Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
basically Marshall'ssurviving relatives were duetoreceive nothing asaGratuity (apart
from the life insurance policy payout), but that a special case should be considered for
making a gesture to his relatives. The lack of further correspondence on this implies
that nothing in the way of a gratuity was paid to the relatives of Thomas Marshall, be-
cause on 11 May 1901 a letter was sent by Mr David Brown, the Manager of the May-
bole branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland to the NLB secretary. 9 The letter introduced
the Bank Manager as an agent of Thomas Marshall's father, John Marshall of Seabank,
Maidens. Mr Brown had stated that he had known John Marshall for many years and
acted for him as an agent in the past. The letter stressed that John Marshall was seventy
years old and was unable to continue his profession as a seaman as he was too old and
had no other means of support. David Brown then said that although he felt there was a
claim arising under statute and common law, he was making the approach to the NLB
in a 'friendly spirit' (which he underlined). He said that based on Thomas Marshall's
salary 'of at least £60' (actually underestimated by over £20) and three years of work,
he wished to 'earnestly press' (again underlined) for a 'friendly reconsideration of his
case' (which implies that a decision had already been made not to make a payment).
Brown then goes on to say that he feels a gratuity one-off payment to John Marshall
of £100 would be suitable under the circumstances. This appeal appears to have been
rejected by the NLB because on 5 June 1901, a further letter 10 arrived from Brown ad-
dressed to C. Dick Peddie esq. (who had replaced James Murdoch as NLB Secretary),
referring to the NLB's letter dated 23 May 1901. 11 Brown says that he had met with
John Marshall and did not wish to push their claim through legal means (and he men-
tions that he feels a legal case is justified) but that John Marshall wishes to pursue his
case in a 'friendly' manner. The letter continues in this vein for half a page, again men-
tioningthesupportprovidedtohisparentsbyThomasMarshallandagainstressingthat
John Marshall could not follow his former profession as a seafarer. It then finishes with
a not too subtle threat:
I should be very averse to bringing Mr Marshall's case under notice of Parliament; but,
as I consider it a most claimant and distressing case, I may in the event of a satisfact-
ory allowance not being conceded, be obliged, however reluctantly, to ask a Member
of Parliament to take up the matter in the House of Commons and elsewhere. 12
TheletterfinisheswiththehopethattheNLBwillseetheirwaycleartoconsideringthe
full payment of £100 as originally suggested by him (David Brown). There is a post-
script which stresses the severe trial that John Marshall has had with both the death of
his son and wife close together and that he 'deserves kind treatment'. It was a not un-
reasonable point to make under the circumstances. John Marshall had stated himself in
a letter to the NLB on 22 February 1901 13 that his daughter was in employment as an
 
 
 
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search