**For details see Canon Jackson"s "Amy Robsart," Nineteenth Century, vol. xi. Canon Jackson used doc.u.ments in the possession of the Marquis of Bath, at Longleat.
***Cal. Dom. Eliz. p. 157, August 13, 1560; also Hatfield Calendar.
News of this kind is certain to reach the persons concerned.
Our chief authority for the gossip about Elizabeth and Dudley is to be found in the despatches of the Spanish amba.s.sadors to their master, Philip of Spain. The fortunes of Western Europe, perhaps of the Church herself, hung on Elizabeth"s marriage and on the succession to the English throne. The amba.s.sadors, whatever their other failings, were undoubtedly loyal to Philip and to the Church, and they were not men to be deceived by the gossip of every gobemouche. The command of money gave them good intelligence, they were fair judges of evidence, and what they told Philip was what they regarded as well worthy of his attention. They certainly were not deceiving Philip.
The evidence of the Spanish amba.s.sadors, as men concerned to find out the truth and to tell it, is therefore of the highest importance. They are not writing mere amusing chroniques scandaleuses of the court to which they are accredited, as amba.s.sadors have often done, and what they hear is sometimes so bad that they decline to put it on paper. They are serious and wary men of the world. Unhappily their valuable despatches, now in "the Castilian village of Simancas," reach English inquirers in the most mangled and garbled condition. Major Martin Hume, editor of the Spanish Calendar (1892), tells us in the Introduction to the first volume of this official publication how the land lies. Not to speak of the partial English translation (1865) of Gonzales"s partial summary of the despatches (Madrid, 1832) we have the fruits of the labours of Mr.
Froude. He visited Simancas, consulted the original doc.u.ments, and "had a large number of copies and extracts made." These extracts and transcripts Mr. Froude deposited in the British Museum. These transcripts, compared with the portions translated in Mr. Froude"s great book, enable us to understand the causes of certain confusions in Amy Robsart"s mystery. Mr. Froude practically aimed at giving the gist, as he conceived it, of the original papers of the period, which he rendered with freedom, and in his captivating style--foreign to the perplexed prolixity of the actual writers. But, in this process, points of importance might be omitted; and, in certain cases, words from letters of other dates appear to have been inserted by Mr. Froude, to clear up the situation. The result is not always satisfactory.
Next, from 1886 onwards, the Spanish Government published five volumes of the correspondence of Philip with his amba.s.sadors at the English Court.* These papers Major Hume was to condense and edit for our official publication, the Spanish State Papers, in the series of the Master of the Rolls. But Major Hume found the papers in the Spanish official publication in a deplorably unedited state. Copyists and compositors "seem to have had a free hand." Major Hume therefore compared the printed Spanish texts, where he could, with Mr. Froude"s transcripts of the same doc.u.ments in the Museum, and the most important letter in this dark affair, in our Spanish Calendar, follows incorrectly Mr. Froude"s transcript, NOT the original doc.u.ment, which is not printed in "Doc.u.mentos Ineditos."** Thus, Major Hume"s translation differs from Mr. Froude"s translation, which, again, differs from Mr. Gairdner"s translation of the original text as published by the Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove.***
*Doc.u.mentos Ineditos para la Historia de Espana. Ginesta, Madrid, 1886.
**Spanish Calendar, vol. i. p. iv. Mr. Gairdner says, "Major Hume in preparing his first volume, he informs me, took transcripts from Simancas of all the direct English correspondence," but for letters between England and Flanders used Mr. Froude"s transcripts. Gairdner, English Historical Review, January 1898, note 1.
***Relations Politiquesdes Pays-Bas et de l"Anqleterre sous le Regne de Philippe II. vol. ii. pp. 529-533. Brussels, 1883.
The amateur of truth, being now fully apprised of the "hazards" which add variety to the links of history, turns to the Spanish Calendar for the reports of the amba.s.sadors. He reaches April 18, 1559, when de Feria says: "Lord Robert has come so much into favour that he does whatever he likes with affairs, and it is even said that her Majesty visits him in his chamber day and night. People talk of this so freely that they go so far as to say that his wife has a malady in one of her b.r.e.a.s.t.s and the Queen is only waiting for her to die to marry Lord Robert."
De Feria therefore suggests that Philip might come to terms with Lord Robert. Again, on April 29, 1559, de Feria writes (according to the Calendar): "Sometimes she" (Elizabeth) "appears to want to marry him"
(Archduke Ferdinand) "and speaks like a woman who will only accept a great prince, and then they say she is in love with Lord Robert, and never lets him leave her." De Feria has reason to believe that "she will never bear children"*
Sp. Cal. i. pp. 57, 58, 63; Doc. Ineditos, 87, 171, 180.
Mr. Froude combines these two pa.s.sages in one quotation, putting the second part (of April 29) first, thus: "They tell me that she is enamoured of my Lord Robert Dudley, and will never let him leave her side. HE OFFERS ME HIS SERVICES IN BEHALF OF THE ARCH DUKE, BUT I DOUBT WHETHER IT WILL BE WELL TO USE THEM. He is in such favour that people say she visits him in his chamber day and night. Nay, it is even reported that his wife has a cancer on her breast, and that the Queen waits only till she die to marry him."*
*Froude, vi. p. 199. De Feria to Philip, April 28 and April 29.
MS. Simancas, cf. Doc.u.mentos Ineditos, pp. 87, 171, 180, ut supra.
The sentence printed in capitals cannot be found by me in either of de Feria"s letters quoted by Mr. Froude, but the sense of it occurs in a letter written at another date. Mr. Froude has placed, in his quotation, first a sentence of the letter of April 29, then a sentence not in either letter (as far as the Calendar and printed Spanish doc.u.ments show), then sentences from the letter of April 18. He goes on to remark that the marriage of Amy and Dudley "was a love match of a doubtful kind," about which we have, as has been shown, no information whatever.
Such are the pitfalls which strew the path of inquiry.
One thing is plain, a year and a half before her death Amy was regarded as a person who would be "better dead," and Elizabeth was said to love Dudley, on whom she showered honours and gifts.
De Feria, in the summer of 1559, was succeeded as amba.s.sador by de Quadra, bishop of Aquila. Dudley and his sister, Lady Sidney (mother of Sir Philip Sidney), now seemed to favour Spanish projects, but (November 13) de Quadra writes: "I heard from a certain person who is accustomed to give veracious news that Lord Robert has sent to poison his wife.
Certainly all the Queen has done with us and with the Swede, and will do with the rest in the matter of her marriage, is only keeping Lord Robert"s enemies and the country engaged with words until this wicked deed of killing his wife is consummated." The enemies of Dudley included the Duke of Norfolk, and most of the nation. There was talk of a plot to destroy both Dudley and the Queen. "The Duke and the rest of them cannot put up with Lord Robert"s being king."* Further, and later, on January 16, 1560 (Amy being now probably at c.u.mnor), de Quadra writes to de Feria that Baron Preyner, a German diplomatist, will tell him what he knows of the poison for the wife of Milort Robert (Dudley), "an important story and necessary to be known."** Thus between November 1559 and January 1560, the talk is that Amy shall be poisoned, and this tale runs round the Courts of Europe.
*Sp. Cal. i. pp. 112-114.
**Relations Politiques, Lettenhove, ii. p. 187.
Mr. Froude gives, what the Calendar does not, a letter of de Quadra to de Feria and the Bishop of Arras (January 15, 1560). "In Lord Robert it is easy to recognise the king that is to be... There is not a man who does not cry out on him and her with indignation."* "She will marry none but the favoured Robert."** On March 7, 1560, de Quadra tells de Feria: "Not a man in this country but cries out that this fellow" (Dudley) "is ruining the country with his vanity."*** "Is ruining the country AND THE QUEEN," is in the original Spanish.
*Froude, vi. p. 311.
**Relations Politiques, ii. 87, 183, 184.
***Sp. Cal. i. p. 133. Major Hume translates the text of Mr. Froude"s transcript in the British Museum. It is a mere fragment; in 1883 the whole despatch was printed by Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove.
On March 28 (Calendar), on March 27 (Froude) de Quadra wrote to Philip--(Calendar)--,"I have understood Lord Robert told somebody, who has not kept silence, that if he live another year he will be in a very different position from now. He is laying in a good stock of arms, and is a.s.suming every day a more masterful part in affairs. They say that he thinks of divorcing his wife."* So the Calendar. Mr. Froude condenses his Spanish author THUS:** "Lord Robert says that if he lives a year he will be in another position from that which he at present holds. Every day he presumes more and more, and it is now said that he means to divorce his wife." From the evidence of the Spanish amba.s.sadors, it is clear that an insurance office would only have accepted Amy Robsart"s life, however excellent her health, at a very high premium. Her situation was much like that of Darnley in the winter of 1566-67, when "every one in Scotland who had the smallest judgment" knew that "he could not long continue," that his doom was dight.
*Sp. Cal. i, p. 141.
**Froude, vi. p. 340.
Meanwhile, through the winter, spring, and early summer of 1560, diplomatists and politicians were more concerned about the war of the Congregation against Mary of Guise in Scotland, with the English alliance with the Scottish Protestant rebels, with the siege of Leith, and with Cecil"s negotiations resulting in the treaty of Edinburgh, than even with Elizabeth"s marriage, and her dalliance with Dudley.
All this time, Amy was living at c.u.mnor Place, about three miles from Oxford. Precisely at what date she took up her abode there is not certain, probably about the time when de Quadra heard that Lord Robert had sent to poison his wife, the November of 1559. Others say in March 1560. The house was rented from a Dr. Owen by Anthony Forster. This gentleman was of an old and good family, well known since the time of Edward I.; his wife also, Ann Williams, daughter of Reginald Williams of Burghfield, Berks, was a lady of excellent social position. Forster himself had estates in several counties, and obtained many grants of land after Amy"s death. He died in 1572, leaving a very equitable distribution of his properties; c.u.mnor he bought from Dr. Owen soon after the death of Amy. In his bequests he did not forget the Master, Fellows, and Scholars of Balliol.* There is nothing suspicious about Forster, who was treasurer or comptroller of Leicester"s household expenses: in writing, Leicester signs himself "your loving Master." At c.u.mnor Place also lived Mrs. Owen, wife of Dr. Owen, the owner of the house, and physician to the Queen. There was, too, a Mrs. Oddingsell, of respectable family, one of the Hydes of Denchworth. That any or all of these persons should be concerned in abetting or shielding a murder seems in the highest degree improbable. c.u.mnor Place was in no respect like Kirk o" Field, as regards the character of its inhabitants. It was, however, a lonely house, and, on the day of Amy"s death, her own servants (apparently by her own desire) were absent. And Amy, like Darnley, was found dead on a Sunday night, no man to this day knowing the actual cause of death in either case.
*Pettigrew, pp. 19-22.
Here it may be well to consider the version of the tragedy as printed, twenty-four years after the event, by the deadly enemies of Lord Robert, now Earl of Leicester. This is the version which, many years later, aided by local tradition, was used in Ashmole"s account in his "History and Antiquities of Berkshire," while Sir Walter employed Ashmole"s account as the basis of his romance. We find the PRINTED copy of the book usually known as "Leicester"s Commonwealth" dated 1584, but probably it had been earlier circulated in ma.n.u.script copies, of which several exist.* It purports to be a letter written by a M.A. of Cambridge to a friend in London, containing "some talk pa.s.sed of late"
about Leicester. Doubtless it DOES represent the talk against Leicester that had been pa.s.sing, at home and abroad, ever since 1560. Such talk, after twenty years, could not be accurate. The point of the writer is that Leicester is lucky in the deaths of inconvenient people. Thus, when he was "in full hope to marry" the Queen "he did but send his wife aside, to the house of his servant, Forster of c.u.mnor, by Oxford, where shortly after she had the chance to fall from a pair of stairs, and so to break her neck, but yet without hurting of her hood, that stood upon her head." Except for the hood, of which we know nothing, all this is correct. In the next sentence we read: "But Sir Richard Verney, who, by commandment, remained with her that day alone, with one man only, and had sent away perforce all her servants from her, to a market two miles off, he, I say, with his man, can tell how she died." The man was privily killed in prison, where he lay for another offence, because he "offered to publish" the fact; and Verney, about the same time, died in London, after raving about devils "to a gentleman of worship of mine acquaintance." "The wife also of Bald b.u.t.tler, kinsman to my Lord, gave out the whole fact a little before her death."
*Pettigrew, pp. 9, 10.
Verney, and the man, are never mentioned in contemporary papers: two Mrs. b.u.t.telars were mourners at Amy"s funeral. Verney is obscure: Canon Jackson argues that he was of the Warwickshire Verneys; Mr. Rye holds that he was of the Bucks and Herts Verneys, connections of the Dudleys.
But, finding a Richard Verney made sheriff of Warwick and Leicester in 1562, Mr. Rye absurdly says: "The former county being that in which the murder was committed," he "was placed in the position to suppress any unpleasant rumours."* Amy died, of course, in Berkshire, not in Warwickshire. A Richard Verney, not the Warwickshire Sir Richard, according to Mr. Rye, on July 30, 1572, became Marshal of the Marshalsea, "when John Appleyard, Amy"s half-brother, was turned out."
This Verney died before November 15, 1575.
*Rye, p. 55.
Of Appleyard we shall hear plenty: Leicester had favoured him (he was Leicester"s brother-in-law), and he turned against his patron on the matter of Amy"s death. Probably the Richard Verney who died in 1575 was the Verney aimed at in "Leicester"s Commonwealth." He was a kind of retainer of Dudley, otherwise he would not have been selected by the author of the libel. But we know nothing to prove that he was at c.u.mnor on September 8, 1560.
The most remarkable point in the libel avers that Leicester"s first idea was to poison Amy. This had been a.s.serted by de Quadra as early as November 1559. The libel avers that the conspirators, "seeing the good lady sad and heavy," asked Dr. Bayly, of Oxford, for a potion, which they "would fetch from Oxford upon his prescription, meaning to have added also somewhat of their own for her comfort." Bayly was a Fellow of New College; in 1558 was one of the proctors; in 1561 was Queen"s Professor of Physic, and was a highly reputable man.* He died in 1592.
Thus Bayly, if he chose, could have contradicted the printed libel of 1584, which avers that he refused to prescribe for Amy, "mis...o...b..ing (as he after reported) lest if they poisoned her under the name of his potion, he might after have been hanged for a cover of their sin."
*Pettigrew, p. 17, citing Wood"s Ath. Ox. i. P. 586 (Bliss).
Nothing was more natural and innocent than that Bayly should be asked to prescribe, if Amy was ill. Nothing could be more audacious than to print this tale about him, while he lived to contradict it. But it seems far from improbable that Bayly did, for the reasons given, refuse to prescribe for Amy, seeing (as the libel says) "the small need which the good lady had of physic."
FOR THIS VERY REFUSAL BY BAYLY WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY CECIL TO DE QUADRA ON THE DAY OF AMY"S DEATH. AND IT IS NOT EASY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CECIL"S INFORMATION IN ANY OTHER WAY.
We now reach the crucial point at which historical blunders and confusions have been most maddeningly prevalent. Mr. Pettigrew, writing in 1859, had no knowledge of Cecil"s corroboration of the story of the libel--Amy in no need of physic, and the intention to poison her. Mr.
Froude, however, published in his History a somewhat erroneous version of de Quadra"s letter about Cecil"s revelations, and Mr. Rye (1885) accused Dudley on the basis of Mr. Froude"s version.*
*Froude, vi. pp. 417-421.