88 SMITHSONIAN BEQUEST. 



ject, that, on the first arrival of M. de la Batut in London, 

 I caused him to be informed that, although in no event was 

 I authorized to promise him anything from the United 

 States, yet if he promptly afforded the facilities to their suit 

 in chancery, which he justly might, by stating facts within 

 his immediate and full knowledge respecting young Hun- 

 gerford, he would naturally stand well with our Govern- 

 ment; and that, as far as the expression of any favorable 

 opinion of mine towards him was concerned, he would 

 necessarily earn it. Far from listening to what was so unob- 

 jectionable, he refused, as made known in one of the letters 

 enclosed with my last, to give any evidence whatever for 

 the United States, except on condition of a previous pledge 

 from me to support all his claims, not perceiving, though so 

 informed that such a pledge, had I even made it, could have 

 availed him nothing. 



It may be proper to mention here, also, that it never was 

 my intention, and so I instructed our professional advisers, 

 to raise any captious objections to Monsieur la Batut's claim 

 in right of his wife, so long as he kept it within the limit ot 

 the bequest made to her by the will of Henry Louis Dick- 

 inson, as explained in my No. 6. The bequest may amount, 

 as I now understand the case, to two hundred and forty 

 pounds sterling a year, at the utmost, during the life of the 

 wife. All I demanded was, that this claim should be sub- 

 stantiated by fair proof, and be adjudged by the court, as I 

 had no authority to give an independent assent to anything 

 that might diminish the fund bequeathed to the United 

 States by Mr. Smithson. 



But to suggestions like these he was alike insensible, pre- 

 ferring to take the course and put forward the extravagant 

 claims I have described. I have no fears that the court 

 will allow them ; but there is ground for apprehending that 

 he may be able to cause future, as he has past, delays. 

 There is no hope of bringing the case to a conclusion 

 during the present term of the court. It ends next month, 

 and the next term does not commence until jSTovember. 

 The master in chancery has not yet made his reports on any 

 of the references made to him by the court, as explained in 

 my No. 9, although I have urged them on by all the means 

 I could use, and will not fail to continue my efforts whilst 

 the present term lasts. Had it not been for the obstructions 

 created by Monsieur de la Batut, this part of the case would 

 have been expedited, and a door the sooner opened by 



