The River Leven is the only outlet from Loch Lomond and flows seven miles through the Vale of Leven until it meets the Clyde at Dumbarton Rock. At Balloch close to the Loch, the river flows broad and deep and has not attained the swiftness that marks Scotland’s second fastest river when it passes Bonhill a few miles closer to Dumbarton. It was an excellent place for crossing the river, but necessarily by boat, as there was no convenient ford. Cattle, brought from the highlands to the west had either to be ferried across at Balloch—the very name means “pass to the field of still waters”—from where they made their way by Drymen and the Endrick Valley to the Falkirk Tryst, or negotiate the ford at Bonhill where the alluvial fan from the burn provided sufficiently shallow water, and thence the path, from the “dripping grounds” near the Church was up the side of the burn and across the Kilpatrick hills.

There are no contemporary paintings or drawings of the ferry, but James Barr provides a description of the craft in the 1830s. “At Balloch the comparative stillness of the water admitted of a small rowboat for passengers. Another consisted of a broad flat platform, with high perpendicular sides, in which more than one vehicle could at the same time be accommodated. Its propulsion was effected by means of a heavy chain stretching across, and lying at the bottom of the river, save at the point where it was raised to pass over small iron cylinders at each end of the upper gunwale; motion being given by men walking from end to end, and pulling at this chain.” Some idea of the ferry might be had from the painting by Otto Weber.

The Highland Ferry

The provision of a separate rowing ferry for passengers and another for carriages, horses and cattle was the result of an accident in 1814 on the day of the horse-fair at the Moss of Balloch, in which at least two of the occupants were drowned.

“On Thursday afternoon, between four and five o’clock, being the great fair day at the Moss of Balloch, a melancholy accident happened to the ferry-boat at the Balloch, over the river Leven, the full particulars of which are not yet known. We can, however, state on authority, that the boat, though every way calculated to give security to the passengers, was, contrary to the advice of the ferryman completely overloaded, there being in it nearly 100 persons, besides several horses; and, it is supposed, some of the horses, owing to the great pressure, having unavoidably been touched by the spurs. of the riders, pushed themselves among the people, who flew in a crowd to the one side in order to save themselves from being trampled upon, in consequence of which the boat was upset in about 12 feet water, where the stream runs with great impetuosity. Every exertion was used by the numerous spectators to save the passengers from their impending fate, and a great number were safely got out. It is impossible to state the number of persons who have lost their lives by this melancholy accident; the bodies, however, of Mr William Graham, flesher in Port Glasgow; and of Mr M‘Farlane, ferryman at Portincaple, on Loch Long, were found on Friday morning. Soon after the accident, it was feared that two persons at least had been drowned, as a horse came on shore and not claimed, which afterwards proved to be Mr M‘Farlane’s; and a dog, known to some persons to belong to Mr Graham, was seen howling repeatedly up and down the whole fair. This faithful animal swam different times across the Leven in search of his master, and, on Thursday night, having gone over the hills, about six miles, he was heard howling at Craigend Ferry, opposite to Port-Glasgow, where he had crossed on his way to the fair, and returned on Friday morning to the Balloch Ferry-house, near which place his master was found. It may be some days before it be known whether any more persons have been drowned, as the passengers came from all parts of the surrounding country.”—Caledonian Mercury, September 19, 1814

Travel in those days was fairly treacherous. Horse traders attending the fair on that day encountered highwaymen on their way from Balloch to the Killearn fair later the same day.

“Highway robberies.—On Thursday the 15th instant, betwixt eight and nine in the evening, Mr Walker, horse dealer, in the parish of Kilbirnie, and Mr Easdale, horse dealer, in the parish of Lochwinnoch, when travelling on horseback from the ferry at Balloch to Killearn, were attacked by three men, one of whom seized the bridle of Mr Walker’s horse, and presented a large pistol, or blunderbuss to his breast, threatening to shoot him if he moved. Mr Easdale having put spurs to his horse, two pistols were fired at him, but happily without effect. About the same time, Mr Walker knocked down, with his whip, the fellow opposed to him, and both he and Mr Easdale rode off to Killearn. Soon after their arrival they were informed that a man on foot had been robbed of his watch, a short time after they were attacked. Next day, at Killearn fair they saw three Irishmen, very ill dressed, one of whom, wearing a short coat and trowsers, Mr Walker immediately recognised to be the person who seized his horse. Upon being challenged for their conduct on the preceding evening, they behaved very insolently, and a scuffle ensued, which terminated in two of the Irishmen being severely beaten, but unfortunately none of them were apprehended.

“On Friday, Mr Walker deemed it prudent to join a party of about twenty, who left Killearn together, and came to Milngavie. They met with no interruption on the road, but a man who had been riding alone, came up and told them that he had been robbed by the three men above described, of four guineas, and in the scuffle he had lost his horse.

“We have reason to believe that a gang of desperadoes, chiefly Irish, has, for some time, infested the west of Scotland, attending fairs and markets, dogging those persons who are seen with money, and way-laying and robbing them at night. To bring those vagabonds to justice, it is absolutely necessary that the earliest information of the robberies should be communicated to Magistrates, and when any of them have been laid hold of or detected by the persons whom they attack, they should on no account, be allowed to make their escape. It is deserving consideration also, whether associations should not be formed in the country districts, in aid of Magistrates, for the purpose of facilitating the apprehension of such offenders, by means of patroles, or by offering rewards to those who should be instrumental in such a laudable object.”—Caledonian Mercury September 22, 1814

The rights to the ferry at Balloch were in the hands of the Colquhoun family of Luss, the feudal superiors of a significant part of the country stretching from the eastern shore of the Gareloch, and the new town of Helensburgh and the south-western shore of Loch Lomond. The estate of Tullichewan, the part of the Colquhoun lands that lies of the west bank of the Leven was acquired by the Buchanan family in the 18th Century and subsequently sold to John Stirling, a partner in the textile bleaching and printing firm of William Stirling & Sons, Cordale, in 1792. He built Tullichewan Castle that was completed around 1908. In 1817, the estate passed to John Horrocks, a cotton manufacturer from Preston, and subsequently to James Campbell of the firm of J. & W. Campbell of Ingram Street, Glasgow, in the year 1843. The east bank of the river, where the Balloch Inn was situated, remained in Colquhoun ownership.

Sir James Colquhoun, drowned accidentally in Loch Lomond in 1873

The inconvenience of the ferry placed local pressure on the feudal superior to replace the ferry with a bridge suitable of carrying pedestrian and wheeled traffic, and the considerable amount of livestock that passed through Balloch. However, before focusing on the bridge at Balloch, it is worthwhile noting the other crossings of the Leven at this time.

The Leven provides a major barrier to overland communication between the Clyde Valley and the Western Highlands, and the stone bridge at Dumbarton, constructed in 1765, was for many years the primary crossing point of the swift flowing river. There was a public ferry at Bonhill, between Dumbarton and Balloch, and the growing textile bleaching and printing works on both sides of the river, in Bonhill on the east bank and Alexandria on the west bank, resulted in much frustration when the works were let out and workers made their way to homes on the opposite bank.

Dumbarton Bridge

The Leven at Bonhill was fast-flowing and the ferry there “was worked by means of a chain fixed to a stone in the bed of the river, and this stone may still be seen when the water is shallow. On the Alexandria side was the Ferry House, which was licensed to sell spirits. Here also the collector of the dues lived, and the ground superior collected his feu duties and rents, the bottle and biscuits and cheese being at hand on such occasions. The ferry, while a convenience to be thankful for and to be tolerated by a rural population, was not adapted for a thriving industrial community. It involved great risk and endless annoyance. When the public works closed for the day, the workers requiring to cross the river had often to wait twenty or thirty minutes before passage by boat was effected, and accidents were not uncommon.”

“While enduring such risks, the people in their extremity petitioned the ground superior, Admiral Smollett, of Bonhill, with 1260 signatures, to erect a bridge over the Leven. This the superior appeared willing to do if the Commissioners of Supply and the Justices of the Peace for the County, who controlled the ferries, would close certain fords. Their refusal resulted in Admiral Smollett, who was the ferry proprietor, declining to erect the bridge. In the year 1834, a third Road Act passed the legislature, giving powers to erect bridges over the Leven, and fixing pontage rates for foot and carriage traffic on such bridges.

“Instead, however, of building the bridge at Bonhill in terms of the Turnpike Act, Admiral Smollett, though himself one of the Road Trustees, a few months after the Act was passed, presented another petition to the Justices and Commissioners, intimating he had passed from the conclusion of his previous application as to shutting up the Ford at Bonhill (which was in the rights of the Corporation of Dumbarton, while the ferry belonged to Smollett) and desired anew to erect the bridge under the Commissioners’ warrant of the 3rd June, 1833, expressing his willingness to make the bridge fifteen feet wide instead of twelve feet as formerly proposed, in conformity to the Act recently passed. The Commissioners of Supply present at the meeting—all of whom it is understood were themselves Road Trustees—instead of referring Admiral Smollett to apply to the Road Trust, in terms of the Turnpike Act of 1834, pronounced a deliverance approving of the petition, and authorising the erection of the bridge. In the following May, Admiral Smollett applied to the Road Trustees for power to form abutments on the banks of the Leven for the bridge, which the Trustees granted. It does not appear to have occurred to him, or to any of the Trustees, that by allowing the erection of the bridge in this way, they were practically repealing or making void the direct provisions of their own Act of Parliament, which they had specially applied for the previous year, as well as the provisions of the preceding Acts of 1807 and 1828; and that if it were in the power of the Justices and Commissioners to grant legal authority, they were laying on the inhabitants a perpetual burden, or in the event of any subsequent negotiations with the proprietor for the purchase of his rights, the price necessary to acquire them would increase from year to year. The Justices supposed that by certain old Acts they had power to authorise Admiral Smollett to build the bridge at Bonhill, and acted accordingly, notwithstanding that the powers of these old Acts had practically passed from the Justices and Commissioners to a new and more extended authority, and had, so far as the Justices were concerned, fallen into desuetude, and also that in respect to roads and bridges these Acts had been formally repealed by the General Turnpike Act of 1831. After further negotiations Admiral Smollett arranged for the erection of a “Suspension Bridge” at Bonhill, and which was opened in 1836. This was the “bawbee brig” which for the next fifty-nine years became a bye-word in the Vale of Leven, a burden on the community, and the cause of bitter feeling between. the proprietor, collector, and the public. . . . For the information of after generations it may be stated that in crossing these bridges every ordinary foot passenger had to pay a bawbee each crossing, and every male worker in any of the public works at the rate of 13s per year, and every female 8s, and all vehicles according to tariff rates. Naturally under the weight of such a tax the public mind became irritable, and demonstrations of angry feeling were frequent.”—John Neil, Records and Reminiscences of Bonhill Parish.

Bonhill Bridge erected in 1836

The postage at Bonhill and Balloch bridges. For a foot passenger, the toll was ½d or a “bawbee.” Note the tolls are described a “Ferry dues.”

“In 1841, five years after Bonhill Bridge was opened, Sir James Colquhoun, Bart., of Luss, erected Balloch Bridge in exactly the same manner as Admiral Smollett erected the bridge at Bonhill.” While the bridge at Bonhill was of the traditional suspension design, the bridge at Balloch was an entirely novel pattern, the design of Mr James Dredge of Bath. Quite why the novel design was chosen is not clear. There is no doubt that the bridge was attractive. However, cost may have been a deciding factor. The Balloch Bridge contract was for £1,500, roughly £500 less than the cost of the bridge at Bonhill.

In the treatise “Dredge’s Suspension Bridge,” by W. Turnbull (John Weale, London, 1841), the principles employed by James Dredge are outlined, and the key feature was a chain composed of multiple connected iron rods, diminishing in number as supports were provided to the bridge deck below. There was also a contact provided for the bridge at Balloch.

Plan of Dredge’s Chain

“A suspension bridge upon Mr Dredge’s principle at Balloch Ferry, Loch Lomond.—It is contracted and agreed between the parties underwritten, viz., Sir James Colquhoun, of Luss, Bart., in the county of Dunbarton, North Britain, on the first part; and James Dredge, of Bath, in the county of Somerset, England, engineer, &c., as principal; and William Gibbons, of Bath aforesaid, maltster, &c., as guarantee, cautioner, and surety on the second part, in manner following: that is to say,—Whereas the said Sir James Colquhoun has resolved to erect a suspension bridge at Balloch Ferry, in the parish of Bonhill, Dunbartonshire, for the transit of foot passengers, horses, carriages, and cattle, conform to plans, elevation, and measurement, designed, drawn, and subscribed by the said James Dredge upon the principle invented by him, which plans consist of Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4 different parts, which are all subscribed by the said parties as relative to these presents. Therefore, and in consideration of the price hereinafter mentioned, the said James Dredge has bound and obliged himself, and by these presents binds and obliges himself, and his heirs, executors, and representatives whomsoever, to construct and finish the said bridge, of sufficient strength, and in a good and workmanlike manner, conform to the plans, elevation, and measurement above mentioned; subject always to such alterations as shall appear to the said James Dredge to be rendered necessary for the proper strength and durability of said erection.

“And the said James Dredge obliges himself, at his own proper costs and charges, to provide the whole working drawings and sections, models for masonry and iron-work, and also to furnish all iron rails and timber, and all other materials whatsoever (masonry materials excepted), which shall be necessary and fit to be used in or about the said bridge, and to superintend the erection of the same, and the whole mason-work therewith connected

“And more particularly the said James Dredge binds and obliges himself, and his foresaids, to erect and finish the said bridge in manner following, viz.: of twenty feet width, and two hundred feet in length from the centre of one tower to the centre of the other, and of not less than seventeen feet and one half foot in height above the level of the River Leven at high flood, or at least as high from the surface of the river as the Bonhill Bridge, with an opening of forty feet outside of each tower. The platform of the bridge to be three inches thick, of larch timber, and the other parts of good iron and good workmanship, with iron gates, and the whole of the ironwork to be once well painted; and in general, without prejudice to the particulars above specified, the said James Dredge binds and obliges himself, and his foresaids, to construct and finish the said bridge and openings conform to the foresaid plans, elevation, and measurement, with such alterations as may be rendered necessary as aforesaid; and that the whole of the said bridge shall be executed in the best and strongest manner, and of the best materials.

“And the said second parties hereby warrant that the said bridge, when completed, shall be capable of sustaining in transit double the weight of any load, whether of cattle, carriages, or otherwise, that it may ever be fairly exposed to. And further, the said James Dredge binds and obliges himself, and his foresaids, to proceed to the execution of the work above mentioned, and to carry on the same without any intermission, and completely finish the whole within two calendar months immediately after the completion of the towers of the said bridge. Providing hereby and declaring, that if the said James Dredge shall fail so to complete the said bridge within said period of two months, he shall be bound to allow to the said Sir James Colquhoun, and the latter shall be entitled to retain from the price after specified, an abatement of five per cent. upon the amount which the said Sir James Colquhoun shall have advanced for masonry on the said bridge, and that during the time the said bridge shall remain unfinished after the expiring of the foresaid two months.

“And it is hereby agreed that if the fencing off of a foot-path upon said bridge shall be dispensed with by the said Sir James Colquhoun, he shall in that case be allowed a deduction of twenty pounds from the stipulated price of said bridge herein after mentioned; and in the event of his requiring only two gates on said bridge in place of three shown on said plan, he shall receive a further deduction on that account of five pounds sterling. And further, if any other part of the said plans shall be dispensed with by the said Sir James Colquhoun, or not executed by the said James Dredge, the expense of such part or parts shall also be deducted from the price after mentioned. And if any of the conditions or particulars above specified shall be altered or executed contrary to the foresaid plans, these shall not be construed into an abandonment of the said plans, but the same shall be completed, and the present contract shall be effectual notwithstanding such alterations.

“And further, the said second parties, viz., the said James Dredge, as principal, and the said William Gibbons, as cautioner, guarantee, and surety for him as aforesaid, bind and oblige themselves, conjunctly and severally, and their foresaids, to warrant, uphold, and maintain the said bridge and towers thereof in good and sufficient condition for the space of five years after completion thereof, excepting from this obligation any injury or damage which shall arise thereto by lightning, earthquake, civil commotion, or malicious damage, or not fairly within the compass of wear and tear by ordinary use of such bridge. And if during the said period of five years and parts of said towers or bridge be discovered to be insufficient or requiring repair (not rendered necessary from the causes aforesaid), then the second parties shall be bound and obliged as they do hereby bind and oblige themselves and their foresaids, to repair such parts and make them sufficient at their own expense immediately on the insufficiency being discovered. For which causes, and on the other part, the said Sir James Colquhoun binds and obliges himself, his heirs and successors, immediately on such bridge being completed and proved to be sufficiently strong in all its parts as after mentioned, which proof shall be ascertained within one calendar month after its completion, to make payment to the said James Dredge, or his heirs, executors, or assigns, of the sum of one thousand five hundred pounds sterling, as the agreed price of the said bridge to be constructed by the said James Dredge in terms hereof, including therein the whole of his charges for engineering, travelling, and all other charges and expenses competent to him for said work, excepting such reasonable charge for superintending the erection of the said towers, either by himself or by a qualified person appointed by him, as may be considered fair between the parties, or as shall be fixed by reference to a respectable tradesman resident in Dunbartonshire, in case they do not agree. It being here contracted and agreed that the said Sir James Colquhoun when required by the said James Dredge, furnish the timber requisite for said bridge, and be entitled to retain out of the said price of one thousand five hundred pounds the current price of such timber so furnished, besides the expense of dragging, conveyance, and whole workmanship thereof, and on the completion of said bridge, the price of said timber and the said expenses attending the same (which last shall be ascertained and proved by the account and statement of the wood forrester on the estate of Luss) shall be deducted from the said stipulated sum of one thousand five hundred pounds; and the balance thereof, after such deduction, shall then be immediately payable to the said James Dredge and his foresaids, providing always that the said bridge, including mason-work, shall have been previously duly tested and proved, within the aforesaid period of one calendar month, to be of the requisite strength, and completed in all respects according to agreement, and in such a manner as to afford to the public a safe communication across the river Leven. But it is hereby expressly  provided and declared that, if between the completion of the said bridge and the expiration of said five years, the bridge, including towers, shall not have fairly borne its work, and be thus proved unable or insufficient to answer the purposes for which the bridge is intended, the said James Dredge, as principal, and the said William Gibbons, as guarantee, cautioner, and surety foresaid, shall be bound and obliged, as they hereby bind and oblige themselves and their aforesaids, conjunctly and severally, to repair and make the bridge substantial in every respect, or to make repayment to the said Sir James Colquhoun, his heirs and assigns, not only of the foresaid sum of one thousand five hundred pounds sterling, but also of the further sum of two hundred pounds as and for a moiety of the outlay and expense disbursed by the said Sir James Colquhoun in the erection of the mason-work connected with the said bridge; and on such repayment, the said James Dredge and his foresaids shall be fully entitled to the whole of the iron and wood-work of the said bridge as his own property, and all the materials excepting the stone and mason-work thereof. And it is further hereby provided that, in the event of any difference arising with respect to the true meaning of the present contract or the execution of any part of the work hereby contracted for, the parties hereby submit the same to the final determination of William Steele, Esq., Advocate, Sheriff Substitute of Dunbartonshire, and failing him, to the Sheriff Substitute of the said shire for the time being, as sole arbiter, and oblige themselves and their foresaids to abide by and fulfil any decision which he shall pronounce on the matters hereby submitted to him. And both parties bind and oblige themselves and their foresaids to implement and perform their respective parts of the premises to each other under the penalty of five hundred pounds sterling, to be paid by the party failing to the party observing the contract or willing to do so, besides performance. And both parties consent to the registration hereof in the Books of Council and Session Sheriff Court of Dunbartonshire or other Judges’ Books competent for preservation; and that letters of horning, or six days’ charge, and all other execution needful, may hereon pass on a decree to be interponed hereto, and for that purpose constitute.—Procurators; in witness whereof these presents, written upon stamped paper by James Mackibbin, Clerk to Robert Grieve, Writer, Dunbarton, are subscribed. . .”

Balloch Bridge. The Colquhoun Coat-of-Arms was placed on top of the two masonry pillars.

The Dredge Bridge at Balloch

Colquhoun Coat-of-Arms

The bridge lived up to specifications and although it did fail in 1850, it survived until taken over by the county.

“Breaking of Balloch suspension bridge.—On Saturday last, while a small flock of sheep was passing along Balloch Suspension Bridge, which spans the river Leven, near the entrance to Lochlomond, it suddenly gave way in the middle, at the south side, and sunk about twelve inches, the other side remaining as before. The rupture seems to have been caused by the snapping of two rods, each about an inch in diameter, and this has led to the twisting and breaking of other parts, which will make the whole fabric difficult of repair, and costly at the same time, though we have no doubt that in a few days it will be all right again. In the meantime, traffic, excepting for foot passengers, is stopped along the bridge, though luckily the bridge at Bonhill, which is not far distant, will supply the want till the repair be effected. The bridge is upon Dredge’s principle, and is a very beautiful object in the landscape, being much admired by strangers. It has stood for upwards of eight years, and, during the last Moss of Balloch fair, was at times crowded with hundreds of people (exceeding in weight at least ten times that of the sheep) without evincing the least weakness. it is singular that the fracture took place opposite to the side of the bridge on which the sheep were placed at the time.—Railway and Shipping Journal.”—Glasgow Herald, Friday October 11, 1850

Balloch Bridge in 1871 (Beckett, with permission Clifton Suspension Bridge Trust)

The saga of the bridges across the Leven is best recounted by the efforts of those in Bonhill and Alexandria to “Free the Brig”. Balloch Bridge, having been erected under the same mandates, is included in these arguments and the final decisions affected both locations. The struggles at Bonhill were more vociferous because the revenues and impact on the local population were much greater. Some details of the imposition of the bridge pontages on the population of the Vale of Leven might be gleaned from an article from 1847.

“Bonhill Bridge on the Leven.—Last week we noticed the bridge on the Leven at Balloch a short way below Loch Lomond. About one and a half miles below the Bridge of Balloch there is another chain bridge, called the Bonhill Bridge—a structure that has little to boast of either in the way of beauty, and still less of economy. It was built by Mr Smollett, M.P., about ten years ago at an expense of about two thousand pounds, and is let for an annual rental of £500, or 25 per cent. It is a steep, narrow erection. The only time we crossed it one of the horses in the omnibus fell, and the bridge vibrated till the passengers were in some apprehension of a bed in the water. But bad as it is it might do but for its expensiveness. Every passenger is charged a halfpenny—and as many workmen have their homes and their work on opposite sides of the water, they pay about 13s a year for crossing. In going to church also toll is levied, and till lately there was no church in Alexandria, so that the natives there had to stay at home or toll down their halfpenny, and strangers not going to church pay every time they cross. Now, the Alexandrians are otherwise accommodated with churches, we think the toll on other occasions a very great hardship, when the road trustees have it in their power, according to an act of Parliament, to purchase the bridge, and the ordinary toll for carts &c., would be quite equal to pay all expenses and leave a handsome per centage. 25 per cent, squeezed out of the pockets of working people is little to the credit of the trustees. Why four years’ toll would redeem the bridge, and yet during ten tedious years has the tax been exacted. The enterprising natives of the Vale of Leven should rebel against this injustice, and compel either a reduction of rate or the purchase of the bridge. At present the proprietor should not be too difficult to deal with, as he is at the mercy of his constituents.—Glasgow Examiner”—Glasgow Chronicle, June 23, 1847

While Europe was aflame with a renewed spirit of revolution, the good folk of the Vale had their own uprising in 1848 with an appeal to the Road Trustees “to assume the bridge at Bonhill,” in terms of the Act of 1834.

“Bonhill Bridge.—A public meeting of the inhabitants of the Vale of Leven was held here in the United Presbyterian Church, Alexandria, for the purpose of hearing a report from the committee appointed on 2d August last, to ascertain the mind of the proprietor of the bridge, A. Smollett, Esq., M.P., as to what extent he would reduce or abolish the charges levied on foot passengers. On the motion of Mr Douglas, Mr Cumming was called to the chair, who, having read the bill calling the meeting, introduced the Rev. Mr Wallace, convener of committee. The reverend gentleman, after a few prefatory remarks, read the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Mr Smollett, as well as the opinion of eminent counsel as to the illegality of the charge levied. The Rev. Mr Swan also read the memorial which had been presented to Mr Smollett, in name of the inhabitants, when the following resolution was moved by Mr Graham, “That the thanks of this meeting be tendered to the committee for the judicious manner in which they had conducted the correspondence with Mr Smollett, and otherwise carried out the objects for which they had been appointed, and earnestly request them forthwith to proceed in the terms of the 3d resolution passed at the public meeting held in August, viz., “That in the event of the requisition not being complied with, this meeting now pledges itself to use all lawful means for the removal of this tax,” which being seconded was carried unanimously. Mr Swan moved “the formation of an association for the collection of donations and subscriptions for supplying the committee with funds for the prosecution of the case,” which was seconded by Mr A. Stephens and carried with enthusiastic approbation. Mr R. Houston moved from a list of names a committee for managing the association, which was seconded by Mr C. Freebairn and agreed to. The thanks of the meeting having been specially awarded to the Rev. Messrs Swan and Wallace for their efficient services, and also to Mr Cumming for his conduct in the chair, the meeting, which was numerous and enthusiastic, broke up.”—Glasgow Chronicle, January 5, 1848

“Bonhill Bridge.—The committee appointed by the inhabitants of Bonhill, Alexandria, &c., for the purpose of devising the ways and means of getting the above named bridge thrown open to the public, have commenced their labours by the publication of a spirited address, in which they give a simple statement of the question as it appears to them, and earnestly urge upon the public in general, and more especially the inhabitants of the locality, who are mulcted of considerable sums, to contribute their mite to defray the expenses of the law suit at present pending in the court of session.”—Glasgow Chronicle, February 9, 1848

However, “the Trustees expressly minuted that “they did not consider that they had any right to interfere in the matter in dispute as to Bonhill Bridge, or were under any obligation to do so.” Unfortunately the feuars had no power to compel the Trustees to do this; and as the Trustees would not do it of themselves, though they had power if they chose, the bridge remained as it was. The public, becoming more impatient at this continued dereliction of duty on the part of the Trustees, in a year or two thereafter, instituted an action before the Court against the proprietor of the bridge, calling for an accounting of all the pontages drawn at the bridge. In this action they failed, for they raised the action on the assumption that the bridge was built in terms of the Act of 1834, and that Act gave them no title to sue or to call for an accounting, the Road Trustees being the only parties recognised in the Act.”—John Neil, Records and Reminiscences of Bonhill Parish.

In the 1850s, the railway arrived in the Vale of Leven, further exacerbating the burden of the pontage. The line from Bowling that eventually connected with Glasgow crossed the Leven at Dumbarton and so stations at Alexandria and Balloch were on the west side of the river. A second line from Stirling to Balloch was also built and carried by a wooden trestle to Balloch, although there was a station at Jamestown on the east bank.

The railway viaduct over the Leven  at Jamestown

Twenty years later a new push aimed at removing tolls on roads and bridges and creating a recognizable highway system began to be discussed around the country. The Commissioners of Supply for the County were charged with the responsibility of discerning how this would affect the bridges over the Leven. They maintained that the tolls on the Bonhill and Balloch bridges were really ferry dues and recommended that they be excluded from the new Act.

“The bridges over the Leven at Bonhill and Balloch.—Yesterday at noon a special meeting of the Commissioners of Supply for the County of Dumbarton was held in the County Building, Dumbarton—Mr Alex, Smollett, of Bonhill, convener of the county, in the chair. There were also present:—Mr H. E. Crum Ewing, lord-lieutenant of the county; Mr A. Orr Ewing, M.P. for the county; Sir James Lumsden, of Arden; Provost Bennett, Dumbarton; Major Colquhoun, Arrochar; Colonel Findlay, and Messrs John Orr Ewing, Levenfield; R. D. M‘Kenzle Caldarvan; A. J. Dennistoun Brown, Balloch Castle; J. W. Burns, Kilmahew; C. H. Wilsone, Dalnair; C. B. Findlay, Boturich; James White, Overtoun; A. B. Yuille, Darleith, Wm. Jamieson, Shandon; James H. Kippen, Westerton; J. M. Martin, of Auchendennan; Jas. Galbraith, Cambusmoon; Alex. Breingan and A. Gow, Helensburgh; W. M‘Alester Donald, of Lyleston; and James Murray, Catter House.

“The Chairman said they would be all aware that at the statutory meeting of the Commissioners of Supply, held on 1st May last, the bill before Parliament, known as the Roads and Bridges Bill, had been referred to the Committee-on Roads with full powers. The committee had had several meetings, and notwithstanding the full powers so cordially given to them, some of the matters were considered to be of so much vital interest that a special meeting was resolved to be called. The committee had prepared a report, which he would now ask the clerk to read to the meeting, and he might add that it had been drawn up in such a way as that the points specially affecting this county would be prominently brought forward, and the discussion might therefore be kept to those matters more especially affecting the interests of the county.

“The Clerk (Mr W. Babtie) then read the report, which recommended that the portion of the bill giving to burghs the management and maintenance of their own roads, and freeing them from county assessment, should be opposed; also, that for the maintenance of the roads there should be a tax put upon horses as well as that proposed to be levied in the bill; and further, that in regard to the bridges at Balloch and Bonhill, that the ten western parishes of the county should pay by assessment the one-half of the price of acquiring these, and those residing in the locality should pay the other half, or that otherwise these bridges should be exempted from the bill.

“In regard to the third portion of the report, relating to the bridges at Balloch and Bonhill, and the pontages or ferry dues levied thereat, Major Colquhoun moved, and Mr Dennistoun Brown seconded the motion—“That regarding the pontages levied at the, bridges of Balloch and Bonhill as being of the nature of ferry dues and not of the nature of tolls, seeing a great portion is levied from foot passengers, and that all the dues are levied under the proprietors charters of ferry, the county resolves to memorialise the Government and to petition Parliament to except these bridges from the operation of the bill.” The motion being put to the meeting, eleven voted in favour of it and seven against it, and Mr Smollett declined to vote. The motion was therefore carried.

“Mr John Orr Ewing moved that in the event of the foregoing resolution not being given effect to, and the bridges at Balloch and Bonhill standing part of the bill, a special clause should.be embodied in the bill providing that the cost of the bridges shall be borne one half by the county and the other half by the locality where the bridges are situated; the money to pay the cost to be borrowed on security of the assessments and pontages, one-half to be raised by assessment on arrears in the ten western parishes of the county, at a rate not exceeding ½d per £1, during such period as many suffice to pay the debt and interest; the other half to be raised by continuing present dues, or pontages until the debt is liquidated. Mr Orr Ewing’s motion was seconded by Mr White, and unanimously agreed to. The meeting remitted to a committee consisting of Mr Smollett, Mr Crum Ewing, Mr John Orr Ewing, Sir James Lumsden, Mr James White, and Mr R. D. Mackenzie, two a quorum, and Mr Smollett, convener, to watch the progress of the bill, and take such action in regard thereto as they may consider advisable, and if necessary to proceed to London, accompanied by Mr Babtie, the clerk of supply.”—Glasgow Herald, May 30 1876

However, there were some who were interested in the development of the Vale of Leven and recognized that inaction was folly. They organized a public meeting to arouse the local inhabitants at which they received an indication from the local M.P., Archibald Orr Ewing, that he supported the fix suggested by Mr John Orr Ewing. This was a compromise to buy out the bridges at Bonhill and Balloch, half of the money to come from the County rate assesment on landowners, and one half from continued pontage.

“Bonhill and Balloch Bridges.—A public meeting of the male inhabitants of the Vale of Leven was held in the Public Hall, Alexandria, on Monday, for the purpose of taking into consideration the matter of Bonhill and Balloch Bridges across the Leven, in connection with the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, which is expected to be introduced in the forthcoming session of Parliament. Fully 1000 persons were present. Mr James Campbell of Tillichewan, presided, supported by a number of the leading gentlemen, of the district. A series of resolutions were unanimously passed, pledging the meeting to seek, by all legitimate means, the abolition of the pontages at these bridges. Deputations were also appointed to wait upon Mr Smollett, and the Trustees of the late Sir James Colquhoun, the proprietors of the bridges, and also upon the Lord-Advocate for Scotland. A large committee, with full powers was appointed to take such action as they may deem necessary to bring the bridges in question within the scope of any Roads and Bridges Bill that may be brought forward in next session of Parliament. The Chairman, amid applause, read the following letter from the member for the county:—

“Levenbank Works, January 20, 1877. To the Chairman of public meeting as to Bonhill and Balloch Bridges, Dear Sir,—I have received notice of the above meeting and an invitation from the committee to attend but it is not my intention to be present, although I am quite opposed to the exclusion of those bridges from the Roads and Bridges Bill; while at the same time, I am desirous that the owners of those bridges should get full compensation for the value of the bridges according to their average income of the last three years. I consider my brother’s proposal (Mr John Orr Ewing) an equitable and reasonable settlement of the question, and I am surprised that the Commissioners of Supply should reject it. But I am still more surprised that the Lord-Lieutenant of the County should be so energetic to perpetuate this burden, which principally falls upon the working classes, when it is proposed by legislation to maintain all roads and bridges by assessment upon property—one half to be paid by the owner and the other half by the occupier. I have made a calculation of what Strathleven estate would pay if my brother’s scheme was adopted, and I find that it would amount to £7 10s per annum, one half of which would be paid by the tenants, who I doubt not would save greatly by the change. Surely this small amount is not worthy of his consideration to obtain for the inhabitants of this district terms of equality with the rest of Scotland. I know that Mr Smollett is willing to deal generously with the public of the locality and the county, and I trust he will be equally liberally dealt with. It is not a question of money, it is one of principle.—I am, &c., Arch. Orr Ewing.”—Glasgow Herald, January 31, 1877

The committee appointed at the public meeting soon got to work, lobbying the parties who might influence the decision to include the Leven Bridges in the Act.

“Bonhill and Balloch Bridges.—A deputation representing the inhabitants of Alexandria and district waited on the Lord-Advocate in his chambers, Parliament Square, Edinburgh, yesterday, to urge on his Lordship the desirability of including the bridges of Bonhill and Balloch in the proposed Roads and Bridges Bill. The Commissioners of Supply of Dumbartonshire had previously asked his Lordship to exclude these bridges. The deputation consisted of Mr Campbell, Tillichewvan; Mr Orr Ewing, Levenfield; Mr Edw. Jones, Dalmonach; Mr John Barr, Aexandria; Mr Johln Wilkie, Alexandria; Mr Shanks, farmer, Bonhill and others. The resolutions passed at a meeting of the inhabitants of Alexandria and district in regard to the subject state that, considering that the pontages levied on Bonhill and Balloch bridges hindered the commercial and social intercourse, and pressed heavily on the resources of the industrial classes of the district, it was resolved that such steps were necessary to be taken as should secure that these bridges be included in the bill, and so effect the abolition of the said pontages in an equitable manner. The deputation stated also that they represented the wishes and opinions of the inhabitants at a meeting held in the Vale of Leven recently. The Lord-Advocate promised to consider the subject.”—Glasgow Herald, February 6, 1877

“The Bridges Committee appointed at a public meeting held at Alexandria on the 29th January met on Monday evening—Mr M‘Murray presiding. The chairman reported that the deputation had waited upon the Lord Advocate and Mr Smollett, but in consequence of the trustees of the late Sir James Colquhoun being from home, the interview with them had not yet taken place. Amongst the documents read at the meeting were “Notes of a meeting with the Lord Advocate regarding the Roads and Bridges Bill,” in which the following passage occurred:—“That the value of the ferries and bridges be ascertained by arbitration or otherwise under the General Act, and that the one-half of the sum so fixed be paid to the proprietors by an assessment on the county, and the other half by continuing to levy the tolls on the bridges until the debt be liquidated.” To this principle, Mr Smollett gave his assent in a letter, adding—“That in the event of the inhabitants of the villages of Bonhill, Alexandria, and the neighbouring localities, formally agreeing to the conditions respecting the temporary continuance of the pontages or ferry dues, I am of opinion that the opposition of the majority of the Commissioners of Supply is likely, if not to removed, at all events to be considerably modified.”—Stirling Observer, March 8, 1877

“The Bonhill and Balloch Bridges.—The committee appointed by the inhabitants of Bonhill, Jamestown, Alexandria, and Renton to further their interests in respect to the bridges at Bonhill and Balloch have laid before Mr A. Orr  Ewing , M.P., a statement of the facts connected with the history of the two bridges, which they regard as tending to show the justice and necessity of their being included in the operation of the Government Roads and Bridges Bill. The revenues of the bridges, it was stated, amount to about £1450 per annum, fully three-fourths of which is collected from foot passengers, on whom a halfpenny is levied for each time of crossing; and the exaction of this toll is felt-by the inhabitants of the Vale of Leven, and particularly by the working population, to be a great and increasing hardship.”—Scotsman, July 12, 1877

“In January, 1878, while the Roads and Bridges Bill was before Parliament, a letter detailing the history of the bridges at Bonhill and Balloch was prepared and circulated in the House of Commons by a committee representing Bonhill, Jamestown, Alexandria, and Renton, and signed by James Campbell of Tullichewan, as chairman of public meeting; Peter M‘Murray, chairman of Committee; and George Drever, secretary. It was followed by an answer also circulated in the House of Commons, and signed by Alexander Smollett, of Bonhill; A. B. Yuille, of Darleith; Gibson Stott, formerly of Balloch Castle; and R. D. Mackenzie, of Caldarvan. The answer in no way challenged the correctness of the facts stated in the letter; it really was an explanation. of, and an apology for, the Road Trustees not exercising their right to build the bridges.”—John Neil, Records and Reminiscences of Bonhill Parish.

The efforts were rewarded and the bridges were included in the Act that was passed in 1878. A period of arbitration then occurred while the level of compensation with the proprietors was negotiated. When the decision was announced, it created new outrage in the Vale of Leven. The contribution from the pontage would be borrowed with interest and payments would continue for another decade.

“Professor Berry, the oversman in the arbitration under the Roads and Bridges Act between the Dumbarton County Roads Trustees on the one hand and Patrick Boyle Smollett and Sir James Colquhoun on the other has awarded the former gentleman the sum of £27,926 as the value of Bonhill Bridge, and the latter £5775 for Balloch Bridge. The claims were £40,000 and £10,000.”—Glasgow Herald, June 21, 1884

A public meeting was held to address the situation and various suggestions for raising the pontage ransom were proposed, but in the end, fund-raising amounted to £100, far short of the £18,000 required.

“The Leven Bridges question.—Public meeting at Alexandria.—Bonhill Bridge attacked.—On Thursday evening a large and enthusiastic meeting of the inhabitants of the Vale of Leven was held in the Public Hall, Alexandria. to consider the present aspect of the bridges question. The meeting was one of the largest ever held in the Public Hall. For about an hour previous to the meeting four instrumental bands, namely, Bonhill Brass Band, Jamestown Brass and. Bonhill Flute Band, Renton Flute Band, paraded the villages, and brought with them to the meeting large contingents. When Bonhill Bridge was reached there was an immense crowd gathered, but all got over without any undue uproar. Inside the hall, before the meeting began, the band discoursed some music. Shortly after eight o’clock, a large number of gentlemen came on to the platform, when Mr William Kinloch of Alexandria was moved to the chair. In opening the proceedings he said it was very gratifying to see such a turnout of working men to consider the question of the Vale of Leven Bridges, a question well worthy of study, though it should serve no other purpose than to show how step by step the present muddle had been reached. Resolutions would be presented to the meeting bearing on the subject, and he trusted they would give them their most serious consideration, and, should they see fit, adopt them. He trusted they would rally round and support the committee which might be appointed to carry out the resolutions. The chairman, in concluding remarked that he had learned one thing from a study of the bridge question, and that was that their local affairs would never be satisfactorily managed until they were managed by popularly elected Boards. He then called on Mr James Shanks, farmer, Ladyton, to move the first resolution.

“Mr Shanks, in rising, was received with vociferous cheering. The resolution he submitted was to the following effect:—“Considering that this district has borne a heavy burden for the last fifty years in paying bridge toll, charged without legal authority notwithstanding that Parliament has passed Acts to protect the rights of the public, but of which this district has never got the benefit of a single clause owing to the County Justices or Road Trustees setting aside the Acts or adopting clauses protecting their own interests; and considering that Parliament has abolished tolls all over Scotland, and that we are charged the same road maintenance rate as the other part of the county, we now resolve to refuse payment of the bridge tolls any longer than 15th May, 1885, and farther request the County Road Board to erect bridges suitable for the traffic in terms of the 58th clause of the Roads and Bridges 1878 Act.” In speaking to this resolution Mr Shanks went over a good deal of subject matter, which has already been ventilated in these columns. In referring specially to the modifications allowed on the rates of some of the bridge traffic he stated that the heavy traffic only realised £350 per annum, while the working classes, at the halfpenny rate, realised £1250. He advocated that every one should be charged on an equal scale. Mr Shanks also referred to the great expense annually incurred in the “letting” of Bonhill and Balloch Bridges. Rouping cost about £33, advertising, £13; and clerk’s fees about £230. He depreciated such an unnecessary expenditure of public money annually. Referring to the 93rd clause of the 1878 Act, he remarked that there was no provision in it for rebuilding of bridges. The 58th clause states that when new bridges are erected they are to be handed over for the public, who thereafter are to pass over free. Thus the moment a bridge is rebuilt that moment the power to levy tolls ceases. Speaking of the award, Mr Shanks remarked that it had been given on an illegal basis. The proprietors had no title to the bridges. It was from 40 years prescription they had got their titles. The case was similar to that of a man who for 40 years had acted dishonestly with his employers and when discovered turned round and claimed the right to retain his situation because he had carried on his dishonesty for all these years. The proposition would never be listened to. So in the same way for 40 years tolls had been levied on the Leven bridges illegally, but having carried on the illegal tax for 40 years they thereby got prescriptive powers. Mr Shanks concluded by proposing a scheme for raising money sufficient to pay one year’s interest on the money borrowed, and thereby let the bridge be free of toll for the incoming year. The proposal was that all the workers in the Vale of Leven contribute one day’s pay. Another proposal was to pay off the entire debt. He suggested that the county gentlemen subscribe one-third, the proprietors another third, and he would undertake to raise the remaining third. Mr Shanks having again read the resolution, sat down amid rounds of applause. Mr Rbt. Buchanan, engraver, seconded the resolution, which was unanimously agreed to.

“Mr Peter Cameron, coal merchant, moved the second resolution—“That should the County Road Board refuse or delay to erect a new bridge within a reasonable time the matter be reported to the Home Secretary and Board of Trade, and the whole case be laid before Parliament to get the 93rd clause of Roads and Bridges Act amended.” Mr Cameron referred to the great inconvenience experienced by traders in crossing Bonhill Bridge, and to the danger to which foot-passengers were exposed. He considered that since the bridges came under the Road Trustees they were ten times worse than under the former proprietors. Mr Thomas Wilson, contractor, seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.

“Mr Currie, clogger, moved the third resolution—“That this meeting appoint a committee with full power to raise money and take whatever steps may be necessary to carry out the decision of the former resolutions.” Mr R. Campbell, general dealer, seconded the resolution, which was also agreed to.

“Mr J. B. Miller, tailor, moved, and Mr R. Melville seconded,—“that copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the Clerk of the County Road Board to be laid before their first meeting.” The meeting. which was very orderly throughout, was dismissed shortly after 9 o’clock.—Lennox Herald, February 7, 1885.

Song sung by Mr Shanks to rapturous applause.

After the meeting, the crowd released their frustration by attacking the bridge.

“Unruly proceedings after the meeting.—It is matter of regret that the same orderly spirit which prevailed during the meeting did not follow on its dismissal. It would seem that while the Bonhill and Jamestown contingent were returning home an unusual amount of pressure took place at the Bridge Toll box. The large iron gate was closed, and the public only got through the small wicket gate after paying “bawbee.” In addition to the collectors several police were stationed here, whether intentional or not we cannot say but several of the public were roughly treated. One of the collectors struck a young man named Parlane on the eyes. inflicting injury. Others who were jostled against the gate were progged with sticks. It would seem that when this was taking place a stone from behind was thrown at the window in the toll box and smashed it. Mud and dirt followed, and the collectors and police came in for a very liberal share, and very speedily they made their exit from the scene. All the lights being extinguished, the “deeds of darkness” in the way of demolishing the toll-box began. Several articles found in the box were thrown into the river, and bit by bit the wooden structure was torn down and thrown over the bridge. This being accomplished, the rioters began wrenching the large iron gate from off the pillar. This was no easy task, and a large hammer was brought into use, and the strokes inflicted soon separated the northern half of the gate from the pillar. This being done, it was thrown into the Leven amid the shouts of the crowd, The hammer was then brought to bear on the other half of the gate, but it was more difficult to break asunder. During all this time the local police were standing in the distance quite helpless and afraid of the spirit of lawlessness which pervaded a section of the crowd. Notice, however, had been sent to Dumbarton to get additional police. By half-past eleven o’clock these arrived, and the work of destruction was quickly stopped, the south half of the gate not having been detached from the pillar. It is but fair to state that on Mr Shanks being acquainted by Inspector Gray of what was taking place he at once went into the crowd and tried to dissuade them from their destructive work. It was of no use, and Mr Shanks was lifted up and carried shoulder high along the bridge. The ringleaders were pretty wary, and whenever any suspicious individual approached hoe was “spotted.” One gentleman with an official air about him was supposed to be an interested party in the bridge, and was laid hold on to be carried down to the Leven, but a little explanation prevented this being carried out. The day following (Tuesday) large numbers visited the scene of these proceedings, among whom were the Procurator-Fiscal and inspector of police from Dumbarton. While a bitter feeling pervades the community against the bridge tax, still it is much regretted that this feeling should have found expression in such disorderly proceedings. No apprehensions, so far as we have heard have yet taken place.”—Lennox Herald, February 7, 1885.

Bonhill Bridge around 1890, the steps down to the ferry can be clearly seen on the west bank

The authorities felt that an example had to be made of some who were in the crowd on the night of the riot.

“The late disturbance at Bonhill Bridge.—The trial of the five lads, last Friday, for the recent disturbance at Bonhill Bridge threw a good deal of new light on that hitherto dark deed, which it is of interest to recall. It will be remembered that early last February a public meeting of the inhabitants of the Vale of Leven was held to consider what should be done to free the Bonhill Bridge of pontage. After that meeting a disturbance took place at the bridge, which ended in the collectors’ box being demolished and thrown into the Leven, and one of the iron gates being unhinged and also meeting a similar fate. The occurrence at the time caused a good deal of commotion. The Sheriff-Substitute, the Procurator-Fiscal, and the Chief Constable visited the scene of the disturbance, but many of the facts in connection with the affair were shrouded in mystery. Time went on and the event was passing out of memory, and it was thought that the affair was to be allowed to blow over. Not so, however, was this to be the case, for five lads were dragged from their beds the other morning, and were brought before the Sheriff-Substitute on Friday last for trial, which was a long and rather interesting one. Amongst the facts elicited, it appears that on the night in question the tacksmen expected a row at the bridge, and prepared for this by securing the gates with an iron pin to prevent their being opened by a seige. Next, all the policemen were drawn round the collectors’ box, and these gentlemen whiled away the time before the public meeting broke up, chasing the inhabitants from the approaches to the structure in question. When the public meeting did break up, the state of matters the public found was this:—The gates firmly secured, and the approaches guarded by policemen. Hundreds of persons wished to get “beyond the river,” but the collectors could not gather the half-pence quick enough to prevent a crush. The people crowded round and against the gates, and the gentleman who kept guard there, believing that he had been assaulted, reached his hand through the iron bars and dealt the lad nearest him a severe blow on the eye on the principle, we suppose, that if the young man struck and battered on the face was not the assailant then he would likely be at some other time. A lively episode this must have been, and one well calculated to smooth the public excitement existing at that moment! Next we find mud and stones thrown, and the police inspector enters the collectors’ box, where one of the tacksmen is lying wounded and in a semiconscious state, and points out hurriedly that the crowd was too great for the police, and that the gates should be thrown as open as ever they were at “Bonnie Dundee” to allow “the Bloody Claverhouse” free exit. But were there not several hundred halfpennies hanging around that might help to swell the coffers? And were those people who might wish to get home to their ain firesides to get once over the bridge free? Not likely? Inspector Gray swore that the riot might have been averted had the gates been opened when he advised this, but such an act of generosity was far too much to expect, more especially, we suppose, as the people had just been planning how to abolish the iniquitous impost. Had not Mr Shanks sang sweetly many a time—the English Grammar notwithstanding—that “the brig it shall be free!” and were not the people to be taught that that happy time, like the millenium, was “far, far away !” However, at last the forces of officialdom were overcome, and the Inspector hurried off to Dumbarton, carrying the momentous intelligence that the people had forced the passage of the Leven, after defiling the police with mud and almost braining some of the modern publicans of the Vale. When Inspector Gray left the scene the courage of the police appears to have utterly deserted them. We read that a number of men came along armed with hammers and axes, and then in truth the serious work began. The collectors snuggery appeared nothing stronger to these Goliaths than a veritable matchbox, which was soon dislodged, and its fragments picked up some days after far down the Clyde. The hammers were now applied to the iron gates, and they asunder burst, and one of them was soon deep down in river bed. Ah, but where were the police? “That’s the rub,” as Shakespeare said. They are declared to love this brig with something like a devotional feeling, and in this little corner many a time and oft they got the credit of having enjoyed a canty hour. But now the sounds of the devastation were heard all over the district—the rattle of the hammer and the swish of the axe—but the constables, like Peter of old, stood afar of, and never for one moment attempted to identify the iconoclasts, or make even one reprisal from the unruly ranks. Havoc to the amount of £24 was wrought under the nose of the police, and they did not make one charge with truncheon or staff. After six weeks’ deliberation and diligent enquiry and witness-precognoscing five respectable lads were taken to Dumbarton to be charged with—a breach of the peace! After four hours’ trial three of them could not be convicted and two were fined a couple of guineas with a guarantee to keep the peace and so the whole history is told! We suppose it was necessary to lay hands on some persons—to hold them up as the horrible example—but did ever mountain labour more to bring forth such a mouse? While none could be more anxious than we to see law and order maintained, it will not for a moment be disputed that the chief depredators in connection with this brig business were not at all in the dock. Such a crime as was committed here could never be purged with a fine of a couple of guineas—and looking to all the facts it is questionable whether the game here, to the criminal authorities, was worth the candle. At the time of the occurrence, whilst strongly deprecating the event, we ventured to hint that a certain amount of provocation had been given to the public. This now appears beyond question. We trust, however, that the whole affair being now over, the public mind set at rest, and the majesty of the law avenged, the people will once more settle down into their old paths, and pay down their coppers till by law relieved from a burden well calculated to break the temper of a liberty-loving people.—Lennox Herald, March 14, 1885.

A less partisan account was given elsewhere, but the conclusion was the same, that there was little evidence to confirm a conviction.

“The Bonhill Bridge riot.—Trial of the prisoners.—The trial of the five young men arrested on Tuesday last in connection with the riot at Bonhill Bridge on the 2d February took place yesterday at the Dumbarton Sheriff Criminal Court before Sheriff Gebbie. It will be remembered that on the day in question a mob of about 3000 persons attacked the police and attendants at the bridge, pelting them with stones and bespattering them with mud. Some of them then seized the wicket- box and one of the bridge gates and threw them into the Leven. The names of the five men arrested are solomon M‘Lachlan, labourer, Main Street, Bonhill; William Urquhart, labourer, Burn Street, Bonhill; John Parlane, printfield worker, Dalmonach, Bonhill; Robert Barclay, apprentice engineer, Jamestown; and Willian Smith, jun., apprentice engineer, Main Street, Bonhiil. The accused pleaded not guilty, and were defended by Mr W. B. Thomson, writer, Dumbarton, Mr Babtie, Procurator-Fiscal, prosecuting.

“The first witness called was Mr Wm. Craig, writer, Dunbarton, joint-clerk with Mr Babtie, for the Dumbartonshire Road Trustes. Witness deponed that prior to the passing of the Roads and Bridges Act Balloch and Bonhill Bridges were private property, and when it was passed in 1883 Mr Smollet was paid £27,925 as compensation along with £2548 1s 3d interest and expenses for Bonhill Bridge, and Sir James Colquhoun £5775 and £503 0s 4d for Balloch Bridge. For the year from 15th May, 1884, the pontages on Bonhill Bridge were let for £1760 and on Balloch Bridge for £350. The Trustees advertised for all persons having modifications to come forward and make claims, and a number of claims were sent in, and these the witness produced. He did not find any modification in favour of persons attending public meetings.

“Ebenezer M‘Lelland deponed to having written a report for the Dumbarton Observer of a public meeting held in Alexandria on 2d February with reference to Bonhill Bridge. The report was substantially correct.

“William Davie, tacksman of Bonhill Bridge for the current year, stated that prior to the termination of the meeting, at half-past nine o’clook, he observed people collecting on the bridge from the Bonhill side. They would not pass through the wicket, and the police cleared the bridge several times, but the people always returned. Seeing the people collecting on the bridge, he anticipated a crush after the meeting, and in order to prevent the gate, which is always closed at night, being opened, a nail was put into the bolt. Immediately after the meeting a crowd came to the gate, and there was a good deal of crushing, but at first the people passing from Alexandria to the Bonhill side paid the halfpenny as they passed through the wicket. After passing through the wicket most of the people remained on the bridge, crying to those who came afterwards, “Don’t pay.” Ultimately the gate became blocked by the crowd, and an attempt was made to force it, the crowd shaking and pulling it. When the police tried to get the crowd to move on, mud and stones were thrown at them. Witness received a cut on the left eye by a stone. After a time Inspector Gray came to him, and advised him to open the gate. With some difficulty this was done. That night the collector’s box was thrown into the Leven, along with one of the gates. He identified Urquhart and Smith as having been among the crowd, but he did not see any of them shake the gate or hear them inciting the crowd. Smith, but not Urquhart, was in the front rank.

“Cross-examined by Mr Thomson—was a little noise when the people were going to the meeting. M‘Callum and he were collecting the coppers, and Mitchell was attending to the gate. He did not see or hear Urquhart or Smith shout not to pay. When he saw Smith, who had a monthly ticket and was entitled to pass without paying, he had got through the gate. He saw Urquhart only once as he was passing from Bonhill to Alexandria. Smith and Urquhart were not in company. The prisoners, he thought, were respectable lads. The stone that struck him came from the Bonhill side of the bridge. It was after the police and attendants had left that the box was broken and the gate thrown into the Leven.

“George Mitchell, assistant bridge-keeper, deponed to having heard the shouts of “Don’t pay,” and to having seen the whole of the persons except Smith swinging on the gate and trying to force it. He reached through the gate and struck the prisoner Parlane on the eye.

“Inspector Gray, Alexandria, said he heard the cry “The bridge is free.” M‘Lachlan went forward and backward to the wicket gate, and jostled the people. Urquhart did so also. He swore at M‘Donald when the constable mentioned his name, and said he had better not mention his name. Davie and M‘Callum were lifting the money, but he did not see Mitchell do anything. If M‘Lachlan and Urquhart were doing anything they should have seen them. It was when they were throwing the mud that he advised them to open the gate. He did not see M‘Lachlan and Urquhart throwing mud, nor had they hatchets or hammers. Such would be required to break the gate. Constable M‘Donald gave corroborative evidence.

“Dugald M‘Callum, tax collector, said there was no freedom from payment for those attending public meetings. A number of witnesses were then examined to prove that none of the prisoners took an active part in the disturbance.

“Mr Thomson, addressing the Sheriff on the prisoners’ behalf, contended that no witness had been brought to show mobbing and rioting on the part of the prisoners. He asked for a verdict of not guilty for Parlane, Barclay, and Smith, and not proven in the case of M‘Lachlan.

“The Sheriff said the disturbance was a very serious and disgraceful one, occurring in a hitherto quiet, orderly, and law-abiding place. He would give no opinion on the legality of exaction of pontage, but if the people reckoned it a grievance, the mode of having it removed ought to be by the constitutional way—by going to the Law Courts of the land. He was doubtful of the guilt of the last three prisoners, Parlane, Barclay, and Smith, and gave them the benefit of that doubt. The other two he found guilty and fined £2, with the alternative of ten days’ imprisonment, also ordering them to find caution to keep the peace for six months or undergo other ten days’ imprisonment.—Glasgow Herald, March 7 1885

The result was that the pontages would continue until the debt was paid.

“It would seem that the Bridges over the Leven are not to be free —at least for another year On Tuesday the pontages at these were let by public roup, and in the case of Bonhill Bridge a considerable increase in last year’s amount was secured, whilst in the case of Balloch Bridge the sum is practically the same. This does not look as if there was any dread of the people of the Vale refusing to pay the pontages. I have heard that there was a movement on the part of a committee who look after the people’s interests as respects these bridges to take the bridges and throw the gates open after Whitsunday, but on account of the conditions of set this could not be done. This same committee, however, are making vigorous efforts to free the brig, by paying off at once the half of the compensation and the expenses, leaving the county gentleman to do the same thing. I hope they may be successful, for it would be a decided boon to the public. The scheme is quite feasible, if those in the district and those profiting by the bridges would subscribe liberally.

“The air was thick with rumours recently of Interdicts in connection with the Bridges question, but I hear that peace is likely to be the order of the day. It is said that one of the Counsel at least gave the advice to let the matter drop; and now that the bridges have let so well would it not be wise and prudent to take this advice?”—Lennox herald, April 11 1885

To add insult to injury, despite the payments made, Dredge’s old bridge at Balloch was found to be so unsafe that it was condemned, to be replaced by a new iron girder structure in 1887.

Lennox herald, September 12, 1885

“New Bridge at Balloch.—The new iron girder bridge, erected across the Leven at Balloch, in place of the former suspension bridge, which was condemned, is now open for all kinds of traffic. It is 25 feet wide, giving one footpath and a roadway sufficient for two vehicles to meet and pass. The bridge crosses the river in five spans, and is capable of carrying traction engines with a sufficient margin of safety. The cost is little over £5000. The contractors were Messrs. Hanna, Donald, & Wilson, Paisley, who sub-let the mason work of bridge to Mr. Wm. Barlas, Dumbarton. Messrs. Crouch & Hogg, Glasgow, were the engineers.”—Paisley Gazette, September 17, 1887

The new Balloch Bridge opened in 1887 without much fanfare (Gilchrist)

New bridge at Balloch

The freeing of the bridges finally took place in May, 1895. The history of the affair was well summarized in two articles in the Glasgow herald on the week of the event.

“The freeing of the Leven Bridges—(from a correspondent)—Wednesday next the 13th inst. will be a red-letter day in the annals of the Vale of Leven. At noon on that date the pontages on the bridges at Bonhill and Balloch will cease, after having been levied for well-nigh 60 years. Patiently have the inhabitants borne the tax—a tax which to many families became in the course of the year a second rent. But although patiently borne, the impost was invariably paid with reluctance and a feeling of injustice. The amount levied during these years at Bonhill Bridge could not babe less than £80,000. In a public record it is stated that from the time of the erection of the bridge down to the year 1882, Mr Smollett, the proprietor, had received—over and above the cost of the erection, and every disbursement connected therewith—a sum of £30,000, and in 1884 he was awarded £28,000 as compensation money in lieu of any rights he possessed. The first cost of the bridges was only £2200, and few investments have yielded such a return. Fifty years ago the combined annual income of both bridges was under £500 when last put up to auction they commanded £2450. As already stated, although the tax was borne patiently there was always an under feeling of injustice at the imposition. At intervals during these 60 years this under-current came periodically to the surface. To understand how this feeling was engendered, it is necessary to study “the bridge question,” as it is locally designated. Prior to 1836 transit over the river was effected by ferry boats-a tedious, and at times dangerous, mode of conveyance. When the river was swollen and the current strong it was no uncommon experience for the chain of the boat to snap. This meant either a casualty or a journey down the river for the occupants. Under the Act of 1807 the Road Trustees had special powers to erect a bridge, but failed to meet the needs of a growing population. In 1828 these powers were renewed and strengthened, but the Trustees remained dormant. In 1833 a petition—signed by 1300 inhabitants was sent to Admiral Smollett of Bonhill the proprietor of the ferry right, craving him to substitute a bridge for the now inadequate ferry. The Admiral took the matter up, was authorised by the missioners to erect, but on account of some informality he abandoned the idea. It has been held that at this time (1833) the Commissioners in granting the authority they seen to have granted to Admiral Smollett, were acting ultra vires, and this opinion is strengthened when it is seen that the following year, in 1834, they received statutory powers to contract with a the proprietor of the ferry for the erection of a bridge “on an assignation to the tolls and duties until the Trustees should redeem the right so assigned by making payment to the proprietor of the value of the bridge erected, together with the value of the ferry.” This limitation of the pontages, at any rate, was not a stipulation of the previous Act. Admiral Smollett came forward again and intimated that he was prepared to erect a bridge under the Commissioners’ previous warrant. This was confirmed, and the handsome “suspension” which does duty to-day was built. By allowing the erection of the bridge in this way it did not seem to strike the Commissioners that they were laying on the inhabitants what appeared to be a perpetual burden. It might, on the other hand, have turned out a bad speculation for Smollett, and had, the public refused to pay pontages, Smollett would have had diificulty in proving his title. As it was, the public felt the benefit of the bridge, and gave recognition thereof to the proprietor. About the year 1850 however, some enterprising inhabitant who digested the circumstances of the pontages came to the conclusion that the dues could not be enforced, and put his opinion to a practical test. The task of “walking the bridge free” was conferred upon one Steel, an advocate who made at successful debut and met with no opposition. But the public, instead of giving Smollett the opportunity of suing them, became themselves the aggressors in litigation. summoning the proprietor 1852 for an accounting of the pontages. The action was taken up entirely on erroneous grounds, and the plaintiffs retired defeated. The general feeling is that the Road Trustees at this period were very lax in the matter, and by the powers which they possessed might have enforced an accounting and abolished the pontages. Enthusiasm seems to have died out until 1878, when an Act for the vesting of certain bridges in Road Trustees and for the cessation of pontages was before Parliament. Some dubiety existed in the minds of the community as to whether or not Bonhill and Bal!och bridges would come within the scope of the Act, and accordingly a letter was sent to (then) Mr Arch. Orr Ewing, M.P. for the county, praying for their inclusion. This was effected, and Some years later arbitration proceedings began in connection with the amount of compensation to be paid to the proprietors of the bridges in question. A movement was also initiated with a view of collecting the necessary arbitration amount and settling the “vexed question” once for all. But this movement proved abortive, save that it was the means of raising several separate sums amounting in all to about £100, and which has only now been utilised. It was at the time of this movement that the feeling of the people against the pontages took the form of a riot. It is indeed, the only “bridge riot” worth citing. A public meeting regarding the impost was dispersing from Alexandria Public Hall. A large contingent had been present from Bonhill, and naturally in crossing the collector came in for “remark.” It only wanted a spark to set the crowd “ablaze.” Some words by the collector and the interference of the police led to a general tumult. It was an opportune hour for such an occurrence—11 p.m. The heads of the collector and officers of the law were the targets for anything and everything, from a “divot” to a brick-bat, and matters got so warm for these gentlemen that they accepted the inevitable and beat a hasty retreat. Demolition followed. The gates were wrung from their hinges and cast overboard; the suspension swayed like a tightrope. Advocates of imposition were held in a state of suspended animation over the parapet and narrowly escaped a ducking. The bridge box was broken into fragments and the booty—one shilling—was presented to a boy who had been most energetic in the devastation. Continuing the history, the necessary amount was not subscribed and there was nothing for it but to pay out the proprietor. £28,000 for Bonhill and about £6000 for Balloch were the amounts awarded by the arbiters. This large sum, plus the cost of the new bridge at Balloch, has been almost entirely raised from bridge pontages and from taxation on proprietors, and by the 15th inst. a balance of £300 is all that remains to be paid. The inhabitants of the Vale of Leven being aware of this decided to raise by subscription that fractional amount rather than allow the pontage to enter on another year. The effort has been entirely successful, and to celebrate the “freeing o’ the twa brigs” the demonstration and exultation promise to be worthy of the occasion.”—Glasgow Herald, May 13, 1895

The irony of the parade and celebration for the freeing of the bridges was that the route of the parade by-passed the Bonhill Bridge as it was in such poor repair and made its way from Bonhill to Alexandria by way of the new Balloch Bridge.

The Freeing of the bridges procession passing Bonhill Bridge (West Dunbartonshire Council)

“The freeing of the Leven Bridges.—Yesterday at 12 noon, pontage levying ceased on the Leven bridges at Bonhill and Balloch. At Bonhill Bridge, as the expiring moment drew near, a big crowd gathered to witness the last transaction. Mr Thomas M‘Lean, a former lessee of the bridge, paid “the last bawbee,” and the collector deputed “Old” James M‘lntyre, a smith, to lift it. An interesting coincidence in connection with this transaction is that this James M‘Intyre, when a boy, lifted the first bawbee at the bridge when the pontage began, some 58 years ago. Yesterday, when the collector’s time was up, and pontage became a thing of the past, the bridge was taken over by the County Road Board, who have appointed a keeper to regulate the traffic. With the freeing of the bridges there was general congratulations and shaking of hands among the assembled crowd over this new-born freedom. Throughout the district numerous flags were hoisted.  A general half-holiday was observed, and in the afternoon one of the largest demonstrations ion which has ever been seen in the Vale of Leven took, place. The procession, over a mile in length, was marshalled in Ladyton Park, at the south end of Bonhill, by Chief Constable M‘Hardy, who was on horseback, assisted by Mr Watkinson, of Balloch Hotel, also on horseback. The procession included the Debt Extinction Committee, the local County Councillors and Parish Councillors in brakes, provided by Mr M‘Letchie. The following trade organisations and public bodies also took part:—John Angus & Son, Bakers; Vale of Leven Co-operative Society; The Milkmen of the District; John Macphie, ltalian Warehouseman; Bonhill and District Highland Association Pipe Band; Ancient Order of Foresters; LoyaI Orangemen; The Dumbarton R.V. Band; Freemasons (St. Andrew’s Royal Arch, No. 321); St. Andrew’s Order of Free Gardeners; The Temperance Organisations; Jametown T.A. Band; Ancient Shepherds of Alexandria, Bonhill, and Jamestown; Vine Lodge of Free Gardeners; Pipe Band (Leader, D. M‘Dermid); The Boys Brigade of Bonhill and Alexandria; Members of the Bonhill andDistrict Highland Association.

“The procession marched through Bonhill round to Alexandria, via Balloch Bridge and terminated in in the old cricket park, Alexandria, where a platform was erected. An immense assemblage was gathered. Mr James Kinloch, chairman of committee, presided, and intimated appologies for absence from Messrs R. D. Mackenczie of Caldarven, Henry Brock of Auchenheglish, John Miller of Dalmonach, and Robert M‘Kechnie., Dalmnonach. After congrtulating the gathering on the success of the demonstration, he called upon Mr John Neill, the treasurer, who in his financial statement said that the amount subscribed was £292 18s 11d, and that £270 had been paid to account of the balance due on the bridge, the odd £30 being meantime paid by Mr Christie of Levenfield. Afterwards Mr Christie gave an address. He said:—To the inhabitants this day in the Vale of Leven may be fitly described as their day of jubilee in respect to the bridge bondage, which to-day terminates for ever by reason of their having paid to the last farthing the redemption fine placed on the district in the form of pontage by the Roads and Bridges Act of 1878. The, local quota having, been discharged honourably, I have the proud distinction to declare the bridge free to all as a highway, and I beseech the inhabitants to conduct themselves with propriety in using the bridge, and to submit themselves to the traffic regulations passed by the County Council upon Monday last, for so long as the old bridge is in use pending the completion of arrangements for commencing operations upon a new structure, which at the soonest will not be set agoing before next April. On the present occasion, having passed through the winter of our discontent, it may be a fitting time to reflect upon the past, and you will, I trust, bear with me for a few minutes while in our minds we look backward if for no other reason than to realise that our cup of joy is full of thankfulness to those who have been instrumental in placing us who remain in the proud position we this day occupy by the help of such distinguished men as the late Mr J. 0. Ewing, Sir Archibald Orr-Ewing, Mr Peter Hill, Mr George Drever, and several others that might be named who laboured to remove that grievous load from this beautiful valley they loved so well. The story of the bridges, with all its rights and wrongs, with all its ups and downs, if there was time to tell it all, would sound like a romance, and, whether rightly or wrongly, has all through the existence of the bridge fostered a latent feeling of wrong or injury in the breasts of all natives of the vale; but this happily has been purges; so let us join hands in thankfulness, forgetting the past. This feeling has been induced from the knowledge that since the institution of Road Trustees as the responsible authority the erection of the Leven bridges constituted a conspicuous part of county system of roads and bridges, to be made not for local wants, but as the complete system of roads to the Highlands and Islands. The Act of 1807 says:—“Whereas, the roads leading into the county of Argyll, and the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, are very incommodious, and cannot be effectually repaired, amended, repaired, enlarged, and made passable, and the bridges thereon or which may be necessary over the river Leven to communicate therewith cannot be kept in good repair according to the ordinary course  method appointed by law and statute of the realm, my it therefore please your Majesty, &c.;” that method by law and statute referred to the then method of roadmaking by statute labour there for the first time. Road Trustees were to more effectually make roads and erect bridges, with power to levy tolls and pontage dues in place of the hitherto existing method of statute labour. Another Road Act for this county was passed in 1828; again these bridges are referred to as part of the county system of roads and bridges, and powers are asked for extended borrowing powers in order to erect these bridges. By this time the population had greatly increased, on account of public works that had been established on the banks of the Leven, and the public voice complained bitterly of the delay and inconvenience of the ferry boat. Moreover, accidents, and even loss of life, had occurred during the fording of the river while using the boat. The only medical man in the district resided in Bonhill, and grievous complaints for want of inter-communication for a population numbering about 6009 individuals. It was of common occurrence, at the closing of the public works for the day, that work people had to wait 20 or 30 minutes before passage by boat was effected, with all its attendant risks from overcrowding the ferry, and this at least on one occasion proved fatal to passengers. Thus the people in their extremity petitioned the proprietor of the ferry in 1833, with 1260 signatures, to erect a bridge, and this he appeared willing to do if the Commissioners of Supply and Justices of the Peace for the County, who controlled the ferries, would close the fords. Their refusal resulted in the ferry proprietor declining to proceed with the erection. In the following spring, 1834, a third Road Act passed the Legislature, with powers to erect bridges over the Leven, besides fixing the pontage rates for foot and carriage traffic upon these bridges. This Act passed into law in June, 1834. Still nothing was done, and the proprietor of the ferry renewed his offer without the conditions of the previous year, and the bridge was completed and opened for traffic in the year 1836. The advantage from the structure was greatly appreciated, but in process of time, the inhabitants came to realise their position, and a spirit of discontent seemed to permeate the whole valley from the inaction of the Road Trustees of the period in question. In 1877 and 1878, whilst the Roads and Bridges Act for the removal of tolls and pontages was before Parliament, the bill was carefully scruitinised by a few public-spirited gentlemen resident in the valley. They surmised that only bridges erected under Acts of Parliament or that were already highways would be affected by the bill. They took legal opinion, which entirely confirmed their own fears, whereupon public meetings were at once convened, the public mind became alarmed, the House of Commons in Parliament was petitioned, praying that a clause be inserted in the bill that should force the Road Trustees to take over the bridges and arrange for their becoming highways. This was opposed by the Road Trustees and Commissioners of Supply. Notwithstanding this influential opposition, the Cabinet Ministers in charge of the bill, from the statement of facts published by the local committee, were so thoroughly convinced of the remissness of the Road Trustees in this matter that a special clause was prepared granting the power of the petitioners, the inclusion of the bridges, and this passed into law, ordering the Road Trustees to acquire the bridges and compensate the proprietors, and that half the redemption price should be throw upon the county, the other half to be collected by pontages, and thus the bridges that cost together at their erection less that £5000 were acquired at the price of £36,000, and the Road Trustees, who might have provided bridges in 1834 for £5000, had £18,000 to pay for them as their share, besides inflicting a grievous burden upon the district for nearly half a century. The pontage or local portion (£18,000) has this day been fully and finally discharged and in gratitude to those who have fought our battles successfully in the Legislature and elsewhere, let us tender to them and to their successors our grateful thanks for their deeds of philanthropy and benefaction. Foremost among this noble band I desire to place the memory of the late Sir Archibald Orr-Ewing, without whose assistance and support this bridge grievance would have been an intolerable load on the district to-day. Of the 1877 and 1878 committee I should like to speak, and cannot refrain from referring to the memories of the late Mr Peter M‘Murray and Mr George Drever, who, with a host, put their hands and hearts into work, and their labours have culminated to-day in a free bridge. The result will scarcely be realised by those around me who have paid there ½d from time to time while passing along the bridge, but the importance of the occasion may be stated in that £3000 by the feeing of the bridge will be distributed amongst the inhabitants of this valley annually. This sum capitalized should represent the equivalent of a legacy to the district of about £80,000.

“Short remarks were made by Councillors Shearer and Sutherland, Mr Alexander Wylie of Cordale, Mr Geenlees, Helensburgh, which included votes of thanks to Captain M‘Hardy, who had so ably marshalled the procession, and to Mr Glen, the secretary, for the manner in which he had so ably carried out the arrangements. The weather throughout was brilliant, and never before was there such a concourse of people gathered on the public thoroughfare. The proceedings passed off without accident, and terminated by the bands playing the National Anthem.”—Glasgow Herald, May 16, 1895.

The old bridge at Bonhill from the north (West Dunbartonshire Council)

The County Council were immediately pressed to replace the bridge at Bonhill. Despite objections, a positive outcome prevailed.

“Bonhill and its bridge.—At a meeting of the Western District Committee of the Dumbarton County Council, held in Dumbarton yesterday—Mr Christie, chairman, presiding—the question of providing a new bridge over the river Leven, between Bonhill and Alexandria, was again discussed. The present bridge is of the suspension type, and the Chairman stated that sine 1893 it had gone down 3½ inches on the north side, the inclination altogether on that side now being 10 inches. He thought the committee ought to ask the Road Board to take the matter up as one which required their very serious and urgent attention. Mr Buchanan said it was reported that in the Vale of Leven they were doing something with regard to the formation of a burgh, and in the light of the county going to put up a new bridge this was very ominous. Mr Findlay thought the question should be looked at as one affecting the common good of the county, as there would be a large claim for damages against against the Road Board in an accident happened for their not putting the bridge into proper condition when it was palpably insecure. Mr Wylie, M.P., said the bridge was in a very dangerous condition, and the sooner the Road Board took up the duty of putting it right the better. Mr Shearer said that at present the committee paid £91 per year for the watching of the bridge, which was both unsafe and unsatisfactory. Mr M‘Lean said that as to the burgh question he did not think they would see a burgh in the Vale for the next seven years. The finding of the meeting was that they repeat a former deliverance given by them two years ago, when they recommended the Road Board of the County Council that the urgent question of a new bridge should be taken up and decided on with the least possible delay.”—Glasgow Herald, April 11, 1896

“The Vale of Leven and its bridges.—A meeting of the Road Board of the county of Dumbarton was specially convened yesterday to consider the state of Bonhill Bridge, and the necessity of erecting another bridge in lieu of it. The meeting was held in Dumbarton, and was presided over by Mr John Gilmour, Helensburgh. Mr J. W. Christie, Alexandria, moved “that the Board resolve to construct a new and adequate a bridge across the Leven at Bonhill.” In support of his motion he referred to the dangerous and inadequate condition of the present bridge. Mr Alex. Wyllie. M.P. seconded, and gave it on the authority of Sir Wm. Arrol that a bridge suitable for the district could be erected for £5000. Mr J. W. Stewart, Bearsden, moved—“that the bridge be restored and made safe at the earliest moment.” Mr Park, Kirkintilloch, seconded. In the discussion which followed Lord Overtoun said it had been clearly shown that there came a time when a bridge could not be maintained but required to be renewed. The Western District Committee had maintained this bridge till they could no longer do so, and as it was a public highway the county were responsible for it. His Lordship also referred to the squabble that existed between the Eastern and Western District Committees of the Council with regard to the responsibility of the payment of the new bridge, and said that squabble had now become a little of a scandal, and the County Council had undertaken a serious responsibility. On the vote being taken, thirteen voted for the motion, and nine for the amendment, and the motion was, therefore, declared carried.”—Glasgow Herald, September 15, 1896

The estimate for and iron girder bridge was £5000 while one of stone would be £603 more. Mr W. E. Gilmour clearly preferred a stone structure and offered to pay much of the difference in price.

“Bonhill’s new bridge.—Handsome offer by Mr W. E. Gilmour.—At a meeting of the Dumbarton County Road Board held yesterday in Dumbarton, a discussion took place with regard to the new bridge to be built over the river Leven at Bonhill, Mr John Gilmour, Helensburgh, presided. Lord Overtoun moved that they appoint Mr Crounch, C.E., Glasgow, consulting engineer for the new bridge, which was seconded by Mr F. C. Buchanan, Helensburgh, and unanimously agreed to. Mr W. E. Gilmour, Alexandria, who spoke strongly in favour of a stone bridge being erected, made a handsome offer. He said he was prepared to subscribe towards the erection of a stone bridge to defray the additional cost, as he lived in the district, to the extent of £500. A small committee was appointed to confer with Mr  Crouch and make any suggestions to him after which he is to submit a design for the new bridge. Consideration of Mr Gilmour’s offer was also a remitted to this committee.”—Glasgow herald, October 31, 1896

In the end, an iron girder bridge was decided upon at a cost in the region of £7,000.

“The new bridge at Bonhill.—Opening ceremony.—In connection with the opening of the new bridge at Bonhill on Saturday afternoon there was general rejoicing among the inhabitants of the Vale of Leven, and a demonstration of friendly and temperance societies took place. On the invitation of Dumbartonshire County Council, about 150 ladies and gentlemen assembled in Alexandria Public Hall at two o’clock, and immediately thereafter proceeded to the bridge, where Mr Paton, the contractor, presented Lady Overtoun with a handsome pair of scissors with which to cut a blue ribbon stretched across the structure, and Lord Overtoun, convener of the county, declared the bridge open for traffic. After an inspection of the bridge, the company returned to the Public Hall, where there was a cake and wine service. Almost simultaneous with the cutting of the ribbon, the procession of friendly societies, which had been marshalled in the old cricket park under the command of Chief-Constable M‘Hardy on horseback, assisted by Mr Charles Glen, secretary of the Old Bridge Committee, marched towards the bridge and paraded the principal thoroughfares. At the cake and wine service Mr John Gilmour of Mount Vernon, chairman of the County Road Board, presided. Among those present were:—Lord and Lady Overtoun, Mr James Campbell of Tullichewan, Mr A. Crum Ewing of Strathleven, Mr R. D. Mackenzie of Caldarven, Sheriff Gebbie, Mr John Christie of Levenfield, Mr F. C. Buchanan of Row, and Mr J. W. Stewart, chairman of the -Western District Committee. Replying to the, toast of “Lord and Lady Overtoun,” proposed by the chairman, Lord Overtoun said he was sure that everyone rejoiced that a new bridge was thrown open for public traffic that day, and that the aim of not only the inhabitants of the immediate neighbourhood, but of the public at large had been consummated. Mr J. W. Stewart proposed the toast of “Prosperity to the Bridge and the District,” which was responded to by Mr John Christie. Mr F. C. Buchanan next proposed the toast of “The Engineers, Contractors, and Road Surveyor,” and Mr Crouch. C.E.; Mr Paton, and Mr A. Wilson having replied, the proceedings closed.”—Glasgow Herald, July 4, 1898

The dignitaries inspecting the new Bonhill Bridge. Lord and Lady Overtoun leading (West Dunbartonshire Council)

Bonhill Bridge opening procession (West Dunbartonshire Council)

Bonhill Bridge

The tale of the bridges is clearly one where ineffective, and some might say negligent, public servants had a major negative impact on a community.

Balloch and Around, James Barr, Dalmadan, South Bend, 2010.

Bridging the Leven, Gordon Anderson, Anderson, 2009

Dredge’s Suspension Bridge, W. Turnbull, John Weale, London, 1841.

Records and Reminiscences of Bonhill Parish, John Neil, Bennett & Thomson, Dumbarton, 1912.

The Story of the Vale of Leven, John Agnew, Framedram, Gartocharn, 1975.