Did James the First of England die from the effects of poison, or from natural causes? / by Norman Chevers.

  • Chevers, Norman, 1818-1886.
Date:
1862
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Did James the First of England die from the effects of poison, or from natural causes? / by Norman Chevers. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    18/68 (page 16)
    the prince, all being commanded from him a two or three romes off to he out of hearing/” Charles appears to have mentioned that, during this in- terview, his royal father solemnly exhorted him to hear a tender affection for his wife, to preserve constancy in religion, to uphold the Church of England, and to take the family of the Palatine under his protection.* Sir Thomas Browne’s M.S. goes on to say that, from the time at which the king’s' physicians pronounced his state to be dangerous, the Lord Keeper never left him or put off his clothes to go to bed. “ The king took the communion and pro- fessed he died in the bosom of the church of England, whose doctrine he had defended with his pen, being persuaded it was according to the mind of Christ, as he should shortly answer it before him. He stayed in the chamber to take notice of everything the king said, and to repulse those who crept much about the chamber door and into the chamber; they were, for the most, addicted to the church of Rome. Being rid of them, he continued in prayer while the king lingered on.” There is a dark passage in Weldon to the effect that the disgrace into which Williams, subsequently, fell was occasioned by his speaking too freely of what he had seen or heard in this chamber of death. Weldon says :—“ It were worth the knowledge what his” [the king’s] “ confession was, or what other expressions he made himself, or any other; but that is only known to the dead Archbishop Abbot, and the living Bishop Williams, then Lord Keeper, and it was thought that Williams had blabbed something which incensed the king’s anger and Buckingham’s hatred so much against him that the loss of his place could not be expiatory sufficient, but his utter ruin must be determined, and that not upon any known crime but by circumstances and examinations to pick out faults, committed in his whole life-time; but his greatest crime for the present (no question) was lajjsus lingua, bub quod defertur non aufertur, for, although he escaped by the calm of this parliament, yet is he more ruined by this parlia- ment and his own folly ; and truly we may observe the first judgment of God on him, for flying from the Parliament his protector, to give wicked counsel to the king, his former prosecutor.” Considering the timidity of James in all that concerned '* Ruskworth, vol. 1. p. 155,