46 REPORT—1905. 
in other connections, in the full light of all the circumstances of the 
finding. 
Now, since among the essentials of treasure trove is that of an 
advertent depositing, it is unlikely that the treasure would come within 
these cases where, in the absence of a law of treasure trove, finds belong 
to their accidental discoverer. From the circumstances in which treasure 
trove was originally put out of sight and eventually lost to mind, it may 
safely be classed with those objects which become attached to the soil, 
and pass with it to the successive owners, of course supposing the absence 
of a special law to the contrary. The articles then constituting the find 
would certainly not belong to him who accidentally discovered their 
hiding-place ; indeed a retention by him with the immediate intention 
of depriving permanently the owner of the soil of his property in them 
would be criminal. After the owner had gained physical possession of 
the articles, he would be at liberty to sell, preserve, or retain them, or to 
destroy them capriciously, advertently, or without a thought of his action. 
But, thanks to the law of treasure trove, precious metal may not be cast 
into the melting-pot precipitately unless the Crown has transferred to 
others its right to treasure trove. Even when an individual or a corporate 
body owns the right to treasure trove found on the demesne, articles 
which illegally have been withheld may eventually become the property 
of the finder owing to the action of the Statute of Limitations, six years 
being the prescriptive period (21 Jac. I., 1623, c. 16). Remembering the 
class of persons who usually discover treasure trove, the risk of the 
melting-pot under the general law is thus further increased. As against 
the Crown and its property the Statute of Limitations, of course, has 
no place. 
Let us now for a moment briefly review the action of the Crown when 
treasure trove reaches the hands of the Treasury oiiicials. First, as 
regards the finder, the Treasury promises remuneration to an extent 
proportionate to the value of the discovered articles retained by the 
Treasury. In the Treasury Circular of 1886 no allusion is made to the 
owner of the soil or to any other person in whom, according to the law of 
first finding, the articles should vest. Secondly, as regards the articles, 
these when received are sent to the British Museum or to some other 
institution. In the event of the articles not being required they are 
returned to the finder. 
Tt may now be asked, In what way would the abolition of the law of 
treasure trove subserve the interests of archeology? It is clear that the 
finder would not be benefited, for experience shows that a finder as a rule 
disposes of his find to the first stranger who offers what the finder in his 
ignorance considers adequate. Would the public be the better? Rarely 
would treasure find its way into public museums ; at any rate not to the 
extent to which it is now possible. At the best the treasure would be 
placed in a private collection, or, what is worse, would be passed from one 
to another until all knowledge of the locality of the find and of the 
attendant circumstances was lost. Surely it is not less law of treasure 
trove that we want, but more. Its provisions should be extended so as to 
include ‘ with adequate safeguards and inducements, all objects of distinct 
antiquarian value, whether of gold or silver, or not, and irrespective of 
any requirement of proof or presumption as to their having been originally 
hidden.’ ! 
1 Juridical Review, vol. xv. p. 277. 
