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.

    45/68 (page 43)
    many of his actions ; but, here, his conduct was that of a high- spirited, sensible man, falsely accused, and strong in the confi- dence of his own innocence. Brodie was, evidently, ignorant of the fact which, it appears to us, is perfectly conclusive upon the question at issue, that Gerbier has left a clear account of this important circumstance in his manuscript memoirs,* in which he fully confirms the statements of Sanderson and Wotton. He says, “ The falseness of his libels, he” [Eglisham] “ hath since acknowledged, though too late. During my residence at Bruxelles, this Eglisham desired Sir William Chaloner, who was then at Liege, to bear a letter to me, which is still extant : he proposed, if the King would pardon him and receive him into favour again, with some competent subsistence, that he would recant all that he had said or written to the disadvantage of any in the Court of England, confessing that he had been urged thereunto by some com- bustious spirits, that for their malicious designs had set him to work.” A close scrutiny into all that relates to the Eglisham pamphlets is much needed. Search in foreign libraries, especi- ally in Belgium and Holland, might, very probably, bring to light a copy of the original libel of which Eglisham, undoubt- edly, was the author, published during Buckingham’s life-time, that is some considerable time previous to August 1628. We have, already, adduced clear evidence of the fact, that the tract entitled “ The Fore-runner of Revenge,” published, in London, in 1642, was, by no means, a literal re-print of the original production. To what extent was it garbled ? Had Eglisham any hand whatever in it ? It is worthy of remark that another production of this kind also appeared in 1642, it is entitled “Strange Ap- paritions ; or, the Ghost of King James : with a late Con- ference between the Ghost of that good King, t/te Marquis of Hamilton s, and George Eglisham s, Doctor of Physick; unto tuhich appeared the Ghost of the late Duke of Buckingham, concerning the Death and Poisoning of King James, and the restP Printed at London for J. Aston, 1642.” This has been re-printed in the fourth volume of the Harleiau Miscellany, page 528. Did J. Aston also publish “ The Forerunner of Revenge V The use of the words “ Printed at London ” in the title * Cited by D’lsraeli in his Curiosities of Literature.