It is said that in bad years, when the crops or the fishing, or both, have failed, the population would starve in winter and spring if the merchants were not to make advances of meal and provisions; and that they could not do this, but for the security afforded by having the men engaged to fish to them for a price to be settled only at a distant day. Even if supplies of food are not required, men may be unable to go to the fishing for want of boats, lines, and hooks, which they have to get from the curer, and which, it is contended, may properly form a first charge against the proceeds of the enterprise. Fishing is always most productive when the men are paid by shares, not by wages; and it is not desirable to introduce any change which would necessitate the payment of the men by wages. [W. Irvine, 3896; T. Gifford, 8150; H. Hughson, 9599; W. Irvine, 3834; A. Sandison, 10,007; L.F.U. Garriock, 12,605.] It may be replied, that however true this may be, it just presents one of those cases in which the weaker party is likely to be led into a disadvantageous bargain, and in which, upon recognised principles, the law may interfere for his protection, by regulating the bargain so made, or by teaching him how to escape from the position of disadvantage. The transition to a new state of things might in bad seasons be attended with some difficulties and hardships, especially to those who are now indebted. Thus Mr. A. Sandison, in recommending a system of monthly payments, says, 'I think it would pauperize a number of the fishermen, because there are a great number of them in debt, and in the transition from the one system to the other they would require to pay up their debts, so far as their means would go' (Q. 10,015).* One cannot avoid observing that this class of objectors to cash payments exaggerate both the inability of the people to provide against the evil future, and the value of the 'merchants' as a source of credit in bad times. It is impossible to judge of the energy that would be exerted under the stimulus of necessity by a population which has always had landlords, tacksmen, and merchants to depend on in adversity. Those who urge that the men could not live, or at least could not go to fish, unless the merchants were there to supply their wants, forget that, while the existing system presents one ready source of credit to fishermen, it closes up all others. The fish-merchants, by getting delivery of their debtors' fish, have such a security for their accounts, that other shopkeepers do not now venture to furnish any but the smallest quantity of goods to the average fisherman on credit. But if there was some certainty that the fish-merchant had not a contra account against the fisherman, at least equal to the price of his fish, other merchants would not have the same reason, in cases of necessity, for refusing to give some credit to deserving men. This is shown by the fact-certainly an exceptional one-that a