78 Amye Robsart. 
clusion seems inevitable, that though Dudley was innocent of direct 
influence, the unhappy lady was sacrificed to his ambition, and was 
made away with by persons who hoped to profit by Dudley’s elevation 
to the throne.” With that remark, Mr. Froude leaves the case. 
“Tf Appleyard spoke truth, there is no more to be said.” 
It will give our eminent Historian a certain satisfaction to hear 
that John Appleyard told fibs: of which I can assure him, by having 
found the proof thereof (again, as before, by the merest accident) ; 
not in any public or official communication, but in an ordinary private 
letter, telling the news of the day in the most zmartificial manner : 
just like that of the Earl of Huntingdon’s read a few moments ago, 
which began about venison pasties, and ended with condolence on 
the news just come of the death of the wife. 
The letter I now produce is one from Sir Henry Nevill to Sir 
John Thynne, the builder of Longleat House. Sir Henry Nevill 
was a Berkshire gentleman, a friend of Sir John Thynne, writing 
to him from London, an ordinary letter, of family news and the 
events of the day. 
Sir Henry Nevill to Sir John Thynne. 1567, June 9. 
“ After my herty comendacyons unte yowe & my Lady, & the lyke from awll 
our wemen who I thanke God are awll in helthe. I hav so rare messengers 
that I may trust that I dare not ventewr no letters of any importance. Now, 
havyng Ludlo, I wyll send you seche as here are currant. On Fryday in the 
Star-Chamber was Apylyeard brought forth, who showed himself u malytyous 
beast, for he dyd confesse he accusyd my Lord of Lecyster only of malyes: 
& that he hath byn about yt thes 3 years, & now, bycausse he cold not go 
thoroghe with his bysens [business] to promot, he tell in this rage ageynst my 
lord & wold hav acusid hym of 3 thnges: 1. of kyllyng his wif. 2. of sending 
the lord Derby in to Scotland. 3. for letting the quen from maryedge. He 
cravyd of pardon for awll thes thyngs . . . . My lord keeper answeryd 
that . . . . in King Henry 7‘ dayes, there was one lost his ears for 
slawndering the Cheff Justyce: so as I thinke his end wy] be the pillyry. [The 
letter then continues with other miscellaneous matter. } 
John Appleyard’s grievance against Dudley (as stated in the letter) 
was that Dudley had not promoted Appleyard’s “ business ” in some 
way, but for three years had neglected him: whereupon Appleyard 
turned against Dudley and did all he could to revive the slander about — 
the murder of the wife. What the particular “ business” was that 
