Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

An instance of the abuse to which the system is liable in the hands of an unscrupulous tacksman, is afforded by the case of Robert Mouat, who held, until two years ago, a tack of the estate of Mr. Bruce of Simbister, in Sandwick parish. A number of witnesses came forward to testify to the thraldom of the tenantry, and the injustice which they had suffered under his rule. The evidence against Mouat was certainly given with such freedom, I might say with such an earnestness of hatred, as was not displayed towards any merchant or tacksman who is still in the country. After making allowance for exaggeration, it is certain that the state of Coningsburgh during the seventeen years of his rule must have been very distressing. Every tenant on the ground was bound to sell to him not only his fish, but all the saleable produce of his farm. Money could not be got from him, according to one witness, either at settlement or during the season. The witness John Halcrow, who is much less vehement in his language than some others, says:

'13,089. Were they bound to deal with him for shop goods?-The fishermen were. They were required to go to him with all their produce, meal, ponies, and eggs, as well as with their fish.' '13,090. But they were not bound to buy their goods from him?- No; but they had to do so, because he received all their produce, and they could not go anywhere else. They had no money.' '13,091. Would he not give them money for their produce?-Yes, for such as cattle he would. But it was very few of them who had any money to get from him.' '13,092. Why?-Because they were bound to fish for him, and he received all their fish.' '13,093. But if he received all their fish he would have to pay them money for them?-It was very hard to get it from him.' '13,094. Did he prefer to give them the price in goods?-Yes, if they would take it.' '13,095. And did they take it in goods?-Not very much.' '13,096. Why?-Because they were not very good.' '13,097. Then they would have money to get at the end of the year if they did not take very much in goods?-Yes.' '13,098. Did they get the money at the end of the year?-No. He said he did not have it to give them.' '13,099. Then they did not get their money at all?-In some cases they got it.' '13,100. But some of them did not get it?-Yes.' '13,101. And some of them did not get goods either?-Yes; they would not take his goods.' '13,102· Then did they go without either money or goods?-Yes.' '13,103. Was that often?-I have had to do it myself.' '13,104. When was that?-In 1870. He said he had no money to give me.' '13,105. Was that at settlement?-Yes. He had the tack for two years more at that time, and he gave me a receipt for the rent of 1871. Then he failed; and I had to pay my rent for 1871 over again to Mr. William Irvine.'

And the witness produced documents to show that he had actually paid rent in advance to Mouat in June 1871, which, according to the law of Scotland, does not discharge the tenant; and that he had afterwards paid it to Mr. Irvine, as factor for Mr. Bruce. While it may be taken for granted that the condition of tenants under Mr. Mouat was at no time enviable, some of the statements about his conduct ought probably to be accepted as literally true only with regard to the period of struggling circumstances immediately preceding his bankruptcy.

[John Leask, 1284; Gavin Colvin, 1382; M. Malcolmson, 2978; W. Manson, 3018; H. Sinclair, 5312; W. Irvine, 3948.]

[Page 10 rpt.]

EVICTION AND LIBERTY MONEY.

In all the cases where tenants are bound to fish for the landlord, there is a firm conviction that the penalty of disobedience is eviction, or payment of 'liberty money.' 'We knew quite well,' said James Flawes (4964), a tenant on Quendale, 'from the statement which was made to us before, that, if any one transgressed the rule, the penalty would just be our forty days' warning.' And cases of threatened removal for this cause, and payment of liberty money or fines, though not common, have yet been sufficiently numerous to keep alive a wholesome apprehension, and prevent widespread disobedience. Eviction to a Shetlander is a serious matter, especially when it is for such a cause as this. A new farm is always difficult to get. 'In the south,' says one witness, 'a man can shift from town to town and get employment; but here, if he leaves his house and farm, he has no place to go to except Lerwick, and there is no room to be got there, either for love or money.'

[W. Irvine, 3625, 3755; L. Smith, 4486; J. Flawes, 4956; C. Eunson, 5069; J. Johnston, 9238; J. Hutchison, 12,693; Peter Smith, 1012; M. Malcolmson, 2994; W. Manson, 3025; W. Goudie, 4274, 4385, etc.; H. Sinclair, 5320; John Johnston, 9423; T.M. Adie, 5770.]

There is an impression, not perhaps always correct in a region where the excessive subdivision of land is ascribed to the desire of landlords to increase the number of their fishing tenants, that a man who is independent enough to differ from his landlord with regard to the terms of his lease is not likely to find favour in the eyes of other proprietors. A witness, speaking of another condition of his holding, says:-

'801. Are you not at liberty to make your own bargain about the land, the same as any other tenant in Scotland is?-I am not aware of that.' '802. Suppose you were to object to make such a bargain, could you not leave the land and get a holding elsewhere?-It is not likely we would get a holding elsewhere.' '803. Why?-We would very likely be deprecated as not being legal subjects, and the heritors would all know that we were not convenient parties to give land to. That is one reason; and another reason is, that places are sometimes not very easily got.' '804. Do the same conditions exist on other properties in Shetland?-So far as I know, they prevail all over the country, or nearly so.' 805. You think that, if you were trying to move, you would not get free of a condition of that sort?-We might get free of it for a time, but by next year the parties to whose ground we had removed might bind us down to the same thing.' 806. But supposing all the men were united in refusing to agree to such conditions, there could be no compulsion upon them?-They have not the courage, I expect, to make such an agreement among themselves.'

[Walter Williamson, 801.]

THE FORTY DAYS' WARNING TOO SHORT

It is proper to call attention here to the fact that in agricultural subjects held from Martinmas to Martinmas on a yearly tack, the forty days' warning to remove, which is held sufficient by the law of Scotland, is objected to, with some reason, as too short. A crofter witness makes the following statement:-

'4688. Is there anything else you wish to say?-There is only forty days' warning given before Martinmas. No doubt that may be well enough for tenants town like Lerwick, who hold nothing except a room to live in, but it is very disagreeable for a tenant holding a small piece of land as we do. As soon as our crop is taken in, we must start work immediately, and prepare the land for next season. We have to make provision for manure, and collect our peats, and prepare stuff for thatching our houses, and perhaps by Martinmas we have expended from £6 worth of labour and expense on our little farms. In that case, it is a very hard thing for us to be turned out of our holdings after receiving only forty days' notice, and perhaps only getting £1 or £2 for all that labour. Now what I would suggest is, that instead of that short notice we should be entitled to receive a longer notice, perhaps six or nine months before the term, that we are to be turned out.' '4689. Do you think you would be more at liberty to dispose of your fish, and to deal at any shop you pleased, if you were entitled to that longer warning?-I don't think the warning would alter anything with regard to that; but if I knew that I was to be turned out at Martinmas, I would probably start fishing earlier, and I might have a larger price to get for them, instead of working upon my land.' '4690. But you can be punished more easily by your landlord for selling your fish to another man, when he can turn you out on forty days' warning, than if he could only do it on six or eight months' warning?-I think it would be much the same with regard to that.' '4691. You don't think that would make any difference as to the fishing?-It might make a little difference, because if I received my warning in March, and knew that I was to leave at Martinmas, if I saw that I was to have a better price for my fish from another, I would not fish to my landlord at all; but I would go to any man I would get the best price from.'

[R. Halcrow, 4688.]

The same view is taken by the Rev. James Fraser, who gave very valuable information, both at the sitting held at Brae, and in a subsequent letter, printed in the evidence.

[R. Fraser, 8054 sqq.]

STATEMENTS BY LANDHOLDERS AND TACKSMEN

It is unnecessary to refer in detail to mere admissions on the part of landlords and tacksmen, that such obligations exist on the estates under their control. Such admissions were made in all the cases already referred to, as will be seen from the references on the margin. In some cases, however, arguments were stated in justification of the practice. Mr. Irvine perhaps put the case lower than any of this class of witnesses for he simply said in regard to Burra, that the tack had been held for a very long time by his firm, and that when it expired many of the people owed debts, some of which would [Page 11 rpt.] not have been recovered if the island had passed to another fish-merchant as tacksman. He assumed that here, as in other cases, the landlord in Shetland must depend on the fishing for payment of his rents. Mr. Bruce, younger, of Sumburgh thus states his views:-

'The tenants on the property in this parish managed by me are at liberty to go to sea to the Greenland or Faroe fishing, or to pursue any land occupation as they please; but if they remain at home and go to the home fishing, they are expected to deliver their fish to me, and receive for it the full market value. This is one of the conditions on which they hold their farms, and is, I consider, a beneficial rule for the fishermen. They must fish to some merchant, and as I give them as high a price as they could get from another, they are no losers, while I provide suitable curing and fishing stations, and these stations of mine are the most convenient places for them to deliver their fish .... This, I will endeavour to show, is no grievance at all, but an advantage to the fishermen.'

'In looking over the whole of Shetland, it will be found that the most prosperous districts are those under the direct management of the landlords.'

'Many of the fishermen in this country (as, indeed, many of the poorer classes everywhere) are unable, from want of thrift and care, to manage their own matters in a satisfactory manner, and require to be thought for and acted for, and generally treated like children, and are much better off under the management of a landlord who has an interest in their welfare, than they would be if in the hands of a merchant whose only object was to make a profit out of them.'

'A merchant who has no control over the fishermen, may, in some cases, wish to get them and keep them in his debt, in order to secure their custom; but the case of a landlord also a merchant is quite different. It is his interest to have a prosperous, thrifty, and independent tenantry; and he will use his utmost endeavour to keep them out of debt, and to encourage saving habits.'

'I can see no reason why the fact of a man being a landlord should prevent him from being also a merchant and fish-curer; and if so, why he should not secure a lot of good fishermen by making it one of the conditions of occupancy by his tenants, that if fishermen they shall fish to him.'

'The very fact of a landlord being a fish-curer would lead up to this, for tenants would naturally wish to stand well with their landlord, and, other conditions being equal, would prefer to give him their fish ....'

'There are, no doubt, many things in the Shetland system of trade which might be improved; but the system has been of long growth, and is so engrained in the minds of the people, that any change must be very gradual: a sudden and sweeping change to complete free-trade principles and ready-money payments would not suit the people, but would produce endless confusion, hardship, and increased pauperism.'

'Under the present system, with our small rentals and large population, our poor-rates are very high. But the landlords support a great many families which would otherwise be thrown on the rates.'

'It is no uncommon thing, where a family is deprived of its breadwinner, for the landlord to support the family till the younger members grow up, and are abler to provide for themselves, and repay the landlord's advances.'

'Abolish the present system suddenly, and I am afraid our poor-rates would become unbearable, and nothing would save the country but depopulation.'

[W. Irvine, 3623, 3625, 3920, 3974, etc.; P.M. Sandison, 5211; W. Pole, 5936; J. Anderson, 6573, 6592; D. Greig, 7111, 7215; J.L. Pole, 9370; T. Williamson, 9466, 9493, 9520; W. Robertson, 10,858, 13,667; L.F.U. Garriock, 12,299; G. Irvine, 13,130; John Bruce, jun., p. 330a; A.J. Grierson, 15,061; John Robertson, sen., 14,075; W. Rivine, 3916, 3920 sqq.]

And Mr. A.J. Grierson of Quendale speaks still more forcibly to the same effect.

[A.J. Grierson, 15,062, 15,078.]

In almost every case, however, except those of Mr. Bruce and Mr. Grierson, the condition as to fishing is spoken of by those in whose favour it is imposed, in apologetic terms. It is plain that the right to have men bound to give fish is regarded as a valuable one, since tacksmen so shrewd as Messrs. Hay & Co. are willing to pay for it a rent equal to the full amount of the sub-rents, and to manage and uphold the property besides.

[D. Greig, 7110; W. Irvine, 3816, 3929.]

PAYMENT OF RENTS THROUGH MERCHANTS.

Although the custom of delivering fish to the landlord or his lessee, as merchant and curer, has become less common, that custom has left its traces in the arrangement by which it has been superseded. [W. Irvine, 3962.] The merchants who receive fish from the tenants have still no small concern with their rent; and it may be said that even now the final cause of the existing system of settlements and agreements with fishermen is to give security to the landlord for his rent. Mr. Gifford, factor on the largest estate in Shetland (Busta), says that there is now no understanding with the merchants who have establishments on that property that they shall be responsible for the rents of the men.

'There is not a single tenant on the Busta estate, out of the whole 480 on it, or out of the 530 with whom I have to do, that any of the merchants is liable for, even as a cautioner. That used to be the case some time before, but it has not been so for a long time.'

It does not follow, however, that the merchant has nothing to do with the payment of the rent. Everywhere, without any exception, rents are paid only once a year, at on about Martinmas. It was a frequent practice, when the rent day arrived before the tenants had received their money for fish, that they should get 'lines' from the curer, the stated sums in which were placed to their credit by the landlord. The sum-total of these lines was sent with a list to the curer, who returned a cheque for the amount. A witness, [J.S. Houston, 9657.] who speaks of the practice as it existed when he collected Major Cameron's rents in Yell, says that there was an understanding between Major Cameron and Sandison Brothers, then the chief curers there, that -

'Any of Major Cameron's tenants who were what might be called reckless or careless, should not be allowed to overdraw their earnings, but that something should be left for their rent.'

[Page 12 rpt.]

'9661. Was Mr. Sandison a tenant of Major Cameron's in his fish-curing premises?-Yes.' '9662. Were these lines always in the same form?-Generally they were the same. I have plenty of them at home.' '9663. Are you aware of a similar practice having existed on any other estate?-I believe it has existed; but I cannot speak so positively about it on other estates. I may say that similar lines have also been given to Major Cameron and myself from another curer in North Yell, Mr. William Pole, jun., before he became a partner of the Mossbank firm.' '9664. Had he premises from Major Cameron also?-No; he had his father's premises. With regard to these lines, I may state that, although there was no understanding on the subject, Major Cameron made it a practice not to come to his tenants asking for their rents until he was pretty sure that everything was nearly cut-and-dry for him.' '9665. Do you think it is a general practice in Shetland for the landlord to fix his rent day so as to be convenient for the fishermen?-I think it is. They fix it after settlement. Mr. Walker, the first year he was factor for Major Cameron, came nearly close to his time, 11th November, but since then he has not done so.' '9666. You are not aware whether that practice of giving lines exists in Yell now?-It does exist. I myself have paid rents by orders for cattle bought from Major Cameron's tenants.'

In these and similar cases the curers are not formally tacksmen, nor indeed do they formally guarantee to the proprietors the rents of the tenants who deliver their fish to them; but it may be said that there is a custom having almost the force of a legal obligation, which makes it unusual for a merchant to refuse an advance for payment of rent even to a man who is indebted to him. An extreme example of this custom as it prevailed in Unst is thus described by a very intelligent merchant, Mr. Sandison:-

'I have here a letter which I wrote in 1860, and which represents my views on that subject, and I may as well read an extract from it:-"If we don't give unlimited advances, we are told the fishermen will be taken from us. I have now been nearly twelve months in this place (that was after I came first to Uyea), and have closely watched the system pursued by proprietors and others, and certainly agree with you that it is a bad one; but I know I have no right to make any remarks or trouble you with my views on that subject, further than to state that I cannot see any good that will result from burdening the tenants with debt to the fish-curers. It has been my desire, ever since I knew anything about Shetland tenantry, to see them raised in the social scale, and made thoroughly independent both of proprietors, fish-curers, and others, and I have felt deeply interested in the -- properties, no doubt from being more in contact with them; but when the poor among them are in terror of the proprietors alike, and bound by forced advances to different fish-curers, alas for liberty! and more offered to any fish-curer who will advance more on them. This is not calculated to raise any tenant in self-respect." '10,025. You speak in that letter of "forced advances:" what were these?-What I meant by that was this: the proprietor's ground officer or agent in the island, for the time being, told the tenant that he might fish for me this year. I found that he had only £2 or £3 to get; and the ground officer told that tenant that if he did not go to me and get an advance for his rent, he would take him from me and give him to any other man who would advance the rent. That looked very like forced advances.' '10,026. That, however, was in 1860?-Yes.' '10,027. Was that a common practice in those times?-I believe that thirteen years ago truck existed ten times as much as it does now.' '10,028. But in 1860 was it a common thing for a proprietor's ground officer to threaten to remove a tenant unless he could get his rent from the fish-curer?-Yes; to threaten to remove him from the ground unless he could pay his rent, or to move him from a fish-curer who would not give him an advance for that purpose, to some other fish-curer who would do so.' '10,029. Have you known instances of fishermen who were treated in that way?-Yes. I was referring to cases of that kind when I was writing that letter. It was my own experience at the time when I was at Uyeasound as a fish-curer, trying to engage any men who came to me. Many came to me and fell into debt, because I found that many of them required more from the shop than their fishing amounted to; and then I advanced rent after rent, until I saw that I was advancing to my own ruin.' '10,030. After advancing rent in that way, have you been informed that they were to be transferred to another fish-curer unless their rent was still advanced by you?-Yes; in more cases than one.' '10,031. Were you so informed by the landlord or by his factor?- It was generally by the tenant himself, when he came seeking the money.' '10,032. Were you ever informed of it by the landlord, or any one representing him?-No.' '10,033. Had you any reason to believe the story which the fishermen told you?-Yes. I believed them, because I knew of the men being taken away sometimes.' '10,034. Was that after they had made such statements to you, and although they were in your debt?-Yes.' '10,035. Were you able in these cases to make any arrangement with the new employer to pay up their debt?-In some cases we did that, but in other cases we did not; oftener we made no arrangement ....' '10,039. Have you, within the last twelve years, met with cases of that sort, in which the proprietor endeavoured to coerce you to pay his rent?-Yes. I have had cases where the tenants came asking me for money, and I told them I could not advance them any further. They would then go away, and come back and tell me that the proprietor's agent or ground-officer had informed them that they must get their rent, and that I must pay it; and that if I did not do that, they would not be allowed to fish for me.' '10,040. Did that system continue until 1868?-No; it prevailed principally under the ground-officership of Mr. Sinclair, who acted for Mrs. Mouat, in Unst.'

[C. Nicholson, 11,912-11,933; T. Tulloch, 13,008; J. Smith, 13,047-13,055; W. Robertson, 13,689; John Laurenson, 9849; M. Henderson, 9925; J. Walker, 15,984; Andrew Tulloch, 488; L. Williamson, 9065; A. Sandison, 10,024.]

Mr. David Edmonstone, once a fish-merchant and tacksman, now a farmer and factor on the Buness estate in Unst, states that the want of cash payments is the reason why this arrangement with the curer is desired by the proprietor.

'10,640. Is it usual for the proprietor to enter into any arrangement with the fish-curer for the payment of his rents?-We do that on the Buness estate, and I should like to explain the reason of it. The tenants have all been told that they are at perfect liberty to fish to whom they like; but after they have engaged to fish to a certain curer, we wish them to bring a guarantee from their curer or curers for the rent of the year on which they have entered, and during which they are to fish. Our reason for that-in fact the only reason-is, that the men do not get money payments, and therefore a great number of them will be [Page 13 rpt.] induced to run a heavy account at the shop, and when we collect the rents at Martinmas we would have nothing to get. If the men were paid in money, daily or weekly or fortnightly, then we would make no such arrangement, but would collect the rents directly from the men.' '10,641. Then, in fact, that arrangement is made in order to limit the credit which the fish-merchant gives to his men?-Yes; and to secure that we are to get part of that money.' '10,642. But it has the effect of limiting their credit?-Yes.'

SPENCE & CO.'S LEASE

Since November 1868 Mr. Sandison's present firm of Spence & Co. have been responsible as tacksmen for the rents of the fishermen tenants of Major Cameron's estate in Unst. At that time they obtained a tack of the estate for twelve years, which was formerly described by Mr. Walker*, and is in some respects peculiar. Spence & Co., as lessees of the greater part of the estate, which includes nearly half of the island, pay a fixed sum of rent (£1100), and are bound to expend, or to get the sub-tenants to expend, a certain annual sum on improvements at the sight of the proprietor. Regulations for the cultivation of the small farms are annexed to the lease, and are to form conditions of the sub-leases to be granted by Spence & Co. The effect of these regulations and of the lease is thus explained by Mr. Sandison: [Comp. J. Walker, 15,977.]

* Truck Commission Evidence, qu. 44,450 sq. <See> Appx.

'10,159. Any tenants not complying with these regulations may be removed by you?-Yes; they will get their leases unless they comply with them, and we can remove them at any time ....' '10,161. How many of the tenants have adopted these regulations?-I should say that, to a greater or less extent, they have all made a fair commencement in the improvements and rotation of cropping.' '10,162. But you have absolute power to remove them if they do not comply with that?-We have. The property is absolutely let to us, and we can absolutely turn them out if they do not comply with the regulations. The lease is clear enough upon that point.' '10,163. Have you had occasion to exercise that power?-Not in any case.' '10,164. Have you threatened to do so?-Not so far as is known to me.' '10,165. There is no obligation on the tenants, under this lease, either to fish for you or to sell the produce of their farms to your firm?-No; it is long since I read the lease, but I don't think there is anything of that sort in it.' '10,166. In point of fact, is there any understanding on the part of the tenants that they are bound to do so?- No.' '10,167. You have told them that they are under no such obligation?-Yes.' '10,168. But, in point of fact, most of them do sell their fish to you?-They do.' '10,169. And, in point of fact, most of them do sell their eggs and butter to you?-I think the great bulk of them do, but I cannot tell so well about the butter and eggs. We buy fully as much now at Uyea Sound we did in any season before the company commenced.' '10,170. And a number of the tenants also run accounts for shop goods with your shops?-Yes; I think most of them do so ....' '10,174. But although this lease does not contain an express condition that the tenants are to fish for you, it gives you a power of ejecting them?-Of course it does.' '10,175. And the tenants are aware of that?-Yes.' '10,176. And of course they may feel a little more unwilling to deal with another party or to fish for him in consequence? -That may be. I don't know what their private feelings may be, but the lease gives us a stronger power than that: it reserves the peats, and what could they do without peats? We have absolute power in that respect, if we choose to put it in force, but I hope never to see that done. We can refuse them peats altogether and scattald altogether, and we can shut them up altogether, but I hope I will never live to see that day.' '10,177. In short, you can do anything you please with the tenants, except deprive any one of his holding who complies with these rules and regulations?-Yes.' '10,178. The only security he has is to comply with them?-Yes.' '10,179. As to the peats and scattalds, he has no security at all?- None.'

The rental annexed to the leases contains a list of 170 tenants, paying £834, 19s. 4d., exclusive of certain farms which do not fall under the lease until the expiry of current tacks. The surplus rent paid by Spence & Co. is understood to be for the scattalds.

Mr. Spence, the senior partner of the firm of Spence & Co., speaks of this liability of the curer for rent as a serious obstacle to the introduction of a system of cash payments, which he and his partners desire; but it is obvious that if payments were made in cash, no such guarantees could reasonably be asked from the curers. [J. Spence, 10,580 f.n.]

The evidence of Mr. Sandison above quoted, the belief which the men themselves entertain, and the statements of Mr. Walker, the factor on the estate, show that the tenants on this property can hardly decline to fish for Spence & Co., even if there were other large merchants in Unst who could furnish them with materials and supplies, and purchase their fish. If they are not bound to sell their fish to Spence & Co., they have no opportunity and no liberty to sell them to any one else. [J. Harper, 10,404; J. Walker, 15,999.]

RESTRICTION OF FISHERMEN BY LETTING OF BEACHES

A limitation of the freedom of the fishermen arises in some districts where they are nominally free, from the beaches and fishing stations being let to particular curers, so that other merchants are excluded from the market; and even it would seem the fishermen are disabled, by the want of a suitable beach for drying their fish, from curing for themselves. There is not much evidence on this matter, which was brought under my notice at a late period of the inquiry by a statement made with regard to the fishermen at Spiggie and Ireland, in Dunrossness. The Act 29 Geo. II. c. 23 gives fishermen ample [Page 14 rpt.] powers to erect all apparatus and booths necessary for curing their fish on waste land within a hundred yards of high-water mark; but perhaps it could not be held as Mr. J. Harrison seems to think, to prevent a proprietor from enclosing and letting any part of his land adjacent to the sea for the purposes of a curing establishment.

[R. Henderson, 12,841; A. Irvine, 13,501; R. Mullay, 15,144; John Robertson, jun., 15,159; John Harrison, 16,470; T.M. Adie, 5762; Jas. Robertson, 8466; G. Gaunson, 8863; A. Sandison, <passim>; J. Spence, <passim>; John Harrison, 16,470.]

____________________________________

TRUCK SYSTEM-ADVANCES AND SETTLEMENTS.

The existing Truck Act (as well as the Bill now before Parliament) prohibits the payment of wages in goods in the various trades to which it applies. Even, therefore, if fishermen formed one of the classes of workmen falling under the Act, they would not be protected by it, because they do not receive wages, but are paid a price for their fish. One result of this is, that Truck, as it exists in Shetland, is without disguise or concealment. No machinery has been contrived for evading the law; and almost all the masters, and even some of the fishermen, regard the system which prevails, as wholesome, natural, and indeed inevitable.

I have already explained that the price of the fish is ascertained and settled only for once in the year. But fishermen, as Adam Smith remarks, have been poor since the days of Theocritus; and in Shetland the Truck system begins when, his farm produce failing to support the family, the fisherman farmer finds it necessary to obtain from the 'merchant' supplies or advances before the time of settlement, and, it may be, a boat, fishing materials, and provisions, to enable him to prosecute his calling. In Shetland the merchant needs to use no influence or compulsion to bring the fisherman to his shop. He has no black-list, and has to enforce no penalties for 'sloping.' As the laws against Truck do not apply to him, even remotely, he scarcely ever seeks to conceal the fact that the earnings of those whom he employs are paid to a large extent, in goods, and he is even prepared with arguments in vindication of the practice. The man whose farm cannot keep his family until settlement, comes, as a matter of course, to the fish-curer's store; and even the thriving and prosperous man, who has money in the bank, 'almost invariably' has an account at the shop. In the great majority cases there is a mutual understanding, that when a merchant buys your fish, you ought in fairness to get at least a part of your goods at his shop.

[Andrew Tulloch, 509; L. Mail, 568; W. Williamson, 855; P.M. Sandison, 5146; Rev. D. Miller, 5998; J. Brown, 7986, 7997; T.M. Adie, 5633; 5735; A. Tulloch, 5472, 5501; John Anderson, 6546; G. Robertson, 9311; G. Gilbertson, 9557; J. Laurenson, 9837; M. Henderson, 9830-1; J. Harper, 10,387; C. Nicolson, 11,939; A. Abernethy, 12,268; L. Garriock, p. 303a etc., 12,347, 12,356, 12,360, 12,388 sq.; T. Hutchison, 12,686; L. Henderson, 12,744; J. Halcrow, 13,090; R. Simpson, 13,980; John Robertson, jun., 15169.]

'There is a tacit understanding' says the Rev D. Miller, 'at least that they must do that; but I believe that is induced by the circumstance, that for a large portion of the year their money is in the merchants' hands, and that again affords the kind of facility for running into debt which I have spoken of.' '5999. Do you think that makes them incur larger debts than they otherwise would do?-I think so.' '6000. Can you suggest any remedy for this state of things?-The remedy I would suggest is this: that the payments be as prompt as possible and that they be cash payments. I am quite ready to state how I think the cash payments would operate. At present the fisherman's money is all in the merchant's hands; but he is requiring goods in the meantime and he has money to procure them with, and therefore he goes to the merchant and procures his goods. The merchant is under no constraint,-he can put his own price on the articles which he sells; and of course, where there is a credit system like the present, there are a large number of defaulters. These defaulters do not pay their own debts; but the merchant must live notwithstanding, and therefore the honest men have to pay for the defaulters. The merchant could not carry on his business unless that were done. He must have his losses covered; and a system of that sort tells very heavily upon the public, because the merchant must charge a large margin of profit.'

The existence of such an understanding is sometimes denied, as by Mr. Pole, a merchant; but he evidently means only that there is no expressed bargain or arrangement. He adds, at the same time (speaking of the women employed at so much per ton in collecting kelp, who, like every other class of people in Shetland, have similar accounts), that they take a considerable part of their wages in goods:

'5925. Is there any expectation or understanding, when these women are engaged, that they shall open an account and take their wages, or the greater part of them, in goods at your shop?-No, there is no understanding; but we have every reason to believe that they will come to us, because they cannot manage otherwise.' '5926. Are the goods which they take generally provisions or soft goods?-Chiefly provisions, but some soft goods too.' '5927. In engaging these women, do you give any preference to those who deal at your shop?-No; but they mostly all deal there.' '5928. Has each of them a ledger account in her own name with you?-Yes.'

A very observant and shrewd witness, speaking of the lobster and oyster trade, in which he is engaged, says:

[Page 15 rpt.]

'11,817. I understood you to say that when the men come with oysters and lobsters to the shop, and were paid, they generally took away some supplies from the shop?-They generally do, but they are not asked to do it.' '11,818. Do they appear to think it a fair and proper thing that they should do so?-I think they do.' '11,819. Is that a common sort of feeling, among the men?-Yes, it is it common feeling in the country.' '11,820. In short, they apologize if they don't spend the money in the shop where they get it?-Something like that. I should not say that they apologize, but sometimes they tell me what they want the money for, and they say they have to take it away. Of course they are not asked to leave it.' '11,821. But there seems to be it kind of understanding that they are to spend part of their earnings in the shop?-The people seem to have the opinion that they ought to do that.' '11,822. And I suppose the merchant has some feeling of the same kind also?-I never ask them to spend the money in the shop; but of course we are glad to get what money we can.' '11,823. I suppose they don't require to be asked to spend some of it?-No.'

[W. Harcus, 11,817.]

CASH ADVANCES

There is a reluctance on the part of the men to ask for an advance of cash, arising partly from the feeling I have mentioned, and partly from the habitual and natural reluctance of the merchant to give it. When cash is given, it is for a special purpose, such as the payment of rent or taxes, or the purchase of some article which the merchant himself cannot supply.

[P. Peterson, 6845; J. Laurenson, 9872; W.G. Mouat, 10,249; C. Nicholson, 11,977; l. Garriock, 12,589; J. Robertson, 8484; T. Robertson, 8597, J. Harrison, 16,509.]

'4973. Does Mr. Grierson advance you money in the course of the year before settlement when you ask for it?-He does.' '4974. Can you not take that money and deal with it at any other store that suits you better than Mr. Grierson's?-We do that very often.' '4975. Then how is it that you say that you have not the means of dealing where you choose?-What I mean by that is, that we don't have the chance to do it so often as we would like to do it; and we don't like to be always running to him for money for the small things we require. It is only in particular cases, when we require it pound or so to help us, that we ask it from him.'

[James Flawes, 4973-5.]

'8522. You say you were not bound to do it: is it common for men to feel that they are bound to do that?-Of course. If I was employed by a curer or a merchant, and had been in the habit of dealing with another before I was employed by him, I would consider it something like a duty, in a moral point of view, to put my money into his shop; and I have done so, although I have never been obligated to do it.'

[P. Blanch, 8522.]

In some cases the evidence shows that cash advances during the season have been absolutely refused, or that at least it is thought useless to ask for them. Thus, says Malcolm Malcolmson:

'3004. Did you consider yourselves bound to take goods from Mouat's store?-We could not do anything else.' '3005. Why?-Because we had no money to purchase them with from other stores. We received no money during the fishing season.' '3006. Did you ever ask for advances of money during the fishing season?-Yes; but they were refused.' '3007. Why?-Because he just would not give it. He gave no reason, except that he could not give it.'

[M. Malcolmson.] [W. Manson, 3040; J. Nicholson, 8747.]

The merchant, both in Faroe fishing and ling fishing, naturally prefers to make any necessary advances in goods rather than money:

.. 'They make advances, perhaps before, but as soon the men engage to go to the fishing. It may be about this time, or it may be a month previous to this, when they make the engagement to go.' '8526. And they make an advance then either in cash or in out-takes?-I don't think they will likely give much cash. They may give 8s. or 10s. in cash; but unless they know the man is to be depended upon, I don't think they will give much more. They may give £1 to a man until he has made some earning by his fishing; but unless it is a case where they know it can be paid back again by the man otherwise, they will not give it. He may pay it out of his stock, for instance, or he may have some other means.'

[Peter Blanch.]

It was common in the past-though now cash is given more readily, at least in Lerwick and by the leading merchants-to refuse money before settlement, while the merchant was quite willing to advance to any reasonable amount in goods. This preference is sometimes shown very unmistakeably even in settling for the winter fish. This applies to Faroe still more than to ling fishing.

[W. Williamson, 821, 833; C. Sinclair, 1177; A. Tulloch, 5495; J. Anderson, 6550; J. Goodlad, 1188; J, Manson, 2962.]

The truth as to cash advances is very succinctly stated by a large employer, Mr. John Anderson of Hillswick, who says: 'I think they would not get cash (before settlement) unless they were clear, or unless we had good cause to know that they were really in necessity for something.'

[J. Anderson, 6546; A. Sandison, 7076; J. Robertson, 8484; T. Hutchison, 12,637.]

But although witnesses do not speak of many cases of actual refusal to advance money before settlement, it is well understood that the merchant, to whom the men look for more or less liberal support in bad seasons, prefers to make advances in goods. The Shetland peasant is quick to comprehend and act upon such a feeling; and hence the understanding is almost universal that cash is asked for only within [Page 16 rpt.] very moderate limits, even by unindebted men, and the particular purpose for which it is wanted is generally specified.

There are, of course, differences in the readiness with which cash is advanced by the various merchants, as the returns made to me show. Thus there is unanimous testimony to the fact, that Mr. John Bruce, jun., whose 'bondage' and prices were most loudly complained of, never refuses money advances before settlement, when asked, to the full amount of the fish at a man's credit, and, in the case of a good man, to any reasonable amount he may ask for. In some places, advances are mostly made at the settlement of the previous year, to men who have got as much money as they require.

[L. Smith, 4457, 4486; H. Gilbertson, 4533; G. Leslie, 4629; R. Halcrow, 4676; A. Leslie, 4885; G. Williamson, 4905; J. Bruce, Jun., 13,322; G. Irvine, 13, 162; J.L. Pole, 9391.]

The effect of the long settlements in compelling men to deal at the merchant's shop is very clear to the men themselves, although they do not appear to regard it as a great hardship, except where the goods at a particular shop are of bad quality or high price. William Goudie says:

'4298. Are you under any obligation to buy your goods from Mr. Bruce's shop?-Not strictly speaking.' '4299. What do you mean by "not strictly speaking?"-In one sense we are not bound, yet in another sense we are bound. There is no rule issued out that we must purchase our goods from there; but as we fish for Mr. Bruce, and have no ready money, we can hardly expect to run accounts with those who have no profit from us. That confines many of us to purchase our goods from his shop.' .....'We cannot expect to run a heavy account with a man who has no profit from us, when we are uncertain whether we will be able to clear that account or not. Therefore, as a rule, we do not run heavy accounts for such things as meal, for instance, when our crops are a failure, with any man except Mr. Bruce.'

[Wm. Goudie, 4928, 4307.] [L. Smith, 4480, 4488.]

And another witness says:

'4669. But if the prices are so much higher at the Boddam shop than elsewhere, why do you go there when you say you are not obliged in any way to take goods from the Boddam shop? Why do you not go to Gavin Henderson's for them?-I am obliged to go to the Boddam shop and take my goods there if I have no money in my pocket to buy them elsewhere.' '4670. Does that often happen?-Perhaps not very often with me, but it happens as a general thing among many of the men. I believe there are as many men who have to go to Mr. Bruce's store and take their goods there, in consequence of the want of money to pay for them at other places, as there are who can go and open accounts with other merchants and pay them yearly'

[R. Halcrow, 4669.]

MEN MUST DEAL AT CURER'S SHOP

The main reason why men must deal with the fish-curer is, that most of them have neither money nor credit elsewhere. The fish-curer is secured in the fisherman's services for the fishing season, and holds his earnings in his hands for a year. He cannot lose by him, unless he voluntarily allows his 'out-takes' to exceed his earnings. But other shopkeepers have no such security; indeed they know that the man is already engaged to fish for a rival shopkeeper, and that the latter will not only pay himself for his possibly large account, but will also retain the man's rent, leaving for other creditors at best but a small balance, and not always a balance, of his earnings. Add to this that in bad seasons many fishermen depend on the merchants for larger advances than one season's fishing can repay, and it becomes apparent that the attraction to the merchant's shop is not only the possibility of present credit, but gratitude for past favours, and the certain expectation of having to ask for similar favours in future. It is quite true, as Mr. Irvine says, that 'one great drawback on a Shetland business is fishermen's bad debts, and our chief study is to limit the supplies when we know the men to be improvident; but it is quite impossible to keep men clear when the fishing proves unsuccessful.' And there is evidence that in bad seasons, such as 1868-69, merchants are expected to advance, and do advance, large amounts in meal and other necessaries, and in cash for rent. Where such advances are made, the fishermen are of course bound, sometimes by a written obligation, to fish for their creditor next season.

[M. Johnson, 7909, 7921, 7928; James Brown, 7977; C. Georgeson, 12,126; James Hay, 5401; W. Irvine, 3623, p. 83b 3793; A. Sandison, 10,016; J. Hay, 10,540; A.J. Grierson, 15,089; W. Irvine, 3796.]

The habit of dealing on credit at the fish-curer's store is so inveterate, that even men who have means to buy their provisions, etc., frequently begin the account for the year at the very time of settlement. Mr. Grierson says:

'15,096. But do you think a man would stand permanently in arrear at settlement with you if he had money in the bank?-No; but if I settle with him in January, I believe he would go and deposit a £10 note from that year's settlement, and begin a new account with me, and get a new boat, and let it stand to his credit until next year. But he would never think of having a permanent running balance with me if he had money of his own in bank.' '15,097. Is it a general thing among the men to go and deposit some of their money in bank and begin a new account with you?- Yes, I believe they do that for a single year. They would be great fools if they did not. They keep a pass-book, if they choose, with, the shop, and they would be no better off if they were to pay for their goods in money.'

[A.J. Grierson, 15,096.]

[Page 17 rpt.]

'Plenty of them,' says Mr. Peter Garriock, speaking of Faroe fishers, 'are able to live on their own resources, but still they come for their supplies;'and he gives an example, which is not a solitary one. Mr. John Harrison says:

... 'The system has obtained so long, of fishermen requiring advances, or rather taking advances, that they cannot see, or do not understand, why they should take their own money in order to buy the necessary supplies before they proceed to the fishing. I have no doubt that they have also this idea, that the fish-curer takes a sufficient profit upon the goods supplied, and they consider they have a right to keep their money and not to pay for them until the end of the season.'

[P. Garriock, 15,223; W.B.M. Harrison, 15,724; John Harrison, 16,511]

It is of course a result of this system, that a large shop business, in many districts, can be carried on only by one who has a fish-curing establishment. In Lerwick and in Walls, in one case in Dunrossness (Gavin Henderson), and perhaps in Unst, some shops have succeeded without the aid of fishing, but always under difficulties. Fish-curers have also attempted to confirm or extend this monopoly by artificial means, such as the prohibition of rival shops,-as in Burra, Whalsay, Unst, Northmaven, Fetlar , and Yell.

[T. Williamson, 9463; G. Georgeson, 12,111; A. Sandison, 10,133.]

It has thus come to pass that there is almost nowhere in Shetland, out of Lerwick, a shop of any size not belonging to a fish-curer. I attempted to ascertain the views of various small shopkeepers, struggling to make a trade, with regard to their larger neighbours. Sometimes these men did not understand the disadvantage under which they are placed; or they may have had views of eventually rising by the same means which have led their competitors on to fortune; or, as there was sometimes reason to suspect, they may have been put into business by a larger merchant to sell his goods on commission, or have been otherwise indebted to him or dependent upon him. Whatever may be the cause, shopkeepers of this class are not so sensitive, or not so communicative, on this point as might be expected. One or two, however, were found independent enough, or intelligent enough, to tell how their business is hampered and confined by the local custom, which thirls the men to the shops of the fish-merchants. Mr. Georgeson, a respectable shopkeeper in the parish of Walls not engaged in fish-curing, says that men who sell their fish green are necessarily less frequent customers of his than those who cure their own fish. He thinks that the skipper generally influences his men to take their supplies from the shop of the merchant, or at least that the men are apt to be guided to do so by his example; while his neighbour, Mr. Twatt, thinks 'there is a little bribe which the skippers get for seeing that the men go to the shop.' I give this, however, merely as an opinion by a shrewd but not disinterested local observer. The force of custom, the want of ready money, and the other influences already mentioned, are quite sufficient to account for the great amount of this kind of Truck which exists in Shetland, without having recourse to the supposition that skippers or others are bribed to induce men to buy goods at the employer's shop.

[G. Georgeson, 12,122; J. Twatt, 12,200; R. Henderson, 12,860.]

ARGUMENTS FOR PRESENT SYSTEM