9 
of Edinburgh, Session 1872 - 73 . 
senting to the University collection a valuable bust of his uncle, 
Dugald Stewart, by the sculptor Joseph ; who has produced an 
excellent likeness of the philosopher, as I remember him on the 
only occasion when I ever saw him, in advanced old age, in the 
Edinburgh theatre, at one of the early representations of the late 
Mr Murray’s famous dramatic conversion of “ Rob Roy.” 
Charles Hughes Terrot, Bishop of Edinburgh, was a descendant 
of one of the many French families which the revocation of the 
Edict of Nantes drove from their native land to seek a home in 
this country. His father entered the Indian army, and was killed 
at the siege of Bangalore a few weeks after the birth of his son, 
which took place on the 19th of September 1790. To his mother 
accordingly fell the charge of young Terrot’s education, and we 
may attribute to the influence of her powerful mind much of her 
son’s subsequent eminence. Mentally as well as personally there 
was a striking resemblance between the two. 
Before sending him to Cambridge, Mrs Terrot placed him with 
one of the good men of his day, the Rev, John Fawcett of 
Carlisle. In 1808 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, where, 
as he was wont to say, he obtained his real education by daily 
converse with such men as Whewell, Peacock, Rolfe, Amos, Mill, 
and Robinson, especially the last two, with whom his intercourse 
ceased only with life. He took his degree in 1812, obtaining a 
position on the Honour list altogether inferior to what his sub- 
sequent appearance as a mathematician would have warranted us 
in anticipating. The fact is that Terrot’s mind revolted at the 
drudgery of acquiring branches of the science towards which he 
felt no inclination. It was characteristic of him to tread a small 
circle, but to tread it well; and he was constitutionally unfitted for 
stowing away in his memory, for temporary purposes, facts and 
figures in which he took no interest. Thus his degree examina- 
tion resulted in a comparative failure. Nevertheless, on the 
Fellows of his college this failure made no impression. They had 
enjoyed ample opportunities of judging of his accuracy and of his 
acuteness, and they did not hesitate to elect him into their body 
in the very year in which he took his degree. He did not retain 
his Fellowship many years, having married in 1815, and settled ip 
VOL. VIII. B 
