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.

    23/68 (page 21)
    We now return to the question of the interference of the Duke of Buckingham and his mother, the Countess, in the treatment of King James’s case. The earlier and more dis- passionate accounts of this occurrence (omitting, for the present, the Duke of Buckingham’s own explanation of his conduct) may be given first. Rumors of the physicians’ vexation at Buckingham’s interference went speedily abroad. Howell, who was at Theobalds when the King died, alludes, in a letter to his father, to the “ mutterings” of some Scotch Doctors that a plaster had been applied by the Duke’s mother to the 11 outside of the King’s stomach.” But he says that the King died of fever. According to Fuller, who, however, appears to have main- ly, relied upon the Parliamentary proceedings, the Countess of Buckingham contracted much suspicion to herself and her son for applying a plaister to the King’s wrists without the consent of his physicians. And yet it plainly appeared that Dr. John Remington of Dunmow, in Essex, made the same plaister; one honest, able, and successful in his prac- tice, who had cured many patients by the same; and piece whereof applied to the King, one ate down into his belly, without the least hurt or disturbance of nature. However, after the applying thereof the King grew worse, “ the physicians refused to administer physic unto him until the plaisters were taken off, which being done accordingly, his fifth, sixth, and seventh fits were easier, as Dr. Chambers* said On the Monday after, the plaisters were laid on again, without the advice of the physicians; and his Majesty grew wrnrse and worse, so that Mr. Hayes, the King’s Surgeon, was called out of his bed to take off the plaister. Mr. Baker, the Duke’s servant, made the King a jalop, which the Duke brought to the King with his own hand, of which the King drank twice, but refused the third time. After his death, a bill wras brought to the physicians to sign, that the ingredients of the jalop and plaisters were safe; but most refused it, because they knew not whether the ingredients mentioned in the bill” [prescription] “ were the same in the jalop and plaisters. This is the naked truth, delivered by oath from the physicians to a select committee two years after, when the Parliament voted the duke’s act ‘ a transcendent presumption’; though most thought it done without any ill intention.” * In the year 161G James Chambers, tho King’s Physician, received £250 ready money paid out of the Exchequer, bv way of free gift. Somers’s Tracts, vol. 2, p. 381. ' ‘