Samuel Wilson Warneford

Margaret's father objected to the arrangement but its progression brought together the fortunes of two families and was then further enhanced by a legacy of £34,000 left to his sickly wife by her grandfather.

His friend and biographer, Thomas Vaughan, noted that he saw "the subtle designs of the Jesuits, and the insidious intrusion of malignant dissenters" as the most significant challenge to his philanthropic endeavours.

[1] Described as shy, puny and delicate as a child, Warneford was also considered reclusive as an adult, despite having to undertake considerable amounts of travel to oversee his benefactions.

According to historian William Whyte he could be "tyrannical" in his attempts to control the use of his money[7] and his donations were often made incrementally so that he could monitor progress and, in particular, remedy perceived problems.

[1] He favoured the practical over the ostentatious and spread his beneficence not only in his own country but also to religious causes in places such as Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Nova Scotia.

There and throughout the rest of the Gloucester diocese, he financed the building of schools and the provision of medical aid, while in Bourton he also provided facilities for older people.

[1][b] His considerable and detailed interest in that project may have been spurred by his wife's insanity: he had rejected suggestions that she should be hospitalised, preferring to nurse her at home after being appalled during his inspections of several possible institutes.

[1] Another significant involvement in healthcare provision was his £3,000 contribution towards the building of Warneford, Leamington, and South Warwickshire Hospital, which represented 75 per cent of the cost.

[1] His involvement ensured that Queen's was an exclusively Anglican institution and as much a seminary as a medical school[10] but his interest in the project was somewhat neglected at his death because of his concern that it had not developed according to his expectations.

The two institutions were very different but in the characters of their benefactors lie fundamental similarities often found in history, that philanthropy is not necessarily selfless and that "the good are not always very nice".