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.

    78/538 (page 62)
    mostly postlmnions. 'J'luit represented in onr frontispiece is (he only oik' having pretensions to originality, having been painted by Vanderbank, and dated 1706, The portrait is engraved troni a j)hotograph of the picture, t:ikcu by the late Dr. Alfred Swaine Taylor, F.R.S., of (iny's. As to the position occupied by Guy in London during his later years, we have John Dunton's emphatic testi- mony, published in 1705 in his Life and Errors. Guy is described by Dunton, next after Chiswell and the Churchills, in the following terms:— Mr. Thomas Gui/, in Lombard Street. He makes an eminent figure in the company of Stationers, having been chosen Sheritf of London and paid the fine; and is now a member of Parliament for Tamworth. He enter- tains a very sincere respect for English liberty. He is a man of strong reason, and can talk very much to the purpose upon any subject you will propose. He is truly charitable, of which his almshouses for the poor are standing testimonies. In contrast to this high praise we must in justice mention that in 1728, after Guy's death, when Dunton vras strongly tinctured with insanity, and was certainly jaundiced and spiteful against mankind in general, who had not welcomed his thousand and one projects with the cordiality he desired, he published An Essay on Death Bed Charity, exemplified in the Life of Mr. Thomas Guy, late Bookseller in Lombard Street; Madam Jane Nicholas; and Mr. Francis Bancroft, late of London, Draper ; Proving that great Misers giving large donations to the Poor in their last wills is no charity. As to Madam Jane Nicholas, her offence was that she was the mother of Dunton's second wife, and would neither lend nor give him money, after he had squandered so much in doubt- ful ventures and unpopular causes. And the bias of what he writes in this |)am])hlet is evident when heaccuses Guy,