- Sir William Lawrence, 1st Baronet
Sir William Lawrence, 1st Baronet FRCS FRS (
July 16 1783– July 05 1867) was an English surgeon who became President of the Royal College of Surgeons of Londonand Serjeant Surgeonto the Queen. As a young man he published two books of his lectures which contained pre-Darwinian ideas on man's nature and, effectively, on evolution. His second (1819) book was suppressed, after which his later surgical career was highly successful.
Lawrence was born in
Cirencester, Gloucestershire, the son of a surgeon. [Records of the Royal Society] He was apprenticed to, and lived with, John Abernethy (FRS 1796) for 5 years. He married Louisa (1803–1855), the daughter of a Mayfair haberdasher, who built up social fame through horticulture. Their son, Sir Trevor Lawrence, was for many years President of the Royal Horticultural Society.
Lawrence had a long and successful career as a surgeon. At his death he had reached the top of his profession, and the Queen rewarded him with a
baronetcy. He was created a baronet (see Lawrence Baronets) on 30 April 1867. Lawrence suffered an attack of apoplexy whilst descending the stairs at the College of Surgeons and died later at his house, 18 Whitehall Place, London (5th July 1867). [Records of the Royal Society]
Said to be a brilliant scholar, Lawrence was the translator of several anatomical works written in Latin, and was fully conversant with the latest research on the continent. He had good looks and a charming manner, and was a fine lecturer. His quality as a surgeon was never questioned. [Brook C. 1945. "Battling surgeon". Strickland, Glasgow. p35] Lawrence helped the radical campaigner
Thomas Wakleyfound the Lancetjournal, and was prominent at mass meetings for medical reform in 1826. [Desmond A. 1989. "The politics of evolution: morphology, medicine and reform in radical London." Chicago.] Elected to the Council of the RCS in 1828, he became its President in 1846, and again in 1855. [Royal Society records]
During Lawrence's surgical career he held the posts of Professor of Anatomy and Surgery,
Royal College of Surgeons(1815-1922); Surgeon to the hospitals of Bridewelland Bethlem, and to the London Infirmary for Diseases of the Eye; Demonstrator of Anatomy, then Assistant Surgeon, later Surgeon, St Bartholomew's Hospital(1824-1865). Later in his career, he was appointed Surgeon Extraordinary, later Serjeant Surgeon, to the Queen. His specialty was ophthalmology, although he practised in and lectured and wrote on all branches of surgery. Shelley, Pugin, and Queen Victoriawere among his patients. Despite reaching the height of his profession, with the outstanding quality of his surgical work, and his excellent textbooks, [Lawrence, William 1807. "Treatise on hernia". Callow, London. Later editions from 1816 entitled "Treatise on ruptures". Lawrence, W. 1833. "A treatise on the diseases of the eye". Churchill, London.] Lawrence is mostly remembered today for an extraordinary period in his early career which brought him fame and notoriety, and led him to the brink of ruin.
Controversy and Chancery
At the age of 30, in 1813, Lawrence was elected a
Fellow of the Royal Society. In 1815 he was appointed Professor of Anatomy and Surgery by the College of Surgeons. His lectures started in 1816, and the set was published the same year. [Lawrence, William 1816. "An introduction to the comparative anatomy and physiology, being the two introductory lectures delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons on the 21st and 25th of March 1916". J. Callow, London.] The book was immediately attacked by Abernethy and others for materialism, and for undermining the moral welfare of the people. One of the issues between Lawrence and his critics concerned the origin of thoughts and consciousness. For Lawrence, as for ourselves, mental processes were a function of the brain. Abernethy and others thought differently: they explained thoughts as the product of vital acts of an immaterial kind. Abernethy also published his lectures, which contained his support for John Hunter's vitalism, and his objections to Lawrence's materialism. [Abernethy J. 1817. "Physiological lectures, exhibiting a general view of Mr John Hunter's physiology, and his researches in comparative anatomy; delivered before the Royal College of Surgeons". Longman, London.]
In subsequent years Lawrence vigorously contradicted his critics until, in 1819, he published a second book, known by its short title of the Natural history of man. [Lawrence, William 1819. "Lectures on physiology, zoology and the natural history of man". J. Callow, London.] The book caused a storm of disapproval from conservative and clerical quarters for its supposed
atheism, and within the medical profession because he advocated a materialistrather than vitalistapproach to human life. He was linked by his critics with such other 'revolutionaries' as Thomas Paineand Lord Byron.
Hostility from the established
Church of Englandwas guaranteed. "A vicious review in the Tory " Quarterly Review" execrated his materialist explanation of man and mind"; [The review was by the Rev George D'Oyly, a supporter of King's College London, the Anglicananswer to UCL.] [Desmond A. and Moore J.A. 1991. "Darwin". Joseph, London. p253] [Cutmore J. (ed) 2007. "Conservatism and the Quarterly Review: a critical analysis" Pickering & Chatto, London; Cutmore J. 2008. "Contributors to the Quarterly Review 1809-25": a history. Pickering & Chatto, London.] the Lord Chancellor, in the Court of Chancery(1822), ruled his lectures blasphemous, on the grounds that the book contradicted Holy Scripture(the Bible). This destroyed the book's copyright. [According to Charles Brook, Lawrence himself started the court case by applying for an injunction to stop a bookseller pirating his work. Brook C. 1945, "op cit".] Lawrence was also repudiated by his own teacher, Abernethy, with whom he had already had a controversy about John Hunter's teachings. Faced by persecution, perhaps prosecution, and certainly ruin through the loss of surgical patients, Lawrence withdrew the book. The time had not yet arrived when a science which dealt with man as a species could be conducted without interference from the religious authorities.
It is interesting that the
Court of Chancerywas acting, here, in its most ancient role, that of a "court of conscience". This entailed the moral law applied to prevent "peril to the soul of the wrongdoer through mortal sin". The remedy was given to the plaintiff(the Crown, in this case) to look after the wrongdoer's soul; the benefit to the plaintiff was only incidental. This is also the explanation for "specific performance", which compels the sinner to put matters right. The whole conception is mediæval in origin.
It is difficult to find a present-day parallel. The withholding of copyright, though only an indirect financial penalty, was both an official act and a hostile signal. We do not seem to have a word for this kind of indirect pressure, though
Suppression of dissentcomes closer than censorship. Perhaps the modern 'naming and shaming' comes closest. The importance of respectability, reputation and public standing were critical in this case, as so often in traditional societies.
Transition to respectability
After repudiating his book, Lawrence returned to respectability, but not without regrets. He wrote to
William Hone, who was acquitted of libel in 1817, explaining his expediency and commending Hone's "greater courage in such matters". [Desmond, Adrian 1989. "The politics of evolution: morphology, medicine and reform in radical London". Chicago. p118-21]
He continued to espouse radical ideas and, led by the famous radical campaigner
Thomas Wakley, Lawrence was part of the small group which launched " The Lancet", and wrote material for it. Lawrence wrote pungent editorials, and chaired the public meetings in 1826 at the Freemason's Tavern. These meetings, for members of the College, were attended by about 1200 people, [Brook C. 1945. "Battling surgeon". Strickland, Glasgow. p80 [the number present suggests that students and other interested parties were present as well as Members and Fellows] ] were called to protest against the way surgeons abused their privileges to set student fees and control appointments. Also, Lawrence was co-owner of the Aldersgate Private Medical Academy (with Frederick Tyrrell). These private medical academies provided some of the best teaching of anatomy and physiology, but were constantly under threat from the Royal Colleges.
In his opening speech Lawrence criticised the by-laws of the College of Surgeons for preventing all but a few teachers in London, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen from issuing certificates of attendance at preparatory lectures. He pointed out that Aberdeen and Glasgow were bereft of cadavers for dissection, without which anatomy could not be preoperly taught.
A proposed change in regulations of the College of Surgeons would soon cut the ground from under the private summer schools, since diplomas taken in the summer were not to be recognised.:"It would appear from the new regulations that sound knowledge was the sort acquired in the winter, when the hospital lecturers delivered their courses, while unsound knowledge was imparted in the summer when only the private schools could provide the instruction" Lawrence in his opening speech, Freemason's Tavern, 1826. Lawrence concluded by protesting against the exclusion of the great provincial teachers from giving recognised certificates. [Brook "op cit" p82]
However, gradually Lawrence conformed more to the style of the College of Surgeons, and was elected to their Council in 1828. This somewhat wounded Wakley, who complained to Lawrence, and made some remarks in the "Lancet". But, true to form, Wakley soon saw Lawrence's rise in the College as providing him with an inside track into the working of the institution he was hoping to reform. For some years Lawrence hunted with the Lancet and ran with the College. From the inside, Lawrence was able to help forward several of the much-needed reforms espoused by Wakley. The College of Surgeons was at last reformed, to some extent at least, by a new charter in 1843. [Brook "op cit" p96; another account, somewhat more partial to Wakley, is given by Sprigge, S. Squire 1899. "The life and times of Thomas Wakley". Longmans Green, London. p209–211]
This episode marks Lawrence's return to repectability; in fact, Lawrence succeeded Abernethy as the 'dictator' of Bart's. From then, Lawrence's career went ever forward. He never looked back: he became President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and
Serjeant-Surgeonto Queen Victoria. Before he died she made him a baronet. "Never again [did] he venture to express his views on the processes of evolution, on the past or the future of man." [Darlington, Cyril D. 1959. "Darwin's place in history". Blackwell, Oxford p21.] He did, however, warn the young T.H. Huxley – in vain, it must be said – not to broach the dangerous topic of the evolution of man. [Huxley T.H. 1894. "Man's place in nature". Macmillan, London. Preface to vol VII of these Collected Essays contains this note: "Among the many problems which came under my consideration, the position of the human species in zoological classification was one of the most serious. Indeed, at that time, it was a burning question in the sense that those who touched it were almost certain to burn their fingers severely. It was not so very long since my kind friend Sir William Lawrence, one of the ablest men whom I have known, had been well-nigh ostracized for his book "On man", which now might be read in a Sunday-school without surprising anybody.]
The anonymous publication of the Vestiges in 1844, and the very great caution shown by Darwin in publishing his radical ideas had a similar cause, the need to avoid a direct conflict with religion whilst giving voice to scientific ideas. We know that Darwin owned a copy of Lawrence's book, and that he did brood about the consequences of publishing his ideas. [Desmond A. and Moore J.A. 1991. "Darwin". Joseph, London. p251 and p700, note 34.] [Desmond A. 1989. "The politics of evolution: morphology, medicine and reform in radical London". Chicago. "The dread of being lumped with the agitators actually prevented Darwin from publishing his own theory of evolution until twenty years later." (quote from back wrapper) may be an oversimplification, but it points in the right direction.] [A contrary view is: van Wyhe, John 2007. [http://darwin-online.org.uk/people/van_Wyhe_2007_Mind_the_gap_did_Darwin_avoid_publishing_his_theory.pdf Mind the g
] , "Notes and Records of the Royal Society" 61: 177–205, doi:10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171 ]
In Lawrence's day the impact of laws on
seditionand blasphemywere even more threatening than they were in Darwin's time. [Desmond A. 1987. Artisan resistance and evolution in Britain 1818-1848. "Osiris" 3, 77-110; Desmond A. 1989. "The politics of evolution: morphology, medicine and reform in radical London". Chicago, p120] Darwin referred to Lawrence (1819) six times in his "Descent of man" (1871). [Barrett P.H. et al 1987. "A concordance to Darwin's The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex". Cornell, Ithaca. The references are about man, including eyesight, colours of babies, beards, and aristocracy and beauty. However, Darwin seems not to have appreciated how far Lawrence had progressed on heredity. These references reveal that Darwin owned and read a copy of the 1822 reprint; date of purchase seems not to be known.]
Lawrence's "Natural history of man" contained some remarkable anticipations of later thought, but was ruthlessly, and successfully, suppressed. The suppression was so effective that to this day Lawrence does not seem to get the recognition he deserves. He is omitted, for example, from many of the Darwin biographies, [most notably, from Janet Browne's great work: Browne, Janet 1995-2002. "Charles Darwin". vol 1: "Voyaging"; vol 2: "The Power of Place". Cambridge University Press.] and from some evolution textbooks. [for example, Fothergill P.G. 1952. "Historical aspects of organic evolution". Hollis & Carter, London, and Bowler, Peter 2003. "Evolution: the history of an idea". California, Berkeley, omit Lawrence completely. Larsen E.J. "Evolution: the remarkable history of a scientific theory". Modern Library, N.Y. omits not only Lawrence but also Wells, Prichard, Blyth and Matthew.]
Lawrence was one of three British medical men who wrote on evolution-related topics between 1813 and 1819. They would all have been familiar with
Erasmus Darwinand Lamarkat least; probably also Malthus. Two (Prichard and Lawrence) dedicated their works to Blumenbach, the founder of physical anthropology. "The men who took up the challenge of Lamark were three English physicians, Wells, Lawrence and Prichard"... "All three men denied soft heredity ( Lamarkism)" [Darlington, Cyril D. 1959. "Darwin's place in history". Blackwell, Oxford. p16] Not too accurate in biographical terms, as Lawrence was actually a surgeon, Wells was born in Carolina to a Scottish family, and Prichard was a Scot! However, correct in principle on the main issue. Each grasped aspects of Darwin's theory, yet none saw the whole picture, and none developed the ideas any further. The later publication of Chambers' "Vestiges" and Matthew's "Naval timber" [Darlington, for one, was convinced that Lawrence was an unacknowledged source for some of Matthew's ideas: Darlington, Cyril D. 1959. "Darwin's place in history". Blackwell, Oxford. p22-3] was more explicit; the existence of the whole group suggests there was something real (though intangible) about the intellectual atmosphere in Britain which is captured by the phrase 'evolution was in the air.'
The years 1815-1835 saw much political and social turmoil in Britain, not least in the medical profession. There were radical medical students and campaigners in both Edinburgh and London, the two main training centres for the profession at the time. Many of these were
materialistswho held views favouring evolution, but of a Lamarkian or Geoffroyan kind. [Desmond, Adrian 1989. "The politics of evolution: morphology, medicine and reform in radical London". Chicago.] It is the allegiance to hard inheritanceor to natural selectionwhich distinguishes Lawrence, Prichard and Wells, because those ideas have survived, and are part of the present-day account of evolution.
Lawrence on heredity
The existence of races is a token of change in the human species, and suggests there is some significance in geographical separation. Lawrence noted that racial characteristics were inherited, not caused by the direct effect of, for instance,
climate. As an example, he considered the way skin colourwas inherited by children of Africanorigin when born in temperate climates: how their colour developed without exposure to the sun, and how this continued through generations. This was evidence against the "direct" effect of climate.
Lawrence's ideas on heredity were many years ahead of their time, as this extract shows: "The offspring inherit only [their parents'] connate peculiarities and not any of the acquired qualities". This is as clear a rejection of
soft inheritanceas one can find. However, Lawrence qualified it by including the origin of birth defects owing to influences on the mother (an old folk superstition). So Mayr places Wilhelm His, Sr.in 1874 as the first unqualified rejection of soft inheritance. [His W. 1874. "Unsere Körperform und das physiologische Problem ihrer Enstehung". Vogel, Leipzig.] [Mayr E. 1982. "The growth of biological thought". Harvard. p695.] However, the number of places in the text where Lawrence explicitly rejects the direct action of the environment on heredity justifies his recognition as an early opponent of Geoffroyism.
Here, as seen by
Cyril Darlington, are some of the ideas presented by Lawrence in his book, much abbreviated and rephrased in more modern terms:
*Mental as well as physical differences in man are inherited.
*Races of man have arisen by
mutationssuch as may be seen in litters of kittens.
Sexual selectionhas improved the beauty of advanced races and governing classes.
*The separation of
racespreserves their characters.
*'Selections and exclusions' are the means of change and
*Men can be improved by
selectionin breedingjust as domesticated cattle can be. Conversely, they can be ruined by inbreeding, a consequence which can be observed in many royal families.
*Zoological study, the treatment of man as an animal, is the only proper foundation for teaching and research in medicine, morals, or even in politics. [Darlington C.D. 1959. "Darwin's place in history". Blackwell, Oxford; Macmillan, N.Y. 1961. p19-20]
Darlington's account goes further than other commentators. He seems to credit Lawrence with a modern appreciation of selection (which he definitely did not have); subsequently, Darlington's account was criticised as an over-statement. [Mudford P.G. 1968. William Lawrence and "The Natural History of Man". "Journal of the History of Ideas" 29, 430-436. Here the author claims that Darlington overstated the case for Lawrence as an evolution precursor. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-5037(196807%2F09)29%3A3%3C430%3AWLATNH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X] ] Darlington does not claim Lawrence actually enunciated a theory of evolution, though passages in Lawence's book do suggest that races were historically developed. On heredity and adaptation, and the rejection of
Lamarkism( soft inheritance) Lawrence is quite advanced.
Content of the second book
The introductory sections
"Lecture I: introductory to the lectures of 1817".
"Reply to the charges of Mr Abernethy; Modern history and progress of comparative anatomy".
This follows the first publication of Lawrence's ideas in 1816, and Abernethy's criticism of them in his lectures for 1817. [Abernethy J. 1817. "Physiological lectures" &c. Longman, London.]
:"Gentlemen! I cannot presume to address you again... without first publicly clearing myself from a charge publicly made... of propagating opinions detrimental to society... for the purpose of loosening those restraints, on which the welfare of mankind depends."
* [footnote] "Physiological lectures, exhibiting a general view of Mr Hunter's Physiology" &c &c. by John Abernethy FRS. [references] "too numerous to be particularized." This book of lectures at the same College of Surgeons contained the charge of which Lawrence complained.
In this very long footnote Lawrence says that the elementary anatomy in Abernethy's text is used "like water in a medical prescription... an innocent vehicle for the more active ingredients."
The early part of the 1819 book is marked by Lawrence's reaction to Abernethy's attack on the 'materialism' of the first book. After a long preamble, in which Lawrence extols the virtues of freedom of speech, he eventually gets to the point::"It is alleged that there is a party of modern sceptics, co-operating in the diffusion of these noxious opinions with a no less terrible band of French physiologists, for the purpose of demoralising mankind! Such is the general tenor of the accusation..." p3:"Where, Gentlemen! shall we find proofs of this heavy charge? p4
I see the animal functions inseparable from the animal organs... examine the mind... Do we not see it actually built up before our eyes by the actions of the five external senses, and of the gradually developed internal faculties? p5 (see also p74-81 on the functions of the brain)
I say, physiologically speaking... because the theological doctrine of the soul, and its separate existence, has nothing to do with this physiological question, but rests on a species of proof altogether different." p6
Lawrence is here arguing that medical questions should be answered by medical evidence, in other words, he is arguing for
rational thoughtand empiricisminstead of revelationor received religion. In particular, he insisted that mental activity was produced as a function of the brain, and has nothing to do with metaphysical concepts such as the 'soul'. Also, there is an implication, never quite stated, that Abernethy's motive might be venal; that jealousy (for example) might be revealed by "a consideration of the real motives" (phrase from his long initial footnote). It is absolutely clear that the conflict predates the publication of Lawrence's book.
Evidence from geology and palaeontology
The discussion drawn from stratigraphy is interesting::"The inferior layers, or the first in order of time, contain the remains most widely different from the animals of the living creation; and as we advance to the surface there is a gradual approximation to our present species." p39
Refers to Cuvier, Brongniart and
Lamarkin France, and Parkinson in Britain) in connection with fossils::"... the extinct races of animals... those authentic memorials of beings... whose living existence... has been supposed, with considerable probability, to be of older date than the formation of the human race." p39
Summary of ideas on human races
Chapter VII raises the issue of whether different races have similar diseases (p162 et seq) and ends with a list of reasons for placing man in one distinct species. The reasons are mostly anatomical with some behavioural, such as speech. They remain valid today.
Next there is a lengthy discussion of variation in man, and of the differences between races. Then he considers "causation". Lectures of 1818, Chapter IX: "On the causes of the varieties of the human species":
:"Having examined the principal points in which the several tribes of the human species differ from each other... I proceed to inquire whether the diversities enumerated ... are to be considered as characteristic distinctions coeval with the origin of the species, or as a result of subsequent variation; and in the event of the latter... whether they are the effect of external... causes, or of native or congenital variety." p343
"Great influence has at all times been ascribed to climate... [but] we have abundance of proof that [differences of climate] are entirely inadequate to account for the differences between the different races of men. p343–4
He shows clearly in several places that differences between races (and between varieties of domesticated animals) are inherited, and not caused by the direct action of the environment; then follows this admission:
:"We do not understand the exact nature of the process by which it [meaning the correspondence between climate and racial characteristics] is effected." p345
So, after insisting on empirical (non-religious) evidence, he has clearly rejected Lamarkism but has not thought of natural selection.
Ideas on mechanism
Although in places Lawrence disclaims all knowledge of how the differences between races arose, elsewhere there are passages which hint at a mechanism. In Chapter IX, for example, we find:
:"These signal diversities which constitute differences of race in animals... can only be explained by two principles... namely, the occasional production of an offspring with different characters from those of the parents, as a native or congenital variety; [ie "
heritable"] and the propagation of such varieties by generation." p348 [continues with examples of heritable variety in offspring in one litter of kittens, or sheep. This is Mendelian inheritanceand segregation]
Passages like this are interpreted by Darlington in his first two points above; there is more on variety and its origin in Chapter IV, p67-8. It is clear that Lawrence's understanding of heredity was well ahead of his time, (ahead of Darwin, in fact) and that he only lacks the idea of selection to have a fully-fledged theory of evolution.
Contradiction of the Bible
Direct contradiction of the Bible was something Lawrence might have avoided, but his honesty and forthright approach led him onto this dangerous ground:
:"The representations of all the animals being brought before Adam in the first instance and subsequently of their being collected in the ark... are zoogically impossible." p169
:"The entire or even partial inspiration of the...
Old Testamenthas been, and is, doubted by many persons, including learned divines and distinguished oriental and biblical scholars. The account of the creation and of subsequent events, has the allegorical character common to eastern compositions..." p168-9 incl. footnotes.
:"The astronomer does not portray the heavenly motions, or lay down the laws which govern them, according to the Jewish scriptures [= the Old Testament] nor does the geologist think it necessary to modify the results of experience according to the contents of the Mosaic writngs. I conclude then, that the subject is open for discussion." p172
Passages such as these, fully in the tradition of
British empiricismand the Age of Enlightenment, were no doubt pointed out to the Lord Chancellor. In his opinion, the subject was "not" open for discussion.
*Lawrence, William FRS 1816. "An introduction to the comparative anatomy and physiology, being the two introductory lectures delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons on the 21st and 25th of March 1916". J. Callow, London. 179pp. [Chapter 2 'On life' was the start of his troubles, and caused the first attacks of the grounds of materialism &c]
*Lawrence, William FRS 1819. "Lectures on physiology, zoology and the natural history of man". J. Callow, London. 579pp. Reprinted 1822.
There were a number of unauthorized reprints of this work,
pirated(in the sense that the author went unrecompensed) but seemingly unexpurgated. These editions also lacked the protection of copyright, and date from 1819 to 1848. Some of them were by quite respectable publishers. Desmond's view is that the Chancery decision was "a ringing endorsement to atheist ears. Six pauper presses pirated the offending book, keeping it in print for decades. As a result, although officially withdrawn, Laurence's "magnum opus" could be found on every dissident's bookshelf." Desmond & Moore 1991. "Darwin" p253.
The text of all editions is probably identical, though no-one has published a full bibliographical study.:1822 W. Benbow. 500pp. Darwin's copy was of this edition.:1822 Kaygill & Price (no plates). 2 vols, 288+212pp.:1823 J&C Smith (new plates). 532pp.:1838 J. Taylor. ('twelve new engravings'; seventh edition – stereotyped). 396pp.:1844 J. Taylor (old plates; 'ninth edition – stereotyped). 396pp.:1848 H.G. Bohn (ninth edition, as above).
:The British Library also holds a number of pamphlets, mostly attacking Lawrence's ideas.
*Lawrence, William FRS 1807. "Treatise on hernia". Callow, London. Later editions from 1816 entitled "Treatise on ruptures: an anatomical description of each species with an account of its symptoms, progress, and treatment". 5th and last ed 1858. "The standard text for many years" Morton, "A medical bibliography" #3587.
* [Lawrence, William] 1819. 'Man', an anonymous article in "Abraham Rees' Cyclopaedia", vol 22. Longman, London.
*Lawrence, W. 1833. "A treatise on the diseases of the eye". Churchill, London. This work is based on lectures delivered at the London Ophthalmic Infirmary; later edition 1845. "He did much to advance the surgery of the eye. This comprehensive work marks an epoch in ophthalmic surgery." Morton, "A medical bibliography" #5849.
*Lawrence, William 1834. "The Hunterian Oration, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons on the 14th of February 1834". Churchill, London.
*Lawrence, William 1863. "Lectures on surgery". London.
*Darlington, Cyril D. 1959. "Darwin's place in history". Blackwell, Oxford; also Macmillan, N.Y. 1961.
*Mudford P.G. 1968. William Lawrence and "The Natural History of Man". "Journal of the History of Ideas" 29, 430-436.
*Wells K.D. 1971. Sir William Lawrence (1783-1867): a study of pre-Darwinian ideas on heredity and variation. "J. History of Biology" 6, 225-58.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.