devotional exercises and by the religious influences around her, she was gaining the hearts of the Dutch people. During a visit paid by her with the prince to Amsterdam in February 1681 the enthusiasm excited by her seems to have been extreme (Sir L. Jenkins to Savile, in Saviie Correspondence, ed. W. D. Cooper, Camd. Soc, 1857). The popularity which she thus acquired she never lost, and William afterwards freely confessed that it exceeded his own (Macaulay, iv. 6). In return she conceived a lasting affection for the Dutch (Dalrymple, iii. 123; Countess Bentinck, pp. 119 et al. ; and see ib. p. 141). She acquired the Dutch language, at all events sufficiently well to be able to write a letter in it (Dalrymple, iii. 87).
The relations between Mary and her father remained apparently unaltered before his accession to the throne, though the marriage in 1683 of her sister Anne to Prince George of Denmark, a state then in alliance with France, was widely looked upon as a counter-stroke to the Dutch match (Klopp, ii. 416 seqq.) Even in 1684 the Duke of York, when asking Mary to remonstrate with the prince for his civilities to Monmouth and other ' mortal enemies ' of her father, acknowledges her own abstention from politics (Dalrymple, ii. 1, 70). When, however, Monmouth came to the Hague in January 1685, Mary, sure of her husband's approval, made no secret of the pleasure she took in their visitor's company on the ice and elsewhere (see the well-known description, founded by Macaulay, i. 527, on Birch s Extracts ; cf. Miss Strickland, x. 327). On James II's accession, which he notified to Mary in very kind terms, Monmouth had to be speedily dismissed. The tension between the two courts created by his fatal expedition was further increased by the indiscretion of Skelton, James's ambassador at the Hague. Dr. Coveil, Ken's successor as chaplain to the princess, informed Skelton that the prince's infidelities were breaking her heart (Clarendon Correspondence, i. 163-6). Macaulay's conjecture (ii. 172-3) that William was already at this date jealous of his wife's position with regard to the English succession, while her political ignorance prevented her from penetrating to the cause of his dissatisfaction, rests on the narrative of Burnet, who, according to his own statement, heroically solved the difficulty. Having arrived in Holland in the summer of 1686, Burnet, though virtually a fugitive, was at once received by the prince and princess, and after gaining her confidence by making known to her a design for the assassination of her husband, was allowed to discuss with her the general situation. The result was that in his presence she promised the prince that he should always bear rule, only exacting a promise of affection in return (Own Time, iii. 131 seqq.) Dartmouth's view (ib. p. 139 note), that before he would engage in the attempt upon England the prince had instructed Burnet to obtain this promise from the princess, has only too much probability. Macaulay (ib. 179) has persuaded himself that henceforth 'entire confidence and friendship' prevailed between William and Mary ; but it must be noted that Elizabeth Villiers's ascendency over the prince continued throughout the life of his wife, who herself alludes to the connection (Doebner, p. 42). As for Burnet, when in 1687 James II had twice written to Mary to insist on his being forbidden her court, the demand was obeyed ; nor did she see him again till a few days before William sailed for England (Own Time, iii. 173). To the specious representations of her father's new envoy, D'Albeville, Mary is said by Burnet (ib. pp. 177-8) to have replied with so much fairness that he described her as in these matters more intractable than her husband. Unmoved by the written or spoken eloquence of her father's emissary, Penn, she consistently supported all the remonstrances addressed by William to James through D'Albeville and Dykvelt on the Declaration of Indulgence (1687) (ib. p. 173 ; cf. Macaulay, ii. 232; Mazure, ii. 199). Hitherto James had shown Mary scant tenderness ; he had rejected her intercession on behalf of Bishop Compton when arraigned before the court of high commission (Macaulay, ii. 408), and had turned a deaf ear to her solicitation that he should use his influence with Louis XIV to prevent the seizure of the principality of Orange — a refusal which seems to have rankled deeply in her mind (Mazure, iii. 16o). On 4 Nov. 1687, taking advantage of a question put by Mary to D'Albeville, James addressed to her an elaborate letter on the grounds of his conversion to Rome, which the ambassador delivered to her at Christmas, with a message requesting her free comments. She in reply argued the whole question with ability and candour, ending with a fervent declaration of her conviction as to the truth of the protestant faith, and of her resolution to adhere to it (both letters are printed by Countess Bentinck, pp. 4-17). James retorted by recommending his daughter to read certain controversial books, and to discuss the subject in detail with Father Morgan, an English Jesuit then at the Hague. On 17 Feb. 1688 she answered that while taking the former she declined the latter advice (ib. pp. 18-24);
