A biographical history of Guy's Hospital / by Samuel Wilks and G.T. Bettany.

  • Wilks, Samuel, Sir, 1824-1911.
Date:
1892
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A biographical history of Guy's Hospital / by Samuel Wilks and G.T. Bettany. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Gerstein Science Information Centre at the University of Toronto, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Gerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto.

    40/538 (page 24)
    Guy ill JaiiuaTy 1703-4; the CorjDoration desired him to deliver a letter for them to a Mr. Port, probably in London. For the fifth Parliament of William, February 6th, 1701—November 11th, 1701, there was again a severe contest, and the poll was as follows:—Thomas Guy, 222; Sir Henry Gough, 196; John Chetwynd, 136. This election was by i'reeholders, as well those that live out of the town as within, scotters, lotters, and burgesses. On January 21st, 1701-2, a letter of thanks IVom Guy, dated January 13th, for his election was read in the Corporation. To the sixth Parliament of William, December 30th, 1701—July 2nd, 1702, Tamworth returned the Hon. Henry Thynne (only son of Lord Weymouth) and Thomas Guy. This was a popular election and no opposition. The same members were also returned to the first Parliament of Anne (August 20th, 1702—April 5th, 1705), but the Hon. Henry Thynne being also elected for Weymouth, and choosing to sit for that borough, a new writ was issued, and Sergeant Girdler, Recorder of Tamworth, was chosen. (Juy and Girdler were returned again in 1705 to the second Parliament of Anne (June 14th, 1705—April !5th, 1708), after a severe contest with Richard Swynien, Esq. (probably son oi' a previous Member, John Swynfen), who declared that he had been elected, but that Mr. Girdler had been returned by the undue practices of one of the bailiffs; but his petition fell through. In the third Parliament of Anne, July 8th, 1708, Girdler and Swynfen were returned and Guy was rejected. We have seen no record of the ])oll. Palmer's account oi' the matter ('* History of Tam- worth, }). 447) is as follows. In 1707 the burgesses— notwithstanding the many services of their incom- parable benefactor, and his repeated ])romises that, if