By the Rev. Canon J. B. Jackson, F.S8.A. 77 
and other matters newly brought to light, both among our own 
Records and those of Spain. He has carefully weighed and sifted 
all this, and though Lord Robert is apparently not one of his favour- 
ites, still, upon this particular question, Mr. Froude is, upon the 
whole, inclined to acquit him. But there is one particular document 
which has yet to be explained before the acquittal is quite satisfactory. 
This is in the large collection of papers at Hatfield. It appears to 
Mr. Froude (if not explained) to show that Dudley was not so 
zealous as he seemed to be: that his unhappy wife was indeed mur- 
dered, and that with proper exertion the guilty persons might have 
been discovered. Longleat supplies an explanation. 
I asked you, a little while ago, (p. 53,) to keep in mind the name of 
a Mr. John Appleyard, half-brother to Amye Robsart, one of the 
relatives whom Dudley insisted on bringing to Cumnor to watch the 
proceedings at the coroner’s inquest. The Hatfield document refers 
to this person. 
In 1567, seven years after Amye’s death, the question of Dudley’s 
marriage with the Queen again came forward into public discussion. 
Of course it excited the vigilant jealousy of some, the religious or 
political opposition of others. The old suspicions about Amye’s death 
were not forgotten. The substance of the Hatfield document is, that 
it had been reported to Cecil (in 1567) that John Appleyard had been 
heard, some time before, in a moment of irritation, to let fall words 
to this effect (for I will not detain you with the whole at length) : 
that he, Appleyard, “ had not been satisfied with the verdict of the 
jury at her death; but that, for the sake of Dudley, he had covered 
the murder of his sister.’ Upon this being reported to Cecil, it 
became imperative to have the matter enquired into : so Cecil orders 
Appleyard’s attendance, and requires him to explain, very precisely, 
What he had meant by those words? Appleyard explained away his 
words in this manner : that though he would not exactly say Dudley 
was himself guilty, yet he, Appleyard, had thought it would be no 
difficult matter to find out who the guilty parties were. 
That is the substance of the only remaining paper upon which 
Mr. Froude appears to suspend his judgment. He says: “If 
Appleyard spoke the truth, there is no more to be said. The con- 
