10,979. Did you ever know of a man refusing to do that?-Very often.
10,980. In that case I presume that since the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, there were no means compelling payment?-None; except, of course, that he could be taken to the Small Debt Court.
10,981. And there was no security, no lien on the men's wages?- None whatever. There never was that at any time. It was purely with his own consent if the money was used for paying another agent's account,
10,982. How long is it since these lists were interchanged between the agents in Lerwick?-It was previous to 1854. Perhaps there may have been some handed since then; one agent may have handed his accounts to another, in order to get recovery of them.
10,983. You say you have been nineteen years with Mr. Leask, and therefore these lists must have been interchanged within your time?-Yes; I was first employed in 1853.
10,984. Do you say that there have been no lists of that kind exchanged, and no information communicated with regard to the men's debts, since 1853 or 1854?-I don't remember any since 1854: there may have been, but I don't remember handing any lists or receiving any lists since that time.
10,985. Or receiving any information at all with regard to the debts of the men?-Not since the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854.
10,986. Why do you fix that date?-Because at that date it became compulsory to have the men shipped and discharged before the shipping master.
10,987. Has that always been done since 1854?-Not always. It was done I think, in 1854 and 1855, and it was not done again until 1867. In that year it commenced again, and the wages were all paid down in presence of the shipping master.
10,988. But if the Act was not observed with regard to the payment of wages in presence of the shipping master, how did it interfere with the passing of these lists?-The practice was given up.