Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
a Camperdown, sealing voyage 3 1 1 2
b Polynia, sealing voyage 3 6 2
c Esquimaux, sealing voyage 10 2
d Narwhal, sealing voyage 2 2 3
e Ravenscraig, sealing voyage 1 2 1
f Victor, sealing voyage 19 4 1
g Alibi, sealing and whaling voyage 10 1 1
h Total 33 4 7 13 5
i Ravenscraig, Davis Straits
whaling voyage 8 10 2
j Polynia, Davis Straits
whaling voyage 19
k Narwhal, Davis Straits
whaling voyage 13 1
l Camperdown, Davis Straits
Whaling voyage 21 5
m Total 8 63 8
Ship's Name and Voyage
Not Dis- Totals Remarks.
charged
at
Year's
End
a Camperdown, sealing voyage 1 33 157 men returned in April, of whom
b Polynia, sealing voyage 34 95 were landed in one day. 114 were
c Esquimaux, sealing voyage 30 discharged by the end of May.
d Narwhal, sealing voyage 29 I requested the rest to return for
e Ravenscraig, sealing voyage 1 31 discharge not later than August, when
f Victor, sealing voyage 30 the ling fishing terminated.
g Alibi, sealing and whaling
voyage 19
h Total 2* 206 * The only cases I ever had.
i Ravenscraig, Davis Straits
whaling voyage 20
j Polynia, Davis Straits
whaling voyage 19 71 out of 79 landed in October and
k Narwhal, Davis Straits November were discharged in a month.
whaling voyage 14
l Camperdown, Davis Straits
Whaling voyage 26
m Total 79
Lerwick, January 29, 1872, WILLIAM BRUCE TULLOCH, examined.
14,379. You are a merchant and shipping agent in Lerwick?-I
am.
14,380. You have been engaged as an agent for Greenland [Page
360]whaling vessels for some time?-Yes, on my own account, or
as a partner of the firm of Laurenson & Co., for five years.
14,381. Before that, you were in the employment of Mr. Leask?-
Yes.
14,382. I understand you desire to make some statement with
regard to the evidence which has already been led upon this
subject?-Yes. I heard a part of the evidence of Mr. Wm.
Robertson; and some parts of what I heard I could not agree
with. In the first place, with reference to the handing of lists of
balances at the end of the year by one agent to another, he said
that practice had been discontinued for a number of years. So far
as I know, that is not the case.
14,383. Does that practice still exist?-I know nothing to the
contrary.
14,384. To what do you refer?-To the balances that may be due
by men to the agents.
14,385. Have you in your business had such lists handed to you, or
have you handed them to other agents in the trade?-Yes.
14,386. Is that still done?-It has been done within the last five
years. It was the only legitimate way of keeping before you the
men who were in debt. When they went from one agent to
another, that was the only way in which we could know where they
were, or whether they were still continuing to go in the trade; but,
of course, when any balance was recovered, it was always with the
entire concurrence of the indebted person.
14,387. Do you mean that when any balance was paid by an
agent on his behalf it was with his concurrence?-It was always
understood to be with his entire concurrence.
14,388. I suppose the practice you refer to came to this, that an
agent to whom a man was in debt was able to recover from the
agent who engaged him for the subsequent year in the Greenland
voyage the amount of his debt or a part of it?-Yes, that was the
object of it.
14,389. And the agent so paying became the creditor of the
seaman, and trusted to be repaid out of the man's earnings from
the voyage which was begun?-We might have a list of perhaps
half a dozen men from an agent, and it might happen that only one
of these men had been out for that agent for that year. If the man
had the means to pay and was willing to pay, then of course he left
it with the agent to do so.
14,390. If he had not the means to pay, was it usual for the agent
engaging him for that year to advance the money?-Never. I
never knew of a case where a debt was paid in that way, unless
when the man had money to receive at the end of the voyage.
14,391. Then, at the end of the voyage does the agent receiving
that list retain the money?-He would retain the money, and give
a note to the man, or send the money with the man.
14,392. Would he send the man down to your office?-The man
would often come himself, and sometimes be the bearer of a note
stating that he left that money with the agent.
14,393. Has that been done since the regulations of 1868 came into
force?-The regulations were in 1867.
14,394. The copy I have is dated 1868?-1867 was the first year
that the men had to be paid at the Shipping Office.
14,395. Was there a previous notice to that I have got, which is
dated February 1868?-I am not quite sure; but if there was one, I
think it must have been something similar.
14,396. The change of procedure may have taken place without a
notice; but you say that there was a change made in 1867?-Yes.
That was the first year when we were obliged to pay the whole at
the Shipping Office.
14,397. Have the lists you refer to ever passed since that new
system was introduced?-Yes.
14,398. Can you remember the last time when such a list was
handed to you?-I have a case here in point. In a book of the
'Arctic,' which I now produce there is an entry in the account of
Magnus Thomson, dated 29th April 1868, 'By value in account
with Hay & Co., 10s. 3d.'
14,399. The man was credited in the account for a sealing voyage
with 10s. 3d., paid by Hay & Co. to you, the balance having been
against him in his account with you for a previous sealing voyage
to the extent of 11s. 9d.?-Yes.
14,400. Was that done in consequence of your handing Hay & Co.
a note showing that balance against the man?-Yes.
14,401. Can you say whether any such cases have occurred since
1868?-I don't recollect any other case.
14,402. Have you ever handed such lists to Mr. Joseph Leask, or
any person in his establishment, or received them from his
house?-I went along one day and mentioned the names of two
men to one of Mr. Leask's men, but I had no list.
14,403. Who was the person to whom you mentioned the
names?-Mr. John Jamieson, the brother of the young man
who was examined just now. I told him the names of two men
who were indebted to me, and asked him if he would be kind
enough to mention it to them. A day or two afterwards one of
these men went to settle with Mr. Leask at the Shipping Office,
and was discharged, and shortly afterwards he came and paid me
a sum to account. I may mention that I was aware they could
not keep the amount off the man's account; but I mentioned the
matter to Mr. Leask's people, because I knew they would have an
opportunity of seeing the men when they came to be discharged,
and I wished them to remind them of their debt.
14,404. I suppose it was expected that if any case should occur in
which a debt was due to Mr. Leask, you would do the same good
office for him?-Yes.
14,405. Have you done so for Mr. Leask?-I am not aware that I
have.
14,406. Have the names of any persons been suggested by Mr.
Leask's people to you, in order that you might, if they were
engaged by you, remind them of their debt to him?-Not so far
as I recollect at present.
14,407. Is there any other point on which you differ from Mr.
Robertson?-When you referred to the case of a man not having
settled for his second payment until the time when he engaged for
another year's voyage, you asked him if, when he got that second
payment and his first month's advance for the following voyage,
he left much of that money with the agent. Mr. Robertson stated
that in many cases he did; but in all my experience, which has now
extended over thirty years, I seldom ever saw a man leave any part
of his first month's advance and his second payment both at the
same time with the agent. If he did, it was an exceptional case.
14,408. Did he usually transmit it to his family for their
maintenance during his absence, or spend it at the time in
supplies for them?-Yes; in the case of a married man, I think
the most of it was sent home, to be a provision for his family
during his absence.
14,409. Is it usual for the man, at the same time, to send home a
certain amount of supplies for his family upon an account?-Very
often that was the case.
14,410. Is it not the case now?-It is not done to the same extent
now, in consequence of the recent Board of Trade regulations,
because the men don't get nearly so many advances.
14,411. Is the agent not willing to trust them to the same extent
now?-No; they do not get the same sort of supplies now which
they did formerly, which was generally meal.
14,412. But does the agent still afford them supplies of another
kind?-He gives them an outfit for the voyage.
14,413. Does he not generally go beyond that in the supplies
which he gives to them?-Not to anything like the same extent
as formerly.
14,414. In fact he restricts their credit?-Very much.
14,415. Would you say that the advances given in that way are
now reduced by one half?-Fully. Another statement which Mr.
Robertson made was, that [Page 361] their books don't show the
cash paid when the men are discharged at the Shipping Office.
14,416. I understand from what Mr. Robertson stated, and I think
I saw from the books themselves, that the books still show the
amount due to the man after settling his account with Mr. Leask,-
that is to say, that the system of book-keeping which was in use
before 1867 is still continued in the shop?-Yes.
14,417. The cash is actually paid in presence of the
superintendent, but no settlement takes place in the books
until afterwards?-Yes.
14,418. Has your system been changed since 1867?-Our system
has not been changed; only, so far as I know, the practice of
paying the whole balance to a seaman was not put in force until
1871. We had then ceased to be agents.
14,419. Had you ceased to be agents in 1871?-Yes.
14,420. In what way was the system carried on until 1871?-Every
man on being landed was furnished with an account of wages,
according to the Board of Trade regulations; and our practice,
when furnishing that to a man, was to read over his account from
the ledger, and tell him what balance he had to get, according to
our account; and he was paid accordingly at the Shipping Office.
When he appeared at the Shipping Office, the shipping master, or
any one acting for him, asked the man if he had got his account of
wages from the agent. He said 'Yes.' 'Are you satisfied with your
account?' 'Yes;' and then I paid the amount of the balance. The
shipping master did not see that what I had paid was the exact sum
entered in the account of wages.
14,421. Then, in point of fact, what you paid was the sum actually
due to the man in his private account with you?-Yes; that is to
say, we squared accounts at the Shipping Office.
14,422. Was the shipping master aware that the cash actually
passing was not the sum stated in the account of wages?-I am
not aware of that. It was only last year that I understand the real
sum paid was entered in the release which a man subscribed, and
of course the shipping master had then to be satisfied that the
actual sum was paid.
14,423 Was there a change in the form of the release then?-Yes,
to that extent.
14,424. I understand the release is signed by the seamen, and
the sum paid to each man is entered in the column opposite his
name?-Yes.
14,425. That column either did not exist or was not filled up
previous to 1871?-Yes. There was no column of that kind then.
14,426. Was that the reason why, in 1871, the superintendent
began to look into the matter more closely, and to require that he
should be satisfied that the actual sum named in the regulation
account of wages was handed to the seamen?-Yes.
14,427. Under the present system, the superintendent has to give a
certificate to that effect upon the release?-I suppose so.
14,428. Mr. Robertson stated that, in his experience, no allotment
notes were ever taken in the names of the agents?-Yes; and that
is another thing with regard to which I differ from him. That has
been done in my own experience. Several young men, who had no
wives to receive their allotment notes, asked at the Shipping
Office if they could be made payable in my own name and the
shipping master said it was quite legitimate. I think that occurred
first in 1867.
14,429. Have you had such allotment notes in your own name
since?-They were signed in that way unasked by me. I never
knew about it until the men stated it in my presence.
14,430. The object of signing the allotment notes in that way was
to enable you to draw their wages, or rather to retain their wages in
security for your advances to them?-It had that effect.
14,431. In what year did you cease to act for Mr. Leask?-I left
him in the end of 1865.
14,432. Had any allotment notes been taken before then in the
agent's name?-Not to my knowledge.
14,433. While you in his employment, was it the practice to give
the sailors no allotment notes at all?-Yes. I am not aware, from
my own experience, that allotment notes were granted previous to
1867.
14,434. Is there any other point on which you differ from Mr.
Robertson's evidence?-Not having heard the whole of his
evidence, I cannot say; but these are the only points on which I
differ from him, so far as I heard what he stated.
14,435. You have handed me a memorandum with regard to the
voyage of the s.s. 'Narwhal' of Dundee, in the seal and whale
fishing of 1866, showing the earnings of the Shetland portion of
the crew, the amount in cash paid to each man, and the time of
settlement?-Yes.
14,436. Was that memorandum made for the owners?-No. I have
made it up from my books for the purposes of this examination.
14,437. That statement shows that thirty-one men were engaged
through you for that vessel in that year, that their earnings
amounted to £411, 15. 8d., and the amount paid in cash to £321,
19s. 10d. You also state the average earnings to be £13, 5s. 8d.;
the average cash £10, 7s. 9d., and the average goods £2, 17s.
11d.?-Yes.
14,438. You also state that seven of the men were discharged on
the same day when they left the vessel and that the others were
discharged afterwards at different times, varying from seven days
up till two, two and a half, seven and a half, and eight and a half
months after they left the vessel?-Yes.
14,439. Was the average amount of cash received by the men
of the 'Narwhal,' on that voyage, below or above, the average
received by men in other ships, in your experience?-I have not
looked particularly at the other books. That was not a very
successful voyage, otherwise the goods might have been a little
more, and the cash would have been more as well.
14,440. You have also produced a similar memorandum with
regard to the s.s. 'Arctic,' in 1867, after the new regulations were
introduced, which shows that the proportion in goods and money
had not altered very much?-Yes.
14,441. Do you think it has altered since 1867?-I don't think so.
14,442. I thought you said that since 1867 you had greatly limited
your advances to the men?-I consider the amount advanced, even
in 1867, to be limited.
14,443. The amount of goods advanced in 1866 was £2, 17s.
11d. out of £13, 5s. 8d. of average earnings in the case of the
'Narwhal,' and in 1867, in the case of the 'Arctic,' it was £2, 13s.
1d. out of £11, 15s. 3d. of average earnings: that was very nearly
the same proportion?-Yes.
14,444. Can you say that the amount of cash paid now is much
greater than it was as shown in this return?-No; of course much
will depend upon the success of the voyage, but I don't think there
would be a great difference in the proportion.
14,445. Then is this memorandum intended to show that as much
cash was paid before 1867 as you pay now?-I just took these two
ships for the two respective years. I had no such object in view as
you suggest.
14,446. Do you think that, in point of fact, as much cash was paid
before 1867 as is paid now?-As I said before, it depends very
much on the success of the voyage.
14,447. But you have had a great deal of experience, and, taking
an average successful voyage, would the payment of cash be as
great before 1867 as it has been since?-The regulations of the
Board of Trade won't interfere with that to any great extent, but
the agents have not been engaging so many young hands since.
14,448. Is it your experience, as well as Mr. Robertson's, that
green hands are not employed now to the same extent as they
were formerly?-Yes; that must be the experience of every one.
14,449. What is the total cost of a green hand's outfit?-About £7.
14,450. The average amount spent on outfit by a man who has
been at the whaling before must, I suppose, be [Page 362]
considerably less?-A man who has been there for many years
before may be keeping up his outfit.
14,451. May he require to spend £3 or £4 when he goes out
again?-He may not require to spend one half of that.
14,452. And besides that he obtains a higher wage?-Yes.
14,453. Are you in the habit of insuring your men's outfits?-Yes.
14,454. What is the rate of insurance?-I think it is from 5 to 6
guineas per cent. I may mention that the Greenland trade was
always considered to be a great nursery for seamen. A great
many of our naval reserve men now, the majority of whom
could compare with similar class in any part of Great Britain,
commenced their career in the Greenland trade; but now these
stringent Board of Trade regulations have utterly prevented, or
nearly so, agents from taking them.
14,455. Is that because it has lessened the agents' power over the
men?-No, it is because the men can only engage for one voyage;
while almost the whole of the ships go to the seal fishing first, and
come home, and then go back to Davis Straits.
14,456. Do the men ever engage for both voyages at once?-They
have done so for the last year or two but it is not legal.
14,457. But they did it formerly?-Yes.
14,458. And they have resumed the practice within the last year or
two?-Within the last two or three years the young hands have
come to know that they cannot be forced to go both voyages, but
that if they choose to leave at the end of the first voyage they do
so. Of course an agent, when giving him an outfit for the sealing
voyage, knew that nearly the same outfit would do for the whaling;
but he cannot run the risk of giving that outfit upon one voyage
merely, and therefore he cannot engage young hands.
14,459. I thought you said they had begun within the last year or
two again to engage them for both voyages?-No. I say they have
given it up within the last few years, because the young hands
came to know that they could not be compelled to go both voyages
if they chose to leave at the end of the sealing voyage.
14,460. Then that is another reason for ceasing to employ young
hands?-That, in my opinion, is principal reason.
14,461. Are these young hands not anxious to get employment for
both voyages?-If they have to rough it very severely in the first
voyage perhaps they get cured of going, and wish to stay at home.
14,462. But the abstracts you have produced show that the
amounts of goods in 1866 and 1867 were very much in the
same proportion; so that that is not consistent with the general
proposition you stated, that the agents have restricted their credits
to the men very much since these regulations were enforced?-As
I said before, I made up these two lists in this way, that one was
for the last year when the agents could settle without going before
the shipping master, and the other was for the following year when
they were compelled to go.
14,463. The abstracts you have produced, if they are to be taken as
representative cases, rather show that the system introduced in
1867 made no difference at all?-I merely took these two years as
specimens of what was done before and after the new system was
introduced. I can prepare statements for other years if you think it
necessary.
14,464. Perhaps the explanation may be that the 'Narwhal' was the
case in which the greatest amount of cash was paid before 1867, in
your experience?-I did not fix upon the ships in that way. I
merely took them for the reason I have stated. The first man's
account in that list shows that of £28, 11s. 3d. which he had to
receive, he got £27, 15s. in cash. What I meant to show by that
was, that the agent had no control over the man's cash, but that
when he asked it he got it.
14,465. How many ships had you in 1866?-Two; the 'Narwhal'
and the 'Erik.'
14,466. Did the men in the 'Erik' receive as large a proportion of
cash as those in the 'Narwhal'?-I could not say positively unless
I had the book, but I think they could not have had so much.
14,467. Would they have a good deal less?-They would have
considerably less, because the vessel returned clean. The voyage
was utterly unsuccessful.
14,468. Then, taking your experience while in Mr. Leask's
employment before 1866, should you say that the men sailing in
the ships for which he was agent generally received as much cash
as the men of the 'Narwhal' in 1866?-I think on an average they
would; but of course that would be in pretty successful years.
14,469. I am not speaking about the actual amount of cash
which they would receive, and whether it was larger or smaller,
but would they receive the same proportion of cash and of goods
as is shown by your memorandum?-Scarcely.
14,470. Would the proportion be considerably less?-I am hardly
prepared to say.
14,471. Are you prepared to say that since 1867 the men in the
ships under your charge have got the same proportions of cash as
against goods as are stated in the memorandum with regard to the
'Arctic'?-Nearly. I shall furnish a statement for a year or two in
order to show how the matter stood then.*
14,472. How many vessels had you in 1871?-I had none in 1871.
In 1870 I had two-the 'Narwhal' and the 'Arctic.'
14,473. Have you a separate book for each year?-I have for each
ship. I should wish to make a remark with regard to the report of
the Accountant of the Board of Trade. Enough, perhaps too much,
has already been said on that subject, but I think his report is
couched in rather exaggerated terms, and, to a cursory reader, is
calculated to convey a very erroneous impression. To a careful
reader it is very different, I must acknowledge, but with a cursory
reader it might have that effect.
14,474. Then you don't go so far as Mr. Robertson has gone, and
say that the statements in it are utterly erroneous?-No, I cannot
do that.
14,475. You merely object to the general impression which it
conveys?-Yes; but I decidedly object to that. I would also say
that in my experience, which is nearly as long as that of any one in
the agency I never knew of an agent intentionally putting off time
in settling with the men. When I was in Mr. Leask's employment,
before the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act, when the men
were landed and got what cash and goods they wanted, they would
generally ask at what time they would be settled with, and we
would tell them that in the course of a month, by which time we
got the returns ready-that is, the [Page 363] ship's accounts for
wages and oil-money-we would settle with them at any time.
That was the universal practice.
14,476. Formerly you did not settle with the men until you had got
funds put into your hands by the owners-No; and we generally
got these in the course of four weeks.
14,477. Do you know of any case in which a settlement was
refused on the ground that you had not received funds from the
owners?-No; I do not recollect of any such case.
14,478. Is there any foundation for this statement in Mr.
Hamilton's report: 'Any man who carried his custom to any
other shop than to that of the agent employing him, would run
the risk of being a marked man, not only with that particular
agent, but also with all the others, among whom the news of his
contumacy would soon spread; and as there are more men than
there are berths, he would probably never get any employment
again.' Has a man had any difficulty in getting employment
because he had carried his custom away from a particular agent?-
I don't think so. If there was such a case, I think it must have
been only one.
14,479. Was there one case?-I say I think it could only be one
case.
14,480. But do you know of any one case?-Having left Mr.
Leask's business, I consider it treading on rather delicate ground
to speak about that; and I would not like to be pressed. Of course
I must always remember in giving my evidence that I am on oath,
but I would not like to be considered as equivocating.
14,481. I think you are giving very candid evidence; but you ought
to tell if there is any foundation for the statement that the men had
been refused employment because they had carried their custom
elsewhere?-I am only aware of one solitary case.
14,482. Was that because the man had gone away and got an outfit
or supplies elsewhere?-I am not aware of a man being denied a
berth because he had taken an outfit elsewhere. I think the report
of the Accountant is incorrect in that respect, because I have
known no case in which a man has been refused a berth because
he had taken his outfit elsewhere.
14,483. What was the one case to which you referred just now?-I
cannot condescend upon the particulars which led to it specially;
but there was one case of man being engaged, or partly engaged.
He had been with the same master for some years before, but some
little difference arose, and the man was prevented from going the
voyage, and did not go to it. I cannot say what was the particular
cause for that.
14,484. What was the name of the man?-Thomas Manson,
Bressay. That has been the only case of that kind, in my
experience of the Greenland trade.
14,485. The practice in engaging seamen, I understand, is that the
men go to the agents and intimate their desire to be employed for
the voyage?-Yes.
14,486. The agent has not the power of making legal engagement
with the men, but the engagement is finally made by the
captain?-Yes.
14,487. Do you go on board the vessel with the men for the
purpose of having them engaged, or is the engagement generally
made by the captain on shore?-There have been a few cases of
engaging men on board ship, but very few.
14,488. But it is done at a meeting between the captain, the agent,
and the men?-Yes.
14,489. I suppose the agent, where there are a number of men, has
some voice with regard to their selection?-Unquestionably.
14,490. Are you aware whether any effort has been made by
agents, either yourself or others, to secure engagements for the
men who had larger accounts or larger debts in your books?-Of
course there have been a few cases where an engagement has been
got for a man who was in debt.
14,491. Do you know of any case where the captain has objected,
or complained of the efforts made by the agent to get such men
engaged?-No, I don't recollect of any such case.
14,492. Did you know a Captain M'Lennan who came here for
men?-Yes.
14,493. Did he make any objection of that kind on any
occasion?-No.
14,494. Did he not complain of it being done?-Not to my
knowledge. I never heard any such complaint, either from him
or from the owner on his behalf.
14,495. Were you at one time agent for a vessel of which he was
master?-Yes, in 1870. He had his men sent south to him in the
previous year. We had him for two years.
14,496. Were you not in business at all in 1871?-Not as shipping
agents.
14,497. Had you applied to have the agency for Captain
M'Lennan's ship in 1871, before you gave up the business?-
No; we had her from 1866 till 1871, when we gave her up
voluntarily.
14,498. Was no complaint made at all that you had endeavoured to
engage men who were in your debt or who were running accounts
with you?-No.
14,499. In your business, who was in the habit of settling with the
men at the Custom House? was it yourself or a clerk?-It was
invariably myself. In fact it was the same individual who had to
appear every time. The shipping master would not allow one
person to come now, and another person to come then.
14,500. You have already stated that, so long as you were engaged
in the trade, the amount of your account was deducted, and only
the balance was handed over to the man in presence of the
shipping master?-Yes.
14,501. So that, in point of fact, your account was settled in the
Custom House just as it was before the Board of Trade regulations,
with this exception, that there was no writing or reading over of
the accounts at that place?-Yes. Before 1867 it was done in our
own office. I may mention that in several cases, of which this
[showing an account of wages] is a specimen, the men actually got
what they had to get according to the Board of Trade regulations.
In that case the sum which the man had to get was £5, 16s. 3d.
14,502. Did he get the whole amount because he had no account at
all?-He had an account, but he got this sum in full because his
wife had not drawn all his allotments.
14,503. Were the allotments deducted in that account?-Yes, that
was invariably done.
14,504. Did you draw the allotments for your account?-We drew
them regularly from the owners.
14,505. So that this man got his balance due upon the account of
wages, because his allotments had been applied to the account due
to you?-Yes. I may mention that his account was very trifling,-
in fact was next to nothing; and in addition to that he had a
balance to get, when he came down to the office, of £3 odds due
upon his allotments.
14,506. Have you any vessels engaged in the Faroe trade?-No;
we are in no way connected with that fishing.
14,507. Have you any share as owner in any of the vessels for
which you have acted as agent?-No; and as we are entirely out
of that trade just now, have no reason for making the statements I
have done, except merely to give it correct account of the way in
which the business has been conducted. The statement I have
made is altogether an unprejudiced one.
14,508. But you think the 21/2 per cent. allowed to you was a very
inadequate remuneration?-Since the recent Board of Trade
regulations were issued, it was because we had often to throw our
own business aside to attend to the men when they came to settle.
*Mr. Tulloch afterwards furnished the following statement:-
Men on s.s. 'Arctic,' of Dundee, voyage to seal and whale fishing
in 1867.
Amount of wages and oil-money, £411 14 6
Amount of cash paid Shetland portion of
crew-35 men, 318 14 6
Amount of goods sold, £93 0 0
Average earnings, £11 15 3
,, cash, 9 2 1
,, goods, 2 13 1
Men on s.s. 'Narwhal's' voyage to seal and whale fishing
in 1869-M'Lennan, master.
Amount of wages and oil-money, etc.,. £303 15 2
Amount of cash paid Shetland portion of
crew-19 men, 255 11 6
Amount of goods sold, £48 3 8
Average earnings, £15 19 9
,, cash, 13 9 0
,, goods, 2 10 9
Men on s.s. 'Erik,' of London, voyage to seal fishing
in 1869-Robert Jones, master.
Amount of wages and oil-money, etc., £365 10 10
Amount of cash paid Shetland portion of
crew-25 men, 326 4 4
Amount of goods sold, 39 6 6
Average earnings, £14 12 5
,, cash, 13 1 0
,, goods, 1 11 5
Lerwick, January 29, 1872, GEORGE REID TAIT, examined.
14,509. You were for a number of years engaged as an agent in
Lerwick for whaling vessels?-I was.
14,510. How many ships had you generally?-I have had as high
as eighteen in one year.
[Page 364]
14,511. For these, I suppose, you would sometimes employ 100 or
200 men?-Fully that; perhaps about 250 men.
14,512. You have heard the evidence of Mr. Tulloch?-I have.
14,513. Are there any points on which you differ from him?-Yes.
So far as my own experience is concerned, since the issuing of the
Board of Trade regulations in 1867 we have invariably settled with
our men at the Shipping Office without deducting our own account
14,514. Were these settlements conducted by yourself, or by one
of your clerks?-Principally by one of my clerks; but at times,
when he was absent, I generally settled with the men myself.
14,515. Was that clerk Mr. Leisk, who is now your successor in
business?-Yes.
14,516. Is the statement correct that these settlements were
generally protracted for months, and were only made at intervals
as the men came up?-I don't think it is generally correct. When a
vessel arrived at Lerwick, the men were generally settled with at
once.
14,517. Even before 1867?-Even before 1867. I don't think there
is any difference with regard to the dates of settlement.
14,518. Then what effect have the regulations had?-I don't think
they have had very much effect, so far as my own experience goes.
14,519. Have they had the effect of reducing the amount of debit
against the men in the agents' books?-I don't think so.
14,520. You have not found it necessary in consequence to restrict
your advances to the men?-I have not. I just give them much
about the same as formerly
14,521. Have you formed any idea from your experience as to
what proportion of a man's earnings in an average voyage may be
exhausted by his supplies in goods?-I have taken a note of it for
the last three years. In some cases it has been as high as 20 per
cent.; but where the vessels were successful, the proportion of
goods was not by any means so great, compared with the amount
of oil-money and wages. In that case it would sometimes be
reduced to 5 per cent. In the case of the 'Arctic,' Dundee, last
year, £995, 6s. 8d. was paid at the Shipping Office to 29 men, and
they afterwards returned and paid me £48, 2s. 5d. for goods That
was a very successful year, and the 'Arctic' was particularly
fortunate. I may explain that out of the twenty-nine men there
were only eight taken on the second voyage The vessel made two
voyages, and that return is exclusive of the eight men who went
with her the second time.
14,522. So that the advances were really made for the sealing
voyage only?-Yes, really for the sealing voyage.
14,523. And I suppose it was from the sealing voyage that the
greater part of the returns were made?-No. I think the eight
men grossed pretty nearly as much from the second voyage.
14,524. But that was an extraordinary case altogether, was it
not?-Our vessels were all fortunate last year, on the whole.
14,525. However, you say that in some cases the amount of goods
has been as much as 20 per cent. of the whole earnings?-I think
so; but these were exceptional cases.
14,526. After the new regulations were issued, did the men
universally come down and settle their accounts as soon as they
received their cash at the Custom House?-As a rule, they did.
14,527. Are they expected to do so?-A great number of the men
who are customers of my own are always very honourable in
settling their accounts.
14,528. But is it understood when you are paying them the money
that they are to do so?-Yes.
14,529. Is there an understanding expressed at the time when they
are getting the advance, that they are to settle as soon as they
receive their wages?-We have never expressed it in words, but I
should fancy that there is such an understanding.
14,530. Have your accounts since 1867 been kept in the same way
as they were before?-In the same way.
14,531. That is to say, they show the receipt by the seaman of the
balance due after deducting his account, and don't show the actual
sum received by him at the Custom House?-We generally credit
the men with the full amount of wages, oil-money, and seal-money
payable to them; then there are the advances prior to the voyage;
then there is the sum paid at the Shipping Office;-the full amount
is entered against the men; and then the sum returned.
14,532. Do you make a separate entry of that so as to show what
has been actually paid?-Yes.
14,533. Have you known any case of a man declining to come
down from the Shipping Office to pay his account at the time?-
There have been two or three very rare cases.
14,534. What happened when such cases occurred?-The men are
still due the amount. That was all that happened.
14,535. Did you make any effort to get them an engagement in the
following year?-No; I have never seen them since. I think two of
them are south.
14,536. Have you seen any evidence on the part of the men in
other cases of an unwillingness to come down?-No. I have never
seen any evidence of that at all. We leave the men at the Custom
House after we pay them, and they always turn up afterwards and
pay us.
14,537. Do you ever accompany them down from the Shipping
Office?-We never have to do such a thing. It may be a day or
so before they come, but they always pay very honourably.
14,538. Do you generally tell them at the Custom House that they
are to come down to the office?-No. I do not recollect ever once
telling them that, or giving them the least hint on the subject. I
trust to their honour, and they always come forward. I may
remark, that masters of vessels coming home from the sealing are
very anxious to proceed with all despatch to Dundee or Peterhead,
and it is sometimes difficult to make the harbour here. It would be
an exceedingly annoying thing to force shipmasters to spend some
days perhaps in making Lerwick harbour; so that they are very
anxious in passing Shetland, to land their crews at any of the
islands; but in that case the expenses of the crew are invariably
paid to Lerwick, and it may be a fortnight perhaps before we see
the men. Generally speaking, however, they are in town in less
than eight days.
14,539. Have you known any cases in which your account for
goods furnished was entered in the captain's store-book?-I have
known cases of that some years ago-perhaps about three years
ago, I should fancy; but am not certain.
14,540. Was that done after the new system was introduced?-
There was a special order of the Board of Trade issued afterwards,
preventing us from doing so. It was done before that time.
14,541. Did that order prohibit such entries being made in the
captain's store-book?-Yes, with the exception of the captain's
own account.
14,542. Such entries were made, I presume, to entitle you to
deduct the amount of your account at the settlement before the
superintendent?-Yes.
14,543. Do you think the remuneration of 2 1/2 per cent. is
sufficient for the trouble that an agent has in obtaining
engagements for the men and settling with them?-That
depends entirely upon the success of the vessel. Some
vessels, such as the 'Arctic' in the voyage I have mentioned,
pay well enough; but if the vessel is unfortunate, the
remuneration is scarcely sufficient.
14,544. But, taking the vessels overhead, is it sufficient?-I don't
think it is, considering the time and trouble that are necessary.
14,545. Might not the rate of remuneration be raised by agreement
with the owners?-They have refused to increase it. There was an
application to that effect made some years ago, and I think they
refused to entertain it.
14,546. Then I fancy the agent's principal inducement to continue
in the business is that he has an opportunity [Page 365] of
supplying the men with goods?-I don't think there are many
agents inclined to continue the business now.
14,547. You have given it up yourself?-Yes.
14,548. But your successors are to continue it?-Yes. I think for a
year they are to continue it.
14,549. You are not one of the gentlemen who have come
voluntarily forward for the purpose of contradicting the official
report of Mr. Hamilton?-No; but, so far as my own experience
is concerned, I think Mr. Hamilton's report was very much
exaggerated. In fact it was not correct, because all our men
invariably got paid in full at the Shipping Office, without any
deductions, since 1867. From the report, it would appear that the
agent deducted his own account, but that was never done by me.
14,550. But if you put your account into the captain's store-book,
that was getting deduction of it?-There was a special clause in
the ship's articles, entitling us to do that. During the last three
years that has been prohibited, so far as the Shetland men's
accounts were concerned, but not in the Peterhead ships' articles.
I think the clause still holds good with regard to Peterhead crews.
14,551. In your business, were you in the practice of taking out the
allotments of wages in your own name?-No, not the allotments.
14,552. Did you give any allotment notes at all?-Yes, since 1867.
14,553. Did you do so in all cases?-No. I have had allotment
notes, in a few exceptional cases, made out in my own name, when
the men desired that. They volunteered it at the Shipping Office
in a few cases; but the great bulk of them were made out in their
wives' names and, where they were young men, in the name of
their mothers.
14,554. Were there many cases in which no allotment notes were
taken at all?-Yes. I think last year we had one crew who had no
allotment notes at all; and before 1867 I think no allotment notes
were given.
14,555. Since 1867, has it been a common thing for men not to
take allotment notes at all?-It is common thing for the men to
take them if the voyage is long; but if it is short, the captain does
not give allotment notes, because the voyage would be ended
before the first note was due.
14,556. Have you known any case in which agents have
endeavoured to secure engagements for men who were due
them money, or who were running accounts with them, in
preference to other men who were not in that position?-I
never knew any such case, although I have heard it often
talked about.
14,557. Have you heard the captains complaining that the agents
wanted them to take men who were indebted to them, rather
than the best men who were not in debt?-I have heard Captain
M'Lennan say so. I was not his agent at all, but I heard him make
such a complaint in our place last year. I did not know anything as
to the truth of it.
14,558. Were you acquainted with the system of exchanging lists
which Mr. Tulloch spoke of?-Yes; but I have seen none from
anybody for the last five or six years, nor have I handed any within
that time.
14,559. What was the purpose of these lists?-It was simply for
the purpose, if possible, of procuring payment of the balance due,
or of ascertaining where the man was employed. The list gave us
a sort of idea where he had been in the previous season.
14,560. Was it a list of all the men who were in your debt, and
who had not engaged with you, that you handed to the other
agents?-It was generally a list of about half a dozen men,
whether they engaged or not. It depended upon whether they
were customers.
14,561. But if a man engaged with you, it was quite unnecessary
for you to hand his name in a list to any other agent?-Yes; it was
quite unnecessary then.
14,562. Therefore the list must have contained the names of men
who had not engaged with you?-Yes.
14,563. At what period were these lists made out?-About the
spring, or some time during the season, prior to the vessels
returning from the Arctic regions.
14,564. Have you ever handed lists of that kind to Mr. Leask or to
any of his people?-Yes, when Mr. Tulloch was a clerk to him,
but never since the regulations of the Board of Trade were issued.
14,565. Have you known any case of a man being paid his wages
before the superintendent, and leaving to hand back a large
proportion of them to the agent in settlement of his account?-
Yes. If he was an honest man, he would come down and settle his
account, whatever it was.
14,566. May it have happened in many cases that he had to hand
back the whole or a considerable portion of his earnings in that
way?-Yes; in the case of a young lad whose earnings were small,
his account might amount to the whole.
14,567. Your books, I have no doubt, would show many cases of
that kind?-Yes, many cases.
14,568. Did you cease to engage young hands to the same extent
as formerly, in consequence of the regulations of the Board of
Trade?-Yes. That is the sole reason why so few young hands are
engaged now.
Lerwick, January 29, 1872, JOHN ROBERTSON, sen. recalled.
14,569. Have you examined your books for January 1868?-Yes.
14,570. Did you find any entry there of a sale of meal to Thomas
Hutchison, Skerries, or to his father?-No; there is no entry of a
sale of meal in that month.
14,571. Did you find the price at which your meal was being sold
in the following month?-Yes.
14,572. You have no entries to show the price during January?-I
cannot find any.
14,573. At what price was it being sold in February 1868?-At
52s. That is the price I charged; but I find the price was rising
that year, because in the following month again it was charged 1s.
higher; and it is quite possible that I would sell a sack at 50s. in
January.
14,574. Is it possible you may have sold a sack of meal without it
being entered in your books at all?-Yes; we frequently do that. If
the cash is paid down we don't make any entry of it.
14,575. The price of 52s. in February was the credit price?-Yes.
14,576. So that, if a man were buying it over the counter, he would
probably get it 1s. cheaper, paying for it at the time?-Yes. We
usually give it 1s. cheaper when paid for at the time, than when we
give two or three months' credit.
14,577. Do you do an extensive business in meal?-Yes.
14,578. Is there much difference in the price of the meal sold in
Shetland, according to the quality of it?-There is a considerable
difference in the prices of flour.
14,579. But is the meal generally about the same quality?-Much
about the same.
14,580. Is there a difference between south-country meal and
Orkney meal and Shetland meal?-There is no Shetland meal
sold. We never get any to buy; at least very little.
14,581. I have seen one or two entries of Shetland meal in country
places: would it be sold much lower than south-country meal?-
Yes, very much lower.
14,582. But it is not an ordinary article of commerce in the
country?-No. There are very few who deal in it.
14,583. In comparing the books of different merchants selling
meal throughout the country, would it, in your opinion, be fair to
assume that a merchant in a country district was selling the same
quality of meal that you sell in Lerwick?-Yes. I think they would
be selling the same quality. There may be different qualities of
meal, but I think they all keep the same qualities. For instance we
keep three kinds of flour.
14,584. That is in flour, but in meal is it usual in Shetland to keep
more than one quality?-I think not.
[Page 366]
14,585. You keep only one quality of meal?-Yes.
14,586. And you are inclined to believe that merchants in other
parts of Shetland will generally be selling the same quality?-I
think so. Of course it must be a little dearer in the country, but I
have heard of prices being charged, at which I was a little
surprised.
14,587. Did you at one time give a note of the prices of meal to a
man, Henry Gilbertson?-I was inquiring at my clerk about that,
and I found that he did it. Of course he would give the prices
which he knew, and which he would find in my book. I may
mention that the prices of meal differ very much in one year.
14,588. But probably not within one month, unless there is a
sudden rise?-No; not unless there is a sudden rise or a sudden
fall. I generally consider that we should charge as little for meal
as we can, so that the poor people may get it at as low a price as
possible; and we take a less profit on it than on other goods.
Lerwick, January 29, 1872, JOHN LEISK, examined.
14,589. You are a partner of the firm of Leisk & Sandison,
merchants and shipping agents, Lerwick?-I am.
14,590. I understand you were previously in the employment of
Mr. George Reid Tait, who has now retired from business?-Yes;
I had been in his employment since 1862.
14,591. Were you in any other business of the same kind
before?-No; I entered business then for the first time.
14,592. Have you heard the evidence which has been given by Mr.
Tait?-Yes.
14,593. Do you agree generally with him in the account he has
given of the way in which seamen have been discharged and had
their wages paid?-Yes. I think it was generally correct.
14,594. Have you been in the habit of going up and paying wages
at the Custom House?-I generally went with the men there.
14,595. Is it the custom now to hand them over their wages in
cash, deducting only the sums which they have got for the
month's advance, the allotment money, and the captain's account
for stores?-During the last year, 1871, we only deducted the
captain's stores and the first month's advance.
14,596. Were there no allotments?-The men had allotments but
we did not deduct them. We were entitled to do so; but I found it
simpler not to deduct them, and trust to the men refunding.
14,597. Then the allotments were not entered in the accounts of
wages at all?-No.
14,598. Why did you not enter an allotment which the man had
really drawn?-Our reason for not doing so was that in some
cases they had not received the allotment in full, and they did
not understand the accounts very well. In fact we found they
understood them much better when they saw the full amount of
their wages and were told the amount of advances. It was less
trouble to us, and we got on better with the men by doing so.
14,599. Did you not include the allotment in the settlement with
the men at the Custom House because it was involved in their
accounting with you?-Yes; it became involved with that.
14,600. Had the allotment notes in 1871 been taken in name of the
agent?-Very few of them. Perhaps in one or two cases they were,
but not more.
14,601. Had they generally been left in his hands?-Yes,
generally.
14,602. When not taken in his name, but left in his hands, in
whose name were they made out?-Generally in name of their
wives or some of their relations.
14,603. Had you found that the wives had come to get
advances?-Yes, generally they had.
14,604. But not to the full extent of the allotment money?-
Sometimes, and in other cases they did not. In Lerwick they
always got supplies to the full extent, but in the country they
did not.
14,605. In what way did they get supplies?-Chiefly in money.
14,606. But in the country they did not take money to the full
extent of the allotment note?-Sometimes they did. In fact the
allotments were generally paid in cash.
14,607. Was it usual for the wives only to take it as they wanted it,
and not to draw the full amount of allotment money due at any one
time?-They generally had it divided in four; and they came for it
weekly, instead of monthly-the allotment note being payable
monthly.
14,608. Was it in consequence of that practice of drawing upon the
allotment money that you found it more convenient not to put it
into the account of wages?-Yes.
14,609. If it had been drawn at monthly intervals the account
would have been simpler?-It would.
14,610. And it might have been entered in the account of wages
without any trouble?-Yes.
14,611. Why was it not paid over to the women monthly?-They
generally wanted money before it was due. It is only due two
months after the vessel has left; and they required money before
that time and generally got it.
14,612. When the two months had expired, did you not settle
accounts with them, so as to clear off all that was due?-In some
cases we did. When they were drawing upon us regularly we did
so, but we did not make a practice of doing so.
14,613. I suppose you were supplying them with goods at the time
as they wanted them?-If they wanted goods we supplied them,
but we never asked them to take them.
14,614. Neither did you ask them to take the full amount of their
allotment money when it was due?-No.
14,615. Have you since 1862 been in the habit of settling the
accounts with seamen engaged in the whaling trade?-Only
since the new regulations in 1867.
14,616. Since then has it generally been you who have gone up to
the Custom House for Mr. Tait?-Yes, almost invariably, except
when I was away.
14,617. Since 1867 has the deduction for your account ever been
made in settling at the Custom House-Never since 1868. There
was an order issued by the Board of Trade in 1867, but it was not
very complete, and there were fuller regulations issued in 1868.
14,618. But the system was altered in 1867?-Yes. There was
nothing to prevent us from including supplies for the men in the
captain's store-book previous to 1868; but the new regulations
prevented that, and we never did it afterwards.
14,619. Then it was only in 1867 that any entries were made in the
captain's store-book?-Yes, by us. There was a clause about that
in the regulations of 1868 which was not in the regulations of
1867.
14,620. Have you ever read over to the men the account of their
transactions with you before going up to settle at the Custom
House?-We generally read it over when they come to pay it.
14,621. Is it ever done before they go to the Custom House?-If
they wish it, it is done but we never volunteer to do it.
14,622. Has there been any case since 1868 in which settlement
of your account has been made or proposed at the Custom
House?-I don't remember one. I know it was never allowed by
the superintendent. He always counted the money, in every case
since 1868.
14,623. Do you know how it was done in the case of other
agents?-I don't know.
14,624. Did you hear the evidence of Mr. Tulloch to the effect that
up to 1870 he had only paid the cash balance due to the man after
deduction of his account, and that the superintendent had not taken
care to see that the whole amount was paid, except the legal [Page
367] deductions?-Yes. I understood that that had been allowed
in Mr. Tulloch's case, but it was not allowed in ours.
14,625. Had you been expressly debarred from doing so by the
superintendent?-Yes.
14,626. Was that done on any occasion when you were about to
settle your own account there?-No. We never tried that; but he
has repeatedly counted the money, perhaps not every man's, but
that of two or three, to see that it was complete.
14,627. Has that been done since 1868?-Yes, always since 1868.
14,628. Do the men universally come down to your shop to settle
their accounts after receiving the money?-Yes, I think invariably.
I only remember one case in which a man failed to do so. Perhaps
there has been one case more, but I don't think it.
14,629. Who was the man whose case you remember?-John
Henderson, Yell.
14,630. Have you had occasion to remind the men that they ought
to come down and pay their accounts?-No; we do not remind
them of it, but we always explain the account of wages as we hand
it to each man.
14,631. Is that explanation made in the Custom House?-No; we
explain it previously. The man is supposed to be satisfied with it
before he goes to the Custom House.
14,632. When making that explanation, do you also tell them that
they are bound to come and pay their account for furnishings to
you?-We do not tell them so. We tell them that our account is
not included in the account of wages, and has to be paid simply
when they get their money.
14,633. And the men have always come down without being told,
and have paid their accounts at your shop?-Yes. They generally
leave the Shipping Office one by one as they are paid, and come
down to the shop, sometimes straight, and sometimes they do not
appear for a long time afterwards. We never look after them, but
just trust to their coming.
14,634. I suppose the amount of your account for outfit and
furnishings sometimes exceeds the amount of wages and
oil-money due; at least in the case of young hands?-In the case
of young hands only; and as rule, in their case it does so. It is a
very exceptional thing in the case of older hands. The young
hands have less clothes to start with, and they require larger
outfit, and their wages are smaller.
14,635. Do young hands invariably come back to you in the second
year to get an engagement?-Not invariably.
14,636. What do they do in that case?-I don't know what
becomes of them. Perhaps they go to some other fishing, or
engage with some other agent.
14,637. Have you known any case of a young hand obtaining his
outfit from another shop than that of the agent by whom he has
been engaged?-I don't know of any.
14,638. Have you known any case of a young hand obtaining what
he wanted for his second or third voyage from another shop than
that of the agent who engaged him?-No, I have not been aware of
it. If he had money to get at the end of the voyage, he possibly
bought what he wanted elsewhere. I don't know of such a case,
but it may have happened.
14,639. Was there a correspondence between Mr. Tait and the
superintendent hereabout the system of paying seamen at the
Custom House within the last three or four years?-There was
some correspondence between them in the beginning of 1871.
14,640. Was that after the publication of Mr. Hamilton's report?-
Yes.
14,641. How did that correspondence originate?-I think it
originated from some document that came down for explanation
from the Board of Trade through the shipowners in Dundee. Mr.
Tait sent it up to the Shipping Office here, and asked what was
complained of in discharging the seamen.
14,642. Did he get an answer?-The correspondence was carried
on between Mr. Tait and Mr. Gatherer. I was not concerned in it.
14,643. Had you any interviews with Mr. Gatherer on the
subject?-Yes, one. I carried up the document to him which
had come from the Board of Trade and conveyed a message to
him from Mr. Tait asking what was complained of, as we did not
know of anything wrong. He refused to give me an explanation,
saying at first that he knew nothing about it. I insisted that there
must have been some complaint from him or from this quarter, but
he still refused to give me any explanation of it, and I got none.
14,644. Did the correspondence follow upon that interview which
you had with him?-Yes.
14,645. Was any explanation obtained in the correspondence?-I
am not conversant with the correspondence, and I cannot answer
that question.
14,646. Are you engaged in any other branch of the fishing
business except the agency for the whaling vessels?-No.
With regard to the Shipwrecked Fishermen's Society, I heard
Mr. Jamieson's evidence upon that point, and I would like to
add, that a man who is wrecked has the option of applying through
any agent that he may choose, and is not bound in any way to
apply through the man who has sold him his ticket.
14,647. What is the practice in cases of that sort?-The men
generally apply through the agent nearest to them.
14,648. Have you known any cases in which men or widows have
applied through others than the agent who sold them the ticket, in
order that they might obtain money instead of being paid in
goods?-I did not know that that was their reason, but it might
have been.
14,649. In such cases as those to which I have referred, have they
generally asked for money?-They have generally got the money,
so far as I know.
14,650. But you are not acquainted with any case in which that has
been assigned as the reason for applying to a different agent?-
No; I never heard it. They would likely apply to the agent they
were best acquainted with, or who lived nearest to them. There
are five agents in Lerwick, one of whom is the fishery officer, who
is not connected with trade in any way, so far as I am aware.
14,651. Is there anything further you wish to say?-With regard to
the time for settling with the men, we generally, as soon as we
can get their accounts ready, fix a day for them to appear at the
Shipping Office, and we settle then with as many as make their
appearance.
14,652. You do not settle with the men on landing?-When the
men land, we fix a day for settling with them, and as many men
as appear on that day get their wages then, and the rest get them
when they call.
14,653. But if you see the men when they land, in order to fix the
day with them, why is it that you cannot [be] there and then settle
with them?-Because we cannot get the accounts ready. We
require some time to make up the accounts of wages, and then they
have to get discharges, which take them fully as much time as the
accounts. There is a great deal of writing to be done in that; they
are all made out in duplicate.
14,654. Do you mean that your own shop accounts have to be
made up?-No, our own shop accounts have all been made up
long before; it is only the accounts of wages that have to be made
up at that time.
14,655. Have they to be made out in duplicate?-No; only the
discharges.
14,656. Are not the whole crew discharged in one document?-
That is the release; but each man besides has to get a separate
discharge, and a certificate of character and ability and conduct.
14,657. Do you ever settle accounts of wages with the men before
your own shop accounts are made out and balanced?-Never. We
always make out our shop accounts shortly after the vessel sails.
14,658. But you may be giving supplies to the families all the time
when the vessel is away?-Yes; but it is very easy to add that. It is
always posted up, and can be added to the account at any time. I
now produce the store-book of the 'Tay' in order to show you
[Page 368] the form in which we understand it has to be kept in
order to comply with the regulations.
14,659. Is that book kept by the captain?-Yes, We generally
furnish a book for the purpose. The captains are not very careful
about that, and we have had a great deal of annoyance with the
Shipping Office in consequence.
14,660. Is there a separate store-book, kept in these steamers for
the Shetland men?-Yes. The entries are filled in by the captain,
and signed by him and each man; but sometimes they are not very
particular in getting them signed, and objections have been made
to receiving them at the Shipping Office in consequence.
14,661. Who is G.R.?-That is the signature of one of the clerks in
the Shipping Office. That book will show the dates on which the
men have been paid. The vessel arrived on Sunday 14th May, and
we fixed the 17th as the day of settlement, when a few men made
their appearance. There are three days allowed by the Merchant
Shipping Act for settlement.
14,662. Do you think that is too short a period to enable you to
make out all these accounts?-Three days are plenty of time. That
settlement was made within the three days. The vessel arrived on
the Sunday, which of course does not count, and we had Monday
and Tuesday for making out the accounts. The Monday was a mail
day, and we put them off until Tuesday. We employed ourselves
making them out on that day, and appointed the men to meet us at
the Shipping Office, at ten o'clock on the Wednesday morning,
and you will see how many men made their appearance out of a
crew of fifty men.
14,663. How many of them did so?-I have not counted them
over, but the dates are all there when the men were settled with,
with the exception of one man, John Robertson, Yell, who has not
made his appearance yet. Mr. Tait sent him a verbal message,
requesting him to come down and get his wages, but he has not
attended to it.
14,664. I see that one of these men was settled with on 15th
May, being the day after the vessel arrived?-That has been an
exceptional case. The man had probably been anxious to get
away, but I don't remember.
14,665. I also see that a number of them did come forward on the
17th, or within a few days after it?-Yes. They came just when it
suited them. I think there were only about a dozen who came on
the 17th out of the fifty.
14,666. How soon were they all cleared off, except the one man
who has not come yet?-I could not answer that question without
referring to the book, but most of them would be within a month.
There are always a few exceptional cases in every ship, of men
who either do not require the money, or who have something
which prevents them from coming.
14,667. Had you ever got a ship cleared off so rapidly before?-
Frequently.
14,668. But not before 1871?-Yes; in 1870 and 1869 we got
them settled with as rapidly. The settlements are never put off by
the agents, but the men may stay away as long as they like of their
own free will.
14,669. I suppose the agent seldom continues to furnish supplies
after the men have returned from their whaling voyage?-They
don't get any supplies afterwards, as a rule.
14,670. Is there anything more you wish to say?-There are some
parts of Mr. Hamilton's report which I think I ought to notice.
14,671. Have you heard any part of the evidence of Mr. Robertson
or Mr. Jamieson with regard to that report?-I heard a part of
Mr. Jamieson's evidence this morning, but I did not hear Mr.
Robertson's. Mr. Hamilton says, 'Any man who carried his
custom to any other shop than to that of the agent employing him,
would run the risk of being a marked man.' That is incorrect, so
far as my experience goes.
14,672. Have you known any case of a man who did carry his
custom to another shop?-Yes, I have known several cases of that
kind, but I could not name them. There have been men who had
money in their possession at the time of engaging, who did not
purchase their outfit from us.
14,673. Would there be one in 1870 of all the men engaged by
you?-I could not say; but I have known some of the men who
purchased their outfit from us for cash at the time of engaging
and who had no accounts whatever.
14,674. Were any lists exchanged of these men?-Never, to my
knowledge.
14,675. The only lists you know of were those which related to
men in your debt who had not paid up this debt?-Yes, and that
was only previous to 1867.
14,676. Have there been no such lists exchanged since then?-Not
that I remember.
14,677. Have you verbally mentioned the names of such men to
other agents, and made inquiries about them since 1867?-I don't
remember any particular case.
14,678. May you have done so?-Yes.
14,679. And many such inquiries have been made at you?-It is
possible. I don't remember of it being done, but I would not say
that it had.
14,680. Does it happen in your experience that green hands have
generally to hand back the whole of their earnings to the agent?-
Green hands frequently do so, where their wages are low.
14,681. And they may perhaps remain still in the agent's debt?-
Possibly in some cases they do, but it is the interest of the agent
now to have as few green hands as possible.