Chapter V: Excerpt From Report of Mr. Peterkin, General Inspector of Board (55)

14,284. To what extent did you supply her with goods?-I gave her 19s. 6d. worth of goods and 6d. in cash. She wanted 3s. in cash. I told her the bargain was made in goods, and I could not give it to her in cash. Besides, there was no cash in the drawer at the time. Then she thought of something else she wanted, and I borrowed 6d. from the clerk in the end gave it to her.

14,285. Did you tell her that if she got 1s. 6d. in cash it would be charged as 1s. 9d. against her?-I believe I did say that she would be charged 2d. in the shilling if she wanted cash, as the bargain had been made in goods.

14,286. Did you tell her that if she got 1s. in cash it would be charged as 1s. 3d. against her?-No. I merely said it would be 2d. in the shilling. I might have given her the cash she asked if we had had it, but there was no change in the shop at the time, and I had to borrow the sixpence that I gave her.

14,287. On what day was that?-I think it was on Wednesday last, but I am not certain, and about twelve or one o'clock in the day. I recollect the transaction very well, as the woman seemed to be ill-pleased when she went out.

14,288. Is it a frequent thing to tell a woman who asks for cash; that there is no cash in the shop?-No; that does not often happen.

Lerwick, January 27, 1872, ROBERT SINCLAIR, recalled.

14,289. Do you wish to make any explanation with regard to the evidence which has just been given?-I wish to say that it often happens that we have no small change in the shop, unless we get change for £1 and any cash that we get during the day is frequently given out again for goods before night. Therefore it is no evasion to say that there is no cash in the shop, because it is often the fact.

14,290. That happens in a great many shops, and it may happen more frequently in a shop where the cash transactions are few and barter transactions prevail?-Yes; it happens more frequently in that case.

<Adjourned>.

LERWICK: MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1872

Lerwick, January 29, 1872, Mrs. CATHERINE WILLIAMSON, recalled.

14,291. I understand you wish to make a correction on the evidence you gave on the first day of this inquiry?-Yes. I stated that I had sold a shawl to Mr. Laurenson; but I should have said it was to Mr. George Laurence, Commercial Street, Lerwick, and not to Mr. Arthur Laurenson.

14,292. Was the rest of your evidence correct?-Yes.

[Page 357]

Lerwick, January 29, 1872, ANDREW B. JAMIESON, recalled.

14,293. Do you wish to make any addition to your former evidence?-Yes. I wish to say with regard to the Accountant to the Board of Trade's report, that I consider it unjust to the agents concerned in the Greenland trade, and I concur generally in all that was said by Mr. William Robertson on that point.

14,294. Is there any particular fact in that report, apart from matters of opinion, which you think is incorrectly stated?- The report commences: 'In accordance with my instructions, I paid special attention to the circumstances attending the official discharge of Shetland seamen after voyages made in whaling vessels, great difficulty and delay having been experienced by the Board of Trade in getting the releases for such voyages completed within anything like a reasonable time.' I do not consider that to be correct. The Board of Trade never fixed a time for the releases to be completed, and consequently the men do not come for their settlement until it suits their own convenience.

14,295. Do you mean that before 1868 no rule existed on that subject?-There is no time fixed even now for the men to come.

14,296. Does not the third head of the regulations provide that, when the men are landed, the master shall deliver the store-book, and that the balances due shall be paid in presence of the superintendent?-The master does deliver the store-book when the crew are landed, but the regulation does not say that the men are to appear immediately before the superintendent. If they would remain in town, that would be done; but they prefer going home, especially when they are not required by the regulations to remain.

14,297. The Merchant Shipping Act provides that the master or owner shall pay the wages of every seaman within three days after the cargo has been delivered, or within five days after the seaman's discharge, whichever first happens?-These are the terms of the Act; but that never was the rule in the Greenland trade, because the men are landed in any part of Shetland the ship first comes to, and the men never come forward to Lerwick to be settled with until it suits them to come.

14,298. I don't know that Mr. Hamilton lays the blame upon the agents for the delay in getting the releases completed?-Not in that sentence, but he does so subsequently in his report. He says, 'When the whalers return after a short and successful voyage, it is, under this system, manifestly to the agent's interest that the Shetland portion of the crews should not be settled with at once.'

14,299. Do you say that that is not for the agent's interest?-I say that it is not. It is not for his interest to delay the settlement, and the settlement is not delayed by him.

14,300. Is it not for the agent's interest to have the money in his hands as long as possible?-Perhaps if he has the money in his hands, he may make a few shillings of interest; but when the men come forward individually to settle, there is more time spent in making the settlement than any profit he can make can cover. Then Mr. Hamilton says, 'But no time is fixed for settlement, and the consequence is that it is the interest of the agent to delay it until he gets the man in debt to him again, and when he does pay to the man the balance of wages due to him before the superintendent, the man has no option but to hand it all back to the agent at once, to whom he is indebted in an equal or greater amount.' That statement is not consistent with fact.

14,301. Is it not true, as you have already stated, that the seamen do hand back to the agent the money which they have got?-Yes, but it is not true that they are indebted to the agent in an equal or greater amount.

14,302. You think the amount of debt is not generally equal to the amount payable in wages?-I am quite sure it is not.

14,303. Was it, at any time in your experience, common for a man to have an amount of debt to the agent equal to the amount of his wages and oil-money?-Very often, when they had made a bad voyage, the younger hands would be in debt.

14,304. Mr. Hamilton says, in another part of his report: 'For this purpose to engage the men at Lerwick, they employ agents in Lerwick, who get, I am informed, little direct profit from their agency. Their chief profit arises from what they can make out of the earnings of the men;' is there anything incorrect in that, in point of fact?-It is quite correct that the agents have little direct profit from their agency. The remuneration is quite inadequate for the amount of work and expense connected with the trade. Then he says, 'These agents are all shopkeepers, and most of them are proprietors of land themselves, or act as land agents for others.' There are only four agents altogether, and there are only two of them who are proprietors of any quantity of land. The others do not act as land agents, so far as ever I heard. 'Many of the men engaged are utterly unable, without the assistance of the agents, to provide themselves with the clothing necessary for the voyage.' That applies chiefly to the young hands, who require extra clothing when going to such a cold climate, and they get it from the agents. 'It is quite common for allotments of wages to be made out in favour of the agents.' I never saw that. It is not done in Mr. Leask's business. Of course I cannot speak with certainty for the others, but am pretty certain it is not done in any case.

14,305. In your experience the seaman takes no allotment note at all, so that the only advances which are got during his absence are those which are made through the agent in the shape of supplies to his family, without any allotment note being required?-Yes. We have always done so.

14,306. But the agent is quite aware that no allotment note has been granted?-Yes.

14,307. So that the effect is just the same as if the allotment note had been given to the agent?-It is not quite the same in settling with them, because we have to pay the whole money to the men; whereas, if an allotment had been granted, it would have been deducted.

14,308. But if there is no allotment note made out to the man, and given to his wife or any of his friends, the agent has not to pay the money away?-No.

14,309. So that he is in perfect safety to make advances in the shape of any supplies which may be required during the man's absence?-He is quite safe to do that if the man pays him back at the end of the voltage.

14,310. At least he is in greater safety than if the man's friends were in a position to draw part of his wages during his absence, because he knows that the wages cannot be spent?-Yes. If the man's family have a note, that is all the advance they require in general; but as it is when a family have a weekly allowance, I should say they get about one half of their allowance in cash.

14,311. Do the families have a weekly allowance from the agent?-In some cases.

14,312. Is that done by private arrangement?-Yes.

14,313. Are these families residing in Lerwick, or mostly in the country?-Mostly in Lerwick. Families residing in the country only send in occasionally for anything they may require, but they are not by any means bound to do it.

14,314. But is it a common thing for the families of men residing in Lerwick, or near it, to get a weekly advance in provisions or in money?-It is quite common.

14,315. Is it mostly in provisions or mostly in money that that advance is given?-I think it is about one half in money. They always get some money.

14,316. Is that entered in the man's account?-Yes. Then it is not correct to say that a man who wants to take his outfit from any shopkeeper is practically debarred from doing so. He can do so if he likes.

14,317. Does he ever do it?-There is no doubt he does.

14,318. Have you ever known any case of a man doing so?-Yes, plenty. We know that when a man does not get goods from us, he must get them somewhere else.

[Page 358]

14,319. But he may have had an outfit before, and did not require a fresh one for that voyage?-He may.

14,320. Have you ever known a man who required an outfit for a voyage taking it from any agent but the one who engaged him?- Yes.

14,321. Can you name any case of that kind?-I could not exactly name a case.

14,322. Could you show me any case in your books in which the man has not got some outfit from you?-Not very many, I think. On short voyages to the sealing, a considerable number of the men would not require it. Men who had been going there for years, and who were only going on a short voyage, would be well enough provided with clothes. Generally men who get good wages are all provided with their necessary outfit.

14,323. But you think you could show me very few cases in your books in which a man did not require some outfit and did not get it from you?-On long voyages perhaps there are not many.

14,324. Did you ever supply an outfit to a man going on a whaling voyage upon the engagement of any of the other agents?-I think not exactly an outfit; but we have sold them individual articles.

14,325. Did you ever do that on credit?-I daresay we have.

14,326. Do you know that you have?-Yes.

14,327. In what case?-I could not exactly name a case, because if a man comes in wanting to buy anything we sell it to him, if the other agent did not have it, or he did not choose to take it from him. I know that has been the case both with us and with others.

14,328. Have you run an account with the man for that?-If he was well known to us, we would have no objection to give him credit.

14,329. But can you name the case of any man who was engaged for the whaling by another agent and who received credit from you?-I could not name a case. It is done just in the ordinary way of trade, and we would not pay any attention to a case like that. We could not be expected to recollect where every customer was going.

14,330. Is it not the case that every man who engages with you does take so much of his outfit as he requires from Mr. Leask's shop?-I think that is very generally the case; but he does it because he chooses to do it, and because, I suppose, he thinks he will be as well served there as by going elsewhere. With regard to the report, again, I say that the greater proportion of the men are settled with in a reasonable time.

14,331. Do you mean within six months?-The greater proportion of them are settled with in one month.

14,332. That is the case now?-Yes.

14,333. But formerly the time was considerably greater, was it not?-I don't think there was much difference. The men came then when it suited them, and they do the same now, except when they are all landed in Lerwick at one time, and choose to stay few days in town to get the settlement carried through. They are not bound to a day now more than they were then; but the releases and official papers in the Custom House can prove the proportion of men discharged within the month.

14,334. Mr. Robertson showed me some accounts with Greenland whaling men in which there was a charge for insurance upon outfits: is that an arrangement made by you with the men?-Yes.

14,335. Have you explained to them the nature of the charge, and why it was made before entering it in your books against them?- Yes; we have been doing that for the last fifteen years at least. If the vessel is lost, then the men don't pay for the outfit; it is paid by the insurance.

14,336. Mr. Leask is also an agent for the Shipwrecked Mariners' Fund, and there is a charge of 3s. made at the beginning of each man's account for a payment to that Fund?-Yes.

14,337. Does that 3s. cover the loss of clothing?-They get that in addition. When the vessel is lost, the man gets an allowance for clothing, and also the payment from the Shipwrecked Mariners' Fund. He gets the allowance for clothing in this way: that he pays nothing for the goods if the vessel is lost, and then he gets the allowance from the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society in addition, and is sent home free if he is landed in any part of the kingdom.

14,338. Therefore that is a double insurance?-Yes.

14,339. If a man is lost, his widow, in return for the 3s., gets an annuity or some allowance?-Yes. The amount of it depends on the number of years he has subscribed, and the number of his family. It varies considerably; but she gets an allowance at first, and generally a small annual grant.

14,340. Is that 3s. paid in every case when the men are going to Greenland?-It is such a small payment, and they have experienced so much benefit from it, that they never object to it now.

14,341. I suppose that charge is entered in a man's account as a matter of course?-Yes.

14,342. You say that if a man who subscribes that 3s. loses his outfit, or his boat, or anything, that is covered by the insurance, and he is entitled to a certain payment, which is made by the agents?-Yes.

14,343. Is that payment always made in cash?-Always.

14,344. How long is it since it has been universally made in cash at your agency?-It has always been made in cash, so far as I had to do with it.

14,345. Do you remember of any sums of a few pounds in cash being paid from the Shipwrecked Mariners' Fund?-There are often payments of that kind.

14,346. Do you remember any case of it man being refused payment of his allowance in cash?-No.

14,347. Or being asked to take goods?-No, I don't recollect any such case.

14,348. Do you remember the case of a man named Williamson from Coningsburgh having a claim against Mr. Leask, as agent for the Society, in respect of a loss which he had sustained, and falling within the conditions of the Shipwrecked Mariners' Fund?-I don't recollect anything about the case or about the man.

14,349. Do you remember any case where the amount due from the Shipwrecked Mariners' Fund was put to the credit of a person insured, in order to reduce the debt due by him to Mr. Leask?- No, I don't recollect any such case.

14,350. Can you say that that has never been done?-I cannot say that exactly. Perhaps if the man chose to put the money to his account it would be done.

14,351. But can you say it has never been done where the man did not choose to put the money to his account?-It has never been done where the man did not choose, so far as I know.

14,352. Do you know any case in which Mr. Leask has asked the man to do it, or has proposed to do it, and the man has resisted?- No.

14,353. Is an allowance of that kind sometimes put to the credit of a man who has an account in Mr. Leask's books, and taken out in goods in the course of the year?-It may be in some cases.

14,354. Is it not usually the case when a sum of that kind falls due that it is entered to the man's credit?-That is not usually the case, because nobody knows whether it will be paid or not, or whether the man will have a claim to receive money.

14,355. But when you know that it is due, and that it is to be paid, and the man happens to have an account, is the amount not just entered in that account and credited to the man?-It may be in some cases, but it is only when a man is wrecked that he is entitled to any allowance from the Society; we don't know when he is to be wrecked, and therefore he cannot get advances on the faith of a claim against the Society.

14,356. I am not speaking about advances on the faith of a claim; but when the money is due, is it not generally put into the man's account?-Not generally, but there may have been a case or two of that kind.

14,357. Is it generally handed over to him in cash?-Generally.

[Page 359]

14,358. Even when a man has an account, and when the balance of that account is against him?-The man perhaps will not require it to be handed over to him if he had an account and wished the amount of his debt to be reduced by putting that to it. In that case there would be very little occasion for a transfer of the cash, but I can scarcely recollect any cases of that kind.

14,359. I am not asking whether the man wishes it or not, I am asking whether it is ever done, or whether it is generally done?-I should say it is not generally done. I would say it is almost never done.

14,360. How many of these payments have you to make in the course of a year?-In some years there are very few.

14,361. Will there sometimes be a dozen?-Perhaps there may, but I could not say, without the books.

14,362. And you say that out of the dozen payments which you make, one half of them will pass through the men's accounts?- No, I should not say that.

14,363. Should you say that three out of every dozen did so?-No, I should not even say that.

14,364. Should you say that one in every dozen passed through the men's accounts?-I might say one, but I could not be sure. It might be less, or it might be none at all.

14,365. Might it not be more?-It is not a regular business transaction at all, and it is very seldom that such a thing ever enters the accounts. It is a present payment for an accident happening to a man, and he just gets the money, and there is no more about it; but it might happen occasionally that he applied it towards payment of a debt.

14,366. The premium or subscription of 3s. universally passes into the man's account?-Yes.

14,367. I cannot quite see why the payment of a policy should not also go into the man's account if he has one?-It is only when a man is wrecked that such it payment is to be made. There are many men who have been paying for twenty or thirty years, and have never had occasion to claim against the Society, while there are others who have.

14,368. But if a man happens to have an account running with Mr. Leask, do you say that the payment is made to him in cash rather than put in to the account?-No, I don't say that, because the man might make no difficulty in applying it to his account, if he had one; but we are applying for men from different parts of the country who have no account with us, and in these cases the money is paid over at once.

14,369. In the majority of cases in which the money is paid through you when it is due, is it not to the men who have paid their premium through you?-By no means. We issue a great many tickets to men who are not in our employment at all,-men going south, and fishermen on the islands. I think we are generally called upon to make applications in cases of loss in preference to the other agents, and that money is paid over to the men at once.

14,370. Then do you say it is the case that the money is entered in the man's account whenever he has an account with you?-If the man to whom the money was to be paid had an account, it might probably be put to that account; but of course it would only be done with the man's concurrence.

14,371. Did you ever know any man object to that being done?-I cannot say that I ever did.

14,372. Are you sure that you never did?-Yes, I am sure.

14,373. Is there anything else you wish to say?-I wish to correct the statement made in the report, that it is the interest of the agent to delay the settlement until he gets the man in debt to him again. I say that is not the fact.

14,374. Is it not the fact that that is the interest of the agent?-It may be the interest of the agent, but it is never done.

14,375. The report only says that it is the interest of the agent: it does not state that he does it?-I think it does. It says that the man is indebted to the agent in an equal or greater amount, and that it is the interest of the agent to delay settlement until he gets the man in debt to him again. What I object to in that statement is the impression conveyed by it, that all the men are in debt to an equal or greater extent than their earnings. I think that is the way in which the statement would naturally be read; but, as a rule, the men do not run accounts after they come home until they settle, and then they will only buy what they require. They are never importuned to buy or to take goods, nor is the settlement delayed for that purpose.

14,376. You say the men are never importuned to buy anything. Are they not asked at settlement if they want anything?-No. Their money is paid them as soon as they call for it, without any demur.

14,377. I know it is; but are they not asked at that time if they want to take any goods?-After they have got their money we may ask them if they want anything; and if they are as well served by us as elsewhere, sometimes they do buy some goods.

14,378. I suppose in a number of cases the men are quite ready to take what they want from your shop, and to pay for it with the cash they have got?-Yes.*

*Mr Jamieson afterwards put in the following Return in supplement of his evidence:- RETURN relative to the Discharge of Greenland Seamen from Vessels for which Mr. JOSEPH LEASK was Agent. Year 1871.

Ship's Name and Voyage No. of men Date of Place of
En-gaged Landing Landing

a Camperdown, sealing voyage 33 Apr. 30 Lerwick b Polynia, sealing voyage 34 Apr. 17 Lerwick c Esquimaux, sealing voyage 30 Apr. 17 Lerwick d Narwhal, sealing voyage 29 Apr. 21 Scalloway e Ravenscraig, sealing voyage 31 Apr. 17 Lerwick f Victor, sealing voyage 30 June 1 Lerwick g Alibi, sealing and whaling voyage 19 July 21 near Scalloway h Total 206 62 52 i Ravenscraig, Davis Straits whaling voyage 20 Oct. 26 Lerwick j Polynia, Davis Straits whaling voyage 19 Oct. 26 Lerwick k Narwhal, Davis Straits whaling voyage 14 Oct. 29 Scalloway l Camperdown, Davis Straits Whaling voyage 26 Nov. 11 Lerwick <via> Longhope m Total 79

Ship's Name and Voyage Numbers Discharged in Apr. May June July a Camperdown, sealing voyage 25 b Polynia, sealing voyage 12 11 c Esquimaux, sealing voyage 15 3 d Narwhal, sealing voyage 13 9 e Ravenscraig, sealing voyage 22 4 f Victor, sealing voyage 19 5 g Alibi, sealing and whaling voyage 4 h Total 62 52 19 9 i Ravenscraig, Davis Straits whaling voyage j Polynia, Davis Straits whaling voyage 19 k Narwhal, Davis Straits whaling voyage 14 l Camperdown, Davis Straits Whaling voyage m Total 79

Ship's Name and Voyage Numbers Discharged in

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.