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.

    5/68 (page 3)
    'Absolutely confident in liis favorite’s innocence of bis father’s murder. Still, not a few authorities,—having- closely searched the historical records of those times, and taking fully into ac- count the unprincipled character of Buckingham,—cannot resist the argument of Rapin de Thoyras that, when the time and circumstances of this unexpected death were jointly considered with the embarrassments it delivered the favorite from, and the advantages it procured him, it was difficult not to suspect him. Several historians, especially Burnet, Rapin, and the continuator of Mackintosh’s History, leave Buckingham’s case nearly undefended; and there are some, even in recent times, who scarcely hesitate to place the stigma of murder upon him. Thus Dr. Charles Mackay remarks, in his “ Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,” that,—“ James himself is supposed, with great probability, to have fallen a victim to it” [the practice of poisoning] “ In the notes to Harris’s Life and Writings of James I, there is a good deal of information on the subject. The guilt of Buckingham, although not fully established, rests upon circumstances of suspicion, stronger than have been sufficient to lead hundreds to the scaffold.” Brodie has introduced the question at issue in the following terms; —“ Credulity has been so often imposed upon by ac- counts of the death of princes, that every tale of that nature ought to be listened to with the utmost caution. But a wide distinction should be drawn between a popular rumour and a specific charge by the legislative assembly of a great country; and, considering the profligate character of this favourite, and the relation in which he had stood to the late king, consider- ing that one of that King’s minions had committed the most deliberate murder to save himself from the detection of some secret crime; it is not wonderful that he, the successor of that convicted murderer, should, to rescue himself from destruction, have perpetrated a similar deed. Modern authors, however, availing themselves of the ridicule with which vague reports of the deaths of princes are now generally and justly re- garded, have treated the story with a sneer as the offspring of credulity in a benighted age; and the vulgar reader, who would greedily swallow a silly rumour of the passing hour, partly recoils from inquiry in confusion, partly feels the triumph of improved intelligence in smiling at the easy faith of former times. But whoever coolly weighs all the circum- stances, may be of opinion that, though the matter may now be beyond the reach of certainty, it was not without reason