Broomielaw in 1850 (Sam Bough)

The Emperor was advertised to return to Gareloch-head on Sunday, the 21st August 1853. The local landowner and owner of the pier, Sir James Colquhoun was determined to prevent the steamer from landing passengers and the resulting “battle of Gareloch-head” has become one of the most notorious events of the time. Most of the Scottish newspapers covered the event and several accounts are given here to sample the differing points of view.

“On Sunday the pier at Garelochhead was barricaded to prevent the landing of the passengers by the Emperor steamer, and in addition a number of the inhabitants armed with sticks assembled with the evident intention of resisting any attempt which might be made. Those on board of the steamer laid hold of a quantity of potatoes and turnips which they plentifully distributed among those on shore, and after effecting a landing, smashed everything and hurled boxes and barrels with the remains of the barricades into the water. This unseemly Sabbath scene was not brought to a close till numbers were somewhat severely assaulted, and most had experienced some of the disagreeable effects of such a disturbance in the shape of torn or bespattered garments. In all probability, law will be resorted to, at the instance of the chief movers on both sides, to have the competency of the resistance decided. Whatever may be thought of the propriety of the conduct of individuals who use the Emperor on Sabbath, there can be no two opinions of the folly of those who, pretending to respect the rest of that holy day, sally forth to attack with sticks those who think fit to employ the day differently from themselves, and so provoke a breach of the public peace. The promoters of the Sunday pleasure sailing scheme must laugh in their sleeves at the ignorant zeal of this class of opponents, who by their intermeddling do their utmost too establish a project which, left to itself and the public demand for accommodation, would, we have not the slightest doubt, come to a speedy termination. Affecting as these opponents do to respect the Sabbath rest, their conduct is much more reprehensible than that of those who while acting wrongly may not be setting their own convictions at defiance. At several points of the river, we understand, there are regularly on Sunday afternoons crowds of idlers waiting to witness the arrival of the boat, persons who might surely be much more usefully and appropriately employed.” Greenock Advertiser August 23, 1853.

The Emperor

“The Emperor Steamer at Garelochead.—On Sunday last (says the Glasgow Courier), one of the most unseemly exhibitions that we have had occasion for a long time to notice, was made at the pier at Garelochead. The Emperor steamer was announced to make a trip last Sunday to Garelochead, and the fact having been made known to Sir James Colquhoun, the proprietor of the pier, he intimated his determination to resist a landing. In addition, in the event of the projected trip being made, Sir James ordered the police of the neighbourhood, with somewhere about thirty men in his own employment, to take measures for carrying his determination into effect. The proprietors of the Emperor, disputing the right of Sir James to interfere in the matter, despatched their boat from the Broomielaw, in terms of the advertisement, with 350 passengers on board, and arrived at Garelochead about twenty minutes past one o’clock afternoon. On the pier, in front of a barricade formed of barrels, boxes, and a gangway, were stationed one of the lessees of the quay, the police, and the servants of Sir James Colquhoun; and when the Emperor was laid alongside the pier, the lessee informed the captain that is was the orders of Sir James Colquhoun that no landing was to be permitted, and if such was attempted their instructions were to prevent it. Notwithstanding of this the parties on board the Emperor were determined to land; they denied the right of anyone to prevent them, and proceeded to cast out their ropes, which were immediately thrown back. Some of the parties on board seized a long pole with which they pushed at the people on the quay, but this was wrested from their hands, and used as a lever to push the vessel off, which succeeded. The vessel, however, was soon abreast of the pier again, and several on board jumped ashore, when a regular melée took place. Pieces of coal, bottles, and potatoes were thrown from the boat at the resisting party, till at length they were forced to retreat to the upper gate, leaving the invaders to disembark as best they could. A few of the passengers, more indiscreet than the rest, rushed to the upper gate armed with staves, and smashed it in pieces. They did not pass through the gate, however, but returned to the steamer, and, with the majority of the passengers, effected a landing by steps. While these disgraceful proceedings were going on, the banks of the loch were crowded by individuals, who had gathered from considerable distances around, in anticipation that there would be a disturbance. The proceedings which we have detailed occurred during divine service, and the excitement in the church was very great. We subjoin another account, furnished to a contemporary by one of the proprietors of the Emperor.:—

“The steamer Emperor’s trip on Sunday was to Gareloch-head, and she left the Broomielaw at the usual time with 350 passengers on board. Nothing of any moment occurred till she reached her destination, when it appeared that an organized resistance to the landing of her passengers had been previously arranged. On reaching the pier, it was observed that it was completely barricaded, by one of the large gangways, supported by boxes, barrels, &c., being completely thrown across the passage, and guarded by not less than from 30 to 40 men, said to be acting by Sir James Colquhoun’s orders, armed with staves to resist the landing of the passengers. On the approach of the steamer to the pier, ropes were thrown ashore, but no one would fasten them, till men from the steamer landed and did so, when one of Sir James Colquhoun’s gamekeepers attempted to cut the ropes, which was prevented by the passengers. Some of the gentlemen connected with the steamer tendered payment of all pier dues, which offer was refused, and the parties making the offer were severely maltreated. The barricade, which was constructed a considerable distance within the tide mark, was next sought to be surmounted by the passengers, but the party of watchers showed resistance, and a conflict immediately ensued, when the passengers, who had no weapons of any kind to effect a landing, after a struggle of five minutes, broke through the barricade. the party who resisted the landing were then driven to the pier gate, and there, within high water mark, the passengers effected a landing by steps, with the exception of a small party who had recourse to the steamer’s boat. Several injuries were received in the scuffle, but we have not obtained particulars, although we believe none are seriously hurt. We understand that it is the intention of the gentlemen connected with the Emperor to take legal proceedings against several parties who appeared prominent in this resistance to the landing of the passengers, and to prevent any recurrence of similar proceedings.” Paisley Herald, August 27, 1853

The final account comes from the Glasgow Sentinel and is a little abridged. It was at pains to counter any issues that would be to the detriment of the owners of the Sunday steamer.

“The Emperor at Gareloch-head.—Forcible resistance of the landing of the passengers.—On Sunday last, in pursuance of advertisement, the steamer Emperor left the Broomielaw at a quarter-past nine o’clock in the morning, for Greenock, Gourock, Helensburgh, and Gareloch-head. No incident of any moment occurred until the steamer reached Helensburgh, when a gentleman who came on board informed several of the passengers, as well as the officers of the steamer, that a posse of the county police had that morning been dispatched to Gareloch-head, to assist a body of Sir James Colquhoun’s game keepers, gillies, and other bludgeon-men, in guarding the pier and resisting the landing of the Emperor’s passengers. It was first though the force would be arranged outside the pier gate, and where the pier abuts upon the road, ad as it was intended that the passengers should be landed from the platform by a ladder placed on the beach inside the platform and within the high water mark, it was not supposed for a moment any collision could take place. Moreover, the people on board the steamer were unprepared for any hostile affray and Mr Andrew Paton had not received any intimation from Sir James Colquhoun or his understrappers, of what was about to take place. On nearing the wharf it was seen that Sir James Colquhoun’s resisting force of police and bludgeon-men, instead of being ranged in front of a barricade placed at the gate where the toll is usually taken, were at least sixty yards in advance of the same, and placed so near to the front of the wharf as not to leave more than half a dozen yards between the barricade and the steamer. The barricade in question was a formidable affair, its base being made up of barrels, herring boxes, and large pieces of wood, over which was placed the large gangway, so that the entire breadth of the pier was completely occupied. In front of this stood a row of half drunken fellows, armed with staves, to oppose the fastening of the steamer’s ropes, while on an elevated platform behind stood a second row of about twenty ruffians, amongst whom were recognized several policemen, also armed with staves. On approach of the steamer to the wharf the ropes were thrown ashore, but as no one would fasten them on to the pier, men from the steamer jumped ashore to do so, when they were immediately attacked. After a short scuffle, a fastening was effected, when a big raw-boned fellow in a grey-coat, named Archibald Colquhoun, whom we afterwards learned to be one of Sir James Colquhoun’s gamekeepers, rushed forward with a large clasp knife to cut the hawser. This was prevented with some difficulty by one of the passengers, several of whom had now jumped ashore, and a regular melée took place. Previous to this, we may, however, state that several of the gentlemen connected with the steamer to our knowledge stepped on the quay and asked for the leasee or the party in authority representing him, and made a tender of wharf dues, which was not only refused, but the parties were maltreated. Matters having reached this crisis, the bludgeon-men and police, stimulated by whisky, as well as a desire to please the laird, beginning to lay about them in front of the pier, right and left, with the object of driving every person back to the steamer, a regular rush of the passengers over the paddle-box took place in order to storm the barricade and put the “enemy” to the rout. In less than five minutes the gillies in front of the erection were partially disarmed of their murderous weapons, and compelled to jump precipitately over the top of the barricade, getting well whacked on their posteriors during the process. This done, the next thing was to clear the pier of the obstruction. Owing to the large gangway being strongly fastened to the sides of the pier with ropes, it was a work of some difficulty to make an impression upon it. However, by the momentum of numbers and the aid of a knife to cut the fastenings, the huge incumbrance was soon driven aside, and a whole array of barrels and fish boxes sent flying into the sea. The moment this was done, the “brave defenders” of the barricade took to their heels, as if a regiment of soldiers had been after them, not showing face or fight for an instant; nor did they ever look round till they reached the outside gate. In the scuffle at the barricade we noticed one or two of the police exceedingly active, and one of these, of the name of Fleming, was seen to throw a large piece of iron to one of the bludgeon-men, for the purpose of making a murderous attack on the passengers. We trust, therefore, his conduct, as well as that of the other policemen who disgraced their uniform by practically becoming highway ruffians on this occasion, will be closely inquired into, and the authority ascertained by which they came to aid in a physical force onslaught upon peaceable and unoffending persons. In the heat of excitement, and from feelings of indignation, in order to make the victory over the lawless ruffianism of the pier defenders complete, the outer gate was next stove in by several of those on the wharf, but they scorned to use the outlet, but according to the original intention, reached to the beach by the ladder now planted from the pier on to the shore. Those that did not choose to reach terra firma by this mode, came ashore in the vessel’s boats, so that in less than half-an-hour all were safely landed. Here we found the bludgeon-men completely crest-fallen, as were also a few of their Glasgow instigators found strolling on the road. One or two of these were set upon by the passengers, and their conduct characterized in terms of just reprobation. Foremost in the small knot of instigators we noticed an upholsterer from Union Street, rather famed for bankruptcies and burnings, who had been showing his excess of Christianity by stimulating the drunken ruffians to their disgraceful work of resistance. One or two persons, however, who knew the individual thoroughly, opened a fire upon him, under which he was fain to beat a speedy retreat. It was evident that the majority of the persons on the shore were friendly, and seemed very glad that Sir James Colquhoun’s rebel brigade was thoroughly routed. After two hours spent in the locality, during which both inns were open, the passengers returned to the steamer. Here a different scene presented itself. Every person was allowed to go unmolested over the gate by means of the steamer’s step-ladders, and not a single interruption of any kind was experienced. Indeed the men engaged in the affray, now somewhat sobered, seemed heartily ashamed of their work, and appeared anxious to conciliate the passengers rather than otherwise. So ended the “battle of Gareloch-head,” and with it, we trust, the despotic rule of Sir James Colquhoun in this quarter of Scotland. The Guardian talks about this pier as his private property. This is disputed, and we believe justly. It is crown property, and therefore public to all navigators seeking its use or convenience. We question the title of Sir James Colquhoun or his lessees to levy tolls at all. Be this as it may, it is a matter not to be settled by hired bludgeon-men or Highland serfs, but in a court of law, where, we believe, by this time the case has been taken. The proprietors of the Emperor have instructed an agent to move in their behalf, and by this time Lord Palmerston and the Lord Advocate are aware of the claim set up by Sir James Colquhoun, and of the “civilized” means which he has taken to make it good.

“The following persons were present amongst the dependants of Sir James Colquhoun on Gareloch-head pier on Sunday, to resist the Emperor’s passengers landing:— John M‘Farland, farmer, Faslane, Gareloch; Daniel Jardine, porter, Caledonian Railway, Glasgow; P. Campbell, fisherman, Gareloch-head; H. Campbell, pilot of the Victoria steamer, Gareloch-head; D. M‘Phun, grocer, Gareloch-head; Daniel M‘Ewen, upholsterer, Union Street, Glasgow; David C. Nicol, teller, British Linen Bank, Glasgow. This last-named person is identified as the correspondent of the Scottish Guardian newspaper. Many will recollect that on the first Sunday the Emperor went to Gareloch-head, this was the heroic man who rudely seized by the arm a little child of three years old, whom its father was handing over the gate, and gave it a violent wrench to force it back. The justly indignant father and bystanders were with difficulty restrained from inflicting on him the chastisement which his cowardly and unmanly conduct deserved, and persuaded to let him alone, as an unfeeling scoundrel, unworthy the notice of men.” Glasgow Sentinel, August 30, 1853

Garelochhead around 1860

In a personal account, one relatively neutral observer stated “We boarded the steamer at the Broomielaw, feeling a little nonplussed, it must be confessed, for we stepped on the boat amid a running fire of such alarming remarks as “Sabbath breakers, you are going straight to hell”—these from an aggressive band of church workers on the quay. When we reached Garelochhead we found the pier crowded with devout Highland people, who cut the steamer’s ropes and tried to drag away the gangways. The passengers, mostly Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, who did not regard the Sabbath quite as strictly as Presbyterians, retaliated by throwing bottles, potatoes and diner plates at the opposing Celts, and at last succeeded in rushing the pier and into the hotel. The expression of the hotel-keeper’s face was comical. He did the biggest day’s trade of his life, but all the same he contrived to wear a long-faced look as if the traffic was most repugnant to him.”

There was almost universal condemnation of the activities of Sir James Colquhoun, despite a great reluctance to endorse the Sunday sailing of the Emperor. In the subsequent Sundays, the Emperor returned to Garelochhead. On August 28, the decking of the wooden pier was torn up and the pier guarded and barricaded but the Emperor disembarked at the old stone pier. On the following Sunday both piers were barricaded.

“The Sunday Steamer.—The Emperor steamer proceeded to Garelochhead on Sunday with a full complement of passengers. On arriving near the wooden wharf the planking was found to be torn up, and spars of wood had been fixed projecting forward from the edge, all for the purpose of preventing the passengers from landing. There was also a force of men present, similar to what were placed there on the preceding Sunday. Without attempting a landing at that point, the steamer put in to the old stone pier, where the passengers were quickly landed without meeting any molestation, and the excursion passed off quietly, arriving at the Broomielaw about eight o’clock in the evening.” Scotsman, September 3, 1853

“The Emperor’s Sunday Trip.—Notwithstanding the threats held out by the now notorious Sir James Colquhoun, the Emperor left the Broomielaw last Sunday with a full complement of passengers. She called at Renfrew wharf, where she received some passengers from Paisley and neighbourhood. She next called to land and receive passengers, at Bowling, Greenock, Gourock, and Helensburgh. At the latter place, some persons had nailed up the gate, and then went to church; but the passengers managed to get out. We believe some mischievous boys, during the absence of the man, had broken the gate, and a message was sent to the church, when he came out and nailed it up again. on the Emperor approaching Gareloch-head, it was thought prudent to land passengers at the old quay, as Sir James had lifted about twenty-four feet of planking from the wharf, put spikes on the outside, and erected a barricade across the landing pier. A number of Highlandmen were waiting on the wharf, along with three or four policemen, to give resistance to the landing of the Emperor’s passengers, and, as a matter of course, the famous Mr M‘Ewan on Union Street, Glasgow, appeared in the back-gound. Neither the gillies’ nor Mr M‘Ewan’s services were required, as the passengers landed quietly at the old quay, and were at the wharf laughing at the ridiculous barricade before the “Highland clans” were aware of their approach. The Emperor left about four o’clock, and reached the Broomielaw about eight, all safe and right.

“We have since heard that Sir James has begun to blow up the old quay, which was originally erected by the Fishery Board. No doubt the Board will look after their property; at least if they don’t, we shall endeavour to call their attention to the demolition.

“From the advertisement elsewhere inserted, it will be seen that the Emperor’s trip tomorrow is again to Gareloch-head, and should the report prove true that Sir James Colquhoun has maliciously destroyed the old stone quay, then a landing will be effected by other means, at all hazards. For this, therefore, the passengers should be prepared.”—Glasgow Sentinel, September 3, 1853.

The paper also reported that a correspondent had observed the preparations on the previous Saturday night. “When we reached the quay there, at least half a dozen strong men and policemen were tearing up the planking on the quay passage with crow-bars, making large gaps, in one of which they sunk two carts, surmounted by a large gangway, and chained them to the railing and sides. At the outer point of the quay they nailed large iron bars and wooden planks for the purpose of damaging the paddle wheels of the steamer, and moved a tier of boats beyond the quay to prevent its approach.” A lot of effort taking more than three hours that presumably had to be undone for the steamers on Monday morning.

“The Emperor steamer.—This steamer sailed on Sunday morning from the Broomielaw, with upwards of 400 passengers, as we are informed. The old stone pier at Garelochhead, as well as the new one, was barricaded by the orders of Sir James Colquhoun. The steamer ran up alongside the old pier, and succeeded in landing her freight. It was anticipated that a disturbance would ensue, but fortunately there was no riot. On Sunday night, shortly after eight o’clock, an immense crowd thronged the quays and adjacent streets, to witness the return of the Emperor, and to learn, we presume, the result of the day’s proceedings. Might not the police exercise some little authority, in the way f causing the individuals who have composed these crowds, since the starting of this boat, to “move on.” The scenes upon the arrival of the Emperor at the Broomielaw, apart altogether from the question as to the propriety of running the boat, have been discreditable in the extreme.—Glasgow Herald. Greenock Advertiser, September 6, 1853.

Although the Emperor did not serve alcohol on board, the trips allowed the excursionists to represent themselves as bona fide travelers at the villages that were their destinations. Consequently, allegations that the Emperor encouraged Sunday drunkenness were not too far from the mark. The press picked up stories of some of the more unusual happenings.

“Going to bed after a Sunday Excursion.—On Sunday night last, or Monday morning, as a policeman in Trongate, Glasgow, was going his rounds, he discovered in a close a small mound covered in something white, which approaching, he found to be a dress shirt, still warm as it came off the back of the late owner. On farther examination, several strata of clothing were discovered, consisting of trousers, vest, and in fact the whole Sunday suit of one of the lords of creation. The policeman, imagining that the owner had made his lodging on the cold ground somewhere near the spot where he had divested himself of his garments, looked about for a figure in a state of nature, but not finding anything of the kind he carried the bundle to the police office, where it lay till claimed next day by a gentleman, who explained that he had been having a trip by the Emperor on the Sunday in question, but could not distinctly remember how, or when, he went to bed. The gentleman, who had shown himself so remarkably fond of a cold air bath, must have found his way home in a state of nudity, finding it, perhaps, more easy to “rug” off his clothes than to put them on again, or, perhaps, discovering that the cool breeze had as refreshing an influence upon a heated frame as a bottle of soda.” Greenock Advertiser, September 6, 1853.

The account from the Glasgow Sentinel is more favorable to the Emperor. With fine weather and the anticipation of a “rammy” the steamer sailed with its full complement.

“The Emperor Sunday Excursion.—This steamer sailed on last Sunday morning for Gareloch-head, calling on the way at Greenock and Gourock. She had her complement of 480 on board before leaving the Broomielaw, and in consequence had to refuse taking in passengers at Renfrew wharf and at all the ferries. Not less than a hundred persons were thus disappointed. It happened to be full tide on reaching Gareloch-head, and in consequence, though a barricade of trees had been built up in front of the stone pier, it was evaded by the vessel running along the side of it bow towards the shore, where all the passengers were easily landed. On leaving, the tide having receded, the steamer ran in front of the pier, clearing away with he momentum a number of projecting pieces of timber, and by means of hatchet and saw, a portion of the barricade was quickly removed so as to admit of planks being laid from the steamer to the pier, for the embarkation of the passengers. The gillies did not show fight, and all went off peaceably. The wooden pier was barricaded precisely similar to the previous Sunday.

“As it will be low tide on the Emperor arriving next Sunday, and as fresh barricades, we learn, are erecting, a more difficult task will await the passengers. We are also assured that more active resistance will be resorted to than before. In this case, the barricades on either one or other piers will have to be removed in the first instance, and for effecting this in a complete manner arrangements are in progress.” Glasgow Sentinel, September 10, 1853.

The question of police coverage at Greenock became a topic of complaint for the proprietors of the Emperor. The absence of police at the bottom of the gangway meant that excluding potential passengers who were intoxicated from boarding the steamer more difficult and led to bad publicity when these passengers landed at Glasgow. The jostling and crushing of the crowds at Greenock also inconvenienced and intimidated patrons who had their clothes torn forcing their way through the crowds. The Emperor paid for police attendance but none were present. The Greenock Harbour Trust responded in early September by indicating that the pier rates were not the same as those paid by the Irish and English steamers which landed on Sundays.

“The Emperor’s Last Sunday Trip.—This steamer, in pursuance of advertisement, again sailed to Gareloch-head on Sunday last. She left Glasgow with nearly her full complement of passengers, and took in several persons at the ferries on her progress down to Greenock. On arriving at the latter place, it was expected, from the letter which the clerk of the Harbour Trust had transmitted to Mr Paton, that the police would be in attendance at the gangway to keep order, as is done on the arrival of the English and Irish steamers. Instead of this, however, not a “peeler” was to be found for the work, though one or two were seen loitering in the distance, and the crowd—a tolerably large one—was left to do as it pleased. The effect of this was seen on the conduct of a few ruffianly fellows, who jostled and insulted the passengers as they went in and out, and one of these, the worse of liquor, when spoken to, threatened to strike the passenger who addressed him. The attention of the straggling police constables was called to the conduct of this ill-behaved bully, yet they refused to interfere, and actually seemed to encourage the proceedings, as if the police and these blackguards were in collusion with each other for the purposes of annoyance. We learn that Mr Paton has written a second letter to the Trust, and if no redress is given, then the Home Office will be communicated with, so that the Trustees who so grossly neglect their duty may be called to account. We understand that one of the members of this Trust, who has leant a countenance and encouragement to these disgraceful Sabbatarian proceedings, a Mr M‘Ilwraith, has been for many years a well-known latitudinarian, if not an unbeliever in the doctrines he now professes to support. We can respect even the bigotry and intolerance of a sincere person, but we despise a hypocrite; and perhaps, in furtherance of our duty to the public, we may, one of these days, unmask a few of these profound Greenock saints should this kind of annoyance at the harbour be persisted in.

“After calling at Gourock, the Emperor proceeded to Gareloch-head. A passenger who came by one of the Irish steamers of that morning, requiring to land at Row, a call was made, when it was found that a large gate about ten feet high had been built entirely across the centre of the pier to obstruct the landing. No sooner was the vessel made fast that a few men went ashore with the necessary tools and implements, and in about five minutes a doorway was cut through the gate in the neatest possible style, by which egress was at once obtained. The Emperor then proceeded to the head of the loch. On nearing the stone pier it was found barricaded as on the previous Sunday, when a boatful of men were sent ashore to clear away the obstruction. This was in progress while the steamer proceeded to make a circuit of the loch. On coming round by the wooden wharf, strange to say it was discovered that no barricade had been erected, either from some miscalculation or from an abandonment of the opposition. A number of the central planks, however, were found lifted up. In the interim, however, in the belief that the wooden wharf was barricaded as usual, the stone pier had been completely cleared of its barricade, which was pitched into the water. The passengers, however, preferred landing by the wooden erection, which was easily done by placing of the planks over the part torn up, and through step ladders over the gate. After being on shore for about two and a half hours, the passengers came on board by the same means, without any molestation, and the steamer proceeded on her return voyage to Glasgow. Having accomplished this practical triumph over Sir James Colquhoun, the Emperor will proceed to Lochgoilhead tomorrow, but we learn the vessel will return at an early day again to Gareloch, to ascertain whether in reality the Highland laird has struck his flag and called in his gillies and retainers from further warefare.”—Glasgow Sentinel, September 17, 1853

Another account casts a different light on the incident at Row.  In fact four spars were removed from the gate and the lone passenger passed before the spars were replaced.

“The Emperor.—On Sunday morning, this vessel left the Broomielaw for Garelochhead with her licensed number of passengers (480). At Greenock she landed her freight at the extreme east end of the mid quay, there being few persons present, and no policemen. At Row a new gate had been erected at the land-end of the pier; and although the boat did not attempt to put her passengers ashore there, a few doughty individuals went on the quay, and, as was said, to fulfil legal requirement, made an indentation with a hatchet on the wood work, returning triumphantly on board the steamer, their leader brandishing his weapon with the air of a Julius Cæsar, or one of the clan Macallum-More, as we believe he is. At Garelochhead it was observed that the stone pier was barricaded at the extremity by a pailing. The vessel stopped for a few minutes without attempting to go in shore, but sent out two or three individuals in the small boat, who, as the Emperor proceeded upwards, sent the obstruction into the loch. Proud of the bloodless victory, the heroes joined the standard of the Emperor at the upper wharf. The floating of the barricade down was the signal for a cheer. The vessel was then laid alongside the new pier, which was unprotected; a gangway was laid across the portion of it from which the planks had been lifted, and steps were placed on each side of the gate, by which the passengers got over without further obstruction. There was no crowd on shore, and the polieman who was present offered no opposition to the landing, contenting himself that he would have more effect among the Highlanders than among the “funny folks frae the toun.”—Glasgow Constitutional, in Paisley Herald September 17, 1853

Sir James Colquhoun

In mid-September, Sir James Colquhoun applied for an interdict to prevent the Emperor calling on Sundays at the piers that he had constructed; Row, Rowmore, Garelochhead and Arrochar.

Although the Emperor sailed to Lochgoilhead on September 18, on the following Sunday she was back at Garelochhead.

“The Emperor at Gareloch-head.—This steamer again visited Gareloch-head on last Sunday, after touching at her usual places of call. Notwithstanding the wet and boisterous character of the day, nearly 200 passengers left the Broomielaw. On reaching Gareloch-head, it was found that, contrary to expectation, seeing that Sir James has at last ventured into a court of law, the wooden wharf had a large barricade erected across it, in the same position and of a similar size to the one stormed on the first occasion of opposition being made. The barricade was made up of fish boxes, barrels, and planks, surmounted by the large cattle gangway. The passengers, however, on effecting a landing, made short work with the barricade, the materials of which were thrown aside and cast into the water, so that a clear platform of egress and ingress might be obtained. One of the passengers next pushed open the gate adjoining to the road, thus reaching the turnpike without the necessity of using ladders as before. Tomorrow, as per advertisement, it will be seen that the Emperor sails to Dunoon and Kilmun, calling as usual at all the ferries, as well as at Greenock and Gourock.”—Glasgow Sentinel, October 1, 1853

An account less flattering to the steamer’s passengers appeared in the Paisley paper.

“The Emperor Steamer.—The Emperor steamer visited Gareloch-head last Sunday. There were about 100 passengers on board, who landed at the quay, across which was drawn the cattle gangway. This they threw into the sea, as well as fish boxes, barrels, planks, and everything that came in their way. They also tore down the gate, breaking it to pieces, and forced their way to the turnpike road. A farrier belonging to the army, in uniform, took the prominent part in the proceedings. Sir James Colquhoun’s wood-forester, and two witnesses were present, and told them not to land, but took no steps to prevent them. The day was anything but agreeable, and the trip must have been the reverse of pleasant. At Bowling the passengers used to be landed at the Canal Co.’s wharf, but a pailing having been erected to prevent them from getting ashore, they went last Sunday to the upper wharf, where the passengers landed.”—Paisley Herald, October 1, 1853

The shorter days in October curtailed the sailings and they were restricted to Greenock and Gourock.  The Emperor’s season ended on the last Sunday in November 1853 with a full complement of passengers.

On December 6, 1853, arguments were heard in the Court of Session—Second Division in the case of Sir James Colquhoun of Luss, Bart., against Andrew Paton, merchant, Glasgow; Thomas Maclaurin, coal master, Glasgow; Robert Meggett, muslin manufacturer, Glasgow; and Andrew Rowley, drysalter, Glasgow, proprietors of the steamboat called the Emperor. “This is an application for suspension and interdict against the defenders to prohibit them, from plying to, and landing and embarking passengers, on Sundays upon the complainer’s piers at Gareloch-head, Arrochar, and Row, or from using force or violence against the complainer or his servants engaged in the protection of the said piers, and preventing the above use thereof.”

 

The Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Hope, delivered the opinion of the Court and outlined the grounds on which the judgement was based. Sir James had asked for the suspension solely on his alleged rights as proprietor of the piers on the shores of the Gareloch and of Loch Long. Consequently, the case could not embrace the question of the desecration of the Sunday. The right of Sir James to restrict parties from using the piers was not dependent on whether he had the right on Sunday or any other day. Sir James had erected the piers but on at least one of the piers, there was a table of dues and the Lord Justice-Clerk took this to “be an admission of public resort to these piers, and that they are thrown open to the public on payment of these dues. It can mean nothing else.” The Court went on to raise a point on what authority Sir James levied dues. The Court noted that it was not called upon to give an opinion on the matter but wanted to clarify that the Court was not sanctioning the practice. In summary, the fact that dues were levied made the piers public piers and that entitled all and sundry to go to and use the piers. Lord Murray, Lord Cockburn, and Lord Wood concurred. The interdict was consequently refused.

As the case made its way slowly through the Court system, there was another hearing in March 1855, and on the March 13 Lord Benholme provided an interlocutor upholding the original decision. “It is said that, quoad the public, there ought to be no distinction between week days and the Sabbath day; and hence has arisen what has been termed the Sabbath question. The views which the Lord Ordinary has already expressed exclude the introduction of that question into the present case. If the subject matter of this action either was originally or has now become public property, then the suspender has no title to try that question with the public; his rates are illegal, and his gate is an obstruction on the public road, and that equally on Sunday as on Saturday. If, on the other hand, he is merely protecting his own property, he has no occasion to enter into a question which has no relation to private property. In the one case, success in the Sabbath question would not avail him; in the other, defeat on that question would not impair his rights to demand protection from an invasion of his property. Such being the case, the Lord Ordinary shall make only one observation as to the conduct of the suspender. If the suspender makes out that the property in question originally belonged, and still belongs to him, that it remains with him to determine whether the public shall be excluded on the Sabbath-day, whilst they are admitted on week days, and if he still adheres to his strongly expressed intention, that this distinction shall continue to be made, there are few who have heard this discussion, or taken an interest in the solution of this question, that will be disposed to accuse him of mere caprice in this determination. For if it be the duty of a landlord and great proprietor to consult the moral welfare of the population on his estates, as well as their interests of a lower kind, in combination with his own, the suspender will probably stand excused, if not fully justified, in the eye of the vast majority of his countrymen, in putting a stop to that moral nuisance which hitherto has admittedly attended the Sunday traffic at this and similar piers. On the general question of Sabbath travelling which is maintained between Glasgow and the several piers now in question, nothing, it is believed, will be said except by those who, like the respondents, have a pecuniary interest in its continuance, or by their customers who, in the pursuit of their own peculiar pleasures on the Sabbath-day, are alike regardless of the best feelings and indifferent to the moral character of others.”— Scotsman, Saturday 24 March, 1855

The case was finally resolved in June, 1859. The pronouncement in the action of suspension and interdict at the instance of Sir James Colquhoun of Luss, against Andrew Paton, merchant, Thomas M‘Lurkin, coalmaster, John Cairns, clothier, Robert Migget, muslin manufacturer, and Andrew Rowley, drysalter, all in Glasgow, proprietors of the steamboat called the Emperor was made on Friday, June 17, 1859.

By this time a new panel of judges was hearing the case and the original assertion that the “Sunday Question” had no bearing on the case was remarkably overturned. The assertion delivered in 1853 by Lords Hope, Cockburn, Murray and Wood that “when a pier is opened for public resort, and dues levied, we cannot on any argument or authority yet addressed to us hold that the party is in a position to assert his uncontrolled and absolute right as proprietor, and to announce, that on Sunday these piers are no longer public,” was now interpreted by Lord Cowan that Sir James had not dedicated the piers to the public and made a subtle distinction between possession on Sundays and possession on week-days, holding that since possession prior to 1853 was confined to week-days, the attempted use of the pier on Sunday was an inversion of the state of possession. Lord Cowan granted the interdict: “The Court therefore sustained the reasons of suspension, and interdicted the respondent from landing passengers at the complainer’s piers, in vessels leaving and returning to Glasgow on Sundays.”

Sunday sailing after this interdict was then restricted to public piers and quays such as those at Greenock, Gourock, Largs and Rothesay