>t4n 
 
 ■^i 
 
 M 
 
 \3 
 
 ^^tMk 
 
 
 t 
 
 lJE 
 
 iL* 
 
 « 0* 
 
 BE*^p^E 
 
 m 
 
 
 i
 
 
 6 
 
 ^ ' Y' C^/i^*:^ ^-^ ^"^ • ^""^^ ^"^ * ^'^ ^*-^<^/^ /^ "^ '^ /^//.J/utTu ^ S 
 
 -> 

 
 t 
 
 !J-
 
 jn.E-r-jniiN X jcljl; rr\K^i\i i run. r ic^L^L): I // 
 
 LETTEES 
 
 ON 
 
 OYSTER FISHERIES: 
 
 ®Ijc Cannes of ^nvrcitg ; tlje gleinxbies, ^c. 
 
 BY 
 
 W. FELL AVOODS, 
 
 DIRECTOR UF THE SOUTH OF ENGLAND OYSTER COMPANY. 
 
 EDWARD BUMP US, HOLBORN BARS, 
 
 LONDON. 
 
 1877,
 
 LONDON; 
 
 rUINTF.D BY C. ROWORTH AND SONS, 
 
 NEWTON STREET, W.C.
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface. 
 
 Letter 1. — Proposed Legislation : Heat and tranquillity discussed, 
 Mr. Frank Buckland, my own experience, Mr. F. Wise- 
 man's evidence, imperfect data, result; wind; Mr. Harding; 
 inferences . 7 
 
 Letter 2. — Close Time : Dates of sickness ; danger of removals ; 
 
 Thames estuary ; Whitstable Com.pany . . . .10 
 
 Letter 3.— Causes of Scarcity: I. Those affecting breeding, and the 
 spat while floating ; proportion of spatters ; removals to 
 fattening grounds ; spatting age ; sales under age ; oyster 
 sickness, errors, stages described ; disturbance ; proper 
 close time ; climatic influences ; action of tides, degree 
 of maturity ; changes of currents ; cleanliness; needless 
 dredging; sewage; living enemies . . . . .13 
 
 Letter 4. — Causes of Scarcity (continued) : IL Those affecting fixed 
 spat and oysters. Spat settled not attached ; cold ; cause 
 of attachment, shell deposition of embryo, of larva, of 
 oyster; minute living enemies; occult influences; sundry 
 affecting young oysters ; question of dredging and re- 
 moval ; causes affecting marketable oysters, export ; 
 foreign sale of catch ; destruction by dredgers ; theft ; 
 snow, land drainage . . . . . . . .17 
 
 Letter 5. —Causes of Scarcity (continued) : overdredging, Chichester 
 Harbour ; deep sea ; Ireland ; destruction by the Irish ; 
 removals in Ireland ; Colne and Blackwater, currents, 
 removals to fattening grounds ; intensified dredging ; 
 need of close time ; erroneous views of Messrs. Bullock 
 and Banyard ; hot season, no spat ; borers . . .20 
 
 Letter G. — Proposed Remedies and Objections: proposed regula- 
 tions, general or local ; restriction of size ; age, why ; 
 gauge test, age test, for consumption ; close time for 
 dredging, Heme Bay ; shifting cultch, Mr. Banyard in 
 error; time and area of closing ; value of numbers, true 
 theoiy ; the great error, breeding or fattening grounds, 
 the estuary of the Thames, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre and Mr. 
 AValpole. Regulations suggested by author; some novel; 
 close time for consumption and general ; varying for deep- 
 sea varieties ; removals ; under-aged ; closing of beds ; 
 cultch ; market age ; export ; districts ; licences; cleaning 
 public grounds ; borers ; barges with dredges ; distinction 
 and registration of beds ; alternatives . . . .22 
 
 Letter 7.— On Grants of Several Fisheries: Objections, depriva- 
 tion of brood; condition of beds to determine measures ; 
 want of capital ; extent ; exclusion detrimental ; Ilerne
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bay, exaggerations, inquiries, decision, recent spat, 
 threatened danger by Wliitstable ; Whitstable Company, 
 its grounds, its practice, inimical to public interests, Mr. 
 Walpole; proper course with Heme Bay; failure of open 
 grounds, causes, effects of removal. Official suggestions, 
 Messrs. Walpole and Pennell, small grants, French 
 fisheries not analogous; co-operative dredgering societies, 
 Mr. Farrer, Emsworth, supposed success, Mr. Shaw- 
 Lefevre, Mr. Cholmondeley Pennell ; the facts ; history 
 of the fishery, conflicting reports, erroneous inferences of 
 Mr. C. Pennell, of Mr. Messum, erroneous impression of 
 Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. Grant not equitable or judicious. 
 Erroneous returns, hence erroneous inferences of Mr. 
 Hall ; error of Mr. Messum. Emsworth poaching. No 
 success due to the Society 26 
 
 Letter 8. — Grants of Several Fisheries {continued) : Langston 
 Fishery Report, apparent effect, Emsworth poachers in 
 Langston, action of magistrates, state of the law, regis- 
 tration and numbering of boats. Select Committee and 
 Board of Trade, failure of Mr. Pennell's scheme, efi'ects 
 on the neighbours. Regulations suggested by author. 
 Reason for grants and for regulating orders, admission 
 of foreign boats, cleaning grounds, notice of bill, area 
 of grants, conditions as to stocking, protective measures 
 against poachers, and pollutions . . . . .32 
 
 Errata.— Hayling, 18G6— 1869. Mr. Hart, failures and 
 successes ; my experiments as to parentage ; Langston, 
 Board of Trade ; Mr. Hall, age of oysters ; Cynthia ; 
 Arcachon, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre and Mr. Hall; note by editor 
 of "Field" 35 
 
 Report of Select Committee, their recommendations, 
 inadequate, close time, estuary of Thames, deep-sea, 
 removals, under age, breeding and fattening grounds, 
 only penalty; age restrictions, reply to editor of "Field" 
 by author . 3G 
 
 Conclusion 37 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Letter A.— Nov. 18th, 1876, to the "Field," from Mr. Francis Francis, 
 
 on the breeding of the oyster 38 
 
 Letter B. — Nov. 25th, 1876, reply by Mr. W. Fell Woods, on the breed- 
 
 of the oyster 39 
 
 Letter C— Dec. 2nd, 1876, from Mr. Francis Francis, on the breeding 
 
 of the oyster 41 
 
 Letter D.— Dec. 9th, 1876, further reply by Mr. W. Fell Woods, on 
 
 the breeding of the oyster 42 
 
 Letter E.— Dec. 2nd, 1876, from Mr. W. Fell Woods, on extended 
 
 cultivation of the native ovster 43
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 At the end of March, 1876, when the Select Committee 
 on the Oyster Fisheries was sitting, I received a summons 
 then to give evidence, notwithstanding I had informed 
 the clerk of the Committee that an unusual pressure of 
 business altogether beyond my control would make it 
 impossible for me to be ready at so early a date. I there- 
 fore wrote to the Chairman, requesting the adjournment 
 of my examination, and then, availing myself of the Easter 
 recess, threw my materials somewhat hastily into the form 
 of a Memorandum, and awaited my turn; but on the 4th of 
 May, after reference to the clerk and also to the Chairman 
 of the Committee — whom I advised by letter that I 
 intended to controvert evidence which had been given — 1 
 was informed by the latter, to my great surprise, and, as 
 I understand, in a course of procedure strangely at variance 
 with the usual practice, that, not being ready when sum- 
 moned, I could not be heard. On that day Mr. Spencer 
 Walpole's evidence was given, and, although some of his 
 conclusions were remarkably in accord with my own, 1 felt 
 that the divergence was even more important. I there- 
 upon addressed the Memorandum in a letter to Mr. J. W. 
 Malcolm, M.P., one of the members of the Committee, by 
 whom I was informed that it was laid before the Com- 
 mittee. Whether or not it reached the members generally
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 1 have no means of knowing, but it was not printed with 
 the rest of the evidence. After-reflection having convinced 
 me of the impoHcy of allowing any misrepresentations or 
 misapprehensions relating to the scarcity of the oyster to 
 pass uncorrected, I took advantage of the opportunity of 
 addressing myself to the Field to recast the Memorandum, 
 and to give greater clearness to the views therein expressed. 
 I further indicated some errors in the evidence laid before 
 Parliament (in the Appendix to the Report, &c.), which 
 could not be recognized until after the publication of that 
 Report. These additions will, I think, be found to give 
 greater cogency to my argument. 
 
 I venture to commend these Letters specially to the 
 members of the late Select Committee, because some of 
 tlie facts and theories therein contained are new — all are 
 the result of personal observation. 
 
 Opportunity has been afforded by the republication of 
 these Letters to make several verbal corrections, rendered 
 needful by the non-receipt of any proofs when they were 
 first sent to press. 
 
 W. FELL WOODS. 
 
 Forest Hill, 
 
 2oth April, 1877.
 
 ox 
 
 OYSTEE FISHEEIES; 
 
 The Causes of Scarcity; the Remedies, &c. 
 
 Letter No. I. 
 OYSTER FISHERIES. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 IN THE MATTER OF OUR OYSTER FISHERIES ineiTcctive 
 I fear we are threatened y\dtli legislation of a very ineffective legislation. 
 kind, seeing that it will be based on evidence of a defective and 
 misleading character. Being deeply interested in the success of 
 our Company, and a member of its Board of Direction, I have 
 had the entire management of our fishery for nearly eight years, 
 during which period I have, by constant observations there and 
 elsewhere, and by careful watching of oysters, old and young, 
 found how easy it is to decide everything dogmatically by con- 
 tenting oneself with a superficial general survey, or by carefully 
 restricting the examination to some part only of the field of study. 
 Having regard, then, to the publicity recently obtained, through 
 the Blue Book, for the greater part of the evidence laid before the 
 Select Committee on Oyster Fisheries, and to the very erroneous 
 or imperfect statements with which it abounds, I should be glad, 
 with your permission, to touch upon some of these from time to 
 time, indicating facts which have come under my own observa- 
 tion, and which seem to demand an equal consideration Avith the 
 statements published by the Committee, unqualified as those state- 
 ments are by the contradictions they received. 
 
 Heat and Tranquillity. 
 
 I will begin with the theory held, in one sense so loosely, in licat and 
 another so tenaciously, by Mr. Frank Buckland,and to which he re- tranquillity, 
 fers practically all the scarcity of our oysters; for, if the seasons be p'^'',,^.™",'' 
 so regularly hostile as he alleges, a close time for consumption would 
 make no difference except in the method of loss, since the destruc- 
 tion of the spat woidd be as certainly accomplislicd annually on the 
 oyster grounds during the months of June and .1 uly as they are now
 
 T-^~^ 
 
 Newtown, 
 1874. 
 
 supposed to be in the fishmongers' shops. This logical view seems 
 to me to be in effect that taken by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. But what 
 is this theory of heat and tranquillity? When Mr. Buckland 
 enunciated his views in 1867, he said that " to keep spat alive 
 required 70° to 80° ; " but this estimate he has of late years greatly 
 reduced, and in his recent evidence he stated that, "to put the 
 young oyster into condition to adhere, he must have from 65° to 
 72°." And, again, " about 68° or 70° is what you really want." 
 So that what was the lowest in the original theory for the main- 
 tenance of life of spat is now the highest required for its due ad- 
 hesion; indeed, " if it is hotter than 72" it is too hot." I do not 
 suppose anyone would ever have objected to this range of 65° to 
 72° as being otherwise than favovirable for oyster spat; but does 
 experience show that even this temperature is needflil? I think 
 Hayling, 1869. not. In 1869 I obtained at Hayling, in a large pond, from a 
 small number of oysters, an excellent and extensive spat, which 
 must have settled in a space of time when the temperature ranged 
 between 57° and 68°. It may almost be asserted that it Avas 60° 
 to 66° on the day of settlement. Again, in 1874, Mr. Johnson 
 had his best fall of spat at Newtown between the 29th of INIay, 
 when he observed a little floating, with a temperature which he 
 gives me as 59°, and the 10th of June, when he found a con- 
 siderable quantity attached. The temperature was then 60°, and 
 did not fall at nio-ht below 58°. Making; alloAvance for a not im- 
 probable error which I observed in a previous year m his ther- 
 mometer, this, unless they failed to take a daily register, still 
 indicates a lower tem]3erature than mine in 1869. The evidence 
 on this subject g-iven by Mr. F. Wiseman, mainly a quotation of 
 what he had previously published, is very interesting and valuable 
 so far as it goes ; but, as it takes no account of any other circum- 
 stances than the temperature, it is necessarily imperfect. More- 
 over, the same may be said of his registers of temperature; he 
 does not take the maximum and minimum, but the height of the 
 mercury at 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., whatever the state of the tide may 
 be. It will, however, be noted by a careful reader of his data 
 that the favourable weather during the usual period of spatting 
 has not always been productive of spat. For instance (3079, 
 Minutes of Evidence) " in 1870, fixed spat was seen on June 24, 
 one spat on a shell ; " yet " heat and tranquillity up to Jime 23." 
 This seems fi.irther to imply subsequent adverse change, with a 
 discovery on July 9 of a good fall, twenty on a shell. On what 
 day it probably fell, and the temperature on that day, are not 
 stated. Again, " in 1873 fixed spat was found on June 30 ; ex- 
 amined several shells, and found three spat;" yet "hot in June, 
 and very favourable for spatting." These facts, and similar which 
 I could adduce, suggest doubt as to the correctness of the theory. 
 If Mr. Wiseman's evidence proved that a certain high degree of 
 temperature was always accompanied by success, we should have 
 advanced one step towards the inference that its absence might be 
 the cause of failure. I have shown a good spat with low tempera- 
 ture, and Mr. Wiseman exhibits a bad spat in good temperature. 
 To other causes, then, than to temperature must this success and 
 this failure be attributed; and, though temperature is doubtless 
 
 Mr. F. Wise- 
 man.
 
 " { ^ ) 
 
 generall}' one of the influential elements in a snccessful spat, it is 
 
 no extraordinary degree that is needed. In support of his posi- Ilayling, 186G. 
 
 tion Mr. AViseman has referred (3080) to the temperature at 
 
 Havling at the time of the first successful spat in 1866. But he 
 
 has herein been misled, with many others; for, even if the registers 
 
 were correct, which is not the case, they wei'c not taken in the 
 
 successful pond, but in one much shallower and hotter, and Avhich 
 
 issued in a com])lete failure. 
 
 After all, it does not seem as if the late cold seasons had been Roach, 
 marked by any great want of success in the Roach, judging from 
 Mr. Wiseman's statement (3103-4) that his own beds have sup- 
 })lied so much spat that he has had to purchase very little during 
 the last five or six years. 
 
 Although several other witnesses gave an opinion in favour of 
 Mr. Bucldand's views upon the question of temperature, none of 
 them offered any ascertained fiicts in support, further than that 
 good spats had been obtained in hot seasons ; Avhilst, if Ave are to Channel, 
 believe Mr. Policy that in the Channel there have been no young 
 oysters since 1849, it does not appear that the very hot seasons, 
 spoken of by so many, of 1857-8-9, and 1868, were of any advan- 
 tage to those fisheries. 
 
 In my judgment the amount of wind is much more important. Wind. 
 In ponds, wdiere the spat is confined, I believe a force exceeding 
 three, or at most four (gaff-topsail breeze), is very adverse ; and 
 in the open sea or estuaries it must tend further to its probable 
 loss, through a Avider dispersion than that caused by ordinary 
 currents. It is owing to the fact that calm Aveather is usually 
 coupled with Avarmth that the belief is so strong that heat is 
 needful for a successful spatting time. The attempts to verify 
 the theory by an artificial production of these conditions conjointly 
 have hitherto failed. Mr. Harding, of Lynn, mentioned to the Mr. Harding. 
 Committee — and has since more Avidely promulgated in the Times 
 — his experiment, Avhich produced even less than has already been 
 obtained in small aquaria Avithout any artificial heating. These 
 considerations seem to prove that undue prominence has been 
 given to the supposed necessity for heat ; Avhilst, unfortunately, 
 to refer scarcity mainly to this uncontrollable cause has a ten- 
 dency to divert us from others as influential, if not more so, — 
 from others, in fact, Avhich are, in some cases at least, amenable 
 to our regulation. 
 
 Forest Hill, September 6, 1876.
 
 T 10 ) 
 
 Letter No. II. 
 CLOSE TIME. 
 
 AMONGST THE PROPOSALS made to the Select Com- 
 mittee on Oyster Fisheries was one to enact a close time 
 to a]iply to consumption only — 
 
 The months suggested by some witnesses being from May to 
 July inclusive (Messrs. Johnson, Williamson, F. Wiseman, 
 Bowen and Walpole agreed to these); 
 
 By others from JNIay to August inclusive (Messrs. Baker, Hart, 
 J. Wiseman, Blake and Burt); 
 
 By others again from June to August inclusive (Messrs. Buck- 
 land, Austin, Harvey, Goody, Harding, Cousens, Bullock, 
 Banyard and Hole, the latter-named gentleman would allow 
 "seconds" to be sold in August); 
 
 And lastly, from June to September inclusive (INIr. Lovely). 
 
 These have reference to all but Channel or deep-sea oysters. 
 The deep-sea oysters are recognized by many of these witnesses 
 as falling into another category, and to be otherwise dealt with. 
 Thus the months of close time from consumption proposed in their 
 case w^ere: 
 
 June to July inclusive (Mr. Johnson) ; 
 
 June 15 to August inclusive (Messrs. Walpole and Brazier); 
 
 July to August inclusive (Messrs. Goody, Pennell and Harvey); 
 
 August ( Messrs. Polley and Banyard) ; 
 
 July to September inclusive (Mr. Hart.). 
 
 The object of restriction is to increase the production of oysters, 
 especially by securing the undisturbed delivery of the spat in 
 ])rocess of gestation. Of course, therefore, the close time should 
 depend on the dates at which oysters " sicken." I need not quote 
 any evidence to prove that June and July are usually admitted to 
 be spatting months ; even Mr. Hart, when he says he looks to 
 July 1 for the beginning (!) of the spatting season in England, 
 must thereby imply a state of sickness several weeks earlier. And 
 he is clearly in error, for I have found every year, at one place or 
 another in England, that on the 7th and subsequent days in June 
 spat is found fixed — therefore probably fixed a few days earlier. 
 But as to May, we have the statements of Messrs. Johnson 
 and Banyard that oysters are sick in that month; and though 
 Mr. Harvey says that " seconds " sicken six weeks later than 
 natives, Mr. Bowen states that at Sw^ansea " seconds " are sick in 
 May, and Mr. Hole admits that they may spat in IMay. 
 
 I may add that I have known " white sickness " fi'om May 9 ; 
 
 Also I believe " white spat " on May 9 ; 
 
 I have knoAvn "black spat" on May 15; 
 
 I have heard of "black spat" the first week in May; 
 
 I have known " floating spat " before May 20 ; 
 
 I have known " fixed spat " by May 20, or perhaps earlier.
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 With reference to the "sick" period of Channel or deep-sea Channels. 
 ovsters, the months of June, July and August were given by 
 Mr. Pennell; from the end of June by Mr. Brazier; from the 
 end of July and throughout August by ^Ir. Policy. 
 
 My own experience indicates that there are three classes of 
 so-called Channel or deep-sea oysters, such as — 
 
 1. The " Capes," very large oysters, found at thirty miles from 
 the French coast, off Cape Le Heve. These first show sick about 
 the end of June, and spat from about the 1st of August. (But 
 these oysters, brought to our beds before the end of April in 1867, 
 had spat fixed by the end of June.) 
 
 2. Many beds of Channel oysters show "Avhite sick" mid- July, 
 "black sick" from the end of July, spatting chiefly towards the 
 end of August, and continue black sick in September. 
 
 3. Other beds in the Channel, such as Portland, are in spatting 
 condition from June and July. 
 
 The Committee in their Report recommend the infliction of a Close time fo 
 penalty for buying or selling oysters for the purposes of consump- consumption, 
 tion during the close season, and they suggest a general close time 
 fi-om May'l to September 1 ; whilst as regards the deep-sea fisheries 
 they would leave untouched the period enacted by the Convention 
 Act of 1868, viz., from the 15th of June to the end of August. 
 Thus the Committee has, in the matter of consumption, to a large 
 extent covered the period warranted by the facts ; but the recom- 
 mendation will probably be opposed. It is evident that Mr. F. May. 
 Buckland and those who advocate the shorter time are governed 
 by the same principle — not the interest of the oyster and its breed- 
 ing, but that of the retailers, of whom he said that they did not 
 desire that INIay should be a close month. This desire is not 
 unreasonable on their part, since, no doubt, they do iiot see many 
 " sick " oysters then. They forget, however, that Avith regard to 
 natives and seconds in May, and to many deep-sea oysters in Jime, 
 there is as much mischief done by devouring an oyster which is 
 about to spat as by consuming one that is spatting. It might, 
 perhaps, be objected that this argument in favour of the inclusion 
 of May would be equally applicable to April, since the oysters 
 which are sick, or nearly so, at the end of April, would, if saved, 
 spat in May, and hence consistency would demand the addition of 
 the earlier month. But it should be remembered that few oysters 
 spat before the end of JNIay. Theoretically, no doubt, they should 
 be untouched after mid-April, to permit spatting in jNIay ; but, in 
 the event of any settled weather towards the end of the latter month, 
 a reasonable op])ortunity would be secured by a close time from the 
 1st of May. The deep-sea oysters will still be available for the 
 shops in that month. It seems much to be regretted that those September. 
 Channel oysters which spat largely in September shovdd not at 
 that time be protected. 
 
 I think, therefore, that any regulations enforced affecting con- 
 sumption require a close time from jNIay 1 to Sejitember 1 for all 
 oysters (including such deep-sea oysters — say Class 1 — as the 
 "Portlands"), with the following quaHfications, viz. : 
 
 (a) That the close time for deep-sea oysters — say Class 2 — such 
 as the "Capes," be from June 1 to September 1.
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 (b) For the rest of tlie deep-seas, " Cliannellers," — say Class 3 — 
 
 the close time should be from June 15 to October 1. 
 
 (c) I camiot see any reason Avhy "seconds" should not be sale- 
 
 able from private fattening grounds, as suggested by JNIr. 
 
 Hole, from August 12, for the forcible reason given by 
 
 him. 
 The question of the adequacy or inadequacy of a close time 
 restricted to consumption, or to some only of the public grounds, 
 has now to be dealt with. 
 
 The Committee came to the conclusion that to forbid consump- 
 tion, whilst permitting removal from, and the dredging of, public 
 grounds, Avould have little effect ; hence their recommendation of 
 a general close time. But, unfortunately, they at once qualify 
 this by proposing to entrust the Board of Trade with power, after 
 inquiry, to shorten, vary, or determine this close season in any 
 particular case, alleging that there are portions of the sea, espe- 
 cially the estuary of the Thames, where it is doubtful whether any 
 close season from dredging Avould be required. The Committee 
 are clearly right in admitting how small, comparatively, the dif- 
 ference would be arising from the prohibition of consumption, 
 even if an extension of the close time for the deep-sea oysters were 
 enacted as I propose. But the whole evil lies in the removal ; and 
 nowhere has this evil been more felt than in the estuary of the 
 Thames and the Blackwater, and by none probably has more mis- 
 chief in this Avay been wrought than by the Whitstable Company. 
 To the misinformed public that Company usually appears as the 
 great producer of oysters, whereas its true position is the greatest 
 appropriator of oysters from the public beds, the largest buyer and 
 largest feeder of oysters — a position perfectly satisfactory to all, so 
 long as a judicious restraint is exercised in the appropriation from 
 the public grounds. Evidently it is supposed by the Company 
 {vide Mr. Baker's evidence), and believed by the Committee, that 
 it makes little difference whether the oysters are left on the public 
 flats or are removed to the grounds of the Whitstable Company. 
 The same idea applies to removals from other public beds to other 
 private grounds, and Mr. Walpole even ])roposed to legalize this 
 iiniversally during close time. But distinctions exist, which have 
 hitherto been overlooked generally as well as by him. Before 
 entering upon this topic, however, it is needful to notice the effort, 
 made by most buyers in their evidence, to obtain a recognition of 
 the principle of the continuous dredging of public beds, and the 
 sale and removal of the oysters to the fattening grounds (AVhit- 
 stable and elscAvhere). Some of those whose lives have hitherto 
 been spent in the practice of removing the oysters of all ages, 
 until they at last recognize the complete destruction they have 
 wrought — like INIr. Policy and the Brightlingsea men, by whom 
 the Chichester Harbour fishery was destroyed — are now desirous 
 to put a limit on the sizes ; but Mr. Policy still advocates the 
 removal of deep-sea spatting oysters in August to marketing- 
 grounds. Although the Committee have not recognized this 
 claim, they have placed no check on their removal in the spatting 
 month of September ; Avhilst, as regards the public beds of natives 
 in the Thames and Essex, they propose to permit continuous
 
 1, 1^ ) 
 
 dredcr'mg and removal of oysters to the Whitstable and otlier 
 fattening grounds, without, "moreover, any restriction as to age 
 or size,1:hereby refusing all protection to the public native beds. 
 Unfortunately, if in any case it be thought absolutely requisite 
 to maintain dredging for cleansing purposes, an English oyster 
 dredger considers that the operation involves removal of the oysters 
 as a means of paving for the labour. This ought not to be. 
 
 Before completing the discussion of the removal of oysters from 
 the public beds, I shall have to deal Avith several preliminary 
 matters. 
 
 Forest Hill, September 27. 
 
 Letter No. III. 
 CAUSES OF SCARCITY. 
 
 AS INTIMATED AT THE CLOSE of my last letter Causes of 
 (No. II.), the removal of oysters from the public beds is scarcity. 
 a question closely connected with another, viz. : What are the 
 Causes of the Scarcity of Oysters ? I propose now to offer a 
 sketch of these causes, which, for a just estimate of their influence, 
 must be divided into two branches, viz. : — 
 
 I. Those which affect spatting or breeding, and the spat while 
 floating. 
 II. Those affecting fixed spat and oysters. 
 
 Some of these are probably remediable, others not. 
 
 As to breeding we may note — Affecting 
 
 1st. The small proportion of oysters which spat in some seasons breeding, 
 —at least within the period which permits the development of the Y;^a«ei?*" 
 spat. This variable condition as to spatting power, Avhatever its ° ^P'' 
 causes, is noticeable in oysters taken from all beds. Although Sex. 
 long personal observation makes it appear to me that the oyster 
 is not only hermaphrodite, but also self-fertilizing, it seems to me 
 possible that both sexual elements may not be always develo]-)ed 
 in the animal the same season, or, if so, not suflficiently in conjunc- 
 tion. This may be the cause of the smallness of the proportion 
 of spatters in some seasons, induced, perhaps, by alimentary or 
 cUmatic influences. ^Ir. Francis Francis has recently insisted 
 that there is a separation of the sexes;* but he supports this only 
 by ignoring the observations made of the anatomy and embryology 
 of the ovster, and by relying upon an arbitrary inference drawn 
 fi-om its gregarious habit, viz., that nature provides their deposition 
 in groups or banks, in order to secure their fertilization.^ _ We are 
 equally entitled to find the reason in the suitable provision thus 
 
 * This is an error. Mr. F. Francis has explained that he " inclined to l)eliev-e in 
 Dr. Kellart's theory " of a mutual fecundation (vide Appendix. Letters A, B, C, D; 
 which correspondence shows the origin of my misinterpretation, and affords some 
 useful comments upon, and rejoinders in support of, my views).
 
 made for a lodgment of succeeding generations of falling spat ; 
 ' for it is certain that the influences which determine the settlement 
 
 : of an individual larva operate also upon the whole number emitted 
 
 i at the same time, thej being carried by thousands the same dis- 
 
 i tance to and fro. 
 
 2nd. Eemovals 2nd. I believe that the removal of oysters to good fattening 
 
 to fattening grounds greatly curtails the number of breeders, the stimulus in 
 
 ii-ounds. ^^^g direction checking the development in another; hence it is 
 
 Wbitstable. -^i^e less surprising when we are told that "the stock of the 
 
 ; "Whitstable Company was tremendous in 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 
 
 i 1865, and 1866, yet no spat was found in the neighbourhood." 
 
 In all probability the spat in that locality mainly comes from the 
 
 breeding grounds proper, the Heme Bay and the public flats, 
 
 not from those of the Whitstable Company, which are fattening 
 
 grounds.* Hence the desirability of restrictions in working the 
 
 public beds. The evil is greatly aggravated by the early age at 
 
 ■Spatting age. which the oysters are thus removed. I believe that I Avas the 
 
 \ first to prove that oysters will spat when less than a year old, but 
 
 ! I regard spatting at the age of one year as quite exceptional ; at 
 
 two years and upwards it is more frequent. f The breed, locality, 
 
 circumstances and seasons are all factors in determining the age 
 
 . at which oysters spat. 
 
 ird. Sale under 3rd. Moreover, as there are retailers ready to buy oysters poor 
 
 ge. in quality, if only low in price, many under-aged oysters are taken 
 
 for market, both from the public beds and from the " several fish- 
 
 '- eries," where they should be retained for breeding. 
 
 tver-dredging. The last two causes are forms of over-dredging, the objections 
 
 to which are intensified when we consider them further in relation 
 
 to the breeding period, as when we note the influences affecting 
 
 the spatting in its early stages. 
 
 yster sick- As sundry errors and much confusion exist in all the evidence 
 
 2SS. laid before the Committee on Oyster Fisheries as to the "sickness" 
 
 rrors hereon, of oysters, perhaps I may be permitted to state some results of a 
 large amount of personal microscopic observation. The terms 
 employed in evidence before the Committee were used in very 
 differeut senses, so much so that an expert could not always 
 feel sure of the intention of the witness. The terms I allude 
 to are "milchy, milchiness, in spat, in spawn, sickness, white and 
 black sickness, white spat and black spat." Some of these were 
 so used as to include all the rest, and distinctive terms were made 
 r. Walpole. interchangeable. Mr. AValpole has also fallen into this error, mis- 
 understanding and misquoting the Irish Oyster Fishery Commis- 
 sion Report in his Keport on Heme Bay, 1875, par. 4. 
 ilchy. The only appropriate use of the term "milchy" is to confine it 
 
 to the creamy state of the reproductive gland, when the eggs are 
 developing within the gland which envelopes the body of the oyster. 
 So soon as the eggs quit the gland to lie in the mantle and between 
 bite sick- the branchial plates, the oyster is called "white sick" — that being 
 'S- the colour of the contained creamy mass. This has been spoken 
 
 • The evidence of Capt. Burstal, R.N., and others as to the tides, quoted by Mr. 
 Lovely, R.N. (3412), confirms my theory as to the origin of the spat at Whitstable. 
 I f 'N^ide Appendix, Letter I), December iHli, 187().
 
 10 
 
 of by Mr. Hart and others incorrectly, as if it were necessarily 
 
 " Avhite spat ;" and they note another state, correctly, as '" black 
 
 sickness" or "black spat." The opinion offered by Mr. Austin, 
 
 ]\Ir. A. F. Pennell, and others, that these are respectively male 
 
 and female S]iawn, is a very old but erroneous notion. It has been Several stages 
 
 overlooked that there are several stages of " Avhite sickness," of 
 
 which the first two certainly cannot ]n-operly be called "white 
 
 spat." These are segmented eggs, which sometimes become cardi- 
 
 form before they develop the ciliation of the e^rg. This is not a 
 
 tuft, as erroneously described and figured by ]\Ir. Ilart in page 9, 
 
 Irish Oyster Fishery Commission Report, but a delicate circlet of 
 
 fine cilia. They next become shelled embryos or "white spat," White spat. 
 
 and progress through further stages, corresponding first with the 
 
 projection of a ciliated cushion; then with a developing "pad," or 
 
 funnel-shaped collar ; so passing through shades of grey to the 
 
 condition of "black spat," or perfect larval form of the oyster, Elack spat. 
 
 Avhen the "pad" has become retractile and the organs thoroughly 
 
 developed. The shells of the s]mt are not formed, as stated by the Shells. 
 
 Irish Commission Report, by the pad, which is, until the spat has 
 
 reached or nearly reached the black stage, always in advance of the 
 
 shells, and has till then no retractile power. 
 
 Reverting to the "milchy" state, immediately preceding the 
 white sickness, I Avish to point out the 
 
 4th hindrance to the spatting of oysters, viz., their disturhance 4th. Disturb- 
 er exposure to abnormal conditions at this critical period. They ^j^j^^ 
 are liable to premature delivery of the eggs into the mantle, and 
 also to the premature extrusion of the eggs from the parents' shells. 
 This occurred at Hayling in 1866, in the pond specially prepared Hayling, ISf.G. 
 by ]\lr. Hart, where an ntter failure resulted, the oysters in the 
 very shallow and briny water becoming "white sick" and throwing 
 off the eggs on the ground aromid them. It happened last year Hayling, 1875. 
 ao-ain in a large bulk of water, when, owing to an accident to a 
 sluice, the oysters were disturbed, being twice removed to the bed, 
 unavoidably' exposed, and not finally laid till the middle of June, 
 when they "in a few days prematurely ejected an immense quantity 
 of eggs. The same great waste is exemplified as the oysters lie on Snmracr 
 boat's^ decks when dredged up for removal in iSlay, June and July, dredging. 
 when the creamy mass of eggs or embryos is seen running out of the 
 valves. This waste would rarely, if ever, occur were they left undis- 
 turbed in their normal condition. Similar effect is constantly produced 
 in the cases of grey and black sickness. This is strong ground for 
 a strictly close season fi-om INIay 1st. I have no doubt that a close Proper close 
 time ought to commence six weeks before oysters are black sick. *^^™^- 
 
 5th. In taking account of influences which affect the floating nth Affecting 
 spat or larval stage of the oyster, it is scarcely needful to dwell on "«^t>°g ^P*^'- 
 those which are widely recognized, such as sudden changes of ^j ^^3 J^.^en" 
 temperature, and rough and stormy weather; but I may suggest floating. 
 that frequently it is not the climatic conditions of the season 
 generally, nor even locally, that are important, so much as those 
 climatic conditions at the precise periods of the Jioatation of the 
 spat. Most of the opponents of the heat theory prejudice their Opponents of 
 own case bv overlooking this. That these periods of floatation i^e'^t ti.eo.N.
 
 T i« ) 
 
 Dnration of 
 exposure. 
 
 Wind. 
 
 Cth. Action of 
 tides. 
 
 Degree of 
 maturity. 
 
 * 7th. Changes 
 of cun-ents. 
 
 Colne. 
 
 8th. Cleanli- 
 ness. 
 
 Needless 
 dredging. 
 
 '9th. Sewage. 
 
 differ in different localities, and sometimes in the same locality 
 will vary somewhat with the seasons, or with the condition of the 
 oysters according to the habit of the class to which they belong 
 and the place whence they have been brought, is certain; but 
 experience seems to point to nearly fixed dates in some places for 
 the bulk which attaches. Probably, warm weather hastens the 
 maturity of the floating spat, and thus shortens the distance it 
 travels and the duration of the time of its exposure to enemies. 
 That there has been much exaggeration as to the degree of heat 
 required I have shown in my first letter {Field, September 9). 
 There, too, I have indicated the influence of the wind; so that 
 I may noAv pass to another cause, which, for the purpose of refer- 
 ence, I will call the 
 
 6th. On the action of the tides at the moment of the extrusion 
 of the spat much depends. I cannot accept J\lr. Hart's state- 
 ment that black spat settles upon the first clean surface with 
 which it comes in contact. I know by experience it is otherwise. 
 It must first attain a certain degree of maturity. That maturity 
 may coincide with the moment of its delivery and first contact 
 with a " collector," or it may not. The stage needed to lead to 
 its deposit on its native bed, or within a suitable area, is con- 
 tingent on the time required to reach or return to the spot, and 
 therefore on the state of the tide. Spots usually distinguished by 
 the deposition of spat in calm weather, or at a time of favourable 
 maturity of the floating spat, must often fail to receive it when the 
 circumstances are otherwise. 
 
 7th. Changes of ^currents would operate. I am under the 
 impression that, since five years ago, a causeway has severed the 
 Avater communication which formerly existed inside IMersea Island, 
 connecting the mouth of the Blackwater and the Colne. The 
 change corresponds with the period of failure in the latter river 
 mentioned by one witness. The current thus stopped may have 
 been valuable for the transit of the spat from the former to the 
 latter. 
 
 8th. It is generally admitted that icant of cleanliness, and of 
 freedom from slime in the cultch or collectors of an oyster ground, 
 is inimical to the attachment of spat. Dredging the ground, prior 
 to spatting time, obviates this. But, since the under surfaces of 
 objects will retain a fitting condition for a long period, there seems 
 little reason on this score for continuing the dredging on public 
 grounds during the proposed close time. 
 
 9th. In some localities the discharge of seu-age in the neigh- 
 bovtrhood of oyster fisheries must be highly injurious to the floating 
 spat. Where this discharge is siipposed to take place on the ebb, 
 the greater part of the spat given off" from neighl)ouring grounds 
 about or during the ebb, if the ground be above the outfall, must 
 be carried into the poisoned water and destroyed. Such a case I 
 know. Only in the event of a very fortunate retention of the 
 larvEe by the parent until perfect maturity, and a lucky concur- 
 rence of all circitmstances favourable to their immediate settle- 
 ment, will their safety from this means of destruction, and any 
 chance of a copious spat, be secured. As there are places where 
 this ruinous influence may be regarded as certainly effective, so it
 
 { 17 ) 
 
 seems highly pvobal)le that the increasing- vohimc discharged into 
 the Thames and its tributaries may act injuriously on the floating 
 spat near its mouth. 
 
 10th. The living enemies of the floating spat, some tethered loth. Living 
 like the anemones, others in constant motion like the fish and ^"c""'^'^- 
 shrimps, do not require individual mention; but it must not be 
 overlooked that their influence, being in proportion to their num- 
 bers, varies greatly in accordance "with the annual influences on Effect variable, 
 the fecundity of their tribes. 
 
 It will be convenient to defer the enumeration of those causes of 
 scarcity Avhich aflect fixed spat and oysters until my next letter. 
 
 Forest Hill, October 25, 
 
 Letter No. IV. 
 CAUSES OF SCARCITY (continued). 
 
 BEGr now to resume my sketch of the causes of scarcity under Affecting 
 the heading — II. Those which affect fixed spat and oysters, ^^ed spat. 
 
 1. It sometimes happens that large numbers of spat settle Avith- Spat settled, 
 out any attachment or development. This failure, when it occurs, 
 
 is so wide-spread that its range seems to indicate cold as the cause. ^ ' ^ • '^•J 
 The valves then generally remain for some little time thickly clus- 
 tered in contact with the collectors. 
 
 2. If a floating spat attaches and develops, it begins to assume Fixed spat, 
 the character of a young oyster. From microscopic observations Cause of 
 it appears to me that the attachment, which has been spoken of as attachment. 
 so great a puzzle, is not by the " attraction of cohesion," as INIr. F. 
 Buckland suggested to the recent Committee. It is a ver}"- curious 
 
 fact that there is an absolute uniformity as to which side of the 
 developing spat lies next to the object of attachment, Avhilst those 
 which fail to develop are found in all positions — positions such as 
 they ordinarily assume for temporary purposes of rest. There is 
 no difference in the degree of convexity of the original valves, as 
 some have represented ; but if we open an oyster so as to leave it 
 lying in its deep shell — that shell, in fact, which is the development 
 of the attached valve of the spat — and place the hinge uppermost 
 (that is, furthest fi'om the spectator), the vent will be found inva- 
 riably to the left. This fact, which does not seem to have been 
 recognized hitherto, being characteristic of every developing 
 attached spat, is evidently requisite for that development, and 
 miTst, I think, throw light on the cause of attachment. No theory 
 yet suggested takes account of, or appears to fit in with, this fact. 
 It seems to involve the h}qiothesis that uniformly the same side of Shell dcposi- 
 the mantle, which may be called the right side, precedes its fellow <^'on of larva. 
 in exuding the material for the extension of its valves, which 
 extension (being at this stage required by the maturing of the 
 larval form) demands the exudation, Avhich exudation renders the 
 right side of the mantle alone adhesive. Deposition of shell by
 
 ( i« ) 
 
 Of embryo. 
 
 Of oyster. 
 
 2nd. Minute 
 living enemies 
 
 3rcl. Occult 
 influences. 
 
 Affecting 
 young oysters. 
 
 4th. Sundry. 
 Dredging. 
 
 Removal. 
 
 Affecting 
 
 marketable 
 
 oyster. 
 
 tlie spat, or ratlier by the embryo during its progress into the 
 larval form, is from the surface generally of the enveloping mantle, 
 but not from the ciliated portion of the embryo, which portion is 
 for some time in advance of the shells, and is not retractile. The 
 development of the shells Avhen adhesion commences is no longer 
 in the same form as heretofore — a mere heightening of their con- 
 cave walls — but a bending outwards of the lip of the near shell, 
 and then an extension of a flat surface along the face of the 
 " collector." The original attached valve of a developing spat 
 . does not rest on its apex, but at an angle of about 25° to 50°. 
 This position can only be attained by deposition from the outside 
 of the pad, that side being a prolongation of the mantle. I, there- 
 fore, regard this adherence as an involuntary act, consequent upon 
 the maturing of the floating spat, which demands an extension of 
 its valves ; the exudation of the required material commences on 
 the exterior right side of the mantle, which, as the spat frequently 
 rests on this side with closed valves, would, when they re-opened, 
 be easily brought into contact with the neighbouring substance ; 
 to which, if not slimy, it adheres, and by its simultaneous depo- 
 sition upon its adjacent valve and the object permanently connects 
 them. The same adhesive characteristic of shell deposition may 
 frequently be observed in the subsequent growth of the oyster, and 
 always, it should be noted, in the same right shell, Avhich has then 
 become the deep shell of the oyster, thus proving its continuous 
 precedence in deposition. When thus adherent in great profusion, 
 after a slight development, large numbers often die, without any 
 warrant for regarding them as overcrowded; this loss, the cause 
 of which is doubtful, though possibly it may be found in minute 
 living enemies (the shells are not consumed) is seldom so extensive 
 as the last mentioned. 
 
 3. Still later, some occult influences operate on natural beds, as 
 well as in the inclosed. I have received letters from the Roach, 
 expressing wonder at the cause, Avhen, " after a Avinter, Avhose 
 weather could not have affected them, ten out of tAventy on a shell 
 had died." 
 
 4. The enemies Avhich damage the young oyster Avlien it has 
 increased in size need no enumeration ; it is Avell knoAvn that they 
 are dealt Avith to some extent by the dredging and scarifying of 
 the oyster beds. 
 
 The vexed question now is, AAdiether, if the oyster advancing to 
 the condition of brood, half-Avare, and Avare, be retained in part 
 upon the public breeding grounds, the operation of dredging is to 
 be continuously applied: or, on the same supposition, Avhether 
 they shall be left imdisturbed during the summer; or AAdiether 
 their removal to ])v\xi\XQ fattenijig grounds throughout the summer, 
 as at Whitstable, shall be permitted, for the sake of securing by 
 dredging a condition of the ground supposed to be better fitted for 
 the reception of a spat, — for AAhich spat, it should be observed, 
 the public will then be chiefly dependent on the produce of the 
 neighbouring fattening beds; or, finally, AAdiether, for the same 
 reason, the removal sliall be alloAved to private breeding beds. 
 
 We must add to our list those causes of scarcity AA'hich affect 
 marketable oysters.
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 5. There is a very large sale of native and other oysters to the 5th. Export. 
 Continent, from Essex, Whitstable, other Kentish grounds, and 
 Shoreham. The demand, however, I believe, fell off last season 
 (1875-G.) 
 
 0. Formerlv a ffrcat number of oysters were obtained by us Gth. Foreign 
 
 *' J Til silc 01 citcn 
 
 from the French coast; tlie larger part are taken now by the ' 
 
 French, to Avhom the English boats also sell their catch, thereby 
 
 avoiding the loss of time involved in returning to this side with 
 
 their cargoes. 
 
 7. Mr. Policy, a dredgerman, and Mr. Brazier, an oyster mer- 7th. Destruc- 
 chant and agent (not dredgerman, as he is called in the Report of dSge^rs. 
 the Oyster Fishery Committee), have shown that deep-sea oysters 
 
 are brought in during spatting time. These are sold to local 
 merchants for market, or to lay for market; at least one-third of 
 them die, and the spat of all is destroyed. 
 
 8. Theft from private gromids, especially where the passage of §*• Theft. 
 barges is permitted, is frequent. There being no prohibition 
 against having dredges on board, these are often put over the side 
 
 under cover of the weather-boards. It has been w^ell said that the 
 law ought to regard the possession of dredges by barges in the 
 same light as the carrying of skeleton keys. 
 
 9. To meet the scarcity in this country, some millions of French 0th. Snow. 
 oysters, chiefly from Arcachon, have been imported during the 
 
 last two years; but great losses have been sustained, either in 
 transit or from the effects of temperature following those of transit. 
 On most grounds, I believe, they require two seasons to fatten, 
 whilst their tenderness makes them most risky oysters to winter in 
 our Avaters. And this suggests the last cause of scarcity which I 
 desire to point out, viz. : 
 
 The effect during Avinter of chilled water after falls of snoAv. 
 From this cause the loss of "seconds" — i.e., oysters other than 
 natives* — though it is not confined to them, is very great; durmg 
 the last two AAanters (1874-5 and 1875-6) it has been immense. 
 It may be said that this cause has always existed; but, unless 
 I mistake, it has of late years been greatly aggraA-ated by the 
 increased land drainage, by which a larger bulk of snoAV and 
 chilled water is more rapidly delivered, and Avith a proportionate 
 intensity of effect, on the fattening grounds, Avhich lie chiefly in 
 creeks. There is a fashion in the consumption of oysters, as of 
 other foods. Did the public eat them more largely before Christ- 
 mas, millions Avould be consumed Avhich are available only so long 
 as the snow holds off. The large quantity of Dutch oysters 
 imported during the year 1875, for immediate consumption, for 
 a time, by its competition, apparently increased the supply, only 
 to be the indirect occasion of much ultimate decrease of stock. 
 The perhaps rather hardier oyster, supplanting the Aveaker at the 
 earlier part of the season, seems to have subtracted fi'om, rather 
 than added to, our resources. 
 
 Forest Hill, December 20. 
 
 * Mr. Walpole's description of natives (vide the Report on Ileruc Bay, 1875, p. 4, 
 par. 6) is inaccurate. 
 
 B 2
 
 ( ^0 ) 
 
 Letter No. V. 
 CAUSES OF SCARCITY {continued). 
 
 Causes of 
 scarcity. 
 
 Over-dredffino;. 
 
 IN FURTHER illustration of some of the causes of scarcity 
 whicli have been enumerated, I may mention that the fishery 
 of Chichester Harbour — wrongly classed by Mr. PoUey, Avhen 
 before the late Select Committee of the House of Commons, 
 amongst the deep-sea fisheries — was entirely destroyed by him 
 and his Essex men. The coastguard used to notify to the boats 
 the prohibition of the removal of under-sized stuff, Avith which the 
 local men — whose boats, remaining on the spot, could be searched 
 — were obliged to comply; whilst those from Essex put to sea 
 with all they took. The local fishermen can only regret that 
 Mr. Policy's present views, as expounded to the Committee, were 
 not held and put in practice by him some years ago. 
 
 ]\Ir. Policy further told the Committee that there had been 
 a great failure of young oysters in the Channel since 1849, whilst 
 in 1843 they were abundant. It is somewhat remarkable that it 
 was about the year 1843 that real deep-sea oyster fishing began ; 
 previously it was confined to the in- shore beds in from two to nine 
 fathoms of water. Perhaps the alleged decrease may be partly 
 due to the subsequent extensive dredging. 
 
 It was stated before the Committee that, in regard to the Irish 
 fisheries, great mischief accrued fi-om the purchase of young 
 oysters by English merchants ; and, in proof that under-aged 
 oysters are so removed, but also that it is done in opposition to 
 the desire and interest of the English buj^ers, I can mention 
 a fraudulent case at BelmuUet — west coast, and north of Clew 
 Bay. Sample and price were tendered and accepted from a man 
 there; but avc received, instead of our order, bags filled with 
 specimens of all ages, from spat to oysters five inches across, 
 together with cultch and rubbish despatched as dredged up. "\Ye 
 could obtain no redress. 
 
 Doubt was expressed before the Select Committee of the inten- 
 tion of the Irish Ojster Fishery Commissioners (1868 to 1870), 
 as to Avhether their objection to the removal of young oysters from 
 Irish beds referred to their transportation to England only, or also 
 to other Irish beds ; but one of their number, Mr. Hart, having 
 in 1869 obtained some beds in Ireland — among them one Avhicli 
 was not publicly known to be stocked — dredged up the whole, and 
 removed them to another bed. I should go further than the Cora- 
 mission, and should deprecate the removal of any under-aged 
 oysters from Irish beds, whether to English or Irish grounds, 
 so far as fattening grounds are concerned ; and I fail to see why 
 any restriction upon transplantation to English brcedinr/ grounds 
 should be sought without an equal application to those of Ireland.
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 Let ITS now turn to the evidence wliicli "Wfis offered as to tlie 
 Colne and Blackwater. 
 
 If the facts were correctly stated, these rivers were formerly 
 equally j^roductive of spat ; now, the latter only is, to any extent, 
 successful. Yet it Avas said by the witnesses that the treatment is 
 alike. I have already indicated (Letter No. 3, Oct. 25, 1876) a 
 possible cause of the changed result in the former, in the diversion 
 of a current by which the spat may formerly have been supplied 
 from the Blackwater; but a prominent distinction lies in the fact 
 that, whilst in both the shifting of the oysters is continued during 
 jNIay and the folloAving mouths, in the Colne, according to the 
 evidence, they are laid on the best fattening grounds, but in the 
 Blackwater on growing and breeding groimds ; by Avhich, in the 
 latter case, the disturbance of their normal functions would be less 
 pronounced. The question remains, why the Blackwater produces 
 less than formerly, its treatment unchanged save in the partial 
 removal of cultch — an undoubted evil. Diminution — which I 
 suppose may have begun in adverse seasons or by largely-increased 
 consumption — naturally intensified the dredging as the oysters 
 became scarcer and more valuable, increasing the disturbance of, 
 as well as still further diminishing, the stock, at a time when the 
 circumstances demanded additional care in their protection. The 
 proportionate reception of spat by its private beds seems variable, 
 affected no doubt by the tides and currents, Mr. Harvey being 
 specially fortunate in position. If the removals from the public 
 grounds to the Blackwater beds ceased before May, it would be 
 more favourable for the spatting. This was doubtless of less im- 
 portance Avhen the oysters were more numerous, but goes far to 
 account for the present continuous famine. Mr. Bullock, a 
 dredger, in reply to Mr. Shaw-Lefevre (2909), said there were 
 plenty of oysters to supply the i-iver with spat, if only they had a 
 good season, meaning suitable weather. Mr. Banyard, oyster 
 merchant, adds (2971), that "this river has been very greatly 
 improved by continuous dredging . . and very much extended 
 . . there is now a beautiful soil, clean and fit for the reception if 
 Providence smiles." Such weather as Mr. Bullock demands wo 
 have had this season (1876); but one who dredges yearly in the 
 Blackwater assures me that there is no spat on its public ground 
 this year. Thus it also seems, according to Mr. Banyard, as if 
 the cleaner they had made the river, the worse was the result so 
 far as the spat was concerned. They ffiil to recognize the real 
 causes. Mr. Banyard unconsciously explains to some extent the 
 great increase of borers in the river, Avhen he states that no 
 dredging is done till summer; they should be destroyed earlier, 
 before de])ositing their si)awn, if we are sincere in our efforts to 
 diminish the scarcity of the oysters. 
 
 Forest Hill, Fehruanj 5, 1877. 
 
 Colne and 
 Blackwater. 
 
 Currents. 
 
 Removal to 
 fatten. 
 
 Need of close 
 time. 
 
 Erroneous 
 views of 
 Messrs. 
 Bullock and 
 Banyard. 
 
 Borers.
 
 V -i^ ) 
 
 Proposed 
 remedies aud 
 objections. 
 Kegulatious. 
 
 General or 
 local. 
 
 1. Eestriction 
 of size; 
 
 of age. 
 
 Why? 
 Gaiige test. 
 
 Age test. 
 
 Letter No. VI. 
 PROPOSED REMEDIES AND OBJECTIONS. 
 
 HAVING CONSIDERED THE CAUSES OF SCAR- 
 CITY, we may now examine the remedies whicli have 
 been urged by some, and as strongly reprobated by others. These 
 consist for the most part of regulations, which it is proposed to 
 apply to pnblic fisheries, viz. : — 
 
 (1.) As to the size of oysters which may be removed ; 
 
 (2.) The months during which they may be taken ; and 
 
 (3.) The extent of area over which dredging may be permitted. 
 
 It has been further proposed — 
 
 (4.) To forbid the sale for consumption of oysters from private 
 grounds during certain months ; 
 
 And, finally, 
 
 (5.) To revise the arrangements as to grants of fisheries. 
 
 It has been suggested, on one hand, that the regulations should 
 be of general application; on the other, that local bodies should be 
 ajjpointed to make regulations affecting particular beds. 
 
 1. In order to give effect to the first proposal, namely, a restric- 
 tion as to the size of the oysters whicli may be removed, a gauge 
 ring has been recommended, and various sizes have been named, 
 naturally in accordance with the growth of the oysters in particular 
 districts; thence some force is given to the suggestion that the 
 settlement of this question should be left to local bodies in the 
 respective localities. But it seems to be entirely overlooked that 
 the restriction really needed is one of age rather than of size. No 
 English oyster should be eaten under full four years at least : 
 therefore, I shall presently suggest that no young oyster of less 
 than three years old shall be removed from a public bed to any 
 store ov fattenijig ground; for, until the age when it is needful to 
 prepare it for market, the young oyster should be kept in a 
 situation favourable to breeding. The gauge test, if it be 
 thought requisite, must be based iTpon this age, and be of size 
 accordant with the local kind of oyster ; and to check the removal 
 of under-aged oysters, the ring for the three-years-old should be of 
 measure corresponding with the largest diameter of the ordinary 
 fiill-sized of the 1st of September three years after birth, and the 
 prohibition should then be made of any oyster less than three 
 years old, or capable of passing the ring — unless full three years of 
 age. A general enactment should fix this age, leaving to the local 
 authorities the settlement of the corresponding gauge. If left 
 entirely to the local bodies, there would be great danger of these 
 yielding to attempts at premature removal by the selection of an 
 inadequate gauge ; whilst the age test would permit all dwarfed 
 or so-called Tom Thumb oysters to pass. I think it quite open 
 to discussion whether four years, instead of three, ought not to be 
 the limit for public-ground native oysters. The age test for con-
 
 sumption slioiild be full four years, and the gauge in- accordance, For con- 
 on the principle already laid down. I know no reason why the sumptiou. 
 restrictive age test for consumption should not apply to the private 
 grounds. 
 
 2. When proposals are made to protect the public beds by pro- 2nd Close time 
 hibiting the removal of oysters during certain months, objections ^^"^ ^ "^^^ Si°g- 
 are raised that the grounds, if not dredged during summer, will 
 become foul and unfit to receive spat, and the oysters will be 
 destroved bv their natural enemies. These objections have been 
 already noticed (Letter III., sec. 8, Oct. 25, 1876), and will be 
 further met by regulations to be presently suggested. It can 
 hardly be disputed that some beds require nothing of the kind. 
 But the objection is illustrated sometimes by the statement that Heme Bay. 
 neglect of dredging has proved most injurious to the grounds 
 occupied by the Hcrnc Bay Company. It should be observed, 
 however, that, according to the evidence, the alleged failure to 
 dredge sufficiently was not confined to the summer, but extended 
 to the whole year, owing to their occupation of a space too large 
 for cultivation with their insufficient means. A careful considera- 
 tion of the facts relative to the Heme Bay Company and the 
 adjoining public grounds will, I think, modify the prevalent 
 opinion concerning them, and support my recommendations as to 
 restrictions. This consideration can be best given Avhen dealing 
 Avith the question of grants. Mr. Banyard (Oyster Fisheries Sliiftingof 
 Report, 2977) thinks the moving of cultch by dredging during <^"ltch. 
 spatting time essential to enable the spat to fix on both sides of a 
 shell ; but he attributes such instances to a wrong cause. I could 
 show him plenty of undisturbed shells which receive spat on both 
 under and upper surfaces. 
 
 3. One witness before the Committee, ]Mr. Cousens, complained 3rd. Time and 
 of a close time of three years at Boston Deeps, resulting in a falling ^•■^^• 
 off of the take fi-om 1,000 a day to 50. I have since heard it 
 reported that the period of exclusion Avas not correctly stated ; if it 
 Avere, it was no doubt too long, and should not have been continuous, 
 except as to the removal of oysters; nor shovild it have been extended 
 to the whole bed at once. 1 believe that in every case of supposed 
 Avant of benefit a sound explanation coidd be given. There is Question of 
 another argument employed against any restriction upon the re- ""™ 'C'- 
 moval of oysters — A'iz., that numbers are not essential to obtain a 
 spat. Xo'one can be more flilly alive to that fact than myself, 
 having had experience of it Avhen I attempted to test it ; * bu t it 
 holds good only when all the conditions are favourable to the fe av. 
 The larger the number in a free current, the greater the chance of 
 success. This is of more importance under tidal influences than in 
 inclosed beds. Shoidd the condition of the oysters be unfavourable 
 as to the percentage spatting, the total gross result wdll probably be 
 in proportion to the number laid, although perhaps less than Avould 
 result from a smaller number in a condition of better percentage ; 
 Avhilst, if the condition be flivourable as to a high percentage of 
 spatters, the Aveather, &c. being equally bad or good, the larger 
 stock Avill giA-e the much larger gross result. Although the crop 
 
 * Vide Letter VIII., errata 1, p. 37.
 
 is not necessarily in proportion to tlie stock, tliose are most likely 
 to be successful who act, in open waters, as if it Avere. 
 
 Lastly, as I have already pointed out (Letter IL, Sept. 27, 1876), 
 it is supposed to be quite immaterial whether the oysters be removed 
 from the breeding grounds, provided they be stored in the same 
 neighbourhood. But the case of Whitstable and the estuary of the 
 Thames bears out my observations, that this is the great error which 
 underlies our failure. I consider that an annual fall demands, as 
 the only prudent course, the maintenance of a stock on breeding 
 grounds, and that no dependence should be placed on the stores of 
 fattening grounds. Were the latter sufficient, the "commons" in 
 the estuary of the Thames would seldom lack a fall ; whereas, we 
 are told by the Whitstable objectors to restrictions, on the one 
 hand, that when the Whitstable stocks were the largest there was 
 no spat in the neighbourhood, and, on the other, that the heaviest 
 falls took place when the stocks of the Whitstable and other com- 
 panies were at their lowest. Both facts harmonize Avith my theory. 
 Mr. Shaw-Lefevre's questions to INIr. Walpole (Oyster Fisheries 
 Committee, 3728 — 3743) elicited proof that the scarcity in the 
 Thames estuary must be referred to local causes ; but they both 
 failed to see that to the reliance on the stocks of the fattening 
 grounds, as if they were equivalent to a stock on the breeding 
 grounds, was the failure largely traceable. 
 
 Regulations. 
 
 I have shown, I think, that there are many causes of scarcity of 
 spat, and several besides of the scarcity of oysters — some pre- 
 ventible, others not. Amongst the most effective of the former is 
 the removal of oysters from the public beds, especially in the 
 months of May to August. To stop this seems objectionable to 
 the fatteners of oysters, as depriving them of stock; still more so 
 to the breeders, especially grantees, whose holding depends on the 
 due stocking of their grounds. 
 
 Having regard to the facts I have detailed, and to the interests 
 of all parties, I venture to suggest twelve regulations for the pur- 
 pose of increasing the chances of spatting, and of diminishing the 
 scarcity of oysters. It will be seen that they differ somewhat 
 from any proposals hitherto made. 
 
 Although I have already offered the first in Letter II. (Sept. 27, 
 1876), where the reasons are fully given, it seems desirable to re- 
 state it in this connection. 
 
 1. That a close time for consumption (from May 1 to Sept. 1) 
 be enacted for all oysters (including such deep-sea oysters — say 
 Class 1 — as the " Portlands"), with the following qualifications, 
 viz. : 
 
 («) That the close time for deep-sea oj^sters, such as " Capes" 
 — say Class 2 — be from June 1 to Sept. 1. 
 
 {h) For the rest of the deep-seas, " Channellcrs" — say Class 3 — 
 the close time should be from June 15 to Oct. 1. 
 
 (c) I see no reason why " seconds" should not be saleable 
 from private fattening grounds, as suggested by Mr. Hole, 
 from Aug. 12. These would not generally be likely to
 
 ( 25 ) 
 
 spat after that date, Avliilst tlicy arc very liable to be lost Close times: 
 if not sold before Christmas. 
 
 2. That no oyster or brood shall be removed from any public 2na. Ro- 
 bed during the close time. movals. 
 
 3. That at ?w time shall young oysters — that is, those under aid. Under 
 tlwee years of age (in the case of natives it should be four years) — ^S^- 
 
 be removed from the jjublic grounds to fatteninf/, but only to 
 breeding, grounds. 
 
 The reason for permitting the transfer to the latter is that no 
 injury is done thereby to the oyster, Avhilst -without it the " several" 
 fisheries granted for breeding purposes, and other breeding grounds, 
 cannot obtain stock at all, except at the full market price of natives. 
 Oysters above the age of three years Avould, of course, be remov- 
 able to any grounds; natives four years, 
 
 4. That a part of every public bed — one-quarter or one-third, 4th. Continu- 
 perhaps — should in rotation be preserved for two years from any ous close time, 
 removal; the period of closing to be reckoned from September 1. 
 
 This will assist in retaining a variety of ages, especially two 
 years old, so as to encourage a variety of date in the emission of 
 spat, and thereby help to secure a chance of favourable weather. 
 
 5. That no cultch shall be taken from any public oyster jtii Cultch. 
 grounds. 
 
 This will hinder the removal of brood too young to be detached, 
 as well as maintain the requisite collectors. 
 
 6. That no oyster shall be sent to market mxiXav four years of ^^jj^ Market 
 age. age. 
 
 7. That the exportation of oysters during close time shall be 7th. Exporta- 
 prohibited. tion. 
 
 8. It is worthy of consideration whether beds within the three- sth. Districts. 
 mile limit should not be prohibited to all boats save those of a 
 prescribed neighbouring district, whose fisheries may have con- 
 tributed to the spat ; or otherwise, whether so-called " foreign 
 
 boats " should not be under obligation to sell only to the local 
 fisheries. 
 
 Such a plan would have prevented the spoliation and destruc- 
 tion of fisheries like those of Chichester and Langston Harbours, 
 &c. 
 
 9. That a daily or weekly licence fee should be payable by all 9th. Licences, 
 boats dredging on the public grounds, especially on those grounds 
 
 said to require summer cleaning; and the fund used for whatever 
 lal)our might be found needful in watching, buoying, harrowing 
 if five-fingers, or dredging if borers, appeared. 
 
 10. That the destruction of the borers during the oi^en period loth. Borers, 
 might also be encouraged by payment out of the fund. 
 
 11. That barges and vessels passing over private oyster layings nth. Dredges, 
 shall be prohibited from ha^dng on board any dredge, the theft by &c. 
 
 this means being probably very considerable; and barges and 
 vessels groimding on the beds should be heavily fined. 
 
 12. That all private oyster beds, including grants, should be I2th. Ecgis- 
 registered and certified by the Board of Trade as either (1) tration. 
 breeding, or (2) fattening beds. 
 
 The time has come to choose between the alternatives of risking Alternatives, 
 some possible danger from vermin, or inflicting a more than pro-
 
 ( 2b ) 
 
 bable loss by disturbing, and especially by removing-, tlie oyster; 
 the latter has been long followed with disastrous result. The 
 former course might at least be tested for a few years. In the 
 moderate degree now proposed, it can scarcely issue in harm ; it 
 seems certain to result in good. 
 Forest Hill, February 12. 
 
 [Though we have not, perhaps, in every instance coincided in 
 the arguments used by Mr. Woods, we most cordially agree in 
 his deductions and recommendations, so far as they are possible. 
 We are rather inclined to doubt whether the " age " test could be 
 worked, but we have no doubt as to the beneficial nature of Mr. 
 Woods' advice, and unless regulations in this direction be adopted 
 we may give up oysters altogether.* — Ed. of the Field. '\ 
 
 Letter No. VII. 
 ON GRANTS OF SEVERAL FISHERIES. 
 
 RANTS OF FISHERIES from public grounds are strongly 
 opposed by local fishermen and by the owners of neighbour- 
 ing beds, both parties being, by such grants, prevented from resort- 
 ing to those grounds for brood. But unless wdiolesome restrictions 
 can be enforced, so as to prevent denudation of the beds, such 
 exclusion is most desirable. If, however, the beds are not ex- 
 hausted, regulations of an effective kind, thoroughly enforced, are 
 better than grants. The opponents also allege, frequently with good 
 reason, that the grants have been made to individuals or associa- 
 tions without capital, and this in spite of warning given at the time 
 of inquir}^ ; that the grants have been made on too large a scale, as 
 has been suggested in the case of Heme Bay; that the exclusion 
 of the public has been detrimental to the culture of the ground, 
 and has tended to diminish the supply of oysters — these objections 
 being also illustrated by a reference to the Heme Bay Company. 
 It may be well now to consider briefly whether the results 
 attributed to the Hernc Bay Company's grant do really exist, and 
 have been rightly attributed. Additional light has been' thrown on 
 .this question since the sittings of the Oyster Fishery Committee. 
 It will be remembered that two inquiries into the working of the 
 Heme Bay Company have been held, and these have led to the 
 decision that a part of their ground has not been kept in sufficient 
 cultivation; that it has, therefore, failed to produce spat; and that 
 part of the fishery ought to be resumed by the Board of Trade. 
 Now^ Mr. Lovely, R.N., on behalf of the Heme Bay Company, 
 gave evidence before the Oyster Fishery Committee (3461 — 4), 
 showing that in 1875 and in the spring of 1876, whenever on the 
 same day boats -were set to work on both grounds, the produce on 
 
 * In rcfereuce to '''age test," vide Letter VIII., penultimate clause.
 
 { 27 ) 
 
 the company's gronncl \yas thirty to fifty per cent, better than on 
 the nnreserved public flats. But I Avonld now invite attention to 
 another fact. This last season, 1876, a spat has fallen on the Heme 
 Bay ground, -vA'hilst under precisely the same condition as was pro- 
 nounced by Mr. Walpole to be insufficient cultivation, thus disprov- 
 ing the alleged cause of previous fiiilure. The open public ground 
 has, I believe, not been so fortunate. Accordingly in November TbrcatcncJ 
 last, Mr. Coleman, of Whitstable, on its being reported that effect '^^"g^^'^- 
 would be given to the Inspector's recommendation, congratulated 
 the public — Avhich really means the Whitstable fishery — on the 
 cheering prospect of this portion of the fishery reverting to the 
 public, and on their ability to appropriate this brood this year, 
 1877: in other Avords, on the prospect of removing the means by 
 which the fishery on the Heme Bay and neiglibom-ing grounds 
 may be revived. 
 
 It is clear that in this case of Heme Bay and the Thames 
 estuary exaggerated value has been attached to this condition of 
 cultivation, or a needlessly high standard has been set, seeing that 
 a spat has fallen on this ground at least as fi-eely as, I believe more 
 abundantly than, on the adjoining still continuously-frequented 
 public flats. It may be worth while to note the history of these 
 flats as sketched in the reports of Mr. Walpole. From that of 
 1874 we find that the original opposition of the Whitstable Com- AVhitstable 
 pany to the grant was based on the fact that their own ground. Company, 
 whilst "probably better adapted than any other in the world for 
 the fattening of oysters, is almost useless for breeding purposes ;" 
 and that they, "therefore, had been in the habit of obtaining brood 
 and half ware from other places, and of laying them on their own 
 grounds to fatten;" and that they and others "were in the habit of 
 largely relying for their brood on the produce of these flats." He 
 gives a table, l3orrowed from the Keport of the Irish Oyster Fish- 
 eries Commission of 1870, and adds: "The witnesses" at this (his 
 own) inquiry, "agreed that this brood was chiefly obtained from 
 those portions of the flats which were vested, in 1864, in the Heme 
 Bay Oyster Fishery Company." But another inquiry Avas held by 
 the same gentleman in January, 1876; and in his report he recalls 
 the fact that " all over the flats in the estuary of the Thames spat 
 is found in patches;" that, "in 1858 and 1859, the falls of spat were 
 very heavy over the Avhole of the flats, and particularly so in that 
 portion now occupied by the Heme Bay Comipany;" that the 
 Whitstable and Essex boats were greatly stimulated by this ; 
 "that the Whitstable Company alone, Avhich had obtained fi-om 
 the flats 36,070 wash of brood in 1857-8, took 49,319 wash in 
 1858-9, and 48,058 in 1859-60." And thus "the great spat" 
 — taken, be it observed, to a large extent before it was twelve 
 months old — "was by this time exhausted. The take fell to 
 11,851 wash in 186*0-1, to 5,134 wash in 1861-2, to 2,419 
 wash in 1862-3, and to 2,398 in 1863-4," and, I may add, to 
 914 in 1864 to March, 1865; and this is the course to which 
 jMr. Coleman looks forward with pleasant anticipation this year. 
 
 Thus, before the spat of the year 1876 will have time to breed — Dangerous 
 which it should be allowed to do on its native soil, to the benefit action, 
 of the district — it is to be prematurely carried off and laid on
 
 ( 28 
 
 Causes. 
 
 the fattening grounds of the Whitstable Com])any, of which 
 Mr. Walpole A^Ti-ites, on the evidence of the Whitstable wit- 
 nesses themselves, it " is almost useless for breeding purposes." 
 Mr. Coleman and other of our opponents seem unable to imagine 
 any middle course between the unrestricted exposure of public 
 beds to spoliation by the fishermen of Whitstable and Essex and 
 their surrender to private companies. I am glad to notice that 
 Mr. Walpole was impressed with the danger of Avithdrawing this 
 ground, and thereby leaving it a spoil to the neighl^ouring dredger- 
 men. Unfortunately, he recognized no alternative; but if this 
 danger Avas evident at Christmas, 1875, how much greater has it 
 become since last season's fall of spat. But in this particular case, 
 in which there is no disputing that something has been done by 
 the Company in possession, nor that that something has issued in 
 a sufficiently cleanly condition of the ground for the reception of a 
 spat, it is certainly harsh, and seems scarcely just, to snatch away 
 the small prize with which fortune may now enable them to balance 
 Tropcr course, the adversities of the past. Under proper regulations, in their 
 hands even, it should be much more for the public benefit than if 
 thrown open to the destruction with which it is again threatened. 
 Failure of Xlie returns quoted by Mr. Walpole, and the complaints made on 
 open grounds. ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^j^^ ^^-j^^^.^ ^^ ^j^^ p^^l^j-^ grounds in the Thames and 
 
 Blackwater — still open to all comers, in accordance with the plan 
 in general favour — are a sufficient answer to the assertion of the 
 immense superiority of that method. The young oysters should 
 be kept on the ground until they have had fair chance of breeding, 
 and meauAvhile proper attention should be paid to their culture by 
 detachment from the cultch, &c. It cannot be pretended that this 
 course has been followed either on the commons or on Heme Bay 
 grounds; and it is to this that I largely attribute the rarity of 
 good falls of spat in the Thames estuary. There was scarcity on 
 the flats in years ])rior to 1857, although they were then all open 
 to the ])ublic ; and there has been scarcity since the heavy falls, 
 when still open to the public (for the falling ofi^from 1860 to 1864 
 on the commons could not be the work of the Heme Bay Com- 
 pany, which did not exist till the latter year) ; and such will be 
 the rule during the continuance of the system. As I have already 
 stated, the only prudent course, if we desire to secure an annual 
 fall, demands the maintenance of a stock on breeding grounds, and 
 that no dependence should be placed on the stores of fattening 
 grounds. Were the latter sufficient, the commons would seldom 
 lack a fall. ]\Ir. Coleman has suggested that it was only the 
 appropriation of " the great amount of young oysters taken pre- 
 vious to 1861, stored and nurtured through the three great years 
 of plenty on the best known grounds," which " served to supply 
 the public through seven years of failure." In other words, their 
 early removal to fattening grounds w^as followed by a failure of 
 spat for many years; so that the gain to the public was, at the 
 best, the superior quality and much higher price of the removed 
 oysters (as Mr. Coleman allows), while a much greater loss 
 accrued by the years of diminished production. 
 
 JNIany persons who favour the system of grants, recognizing the 
 truth of some of the objections, have, like INIr. AYalpole {vide 
 
 Effects of 
 removal. 
 
 Official sug- 
 gestions.
 
 " Oyster Fisheries Committee Report," 3680), recommendecl that Messrs Wal- 
 they should be coufiiiea (1) to Small Areas, and made especially J°J°,^^^"[; 
 to local Fishermen ; or, like INIr. Cholmondeley Pennell, that they 
 should be (2) Large Grants to Co-operative Societies of Dredger- 
 
 men. 
 
 In reference to the proposal of making (1) Small Grants as 1st. Small 
 suggested by Mi: Walpole, it may be remarked that it is evi- f^^^^^^^ 
 dently founded on a misconception. It is _ thought ^ that their ^^l^^^-^l^ not 
 existence in France proves their applicability to this country, analogous. 
 But the circumstances are entirely unlike. In France they are 
 granted on the ebb-dry, or spring-dry, banks under the control 
 of the Government ; the channels in Avhich parent oysters are 
 laid, and some of the banks themselves, being the property of, and 
 stocked and managed by, the Government, the grantee has only 
 to prepare his plot and lay collectors to receive spat furnished by 
 the Government oysters, and he can even obtain in some cases 
 a gift of oysters for his ground. In England the ground available 
 is generally channel below low-water mark, which needs stocking 
 to begin with, and Avhich no one would l^e so foolish as to stock 
 unless a large area were secured to him, the dispersion of the spat 
 being quite likely to supply neighbouring patches which contribute 
 nothing, and to leave his own bed without result. In France, again, 
 the Government affords a protection to oyster grounds, which is 
 utterly wanting here, and whose absence exhausts the patience and 
 capital of enterprising persons. It does not seem, however, that 
 the svstem of small grants answers with our neighbours. This is 
 pointed out by Mr. Hall in his valuable report to the Board of 
 Trade (Oyster Fishery Committee, Appendix 13, Arcachon). 
 The best com-se wiU be foimd embodied in the regulations I 
 propose as applicable to grants. 
 
 Finally, I have to consider the working (2) of the Co-operative 2ncl. Co-opcra- 
 Dredgermen's scheme. The special attention of the Committee J^ve dredger- 
 was invited by jNIr. Farrer to the grant of several fishery made to 
 the Dredgermen's Co-operative Society of Emsworth. It was very Emsworth. 
 cautiously referred to by him as a most interesting experiment, 
 on whose success, however, it might be somewhat premature to 
 offer a decided opinion. Again, in the draft report of the Oyster 
 Fishery Committee proposed by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre (sect. 43), 
 that hon. member writes : " Except in two cases," one being that Supposed 
 of " the Emsworth Fishery, the concessions have not resulted in ^'•^<^'^<^s^- 
 any profit to the undertakers, or in any increased production." 
 How far this idea of its success is warranted wdll presently be 
 seen. In November, 1874, in a letter to the Times, it was much Originated by 
 vaunted by j\Ir. Cholmondeley Pennell as a great success, iipon 
 which he congratulates himself as its sole originator. It is there- 
 fore peculiarly well adapted to illustrate the mistakes Avhich may 
 be made, and the erroneous inferences which may be drawn, when 
 information is derived only from official sources. INIr. Pennell 
 speaks of this fishery as "especially interesting, not only as 
 proving, by the unanswerable logic of facts, the results of proper 
 protecfive measures, but as affording, as in the case of the Ems- 
 worth fishery— which, when handed over to individual enterprise, 
 was little better than a bank of mud— an example of the success- 
 
 Mr. C. renucli.
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 ful application of tlie co-operative principle to this important 
 The facts. branch of marine industry." But what were the facts? It is 
 true that the Emsworth Channel had been thoroughly exhausted 
 of oysters, but it had a very excellent and easily-cleaned bed. 
 This Mr. Messum admitted; indeed, the fall of spat in 1871 
 proves that it was already good for settlement before it was 
 worked. That Mr. Pennell must have been mistaken in de- 
 scribing it as " little better than a bank of mud " seems further 
 proved by the figures which he and others give. A Board of 
 Trade grant of this Channel was made, on the recommenda- 
 tion of Mr. Pennell, on July 24, 1871. The dates are im-. 
 portant. Prior to the date of the grant — in fact, from 1866 — 
 individuals or companies at both the lower and upper ends of 
 the Channel had established breeding and growing fisheries, and 
 the oysters laid by them had thrown spat, which had been 
 deposited about the whole Channel, thus reviving the fishery. 
 This fact was proved by me at the inquiry at Emsworth, I having 
 obtained on the ground brood the produce of the three or four 
 preceding j^ears. Surely the persons thus stocking the fishery, if 
 any, were entitled to some share in the result. It was suggested 
 by me that either all should co-operate under a regulating order, 
 or the ground be divided into three portions, the northern end 
 being allotted to the existing fisheries there, the centre to the pro- 
 posed Dredgermen's Company, and the southern end to the South 
 of England Oyster Company, whose creek abutted thereon ; but 
 the Channel was handed over, rent free, to a society originated for 
 the purpose, without means; or with exceedingly small means, on 
 the understanding, however, that they Avere to stock the same. 
 This, as foretold, they have never done; but they proceeded imme- 
 diately in September or October, 1871, to dredge up the oysters, 
 selling in the same year, according to Mr. Pennell's report, quoted 
 by himself in the Tme^," 250,000" of what he calls the "indigenous 
 produce of the fishery," but really derived as I have stated. In the 
 extracts which he furnishes from his reports, he teUs us further, 
 writing in September, 1872, " the dredgermen are confident there 
 will be at least three times as many this season" (1872-3), that is, 
 750,000; and "judging from their reports, and the very large pro- 
 portion of oysters that I found of a size to be marketable in another 
 twelve months, I have no doubt that next year, 1873, the catch will 
 be again trebled." In other words, within two years of the grant 
 being made, they woidd be able to send into market three and a 
 quarter millions of oysters, to say nothing of those too small, all of 
 Avhich must of necessity have been on the ground when the fishery 
 was handed over. I suppose, however, there must be some error 
 in his figm-es, since, in another extract quoted by him fi-om a report 
 made to the Board of Trade in January, 1873, he writes that " this 
 season," in 1872-3, when they had "only been fishing for about two 
 months out of the seven," "they had already dredged 83,488, or 
 Erroneous nearly twice the entire catch of the whole of the preceding season," 
 inferences. which would apparently change the 250,000 into 45,000. As these 
 reports are not printed, I have been unable to reconcile them ; but 
 the evidence of Mr. Messum, who represented the Company, was 
 laid before the Committee (3350), and if we take his much lower
 
 C 31 ; 
 
 fio;iires, it will still appear that this was no " mere mml bank." 
 Neither were these oysters the result of the Company's labours, nor 
 "an example of the successful application of the co-operative prin- 
 ciple."' For Mr. Messum is clearly in error when he ascribes the 
 take of 310,000 in 1873-4 to the spat Avhicli fell in 1871, shortly 
 before they obtained the ground, as that stuft" Avould be only two to 
 two and a-half years old, and quite unmarketable. The spat of 
 1871 would begin to tell possibly in 1874-5, when three to three 
 and a-half years old. In that year they did, in fact, increase the 
 sale to 380,744 (Messum, 3350). These smaller figures, furnished 
 by Mr. jSIessum, prove that there must have been on the ground in 
 1871, when they received the grant, at least a million of oysters, 
 brood and spat. With this increased production it is evident, con- 
 trary to the impression of Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, the Company had 
 nothing to do. Since 1874-5 the take has much declined. 
 
 The only labour involved is dredging the oysters, for which the 
 men have received 5s. per hundred — nearly all they fetch. The 
 boon to the fishermen was no doubt great, but it can hardly be 
 considered just to those Avho originally had legally equal rights, 
 and equitably had greater, being the providers of the spat. The 
 fishermen Avould have been benefited under any circumstances. 
 Restrictions might have been established without injustice or dis- 
 couragement to the enterprise of local cultivators, and without the 
 results to the public being prejudicially affected. 
 
 Since the foregoing statement in reference to Emsworth was Erroneous 
 first written and laid before the Oyster Fishery Committee, the returns. 
 return made by the Emsworth Dredgermen's Co-operative Society 
 (Limited) has been published in the Blue Book (Appendix, No. 7). 
 The method in which it has been tabulated is most misleading, 
 since it represents the sales as if effected a year later than they 
 were actually made. Those assigned to 1872 should be 1871-2 
 (that is, from September, 1871, till or through the winter) — 
 chiefly, in fact, the earlier year {vide ]\Ir. Pennell's report). This Effect. 
 appears not unnaturally to have misled Mr. Hall, who, in his last 
 report on the fishery, quotes the sales as of 1872-3, which should, 
 as proved by Mr. Pennell's visit in September, 1872, belong to 
 1871-2. The error is, of com-se, continued through the rest of 
 Mr. Hall's figures. The evidence of Mr. Messum confirms the 
 correctness of INIr. Pennell's date, and establishes the inaccuracy 
 of the table. Mr. Hall's interpretation of the table has completed 
 the error, and may probably invalidate the inferences he has 
 drawn. I expect the final figures in his report, quoted for 1876, 
 really refer to 1875. Mr. Messum is in eiTor as to the date of the 
 grant; it was not 1870, but the end of July, 1871. 
 
 If a rumour — which seems to receive the countenance of Mr. 
 Hall in his latest reports to the Board of Trade, recently ordered 
 to be printed — be correct, the number of oysters taken off the 
 Emsworth grant may have to be qualified to the extent of the 
 poaching committed by the Co-operative Society on their neigh- 
 bours; but in that case is proved the accuracy of my disregarded 
 caution at JNIr. Pennell's inquiry, that the grant to these persons 
 woidd only aftbrd them an easier opportunity to dispose of oysters 
 so obtained; whilst jMr. Cholmondeley Pennell's anticipations and
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 congTcitulations \vii[\ regard to the improvement of the fishery, 
 and to the benefit to the neighbours by the improved conduct of 
 the men, seem equally to have participated in an unsound basis. 
 On the one hand, if the stock sold be genuine, the state of the 
 ground was not such as was supposed by the Board of Trade, nor 
 did the increased production arise from the society; the spat ob- 
 tained is acknowledged to be derived chiefly from other sources. 
 On the other, if the stock sold be not genuine, the supposed 
 success is to that extent imaginary, and the grant has increased 
 the facilities for the disposal of stolen goods, to the disadvantage 
 of all the neighbouring fisheries, 
 
 I am compelled to defer further remarks until my next letter. 
 
 Forest Hill, March 3. 
 
 Letter No, VIII. 
 GRANTS OF SEVERAL FISHERIES (conthmed). 
 
 I>E CENT EVENTS may serve to illustrate some of the state- 
 ly ments advanced in my last letter ; the whole of the circum- 
 stances are worth relating. Towards the middle of February, 
 the Report of the Inspectors appointed in 1876 to inquire into the 
 state of the Oyster and Mussel Fisheries, established under orders 
 made by the Board of Trade, was printed by order of the House 
 of Commons. Therein appeared a report on the Langston fishery, 
 in which the Inspector, not unnaturally, disclosed the existence 
 of a considerable number of oysters, and the parts where they 
 were laid. Within a few days the boats of the Emsworth dredger- 
 men ap])eared, and, under pretence of shrimp trawling immediately 
 below the boundary of the fishery, were found to be both trawling 
 and dredging the oysters on the South of England Oyster Com- 
 pany's ground (the Langston Fishery), sometimes at night, some- 
 times even by day. It is always most difficult to catch these boats, 
 which, when observed, generally have the start, and are quickly 
 beyond the bounds of the fishery. But on the 21st of February, 
 tAvo watchmen, about 8 p.m., noticed two boats at Avork ; succeed- 
 ing in cutting in between them, they got across the stern of one 
 and seized the dredge rope Avith one hand ; the poacher instantly 
 drcAv his knife, thrust back the Avatchman, and cut the rope, 
 leaving the dredge in the Channel. The man, hoAvever, Avas 
 fortunately recognized. The second boat meauAvhile escaped. 
 Later in the evening the recognized man Avas again foimd traAA^ing 
 on the oysters. On the 23rd, as the tAvo Avatchmen Avere being 
 relieved in a rythe rmming into the Channel, they saAv a boat 
 making hauls AA'ith a dredge. All four watchmen jumped into
 
 ( 33 ) 
 
 the boat, and pulled doAvn under cover of the mud banks ; they 
 Wei'e of course observed as soon as they reached the Channel ; 
 nevertheless they gave chase, following the poachers down the 
 Langston Harbour, out by Fort Cumberland, through Ilayling 
 Bay, right up Chichester Harbour to iMnsworth. The proverbial 
 length of a stern chase Avas further increased by the accidental 
 absence of one oar; but the watchmen never lost sight of the boat. 
 On reaching Emsworth they took its number ; the men, Avith its 
 contents, had prudently disappeared. The superintendent of the 
 fishery next took the necdlul ste]:)S to summon the recognized 
 poacher, first, for dredging; secondly, for trawling on the 21st; 
 also the OAvner of the boat seen dredging on the 23rd. He presents Action of 
 himself Avith the necessary papers to swear the summons before magistrates, 
 the magistrate (Capt. H.) at tAA'o o'clock, and upon explanation 
 
 is met by the reply, " D the oyster fishery ; you must leave 
 
 the papers, I'm going out." " At what time can I have the sum- 
 monses? they fii us t be serA^ed to-night!" "Between fiA^e and six." 
 And accordingly they had to be Avaited for. Finally, Avhen the 
 hearing came on, case No. 1 was proved, and the defendant 
 ordered to pay a fine of ten shillings, and costs fourteen and six- 
 pence, Avithin a fortnight, the bench pressing that the second 
 charge should be withdrawn ! Case No. 3 AA'as dismissed by the 
 magistrates, on the ground that the number of the boat teas of no 
 value, the men themselves must be recognized. It consequently 
 seems that this feature of numbering and registering the boats, 
 upon which the recent Committee and the Board of Trade appear 
 to place much reliance (Mr. C. Pennell's report, quoted by Mr. 
 Farrer, 20; Messrs. Malcolm & Blake, 3579—83), is perfectly 
 useless. Hitherto there have been some pains successfully taken 
 by the poachers — as alluded to by Mr. Hall in his report on 
 EmsAvorth Channel (Return, Feb. 8, 1877, p. 12) — to conceal 
 these numbers ; but noAv a slight disguise or concealment of their 
 own features Avill probably render them secure. The Company 
 loses, beside the oysters, some pounds and the time of its serAants 
 in the prosecution, Avith the unfortunate result of making more 
 manifest the Aveakness of their means of defence. The EmsAvorth 
 poachers subscribe to pay the small expense AA'hich falls on them, 
 and are no doubt Avell covered by the oysters obtained. The 
 identification of the poachers is most difficult. Watchmen, 
 strangers to the neighbourhood, are the most likely to be inde- 
 ])endent and to protect the ]3roperty of a fishery, and the least 
 likely to league themselves Avith the fishermen ; but to them the 
 recognition required must be impossible. The chances of success- 
 fid prosecution are excessiA^ely small. It certainly does not seem Result of 
 that j\Ir. Pennell has any reason to congratulate himself that the scheme, 
 establishment of the Dredgermen's Co-operatiA^e Society at Ems- 
 Avorth has relieved their neighboiu's from their luiAvelcome atten- 
 tions ; and, as it has assm-edly not benefited the fishery itself, the 
 experiment, tested by this instance, can scarcely be claimed as a 
 success. Unfortunately, all the encouragement falls to those avIio 
 are mere appropriators of oysters already on the fishery, Avhilst the 
 neighbouring enterprising capitalists, Avho re-stock their gi-ants at 
 great cost, find themselves practically their helpless prey. 
 
 c
 
 ( .'^■i ) 
 
 J St. Grants. 
 
 2nd. Eegu- 
 lating orders. 
 
 3rd. Admission 
 of foreign 
 boats. 
 
 4th. Cleaning 
 grounds. 
 
 .5th. Notice of 
 bill. 
 
 6th. Area of 
 grants. 
 
 7th. Condi- 
 tions of grants. 
 
 8th. Protective 
 measures. 
 
 Suggested Regulations. 
 
 In relation to the management of public grounds in rivers and 
 harbours, I would suggest : 
 
 1. That grants of them should only be made when they have 
 been thoroughly exhausted, and have no prospect of replenishment 
 from the contiguity of private oyster grounds. 
 
 2. But that, if situated amongst private beds, and found to be 
 in course of revival or likely to be replenished therefrom, they 
 should be placed under suitable stringent regulations, such as I 
 have already proposed (Letter VI.), for the benefit of the district. 
 
 3. If, on the other hand, the public ground, not being exhausted, 
 is probably a provider, in part, of the spat which falls on neigh- 
 bouring private beds, those beds having thus already some ad- 
 vantage, it appears Avorthy of consideration Avhether this ground, 
 after being placed under the proposed regulations, should not be 
 o]3en to dredging by so-called " foreign" boats. 
 
 4. That if it be found imperative, in any case of public ground 
 placed under regulation, to continue some cleaning of the ground 
 and catching of vermin during the summer, these should be secured 
 either by a fund derived from fees chargeable on the boats permitted 
 to dredge, or by imposing a condition of service on the private 
 beds of the district benefited. 
 
 5. That before introducing a Bill to confirm any order of the 
 Board of Trade for a several fishery, notice should be given to 
 those who have opposed at the inquiry. It happens now that the 
 result of an inquiry, and the intention of the Board, can only be 
 known by the very uncertain announcement in the Times of the 
 passage of the Bill through one of its stages. The introduction 
 may chance to take place very shortly after the- inquiry, or may 
 be delayed for a year, giving the impression that it has been aban- 
 doned, and thereby preventing opportunity of effective opposition. 
 
 6. That, in the event of any exhausted ground being made the 
 subject of grant, it should not be broken up into separate grants, 
 since the result of these is a lottery. There are usually many 
 portions of a fishery where little, if anything, ever falls, owing to 
 which accident of position the most enterprising may get nothing. 
 If there be many local occupiers, they should be combined. 
 
 7. That when a grant is made to a local combination, or to an 
 individual or company, it should be under a pledge to clean the 
 ground, and to expend a certain fixed sum within three years 
 in the purchase of British or other suitable oysters to stock it. 
 Portuguese and Amei'ican are quite useless for such a purpose. 
 
 8. That some measures should be devised for, or assistance given 
 in, the protection against poachers of the grants of several fisheries. 
 The depredations committed by the co-operative dredgermen (the 
 undertakers of the Emsworth Channel Fishery) iq^on the Oyster 
 Merchants Company (the Emsworth Fishery), as described by 
 Mr. Hall in his report; and the robberies perpetrated by the same 
 persons upon the South of England Oyster Company (the Lang- 
 ston Fishery), described by me in the earlier part of this letter; 
 together with the use of dredges by barges passing through 
 fisheries, mentioned in Letter VI., are only specimens of what, by
 
 ( 35 ) 
 
 its frequency and extent, must prove a great discouragement to 
 enterprise in this important department of industry. The so-called 
 artificial cultivators of oysters in this country are entitled to every 
 possible aid, since they cannot obtain the great economical advan- 
 tage of female labour as do the fisheries of France. 
 
 9. That the pollutions, by sewage or otherwise, of harbours, or 9th. rollutions. 
 the mouths of harbours, which are the site of oyster fisheries, should 
 be stopped. 
 
 (^Evidence before Select Committee.) 
 Errata. 
 
 Before bringing my remarks to a conclusion by contrasting with Errata. 
 my proposals the recommendations made by the Committee in 
 their Report, it seems needful that I should correct one or two of 
 the erroneous and misleading statements contained in the evidence 
 received and printed by the Committee. Many, of com'se, must be 
 passed over ; these are a sample : 
 
 1. jSIr. Hart made several touching the experiences of the South ^^t. Hay Hug. 
 of England Oyster Company, at Hayling, between 1866 and 1869. ,r. j, \ 
 He conveyed the impression that only one bed was used for breed- 
 ing in 1866, and one in 1867, both being successful; no breeding 
 in 1868; — this latter statement was subsequently modified in a 
 somewhat indefinite manner ; — small result, he believed, in 1869, 
 but he was absent. The facts are these : The bed prepared by 
 Mr. Hart in 1866 was a complete failure; from a very large 
 number of oysters two or three spat alone resulted. Only by the 
 insistance of one of the Directors were about 50,000 of the oysters 
 — which were being removed by Mr. Hart to the bed he had pre- 
 pared — retained in the supply pond, on the ground that no chance 
 offered by different conditions ought to be neglected. Eighty 
 hurdles were put in, and to this fortunate circumstance alone the 
 spat of 1866, in pond Fusaro, was due. The spat was not even 
 looked for in this pond until suddenly found by one of the men, 
 very considerably developed. In 1867, two adjoining beds were 
 used by Mr. Hart; one utterly failed, the other was a magnificent 
 success, giving a gross result of perhaps 200 spat for every parent 
 oyster. In 1868 all the beds used by Mr. Hart failed. In 1869, 
 Mr. Hart laid down in one bed 425,000 oysters of his own selec- 
 tion ; the spat obtained was about 290,000. He has forgotten 
 that he was not absent until after the settlement of the spat. In 
 another bed, being Avilling to test my belief in quality against 
 number, and desirous of proving my theory that the progeny of 
 an oyster Avould follow its parentage, I laid 16,500 natives, and 
 obtained an excellent spat of about 950,000 natives — over fifty for 
 every parent. This, on a large scale, established the maintenance 
 of the characteristics of the different breeds.* I may here men- 
 tion, incidentally, that in the same bed I obtained this last season, 
 1876, from 60,000 native and own-bred native oysters, some 
 twenty-four millions of spat — a remarkably fine gross average of 
 400 for every parent. 
 
 * Vide Appendix. Letter E., Dee. 2, 1S7G. 
 C 2
 
 ( 36 ) 
 
 2nd. Langston. 
 Board of 
 Trade. 
 
 3rd. Langston. 
 Llr. Hall. 
 
 4th. Arcachon. 
 Mi: Hall. 
 
 2. Langston. — The return made by the Board of Trade (Report, 
 Appendix No. 2, p. 209) erroneously states the grant made under 
 the Langston Fishery Order as of 25 acres; it should be about 
 225, of which part only is capable of cultivation. 
 
 3. "Whilst upon the subject of the fishery at Langston, I may 
 notice that a wrong inference might possibly be drawn from the 
 expression used in jNIr. Hall's report thereon as to the age of 
 oysters laid and retained in the Langston Channel ; hitherto they 
 have been of all ages, so that no hindrance to spatting could arise 
 from any defect in that respect. The ascidian to which he refers 
 is the Cynthia, a great pest, the poisonous character of Avhose juice 
 makes any attempt at removal from the cultch dangerous; the 
 irritation caused to the eye or broken skin by the liquid squirted 
 on application of a knife is, unfortunately, very considerable, and 
 the fishermen will not risk it. 
 
 4. Arcachon. — In reply to a question from Mr. Shaw-Lefevre 
 (3869), Mr. Hall assented to the proposition that at Arcachon the 
 fishery is entirely uncovered during the ebb-tide ; but this is not 
 quite exact. In the first place, the channels are never dry, and 
 they Avere the original source of the spat; aud, secondly, much of 
 the artificial fishery is only exposed during the ebb of spring tides 
 — a feature of considerable importance.* 
 
 liecoramenda- 
 tions of Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 1st. Close 
 time. 
 
 2nd. Deep-sea. 
 
 3rd. Removal. 
 
 4th. Under 
 age. 
 
 5th. No dis- 
 tinction. 
 
 6th. Penaltv. 
 
 (^Report of Select Committee.^) 
 
 The Recommendations of the Commttee. 
 
 That, unhappily, the recommendation of the late Committee 
 {vide Report) is, unconsciously to its members, utterly inadequate 
 to the necessities of the case, will, I think, be clearly seen when 
 we recall its items. 
 
 1. They recommend, it is true, a general close time — not 
 applicable to deep-sea oysters — from May 1 to September 1 ; but the 
 Board of Trade may vary or annul this at pleasure. In fact, the 
 Committee suggest exceptions where the restrictions are most 
 needed, as in the estuary of the Thames. It will, therefore, prac- 
 tically amount to a close tinxQ for consum-ption only. 
 
 2. They have done nothing to extend the defective close time 
 enacted by the Convention Act of 1868 for deep-sea oysters, 
 although the French Government would willingly accede to such 
 an extension. 
 
 3. Clause 4 of the Report is so worded that apparently, al- 
 though it is recommended that deep-sea oysters should not be sold 
 under 2^ in. or 3 in. in diameter, they may he removed. 
 
 4. There is no prohibition of the removal of under-aged oysters 
 from any public fishery. 
 
 5. No distinction is recognized between removals to breeding 
 and to fattening grounds. 
 
 6. The only infliction of penalty recommended applies to the 
 purchase or sale of oysters for consumption during close time. 
 
 • This is so, and, as onr correspondent says, is a feature of considerable import- 
 ance. — Editor of the Fldd.
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 The proposed changes have thus been reduced to a minimum, 
 and the effect will be commensurate. 
 
 Age Restrictions. 
 
 In reference to the question of restriction upon age or size of Age test. 
 native and second-class oysters, you. Sir, in a foot-note to my letter 
 No. VI., expressed a doubt whether the age test would work. I 
 am not anxious to press its adoption alone, although to my mind 
 there is little practical difficulty ; but I see perfect ease and per- 
 fect security if the age and gauge tests are co-effective. Unless 
 the latter be based on the former, it will be merely a delusion, 
 whilst every legitimate oyster liable to rejection by the rough test 
 of the ring would be accepted and passed by the test of age. The 
 general law would be most easy of adaptation to local circum- 
 stances in the manner I have indicated in letter No. VI., sect. 1. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 Legislation for the protection and revival ot our oyster fisheries Couclusiou. 
 is sorely needed, and should be promptly applied ; but it needs to 
 be based upon something better than the unenlightened views of 
 the dredgermen, or the equally imperfect ideas of the self-styled 
 " heat and tranquillity " school. 
 
 W. FELL WOODS. 
 Forest Hill, April 5th.
 
 ( 3S ) 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE IN THE ^^ FIELD.' 
 
 Letter A., November 18th, 1876. 
 From Mr. Francis Francis. 
 
 THE BREEDING OF THE OYSTER. 
 
 MR. FELL WOODS has written a good deal that is interesting about the 
 oyster, and it is evident tliat he has studied the subject; but when he 
 says that I have "insisted" on some point as regards the natural history of the 
 oyster, I must correct him, for I should hardly be likely to "insist" where 
 matters at the best are but doubtful and unsettled. All that I say is, that 
 Nature would scarcely dispose of the oyster in beds unless it was for some 
 necessary purpose, and I think it most likely that the production of the oyster 
 is more or less concerned in that arrangement. I have not " insisted that 
 there is a separation of the sexes." I never believed in such a theory, and 
 therefore could not very well do so ; but I inclined to believe in Dr. Kellart's 
 theory for the want of a better, and because it accounted for many points 
 which otherwise could not be accounted for. He admitted the oyster to be 
 hermaphrodite, but not self-fertilizing, and suggested that it was necessary 
 that there should be a mutual fecundation carried out in some way, but which 
 we have not yet had ocular demonstration of. This is not an unreasonable 
 thing, as many hermaphrodites are not self-fortilizing, but require mutual 
 fecundation for reproduction. I do not "ignore" what has been discovered 
 in embryology, though it is a science in which I am but indifferently read ; 
 and that being so, about a twelvemonth since I had a considerable corre- 
 spondence with my poor friend Mr. Newman — than whom, I suppose, there 
 were few, if any, better authorities — and I read carefully a pamphlet written 
 by him on this subject, and still the matter was left undetermined in my mind. 
 Mr. Fell Woods's account of the later stages of development as regards the 
 embryo of the 03^ster is all that can be desired, but iie has to trench upon 
 hypothesis when he treats of the earlier stages, since he can only then deal 
 in "seems" and "possibles;" and when I meet with "seems" and "possibles," 
 I know that doubt is not far off. " It seems to him possible that both sexual 
 elements may not [the italics are mine] be always developed in the animal in 
 the same season, or, if so, not always sufficiently in conjunction." Exactly so. 
 Mr. Woods is clearly in doubt upon the very point tliat we are all in doubt 
 about. He has his theory, which it would appear is no more certain or ascer- 
 tained tlian anyone else's. Then he goes on to assume that "this may be the 
 cause of the smallness of the proportion of the spatters in some seasons." 
 Tiie notion is ingenious ; but what oysters are now they always have been. 
 Mr. Woods then follows on with climatic influences as affecting the spatting, 
 and we all know tliat temperature and wind disturbance are very variable and 
 capricious, and that such tilings may now and then affect injuriously or favour- 
 ably, more or less, spots of spat during the period of floatation. I quite recog- 
 nize and admit all this; but what I do not admit, and never will admit, is, that 
 this is in any way a leading cause of the scarcity of oysters. This cause of 
 scarcity has always existed more or less, and the scarcity in one place or year 
 has always been balanced in anotlu'r. So also have the breeding arrange-
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 ments of the oyster existed in the same state ever since it was an oyster ; but 
 such peculiar hermaphroditic variations as those suggested by Mr. Woods 
 would not occur to all the oysters, I presume, at the same time, even on one 
 bed, still less all round the coast; and still less, again, would they be in- 
 herited in a sort of perpetuity for fourteen or fifteen years. What we want 
 to arrive at is why oysters are so scarce, and these scientific explanations, 
 though interesting enough in themselves, do not meet or account for the 
 case at all, because the causes put forward in these explanations have 
 always been more or less present; and, if we were to admit them as at all 
 largely aSecting the cause, oysters should always have been as scarce as they 
 are now. In fact, I don't admit these reasons at all, since they are merely a 
 part of the ordinary life of the oyster. It is my belief that it is very much to 
 the exigencies of the private beds, supplied most unscrupulously and mis- 
 chievously from the public ones, that we owe the scarcity of oysters at 
 present. Over-dredging, no close time, and the deportation of under-sized 
 oysters, have done the work. Let me draw up a code of laws for the manage- 
 ment of the oyster fisheries, and see them carried out, and I would undertake 
 to say til at in four or five years I would reduce the price of oysters down to 
 one shilling a dozen again. 
 
 Before concluding I may just add one suggestion. Why has no one yet 
 shown us spat produced beyond doubt by a solitary oyster? Surely the ex- 
 periment must have been worth trying ; but no one ever has done so. We 
 are told that one oyster can spat some acres of ground. Why does not some- 
 body put an oyster in a position to do it? That would settle the question ; 
 and one fact like this would be worth all the theory that ever was published. 
 
 Letter B., November 25tli, 1876. 
 From Mr. W. Fell Woods. 
 
 THE BREEDING OF THE OYSTER. 
 
 MY present letter must be considered as parenthetical ; it is intended simply 
 as a reply to the courteous letter of Mr. Francis Francis, wliich appears 
 in your paper of the 18tli inst. I am sorry to find that I have, unintentionally, 
 been guilty of misrepresenting his view as to the sex of the oyster. I had 
 misinterpreted his expressions — influenced, I think, first, by the report of the 
 Irish Commission, which intimated that one member of it, not Mr. Francis, 
 supported the view of Dr. Kellart, thereby inferentially excluding Mr. Francis 
 from belief in that theory ; and, secondly, because Mr. Saville Kent, writing 
 in the Field on April 22nd this year, interpreted Mr. Francis's expressions, 
 without contradiction, in these words: "Singularly, too, Mr. Francis's rejection 
 of the prevalent idea in favour of the oyster being hermaphrodite, so tiiat one 
 isolated individual can originate or re-stock a bed, and which has no doubt 
 considerably promoted the evil, is placed on record simultaneously with my 
 own observations in favour of the animal's separate sexuality." This sentence 
 is, I now perceive, no doubt susceptible of two interpretations, but to me at 
 the time it corroborated my impression, and still seems to me intended to con- 
 vey Mr. Kent's belief that Mr. Francis rejected hermaphrodism, and believed 
 in " separation of the sexes." In this rejection, and in his remarks generally, 
 I certainly did consider that he "ignored" anatomical and embrvological 
 observations. His disavowal and his exjjlanation of his views I gladly accept, 
 and, seeing that I was not without apparently strong ground for my statement, 
 I am sure he will accept this apology for my misinterpretation. I do not 
 remember to have seen the pamphlet by Mr. Newman to which he refers, and 
 shall be obliged if Mr. Francis will favour nie with its title. 
 
 A main difference between Mr. Francis and myself seems to be one of tem- 
 perament. I suppose it would be impossible for me to write, as he does, that 
 "I do not admit, and never will admit," &c.; yet no doubt we are both equally
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 open to the influence of evidence. We differ in our method of stating our 
 personal convictions; he probably as much overstates his as I understate mine. 
 When I state that "it seems to me possible that both sexual elements may not 
 be always developed in the animal in the same season, or, if so, not always 
 sufficiently in conjunction," I do not imply that I myself, after frequent com- 
 parison of observations, have much doubt on the subject, but I thereby recognize 
 the fact that, however true it may be, it would in the nature of things be scarcely 
 possible to prove it. It would not be convenient here to go thoroughly into 
 the evidence on this and kindred points, nor is it at all needful for my argument. 
 I have there stated the probable reasons for an undoubted fact — viz., the vary- 
 ing and sometimes small proportion of 03'sters which spat, that is to say breed, 
 at anv given spot. This I advance as one of the causes of scarcity, which cause 
 we cannot ignore, whatever the reasons for it may be. Mr. Francis next, com- 
 menting on some of the other statements, says, " I quite recognize and admit 
 all this," but proceeds to combat them as if I had made them leading causes 
 of the scarcity. If Mr. Francis has read my first letter {Field, September 
 9th), I do not see how he can attribute to me that opinion. I there not only 
 opposed such an idea in regard to temperature, but produced stronger evidence 
 tlian had, I think, ever been previously given against it. True I have wit- 
 nessed the influence of wind, and assign it a prominent place ; but Mr. Francis 
 has, in fact, made a iiremature attack, unless he really disbelieves what I 
 assert — that all these causes can be sliown to exist, playing tlieir part with 
 variable intensity of effect, in different places at different seasons, and there- 
 fore contributing in variable degree to the general results — that now one, and 
 now another — sometimes here one and there another simultaneously — produces 
 the widest effect, whilst many co-operate for successive seasons. I have not 
 represented these as merely occasional causes, neither do I allow that they 
 are all in constant, simultaneous, equal action, but I regard them as at all 
 times, though in variable degree, affecting our supplies. I do not think it 
 wise — especial!}'' in reasoning with those who, in Mr. Francis's forcible 
 language, " liave committed themselves to a theory which nothing can, and 
 nothing shall upset" — to ignore any of the causes. Moreover, I venture to 
 tliink that, if he really means what he says, when he wa-ites, " I don't admit 
 these reasons at all, since they are merely a part of the ordinary life of the 
 oyster," and fancies he is arguing against my views, he cannot have read the 
 second, third and fourth (tlie most important causes), and the eighth and ninth 
 causes, mentioned in my last letter.* His succeeding words, however, do but 
 echo some of my statements, and I therefore expect we shall be found to 
 approximate more closely than at first seemed likely. 
 
 Will he forgive me if I say, in conclusion, that I think him a little unreason- 
 able when he asks, " Why has no one yet shown us spat produced, beyond 
 doubt, by a solitary oyster?" I have oft'ered to assist, but I have never yet 
 found anyone willing, or perhaps I might say able, to offer an aquarium fitted 
 with and maintaining all the requisite conditions, analogous to those of nature, 
 for the accommodation of a single oyster ; and without this last condition the 
 experiment Avould of course be valueless, whilst there must be no renewal of 
 the water for many months, lest the result should be prejiuliced. It cannot 
 be tested with certainty in any kind of oyster pond. In the absence of this 
 desired " one fact," perhaps we may be able to establish it inferentially. At 
 least we lose nothing b}^ this interchange of views. 
 
 Forest Hill, November 20. 
 
 ♦ Letter No. III.
 
 Letter C, December 2nd, 1876. 
 From Mr. Fuancis Fuancis. 
 
 THE BREEDING OF THE OYSTER. 
 
 IF I was ill the sligliest degree uncourteous to !\tr. Woods I beg his pardon. 
 It Avas not my wish to be so, but I certainly was a little surprised, and not 
 agreeably so, to find myself credited with a theory which 1 was not conscious 
 of ever giving expression to, and which indeed I did not believe in, and also 
 to be told that I ignored facts to which I had given the best attention! was 
 capable of, hut which, so far as I could interpret them or weigh their full 
 meaning, did not seem to bear out Mr. Woods' theory. I have already said 
 that Mr. Woods had written much that was interesting, and there Jire many 
 points in his earlier letters on which I most cordially agree with him. But 
 nothing that he has said in his last letter-* gives me any reasonto alter my 
 opinion as to the natural causes of scarcity (if any). I fully admit that there 
 are plenty of enemies to the oyster, that weather influences affect tlLem at 
 times unfavourably, and that there may in individual cases be a hitch in their 
 procreative arrangements ; but what I take my stand on is the certainty that 
 these peculiarities have always existed, that they are, as I have said, a part 
 of the life of an oyster, and that Nature has always (and always woulcl if 
 uniuterfered with by man) balanced the deliciencies caused by such injurious 
 efl:ccts— good in one place against bad in another, a good year against a bad 
 one. A bad year might happen, and this would no doubt somewhat affect the 
 supply for two or three years ; or two bad years might happen, and affect 
 it 'for four or five years ; but when it comes to fil'teen or sixteen, then it 
 goes bevoiid my credence. And when I find from experience and investigation 
 that during the whole of this time, on grounds where there are still plenty of 
 oysters, in'" frequent instances fair spats have been got ; while on other grounds 
 which have been over-dredged, and where very few oysters are left, there has 
 been verv little spat, if any ; and that year after year, for sixteen years, the 
 same results ensue, and we have been expecting that oyster to cover that acre 
 of ground with spat, which we have been told he is capable of doing, and yet 
 throughout all that time, with every possible variety of wind and weather and 
 temperature, he has steadily refused to do it: I really think I am justified in 
 drawing the conclusion that he can't do it, and that it is high time, after 
 having had the way stopped to all improvement by a stubborn belief in this 
 theory for sixteen years, and thereby made oysters GOO per cent, dearer than 
 they were, I think, I say, that the public would be justified in objecting to 
 the theory altogether as a foundation for a method of treatment, and in 
 demanding a new method of proceeding altogether. But when we see that, 
 pari passu, while we are refining upon these nice points of embryology and 
 weather-ologv (I don't know the proper scientific terra forit), and trying to 
 guide our steps by them, the French, who were formerly in worse case than 
 ourselves, have, by a few practical regulations— such as I and those who join 
 me want to see introduced into this country— smothered their grounds with 
 oysters, and have more than they know what to do with, I think the argument 
 in favour of my deduction becomes irresistible. 
 
 The pamphlet lent me by Mr. Newman consisted, I think, of papers read by 
 him bel'ore some scientific society, I am not quite sure which, but I fancy the 
 Zoological. As Mr. Woods puts it, I quite see that there might be adifiiculty 
 in procuring undoubted spat from that one oyster in any tank; still, if there is 
 so much difticulty in arriving at undoubted proof on this point, it seems to me 
 a desperate error to permit such a doubtful theory as has been erected here to 
 govern our entire legislation with respect to the oyster fisheries. And again, 
 if, failing in being able to prove from actual experiment that one oyster can 
 reproduce itself, we are to arrive at the fact inferentially, as Mr. Woods re- 
 
 • Letter li.
 
 marks, then I claim that the inference from sixteen years* example is wholly 
 and entirely in my favour. The principle upon which that fatal Sea Fisheries 
 Commission (which did much to destroy our British fisheries, by removing all 
 restrictions of every kind, which will all have to be re-imposed) proceeded, was 
 that you could not dredge an oyster fishery so bare as not to leave sufficient 
 oysters behind to re-stock it thoi'oughly in any good season. I knew at the 
 time that this principle was fatal, and would end in just the destruction which 
 has resulted from its application, because I had seen fisheries destroyed by 
 over-dredging under my own nose — fisheries where formerly a fisherman with 
 a single dredge could go and catch his bushel or more of oysters in a day, but 
 where now he cannot catch half a dozen — and I had heard of many similar 
 cases of the same thing all round the coast. I attacked this reckless principle 
 then as warmly as I could, and I have consistently done so year after year ever 
 since, and I do not hesitate to say that the self-fertilizing theory has been the 
 foundation of all opposition to improved legislation. I certainly never dreamt 
 that the public would stand anything like the increase of price which oysters 
 have reached, without sweeping this most noxious system of non-preservation 
 away utterly. Practically, for myself and men of my class, native oysters have 
 been annihilated. Luxurious old gourmands in the West-end clubs, and lively 
 young speculators in the City, the checks on and in whose trousers bear no 
 relative proportion, may still feel justified in spending 10s. on their luncheon 
 — I don't ; and I earnestly desire to see the time when I can once more get my 
 dozen of natives, glass of stout, and bread and butter for a shilling as I used 
 to do. There is no natural reason why I should not. Of that I am per- 
 suaded. 
 
 Letter D., December 9th, 1876. 
 From ^Nlr. W. Fell AVoods. 
 
 THE BREEDING OF THE OYSTEE. 
 
 T FEAR that my reference to Mr. Francis's first letter as "courteous" must 
 -■- have been misinterpreted by him as being ironically intended. I can 
 assure him it was not so ; but that I wished to intimate in what spirit I un- 
 derstood his strictures to be offered, and that I desired to follow so good an 
 example, thus guarding against a false impression to which otherwise any 
 accidental expression might give rise. 
 
 I am glad to feel that, whatever cogency there may be in Mr. Francis's 
 arguments as against the theories of those wliose views he is really combating, 
 they have very little application to mine. No misuse of the self-fertilizing 
 theory can prove it erroneous, nor can any such abuse be laid to my charge. 
 
 In reference to the early spatting of oysters, the cases mentioned by Capt. 
 Johnson of the two-year-olds in 1874, and the one-year-olds on a previous 
 occasion, tend to confirm the result of my observations as to this a1)ility 
 stated in my letter of October 25th; but I have never been able to assure 
 myself that, in the particular case described by him of the spatting of the 
 youngest, the crop acquired did not come from the Medina, from which it 
 certainly might then have been received; and, in the instances in whicli the 
 ponds have not been for some time dried, tiiere is always a possibility tji older 
 oysters being left in the pond, which clearly may have happened in 1874. 
 «■ <> o o " '« o o 
 
 Forest IHU.
 
 ( ^'^ y 
 
 Letter E., December 2nd, 1876. 
 From Mr. W. Fell Woods. 
 
 EXTENDED CULTIVATION OF THE NATIVE 
 OYSTER. 
 
 MY own tlieory being tliat the progeny of an oyster would follow its 
 parentage, I put it to tlie test in 18G9, with Essex natives and other 
 oysters, as I have already made known, and it was then first proved by me on 
 a large scale to be correct. Capt. Jolmson's experience in 1872, related by 
 Mr. Francis Francis, is therefore but a confirmation of this, and not an original 
 discovery. It is, however, equally certain that local conditions influence their 
 development, and the large rapid growth of tliis year's spat at Medina, some 
 of which I saw more than an inch and a quarter in diameter when less than 
 seven weeks old, seems to indicate a tendency to revert to the local tvpe. 
 Forest Hill. November 2~th.
 
 r
 
 /^' '■ 
 
 V 
 
 )^ 
 
 
 
 
 v^i 
 
 ;)^ 
 
 / 
 
 \l 
 
 '^