Establishing Economics at Cambridge and Views on Economics

Pryme’s introduction to the discipline of political economy took place when he was 14-years-old. However, it was an inauspicious beginning for somebody who would go on to become the first Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge. Pryme recounts how when he was being schooled at Bunny he came across a copy of Smith’s Wealth of Nations. He read three or four chapters but found it ‘too deep’ (Pryme 1870: 23). Despite this, Pryme notes that he was particularly attracted to Smith’s ideas on the division of labour: ‘[I was] interested in the division of labour, and in the fact that with it ten men could make, amongst them, upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day, whilst separately they could not have made more than two hundred’ (ibid.). Fast-forwarding to 1804 when Pryme arrived in London to begin his legal training, he relates how, as before, he knew very little political economy:

Soon after my arrival in town I became a member of a debating society, called “the Academical,” from the rules requiring a candidate to be a member of [a] University or Inn of Court. We met once a week at a room in Bell Yard, between Lincoln’s Inn and the Temple, for debate. Recent politics, or allusions to living statesmen, were excluded. Modern History and Political Economy were occasionally touched on, and were subjects wherein I felt my deficiency (ibid.: 65).

His exposure to The Wealth of Nations as a boy aside, it seems, at least from Pryme’s Autobiography, that the most important driving force for the reigniting of his interest in political economy as an adult was this ‘deficiency’ in knowledge he felt at the meetings of the Academical. The result was the purchase of a copy of The Wealth of Nations, to which he devoted extensive study every Thursday. Pryme’s zeal would have been fortified by an encounter with Malthus in 1805 where Malthus recalled how the population principle suddenly occurred to him during a discussion with his father (ibid.: 66).

Smith and Malthus aside, with his permanent return to Cambridge in 1808, Pryme’s main focus for the next few years was the establishment of his legal practice; it was not until 1816 that he was to become the first person to offer a complete set of lectures on political economy at an English university. Although this is Pryme’s main claim to fame, it is worth considering the status of political economy at Cambridge and other universities during this period and why there was an explosion of interest in it in the early part of the nineteenth century. In his Inaugural Lecture upon becoming the Drummond Professor of Political Economy at Oxford in 1952, Hicks stated that, ‘Oxford could lord it over Cambridge in the days of Senior and Pryme’ (Hicks 1953: 120). Although this was to a significant degree true, it perhaps overlooks earlier attempts to kick-start the academic study of the economy. In the 1750s, Lord Townshend had offered prizes in economics at Cambridge only to then object to the questions that were set for such awards. This was followed by lectures on commerce delivered by William Paley in the 1770s, unsuccessful urgings by the Reverend R.A. Ingram of Queens’ College for political economy to be part of the Cambridge curriculum, and William Smyth’s consideration of some elements of political economy in his Modern History course starting in 1807 (see Rashid 1980: 282). Another Professor of History, John Symonds, had devoted many years to examining the Italian agricultural sector in addition to problems linked to colonisation (see Checkland 1951: 44-45).

Outside of Cambridge, Smith, as the holder of Edinburgh’s Chair in Moral Philosophy, delivered his series of lectures on political economy in 1753 to be followed by the philosopher and mathematician Dugald Stewart in 1800 and 1801;^[1] Malthus commenced teaching at the East India College in 1805; and there was activity at Oxford (even though the Drummond Professorship was not created until 1825). However, it would, of course, be misleading to suggest that the study of political economy was monopolised by the British.

The first Professorship of Political Economy in Europe was in Naples as early as 1754, with Antonio Genovesi as its first occupant. Other chairs followed in France and Russia.

There is a deeper context here which points to why the discipline of political economy itself became more popular during this period.^[2] A number of general and specific factors coincided, quickly capturing the public’s imagination. General influences included: a fetish for more precise theories which could only be provided by ‘science’, this at the expense of philosophy and history; a perceived alignment between societal liberalism and the theories being offered up by political economists; the emergence and consolidation of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and the changes this engendered in terms of population and productivity, greater class consciousness, and the reform of governmental institutions; and finally, the growth of the free press. Amongst the more specific factors were Ricardo’s election as an MP and the employment of free trade theory against the Corn Laws. It was far from a clean sweep for political economy, however, with opponents in prominent places. For instance, Poet Laureate Robert Southey referred to it as ‘diarrhea [sic] of the intellect’ (Southey quoted in Langer 1987: 15). Such observation aside, it was clear that political economy had secured a place in the British psyche.

With this momentum, Pryme embarked on his project to increase the profile of political economy at Cambridge. The first step in what turned out to be a somewhat tortuous process for Pryme personally was an approach he made to Vice-Chancellor John Kaye to ask permission to give a set of lectures to Cambridge students. Pryme states in his Autobiography that he waited until Kaye had become vice-chancellor as he was known for his liberal views (Pryme 1870: 120). Kaye immediately expressed his support for Pryme’s venture. There were serious objections from some heads of the colleges, but these were ignored by Kaye. Nevertheless, the one condition that had to be met was that Pryme was not allowed to deliver his lectures before midday for fear that they might interfere with other teaching in the University. Unperturbed, Pryme set about compiling his ‘elementary and eclectic’ lectures (ibid.: 121), which he delivered for the first time in March 1816 to an audience of 45 people.

We shall return later in this section to the story of Pryme’s efforts which culminated in the establishment of a permanent Professorship of Political Economy at Cambridge. However, to get a flavour of Pryme’s views on the state of political economy as it existed in the early nineteenth century and his ideological outlook, we can briefly examine some of the remarks he makes in the Prefaces he wrote for the various published syllabi for his course,¹¹ the first edition of which was in 1816 (subsequent editions appeared in 1819, 1852, and 1859),^{[3] [4]} his Introductory Lecture, his other lectures, and snippets from his Autobiography.

Pryme begins the Preface to the first edition of his Syllabus by asking why political economy was not being more widely taught at British universities, especially when Britain had ‘produced a Philosopher [Adam Smith] who has done little less for [the subject] than Newton did for Natural Philosophy’ (Pryme 1859: iii). The answer for Pryme was ‘the want of an English work from which the principles of this science may be obtained with any ordinary labour (ibid.: iv; italics in original). Pryme notes that The Wealth of Nations was read by few Englishmen and approvingly quotes Say that the book is ‘but a confused assemblage of the most sound principles of Political Economy’ (Say quoted in ibid.: 5). Pryme’s lectures were meant to provide clarity, in what in fact amounted to no more than a popularisation of the discipline as it then stood. Moreover, by the time of the third edition of the syllabus, albeit more than three decades later in 1852, Pryme’s course had become more or less redundant, long overtaken by more comprehensive treatises, including, as Pryme himself noted, those by McCulloch, Mill, and Torrens.

Meanwhile, in what seems to have been a one-off publication issued in 1823, Pryme authored a version of his syllabus which is probably most interesting for its Preface and Introductory Lecture. In the Preface, Pryme acknowledges the influence that Stewart’s lectures had on his syllabus, with Pryme relying on the notes taken by two students who had been on Stewart’s course (Pryme 1823: iv-v). Although Pryme adhered to Ricardo’s deductivist methodology, there were also strains of Stewart, a fellow economic liberal, to be found in his lectures with respect to not only the method but also the scope of political economy and its role in explaining human history. For example, Pryme agreed with Stewart’s view on the development of wealth and population, this founded on the emergence of farmers, manufacturers, and merchants, in that order. This was in contrast to Smith’s four-stage theory of development, starting with the hunting and gathering stage, followed by pas- toralism and nomadism, then agriculture, and, finally, commerce.

Pryme supported Stewart in his theory that the main driver of economic growth was population increase (see Kubo 2013: 71, 75, 79). However, in line with his liberal economic approach, Pryme was also of the view that less government intervention in the form of lower taxation and free trade played a part in driving prosperity. In his Autobiography, he goes out of his way to pay homage to Lord Althorp, Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1830 and 1834, congratulating Althorp’s decisions to lower stamp duty on newspapers and on advertisements, to lower and equalise duties on the manufacture of paper, and to abolish the tax on the tanning of skins (Pryme 1870: 211). Finally, later on in his Autobiography, Pryme describes a brief conversation he had at Cambridge with the noted German diplomat and scholar, Baron Bunsen. Whilst acknowledging Bunsen’s ‘fine intellect’, Pryme did not consider his views on political economy to be very enlightened as suggested by his advocacy of ‘Free Trade in Germany, but only between the different States’ (ibid.: 257).

Pryme divided his course into 20 lectures, beginning with an Introductory Lecture, followed by a host of other topics, including the ‘Origin of Commerce’, ‘Money’, ‘Price of Things’, ‘Population’, ‘Banks’, ‘Finance’, and ‘Loans and Public Funds’. The aim of the lectures was, according to Pryme, basic but clear:

They attempted to analyse the original and efficient causes of national prosperity—to shew [sic] by what measures of the legislature, and by what conduct of individuals in private life, it is augmented or diminished—and to assist the reader of history in explaining the phenomena of the strength or weakness, the rise or fall, of States. They were of an elementary and popular nature, requiring no previous knowledge of the subject. They were intended to facilitate the study of a science hitherto inaccessible without the most arduous perseverance; to simplify the order, explain the obscurities, and point out the errors of Adam Smith’s Enquiry into the Wealth of Nations; to combine with his discoveries what the experience of subsequent events, and the researches of subsequent authors have taught, and to place some part of the subject in a point of view different from what any writer had done. Their plan was—first, to trace the history of national wealth from the rudest to the richest state of society, and to examine each change as it naturally arises in the progress of opulence and civilization; secondly, briefly to explain the systems of the ancients, of Dr Paley [Pryme was critical of Paley’s utilitarianism], of the French Economists, and what is called the commercial system; and thirdly, to explain the principles of taxation and finance (ibid.: 121—122).

It is not the intention here to examine in detail the content of each of Pryme’s lectures but rather to highlight a few salient points.

In his Introductory Lecture, Pryme begins by trying to provide a definition of what is meant by political economy, even though he confesses that he has not completely satisfied himself in this respect. Pryme posits that political economy is, ‘The science which investigates the origin of national wealth and the causes of its increase or decline’ (Pryme 1823: 9-10), a clear echo of Smith.^[5] Pryme’s respect for Smith’s achievement is unquestionable: ‘In 1776, Adam Smith presented to the public his “Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, a work so profound, so original, and for the most part so incontrovertible, that Political Economy may be said before that time to have had no existence’ (ibid.: 23). Nevertheless, it should be remembered that Pryme had agreed with Say’s criticism of The Wealth of Nations, and now used his own lectures to point out some of its faults, at least as he saw them, even if none of these criticisms were of a fundamental nature. For instance, in his second lecture, Pryme asks, what constitutes wealth? He posits three sources, namely security of property, capital, and division of labour. But Pryme then argues that with respect to the advantages of the division of labour, Smith’s analysis only identifies dexterity, the saving of time, and the invention of a greater number of machines, Pryme arguing that Smith misses out experience.^[6]

As noted, although Pryme chose to point out some of the deficiencies of his fellow economists’ theories, such criticisms did not pose a serious threat to these analyses. Indeed, Pryme went to great lengths to avoid serious controversy in his lectures. He liked to boast that it was difficult for attendees to decipher what his political persuasion might be. This was driven by a concern that he could easily be discouraged or even removed from lecturing by the University authorities, especially if he advocated economic ideas which could be perceived as being at odds with Cambridge’s financial interests. The most obvious example of this was Pryme’s treatment of Ricardo, or rather lack thereof. Granted, the first edition of Ricardo’s highly influential Principles did not appear until 1817, too late to be included for consideration in Pryme’s 1816 syllabus. However, even in the 1819 syllabus, there is little if any mention of Ricardo. Instead, Pryme limits himself, albeit still rather loftily, to noting in the advertisement for the second edition that Ricardo ‘may seem to have effected a material change in the science; but his fundamental principle (that Dr Smith’s three component parts of price are reducible to one, viz. the wages of labor, which alone constitutes the value of every thing) was explained and some of its consequences deduced in these Lectures [Pryme’s] a year before’ (Pryme 1819: xii).^[7] Pryme was not moved to a greater acknowledgement of Ricardo even in later editions of his Syllabus, despite hints from his acquaintances as to Ricardo’s importance. One example was a letter Pryme received from Say in August 1819 where Say talks about the preparation of the fourth edition of his A Treatise on Political Economy, stating:

It will be more comprehensive, and I hope it will be found more complete and better connected than all the previous ones. The criticisms of Mr. Ricardo have been very useful to me. They have obliged me to elaborate on the doctrine of values as the measure of riches, and to solve, apart from many others, this interesting problem: How is the low price of products at the origin of the riches of nations? (Say quoted in Pryme 1870: 126; italics in original).^[8]

Nevertheless, as already noted, it should be remembered that Pryme was a supporter of deduction, in line with Ricardo. In the Introductory Lecture contained in the 1823 version of his syllabus, Pryme confidently states that

[p]olitical economy...is established on firm foundations, since the principles which serve for its basis, are rigorously deduced from incontestable general facts, or practical maxims of good sense approved by experience in all ages; and to determine the justice of which we have only to retire into our own bosoms, or to open our eyes to what is passing around us (Pryme 1823: 30; italics in original).

However, in his lectures, Pryme never explicitly makes clear the link between Ricardo and his own support of the deductivist method. Taking such a position would have meant going up against the Cambridge Inductivists, which included the powerful Master of Trinity College, William Whewell, Richard Jones, John Cazenove, Charles Babbage, and John Herschel, a formidable group by any standard. In addition to Ricardo’s deductivist credentials, the Cambridge Inductivists were also wary of his theory of rent, which suggested that there was little relationship between labour productivity and wages, a reformulation of the iron law of wages where the amount paid to workers, in this case by landowners, tends to move towards the minimum necessary to sustain those workers, with any excess generated by the land being appropriated by landowners. With specific reference to the finances of Oxford and Cambridge, Checkland (1951: 53) notes, ‘[It] was not merely the particular vulnerability of the universities to the rent theory that could create a hostile feeling: the Universities and the Church were bound in triple alliance with the landowners’.^[9]

On a penultimate note, Pryme took the bold step in the third edition of his syllabus (1852) to introduce a new topic which he entitled ‘Application of Mathematics to Some Doctrines of Political Economy’.^[10] As there are no extant notes on Pryme’s lectures from this later period, it is not clear what he presented to students. However, his motivation for including the topic was Whewell’s ‘Mathematical Exposition of Some Doctrines of Political Economy’, which had appeared more than two decades previously in 1829 in Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society where Whewell had mostly examined issues pertaining to taxation (see Henderson 1996: 287). By including mathematics in his lectures, Pryme can be considered something of an innovator as it would be another two decades following the publication of the third edition of his syllabus that the more regular use of mathematics in economics started to take place with the marginalist revolution of the 1870s.

Finally, on a more abstract point regarding Pryme’s lectures, it can perhaps be argued that he also played a part in creating the so-called Cambridge oral tradition in economics. Johnson and Johnson (1974: 261) describe this tradition as ‘a style which relies heavily on allusion to and caricaturization of the work of a few eminent contemporaries and predecessors rather than on meticulous documentation of sources’. Pryme (1823: v) notes how he had been ‘pressed by several friends to publish my entire Course of Lectures; but I thought that the cultivation of this strangely neglected science would be better promoted by continuing to give them orally, with such improvements from year to year as further reading or maturer reflection might furnish’. Pryme’s undergraduate education at Trinity probably played a part in this appreciation for oral presentation in so far as he would have observed, and probably participated in, the ‘declamation’ engaged in by his contemporaries who had arrived at Cambridge from schools such as Eton, Harrow, and Westminster (see Reid 2013), this at a time when there was in fact a wider shift within

Cambridge away from an oral culture and more towards writing (see Warwick 2003). As such, it may be that when we mostly associate the oral tradition with Marshall, we should also pay homage to Pryme.

Having considered some of Pryme’s approach to political economy, we can now return to his efforts to establish the Professorship of Political Economy. Again, some context is instructive here. There were various factors operating at Cambridge and more widely which would have worked in Pryme’s favour and some against him in his endeavour. On the negative side, the subject of political economy faced an uphill struggle to gain recognition at Cambridge during Pryme’s time as the University was almost wholly geared towards producing either clergymen or natural scientists. With there being little explicit link between political economy and the Classical and Mathematical Triposes, there would have been minimal incentive for students to attend Pryme’s lectures. Second, the proposal by Pryme to actually deliver lectures was, as mentioned, met with opposition in some quarters. It was not unknown for the holders of some Cambridge professorships to go for decades without having to stand in front of an audience, the holders of the Lady Margaret Professorship of Divinity being the most notable example (see Henderson 1984: 5). Third, the creation of professorships by Cambridge was hardly a common occurrence, this in part due to a lack of finance. The first was the aforementioned Lady Margaret Professorship of Divinity, established in 1502, followed by five Regius Professorships in 1540. There was then a gap of nearly a century before a Professorship of Arabic received approval in 1632, followed by another 14 professorships in the period up to 1800; the Professorship of Political Economy was next in line but had to wait for nearly three more decades. Finally, decisions by the University as to who should be elected to professorships appeared, at least on some occasions, to be somewhat arbitrary, this resulting in what were, to the outsider at least, somewhat surprising appointments. A good example of this was relayed by Pryme himself in his Autobiography when he discusses the vacancy for the Professor of Geology that had arisen in 1818:

The Woodwardian Professorship of Geology became vacant this year by the marriage of Professor Hailstone. There were two candidates for it, Mr Gorham of Queens’, and Adam Sedgwick of Trinity. The latter professed to know nothing of the subject, but pledged himself, if elected, to master it, and to resign the assistant tutorship in order that he might give the more complete attention to it. Some of his friends however, myself among the number, voted for Mr Gorham, feeling that it was only just to do so, as he had been studying Geology for a long time. I need hardly say that Sedgwick, who was elected, completely redeemed his promise, and that his eloquent Lectures have been the delight of all who have heard them. Mr Gorham’s fate was different. He took a curacy, and was afterwards famous for his controversy with the bishop of Exeter (Philpotts) (Pryme 1870: 135).

Notwithstanding the fact that Gorham was better qualified than Sedgwick to assume the Professorship, Pryme was right to praise the latter, Sedgwick going on to become one of the most celebrated geologists of all time and holding the Woodwardian Professorship for no less than 55 years.

With these factors against him, it would not have been a surprise had Pryme decided that a permanent Professorship of Political Economy was out of the question. However, as we noted earlier, there was one particularly strong force in play during the early decades of the nineteenth century, namely the gathering pace of the Industrial Revolution. In terms of the courses that it offered, Cambridge was clearly not equipped to provide students with training that would have allowed them to enter and understand the nascent world of business. As such, there had to be a response from the University authorities. This came in the form of Whewell and Sedgwick, who led a wider reform movement at Cambridge, the main focus of which was the freeing of the University from religious control.^[11]

Pryme’s relationship with Whewell was particularly interesting. Whewell had what can only be described as a rather dim view of Pryme, writing in a letter to Richard Jones in May 1828 that Pryme’s lectures were ‘dull & unpopular, & will never be otherwise’ (Whewell quoted in Henderson 1996: 287) and that Pryme was not suited to be a Professor of Political Economy. However, the reformist Whewell was sensible enough to realise that Pryme had already been lecturing for 12 years and that this had helped to strengthen his position in the University. Moreover, deductivism aside, Whewell broadly approved of the material that Pryme was teaching. He therefore did not campaign against the proposal to make Pryme a professor, and it was on this basis that Pryme was elected in May 1828 by a comfortable margin of 18 votes to 9 (see ibid.) (although the appointment did not carry with it any pay).^[12]

Even though Whewell had not campaigned against Pryme, the Master of Trinity had become more anti-Pryme in the years between 1828 and 1830. It was in the latter year that Whewell hatched a plan to try to remove Pryme and replace him with Malthus in a chair that would have been created to honour Tory politician and advocate of free trade, William Huskisson.^[13] However, for whatever reason, Whewell’s plot fell through (see Kubo 2015: 5-6). Meanwhile, Pryme continued lecturing whilst also expanding his network. Most importantly, he became an honorary member of the important Political Economy Club in London in June 1833, a body founded mostly to support not only the cause of free trade but also independent discussion on topical issues.

With his tenure as an MP ending in 1841, there would have been some concern on Pryme’s part as to the decline in attendance at his Cambridge lectures, this leading to delivery only in alternate years. Although he agreed to them, Pryme would also have been concerned that the four lectures given at Cambridge in 1844 by the economist Thomas Banfield might have threatened his position. However, Pryme was ‘rescued’ by the introduction in 1851, with the support of Whewell, of the Moral Sciences Tripos; political economy was made one of its compulsory modules. This immediately boosted attendance at Pryme’s lectures to between 50 and 60.^[14] Attending students also had to pay for the privilege. Spurred on by this expansion in numbers and profile, Pryme rededicated himself to persuading the University authorities to make the Professorship of Political Economy a permanent position. This included three pleas in 1857, 1859, and, to the vice-chancellor, in 1861, all of which fell on deaf ears. With these rebuttals, which must have been something of a humiliation for Pryme given that he had been lecturing for 47 years, and the fact that he was by then in his early 80s, Pryme notified Whewell on 23 February 1863 of his intention to resign his chair but to stay in post until a successor was appointed. The authorities at Cambridge were relatively quick to act. A Syndicate was appointed on 20 March to consider whether the Professorship of Political Economy should be given permanent status, with a report issued on 1 May recommending such a course. A proposal was put to the Senate in October, where it was approved by a vote of 98-40.

• [1] Pryme notes how Stewart’s lectures were apparently so popular that ‘several Members of our ownUniversity [Cambridge] went from the South of England to pass the winter at Edinburgh, for the purposeof attending them’ (Pryme 1819: vii-viii, fn. f). What Pryme does not mention was the absence of regular lectures on political economy at turn-of-the-century Cambridge as well as the fact that the Grand Tourhad become too dangerous due to the French Revolutionary Wars, in particular the War of the SecondCoalition from 1798 to 1802 (see Checkland 1951: 43). Both of these factors contributed to Englishstudents travelling north in search of new experiences and ‘excitement’.
• [2] This paragraph draws on Langer (1987: 1—9).
• [3] For ease of reference, I use the Prefaces to the first three editions of Pryme’s Syllabus as they appear,reprinted from the originals, in the fourth edition of the Syllabus (Pryme 1859). Pryme does not appearto have written a Preface to the fourth edition.
• [4] A copy of Pryme’s 1816 syllabus can be found in the form of an appendix in Langer (1987:195-208).
• [5] A full set of notes (79 pages) taken by the otherwise unidentified ‘WH. and C.J.’ at the set of lecturesgiven by Pryme in 1818 are held at Lambeth Palace Library, reference MS 1740.
• [6] Selected other issues on which Pryme attempts to ‘controvert’ Smith, as he usually puts it, are the originand cause of barter, Smith’s account of the influence of capital on wages and profits, and the approachthat Smith adopts in criticising the proposition that land is the sole source of wealth, which Pryme claimsis an attack on ‘the superstructure, not the foundation’ (Pryme 1819: 21). Smith was not Pryme’s onlytarget. He also questioned, amongst others, Paley on the foundation of the right of property; Aristotle,Montesquieu, and Locke on the notion of monied interest; and the French economists’ view that all taxesfall ultimately on land.
• [7] Kubo (2013: 82—86) shows that, despite his claim, Pryme did not arrive independently at Ricardo’stheory of value and, moreover, that he did not understand it.
• [8] The translation from French (which is how it appears in Pryme’s Autobiography) to English used herecan be found in Gehrke and Kurz (2001: 479, fn. 13).
• [9] Pryme’s reluctance to overtly support Ricardo was made further apparent on the occasion of Ricardo’sdeath in 1823 when James Mill wrote to McCulloch stating that they were his only two genuine disciples(see Checkland 1949: 40). In the same article, Checkland adopts a sociology of science approach to arguethat it was Ricardo’s disciples who were the key to propagating Ricardianism in the face of stiffopposition.
• [10] It was retained in the fourth edition (1859).
• [11] Pryme himself would become involved in trying to reform the University’s religious arrangements. InDecember 1834, he suggested to the Senate, unsuccessfully as it turned out, that it appoint a committeeto consider whether the requirement of religious subscription in order to proceed to a degree should beabolished (see Twaddle 1966: 48—49).
• [12] The Professorship of Political Economy did eventually attract a salary. However, it was not until 1882when its then occupant Henry Fawcett—also a Ricardian, whose election as Pryme’s successor in 1863was supported by Pryme but opposed by Whewell—started to receive ?700 per annum that the Professorof Political Economy achieved parity, more or less, with other Cambridge professors (see Neild 2012: 16).
• [13] A small digression: Huskisson certainly had an eventful life: When in Paris he witnessed the stormingof the Bastille, was educated in economics by the Marquis de Condorcet, and served in the British government as President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for War. However, he is best remembered as the first person to be killed in a railway accident having been run over by Stephenson’s Rocket ashe attempted to shake hands with one its occupants, the Duke of Wellington, at the opening of theLiverpool to Manchester Railway.
• [14] Pryme was an official examiner for the new Tripos from 1851 to 1860.