Second Shetland Truck System Report

by William Guthrie

The system of barter which has been described does not extend to any trades or handicrafts in which wages are paid to the workmen or workwomen, with three exceptions, viz.: (1) the knitters who knit the merchants' yarn; (2) the persons employed in curing fish, boatbuilding, and some miscellaneous employments connected for the most part with fishing; and (3) the kelp-gatherers. The days' wages also of fishermen occasionally employed by proprietors or merchants in agricultural work are sometimes carried into their accounts. If it be assumed that legislation for the prevention of truck is expedient, there can be little difficulty in applying to these three classes any Act of Parliament that may be passed for that end. And on the same assumption, there is as much reason for protecting the persons engaged in these trades from being compelled, by their own misfortune, weakness, or improvidence, to take payment of their wages, or part of them, in goods, as for giving such protection to workmen in other parts of the empire.

APPLICATION OF STATUTES

It has already been mentioned that one branch of the knitting of Shetland goods probably falls under the existing Truck Act, 1 and 2 Will. iv. c. 37. It rather seems, however, that such knitting will not be one of the trades to which the bill now before Parliament applies. It seems also doubtful whether the application clause of the bill will extend, as it now stands, to all the branches of fish-curing, or to the manufacture of kelp. See 33 and 34 Vict. c. 62, sch. 2; 34 and 35 Vict. c. 4.

BARTER OF EGGS ETC.

It will hardly be contended that in the system of bartering eggs or butter for goods, which prevails in Shetland, delivery being made on both sides at the time when the bargain is made, and the transaction being thus finished at once,-there are evils similar to those which legislation against truck is intended to remedy, or at least that the law ought to prevent buyers and sellers in such cases from making any contracts they please. This custom, which was or is not uncommon in other remote rural districts, will probably disappear of itself as the islands are brought into more frequent and intimate relations with the rest of the world.

BARTER OF KNITTED ARTICLES

The same might be said with regard to the barter of knitted articles for tea and drapery, where the knitter is in no sense employed or engaged to manufacture the raw material provided by the merchant. Here, however, the element of credit or accounting is often introduced; and it is a question whether, so far as it is so, this handicraft ought not to be ruled by the same considerations as the fishing trade. The evils arising from long accounts in this trade and in fishing seem to point to the necessity of extending to these cases the prohibition of set-off contained in §5 of the existing Act and in §10 of the Bill now before Parliament. Another uggestion is, that a short prescription for such accounts should be introduced-say a prescription of three months, running from the date of the earliest item in the account, and accompanied by a provision that no acknowledgment shall bar prescription unless it be contained in a holograph or probative writing.

CASES IN WHICH LABOUR IS PAID BY A SHARE OF THE PROFITS

In the ling fishing the fisherman may be regarded, if we speak technically, as a vendor to the merchant. Practically he is a partner, for the price of his wet fish is in proportion to the proceeds of the merchant's sales of the cured fish. In the Faroe fishing the fisherman is more distinctly and formally a partner, for the agreement signed by the merchant and the crew entitles him to a share of one-half of the net proceeds of the fishing. The question to be answered is, whether the principle of the Truck Acts extends to these two occupations, so as to justify the State in laying down such rules as shall prevent the fisherman in either case from taking part of his earnings, although they are not wages, otherwise than in current coin; and if that be so, what practical difficulties stand in the way of applying the principle. It is difficult to read the evidence without arriving at the conclusion, that if it is right to protect the skilled artisans of Sheffield and Birmingham, and the highly paid miners of Lanarkshire and South Wales, from receiving their wages in goods, it is also right to require the fish-curer of Shetland to give money instead of goods to his fishermen. By whatever name we may call the earnings of the latter, there is not such a difference in the positions of the two classes as to justify us in applying to them different rules of law. Both are labouring men; for the Shetlander's possession of a small allotment of third-rate land does not elevate above the condition of a peasant.

If we apply to the Shetlander the legal distinctions which occur in the existing law, he differs but little from some of the protected crafts in England. He engages to fish the curer, and to give him the produce of his labour at the current price, just as a collier contracts to put out coal at a certain rate per ton. If the law is to protect from truck the man who agrees to be paid not directly for his labour, but for the result of his labour, the Shetland ling fisher may be held to fall within that principle. There is, indeed, this distinction, that his remuneration depends on the price eventually obtained for the produce of his labour, so that he takes the risk of the market. The amount of his earnings is affected both by his success in catching fish and by the fluctuations of the market. The collier, on the other hand, works for wages fixed at a certain rate, and the only element of uncertainty is the quantity of his out-put. The fisherman certainly works upon the co-operative principle at present; and in considering any legislative change, it may be desirable to avoid interfering with this principle of the present system, and unintentionally leading to the substitution of fixed wages.