OYSTER FISHERY LEGISLATION. IOiy 



which we will treat presently. If this course proceeds 

 without let or hindrance, the goose that lays the golden 

 egg will be slain, and oyster culturists will at last be rudely 

 awakened to the folly of their policy, by finding that the 

 remaining public breeding grounds are barren. 



It is more than probable, however, that the cause of the 

 failure of some private owners and companies has been a 

 want of dredging rather than over-dredging. Bad spatting 

 years and perhaps bad management have resulted in a want 

 of the wherewithal, and thus their grounds have not been 

 sufficiently worked. 



2. THE POLICY OF GRANTING CONCESSIONS OF PUBLIC 

 GROUNDS TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR COMPANIES. 



Before making any suggestions as to advantageous 

 alterations or additions to the existing laws on oyster- 

 culture, we are led to inquire whether the policy of granting 

 concessions of the foreshore or sea bottom to private 

 owners and companies has been successful or not. 



This system, inaugurated by the Herne Bay Company 

 Act in 1864, and more fully carried out by the Sea Fisheries 

 Act of 1868, has resulted in about thirty different orders 

 being made by the Board of Trade and confirmed by 

 Parliament. Further than this, the Herne Bay and Roach 

 River Companies possess powers from special Acts of Parlia- 

 ment, though also subject to Board of Trade inspection. 



The objects of these grants were no doubt the increased 

 production of oysters, the stimulation of the industry of 

 oyster-farming, and the decrease in price of a most 

 desirable kind of food. That these results have not been 

 obtained is very evident, but whether the failure can be 

 fairly attributed to the policy which dictated the grants is 

 an open question. 



