Archceologia. 309 



treasure trove became very generally transferred from the crown to 

 the lords of the manors. These seized upon the treasures found 

 upon their estates, whenever they were worth the trouble, and 

 nothing further was said about it, unless the find presented some 

 remarkable characteristic. As lords of manors, even in recent times, 

 rarely possessed any knowledge of archaeology, and therefore took 

 no interest in mere antiquities, and as stores of coins of any value for 

 the metal only turned up at rare intervals, they took no care about 

 the matter, and the law of treasure trove was allowed to remain a 

 dead letter, except on particular occasions, when the value of the 

 deposit, or the historical interest of the articles found, called their 

 especial attention to it. The advantage thus derived from the law 

 was merely nominal, while it was extensively injurious to the cause 

 of science. The agricultural or other labourer who found a deposit 

 of ancient coins or other antiquities, ignorant of their real value, 

 yet knowing they were worth something, believed that he had morally 

 a right to what he had found ; at the same time, he knew that the 

 lord of the manor had the law on his side and could take them from 

 him, and that, moreover, he was liable to severe punishment for ap- 

 propriating them. He, accordingly, concealed the discovery, sold 

 the objects, when he could, to dealers, who gave him but a small 

 part of their value, or to curiosity collectors, who gave him more ; 

 but, in either case, they were lost to science — the coins of gold or silver 

 often went to the melting-pot, and the other objects were scattered,.., 

 and in a short time destroyed, and at all events they were deprived 

 of a great part of their historical value by being dissociated from the 

 locality in which they were found. The loss which archaeology has 

 sustained from this state of things, since it has been cultivated as a 

 science, is incalculable, and greatly to be lamented. 



The subject was brought before the Archaeological Institute, in 

 a paper by Mr. Godfrey Faussett, who gave a sketch of the history 

 of the law relating to treasure trove from the earliest period at which 

 we have any information on the subject. The Roman law, he said, 

 varied much in regard to the appropriation of treasure found with- 

 out an owner. The Emperor Constantine adjudged it to the treasury, 

 but, if it were brought in voluntarily, one-half was restored to the 

 finder. Gratian vested the whole in the finder, but provided that, 

 if the finder were not the owner of the soil, the latter should be 

 entitled to one-quarter. This was acknowledging some right to 

 treasure trove in what we should now call the lord of the manor. 

 Valentinian II. gave the whole to the finder. This was changed 

 again by Justinian, who ordered that treasure thus found should be 

 divided equally between the landholder and the finder, and this 

 appears to have remained afterwards the established Roman law. . 

 It was adopted in the Code Napoleon, and is still the practice in 

 some countries. When we do find any regulations relating to» 

 treasure trove among the Anglo-Saxons, which is not before the 

 reign of Edward the Confessoi', treasure found in the earth, was 

 considered to belong entirely to the king, unless found in a church 

 or cemetery, in which case the gold belonged to the king, and half 

 the silver to the church, the other half to the king. Under th§ 



