Full text of "The Herne bay, Hampton and Reculver oyster fishery company. Evidence taken on oath in the ..."

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at jhttp : //books . qooqle . com/

d/,

THE

EVIDENCE TAKEN ON OATH

In the Committee of the House of Lords,
April 19 & 20, 1866,

THE BILLS PROMOTED BY THE WHITSTABLE AND THE
HERNE BAY &c., FISHERY COMPANIES,

WITH AX

Explanatory Introduction and Notes

CONTRIBUTED TO

BY SEVERAL HANDS.

LONDON :

EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.

1866.

PRICE SIXPENCE.

6000306910

r^.

J.A

THE

||ente *%i% Pampimt atiir $tmlkx

EVIDENCE TAKEN ON OATH

In the Committee of the House of Lords,
April 19 & 20, 1866,

THE BILLS PROMOTED BY THE WHITSTABLE AND THE
HERNE BAY Ac., FISHERY COMPANIES,

WITH AW

Explavatoiy Introduction and Notes

CONTRIBUTED TO

BY SEVERAL HANDS.

LONDON :

EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE.

1866.

PRICE SIXPENCE.

<L S.

THE HERNE BAT, HAMPTON, AND RECULYER^
OYSTER FISHERY COMPANY,

Evidence taken on oath in the Committee of the House
of Lords, April 19 and 20, 1866, on the Bills pro-
moted by the Whitstable and the Heme Bay &c.,
Fishery Companies, with an explanatory introduction
and notes.

So many facts and opinions of much interest to the
shareholders were elicited in the Committee of the House
of Lords to which were referred the Bills promoted in the
present session by the Company and the Whitstable Com-
pany, that it has been considered expedient to print, for
the information of the shareholders, all the evidence of
any importance to them which was given on oath before
the Committee, with some necessary explanations.

In order that the statements in this pamphlet should
be altogether accurate, application was made for informa-
tion on many points to the Company's energetic Secretary,
and it is due to that Gentleman to acknowledge the value
of his most candid and obliging explanations on every
matter on which enquiry was made. It is also fitting that
the shareholders should know that the Secretary was thus
giving effect to the wishes of the Board.

It will be observed that some of the evidence against
the Company was given with a boldness of assertion
which had to be corrected by cross-examination; but
although for the sake of avoiding needless length some
evidence relating to the Whitstable Company and the
evidence on some questions on manerial rights, which were
rather vaguely raised by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
are omitted, care has been taken not to leave out a singly

statement which was intended to be prejudicial to the
Heme Bay Company.

The Directors arfe evidently anxious that every share-
holder should be fully and accurately informed as to the con-
dition and prospects of the Company's property and affairs,
and not the less so because of their conviction that the more
rigid the investigation to which the Heme Bay Fishery is
subjected— so that the scrutiny be honest and not deliber-
ately prejudiced — the more satisfactory to the shareholders
will be its results.

' The last parliamentary contest between the Whitstable
Company and the Heme Bay Company related ohiefly to a
piece of ground below low water mark, which each Com-
pany desired to secure as an addition to its own oyster
grounds.

In order that the relative position of the two Com-
panies may b© understood, it is necessary to gd back to
times past.

The Whitstable Company are a most ancient body of
a free fishers and dredgers," who, from father to son, have
carried on the business of an oyster fishery during (it is
probable), a period of at least 2,000 years. It was about
A.I). 80, that Julius Agricola first exported oysters from the
neighbourhood of the Reculvers to Rome, and for the an-
cestors of the Whitstable free dredgers, Rome was during
about three centuries their Billingsgate. It is therefore
likely that they are the oldest known business firm in the
world, and they are entitled to the respect which in our
aristocratio country we gladly pay to ancient lineage.

They are not only " free dredgers," but they are fair
dredgers, and whatever may be the rivalry between the
two Companies, the Heme Bay Company need have no fear
that the members of the Whitstable Company will forfeit
their good repute by acting otherwise than as honest
neighbours. It will not be the fault of the Heme Bay
Company if the two Companies are not good friends.

After the lapse of many centuries, the Whitstable
Company were in the year 1793 incorporated by an Act of

Parliament, tinder which they purchased their fishery,
which before that time they had rented of the Lord of the
manor.

The Whitstable fishery lies on the southern side of the
estuary of the Thames, eastward of the Isle of Sheppey
and where the waters of the Medway and the Swale flow
into the sea.

In order to the fattening of the best oysters, the soil
on which they lie must be of a particular character,
and the water that covers them must be neither fresh nor
salt, but a due admixture of the two. The Whitstable
fishery has the requisite advantages of both soil and
water, and the great superiority of " Whitstable natives "
over almost all other oysters is mainly owing to these
advantages.

The members of the Whitstable Company are a fine
body of nearly 400 men, brought up from their youth to
the business of their fishery, but all their intelligence
and industry would be thrown away, if the soil of their
oyster grounds were mere mud or moving sand, and
the water which flows over them were unmixed sea
water.

Careful culture of their oyster beds is of course one
of the requisites for the production of first-rate oysters,
and it is not improbable that it is owing to great care in
cultivation that the "Whitstable natives" have of late
years surpassed in popularity the old favourite " Milton
oysters," which were formerly heard of among " the cries
of London," and which were fattened on oyster beds near
to the Whitstable grounds.

The extent of the Whitstable . fishery is somewhere
between two and three square miles. Like other large
oyster grounds, its quality varies in different parts ; some
parts being more fit for breeding oysters than for fatten-
ing them, but a great part being better adapted for
fattening.

Eastward of the Whitstable fishery, and stretching for
several miles along the coast of Kent, are other grounds,

B 2

many parts of which, in the quality of the soil and of the
water, possess much the same advantages as the Whitstable
grounds. The chief if not the only advantage over these
which the Whitstable grounds possess, is that a natural bank
of boulders and shingle, still called Whitstable " Street," —
a name evidently of Roman origin; " via strata lapidibus " —
runs out into the sea at the eastern end of the grounds,
and as a breakwater gives some protection to the shal-
lower parts of the grounds, which is not enjoyed by the
shallower parts of the more eastwardly grounds.

Northward and eastward of the Whitstable grounds
and including these eastern grounds is a large extent of
"flats," probably about 60 square miles, on which the
" spat " of oysters falls.

All the true " Native " oysters sold in England have
been, and still are, with the exception of a few from the
Northern Essex coast, obtained from these "Flats." But
of these 60 square miles of "Flats," about 29 square miles
only are good natural oyster beds adapted for breeding,
and the Heme Bay Company's fishery includes six of
these 29 square miles, and according to the best evidence,
the portion by far the most prolific of " spat " and " brood,"
of the whole of the " Flats."

The oyster goes through the several stages of " spat,"
"brood," "half-ware," "ware," and "oyster."

The " spat " or spawn is emitted from the oyster in
immense quantities. Mr. Frank Buckland has ascertained
that 800,000 spat can be produced by a single oyster.
Other observers, perhaps not so accurate, have estimated the
number at 1,500,000, and some have gone so high as
3,000,000.

But much and long continued scientifically accurate ob-
servation is needed, in order that we may arrive at some-
thing like certainty about the propagation of the oyster.
All the known fisheries on the coasts of the United Kingdom
seem to have been managed on the " rule of thumb " prin-
ciple— " what father did, I does," gives the clue to their
management.

1 All the evidence given by the free dredgers leaves the
same impression on the mind — that the witnesses observed
what was forced on their observation and nothing more ; that
fifty years' experience left a man as ignorant of every-
thing beyond what was palpable to his sight and touch as ho
probably was when he had been only five years in the
business ; and that he consequently had the undefinable
horror of " science," which his forefathers had of magic.
Like uneducated men, he thought that whatever was new
to him must be nonsense.

He can tell you that there is " a good spat," or " a
heavy spat" in the estuary of the Thames about once in
every seven or eight years, but what are the conditions
(except a warm season) on which it is dependent, he evi-
dently neither knows nor cares to know. It is probable
that Mr. Frank Buckland is the first person interested in
oyster-culture, who, during the 2,000 years of the Whit-
stable fishery, took the pains to ascertain the specific
gravity and the temperature of the water opposite to
Whitstable and opposite to Heme Bay, which he found to
be on the same morning exactly the same — 1*024 and
59°.

So far as can be learned at present, the spat floats in
the water for a time, and if it be not carried out to sea nor
killed by cold nor swallowed by fish, it falls to the bottom
in order to anchor itself there for life. If it falls on mud
it perishes at once, if on weed it perishes with the weed.
But if it falls on a clean bottom of "culch" — broken
shells, small stones and the like — it adheres to the hard
substance and there grows.

The Heme Bay Company, in imitation of their neigh-
bours, are preparing their grounds for the reception ot
spat by clearing them from weeds, and parts of their
grounds as beds for fattening oysters by also laying on
them a surface of culch.

They have thus already cleared about five square miles
for spat, of which about one square mile is occupied by
the fattening beds which are already culched.

Portions of the flats liave natural beds on which the
spat falls and thrives.

When it has arrived at the "brood" stage or at a
more advanced stage it can be dredged up from the flats
and removed to other grounds better adapted for
fattening. >

Before the Heme Bay Company's Act was passed,
parts of what are now their grounds were open to the
public as common grounds from which any persons might
dredge up brood, &c., at their pleasure, and from them the
Whitstable Company got a great quantity of the oysters
which they fattened on their own grounds.

The Act of 1864 which gave to the Heme Bay Company
exclusive rights overparts of these eastern grounds, of course
deprived the Whitstable Company of the opportunity of
dredging up brood, &c., there, and, as was to be expected,
the Whitstable Company most strenuously, though in
vain, opposed the application to Parliament for the Act.
The Whitstable Company applied to Parliament in the
sessions of 1865 and 18{56 f for an extension of their fishery,
but in each case without attaining their object.

It is to be hoped that their money will be better
employed hereafter.

The Company's oyster grounds extend from west to
east about seven miles along the coast of Heme Bay and
northwardly about one mile and a half into the hay and
their total area is about nine square miles.

Of this area about one third (three square miles) lying
between high and low water mark is " foreshore."

Mr. Plummer, the steward and solicitor of the Whit*
stable Company, says in his evidence, "the ground between
high and low water mark is valueless in the oyster
fishery. It is necessary that it should be covered with
water ;" and, eo far a* regard* the foreshore in its mere
natural state, his evidence is in this respect accurate.

The western portion of the Company's grounds is in
the Manor of Swalecliflfe, of which Earl Cowper is the
Lord. The manor comprises also ground beyond the

western end of the Company's grounds which is shoira
on the map (A a), and is referred to in the pages following
as ," the leasehold ground," and further westward are open
grounds, part of the flats, stretching to the eastern boun-
dary of the Whitstable grounds, and marked (B) on the
map.

Earl Cowper refused to cede to the Company his
rights over the manor grounds within the Company's
limits unless the Company took " the leasehold ground "
also, and accordingly a lease for 99 years of the whole of
his lordship's grounds below high water mark has been
granted to a trustee : as to the grounds within their limits
upon trust for the Company ; and as to the leasehold
ground (A a) upon trust for the Oyster Company Limited ;
which, as the shareholders are aware, is practically united
to the Company.

The Company hare no parliamentary authority to hold
the leasehold ground (A a) themselves and they therefore
applied to Parliament for the requisite authority.

The Whitstable Company also applied to Parliament
for an extension of their grounds and proposed to take in
the whole of the grounds below low water mark between
their eastern limits and the Company's western limits,
including therefore all the available part of the leasehold
ground. The ground applied for by the Whitstable Com-
pany is marked (B A a) on the map, and is oalled in
Mr. Plummer's evidence " the extension ground."

Parliament however has not yet thought it expedient
to comply with either application.

It is perhaps almost needless to say that a strong
feeling adverse to the Company has been excited in some
members of the Whitstable Company, on seeing them-
selves excluded from grounds which had theretofore
-been open and common to themselves and other
dredgers.

While the existence of this feeling is to be regretted,

. it cannot but be regarded as being a very natural feeling.

The hope is, that it may soon subside, and that the

WhitBtable Company will before long entertain the same
wish as the Company, that the two should, in the words
of Mr. Nicholls, the Whitstable Company's foreman, be
good neighbours and work honestly.

It is not in any spirit of exultation that the fact that
the Whitstable Company have, in three successive sessions
of Parliament and under what the event has proved to
be very injudicious advice, fought a losing fight against
the Heme Bay Company is referred to. It is hoped that
wiser counsels may prevail in future.

If the Whitstable Company had applied for only that
part of the extension ground which lies westward of the
leasehold ground and is marked (B) on the map, and their
application had been successful, they would have almost
doubled their available grounds.

According to Mr. Plummer's evidence, this addition
would have enabled the Whitstable Company to take from
these grounds in four years more than 300,000 bushels of
oysters, which, at the old low price of 40s. a-bushel, would
have given a gross return of 600,000/., or 150,000/. a-year,
yielding to the members of that Company a very satisfactory
profit It may be thought that it would have been wiser
on their part to have tried only for the grounds which
could yield such a profit than to have fought for a larger
area and have got nothing.

Several statements evidently intended to operate to
the prejudice of the Company have been circulated, and
this appears to be the proper place to notice them.

The statements are to some [extent contradictory of
each other, and it will be seen that all of them are suffi-
ciently refuted by the evidence given below, but before
proceeding to examine them, it is desirable to premise one
or two remarks.

It must be borne in mind that before the Company ob-
tained their Act, parts of the grounds which they now
have, being common and conveniently near to Whitstable^
had been thoroughly dredged for brood to be laid down
chiefly on the Whitstable beds, so. that the Company came

into possession of grounds from which the crop of oysters
had been almost entirely cleared — a stubble field, as it were
— and they have to cleanse, stock, and cultivate their
grounds — to plough, manure, sow, and weed the stubble
field — before it will yield them a proper crop.

The Company's Act did not receive the Royal Assent
until July 25, 1864 : the Company then had to be orga-
nised : they then had to arrange with the Office of Woods
and Forests for a lease of grounds from the Crown : and
although they were able to make a beginning before the
lease was granted, yet it was not till about a year ago
that they were in full legal possession of the " stubble
field," which they are now cultivating.

Considering that^they have now finished all the works
which their Act obliged them to make, have laid down on
their grounds many millions of oysters, and have about
five square miles in good condition for the reception of
spat, including one square mile of fattening beds, they
may at least claim the credit of not having been
idle.

What can be done in a few years with a bare piece of
oyster ground may be seen by Mr. Plummer's evidence.

" You have not sufficient land for the growth and cul-
tivation of the oyster ? — " No, we have not ; and there is a
part of the ground to which I wish to refer, just to show the
capabilities of the oyster fishery. About ten years ago, the
circumstances of the [Whitstable] Company were not good,
they were in debt, and they did not cultivate all the ground.
There is a bed on the east side, next to the Street, consist-
ing of about 300 acres. It had not been stocked for some
years, and during the "great spats of 1858 and 1859, we
stocked that piece of ground thoroughly. In the next four
years we took 150,000 bushels of oysters from that ground
to market, showing, I think, that if we obtain the exten-
sion for which we now apply, we shall be able, on the en-
tension ground, which is about six times the dimensions of
that portion of the ground to which I have referred, three
square miles, we shall be able to take, I think, at least

1,000,000 bushels of oysters from this extension in the next
four years."

To compare what the Company have done with the
jdoings of the Whitstable Company, would be like making
a comparison between the doings of an infant, and of a
man in his prime, but a strong conviction is entertained
-that before many years have passed the Heme Bay
Company will not be the Company to shrink from the
comparison.

The statements which have been circulated to the
prejudice of the Heme Bay Company, so far as they are
known, may be arranged under the heads following :—

1. TJie Company's grounds are valueless as oyster grounds.

When the Company's Act was applied for, it wa$ said
that the ground was too valuable to be given up to them.

See Captain George Austin's evidence, that "pro-
bably the portion taken by the Heme Bay Company was
about the best. The whole Bay swore that it was, and I
believe that they were not far from right."

Captain G. Austin had given similar evidence before
the Sea Fishery Commissioners, and the late Mr. James
Lowe, a witness most decidedly hostile to the Company,
said, " I believe that the most valuable portion of the flats,
upon which the spat fell in the greatest quantity, was
that which has been taken by the Herne Bay Company."

2, The Company have injured the dredgers by taking away
from them some of their best common grounds.

See Mr. Plummer's evidence (183), that quite 60 square
miles of the estuary of the Thames are still left open, and
his enumeration of the "very fine brood grounds,"— the
Pansand, &c,, — within that area.

3. The Company have more ground than they can use.
See Mr. Plummer's evidence, showing that the fore-

shore in its natural state i? useless for oyster culture, and
that it is impossible to say before proper trial lias been
made, what parts of " the extension ground " would grow
or would fatten oysters. It is the same with the Com*
pany's available ground. They must ascertain the quality
of the soil, and use only those parts which are approved
on trial.

Mr. Plummer states that he is "credibly informed" that
the Company are only using " about one mile out of nine "
— the nine miles including about three miles of foreshore.

It appears that the Whitstable Company also are using
part only of their grounds. Mr. Plummer, in trying to show
that it was necessary for the Whitstable Company that they
should baye " the extension ground," asserted that they
were obliged " to lay all our present grounds with oysters
for the market, and the result is, that we have no ground
upon which to lay the brood of. oysters when the spat
comes," and " if the spat came, we should have no place
to lay it on, and the result would be, that we must strip
part of our present ground of oysters in order to use that
ground for brood-"

In answer to the question, " Is the ground that you
have got now folly stocked " he replied " Yet" and on
the question being repeated, he replied, " Ves, it is fully
stocked"

These assertions by Mr. plummer were, however,
directly contradicted by Mr. Nicholls, the foreman of the
Whitstable Company, who, on cross-examination, admitted,
as will be seen by his evidence (257, 8, 9), that their grounds
were as near as I can tell you, only about one-third stocked.

4. The Company do not employ a sufficient number of men.

Mr. Plummer said, " I think that you may be carrying
it" (the oyster fishery), " on to an unappreciabie extent ;
for instance, you have five boafa, and ypu employ ©bout
twenty men."

Mr. Cholmondeley Pennell, the Company's then Chair-
man, refuted this assertion. "At the present time, we have
thirty-three men in our regular employment, but we have
had at different times as many as one hundred men in our
employment."

Thirty-three men regularly employed by a Company
not two years old, will compare well with the men em-
ployed by the Whitstable Company. The evidence given
by their witnesses is often not very exact as to their own
affairs, but it will be seen by the evidence below, that
when the Whitstable Company's Act passed the number
of their members was thirty-six, and that although it has
gradually increased to about four hundred, yet they reckon
only about three hundred of them as working men.

In the Report of the Sea Fisheries Commission, it is said
of them, "The rate of wages varies according to the quan-
tity sold and the price of oysters; on the average of the
last eighteen years, the rate of pay to the members being
23*. a-week ; the last few years it has been considerably
more, and a bonus was divided in 1863 of 20/., and in 1864
of 16/., so that the amount each member has received
during the last twelve months has been altogether 100/.
The widows of members are also entitled to one-third ot
the pay which working members get. Between 33,000/.
and 34,000/. has been paid over by the Company to its
members in the course of one year. For this pay the
average work performed by the dredgermen during the
open season, when they are engaged in dredging up
oysters for sale in the market, is about two hours a-day ;
and during the close season, when they are occupied in
dredging and clearing the ground and moving and separa-
ting the oysters, four hours a-day. The rest of their time
is generally occupied in dredging the ' Flats ' for brood,
which they sell to the Company for laying down, and in
good years they often make more by work outside than they
receive from the Company itself in wages."

If six hours be a fair day's work, the three hundred
working members are practically one hundred; and the

infant Company -with thirty-three men in regular employ-
ment and one hundred men in occasional employment,
may, even by the side of their very ancient neighbour,
claim the credit of having made a respectable beginning as
employers of labour.

The Company's rate of progress has been from nil to
thirty-three in two years : the Whitstable Company's from
thirty-six to three hundred in seventy-three years.

5. The Company cannot breed oysters on their grounds.

When the Company's Act was applied for, one of the
chief allegations that was made by its opponents was, that
it was proposed to take from the public one of the best
parts of the " Flats " for breeding oysters.

The Company's grounds, and " the extension ground,"
are together one tract of oyster grounds, and Mr. Hum-
mer's evidence shows how anxious the Whitstable Com-
pany were to secure for themselves the extension ground ;
an anxiety which they probably would not have felt if they
had not been convinced of its great value.

Mr. Nicholls, in his evidence says, that "it is a very
good bit of ground for spat and brood."

See also Captain Austin's evidence, as follows : —

" Now you are acquainted also with the ground which
the Whitstable Company seek to obtain by this Bill?—
Yes.

"A portion of what are called * the Flats'?— Yes.

" Is that portion of the Flats the best portion for ob-
taining the spat of the native oyster? — Probably the por-
tion taken by the Heme Bay Company was about the best.
The whole Bay swore that it was, and I believe that they
are not far from right.

"That was taken in 1864? — Yes;, the part granted
already by the Act of Parliament."

6. The Company cannot fatten oysters on their grounds.
The evidence which contradicts the fifth allegation

against the Company is also contradictory of this allega-
tion. Taking the evidence of Mr. Phtmmer, Mr. Nicholls,
and Captain Austin together, it will be seen that the
extension ground is regarded by the Whitstable Company
as a valuable fattening ground, and that the Company's
grounds are at least as good as, if not better than the
extension ground.

See Mr. Cholmondeley Pennell's evidence, as follows : —

" Although you have only had this limited period since
the opposition of the Crown was withdrawn, to work your
oyster beds, have you produced good oysters? — -Yes,
certainly ; because, putting aside any question of opinion,
a good oyster is an oyster which will sell in the market at
a large price. I think that is a fair estimate of its value ;
and we have sold many at large prices, and the sale has
greatly increased. In the last week we have sold 150/,
worth."

u As your cultivation proceeds, and the maintenance of
your oyster grounds continues, I presume you hope to
improve your oysters and sell them still ? — Clearly. The
oysters now are not equal to what they will be. We have
already produced well-fed oysters fit for the public market,-
and they have been very touch liked.

" I believe the oysters come up uncertainly. Some are
good, and some are not ?— They are getting touch better.
A few in every bushel are bad.

"And you expect a further improvement in them? —
Yes. We have weighed the proportion of meat to the
shell at different times, and we found a very steady
improvement in the proportion of meat. That is in the
growth of the oyster.

" Your grounds have, I believe, fattening properties ? —
Very large fattening properties, no doubt. Our oysters
now are not quite equal to the Whitstable oyfetertf. They
have only been down for a year, and the Whitstable have
been down for font and five and six years* I wish to state
the case fairly."

Mr. Frank Buckland, one of the Directors, stated some

time ago, as the result of his examination of oysters from
the following grounds, that the proportion of meat to shell
was:-—

Whitstabld One-fottrth.

Colchester • . . * . . One*fourth.

Heme Bay (natural oysters not "1 q g^i

cultivated) . . . . • • J

, Paglesham . . ., .. One-fifth.

Falmouth . . . . . . One-sixth.

Isle de Re One-fifteenth.

He has lately ascertained that many natural oysters
found on the Company's grounds are quite equal to the
best Whitstable natives.

The oysters which the Company have laid down on
their grounds, and therefore the oysters which they have
sent to market, have been of different qualities. Some
were " common" or " channel" oysters, which always fetch
a low price. The average of the Company's sales of
natives to April 30, 1866, was 41. 15*. a-bushel.

See also the evidence of Mr. Ffetinell, one of the
English Fishery Commissioners, as follows j —

" Of the oysters you did see dredged [from the Com-
pany's grounds], you say some were good, and a great
many bad ? — There was not what I would call a bad oyster
among them. There was not an oyster among them that
was not in a progressive state to a good condition."

And at the conclusion of his evidence : —

" And you found [on the Company's grounds] a good
marketable oyster? — Yes; I found a good marketable
oyster."

The Company can ascertain only by experience what
parts of their grounds are the best fattening grounds. It
is probable that some portions of the fattening grounds
may be found to be in patches with inferior grounds inter-
mixed. Until the limits of the best fattening grounds are
ascertained, the Company will inevitably have the occar-

eional disappointment of finding that they have laid down
some of their brood on the inferior grounds, and of being
obliged to remove it to the better grounds before it yields
good marketable oysters.

But their experience hitherto renders it probable that
several square miles of excellent natural fattening grounds
are there, and these the Company are improving.

7. The Company have not capital enough to work their grounds

properly.

The Company have a capital of 100,000/. fully sub-
scribed, and more than half paid up, and power to borrow
25,000/.

Considering that the Whitstable Company started
afresh under their Act of 1793, without capital and with
borrowed money, and have not only paid off their debt of
30,000/., but had lately a stock on their ground, which
was valued at 400,000/., this allegation may be con-
sidered as futile.

8. The Company cannot carry on their oyster fishery so as to
make it profitable.

For this 8th allegation divers reasons are alleged.

(a) The Company's grounds are not such as can be cultivated

profitably.

If, as there is every reason to believe, the Company's
fishery comprises fattening grounds at least as good as the
extension grounds, then Mr. Plummer's evidence alone is
sufficient to dispose of this allegation.

It will be seen by his evidence, quoted above, that
about ten years ago, when the Whitstable Company
were in debt, they thoroughly stocked an oyster bed of
about 300 acres (about half a square mile) which had not

been stocked for some years — which therefore was in much
the same condition as the Company's grounds in 1864 —
and that in the next four years they took 150,000 bushels
of oysters from that ground to market, and that he ex-
pected, if the Whitstable Company obtained " the exten-
sion ground," they would take about one million bushels
of oysters from it in the next four years.

At the recent highest price of oysters this would give
a gross return of more than 5,000,000/., or 1,250,000/.
a-year. Supposing the price to fell to the old rate of
2/. a-bushel, here on Mr. Plummer's estimate would be a
gross return from the extension grounds in four years of
2,000,000/., or at the rate of 500,000/. a-year.

The Directors do not hold out any such sanguine
expectations ; but this evidence may fairly be cited as
indicating the amount of profit which the Whitstable
Company's steward and solicitor considered that his
Company might get from a piece of ground not protected
by the Whitstable Street, and being in no respect, so far
as the evidence shdws, better than the Heme Bay Com-
pany's available ground.

Of course it would have required a large expenditure,
perhaps at present prices not less than 250,000/. to have
stocked the extension ground with the brood required to
produce the 2,000,000/.

It is not easy to ascertain from the evidence adduced
by the Whitstable Company what are their actual receipts.
They seem to fluctuate according to the object of the
evidence.

When it is desired to exalt the value of the Whitstable
grounds and to prove how well the Whitstable Company
have prospered, their gross receipts reach an astounding
figure ; but when it has to be shown that it would be a
hardship on their members to allow the Heme Bay Com-
pany to have more ground, then the payments to the
members shrink into small dimensions.

See Mr. Nicholls's evidence, according to which the
proceeds of the 150,000 bushels during the four years

1860, 1861, 1862, and 1863, gave to the members of the
Whitstable Company an average of about 70Z. a-year each,
or a total of about 112,000*.

The average of the prices for Whitstable natives
during those four years was about 21. 10s. a-bushel, and at
that rate the 150,000 bushels fetched 375,000Z.

During the seven years beginning with 1857, the
Whitstable Company, on their own showing, laid out
147,000£ in buying brood to stock their grounds. Setting
the whole of that outlay and the 112,000Z. for wages
against the proceeds of the 150,000 bushels, there
remains a balance of about 116,000Z. not accounted
for.

This table was given in evidence in 1864, by Mr. Nicholls,
on the opposition to the Company's Bill.

Whitstable Oyster Fishery.

Quantity of Brood

Quantity of

obtained from the

Total cost
thereof.

brood

Total cost

Year.

ground proposed to

obtained from

thereof inclusive

be taken by the

other (distant)

of freight.

new Fishery.

sources.

Wash.

£ s. d.

Wash.

£ s. d.

1857

11,040

3,000 3 10

29,664

8,260 1 8

1858

36,070

6.914 13 7

41,774

14,142 10 8

1859

49,319

8,574 17 7*

85,559*

20,136 2 7

1860

48,058

8,319 7 9

35,423

11,519 13 4

1861

11,851

2,761 4 11

37,858*

13,271 19 6

1862

5,134

1,520 15 7

79,803

35,192 6 1

1863

2,419

828 17 11

20,080*

12,560 11 11*

163,891

31,920 1 2*

330,162*

115,073 5 9*

Totals ..

[163,891

31,920 1 2*

494,053*

146,993 7 0]

A " wash " is about a quarter of a bushel ; a London
bushel of oysters being equal to about two ordinary
bushels.

It has been estimated that one wash of brood produces
one bushel of oysters, and at that rate the gross return
for the 146,993/. 7*. Od. would, at the average of only
21. 5*. a-bushel for oysters, amount to 1,111,620/.

Deducting the 150,000 bushels which Mr. Plummer
says were taken to market, there would remain brood for
344,053^ bushels of oysters, which in the course of the
next three or four years ought, at that low average price,
to yield to the Whitstable Company a gross return of
774,120/.

Allowing for casualties and for some of the oysters
being of inferior sorts, these figures show that the old men
of the Whitstable Company's Jury were probably not far
from wrong, when, as Captain G. Austin stated in his evi-
dence before the Sea Fisheries Commission, they, in 1864,
assessed the Whitstable Company's stock at 400,000/.

This table gives a basis for estimating the probable
value of the Company's grounds.

Mr. Nicholls said most confidently that two-thirds
(109,260) of the 163,891 wash came off what are now the
Company's grounds.

Captain G. Austin, in his evidence given below (992),
estimated the total number of wash taken off the flats in
the five years ending with 1861, by the Whitstable Com-
pany, the Pollard Company, the Faversham Company,
and the Essex boats, at 544,683 wash.

If it be supposed that instead of two-thirds, only one-
third of what was taken by the Whitstable, the Pollard,
and the Faversham Companies, and the Essex boats, came
from the Company's grounds, the brood taken from those
grounds, probably, amounted in the seven years to about
250,000 wash.

If the grounds had belonged to the Whitstable, or the
Pollard, or the Faversham Company, and they, instead of
taking off the brood, had duly cultivated it on the grounds,
then, at a bushel for a wash and only 40s. for a bushel, the
gross return for the spat that had fallen on the Company's
grounds would have been about £500,000.

c 2

Unless the only evidence on which any reliance is to
be placed, is the assertion that oysters cannot be fattened at
Heme Bay, an assertion which is directly contradicted by
fact, there cannot be a reasonable doubt that the Company
have a good prospect of being able to employ their capital
very profitably.

(b) The spatting of oysters has ceased. They have had their
day, and are about to become an extinct mollusc.

Spat falls periodically in the estuary of the Thames.
There is a heavy spat in one or two years, and then a
fallow of several years. It is now the fallow time, and a
good spat before long is hoped for, but it seems to depend
on the seasons.

Nothing but time can contradict a prediction of what
is to happen in future ; but towards the close of the last
year there was a small fall of spat on the Company's
grounds, and it was said by a member of the Whit-
stable Company, that " Heme Bay has got almost
all the spat of the year." Where oyster grounds are
neglected, the stock of oysters on them is brought very
low, but, except where mud or sand or weed chokes the
grounds, the oysters are probably never extinguished.
With time and care they could be restored.

Some years ago it was confidently predicted that the
world was to come to an end in the year 1866, but it is
understood that those who assisted in circulating the pre-
diction did not rely on it sufficiently to induce them to
drop their life policies. The prediction that oysters are
coming to an end may, probably, be safely dismissed as an
equally worthless guess.

(c) The present high price of oysters cannot last; and when
the price falls, Oyster Fisheries will become unprofit-
able. /

The price of oysters, like all other prices, depends on

demand and supply. When oysters are dear, brood is
dear : and when oysters are cheap, brood is cheap.

The artificial profit of an oyster fishery arises from the in-
crease in the value of brood when it is laid down on a good
fattening ground. The quantity of labour bestowed on
the grounds, and the growth of the brood till it becomes
marketable, are the same, whether prices are high or
low.

It would probably be perfectly safe to say that if the
average price of Whitstable natives during the last twenty
years — 21. Is. a-bushel — were to become the permanent
price, oyster fisheries in the estuary of the Thames must
still yield a very handsome profit. The Whitstable Com-
pany did well with that low price.

In the Sea Fisheries Commissioners' Report, pre-
sented to Parliament, in February 1866 (p. xci.), is a
table of the Whitstable Company's purchases of brood
from the Flats and Essex, and of the value of natives sold,
with averages of prices from July, 1852, to March 1865 ;
from which it appears that their outlay for brood was
223,363/., and their receipts from oysters 540,453?. But
this table does not include their outlay for brood from dis-
tant sources, which, as given by Mr. Nicholls in the table
cited above, was 115,073£ 5s?tyd. in seven of those years ;
nor does it appear how much of this was for brood from
Essex.

It is very difficult to get at the facts and figures which
would present the accurate statistics of the Whitstable
Company, and would afford a test of the truth of the state-
ment, by no means generally discredited, that the income
of their members has in prosperous years ranged between
240Z. and 280Z. each.

The present high prices have much checked the sale
of oysters, even from the Whitstable Fishery. Mr. Chol-
mondeley Pennell says, in his evidence : —

" It has been an exceedingly slack season ; so much so,
that the boats have gone back to Whitstable and other
places with their cargoes. It is admitted that it has been

an exceptionally slack season, as far as oysters are con-
cerned ; but notwithstanding that, we have sold a great
number at a good price."

With low prices, consumption increases, and "the
nimble ninepence" is proverbially profitable.

(d) The present high price of oysters has given a great stimulus
to oyster culture; and so many new beds will be maa\
that the market will be overstocked.

It is true that oyster fisheries are much more thought
of now than before the experiments in France and the
establishment of the Company drew special attention to
the subject; and a large amount of capital is likely to be
invested in them; but there are unsurpassable physical
limits to the extension of oyster grounds, and railways
can now carry oysters by the ton to inland towns which
formerly received them only by the barrel.

In the first place, it is indisputable that the fattening
grounds in the estuary of the Thames stand in the first
rank; and their area cannot be enlarged. At the same
time, some further portions of the estuary could be made
private, and by being brought into regular cultivation
could be rendered available for fattening oysters. So
long as those portions remain open, they will be dredged
for brood, which will not be allowed to He there long
enough to become oysters. But Mr. Nicholls, the Whit-
stable Company's foreman, who speaks with an experience
of fifty years, says in his evidence, on being asked his
opinion as to competing neighbours, " I do not mind how
many we get for the market; for I believe there is a
sufficient market for every one who has sufficient good
oysters to sell."

In the next place, it cannot sanely be imagined that a
single acre on the coasts of the United Kingdom where
oysters could breed or fatten, but on which they have not
already bred or fattened, could b$ found.

Oysters have been cultivated here for twenty centuries.
Whenever there has been a spat it has floated in the sea
in unimaginable millions, and to search for such an acre
would be as absurd as to search Salisbury plain for cm acre
on which thistle down had never fallen.

The late Duke of Northumberland, among his many
generous efforts to benefit his tenantry and others, spent,
it is said, thousands of pounds in vain in the attempt to
make oyster grounds where oysters had theretofore been
unknown.

There are, however, known oyster grounds on the
southern coast of England and the western coast of Scot-
land and elsewhere, which are in a neglected state, and
which under good management could doubtless add to
the supply of marketable oysters ; but, on the other hand,
the population of the United Kingdom, and therefore the
oyster- consuming power of the nation, has greatly
increased.

But capita] is required to bring these grounds into use,
and the capital will not be forthcoming if adequate profits
are not to be made by it.

(9) The Company have not kept faith with the public by com"
plying with the requirements of their Act.

The Company were obliged by their Act to erect
boundary stones and provide buoys for showing the limits
of their fishery, and to make a tramway firom the North Kent
line to their oyster grounds, and a pier at the end of their
tramway. These are the works which they were obliged to
make, and all these works they have made.

The Company are permitted but are not obliged by
their Act to make other works, including tanks. A section
in the Act, which was introduced at the instance of the Board
of Trade, has rendered it questionable whether this permis-
sion extends over more than five years, and whether, if any
of these permissive works were made after that time, the.

Company would not forfeit their privileges. The Board of
Trade did not intend that this should be the case, and are
willing that the doubt should be removed. The Directors
of course will take care that the doubt does not become of
any practical importance.

It will be seen by the evidence that a great point was
attempted to be made of the fact that the Company had
not yet made any tank for themselves, and it was endea-
voured to be shown that the Company were pledged to
Parliament, by the evidence given for their Act, to make
tanks and to spend 80,000Z. of their capital on works,
because some of the witnesses had held out an expectation
that breeding tanks would be tried, and Sir Charles Fox,
the Engineer, had estimated for tanks.

The shareholders will have pleasure in learning that the
Company will set an almost unique example by keeping their
expenditure on works far within the engineer's estimate.

Since the Directors have been in office they have ascer-
tained that an expensive permissive work which, although
not specifically alluded to in Parliament, had been esti-
mated for, not only could most properly be dispensed with
but ought not to be undertaken by the Company.

The total expense of the works which the Company
were obliged to make, and of the permissive works which
it appears probably that they may require during the five
years, will not, as the Directors expect, reach 2 5,000 L

The greater part of the Company's outlay will be for
brood to lay down on their fattening grounds.

Mr. James Mitchell who, according to his evidence, is
an unsuccessful experimenter in oyster culture, sneered at
the Company's tramway and pier (see his evidence). He
professed to be " tolerably well acquainted with the native
oyster fisheries," but he could not imagine the Company
making any other rise of their tramway and pier than for
sending oysters to Billingsgate.

Whether the Company will ever use them for that pur*
pose is at present uncertain, but yet they will be of great
use.

The western coast of Ireland has extensive oyster
breeding grounds from which immature oysters are
bought in large quantities to the fattening grounds
in the estuary of the Thames. These Irish oysters have
hitherto been brought in sailing vessels, and the length of
the voyage is uncertain. The Company have had two
cargoes of them. The first was delivered in fair condition,
but the vessel which brought the second was detained on
her voyage, and a considerable portion of her cargo died.

This is a casualty to which all of the Thames fisheries
are exposed.

Careful inquiries have shown that Irish oysters can be
brought by railway across Ireland and England with the
short intervening voyage across St. George's Channel more
speedily, cheaply and safely than in sailing vessels, and the
Company's railway and pier form the last link in the chain
of communication between the breeding grounds on the
coasts of Ireland, Wales and England, and the Company's
fattening grounds.

The Directors had made preparation for one breeding
tank if it should be required, but their late superintendent,
Mr. Crofts, was anxious to try at his own cost an experi-
ment with a breeding tank of his own invention, and to
this the Directors assented. It is a very ingenious inven-
tion, and if it succeeds it will be most valuable, but
hitherto it has not proved successful.

That tank is now in the possession of the Company,
and is in use experimentally. It is possible that it may yet
prove to be of value, but the Directors do not entertain any
confident expectation of that being the case. They do
not at present see their way to another breeding tank
experiment, and they are indisposed to spend any large
sum in speculative attempts at forcing spat. It cannot be
admitted that the expectations of witnesses, before the Com-
pany were incorporated, as to what they would probably
do when incorporated, imposes any moral, as it certainly
does not impose any legal obligation on the Company to
waste their money.

Mr. Frank Buckland, one of the Directors, is con-
stantly making experiments for the Company on an in-
expensive scale, and he is thus accumulating evidence of
what will not succeed — only second in value to evidence of
what will succeed.

In 1864 it was generally believed that the French had
made wonderful discoveries in the propagation of oysters.
It is now questioned whether the success which was then
attributed to their plans was not merely the consequence
of a very unusually heavy spat, and whether their " Parks "
and "Claires" are of more use than the Company's
unenclosed oyster beds.

But even if the French plans are of great use on the
western coast of France, it does not follow that they
would be of any use on the northern coast of Kent.
Mr. Frank Buckland has well said that " climate is almost
everything in artificial oyster breeding, and the climate of
the Isle de Re is fit for the growth of grapes, and the
climate of the Isle of Sheppey for turnips."

That gentleman's accuracy of observation and patient
attention to every small detail may ultimately be rewarded
with success, but the Board do not intend to incur any
large outlay on permissive works without having good
reason to anticipate that it will be remunerative. They
will soon have several storage tanks, and it is probable that
they may by degrees increase the number of those tanks,
which cost only a few pounds each.

This ninth allegation against the Company is refuted
by Mr. Ffennell, one of the English Fishery Commissioners!
Whose duty it may hereafter be to report officially on the
Company's compliance with the requirements of their Act.
In his evidence he says distinctly that the Company " have
faithfully fulfilled the duties imposed upon them, and having
been one of the persons appointed by the section of the
Act who might be called upon to report if they did not do
so — if I were called on to do so, / could most conscientiously
say they have done everything that could be reasonably expected
of them. As a public officer — "

44 Yoti had a duty imposed upon yon as a public officer
to make the enquiries ? — Yes ; I went down frequently to
see how they were going on, because I might have been
called on under the Act to report : and, if I was called
on, / could most conscientiously say they had done a great
deair

It will be seen by the preceding remarks, and the evi-
dence which follows : that these points are satisfactorily
established : —

1. Oyster culture by the Whitstable Company is a most
profitable business. Starting in 1793, with borrowed money,
paying to the working members handsome wages for very
light work on their own grounds, and large sums for brood
dredged up by them from the Flats, and making payments
to all the non-working members and widows of deceased
members, the Whitstable Company have repaid 30,000?.
which they borrowed, and now have a stock of .oysters
worth probably between 300,000i and 400,000i, represent-
ing accumulations of profits.

2. The Heme Bay Company possess oysters grounds
which are probably better as breeding grounds than the
Whitstable Company's grounds, and are already proved to
comprise good fattening grounds which when thoroughly
cultivated will probably be found to be quite as good as
the best of the Whitstable Company's grounds.

3. The area of the Whitstable Company's grounds which
is in actual cultivation is less than two square miles — less
than 1,280 acres.

4. The Heme Bay Company have already brought
about 3,200 acres into such a state as to render the
whole of that area fit for the reception of spat, and on
parts of it they have laid down many millions of oysters
to breed and to fatten.

5. In order to insure a regular supply of oysters, it is
necessary to stock the grounds yearly with brood to grow
and fetten on them.

6. The Whitstable Company expended in the seven

years ending with 1863, 147,000/. (on the average 21,000/.
a-year) on brood for stocking their grounds.

7. The Heme Bay Company have expended in a year
and a half about 25,000/. in stocking their grounds with
brood ; about 2,000/. of it being for mere labour.

8. The 50,000/. which the Whitstable Company spent
for brood in 1858 and 1859 produced a gross return of more
than 300,000/. in the next four years.

9. The Heme Bay Company's subscribed capital and
borrowing power are sufficient to enable them to expend
in stocking their grounds more than 50,000/. in addition to
their past expenditure.

10. Artificial oyster breeding is at present a matter of
experiment which may or may not succeed, and the Com-
pany, like their neighbours, must rely for their stock mainly
on the heavy spats which periodically fall on their grounds,
and on the brood which they buy and bring from other
grounds.

11. Not one of the reports that have been circulated
against the Heme Bay Company is well founded.

With this introduction the reader will be the better able
to understand the bearings and the force of the evidence
printed below : —

Mr. Hope Scott, Mr. Merewether, Mr. Gates, and
Mr. Plummer (not the witness of that name) appeared as
counsel for the Whitstable Company.

Mr. Marshall Griffith appeared as counsel for fishermen
and dredgermen of Whitstable, Favershamj &c., who
petitioned against the Whitstable Company's Bill.

Mr. Rodwell, Mr. Granville Somerset, and Mr. Meadows
White appeared as counsel for the Heme Bay Company.

Mr. Davison and Mr. Pember appeared as counsel for
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who claimed some
manerial rights on the northern coast of Kent.

Messrs. Plummer, Nicholls, Francis, Johnson, Smithers,
Shrubsall and Hampton, with others whose evidence is
omitted, were the witnesses tor the Whitstable Company,

Messrs, Cholmondeley Pennell and Ffennell were the
witnesses for the Heme Bay Company.

The evidence for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is
omitted.

Messrs. Austin, Gann, Stroud and Rowden, with others
whose evidence is omitted, were the witnesses for the
fishermen, &c., who petitioned against the Whitstable
Company's Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN PLUMMER, sworn.

Examined by Mr. Gates.

1. Are you steward of this Whitstable Company? —
Yes ; I am steward and solicitor of the Company.

2. And have been so, I believe, for 20 years ? — Yes ;
my father was before me, and my grandfather before
him.

3. You are, I believe, intimately acquainted with all
the affairs of the Company ? — Yes ; with their property.

4. Do you produce the Act of Parliament incorporating
the Company in 1793 ? — Yes.

5. The Company were incorporated by that Act, the
23rd George HI ? — Before this Act they were tenants of
the fishery under th 3 lords of the manor ; they were incor-
porated to purchase the fishery, and they did afterwards
purchase it ; it was conveyed to them.

6. That is, the ground which they still hold ? — Yes.

N.B. — However strong may have been this gentle-
man's conviction that his acquaintance with the Com-
pany's affairs was accurate and sufficient, and that he
had exercised due discrimination in listening to talk
against the Company, yet it is obvious that he had a
prejudice against them and a strong bias in favour of his
clients, which led him to express himself too positively
on some matters not within his own knowledge. The

consequence was that his evidence in chief had, as it
will be seen, to be corrected by his evidence on cross-
examination.

11. What is the extent of the ground in question? — It
is nearly three square miles in dimensions.

12. How much of that can you use for oyster layings ?
— Nearly about two square miles; then there are about
from 300 to 400 acres for the anchorage of vessels, which
we have abandoned on account of the increase in the
shipping trade into Whitstable; for, whereas, about ten
years ago there were not more than twenty vessels coming
into Whitstable, there are now more than 300 vessels
which come there, and that is why we come here to ask for this
extension.

13. There is not only the ground you have mentioned,
but, I believe the foreshore between high and low water
mark is used for oyster layings ? — The ground between
high and low water mark is valueless in the oyster
fishery. It is necessary that it should be covered with
water, and that is a large tract.

14. Has there been any increase in the demand for
these oysters for consumption ? — Yes. Another reason is
on account of the great increase which has taken place in
the demand for these oysters ; and we are obliged, to meet
that increased demand, to lay all our present grounds with
oysters for the market, and the result is, that we have no
ground upon which to lay the brood of oysters when the spat
comes.

15. In point of fact, you require all your present ground
for feeding the oysters ? — Yes ; we so use it now, and if
the spat came, we should have no place to lay it on, and the
result would be that we must strip part of our present
ground of oysters in order to use that ground for brood,
and we should send fewer oysters to market.

16. You have not sufficient land for the growth and
cultivation of the oyster ? — iVo, we have not ; and there is a

part of the ground to which I wish to refer, just to show
the capabilities of the oyster fishery. About ten years ago
the circumstances of the Company were not good, they
were in debt, and they did not cultivate all the ground ;
there is a bed on the east side, next to the Street,
consisting of about 300 acres, it had not been stocked for
some years, and during the great spats of 1858 and 1859,
we stocked that piece of ground thoroughly. In the next
four years we took 150,000 bushels of oysters from that
ground to market, showing, I think, that if we obtain the
extension for which we now apply we shall be able, on the
extension ground, which is about six times the dimensions
of that portion of the ground to which I have referred,
three square miles, we shall be able to take, I think, at
least 1,000,000 bushels of oysters from this extension in
the next four years.

N.B. — This "extension ground" included the
"leasehold ground," and if the Whitstable Bill had
passed, the Whitstable Company could not have
taken "the leasehold ground" without making com-
pensation for the lessees' interest in it, and this piece
of evidence might have been of importance in
enhancing the value of that interest. The witness
does not appear to have been conscious how this
evidence might have been used against his own clients.

17. How long does it take for an oyster to become fit
for the table ? — An oyster ought to be four years old, or
from three to four years old.

18. 1 believe, when the oyster spawns, the spat floats
for a time upon the surface of the water? — Yes ; it floats
upon the surface for about twenty-four hours, and then,
* after it has acquired a consistency, it drops down on to
the soil. If it drops on to culch, or on to clean shells, or
on to stone or gravel, it will live ; but if it falls on to mud,
it will die.

19. The spat having fallen upon some culch, I believe
it is afterwards dredged up and put into beds? — It is

necessary to do that, or it would die ; it would otherwise
be smothered and killed by five lingers; therefore you
must collect it into beds, and protect it ; you must con-
stantly move it, otherwise it would silt up and die : the
brood of oysters requires the greatest attention when young.

20. I believe you have brought and can produce to
their Lordships some specimens of the oyster in different
stages of growth? — Yes. {The same are handed in.)

21. To begin with the spawn. I believe in the first
instance it is called spat ? — Yes ; it is.

22. In the second year it is called brood; is it not?—
Yes.

23. Eventually it becomes an oyster? —Yes.

24. You say that the Company have required all their
present land for oyster layings ; how do they supply them-
selves with oysters to lay in the beds ? — They buy now
what we call " half- ware" wherever they can ; they buy it
in Essex : these are oysters that come into the market in
the next season, and they have no ground whatever upon
which to lay the brood of oysters ; if the spat were to come
this year or next year, they have no ground to put it on
for growth and cultivation, that is, to lie there for three or
four years, which it ought to do.

25. They have to purchase brood from other people ?
—Yes.

26. Are they the principal purchasers of brood in that
neighbourhood? — Yes; they are the chief purchasers.
The Faversham Company purchase very little brood. I
think in the six years, from 1857 to 1863, the Faversham
Company laid out 4,700/. in brood, and the Whitstable
Company in the same time expended no less a sum than
149,000/. in purchasing brood to lay on to their own
ground ; that is, for growth and cultivation, and for the
supply of the market.

N.B. — The Heme Bay Company's expenditure in
stocking their grounds has exceeded 25,000/. in about
eighteen months.

27. If the Company obtained this extension ground, to
what purpose would they put it? — We should use it; but
in the first place we should assess the quality of the soil
at the bottom ; it is impossible to say what parts of that
soil will grow or will fatten oysters for market, and we
should have to judge of that in the future. We should
use portions of the ground for brood, and we should also
use such portions of the ground as would fatten the
oysters. If a particular part of the ground would not do
that, we should move them on to our present ground for
that purpose ; on our ground the quality of the soil, the
same as on all fishery grounds, varies very much, and it
may be that parts of this particular extension are not well
adapted for feeding oysters ; but of that, as I said before,
we shall judge in the future ; I may mention that upon
our own ground there is a piece called the " Slank," which
is on the west side of our grounds, and that will fatten
oysters more quickly than any other part of the ground ;
and in the same way so it may be with this extension ; all
parts of it may not be equally well adapted for fattening
them.

28. If the Company should get this extension, would
they not be able to supply a large additional quantity of
oysters? — There is not the least doubt that they would
be able to do so, judging from the fact that I mentioned
before, when I referred to their using an additional piece
of ground on their own property some years ago and
spoke of the great quantity of oysters which they took
from that particular part of the soil.

29. Do you happen to know what the Heme Bay
Oyster Fishery Company have done ; they obtained their
Act in 1864, and do you think, if they had obtained the
ground which they go for, they could make use of it so
advantageously and so well as the Whitstable Company
have done with their ground ? — They do not make use of
their own ground which they have got; they are only
using, as I am credibly informed, about one mile out of

34'

nine; and, if so, what they can want an extension for it is
impossible to say.

N.B.— Mr. Plummer here treats the whole of the.
nine miles as if they were available as oyster grounds, .
not making any allowance for the three miles of fore-
shore.

The Heme Bay Company very reasonably wished
to have Parliamentary authority to hold " the lease-
hold ground." .At first they asked for authority to
hold (A a) on the map, but they afterwards limited
their application to (A.)

30. Do they employ the same amount of labour that
the Whitstable Company do ? — The Whitstable Company
have 300 men in their employ working 100 boats, and in
addition to that they employ thirty boats to get brood off
the flats, and generally they are all used in the fishery ;
on the other hand, the Heme Bay Company have, I think,
five boats, and they employ regularly about twenty men,
probably less, I think not more.

31. Is it the fact that they have not stocked the ground
which they already have ? — Certainly it is.

32. What is the whole extent of the estuary of the
Thames, is it about eighty square miles? — According to
Captain BurstalTs evidence, it is about eighty square
miles.

33. Taking the Whitstable Fishery Company and the
Faversham Company, they occupy, I think, about twenty
square miles ? — Yes ; the recent fisheries which have been
granted, are the Heme Bay Fishery, consisting of nine
square miles, and that was granted in 1864 ; and the exten-.
sion of the Pollard Fishery, which is called the " Ham,"
that was granted in the last session of 1865. Those are
the only two fisheries which have been granted, and taking
the two together, I think the Ham is about two and
a-half square miles, and the Heme Bay nine miles ;
together they would be about twelve square miles, out of
the whole estuary of the Thames.

34. Then there would be ever sixty square miles still left,
open? — Yes, quite that. Then with regard to the flatsmen
who get a living on this estuary, they obtain their living
by getting whelks, and which we should not interfere with
on the estuary in any shape or way. The whelks they
get over the whole of the estuary, and not upon that
portion of the ground which is adapted for oysters. The
whelks will live in mud, and in sand, but the oysters will not*

35. Did the flatsmen oppose the Heme Bay Company
last year? — No; and the flatsmen did not oppose the
Ham Fishery Extension of last year.

36. These flatsmen, besides working over the Flats,
trawl, do they not ? —Yes. The flatsmen are not oppo-
sing the Heme Bay Extension Bill of this year. They
opposed the Whitstable Company's Extension Bill, but
not the Heme Bay Company's Fishery Bill, who are
bringing in a competing Bill ; and the inference, I think,
is that it is a got-up opposition on the part of the Heme
Bay Company and other competing Companies against
the Whitstable Company.

N.B — Another and probably a more correct infer-
ence might be, that the flatsmen hoped to obtain
regular employment under the Heme Bay Company,
who not being a body of free dredgers, must hire all
the labour they require.

The Heme Bay Company of course cannot answer
for other Companies ; — but, so far from the Heme :
Bay Company having had anything to do with getting
up this opposition, the fact is that the Flatsmen
began by opposing the Heme Bay Bill because it
originally proposed to take in part of the Flats north*
ward of the Heme Bay grounds, and marked (a) on the
map. When the Company's application was limited
to part of " the leasehold ground," (A) on the map, the
Flatsmen ceased to oppose their Bill.

- 37- Using the ground as the Whitstable Company pro-

D 2

pose to do, they will not interfere'with the flatsmen taking
floating fish ? — No ; we do not interfere with their floating
fish, or with the line or the hook ; the provisions of the
Act are identical with those in the Heme Bay Act of 1864,
and in the Ham Act, of 1865.

38. You do not propose to take fish between high and low
water mark? — No; we shall not interfere with the branches
of industry so employed ; many hundreds of poor people get
a living along the shore from Canterbury by gathering
mussels, whelks, periwinkles or cockles; with regard to one
of the petitions presented to the House against the Whit-
stable Company's Bill, there is a contention going on •, they
say that they have a lease from Lord Cowper as to the land
between high and low water mark, and I believe they say
that their lease extends to the land below low-water
mark; there is a contention between Mr. Crofts, who
represents the Oyster Company, as to the limits to which
these poor people are restricted, and he has summoned
some of these poor people before the Magistrates at Can-
terbury for taking mussels contrary to law ; but the
Justices refused to adjudicate, because Mr. Crofts did not
show a title, and they dismissed the case accordingly.

39. Mr. Rodwell : Were you present on the occasion
to which you have referred ? — No, I was not

40. Mr. GATES : You have, I presume, ascertained the
facts before you came here to speak upon them? — Yes; the
poor people came to me first, but I did not go on with the
case.

41. How is it proposed to work this extension of ground
if it is granted? — With regard to the extended ground, I
may say that the Company already number about 300
working freemen, and it will be impossible for them to
work this extension with the same amount of labour ;
they must therefore employ a great deal of hired labour,
and our intention is to work the extension chiefly in that
way, that is to say, by the employment of people who are
unconnected with the Whitstable Oyster Company.

* 42„ You mean flatsmen and people in the district ?—

Yes, anybody who chooses to take service under the
Whitstable Company.

43. Instead of buying brood from the adjacent flats-
men, you will hire them and employ them as labourers ? —
We should have to buy brood all the same to lay upon
this ground ; the brood that would fall would not be suffi-
cient and therefore we must buy it from off other por-
tions of the flats that can be dredged when it falls ; it is
only about once in five or six years that they dredge their
brood at all ; these flatsmen do not get their living by
doing that, but it is a benefit to them ; when it falls, then
they are benefited; their living is obtained by getting
whelks, and there is no doubt that they get a decent
living in that way.

44. You have spoken about one of the petitions, which
is signed by a great many persons, as many as 200 ? — The
petition which is lodged against the Whitstable Company
is signed by 140 of the Faversham Company, a competing
Company, and by about fifty flatsmen proper only, none
of whom have petitioned against the Heme Bay Fishery
Bill.

45. One point that is made against your Company by
the petitions is, that if you were conterminous with the
Heme Bay Company, it might give rise to disputes. I see
that you are conterminous with the Pollard Oyster Fishery
on the one side and with the Faversham Company on the
other. Has that given rise to any disputes ? — Never ; no
disputes ever arise from that contiguity.

46. I believe there have been some petitions in favour
of your Bill ? — Yes ; I have an analysis of those petitions
which I have made ; one is in favour of the Whitstable
Fishery Bill.

47. There is one petition, I believe, from the inhabi-
tants of Whitstable and Sea Salter which is signed by 501
different persons? — Yes, people of different professions. I
have one petition which is signed by the dealers in London
in favour of the Whitstable Bill; it is signed by 137
dealers. Another petition is signed by dealers, by nine in

^Canterbury, twenty-one in BroacUtairs, eighty-one in
Ramsgate, three at Ashford, seven in Hastings, three in
St. Leonard's-on-the Sea, four at Tunbridge Wells, five in
Dover, one in W aimer, three at Folkestone, and three at
Deal.

48. The Heme Bay Company, by their Act, were comr
pelled to make tanks, were they not ? — Yes.

49. Do you know whether or not they made any tanks ?
— I wish to mention first that there is a petition against
the Heme Bay Bill which is signed by 492 people.

50. Mr. Rodwell : But that is not appeared upon? — It
is not on the merits.

51. Mr. Gates : Do you know whether the Heme Bay
Fishery Company have made any tanks ? — They have made
none at all; from my personal inspection of their ground I see
no signs of it.

52. I believe Mr. Frank Buckland was one of the pro-
moters of that Bill ? — There is no doubt of that. I was
opposing the Heme Bay Bill all along, and no doubt it
was upon the strength of Mr. Frank Buckland's evidence,
and the evidence of Mr. Pennell, as to the capabilities of
the Company to breed oysters by artificial means that they
obtained their Bill. Oysters were very dear at that time,
and the Committee seemed to think that they might as
well allow the Company to try.

53. Did not Mr. Frank Buckland propose to breed
oysters in tanks ? — Yes.

54. But no tanks have been made ? — None whatever.

55. Have they, in fact, bred any oysters by artificial
means ? — No.

56. Mr. Bodwell : Is there one word in this Bill to
compel them to breed oysters ? — That I think is within the
scope of the Bill.

57. What clause in the Bill is it by which they are conv-
pelled to breed oysters ? — The preamble is that " whereas
by * The Heme Bay Fishery Act, 1864/ the Heme Bay,
Hampton, and Reculver Oyster Fishery Company in this
Act palled * The Company,' thereby incorporated were

authorised to make and maintain the several works therein
(Section 26) specified, some of those works being works
shown on the plans and sections deposited for the pur-
poses of the reciting Act, and others of them being works
not shown thereon, and some of those works not so shown
being works to be made by the Company from time to
time," &c. {reading).

Cross-examined by Mr. RoDWELL.

58. Having oyster beds, they are desirous of increasing
the supply of oysters, and you read that to mean breed?
— Unquestionably.

59. That is all in the Bill, is it?— Yes.

60. Do you not know that there was a Report made by a
Commission that oysters could not be bred in those places ;
do you not know that ? — In what place ?

61. In tanks and places of this description ; I ask you
whether you know that or not ? — Are you speaking of the
Report of the Fisheries Commission ?

62. Yes?— No ; but the practical men always said that
they could not breed oysters in tanks.

63. I ask you whether, in this Bijji, there is one word to
say or to show that these people said they would do it ? —
The evidence of the witnesses called in support of that
Bill went distinctly to that, that you could breed oysters
in tanks.

64. The words are, " And whereas the Company have
proceeded to put the recited Act in execution, and they
are maintaining and cultivating their oyster grounds, and
they have expended a large sum of money in stocking their
oyster grounds, and they have obtained from other parts,
and laid down thereon, to fatten there, about 40,000,000
of oysters, and they have already produced on their
oyster grounds well-fed oysters, fit for the public market,
so as to be of public advantage." You say that the mean-
ing of that is to breed oysters ? — That clause, coupled with
the intention* to make tanks, and coupled with the evi-=

dence, shows, I think, distinctly that you intended to breed
them in tanks.

65. Here I see tanks, oyster beds, or tanks for the
storage of oysters ; is that breeding oysters? — No.

66. Then where is there a word about breeding in the
Act? — It is with reference to the evidence that I mean.

67. But I am referring to the Act ; is there one word
about the Company I represent being compelled to breed
oysters ? — I think Sir Charles Fox's evidence went to the
fact.

68. But I am asking you about this Act.

Mr. Gates : I was asking him about the evidence.

69. Mr. Rodwell : I am asking him about this Act ; is
there one word compelling them to breed oysters in that
Act ? — None at all.

70. What difference does it make to you whether they
have done what they ought to have done or not ; I mean,
the Heme Bay people ; you complain of their misfeasance
or malfeasance ? — We say that it was a breach of faith to
the public and to the House.

71. Suppose we have not done that which you say we
ought to have done, how does that affect you? — We are a
part of the public, and we say that it is a breach of faith to
the public.

72. Did you prepare this petition against our Bill for
the Whitstable Company ? — Yes.

73. Is it true that we have already abandoned our
works and operations ? — You have already abandoned those
tanks for storing the oysters.

74. Are you prepared to say distinctly that we have not
now got a tank there, and that it has not been put down
expressly for the purpose of storing oysters ; do you not
know that we have a tank there at this moment lying there
for storing oysters ? — No ; I do not know that.

75. Are you prepared to say the other thing, that there
is not a tank there ? — / know that you have no tanks for breed"
ing oysters there. By the Heme Bay Bill they were to lay
out 80,000/.

76. I did not ask you about that ; to your knowledge is
there not a tank down there for the storage of oysters ? —
Not to my knowledge.

11. Will you not venture to say there is not? —
No.

78. What works do you say that they have aban-
doned? — The tanks for breeding those oysters, for which you
were to lay out 80,000/., according to Sir Charles Fox's
evidence.

79. Have we omitted to do anything in the way of con-
struction that we undertook to do ? — I found what you
intended to do upon Sir Charles Fox's evidence

80. Have the goodness to answer my question: can
you name to me any single act which the Company I
represent were to have done, or any work which they
were to have constructed, with the exception of what you
call tanks for breeding oysters, which the Heme Bay
Company have not carried out ? — / know nothing about your
tanks for the storage of oysters.

81. It is said "that the Company have already
abandoned such works," &c. {reading to the words " oysters") ;
do you know that we have sold upwards of 800/. worth of
oysters ? — No ; how can I know such a thing.

82. Then why did you say that they had not done any-
thing in your petition if you did not know that ? — What I

say is, that you have not sold well-fed oysters, fit for the market.

83. Do you mean to say that we have failed to pro-
duce on the ground granted to the Company, well-fed
oysters fit for the public market ? — Yes ; and we shall prove
that you have not done so.

N.B. The facts are that the Company began selling
their oysters at 5/. a-bushel, when Whitstable natives
were selling at 6/. a-bushel. The prices afterwards
fell, till the Company's natives fetched only 4/. 4*., and
the Whitetables 5/.

Considering that the Company's oysters had been
' on their ground only about eighteen months, while the

Whitstable natives had been laid down four years or
more, the Company made a respectable approach
towards the highest market prices.

84. Have you been down there lately yourself? — Yes ;
I was there on the 26th of March.

85. That was lately. Did you go over our works
then ? — I saw your pier and railway, and I looked about
to see if I could find any tanks for breeding/ oysters, but I
failed in doing so.

86. Did you find no tanks at all ? — No.

87. Did you find any oyster beds ? — No.

88. Do you know as a fact that the Company have
expended upwards of 60,000/. in carrying out these
works? — Upon the pier and railway?

89. No ; in carrying out the works in connection with
this Oyster Company? — It is impossible for me to know,
but I should think nothing of the sort.

90. Did you make it your business when you were
down there to enquire whether we had spent money, and
that we had been bonA fide proceeding with the works ? —
I know that you are proceeding with the pier and the
railway; but how far you are carrying on the oyster
fishery is a different thing. I think that you may be
carrying it on to an unappreciable extent; for instance,
you have five boats and you employ about twenty men.

91. Do you state that as a fit representation to their
Lordships of the state of our business, that we have five
boats and about twenty men ? — Yes.

N.B. — This witness is contradicted as directly by
other witnesses as by himself.

Sir Charles Fox's estimate was 89,008/. 19*.,
including 20,000/. for dredging and stocking the beds,
12,000/. for the pier, 2,376/. for the tramway, and
1,890/. for diverting a public road. He gave no
distinct estimate for tanks, but he proposed to have
four, beginning, however, with two, "because they
are to some extent experimental." If tanks should

be proved by sufficient experiment to be good for
the breeding of oysters, the Company would make
them. If they should turn out to be useless there
would be no breach of faith to the public or to
Parliament as representing the public, if the Company
do not throw away money upon them. The Act
gives the Company five years for making the works
they require, and to accuse them of having " aban-
doned" any works because they have not more
than one experimental breeding tank within the
first two years, is to employ that word in, at least,
an unusual sense.

Few things could be much more irrational than to
suppose, that, because a civil engineer, utterly unac-
quainted with oyster culture, had estimated for
experimental tanks which he supposed might be
wanted, therefore the Company, having five years to
try whether or not they would be of any use, were
bound to make them within the first two years, or
be condemned for not having kept faith with the
public !

Cross-examined by Mr. Pembek.

92. Will you be good enough to explain your plan,
&c., &b.

116. You say that you intend to use that part of the
ground partly for fattening oysters and partly for the
cultivation of the breed ? — No, we do not intend to use
that part, because that is land between high and low
water mark, which our Bill does not affect.

117. Does not your Bill propose to take all that piece
which is enclosed in the yellow lines ? — No, not the fore-
shore between high and low water mark.

118. You intend, do you not, to take all the land
marked blue on your own plan? — Yes.

119. Does that, or does it not, correspond with the

piece of ground which is enclosed within the yellow lines
in my plan ? — I think it does pretty much.

120. For what purposes shall you use that piece of
ground? — As an oyster fishery.

121. Shall you use it partly for fattening and partly
for the cultivation of brood after it has been collected ? —
Yes.

122. Then for those two purposes you will exhaust the
whole of it ? — Yes.

123. Is the ground that you have got now fairly stocked? —
Yes.

124. It is? — Yes, it is fully stocked; we have been
carrying to market about 40,000 bushels of oysters since
the season opened.

125. What has been the greatest amount of oysters in
value that you have ever had upon that ground ? — Upon
our own ground 200,000/. worth ; I should say that we
valued the oysters alone on that ground at that sum a
little while ago.

126. Did you not, in the year 1859, have as much as
500,000/. worth of oysters there ? — I should say not; never.

127. I am told that you gave those figures in evidence ?
— Show them to me.

N.B. — In his evidence before the Sea Fisheries
Commission Captain G. Austin said, " the Whitstable
Fishery is the largest and most thriving fishery ever
known in the shape of an oyster fishery. The stock
of the Whitstable Company was assessed last year
[1864], by the old men of the jury, at 400,000/.
I believe they were not far wrong in their calculation;
for if it is considered that they can sell oysters which
bring them in from 100,000/. to 120,000/. and 130,000/.
a-year, and that the oysters generally come to ma-
turity in four years, the parent stock will be worth
nearly 400,000Z." — "With an immense stock and
capital estimated to be worth 400,000/. they cannot
use all the ground they have now,"

*45

128. Hfhat is the value of the oysters that you have
on the ground now, do you know ? — I think I can approxi-
mate to the value.

129. Then tell me, if you please, as nearly as you can?
— I suppose that we ought to have 150,000/. worth of
oysters there, after selling off about 60,000/. of oysters,
since the season opened in August last.

130. How much in value have you got there now? —
"About 150,000/. worth.

131. Is it or not true that this ground within your
blue line is confessedly one of the best pieces of ground in
the estuary of the Thames for the deposit of spat and
brood? — I am not a practical fisherman, and I cannot
answer that question.

132. You stated, I think, that after you had taken
into account all this ground, you would still leave about.
sixty square miles in the estuary of the Thames open for
public fishermen ? — Yes.

133. How much of those sixty square miles is oyster
bearing ground? — There are some very fine brood grounds ;
there is the Pensand, the Heckmore, and half-a-dozen
more. There is the Gull, the Whitestone, the Pudding, the
Penrock, the Pensand, and the Heckmore, and they are
good brood grounds when there is brood about. But
these flatsmen of whom I have spoken get their living by
wheUring.

134. Were you ever on the Pensand? — No.

135. Were you ever upon any of the others ? — No.

136. That is, you have not spoken from your own
knowledge ? — No.

N.B. — Captain G . Austin, speaking from his own
knowledge, in his evidence before the Sea Fish-
eries Commission said, "in a good spat season like*
that of 1858, the spat that fell upon the flats was
worth, at the lowest farthing* 400,000/. or 500,000/."

137. You propose, as I understand you, to work this

4B*

ground within the yellow lines by hired labour? — We do
bo intend chiefly.

138. Are the members of your own Company a very
hard worked set of men, the fishermen ? — No ; they are
not particularly hard worked, but they do a good deal of
work, they have other avocations which they follow at
times.

139. How many hours a-day do they work at the oyster
fishery ? — It varies very much, according to the stint they"
have to catch. They work sometimes for three or four
hours, then sometimes for six hours, and sometimes for
eight hours when they are doing that work.

140. That is sometimes, but what is the smallest
amount of work that they do, or the smallest number of
hours?— They will tell you; they will be calkd as wit-
nesses.

141. You must know something about it ? — Yes ;
I know a good deal.

142. Do they work on the average an hour a-day ? —
Certainly they do.

143. Do you think they work two hours a-day ? — Just
now at the end of the oyster season, very likely they do
not work above two hours a-day ; I may be wrong.

N.B. — Mr. Nicholls; the foreman of the Whitstable
Company, in his evidence before the Sea Fisheries
Commission had said that, taking the whole season
through (between nine and ten months) the average
work would not exceed two hours a-day.

144. When do the oysters cease to be sent to market ?
—In the month of May.

145. When do they begin to come to market ? — On the
3rd of August.

146. What is the best time for collecting the spat, and
removing the spat and -brood? — All through the year;
they move it constantly ; they work there in doing it.

147. What is the best time for removing the* spat and

trie brood, is it not between May and August, or in the
warm weather? — Of course we should move it then; we
are not taking oysters to market at that time, that is when
we collect the brood, it is a reasonable time.

148. That is the slack time of your men as to the
oyster fishery ?— Yes, it is the slack time, so far as the
catching oysters for the market is concerned, but it is the
time for hard work in keeping the ground clean.

149. And as to collecting the spat ? — Yes, for getting
the spat also, wherever we can get it.

150. Although you have said that yon remove the spat
all the year round, is it not true that it is a dangerous
thing to remove the young brood of oysters in cold
weather, as they will not bear the carriage? — It is a very
dangerous thing.

Cross-examined by Mr. MARSHALL GRIFFITH. .

151. You have been for sometime solicitor of this
Whitstable Company? — Yes.

152. Can you tell me how many persons there are who
are members of the Company at the present time? —
I think there are nearly 400 altogether.

153r Who are the persons who are entitled to be
members of the Company ? — Every son of every freeman
is born free of the Company, and is entitled to take his
freedom on attaining the age of twenty-one.

154. Out of that number would they all be working
men? — Nearly all; about 300 of them actually work on
the ground, and others of them live elsewhere, some of
them are in Australia, I believe about three or four of them
are in Australia; there are not many there now; they
follow other businesses.

155. Are you able to say what number of persons there
are in Whitstable who get their living by fishing, other
than members of the Company ? — There are about a hun-
dred people.

156. Are there not more than three hundred? — Cer-

tainly not ; there are about a hundred of them whom wtf
call flatsmen proper.

157. What enables you to put down the number at the
figure of one hundred? — Because I know all about these
flatsmen.

158. Are there not more than one hundred who get
their living by fishing? — No ; I think that would include
those who are employed in the Pollard Fishery and others ;
it includes all the non-freemen.

159. Do you mean to use the word "flatsmen" as
describing any person who is engaged in fishing in Whit-
stable not being members of your Company? — Yes.

160. What is the whole extent of the ground that you
now consider to be sought by the Whitstable Company ?
— Nearly three square miles.

161. Have you had measurements taken of the ground
to enable you to say ? — Yes.

162. When were those measurements taken? — They
were taken within a few days.

163. Have you got the witnesses here who took those
measurements ? — I have got a witness here who took the
measured ground as laid down on the plan.

164. The measured ground, as laid down on the plan,
is the ground which the Whitstable Company now con-
sider to be their own? — Yes.

165. What is the extent of the ground which, by the
Bill, you seek to obtain ? — Three square miles.

166. Of the ground that you at present possess and
use, how much of it do you use as fattening ground ? —
Nearly two square miles ; all we can possibly use is used as
fattening ground.

167. What do you do with the other one-third, the
rest of the ground ? — Part of that ground is given up for
the anchorage of vessels, the remainder is between high
and low water mark, which is valueless I should say for
the oyster fishery.

168. How much do you give up for the anchorage of
vessels ? — About 300 acres.

169. Do you put down the other 400 acres as the land
between high and low water mark ? — That is much about it.

170. Is your answer this ; that all the land which is not
occupied for the anchorage of vessels, or which is not land
between the high and low water mark, is land that is used
by you for fattening oysters ? — Yes.

171. There is no other land you now possess, or the
Whitstable Company, which will be available for that pur-
pose ? — Just so.

172. Is it not the fact, that your Company have for
many years past bought large quantities of spat from
these flatsmen ? — Yes.

173. The quantity of spat varies, I believe, very much
in different years, does it not ? — Yes ; it varies very much
indeed. We have had none for the last three or four years,
and that is what makes oysters so very dear.

174. The year 1858, I believe, was the great spat
year ? — Yes ; 1858 and 1859 were excellent spat years.

1 75. With regard to this piece of ground that you now
seek to obtain possession o£ I believe that is excellent
fishing ground for other purposes, besides the spat?—
There are very few flat fish.

176. There is a large fishery in whelks, is there not? —
They are to be found everywhere ; but there are not so
many there as there are further out, where the sand and
mud are.

177. With regard to the flatsmen, do they fish con-
tinually there for whelks and for other fish?— They fish
occasionally there, a few of them.

178. Do you employ upon your grounds any other
persons except the present freemen of the Company? —
No ; not on our present fishery. We intend to work the
proposed extension chiefly by hired labour.

179. With regard to the Heme Bay Company, do you
know whether they employ hired labour or not?— No;
they employ a few men.

180. Would not the flatsmen have an opportunity, if
they wished it, to be employed by the Heme Bay Com-

pany, if they wanted to employ hired labour ?«~-The Heme
Bay Company, when they got their Bill, professed to give
an immense amount of labour, which was one reason why
9 everal of the flatsmen came forward and supported them,
and what they complain of nqw is, that the Heme Bay
Company have given them no labour whatever, except to a
few men.

N.B. — The flatsmen did not oppose the Heme Bay
Company's application for " the leasehold ground" (A)
on the map.

181. Do not the Heme Bay Company carry on their
works and operations by hired labour ? — Yes.

182. With regard to this petition of ours that you
spek© of, you said that it was signed by eleven persons
belonging to the Ham Biver Company, did you not?««-Tht
Ham Fishery and the Pollard Fishery.

183. Can you point out to me the names of any persons
on this petition who are members of this Company ? — I
have not got my analysis here.

184. Looking at the list, can you tell me of any one
person belonging to that Company who has signed that
petition? You said that there were eleven in the
Ham Biver Company? — I cannot put my finger on them
now unless they were pointed out to me. I think, however,
that there is a witness who will prove it.

185. You stated, I think, that the petition was signed
by eleven persons belonging to that Company ?— Yes ; but
I analysed the petitions with the assistance of those who
were competent to aid me.

186. Do you say now that there are the names of eleven
persons who are members of the Ham Biver Company?—
The Ham Fishery ; the Pollard and the Ham.

187. WiU you point out the names of any persons who
are members of either the Pollard or the Ham Fisheries ?
—I think there is a man of the name of Stroud there.

188. Will you point the names out?— There is William
Stroud, junior.

189. But how do you know that Stroud is a member of
that Company? — Not a member of the Company; he ig
employed by the Company.

190. All the other names are the names of persona who
were only employed by the Company?— Yes.

191. You said, as I thought, members of the Company ?
— Certainly not; these are flatsmen employed by the
Company.

192. Persons in the Ham Fishery Company, you said,
did you not say ? — No : I intended to say that those men
who signed this petition are members chiefly of the com-
peting Companies with the Whitstable Company. I said
that 140 were members of the Faversham Oyster Company,
and about fifty-three were flatsmen proper, and only about
eleven belonged, meaning that they were employed by the
Ham and Pollard Fisheries. But their gains will be very
little interfered with. We do not find that the Heme Bay
Fishery has interfered with the gains of these flatsmen at all.

Re-examined by Mr. Gates.

193. You have been asked whether the Heme Bay
Fishery Company employ hired labour ? — Yes.

194. The dredgermen, I believe, are not members of
the Heme Bay Company, are they ? — Which dredgermen
do you mean?

195. I mean the common labourers ? — No.

196. It is quite a different Company to yours, is it not ?
—Yes.

197. They are a separate lot of shareholders ? — Yes.

198. They are scientific gentlemen, I believe, and pot
labourers ? — Yes ; theirs is a Joint Stock Company, a Co-
operative Association.

199. Instead of employing a great quantity o£ labow,
and which they represented they would employ, I believe
they employ only about about twenty men ? — Yes.

2!06. -Mr. Gates : My learned friend Mr, Radwell eross-
exafttinsd you as to whether anything was in the Heme

- ' E 2

Bay Company's Act which compelled them to lay out
money on their works ; were you present when they gave
evidence before the Committee which passed the Bill? — I
was, the whole time.

207. Did they put it forward before the Committee that
they intended —

Mr. Granville Somerset objects to the question, on
the ground that if former evidence is to be gone into
the question and answer should be read.

208. Mr. Gates : I will read it from the evidence of Sir
Charles Fox, — Q. 600. Part of the operations proposed is to
construct some tanks, is it not? — A. Yes. — Q. A sort of in-
land beds for the propagation of oysters ? — A. Yes. — Q. How
many do you propose to have ? — A. Four ; I should think
at first they would only construct two, because they are to
some extent experimental. — Q. Would they be connected
by a line of flood-gates, so as to admit the sea water to
flow in and out ? — A. Yes.

Mr. Granville Somerset objects on the ground
that Sir Charles Fox might be called to give evidence
on the present occasion ; and that the evidence given
in 1864 could only be understood as a whole.

The Chairman states that the Committee does
not think it necessary to interfere with Mr. Gates' ex-
amination.

209. Mr. Gates : And in the same way, Mr. Buckland,
in the year 1864, before the House of Lords, asked this
question. It is put by Mr. Francis : " This Company pro-
poses to breed oysters in tanks? — A. They propose to
breed oysters in tanks and also in the open air ?" — Yes.

210. Now, in point of fact, you say that they have
made no tanks? — They have made no tanks whatever.

211. You have been cross-examined further as to
whether there was an experimental tank at Heme Bay ; do

you know one constructed by Mr. Crofts ? — I know an ex-
perimental tank which is constructed half a mile to the
west of the Heme Bay Company's ground on the beach,
constructed, as I understand, by Mr. William Crofts, the
promoter of the Heme Bay Company ; but it is not con-
structed on the Heme Bay Company's ground.

212. But by Mr. Crofts, the promoter of the Company ?
— As I understand.

213. Has that, do you know, succeeded for the breed-
ing of oysters? — I believe it is an utter failure ; it is con-
structed with great ingenuity, they have hot water appa-
ratus for the purpose of forcing the oyster to breed quicker,
as I understand.

214. But at all events the question has resulted in utter
failure ? — It has resulted in utter failure.

215. You have also been asked about the quantity of
oysters which the Heme Bay Company sent to market and
sold ? — I know nothing of my own knowledge ; I simply
hear we have a witness to speak to that.

216. Have you heard of some being returned? — Oh,
yes ; they sent some to Canterbury, but they would not
look at them.

217. Do you know of their having sent any good oysters
to the fish markets? — No, I do not.

N.B. — The tank is not on, but is not far from the
Company's ground. It was made with the Board's
permission by Mr. Crofts, the late superintendent,
entirely at his own expense and risk and in con-
nexion with a patent for artificial oyster culture which
he has taken out, and it is still experimental. The
Directors have no sanguine expectation that it will
succeed, but it is too early to pronounce it an " utter
failure."

Mr. JOHN HAMMOND NICHOLLS, sworn.

N.B. Mr. Nicholls is a highly respected member of
the Whitstable Company.

Examined by Mr. GATES.

218. You are foreman of the Whitstable Company ? —
Yes.

219. You hare been foreman for several years ?— Yes,
for nearly sixteen years.

220. And have you for above fifty years taken an active
part in the Company's business ?— Yes.

221. Do you know the eastern boundary of your present
grounds? — Yes.

222. And have you heard Mr. Plummer give his expla-
nation of it ; and, if you have heard it, do you agree with
him ?— Yes.

223. And have you for years made use of the ground
up to Whitstable Street? — Yes, as long as I can re-
member.

224. And are there notice boards warning the people
ff?-Yes.

225. Stuck up on your grounds ? — On our grounds.

226. Of how many freemen does your Company con-
gist?— Nearly 400, between 390 and 400.

227. Do the widows of the freemen take any benefit?
— Yes i and there are forty-seven of them.

228. In all are there nearly 2,000 persons who axe de-
pendent on your fishery ? — No doubt about it.

229. We have been told that you have about 100
yawls or smacks ? — Between 80 and 100.

230. Is your Company the largest suppliers of oysters
for the London market? — By great odds.

231. Are you dependent for the brood upon being able to
purchase it from other people ? — Yes.

232. Tour land is all taken up with the layings for
fattening the fatters? — Our ground will never keep us aiip-
plied, not with spat.

233. You purchase brood from other owners ? — Yed.

234. To keep your own layings full ?— We purchase
brood from Essex as well as flats.

235. Let lis know a little about the management of
your Company ; your Company is managed by a foreman*
deputy foreman, and jury ? — Yes*

236. And others, officers elected annually at a water
oourt? — Yes.

237. You know the quantity of brood that you hare
purchased for the last several years ?-^Yes»

238. And you gave it to the Fishery Commissioners?
—Yes.

239. What did you tell them?— From 1845 to 1846 ; I
told the Commissioners' up to last year.

240. How is the working of your grounds carried on,
and the getting of oysters, and sending them to market ?
-*-Each man has so many to catch, and they are put into a
market boat and sent to London.

241. How do you determine the quantity each man is
to catch? — That is done by myself and the jury overnight,
and we send them up in the morning.

242. Having done their allotted work, how much are
they paid?— So much by the day, or, if they think proper,
so much for the voyage.

243. Do they get anything if they do not work at all ?
— Oh, yes ; they all have a part whether they work or not

24A. Do those who do iiot work get as much as those
who do the work? — No, of course; the sick and infirm have a*
much within a shilling a-day for the voyage as the man who
goes catching, and the widows, they have about a third.

245. And what do the non-working freemen get?— Z7*«
non-working freeman gets the same a$ a widow.

246. We know that some of your present ground is
used for the anchorage ground ; have you, in point of feet,
sufficient ground in your present Company? --We have

not had for the last six or seven years ; we have had more
stock than we have had ground to lay it on.

247. If we should have the good fortune to have a
good spat, you would not be able to make the most
advantage of it? — No.

248. Has there been an increasing demand for your
oysters lately? — Oh, yes; very much, of late years very
much.

249. Whilst your power of supplying the demand has
diminished ? — Yes.

250. And is that the reason of your coming to Parlia-
ment again, to ask for an extension of the ground? — Yes;
to ask for an extension of the ground.

Cross-examined by Mr. GRANVILLE SOMERSET.

251. Is your land full ? — No, it is not fully but it is
covered over from one end to the other here and there;
they are not altogether, if you understand me, not touching
each other.

252. I will change my expression. Is it fully stocked?
— No ; I should not call it full.

253. When was the last good spat year ; 1857, was it
not?— 1857 and 1858.

254. Is there as much stock now as there was in 1859 ;
is it as fully stocked now as then? — No.

255. Half as much?— No.

256. A quarter as much? — Oh yes.

257. Shall I put it at a third? — You may put it at a
third.

258. Yes ; but would that be fair? — You may put it at
one-third.

259. Would it be true ? — As near as I can tell you.

260. Thank you, that will do : two-thirds less stocked
than in 1859. Was not the last gentleman mistaken in
his estimate of two square miles ; is it not nearly four? —
I think not.

261. I want the fact? — Well, I never measured,
myself; we have a party who has measured it ; all that I
know is the length and breadth I use.

262. That is not my question. I will take that, how-
ever, if you like. What is the length and breadth? — The
length we use is about two miles.

263. You cannot give me the length and breadth of
the ground you have power over? — I should say the
width ; the breadth of the ground we use

264. No, not that, but what you have power over;
you have given me what you use ? — Nearly as much again
as we use for laying stock.

265. You are very prosperous, are you not? — At
present we are.

266. And I hope you will continue? — I hope so, too.

267. Let me ask you this : You have been connected
with the Company fifty years ? — Nearly ; thereabouts.

268. Nearly; well, in that time have the freemen
increased? — Oh yes, more than half.

269. More than that, have they not ? — More than ever,
since I was a freeman.

270. You were examined before the Deep Sea Fishery
Commissioners ? — Yes.

271. Of course you told them what was the truth? —
I did tell them what was the truth.

272. Of course you did ; I am not disputing that. You
said the number had increased from 36 to 408 ? — There-
abouts.

273. When you began, the thirty-six gentlemen began
with borrowed money? — Yes.

274. 30,000/.?— Yes.

275. Have they paid that off ?— Yes.

276. Is your property (I hope this is not an important
question) worth at least 300,000/.? — I really cannot
tell.

277. Well, now, you told us last year ?— That was a
mere guess ; it is impossible for any man, or any number
of men, to tell what it is worth.

278* I should not put it too high at that ?*— I could
not Bay within 50,000/. if I was to guess.

279. It is so large, is it? — We cannot tell what the amount
of it 18.

280. I hope, As yoti have increased to 408, the 408 are
better off than the 36 ? — They are none the worse ; Hot a
bit.

281. The thirty-six began by borrowing money, and
last year 112/. a-piece was divided among you ?— Yes.

282. That would make 40,000/. ?— Well, last year we
had to pay income tax, we shall not do that this year.

283. Last year?— Yes.

284. And the year before ?— Yes.

285. And for a good many years back you have ?—
For a good many years back we never did.

286. The two last years 112/. you say?— Yes.

287. The year before, 100/.?— Never before above
100/. ; I have not got above 100/. off the ground but the
year before last.

288. What two years?— 40/. and 50/., 50/. and 60/., Waa
about the average.

289. It Was about three years ago you paid off your
debt of 30,000/.?— Yes.

290. And now you divide forty or fifty thousand
among you gentlemen ?— Yes.

291. And you have two-thirds less stoek lipon your
land than in 1869?— Ye#; and perhaps it is worth as
much money now as then.

292. You charge us more for oysters?— Yes ; if we
could let you have more oysters We could let you have
them for less money.

293. You understand all about Oysters and spat, and
so forth; do you think it is a good thing for Ojtter
grounds to have rival oyster grounds outside of them?— I
cannot answer that question.

294. You do not think it is a good thing ? — No, n$r a
bad thing whilst they are good neighbours and Work honest

295. I do not wish to use the word bad neighbour*,

but competing neighbours ; do you think that is a good
thing ? — Competing neighbours ? My idea of a bad neigh-
bour would be one who tried to thieve ; that is my meaning.
296. 1 mean simply competing neighbours, neighbours
who want to get each other out of the market ? — / do not
mind how many we get for the market, for I believe there ie a
Mufieient market for every one toho hoe sufficient good oysters to
sell.

Cross-examined by Mr. PfiMBER.

297^ What lies quite east of yotir easternmost boun-
dary. Tou spoke of your easternmost boundary ? — What
lies beyond that ?

298. Yes?— It is public.

299. That is to say, the public dredge over it ? — Yea.

303. Who does your Company purchase brood of? —
Anybody that can sell it.

304. The brood off this publio ground, who gets it ? —
The public who work for it.

305. Your own memberd work for it? — Some of them
do.

306. They Bell to your Company ?— They do.

307. They constantly work there in the winter time ?
— Many of them.

808. And that is how they employ their time in the
printer ? — They have no other way to do it.

309. They collect the brood and sell it to the Com-
pany?— -What they can get.

310. I believe that is a very good bit of ground for
spat and brood ? — Which ?

811. That which lies eastward of you?— I 7 **.

812. That is about the best bit, a vast quantity falls
there ? — Not vast.

313. The fall of spat is always capricious ; it is always
accidental, more or less ? — It is always accidental, where
it falls.

314. It is more likely to fall on a piece of ground

where there are oyster^ beds on each side? — Where they
lay in the stream.

315. The stream in front of that ground? — Yes.

316. And there are oyster beds on each side ; yours
on one side, and the Heme Bay Company's on the other
side, are there not ? — We call them ends, not sides.

317. If your Company get this piece of ground, what
would they use it for? — To cultivate the brood.

318. They would not use it for dredging over? — Oh
yes, that is what they do.

319. Do you mean to say they would dredge over the
same piece of ground they would cultivate ? — They would
dredge over it before it is fit for anything, and cultivate it
properly.

320. What would they dredge for ? — They would dredge
to keep it clean.

321. Not for the sake of getting the spat and brood ?
— No ; to keep the vermin from it ; if we did not do that
we should lose the brood.

322. If you dredged it for any other purpose, would
you lose your beds? — It all depends upon the time of
year ; in summer, perhaps, you would not hurt it.

323. Anybody may work there now? — Yes.

324. What men would you employ? — We should have
to employ our own and also others to go.

325. You would employ their own people if they would
go? — Yes; most decidedly, our own people would goto
work, and the other people would go to work just the
same as they go to work on the fields when it is public
ground.

326. They would go to work, provided your own men
could not gather all the spat and brood? — If we had not
work enough for other people we should occupy our own
people.

327. You were foreman of this Company in 1858 ? — I
was in 1858.

328. That was a wonderfully good spat year, was it
not?— It was very good.

329. It was shortly after that you had the largest
stock of oysters you ever had? — I think Mr. Johnson
could answer for that better than me.

330. Never mind that: I want your statement? —
Mr. Johnson could answer better ; he had the pleasure of
seeing them.

331. You get about as much spat as you want on your
ground then? — No ; if we had had more ground at that
time, we could have put it so that we should not have lost so
much by death.

332. What do you mean by death ? — If we had had
more room to lay the brood on the ground we should not
have lost so much by death on account of laying them so
near together.

333. After that you had more than you have ever had
since? — Yes.

334. Your last two years have been the best you have
ever known ? — We have had more money, if that is what
you mean.

335. As much money as in that year ? — Yes ; because
we worked ourselves out of debt the year before, and then,
instead of having to pay to our creditors, we divided it
among ourselves.

336. Your ground is one-third full, you told my friend ?
— That is as near as lean say.

Cross-examined by Mr. C. MARSHALL GRIFFITH.

337. You gave to the Sea Fishery Commission the
amount you paid for labour in each year; would that
amount be divided among the working members of the
Company? — The last two years were somewhere about
112/. divided to each member ; the year before that be-
tween 80/. and 90/. ; the year before 60/. and 70/. ; and the
years before that, many years it was between 60/. and 50/.,
40/. and 50/.

338. You do not quite understand my question ; you

made a report of the price paid for labour from the August
in each year to the May in the next year, and I see the
report states, in the year 1862 and 1863 40,000/. was paid
for labour, in the year 1863 and 1864 46,000/. was paid for
labour ; the question I ask you is, would that amount be
divided among the working members of the Company ?~
— No, no; the whole of the members, men, widows,
and all.

339. What number of working men would there be in
these two years ? — The working men are generally about
300 ; they have been about 300 the last two years.

340. And what is the number of widows ?— Forty-
seven; and then there were between thirty and forty
infirm people and invalids during this year.

341. And what proportion would be paid to the widows
as compared to that paid,to the working men? — About
one-third.

342. That would 'give each working man something
more than 200/. a-piece for each of those two years ? — No,
no, 1 doubt not ; I do not think you will find it to be so.

343. I am told that would be 281/. ; you know that is
your calculation, upon your own figures ? — I tell you plain
and positive that the money received was 112/. the year
before last, and last year somewhere about that ; if I made
any mistake I did not know it, I have not done it wilful.

344. Would they be able to earn anything else besides
that which would be paid to them by members of the
Company for any work ; if they went out for them-
selves to dredge, for instance, would what they got be in
addition ? — All that they get besides they have.

345. How many men gain a livelihood tjy fishing in
Whitstable who are not members of your Company? —
There may be more than 100.

346. May there be 200 ; shall we put it at 200?— -No ;
oh, no.

347. How many do you think? — Very little over the
100.

348. Are there a large number of persons besides those

belonging to the Whitstable Company who fish this
ground ?— There have been.

349. Ib there not a considerable amount of fish to be
obtained there, even when no spat can be had?- — No flat
fob.

350. I did not say flat fish ; is there not considerably
fishing of whelks ?— There are very few whelks.

351. What is the largest number of boats you have
ever seen fishing on that ground? — Well, perhaps I may
have seen 100; that has not been of late years; there
have been very few of late years.

Re-examined by Mr. GATES.

352. Your own freemen dredge this ground to the
right of you ? — More of our own freemen than others.

353. Your Company has been doing very well, Mr.
Nlcholls,.and, of course, you are glad of it; everyone has
been asking you that ; I suppose there is no secret about
it ? — No ; we have done very well.

354. And you attribute that to your being practical
men, and not scientific men ? — We believe we can beat the
science ; we should like to have a little help from science
if we could get it.

355. If you had it could you increase your supply, I
mean if you had this ground ? — If there should come a
heavier spat and brood we could.

356. At the present time you have less stock than in
1859 ; 1858 and 1859 were two good spat years? — Yes.

357. At that time there was not quite so much of your
ground taken up for anchorage as now ? — Well, there is
not much difference.

358. Have you since that had a difficulty in getting a
sufficient brood? — Since when?

359. Since 1859 ? — These last three years we have not
got so much as we should like to have got ; that has been
the occasion of the oysters going up to so high a price ;
we have had to give so much for the brood.

360. If you get this extended piece of ground you will
have to prepare it for making the beds in it at considerable
expense ? — It will be a vast expense to clean it properly.

361. What do you mean by cleaning ? — To cultivate
it ; taking away the rough soil, and making it proper clean
ground.

362. Clearing away the weeds and destroying the
mussels ? — If there are any mussels we shall have to take
them away, certainly.

Mr. JAMES MITCHELL, sworn.

Examined by Mr. PLUMMER.

363. You are the originator and manager of a fish and
oyster dealing Company? — Yes.

364. You have had considerable acquaintance with
pisciculture ? — Yes, since 1849, when Gflini et R6ny first
brought in the subject of artificial culture of fish in
France.

365. And I believe you have studied oyster culture as
well? — Yes.

366. Practically?— Yes.

367. Have you paid attention to the native oyster
fisheries? — Yes, I am tolerably well acquainted with the
native oyster fisheries.

368. Can you name those that you have visited? — I
have visited nearly all, from the Colne downwards.

377. Do you know the ground the Company have
applied for ? — Not practically ; I have visited the ground
in the neighbourhood, but I could not say I know of my
own knowledge the nature of the bottom in that par-
ticular piece.

378. How would you judge of the qualities of a piece
of ground for the purpose of laying oysters ? — Well, there

is a particular class of soil that is found in almost all the
native oyster beds, but that ground may be in a state
more or less fitted for laying oysters, according to the
attention paid to it.

The Chairman suggests that it is not necessary to
go into the details of oyster culture, the object being
to know -whether the Whitstable Company should or
should not have additional ground given to them.

379. Mr. Plummer : Tou think, however, there would
be a great advantage in increasing the area of the oyster
beds ? — Certainly. I agree with what the Commissioners
say. I think there can be little doubt, that what is done
in France shows that. Because in France they have
hardly any oyster layings which are proprietary, in our
sense of the word. That is one of the reasons why they
are so short of supplies, and have to come and buy in this
market. The only proprietary grounds they have are
foreshores.

380. You have experimented on oyster culture at
Southend? — Yes. The Company, which was more an
experimental Company than any other, have gone further
into the actual trial of what is generally called the arti-
ficial system than any other ; and I am sorry to say that
the results are by no means satisfactory.

381. You think the land applied for by the Whitstable
Company is not adapted for that species of oyster
culture? — I was talking of the foreshores ; what is called
artificial culture, has been conducted on the foreshores
hitherto.

382. Do you think that the oysters ought to be laid in
deep water ? — I have no doubt whatever. The results of
experiments show that in this country there is hardly
anything to be done, except in deep water, that is, water
below low water mark. That I attribute to the climate.

383. With reference to the practicability of the Whit-
stable and the Heme Bay Companies working an exten-

sion, do you think the Heme Bay Company's capital
Bufflcient to make them work their present fishery well?
— It depends on whether they maintain or get rid of the
clauses binding them to lay out money in works. If the
original scheme was carried out their capital for the pur-
chasing of stock would be clearly insufficient.

384. According to that scheme 80,000/. or 90,000/. is to
be laid out in works? — 80,000/. out of the capital of
100,000, 1 understood.

N.B. — The Company have already made the whole
of the works which their Act obliges them to make.
They have laid out more than 25,000/. in clearing and
stocking part of their grounds, and they have the
command of 40,000/. capital, subscribed but not yet
called up, and 25,000/. which they may borrow on
mortgage, not one shilling of which are they obUged
to lay out on works.

385. Where the fishery is established there is a risk of
losing many oysters by death, is there not? — That is a
practical question that a dredgerman would be better able
to understand, but I have always understood so ; I have
been informed so; that it was almost impossible to tell
beforehand what the result will be. It is only experience
that will show.

386. In estimating your capital, that is to be taken
into consideration ? — The risk of loss ?

387. Yes ?— Evidently.

388. What would be the result of such a loss to theHerne
Bay Company? — A Company possessed of 20,000/. for the
purchase of stock might, under certain unfavourable
circumstances, lose the greater portion of it in one year.

, 889. You do not think it possible that, with the present
capital of the Company, they can succeed ? — Yes ; I think
they might succeed, supposing they get rid entirely of
the clauses requiring them to lay out their capital in
^productive work.

«7

390. If they keep these clauses, it is evident that the
Company cannot succeed, that they cannot carry on their
fishery? — Nobody can say that, but everybody can see the
cif cumstances are unfavourable.

391. Do you think that if the Whitstable Company had
the extension of ground that the public would be bene*
fited by the supply of oysters being increased ?— If the
public would not be benefited by the Whitstable Company,
there is certainly no other Company that could benefit
the pubKc by cultivating that ground. The results of the
working of the Whitstable Company clearly prove what
they can do. The large number of men they have in
their employment is an immense advantage.

392. Do you think they have enough capital for the
purpose? — Their labour is their capital chiefly. The
history of the Company shows they can always command
capital sufficient for any emergency.

393. Do you know the extent of the flats? — Yes; I
should say I know it entirely from the charts. I have
been over the flats, but I go by the charts with regard to
the size.

394. Is it a fact that Channel oyster and native oysters
are the only oysters that came to market ?~- No ; there are
many others. In these later years a great variety of
oysters have come.

395. The native oysters are incomparably the best, are
they not? — Well, the price is the criterion.

396. That would be the criterion? — Certainly.

397. Do you think that private layings are necessary
to increase the supply of the brood? — I have no doubt
about it.

Cross-examined by Mr. RODWELL.

398. What are the clauses you suggest which are un-
productive for the Heme Bay Company? — Those which
relate chiefly to works.

399. You seem to have gone into the question. Will

F 2

you just tell us which you think ought to be altered ? — 1
am sure the tanks are of no use.

400. They all talk against the tanks. Is there any-
thing else ? — The tramway and a junction railway. The
idea of preparing a railway to bring your oysters before
you have produced them, seems to me an idea that no
practical man would have entertained. The jetty and
landing place especially, considering the water carriage.
You dredge oysters, and then, instead of sending them up
by water to Billingsgate, you put them on the tramway
and delay the passage of them ; water carriage is decidedly
the quicker way.

401. I thought transit by railway was quicker than by
water; do you not think that oysters can be conveyed
by railway quicker than by water? — Everything con-
sidered they are certain to arrive at Billingsgate by
water.

402. Are there not a great many people who have
oysters in London without going to Billingsgate for them ?
— I suppose there may be.

403. Can you not imagine cases in which it is more
convenient to have rapid transit by railway than the
more tedious one by water? — No doubt there are such
cases.

404. Are those the unproductive clauses to which you
refer? — There are the dams, buildings, workshops, stores,
cranes, floodgates, sluices, and other things.

405. Those are unproductive, are they? — They are
undoubtedly unproductive.

406. They do not produce oysters, that is what you
mean ? — And do not tend to lower the prices.

407. You do look upon these things as facilities to
carry the oysters to market ? — I do not see how floodgates
and cranes can assist oysters to market.

408. Perhaps you think some of those things may be
necessary for the purpose of putting the oysters on the
boats? — Not in the least ; you cannot have a better model
for oyster fishing than the Whitstable.

Cross-examined by Mr. PEMBER.

409. When were you asked to give evidence on this
Bill ? — A fortnight ago.

410. You have been down to see the ground since? — I
have not been down since.

N.B. — It is to be inferred that this witness had
been told that the Company were obliged by their
Act to spend 80,00007. out of 100,000/. on useless
works, and had believed it !

A very small endowment of common sense would
have led most men not only to question the possibility
of such an absurdity, but also to hesitate in asserting
that carriage by water is decidedly quicker than
carriage by railway, and in condemning as unprac*
tical the idea of having a railway ready to be used
when it should be wanted.

Mr. FRANCIS FRANCIS, sworn.

Examined by Mr. GATES.

411. You have given attention to the cultivation of
fish? — Yes; I have to the subject of the oysters, crab-fish,
and so on.

412. In order to increase the supply of oysters, do you
think it is desirable to develop the present fisheries, before
trying further experiments ? — I think so certainly.

413. Do you know the Whitstable fisheries ? — Yes ; I
visited them.

414. Have you any doubt that if they get the addi-
tional piece of ground they are applying for, that they

will increase largely the supply of oysters for the London
market ? — Not the least doubt at all.

415. Yon know the nature of the soil there ? — Yes ;
the nature of the ground that they appear to be applying
for is very similar to their own, excepting that it is much
more foul at present.

416. But that will be dredged and cleaned?

The Chairman requests that the evidence of this
witness should be on points not yet before the Com-
mittee.

417. Mr. GATES: You think there is plenty of culch to
be cleaned or dredged ? — Plenty there now ; but there is
a great deal of vermin there, which is very prejudicial at
present ; there is a great deal of vermin on it, very preju-
dicial to the Whitstable Company, because it migrates
from that ground.

418. You mean such vermin as five-fingers, mussels,
and the like ? — Yes.

419. They are the natural enemy of the oyster? — Yes;
on a recent occasion at one haul of the dredge we took up
150 five-fingers, which would have made very short work
of anything like a brood.

420. At the time you hauled up that did you get any
oysters in good condition? — Very few indeed; while
dredging that ground we did not get more than one or
two at a dredge ; very few oysters indeed were on that
ground.

421. In what condition were those you did catch ? —
They were in very fair condition.

^422. That shows, I apprehend, that the soil is suitable?
— The soil is suitable, I should say, certainly.

423. If it were dredged and cleaned, then, you think,
it would be beneficial to the public, $nd increase the
supply ? — Unquestionably it would.

426. I suppose you agree with the Fishery Commis-
sioners, that to increase the supply it is necessary to have

private grounds?— I think it is the only possible way of
increasing the supply. At present the system is to destroy
the public beds; and, therefore, if you do not have private
ones, you cannot increase the supply.

427. The Heme Bay Company have tried a portion of
the ground; do you think they can make use of it as
beneficially as we can ? — It appears they cannot make use
of the ground they have got. I do not think they can ;
and surely they cannot want any more.

428. (By a Lord) : As to the ground to the east of the
Heme Bay Company, is that well adapted for oysters ? —
It is very difficult to say. In the east we found very few
oysters ; I cannot say the condition of the oysters. It
would be very well adapted for laying oysters for the
purpose of growth; but they must be placed on better
ground to fatten them, and make them fit for market.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rodwell.

429. You know this blue piece of land (pointing to the
map) ; you know that is the piece the Heme Bay Company
are asking for? — No ; there is more.

430. This blue piece upon whichf my finger is ? — You
have taken the foreshores, and they are not in the plan.

431. This is not my plan; I will take your answer,
this plan is a little incorrect, then ; do you know that at
present the Heme Bay Company have leased this from
Lord Cowper, the lord of the manor? — I do not know.

432. You say you do not think it will be any use to
them?— Which?

433. This land, I thought you said, would not be of
use j> — if you will explain the question you wish to ask
me, I will try and answer it. What piece of land is it you
mean ?

434. This, where my finger is (pointing to the map);
would it be of use to the Heme Bay Company? — It would
be of use, unquestionably.

435. I misunderstood your answer ; are you connected
-with the Whitstable Company? — Not at all.

436. Do you know there is a tank on that piece now?
No, I do not.

437. Have you been down lately ? — About three weeks
or so ago, and I saw no tank there then.

438. Not anywhere ?—No.

N.B. — The witnesses who went to the ground and
did not see Mr. Crofts' tank, could scarcely have been
anxious to find it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.

450. When you said this piece of ground would not be
wanted by the Heme Bay Company, you mean they had
plenty; that the ground was not full? — I do not see how
it can be.

451. Your idea is, fill one piece of ground before you
ask for another? — That is reasonable.

452. When you were down looking at the Whitstable
ground, was that fully stocked? — Fairly stocked; there
was a very reasonable stock upon that.

453. Did you hear Mr. Nicholls' evidence ? — I did.

454. Did you hear him say the present stock was not
one-third they had had? — Yes; you may have too
many on.

455. Did he say so ? — He did y a great many died.

456. I suppose there are other causes from which those
oysters might have died? — Overcrowding is the most pro-
bable cause.

457; You say the beds of the Whitstable Company are
pretty well supplied with fish ? — I say they are reasonably
stocked. They are not overstocked, nor very much under-
stocked. They have been taking all the season, and you
do not expect them to be so fully stocked at the end of
the season as at the beginning.

458. What number of oysters are they capable of
holding? — It is impossible to say.

459. A vast number ? — Oh, yes, a vast number.

460. By being fairly stocked, I suppose you mean with
tolerably foil-grown oysters ? — Yes, there is a good many
fall-grown oysters.

461. Most of them are beyond a size that vermin would
not hurt much? — Oh, vermin will do damage to fall -grown
oysters.

462. What sort of vermin will damage fall-grown
oysters ? — Five-fingers and dogwhelks.

463. What sort of a fish is a five-finger ? — A large star-
fish.

Cross-examined by Mr. C. MARSHALL GRIFFITH.

464. What is the character of the land? — The land is
patchy, if you understand what I mean by that. There is
a good piece here, and a bad piece next ; then a good one,
and then a bad one. There is a better piece here, then
some parts are not very good.

Re-examined by Mr. GATES.

475. Ton say you have been over the Heme Bay Com-
pany's grounds ? — No.

476. You have been in the neighbourhood? — Yes; I
have seen their fishery from a distance, sailing round the
outside.

477. Have you seen Mr. Crofts' tank? — No.

478. Do you know anything about the experiment of
raising oysters in tanks ? — I told Mr. Mitchell it would not
succeed in this country, and the result has justified the
opinion I then gave.

Mr. EDWARD JOHNSON, sworn.

Examined by Mr. PLUMMER.
479. You are a freeman of the Oyster Company?— Yes

480. And you are on the jury ? — I am on the jury.

482. How do von intend to work this ground when yon
get it? — By hired labour principally. Of course, as far as
we can, we shall work our own boats and crews.

Cross-examined by Mr. RoDWEIiL.

488. Can you say why the Heme Bay Company should
not be able to work with men and boats as well as the
Whitstable Company? — I do not see why.

Re-examined by Mr. GATES.

499. Was the competition you meant, competition . for
the brood? — Most decidedly, that is what I mean. We
have had to pay considerable more this year because the
Heme Bay Company are in the market ; that is one of the
reasons why oysters are dear.

500. Do you know of their sending any good oysters ?
— No, I do not.

Mr. JOHN SMITHERS, sworn.

Examined by Mr. GATES.

518. You are a fishmonger in London ? — Yes.

521. Have you heard of the Heme Bay Company ? — I
have had no dealings with them.

522. Have you seen any of their oysters ? — No, I have
not.

Mr. JAMES SHRUBSALL, sworn.

Examined by Mr. GATES.

523. You are a fishmonger at Margate ? — Yes.

524. And were formerly a flatsman residing at Milton?
—Yes.

533. I believe you appeared here once before as a wit-
ness for the Heme Bay Company ? — I did.

534. Have you been employed by them since ? — I do
not want to be employed by them ; I have got employment
elsewhere ; I was employed a month once.

535. Do you know how many men they employ? —
About twenty, / have heard.

536. Do you know the Heme Bay ground, which they
have got ? — Yes, I could go over it on the darkest night.

537. Has that been dredged and cleaned ? — It is very
foul.

538. How lately have you seen it? — About eight or
nine times I have sailed down ; my boat goes up every
day.

539. You say you are not employed by them, but still
you have been over the ground? — Yes.

540. Do you know whether the Heme Bay Company
have produced any good oysters for market? — I have had
three different sorts from them, and they are very bad in-
deed, I have throwed them away. I have had some from
Alexander, and some of the French oysters, and some of
what they call Welsh oysters, and they are very bad in-
deed. I have got some by me ; they are not fit to give
any gentleman, and they never will be, that's another
thing. If they do not work the ground they will never bo
any good, and the ground becomes to be of no good, like
a farmer's field that is not tended to.

Cross-examined by Mr. RoDWELL.

548. Where did you get these oysters from that you
say are so bad? — From Hen*e Bay; My. Walker wrote for
them.

549. Somebody wrote to you ? — Mr. Kelsey is the gen*
tleman.

550. These oysters wanted keeping? — I should say
you would have to ksep them very long ; the Alexander
ones were old.

551. These Heme Bay oysters, that you talk of as
Heme Bay oysters, were they not Channel ones? — No;
that is what they call their Alexander ones ; they were
fed on this ground, bat they could be no good to anybody.

552. Did the Company want to employ yon? — They
came begging for me to go over for a month, else I didn't
wish to go ; I done it as a favour.

553. Yon left of yotir own accord? — Certainly I
did.

554. Eh! come now? — Yes.

555. Was there no difference about seven men or three
men? — Not any, as I know of; I signed a bill, and there
was a question about some money.

556. There was no dispute, then, you say? — Why,
Crofts chastised me as he does many others; he wants to
make them out as they are rogues ; I have never been brought
before a magistrate yet.

557. You are rather too sensitive ; I said nothing about
being brought before a magistrate ; was there any dispute
about money? — Crofts, as he always does with people made a
row about money.

558. You are vexed with Crofts ? — I told him I did not
want his employment.

559. Come, now, you are vexed, I see it from your
manner ; you were examined for the Heme Bay Company
two years ago, and now you appear against them ? — It is
a bad job for the public at large, I tell you ; I speak
candid; they are all starving; I have seen 200 sail of
boats and the people getting a good living ; now it is all
lost.

560. Do you not know that the Heme Bay Company
have employed as many as eighty men?— I do not know ;
I was down yesterday, and / was told they have employed
twenty men.

561. You know nothing but what you picked up at
Heme Bay? — Oh yes, I do.

562. Have they not twenty-seven boats? — I do not
know.

Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.

563. You do not like a new Company coming on the
ground? — I do not like a Company coming on the ground
and doing as they are ; I have had experience of it in
Guernsey.

564. What was that? — I saw how we used to go on,
and what came of another Company ; I tell you now, one
Englishman can catch as many as ten Frenchmen, and it
is so at Heme Bay ; the ground is all lost ; they may as
well chuck the money overboard ; the Whitstable people
knows how to work it ; 150 sail of boat I have seen on
the ground.

Cross-examined by Mr. MARSHALL GRIFFITH.

571. Do not you think if the Whitstable Company get
this ground that it would be as great a loss to these men
as if the Heme Bay Company got it? — It is impossible. I
do not like to see good ground lying smothered and dead.
This is entirely dead, half the oysters they throw over-
board they will never see again.

Re-examined by Mr. GATES.

572. Then you think this will be injurious to the Heme
Bay people ? — They are starving.

573. You have not seen as many as twenty-seven sail
working in the Heme Bay Company's grounds. How
many have you seen? — Seven.

574. That is the most you have ever seen ? — The most

575. You have no objection to a big Company coming
there if they do good ? — No ; I should like to see them ii
they do good and employ people.

576. If the Whitstable Company enlarge themselves,
and get this ground you think, they will not do harm ? —
No ; I think they will do good because they are practical
people there, and know how to work their ground.

Mr. JAMES HAMPTON, sworn.

Examined by Mr. GrAtES.

627. You are an oyster salesman in London? — Tea.

628. Living in Cannon Row ? — Yes.

629. And I believe you supply the Houses of Parlia-
ment, through Mr. Lucas, with oysters ? — I do.

630. Have you heard of the Heme Bay Company ? —
I have.

631. Have you ever tried their oysters? — I have tried
them three or four times.

632. What has been your experience about their
oysters ? — The first natives I bought were complained of,
and they were inferior to the Whitstable oysters.

633. That is the first lot?— Yes.

634. Now about the second lot ?— I tried them merely
because some gentlemen that visited my house simply
wanted to Bend some samples to their friends in the
country, merely as a sample. I said, if you complain to
me that they are not so good as the Whitstable ones, I say
they are not, I only sell them as a sample.

635. Did you get a second lot and sell them as a
sample ? — No.

636. Were they sufficiently improved for you to get an
order for them ?

Mr. RodwELL objects to the form of the question.

637. Mr. Gates: Having given the second lot of
oysters to your friends, was there any order given to you
in consequence ? — No.

638. How about the third time you tried them? —
I only tried the natives twice, then I bought some common
oysters.

639. How many times did you try the common oysters ?
—Three or four times.

640. Did you continue to deal with them, and have
you been able to continue ? — No ; not with the Heme Bay-
Company. I cannot, because they are so inferior that
I cannot deal with them ; it is quite out of the question.

641. Were you able to sell all those you did get from
them? — I did sell them, but complaints were made.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rodwell.

642. That is to say, people who wanted Whitstable
oysters did not take the Heme Bay oysters, that is what
you mean ? — No ; they would not have them ; they were
thin, and very inferior in flavour.

Re-examined by Mr. GATES.

643. You never sold the Heme Bay oysters as Whit-
stable oysters, did you? — To tell you the truth, Twos obliged
to ; we had only one peck to try; I did not say they were either
one or the other.

644. I dare say you thought before they came they
would be as good ? — Yes, I did.

645. They were natives, I suppose ? — Yes.

646. You did not happen to send any to the kitchen of
the Houses of Parliament ? — I do not know that they had
any of those ; a peck was not much, and some of those
went into the country.

647. You sent the Whitstable to the Houses of Parlia-
ment, I suppose? — I merely tried this one peck; you asked
whether I sold them as Heme Bay ; I did not tell people
they were Heme Bay, because I only had them to try, and
they found fault, and said, " your oysters are not so good
this morning."

648. You did not send any here ? — I did not have any
at all, even in my own house ; I tried them ; in fact I sent
them to all parts of Scotland and Manchester and Liver-
pool.

649. You mean to say you sent the Whitstable to all
ports?— 'Yes; in fact I did not buy any but the Whit-

stable merely having those two pecks to try, one was an
order for a gentleman who merely wanted to send them
into the country ; I could not sell them mysel£

N.B. — The Company now have the satisfaction
of reckoning this respectable oyster salesman,
Mr. Hampton, among their regular customers. He
has lately been buying their natives at . 4/. 4s. a-
bushel and retailing them at a fair profit. His
conduct in not attempting to give to the Heme Bay
natives the name of Whitstable natives has not
always been paralleled.

Early in the late oyster season, and long before
the Company had sent any of their oysters to market,
a gentleman, high in Her Majesty's service, asked at
a most celebrated oyster shop at the west end of
London if they had any Heme Bay oysters, and, on
being assured that they had and that they were first
rate oysters, ordered a dozen for his luncheon. He
was altogether satisfied with what they set before
him, but was startled when they charged him 2a. for
the dozen, and not quite convinced by their assertion
that it was " impossible to sell Heme Bay oysters at
a lower price."

The Whitstable Company and the Heme Bay
Company may expect to have retail tricks of this sort
played with their oysters.

Mr. H. CHOLMONDELEY PENNELL, mom.

Examined by Mr. MEADOWS WHITE.

650. I believe you are the Chairman of the Heme Bay
Company ? — Yes.

651. And have been so, I believe, since its formation?

•81

— No. I was Deputy-Chairman from its formation ; but I
have been Chairman since last year.

652. You obtained your first Bill, I believe, in 1864 ?—
Yes.

653. Before that, had you taken considerable interest
.in oysters? — Yes; I had taken an interest in the subject*
in connection with other fishery matters.

654. I believe you and Mr. Frank Buckland were
instrumental in the formation of this Company? — Yes ; we
took a promiuent part in it.

655. And you obtained this Act before a Committee ?
—Yes.

656. As to that Act, it has been said, that before the
Committee a pledge was given as to breeding oysters in
tanks. Was that so? — No; no pledge was given that
breeding tanks were to be made. The question of tanks
was brought before the Committee amongst other works
which the Company might require for the oyster fishery ;
but no distinct pledge was given. On referring to the
evidence, I see that it was particularly avoided. There is
no evidence on the subject; it was a work in contem-
plation.

657. I believe there were some theories as to oyster
culture which very much interested the public, and it was
contemplated to make an experiment upon this mode of
cultivation? — Yes; we intended to try all experiments
that could be tried.

658. The chief object of the Bill, I believe, was to
secure the appropriation of part of the sea bottom, for the
purpose of carrying on operations as the Whitstable Com-
pany carried them on? — Yes.

659. A Company was formed, and the shares were
placed with great facility ?— Yes; the shares were pla ce
with great facility. We have had no advertisements
issued, and no reference of any sort was had to the Stock
Exchange.

660. All the shares were taken, and are now held by bond
fide holders? — All of them; most of them by men of property,

1 #61. Have you a register of the shareholders here? —
Yes; and I can produce it, if their Lordships wish to see it.

N.B. At the beginning of June 1866, the 10,000
shares were held by 194 shareholders. 2,171 shares
were held by the seven Directors. There were twenty-
five shareholders who each held 100 shares or upwards,
and fifty-one shareholders who each held fifty shares
or upwards.

662. I believe the shares are at a premium ? — I do not
know what premium they are at now. They have reached
a premium as high as cent, per cent, upon the amount
paid up.

663. I will put in the original Act, my Lord {handing
in the same).

{To the Witness): The present Bill recites certain
: portions of that Act: there is a recital of the 32nd section
of that Act, and the next recital is : — " Whereas the Com-
pany have proceeded to put the recited Act in execution,
and they are maintaining and cultivating their oyster
grounds, and they have expended a large sum of money in
•stocking their oyster grounds, and they have obtained
from other parts and laid down thereon, to fatten there,
' about 40,000,000 of oysters, and they have already pro-
duced on their oyster grounds well-fed oysters fit for the
public market, so as to be of public advantage." Those
statements, I believe, have been questioned by the evidence
here ? — You are now speaking of the present Bill ?

664. Yes ; I am now reading the recital of the present
Bill. I will ask you this question as to the truth of this
part of the preamble, Have you proceeded to put the Act
into execution? — Yes ; we have proceeded to put the Act
into execution, and to take the steps that the Act required.

: We published advertisements in the papers of the extent
of our oyster grounds, and we erected boundary-stones,
' and, with the assistance of the Trinity Board, laid down
.buoys to mark out the grounds.

665. The Act received the Royal assent, I believe, on
the 25th July, 1864?— Yes.

666. After that, you proceeded to carry out its pro-
visions ? — Yes ; as soon as possible.

667. The works are enumerated in the 26th section of
the Act of 1864 ?— Yes, they are.

668. Which of those works enumerated in the 26th
section were marked on the deposited plans?— The pier
and tramway, and the diversion of a road.

669. The diversion of a public road? — Yes.

670. The straightening of the road, and raising its
above the risk of flood? — Yes ; in fact, to avoid interfering
with our tramway.

671. What progress has been made with those works?
— They are all completed; practically, everything is completed,
except laying down the tramway on the pier. The tramway is
not completed, but the whole of the pier is quite com-
pleted. I will hand in a photograph of the pier in its
present stage (handing in tlte same).

672. I believe that the pier has three objects : it is for
shelter for the fishing boats, and for the landing of oysters
and materials ; and it also acts as a breakwater to your
grounds ? — Yes ; it does that.

673. We have heard in evidence that the Whitstable
grounds were protected by a spit of land ; this may be
compared to that as an artificial protection? — Yes; to
some extent.

674. That was the most important work, I suppose ?-**-
The pier was the most important work, and the most
expensive ; that is completed, with the exception of laying
down rails on the pier itself.

675. Has the public road been straightened? — I believe
that is completed also. I may say that the works
would have been completed much earlier, but that we
have

676. I was about to ask you this. You say that yon
proceeded at once. After the passing of the Act, did you
meet with any opposition from other unexpected, sources 2,

G 2

a— Tea ; we had opposition from several sources — the most
important of them was from the Crown. The Crown
claimed certain rights over the ground.

677. The advisers of the Crown threatened you with
an information and proceedings for interfering with their
rights?— They commenced proceedings and applied for an
injunction for commencing without their concurrence.

678. I believe this dispute lasted for some time? — Yes,
it lasted for about six months.

679. Was that dispute such as to interfere with your
Stocking your grounds? — Completely so. The Crown
claimed the whole right in the soil, and they gave us
notice that if we laid down any more oysters we should
do so at our own risk.

680. At last that dispute, I believe, was settled by
your accepting a lease from the Crown ? — Yes.

681. And thereupon you proceeded to stock your
grounds ? — Yes.

682. This is the lease, I believe, which you have had
from the Crown, for sixty years (producing the same) ? —
Yes.

683. We have heard that there is a great scarcity of
brood. I believe you had great difficulty in procuring
brood ? — Yes ; considerable difficulty. We could not get
it at the prices we had anticipated.

684. Did you send far a-field for this brood? — We sent
our agents over a great part of Ireland, over Wales, and
over England, and Mr. Buckland, acting in some sense
as agent, even visited the French Fisheries to see
whether he could get oysters there. We made every
possible effort.

685. Had you made your calculations of the capital
required, taking into consideration that the brood would
cost less than it did actually cost you? — Much less.

686. Did you proceed to prepare the grounds for the
deposit of this brood upon them? — Yes; we had the
grounds cleared, and what is called "culched," that is
Covered over with shell and small stones.

687. That is what the spat falls upon ? — Yes.

688. You prepared your ground by clearing it?— *
Yes.

689. When you had got this brood, did you proceed
to stock the ground with it ? — Yes ; we laid it down on.
parts of the ground which had been prepared for it.

690. That is, I believe, what is called an oyster bed? 1
— Yes*, in ordinary parlance that is an oyster bed.

691. The ground having been prepared in this way by
dredging and clearing, and the culch deposited upon it,
is the bed upon which the oyster falls and lies ? — Yes.

692. Mr. Hope Scott treated "tanks" and "oyster
beds " as synonymous in his address, is that so ; they are
oyster beds which the Whitstable Company have, are they
not ? — Yes, they are not tanks.

693. And you have prepared beds in the same way,
have you not ?— Just so.

694. Will you give me some estimate as to the amount
you have spent in stocking your grounds, and in preparing
them, in labor, and in the purchase of brood. But first I .
will ask you how much capital has been called up? —
60,000/.

695. I believe there is a call payable in this month? —
The 60,000Z., I think, includes the whole, I am not posi-
tive about it, but I think it does include the whole.

696. What was the capital under the Act ?— 100,0007.

697. How much have you spent of the 60,000/. ?— The
whole of it, except a few hundreds.

698. How much has been spent upon the purchase of
brood and in stocking and cleaning the grounds? — We
have spent about 25,000/. in the purchase of oysters, and
we have spent about 2,000/. in the cleaning of the grounds
for the oysters to be laid down upon. Of course there arei.
the incidental expenses, which would form a considerable
part of that item.

699. And the labor? — I think that is included in the
25,000/. ; it is [practically] for nothing but labor, except the
purchase of a certain amount of " culch," . . . . ,

700. The balance has been expended in purchasing
oysters ? — Yes.

701. After the purchase of the oysters and the labor,
the balance, I believe, has been expended in the execution
of the works ? — Yes.

702. As to the tanks, has that experiment been tried ;
has any tank been constructed? — Yes; one tank has been
constructed by the Superintendent of the Company on part of
the Company's grounds, at a cost of about 700i, and it is
now in course of working, but whether it will succeed I do not
know,

703. We have heard that possibly you will not succeed,
but you have constructed a tank to carry out the experi-
ment which you contemplated ? — The tank I speak of has
been constructed, and if it succeeds it will he a guide to us
in carrying out others.

704. I see that the preamble says you are maintaining
your oyster grounds ; what labor do you employ at the
present time ? — At the present time we have thirty-three men in
our regular employment, but we have had at different times as
many as 100 men in our employment

705. Are there times of great pressure when more
labor is required? — When the ground requires cleaning we
employ more men. I do not include in that the workmen
employed upon our works, that would make it a couple of
hundred men. The men I speak of are dredger men.
We employ thirty-three men and we have employed
upwards of 100 ; that was in July of last year.

706. Considering the uncertainty of the spat, and the
great abundance with which it falls in certain years, and
assuming a large fall of spat, you would have more to do
than could be done ; you would obtain it more cheaply and
stock the ground more rapidly? — Certainly.

707. The labour would produce its result and fruit?-—
Yes.

708. You would have not only your capital, but the
profits of your undertaking to fall b^ck upon ?— Certainly ;
that is all obvious.

709. You are regularly cultivating and maintaining
your oyster grounds? — Yes; you asked me about the
amount we had expended in oysters ; I should like to say,
that we have exceeded our estimate. We gave 20,000/,
for stocking, but that was to be spread over three or four
years. We have spent 25,000/. in the two years.

710. Can you tell me how many bushels of oysters you
have laid down? — We have laid down between 15,000 and
17,000 bushels.

711. How many oysters would that be? — Taking that
as a fair estimate, the lowest [number] I think would
be about 40,000,000.

712. It is stated that you have already produced upon
your oyster grounds well-fed oysters fit for the public
market ? — Yes ; we have.

713. We heard from witnesses on the other side that
an oyster takes four years to come to perfection ; I believe
that if an oyster is brought young enough to grounds
which are suitable, it will become a native oyster wherever
it is produced ? — No ; I do not think that that is so ; the
spat from that would probably become a native oyster ;
certainly it would in a generation or two, but the oyster
itself would never become the same as if it had been bred
in the Thames.

714. In a generation or two it would become of that
character ? — Certainly.

715. The scarcity of native brood has been very great,
I believe; have you bought all you could get?— Yes;
everything we could get.

716. Have you bought anything else but native
brood? — Yes; we have bought Irish oysters and Welsh
oysters.

717. And I believe the Whitstable Company have also
done so ? — Yes ; we have stocked our grounds in the
ordinary ?<ray.

718. Although you have only had this limited period
since the opposition of the Crown was withdrawn to work
your oyster beds, have you produced good oysters ?— Fes,

certainly, because putting aside any question of opinion, a good
oyster is an oyster which will sell in ike market at a large price,
I think that is a fair estimate of its value, and we have sold
many at large prices, and the sale has greatly increased — in the
last week we have sold 1501. worth.

719. As your cultivation proceeds, the maintenance of
your oyster grounds continues. I presume you hope to
improve your oysters, and sell them still ? — Clearly. The
oysters now are not equal to what they will be, [but] we have
already produced perfectly well-fed oysters, ft for the public
market ', and they have been very much liked.

720. I believe the oysters come up uncertainly ; some
are good, and some are not? — They are getting much
better— -a few in every bushel are bad.

721. And you expect a further improvement in them ?
—Yes ; we have weighed the proportion of meat to the shell at
different times, and we find a very steady improvement in the
proportion of meat — that is in the growth of the oyster.

722. Your grounds, I believe, have fattening properties ?
— Very large fattening properties no doubt Our oysters now
are not quite equal to the Whitstable oysters ; they have only
been down for a year, and the Whitstable oysters have been
down for four, and five, and six years ; I wish to state the
case fairly.

N.B. Considering the much longer time that the
Whitstable oysters have been on the fattening grounds,
the Heme Bay oysters maintained dining the past
season a very respectable comparison with them. Early
in the season, when the Whitstable natives sold at 6/.
a-bushel, the Heme Bay natives sold at 51. a-bushel,
and when the Whitstables had fallen to 51. a-bushel,
the Heme Bay's fetched 4:1. 4*. a-bushel. The average
at which the Heme Bay natives sold, down to April 30,
was 4£ 15s. a-bushel. These prices dispose of the
allegation that " Heme Bay has no fattening
grounds,"

723. I believe I may say just now that you have no
objection to the Whitstable Company taking an extension
of their ground, provided they do not come upon the Pink
and overlap you ? — Certainly.

724. I will now go to the preamble, it says, " And
whereas the Company commenced within one year after
the passing of the recited Act the works thereby autho-
rised and they have since completed the whole of the
works shown on the deposited plans and sections."
That is at the bottom of page 4 in the preamble. —That
is at the 35th line, I think?

725. It is at the bottom of the page? — In the last
paragraph ?

726. Yes; you say that the rails are not laid down
upon the pier, but that the tramway is completed ? — Yes ;
I do not think the rails are part of the original plan ; but
they are not on the pier.

727. There it says : — " And whereas by reason that
the works by the recited Act authorised comprise not only
the works shown on the deposited plans and sections, and
which were to be completed within the five years thereby
limited and have already been completed, but also works
which, for carrying the recited Act into full effect, it may
be found requisite to make after the expiration of those
five years, doubts have been raised as to what works axe
by section 32 of the recited Act required to be completed
within a limited time, and for obviating those doubts and
defining the works which by the recited Act were required
to be completed within a limited time and for obviating
other doubts as to the meaning of that section, it is expe-
dient that section 32 of the recited Act be repealed and
be re-enacted with amendments thereof." I believe you
have been advised, and I see that all the works are to be
commenced within a year ; Is that so ? — Yes ; I should say
that the works are divided into two classes, that is to say,
the permanent works in which the public have an interest,
and [minor] works in which no one [but the Company] has
an interest, such as cranes and so forth. We are informed

that if wepotany rfthetemponuy[penm
operation after the fire yean? Hunt, out powers might be
forfeited, as that would be taken to imply that we had not
u completed n them.

728. Then I see: "And whereas by the recited Act
(section 40), the Company were required to erect and
maintain boundary stones and to provide and maintain
buoys at the several points therein specified for denoting
the limits of the oyster grounds." Have you erected
boundary stones, Ac ? — We have.

729. And whereas by the recited Act (section 47), the
Company were required to give public notice of the limits
of the oyster grounds and the provisions of the recited Act
relating thereto and to the Company's Oyster Fishery.
Have you given public notice? — Yes, I have the news-
pipers here in which the notices appeared.

730. "And whereas by the recited Act (section 55),
provision was made with respect to a lease from the Com-
missioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests and Land
Revenues to the Company of land belonging to Her
Majesty, and a lease has been made and accepted accord-
ingly." That has been put in has it not ? — Yes.

731. " And whereas it is expedient that further provision
be made for the protection of the Company's oyster grounds,
fishery and property. And whereas doubts have been
raised with respect to the construction of section 45 of the
recited Act, and for obviating those doubts it is expedient
that that section be repealed and be re-enacted with amend-
ments thereof." Their lordships will see, I think, that
these amendments are really trifling ? — Yes.

732. " And whereas it is expedient that the limits of
the Company's oyster grounds and fishery be extended as
by this Act provided, and the powers and provisions of the
recited Act, as by this Act amended, be applied to the
Company's oyster grounds and fishery as so extended."
Upon that point I will just ask you a few questions —
I believe it is said to be nine square miles ? — Yes.

N.B. The exact measurement of the area at high-

water is given at eight square miles and 602 acres ;
almost nine square miles : — a square mile containing
640 acres.

733. What is the length of the fishery that you have ?
— It is about seven miles.

734. By what ? — It varies ; it [the foreshore] is about
one- third of the whole ground.

735. What is the nature of the foreshore. You say it
is about one-third of the whole ground? — Yes ; I think so.

736. The foreshore is not suitable for making oyster
beds ? — No ; it is useless.

N.B. — " Useless," for that purpose ; but it might
be found useful for other purposes, as, for instance,
for " claires " on the French system, storage tanks, &c.

737. Then we heard from the witnesses on the other
side that these grounds are in patches. Do you know that
to be so ? — Yes ; I know it to be so to a great extent. It
is the case in almost all oyster grounds, and it is so in ours.

738. It is estimated that the available space for your
fishery is about the present limits of the Whitstable Com-
pany ? — That estimate has been made, and I dare say it is
not far from the fact : but it is impossible to say accu-
rately.

739. There are many places which are not fit for the
cultivation of oysters ? — Just so.

740. Before the passing of the Act, I believe Lord
Cowper had made a claim in respect of his manor of Swale-
cliffe ? — Yes ; and he threatened to oppose the Bill unless
we took the manerial rights of Swalecliffe.

741. After the passing of the Act, I believe you en-
tered into negociation with Lord Cowper's agents for a
lease ? — No ; we arranged with him before the passing of
the Act, and then he withdrew his opposition.

742. The limits of the manor of Swalecliffe are marked
on the plan, and I think they have been pointed out by
Mr. Plummer ? — Yes.

743. Part of it fills within the authorized area ? — Yes.

744. And part is that piece up to the limits of which
yon desire to extend your limits ? — Tea.

745. I believe Lord Cowper refused to grant the one
without the other ? — Yes ; he did.

746. He recites in this lease "all that several foreshore
of me, the said Earl Cowper, on the lands lying and being
from high water mark as fir into the sea," &c Those are
the parcels in this lease, and I hold in my hand an office
copy of the injunction in a suit between the Right Honor-
able Earl Cowper in 1810, and certain parties — restraining
them, and it describes it in this form, " The said manor,'*
&c. That describes the limits of the manor as then re-
cognized by the Court of Chancery, in 1810 ? — Yes.

747. I believe you have taken the line exactly, and
prolonged the line to the utmost of your parliamentary
boundary ? — Yes.

748. You do not seek for powers over the flats beyond
that?— No.

749. The Whitstable Company I see overlap it ? — Yes.

750. I believe the parliamentary boundary is within
those limits, as described in those Chancery proceedings ?
— I believe it is.

751. Can you tell me what the dimensions of the ground
are there? — If you will oblige me with a plan. . . I think I
can tell their lordships without a plan ; 80 chains at the
northern boundary, 80 chains at the southern boundary;
our present boundary is 120 chains into the sea ; occupying
an area altogether of a mile and a-half.

752. That includes the foreshore ? — That includes the
foreshore.

753. And the tide runs out a considerable distance ? —
Yes, a very long way.

754. What is the area available for oyster culture ? —
About one mile square.

755. The Whitstable Company say they propose to
work theirs by hired boats ? — Yes.

756. That is the statement? — It is.

757. That ground is granted to Mr. Crofts as trustee
for a Company called the Oyster Fishery Company ? — Yes,
for the Oyster Fishery Company (Limited).

758. What is the nature of the Company ? — The shares
are held, [share for share] by the shareholders in the Heme
Bay Company.

759. That is the nature of the Company? — The number
of each share is the same, and the shareholders are the
same.

760. When Lord Cowper would not grant you one part
of the manor without the other, that is the mode in which
you managed to get a lease of the whole ; Crofts, in fact,
is the trustee for your Company ? — Yes.

761. Which is the [Heme Bay] Oyster Company ? — Yes;
and one of the conditions is, that the shares can only be
held by shareholders .in our Company.

762. That is the manner in which it was carried out by
Lord Cowper, " Whereas it is expedient that the name of
the Company be changed " ? — Yes.

763. " Whereas the whole of the Company's capital of
100,000*. has been subscribed for?"— Yes.

764. " And more than half thereof is paid up ? " — Yes ;
60,000Z.

765. "And whereas the Company has no mortgage
debt?"— That is so.

766. " Whereas it is expedient, that the Company be
authorised to raise further capital," — additional means ? —
Yes.

767. The sum you ask for is 100,000*.?— Yes.

768. You contemplate using part of that money for
the purpose of stocking and working the fisheries ? — We
do.

769. And part also you require for additional fishery
purposes ? — Yes, the principal portion.

770. With regard to the Heme Bay Pier Company;
you wish to have power to make some arrangements with
•that Company, if possible, to buy their materials and use
that as an additional break-water? — Yes ; it acts to somQ

'94

extent as a break- water, and perhaps a small expenditure
might make it a very efficient one.

771. And if you were to fill it up it wotdd be more
advantageous to you ? — Yes, it would.

772. Would you have any difficulty in placing your
further capital ? — No ; I think we should have no difficulty
in getting the whole of our shares taken up.

773. Have you the register of shareholders here ? — We
have.

774. I believe there are many practical men amongst
your shareholders? — Yes; they are almost all men of
wealth. I omitted in my answer to your question just now
about the oysters, to say we have some oysters here which
were dredged from our ground, if their lordships thought
fit to see them ; they were brought up this morning.

N.B. These oysters had been brought from the
market boat then at Billingsgate. They were a fair
average sample of the cargo. Mr. Thomas Gaun, then
in opposition to the two Bills, and whose evidence is
given below, saw them opened and said that "he
would not wish to see a better oyster." Mr. F. Wise-
man, a witness before the Sea Fisheries Commission,
now the Company's Superintendent at Heme Bay, and
who has had many years practical experience in oyster
culture, said that " they were as good as the Whitstable
natives." Other bystanders, interested in the parliamen-
tary contest, agreed that " they were first-rate oysters."

Cross-examined by Mr. MEREWETHER.

775. You and I have had the pleasure of meeting
before ? — Yes.

776. Let me ask you first of all with reference to the
pledge question. I understood you to say you gave no
pledge. Do you remember my cross-examining you last
year. Will you allow me to present this question and
answer to you, " Will you tell my lords whether, in pre-
senting your Bill to Parliament last year, you did not pier

sent, to use the phrase that yon made use of this morning,
did you not present it to Parliament as a thing which was
to introduce a new system of oyster culture, and was not
your answer, * Yes, that wae put forwajd as one amongst
the many advantages the Company proposed?" — Cer-
tainly, that was my answer.

777. Did I then put this question to you, " Was it not
prominently put forward?" and did you not make this
answer, " It was one of the principal points the Company
put forward ? — No'; I think not.

778. That is the short-hand writer's note ? — My voice
is rather indistinct, and he may have misheard me ; what
I said was, it was one of the principal points.

779. Did I not read those words to you? — What I said
was, it was one of the principal points.

780. That is what I have read to you, " It was one of
the principal points the Company put forward?" — The
meaning is altered by [the accentuation of J the question.

781. Did not Mr. Frank Buokland enlarge very much
on the French culture? — He mentioned it as one of the
plans that we should hope to try.

782. As regards your shares you say they are all paid
up, that is, all the money that has been called, but are
there not some shares which are fully paid up ? — A few.

783. What amount has been paid upon those shares
which have been fully paid up ? — 10/. per share.

784. Is that the foil amount of the share ?— That is the
foil amount of the share.

785. Are there no shares which are reckoned in your
capital as fully paid up on which nothing has been paid ?—
None.

786. All the shares have been paid upon?— Yes; all the
shares have been paid upon.

787. Then I understand you to say for your stocking
you have exceeded your estimate by 5,000/. ? — Yes ; we
have.

788. You come for an additional 100,000/. under this
Bill ; will you tell the Committee what you propose of that

100,0007. to spend in stocking your land? — We shall
probably expend the greater portion of it.

789. Shall I say 80,000/. ?— Yon may say 80,000/. if
yon like.

790. I am asking yon? — I do not say so. I shonld
say we shall spend a large portion of it in stocking the
ground.

791. What shall I take as the fact ? — I am not prepared
to say the amount.

792. Shall I take half; shall I say 50,000Z. ?— If yon
like. I cannot really answer the question. I am not
prepared to answer the question. We propose to spend a
large sum in the stocking of oysters.

793. Now about the tank ; to be distinct, you told my
friend the tank had been erected by your Superintendent
at a given cost ; do you represent to the Committee that
the Company had erected that tank? — It practically
answers the same purpose, because the Superintendent
erected it on the Company's premises ; on the Company's
grounds.

794. Has the Company expended a farthing towards
erecting it? — They have expended a certain sum; not
very much.

795. What do you say ? — I cannot tell the sum they
have expended; something, but not very much. They
have expended something. I remember that fact.

796. You said you could not tell us what you had
spent in stocking. Will you tell the Committee what the
Company has spent in erecting this tank which the Super-
intendent has made? — I said nothing of the sort. Yon
asked me what was going to be spent on stocking.

797. Now, I ask you what your Company has spent in
money towards making this tank, which my friend repre-
sented had cost 700Z. ? — My answer is, I cannot give yon
the exact figures, but it is something very trifling ; very
small ; a few pounds ; 20Z. or 30Z.

798. Is it actually on your land ? — It is within the
ix>undaiy of our original fishery.

799. If I am not misinformed about it, is it not half a
mile to the west of your original boundary? — No, I asked
the question before coming into the witness box, " If it is
within our limits," and it is within our limits. If I am
mistaken our engineer will correct me.

800. Now, with reference to the oysters ; you spoke of
haying sold the oysters. Have all your sales resulted in a
profit to the Company? — Well, I imagine they have ; they
have been sold at large prices.

801. Do you know of the dealing with Mr. Williamson!
in which you asked him one pound for some oysters that
cost you 38a.? — No; I cannot tax my mind with those
trifling things.

802. Tt is not a trifling discount, if there is that
discount on the sale of your oysters? — We have sold same
of our oysters at more than cent, per cent, on their cost to us,
and we have had a very handsome profit on almost all the
others. I cannot, of course, bear in mind every sale that
has been effected ; if I was the salesman I could not.

803. Were you present yesterday when Mr. Shrubsall
was examined? — Yes.

804. Were you surprised to hear him say that he
received some oysters which he threw away ? — No, I am
not surprised.

805. Do you impute to him that his evidenoe is un-
true ? — Not at all ; two men may take different views of
subjects.

806. Was it true? — I am not called on to say it is not
true.

807. But, if true, are you surprised to find that he
threw away your oysters ? — / say, the way in which ilie man
left our service was such as to leave an unfavourable impression
on his mind. I do not know if he took a few oysters and
threw them away.

808. I will present to you a substantive fact ; do you
deny the fact? — If you will read me the evidence he gave
I will tell you.

809. " Do you know if the Heme Bay Company have

produced any good oysters for market ? " and the answer
is " I have had three different sorts of them, and they are
very bad; indeed, I have thrown them away." What
do you say to that? — I say, if you like to go and
buy some Whitstable oysters and throw them away, you
are at liberty to do so. Mr. Shrubsall's taste in oysters
may be peculiar.

810. He is a business man, and a dealer in oysters, is
he not ? — He may be. I do not know, that he is in a very
large way of business on his own account.

811. There is Mr. Hampton, who says he is a salesman
in London, and he supplies the Houses of Parliament ? — I
think his is, probably, very fair and straightforward
evidence ; he stated the oysters he received were not so
good as the Whitstable, and those customers who preferred
Whitstable did not like the Heme Bay, but when our
oysters are three years more on the ground they will be
as good as the Whitstable.

812. He goes on to say he did not give a second order?
— He said he did give a second order. I think he did
say so, if you refer to the evidence. I think he did not
give a third.

813. Yes, he did give a second order for his friends? —
He ordered first for himself and then for his friends.

814. Just with reference to Lord Cowper's lease — do
you know Lord Cowper granted a lease to a Mr. Gann ? —
No, I do not.

815. Is Mr. Gann going to be a witness of yours ? — No.

816. I observe in the lease granted by Lord Cowper, it
is to Mr. Crofts ? — It is as trustee.

817. Did you notice in the lease that he is not specified
as trustee ? — Yes, he is specified as trustee.

818. I think not? — I am pretty sure he is ; if he is not,
it is an oversight ; but I am satisfied he is.

819. Will you take it in your hand, and tell me where
it is; it has escaped me if it is so? — He is trustee;
whether he is specified so or not I cannot tell, but he is
trustee, and I think he is so specified.

Mr. White states the lease is " upon trust for the Heme
Bay Oyster Fishery Company."

N.B. — Mr. Crofts is a trustee for the Heme Bay
Company of so much of Earl Cowper's land as is
"within their limits under their Act of 1864, and is a
trustee for the Oyster Company Limited as to the
rest : — " the leasehold ground." (A.a.)

820. Mr. Merewether : With reference to the 32nd
clause; that is rather a matter of argument than evidence,
I will put this question to you : you have not done any-
thing with reference to the tanks more than you have
stated ? — Yes, we commenced them within the year.

821. What have you done ? — We have commenced to
excavate them.

822. Have you done more than you had done last year?
— No, I believe not. I am not sure that we have not.

823. Was it not proved that a man approached the
ground with a wheel-barrow and dug and filled his wheel-
barrow? — That is another of those cock-and-a-bull stories.
I have seen the place, it is as large as this room.

824. What depth? — From four to six feet, perhaps
eight feet.

825. I am distinguishing your excavation for the tank
from some brick making excavation? — The tanks were
made on the site of the brick field ; the place is now ready
for the reception of bricks, if we choose to make tanks.
It is twice as large as this room.

826. How long has that been done? — It was com-
menced in the year from the date of the Act, and it has
been progressed with since. As I have explained, the
tank which our Superintendent has built answers all pur-
poses, and until we see the result of that, it would be
unwise to go on.

Re-examined by Mr. WHITE.

827. I suppose you have heard sometimes of even ths

H 2

100

Whitstable Company's oysters turning out badly, a lot of
them, and being thrown away ? — I suppose so.

828. And oysters come to your grounds in very
different condition, according to the way they have to
travel, and all that ? — Yes, they are subject to all sorts of
chances.

829. It is to be borne in mind you have only had this
oyster ground a very sort time in operation, and your
oysters have not had time to grow? — They have been
down fifteen months, and the Whitstable Company's have
been on an average down for eight years ; they were laid
down, the great part of them, in 1858, and they are there
at the present time ; we do not start on a fair footing.

830. You have sold a considerable quantity besides
those parcels of oysters we have heard of? — Yes, a great
many hundred pounds worth ; at the same time, it has been
an exceedingly slack season, so much so that the boats have gone
back to Whitstable and other places with their cargoes. It is
admitted that it has been an exceptionally slack season, as
far as oysters are concerned, but, notwithstanding that we
have sold a great number at a good price.

N.B. It is not to be expected that the highest
price of the best Heme Bay natives will, for some *
years, equal the highest price of the best Whitstable
natives. The Whitstable Company have the advan-
tages of prestige and of their stock being several years
older than the Heme Bay Company's stock. But when
it is considered that Heme Bay natives not eighteen
months on the ground have lately been selling at 4L
4*. a-bushel when Whitstable natives four years or more
on the ground have been selling at 51 a-bushel, the
expectation that Heme Bay will, in a few years,
fairly rival Whitstable will not appear extrava*
gant.

831. When you begin to realize a profit, then you will
not require the capital for keeping up the works ; you will

101

have the receipts and profits to work upon ? — Yes, there
will be a profit and loss account.

832. (By a Lord). Which do you say is the best
ground for oysters, the east or west end of your ground?
— The west : contiguous to the ground we propose to take ;
this is a better place for oysters; that is a better place for
stocking.

Mr. WILLIAM FFENNELL, stcorn.

Examined by Mr. WHITE.

833. I believe you are one of the Fishery Commis-
sioners for Ireland? — No, I was. I am now in England.

834. You are now one of the English Commissioners ?
— Yes ; I have been removed to England from Ireland.

835. While you were Commissioner in Ireland you
granted many licences under the powers you had ? — Yes,
for oyster laying.

836. How long were you a Commissioner ? — In Ireland?

837. Yes. — About seventeen years.

838. Have you had a very large experience in oyster
culture ? — Yes, we had a great deal to do about oysters in
Ireland, in making by-laws for the open and close
seasons, for one thing and another, and I had often to
interfere with the Whitstable, Sheppey and Queens*
borough people who came over to purchase oysters from
the Irish. I often went to settle the disputes.

839. In granting licences, was your principle to give
preference to those who had rights? — Yes; the law re-
quired that no licence should be given without the per-
mission, in writing, of the owner of land abutting on the
shore.

840. There was to be no interference with those who
had acquired rights in the soil? — Yes, it could not be
given without the permission of the owner of the land.

841. You know the Heme Bay Fishery ? — Yes*

102

842. When the Act was granted, you went down with
the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Commons?
- — Yes ; the Committee requested both parties to be pre-
sent to have an investigation of the ground, and we went
down; the promoters and the opponents; they had
dredged over the greater part of the ground.

843 They proposed to take at that time? — Yes.

844. You had an opportunity of understanding the
state of the ground before the Act passed ? — Yes ; I had
seen it before that. *

845. The Committee wished to see it ? — Yes.

846. And the Whitstable boats dredged? — It was
a Whitstable boat, as well as I recollect, that
dredged.

847. What did you find, then, the state of that ground
to be ? — I think the result of several hours' dredging in
the beet part, as pointed out by the men— both Whitstable
and other men — I think the result of the whole dredging
was three oysters — as well as I remember, three or four
oysters — so completely was the ground denuded of
oysters at that time.

848. Have you seen this ground since the Oyster Com-
pany [the Heme Bay Company] have come into existence
and begun operations ? — Yes, frequently. I may say, those
three oysters were eaten by members of the Committee.
Of course they had a preference ; and they were pronounced
to be very good.

849. That showed the ground was good for the culti-
vation, though few ? — Those three oysters were pronounced
by the Committee to be very good,

850. You have seen it since ? — Yes.

851. Will you be good enough to state, in your own
language, what the state of the ground is now? — Twice
I have seen a considerable portion of it dredged, and it is in
very good state, to my mind; and I had portions of it
(hredged for Irish and Milfoid oysters, which were laid
down, so that there was a great quantity ; and the ground
teas, so far as I saw it, in very good order.

103

852. Clean? — Yes; and very few of those creatures
spoken of so much.

853. Did you find plenty of culch had been laid down f—
Yes ; plenty of culch.

854. Do you, from your experience, agree in what has
been stated ? What would you have expected, after this
short management and culture of the ground? — / know,
myself, the oysters that were laid down there. I may say, no
ground has any better, because that I saw tested had nt any-
thing like the time necessary to produce a first-class atticle on the
very best fattening ground.

855. You would not have expected it? — I should not
have expected it — not at all — and J told the Berne Bay
people not to sell on any account this year, especially any of
the oysters that came from Ireland or Wales.

856. You know that class of oyster ? — I know it from
my experience of the oyster beds in Ireland — the very
best fattening beds. There, the proprietor would never
sell them under three years, if he could avoid it. They
must keep up a certain supply, but they have to entrench
sometimes on their stock.

857. If your advice had been followed, the Heme Bay
Company would not have sold this year? — Not a single
oyster. I met a person in Dublin the other day, and he
said, The [Irish] oysters are so bad, we cannot go on;
they are selling them too fast.

858. The [Irish] beds are being exhausted in that way ?
—Yes.

859. Did you test the quality of these [Heme Bay]
oysters ? — Yes ; I had some oysters sent up to my house, and I
saw all those opened. There were a great n, any of those vet y good
oysters, quite as good, if not better, than I could have expected in
so short a time; and subsequently I went down to the ground, and
I saw the oysters dredged, myself, and I had them opened on the
spot; some of them were very good, and others not at all what
they ought to be; infact 9 they were in different stages, but some
of them were very good and marketable oysters, though perhaps
not up to live superlative sample that Whitstabh can furnish.

104

860. Do yon believe, if your advice had been followed,
and no oysters had been brought to market till next yea*,
it would have been better? — I believe they would have
been very different.

861. There were great temptations in the high prices?
—Yes.

862. Shareholders sometimes wish to see a little money
back? — Perhaps there may be a little anxiety to see how
they were going on and what they could do. I recom-
mended them to keep quiet.

N.B. It is understood that the Directors have not
been selling oysters for the sake of forcing a dividend.
They are well aware that oyster grounds cannot be
expected to yield a great profit until they have been
three or four years in cultivation ; but they have been
desirous of ascertaining the capabilities of the Com-
pany's grounds, and, knowing the old proverb that " the
value of a thing is just as much as it will bring," they
submitted as soon as they could some of their oysters
to the practical test of the market.

The oysters which the Company laid down at
Heme Bay were in different stages of growth from
"brood" to "ware," and thus an earlier opportunity
was afforded for the sale of some samples than if only
brood had been laid down.

The test of the market, whether at Billingsgate
or at Ostend — for a small cargo has been exported —
has been satisfactory. It has shown that the Heme
Bay grounds comprise good fattening grounds — for
(it is almost needless to say) good marketable oysters
cannot be produced except from good fattening
grounds — and that when the Company's stock is
sufficient to enable them to enter on their business
of oyster selling on a sufficiently large scale, they
may reasonably expect that the position which
they take in the market will fairly approach to an

105

equality with that of the beBt old Oyster Fishery
Companies.

The total quantity of oysters of all sorts which
the Company sold up to April 30, 1866, was 531
bushels, and the gross return for them was 9752. 6*. 9d.
The natives exported to Ostend sold at 4/. 9*. a
bushel. The average price for which the natives sold
was 4/. 15*. a-bushel.

863. Generally^ in your experience as a Commissioner
of Fisheries, have you read the Act of Parliament under
which the Company has been constituted? — Yes.

864. And you have heard the evidence upon the
enquiries before the Committees ? — I have.

865. In your judgment, has the Heme Bay Company
faithfully fulfilled the duties which were imposed upon
them? — Yes; they have faithfully fulfilled the duties imposed
upon them, and having been one of the persons appointed by the
section of the Act, who might be called upon to report if they did
not do so y if I were called on to do so, I could most conscien-
tiously say they have done everything that could be reasonably
expected of them. As a public officer

866. You had a duty imposed upon you as a public
officer, to make the enquiries ? — Yes ; I went down frequently
to see how they were going on, because I might have been called
on under the Act to report, and if I was called on, I could most
conscientiously say that they have done a great deal. I think it
very hard, after all your money has been expended and no-
thing alleged against them approaching to a defalcation
if they get no return.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gates.

867. You do not know anything about the scientific
culture of oysters ? — I will give no opinion about the scien*
tific culture of oysters, it is beyond my knowledge. I do
not understand it.

868. You were in the Committee-room and heard the

106

evidence given upon which the Bill passed? — Yes ; I heard
it all, or almost all.

869. You know it was proposed by Mr. Buckland, at
all events, to breed oysters scientifically? — Yes, it was
proposed, and several experiments have been tried. I hope
they are not given up.

870. And with that view they made these tanks, and
they hope to breed the oysters in them ? — I cannot recollect
the details exactly but I heard a great deal about the
tanks.

871. Did you hear Sir Charles Fox examined ? — I think
I did.

872. Did you hear Mr. Frank Buckland examined? — I
think I did.

873. Did they propose to breed oysters in those tanks?
« — Yes, they proposed to try every experiment tried in France and
elsewhere.

874. They proposed to have four tanks ? — I do not re-
collect that at all.

875. How lately have you been at the Heme Bay
Fishery ? — Very lately.

876. How lately? — Well, I think I have been there
within three weeks, something thereabouts.

877. How many tanks have you ever seen there? — I
did not go to see the tanks at all. I went out on the
ground to see it dredged.

878. Were you not taken down to see Mr. Crofts' tank?
—No.

879. You saw no tank ? — I saw no tank ; the last time I
was there, I think was in the autumn last, a little before
the winter set in. I walked down and saw the tank you
call Crofts' tank; he came with me and showed me that he
was then progressing with the work ; he had several things
done, but it was not finished, and he told me that that was
the tank that the experiment was to be tried in. It was
not completed then.

880. It was Mr. Crofts' tank? — I do not know whose it
Was.

107

881. It was not on the ground of the Heme Bay Com-
pany ? — I cannot tell.

882. The last time yon were down there, you did not
see any tanks at all ? — I did not go near the place.

883. Were you told it was a failure ? — I enquired a
great many times how it was going on, and I was told it
had not succeeded.

884. Have you seen any excavations they have been
making for the formation of those tanks ? — No, I did not
go to that part of the place.

884*. Were you told that there were excavations being
made? — Yes, I was ; I heard all about the tramway, and a
good deal of conversation.

885. I did not ask you about the tramway — the tanks
is what I am going upon — you did not see them ? — No ; I
went direct to Heme Bay, and I went out on the water at
once.

886. When was the first time you went after the Heme
Bay Act passed ? — I should say some weeks — I cannot re-
collect exactly — I did not go till after they had commenced
putting their oysters there — they had got some oysters
from Ireland, and I went down soon after that I recol-
lect.

887. Was that after they had been cleaning it ? — Yes :
and they had been putting down culch, and they showed
me the great quantity of oyster shells they brought from
the Channel.

888. They must clean it before they put down the
tsulch? — Yes.

889. You say you have seen some of it dredged re-
cently, and it was quite clean? — Yes, what I saw was in very
good order.

890. When was it you saw a portion of it dredged? — I
said before, about three weeks ago, very recently.

891. About how much did you see dredged? — I think
we were on the ground something about three hours, and
there were a great many attempts made in different places
— we changed about — and the dredge was thrown out and

108

a scrape was made, and then another scrape. There were
several scrapes made, as they call it.

892. About how many scrapes ? — I dare say twenty. I
cannot recollect. The stuff was all brought up to me to
examine and look at.

893. Did you not get up any weed or any substance of
that sort ? — JV0, there was very little weed.

894. Any dead oysters? — Yes, a good many of the oysters
off the Irish bed died. I think that very often occurs when
oysters are conveyed a long way, and I was informed that
there was a mishap occurred to one cargo of Irish oysters,
the boat was delayed, and there were a good many dead
oysters in the Irish part of the bed.

895. In the dredging, did you find any five-fingers ? —
Very few five-fingers, that I remarked particularly — there
were very few indeed.

896. Now about the oyster beds which they have. Do
you know how much ground they have covered with beds ?
— No, I could not at all tell. I was only taken where the
Irish oysters were laid and the Welsh oysters were laidi
and new oysters were laid. I was anxious to see if there
was any spat.

897. Who took you down ? — One of the Company took
me down — there was a boat and everything ready when
we arrived. Mr. Crofts was with us and three or four
men.

898. You were taken down with a view to giving
evidence here ? — Yes, I was requested to go down and see
how it stood, and everything, I was told, should be ready
for me to satisfy myself.

899. When was it you had the oysters sent to
you to test; was it recently? — Some time before that;
recently.

900. The oysters that were sent to you to test, you
did not see them dredged ? — No.

901. They might have been a selected sample ? — They
might be ; they were sent to me from the officer of the
Company.

109

902. Do you know if the oysters that were sent up to
you were dredged up from the sea or fattened in this
experimental tank ? — No ; of course I cannot speak to
that, I did not see them dredged; I can only speak of
those I did see dredged.

903. Of the oysters you did see dredged, you say some were
good and a great many bad? — There was not what I would call
a bad oyster among them ; there was not an oyster among them
that was not in a progressive state to a good condition.

904. At present they are rather thin and watery? —
Yes ; they are in a great many stages.

905. I am speaking of the four-year olds ? — I did not
examine the age of any.

906. You can tell the age of them ? — No, I cannot.

907. Not with your experience ? — No ; and I dare say
there are a good many who profess they can that cannot
be certain, although they might give a pretty good guess
by their shells, but I am not sure they are correct, those
who profess to know.

908. This Company having got their Act in 1864, this
being 1866, might they not have purchased " half-ware,"
as it is called, and had it down in their beds and fattened
it by this time ? — I am not satisfied about that.

909. You know what I mean? — That would depend
upon what ground they came from. There might be very
good half-ware from one ground and very bad from another
that would require two or three years to fatten.

910. I suppose it came from the immediate neighbour-
hood and some congenial soil? — If half-ware had been
taken off a really good fattening ground of course it would
be in a forward state.

911. It might be good enough for the fish consumers of
Margate to eat ? — No doubt it alt depends on where they
come from. I know hundreds of thousands of pounds
worth have been brought from Ireland to my knowledge,
and they are never fit to eat at all when they are brought
here, but they become good oysters after a considerable
time.

110

Re-examined by Mr. White.

912. As my friend has put forward this question of the
tanks again, you were present at the proceedings of the
Committee of 1864?— Yes.

913. Will you tell me this, was not the main question
discussed before the Committee — the policy of appro-
priating common grounds ? — Quite so, I advocated that
myself.

914. And in fact, by the Act of Parliament, it creates a
Company similar, in some respects, to the Whitstable
Company which possessed appropriated ground on which
they could lay oysters ? — As a public officer for many years,
I advocated it, and there are reports before Parliament to
show that, because I considered it of very great utility to
enable these grounds to be worked by private parties.
They go for little or no good unless they are made private
property.

915. And it was put forward that experiments were to
be tried in breeding ? — Quite eo.

916. In your judgment, would it not have been very im-
prudent for a Company just starting to have at once plunged
into the great expense of tanks ? — Extremely so, and I strongly
advised them to go by degrees and not lay out too much. I wit-
nessed another experiment. I went down last summer to
where Mr. Buckland had laid a quantity of tiles at a very
large expense, and that has not succeeded either, but I
suppose there was not a spat fell on that part, and although
it has not succeeded in the last spat season it may yet
succeed.

N.B. The tiles did not cost the Company 30/.,
Mr. Buckland who is very economical in his experi-
ments also tried fascines, according to the French
plan, and hurdles.

917. This Act of Parliament for which we are applying,
proposes to give to the Board of Trade power to eay

Ill

whether or not it is expedient that within a certain time
these tanks should be constructed? — I should still recommend
the people who have the means to try all these experiments, but
to try them by degrees and not to expend large sums of money
before they have something to warrant it

918. Now about the dead oysters, you say it is a com-
mon thing for oysters brought from a distance that some
of them should die ? — Yes, from the fattening grounds. I
know in Ireland one of the best fattening grounds that
only contains four acres.

919. Out of what space? — It covers a space of four
acres, and I know myself — I have examined those beds —
there are certain little holes or places in that four acres
where an oyster will not fatten, and not only that, but
will die after a certain time, and they have from experi-
ence discovered that, and they take care not to put them
there.

920. But they do not know what it is ? — No.

921. When you went down for the purpose of dredging
these grounds, did you direct the Whitstable men where
to go ? — No ; I told them to take me to where the Irish
oysters were laid, and to where the Welch oysters were
laid, and to take me to some of the grounds where they
had laid culch. I wanted to see whether there was
spat, and in what stage the Irish and Welch oysters
were.

922. And you found a good marketable oyster? — Yes; T
I found a good marketable oyster.

Captain GEORGE AUSTIN, sworn.

N.B. This witness is a highly respected gentle-
man of great experience and accurate observation in
all matters relating to oyster fisheries, both in the

112

estuary of the Thames and on the western coast of
Ireland.

Examined by Mr. M. GRIFFITHS.

971. Are you one of the joint owners of the Pollard
Fishery at Whitstable ?— Yes.

972. That is a fishery on the west of the Whitstable
present ground ? — Yes ; adjoining them on the west.

973. And have you also had experience in the oyster
fisheries in Ireland belonging to you ? — Yes ; I have the
largest fishery in Ireland.

974. You were examined before the Sea Fishery Com-
missioners, and your evidence is alluded to in their report?
— Yes ; the Commissioners stated it was the only thriving
and profitable bed in all Ireland.

975. [By a Lord). At what point? — Near Westport.

976. Mr. Griffiths : Do you know the ground that
the Whitstable Company at present possess? — Yes, very
well.

977. Are you able to say whether at present it is stocked
or not ? — I have not gone over it ; but it is perfectly well
known in the bay.

978. It is not one-quarter stocked at the present time ?
— When I mention stock, I mean the ground— the best
stocked ever remembered — I mean the ground which was
the best stocked ever remembered in 1859 ; at that time,
there was a large part of the ground that they did not
use.

979. Now you are acquainted also with the ground
which the Whitstable Company seek to obtain by this
Bill?— Yes.

980. A portion of what is called the " flats' 1 ? — Yes.

981. Is that portion of the flats the best portion for obtaining
the spat of the native oyster ? — Probably the portion taken by
the Heme Bay Company was about the best. The whole Bay
swore that it teas, and I believe that they are not far from
right.

113

Mr. WHITE: That Wis taken in J 864?— Yes, the part
granted already by the Act of Parliament, but taking the
remainder of the flats which the Whitstable Company
asked for, that is the only piece of the flats which is a
large public fishery ; there are a large number of men who
gain their living entirely from that.

983. Mr. M. Griffiths : Is it the best part of that which
is still left of the public fishery ? — You may go down now
and telegraph there, and you inay find forty or fifty still
upon that piece, but upon the outlying piece you will
find very few indeed ; they can always get a living upon
that piece, but not upon the outlying piece. They can
stop Upon this piece in very bad weather, at least in
middling weather, but the other portion is much inore
exposed.

984. Do you know the number of people in Whitstable
who have been in the habit of fishing that flat? — I have
not the least doubt 250 men who more ot less gain their
living entirely upon this piece of ground.

985. In good spat years, I suppose they collect
spat? — Yes; that is their chief occupation, it is the most
valuable.

986. (By a Lord). The detail of the fishery is not ot
importance?— It is very valuable for this reason. This
goes to the root of every thing before you to-day. There
is a particular spat of oyster that falls upon this ground, and no
where else in the world; it is the thing that makes the native oyster.

987. Mr. M. Griffiths : Is there also a valuable fishery
there besides the spat — the whelk ? — Yes.

988. Are you able to say what has been the product of
that fishery within the last two years ? — From enquiries,
made at the time, the Whitstable Company here gave
evidence about it, they proved it was worth about 10,000Z.
I have made very close enquiries among the fishermen
and others, and there can be no question that it produces
about 12,000Z. a-year at the present time.

989. Is there any other fish except the whelk which is
caught on that particular part of the flats ? — There are

114

soles, and a large number of men go trawling for soles.
There are also eels and turbot caught there occasionally.
I bought a lobster the day before I came from Whitstable, a
very fine one caught there. There are also large numbers
of men employed in catching plaice. At certain periods of
the year there are a large number of boats that go
catching shrimps. Also there is about that ground a
turbot fishery.

990. Do you know from your experience of oyster
fishery, whether it is desirable that the spat, after it is
deposited, should be removed as soon as possible? — There
is no doubt it is, if it lies upon the flats ; .the whole
evidence given before these Committees all goes to the
same point — it runs great risk of being smothered in the
mud or the sand or eaten up by the five-fingers. It
requires at once to be removed into the proper bed.

991. Do you know whether the fishermen of Whitstable
have also been in the habit of collecting cement-stones
from this piece of ground? — Yes; a large quantity of
cement-stones have been gathered — many thousands of tons.

992. That amounted to some 3000/. or 4000/. in the
course of the year? — Averaging 4000/., no doubt. There
can be no reasonable man, who is not prejudiced, that
could have any doubt that the different products are
now sought to be confiscated for the benefit of the freemen.
There is no doubt that there is a public fishery of 30,000/.
a-year; and in a good year, when good spat falls, like
1858 and 1859, it is impossible to say what the value of
the spat is. There is an account I have made up for five
years ; it was printed by the Whitstable Company them-

elves. The Whitstable Company bought, for five years
ending 1861, 156,338 wash ; the Pollard Company,
Mr. Gann, manager, 54,000 wash : that is only for two
years. The Faversham Company make their return in the
same report five years, which five years of the Faversham
Company is 22,345 wash. It was collected by the Faver-
sham fishermen. There may be an error in that. Then
Milton, 12,000 wash, The whole of the Essex boats, who

115

deal immensely in spat, they took away altogether 250,000
wash ; and other private boats and various other parties
took about 60,000 more. That would make a total of
544,683 wash. Upon the first calculation, every one of these
wash of brood ought to produce a London bushel of native
oysters, and they are now worth 5/. 10s., or something of that
kind, and the amount may be conceived which 544,683
bushels of oysters would represent ; therefore it is a prize
worth fighting for.

N.B. — The Whitstable Company's return for the
seven years 1857 to 1863, of the quantity and cost of
the brood laid down on their grounds, showed that
during those seven years they paid 146,9937. 7*. for
394,053 £-wash ; or, within an unimportant fraction,
10*. a-wash.

At this rate, the cost of the 544,633 wash would
be 272,316/. 10*., and, at one bushel for every wash,
and 5/. 10*. for every bushel, the gross proceeds would
be 2,995,756/. 10*.

But 5/. 10*. a-bushel is a most exceptionally high
price; and it would be safer to take 40*. a-bushel,
which was about the lowest price during the seven
years.

At this rate, the gross proceeds of the 544,633
wash would be 1,089,266/.

According to Mr. Plummer's evidence as to the
300 acres which were taken into cultivation in 1858,
it would require four years to realize this 1,089,266/.

If it took 600 men, instead of the "Whitstable
Company's 300 men, to cultivate this quantity of
oysters, and every man were paid 112/. a-year wages
— the highest payment (according to Mr. Nicholls)
which the Whitstable men have had — the wages
would amount to 268,800/., which, added to the
272,316/. 10*., the cost of the wash, would make
541,116/. 10*., leaving 547,049/. 10*. balance of the
1,089,266/.

I 2

116

These figures tend to show that the report that
the 300 Whitstable men have received about 2802.
a-year eaoh is not without an appearance of probability.

993. Do you consider that the ground which the Whit-
stable now wish to obtain is a suitable ground as a fattening
ground for the oysters?— It is impossible. It is precisely the
same ground as the Heme Bay ground.

994. Will you state the reasons why it is not suitable
as a fattening ground for the oysters? — There is a great
deal of moving sand, and there are some places which are
tolerably good; but it is the place that fats an oyster, and an
oyster left there would never become a native, because it does not
grow there, and does not get fat; it becomes all shell.

N.B. — Here Captain Austin seems to have spoken
from hearsay. The five square miles which the Heme
Bay Company have cleared are singularly free from
mud and moving sand. See Mr. Cholmondeley Pen-
cell's evidence (721), that on weighing the oysters
from time to time there was found a very steady
improvement in the proportion of meat to shell.
Captain Austin evidently had not applied to the
oysters on the Heme Bay ground the test of weigh-
ing their meat against their shell. There have been
dredged up very recently from parts of the Com-
pany's grounds which they were clearing some scores
of bushels of fat oysters, the natural produce of the
grounds, in the finest condition as regards both heavy
meat and thin shell.

Cross-examined by Mr. Merkwether.

996. As I understand you, that part which was given
to the Heme Bay Company in 1864 you consider the best
ground ? — 1 think, about equally good with this.

997. You rather give it the preference. Did you
oppose the Heme Bay Company getting that? — I was
very much opposed to them, although I did not get up the
personal opposition.

117

998. Did you oppose them before Parliament? — Of
course I did not.

999. Did your clients ? — I cannot say, I had nothing
whatever to do with it. I was out of England the greater
part of the time till just before it came on or I should
have opposed them, for I never supposed such a grant of
a public fishery would have been given.

1000. You did not oppose them ? — No.

1001. Do you oppose them now? — The question has
been answered. There is no opposition. I do not, or
the Whitstable fishermen do not.

1002. May I ask you why you do not ? — I have not
been instructed to do it. There is no question that there
is not the money. The opposition here costs a good deal
of money, and it is a misfortune for them.

1003. It would not have cost very much more to
oppose them ; your evidence would be the same ? — I do not
know how that would be. My Parliamentary Agents
would satisfy you upon that.

1004. You have spoken of this as a prize worth fighting
for? — Yes.

1005. I think it is a prize that you have had a battle
for yourself. Are you a Director of the Ham Extension of
last year? — lam.

1006. Is the Ham Extension indicated by this green
upon this map ? — I believe so.

1007. Did you come to Parliament last year and get
that? — I was in Ireland, and I knew nothing about it till
the Bill was got.

1008. It seems to me you go to Ireland just at the
wrong moment ? — I go very often.

1009. You are a Director of that Ham Extension ? — I
am.

1010. Have you lifted up your hands and raised your
voice against being invested with those powers since ?—
No, certainly not.

1011. You have accepted the goods which the Lords
ax*d Commons have provided? — Yes; there is just this

118

difference, that the Ham ground never was fished by the
public. There never was a fishery upon it at alL The
consequence was, when the Bill went before the House,
there was not a single soul who noticed or objected to it.
It was a piece of worthless ground. It was taken with
the idea of trying to make it useful, being near the head
quarters.

1012. What do you say to the Heme Bay people's
proposal ; they having nine square miles as against our
three square miles, what do you say to their proposing to
take the ground we ask of the Committee? — I think it is
very preposterous. They have at least twenty times
more than they can use, I believe, for sometime to come, and
therefore, to ask for more now, at this time, is the wildest
thing I have ever heard of, and would be to those who
understand the matter

N.B, — Captain Austin, probably, was not aware
that " the leasehold ground " for which the Heme Bay
Company were asking was included in the lease from
Earl Cowper. If he had been aware of it he would
probably have considered it not "preposterous," but
posterous (if the word may be permitted) in them to ask
for it.

1013. I accept your evidence to that extent, at any
rate; do you know that they only want this for the
purpose of its being a deposit place ? — Every man in the
Whitstable, and myself among the number, are perfectly
satisfied what you want it for is for the value of the spat
that Mis there.

1014. Accepting your view that we want it for the
spat? — And the whelks as well, which are worth 12,000/.
a-year.

1015. Which is the adjacent oyster ground to this
district?— This.

1016. What is the adjacent oyster ground to the fresh
ground that we ask for?— It adjoins the Heme Bay on
one side, and the Whitstable on the other, and the Faver-

119

sham at this point. Ifc is taking the whole Vacant ground
among the other fisheries.

1017. May I venture to ask you. I put it boldly, and
probably you will give an answer not in accordance with
my view ; will not the greater part of the spat floating
over that ground come from the Whitstable oyster
fishery? — It is just as likely to come from Faversham.
The state of the tide would Certainly bring it mofre from
the Faversham than the Whitstable. The tide sets off
the shore there, and the Faversham would cross that blue
piece, but the spat that falls on that piece of ground
which the Whitstable Company are asking for, is just as
likely to come from the Milton and the Faversham as from
the Whitstable.

1018. I cannot expert IaA entirety Cdttlfortable answer
from you, but may I take it it would be as likely to come
from the Whitstable as from the Faversham ? — No, I said
"not quite so likely." I think there would be a larger
proportion come from tke Faversham on account of the
state of the tide.

lOld. Which has the greatest abuttal upon this ground,
the Faversham or the Whitstable ? — As to the area, the
space where the oysters are laid* I should presume the
Faversham.

1020. I am taking the water and the spat, and 1 ask
you and direct your attention to that question ; which is
the greatest area alongside of the blue bit we are seeking
to take, the Faversham or the Whitstable ?— Aiong the
blue bit; the plans are coloured in different cofoum Will
you allow me to look at a plan.

1021. Here is one (apian is handed to the witness)? — The
Whitstable.

1022. And very much »o? — Not if you consider the
laying ground.

1023. The laying ground is the area of the whole fishery ?
— It is perhaps a fourth or more possibly*

1024. You would put it as a fourth or more ? — As near
as I could form an opinion I should say one-fourth or more.

120

1025. And I am to understand you to say that the set
off the Fa veraham would be more upon that blue part than
the set off the Whitstable ? — I said a trifle more ; but there
is very little difference — a trifle more.

1026* The direction is a trifle more? — Yes.

N.B. — Captain Austin's evidence before the Sea
Fisheries Commission is well worth reading by those
who wish for information about oyster fisheries.

Mr. THOMAS GANN, worn.

Examined by Mr. Griffiths.

1028. Are you a shipowner living at Whitstable?—
Yes.

1029. Are you one of the joint proprietors of the
Pollard Oyster Fishery?— Yes.

1030. On the west of the Whitstable Company?—
Yes.

1031. You have great experience, therefore, in the
growing of oysters ? — Yes.

1032. How .long have you lived at Whitstable ?— All
my life.

1033. Are you able to say what number of public
fishermen there are at Whitstable not conneoted with the
Company?— I think from 250 to 300.

1034. Have those fishermen been in the habit of fishing
this piece of ground that the Whitstable Company now
seek to obtain? — Yes, to a large extent — they go there
five times out of six— they fish principally upon that.

1035. Do you know whether that piece of flat is the
best of the whole of the flats, both for the deposit of spat
and for fishing? — Yes.

1036. What sort of fish is caught there at the time that
there is no deposit of the spat?— They catch a great many
whelks, and they sell the Ht-ar fish they catch for manure.

121

They get a good deal of cement stones, and mussels some-
times if there are any.

1037. Do you know at all what would be the annual
value of the fishery?— Well, I should think from 25,000/.
to 30,000/. a-year.

1038. And how would you make up that amount? —
With the cement stones, five fingers, mussels and some-
times cockles.

1039. And the whelks fishery is an extensive one ? —
Yes ; the men get a living now, day after day, by whelks
alone.

1040. What is the use made of the whelks ? — They are
brought to London, a great many of them, and sold in the
markets the same as common oysters, and a great many
are sent away for cod baits, for which they are considered
the best.

1041. You have been living so long at Whitstable,
are you able to say from your own observation, how much
time the members of the Company are employed at their
work for the Company? — I have known them to go off,
and not work upon the ground more than a quarter of an
hour — I have known them go off after one dredging —
they have not been more than an hour from shore to shore
— sometimes they are more, but I have known them to do
that.

1042. Take a recent period since Christmas downwards
to some time, what do you suppose the average time each of
the members would be occupied in that way ? — Not an hour upon
the ground.

1043. Do you suppose they are occupied every day of the
week in that way f — No, three times a-week.

1044. Not an hour in a day? — Not an hour upon the
ground.

1045. Have you ever known from any persons of the
public fishermen of Whitstable being employed by the
Whitstable Company? — Very rarely indeed — only when
there is a little more work than they like to do. They go
and lay oysters, which will take four or five hours, then

122

the fishermen will not go — they get somebody else to go,
because it is hard work.

1046. Do you consider that this ground which the
Whitstable Company are now going for, is suitable ground
for the fattening of oysters ? — No, I think not.

1047. Why do you think not? — / never knew them to be
very Jit — very seldom — not so good as they are on the private
grounds.

1048. Do you know Mr. Gann, whether the Whitstable
Company have got their present ground fully stocked, or
how far it is stocked ? — I should not think more than one
quarter part of what they had in 1861. They have been
selling from that stock for the last five years.

Cross-examined by Mr. Merewether.

1054. You are a partner of the last witness, are you
not?— Yes.

1068. May I ask you whether you opposed the Heme
Bay getting their land in 1864 ? — I did not.

1070. Did you not take a lease from Lord Cowper of
the Swalecliffe Manor ? — My father did.

1071. And what was the end of that lease ? — The end
of it was, that they could not find the proper title.

1072. And was there not some litigation about it ? —
Yes.

1073. And was not your father beaten? — Yes.

1074. And it ended in nothing? — Of course it
did.

1075. Mr. White: I have one question to ask you.
Was the information which is now in possession of the
Heme Bay Company not in your father's possession at that
time?— It was not. My father said he had seen the
grant.

1076. And that was not accepted as evidence ? — No,
the Attorney said he could not find it.

123

WILLIAM STROUD, sworn.
Examined by Mr. GRIFFITHS.

1077. You are a dredgerman or fisherman living at
Whitstable?— Yes.

1078. How long have you lived there ? — All my life.

1079. Have you been in the habit of fishing the flats
which the Whitstable Company are seeking to get ? — Yes.

1080. Is that the best part of the flats for obtaining spat ?
— Yes.

1081. Do you catch any other fish there except the
spat? — Yes.

1082. What fish do you get? — Whelks, soles, shrimps,
and such like ; all sorts of fish.

1092. Have you discussed the matter with the other
fishermen as to what it is worth? — 50, 000 J. or 60,000/. a-
year.

HENRY EOWDEN, sworn.
Examined by Mr. M. GRItnTHS.

1 107. You are a flatsman, living at Whitstable ? — I am.

1108. How long have you been there? — I was born
there.

1109. How long have you been a fisherman there? —
I have been on continually fifteen years, and perhaps I
might say sixteen for what I know — never any where else.

1112. Is this piece of ground the Company wish to
obtain, the best part of the flats for fishing? — It is.

1113. Is that the best place for getting the spat of the
native oyster when any spat is to be found ? — It is.

Ili4. What other fish can be caught on that piece? —
Fish of ail sorts, almost.

1115. Principally what? — Whelks, shrimps, plaice,
turbot and many other fish, anything that comes to the
net.

124

1127. Do you know how long it takes a member of the
Company to go oat and catch what yon call a stint? —
Sometimes they are gone a very little while.

1128. What time is that ?— About half an hour, or less.

1129. Do yon know how often they would go oat for a
stint? — I have known them them go oat three times
arweek, that is the time they are on the ground I am speak-
ing of

FREDERICK MONGER, sworn.

Examined by Mr. M. GRIFFITHS.

1180. Are you foreman, or were you last year foreman
of the Faversham Oyster Company? — Yes.

1192. Do you think it would be a great injury to the
Faversham men if the Wbitstable Company got this land?
— Very great indeed, for tins reason : the scarcity of spat
has caused nearly all the oysters to be dredged off the
Faversham ground, and their principal means of subsist-
ence will be from working on the flats.

1193. Ton know this piece of ground the WhHstaUe
Company are wishing to get — do you know whether it is
a suitable ground for the fattening of oysters? — Well, I
should think not.

1194. It can be used to obtain the spat, but it is not a
fit place to fatten in ? — It is excellent brood ground.

It will be seen from the foregoing evidence and expla-
nations, that the statements which have been circulated
with the object of creating a prejudice against the Heme
Bay Company, will not bear the test of candid examination.

All slanderous statements require a semblance of truth
to give them plausibility, and facte which are undisputed,
are made to support a superstructure of gratuitous fabrica-
tions.

Thus : the fact, that the Heme Bay Company, not two

125

years old, have made only a beginning in oyster culture, is
used as a foundation for the allegation that they are doing
nothing : — the fact, that their oyster grounds having been
dredged bare of oysters have come into their hands in a
state of nature, is employed to support the statement that
their oyster grounds are worthless for breeding and for
fattening : — the fact, that the oysters which they have sent
to market after being only eighteen months on their
grounds are not equal to the best Whitstable natives which
have been laid down four years or more, is made the basis
of a prediction that they never can succeed in fattening
oysters fit for the public market : — the fact, that the Com-
pany have proceeded cautiously in making experiments in
artificial oyster culture, is caught at to justify the asser-
tion that their plans are an utter failure : — and so on.

The best retaliation on the Company's detractors is
a statement of facts ; and it will afford much satisfaction
to the shareholders to know, that, after most careful
investigation, this pamphlet can be concluded thus : —

1. The Heme Bay Company's oyster grounds are among
the best of the breeding grounds in the estuary of the
Thames, on which alone the true native spat falls.

2. The experience of only eighteen months has shown
that they are good fattening grounds for natives, and
gives hope that a few years may show that they are
among the best of the fattening grounds.

3. The Company have already cleared about five
square miles, and culched about one square mile of their
grounds, and have laid down on parts of their beds many
millions of oysters.

4. When the best Whitstable natives, four years or more
on the ground, were selling at 6/. a-bushel, the Heme Bay
natives, only eighteen months on the ground, sold at 5/.
a-bushel, and when the price of Whitstable natives had
fallen to 51. a-bushel, the price of the Heme Bay natives
had fallen only to 47. is. a-bushel.

5. Mr. Ffennell, one of the Fishery Commissioners for
England, whose official duty it may be to report on the

12fi

Company's proceedings, testifies that " they have faithfully
fdlfilled the duties imposed on them," and "have done
everything that could be reasonably expected of them."
June, 1866.

The following correspondence has passed between some
of the Shareholders and the Directors : —

" Gentlemen,

" We (who hold in the aggregate about one-sixth of
the shares in the Heme Bay Company), having carefully
read and considered the pamphlet winch we send to you,
adopt it, and beg leave to suggest that you should have it
printed and sent to the shareholders.

" We are, gentlemen,

" Your obedient servants,
John Harvey,*
Charles Saunders,!
Henry Shuttleworth,J
John Bullar.§
" To the Directors of the Heme Bay, &c., Company."

" 10, Adelphi Terrace, W.C.,
" Gentlemen, June 27, 1866.

" The Directors are much obliged for the pamphlet of
which you have been good enough to send them a draft.
They nave given it careful consideration, and, having
regard to the quantity of valuable and authentic infor-
mation which it contams, they concur in your suggestion
that it would be desirable that the shareholders should be
placed in possession of it, and have therefore instructed
me to circulate it among them.

" I remain, gentlemen,

" Your obedient servant,

"A. F. Pennell, Secretary.
" To Messrs. Harvey, Saunders,
Shuttleworth, and BuUar."

* Chairman of Quarter Sessions for Bedfordshire.

t County Court Judge and Recorder of Wells, Plymouth, and Deronport.

X One of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House.

§ Barrister-at-law.

niVTKD BT HAB&ISON AHD SON1, R . KABTIX'S LAH>.

"<*£.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Herne bay, Hampton and Reculver oyster fishery company. Evidence taken on oath in the ..."

See other formats