32 APPENDIX. 



in the witness-box, will swear that he was privy to the condi- 

 tion of the specimen described by Mr. Konig as *' utterly worth- 

 less," but how then will he acquit himself upon a cross-exami- 

 nation as to the wording of the valuation, drawn up by him- 

 self and Dr. Mantell } Fortunately for me, the critical con- 

 struction of language does not constitute an element for the 

 consideration of the jury. In determining upon their verdict, 

 they are directed to receive words, whether relating to the 

 libel itself, or to the evidence by which the libel is defended, 

 in their ordinary acceptation. Now, the valuers tell the 

 Trustees, that in drawing up their estimate, they substitute a 

 large unfigured Plesiosaurus for a figured one which Mr. 

 Mr. Hawkins had sold. Unless they meant it to be under- 

 stood that the one substituted was equivalent to the one 

 which was missing, w^hat possible reason could they have for 

 60 wording their valuation ? 



Upon referring to the British-Museum Minute of the 12th 

 of July 1834, I find a passage which bears in a very important 

 manner upon this part of the evidence. It is as follows : 



No. 20. 



" The Trustees requested Dr. Buckland to send the valuation which he 

 and Mr. Mantell might put upon these organic remains, to the Secretary 

 so soon as it was made, and to distinguish in their valuation, the part of 

 which engravings are given in Mr. Hawkins's work, from the other Sau- 

 rian remains." 



Dr. Buckland receives fi'om the Trustees explicit directions 

 to put, conjointly with Dr. Mantell, one price upon the en- 

 graved Saurians, and another upon those not engraved. When 

 therefore, the valuers found the series of figured Sauiians 

 deficient, the plain course for them to follow was to word their 

 estimate thus : — 



All the Saurian remains engraved in Mr. Hawkins's work, minus the 



subject of plate 4, which has been sold, we value at . All the Saurian 



remains in Mr. Hawkins's collection which are not engraved in his work, 

 we value at . Total value £1250. 



Now if Dr. Buckland, when in the witness-box, states that 

 he did know the substituted Plesiosaurus to be comparatively 

 worthless, from its being in part plaster of Paris, and that he 

 did not mean, in taking it from the series of unfigured ones and 

 classing it with those which were figured, that the word * sub- 

 stitute'' was to imply ' in lieu of,' he must then explain not 

 only why he worded his valuation in a manner altogether ir- 



