text:
A Critique of the Theory of Evolution/I

CHAPTER I

A REVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS BASED

 *
 *
 * a. The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy
 * b. The Evidence from Embryology
 * c. The Evidence from Paleontology
 *
 * a. The Environment
 * Geoffroy St. Hilaire
 * b. Use and Disuse
 * From Lamarck to Weismann
 * c. The Unfolding Principle
 * Nägeli and Bateson
 * d. Natural Selection
 * Darwin

We use the word evolution in many ways—to include many different kinds of changes. There is hardly any other scientific term that is used so carelessly—to imply so much, to mean so little.

We speak of the evolution of the stars, of the evolution of the horse, of the evolution of the steam engine, as though they were all part of the same process. What have they in common? Only this, that each concerns itself with the history of something. When the astronomer thinks of the evolution of the earth, the moon, the sun and the stars, he has a picture of diffuse matter that has slowly condensed. With condensation came heat; with heat, action and reaction within the mass until the chemical substances that we know today were produced. This is the nebular hypothesis of the astronomer. The astronomer explains, or tries to explain, how this evolution took place, by an appeal to the physical processes that have been worked out in the laboratory, processes which he thinks have existed through all the eons during which this evolution was going on and which were its immediate causes.

When the biologist thinks of the evolution of animals and plants, a different picture presents itself. He thinks of series of animals that have lived in the past, whose bones (fig. 1) and shells have been preserved in the rocks. He thinks of these animals as having in the past given birth, through an unbroken succession of individuals, to the living inhabitants of the earth today. He thinks that the old, simpler types of the past have in part changed over into the more complex forms of today.

He is thinking as the historian thinks, but he sometimes gets confused and thinks that he is explaining evolution when he is only describing it.

A third kind of evolution is one for which man himself is responsible, in the sense that he has brought it about, often with a definite end in view.

His mind has worked slowly from stage to stage. We can often trace the history of the stages through which his psychic processes have passed. The evolution of the steam-boat, the steam engine, paintings, clothing, instruments of agriculture, of manufacture, or of warfare (fig. 2) illustrates the history of human progress. There is an obvious and striking similarity between the evolution of man's inventions and the evolution of the shells of molluscs and of the bones of mammals, yet in neither case does a knowledge of the order in which these things arose explain them. If we appeal to the psychologist he will probably tell us that human inventions are either the result of happy accidents, that have led to an unforeseen, but discovered use; or else the use of the invention was foreseen. It is to the latter process more especially that the idea of purpose is applied. When we come to review the four great lines of evolutionary thought we shall see that this human idea of purpose recurs in many forms, suggesting that man has often tried to explain how organic evolution has taken place by an appeal to the method which he believes he makes use of himself in the inorganic world.

What has the evolution of the stars, of the horse and of human inventions in common? Only this, that in each case from a simple beginning through a series of changes something more complex, or at least different, has come into being. To lump all these kinds of changes into one and call them evolution is no more than asserting that you believe in consecutive series of events (which is history) causally connected (which is science); that is, that you believe in history and that you believe in science. But let us not forget that we may have complete faith in both without thereby offering any explanation of either. It is the business of science to find out specifically what kinds of events were involved when the stars evolved in the sky, when the horse evolved on the earth, and the steam engine was evolved from the mind of man.

Is it not rather an empty generalization to say that any kind of change is a process of evolution? At most it means little more than that you want to intimate that miraculous intervention is not necessary to account for such kinds of histories.

We are concerned here more particularly with the biologists' ideas of evolution. My intention is to review the evidence on which the old theory rested its case, in the light of some of the newer evidence of recent years.

Four great branches of study have furnished the evidence of organic evolution. They are:

 * Comparative anatomy.
 * Embryology.
 * Paleontology.
 * Experimental Breeding or Genetics.

The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy

When we study animals and plants we find that they can be arranged in groups according to their resemblances. This is the basis of comparative anatomy, which is only an accurate study of facts that are superficially obvious to everyone.

The groups are based not on a single difference, but on a very large number of resemblances. Let us take for example the group of vertebrates.

The hand and the arm of man are similar to the hand and arm of the ape. We find the same plan in the forefoot of the rat, the elephant, the horse and the opossum. We can identify the same parts in the forefoot of the lizard, the frog (fig. 3), and even, though less certainly, in the pectoral fins of fishes. Comparison does not end here. We find similarities in the skull and back bones of these same animals; in the brain; in the digestive system; in the heart and blood vessels; in the muscles.

Each of these systems is very complex, but the same general arrangement is found in all. Anyone familiar with the evidence will, I think, probably reach the conclusion either that these animals have been created on some preconceived plan, or else that they have some other bond that unites them; for we find it difficult to believe that such complex, yet similar things could have arisen independently. But we try to convince our students of the truth of the theory of evolution not so much by calling their attention to this relation as by tracing each organ from a simple to a complex structure.

I have never known such a course to fail in its intention. In fact, I know that the student often becomes so thoroughly convinced that he resents any such attempt as that which I am about to make to point out that the evidence for his conviction is not above criticism.

Because we can often arrange the series of structures in a line extending from the very simple to the more complex, we are apt to become unduly impressed by this fact and conclude that if we found the complete series we should find all the intermediate steps and that they have arisen in the order of their complexity. This conclusion is not necessarily correct. Let me give some examples that have come under my own observation. We have bred for five years the wild fruit fly Drosophila ampelophila (fig. 4) and we have found over a hundred and twenty-five new types that breed true. Each has arisen independently and suddenly. Every part of the body has been affected by one or another of these mutations. For instance many different kinds of changes have taken place in the wings and several of these involve the size of the wings. If we arrange the latter arbitrarily in the order of their size there will be an almost complete series beginning with the normal wings and ending with those of apterous flies. Several of these types are represented in figure 5. The order in which these mutations occurred bears no relation to their size; each originated independently from the wild type.

The wings of the wild fly are straight (fig. 4). Several types have arisen in which the wings are bent upwards and in the most extreme type the wings are curled over the back, as seen in figure 54 (g), yet there is no historical connection between these stages.

Mutations have occurred involving the pigmentation of the body and wings. The head and thorax of the wild Drosophila ampelophila are grayish yellow, the abdomen is banded with yellow and black, and the wings are gray. There have appeared in our cultures several kinds of darker types ranging to almost black flies (fig. 20) and to lighter types that are quite yellow. If put in line a series may be made from the darkest flies at one end to the light yellow flies at the other. These types, with the fluctuations that occur within each type, furnish a complete series of gradations; yet historically they have arisen independently of each other.

Many changes in eye color have appeared. As many as thirty or more races differing in eye color are now maintained in our cultures. Some of them are so similar that they can scarcely be separated from each other. It is easily possible beginning with the darkest eye color, sepia, which is deep brown, to pick out a perfectly graded series ending with pure white eyes. But such a serial arrangement would give a totally false idea of the way the different types have arisen; and any conclusion based on the existence of such a series might very well be entirely erroneous, for the fact that such a series exists bears no relation to the order in which its members have appeared.

Suppose that evolution "in the open" had taken place in the same way, by means of discontinuous variation. What value then would the evidence from comparative anatomy have in so far as it is based on a continuous series of variants of any organ?

No one familiar with the entire evidence will doubt for a moment that these 125 races of Drosophila ampelophila belong to the same species and have had a common origin, for while they may differ mainly in one thing they are extremely alike in a hundred other things, and in the general relation of the parts to each other.

It is in this sense that the evidence from comparative anatomy can be used I think as an argument for evolution. It is the resemblances that the animals or plants in any group have in common that is the basis for such a conclusion; it is not because we can arrange in a continuous series any particular variations. In other words, our inference concerning the common descent of two or more species is based on the totality of such resemblances that still remain in large part after each change has taken place. In this sense the argument from comparative anatomy, while not a demonstration, carries with it, I think, a high degree of probability.

The Evidence from Embryology

In passing from the egg to the adult the individual goes through a series of changes. In the course of this development we see not only the beginnings of the organs that gradually enlarge and change into those of the adult animal, but also see that organs appear and later disappear before the adult stage is reached. We find, moreover, that the young sometimes resemble in a most striking way the adult stage of groups that we place lower in the scale of evolution.

Many years before Darwin advanced his theory of evolution through natural selection, the resemblance of the young of higher animals to the adults of lower animals had attracted the attention of zoölogists and various views, often very naïve, had been advanced to account for the resemblance. Among these speculations there was one practically identical with that adopted by Darwin and the post-Darwinians, namely that the higher animals repeat in their development the adult stages of lower animals. Later this view became one of the cornerstones of the theory of organic evolution. It reached its climax in the writings of Haeckel, and I think I may add without exaggeration that for twenty-five years it furnished the chief inspiration of the school of descriptive embryology. Today it is taught in practically all textbooks of biology. Haeckel called this interpretation the Biogenetic Law.

It was recognized, of course, that many embryonic stages could not possibly represent ancestral animals. A young fish with a huge yolk sac attached (fig. 6) could scarcely ever have led a happy, free life as an adult individual. Such stages were interpreted, however, as embryonic additions to the original ancestral type. The embryo had done something on its own account.

In some animals the young have structures that attach them to the mother, as does the placenta of the mammals. In other cases the young develop membranes about themselves—like the amnion of the chick (fig. 7) and mammal—that would have shut off an adult animal from all intercourse with the outside world. Hundreds of such embryonic adaptations are known to embryologists. These were explained as adaptations and as falsifications of the ancestral records.

At the end of the last century Weismann injected a new idea into our views concerning the origin of variations. He urged that variations are germinal, i.e. they first appear in the egg and the sperm as changes that later bring about modifications in the individual. The idea has been fruitful and is generally accepted by most biologists today. It means that the offspring of a pair of animals are not affected by the structure or the activities of their parents, but the germ plasm is the unmodified stream from which both the parent and the young have arisen. Hence their resemblance. Now, it has been found that a variation arising in the germ plasm, no matter what its cause, may affect any stage in the development of the next individuals that arise from it. There is no reason to suppose that such a change produces a new character that always sticks itself, as it were, on to the end of the old series. This idea of germinal variation therefore carried with it the death of the older conception of evolution by superposition.

In more recent times another idea has become current, mainly due to the work of Bateson and of de Vries—the idea that variations are discontinuous. Such a conception does not fall easily into line with the statement of the biogenetic "law"; for actual experience with discontinuous variation has taught us that new characters that arise do not add themselves to the end of the line of already existing characters but if they affect the adult characters they change them without, as it were, passing through and beyond them.

I venture to think that these new ideas and this new evidence have played havoc with the biogenetic "law". Nevertheless, there is an interpretation of the facts that is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution. Let me illustrate this by an example.

The embryos of the chick (fig. 8) and of man (fig. 9) possess at an early stage in their development gill-slits on the sides of the neck like those of fishes. No one familiar with the relations of the parts will for a moment doubt that the gill slits of these embryos and of the fish represent the same structures. When we look further into the matter we find that young fish also possess gill slits (fig. 10 and 11)—even in young stages in their development. Is it not then more probable that the mammal and bird possess this stage in their development simply because it has never been lost? Is not this a more reasonable view than to suppose that the gill slits of the embryos of the higher forms represent the adult gill slits of the fish that in some mysterious way have been pushed back into the embryo of the bird?

I could give many similar examples. All can be interpreted as embryonic survivals rather than as phyletic contractions. Not one of them calls for the latter interpretation.

The study of the cleavage pattern of the segmenting egg furnishes the most convincing evidence that a different explanation from the one stated in the biogenetic law is the more probable explanation.

It has been found that the cleavage pattern has the same general arrangement in the early stages of flat worms, annelids and molluscs (fig. 12). Obviously these stages have never been adult ancestors, and obviously if their resemblance has any meaning at all, it is that each group has retained the same general plan of cleavage, possessed by their common ancestor.

Accepting this view, let us ask, does the evidence from embryology favor the theory of evolution? I think that it does very strongly. The embryos of the mammal, bird, and lizard have gill slits today because gill slits were present in the embryos of their ancestors. There is no other view that explains so well their presence in the higher forms.

Perhaps someone will say, Well! is not this all that we have contended for! Have you not reached the old conclusion in a roundabout way? I think not. To my mind there is a wide difference between the old statement that the higher animals living today have the original adult stages telescoped into their embryos, and the statement that the resemblance between certain characters in the embryos of higher animals and corresponding stages in the embryos of lower animals is most plausibly explained by the assumption that they have descended from the same ancestors, and that their common structures are embryonic survivals.

The Evidence from Paleontology

The direct evidence furnished by fossil remains is by all odds the strongest evidence that we have in favor of organic evolution. Paleontology holds the incomparable position of being able to point directly to the evidence showing that the animals and plants living in past times are connected with those living at the present time, often through an unbroken series of stages. Paleontology has triumphed over the weakness of the evidence, which Darwin admitted was serious, by filling in many of the missing links.

Paleontology has been criticised on the ground that she cannot pretend to show the actual ancestors of living forms because, if in the past genera and species were as abundant and as diverse as we find them at present, it is very improbable that the bones of any individual that happened to be preserved are the bones of just that species that took part in the evolution. Paleontologists will freely admit that in many cases this is probably true, but even then the evidence is, I think, still just as valuable and in exactly the same sense as is the evidence from comparative anatomy. It suffices to know that there lived in the past a particular "group" of animals that had many points in common with those that preceded them and with those that came later. Whether these are the actual ancestors or not does not so much matter, for the view that from such a group of species the later species have been derived is far more probable than any other view that has been proposed.

With this unrivalled material and splendid series of gradations, paleontology has constructed many stages in the past history of the globe. But paleontologists have sometimes gone beyond this descriptive phase of the subject and have attempted to formulate the "causes", "laws" and "principles" that have led to the development of their series. It has even been claimed that paleontologists are in an incomparably better position than zoölogists to discover such principles, because they know both the beginning and the end of the evolutionary series. The retort is obvious. In his sweeping and poetic vision the paleontologist may fail completely to find out the nature of the pigments that have gone into the painting of his picture, and he may confuse a familiarity with the different views he has enjoyed of the canvas with a knowledge of how the painting is being done.

My good friend the paleontologist is in greater danger than he realizes, when he leaves descriptions and attempts explanation. He has no way to check up his speculations and it is notorious that the human mind without control has a bad habit of wandering.

When the modern student of variation and heredity—the geneticist—looks over the different "continuous" series, from which certain "laws" and "principles" have been deduced, he is struck by two facts: that the gaps, in some cases, are enormous as compared with the single changes with which he is familiar, and (what is more important) that they involve numerous parts in many ways. The geneticist says to the paleontologist, since you do not know, and from the nature of your case can never know, whether your differences are due to one change or to a thousand, you can not with certainty tell us anything about the hereditary units which have made the process of evolution possible. And without this knowledge there can be no understanding of the causes of evolution.

THE FOUR GREAT HISTORICAL SPECULATIONS

Looking backward over the history of the evolution theory we recognize that during the hundred and odd years that have elapsed since Buffon, there have been four main lines of speculation concerning evolution. We might call them the four great cosmogonies or the four modern epics of evolution.

Geoffroy St. Hilaire

About the beginning of the last century Geoffroy St. Hilaire, protégé, and in some respects a disciple of Buffon, was interested as to how living species are related to the animals and plants that had preceded them. He was familiar with the kind of change that takes place in the embryo if it is put into new or changed surroundings, and from this knowledge he concluded that as the surface of the earth slowly changed—as the carbon dioxide contents in the air altered—as land appeared—and as marine animals left the water to inhabit it, they or their embryos responded to the new conditions and those that responded favorably gave rise to new creations. As the environment changed the fauna and flora changed—change for change. Here we have a picture of progressive evolution that carries with it an idea of mechanical necessity. If there is anything mystical or even improbable in St. Hilaire's argument it does not appear on the surface; for he did not assume that the response to the new environment was always a favorable one or, as we say, an adaptation. He expressly stated that if the response was unfavorable the individual or the race died out. He assumed that sometimes the change might be favorable, i.e., that certain species, entire groups, would respond in a direction favorable to their existence in a new environment and these would come to inherit the earth. In this sense he anticipated certain phases of the natural selection theory of Darwin, but only in part; for his picture is not one of strife within and without the species, but rather the escape of the species from the old into a new world.

If then we recognize the intimate bond in chemical constitution of living things and of the world in which they develop, what is there improbable in St. Hilaire's hypothesis? Why, in a word is not more credit given to St. Hilaire in modern evolutionary thought? The reasons are to be found, I think, first, in that the evidence to which he appealed was meagre and inconclusive; and, second, in that much of his special evidence does not seem to us to be applicable. For example the monstrous forms that development often assumes in a strange environment, and with which every embryologist is only too familiar, rarely if ever furnish combinations, as he supposed, that are capable of living. On the contrary, they lead rather to the final catastrophe of the organism. And lastly, St. Hilaire's appeal to sudden and great transformations, such as a crocodile's egg hatching into a bird, has exposed his view to too easy ridicule.

But when all is said, St. Hilaire's conception of evolution contains elements that form the background of our thinking to-day, for taken broadly, the interaction between the organism and its environment was a mechanistic conception of evolution even though the details of the theory were inadequate to establish his contention.

In our own time the French metaphysician Bergson in his Evolution Creatrice has proposed in mystical form a thought that has at least a superficial resemblance to St. Hilaire's conception. The response of living things is no longer hit in one species and miss in another; it is precise, exact; yet not mechanical in the sense at least in which we usually employ the word mechanical. For Bergson claims that the one chief feature of living material is that it responds favorably to the situation in which it finds itself; at least so far as lies within the possible physical limitations of its organization. Evolution has followed no preordained plan; it has had no creator; it has brought about its own creation by responding adaptively to each situation as it arose.

But note: the man of science believes that the organism responds today as it does, because at present it has a chemical and physical constitution that gives this response. We find a specific chemical composition and generally a specific physical structure already existing. We have no reason to suppose that such particular reactions would take place until a specific chemical configuration had been acquired. Where did this constitution come from? This is the question that the scientist asks himself. I suppose Bergson would have to reply that it came into existence at the moment that the first specific stimulus was applied. But if this is the answer we have passed at once from the realm of observation to the realm of fancy—to a realm that is foreign to our experience; for such a view assumes that chemical and physical reactions are guided by the needs of the organism when the reactions take place inside living beings.

From Lamarck to Weismann

The second of the four great historical explanations appeals to a change not immediately connected with the outer world, but to one within the organism itself.

Practice makes perfect is a familiar adage. Not only in human affairs do we find that a part through use becomes a better tool for performing its task, and through disuse degenerates; but in the field of animal behavior we find that many of the most essential types of behavior have been learned through repeated associations formed by contact with the outside.

It was not so long ago that we were taught that the instincts of animals are the inherited experience of their ancestors—lapsed intelligence was the current phrase.

Lamarck's name is always associated with the application of the theory of the inheritance of acquired characters. Darwin fully endorsed this view and made use of it as an explanation in all of his writings about animals. Today the theory has few followers amongst trained investigators, but it still has a popular vogue that is widespread and vociferous.

To Weismann more than to any other single individual should be ascribed the disfavor into which this view has fallen. In a series of brilliant essays he laid bare the inadequacy of the supposed evidence on which the inheritance of acquired characters rested. Your neighbor's cat, for instance, has a short tail, and it is said that it had its tail pinched off by a closing door. In its litter of kittens one or more is found without a tail. Your neighbor believes that here is a case of cause and effect. He may even have known that the mother and grandmother of the cat had natural tails. But it has been found that short tail is a dominant character; therefore, until we know who was the father of the short-tailed kittens the accident to its mother and the normal condition of her maternal ancestry is not to the point.

Weismann appealed to common sense. He made few experiments to disprove Lamarck's hypothesis. True, he cut off the tails of some mice for a few generations but got no tailless offspring and while he gives no exact measurements with coefficients of error he did not observe that the tails of the descendants had shortened one whit. The combs of fighting cocks and the tails of certain breeds of sheep have been cropped for many generations and the practice continues today, because their tails are still long. While in Lamarck's time there was no evidence opposed to his ingenious theory, based as it was on an appeal to the acknowledged facts of improvement that take place in the organs of an individual through their own functioning (a fact that is as obvious and remarkable today as in the time of Lamarck), yet now there is evidence as to whether the effects of use and disuse are inherited, and this evidence is not in accord with Lamarck's doctrine.

THE UNFOLDING PRINCIPLE

Nägeli and Bateson

I have ventured to put down as one of the four great historical explanations, under the heading of the unfolding principle, a conception that has taken protean forms. At one extreme it is little more than a mystic sentiment to the effect that evolution is the result of an inner driving force or principle which goes under many names such as Bildungstrieb, nisus formativus, vital force, and orthogenesis. Evolutionary thought is replete with variants of this idea, often naïvely expressed, sometimes unconsciously implied. Evolution once meant, in fact, an unfolding of what pre-existed in the egg, and the term still carries with it something of its original significance.

Nägeli's speculation written several years after Darwin's "Origin of Species" may be taken as a typical case. Nägeli thought that there exists in living material an innate power to grow and expand. He vehemently protested that he meant only a mechanical principle but as he failed to refer such a principle to any properties of matter known to physicists and chemists his view seems still a mysterious affirmation, as difficult to understand as the facts themselves which it purports to explain.

Nägeli compared the process of evolution to the growth of a tree, whose ultimate twigs represent the living world of species. Natural selection plays only the rôle of the gardener who prunes the tree into this or that shape but who has himself produced nothing. As an imaginative figure of speech Nägeli's comparison of the tree might even today seem to hold if we substituted "mutations" for "growth", but although we know so little about what causes mutations there is no reason for supposing them to be due to an inner impulse, and hence they furnish no justification for such a hypothesis.

In his recent presidential address before the British Association Bateson has inverted this idea. I suspect that his effort was intended as little more than a tour de force. He claims for it no more than that it is a possible line of speculation. Perhaps he thought the time had come to give a shock to our too confident views concerning evolution. Be this as it may, he has invented a striking paradox. Evolution has taken place through the steady loss of inhibiting factors. Living matter was stopped down, so to speak, at the beginning of the world. As the stops are lost, new things emerge. Living matter has changed only in that it has become simpler.

Darwin

Of the four great historical speculations about evolution, the doctrine of Natural Selection of Darwin and Wallace has met with the most widespread acceptance. In the last lecture I intend to examine this theory critically. Here we are concerned only with its broadest aspects.

Darwin appealed to chance variations as supplying evolution with the material on which natural selection works. If we accept, for the moment, this statement as the cardinal doctrine of natural selection it may appear that evolution is due, (1) not to an orderly response of the organism to its environment, (2) not in the main to the activities of the animal through the use or disuse of its parts, (3) not to any innate principle of living material itself, and (4) above all not to purpose either from within or from without. Darwin made quite clear what he meant by chance. By chance he did not mean that the variations were not causal. On the contrary he taught that in Science we mean by chance only that the particular combination of causes that bring about a variation are not known. They are accidents, it is true, but they are causal accidents.

In his famous book on "Animals and Plants under Domestication", Darwin dwells at great length on the nature of the conditions that bring about variations. If his views seem to us today at times vague, at times problematical, and often without a secure basis, nevertheless we find in every instance, that Darwin was searching for the physical causes of variation. He brought, in consequence, conviction to many minds that there are abundant indications, even if certain proof is lacking, that the causes of variation are to be found in natural processes.

Today the belief that evolution takes place by means of natural processes is generally accepted. It does not seem probable that we shall ever again have to renew the old contest between evolution and special creation.

But this is not enough. We can never remain satisfied with a negative conclusion of this kind. We must find out what natural causes bring about variations in animals and plants; and we must also find out what kinds of variations are inherited, and how they are inherited. If the circumstantial evidence for organic evolution, furnished by comparative anatomy, embryology and paleontology is cogent, we should be able to observe evolution going on at the present time, i.e. we should be able to observe the occurrence of variations and their transmission. This has actually been done by the geneticist in the study of mutations and Mendelian heredity, as the succeeding lectures will show.

title: A Critique of the Theory of Evolution/I


text:
Index talk:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu

Scan issues
Pages wrong around /274 and /275, pages are out of order or duplicates. Also not that the end of the I.. and the start of the J... surnames pages taht should be in tath space are npt. Unsure whether missed or misplaced in scan order. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Spaces before semicolons
There are a ton of pages with " ; ". This has never been accurate in all the places I've checked against (and if it were it'd be a typo on the work's part). These should all be autofixed probably. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, though typically it is of little value doing such fixes until the work has been proofread. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Index talk:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/235

 ralship on 8 June 1695. In this capacity he maintained the legality of commitments for high treason by secretaries of state on the return to the habeas corpus in the case of Kendall and Roe, 31 Oct., 6 Nov. 1695; and conducted the prosecution of the conspirators against the life of the king. The bill of attainder against Sir (1645?–1697) [q. v.] in 1696, and the expulsion of Sir [q. v.] in 1698, he courageously opposed, and, though continuing to hold office, did not sit in the parliament of 1698–1700. To the following parliament he was returned for Lewes, Sussex, 1 Jan. 1700–1, but vacated the seat the same year on being advanced to the chief-justiceship of the common pleas (28 June), upon which he took the degree of serjeant-at-law (1 July).

Never more than a lukewarm whig, Trevor was continued in office by Queen Anne, and sworn of the privy council, 18 June 1702. On the writ of error in the Aylesbury election case (Ashby v. White,, Reports of Cases in the King's Bench and Common Pleas, p. 938) he concurred with the majority of the judges of the king's bench in advising the House of Lords that the Commons had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the competence of voters—an opinion from which the majority of the peers fortunately dissented (14 Jan. 1703–4). On the commitment by the speaker of the plaintiffs in the subsequent actions, and the dismissal by the queen's bench of their application for a habeas corpus, he concurred with the majority of his colleagues in holding (25 Feb. 1703–4) that such a case was reviewable as of right on a writ of error in parliament, but that whether in that particular case a writ of error lay was for parliament alone to determine (24 Feb. 1704–5). He was one of the commissioners appointed, 10 April 1706, to arrange the terms of the definitive treaty of union with Scotland, and was first commissioner of the great seal in the interval, 24 Sept.–19 Oct. 1710, between its surrender by Lord Cowper and its delivery to Sir Simon Harcourt. He was created Baron Trevor of Bromham, Bedfordshire, on 1 Jan. 1711–12, and took his seat in the House of Lords on the following day. As the first lord chief justice of the common pleas raised to the peerage during his tenure of office, he marks an epoch in our legal history; but he owed his advancement less to his own merit than to the political exigency of the hour, being one of the twelve peers created to overpower the resistance of the House of Lords to the peace of Utrecht. By commission of 9 March 1712–13 he occupied the woolsack during the illness of Lord-keeper Harcourt (10 and 17 March). By opposing as unchristian the proposal to put a price on the head of the Pretender, 8 April 1714, he rendered himself suspect of Jacobitism; and on the accession of George I he was removed from office (14 Oct.)

The energy with which he opposed the Septennial Bill, 10 April 1716, and the bill of pains and penalties against Atterbury, 15 May 1723, makes it probable that his loyalty was not unimpeachable. Nevertheless he was chosen to succeed the Duke of Kingston as lord privy seal, 11 March 1725–6; and, as the schism between Walpole and Townshend widened, was much courted by the latter. He was one of the lords justices in whom, 31 May 1727, the regency was vested during George I's absence from the realm. On the accession of George II he retained the privy seal until his promotion, 8 May 1730, to the presidency of the council. He died on the 19th of the following month at his villa at Peckham. His remains repose under a handsome monument in the parish church of Bromham, Bedfordshire, where he had his principal seat. His portrait, painted by Thomas Murray, was engraved by Robert White in 1702.

For so inconstant a politician Trevor enjoyed an unusual measure of respect. Though he certainly does not rank among the sages of the law, his ability was acknowledged by Lord Cowper in the minute advising his removal (, Chancellors, 4th edit. v. 295). His judgments are reported by Lord Raymond.

Trevor married twice, viz.: (1) By license dated 31 May 1690, Elizabeth (d. 1702), daughter of John Searle of Finchley, Middlesex; (2) on 25 Sept. 1704, Anne (d. 1746), daughter of Robert Weldon of St. Lawrence Jewry, London, and widow of Sir Robert Bernard, bart., of Brampton, Huntingdonshire. By his first wife he had issue two sons, Thomas and John, and two daughters; by his second wife he had three sons: (afterwards first viscount Hampden) [q. v.], (1707–1771) [q. v.], and Edward (died young). Both his sons by his first wife died without male issue, having in turn succeeded to the peerage, which then devolved upon their half-brother Robert.

[Le Neve's Pedigrees of Knights (Harl. Soc.), p. 439; Foster's Alumni Oxon.; Inner Temple Books; C[okayne]'s Complete Peerage; Lysons's Magna Britannia, i. 61; Environs of London, i. 119; Duke of Manchester's Court and Society, ii. 68; Lists of Members of Parliament (official); Parl. Hist. vi. 1338, vii. 297, viii. 334; Lords'


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/236

 Journ. xix. 354, 505; Lord Raymond's Reports, pp. 748, 1319; Stowe MSS. 304 f. 215, 364 f. 70; Rawlinson MS. A. 241, f. 72; Brit. Mus. Addit. MS. 34653, f. 356; Hist. MSS. Comm. 13th Rep. App. ii. 189–90, 196; Howell's State Trials, vol. xiii. pp. i et seq. 558, xiv. 861; Luttrell's Relation of State Affairs; Lady Cowper's Diary; Burnet's Own Time (fol.) ii. 367–8, 589, (8vo) iv. 342, v. 12; Boyer's Annals of Queen Anne, v. App. i. 2, ix. 742–4; Polit. State, xxxix. 664; Lord Hervey's Memoirs, i. 113; Swift's Works, ed. Scott; Granger's Biogr. Hist. of England. iii. 51; Noble's House of Cromwell, ii. 115; Foss's Lives of the Judges.]  TRICHRUG, IAGO (1779-1844), Welsh Calvinist. [See .]

TRIGGE, FRANCIS (1547?–1606), divine and economic writer, was born about 1547. He matriculated from University College, Oxford, in 1564, graduating B.A. on 16 Feb. 1568–9 and M.A. on 12 May 1572. After taking priest's orders he was appointed rector of Welbourn in Lincolnshire some time before 1589. While in Lincolnshire Trigge devoted considerable attention to the economic state of the country. In 1594 he published ‘A Godly and Fruitfull Sermon preached at Grantham in 1592 by Francis Trigge’ (Oxford, 1594, 8vo), in which he reproved the commercial morality of the time. The treatise contains interesting particulars of the condition of agriculture and commerce in Lincolnshire. This was followed in 1604 by a work entitled ‘To the King's most excellent Majestie. The Humble Petition of two Sisters, the Church and Common-wealth. For the restoring of their ancient Commons and Liberties’ (London, 1604, 8vo), which contained a vehement protest against the enclosure of common lands and against the conversion of arable land into pasture. Trigge not only denounced the moral turpitude of such proceedings, but pointed out forcibly the detriment inflicted on the state by the diminution and impoverishment of the country population. He also sought to prove that the action of the lords of the manor was unconstitutional (cf., Social Changes in England in the Sixteenth Century, pt. i. passim). Trigge died in 1606 at Welbourn and was buried in the chancel of the church. He married a daughter of Elizabeth Hussey ‘of Hunnington,’ probably the widow of John Hussey of Harrington (, Visitation of Lincolnshire, p. 69). Besides certain benefactions to the poor of Grantham, Trigge bequeathed a valuable collection of books for the use of the town. They were kept in a chamber over the south porch of Grantham church, and on the wall of the library were formerly some verses recording the gift (, Notes on Grantham, 1857, p. 157).

Besides the works mentioned, Trigge was the author of: Wood also assigns to him  ‘Comment. in cap. 12 ad Rom.,’ Oxford, 1590. An unpublished work entitled ‘Considerationes de authoritate Regis, et Jurisdictione Episcopali, et iterum de Cæremoniis et Liturgia Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ,’ is among the Harleian manuscripts (No. 4063).
 * 1) ‘An Apologie or Defence of our dayes against the vaine murmurings and complaints of manie. Wherein is … proved that our dayes are more happie … than the dayes of our forefathers’ (London, 1589, 4to), a eulogy of the Reformation.
 * 2) ‘Noctes Sacræ seu Lucubrationes in primam partem Apocalypseos,’ Oxford, 1590, 4to.
 * 3) ‘Analysis Capitis Vicesimi Quarti Evangelii secundum Matthæum,’ Oxford, 1591, 4to.
 * 4) ‘A Touchstone whereby may easilie be discerned which is the true Catholike Faith,’ London, 1599 and 1600, 4to.
 * 5) ‘The true Catholique, formed according to the Truth of the Scriptures, and the Faith of the ancient Fathers,’ London, 1602, 4to.

 TRIMEN, HENRY (1843–1896), botanist, fourth and youngest son of Richard and Mary Ann Esther Trimen, was born in Paddington, London, on 26 Oct. 1843. He began to form an herbarium while still at King's College school, and entered the medical school of King's College in 1860. After spending one winter at Edinburgh University, he graduated M.B. with honours at the university of London in 1865. Shortly afterwards, during an epidemic of cholera, he acted as medical officer in the Strand district; but his inclinations were obviously towards botany rather than medicine. He joined the Botanical Society of Edinburgh in 1864, took an active part in the Society of Amateur Botanists and the Botanical Exchange Club, and in 1869 became an assistant in the botanical department of the British Museum. Devoted from the first to the study of critical groups of plants, such as the docks and knot-grasses, he in this year added to the list of British species the smallest of flowering plants, a minute duckweed; and, in conjunction with Mr. William Thiselton Dyer (now director of the Royal Gardens, Kew), published the ‘Flora of Middlesex,’ upon which they had been engaged from 1866, a work which has ever since been


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/239

 TRIMNELL, CHARLES (1663–1723), successively bishop of Norwich and of Winchester, baptised on 1 May 1663 at Abbots Ripton in Huntingdonshire, was the eldest surviving son of Charles Trimnell, by his wife Mary.

The elder (1630–1702), born in 1630, was the fourth son of Edmund Trimnell of Hanger in Bremhill, Wiltshire, a descendant of Sir Nicholas Trimnell, founder of the Worcestershire family of Ockley Hall. He entered Winchester College in 1642, aged 12, and was a scholar of New College, Oxford, in 1647, but was expelled in the following year by the parliamentary commissioners. He proceeded to Queens' College, Cambridge, whence he graduated B.A. in 1651–2 and M.A. in 1655. In 1656 he became rector of Abbots Ripton in Huntingdonshire, where he remained until his death in 1702. He left four sons—Charles; William, dean of Winchester (d. 1729); Hugh, apothecary to the king's household; and David, archdeacon of Leicester (d. 1756).

His son Charles entered Winchester College in 1674, and proceeded to New College, Oxford, matriculating thence on 26 July 1681, graduating B.A. in 1685 and M.A. in 1688, being incorporated at Cambridge in 1695, and proceeding B.D. and D.D. at Oxford on 4 July 1699. In 1688 he was appointed preacher at the Rolls chapel by Sir John Trevor (1637–1717) [q. v.], master of the rolls. In August 1689 he attended the Earl of Sunderland and his lady in their journey to Holland, and after their return home continued with them at Althorp as their domestic chaplain. On 4 Dec. 1691 he was installed in a prebend of Norwich, and in 1694 he was presented by Sunderland to the rectory of Bodington in Northamptonshire, which he exchanged two years later for Brington, the parish in which Althorp stands. On 20 July 1698 he was collated archdeacon of Norfolk and resigned Brington in favour of Henry Downes, afterwards bishop of Derry, who had married his sister Elizabeth.

In 1701 and 1702 he made himself prominent in the disputes which agitated the lower house of convocation by penning several pamphlets in favour of the rights of the crown. Among these may be mentioned: 1. ‘A Vindication of the Proceedings of some Members of the Lower House of Convocation,’ 1701, 4to. 2. ‘The late Pretence of a constant Practice to enter the Parliament as well as Provincial Writ in the front of the Acts of every synod, consider'd and disproved,’ 1701, 4to. 3. ‘An Answer to a third Letter to a Clergyman in defence of the entry of the Parliament-Writ,’ 1702, 4to. 4. ‘An Account of the Proceedings between the two Houses of Convocation, which met on 20 Oct. 1702,’ London, 1704, 4to.

In 1701 he was made chaplain in ordinary to Queen Anne. In 1703 he was defeated by a narrow majority by Thomas Brathwaite in his candidature for the office of warden of New College. In 1704 he was presented by the queen to the rectory of Southmere in Norfolk, and in 1705 he undertook the charge of St. Giles's parish in the city of Norwich. On 3 Oct. 1706 he was appointed rector of St. James's, Westminster, and on 8 Feb. 1707–8 he was consecrated bishop of Norwich, in succession to John Moore (1646–1714) [q. v.], being permitted to keep the rectory of St. James's one year with his bishopric (, Novum Repert. Eccles. 1898, p. 250). As bishop he distinguished himself by the emphasis with which he urged the doctrine of the subordination of the church to the state, maintaining especially that such was the traditional position of the English church. In concurrence with these views he showed himself strongly opposed to the high-church opinions and practices then becoming prominent. In 1709 he published a charge to his clergy in which, after objecting to the ‘independence of the church upon the state,’ he proceeded to condemn the belief in ‘the power of offering sacrifice’ and ‘the power of forgiving sins’ (, English Church, i. 153). From that time he defended his opinions vehemently both in preaching and writing, and became prominent as a controversialist. In the House of Lords on 17 March 1709–10 he supported the second article of Sacheverell's impeachment by a speech which he afterwards published (London, 1710, 8vo). On 30 Jan. 1711 he preached a sermon before the upper house, in which, though more moderate than usual, he gave so much offence by his sentiments that no motion was made in the house for the usual compliment of thanks. Whiston even accused him of scepticism (, Religious Thought, iii. 14, 57).

Soon after the accession of George I he was made clerk of the closet to his majesty, in which office he continued until his death. On 21 July 1721 he was translated to the see of Winchester as successor of Sir Jonathan Trelawny [q. v.], and in the same year was elected president of the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy. He died without surviving issue on 15 Aug. 1723 at Farnham Castle in Surrey, and was buried in Winchester Cathedral. By his wife Henrietta Maria, daughter of William Talbot (1659?–1730) [q. v.], bishop of Durham, he had two


text:
Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/298

 K'Vern, George Victor, matric. London Univ. 1875 from Royal Coll. Mauritius, a student of the Middle Temple 5 Nov., 1877, called to the bar 9 June, 1880 (eldest son of Victor K'Vern, of Curepipe, Mauritius); born, 1856.
 * 29, Montagu Place, Russell Square, W.C.

Kydd, Samuel, a member of the Northern circuit, a student of Gray's Inn 13 Oct., 1858, called to the bar 6 June, 1861 (2nd son of James Kydd, Esq., of Arbroath, co. Forfar); born,.
 * 5, Mitre Court Chambers, E.C.

Kynnersley, Edmund McKenzie Sneyd, M.A. St. John's Coll., Oxon, H.M.'s inspector of schools since 1874, a member of the Oxford circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 8 June, 1866 (then aged 24), called to the bar 7 June, 1869 (eldest son of Thomas Clement Sneyd Kynnersley, of Moor Green, co. Worc., bar.-at-law); born 1 Dec., 1841.
 * Chester.

Kynnersley, Thomas Clement Sneyd, M.A., St. John's Coll., Camb., 1828, stipendiary magistrate for Birmingham since 1856, recorder of Newcastle-under-Lyme since 1858, J.P., D.L., vice-chairman Warwickshire sessions since 1863, J.P. cos. Stafford and Worcester, revising barrister on Oxford circuit 1832–56, educated at Rugby, a student of the Middle Temple 27 May, 1824, called to the bar 20 June, 1828 (2nd son of Thomas Sneyd Kynnersley, Esq., of Loxley Park, co. Staff.); born 23 July, 1803; married June, 1834, Eliza Rose, eldest dau. of late Joseph Sandars, Esq., of Taplow House, Bucks; she died, 1860, leaving issue.
 * Moor Green, Moseley, Birmingham.

title: Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/298


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/240

 sons who died in infancy. She died in 1716, and in 1719 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edmund Wynne of Nostel, Yorkshire, second baronet, and widow of Joseph Taylor of the Temple.

Though Trimnell's political and ecclesiastical opinions without doubt contributed to his advancement, he was by nature disinterested, and based his views on sincere conviction. He was a man of culture and considerable learning. Several letters from him are preserved among the Egerton manuscripts in the British Museum (2717 ff. 79, 86, 157, 2721 ff. 377–96; cf., Calendar of Corresp. relating to the Family of Oliver Le Neve). His portrait was engraved by the elder Faber from a painting attributed to Sir Godfrey Kneller, now in the possession of Mr. F. Jackson, 79 St. Giles Street, Norwich.

[Chalmers's Biogr. Dict. 1816; Funeral Sermon by Lewis Stephens; Cassan's Bishops of Winchester; Kirby's Winchester Scholars, 180, 199; Burnet's History of his own Time, 1823, v. 330, 434; Wyon's Hist. of the Reign of Anne, ii. 8; Noble's Continuation of Granger's Biogr. Hist. iii. 74; Foster's Alumni Oxon. 1500–1714; Luttrell's Brief Hist. Relation, vol. vi. passim; Wilford's Eminent and Worthy Persons, 1741, Appendix, pp. 20–1; Chaloner Smith's Mezzotinto Portraits, p. 297; Notes and Queries, 8th ser. x. 155, 9th ser. iii. 204; Blomefield's Norfolk, iii. 592, x. 369; Brit. Mus. Addit. MSS. 19166 f. 98, 32556 f. 97.]  TRIPE, JOHN (1752?-1821), antiquary. [See .]

TRIPP, HENRY (d. 1612), author and translator, matriculated as a sizar of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, in May 1562, graduating B.A. in 1565–6 and M.A. in 1571. On 27 Feb. 1569–70 he was instituted to the rectory of North Ockendon in Essex on the presentation of Gabriel Poyntz, and on 10 Nov. 1572 was admitted to the rectory of St. Stephen, Walbrook, London, on the presentation of the Grocers' Company. About 1581 he and Robert Crowley [q. v.] had a conference on doctrinal matters with Thomas Pownd, a Roman catholic and former courtier, and, in reply to his objections to their method of adducing the authority of scripture, Tripp published a ‘Brief Aunswer to Maister Pownd's Six Reasons,’ which was printed with Crowley's ‘Aunswer to Sixe Reasons that Thomas Pownde at the commandement of her Maiesties commoners, required to be aunswered’ (London, 1581, 4to). Tripp resigned the rectory of North Ockendon in 1582, and that of St. Stephen, Walbrook, in 1601. On 12 May 1583 he was appointed by the bishop of London rector of St. Faith's, London, a preferment which he held until his death in 1612.

Tripp translated: 1. ‘The Regiment of Pouertie. Compiled by a Learned Diuine of our Time, D. Andreas Hyperius [Andreas Gerardus]. Translated into Englishe by H. T. minister,’ London, 1572, 8vo. 2. ‘Vade mecum. Goe with mee: Deare Pietie and rare Charitie. By Otho Casmanne, Preacher at Stoade. Translated out of Latine, by H. T. minister,’ London, 1606, 8vo (, Transcript of the Stationers' Registers, iii. 304).

Tripp frequently preached before the Stationers' Company between 1583 and 1594 (ib. vol. i. passim), and he was probably identical with ‘Master Henry Tryppe’ admitted a freeman of the Stationers' Company on 26 June 1598, being ‘put over’ from the Goldsmiths' Company (ib. ii. 723). The only book entered in the ‘Stationers' Register’ as printed for him is ‘Otho Casmans Ethickes and Oeconomykes Philosophicall and Theosophicall, translated into English by Master Tripp himself,’ 16 Jan. 1608–9 (ib. iii. 399).

[Tripp's Works; Cooper's Athenæ Cantabr. ii. 329; Newcourt's Repert. i. 540, ii. 447; Hennessy's Novum Repert. Eccles. 1898, pp. 99, 386; Strype's Life of Aylmer, 1821, p. 30; Ames's Typogr. Antiq. ed. Herbert, p. 918.]  TRIVET or TREVET, NICHOLAS (1258?–1328), historian, was son of (d. 1283), who, according to Leland, was of a Norfolk family; but more probably the Trevets were connected with Somerset. Thomas Trevet was a justice itinerant for Dorset and the neighbouring counties from 1268 to 1271. When Norwich Cathedral was burnt by rioters in August 1272, Trevet was sent to try the malefactors (, Annales, p. 279). His son describes him on this occasion as ‘justitiarius miles.’ Thomas Trevet died in 1283 (, Judges of England).

Nicholas Trevet was probably born about 1258. He is said to have become a Dominican friar at London, and to have studied at Oxford, whence he afterwards proceeded to Paris. At the latter university he began to study the chronicles of France and Normandy (Annales, p. 2). Leland says that Trevet on his return to England became prior of the house of his order at London. He afterwards taught in the schools at Oxford, and died in 1328, when about seventy years of age. His name is usually spelt Trivet, but in his own chronicle, and in an anagram in his ‘De Officio Missæ,’ appears as Treveth or Trevet.

Trivet was a voluminous writer of theo-


text:
Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/378

 Notley, John George Patrick, entered London Univ., a student of the Inner Temple 12 Sept., 1856 (then aged 22), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1859 (only son of John Notley, of London, gent.); born, 1834.

Nottage, Charles George, B.A., LL.B., Jesus Coll., Camb., 1879, a student of the Inner Temple 18 Nov., 1876 (then aged 23), called to the bar 11 May, 1881 (only son of Rt. Hon. George Swan Nottage, lord mayor of London 1884–5); born, 1853.
 * 35, Collingham Road, South Kensington, W.

Nottidge, Thomas, M.A., Emmanuel Coll., Camb., 1872, a student of Lincoln's Inn 25 Jan., 1856 (then aged 20), called to the bar 10 June, 1859 (2nd son of George Nottidge, Esq., late of Tonbridge, Kent, dec.); born 9 Oct., 1835; married 24 Aug., 1865, Charlotte Henrietta, 3rd dau. of late Rev. Henry Thomas Streeten, B.A., of Lydiard House, Wilts.
 * Ashford, Kent.

Nourse, Henry Dalzell, M.A., B.C.L. Trin. Coll., Oxon, in classical moderations, 3rd class in final classical schools, a student of Lincoln's Inn 2 Nov., 1868 (then aged 24), called to the bar 6 June, 1871 (eldest son of Rev. John Henry Nourse, late of Clifton, co. Gloucester, dec.); born 23 Feb., 1844; married 16 Aug., 1871, Mariden, youngest dau. of Rev. Edward Girdlestone, late canon of Bristol and vicar of Olveston, co. Gloucester, dec.
 * 17, Caledonian Place, Clifton, Bristol.

Novelli, Lewis William, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1873, a student of the Inner Temple 5 Jan., 1871 (then aged 23), called to the bar 28 June, 1876 (only son of Lewis Novelli, of Prestwich, co. Lanc., merchant, dec.); born, 1848.

Noyes, Thomas Herbert, B.A., Christ Church, Oxon, 1822, from Harrow, J.P. Sussex, a student of Lincoln's Inn 2 May, 1821 (then aged 20), called to the bar 11 May, 1830 (eldest son of late Rev. Thomas Herbert Noyes, B.A., of East Mascalls, Sussex); born 31 Aug., 1800; married 26 Sept., 1826, Mary Elizabeth, eldest dau. of late Joseph Thompson Halsey, Esq., M.P., and has issue.
 * University Club, S.W.

Nugent, Edmond Henry Stuart, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1874, a student of Lincoln's Inn 13 Nov., 1868 (then aged 19), called to the bar 18 Nov., 1872 (eldest son of Thomas Vesey Nugent, Esq., of Dublin); born 26 Jan., 1849.
 * 3, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.

Nugent, Edmund Lynch, equity draftsman and conveyancer, a student of the Middle Temple 17 April, 1838, called to the bar 25 Nov., 1842 [2nd son of (Hon.) Nicholas Nugent, of Antigua]; born,.
 * 18, Norfolk Road, N.W.; 33, Chancery Lane, W.C.

Nundy, Alfred, matric. Calcutta Univ., practises before the High Court at Allahabad, a student of Lincoln's Inn 13 Jan., 1872 (then aged 21), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1874 (2nd son of Rev. Gopie Nath Nundy, late of Futtehpore, North-west Provinces India, dec.); born, 1851.
 * Allahabad, North-west Provinces India.

title: Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/378


text:
Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/384

 Acts, etc., a student of the Middle Temple 14 June, 1859, called to the bar 11 June, 1862 (eldest son of late Sir Hugh Owen, of London, Knt.); born,.
 * 20, Hillmarton Road, N.; Local Government Board, Gwydyr House, Whitehall, S.W.; 1, Pump Court, Temple, E.C.

Owen, Sidney James, M.A. Christ Church, Oxon, reader in Indian history Oxford Univ. since 1878, in Indian law 1862–78, public examiner in modern history 1872–3, in jurisprudence and modern history 1871–2, a student of Lincoln's Inn 16 Nov., 1850 (then aged 22), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1871 (2nd son of Henry Owen, late of Worksop, solicitor, dec.); born, 1828.
 * Oxford.

Owen, William, in Foreign Office 1854–82, a student of the Middle Temple 15 June, 1859, called to the bar 11 June, 1862 (2nd son of late Sir Hugh Owen, of London, Knt.); born, ; married 6 March, 1860, Elizabeth Charlotte, eldest dau. of Langer Carey, Esq., M.D., of Newport, co. Tipperary.
 * Care of 20, Hillmarton Road, N.

Owen, William Stevenson, judge of county courts (circuit No. 24) since April, 1884, of circuit No. 28 Feb. to April, 1884, chairman of quarter sessions for Haverfordwest, J.P., D.L. co. Pembroke, B.A. London Univ. 1852 and a member of Convocation, a student of the Inner Temple 3 May, 1853 (then aged 19), called to the bar 6 June, 1856 (eldest son of William Owen, Esq., of Herman's Hill, Haverfordwest); born, 1834; married 7 Nov., 1857, Mary Ledger, youngest dau. of late George Ray, Esq., of Milton, Kent, and has issue.
 * Withybush, Haverfordwest; 24, Westbourne Square W.; Union Club.

Owsley, John William, clerk in Charity Commission since 1865, matric. London Univ. 1863, a student of the Middle Temple 9 Nov., 1869, called to the bar 6 June, 1872 (2nd son of late William Poyntz Mason Owsley, Esq., of Blaston Hall, co. Leic.); born 26 Nov., 1840; married, , Bertha Ellen, dau. of late George Bawtree, Esq., of Colchester.
 * Charity Commission, Whitehall, S.W.; Forest Hill, Kent.

Oxenham, Edward Lavington, consul at Chinkiang since Feb., 1880, entered service 1866, a student of the Middle Temple 15 Nov., 1873, called to the bar 18 April, 1883 (2nd son of late Rev. William Owen Oxenham, of Harrow, Middlesex); born,.
 * Chinkiang, China.

Oxley, John Stewart, B.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1883, a student of the Inner Temple 6 Nov., 1880 (then aged 19), called to the bar 7 May, 1884 (eldest son of John Stewart Oxley, of Few Place, Worth, Sussex); born, 1861.
 * 11, King's Bench Walk, Temple, E.C.

title: Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/384


text: A Critique of the Theory of Evolution/II


text:
Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/417

 Purvis, Robert, LL.D., Downing Coll., Camb., 1881, M.A., LL.M. 1875, a member of the North-eastern circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 28 May, 1870 (then aged 25), called to the bar 30 April, 1873 (3rd son of Joseph Purvis, gent., late of Hexham, Northumberland); born, 1845; married 17 Sept., 1874, Elizabeth Marion, elder dau. of William Henry Peat, Esq., of Blackheath.
 * 4, Blackheath Terrace, S.E.; 1, Paper Buildings, Temple, E.C.

Putnam, John Millidge, B.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1854, a student of the Inner Temple 27 April, 1853 (then aged 22), called to the bar 7 June, 1858 (only son of late Charles Samuel Putnam, Esq., of Fredericton, New Brunswick); born, 1831.
 * Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Pye, Henry John, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1852, a member of the Midland circuit, rector of Clifton Campville 1851–72, author of Short Ecclesiastical History, of Notes on the Conflicting Claims to the Property of a Debtor, a student of the Inner Temple 3 Nov., 1873 (then aged 46), called to the bar 28 June, 1876 (eldest surviving son of Henry John Pye, of Clifton Hall, Staff., J.P.); born 31 Jan., 1827; married 21 Oct., 1851, Emily Charlotte, dau. of Rt. Rev. Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., late bishop of Winchester, dec.
 * 36, St. Julian's Road, Kilburn, N.W.; 4, Middle Temple Lane, E.C.

Pyke, Lionel Edward, LL.B., B.A. (1st class honours) London Univ. 1873 and a member of Convocation, also a member of the Western circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 3 Nov., 1874 (then aged 20), called to the bar 13 June, 1877 (2nd son of Joseph Pyke, Esq., of London); born April, 1854.
 * 3, Paper Buildings, Temple, E.C.

Pyne, Arthur Thomas, M.A. Exeter Coll., Oxon, a student of the Inner Temple 4 June, 1863 (then aged 22), called to the bar 27 Jan., 1868 (youngest surviving son of Rev. William Pyne, M.A., of Charlton House, near Somerton, Somerset); born, 1841.
 * Charlton House, near Somerton.

Pyrke, Duncombe, late capt. Glouc. light infantry militia, J.P., D.L. co. Glouc., a student of Lincoln's Inn 16 Jan., 1856 (then aged 20), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1864 (only son of Duncombe Pyrke, Esq., of Dean Hall, co. Glouc.); born 15 Jan., 1836; married 3 Feb., 1857, Susan, dau. of Thomas Evans, Esq., M.D., of Gloucester, and has issue.
 * Cheltenham.

Quick, Frederick James, B.A., Trin. Hall, Camb., 1859, a student of Lincoln's Inn 21 Jan., 1858 (then aged 21), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1861 (2nd son of James Carthew Quick, Esq., of Ingatestone, Essex); born, 1837.
 * New University Club, S.W.

Quicke, Arthur Philip, M.A. Hertford Coll., Oxon, B.A. 1880, a student of the Middle Temple 25 Jan., 1881, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1884 (3rd son of Dr. Thomas Royle Quicke, of Brixton, Surrey); born,.
 * Brixton Oval.

Quilter, Harry, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1877, 3 student of the Inner Temple 3 May, 1872 (then aged 21), called to the bar 18 Nov., 1878 (3rd son of William Quilter, of London, accountant); born, 1851.
 * Tite Street, Chelsea Embankment, S.W.

Quin, Richard James, LL.B., B.A. Trin. Coll., Dublin, a student of the Middle Temple 2 Nov., 1867, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1870 (4th surviving son of William Charles Quin, of Dublin, bar.-at-law, one of the ecclesiastical commissioners for Ireland); born, ; married 28 Dec., 1878, Mary Charlotte, elder dau. of Charles Richard Nicoll, surgeon-major late grenadier guards.
 * 95, Elgin Crescent, W.; 3, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.

title: Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/417


text:
Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/441

 Roy, Robert, undergrad. Downing Coll., Camb., a member of the Oxford circuit, a student of the Middle Temple 15 Jan., 1876, called to the bar 29 June, 1881 (only son of Rev. Robert Roy, of Sidney Sussex Coll., Camb.); born,.
 * New University Club, S.W.

Royds, Edmund Albert Nuttall, a member of the Northern circuit, capt 1st royal Lancashire militia since 1872, J.P. Lancashire, matric. Trin. Coll., Camb., from Eton, a student of the Middle Temple 30 April, 1868, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1871 (2nd son of Albert Hudson Royds, Esq., of Crown East Court, co. Worcester); born, 1845; married 16 April, 1873, Augusta Eliza, eldest dau. of Augustus Henry Lemorines, Esq., of Stonehouse, co. Lanc., and has issue.
 * Brownhill, near Rochdale; Junior Carlton Club, S.W.

Royle, Charles, counsel at Alexandria, a member of British auxiliary commission for Egyptian judicial reforms 1881, paymaster royal navy 1862–3, entered service 1854, a student of Lincoln's Inn 27 April, 1863 (then aged 24), exhibitions July, 1864, and Mich., 1865, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1865 (4th son of William Royle, Esq., of Lymington, Hants); born 24 Dec., 1838.
 * Alexandria, Egypt.

Royle, George, a member of the bar of Alexandria since 1872, served in the navy during late Crimean war, at capture of Peiho forts Aug., 1860, served in naval brigade during capture and occupation of Pekin, etc., Chinese war medal, resigned commission 1863, having passed for navigating lieutenant; English Channel pilot, certificate 6 Oct., 1863, master mariner, merchant service certificate 25 Jan., 1864, a student of Lincoln's Inn 20 Nov., 1867 (then aged 25), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1870 (Sth son of William Royle, of Lymington, Hants, gent.); born 8 July, 1841; married 19 Nov., 1878, Fanny Jane Longueville, dau. of Thomas Snow, Esq., M.A., of the Inner Temple, bar.-at-law.
 * Port Said, Egypt.

De Rozario, Peter Alexander, a student of the Middle Temple 22 April, 1881, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1884 (eldest son of Jacob John de Rozario, of Madras C.S., retired); born,.
 * 44, Ainger Road, Primrose Hill, N.W.

Rubie, John Fonthill, B.A., New Coll., Oxon, 1880, associate King's Coll., London, a member of the Western circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 6 April, 1880 (then aged 23), common law scholarship July, 1882, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1883 (eldest son of John Parsons Rubie, Esq., of West Cowes, Isle of Wight); born 20 April, 1856.
 * 8, King's Bench Walk, Temple, E.C.

Rücker, George Frederick, M.A. Brasenose Coll., Oxon, B.A. 1878, a member of the Midland circuit, a student of the Middle Temple 25 Oct., 1876, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1879 (younger son of John Anthony Rücker, of Blackheath, Kent, gent.); born,.
 * 1, Essex Court, Temple, E.C.

Rudall, Arthur Reginald, a student of the Middle Temple 10 June, 1865, called to the bar 30 April, 1868 (2nd son of William Rudall, of London, bar.-at-law); born.
 * 4, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.

Rudd, John Bartholomew, M.A., St. John's Coll., Camb., 1838, J.P. Yorks North Riding, hon. major 1st northern division royal artillery since 1881, capt. 1863–81, a student of the Middle Temple 15 Nov., 1834, called to the bar 27 May, 1842 (only son of Thomas Rudd, Esq., of Marton-in-Cleveland, Yorks, dec.); born, 1813.
 * Tollesby Hall, Middlesborough.

Rudra, Akhoy Coomar, practises before the High Court at Calcutta, Lahore, and Bombay, etc., a student of the Middle Temple 5 June, 1874, called to the bar 13 June, 1877 (eldest son of Bance Madhieb Rudra, of Calcutta, Bengal, merchant); born, 1855.
 * Calcutta

Ruegg, Alfred Henry, author of Student's Auxilium to the Institutes of Justinian, of A Treatise upon the Employers' Liability Act, a student of the Middle Temple 2 Nov., 1874, called to the bar 13 June, 1877 (2nd son of Edward James Ruegg, of Saxham House, Stroud, co. Glouc.); born,.
 * The Grange, Woodchester, co. Gloucester; 3, Essex Court, Temple, E.C.

Rumsey, Almaric, B.A. St. Mary Hall, Oxon (1st class mathematics), from Rugby, professor of Indian jurisprudence at King's Coll., London, since 1879, assistant solicitor to H.M.'s customs May, 1868, to April, 1875, member of joint Board of Examiners Inns of Court 1877–81, author of The Law of Mohammedan Inheritance, A Chart of Hindu Family Inheritance, and A Treatise on the Judicature Acts, a student of Lincoln's Inn 24 Jan., 1854 (then aged 29), called to the bar 17 Nov., 1857 (2nd son of Lacy Rumsey, Esq., clerk in H.M.'s treasury); born 31 Dec., 1825; married 11 Jan., 1872, Caroline Montagu, dau. of Thomas John Pittar, Esq., of H.M.'s customs (see Foster's Peerage, ).
 * 105, Endlesham Road, Balham, S.W.; 10, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.

Rushton, Edward, B.A., Jesus Coll., Camb., 1846, a member of the Northern circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 30 Oct., 1843 (then aged 23), called to the bar 8 June, 1849 (eldest son of Edward Rushton, of the Inner Temple, bar.-at-law); born, 1820.
 * 1, Mitre Court Buildings, Temple, E.C.

Rushton, Edward, a student of the Middle Temple 23 Jan., 1882, called to the bar 17 Nov., 1884 (youngest son of William Rushton, of Calcutta, publisher); born.
 * 23, Fountain Road, Stoke Newington, N.

Rushton, William Lowes, a member of the Northern circuit, a student of Gray's Inn 28 Jan., 1861, called to the bar 26 Jan., 1865 (youngest son of Edward Rushton, late of Liverpool, bar.-at-law, dec.); born, ; married 19 Nov., 1878, Sophy Mary, only dau. of Rear-Admiral Frederick William Gough, R.N., C.B. (see Foster's Baronetage, ).
 * Care of 100, Lorne Terrace, Liverpool.

title: Page:Men-at-the-Bar.djvu/441


text: Index:Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, v6.djvu