*Sidney"s reply is given in Adlard"s Amye Robsart and the Earl of Leicester. London, 1870.
The subject is alluded to by Elizabeth herself, who puts the final touch of darkness on the mystery. Just as Archbishop Beaton, Mary"s amba.s.sador in Paris, vainly adjured her to pursue the inquiry into Darnley"s murder, being urged by the talk in France, so Throgmorton, Elizabeth"s amba.s.sador to the French Court, was heartbroken by what he heard.
Clearly no satisfactory verdict ever reached him. He finally sent Jones, his secretary, with a verbal message to Elizabeth. Jones boldly put the question of the c.u.mnor affair. She said that "the matter had been tried in the country, AND FOUND TO THE CONTRARY OF THAT WAS REPORTED."
What "was reported"? Clearly that Leicester and retainers of his had been the murderers of Amy. For the Queen went on, "Lord Robert was in the Court, AND NONE OF HIS AT THE ATTEMPT AT HIS WIFE"S HOUSE." So Verney was not there. So Jones wrote to Throgmorton on November 30, 1560.* We shall return to Throgmorton.
*Hardwicke Papers, i. 165.
If Jones correctly reported Elizabeth"s words, there had been an "attempt at" c.u.mnor Place, of which we hear nothing from any other source. How black is the obscurity through which Blount, at c.u.mnor, two days after Amy"s death, could discern--nothing! "A fall, yet how, or which way, I cannot learn." By September 17, nine days after the death, Lever, at Coventry, an easy day"s ride from c.u.mnor, knew nothing (as we saw) of a verdict, or, at least, of a satisfactory verdict. It is true that the Earl of Huntingdon, at Leicester, only heard of Amy"s death on September 17, nine days after date.* Given "an attempt," Amy might perhaps break her neck down a spiral staircase, when running away in terror. A cord stretched across the top step would have done all that was needed.
*Nineteenth Century, vol. ii. p. 431. Huntingdon to Leicester, Longleat MSS. I repose on Canon Jackson"s date of the ma.n.u.script letter.
We next find confusion worse confounded, by our previous deliverer from error, Baron Kervyn Lettenhove! What happened at Court immediately after Amy"s death? The Baron says: "A fragment of a despatch of de la Quadra, of the same period, reports Dudley to have said that his marriage had been celebrated in presence of his brother, and of two of the Queen"s ladies." For this, according to the Baron, Mr. Froude cites a letter of the Bishop of Aquila (de Quadra) of September 11.* Mr. Froude does nothing of the sort! He does cite "an abstract of de Quadra"s letters, MS. Simancas," without any date at all. "The design of Cecil and of those heretics to convey the kingdom to the Earl of Huntingdon is most certain, for at last Cecil has yielded to Lord Robert, who, he says, has married the Queen in presence of his brother and two ladies of her bedchamber." So Mr. Gairdner translates from Mr. Froude"s transcript, and he gives the date (November 20) which Mr. Froude does not give.
Major Hume translates, "who, THEY say, was married."** O History!
According to Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, DUDLEY says he has married the Queen; according to Mr. Gairdner, CECIL says so; according to Major Hume, "they" say so!***
*Relations Politiques des Pays-Bas, etc., xlii., note 4.
**Span. Cal. i. p. 178.
***The Spanish of this perplexing sentence is given by Froude, vi. p.
433, note 1. "Cecil se ha rendido a Milord Roberto el qual dice que se hay casado con la Reyna...."
The point is of crucial importance to Mrs. Gallup and the believers in the cipher wherein Bacon maintains that he is the legal son of a wedding between Dudley and the Queen. Was there such a marriage or even betrothal? Froude cautiously says that this was averted "SEEMINGLY on Lord Robert"s authority;" the Baron says that Lord Robert makes the a.s.sertion; Mr. Gairdner says that Cecil is the authority, and Major Hume declares that it is a mere on-dit--"who, they say." It is heart-breaking.*
*For Mr. Gairdner, English Historical Review, No. 2, p. 246.
To deepen the darkness and distress, the official, printed, Spanish Doc.u.mentos Ineditos do not give this abstract of November 20 at all.
Major Hume translates it in full, from Mr. Froude"s transcript.
Again, Mr. Froude inserts his undated quotation, really of November 20, before he comes to tell of Amy Robsart"s funeral (September 22, 1560), and the Baron, as we saw, implies that Mr. Froude dates it September 11, the day on which the Queen publicly announced Amy"s death.
We now have an undated letter, endorsed by Cecil "Sept. 1560," wherein Dudley, not at Court, and in tribulation, implores Cecil"s advice and aid. "I am sorry so sudden a chance should breed me so great a change."
He may have written from Kew, where Elizabeth had given him a house, and where he was on September 12 (not 27). On October 13 (Froude), or 14 ("Doc.u.mentos Ineditos," 88, p. 310), or 15 (Spanish Calendar, i. p.
176)--for dates are strange things--de Quadra wrote a letter of which there is only an abstract at Simancas. This abstract we quote: "The contents of the letter of Bishop Quadra to his Majesty written on the 15th" (though headed the 14th) "of October, and received on the 16th of November, 1560. It relates the way in which the wife of Lord Robert came to her death, the respect (reverencia) paid him immediately by the members of the Council and others, and the dissimulation of the Queen. That he had heard that they were engaged in an affair of great importance for the confirmation of their heresies, and wished to make the Earl of Huntingdon king, should the Queen die without children, and that Cecil had told him that the heritage was his as a descendant of the House of York.... That Cecil had told him that the Queen was resolved not to marry Lord Robert, as he had learned from herself; it seemed that the Arch Duke might be proposed." In mid-October, then, Elizabeth was apparently disinclined to wed the so recently widowed Lord Robert, though, shortly after Amy"s death, the Privy Council began to court Dudley as future king.
Mr. Froude writes--still before he comes to September 22--"the Bishop of Aquila reported that there were anxious meetings of the Council, the courtiers paid a partial homage to Dudley."* This appears to be a refraction from the abstract of the letter of October 13 or 14: "he relates the manner in which the wife of Lord Robert came to her death, the respect (reverencia) paid to him immediately by members of the Council and others."
*Froude, vi. p. 432.
Next we come, in Mr. Froude, to Amy"s funeral (September 22), and to Elizabeth"s resolve not to marry Leicester (October 13, 14, 15?), and to Throgmorton"s interference in October-November. Throgmorton"s wails over the Queen"s danger and dishonour were addressed to Cecil and the Marquis of Northampton, from Poissy, on October 10, when he also condoled with Dudley on the death of his wife! "Thanks him for his present of a nag!"*
On the same date, October 10, Harry Killigrew, from London, wrote to answer Throgmorton"s inquiries about Amy"s death. Certainly Throgmorton had heard of Amy"s death before October 10: he might have heard by September 16. What he heard comforted him not. By October 10 he should have had news of a satisfactory verdict. But Killigrew merely said "she brake her neck... only by the hand of G.o.d, to my knowledge."** On October 17, Killigrew writes to Throgmorton "rumours... have been very rife, BUT THE QUEEN SAYS SHE WILL MAKE THEM FALSE.... Leaves to his judgment what he will not write. Has therefore sent by Jones and Summers" (verbally) "what account he wished him to make of my Lord R."
(Dudley).
*For. Cal. Eliz., 1560, pp. 347-349.
**Ibid., 1560, p. 350.
Then (October 28) Throgmorton tells Cecil plainly that, till he knows what Cecil thinks, he sees no reason to advise the Queen in the matter "of marrying Dudley." Begs him "TO SIGNIFY PLAINLY WHAT HAS BEEN DONE," and implores him, "in the bowels of Christ "... "to hinder that matter."* He writes "with tears and sighs," and--he declines to return Cecil"s letters on the subject. "They be as safe in my hands as in your own, and more safe in mine than in any messenger"s."
*For. Cal. Eliz., 1560, p. 376.
On October 29, Throgmorton sets forth his troubles to Chamberlain.
"Chamberlain as a wise man can conceive how much it imports the Queen"s honour and her realm to have the same" (reports as to Amy"s death) "ceased." "He is withal brought to be weary of his life."*
*For. Cal. Eliz., 1560, p. 376.
On November 7, Throgmorton writes to the Marquis of Northampton and to Lord Pembroke about "the bruits lately risen from England... set so full with great horror," and never disproved, despite Throgmorton"s prayers for satisfaction.
Finally Throgmorton, as we saw, had the boldness to send his secretary, Jones, direct to Elizabeth. All the comfort he got from her was her statement that neither Dudley nor his retainers were at the attempt at c.u.mnor Place. Francis I. died in France, people had something fresh to talk about, and the c.u.mnor scandal dropped out of notice. Throgmorton, however, persevered till, in January 1561, Cecil plainly told him to cease to meddle. Throgmorton endorsed the letter "A warning not to be too busy about the matters between the Queen and Lord Robert."*
*For. Cal. Eliz., 1560, p. 498.
It is not necessary, perhaps, to pursue further the attempts of Dudley to marry the Queen. On January 22 he sent to de Quadra his brother-in-law, Sir Henry, father of Sir Philip Sidney, offering to help to restore the Church if Philip II. would back the marriage. Sidney professed to believe, after full inquiry, that Amy died by accident. But he admitted "that no one believed it;" that "the preachers harped on it in a manner prejudicial to the honour and service of the Queen, which had caused her to move for the remedy of the disorders of this kingdom in religion," and so on.* De Quadra and the preachers had no belief in Amy"s death by accident. n.o.body had, except Dudley"s relations. A year after Amy"s death, on September 13, 1561, de Quadra wrote: "The Earl of Arundel and others are drawing up copies of the testimony given in the inquiry respecting the death of Lord Robert"s wife. Robert is now doing his best to repair matters" (as to a quarrel with Arundel, it seems), "as it appears that more is being discovered in that matter than he wished."** People were not so easily satisfied with the evidence as was the imprisoned and starving Appleyard.
*Doc.u.mentos Ineditos, 88, p. 314; Span. Cal., i. p. 179; Froude, vi.
p. 453. The translations vary: I give my own. The Spanish has misprints.
**Span. Cal., i. p. 213; Doc.u.mentos Ineditos, 88, p. 367.
So the mystery stands. The letters of Blount and Dudley (September 9-12, 1560) entirely clear Dudley"s character, and can only be got rid of on the wild theory that they were composed, later, to that very end.
But the precise nature of the c.u.mnor jury"s verdict is unknown, and Elizabeth"s words about "the attempt at her house" prove that something concealed from us did occur. It might be a mere half-sportive attempt by rustics to enter a house known to be, at the moment, untenanted by the servants, and may have caused to Amy an alarm, so that, rushing downstairs in terror, she fell and broke her neck. The coincidence of her death with the words of Cecil would thus be purely fortuitous, and coincidences as extraordinary have occurred. Or a partisan of Dudley"s, finding poison difficult or impossible, may have, in his zeal, murdered Amy, under the disguise of an accident. The theory of suicide would be plausible, if it were conceivable that a person would commit suicide by throwing herself downstairs.
We can have no certainty, but, at least, we show how Elizabeth came to be erroneously accused of reporting Amy"s death before it occurred.*
*For a wild Italian legend of Amy"s murder, written in 1577, see the Hatfield Calendar, ii. 165-170.
VII. THE VOICES OF JEANNE D"ARC
Some of our old English historians write of Jeanne d"Arc, the Pucelle, as "the Puzel." The author of the "First Part of Henry VI.," whether he was Shakespeare or not, has a pun on the word:
"Pucelle or puzzel, dolphin or dogfish,"