12 
OYSTER CEXTERE COMMISSION—MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 
Mr. 0. 
Clarke. 
10 Nov., 1876. 
321. 
■whether it 
the 
Is it not a fact that sreat numbers of oysters have been sold in Melbourne for a merely nominal 
price,—not because there was no demand, but because they were in an iinmature state and unlit tor tlie 
market; don’t you think that if they had been fine well-grown oysters they would have fetched a pod 
price? No, sir^ there k no demand; I have sent down hoiuc of the iiiiost oystcra poaaible, and tJiey have 
been literally Kiven away—sold for 10a. a ba^^ ^ i n o at 
322. AVe have it in evidence that tlie reason these oysters were rejected is that they wore too small. JNo, 
it was because the market was glutted. i i ii j j_ • 
3‘^3 iron J B Wihon^ AVe have it in evidence that certain oysters sold for 2os. a bag, and that certain 
other small oysters only fetclied 2s. Gd. and 3s. Gd. per bag? They may certainly have been ot nitenor 
(luality, and the market was glutted. If tliey had been of good tpiahty they would not have been sent to 
the fish market at all. , , i. i i 11 i 
324. Don’t you think that if these oysters had been good, there were plenty of people who -vvould have 
had sense enough to luive bouglit them and to have laid them down somewhere to get fat until they were 
wanted? No, there is only one firm, the AVestern Port Oy>ster Company, who liave tried to do that, and 
they have lost thousands of pounds hy it. i i i t i r o -v- 
325. The AVestern Port Company killed their own beds—the natural beds, I believe ? les; 
Avas from over-dredging I cannot say, though some of them furnished a supply enough to use up all 
oysters in the country. They were like the English oysters; we have scarcely any like them now, except 
a fe-vv on the Parramatta Eiver. _ -a* i. 
32G, You think they were an entirely difiereut species ? Altogether dinerent. 
327. If you took these rocknysters and laid them down in rich mud, would not they become altogether 
different—Supposing you took young oysters before they had attained any size or shape, and separated 
them and put them down on rich clay, such as they make use of in England for fattening ground, would 
not those oysters become altogether different both in shape and appearance—^almost a separate species 
from what they would have been if they had remained on the rocks or mangroves? I cannot seewhatwould 
make them alter ; the shells Avould be the same. m .t 
328. That is only your opinion,—you have not made the esperimei^ to see whether the shells would be the 
same ? I have had oysters laid down on the Parramatta Eiver for three years. 1 laid them on Mr. 
.Tosephson’s propert}',. with his permission. I used to take some ot them at various times oil Mi* 
Josephson’s rocks and lay them in deep water, and whenever we examined them we tonnd they had in¬ 
creased considerably in size, but they were not different in appearance troni those attached to the rocks, 
nor were the shells altered at all; they were jnst rock oysters and nothing else. 
329. But you found that they had improved considerably in growth and quality after they were put on to 
rich mud ? Yes, but it would not do to put them in mud; it was a kind of sandy loam. 
330. I believe marl makes the best bed where there are ])lenty ot oyster-shells. At any rate, ii removed 
from the rocks and placed on rich laying ground, they would improve wonderfully, and grow very con¬ 
siderably ? Yes, they would shoot rapidly. 
331. And fill out? Yes. i . a i i -r 4 -i 
332. AVell, you see there are an immense number ot these oysters on the rocks about hyuncy, and u tiiej 
were all transplanted to rich ground, would they not produce a large quantity of wholesome food tor the 
inhabitants ? Yes, but such an immense quantity of them ■would reduce their value considerably. 
333. Do you remember, just before the gold discovery, that there was such a quantity of beet and mutton 
that there was a ditficulty in knowing what to do with it? Yes. o x i j. ■ i 
334. Do you think there would be any fear of an equally largo surplus of oysters. i do not think so. 
335. Oysters are very whole.Homo food, are tlie}' not ? Yes. 
33G. And quite as much a delicacy as beef and mutton? Much more so. i • v tvt x'* 
337. Then if you can produce good oysters—not the skin and water kind of oyster of which Mr. Prank 
Buckland speaks—would you not have a large demand for them beyond comparison with the present 
demand ? There would still be skinny oysters, the same as there are now, because that comes from their 
not being in season. 
338. Is there not an Inspector of Nuisances at present who inspects and condemns unwholesome fish ? 
Yes. . . 
339. AVell, if wo had an Inspector to look after oysters, would not ho prevent oysters of that description 
from being sold ? AVell, he could not condemn them because they were not fat. Some persons do not 
care about fat oysters ; they say—“ Don’t give me those very fat oysters, I like them to taste as it they had 
just come out of the salt water.” 
*340. Frank Buckland, the greatest authority on oysters, says that when they are watery and skinny they 
are not good to eat? I will defy any person to condemn an oyster when there is nothing the matter 
■with it. 
341. Then if beef or mutton is thin and skinny you would not condemn it as unfit for food ? No, because 
there is nothing the matter with it. I see plenty of meat hanging up which I should not care to eat 
myself ; but it is cheap, and people buy it for that reason ; it is sound and wholesome. It is the same 
with oysters, they are sound and fresh as they come out of the water, and there is nothing tlie matter 
with them. Many people do not care about fat oysters, they say—“You know my taste, Clarke, don’t give 
me any of those very iat oysters.” 
342. I may mention that we had some oysters exhibited in tins room which I should scarcely like to say 
were unwholesome, but.w’cre scarcely fit for human food. There was nothing in them, and it appears to 
be a mockery to sell such young oysters ? AVell, I could produce some very small oysters winch you would 
find very fat"and ■well-flavoured—m fact beautiful oysters, although small. 
343. Mr, Farnell^ I understand that you know nothing about the culture of oysters? No. 
344. All your experience has been gained by working the natural beds ? Y'es. 
345. Speaking of the Parramatta Eiver, I think you said that you had dredged it for thirty years ? Yes. 
346. For mud oysters ? Yes. 
347. Are you quite sure they were not a kind of oyster between the mud oyster and the drift oyster ? No, 
they were mud oysters. 
348. They were iu shape much the same as the mud oysters, but were not dredged out of the mud ? Yes, 
they Avere all dredged, but oil* the hard bottom. 
349. AVhere did you get them ? P'rom the channel of the river. 
350. 
i 
i 
