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.

    55/68 (page 53)
    9 the late conference, certain words “ which so far trenched on the King’s honour, that they were interpreted treasonable.” Shortly afterwards, Sir Dudley Digges and Sir JohnElliotwere, by the King’s command, committed to the Tower. We know that Charles felt and was advised that this attack upon his favorite was, virtually, an attack upon himself and his royal prerogative. Nay more, according to Lingard, a re- port had been carried to Charles that the two managers, in al- lusion to the Thirteenth article, had thrown out a hint that Buc- kingham was but the inferior agent, and that a more illustrious personage had been the chief conspirator against the life of the late monarch. Disraeli quotes a very remarkable passage, from a MS. letter, to the effect that Sir Robert Cotton (Buckingham’s first assailant) told a friend,—on the day on which the King went down to the House of Lords and committed Elliot and Digges to the Tower,—“ that he had, of late, been often sent for by the King and Duke, and that the King’s affection towards him” [Buckingham] “was very ad- mirable and no whit lessened. Certainly,” he added, “ the King will never yield to the Duke’s fall, being a young man, resolute, magnanimous, and tenderly and firmly affectionate where he takes.” On the 11th of May, the King went to the House of Peers and declared that, hitherto, he had been restrained by Buckingham’s importunity from taking notice of and punishing the insolent speeches lately spoken, which, as touch- ing the honor of one of their body, in a very great measure touched himself. To approve Buckingham’s innoeency in the matters charged against him—he, himself, could be a witness to clear him in every one of them. According to Lingard, the King added that he would suffer no one to insinuate of himself with impunity that he had been privy to the death of his father. He departed with the words. “ And now I hope you will be as tender of my honour, when time shall serve, as I have been sensible of yours.’* * In a letter dated 13th May from Mr. Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville (Ellis’s Original Letters, vol 3, page 225, 1st Series) it is said “The King went to the House on Thursday, but what he did we hear not yet. The Lords had petitioned the King that the Duke might be restrained until these matters were examined; nevertheless, he attended his Majesty to the House, but it was said he would, that afternoon, go to New Hall. His Majesty’s affection no whit abates towards him, but seems rather to increase. Lord help us, what will come of these things? the distraction