HISTORY or THE OYSTER. 9 



which was proved ; 2ndly, that the Act apphed only 

 to floating fish. A verdict was, however, taken for 

 the plahitift' for £10, with Hberty to defendant to 

 move for a nonsuit. Accordingly a rule was obtained 

 in the Queen's Bench for that purpose, and, after 

 long arguments on both sides, the court held the case 

 not to fall within the meaning of the statute, for that 

 the taking could not be penal, when the object of such 

 taking was not to destroy, but to preserve. 



In 1833 a select committee of the House of Com- 

 mons, appointed to inquire into the present state of 

 the British Channel fisheries and laws affecting the 

 fishing-trade of England, and to which committee 

 petitions from Emsworth, Brixham, Havant, Lang- 

 stone, Bedhampton,Farlingdon, Plymouth and Rosham, 

 complaining of distress, were referred, report, in refer- 

 ence to the petitions (see Report, p. 13), that not only 

 in these harbours, but in others, a practice generally 

 prevails, and which appears to be of recent introduc- 

 tion, of persons coming in fishing-smacks to dredge 

 for, and carry away, the young brood of oysters and 

 other shell-fish, to the great damage and destruction 

 of the oyster-beds and the brood of other fish there ; 

 and it appearing to youi committee that such a prac- 

 tice is also unjust, inasmuch as the oyster-beds in 

 those situations are generally known to have been 

 formed by the labour and industry of the fishermen 

 and inhabitants of the neighbourhood, or their an- 



