockets, as they had to at several other places the coast. John Fleming, Esq., proposed the spirited factor upon the Dunoon estate, Allan Park Paton, Esq., whom he eulogised for the encouragement he had given Shearer in the erection of the Royal Hotel, which would do credit to any place on the Clyde.

“The following toasts were then given and duly responded to: The health of the Chairman, “The health of Mr M‘Neillage, Newton Park, the oldest tenant upon the Dunoon estate;” “The strangers, coupled with the health of Mr Thorne Greenock,” “The old residenters of Innellan, with the health of Mr Lochhead,” “Mr Turner, postmaster,” by the chairman, &c., &c. Mr R. Ballantyne’s celebrated quadrille band, from Glasgow, was in attendance, and enlivened the meeting by playing appropriate tunes to each toast. After supper, the more youthful portion of those present introduced their sweethearts to the ball, which also went off well.”—Greenock Advertiser, July 15, 1853

Ash Bank, Innellan

Innellan around 1870 (Banks)

There can be little doubt that the advantage of a free pier brought new feuars as well as a stream of daily visitors that helped the development of the area. In 1865, the pier was rebuilt as traffic increased with the opening of the Wemyss Bay Railway, and the owner tried to introduce a 1d toll to recover the costs of this improvement and other rising costs associated with the pier. However, the subsequent outcry had prevented this. In 1867, a new attempt was made and it was announced that a penny charge would be introduced, ostensibly to discourage excursionists or day visitors. To gain the acceptance by the feuars and the residents of Innellan, a plan was worked out so that they would be exempt, but there was a realization that the loss of passing trade would hurt local shopkeepers and businesses.

“Innellan—End or the Free Pier.—The boon which has been long enjoyed by the public visiting this lonely residence without the annoying penny tax that is imposed upon passengers landing at the other neighbouring piers is about to taken away. Innellan pier to the general public will, after the 15th inst., placed on the same footing as Dunoon. The feuars and tenants of houses are, however, to be exempted from the pier tax, are to be provided with pass tickets by the pier master. A meeting of feuars and others interested is to be held to-night to consider the matter.”—Glasgow Evening Post, June 3, 1867

“Innellan Pier.—On Monday night a meeting of feuars and residents in Innellan was held in the Royal Hotel there to consider the resolution of the Superior (Mr Campbell Wyndham of Dunoon), to charge on and after 15th inst., passengers 1d each for landing at, or embarking at Innellan pier. There were about sixty gentlemen present. Bailie Hunter, Greenock, was called to the chair. Mr Lade, writer, Port-Glasgow, appointed Clerk.

“The Chairman said it would be remembered that about five years ago an attempt was made by the Superior impose a tax of 1d upon parties using the pier, the circumstances connected with which the chairman explained. The question they had now met to consider was a public one. When the Superior induced people to come to Innellan and feu, he stated there would be a free pier; and he had no doubt they were all astonished, that in future of pontage was to be charged. He was glad to see such a large meeting assembled; and had no doubt such would be taken as would set the matter at rest. He had seen Mr Crawford, Greenock, the factor upon the estate, the other day, and that gentleman had stated to him that the object of levying a penny was to keep away excursionists; but he (the Chairman) believed that this was simply the plan adopted of getting in the thin end the wedge. (Applause.) Upon previous occasion they had shown a bold front and were successful, and had no doubt that following the same course they would be successful again. (Applause.) The Chairman concluded by calling upon Mr M‘Cubbin to make a statement to the meeting.

“Mr M‘Cubbin then detailed the history of the pier question. In March, 1850, an advertisement appeared in the newspapers requesting (parties proposing to build houses for summer residences on the Clyde to inspect the feuing plans of Innellan. The advertisement proceeded—“The pier (which is to be free to passengers) is now erecting, and will be ready for occupants of houses next summer.” On 15th May, 1851, the following advertisement appeared:—“To parties proposing to build or reside at the coast. The pier at Innellan (below Dunoon) is now open to the public, and, as formerly advertised, is free to passengers. (Signed) Allan Park Paton. factor, Dunoon Estate.” Immediately thereafter a board was erected, upon which was painted—“This pier is free to passengers and others, the charge of a penny generally made at similar landing places being here done away with.” Now, this was deliberately done, and any one reading these public notices must come to no other conclusion than that free access was to be continued to and from the pier. They must be prepared to make a determined stand against the attempt now made. (Cheers.) He was satisfied that the law was upon their side, and they ought therefore strenuously to resist this impost being saddled upon the public. (Applause.) He believed that they had a prima facie case to warrant them applying for an interdict, and he further believed that if the advertisements he had referred to were laid before the Lord Ordinary he would at once grant it. Mr M‘Cubbin concluded by recommending united action.

“Mr Calder moved, “That the meeting expresses great surprise that a second attempt should have been made to impose this tax, and that the apparent modification of it, by exempting feuars and their tenants, does not in any material sense make it less objectionable, and, therefore, resolves to give it most strenuous objections.” Mr M. S. Taylor seconded the motion, which was unanimously agreed to. Bailie Taylor, Glasgow, said the shopkeepers and tradespeople in the village would be very much injured if the penny was imposed. Shopkeepers, who had taken long leases of their shops, upon the understanding that the pier was to be free, looked forward to many persons landing there, because of the pier being free.

“Mr Rennison, writer, Glasgow, thought there was a strong moral obligation binding on the landlord to keep the pier free, but was not prepared to give opinion on the legal question. He moved “That, previous to taking further steps, representation be made to the Superior of the strong feeling of the feuars and others against this tax being imposed.” Mr Lamb seconded the motion, which was likewise agreed to. Dr Morton moved that the following committee be appointed to carry out the views of the meeting, with power to take opinion of counsel, and such legal proceedings as they may consider necessary, and to call another meeting if they think it advisable, viz.:—Messrs Charles Suttie, James Arbuckle, Bailie Hunter, Bailie John Taylor, Messrs J. Miller, D.  M‘Cubbin, M. S. Taylor, Alex. Rodger, John Cook, Alex. Lade, Mr Rennison, Mr Calder, and Mr Geo. Lamb—Mr M‘Cubbin, convener.

“Mr Law seconded the motion, which was agreed to. Mr Miller proposed that, as the 15th June was rapidly approaching, an interdict should be applied for at once. (Applause.) Bailie Taylor thought the suggestion a very proper one. It would be an awkward thing for parties who might resist the pontage on the 15th to be marched off to Inveraray. (Laughter.) The matter was, however, ultimately left with the committee, with full powers; and after hearty votes of thanks had been awarded to Mr M‘Cubbin and the Chairman, the meeting separated.”—Greenock Advertiser, June 6, 1867

The matter dragged on for a year or two until there was an agreement. It amounted to little less than capitulation to the pier owner.

“Innellan Pier Pontage. —At a public meeting of the inhabitants of Innellan on Friday evening, it was agreed, to accept the modified terms of Col. Campbell, which were that his right to levy pier dues shall be conceded, and that in future there shall be levied a toll of one penny from each foot passenger who uses the pier, the feuars pay a yearly sum of 5s. on rents of £40 and upwards, and 2s.6d. on rents below that sum, said payment entitling the feuars, their tenants and sub-tenants, families and servants, the use of the pier as foot passengers, without paying the toll of one penny.”—Glasgow Evening Citizen, July 5, 1869

In the 1870s, the village developed. In August 1870, “The Innellan Gas-Light Company” piped gas from Dunoon to light the houses. A new reservoir was opened in 1878.

Innellan from the south

Innellan in 1882 (Valentine)

Steamer connections to Innellan were greatly enhanced by the steamer services put in place by Messrs Gilles & Campbell who had taken over from the ill-fated Wemyss Bay Steamboat Co. The Rothesay boat called at Innellan. In 1881, their fastest steamer, Sheila, came into collision with the celebrated Columba at Innellan.

“Alarming collision between river steamers.—Columba running into the Sheila.—Yesterday afternoon a collision between river steamers of a very serious nature occurred the river dose to Innellan Pier. The particulars the unfortunate occurrence are somewhat as follow:—The Columba was on her upward run from Rothesay, which place left about half-past three o’clock, and when approaching Innellan Pier, she ran into the Wemyss Bay steamer Sheila, which was making the run to Innellan with the passengers per the 2.15 p.m. train from Glasgow. The Columba struck the Sheila forward about 25 feet from the bow, and cut her down to the water’s edge. The damaged vessel began to make water, and as there was great danger of her sinking, she was immediately run ashore and beached close to the pier. When a collision was seen to be inevitable, the passengers on board the Sheilarushed aft, and fortunately no one was injured. The Sheila’s passengers were transferred to the steamer Marquis of Bute, and taken to Rothesay, where they arrived three-quarters of an hour behind time. The news of the collision quickly reached Greenock, and when the Columba arrived, there was a considerable number of persons the quay, all anxious to get the correct particulars of the accident. The cause of the collision could not be accurately ascertained, as eye-witnesses were divided in their opinion as to where the blame lies. But “some one had blundered.” What makes the collision the more inexplicable is that there are not two captains sailing the Clyde more cautions and careful than Captain M‘Gaw of the Columba and Captain Bell of the Sheila. The steamer Argyle, which was lying at Wemyss Bay Pier, was at once despatched to Rothesay to take the passengers across to Wemyss Bay, and left at five minutes past five o’clock—twenty minutes late. Capt M‘Lean, instead of mooring his steamer (the Marquis Bute) at Rothesay, put her at the disposal of the Wemyss Bay officials, and took back to Innellan a large number carpenters with oakum, wood, &c., to put the Sheila into such repair as would admit of her being brought to Greenock. The Columba remained in the vicinity of the pier for about half-an hour, after which she proceeded on her way up the river, arriving at Greenock half-an-hour later than usual.

“The men brought from Rothesay, on arriving at the damaged steamer, once set to work to patch her up, with the result that she was floating shortly after nine o’clock. She was afterwards taken in tow by the Clyde Shipping Company’s tug steamer Flying Arrow, and about midnight passed the Steamboat Quay on her way to Glasgow, where the necessary repairs are to be executed.

“Captain M‘Gaw of the Columba says that the steamer left Rothesay at half-past three o’clock, and everything went on smoothly till they were nearing Innellan Pier, which he intended to take in the usual way. The tide was very low at the time, and when this is the case he generally approaches very slowly in consequence of the great weight of the Columba. Those on board well as himself were very much astonished to see the Sheila, which had just crossed from Wemyss Bay, making straight for the south end of Innellan Pier instead taking the customary circuit. Judging of the distance, he was certainly convinced that his vessel was much nearer the wharf at the time than the Sheila, and was, course, entitled to get in first. Seeing the latter, however, stemming the pier right across the Columba’s bow, almost at full speed, Captain M‘Gaw at once signalled down to the engineers to stop the engines, and the summons was promptly obeyed. As the vessels began to get closer to one another he caused the engines to be reversed, and they were in the act backing oft when the Sheila ran across the Columba’s bow, and the latter struck her on the port side near the water’s edge, about twenty feet from the bow. Had the ship’s engines not been reversed when the vessels met the collision would have been much more serious. The shock was very slightly felt on board the Columba, whatever may have been the case on the deck the Sheila, and some of the passengers in the grand saloon at the time were not even aware that a collision had occurred till they came on deck. There were over 500 passengers travelling in his steamer, and there was very little excitement among them. After the accident the Columba—which scarcely received a scratch—backed off, and allowed the Sheila to transfer her passengers to the Marquis Bute, and they were taken to Rothesay in that steamer. So far as he is aware, there was no one hurt on board either vessel. The Columba was detained at Innellan about twenty minutes, but arrived in Glasgow about quarter of an hour past her usual time.”—Greenock Advertiser, September 10, 1881

The matter came to the Court of Sessions when the owners of the Sheila sued the owners of the Columba for damages. The proceedings are lengthy but the account from the newspaper makes interesting reading.

“Court of Session—Before Lord M‘Laren.—The collision between the Columbaand Sheila, Campbell v MacBrayne.—Lord M‘Laren heard evidence in the action for payment of £581 odds as damages arising out of the collision of the Columba and Sheila at Innellan on 9th September of last year.

“The pursuer of the action is Alexander Campbell, owner of the Sheila, who alleges that his steamer had reached the pier at Innellan and was moored, when the Columba, owned by David MacBrayne, ran into it, and caused damage to the amount sued for. The defender maintains that the Sheila, was not nearer to Innelan Pier than the Columba, that she was not moored at the pier when the collision occurred, and that those on board the Sheila were to blame because they had disregarded the rules observed at the piers on the Firth of Clyde.

“Mr Strathearn, C.E., Glasgow, produced a plan of Innellan pier.

“Mr Duncan Bell, examined by Mr Robertson, deponed that he held a certificate as master, and for five years he had been master of the Sheila, which sailed from Wemyss Bay to Innellan and Rothesay. On the day in question the steamer left Wemyss Bay at a quarter-past four. He first saw the Columba as she rounded Toward Point. He heard her whistle about four or five minutes after he sighted her. Did not know what she was whistling at, and held on his course. At the time of the whistling he would be a few hundred yards from the pier. The Sheilahad her place at the pier before the Columba struck her. In coming up to the pier, the bow of the vessel was slightly north-west. He went into the pier in the usual manner. The engine slowed, stopped, backed, and stopped before coming to the pier. The Sheila was struck on the port bow. The Columba was coming right fore and aft. The Sheila if anything was going gradually astern when struck. The Columba never reversed until she struck. The Sheila was cut to about eighteen inches below the water line. The gangway which had been placed on the Sheila fell into the water as the steamer was taken out by the Columba. When the latter backed out he got the Sheila forward to the pier again, and after landing the passengers he ran her ashore at the north end of the pier. He got men, and had temporary repairs executed, and went on the Glasgow, where he arrived about two o’clock in the morning. The accident was caused by the Columba not reversing. The rule of the pier is first come first served. He was first. Cross-examined—On the day in question, he was up to time when he left Wemyss Bay, and when arrived at Innellan he took his usual course. Before the collision he never got round the south end of the pier, but the head of the vessel extended further south than the south end of the pier. Unless a heavy sea is on that is the end where he always lets passengers off the steamer. He never sounded his whistle. It was not broken before the collision, but it was broken afterwards. He could not say how far he was from Innellan Pier when he saw the Columba but he would be about six hundred yards. He heard the sound of the whistle before he took the sweep to enter Innellan. He understood that the Columba was whistling on something a-head, a small boat perhaps. It never occurred to him that the whistle was meant for him until he was near the pier. The Columba was about three hundred yards from the pier, and the Sheila was about one hundred yards distant. He got upon the paddle box, and seeing that he was nearer the pier than the Columba, he went straight on. When about fifty yards from the pier, he signalled to stop the engines. The captain of the Columba had a fashion of threatening everybody by whistling to them to keep out of his way. He had never himself run in front to get to a pier when further off than another vessel. He never took Innellan Pier at right angles to cut out another vessel. He never came into the pier except parallel with it, and on the occasion in question he took the usual sweep, not a longer sweep than on other occasions.

“John Thomson, mate and pilot on board the Sheila, deponed—On the occasion in question he was steering the Sheila. He heard the Columba whistling when nearing Innellan. At the time he was on the, hurricane deck the Sheila was on a north-west or usual course. It was not going bow inwards to the land. The vessel was stopped just in the usual way. There might be a little sternway when the Columba struck the Sheila on the port bow. Cross examined—It takes between nine and ten minutes to cross from Wemyss Bay to Innellan. On the day in question the vessel started north- north-west, and kept that course until the Sheila was five or six boats’ lengths from the of Innellan shore. Then it began to turn round to take the Pier. He saw the Columba before the Sheila commenced to change her course. He knew it was about the Columba’s time to be near Innellan. At first he did not know what the Columba was whistling for except to warn some small boat out of the way. He thought it was whistling for the Sheila eventually. He sounded the whistle after the collision, because he thought the Columba was coming up to have a second stroke at her. The whistle of the Sheilawas in good order that day. The stem of the Sheila was pointing southwards round the south end of the pier at first, but it was not in that position when by the collision occurred. It was alongside the pier. After the whistle of the Columba was heard the Sheila kept on her usual way. Re-examined—TheSheila kept on its way because it was nearer the pier than the Columbaby two or three boats’ length. By the Court—He did not have a mate’s certificate. He was a pilot, and it was his duty to take the helm when leaving or coming to the pier. He had no certificate as a pilot.

“John Kerr, who resides during the summer at a Innellan, deponed—On the day of the accident he was in his garden and saw the two vessels coming to the pier. The Columba was about 500 or 600 yards from the pier and the Sheila was standing in towards the pier. The latter steamer was nearest to the pier, so he continued his usual sweep. Where he was standing he had a full view of both steamers. The Sheila on this particular occasion followed its usual course. The Sheilawas about a minute at the pier before she was struck by the Columba. The Columba did not stop her engines till she was close to the pier. It did not appear to him that the Sheila was at all to blame. Cross-examined—The Sheila was just about taking the turn to enter Innellan Pier when he saw her. She had a slight sweep. She was not quite stern on to him when he saw the steamer. The usual sweep appeared to have been taken. The Columba was going full speed when she commenced to whistle, and then she would be six or seven hundred yards from the pier. The Sheila was nearer to the pier than the Columba. The latter steamer did not slow till she was almost 200 yards from the pier. She continued whistling until she slowed. She reversed when just a short distance from striking the Sheila. Before the collision took place the bow of the Sheila was not pointing round to the south end of the pier and towards the shore. He wondered why the Columba did not reverse her in engines sooner, and it occurred to him there was to be a collision when the Columba was almost a ropes’ length from the Sheila. Re-examined—If the Columba had reversed her engines sooner the collision would have been averted. By the Court—The Sheila took rather a shorter curve than he had seen her take on former occasions, but he had seen her frequently take as sharp a curve. There was nothing peculiar about the course of the Columba. She came up in her ordinary way.

“Archd. M‘Kellar, piermaster at Innellan, deponed—that he remembered the collision between the two vessels in question. He was on the pier at the time the Columba blew her whistle. When the Columba was passing the perch the Sheila would be half-way across the channel. He thought the Sheila took her usual course, and when she arrived at Innellan she came alongside the pier. The lines were out, the gangway was on board, and some of the passengers had landed before the collision. He considered that the Sheila was entitled to the pier first. If the Sheila had not been lying there the Columba would have been into the pier. Witness then described what occurred after the collision, in this respect corroborating the evidence of the first witness. If the Columba had given two turns of the paddles backwards the collision would have been avoided. Cross-examined—When the bow line was fastened he did not observe that the stern was pointing outwards. About half a dozen passengers had landed by the gangway before the collision. The Sheila slowed about 80 or 100 yards from the pier, and he thought the Columba slowed when about the same distance away. When he heard the Columba whistle he thought a small boat was in the way. It did not occur to him that it was the Sheila she was whistling to. He was no relation of Mr Campbell. They were friends, and Mr Campbell became cautioner for him for the rent of the pier. He acted as agent for all the river boats.

“Archd. M‘Kellar, jun., who helps his father at the Innellan Pier, was also examined as to the collision. He was on the pier on the occasion in question, and gave evidence mainly in corroboration of that of his father. In cross-examination, witness said—The Sheila would be about 150 yards from the pier, and the Columba would be about 600 yards, and that nearly a hundred passengers had landed before the collision took place. By the Court—The Columba was stopped about five minutes before she came to the pier. It did not appear to him that the Columba meant to come up and lie alongside the Sheila. Mr Jameson, remarking upon the evidence of this last witness, said it was improving as it went on.

“Mr John M‘Ewan, assistant piermaster, Innellan, said the Sheila was coming across from Wemyss Bay when he heard the Columba whistle. The Sheila took her usual course, considering the condition of the tide. Witness was at the gangway, but he could not say how many of the passengers had come off. The Columba had not much way on when the collision occurred. If the Columba had reversed her engines she would have avoided the collision. He had no doubt the Sheila was entitled to the first use of the pier.  Cross-examined, witness said that the nearest vessel to the pier was entitled to its first use.

“James Macpherson, grocer, Innellan, said he had seen the collision between the two vessels. While standing in his shop he heard the Columba whistle. She was about 600 yards from the pier. After the whistling he saw the Sheila, which was then coming into the pier. From the situation of his shop he could not see the Sheila until she was near the pier. When 200 or 300 yards from the pier the Columba slowed, made two or three turns back, and then stopped. Had she kept on backing the collision would have been avoided. Cross-examined—The Columba would be 100 yards beyond the perch when he first heard her whistle.

“James Leslie Smith, draper, Innellan, was standing in front of his shop on the afternoon of the 9th September. His attention was attracted by the whistling, as he supposed, to keep the Sheila back. The Sheila took the pier in her usual way, and was lying there when she was run into. He did not understand why the Columba did this. Cross-examined—The Sheila would be about 150 yards out when he heard the whistling, and she had the turn to make. He could not see the Sheila coming into the pier.

“George Alison, baker, Innellan, who saw the accident, attributed the blame to the Columba. Mr Hay, farmer, Ardlui, was of opinion that the Sheila was nearest the pier, and also that if the Columba had kept on backing the collision would have been avoided. Councillor M‘Laren, Glasgow, said, in his view, the Sheila had clearly the pier.

“James Cunningham Kay, writer, Hamilton, was a passenger by the Sheila on the day of the accident. He never had any doubt that the Sheila was entitled to the pier first. Cross-examined—He did not observe the Columba until theSheila commenced to describe her curve, and at that time the former was a long the distance off.

“John Guthrie, Glasgow, had been a passenger on board the Sheila on the occasion in question. In his judgement, the Sheila was nearer to the pier than the Columba. When the Sheila got to the pier the Columba would be about 50 yards off. He saw the paddles of the Columba backing just as she struck the Sheila. Cross-examined—The engines of the Columba were not reversed before the time he mentioned, judging by the appearance of the water.

“Mr Brown, Plantation, Glasgow, was also a passenger by the Sheila, and he gave it as his opinion that this steamer was first entitled to the pier. The Columba would be about 100 feet or so away when the Sheila first came to the pier, and it would be 30 or 40 feet away when the engines were reversed. The Columba had not much way on.

“Mr Miller, grain merchant, Glasgow, was on the Innellan pier at the time of the collision. The Sheila was at the pier when the collision took place.

“Archibald M‘Intyre, constable, Millport, was stationed at Innellan at the time of the accident. He saw the Sheila when about mid-channel. To the best of his knowledge the Sheila was nearest to the pier. She was lying at the pier when the Columba was a bit off. The Columba did not have much way on when she reached the Sheila. Cross-examined—He had seen the Sheila take a sharper course than on that day. He could not see theColumba when he first saw the Sheila in mid-channel, because of the harbour-master’s house. He heard the Columba’s whistle, and he supposed it was sounded to get the Sheila to get out of the way.

“James Harvey had surveyed the Sheila after the collision. She had been struck 26 feet abaft the stem. He had prepared a plan showing the direction of the blow. By the Court—He had no doubt from the damage to the starboard side of the vessel that it was alongside the quay when it was struck.

“Mr Wyllie had been a passenger on board the Sheila. She had turned halfway into the pier before the collision, and ropes were being thrown to her.

“Wm. Erskine, purser on board the Sheila, said that the steamer took its usual course. The Sheila was decidedly nearest the pier to the pier when the vessels were approaching. At the time the Columba was on the point of striking the Sheila her engines were backed.

“Parties then agreed that the damages should be held as £531 13s 7d, and pursuer closed his case.

“The first witness called for the defender was Thomas Bisset who deponed that he was a house-agent at Innellan, and that on the day of the collision he was standing on a piece of rising ground about 200 yards from the pier. He saw the collision. The first thing that attracted his attention was the sound of the Columba’s steam-whistle. The steamer would be about 300 yards from the pier, and was then going full speed. She shortly after slowed when about 150 yards from the pier. The Sheila was about equal distance from the pier, but she was coming at full speed by a shorter route than usual. He could not by eye tell which was nearer to the pier. He had seen the Sheila take the same course frequently when she wanted to cut other steamers out. He did not think the Sheilawas taking the pier in a proper way. If the Sheila had taken her ordinary sweep the Columba would have been in first. The Sheila must have been in but a very few minutes indeed before the collision. The Columba reversed her engines when about 100 yards away. The steamer was just moving at the time of the accident. Cross-examined—If the Sheila had not been there the way on the Columba would barely have brought her up to her berth.

“John Clark, Royal Hotel, Innellan, deponed that on the afternoon of the collision he was writing in the office of the hotel when he was startled by the Columba’s whistle. He went to the door and saw, with the aid of a field glass, that the Columba was about three hundred yards from the pier. The Sheila at this time was taking a sharper curve than usual, and did not slow until about fifty yards from the pier. He saw the Columba strike the Sheila. The latter steamer would not be above forty or fifty seconds at the pier when the collision occurred. When about fifty yards from the pier the bow of the Sheila was pointing in the contrary direction to what it ought to have been. If the Sheila had taken her usual sweep, the Columba would have been at the pier first. Cross examined—The Sheila had not quite come to a stop when the collision occurred. She was moving downward, but her bow was in towards the shore, and her stern was a good distance outward. He noticed the Columba backing. She backed full speed, and continued to reverse until the accident. If she had reversed sooner the collision would have been obviated. By the Court—After the captain of the Columba saw that he was not to get into the pier he used his best endeavours to back out.

“Andrew Skeoch, secretary to the Innellan Gas Company, had been standing at the head of the pier when he was startled by the Columba’s whistle, and he ran down to see what was wrong. As he passed the gate at the pier he saw the Sheila coming in. She had just got up to the south end of the pier. Her bow was pointing in-shore, and her stern was lying out. That was not the usual way for a steamer to take the pier. He thought she had not taken her usual sweep from the position she was in. The Columba was about 150 yards away when he first saw her. She was going slow. After getting down the whole length of the pier he heard the crash. At that time the bow of the Sheila was pointing inwards. The Sheila did not make the usual sweep. He had seen it before cutting her course short to get in before the Columba. He saw no ropes thrown or the gangway put on board, and no passengers were landed till after the collision. Had the Sheila taken her usual course the Columba would undoubtedly have been in first. Cross-examined—He did not see the gangway in the water after the collision, and he did not see any ropes thrown. He saw the man standing with the bow rope in his hands ready to throw. The paddles of the Columba were going slow when he first saw her, and as she neared the Sheila the Columba reversed her engines. The Columba came up in the way she usually does when she intends to take the pier.

“Charles Oates, lithographer, Glasgow, was a passenger on board the Columba. He remembered on coming round Toward Point and getting towards Innellan the Columba’s whistle startled him. He looked ahead, and he saw the Sheila coming straight on to Innellan Pier. It is usual for the steamer to come to the pier with a sweep. The Columba slowed at a small church to the south of the pier or about 400 yards away. At that time he thought the Columba was nearest to the pier, and if the Sheila had taken her usual course the Columba would have had an even greater advantage. The Sheila touched the pier first, with her bow to the south end. She had a slight angle. The stern of the Sheila was lying out. Cross-examined—When the Sheila was at the pier, and when the Columba came up, she had the bow rope fastened to the pier. He saw the gangway fall into the water after the collision. The Columba struck the Sheila nearly at right angles. He could not say whether the Columba reversed before she struck the Sheila. Re-examined—If the Sheila had kept off till the nearest vessel got in there would have been no necessity for the Columba stopping.

“Andrew Shaw, ironmonger, was a passenger by the Columbaon the evening of the collision. He heard the Columba‘s whistle sound after he had seen the Sheila. The latter vessel was making straight on for Innellan Pier, which was not her usual course. The Columba was more than her own length from the pier when she slowed, and she was about half a length distant when the engines were reversed. He had travelled frequently by the Sheila, and he never saw her take the pier in that way before. Cross-examined—The bow of the Columba cut right across the Sheila. A casting line had been thrown to the Sheila when the Columba struck her, but it was not fastened. He could not see that if the captain of the Columba had kept on backing the collision would have been avoided.

“Sir George Hume Spiers was a passenger on board the Columba on the occasion in question. He had been down below, but he ran up on the hurricane deck, and then he saw the Sheila, which was lying bow on to the pier.

“John Watt, second engineer of the Columba, said that when approaching Innellan he got an order to go slow ahead. This was about 300 or 400 yards from the pier, about the usual-place where such orders are given. He saw the Sheila standing in towards the pier, bow on. She usually took a sweep. She had a little angle, but not much. The next order that was given was full speed astern, and that order was obeyed at once. The Columba would have been going from half a minute to a minute. There was very little head-way on when the Columba touched the Sheila. The engines had made four or five turns astern when the Sheila was struck.  Cross-examined—The course of the Columba had not been changed when the collision occurred.

“At this stage the further hearing of evidence was continued till to-morrow morning.—Glasgow Herald, June 24, 1882

“The first witness called this morning was John M‘Gaw, master of the Columba, who deponed that he had commanded the steamer for four years, and that previously he had been in command of three Ionas. On 9th September last, when rounding Toward Point he saw the Sheila leaving Wemyss Bay. At that time he thought the Columba was nearest to Innellan. He gave the order to slow about the usual time, not having the least doubt that he was first entitled to the pier. When the Columba slowed she would be three or four hundred yards from the pier. He caused the whistle to be blown, but he heard no whistle from the Sheila. His next order was full speed astern, and this would be when he was about 60 yards from the pier. That order was given in consequence of the Sheila crossing the bows of the Columba. He kept the engines reversing till he backed out after the collision. Then he gave the order to stop. When approaching Innellan he noticed that the Sheila was coming very fast, and he saw no sign of slowing on her part. Instead of taking the proper course, that steamer came on in a straight course. At the time the Columba struck the Sheila the bow of the latter vessel was a little past the south end of the pier, pointing towards the shore, with the stern outwards. She had never been along the front of the pier. He did not expect that the Sheila, after hearing the whistle of the Columba, would have run in before her in that way. He gave the order to reverse when he saw danger. Up to that moment he anticipated that he would have got to the pier. The Columba had a little way on when she struck the Sheila. There was a light crash. The Columba went in with her own weight, and the Sheila was against the pier, which resisted the shock. Cross-examined—Witness said that if he had altered the course of the Columba he would have made the collision worse. He did not alter his course before that, because he was making for the pier. The Columba did not go straight into the Sheila. No point of that steamer was touching the pier at the time. He did not see any gangway, nor did he see any ropes holding the Sheila to the pier. His time from Toward Point to Innellan was about six minutes. The Perch was halfway between the Point and Innellan. He maintained that he was nearer to Innellan than the Sheila.

“Duncan Blair, mate of the Columba, said that on the day when the collision took place they left Rothesay at the usual time. The Sheila was leaving Wemyss Bay Pier when he first saw her. When they were at Toward Point they were nearer to Innellan than the Sheila, but the Sheila came straight on to the pier. The Columba slowed, and the whistle of the steamer was blown in order to keep the Sheila back. The Sheila paid no attention to these warnings, and the order was given; dead slow, and when about a hundred yards from the pier the engines were reversed, and they kept on reversing till the collision occurred. There was very little crash from the collision. Cross-examined—The whistle would be sounded after they commenced to slow. They would be about 200 yards from the pier when they commenced to slow, and that would be about a minute and a-half before the collision. At that time the Sheila appeared to be going full speed. About 20 feet of her bows were past the south end of the pier when the collision occurred. It was not possible that a gangway could have been on the Sheila. He was not surprised at the Columba not coming to a stand quicker. It was not necessary to stand out to sea. The Sheila would be 400 yards off the pier when the Columba was going dead slow, and it got in first simply because it was going full speed.

“Archibald Martin, first engineer on hoard the Columba, said that the first order he got to slow was when about 300 or 400 yards from Innellan Pier. He obeyed the order, and the next order was to reverse full speed. At this time they would be from 50 to 100 yards from the pier, and kept on reversing until the order to stop. He felt a slight vibration after the engines had taken four or five revolutions. The second engineer and himself commented on the peculiar course of the Sheila, which was at right-angles to the Columba. Cross-examined—About 50 or 100 yards from the pier the usual order is to stop and then to reverse, but on this occasion they reversed at full speed without the order to stop. The four revolutions astern would be done in 20 seconds. The whistle of the Columba sounded when the engines slowed.

“Arch. M‘Arthur, pilot on board the Columba, said that after passing Toward Point he took the wheel. The Columba, was rounding the point when the Sheila left Wemyss Bay. The captain gave the order to slow about the usual place. At that time the Columba was nearer to Innellan pier than the Sheila. She took very little sweep that day when coming in to the pier, and his steamer did not slack her speed when the Columba sounded her whistle. He never saw any steamer take the pier as the Sheila took it that day. Cross-examined—He could not say whether the whistle sounded before or after the vessel slowed. He could not say whether the Columba, if she had kept on her course, would have cleared or fouled the pier. Witness was pressed to say whether if the head of the Columba had been put to sea, the collision would have been avoided, but he declined to answer.

“Captain M‘Kinnon, senior partner of the Glasgow Towing Company, said he had large experience as master of steamers on the Clyde. He knew Innellan pier, and he said that a vessel coming from Wemyss Bay to that pier ought to take a sweep so as to bring it parallel to the pier. If the stem of the steamer got past the end of the pier, it would show injudicous seamanship. If he had been in been in the vessel which whistled he would have gone on. If two vessels are approaching the same pier at about equal distances, the one whistles and the other does not, what is your opinion as to the vessel that ought to take the pier?—One ought to give way, and that ought to be the one that does not whistle. Cross-examined—Why?—One must give way. Suppose they both, whistle what would be the result?—I would require to be there to see. (Laughter.) By the Court—By going astern the Columba would have avoided the collision. She could not have turned so readily as she is along steamer, and the Sheila was lying across her bows. If she had gone to the starboard it would have been difficult to make the pier again. The Sheila could be brought up in her own length, or a little over it, and it would take two to two and a half lengths to bring up the Columba, she is so much heaver.

“John Oswald, General Register House, Edinburgh, a passenger by the Columba on the occasion in question, said that the Sheila appeared to be coming straighter across the Channel than he had ever seen her do before. After the Columba had slowed he did not observe that the Sheila made any difference in her speed.  Cross-examined—The Columba might be more than 100 yards from Innellan Pier when witness first saw the Sheila. The Columba was going slow at the time.

“This closed the evidence for the defence.

“Mr J. P. B. Robertson then addressed his Lordship upon the evidence, and maintained that there was proved fault on the part of the defender, and fault had not been established against the pursuer. He argued that the course of the Columba was slightly northward, in order to take the pier, and the effect would be almost to cut into the Sheila at right angles. The diagram which had been prepared by Mr Inglis of the nature of the collision showed that the Columba was coming in from deep water towards the land. His Lordship (interrupting) said that it was difficult to tell the precise angle when two vessels were moving.

“Mr Robertson said that the witnesses for the defenders described the position of the Sheila after she had been struck. Then he would ask his Lordship’s judgment upon the question as to whether the ropes had been thrown to the Sheila, or at least whether one had not been fastened by the time of the collision. In the case where there was a discrepancy of evidence by witnesses on board the opposing vessels—and probably there never was a case in which discrepancies were absent—it was usual to appeal to witnesses on shore. Here the preponderance of evidence was decidedly in favour of the pursuer. He, however, discarded the evidence of M’Kellar, junior, but endeavoured to explain that he was mixing up events prior to and after the collision. He further showed that the course of the Sheila varied with the condition of the tide. When it was high tide she could take a sweep nearer to the shore and some down parallel with the pier; whereas if the tide was low the steamer had to take a sharper curve and come towards the pier more bow on. At the time of the accident it was low tide, and this would explain the sharper curve taken by the Sheila. The Columba was no doubt a big, fine vessel, but it did not a follow that every other vessel should keep out of her way. She must get to the pier only in the event of being nearer to it than another vessel.

“Mr Trayner submitted that the pursuer’s case had failed, and that the collision had occurred through the fault of the Sheila. If the Sheila was in the position that her stem was across the south end of the pier, then it was impossible that she could have reached Innellan by her usual course. He maintained that if the Sheila had been lying parallel to the pier the Columba could not have struck her at the spot where she did strike, and, commented on the fact that the pursuer had failed to produce the engineers of the Sheila to say when the orders were given to slow before reaching Innellan. The Sheila got the pier first by doing wrong. She heard the whistle of the Columba, but she simply said, “You may whistle till you are black in the face, but to that pier I will go.”

“Lord M‘Laren then said that he had felt very considerable difficulty in disposing of the case; but for the reasons he should state he had come to the conclusion that both vessels were to blame. When they came in sight of each other in broad daylight it must have been soon evident to the masters of both vessels that, if they held on their courses, there would be doubt as to which would arrive first at the pier. Of course, it was impossible to say which was nearest at the time when they came into competition for the pier. His Lordship thought that the preponderance of the evidence, especially of the witnesses who saw the two vessels from the shore, was that the Sheila was nearest to the pier. The evidence of the passengers on board the vessels was not of much value because of the difficulty of judging distances from different standpoints; but that remark did not apply to the masters and steersmen, who were accustomed to compare one direction with another. What the masters here concerned had to consider was not the geographical distance, but the distance as measured by time. The Sheila was a small vessel, about half the length of the Columba, and was not capable of going at the same speed. In order to effect a landing at Innellan it was necessary to go round nearly half a circle, and it was plain, therefore, that a vessel of small speed, and having to go in a curved course, was for all practical purposes more distant from the pier than a vessel of greater speed coming in a straight line, although the distance measured on the chart might be the same. This voyage was made daily, and his Lordship thought the master of the Sheila ought to have known that he was running considerable risk in attempting to be first at the pier, all the more that he could not measure the time so accurately seeing he had to move in a curve, as the master of the other vessel, which was proceeding in a straight line with the view of arriving at the pier in the direction in which he was going. In these circumstances the master of the Sheila was to blame in forcing competition in order to arrive first at the pier. But the penalty of the error was not that the Columba should run into her. It was not law that a vessel which took a wrong course was liable to be run into and sunk by a vessel a holding to the right course. This was one of the cases in which people must submit to inconvenience and even to be wronged in order to avoid doing greater injury to another and exposing themselves to risk. It was plain that the Sheila began to turn in a sharp curve when about 500 yards distant from the pier, a curve, however, which apparently brought her to her destination. There was no evidence of difficulty of landing; but it must have been evident to the captain and mate of the Columba that the Sheila having taken the turn would cross her bows, and the master of the Columba must have seen also from the course the Sheila was taking that if he held on a collision was imminent. The master of the Sheila having once committed himself to the course of crossing the bows of the Columba in order to arrive first at the pier could not do anything after that to avert a collision. If the Sheila had gone to starboard she would have gone on shore, and if to port she would only have hastened the collision. Although the Columba was not to blame in the first instance in holding on towards her destination she was blameable in not stopping when it was seen that the Sheila was crossing her bows. She ought then to have stopped and submitted to the inconvenience. The captain slowed her at the usual distance, and he stated candidly that he acted simply in accordance with the usual custom. In his Lordship’s opinion he ought to have taken some steps by slowing and reversing sooner than he did, and damage would thus have been avoided. In the view he had taken it was not of much importance in what position the vessels arrived at the pier. The argument maintained by Mr Trayner, founded upon Mr Stevenson’s evidence, was that the Sheila had taken a sharp curve, different from her usual course, and this was attempted to be made out by showing that she must have arrived at the pier with her bow at a considerable angle, something like 45 degrees. That was not the impression which the evidence had made on his mind. The Sheila did arrive at an angle. Vessels did not always arrive at a pier at precisely the same angle, but at an angle more or less acute. In this case his Lordship did not think that there was anything unusual in the position of the vessel on arriving. The plan prepared by the shipbuilder who repaired the vessel confirmed the oral evidence, and indicated clearly the direction in which the blow had been given. Drawing a line from the centre of the gap in the ship’s side to the apex, and taking the mean, the direction of the blow was, as nearly as the eye could judge, about 30 degrees of the longitudinal diameter of the vessel. Supposing that the vessels both arrived slightly inclined to the face of the pier—at the same inclination—that would only have been 15 degrees to each, which probably was about the proper inclination. If the Sheila had been lying in the position in which Mr Trayner had endeavoured to establish, the Columba must have struck into her in a direction more transverse than this plan showed. Therefore, he did not think he could infer from the nature of the injuries anything to support the view that the Sheila had taken so extremely sharp a curve as to throw the captain of the Columba off his guard and disable him from taking precautions in proper time. It seemed to his Lordship that the case was one of two vessels racing for the pier (which was not to be commended), and no collision would have occurred if both had been reasonable, and had proceeded at so slow a pace that they could have pulled up on arrival at the pier. Coming to the conclusion that both were to blame, his Lordship said the damage must he divided, and he would therefore give decree in favour of the pursuers for £265 l6s 9d, and find neither party entitled to expenses.

“Counsel for the Pursuer—Mr J. P. B. Robertson and Mr C. S. Dickson. Agents—Macbrier & Keith. S.S.C. Counsel for the Defender—Mr Trayner and Mr Jameseon. Agents—J. & J. Ross, W.S.”—Glasgow Herald, June 26, 1882

The case was an important one as it highlighted, with the most prominent vessel on the Firth, the need for regulations to govern the conduct of steamers approaching piers. Towards the end of 1885, the decision was made to add signaling towers to the busiest of the Clyde piers. Several designs for the signaling apparatus had been proposed and Innellan Pier was chosen as the test-pier to try out the two most popular designs. Shortly thereafter, one design was chosen and installed throughout the Firth.

Columba at Innellan with the new pier signals around 1888

Innellan from the water in 1897 (Valentine)

Innellan from the water in 1898 (Valentine)

M’Diarmid’s brake “Victoria” to Dunoon in 90 minutes

Even with pier signals in place there were still difficulties at Innellan pier. This was particularly true immediately after the formation of the Caledonian Steam Packet Company when the Wemyss Bay steamers, still under the control of Messrs Gilles and Campbell realized that it was only a matter of time before the Caledonian took over. The potential difficulties were noted by the correspondent Fair Play. The partisan piermaster at Innellan had a strong pre-disposition to favour the Wemyss Bay Company.

“Innellan Pier.—Innellan, July 23, 1889. Sir,—If you want a little mild excitement you a should attend an indignation meeting held at Innellan Pier every morning at 7.40. The Galatea is due at Innellan Pier at 7.45, but the Wemyss Bay boat takes possession of the pier about 7:40, and as her time for leaving being 7.50 she keeps her swifter a rival waiting till she leaves. The piermaster ought in fairness to bring the Galatea alongside her rival. I travel via Wemyss Bay to Glasgow daily, and after getting to the station I have ten minutes to wait on the Largs and Rothesay boats arriving, which time I occupy in selecting a nice corner in the carriage and getting my Herald in order. It is fine for us, but I like Fair Play,”—Glasgow Herald, July 24, 1889

The inevitable conflict occurred a month later.

“Extraordinary scene at Innellan pier this morning.—The result of keen competition.—The steamboat competition at Innellan Pier came to a climax this morning, and nearly resulted in a free-fight all round. The Lancelot was coming up from Toward at her usual hour, with the Galatea close under her stern, when, at the signalling distance from the pier, the piermaster indicated that the Wemyss Bay boat was to come in, she being the inside boat, and in his opinion nearest the pier. Notwithstanding this, the captain of the Galatea, the Gourock boat, forced his steamer ahead, crossing the Lancelot’s bows, and ran into the pier. When the ropes were thrown they were refused by the men the pier, and a formal forcible protest was made to the passengers landing or embarking, and the whole work had to done by the steamer’s hands, even to putting the gangway board. After the Galatea had started it was found that her stern line was fast to the pier, she had to be backed in and a man landed to set it loose. The proceedings will probably culminate in a charge being laid against the offending steamer for contravening the bye-laws laid down by the Pilot Board for the regulation of pier traffic, and something must done to stop such irregular proceedings.”—Glasgow Evening Post, August 27, 1889.

At the subsequent court case, the captain of the Galatea was found guilty but the conduct of the pier master was also in the spotlight.

“The recent race for Innellan pier.—Conviction of the captain of the Galatea.—At the Marine Police Court yesterday—Bailie Martin on the bench—Archibald M‘Pherson, captain the steamer Galatea, was charged with having, on 27th ult., when the steamer was sailing on the Firth of Clyde and approaching Innellan, where signalling apparatus is erected, came alongside the pier with the Galatea without being signalled to do by the piermaster. Mr Lang prosecuted.

“Captain M‘Pherson pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Brock, writer, who said that his client did the only thing he could in the circumstances. The defence was that the Galatea was the first boat, and was entitled to be signalled. The Galatea was also the faster boat, and the Captain of the Lancelot should have slowed.

“Archibald M‘Kellar, piermaster at Innellan, deponed that it is his duty to work the signalling apparatus there, and when more than one steamer is approaching to decide which shall come alongside the pier. On 27th August he was on duty at the pier, and observed the Galatea and the Lancelot approaching. When they were within a short distance of the pier he gave orders to his man to signal the Lancelot to come in. The Lancelot was the inshore boat. When she got the signal she came towards the pier, but the Galatea ran past her. Seeing this the captain of the Lancelot stopped his steamer, and the Galatea came first alongside the pier without being signalled to do so.

“By Mr Brook: He had never seen the pilot bylaws leaned 1869, and did not know that according to these by-laws it is the duty the captain of slow steamer to give way to the captain of a fast steamer. Witness is responsible for the working of the signalling apparatus, but pays a man to work it. Sometimes witness is in the ticket box in the mornings when a steamer is approaching, and sometimes he is outside. On the morning in question the steamers were about 250 yards from the pier when he came out the ticket box. It was not the fact that the Galatea good way ahead of the Lancelot, or that the Lancelot slowed her engines before the signal was given from the pier. Witness leases the pier from Colonel Bouverie Campbell, and is responsible to him and also to the Pilot Board.

“Supposing that the Galatea was a quarter of length ahead of the Lancelot, which would you think was entitled to the pier?—lf it was low water, and the Lancelot the inshore boat, the Lancelot was entitled to get the pier. Even if the Galatea was ahead!—Yes. Supposing the Galatea was half her own length ahead, which was entitled to the pier?—If there was plenty of room, and it was high water, I would give her the pier. Was the Galatea on that morning running up to time!—No. There is no river steamer afloat that runs to time.(Laughter.) If the signal had been given to the Galateathat morning she would have been after her time.

“Objection being taken to this line of evidence, Mr Brock referred to the by-law which says that when two or more steamers are approaching a pier the piermaster shall give the pier to the steamer which, on arriving within signalling distance, is nearest the pier. He intended to lead evidence to the effect that the Galatea was ahead of the Lancelot when the signal was given.

“In reply to a question, witness said he was the absolute Judge of how to regulate the approach of steamers to the pier. By the Magistrate: He could not see which boat was first or last; he gave the signal to the inshore boat. By Mr Lang: He gave the signal to the boat that he considered had right to the pier. Archibald M‘Lachlan, captain of the Lancelot, said that on the morning of the 27th ult, the Lancelot was the inshore boat, and got the signal to take the pier; but the Galatea took the pier, and to save collision, witness stopped his boat.

“By Mr Brook: The speed of the Lancelot is about 14 knots an hour, and that of the Galatea 17 or 18 knots. When the signal was given the Galatea’s bow was level with the Lancelot’s after wing. Mr Lang pointed out that, according to one of the by-laws, when two steamers are approaching a pier, and the piermaster is in doubt to which is nearest, he is to give the preference to the inshore boat. In reply to a question, witness said that the Lancelotwas the inshore boat. Several gentlemen who were travelling that morning also gave evidence in favour of the prosecution.

“For the defence. Hugh M‘Pherson, who said that he was no relation of the accused, testified that he had been a mate for six years. He was on the deck of the Galateaon the morning in question. About three-quarters of a mile from Innellan the Galateamade up on the Lancelot, but carried her along in her wash for some distance. When the signal was given the Lancelot’s paddle-box was astern of the Galatea’s. The Galatea was running up to time that morning, and if they had got into the pier they would have left at the advertised time.

“Mr Alexander Macgregor, solicitor, Glasgow, who was a passenger on board the Galatea, said that when the signal was pulled the Galatea was nearly, if not a length ahead of Lancelot. Mr A. C. Bell, shipowner, Glasgow, said that from his house he saw the steamers approaching, and the Galatea should have been signalled, for she was distinctly leading. Mr James Pollock, merchant, Glasgow, said he was standing on the pier when the boats were approaching, and there was no question that the Galatea was first. He was surprised when the signal went against her.

“Mr Greig, chemist; Mr Robert Crawford, shipowner; Mr M‘Carthy, consulting engineer; and a number of other Glasgow gentleman who were on Innellan pier the morning in question, gave it as their opinion that when the signal given the Galatea was leading, and was entitled to the pier.

“Bailie Martin said he must find the charge proved. It was seldom that they had a case so easy to decide. If masters of vessels and piermasters obeyed the regulations it was an utter impossibility that any collision should take place. He was quite satisfied that the piermaster gave the signal to the Lancelot to come in, and that the captain of the Galatea, not having received the signal, contravened the third section of the Pilot Board by-laws. Whether the signal that was given was the one that ought to have bean given was not for him to decide. At the same time he thought the signalling arrangements at Innellan were not very satisfactory. If the piermaster, instead of selling tickets, had been looking after the signals, he did not believe that the signal would have been given to the boat that did get it. However, it was a clear case of a contravention of the bylaws. Captains were bound to obey the signals and regulations, and if there was any complaint about impartiality being shown he was sure there was some means to get the piermaster punished if he gave a wrong signal, which he (Bailie Martin) did not say that he did. As this was the first case that had been brought before the Court under the new regulations, and as it was not a real caes of racing, endangering the lives of passengers, he would impose a nominal penalty of £1 1s.”—Greenock Telegraph, September 12, 1889

The case was followed avidly in the press and letters to the editor followed.

“Innellan pier case. Sir,—Three mortal hours were consumed at the Marine Police Court to-day over the trial of the above case, while half-an hour was all it deserved on its merits, because the evidence for the defence having little, if any, bearing on the indictment. Bailie Martin, delivering his judgment gave expression to an undisputed proposition when he said that if the masters of steamers rigidly adhere to the orders given them by the pier masters it would be next to impossible that collisions could occur there, but he weakened all this by travelling out of his way to fling an insinuation that the signals at Innellan Pier were not worked in a very satisfactory manner. Such a statement, he was not, in my opinion, warranted in making, even with all the pro and con evidence before him, and I do not think that even the most zealous witnesses for the defence would have of thought of charging the piermaster with performing his work in an unsatisfactory manner. It is due to Mr M‘Kellar, the piermaster, that an emphatic negative should be given to the Bailie’s insinuation, and I do so all the more positively because of a personal experience and knowledge of how carefully M‘Kellar performs his work, which this summer has been very arduous, because of the excessive competition and increased number of steamers: and instead of being sneered at, men in his position should be thoroughly supported in their honest endeavours to serve the public, which everybody admits is a thankless task at est.—Trusting the smart rap over the fingers the master of the Galatea has received will be carefully laid to heart by him and any others who may feel disposed to act in a like bumptious manner, I am, &c., B. September 11, 1889”—Glasgow Evening Post, September 12, 1889.

“Innellan Pier Case. Sir, —Your correspondent “B,” to-night’s News, should have made himself conversant with the facts, or, if so, should have stuck to truth regarding the signalling of steamers at the above pier during the past summer. It will be sufficient, in order to prove that the “insinuation” referred to was well-merited, to state that on one occasion a double signal was given to two boats approaching the pier together, and the possible result of such gross mismanagement is only too apparent. In the case referred to, the Lancelot and Galatea were running for the pier together, and the signal was first given for the Galatea, but immediately afterwards changed for the Lancelot. The Galatea, however, took the pier. Mr MacKellar attempted at the time to deny the thing, but was howled down by those on the pier and steamer. If any further proof of incapacity to work the traffic properly were required, surely Mr Mackellar’s own admission of ignorance of one of the best known bye-laws of the Pilot Board is enough. I feel sure most sensible people can only compliment Bailie Martin on the impartiality of his decision, which found Captain Macpherson guilty of a technical breach of a manifestly absurd order. I may add that the majority of the witnesses present in court last Wednesday were witnesses of the mismanaged signalling above refered to.—l am. &c., M. Rothesay, 12th September, 1889.”—Glasgow Evening Post, September 19, 1889

Innellan Pier Case.— I very reluctantly take up my pen in connection with the above case, but I do so in defence of a much-wronged man—namely, the Innellan pier-master. Your correspondent “M.” in to-night’s paper states that “the signal was first given for the Galatea, but immediately afterwards changed for the Lancelot.” This is not the case. The signal was given for the Lancelot, and was not altered. Regarding the position of the steamers, I beg to explain that the Galatea was not in advance of the Lancelot when the signal was given, and, besides, the Galatea was the outside boat. This fact was testified to by all the passengers the deck of the Lancelot (two in number), and I have not heard this statement contradicted by any passengers on the deck of the Galatea, which steamer was crowded. Further, in my opinion, the captain of the Lancelot deserves great praise for the courage and consideration showed under the circumstances, in preventing serious accident from taking place, had he asserted his rights. I am, &c., Lancelot Deck Passenger. Glasgow, 19th September, 1889.”—Glasgow Evening Post, September 21, 1889

The increasing size of the new railway steamers raised the question of the shallowness of the approach to Innellan pier at low tide, and the need for improvements. Inevitably, the issue of pier dues rose again.

“Travellers’ complaints.—Dunoon, August 24, 1897. Sir,—Your correspondents complain of bicycle charges on board steamers and quays or piers for carriage. How’s this for high in the matter of extortion? Wife and self walked to Toward and sailed back a distance of six miles—1d each to go on pier, 4d each to Innellan, steamer going to Wemyss Bay. We had to change steamers at Innellan to stand on Innellan Pier until the boat arrived to take us to Dunoon. A braw descendant of Rob Roy with a face elongated to suit the occasion, had the barefaced impudence to make us pay 1d each to stand on the pier. Next fare to Dunoon 4d each, and 1d each on Dunoon Pier. Altogether the cost to bring the two of us from Toward was 1s 10d for six miles. No wonder there is so few of us Londoners return to Bonnie Scotland after a visit. Once is sufficient to be had.—I am, &c., William Wayman.”—Glasgow Herald, August 25, 1897

Powers were sought as part of the plan to improve the pier and some of the wording was viewed as a new attempt was made to impose the penny toll on feuars and residents. Meetings were held and the matter found its way into the press, reviewing the history of the agreement.

“The Innellan Pier penny.—The following is the agreement come to by the factors on the Innellan estate, on behalf of the proprietor of the estate and owner of Innellan pier and several of the feuars and residents in Innellan authorised to sign the agreement. Prior to 1869 the pier was free to persons landing, but in consequence of the proprietors intimating their intention to levy a penny toll on persons using the pier considerable agitation arose, and public meetings were held, which resulted in the following agreement between the two parties:—“Whereas the parties of the first part lately resolved to levy a toll or pontage of one penny on all persons using the pier, which was objected to by the second parties, who claimed a right to a free pier on various grounds, which were not admitted by the parties in the first part, after various communications between the parties on the first part and their factors as agents, and deputations from and representing feuars and residents in Innellan, at a meeting held in the Tavistock Hotel. London, on the 28th June, 1869, the terms of an agreement was proposed and agreed to, which. was:—“1. That the right of the parties of the first part to levy dues hitherto exacted at the pier and the right to levy toll or pontage of one penny before referred to are both hereby conceded by the parties of the second part. “2 That in future the parties of the first part shall continue to levy and exact the said dues hitherto levied and exacted, and, in addition, there shall be levied by the parties of the first part from each foot passenger using the pier on arriving, or departing, the toll of one penny, subject always to the modifications in favour of feuars and others mentioned in the next head hereof. “3. That each of said feuars whose property stands in the valuation roll at a yearly rent of £40 or upwards shall have the option of commuting the said toll of one penny by paying a yearly sum of five shillings to the parties of the first part, and each of said feuars whose property stands on the valuation roll at a yearly rent of less than £40 in like manner have the option of commuting the toll for a yearly payment of two shillings and sixpence, and on payment of these yearly sums the feuar shall receive a ticket for the following 12 months, and which ticket shall free the feuar, his family, servants, and his tenants and sub-tenants, and their families and servants during the period for which such ticket runs. Should any feuar or landlord at any time neglect or refuse to take out such ticket, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that the tenant or sub-tenant of such feuars or landlords shall be entitled to pay for and receive such ticket.” The toll or pontage levied previous to that agreement was on steamers touching at Innellan pier and on goods and merchandise landed from or shipped on board vessels at the pier.”—Glasgow Herald, November 26, 1898

“The Innellan Pier Dispute.—A largely-attended meeting of the feuars of Innellan was held in Glasgow yesterday, in reference to the Board of Trade Provisional Order, of which notice has been given by the superiors. Mr James Crichton, Newton Cottage, presided, and explained that Innellan Pier was originally free the feuars, that privilege, in fact, having been held out to the public as an inducement to acquire feus at Innellan. In 1869 the proprietor proposed to establish a penny pontage, but this was opposed by the feuars, and agreement was come to whereby the right of the feuars to the free use the pier was secured. Under the Provisional Order now proposed, the continuance of this right was doubtful. A motion, the same been passed at a meeting feuars in Innellan was adopted, regretting the introduction paragraphs 8 and 12 into the Provisional Order to be applied for, especially the words, “and to confer, vary, or extinguish other rights, privileges, or agreements in connection therewith,” these words being ambiguous, and capable of being construed into an attempt to set aside the agreement 1869 between the proprietors and the feuars. A resolution was also passed, resolving, failing a satisfactory explanation of the Provisional Order, to resist any attempt to interfere with the feuars’ right; and a committee was appointed to take whatever steps might be necessary in the matter. A letter was read from Mr G. H. Black, solicitor, Greenock, from Messrs Campbell & Lamond, agents for Dunoon estate, of which Innellan is a part, to the effect that the proprietors had no desire to infringe unduly upon the pier tickets of the feuars but that it was absolutely necessary that something should be done in order to avoid the disputes that so frequently occurred between the piermaster and the feuars, the householders, their tenants. One speaker remarked that this question of use of the pier had for years been a source of much friction between the proprietors and the feuars.”—Greenock Telegraph, December 1, 1898

There were also some objections from the steamboat owners regarding the level of fees to be levied.

“Improvement of Innellan pier.—The Provisional Order Bill embracing the scheme for the extension and improvement of the pier at Innellan was considered yesterday by a Committee of the House of Commons. Mr Erskine Pollock, opening the case, explained the position of Innellan. He said there had been some sort of pier at the place since 1855, but it was in 1865 that the proprietor of the Dunoon estate obtained a grant from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in Scotland, enabling him to construct a pier on the foreshore ex adverso the Dunoon estate. By virtue of this grant the proprietor erected the present pier, which, however, had come to be unequal to the demand made upon it by the ever-increasing traffic of the Firth of Clyde. The pier was a private pier, and the tolls were exacted from the people using it. At present the depth of water at low tide was only a little over 5 feet, and the result was that Innellan passengers had often to be landed at Toward or Dunoon, and there was great delay and inconvenience in connection both with the passenger and goods traffic. Mrs Campbell Wyndham, the heir entail of the estate, had consulted Messrs Stevenson, the eminent engineers, and the result was the present scheme, under which, at a cost of over £4000, the pier would he carried forward so as to secure at the pierhead at low water a minimum depth of eight feet, and two complete berths, one for passenger and the other for cargo boats. This scheme, he might say, was largely the result of complaints made by the steamship owners about the inadequacy of the present accommodation. As for the opposition to the Order, it had no reference to the construction of works, but simply to the proposed schedule of rates. At present Mrs Campbell Wyndham was free to charge any rates she chose, because the pier is her private property; but if this Order became law she would be limited by the schedule, and not only so, but she would be compelled to give no preferential rate or arrangement to any of those who used the pier. If she compounded for the rates payable by any one company then the other companies would be entitled to claim the same composition. He failed therefore to see how the petitioners could be injuriously affected. The rates in the schedule would compare favourably with those charged at other piers in the neighbourhood, and, indeed they had been fixed with a view to attracting, not to driving away, traffic.

“Mr Archibald M‘Kellar, Kirn, examined by Mr Shaw, said he was lessee of the Innellan Pier from 1877 to 1897, and explained to the committee the character of the traffic at the pier and the charges levied. These charges, he said, were similar in amount to the charges levied at Kirn and Dunoon. In cross-examination, Mr M‘Kellar said that the charges he had levied were in accordance with his “conditional let,” which provided a table of charges. In his time there were no preferential charges, all the steamboat owners paying the same. The revenue he derived from the passengers was considerably larger than that from the steamers. The passengers’ revenue was about £200 a-year, and the steamers’ revenue about £150. He was not aware that the schedule proposed a charge of two pence per passenger or visitor, but, for himself, he considered a penny to be a sufficient charge.

“Mr George Ferguson Bryce. W.S. Edinburgh, of Messrs Campbell & Lamond, solicitors for, Mrs Campbell Wyndham, gave evidence as to the increasing demands upon the pier, and the steps taken to promote the Order.

“Mr Pember said that what he was anxious to ascertain was the reason why the Caledonian Steam Packet Company were to be charged £12 a steamer per annum, while the North British Steam Packet Company was only to be charges £7.

“Mr Bryce said that the explanation was that the North British only ran two boats, while the Caledonian ran five boats.

“Mr Pember, in answer to a question by the Chairman, said that what he asked chiefly was, that unless the pier proprietor was prepared to make the same charge for all steamers the Committee should reject the order. Under the order the North British Company were made absolutely safe, so far as the charge to them was concerned, but all the other steamboat owners were left to try for the same terms by means of a law-suit.

“Evidence was then called in support of the petition of the Caledonian Steam Company.

“Mr James Williamson, secretary and manager would of the company, said he did not think it would be an easy thing to recoup themselves for the extra expenditure under the new schedule of rates for Innellan. He certainly did not think it would be possible to increase the passenger fares.

“In reply to Mr Bonham Carter, referee, witness said that their steamers would have to pay an additional penny per ton, and that would mean, instead of the present payment of £58 a payment of £260 per annum

“Mr Pember addressed the Committee shortly arguing for equal treatment of all the steamers.

“Mr Pope, speaking for the other petitioners, the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company, and Mr David MacBrayne, submitted that a tonnage rate for this class of traffic was inappropriate and indefensible. He intimated that he proposed to call a few witnesses to support his case. The Committee then adjourned.”—Glasgow Herald, June 20, 1889

“Innellan pier order bill. The Court of Referees of the House of Commons yesterday dealt with claims for locus in connection with this bill. Mr Pember, Q C., put forward a claim on behalf of the Caledonian Steam Packet Company. He explained that the object of the bill was to authorise the extension the Innellan Pier and the levy of a certain schedule of rates. These rates, he said, were higher than the existing rates, and, indeed, so far his clients were concerned, were unreasonable and exorbitant, and he asked to be heard against them and against the scheme of the bill, which would make the pier a monopoly.

“Mr Pope, Q.C., claimed locus on behalf of the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company and Mr David MacBrayne, users of the pier, who, he said, wished to be heard in opposition to the proposed rates.

“Mr Erskine Pollock, Q.C., for the owner of the pier, Mrs Wyndham, said there was no proposal to interfere with any sea right. The whole undertaking would be made upon the property of the owner of the pier, and would not interfere in any way with the traffic of the petitioners. As to rates, at the present moment the owner of the pier had an entirely free hand, whereas under this bill the owner would be restricted within a certain maximum limit, and therefore the petitioners would be benefited rather then injured it. The Court decided to disallow the locus in each case except regards the schedule.”—Greenock Telegraph, June 24, 1899

“Innellan pier order bill. The bill to confirm, among other provisional orders, the order promoted by Mrs Campbell Wyndham for the extension and improvement of the pier at Innellan was farther considered yesterday by the Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of Colonel Gunter (chairman), Mr Oldroyd, Mr Crombie, and Sir John Stirling Maxwell. The petitioners against the bill were the Caledonian Steam Packet Company, the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company, and David MacBrayne, shipowner, and their petitions had reference not to the proposed works but to the schedule rates incorporated in the bill. The Committee yesterday heard evidence from Dr Stevenson, who had acted as secretary for the feuars’ committee; Provost Doig, Dunoon; and Mr David Cooper, general manager the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company; after speeches from counsel, they decided to pass the order.”—Greenock Telegraph, June 21, 1899.

The new pier was opened on April 30th, 1900. It involved an extension of the existing pier 60 feet seaward and was suitable for the largest steamers at any state of the tide.

“Extension of Innellan Pier.—Innellan Pier, in its extended form, was formally opened yesterday. Hitherto it has been found impossible for steamers of the bigger sort to call at Innellan at low tide. This charming watering place has therefore been seriously affected by not getting its due share of the traffic to the coast. The new pier may be expected to lead to an improved state of matters in this respect. The extension of the pier means an addition of some 60 feet seawards so that now the largest of the Clyde steamers may call. The work of extension has been in progress for four months and though it is not quite complete, it has been sufficiently advanced to permit of all steamers calling, and, beginning to-day, Innellan will be a pier where all steamers will call. Before the full rush of the summer traffic the pier will be finished. The extension has involved a cost of  £4000. The improvement on the pier was fittingly celebrated yesterday. The local committee who had charge of the scheme lunched together in the Royal Hotel, and a largely-attended cake and wine banquet thereafter took place. Mr C. C. Service, chairman of the local committee, presided, and the company included Provost Doig, Dunoon; Bailie Anderson, Dunoon; Rev. Robert Henderson, Innellan; Rev. Wm. Stoddart, Innellan; Dr Stevenson, Innellan; and Dr M‘Intyre, Innellan. The Chairman said the new pier might be expected to lead to the greater popularity of Innellan as a coast resort. No sweeter place could be found; and though it had suffered from lack of pier accommodation with the facilities now afforded they might hope that the place had entered upon a new start in prosperity. The toast of “The Queen” having been honoured, Dr Stevenson proposed “The Extended Pier.” Having referred to the benefits of the enlarged pier, he remarked that Innellan Pier had advantages which were not possessed by any other pier on the Clyde. Visitors who came to the place for a day would pay the ordinary pier dues, but visitors who came to reside in Innellan for periods long or short would by the one payment of the pier duty—a penny—have the privilege of using it during their stay, and this privilege would extend to their families and servants. Mr Archabald M‘Ewan, piermaster, replied. Mr Turner proposed “The Laird,” Colonel Campbell Wyndham, and Mr Lambert, ground officer, replied. The other toasts included “The Contractors,” proposed by Mr Macpherson, and replied to by Mr M‘Bride; “Our Neighbours,” by Mr Miller, replied to by Provost Doig; and “Public Representatives,” by Rev. R. Henderson, replied to by Dr M‘Intyre. The company afterwards proceeded to the pier, which was formally opened by Mrs Paton, Innellan, who cut a ribbon stretched across the entrance. The Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company’s steamer Jupiter, commanded by Captain Fowler, was the first to call at the pier, and landed a number of children, who were the first to step on to the new pier.”—Glasgow Herald, May 1, 1900

Innellan from Columba in 1901

Innellan after a snow shower, April 15, 1903

Innellan from the water in 1906

Mars at Innellan pier (Stengel)

Innellan from pier (Stengel)

Waverley leaving Innellan

Waverley at Innellan around 1910

A few years into the new century, Innellan suffered damage to its most prominent building.

“Innellan Hotel destroyed by fire.—Yesterday morning fire broke out at the Royal Hotel, Innellan, which resulted in the destruction of the whole building. News of the outbreak reached Dunoon about ten o’clock, and when the brigade reached the spot an hour later the fire had got a firm hold the building. Unfortunately no water could be obtained for the working of the hose, the pipes in connection with the hydrant being choked, and the brigade could do nothing towards checking the flames. There were number of visitors staying in the hotel, and some excitement prevailed while they were endeavouring to remove their belongings. The villagers, who assembled in great numbers, lent willing hands, and a good deal of the furniture, and also of the contents the wine cellar, was saved. It was early seen that it was useless to battle with the flames under such disadvantageous conditions, and the fire was allowed to burn on unhindered. The roof fell in before noon, and some the walls during the afternoon. The origin the outbreak is unknown, but the first indication was some smoke proceeding from the roof over the servants’ quarters. Word was sent to Dunoon Pier for the Sunday steamer to call at Innellan, and many of the visitors journeyed to Rothesay to find accommodation there. The hotel was one of the finest on the West Coast, situated on the hill side, and commanding a splendid view of the Firth of Clyde. The loss, which is said to be covered by insurance, is estimated at over £10,000.”—Greenock Telegraph, June 6, 1904

The Hotel was rebuilt and remained a popular focal point on the coast for many years.

Royal Hotel Innellan

Innellan was south of the Dunoon-Cloch boom in both wars and derived its main traffic from Wemyss Bay. The inter-war years saw the resort grow in popularity with calls from the railway and private steamers.

The Dunoon Brake, Innellan

Innellan from the north

Innellan Pier

Innellan in a storm from the pier

Innellan south from the pier in 1929 (Valentine)

Innellan north from the pier in 1929 (Valentine)

Columba heading for Dunoon in the 1930s

Eagle III leaving Innellan

Marmion taking the pier

Mercury at Innellan

With the rise in motor transport, calls were diminished and the pier closed at the end of September 1972. The Royal Hotel was destroyed by fire less than a decade later changing much of the character of the watering place.

Saint Columba at Innellan

Innellan around 1950 (Ralston)

A post-war Jeanie Deans approaching Innellan pier

McCrorie, I; Monteith, J. Clyde Piers, Inverclyde District Libraries, , Greenock, August 1982.

Hill, J. C., Innellan, The Popular Resort on the Clyde Coast, The Manse, Innellan, 1943.