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.

    66/68 (page 64)
    that there was no public justice to he had against him, he had strong inward workings and resolutions to sacrifice him- self for the Church and State.” In Dudley Lord Carleton’s letter, narrating the circum- stances of Buckingham’s assassination to the Queen, it is said that, “ Upon his apprehension, Felton alleged that the non-pay- ment of eighty pounds pay which was due to him, and his super- cession in his company partly discontented him, and yet hee sayd, that that did not move him to this resolution, but that he reading the Remonstrance of the House of Parliament, it came into his mind, that in committing the act of killing the Duke, hee should doe his country great good service. Ac- cording to the Commentator upon Hamond L’Estrange’s His- tory “ His” [Felton’s] “ first ascribing of the fact to the late Remonstrance was made to one Dr. Hutcheson (Chaplaine in Ordinary to the King, and then in the course of his atten- dance) sent by the King of purpose as soon as the sad news was brought unto,him, to trie if he could learn out of him upon what motives he had committed that most horrible murder; and afterwards, again and again, both at the time of his examination before the Lords of the Councill, and finally at the very instant of his execution.” Mead* also says that Felton told the two divines, whom the King sent to exhort him to confession, that “ His only confederate and setter on was the Remonstrance of the Par- liament which he then, verily, thought in his soul and conscience to be a sufficient warrant for what he did upon the Duke’s person.” According to Sir Robert Gordon, when Felton was seized,—“their wesa note found shewed within his hatt which shewes his resolution, and withall the Remonstrance which wes maid to liis Majestie by the Lower Flouse of Parliament in the yier of God 1628, wes found in his pocket. This Remonstrance did charge the Duke to be the cause of all the evills and disasters that happened to this kingdom (both within and without) this many yeirs.” We do not find this remarkable fact repeated in any of the histories. There cannot be a doubt that the suspicion that Bucking- ham had poisoned King James added greatly to the detesta- tion in which he was held by the public at large. Disraeli has reproduced a manuscript satire of this very time, entitled * Ellis, 1st Series, vol 3, page 200.