Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 50.djvu/392

 There is a fine full-length mezzotint portrait of Sawbridge, engraved by Thomas Watson, from a painting by Benjamin West. He is represented in the costume and with the surroundings of a Roman senator, holding a scroll in his left hand, and with his right laid on a written charter.



SAWREY, SOLOMON (1765–1825), surgeon, born in 1765, received his professional education from Andrew Marshal, M.D. (1742–1813), who taught anatomy privately in Bartlett's Court, Thavies' Inn, from 1785 to 1800. Sawrey attended Marshal's lectures in 1794, and attracted the attention of his master by a dissection of the nerves of the eye. He was admitted a member of the Corporation of Surgeons on 7 July 1796, and he acted for some years as demonstrator to Marshal. He lived first in Bucklersbury and afterwards in Chancery Lane. He practised his profession in both places, and in later life turned his attention more particularly to ophthalmic surgery. He died in 1825.

He wrote: The newly discovered membrane is now known as Descemet's (1732–1810) or the elder Demour's (1702–1795) membrane. The new method of treating fistula consisted in passing a probe through the nasal duct from below upwards, instead of from above downwards, as is usual. It never came into general use. He edited Marshal's ‘Morbid Anatomy of the Brain in Mania and Hydrophobia,’ with a memoir, London, 8vo, 1815.
 * 1) ‘A popular View of the Effects of the Venereal Disease upon the Constitution,’ London, 8vo, 1794.
 * 2) ‘An Inquiry into some of the Effects of the Venereal Poison upon the Human Body,’ London, 8vo, 1802: the work is worthless, for the advance of knowledge has shown that its conclusions are based upon incorrect premisses.
 * 3) ‘An Account of a newly discovered Membrane in the Human Eye, to which are added some Objections to the Common Operation for Fistula Lacrymalis, and the Suggestion of a New Method of treating that Disease,’ London, 4to, 1807.



SAWTREY or SAWTRE, JAMES (fl. 1541), protestant writer, published at Zürich in 1541 'The Defence of the Marriage of Preistes agenst Steven Gardiner, Bishop of Wynchester, William Repse [i.e. William Rugg or Reppes, [q. v.], Bishop of Norwiche, and agenst all the Bisshops and Preistes of that false popish secte, with a confutacion of their unadvysed Vowes unadvysedly diffined whereby they have so wykedly separated them whom God coupled in lawfull Marriage. Made by James Sawtry, printed at Zuryk by Jan. Froost,' 1541, 8vo (Brit. Mus.) He was apparently in prison in 1554 (State Papers, Dom. Mary, viii. 68).



SAWTREY, WILLIAM (d. 1401), lollard, was a priest at St. Margaret's, Lynn, Norfolk, in 1399, when he was summoned before Bishop [q. v.] of Norwich, and charged with heresies, which he was afterwards officially declared to have at this time abjured. Whether he actually did so is uncertain (, Concilia Magnæ Brit. et Hib. iii. 256 seq.). It seems probable that he was implicated in the rising of the Earls of Kent and Huntingdon next year. In 1401, however, he was attached to St. Osyth's or St. Syth's, London, though not as rector (Concilia, iii. 255, but cf., Repert. Eccles. Paroch. Londin. i. 30), and his heretical teaching drew upon him the attention of Archbishop [q. v.] The statute ‘De Hæretico Comburendo’ had just been passed, and Sawtrey was its first victim. On 12 Feb. Sawtrey was summoned to appear before convocation at St. Paul's. He was charged with refusing to adore the true cross save as a ‘symbol’ by ‘vicarious adoration;’ with maintaining that priests might omit the repetition of the ‘hours’ for more important duties, such as preaching; that the money expended in pilgrimages for the attainment of any temporal good might be more profitably distributed to the poor; that men were more worthy of adoration than angels, and that the bread of the eucharist after consecration, though it was the bread of life, remained bread (Concilia, iii. 255–6). Sawtrey demanded a copy of the charges and the appointment of a time for the hearing of his defence. His requests were granted, and on 18 Feb. he produced his answer, opening it by an appeal to king and parliament. On all the points of the indictment he maintained his opinion simply and firmly, quoting St. John, St. Paul, and St. Augustine in his defence (Fasciculi Zizaniorum, pp. 408 seq. Rolls Ser.). On the question of the eucharist Arundel pressed him closely, and next day spent three hours on this one point. He laboured to convince Sawtrey, and, fail-