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.

    43/68 (page 41)
    blamed : one Eglisham published a scurrilous libel, and flew away into Flanders. I was told by Sir Balthazar Gerbier [though his testimony be odious to any man] that Eglisham dealt with him in Flanders for a piece of money [ not more than four hundred guilders to defray the charges] to imprint his recantation, on which the Duke bid Gerbier join knavery together, and spit their venom till they split, and he would pay for printing that also/’ Brodie is not willing to give any weight to this statement. He says, “ Sanderson’s testimony is none of the best on any point, and here his story is incredible ; for he says, Gerbier, whose testimony he pronounces odious to any man, told him. Now, would the Duke, (who was so far from despising the charge against him that, while he avoided a real trial, he purposely underwent the mockery of one, to calm the public feelings, bv causing an information to be filed against himself in the Star Chamber ; nay, such was his soreness on this head, that he rose nine times in one morning in the House of Lords, to fasten the charge of treason upon Diggs for the imputed offence of having implicated the King as an accessory*) have neglected so noble an opportunity of vindicating his character ? Or would Geibier, if he did speak at all, after this alleged rebuff, have only told the fact to Sanderson, who had such an antipathy to him.’ This is very narrow reasoning, and it displays a great want of insight into Buckingham’s disposition. What proof had Mr. Brodie that Gerbier mentioned the fact to none but San- derson ? Gerbier and Sanderson were associated as members of Buckingham’s household ; one as the Duke’s “ man of taste the other as his secretary. They were, very probably, intimate until they quarrelled, and they had abundance of time to fall out after the Duke’s death (in 1628), as Gerbier lived until the year 1667, and Sanderson until 1676. Brodie strangely overlooks the fact that the truth of Gerbier’s as- sertion is strongly supported by the much more reliable authority of Sir Henry Wotton, who tells us,*f* “ Of the Duke this I know, that one having offered for his ease to do him that kinde of service” [to write an “ apology ” or exculpation of his public conduct,] “ he refus- ed it with a pretty kind of thankful scorn, saying, that he * Abbot’s Narrative in Rush. Yol. I., page 450. f Rehquia Wottoniance. Edition of 1651, page 25. f