28 
OYSTEE CULTUEE COMMISSION—MINUTES OE EVIDENCE. 
860. - And that has answered well ? Xes; the best part of the timber sinks into the mud, and that prevents 
the oysters from sinking. It is only certain wood that they will stick to. 
861. Could not a very considerable profit be made out of an area of 50 acres, if you had it as a freehold ? 
J7Not., 187G. there could not. ^ i ■ i i i i j 
862. In England there are many oyster farms which are not over 5 acres in extent, which have belonged 
to the same families for generations, and which pay handsomely ? iTes, provided you could go to the 
expense of making stone walls for the oysters to accumulate on ; they want a fine hard bottom, with plenty 
of room to accumulate. 50 acres would be a very small piece j if you took 100 bags off 50 acres it 
would make a great hole in it. • i r • o 
863. Do you know how many oysters can be spread over an acre of ground, for growing and fattening ? 
I should say about twenty bags of young spawn could be put upon it. 
864. How many oysters would there be in a bag ? That is more than any one could tell. 
865. IVTiat do you mean by spawn ? Young oysters. 
866 . That is, under a year old ? They are not six months old. 
867. Anything under a year old; about 6,000 to the bushel ? More than that. 
868 . How many bags could you plant on 1 acre? About four bags, if they were broken up and spread 
about among the wood and stone, would make a very good bed. 
860. In evidence given before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, it was stated that a million 
of oysters could be spread upon one acre of ground j you think that is too much ? I do sir. 
870. But if half, or even a quarter of the number were put down, could not a good deal bo done with 50 
acres if you had a freehold of it ? Well, if I had a freehold of 50 acres I should like to cover it half with 
oysters and the other half with rubbish. 
871. What do you mean by rubbish ? Shells and bottles. 
872. You w^ould use half of it as growing and fattening ground, and the rest for catching spat ? Yes, I 
should have a wall on each side and the oysters in the middle. 
873. Now, even with the present price of oysters, could you not derive a very good income from 50 acres ? 
No, I don’t think it w'ould pay a man to w^ork it. 
874. Did it not pay you when you worked it ? No, I never had the opportunity of trying it much. 
875. I should like now to have your opinion on a question of public policy—whether you consider it 
desirable that the rivers should continue to bo leased, as at present, in large blocks ; or whether it would 
not be to the public interest to lease them in small blocks ? It might if the rivers were in a fit state to go 
to work upon ; but not as they were when w'e leased them—completely w’orked out, 
876. But if you had 50 acres it would never be worked out; you would always have plenty of spat ? 50 
acres would not be enough—it would not be worth working at. 
877. How do they manage in England with only 5 acres; I have seen in Prance thousands of oyster parks, 
as they are called, which do not measure over 30 yards across ? AVell, there must be something different 
in the price of oysters, or else they must grow thicker than they do here. 
878. But looking to the public interest, do you think it is expedient for the Government to lease such large 
areas so many miles in length to a few persons, and to shut out the rest of the population ? Yes, I don’t 
see that it would pay to let them in any other way. If the rivers had not been ransacked as they have been 
it might, but not as they are now. 
879. Supposing they were in the state in which 3 '’ou first knew them ? When I first knew them there were 
plenty of oysters, but there were none when I leased them. 
880. Well, going back to that time—to the condition the rivers w’ere in when you first knew them, and 
putting yourself in the place of the Govermnent—howw'ould you deal with these rivers ; would you lease 
them in 50-acre blocks or in blocks comprising thousands of acres ? Well, I should say for the present 
time that a lease of 500 acres—supposing the rivers to be in the condition they w'cro when I first 
knew them—would pay a man better than the whole of a river at a larger rent. ^ 
881. What would you think would be a fair rent—having regard to the public interest ? I should say 
the same as I paid for my first 50-acre lease —£2 a year rent. 
882. You think about £20 a year for 500 acres would be a fair rent? Yes, I think it would ho a fair 
rent for a river, considering what has got to be done to it. If j'ou once take oysters off the ground they 
will never accumulate there again. 
883. It was stated by a witness befoi'o a Select Committee of the Parliament in Sydney some seven or 
eight years ago that he thought £2 lOs. an acre rent would bo a fair rent? Then he must have had to 
work very hard to keep his bed with oysters on it and to get his money out of it. 
884. You would think that rent excessive? I should, sir. 
885. Do you think £1 an acre would be too much ? I should say so ; I think 5s. an aero is too much for 
ground to keep as an oyster bed. 
886 . But if you had it for a permanency—unless tlio Government should require to resume it, when of 
course you would receive compensation or the value of your improvements—so that it might be trans¬ 
mitted from father to son for generations; in that case would you consider it too much ? No, because . 
then a person could build stone walls on it and make it valuable; but now if he were to do that, by the 
time he had finished the lease would have nearly expired. 
887. llieu for a permanency, if the - rivers were leased—not the wliolc of a river to one person, but in 
moderate-sized blocks, and 8nj)po8ing the principle of free selection were adopted the same us with land 
—what rent do you think would be fair ? Every one to pick his own ground ? 
888 . Yes, to pick his own ground? Under those circumstances I sliould not grudge lOs. an acre. 
889. Por blocks of 40 acres? No, about 100 acres, if I were allowed to pick my own ground, because 
then if my improvements did not benefit me they would my family after me. 
890. How would it answer to select one portion of the land under water and the other portion above 
hi<^h-water-inark, where you could erect a liomostead and out-buildings, or have a farm at which you could 
work when not employed in your oyster beds ? I don’t think that would answer, because a man in the 
oyster business has no time for farming. ^ 
891. He would require a homcstcjid ? Yes, it would do very well for that, but it Avould be very hard to 
get a place to live on anywhere near where the oysters were, and that is where he would want to be. 
892. Then this 100 acres could bo buoyed off? Yes, or staked or fenced round. 
893. Do you know of many such places where land could be obtained so situated as not to interfere with 
navigation ? That I do not. 
>lr. P. T. 
Johnson. 
894 . 
