Mr. Froude, then, presents a letter from de Quadra of September 11, 1560, to the d.u.c.h.ess of Parma, governing the Netherlands from Brussels, "this being the nearest point from which he could receive instructions.
The despatches were then forwarded to Philip." He dates de Quadra"s letter at the top, "London, September 1l." The real date is, at the foot of the last page, "Windsor, September 11." Omitting the first portion of the letter, except the first sentence (which says that fresh and important events have occurred since the writer"s last letter), Mr.
Froude makes de Quadra write: "On the third of THIS month" (September 1560) "the Queen spoke to me about her marriage with the Arch Duke. She said she had made up her mind to marry and that the Arch Duke was to be the man. She has just now told me drily that she does not intend to marry, and that it cannot be."
When, we ask, is "just now"?
Mr. Froude goes on: "After my conversation with the Queen, I met the Secretary, Cecil, whom I knew to be in disgrace. Lord Robert, I was aware, was endeavouring to deprive him of his place." Briefly, Cecil said to de Quadra that he thought of retiring, that ruin was coming on the Queen "through her intimacy with Lord Robert. The Lord Robert had made himself master of the business of the State and of the person of the Queen, to the extreme injury of the realm, with the intention of marrying her, and she herself was shutting herself up in the palace to the peril of her health and life." Cecil begged de Quadra to remonstrate with the Queen. After speaking of her finances, Cecil went on, in Mr.
Froude"s version: "Last of all he said they were thinking of destroying Lord Robert"s wife. THEY HAD GIVEN OUT THAT SHE WAS ILL; BUT SHE WAS NOT ILL AT ALL; SHE WAS VERY WELL, AND WAS TAKING CARE NOT TO BE POISONED...." [The capitals are mine.]
This is the very state of things reported in "Leicester"s Commonwealth."
Cecil may easily have known the circ.u.mstances, if, as stated in that libel, Bayly had been consulted, had found Amy "in no need of physic,"
and had refused to prescribe. Bayly would blab, and Cecil had spies everywhere to carry the report: the extent and precision of his secret service are well known. Cecil added some pious remarks. G.o.d would not permit the crime. Mr. Froude goes on: "The day after this conversation, the Queen on her return from hunting told me that Lord Robert"s wife was dead or nearly so, and begged me to say nothing about it." After some political speculations, the letter, in Froude, ends, "Since this was written the death of Lord Robert"s wife has been given out publicly. The Queen said in Italian "Que si ha rotto il collo" ["that she has broken her neck"]. It appears that she fell down a staircase."
Mr. Froude, after disposing of the ideas that de Quadra lied, or that Cecil spoke "in mere practice or diplomatic trickery," remarks: "Certain it is that on September 8, at the time, or within a day of the time, when Cecil told the Spanish amba.s.sador that there was a plot to kill her, Anne Dudley [Anne or Amy] was found dead at the foot of a staircase." This must be true, for the Queen told de Quadra, PRIVATELY, "on the day after" Cecil unbosomed himself. The fatal news, we know, reached Windsor on September 9, we do not know at what hour. The Queen told de Quadra probably on September 9. If the news arrived late (and Dudley"s first letter on the subject is "IN THE EVENING" of September 9), Elizabeth may have told de Quadra on the morning of September 10.
The inferences were drawn (by myself and others) that Elizabeth had told de Quadra, on September 3, "the third of THIS month" (as Mr. Froude, by a slip of the pen, translates "a tres del pa.s.sado"), that she would marry the Arch Duke; that Cecil spoke to de Quadra on the same day, and that "the day after this conversation" (September 4) the Queen told de Quadra that Amy "was dead or nearly so." The presumption would be that the Queen spoke of Amy"s death FOUR DAYS BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and a very awkward position, in that case, would be the Queen"s. Guilty foreknowledge would be attributed to her. This is like the real situation if Dr. Ernst Bekker is right.* Dr. Bekker, knowing from the portion of de Quadra"s letter omitted by Mr. Froude, that he reached the Court at Windsor on September 6, 1560, supposes that he had interviews with Elizabeth and Cecil on that day, and that Elizabeth, prematurely, announced to him Amy"s death, next day, on September 7. But Mr. Gairdner has proved that this scheme of dates is highly improbable.
*Elizabeth and Leicester, Giesener Studien auf dem Gebiet der Geschichte, v p.48. Giesen, 1890.
In the "English Historical Review,"* Mr. Gairdner, examining the question, used Mr. Froude"s transcripts in the British Museum, and made some slight corrections in his translation, but omitted to note the crucial error of the "third of THIS month" for "the third of LAST month." This was in 1886. Mr. Gairdner"s arguments as to dates were unconvincing, in this his first article. But in 1892 the letter of de Quadra was retranslated from Mr. Froude"s transcript, in the Spanish Calendar (i. pp. 174-176). The translation was again erroneous, "THE QUEEN HAD PROMISED ME AN ANSWER ABOUT THE SPANISH MARRIAGE BY THE THIRD INSTANT" (September 3), "but now she coolly tells me she cannot make up her mind, and will not marry." This is all unlike Mr. Froude"s "On the third of this month the Queen spoke to me about her marriage WITH THE ARCH DUKE. SHE SAID THAT SHE HAD MADE UP HER MIND TO MARRY AND THAT THE ARCH DUKE WAS TO BE THE MAN." There is, in fact, in Mr. Froude"s copy of the original Spanish, not a word about the Arch Duke, nor is there in Baron Lettenhove"s text. The remark has crept in from an earlier letter of de Quadra, of August 4, 1560.** But neither is there anything about "promising an answer by the third instant," as in the Calendar; and there is nothing at all about "the third instant," or (as in Mr. Froude) "the third of this month."
*No. 2, April 1886, pp. 235-259.
**Spanish Calendar, i. pp. 171-174.
The Queen"s character has thus suffered, and the whole controversy has been embroiled. In 1883, three years before the appearance of Mr.
Gairdner"s article of 1886, nine years before the Calendar appeared, the correct version of de Quadra"s letter of September 11, 1560, had been published by Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove in his "Relations Politiques des Pays-Bas et de l"Angleterre sous le Regne de Philippe II" (vol. ii. pp.
529, 533). In 1897, Mr. Gairdner"s attention was called to the state of affairs by the article, already cited, of Dr. Ernst Bekker. Mr. Gairdner then translated the Belgian printed copy of de Quadra"s letter, with comments.*
*English Historical Review, January 1898, pp. 83-90.
Matters now became clear. Mr. Froude"s transcript and translation had omitted all the first long paragraph of the letter, which proved that de Quadra went to Windsor, to the Court, on September 6. Next, the pa.s.sage about "the third of THIS month" really runs "I showed her much dissatisfaction about her marriage, in [on?] which on the third of LAST month [August] she had told me she was already resolved and that she a.s.suredly meant to marry. Now she has coolly told me that she cannot make up her mind, and that she does not intend to marry." (Mr.
Gairdner"s translation, 1898.) So the blot on the Queen"s scutcheon as to her foreknowledge and too previous announcement of Amy"s death disappears. But how did Mr. Gairdner, in 1886, using Mr. Froude"s transcript of the original Spanish, fail to see that it contained no Arch Duke, and no "third of the month"? Mr. Froude"s transcript of the original Spanish, but not his translation thereof, was correct.*
*As to Verney, Appleyard, and Foster (see pages commencing:--"Here it may be well to consider"), Cecil, in April 1566, names Foster and Appleyard, but not Verney, among the "particular friends" whom Leicester, if he marries the Queen, "will study to enhanss to welth, to Offices, and Lands." Bartlett, c.u.mnor Place, p. 73, London 1850.
2. AMY"S DEATH AND WHAT FOLLOWED
So far the case against Dudley, or servants of Dudley, has looked very black. There are the scandals, too dark for amba.s.sadors to write, but mouthed aloud among the common people, about Dudley and the Queen. There is de Quadra"s talk of a purpose to poison Amy, in November-January, 1559-1560. There is the explicit statement of Cecil, as to the intended poisoning (probably derived from Dr. Bayly), and as to Dudley"s "possession of the Queen"s person," the result of his own observation.
There is the coincidence of Amy"s violent death with Cecil"s words to de Quadra (September 8 or 9, 1560).
But here the case takes a new turn. Doc.u.ments appear, letters from and to Dudley at the time of the event, which are totally inconsistent with guilt on his part. These doc.u.ments (in the Pepys MSS. at Cambridge) are COPIES of letters between Dudley and Thomas Blount, a gentleman of good family, whom he addresses as "Cousin." Blount, long after, in May 1567, was examined on the affair before the Privy Council, and Mr. Froude very plausibly suggests that Blount produced the copies in the course of the inquiry. But why COPIES? We can only say that the originals may also have been shown, and the copies made for the convenience of the members of the Council. It is really incredible that the letters were forged, after date, to prove Dudley"s innocence.
In the usual blundering way, Mr. Pettigrew dates one letter of Dudley"s "September 27." If that date were right, it would suggest that TWO coroner"s inquests were held, one after Amy"s burial (on September 22), but Mr. Gairdner says that the real date of the letter is September 12.*
So the date is given by Bartlett, in his "History of c.u.mnor Place," and by Adlard (1870), following Bartlett, and Craik (1848).
*English Historical Review, No. 2, p. 243, note.
The first letter, from Dudley, at Windsor "this 9th day of September in the evening," proves that Blount, early on September 9, the day after Amy"s death, went from Leicester, at Windsor, towards Berkshire. He had not long gone when Bowes (a retainer of Leicester, of Forster, or of Amy) brought to Dudley the fatal news. "By him I do understand that my wife is dead and, as he saith, by a fall from a pair of stairs. Little other understanding can I have from him." Throughout the correspondence Leicester does not utter one word of sorrow for Amy, as, had the letters been written for exhibition, he would almost certainly have done. The fear of his own danger and disgrace alone inspires him, and he takes every measure to secure a full, free, and minute examination. "Have no respect to any living person." A coroner"s jury is to be called, the body is to be examined; Appleyard and others of Amy"s kin have already been sent for to go to c.u.mnor.
From c.u.mnor, Blount replied on September 11. He only knew that "my lady is dead, and, as it seemeth, with a fall, but yet how, or which way, I cannot learn." Not even at c.u.mnor could Blount discover the manner of the accident. On the night of the ninth he had lain at Abingdon, the landlord of the inn could tell him no more than Dudley already knew.
Amy"s servants had been at "the fair" at Abingdon: she herself was said to have insisted on their going thither very early in the day; among them Bowes went, as he told Blount, who met him on the road, as he rode to see Dudley. He said that Amy "was very angry" with any who stayed, and with Mrs. Oddingsell, who refused to go. Pinto (probably Amy"s maid), "who doth love her dearly," confirmed Bowes. She believed the death to be "a very accident." She had heard Amy "divers times pray to G.o.d to deliver her from desperation," but entirely disbelieved in suicide, which no one would attempt, perhaps, by falling down two flights of stairs.
Before Blount arrived at c.u.mnor on September 10, the coroner"s jury had been chosen, sensible men, but some of them hostile to Forster. By September 12 (NOT 27) Dudley had retired from Court and was at Kew, but had received Blount"s letter. He bade Blount tell the jury to inquire faithfully and find an honest verdict. On the thirteenth Blount again wrote from c.u.mnor, meaning to join Dudley next day: "I I have ALMOST NOTHING that can make me so much [as?] to think that any man can be the doer of it... the circ.u.mstances and the many things which I can learn doth persuade me that only misfortune hath done it and nothing else."
There is another letter by Dudley from Windsor, without date. He has had a rea.s.suring letter from Smythe, foreman of the jury. He wishes them to examine "as long as they lawfully may," and that a fresh jury should try the case again. He wishes Sir Richard Blount to help. Appleyard and Arthur Robsart have been present. He means to have no more dealings with the jury; his only "dealings" seem to have been his repeated requests that they would be diligent and honest. "I am right glad they be all strangers to me."*
*Pettigrew, pp. 28-32.
These letters are wholly inconsistent with guilt, in the faintest degree, on the side of Dudley. But people were not satisfied. There is a letter to Cecil, of September 17, from Lever, a minister at Coventry, saying that the country was full of mutterings and dangerous suspicions, and that there must be earnest searching and trying of the truth.*
*Burghley Papers, Haynes, 362.
Suspicion was inevitable, but what could a jury do, more than, according to Blount, the jury had done? Yet there is dense obscurity as to the finding of the jury. We have seen that Appleyard, Amy"s half-brother, was at c.u.mnor during the inquest. Yet, in 1567, he did not know, or pretended not to know, what the verdict had been. "Leicester"s Commonwealth" says "she was found murdered (as all men said) by the crowner"s inquest," as if the verdict was not published, but was a mere matter of rumour--"as all men said." Appleyard"s behaviour need not detain us long, as he was such a shuffling knave that his statements, on either side, were just what he found expedient in varying circ.u.mstances.
Dudley, after Amy"s death, obtained for him various profitable billets; in 1564 he was made keeper of the Marshalsea, had a commission under the Great Seal to seize concealed prizes at sea without legal proceedings, had the Portership of Berwick, and the Sheriffship of Norfolk and Suffolk, while Leicester stood guarantor of a debt of his for 400 pounds. These facts he admitted before the Privy Council in 1567.* But Leicester might naturally do what he could for his dead wife"s brother: we cannot argue that the jobs done for Appleyard were hush-money, enormous as these jobs were. Yet in this light Appleyard chose to consider them. He seems to have thought that Leicester did not treat him well enough, and wanted to get rid of him in Ireland or France, and he began, about 1566-67, to blab of what he could say an" he would. He "let fall words of anger, and said that for Dudley"s sake he had covered the murder of his sister."
*Rye, pp. 60-62. Hatfield MSS., Calendar, i. 345-352, May 1567.
Mr. Froude has here misconceived the situation, as Mr. Gairdner shows.
Mr. Froude"s words are "being examined by Cecil, he admitted the investigation at c.u.mnor had after all been inadequately conducted."*
In fact, Appleyard admitted that he had SAID this, and much more, in private talk among his a.s.sociates. Before the Council he subsequently withdrew what he admitted having said in private talk. It does not signify what he said, or what he withdrew, but Mr. Froude unluckily did not observe a doc.u.ment which proved that Appleyard finally ate his words, and he concludes that "although Dudley was innocent of a direct a.s.sociation with the crime, the unhappy lady was sacrificed to his ambition. Dudley himself... used private means, notwithstanding his affectation of sincerity, to prevent the search from being pressed inconveniently far"--that is, "if Appleyard spoke the truth." But Appleyard denied that he had spoken the truth, a fact overlooked by Mr.
Froude.**
*Froude, vi. p. 430.
**Ibid. vi. pp 430, 431.
The truth stood thus: in 1566-67 there was, or had been, some idea that Leicester might, after all, marry the Queen. Appleyard told Thomas Blount that he was being offered large sums by great persons to reopen the c.u.mnor affair. Blount was examined by the Council, and gave to Leicester a written account of what he told them. One Huggon, Appleyard"s "brother," had informed Leicester that courtiers were practising on Appleyard, "to search the manner of his sister"s death."
Leicester sent Blount to examine Appleyard as to who the courtiers were.
Appleyard was evasive, but at last told Blount a long tale of mysterious attempts to seduce him into stirring up the old story. He promised to meet Leicester, but did not: his brother, Huggon, named Norfolk, Suss.e.x, and others as the "practisers." Later, by Leicester"s command, Blount brought Appleyard to him at Greenwich. What speeches pa.s.sed Blount did not know, but Leicester was very angry, and bade Appleyard begone, "with great words of defiance." It is clear that, with or without grounds, Appleyard was trying to blackmail Leicester.
Before the Council (May 1567) Appleyard confessed that he had said to people that he had often moved the Earl to let him pursue the murderers of Amy, "showing certain circ.u.mstances which led him to think surely that she was murdered." He had said that Leicester, on the other hand, cited the verdict of the jury, but he himself declared that the jury, in fact, "had not as yet given up their verdict." After these confessions Appleyard lay in the Fleet prison, dest.i.tute, and scarce able to buy a meal. On May 30, 1567, he wrote an abject letter to the Council. He had been offered every opportunity of accusing those whom he suspected, and he asked for "a copy of the verdict presented by the jury, whereby I may see what the jury have found," after which he would take counsel"s advice. He got a copy of the verdict (?) (would that we had the copy!) and, naturally, as he was starving, professed himself amply satisfied by "proofs testified under the oaths of fifteen persons," that Amy"s death was accidental. "I have not money left to find me two meals." In such a posture, Appleyard would, of course, say anything to get himself out of prison. Two days later he confessed that for three years he had been, in fact, trying to blackmail Leicester on several counts, Amy"s murder and two political charges.*
*See the full reports, Gairdner, English Historical Review, April 1886, 249-259, and Hatfield Calendar for the date May 1567.
The man was a rogue, however we take him, and the sole tangible fact is that a report of the evidence given at the inquest did exist, and that the verdict may have been "Accidental Death." We do not know but that an open verdict was given. Appleyard professes to have been convinced by the evidence, not by the verdict.
When "Leicester"s Apology" appeared (1584-85) Sir Philip Sidney, Leicester"s nephew, wrote a reply. It was easy for him to answer the libeller"s "she was found murdered (as all men suppose) by the crowner"s inquest"--by producing the actual verdict of the jury. He did not; he merely vapoured, and challenged the libeller to the duel.* Appleyard"s statement among his intimates, that no verdict had yet been given, seems to point to an open verdict.