of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 
221 
to embark in the new enterprise of artificial cultivation and propaga- 
tion of the oyster. After the lapse of thirty years it is possible to do 
justice to the labours of M. Coste, though, in the interval, his claims have 
not always received the acknowledgment they deserved. That he was no 
mere visionary dreamer, the present position of oyster-culture on the 
French littoral is ample evidence, and the returns which the French people 
have received and are receiving, fully justify the large national expendi- 
ture which the French Treasury incurred in starting oyster-culture. 
Mistakes were undoubtedly made, especially at St. Brieuc, in not paying 
sufficient attention to the forces of nature, but hitherto unparalleled 
successes, especially at Arcachon, were as surely attained. The successes 
attained entirely outweigh any mistakes which were made, and which are 
not unlikely to occur at the inception of any new enterprise like oyster- 
culture. In oyster-culture inattention to biological and physical condi- 
tions can only lead to mistakes, while a due observance of these will 
further the practical development of the artificial cultivation and propaga- 
tion of the oyster, when these are attempted in a practical manner on more 
than merely a laboratory scale. 
Questions of ownership of foreshore rights and rights to neighbouring 
bottom are comparatively simple in France and Holland. In the case of 
France the State is proprietor of all the foreshores and of the sea bottom 
within the territorial waters, and it does not divest itself of this right. 
Areas are let to capitalists and to fishermen, the State exacting a rental 
therefor, and granting certain privileges of fishing on natural banks to the 
seamen of its marine. In Holland there is a slight difference. The 
Government owns most of the oyster and mussel ground ; but there are 
cases where it is difficult to say whether the Crown, as representative of 
the public, or the proprietor of the ex adverso land, is proprietor of the 
fishery banks. In one instance that came under my notice both the Crown 
and the proprietor laid claim to mussel fisheries, and the one was as dis- 
inclined as the other to submit the claim to the arbitration of a court of 
justice. The difficulty was removed — not solved — by the Crown offer- 
ing on lease one part of the banks in dispute, while the adjoining pro- 
prietor made offer of another part of the same bank. Such disputes are 
few, as the executive government soon brushes alleged titles aside. 
The Dutch oyster industry is under the administration of the Zealand 
Fishery Board, guided by Mr C. J. Bottemanne, chief inspector of 
fisheries. The fisheries of Holland, including the Zealand oyster fishery, 
are regulated by the executive, acting under the counsel of the accom- 
plished zoologist, Dr Hoek, who devotes his whole time to the duties of 
his office, which is chief adviser on fisheries to the Dutch Government. 
In France the Minister of Marine has the management of the fisheries, 
and has the assistance of M. Bouchon-Brandeley, chief inspector, and of 
Dr Brocchi, a zoologist, who has given the best account of the French 
system of cultivation and propagation of the oyster, both in its biological 
and practical aspects. 
The system of letting the ground differs in the two countries, though in 
some respects it is similar. Before 1870 the oyster industry of Holland 
hardly existed, but in that year the Yerscke banks in the East Schelde 
were let to a society of fishermen for a period of 18 years, at an annual 
rental of £2250. The fishermen, however, were incapable of managing 
this new venture, and on their application they were relieved of their 
obligation, and the banks were let to a society of merchants at a rent 
£500 less than was paid by the fishermen. Now, these banks are let on 
lease, which expires in 1915, and the annual rental to the Dutch Treasury 
is £30,000. Dr Brocchi says, 'In 1877 ostreiculture received in this 
