APPENDIX. 31 



from those which are really osseous, would be preferable to a complete abra- 

 sure of the plaster of Paris. 



The Trustees directed that this method should be adopted with regard 

 to all the restored parts of Mr. Hawkins's specimens. 



Mr. Konig suggested that the vacant space in the case, above and below 

 ,the tail of this large specimen, might be filled up by the introduction of 

 two other framed specimens from the same collection. He likewise sug- 

 gested that another specimen, 14 feet in length, which was made up, and 

 entirely worthless, should be excluded from the gallery. 



The above extracts from the Parliamentary Report, put us 

 in possession of the following facts. That on the 9th of 

 July, 1834, Mr. Hawkins wrote to the Trustees of the British 

 Museum, making them a tender of his collection, and stating 

 in the letter that his offer included all the samians figured in 

 his work. That on the 12th of the same month (only three 

 days after the date of this offer), the Trustees appoint two 

 parties (Drs. Buckland and Mantell) to value the collection. 

 That the valuers, in making their estimate, find that the sub- 

 ject of plate 4 in Mr. Hawkins's work, had been sold, but 

 they substitute for the missing specimen, a large unfigured 

 Plesiosaurus. This is followed by the evidence of the officer 

 at the head of the Natural-History department, Mr. Konig, 

 who discovers that the Plesiosaurus so substituted, is made up 

 of plaster of Paris, to such an extent as to justify his recom- 

 mending to the Trustees that it be excluded from the gallery 

 as " utterly worthless ;" while on the other hand, he informs 

 the Parliamentary Committee that the missing specimen ap- 

 pears by the engraving to have been one of the most inte- 

 resting in the whole collection. 



Now it is quite clear from this, that Mr. Hawkins stated 

 that which was untrue, in his letter to the Trustees of July 

 9th, 1834, or else that within three days after sending in that 

 letter, and before the valuation could be effected, he privately 

 sold the subject of one of his plates. The history of this 

 specimen, in connection with the evidence given as to the 

 real state of the one which the valuers took as an equivalent 

 for it, has always appeared to me the most criminatory fea- 

 ture in the whole transaction. Nor have I any reason to 

 believe that in the archives of the British Museum, there will 

 be found any unpublished document which shall modify the 

 tenour of this part of the evidence. 



But even if there be such a document, I am prosecuted for 

 an opinion founded upon certain evidence which appears in 

 a published Parliamentary Report, and upon that evidence 

 alone I presume a verdict must be obtained against me. I 

 take it for granted that Dr. Buckland, when upon his oath 



