Mary II 1662-1694, queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, eldest child of James, duke of York [qv.], and his first duchess, Anne Hyde [qv.], was born at St. James's Palace 30 April 1662. Her birth, by reason of her sex, pleased nobody (Pepys, Diary, i. 442), and lost such significance as it possessed by the birth, fifteen months later, of her eldest brother. When she was two years of age, Pepys (ib. iii. 44) saw the Duke of York playing with her like an ordinary private father; and he saw her again, when close upon six, a little child in hanging sleeves, dance most finely, so as almost to ravish one; her ears were so good (ib. vi. 43). Her early days were partly spent in the house of her grandfather Clarendon at Twickenham; but she and the duke's other children were afterwards established at Richmond Palace, under the care of their governess, Lady Frances Villiers, whose daughters, together with Anne Trelawney and Sarah Jennings, were among the playfellows of the young princesses. The Duke of York was constrained to have his daughters brought up as protestants by the fear of their being taken away from him altogether (Life of James II, i. 503). A kind of general superintendence seems to have been exercised over their education by Morley, bishop of Winchester, who had enjoyed the chancellor Clarendon's confidence, and had considerable influence over the appointments in the Duke of York's household (Plumptre, Life of Ken, i. 128). The religious training of Mary and Anne was, however, mainly in the hands of Compton, bishop of London, who laid the foundation of Mary's sturdy protestant sentiment, and to whom she always remained warmly attached (Burnet, iii. 111-12). In the later years of her childhood Dr. Lake, afterwards archdeacon and prebendary of Exeter, and Dr. Doughty were among her chaplains (Lake, pp. 8, 24; cf. Krämer, p. 74). Her French tutor was Peter de Laine, who highly commends her abilities (Miss Strickland, x. 247); in drawing she was instructed by the dwarfs, Richard Gibson [qv.] and his wife. Gibson afterwards accompanied her to Holland. From a French dancing-master (Pepys) she learnt an accomplishment which in 1688 she described as formerly one of her prettiest pleasures (ap. Doebner, p. 5), and which in December 1674 she exhibited before the court, when she with much applause took the part of Calisto in Crowne's masque of that name. Dryden complimented the princesses in an epilogue; the masque was printed in 1675, and was dedicated to her.
The disposal of Mary's hand soon became an interesting political question. After the death of her youngest brother Edgar, duke of Cambridge (1671), she had once more become heiress-presumptive to the crown, and her father had no children by his second marriage till the birth of a daughter in 1675. It was obvious that the choice of a husband for her must prove either another link in the policy of subservience to France or a check upon that policy. As early as 1672 the scheme of a marriage between William, then in his twenty-third year, and Mary seems to have been discussed in Holland and known in France (Krämer, p. 75 and note). After the termination of the Dutch war which began in that year, the plan was revived (1674), as yet, however, without being countenanced by the English court. For since 1673 French diplomacy had begun to flatter the Duke of York with hopes of the dauphin's hand for his eldest daughter; and as William was disliked by both the duke and Charles II, they declined to negotiate with him on the subject of a marriage, at all events till peace should have been concluded between the United Provinces and France (Dalrymple, i. 148, 158, 178 seqq.; and cf. ib. p. 159; Jones's Secret History of Whitehall). In 1675, however, the Dutch marriage scheme was taken up by Danby and his colleagues as part of their policy for pacifying parliament and public feeling (Life of James II, i. 500-502); and Charles II sanctioned the despatch of a special mission to Holland. The Prince of Orange, however, in his turn gave a cold reception to the overtures of the English envoys, who promised him the hand of the Princess Mary if he would agree to the general peace for which conferences were then opening; nor was it till the autumn of 1677 that, taking the negotiation into his own hands, he paid a visit to the English court. Though Mary was still so young—she had only in this year been confirmed by Bishop Compton—her father, who had at first refused his consent, yielded to the king's command (ib. i. 503; Macpherson, Original Papers, i. 82). William probably thought there was no time to be lost; for in addition to the French designs there seems to have been talk of a Swedish suit (Pufendorf ap. Klopp, ii. 75). The peace of Nimeguen was still unsigned; and both in Holland and in England, where William was personally unpopular, it was feared that he might betray the interests of the alliance against France, without gaining the hand of the English princess. Barillon was assured by the Duke of York that no resolution concerning her marriage should be taken without the advice of Louis XIV, and the Austrian ambassador was perplexed by an inquiry whether the young king Charles II of Spain might be regarded as a possible suitor. But on 18 Oct. William, with the consent of the king, asked the duke for his daughter's hand, and on the 21st the duke, after excusing himself as best he could to Barillon, signified his approval of the match, which was announced by Charles to a privy council held on the following day as a proof of his care for religion (Life of James II, i. 509). The publication of the announcement, though generally well received in England and celebrated by bonfires, seems to have aroused some suspicions that William had been caught in the toils of the royal policy; but it was not till after the marriage articles had been promptly drawn up by Danby within three days that the prince entered into negotiations concerning the peace. The only hindrance to the speedy conclusion of the marriage was the delay caused by the ordering of the wedding dresses at Paris, a step which gave so much offence in the city that it was resolved to order no public festivities.
On the afternoon of 21 Oct. Mary was at St. James's Palace informed by her father of his assent to the match, whereupon she wept all that afternoon and the following day (Lake, p. 5). Divers complimentary audiences followed (ib. pp. 5, 24); and on 4 Nov. the wedding was solemnised by Bishop Compton in the bride's apartments. Waller composed the epithalamium (Works, ed. R. Bell, 1854, p. 200); the jocosity was supplied by King Charles; and there seems to have been no lack of loyal demonstrations in London (ib. p. 6). But the news of the engagement had excited great wrath in Louis XIV, who stopped the pension which he was paying to Charles II (Dalrymple, i. 181 seqq.).
On the day after the wedding William, through Bentinck, presented his bride with a morgengabe of jewels, valued at 40,000l. (Lake). But the bitter experiences of her married life were not long in beginning. On 7 Nov. the Duchess of York gave birth to a son, and though he only survived for ten days, it was not an event likely to put William in good humour. About the same time the Princess Anne was laid up with small-pox, and Mary could not be induced by her husband to leave the infected palace of St. James's, where she sought comfort from her chaplain, Dr. Lake (Diary, p. 9). Contrary winds delayed the departure of the prince and princess, and in the interval William, who was absorbed in the peace negotiations, took little notice of his bride. There was a discrepancy of twelve years between their ages, he was in feeble health and taciturn, and the prospect of leaving England seemed full of wretchedness to her in her solitude.
On the morning of 19 Nov. the prince and princess took boat from Whitehall, in the company of the entire royal family, but unfavourable weather obliged them to make a détour by Canterbury, where they remained from 23 to 26 Nov. On the 28th they at last set sail from Margate (Lake, pp. 9-12; cf. Plumptre, i. 137 n.). After a tempestuous journey they arrived at Ter-Heyde, whence they immediately repaired to Honslardyke, the favourite country seat of the Princes of Orange (Lake, p. 12). Their formal entry at the Hague was delayed till 14 Dec.
Mary was accompanied to Holland by two of the daughters of Lady Frances Villiers, Elizabeth and Anne, and by her favourite, Anne Trelawney, afterwards dismissed from her service by William. Another of her maids of honour was Jane Wroth, whom Zulestein first seduced and then married. Surrounded by these giddy girls, and at times, as appears from her correspondence, herself not disinclined to take part in their merriment, Mary appears from the first to have maintained perfect sobriety of conduct in her new home. Dr. Hooper (derisively called Papa or Pater Hooper, subsequently bishop of Bath and Wells), who succeeded Dr. Lloyd (afterwards bishop of Worcester) as one of her chaplains, left a detailed account of her way of life, in which he avers that during the eighteen months of his attendance upon her he never saw her do, or heard her say, a thing that he could have wished she would not. The solitary rumour to her discredit which reached the anxious ears of Dr. Lake in England was that she had resumed a habit, from which he had formerly advised her to desist, of sometimes playing cards on Sundays. He was hardly less perturbed, however, on learning that she occasionally worshipped at the English nonconformist church maintained by the States-General at the Hague (Lake, Diary, pp. 22, 26; cf. Plumptre, i. 146).
Her usual residence was the well-known House in the Wood, near the Hague. In the capital itself, where her uncle Clarendon resided for a short time as English ambassador, she only took up her residence on state occasions. The palace at the Loo, near Apeldoorn, of which she laid the foundation-stone, was not erected till 1680. The loneliness of the earlier years of her married life is illustrated by the statement that she felt at liberty to fit up her chapel in her dining-room, as her husband never dined with her (ib. i. 141). Doubtless her character was only gradually forming, and she had not as yet found in religion a panacea for her troubles. The Prince of Orange, though he received her stepmother and sister with much courtesy on their visit to the Hague in the autumn of 1678, continued to show his wife the utmost coldness. The marriage remained childless, Mary's expectations having been disappointed early in 1678, and again in 1679; in the latter year the Dutch climate subjected her to an attack of the ague, and she was sent, under the care of the younger Dr. Drelincourt, to Aix-la-Chapelle (Clarendon Correspondence, i. 42; cf. Krämer, p. 109). Her ailment may have contributed to William's indifference, to which he gave publicity by establishing Elizabeth Villiers as his mistress. The prince was preoccupied by politics, for which Mary confessed she had no taste. By no fault of her own, moreover, she was much pinched for money; of her marriage portion of 40,000l. only half seems to have been paid to her, and her father neither made her an allowance nor gave her the customary presents of jewellery (Burnet, iii. 133). Thus her whole annual income amounted to less than 4,000l., a tithe of the sum afterwards allowed by James II to the Princess Anne (Krämer, pp. 107-8; Clarendon Correspondence, i. 20; cf. Macaulay, ii. 408. In 1686 an annual income of 25,000l. seems to have been settled upon Mary by the States-General in return for a loan from William III; see Ellis Correspondence, i. 188).
The Duke of York early in 1679 paid a visit to his daughter at the Hague, and after a sojourn in Aix-la-Chapelle she received visits from Monmouth (27 Sept.) and from the Duke and Duchess of York with Princess Anne (6 Oct.). It was Mary's last meeting with her father. With her stepmother she seems to have been on terms of playful familiarity (the duchess addressed her as her dear Lemon; see Miss Strickland, x. 298). Princess Anne was on this occasion accompanied by Lady Churchill, between whom and Mary it is possible that the seeds of an enduring antipathy were now sown (ib. p. 301)..
In March and April 1680 Mary suffered from a severe illness, and was at one time thought unlikely to recover (H. Sidney, ii. 3). Ken, who was now her chaplain, and who, notwithstanding her latitudinarian tendencies, took a warm interest in her, was so much grieved by her husband's unkindness to her that he resolved at any risk to remonstrate with him on the subject. Both Ken and Sir Gabriel Sylvius would have liked her to pay a visit to England (ib. pp. 19-20, 26-7, 53; cf. Plumptre, i. 125, 146, 150). D'Avaux, too, who was French ambassador at the Hague about 1682-4, has left a minute account of the dreary way in which she ordinarily spent her days (Miss Strickland, x. 323-6). But in the midst of these trials the noblest elements in her nature were beginning to assert themselves; and by her cheerful submissiveness, the product of a natural sweetness of disposition and of a sense of duty matured by the habit of 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 Savile 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 counterstroke 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. Covell, 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 (ii. 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 Orange¾a refusal which seems to have rankled deeply in her mind (Mazure, iii. 165). 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); ‘Nobody,’ she wrote, ‘has ever been railed into conviction.’ Furthermore, she sent an account of the whole transaction to Anne and Compton and (through her chaplain, Dr. Stanley) to Sancroft. A few months later, after again taking the sacrament, she read the papers left behind her by her mother on her conversion [see Hyde, Anne], and informed her father of the fact (ib. pp. 57-64; Clarendon Correspondence, ii. 484 seqq.; cf. Burnet, iii. 195-204).
In the transactions which followed the Princess of Orange completely identified herself with her husband. Pensionary Fagel's letter, printed early in 1688, was intended as a kind of joint manifesto by William and Mary on the English question (Macaulay, ii. 261-2; cf. Burnet, iii. 215-17). She was much agitated by the attempted recall of the English regiments from Holland, and wrote on the subject to James, who thereupon angrily broke off his attempts for her conversion (Memoirs ap. Countess Bentinck, p. 65; cf. Dalrymple, ii. bk. v. p. 10). At Honslardyke, whither she had accompanied William after the discovery of a plot against his life (Memoirs, u.s., p. 72), they heard of the imprisonment of the seven bishops (8 June)¾a proceeding which specially shocked Mary¾and of the birth of the Prince of Wales (10 June), at which neither the ladies designated by Mary to represent her nor the ambassador of the States-General had been present (Klopp, iii. 41).
Mary's autobiographical memoirs make it clear that she viewed this event with no feeling of personal disappointment (u.s. p. 73; cf. Burnet, iii. 260); but it is noticeable that not long before the birth she had felt herself, as she describes it, awaking from a kind of fool's paradise, and coming to perceive how much it behoved her for the sake of the protestant religion to wish that she might attain to the crown (Memoirs, u.s., p. 62). It is also clear that though on the arrival of the news the prince and the princess sent Zulestein to England with their congratulations, while she ordered that the Prince of Wales should be prayed for in her chapel, she at least cherished suspicions from the first (ib. p. 74). She engaged in an active correspondence on the subject with Anne (Miss Strickland, x. 364-5; cf. Account of Conduct, pp. 23-4). Anne's excessive vehemence at first failed to convince Mary; when, however, the spuriousness of the birth was with increasing persistency asserted in England, and much dissatisfaction was there expressed with the offering of prayers at the Hague, William and Mary absented themselves from D'Albeville's fête in honour of the birth, and ordered the prayers to cease. They were only resumed (against Mary's wish) when the indignation of James threatened an immediate rupture, and were once more stopped by her orders, so soon as William had started on his expedition (Memoirs ap. Countess Bentinck, pp. 61-76; Burnet, ii. 259-60 and note; Life of James II, p. 161; Miss Strickland, x. 364-5; Klopp, iii. 41, 55 seqq.; Dalrymple, vol. ii.; Ellis, Original Letters, 1st ser. iii. 348-9). Mary's conduct on this occasion was never forgiven by her father, but she was sincerely convinced that fraud had been practised, and thenceforth regarded her father's dethronement by her husband as inevitable (Memoirs, u.s., pp. 75-6).
As the time for William's expedition to England drew near, he and Mary were kept informed of James's secret proceedings by Lord and Lady Sunderland, of whom the latter appears to have corresponded with Mary. A former chamberlain of the princess, a Genevan named Verace, who had resigned his office under rather suspicious circumstances, and had been superseded by a nobleman much disliked by James, Lord Coote, nearly succeeded in bringing these communications to the knowledge of the king through Skelton; but the revelation was averted by Sunderland (cf. as to Verace, Memoirs ap. Countess Bentinck, pp. 65 seqq.). During William's absence at Minden Mary remained at the Loo, able to give more time to devotion, and, according to her wont in the great crises of her life, ‘opening her heart to nobody’ (ib. pp. 77-8). In September her father was still professing to her his hope that she was ignorant of her husband's designs; but though she was well aware of them, she had not altogether abandoned the hope of a different solution. As late as the beginning of October she suggested to D'Albeville, according to the Danish minister at the Hague, that James should break off his alliance with Louis XIV, and place a large military and naval force at the disposal of the States-General for the purpose of offensive operations against France. The project, which D'Albeville circulated with a light heart, was of course strangled in the birth (see Mazure, iii. 201-3; cf. Klopp, iv. 147). Burnet, who saw the princess at the Hague a day or two before the sailing of the expedition, describes her as very solemn and serious. She was, he says, praying for the divine blessing on the enterprise, and declared she would spare no efforts to prevent ‘any disjointing between her interests and those of her consort’ (Own Time, iii. 311). About the same time William himself spoke to her, very tenderly as she says, on the subject of her marrying again should he fall; and she answered him with effusive affection, ‘If she lost him she should not care for an angel’ (Memoirs ap. Countess Bentinck, p. 81).
For a month after William's departure Mary remained in absolute retirement, only emerging to attend the public prayers in addition to those held in the palace. The extraordinary sympathy of which she found herself the object inspired her with fears that the devil (as to whose personality she had a strong conviction) was tempting her with vanity. At last she received, though not from William himself, information of his landing, and began to hold receptions, but declined to play cards. Her pleasure when tidings arrived from his own hand was disturbed by the news of a fresh design against his life. On 30 Dec. she heard of her father's flight, receiving at the same time William's orders to hold herself in readiness for departure (ib. pp. 89-92). Before leaving, however, she had to entertain at the Hague the Elector Frederick III of Brandenburg and his wife, her kinswoman, Sophia Charlotte. Then she returned to her previous solitary ways, distracted by reports, deprived of all political counsel, and dependent for comfort upon her pious thoughts and her bible. In these days she resorted to what became a favourite habit with her¾the composition of prayers and meditations¾and indited a special prayer on behalf of the convention which was discussing her future at Westminster (Memoirs ap. Doebner, pp. 4-7, 12, 13). Although there can be little doubt that William purposely delayed her arrival in England, lest she should be in one way or another ‘set above him’ (see Sheffield, Duke of Buckinghamshire, Some Account of the Revolution, Works, 1723, ii. 97-8; cf. Dalrymple, ii. 283; Macaulay, ii. 636, innocently attributes the delay to the perversity of the weather), yet Mary, even at a distance, seconded her husband's wishes. In opposition to the Williamites, headed by Halifax, another party desired to raise Mary to the throne as sole sovereign, and its leader, Danby, wrote to her in this sense. In reply she indignantly repudiated any attempt to raise her above her husband, to whom she transmitted the correspondence. It was, as Macaulay conjectures, after receiving it that William¾whose views had, however, been already made known through Bentinck¾openly refused to reign by his wife's courtesy. Burnet at the same time officiously proclaimed Mary's previous assurances to him on the subject. Thus it was settled that William and Mary should become king- and queen-regnant; that he should administer the government in both their names; and that the crown should descend in the first instance to the heirs of her body. The section of the church party which had advocated her being made queen in her own right accepted the situation. For herself, she afterwards confessed, she would have preferred her husband to become regent under her father (Burnet, iii. 391 seqq.; Dalrymple, ii. 284; Macaulay, ii. 633 seqq.; Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 11).
On 1 Feb. 1689 Admiral Herbert (afterwards Lord Torrington) arrived with a yacht to fetch Mary home. On 10 Feb. she set sail. In the Thames she had foul weather; but in the afternoon of the 12th she landed at Whitehall Stairs. She describes her pleasure in seeing her husband and her sister again, and the conflict between filial and conjugal duty which still oppressed her. She adds that after this meeting she ‘was guilty of a great sin. I let myself go on too much, and the devil immediately took his advantage; the world filled my mind, and left but little room for good thoughts’ (ib. pp. 10-11). After the offer of the crown she seems to have exhibited a mirthfulness which it is difficult to reconcile with her account of her real feeling. Her behaviour was certainly deficient in tact, though the narrative of the Duchess of Marlborough may be as exaggerated as her conclusion that Mary ‘wanted bowels,’ and Evelyn's that she ‘took nothing to heart’ (Account of Conduct, p. 25; cf. Vindication of Account, p. 19; cf. Burnet, iii. 406-7, and Dartmouth's note; Evelyn, Diary, ii. 69; Macaulay, ii. 652-4).
On 13 Feb. (Ash Wednesday), Mary, seated in state by her husband's side in the presence of the two houses in the banqueting-house at Whitehall, assented to the Declaration of Rights, and William in his and her name accepted the crown of England tendered by Halifax (Macaulay, ii. 654; cf. Life of James II, p. 308). Both sovereigns were hereupon instantly proclaimed (Dalrymple, i. 309). Their coronation took place on 11 April in Westminster Abbey, Compton, bishop of London, in the place of the absent primate, performing the ceremony, in most, though not all, points of which Mary as queen-regnant was placed on an equality with the king. Burnet, recently appointed bishop of Salisbury (cf. Own Time, iv. 3), preached the sermon. Among the queen's train-bearers was her cousin, Lady Henrietta Hyde, Rochester's daughter, though Mary had at first resented the conduct of both her uncles as to the succession (Clarendon Correspondence, ii. 263-4; see Macaulay, iii. 117-20). Miss Strickland (xi. 18-28) states that on the morning of the coronation Mary received from her father the news of his landing in Kinsale, and used the heartless language attributed to her in ‘Life of James II,’ ii. 329; but anecdote and date are alike apocryphal. Much comment was aroused by the device of a chariot on the reverse of the coronation medal (Macaulay, iii. 120), and the comparison of Mary to Tullia became a crambe repetita of the Jacobite wits (Miss Strickland, xi. 45-7). In April followed the proclamation of William and Mary in Scotland, with the settlement of the Claim of Rights, and on 12 May they took the oath of office at Whitehall, in the presence of the Scottish commissioners and all the Scotsmen of distinction then in London (Macaulay, iii. 287-93). Finally, by the new parliament which met in March 1690, and passed the Bill of Rights, they were recognised as rightful and lawful sovereigns.
Of the new ministry, Danby, now lord president, was a statesman whom she had good reason to trust; to Shrewsbury, who received most of the king's confidence, it was rumoured that she was personally attached; and the terrible ‘Jack’ Howe (i.e. John Grubham Howe) [q.v.], her vice-chamberlain, who at one time is said to have fancied her to be in love with himself, told Burnet that had she survived the king she would certainly have married Shrewsbury (Own Time, v. 453; Dartmouth's note). The great office of groom of the stole to the queen was bestowed upon the Countess of Derby, the sister of the Duke of Ormonde; according to the Duchess of Marlborough (Account of Conduct, p. 30) Lady Fitzharding was at the commencement of Mary's reign pre-eminent in her favour.
The queen had no wish to interfere in public business, and accordingly few persons cared to pay court to her, so that she found herself very much neglected except in the way of censure (Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 14; cf. Burnet, iv. 3). But William largely depended on her to make up for his own want of popularity. It is even said that about December 1689 he was with difficulty prevented from executing a design which he had kept secret from Mary of retiring to Holland, and leaving her in England to bear the brunt of the conflict (ib. iv. 71; cf. Macaulay, iii. 530; but see Klopp, v. 87). On account of his state of health the court had very soon moved from Whitehall to Hampton Court, where among the odd novelties introduced was Mary's collection of Chinese porcelain, and where she indulged her tastes for gardening and architecture. But the distance from London proving too great, the king and queen for some weeks from October 1689 resided at Holland House in Kensington, which they at one time thought of purchasing, and finally on 23 Dec. settled in the mansion which they had bought from the Earl of Nottingham in the same suburb, and which henceforth became known as Kensington Palace.
In the midst of misrepresentation and scandal Mary strove to put as pleasant as possible a face upon things, but she was painfully affected by the moral laxity which on her arrival she found generally prevalent in England. Nor did she confine herself to private musings on the subject. By her desire, when things seemed going ill in Scotland and Ireland, a public fast was proclaimed (cf. N. Luttrell, Brief Historical Relation, &c. i. 542), and, in accordance with her puritanising tendency, she abolished the singing of prayers in the Chapel Royal at Whitehall, and introduced Sunday afternoon sermons there (Memoirs ap. Doebner, pp. 12 et al.). These innovations gave great offence to the Princess Anne, who took her cue from the high church party. Notwithstanding Mary's dislike of Lady Marlborough, she had for some time after her arrival maintained friendly relations with Anne. The queen showed great interest in the birth (24 July) and infant troubles of the Duke of Gloucester, and in the birth of Anne's next child, who was christened Mary (ib. p. 15; Countess Bentinck, p. 123), but a coolness had set in between the sisters before the latter event. The Duchess of Marlborough (Account of Conduct, pp. 27-8) attributes its origin to Anne's disappointment at being refused some additional apartments at Whitehall and Richmond Palace. Mary says that in the latter part of 1689 she discovered that Anne was secretly ‘making parties to get a revenue settled upon her,’ and that both at the commencement and in the course of the transaction which ensued she had occasion to speak reproachfully to her sister, who only asked pardon of her and the king in order to compass her end (Memoirs ap. Doebner, pp. 17-27; cf. Account of Conduct, pp. 29-38; Dalrymple, ii. iii. 108 sq., iv. 155 sq.; Macaulay, iii. 559-66). Though Anne obtained her parliamentary settlement of 50,000l. a year, the sore rankled, while further umbrage was given to Anne by William's rude treatment of Prince George in Ireland (1690), and by Mary's refusal, of course under orders, to allow him to serve at sea during the king's absence in Holland (1691) [see Anne, 1665-1714; and George of Denmark].
Before William started for Ireland, in June 1690, an act of parliament had been passed empowering Mary during his absence to exercise the government in his name as well as in her own. William had, according to Burnet (iv. 87), repeatedly said to Shrewsbury that, though he could not hit on the right way of pleasing England, the queen would. As she had, with her usual modesty, told him that the real responsibility must after all lie with the privy council (Memoirs, ap. Doebner, pp. 22-3), he was at special pains to furnish her with a suitable confidential committee of that body on which she might rely. To the loyalty of its nine members, who together with Carmarthen (Danby) included Russell as chief naval and in the ultimate selection Marlborough as chief military adviser, William made an earnest appeal, but her letters to him show that she entertained no high esteem for most of them (Macaulay, iii. 593, 598; Burnet, iv. 83; Clarendon Correspondence, ii. 316; Klopp, v. 101-2). She had recently recovered from an illness, but she promised Carmarthen ‘not to be govern'd by her own or others' fears, but to follow the advise of those she believed had most courage and judgment’ (Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 31). From her ‘Memoirs,’ and from her daily outpourings to her husband in the pathetic series of letters, it is abundantly clear that her piety and her affection for her husband enabled her to do her duty. Almost the first occasion on which she felt constrained to speak in her council was to approve of a warrant issuing for the arrest of her uncle Clarendon, who was involved in a plot against William. The French fleet, under Tourville, had entered the Channel, and an insurrection was daily expected. Furthermore, the conduct of Torrington, who was in command of the English fleet, gave rise to the gravest suspicion, but the queen followed the advice of the majority of her council, and, while sending him orders to fight, agreed that Russell and Monmouth should go down to the coast to supervise his proceedings. They were too late to prevent his losing the battle of Beachy Head (30 June), and the queen, who had moreover just received the news of the disastrous battle of Fleurus, shared the sense of humiliation which filled the nation (Dalrymple, iii. 83-5). Shrewsbury's chivalrous offer of his services may have contributed to encourage her at this crisis (Macaulay, iii. 613; Dalrymple, iii. 88-9), and after being distressed beyond measure by the news of William being wounded (ib. pp. 89-92), she was on 7 July rewarded by the news of his decisive victory of the Boyne, with which the fear of invasion virtually ended (ib. p. 500; cf. Macaulay, iii. 165). In the letter in which she confessed to William the ‘confusion of thought’ into which she had been plunged, she begged him for his and her sake to see that no hurt should come to the person of her vanquished father, and characteristically added an entreaty that he would provide without delay for the church in Ireland, which everybody agreed was ‘the worst in Christendom’ (Dalrymple, iii. 92-6). Torrington, who had hoped for an audience from her, was straightway ordered to the Tower (Klopp, v. 135). The king, after raising the siege of Limerick, returned to Hampton Court 10 Sept. (Dalrymple, iii. 126-9), and she had the satisfaction of finding him ‘very much pleased with her behaviour’ (Memoirs ap. Doebner), while both houses of parliament, when they met in October, voted her thanks for the prudence of her government (Macaulay, iii. 716). She at once relinquished all participation in public business (Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 34).
During the king's absence in Holland, from 6 Jan. to 10 April 1691, she dissembled her anxiety, played every night at comet or basset, and allowed dancing at court on the occasion of her sister's birthday (ib. p. 36). But, with the sole exception of Henry Sidney, who had succeeded Shrewsbury as secretary of state, she was surrounded by enemies or cold friends. On the night before the king's return she was alarmed by a serious fire at Whitehall, from which she is said to have made her escape with difficulty (Miss Strickland, xi. 189-90; Macaulay, iv. 334). In the middle of April 1691 the sees of the deprived eight nonjuring bishops were at length filled. Since their deprivation the queen had, through Burnet, Rochester, and Trevor, endeavoured to obtain a lenient treatment for these prelates (Burnet, iv. 128), more especially for Ken and Frampton; and to her seems to belong the saying, attributed by Macaulay to William, that however much they wished to be martyrs, care should be taken to disappoint them (Plumptre, u.s., ii. 69-70; cf. Doebner, p. 41). In some of the many admirable appointments now and soon afterwards made, especially in the elevation to the primacy of Tillotson, for whom, as more moderate, her faithful Compton was, to his bitter chagrin, passed over, the influence of the queen seems distinctly traceable (cf. Burnet, iv. 137; Macaulay, iv. 34 seqq.; C. J. Abbey, The English Church and its Bishops, 1700-1800 (1887), i. 94). Tillotson henceforth became the regular adviser as to church preferments of Mary, to whom William delegated such matters, but notwithstanding the moderation and conscientiousness of both queen and primate, they were unable to check the increase of factiousness among the clergy (Burnet, iv. 211).
After William's departure to the continent, on 1 May 1691, Mary was thoroughly alarmed by the intrigues which had for their object the supplanting of the king and herself by Anne, and of which the moving spirit was Marlborough. The emptiness of the exchequer, which seriously affected the progress of the war in Ireland, weighed upon her, as did the necessity of assenting to sentences of death when she could not, as in Preston's case, approve of their commutation (Memoirs ap. Doebner, pp. 40-1). It was about this date that she burnt most of her meditations, putting her journals into a bag tied by her side, to be in readiness if necessary for the same fate. About the same time she removed to Whitehall, where she fancied herself in more security than out of town (ib. pp. 38-9). To her apprehensions for the king's safety were added regrets for the death of Lady Dorset, whose place in her household was filled by the Countess of Nottingham. On the return of William (19 Oct.), this time without laurels, the court went back to Kensington, where, 9 Nov., a fire again caused Mary much inconvenience (ib. p. 43).
Early in 1692 it became impossible for the king and queen any longer to ignore Marlborough's complicity in the conspiracy against them, and after an explanation between the queen and the princess he was deprived of his appointments on 10 Jan. Three weeks later, on Anne's venturing to bring the duchess to court, Mary wrote to her sister a decisive letter (printed in Account of Conduct, pp. 43-47, where an utterly perverted account is given of the transaction). Hereupon Anne, who refused to part from her favourite, removed to Sion House, and the rupture between the sisters was manifest. Although in April the queen visited Anne on the premature birth of another child, in October, when Anne had returned to town, Mary passed her without notice in the park, nor do they seem to have ever met again. It is highly probable that the intrigues now carried on by Anne with her father were known to Mary (Klopp, vi. 55 seqq.). By a curious irony of fate Mary, who deeply regretted the alienation from her sister (see Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 43, and cf. her letters to the Duchess Sophia, ib. pp. 93, 97), incurred the reproach of cruelty, while Anne received the pity due to injured innocence; nor can it be doubted that the queen's popularity was diminished by the transaction (see, however, Klopp, vi. 32). Rochester, who in the dispute had judiciously taken the queen's side, was not long afterwards sworn of the privy council.
During William's absence on the campaign of 1692 (5 March to 18 Oct.) the burden of the administration once more fell on Mary's shoulders. She was again resident at Whitehall, where in April she was seriously ill (‘it was the first time in 12 year I had missed going to Church on the Lord's day,’ Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 47). On her recovery she was beset by fears of a French invasion, as well as of conspiracies, directed in part against her own person, which, much against her wont, she appears to have sought to counteract by gaining information through double-dealers with her father's court (Ralph ap. Dalrymple, i. 564). In April a private letter from her father reached her through one of the ladies ostentatiously invited to be present at the birth of a royal infant at St. Germains (Klopp, vi. 53-4). Though King William had promised to return, in the event of the actual landing of an invading force (Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 48), Mary felt obliged to hold back several regiments destined for Flanders (Klopp, vi. 56). In May James was at La Hogue, after issuing a declaration which, as self-condemnatory, Mary had the courage to allow to be circulated in England (Dalrymple, iii. 239; Macaulay, iv. 230). Fears were rife of treason on the part of many officers of the navy, and the queen showed great spirit in addressing to the admiral, Russell, a letter expressive of her confidence in the loyalty of the service (ib. pp. 234-5; Dalrymple, u.s.; Life of James II, ii. 490). ‘God alone,’ she exclaims (Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 49), ‘delivered us,’ by the winds which contributed to the decisive victory of La Hogue (19 May). Though she sanctioned a large gratuity to the sailors, opened St. Thomas's and St. Bartholomew's Hospitals to the wounded from the fleet, and declared her design of establishing a permanent hospital for disabled seamen at Greenwich (Macaulay, iv. 243), Mary delayed a public thanksgiving for the victory, in order to await the news from Flanders. When it came it was disappointing. Namur had fallen, and the defeat of Steinkirk soon followed; a projected naval attempt upon the French coast likewise came to grief, and Mary's troubles were brought to a height by the discovery in Flanders of Grandvaal's design against William's life, in which she found her father to be involved (Memoirs ap. Doebner, pp. 51-4; cf. Burnet, iv. 170-4; Macaulay, iv. 285-6). It is therefore not surprising that the queen and her advisers should have attached credence to Young's revelations of a pretended plot, in consequence of which Marlborough was for some weeks lodged in the Tower.
During William's sojourn in England in the winter of 1692-3 she took great comfort from his unaccustomed kindness. He approved the orders she had during his absence given to the magistrates all over England for enforcing the law against vice and immorality, including what to her was specially abominable, the desecration of the Sunday (Burnet, iv. 181-2). She had also issued on 13 Sept. 1692 a much-censured proclamation, offering 40l. a head for the apprehension and conviction of any burglar or highwayman (Miss Strickland, xi. 256-8). She could now hardly repress her indignation at the treachery and disloyalty surrounding the throne, and her dislike of the necessity to which William found himself reduced of courting the tories (Memoirs ap. Doebner, pp. 58-9). After he had again quitted England (24 March 1693), and she had to resume the regency, everything seemed to go wrong, nor had she when he came back (29 Oct.) the satisfaction of finding him approve her administration (ib.). Yet whether or not she acted judiciously in getting rid of Lord Bellamont, she was responsible neither for the loss of the Smyrna fleet, which caused an alarm she sought to allay by the prompt appointment of a committee of the council on the grievances of the Turkey merchants (Macaulay, iv. 416, 469), nor for William's defeat at Landen. The anarchy in the council which she had been unable to stay obliged him after all to fall back on the whigs, out of whom he gradually formed a more solid ministry. Things began to improve, and, as she says, every one was resolving to try one year more at least (Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 61).
During William's absence on the campaign of 1694 (6 May-9 Nov.), the queen's popularity in the city was proved by the ready response to her courageous request for a loan of 300,000l. (Klopp, vi. 217; see Shrewsbury Correspondence, pp. 69 seqq.; Klopp, vi. 340-341). The death of Tillotson (22 Nov.) greatly grieved her. Burnet (iv. 243) says that for many days she spoke of the archbishop ‘in the tenderest manner, and not without tears;’ she pressed the king and Shrewsbury to name Stillingfleet as his successor, but Tenison was preferred as less ‘high’ in ‘his notions and temper.’
Soon afterwards the queen was herself taken ill. Already in the previous spring she had described herself as increasingly subject to the infirmities accompanying age¾but she was only thirty-two¾or the troubles and anxieties which every returning summer brought to her (ap. Countess Bentinck, p. 146). On 20 Dec. she felt unwell, but the indisposition seemed unimportant, and on the 22nd she felt stronger, though by way of precaution she put her papers in order. It must have been on this occasion that she wrote to her husband a letter dwelling on his conjugal infidelities, and exhorting him to mend his ways, which she afterwards gave to Tenison to be transmitted after her death (Plumptre, ii. 79 note). On the 23rd an eruption ensued, which the nurse and Dr. John Radcliffe [q.v.] thought to be measles. By Christmas day the king and court were much alarmed; deep emotion was manifested at the services in the Chapel Royal, and already political speculations were rife on the consequences of her death. In the evening the physicians agreed that she was suffering from a virulent attack of small-pox. On 26 Dec. Tenison was commissioned to inform her of her danger, when she expressed her perfect submission to the divine will. The king's grief, which he freely imparted to Burnet, was most vehement; sympathetic crowds blocked all the approaches to Kensington Palace. The Princess Anne's request to be allowed to visit her sister was by medical advice declined by the king. On 27 Dec. Mary, who had been almost continuously in prayer, received the sacrament, and bade an affectionate farewell to the king. Half an hour later, at one a.m. on 28 Dec., she died (Klopp, vii. 6-10; Lexington Papers, pp. 31-6; Burnet, iv. 245-8; cf. Macaulay, iv. 350-2). The queen's body, after being opened and embalmed, was removed from Kensington to Whitehall on the night of 29 Dec. The king, who had at first wished her funeral to be private, deferred it, and it was ultimately celebrated on 5 March with great pomp in Westminster Abbey, where Queen Mary rests in Henry VII's Chapel. Tenison preached the funeral sermon, an answer to which, reproaching the primate for not having exhorted the queen to a deathbed repentance on her father's account, is thought to have been written by Ken (Plumptre, ii. 86-94; as to the replies which followed, see State Papers during the Reign of William III, 1706, ii. 522 seqq.). Both houses of parliament, which contrary to usage had not been dissolved, attended the service (Macaulay, iv. 534-5). Public funeral solemnities were also held in the United Provinces; at Utrecht Grævius preached before the Provincial Estates. Other notable sermons were delivered in England by Burnet, Sherlock, Wake, and many other divines; and the queen was mourned in verse by Prior, Swift, Congreve, the Duke of Devonshire, and Lord Cutts, who had already in 1687 dedicated his poems to Mary, in the ‘Lacrymæ Cantabrigienses,’ edited by Thomas Brown, as well as in ‘Clarendon Correspondence,’ ii. 450 note. The city council was anxious to erect her statue with William's in front of the Royal Exchange; but he preferred to honour her memory by carrying out her scheme of Greenwich Hospital. James II put on no mourning, and forbade the wearing of it by his court (Life of James II, ii. 525-7), and Pope Innocent XII took occasion to deliver an edifying discourse on the fifth commandment (Letters of James, Earl of Perth, ed. W. Jerdan, Camden Soc., 1845, p. 57). The hopes of the Jacobites were largely raised by her death.
It was Mary's fate in life, as she herself avers, to be misinterpreted. Placed under the fiercest light of publicity, in the most painful possible dilemma¾between her father and her husband¾she chose distinctly and definitely, and thereby drew upon herself the rancorous misjudgment of half a world. But both James and others who were without his excuse grossly erred in supposing that Mary either made or adhered to her choice with a light heart. Her solicitude for her father is unmistakably shown in numerous passages of her private memoirs (ap. Doebner, pp. 81-2). William warned Carmarthen that the queen never forgave disrespectful words concerning her father. Halifax lost credit with her for inopportune jests on the subject (Burnet, iv. 241 note), and Titus Oates's pension was suspended because he had dared to offend in the same sense (Klopp, v. 123). Nottingham, who enjoyed much of her intimacy, was even convinced that if she had survived her husband she would have restored her father, but though this passes probability she never seems to have cut herself loose from him till after she discovered his cognisance of Grandvaal's design upon William's life.
Her affection for William thus became the only human anchorage of her life. She was childless, brotherless, and, after the quarrel which Anne had forced upon her, sisterless. To her husband she was absolutely loyal. Though in fact fully equal to the responsibilities thrust upon her, and wanting neither in application nor in firmness and courage, she regarded herself as unfit for politics, and felt assured that it was not through them she would find a place in history (ib. ii. 92). Year after year she cheerfully relinquished the conduct of affairs when relieved of it by the king's return, only to resume it on his departure with renewed misgivings. In an age and belonging to a family prolific of strong-minded women, she was not one of them. Buckinghamshire (Works, ii. 74) truly calls her ‘the most complying wife in the world,’ and Macaulay hardly goes beyond the mark in asserting that her husband's ‘empire over her heart was divided only with her God.’
Profoundly convinced that William's was a providential mission, to further his political ends was for her a religious duty. Brought up in a spirit of militant protestantism, she had accustomed herself in Holland to a fervent, pietistic way of looking at the experiences of life. She was a great bible-reader (cf. Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 25; cf. C. J. Abbey, i. 125), and never swerved from her own standard of orthodoxy, of which she was capable of giving a very clear account. But she was wholly devoid of theological arrogance, and her ‘Meditations’ and ‘Prayers,’ as well as her ‘Memoirs,’ which were manifestly intended for no eye but her own, breathe a spirit of simple piety. It was inevitable that, though an affectionate daughter of the church of England, and extremely regular in all practices of devotion, she should attract little sympathy from the high church party. She would gladly have reconciled parties in the church, and the church itself with the presbyterians. She even shared William's tolerant feelings towards the Roman catholics. Thus her warm interest in ecclesiastical affairs, and more especially in the matter of preferments, though altogether single-minded (cf. ib. pp. 104 seqq.), met with a return anything but grateful from the embittered clerical spirit of her age. Her endowment of the William and Mary College in Virginia for the training of missionaries (Burnet, Own Time, iv. 215-16), and her interest in Thomas Bray [q.v.], the founder of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Abbey, i. 83), attest her religious interests; while, according to Burnet (Memorial, pp. 106 seqq.), she had formed a design for the augmentation of poor livings at home, and entertained a strong objection to pluralities and non-residence. Her efforts on behalf of public morality were not ill-timed. Her public and private charities were alike numerous and unostentatious, her special protection was extended to the French protestant refugees, both in England and in the Low Countries (ib. pp. 143 seqq.).
The charm of her character lay in her moral qualities. She was amiable, cheerful, and equable in temper, and gifted with both intelligence and reasonableness of mind. Genuinely modest in a shameless age, and hating scandal, she was not wanting in vivacity (Burnet, Memorial, p. 87). Her letters contain some sprightly turns of phrase, and her memoirs some good sketches of character. She was, moreover, unlike her sister, fond of conversation. Indeed, the Duchess of Marlborough (Account of Conduct, p. 25) pretends that she soon grew weary of anybody who would not talk a great deal. At court a saying circulated according to which the queen talked as much as the king thought and the princess ate (Klopp, iv. 397). Miss Strickland insinuates that in the last respect both of Anne Hyde's daughters resembled their mother. The defects of Mary's education had, more especially in the quiet Dutch days during Hooper's chaplaincy, been supplemented by reading, and she never gave up the habit. She was well-informed, not only in controversial divinity, but in history, and took up the study of English constitutional history as late as 1691 (Memoirs ap. Doebner, p. 44). According to Burnet (Memorial, p. 80) she was very exact in geography, and had a taste for other sciences. She wrote with ease and fluency in both French and English, and could put together a letter in Dutch (ap. Dalrymple, iii. 87). Her weak eyesight, however, at times obliged her to resort to female handiwork in her desire to avoid idleness (Burnet, Own Time, iii. 134; Memorial, pp. 81-2). At Hampton Court many evidences of her horticultural taste are still extant, and three catalogues of her botanical collections are in the British Museum (Sloane MSS. 2928, 2370-1, 3343; see Law, Hampton Court, iii. 30-42).
A large number of portraits remain from the successive periods of Mary's short life. In youth an elegant dancer, and slight in figure, she afterwards grew more, but never excessively, full in person, and was always a good walker. The earliest portrait of her is probably Necksher's, taken at about two years of age. Wissing's was painted in duplicate between 1685 and 1687. There is another Dutch portrait, belonging to Lord Braybrooke, of 1688. The latest is Vandervaast's, of 1692. A statue of her is at University College, Oxford.
Genuine materials for a personal biography of Mary II are to be found in her letters to William III, covering the period from 19 June to 8 Sept. 1690, and printed in Dalrymple, iii. 68-129; in the Lettres et Mémoires de Marie Reine d'Angleterre, &c., published by Countess Bentinck at the Hague in 1880, and comprising a fragment of Mary's Memoirs (in French) from the beginning to the end of 1688, together with a series of Meditations by her, dating from 1690 and 1691, and a short series of letters written by her to Baroness de Wassenaer-Obdam and others at various times in the six years of her reign; and in the Memoirs and Letters of Mary, Queen of England, ed. by Dr. R. Doebner, Leipzig, 1886. The last-named volume carries on her summary autobiographical narrative (in English) from the beginning of 1689 to the close of 1693, and contains in addition a series of letters from the queen to the Electress Sophia, dating from 1689 to 1694. These materials have been largely used by Krämer in his Maria II Stuart (Utrecht, 1890), the best extant biography of Queen Mary. Miss Strickland's life of her in vols. x. and xi. of the Lives of the Queens of England, 1847, which is full of interesting details as to the queen's earlier years, afterwards degenerates into spiteful gossip. For Mary's early years and marriage see Diary of Dr. Edward Lake, ed. by G. P. Elliott for the Camden Society, Camden Misc. vol. i. (1847). For her life in Holland see the extracts from Hooper's MS. in Trevor's Life and Times of William III, 1836, reproduced by Miss Strickland; and H. Sidney's Diary and Correspondence from 1679, ed. R. W. Blencowe, 2 vols. 1843. Burnet's Hist. of his own Time (here cited in the Oxford edit. 1833) is a first-hand authority from 1686 to the queen's death. His Essay on the Memory of the late Queen (here cited as Memorial in the original edition) first appeared in 1695. See also Clarendon Correspondence, ed. S. W. Singer, 2 vols. 1828; Clarke's Life of James II, 2 vols. 1816; Evelyn's Diary and Correspondence, ed. Bray and Wheatley, 4 vols. 1879; Shrewsbury Papers, ed. Coxe, 1821; and as to the relations between Mary and Anne [Hooke's] Account of the Conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough, 1742. See also Dalrymple's Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, 3 vols. 1790 edit.; Klopp's Der Fall des Hauses Stuart, especially vols. ii-vii. (1875-9); Macaulay's Hist. of England, especially vols. ii-iv. (here cited in the 1st edit.); F. A. Mazure's Histoire de la Révolution de 1688 en Angleterre, 4 vols. Brussels, 1843; Plumptre's Life of Ken, 2 vols. 1888; C. J. Abbey's The English Church and its Bishops, 1700-1800, 2 vols. 1887. For a bibliography of the political as distinguished from the personal history of Mary's life, see under William III.
Contributor: A. W. W. [Adolphus William Ward]