[ N°. 114. ] REPORTS AND PAPERS. 265 
made off in a straight lime to seawards, towards the N.W. It 
moved at a rapid rate; so much so that when we got to the house 
and procured the glass it had reached such a distance that we 
could not distinguish it better than we had done with our naked 
eyes while on the rocks. The motion while moving off was undu- 
latory, the cask like substances submerging and emerging from time to 
time, and glittering in the sun till we lost sight of them altogether, 
which was about an hour after first seemg the animal. That this 
animal was a sea-serpent I never had the slightest doubt; yet, 
knowing the general incredulity on this subject, neither Mr. Brun- 
ette nor myself cared much to boast of what we had seen, so 
we said nothing about it; but as Dr. Biccard has obligingly, at 
my request, furnished me with particulars, for general information, 
of the animal seen by him under such favourable circumstances , 
IT am induced to add my own poor testimony to the many facts 
now on record, proving conclusively the existence of a great mar- 
ine saurian or some similar animal. I would point out that a 
gentieman as Dr. Biccard’s well known scientific attainments is 
not likely to mistake a seal for a serpent; and that the six or 
seven individuals who witnessed the evolutions of the animal at so 
short a distance as 200 yards could scarcely have been misled by 
a piece of seaweed, or by a seal.” 
“The narrative of Dr. Biccard will be read with interest, and 
I beg to refer those who feel any interest in it to an article on 
the Great Sea-Serpent in the Westminster Review for January 1849.” 
“Yours, &.,” “Chas. A. Fairbridge.”’ 
“Cape Town, 13th. March, 1857.” 
The above mentioned letter will be inserted in its right place 
hereafter, (n°. 1380). It is clear enough that we have here an un- 
varnished account of an appearance of a true sea-serpent. The ap- 
pearance of a line of shining black objects, like a string of large 
casks is a common one. Its length, estimated at upwards of 150 
feet, is surely not exaggerated, as we shall observe afterwards. As 
the animal raised itself at least three feet above the level of the 
sea, its diameter may have been some fifteen feet. ‘The animal 
evidently lay with its nostrils just at water-level, so that in ex- 
haling it caused “a foam or froth, as though blowing water in a 
lateral direction’. I think, that the observer was a little mistaken 
as to the direction, which cannot have been quite a lateral one. 
