Info Panel
You are here:   Home  /  Home Page  /  THE NINTH GENERATION
  • Tarquinius Noyon 1848 - 1929


Tarquinius Noyon 1848 – 1929

Tarquinius Noyon 1848 – 1929


Tarquinius Johannes NOYON was born December 24, 1848 in Sneek, Friesland, Nederland and died July 31, 1929 in Soest, Utrecht, Nederland. He married Louize Catharina Elizabeth Van VALKENBURG daughter of Coenraad Van VALKENBURG and Cornelia CALÈS July 26, 1887 in Winschoten, Groningen, Nederland. She was born April 20, 1863 in Winschoten, Groningen, Nederland and died April 15, 1943 in S-Gravenhage, Zuid-Holland, Nederland.

Children of Tarquinius Johannes NOYON and Louize Catharina Elizabeth Van VALKENBURG:

  1. Petrus Simeon NOYON b.: June 7, 1888 Winschoten, Groningen, Nederland d.: November 17, 1967 Enschede, Overijssel, Nederland
  2. Cornelia NOYON b.: July 21, 1889 Winschoten, Groningen, Nederland d.: September 11, 1967 S-Gravenhage, Zuid-Holland, Nederland
  3. Coenraad NOYON b.: July 9, 1890 Leeuwarden, Friesland, Nederland d.: December 22, 1966 S-Gravenhage, Zuid-Holland, Nederland

Tarquinius Johannes Noyon

Tarquinius Noyon attended the Gymnasium in Amsterdam. He studied law at the Athenaeum Illustre. Because this institution could not provide him with a degree, he studied also in Utrecht and Leiden, where took in 1868 his candidate exam and promoted magna cum laude with a thesis “The insurable interest of the creditor in the maritime trade» on January 27, 1872.

In the same year, on 14 September 1872 he was appointed deputy clerk at the Department of Justice. In 1875 he went as deputy prosecutor in den Briel over to the judiciary. A year later he was transferred in the same position to Rotterdam. In 1884 he was promoted first prosecutor at the District Court in Winschoten and 1890 in Leeuwarden, where he was promoted in 1896 to Advocate General to that court. In 1899 he became Advocate General of the Supreme Court. On 30 August 1907 he was appointed Attorney General to this Supreme Court.

During this period it was fiercely debated whether it was preferable to admit women in the judiciary system. It was feared that women during their pregnancy and their monthly periods could not dispose of uninhibited and impartial judgment. Perhaps women would be suitable as a juvenile judge.

Apparently Tarquinius Noyon was not in favour of female emancipation, and he must have suffered the hormonal vicissitudes of his wife Louise Catherine Elizabeth van Valkenburg, as we can deduct from the newspaper cutting which appeared in the Leeuwarder Courant, the 23rd of May 1921:

“Women in the Judiciary

The House of Commons was presented with the opinion of the Supreme Court, with respect to the relevant questions of the Minister of Justice, in response to the bill establishing the juvenile court and the guardianship of minors. It is to state that, in the first place the woman herself has to judge whether they themselves would like to avoid certain difficulties and in the second place, the experience will indicate whether other objections, in particular those created by marriage, are such that they make the participation in the process of justice, by the women in general, undesirable.

The Attorney General at the Supreme Court TJ Noyon put forth the feeling of the prosecution herewith:

“Whether appointment of women to judicial function is desirable we have to consider a question that, in the first place should be answered by experts in the subjects of psychology and of biology, without whose wisdom this difficult to answer.

In this regard it must be stressed however that the scientifically established fact remains; I believe that women in certain periods, that of the pregnancy and menstruation, are often not normal, and without their being aware of it themselves or that others can prove this, may be subject to delusions; if this is not already the case, they may suffer from unusual irritability. So I doubt if they have, in those periods, the needful candour and impartiality which is justified for the purposes of a judicial office.

Whether otherwise the woman can master the needful legal insight to occupy a judicial function has not yet been proved; experience shows that, in general, the women who devote themselves to the practice of law have not yet performed well, on a very few rare exceptions, they are not elevated above mediocrity. If the access to the judiciary functions will now opened for them, it can be expected that a big urge will be exercised to obtain an appointment and that the government, once the initiative to open up the access has been taken, will be at odds to escape the necessity of appointing women, who notwithstanding this rule cannot compare with male candidates. “

And more:

“They speak of the specific suitability of the woman to preside a juvenile court, but moreover in particular as judge of girls and young male children. But the alleged specific suitability of the woman is only that of the married wife, family mother; there is no reason to believe that the unmarried woman in this respect is better than the man. But the married woman is now precisely the least suitable to occupy public office, her attention should be primarily subservient to the interests of her family; the obstruction to these duties have to be rejected therefore in principle.”

“It seems however that no particular objection exists by appointing women in the registry.”

After his death on 31 July 1929, by being cremated he created more controversy, since there was still unsufficient legislation about cremations. We can find an article in the “Leeuwarder Courant» of August 5, 1929:

“The funeral

The Roman Catholic “Residence Herald” again drew attention to the way our funeral law is applied and respected.

According to a judgment of our highest court the Supreme Court, burning is an offense. But no proceedings can be initiated since the wording of the law does not clearly indicate who should be prosecuted. However burning is still a criminal act according to our law.

The person who is burning, who promotes burning, who with his presence gives his sanction, is guilty of an offense against the laws of the land.

On these grounds, until now, ministers do not attend any cremation.

The one who decrees that his body should be burned is not entitled to the interest of government representatives.

But what we have seen now:

In the crematorium Westerveld was burned a corpse of one of the top enforcers of our laws the former Attorney General of the Supreme Court, doctor of laws Noyon.

At this combustion his successor made a speech, in his capacity as Attorney General, the man who is first called to enforce the laws of our country, and thus graced by his presence this criminal act.

Together with him were some council members of the High Council present and other representatives of our courts and public prosecutors, who by being there, condoned this criminal act with their authority.

It appears to us that what happened here was an impermissible act which diminishes undoubtedly our respect for laws and surely undermines authority.

When these people sabotage our law that way, how can they expect of other people more respect for our laws in other circumstances.

Meanwhile this case also teaches us how untenable the situation has become with our funeral laws.

And the next government, even if this is of an extra-parliamentary nature, will have to resolve this issue as soon as possible. The present situation is a mockery of our authority.

Tarquinius Noyon published, among others:

  • The Penal Code explained “(three parts)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure clarified by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the Hague, 1908
  • The Law of 12 June 1915. Sb. No. 247
  • The Law of 2 August 1915. Sb. No. 365 (three parts), Arnhem, 1916


  • Commander of the Order of the Netherlands Lion
  • Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Orange-Nassau
  1848  /  Home Page  /  Last Updated June 12, 2013 by cpsnoyon  /  Tags: , , , ,