38 APPENDIX. 



of the money value of the specimens. The gi*eat importance 

 of the latter point, in my justification of the Hbel, depends 

 upon this ; — that Dr. Buckland, professing to know of the full 

 extent of the plaster of Paris, arrives at the same valuation 

 as Dr. Mantell who did not know of it. That Dr. Mantell 

 had the modelling concealed from him is a legitimate inference 

 from the fact, that he, as co-valuer, puts his signature to the 

 written estimate sent to Mr. Hawkins, but allows Dr. Buck- 

 land to stand alone, when subsequently vindicating Mr. Haw- 

 kins from the imputation of unfair deahng. If Dr. Mantell 

 could honestly have joined Dr. Buckland in that vindication, 

 he was bound by every principle of justice and honour not to 

 remain silent. Not only does he refrain from joining in the 

 exculpatory declaration, but it is virtually admitted in the 

 course of the enquiry, that he was kept in the dark as to the 

 manufactiuing process which had been going forward. If the 

 reader will turn back to the extract at page 30, he will find 

 M. Konig stating to the Parliamentary Committee, that imme- 

 diately upon his detecting the plaster of Paris, he wrote and 

 informed both the valuers of the discovery he had made ; — 

 then at page 29 he is asked, " Do you know whether Dr. 

 Buckland and Mr. Mantell ascertained that part was artifi- 

 cial } " to which he replies, " Dr. Buckland has said he knew 

 it was artificial to a great extent," tacitly admitting that Dr. 

 Mantell would not make the same assertion ; and on another 

 occasion, the same witness remarks, " According to the state- 

 ment of "one" of the gentlemen who made the valuation, the 

 restoration was not discovered by me." 



Now, if it be true that Dr. Buckland, knew what Mr. Haw- 

 kins " had been doing" from his previous intimate acquaint- 

 ance with the collection, and from his having remonstrated 

 with Mr. Hawkins on the subject of the modelling, he must also 

 have known that Dr. Mantell, engaged at Brighton in active 

 professional practice, could not have formed this intimacy with 

 the specimens, and that he would require to have the modelled 

 parts pointed out to him. The most simple method of doing 

 this, in the case of the figured specimens, was, for Mr. Hawkins 

 to take a pen, or a chalk pencil, and to mark upon a set of his 

 lithographic prints, those parts, which, to use the words of a 

 member of the Committee, were not honest representations 

 of the originals. So far as the valuers were concerned, this 

 plan would have obviated all suspicion of intentional decep- 

 tion, and why it was not done I leave for Mr. Hawkins or Dr. 

 Buckland to explain. As no clew of this sort was put before 

 the valuers, and as Dr. Buckland says nothing about Dr. Man- 

 tell having any knowledge of the restorations, when he refers 



