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

  • Norman Chevers
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.

    28/68 (page 26)
    either to the feet or wrists ; yarrow to the feet. Rue with the buds of honey-suckle, bramble, and elder to the wrists or feet. To the wrists or feet they also apply mouse-ear with vinegar and salt, wall-pepper, shepherd's purse, sun- dew, vervain, and other plants. These are generally applied about an hour before the fit. Bishop Goodman says—“Certainly there never lived a better natured man than Buckingham was. But he, presently, con- tinues that—“the physicians taking one course” [for the King’s cure] “ and the plaster another, I fear the King was wronged between both ; and I wonder why the King’s surgeons, as I take it, Mr. Watson and others who opened the body, had not been examined,” [he is speaking of the parliamentary en- quiry] ; “as likewise Mr. Woolphengus Banger,* the King’s Dutch apothecary, a very honest man, who did there daily attend ; yet, I confess, in my own particular, I had some in- formations both from him and from the surgeons, and, in truth, I was not well persuaded of the death of the King.” According to Lord Clarendon, who was also friendly to the Duke of Buckingham, “ Many scandalous and libellous dis- courses were raised [after the King’s death] without the least colour or ground, as appeared after the strictest and most malicious examination that could be made, long after, when nobody was afraid of offending Majesty, and when prosecuting the highest reproaches and contumelies against the royal family was held very meritorious.” Upon this Brodie remarks,—-“ I know of no investigation except that which was stopped by the dissolution of this parliament.” Having now given the earlier accounts, and those published by contemporary writers, who were either known to be attached to the Duke, or who could not to be suspected of malice against him, we turn to somewhat later testimonies by men who were, avowedly, hostile to Buckingham. It is almost needless to urge that, in Aveighing the evidence in this case, it is of the first importance to consider, not only upon whose authority it rests, but also when it was first adduced : whether shortly after King James’s death, or not until after King Charles fell upon troublous times. Weldon (whoste scurrilous book was published in 1650, in a spirit of implacable hatred to the exiled house of Stuart), tells us * We do not find this name elsewhere. In 1617, John Wolfgango Rumlero was apothecary to both the King and Queen, receiving- an annual foe of £40 for each office.—Somers’s Tracts, lit suj). cit.