Second Shetland Truck System Report Part 139

5257. Then you simply manage their curing business?-I merely dry their fish for them.

5258. And the persons you have spoken of just now are still employed by you for the purpose of curing?-Yes.

5259. How are their wages paid?-As I was curing Spence & Co.'s fish, if they chose to go to Spence Co.'s at Uyea Sound in Unst, they got supplies there in an account, but only about one-fourth of them did so. The others got their supplies perhaps in the neighbouring shops. I cannot say where they got them, but they got cash from Spence & Co. at settling time.

5260. Was that cash advanced during the season, or was it all paid at settlement?-It was all paid settlement. If they asked for an advance, they would get it, but I was not aware of any being advanced.

5261. But such advances as were made by Spence and Co. were made by taking goods from their shop?-Yes, so far as I know. I also bought kelp for Spence & Co.

5262. Is there much done in kelp there?-Yes, good deal.

5263. What is the nature of that trade? Do you employ a number of people to gather the sea-weed?-It is women who do that.

They form themselves into companies of two or three or four; they gather the seaweed and make the kelp, and then bring it to a merchant to sell. I had a lease of Major Cameron's kelpsh.o.r.es, but I transferred that lease to Spence & Co, and afterwards I bought the kelp and delivered it over to them.

5264. Did the women pay anything to the proprietor for leave to collect the sea-weed?-No; but I paid 20s. a ton, or rather Spence & Co. did.

5265. You paid that money for the exclusive right of purchasing from these women?-For the exclusive right of manufacturing kelp., We can employ people to collect it if we choose, but we think it better just to allow the women to do it themselves, without being forced in any way; and then we paid them 4s. per cwt. in cash for it, while we paid 20s. a ton to the proprietor and taxes.

5266. What taxes are there on the kelp?-Poor-rates, both as proprietor and tenant.

5267. Then 4s. per cwt. is the whole payment which these women receive for gathering the kelp and manufacturing it?-Yes.

5268. They manufacture it and bring it to you?-Yes.

5269. Are they paid entirely in cash?-They have been paid almost entirely in cash this year, but not altogether.

5270. They have the option of running an account for it at the shop?-Yes, if they choose to do so; but if they ask cash, they get it.

5271. Are you aware of any restriction being imposed upon tenants in Yell with regard to the disposing of their cattle or other stock on their ground?-I have known an instance or two of that during my experience in North Yell, but very seldom.

5272. Has that been done when they have been in debt to the merchant?-Yes; if they were in debt, almost beyond redemption.

5273. Then the merchant has interfered as a creditor merely?-Not the merchant, but the proprietor.

5274. Was it for his rent that he interfered?-Yes.

5275. In these cases was the proprietor a merchant as well?-Yes, in some cases.

5276. And he has interfered both for his rent, and for the account due to him as a merchant?-I cannot say about him being a merchant. I always understood it was done for rent. I have known of cattle being taken according to law for a shop account.

5277. You mean that they were poinded?-Yes, by a Sheriff's warrant.

5278. But is there any practice in Yell of a man marking his cattle as belonging to a merchant to whom he is in debt?-No; I never knew that done.

5279. Or coming under an obligation not to sell them to any one except that merchant?-I could quite believe that a tenant would offer his cow or his pony, or whatever it might be, to the proprietor; but I am not aware of any one being compelled to do so in North Yell. I have myself marked a cow of a defaulting tenant when I was acting as my brother's agent, and as lessee of Major Cameron's property, but that was for the rent.

5280. Did you mark it and allow it to remain on the ground?- Yes; I allowed it to continue in the tenant's hands until I might think fit to remove it.

5281. Was that man in debt to you as well?-He was in debt as a tenant only for rent.

5282. Was he not also in debt for goods supplied?-No; because he was not a fisherman; he was a sailor.

5283. Would you give a higher price for kelp than 4s. a cwt. if the women had taken payment of it in goods?-No; there was an understanding at one time that parties would get 6d. less if they took it in cash, [Page 131] but for the last two years, in my experience with Spence & Co., and formerly with myself, the women have been quite at liberty to take cash or goods, and 4s.

was the price. According to the terms of my lease, I was bound to pay nothing less than 4s. to the parties who made it.

Lerwick, January 9, 1872, JAMES BROWN, examined.

5284. You are a tenant under Mr. Bruce of Sumburgh at Toab, Dunrossness, and you fish for him?-Yes.

5285. You have heard the evidence that was given by William Goudie and the other fishermen to-day?-Yes.

5286. Do you know it to be correct with regard to the system of fis.h.i.+ng there, and the obligation to fish for Mr. Bruce of Sumburgh?-Yes; so far as I can remember, it is correct.

5287. Did it happen some time ago that you had sold fish to another than Mr. Bruce?-It was supposed so.

5288. What was done in consequence?-My house was offered to be let to another tenant. It was publicly advertised at Messrs.

Hay's shop at Dunrossness.

5289. The you see the ticket put up?-No, I did not see it.

5290. But you knew of it?-Yes.

5291. And in consequence of what you heard about it, did you go to Mr. Bruce?-Yes.

5292. What did you say? Did you ask why your farm was to be let?-Yes. He told me before I had time to speak that he was forced to offer my house to another tenant. I said there was surely a cause for that, and he said that the cause was that I was selling fish to another man.

5293. To whom did he say you were selling fish?-To Robert Leslie.

5294. Was that the case?-No; I proved it not to be the case. I told him I would bring proof of that if he required it, but I was never called upon to do so.

5295. You satisfied Mr. Bruce that he was under a mistake, and you still hold the same ground?-Yes.

5296. Had you reason to believe that you would really have been turned out of your ground for selling your fish to another than Mr.

Bruce if you had done so?-I had every cause to think so.

5297. Why?-Because at the commencement, when he took the fis.h.i.+ng into his own lands, there was a letter read in my hearing, to the effect that we were to deliver our fish to him.

5298. Is that the letter which Laurence Smith spoke of to-day?- Yes, the same letter. It was read by John Harper in my hearing.

5299. Do you know whether the meal is dearer at Grutness store than you can get it elsewhere?-Yes; I have got a little there.

5300. Have you bought it cheaper elsewhere?-Yes; I have bought it in Lerwick, and I found it cheaper there than at the store. It was in 1869 that I bought a boll of meal at Lerwick, and I paid 1, 3s.

for it, while their meal that season was 24s.

5301. Was there any difference in the weight of the boll at Grutness?-I could not prove that. I had a running account there, and I sometimes got a boll, sometimes half a boll, and sometimes a peck; but when I came to settle, it was all run up into bolls, and I paid 24s. a boll for it.

5302. Had you any reason to suppose that you did not get the same weight in a boll from the store that you got anywhere else?-I made an objection to that, and I was told there was a little deduction made when I got 32 lbs. for a quarter boll instead of 35 lbs, but what that difference was I never knew.