Chapter V: Excerpt From Report of Mr. Peterkin, General Inspector of Board (58)

14,923. Can you get these supplies as cheap at Ollaberry as you can get them anywhere else?-Yes. He made an arrangement last year that the meal was to be all one price, whether it was got at the station or at Ollaberry. We got it a little cheaper by taking it from Ollaberry the year before; but he made the regulation last year that it was to be all one price.

14,924. But do you get it as cheap there as you could get it from any other shop in the country?-No. If we had our money we could get it a little cheaper from Lerwick, or from other places.

14,925. How do you know that?-Because I buy some things from Lerwick, such as meal and tea, and I sometimes get the meal a little cheaper, according as the market there is high or low.

14,926. Have you any pass-books or accounts to show the prices you pay for the articles you get?-No. I kept a pass-book for a year or so, but I rather thought the prices were too high, and it annoyed me to look at it, and so I gave it up.

14,927. Did you think the prices were higher because you had the pass-book?-No. I thought they were rather too high, at any rate.

14,928. Did it not annoy you quite as much to hear the prices in your account read over to you?-When my account was read over at the time when I paid it, I knew that the price was high; but I do not think there was anything in the account except what I had had.

14,929. Is the price of your meal mentioned to you at the time when you get it at Ollaberry?-Very seldom.

14,930. Do you ask to know the price?-Sometimes we ask, and sometimes we do not.

14,931. Does the price vary throughout the season?-[Page 376] Yes, sometimes it does, according, to the rise and fall in the market.

14,932. It is not sold at one price all the year round at that shop?- No.

14,933. Do you buy your own boats at Ollaberry?-I had a boat of my own until four years ago; since then I have had a hired boat. The boat hire is £2, 10s. I got my lines ordered for me from the Glasgow market, because I thought I got them a little cheaper in that way. 21/4 lb. lines cost me 1s. 11d., including freight and everything.

14,934. Do you get any 2-lb. lines?-No; but we can get them at Ollaberry. They charge 2s. for them there. A 21/4 lb. line would be charged 2s. 3d. there if paid in cash, and 2s. 6d. if marked down to be paid for by instalments.

14,935. Can you show me any account for the lines you get from Glasgow?-No; it is five years since got them from there.

14,936. Were the prices you have mentioned as being paid for lines at Ollaberry the same as you would have paid there five years ago?-Yes, the price has been the same. The lines I am using now are the same lines that I got from the market for myself.

14,937. Did you buy a great quantity of them at that time?-I bought 25 buchts.

14,938. Did you get them for yourself only, or was it to sell to your neighbours as well?-It was for myself only.

14,939. Is there anything else you wish to say?-With regard to the fishing, I would like liberty to sell my fish to any man who would give me the highest price for them, or to cure for myself. We had some casks for storing salt, and we broke them down, and parted the staves among the partners to whom they belonged. Then there was a fish vat which is my own, and it is lying on the beach, and no man to buy it from me. It has been a loss to me altogether.

14,940. Was that in consequence of the intimation that you were to fish for your landlord?-Yes, and that I was to stop salting my fish.

14,941. Can you not get all your supplies at a cheaper shop than Ollaberry if you choose?-I could get them from other parties cheaper, but I don't have the money in my hands to get them cheaper at present.

14,942. Can you not get the money as an advance upon your fishing?-No. We could get a little, but not to a great extent.

14,943. Could you not get as much as would buy you a boll of meal?-Yes, but that would not serve for boat for the fishing season. We would need nearly two sacks.

14,944. Could you not get an advance of money upon your fishing large enough to buy that in Lerwick?-I don't think it; but there are other things required besides that. There are tea and sugar, and various other things that are necessary for the use of the men when they are at the fishing.

14,945. Do you think you would buy any cheaper if you had the money to buy these things with yourself, instead of getting them on credit from the merchant?-Yes, I would be cheaper.

14,946. Would you be any better off if your money was paid to you fortnightly or monthly?-Yes, if I was at liberty to sell my fish to any one who would give me the highest price for them; but if I am bound to give my fish to any particular man, and he gives me no higher price than he pleases, I would be no better off.

14,947. From whom did the free men you mentioned get 8s. 6d. for their green fish while you only got 8s?-From Mr. Anderson. That was at the settlement this year.

14,948. How many free men got that price from him?-There were four free men in that boat, and two tenants; but the six men that were in my boat were all tenants.

14,949. Did your boat get 8s. per cwt. for all the fish of the season?-Yes; and the others got 8s. 6d.

14,950. Did the two men in the other boat who were tenants get 8s. 6d. also?-I think they all got the same.

14,951. Where did the four men who were not tenants come from?-They live at Colafirth. They bought their boat and lines, and agreed to pay for them. We asked for 3d. per cwt. extra because the lines we used were our own, but they would not give it.

14,952. Do these four men not live on Mr. Anderson's land?- Two of them live on his land, and two on Busta.

14,953. If two of them live on Anderson's land, how are they free?-They are not free. They sell their fish to him.

14,954. But you said four of the men were free: where do they live?-They live at Colafirth, on the property of Mr. Gifford of Busta.

14,955. Do all the four free men live there?-Yes.

14,956. Was there any reason why they got 6d. more than you, except that they were free men and lived on the Busta property?- No; I knew of no other reason.

14,957. Did they not buy their boat and lines?-Yes, they had their own lines, but the lines we had belonged to ourselves too.

14,958. Was it said that they got a higher price because they had their own boat and lines?-Yes.

14,959. Did Mr. Irvine say so?-Mr. Irvine did not settle with these men. It was Mr. John Anderson himself.

14,960. Did he say that he gave them the higher price because the boat and lines were their own?-Yes.

14,961. He did not say it was because they were free men?-No, he did not say that; but had they not been free men, I don't think they would have got it.

14,962. Have any men who live on Mr. Anderson's estate got boats and lines of their own?-Yes. I think there is one man who has got a boat and lines.

14,963. Did he get 8s. 6d. too?-I don't know what he got.

Lerwick, January 29, 1872, GILBERT SCOLLAY, recalled.

14,964. I understand you wish to give some additional evidence to what you gave when you were examined at Brae?-Yes. In the first place I spoke as if the party I have from Lunnasting parish was still in my house but it is four months since that party was removed to another house, at the instance of the Board of Lunacy.

14,965. How many different prices of meal are there at Voe, according to the weight sold?-A party taking a whole sack will get it at a less price; when divided and subdivided, the meal rises in price.

14,966. What is the lowest price just now?-I have not bought any lately, and I cannot tell; but there has been flour sold lately for fifteenpence a peck.

14,967. Is there only one price for meal at Vidlin?-Yes; only one price for the same meal, whether you take it in large or in small quantities. That has been my experience.

14,968. Have you any statement to make about the rise in price at Voe according to the southern market?-Yes. I have been told that Mr. Adie has said that it should rise not only in his cellar, but in his book too, according to the market in the south. Henry Manson, post-runner between Voe and Lunna says he heard him say so.

14,969. But that is not what you know yourself; it is only what you have heard from other people?-I have heard Mr. Adie say so myself, that it would rise in price both in his cellar and in his book.

14,970. Do you mean that it rises with the southern market?-Yes; but at Vidlin it does not rise until the meal that has been bought at a certain price has been finished. Mr. Sutherland has told me that a quantity of meal bought in by Mr. Robertson at a certain price remained at the same price until the last of it was sold, and the same with the next parcel.

14,971. When you have pass-books at Voe, is the price generally entered in the pass-book at the time when you get the meal?-No; it is not entered until [Page 377] settlement, when it is compared with their book, as my pass-book will show. There are several quantities of meal in it for which no price is entered.

14,972. Is it entered at settlement at one price for the whole season, or at different prices?-I cannot tell. If what they say is true, it is entered at the highest market price if the market has risen, because they say it rises in their book as well as in their cellar.

14,973. You have produced several pass-books to me. Is that [showing] a pass-book of your father's in account with Mr. Adie at Voe?-Yes.

14,974. Have you carried through some of the transactions for your father at Mr. Adie's shop?-Yes.

14,975. I see here an entry on April 21, 1868, '24 lbs. meal at 5s. 3d.:' who made that entry?-It was made at the shop, not by me.

14,976. Here [showing] is another entry, 'April 25, one lispund Indian meal, 5s. 6d.:' who made that?-My father perhaps made some entries in the book himself when he got things, and when the pass-book was not sent to the shop.

14,977. Was that entry made by your father?-The entry of 24 lbs. meal at 5s. 3d. is not by my father. I think the other is by him.

14,978. There is another entry, June 30, of 'Indian meal, 2s.:' who made that entry?-It is not in my father's writing. It has been made at Voe.

14,979. There is another entry, 'July 1, one boll Indian meal, 16s. 6d.:' who made that?-It is my father's.

14,980. There is another, 'Dec. 6, Indian meal, 1/2 lisp. 2s.?'-Yes.

14,981. That account has been settled in January 1869, you having given 21 yards cloth at 3s. 6d.?-Yes.

14,982. Have you any doubt that all the things entered in that account were got by your father?-No. They were all got and settled for.

14,983. The next account was settled on March 17, 1870: have you any doubt that all the things entered before that date were got by your father at Voe?-No, they were all received.

14,984. On November 25 he got 1/4 gallon oil at 6d.: would that be sillock oil?-Perhaps it was.

14,985. In that settlement your father is credited with 26 yards cloth, which comes to £3, 13s. 8d. There is something else that comes to 1s., being £3, 14s. 8d. due to him, and £2, 19s. 4d. to Mr. Adie, leaving a balance in your father's favour of 15s. 4d.?-Yes.

14,986. Mr. Adie takes a discount for cash of 1s. 6d.: does that mean that he charged 1s. 6d. of discount on the 15s. 4d. which he was to pay to your father?-Yes.

14,987. Why was that?-I don't know; but it was a common thing, that when he gave cash he gave so much less for the cloth.

14,988. Was it the rule that all cloth was to be settled with by goods?-The price was 5 per cent. less if paid in cash.

14,989. But was it the rule that all the cloth was to be paid for by goods?-No. They just had to take the goods for convenience; but the wool was my father's, and I could go to whom he pleased with it.

14,990. The account for 1870 in the book is still unsettled?-It has been settled lately, and my father's account is now in another book.

14,991. Do you think the things that are marked in that book were got at the prices which are entered there?-Yes, so far as I know, they were. There was no dispute with my father, either about price or anything else.

14,992. We will go to your own books. Is this [showing] your pass-book with Mr. Adie at Voe from 1869 downwards?-Yes.

14,993. Were all the articles entered there got by you at the prices which are there marked?-Yes.

14,994. I see that in June and July 1869 there is some meal and flour entered in quantities, without any price being marked?-Yes.

14,995. How did that happen?-They know best themselves why they did not enter the prices. I cannot explain it.

14,996. I show you an entry of one quarter boll Indian meal: is that in Mr. Adie's handwriting?-I don't know; it will be in the writing of some of Adie's men. All the entries in that book were written in the shop.

14,997. Has that account been settled?-Not yet.

14,998. Is that the reason why the price has not been put in?-No, I should not say that was the reason.

14,999. Is this [showing] a continuation of the other account?- Yes.

15,000. Have you got all the articles that are marked in this book?-Yes.

15,001. Did you get all the articles entered there at the prices which are marked?-Yes, I got them at the prices marked when there is any price; but there is a sack of pease-meal entered without any price to it.

15,002. I see an entry on May 30, 'To dog licence, 5s.; by cash, 2s. 6d.:-2s. 6d.:' what does that mean?-I had 2s. 6d. that I paid as part of the dog licence, and Mr. Adie charged me with the rest.

15,003. Did you pay that licence through Mr. Adie?-Yes.

15,004. Does he transact all your business for you in that way?- Yes.

15,005. Does he pay your accounts for you?-No; he never pays any accounts for me, that I know of.

15,006. Did he only pay your dog licence for you?-He only paid one half of it. He might have paid the whole if I had asked him to do it.

15,007. The following are some of the entries in your book:-

1869. May 18. 24 Ind. ml., 0 3 0 16 o. meal, 0 3 0 29. 35 o. meal, 0 4 3 June 14. 1/4 boll In. meal. July 8. 35 sec. paring flour. 30. 35 overhd. flour. Oct. 23. 1/4 gall. oil, 9d. Dec. 10. 16 lbs. flour, 2s.

Was the oil mentioned in the entry of October 23, oil which you required for burning?-Yes; and I could have got it at the same time at Mr. Robertson's for not above 2s. per gallon.

15,008. In the continuation of that book there are the following entries:-'1871. May 31: 35 Ind. meal; 35 Shetland groats:' did you get these articles?-Yes.

15,009. Have you had any price fixed for them yet?-No; but I knew the price current at the time.

15,010. There is also in the same book an entry under date June 2, '1/2 boll overhead flour,' and 1s. 3d. is marked in small figures above the entry: what does that mean?-I don't know. It was there when I got the book home, but what it meant I could not say.

15,011. There are other two entries under date June 16, of '35 Indian meal, and 35 flour,' with the small figures 1s. and 1s. 3d. respectively written above them in the same way?-These figures may mean the price of the meal and flour per peck at that time.

15,012. There are also the following entries in the book:-'June 26, 35 flour, 5s.; July 5, 35 flour, 5s; and July 13, 28 Shetland meal, 3s. 91/2d.:' have you any doubt that all these entries which have been read are entries of articles which you got at the times stated from Mr. Adie at Voe, and that they were charged at the prices marked in the pass-book?-I have no doubt the entries are quite correct as to that.

15,013. You have also produced to me a pass-book kept by you with Mr. Robert Sutherland at Vidlin, in which I find the following entries. 'Nov. 11, 1869: 16 lb. oatmeal, 2s. 6d. Feb. 11, 1870: 16 lb. oatmeal, 2s. 3d.:' have you any doubt that these articles were got and charged at the prices stated?-I have no doubt of that, and that these were the regular prices they were being sold at.

15,014. Is there anything else in these books to which you wish to direct my attention?-There [showing] is an entry in the book with Mr. Adie, September 26, sack pease-meal, and there is no price stated.

[Page 378]

15,015. But there is no price fixed of fifty things in the book?- No; that is what I say.

15,016. Did you not ask to have the price of that pease-meal fixed at the time?-No.

Lerwick, January 29, 1872, CHARLES ROBERTSON, examined.

15,017. Your firm of R. & C. Robertson have an extensive trade in provisions in Lerwick?-Yes; we do fair business, both wholesale and retail.

15,018. Is it generally one kind of meal that is kept by each merchant for ordinary retail purposes?-So far as I know, it is.

15,019. Do you generally have only one quality of oatmeal in stock at a time?-Yes.

15,020. Is it the same with Indian meal?-We have not been in the habit of selling Indian meal.

15,021. Can you tell me the price of oatmeal on 21st April 1868?-It was 26s. 6d. per boll of 140 lbs. is the credit price; for cash it would be 6d. less.

15,022. How much would that be for 24 lbs.?-About 4s. 6d., or about 1s. 7d. per peck.

15,023. Would is 7d. per peck be your selling price at that time?- Yes.

15,024. Would 1s. 9d. per peck have been a high price for it in Lerwick then?-It would have been much higher than we would get for it.

15,025. Would you be surprised to find that at that date it was selling in the country districts at is. 9d.?-I would.

15,026. Was the price in a fluctuating condition about that time?- I see that a month later it was 1s. less, and two months later it was 2s. less per boll. The market was falling in April.

15,027. Did it continue to fall during the rest of the year?-I see that a month later than the last quotation I have given it was just about the same price.

15,028. Was there a good harvest in 1868?-No; but the crop here does not affect the market price.

15,029. But was there a good harvest that year over Scotland and England?-I don't remember just now. I see that in August 1868 the price was up 6d. per boll.

15,030. Was the price as high as 1s. 9d. per peck in January 1869?-It was not. I see on 26th January we have it charged at 23s. per boll, which would be about 1s. 6d. less per boll than it was in July, and 3s. 6d. less than it was in April 1868.

15,031. Therefore you would say that in January 1869 meal was considerably cheaper than it had been in April of the previous year?-Yes.

15,032. What was the price of oatmeal on February 11, 1870?-I don't have the price on the 11th; but on 5th February it was 17s. 3d., and on the 15th 17s., or about 1s. per peck.

15,033. Have you any means of telling me the price of Indian meal, although you do not sell it?-I have bought two or three bolls of it within the last year or two, and I have paid somewhere about 13s. or 14s. per boll for it. That would be somewhere about 9d. per peck, or rather 10d., because in weighing out there is generally about half a peck of loss per boll, and allowance must be made for that.

15,034. Then 1s. per peck would be rather a high price for it by retail?-Yes, it would be high enough.

15,035. I suppose the qualities of flour that you sell in your trade are more various than the qualities of meal?-Yes, we have several qualities.

15,036. What would be the price of your best flour on October 6, 1869?-I see the finest quality of flour would be about 14d. per peck. The next quality below that was 16s. per boll, which would retail at 1s. per peck; that is overhead flour, what we call fine.

15,037. On 2d June 1871 what would be the price of overhead flour?-It was 16s. 6d. per boll on 30th May, which would retail at 1s. per peck. There are two qualities of overhead flour, fine and common.

15,038. At that date would 1s. 3d. per peck have been a high price for overhead flour of any quality?-Yes, it would have been a top price. 1s. per peck was the price of the common kind; but there is only a difference in price of about 2s. per boll between common and fine.

15,039. Therefore, even for the fine quality, 1s. 3d. would be it very high price?-Yes.

15,040. What were the average prices of oatmeal in 1870?-

In Jan. about 17s. 9d. In April, about 17s. 6d. " Feb. " 17s. 3d. " May, " 18s. 9d. " March, " 17s. 6d. " June " 19s. 0d.

Up to the middle of July it was 19s. 6d., and then it took it start in the beginning of the French War up to 22s. In a week it was down 1s., to 21s., at which it continued during the first three weeks of August, and the last week 19s. 6d. September, 19s. The first week of October, 19s.; second week, and to the end of the month, 18s. 6d. November, 19s. December, about 19s. 3d. In 1871 the prices, taking them about the middle of each month, were-

s. d. s. d. January, 19 6 July, 21 6 February, 20 0 August, 21 0. March, 20 6 September, 21 0 April, 21 0 October, 20 0 May, 21 6 November, 19 0 June, 21 6 December. 19 6

In January 1872, 19s. cash, or 19s. 6d. credit. The prices I have given are all credit prices. If the cash was paid for meal at any of these times, it was always 6d. per boll less.

15,041. How do you proceed when you sell by the peck?-We always allow half a peck or a peck per sack for weighing out, and that comes to about 1/2d. a peck.

15,042. So that, when meal is 19s. 6d., as at present, it is 131/2d. per peck?-Yes, either cash or credit. We would not make any difference on the peck.

15,043. What was the price of flour at June 26, 1871?-Common overhead flour about that date in June was 16s. per boll, and the best overhead would have been 18s. or 18s. 6d. There is another quality of fine flour, the finest quality we keep, which would have been about 22s. per boll, or 5s. 6d. per quarter.

15,044. Was the price the same about 5th July following?-About the same. There has been little or no alteration on the price of that flour almost the whole season.

15,045. If you saw an entry of flour at 5s. in a passbook, and another of overhead flour at 1s. 3d. in the same book within the course of a month, would you think it probable they were the same article,-the quantity not being mentioned?-Yes. 5s. would be the price of a lispund, or four pecks and 1s. 3d. of peck.

15,046. Shetland meal, I suppose, is an article that you hardly ever have in the market?-We seldom or never buy it. In fact there is very little of it now to be got.

15,047. Then you cannot give me any information as to the price of it last July?-Not last July, but it always sells considerably below the price of south-country meal.

[Page 379]

LERWICK, TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1872.

<Present>-MR GUTHRIE.

ANDREW JOHN GRIERSON, examined.

15,048. Are you the proprietor of the estate of Quendale?-I am.

15,049. Are you also engaged in the fish-curing business?-I am. I have been so for 11 years.

15,050. Mr. Ogilvy Jamieson is your shopkeeper at Quendale, and keeps a shop there for the supply of your neighbours and fishermen?-Yes, for the supply of my fishermen primarily, and for any one else who chooses to go to it.

15,051. The returns you have made to me show the amount of dealing which these fishermen have had in accounts at your shop, and also other particulars of your business?-They do. They have been made up from my ledger for the two years which have been selected.

15,052. Were these favourable years for the fishing, or otherwise?-1871 was an exceedingly favourable year. I should say that 1867 was not more than a medium year. The price was miserable, but I had a great quantity of fish. Both the fishing and the price were good in 1871.

15,053. How do you arrange with your men about boats? Do the boats belong to themselves, or are they hired out?-I have no boats. They are debited to the men.

15,054. How long does it generally take for a man to pay up the price of his boat?-I have had no experience of these six-oared boats, such as I have been furnishing lately, because the fishing was entirely of saith until now.

15,055. Have you introduced larger boats lately?-Yes. I have got the men encouraged to take them within the last three years; and I have only supplied the large new boats within the past season.

15,056. About what number of tenants have you upon your estate?-I can tell by referring to the copy of my valuation return for the last year; but only one half, the smaller half, of my property is in Dunrossness. There are 48 tenants on Quendale and Brough, in Dunrossness.

15,057. Does that include the large farm there?-No; I am not including myself. I am holding my own farm, and I have counted it out. I have also counted out the Free Church minister, who holds a house from me.

15,058. Are these 48 tenants all men who might fish?-Yes; they don't all fish to me, but they might fish.

15,059. You have also a number of tenants in Sandsting?-Yes; I have 108 there.

15,060. Are the tenants in Sandsting at liberty to fish for any one they please?-They are at liberty to do anything under the sun, if they only pay me my rent. They are under no obligation whatever.

15,061. It is said that there is an obligation on the tenants on Quendale to deliver their fish to you. Is that so?-It is. That is a condition upon which they sit upon the ground.

15,062. Have you found them generally willing to agree to that condition?-They have agreed to it without the slightest difficulty. I am the third generation of the name for whom they have fished. They never sat upon the property on any other condition since it was purchased by us about 1765.

15,063. Do you consider that condition to be beneficial to the landlord and the tenants?-I do. I am satisfied that it is beneficial for the tenants when the landlord will take the trouble; but it is a very great deal of trouble.

15,064. Does it not depend entirely upon the landlord's efficiency as a man of business, whether the condition is a beneficial one for the tenants or not?-Yes. I think Mr. Bruce, junior, Mr. Urnphray, and I are the only proprietors in the country who carry on the fishing to any extent.

15,065. Do you think it would be necessary to increase the rents of the tenants if they were not under that obligation to fish for you?- I certainly should increase their rents in Dunrossness if they were not under that obligation.

15,066. You are aware that a great deal has been said about that kind of obligation, and that some of your tenants and many of Mr. Bruce's have come forward and complained loudly about it?-I know that. I understand the complaint of a great part of Mr. Bruce's tenants has turned very much upon the question whether they should be allowed to dry their fish for themselves.

15,067. To some extent it has; but they also wish to be able to sell their fish as they please, whether they dry them or not. Still it is the case that a good many of them have spoken very strongly in favour of being allowed to cure their fish for themselves?-I would not carry on the fishing upon that condition at all.

15,068. Would you not buy the fish if they had been cured by the men?-No. I would not undertake to do that on any consideration, because you would just be swindled, and you could not help yourself in buying the dry fish. The men are not able to cure their fish and be ready to commence the next season's fishing. They could not come to me or to any other person at the end of the year, and say in an independent manner, 'Will you buy my fish?' because, in the first place, they must come to me or to some other person and ask, 'Will you be pleased to supply us with salt and, meal, and so on, and we will dry our fish and deliver them to you?' If we agreed to do so, the men commence, it may be from February, and we supply them with salt, lines, meal, and everything they require, and that goes on until the end of the fishing in August, when we must take their fish, but the fish are mortgaged already. Then, if we go to look at the fish, we find they have been salted with the least possible amount of salt, and they are just a parcel of rubbish; but we have paid for them already by the advances we have made, and we must take them and make the best or the worst of them. Besides, in the case of an unprincipled man, he has got the thing in his own hands, because he is aware that he has already pledged all his fish to you. They are still his property, however; but while the fish are undelivered, it is very easy for him to slip some of them on board one of the packets running to Lerwick, and sell them to any person for cash down. I am not a lawyer sufficient to know whether that would be a case of theft or not; but when the wet fish are weighed to me out of the boat, it is my own fault if I don't cure them so as to be fit for the market; and if any fellow steals any of my fish, then it would be a case of theft. I have seen the results of such a system on a neighbouring property, because Mr. Bruce of Sumburgh's property has only been under his son's management for eleven years. Before then his tenants were at liberty to go anywhere they liked, and they were drowned over head and ears in debt, both to their landlord and to their fish-curers.

15,069. Do you think the indebtedness of the fishermen is reduced when the landlord takes the fishing into his own hands?-I do think so; when they are dealt with in the same manner that is followed at Dunrossness now.

15,070. But you are speaking now of the previous state of indebtedness, not from personal knowledge of [Page 380] your own tenantry, but from what you know of Mr. Bruce's?- I was as well acquainted with them as if they were my own tenantry. I was living at my own place then; and when young Mr. Bruce and I went into partnership together, and endeavoured to secure the tenants from some of the merchants in Lerwick, it was part of our business to ascertain the exact amount of debts upon the south part of the Sumburgh property.

15,071. Are you prepared to say that the amount of debt due by the fishermen on that property was greater then than it is now?-I am not prepared to say anything more than what Mr. Bruce told me about the year 1866 or 1867. 1866 was the last of a series of years when there were very few of them in debt. Mr. Bruce and I were talking over the matter, and I was bragging about how small the debt was in my case, and he told me then that the debt was very much reduced; and I believe that now they are due nothing to any person except himself.

15,072. Can you give an idea as to the amount of debt that was due at the date you speak of? Do you think it would amount to the whole value of the stock on each man's farm in one half the cases?-No; nothing like that. A man's stock mounts up to a large amount of money when it comes to be turned into cash. I would not speak to precise figures; but my impression at present is, that the debt at that time might amount to about three rents, or something like £1200. There might be three rents in arrear of the rental.

15,073. Have you had any experience that enables you to compare your own property, at a time when it was not in your hands for fishing purposes with what it is now?-No. It has never been out of the hands of my family since the time I mentioned.

15,074. I believe it is not a common practice to raise rents in Shetland?-No; there has really been very little done in that way.

15,075. Has that something to do with the system of fishing for and obtaining supplies from the landlord?-I don't think it has been so much that, as the fact that the landlords are resident in the place, and there is a sort of moral pressure brought to bear upon a person who is living in the neighbourhood. You don't like to make yourself odious among the neighbours round about you. I think that has had more to do with it than anything else. It is not the same sort of thing as if a factor was raising the rent for a man living at a distance. On the Annsbrae estate the proprietors had not had the fishing for a long time, but I believe there was not a rise of rent there for two generations, until Mr. Walker commenced to deal with the property a few years ago. The land there was very cheap. I think the land is not over-rented, and there has been very little change upon it in that way until lately.

15,076. I understand the proprietors interested in fishing invariably make advances to their tenants, in the form of meal and goods?- They must do so.

15,077. That, I suppose, arises from a want of ready money among the tenantry themselves?-Yes. Those who have not ready money must have these advances. There are some people who do not require them.

15,078. Don't you think their number would be increased if by a ready-money system they were encouraged to save money and to acquire habits of frugality?-I don't think so. My experience, from the beginning of the business, so far as I have had to do with it, has been, that under the present system a prudent man who chooses to exercise self-denial could pass out of all possible control, either of landlord or fish-curer, to do him any injury. He could, if he chose, draw his money and send it where he liked; and I have had numbers of men who have not dealt to the extent of £1 in the year with me since I began business. They just took their money at the end of the year, and supplied themselves where they chose.

15,079. Does it not seem to you that the improvident have undue facilities for obtaining credit when they get supplies for the fishing from the landlord, who has an inducement to carry them on in the knowledge that they have to fish for him?-That has not been my practice. I don't like to make any bad debts, and in two cases I have turned a man about his business because I could not keep him out of debt. The most profitable fisherman is the man who pays his way, and not the man who takes goods out of the shop.

15,080. But in order to get your boats manned, I fancy you are obliged to make these supplies?-Yes, we must make advances.

15,081. Do you think the system of paying a man cash down for his fish, or at shorter intervals than an annual settlement, could be carried out?-I cannot see how it would work; and besides, I think if such a plan were introduced, the people would just revert to the present system. I am perfectly satisfied that, if you were to pass a law requiring the men to be paid in cash down, the result would be that we would have a meeting, and we would agree to pay so much per cwt., and the fishermen would say, 'We know you, and we will trust to you paying us that price at the end of the season.' That would be the case with the greater number of curers, such as Hay & Co., Mr. Garriock, and myself. The price would be fixed at a particular time but the men would take our word for it that they were to be paid at the end of the season. We would have to pay them a nominal price at short intervals in order to satisfy the law, but they would expect to be paid a higher price at the end of the season, if it turned out that we realized a higher price for our fish. That would be a binding arrangement, on the one side at least.

15,082. But that would not be a very fair bargain?-It would just be the bargain that we are constantly forced to make with the fishermen, because they always expect the curers to be fast on one side, but not on the other. For instance, if they sign an agreement to go to the Faroe fishing from March to August, and it comes a bad year, they don't get so many fish as makes the voyage a profitable one for them, and they say they will rather go to prison than go to the fishing another year, unless you put them upon wages. In the meantime you have made advances to them, and you must give them the chance of that. I know that Messrs. Hay and others have engaged fishermen for that fishing at a settled price, but when the end of the season came the fish had been sold so well that other curers were paying a high rate, and they have just had to put the bargain in the fire, and pay according to the higher price, or lose the services of the men.

15,083. Could not an arrangement of this kind be carried out, that a price should be fixed to be paid weekly, or fortnightly, or monthly, on the delivery of the fish, according as the case may be, and that the fishermen should be entitled, as in the whale fishing, to an additional payment, similar to oil-money, at the end of the season?-Yes, they might be paid at such a rate as the curer could afford, in the same way as is done now; but that would come practically to the same thing as the present system.

15,084. Would it not be a system of paying weekly wages, with an additional payment in proportion to the produce?-It would not be wages: it would be a weekly payment for produce, because weekly wages would never do.

15,085. Would it not virtually be wages, with a bonus on the amount of the produce besides?-I suppose it would; but wages are a different thing from paying a man for what he delivers to you. If you pay a man wages, he may turn lazy and do nothing, and you cannot be looking after him when he is at the fishing.

15,086. But this would be a payment of wages, and something more. He would have an inducement to work in order to increase the total produce at the end of the season?-That might be so; but I have thought over the subject, and I see no other way in which the system can be worked than it is at present. The law will be complied with nominally, but matters would fall back into their old state.

15,087. But if the law only required a certain proportion to be paid at short intervals, could it not be complied with, not only nominally, but substantially, in that way, and still recognise such an arrangement as [Page 381] you consider would be necessary?- It might be, but it would be a very disagreeable and a very difficult thing to carry out. It would be hardly possible to arrange the price that, was to be paid for the fish during the course of the season.

15,088. Would the price not always be very considerably below what the fish were expected to realize?-Supposing the price in a number of years had been, on an average, 7s. or 8s. per cwt. for ling, probably both curers and fishermen might agree to fix 5s. 6d. as the rate at which the men were to be paid in the course of the season, reserving to them a further payment, according as the fishing turned out?-Yes, it might be managed in that way quite well; but then what would the people do before they got any fish ashore at all? How would they be able to live then?

15,089. I suppose the object of the Legislature would be to teach them to lay by something on which they might be able to live when they were not actually at the fishing?-That might be the object, but the people might die in the teaching. It is all very well to come down and see the country in a year like this, when money has been flush; but if you had seen such a year as 1868 or 1869 or 1870, when the people were coming to you in January starving, and wanting you to advance them meal and other things, and a big debt standing against them at the same time in the merchant's books, you would have seen that it was not such a matter of plain sailing then.

15,090. Don't you think that even at that season the fishing might have been prosecuted to some extent?-No; there was nothing to catch. Besides, a good crop makes a great difference in Shetland. I don't think I bought thirty bolls of meal in the south country last year, but I was buying 300 or 400 for the same number of men in those years. Still, although the men are in such distress in bad years, I think you ought to know what an amount of money some of the fishermen have lying in the Union Bank, on deposit receipt. You would find then that they are not so poor as they have been represented.

15,091. Do you think most of the deposits in the banks here under £100 belong to fishermen?-I think so.

15,092. Do you also think that a number of the deposits above that sum belong to people of the same class?-I am satisfied of that.

15,093. In short, you think that almost all the deposits in the banks here must be those of fishermen?-I think most part of them are those of fishermen, crofters, and small tenants throughout the country; because I think that any person who had accumulated more than that sum would be likely to invest it in some more remunerative way than to leave it on deposit receipt in the bank. When people have been told in the public prints that a Shetlander nearly loses his head when he sees a £1 note, it is very important that there should be some inquiry on that subject.

15,094. Do you think that men who are indebted to you, for instance, or to any other person engaged in business, and getting advances in the course of the year, are likely to have deposits in the bank?-I don't think that. I could tell over the names of the men upon my property who I suppose have deposits; but I am perfectly satisfied that none of those who are indebted to me have any deposits at all.

15,095. It has been alleged that a fisherman might get advances from the merchant who employs him, although he had a deposit receipt in the bank, especially in a distant place, where it would cost some trouble to him to go to his bank and get his deposit receipt altered. Do you think he would do so if he only wanted a small sum?-I believe that to a certain extent he would. I believe that he might take advances from his landlord's shop during the season, although he had a deposit receipt, if he saw that he could get the things as moderate upon credit from his landlord as he could elsewhere, paying for them at the end of the year. That is sometimes done when the men want a boat. There are tenants of mine without means of their own, who have come to me and said they wanted a new boat. I would ask them who was to pay for it, and they would tell me that some of the men to whom the boat was to belong were not able to pay for then, although others might be able to pay their share; and it was better for the whole of them to pay their shares at the end of the season, because the men who had the money would have got no advantage by paying it at the time.

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.

15,098. Would they not be better off if they could get their goods cheaper for cash?-I don't know that they could do that. I cannot get the things any cheaper from the Lerwick dealers for cash. I pay my accounts here every six weeks, and get only 2s. 6d. or so off £4 or £5.

15,099. But are not the prices in Lerwick lower than they are in your quarter?-I don't think so. I think I am selling as low as they do in Lerwick, and sometimes even lower. Mr. Gavin Henderson's shop is near ours, and he acts as a powerful pressure upon us.

15,100. Do you sometimes exact liberty money?-I have exacted liberty money two or three times from landholders. I don't take it from young men-only from landholders. Three guineas is what I fixed it at, but I asked a pound only for the last man who fished off the property. His name was James Shewan; and I told him this year that he could fish for nothing, because I wanted his land to put a few sheep on. He is going to fish for nothing this year, and he is to leave at Martinmas.

15,101. That is to say, he is to fish to any party for nothing?-He can fish to any person he likes. I believe in the evidence which has been given, mention was made of a lad Thomas Johnston not getting liberty to go home to his father's house because he was fishing for another curer. The understanding I have with the tenants is, that I expect them all, both young men and old, to fish for me, on condition that I pay them as well as any other person; and I want to put as much pressure as I consider reasonable upon them for that purpose. But young men are not to be bound always to fish at the home fishing, and sometimes there may not be a way suitable for them; and I have told them all in such a case that they could go to Faroe or to Greenland, or go out of the parish into the next parish, and prosecute the fishing there. This lad Johnston, who was the son of a man considerably indebted to me, went down to the other side and fished to Messrs. Hay & Co., and I daresay I did come pretty hard down upon the father for allowing his son to go away. The result was, that the lad spent his winter about a mile and a half or two miles from his father's house in service there, but he has been back since then. On other occasions two or three young men have left the parish when they could not get a convenient boat in it, and gone to Dunrossness to the fishing, and I have never said anything to them about it. There is one lad who is to fish for Mr. Bruce in a boat's crew of his in the incoming season, and I have made no objection to it.

15,102. There was another case mentioned in the previous evidence also-that of a man named Williamson, at Berlin. It was said his son was engaged to a neighbouring crofter as a servant, and that he had been obliged to leave that and come to your employment as beach boy for a lower wage?-I cannot tell anything [Page 382] about that; but, as a rule, I expect the boys to serve me at the beach on the usual terms. I always make a point of informing them in plenty of time, perhaps about August, that I will require so and so the following year, so that they may not make any other engagement. If such a thing took place with Williamson's son, I never heard of it. I had a boy named Williamson in my employment at the beach last season, and I suppose he was a son of old James Williamson's, but I knew nothing about him having been previously engaged to another service. With regard to liberty money, I may say that in 1867 Charles Eunson paid me over £3 or three guineas; and John Flawes. I think they fished to me in the following year.