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.

    6/68 (page 4)
    the enlightened men of that age were discontented at being so unconstitutionally defeated in their attempts to bring it to a trial.” Brodie then proceeds to state the leading points upon which the accusation of poisoning rests. He does this more fully than any other author with whose writings we are acquainted. To most of the points he gives more import- ance than the generality of modern historians have done, but his arguments, generally, do not carry conviction to our mind. We shall deal with them in their proper places. His conclusion is as follows :—“ The cause of the zeal with which this question has been taken up by writers is that Charles was, subsequently, implicated; but I am clearly of opinion that there is no ground for suspecting him :—it is not like his character, he had no motive for his father’s immediate re- moval, and, in the nature of things, must soon have succeeded. I do not think that Buckingham’s character, considering all matters, can suffer by the imputation.” We have said that the accusation upon which the suspi- cion of this criminality rests was preferred by a physician. It is true that the statement of Hr. Eglisham is so palpably fraught with evidence of his personal malice against the Duke of Buckingham that few modern readers can have placed implicit confidence in it. Still it would appear that—(with the exception of the comments by Hr.Welwood, the historian, whose medical judgment is more than questionable and whose propen- sity to make the most of all statements against the Stuarts is notorious)—no medical review of Eglisham’s story and of the whole of the few extant circumstances of the king’s last illness has ever been attempted. It will, we think, therefore, be, at least, within our power to show whether there is or is not, now in existence, any medical evidence in proof of the report that King James the First died from the effects of poison. We consider that this enquiry involves points of great historical and medico-legal interest. It can scarcely be questioned that, latterly, King James’s infatuation for Buckingham was greatly shaken ; and that, oc- curring when it did, the king’s death improved the favorite’s position, if it did not avert his fall. Wilson is, probably, correct in urging that Buckingham had grown apprehensive that the king would set up Bristol, his deadly enemy, against him to pull him down. Lord Clarendon asserts that “ He” [the King] “ wanted only & resolute and brisk counsellor to assist him in