Mary (1658-1718) (DNB00)

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

MARY of Modena (1658–1718), queen of James II of England, was born at Modena 5 Oct. 1658. Her additional baptismal names were Beatrice Anne Margaret Isabel; the name of Eleanor, by which she was familiarly known in her youth, and which reappears in her official burial certificate, was not among them (La Marquise Campana di Cavelli, Les Derniers Stuarts, i. 51 n. ; Introduction, p. 83 and note). She was the only daughter of Alfonso IV of Modena, of the house of Este, who succeeded as duke a few days after her birth. On the death of Alfonso (July 1662), the grovernment of the duchy was, on behalf of Francis II, his sister's junior by two years, carried on by the widowed Duchess Laura, a descendant of the Roman house of Martinozzi, and cousin of Mnzarin (Leo, Geschichte der italien. Staaten, 1832, v. 656; cf. Campana di Cavelli, i. 33 note). She brought up her children both religiously and strictly (cf. Lord Peterborough's character of her ap. Campana di Cavelli, i. 87). Mary Beatrice's uncle, Rinaldo, afterwards cardinal, and finally Duke of Modena, was associated with the Duchess Laura in the guardianship of her children (Miss Strickland, ix. 5).

When in the summer of 1672 it became known that the negotiations for a marriage between the widowed James, duke of York, and the Archduchess Claudia Felicitas had broken down, the Duchess Laura prompted Colbert de Croissy, the French ambassador in London, to suggest her daughter's name. Immediately afterwards he was directed by Louis XIV to put forward as still more suitable that of the Princess Eleanor of Modena, Mary Beatrice's aunt, whose years just doubled her own. The negotiation proceeded slowly, nor was it till July 1673 that the Earl of Peterborough was sent as ambassador extraordinary to Modena, with instructions to ask the hand of Mary Beatrice. On the understanding that the king of France would insure a dowry of at least four hundred thousand crowns on the part of the bride, Charles II undertook to offer on behalf of his brother a jointure of 15,000/. per annum. The king of France himself wrote repeatedly to the duchess-dowager, urging the speedy conclusion of the match, in view of the meeting of parliament, besides sending the Marquis of Dangeau to second Peterborough's efforts, but delays supervened on both sides (Campana di Cavelli, i. 40-5). Mary had been ' so innocently bred ' that before Peterborough's advent she had never heard either of England or of the Duke of York ; and the hope of her heart had been to enter the nunnery of the Visitation recently set up by her mother in close vicinity to the ducal palace. The duchess had to call in the aid of her confessor, the Jesuit father Garimberti ; and in the end Pope Clement X himself addressed a brief, dated 19 Sept., to the youthful princess, pointing out to her that the proposed marriage would in her case be the more meritorious sacrifice (ib, pp. 66-7). Thus Mary Beatrice might through life not unnaturally regard herself as consecrated to the work of the conversion of England, and Louis XIV as the unselfish benefactor who had enabled her to co-operate in the task. Although in a subsequent brief addressed to the duchess-dowager the requisite dispensations were deferred till Mary Beatrice's exercise of her religion in England should have been satisfactorily safeguarded, the marriage treaty (which settled a dowry of three hundred thousand crowns upon the princess) was signed, and the marriage ceremony gone through at Modena on the very day (30 Sept.) on which the mandate issued. This haste, which was much blamed at Rome (id. pp. 122-3 can only be explained by the eagerness for the marriage of both the English court and its French ally ; the papal benediction was not accorded till nearly six months later (ib. .pp. 152-3). The solemnity itself, in which Peterborough acted as proxy for the Duke of York, was performed in the ducal chapel by the court chaplain in ordinary, and not (as is said by Miss Strick- land, ix. 41) by ' a poor English priest ; ' and the usual rejoicings ensued in the town (Campana di Cavelli, i. 1-92 ; Supplement to the anonymous Life of James II, 3rd edit. 1705, pp. 11-41 , based on Halstead's Succinct Genealogies ; Clarke, Life of James II, pp. 484-5: Klopp, i. 353-G).

Though the journey of Mary Beatrice, on which she was accompanied by her mother (much to Peterborough's regret), and for part of the way by her brother and a large half of his court, was professedly performed by her incognita, Louis XIV had given orders that every honour should be paid to her in his dominions, and she accordingly met with a warm reception both at Lyons and at Paris. Here she lodged in the arsenal and was visited by everybody (Madame de Sevige, iii. 262-4): at Versailles, where the king himself did the honours, she was detained by indisposition (ib. p. 276; see Campana di Cavelli, i. 95 seqq.) On 21 Nov. she landed at Dover, where she was met by the Duke of York, and where the marriage was after a fashion performed over again by Lord Crewe, bishop of Oxford, acting under no authority but an order under the king's signet (C. J. Abbey, The English Church and its Bishops, 1887, i. 165). Charles with his court welcomed her in her passage up the Thames. Long afterwards, at Chaillot, Mary Beatrice confessed that her first feelings towards her husband could only be expressed by tears. The affection which she afterwards cherished for him was of later growth (Campana di Cavelli, i. 132 note).

Meanwhile parliament had, it was said at Shaftesbury's instigation, passed an address, calling upon the king to declare the proxy marriage void (30 Oct.), and had been adjourned in consequence. Though he declared that he was personally delighted with his sister-in-law, Charles II delayed the execution of the article in the marriage treaty which secured to her a public chapel, a private one being fitted up instead (Clarke. Life of James II, i. 486-7). In point of fact he does not appear to have publicly acknowledged the marriage till September 1674 (Reresbt, Memoirs, ed. Cartwrieht' p. 92). Some months before this she had been established in St. James's Palace, and her mother had returned to Italy at the close of 1673. In 1675 an allowance of 5,000l. a year was granted her by the king (Campana di Cayelli, i. 156).

Mary was welcomed by the court poets, Dryden and Waller. To Cambridge she paid an early visit with the duke, and the youthful Lansdowne eulogised her in verse. At court she found general favour, except with the queen (ib. i. 158) ; on the other hand, she grew much attached to her step- daughters Mary and Anne (ib. pp. 154, 202). But among the public at large, which viewed the Duke of York's second marriage as a crowning proof of his subservience to France, Mary Beatrice shared her husband's unpopularity (ib. i. 144 seqq. ; Lingard, His- tory of England, 6th ed. 1855, ix. 139). At all events, from about 1676 onwards she was regarded as a valuable ally by the French government ; and Louis XIV, though looking coldly on her wish to engage his assistance in obtaining a cardinal's hat for her uncle Rinaldo — an object on which she had set her heart (ib. i. 157-9, 170, 184) — testified to his regard for her by valuable gifts (ib. p. 185).

Mary Beatrice's eldest child, a daughter, christened Catherine Laura, was born 16 Jan. 1675, but died on 3 Oct. following. A second daughter, Isabel, born 28 Aug. 1676, survived till 2 March 1680. Her eldest son, Charles, duke of Cambridge, born 7 Nov. 1677, whose birth was reported by Barillon to have excited no joy among the population of London, and to have taken away much of that called forth by the Orange marriage (Campana di Cavelli, i. 203), was carried off by the small-pox 12 Dec. of the same year (see Mary Beatrice's letter, 16. pp. 205-6 ; cf. Lake, Diary, Camd. Soc, pp. 7, 14). He was followed by a third daughter, Elizabeth, born 1678, and a fourth, Charlotte Margaret, born 15 Aug. and died 6 Oct, 1682 (W. A. Lindsay, Pedigree of the House of Stewart).

In 1678 the Duchess of York, who had had the satisfaction of inducing the English fovernment to use its influence in favour of lodena, then in conflict with Mantua (Campana di Cavelli, i. 215-17), paid an incognita visit with the Princess Anne to the Princess of Orange in Holland (ib. i. 231 ; Miss Strickland, ix. 80-2). With her return began serious troubles. Her secretary, Edward Coleman (d. 1678) [q. v.], was fatally involved in the discoveries connected with the 'Popish Plot' charges, but the letters from the duchess to the pope that were seized were very harmless (Clarke, Life of James II, i. 523; Campana di Cavelli, i. 235, 347). She accompanied the duke on his withdrawal into the Low Countries in March 1679, visiting Brussels and her step-daughter at the Haffue, and writing home in June : ' i have no hops yett of going to my dear England again (ib. i. 276). In July the Duchess Laura, and in August the Princesses Anne and Isabel, were with her at Brussels. In October the duke took her home to England, and in November she proceeded with him to Scotland (ib. p. 309). They were recalled in January 1680, and landed at Deptford before the end of February (cf. Terriesi's despatch, ib. pp. 316-18, as to their ' triumphant entry '). Yet she seems after their return to have suffered much from depression, which gossip attributed to her husband's liaison witn Catherine Sedley . Her position was not improved by another visit from her mother, whose unpopularity in England transferred itself to her (H. Sidney, Diary, ed. Blencowe, 8 July 1680, ii. 12). In September she visited Newmarket and Cambridge (Miss Strickland, ix. 111).

In October 1680 the duchess embarked with her husband for a longer sojourn in Scotland, and she aided him in holding his court at Edinburgh. Among the evil signs of the times were the charges of plotting the death of the king, brought in 1681 by Fitzharris against her husband, her mother, and the late Modenese envoy Montecucoli, the head of a family devotedly attached to her (Campana di Cavelli, i. 354, 384 ; cf. Clarke, Life of James II, i. 168; Miss Strickland, ix. 129-30). In January 1682 she had a serious fall from her horse. On their return to London from Scotland (6 June 1682), the duke and duchess met with a warm welcome ; but they were still exposed to suspicion, and on the birth in August of the Princess Charlotte Margaret, it was rumoured that the substitution of a male child had been entertained (Gregorio Leti ap. Miss Strickland, ix. 149). In December all the London tradesmen whose shops bore the arms of the Duke of York had been insulted by the mob, and the Duchess of Modena seems to have feared for her life (Campana di Cavelli, i. 398,414-15). Fortherest, the death of the infant princess had, according to Barillon, been a cause of great grief to the duke, inasmuch as it left him without hope of having children who would live (ib, pp. 394, 399, 407,415). In both November 1683 and May 1684 Mary was seriously ill, but she was able in October 1684 to accompany the duke on an excursion to Salisbury and to assist at a review on Putney Heath (ib. pp. 416 seqq.) She was at this time much occupied by the affairs of her family at Modena, which was so divided on the subject of the marriage of her brother the duke that the duchess-dowager withdrew to Rome ; and it soems to have been in connection with the same transactions that she unfortunately took under her protection the Abbe 1 Rizzini on his falling into disfavour at Versailles (ib. pp. 421 seqq.) Through her the dying Charles II obtained the ministrations of a catholic priest (ib. ii. 8; cf. Klopp, ii. 447). On the accession of James II to the throne, his queen became inevitably identified with the aggressive faction among the English catholics. She assured the papal nuncio at Brussels (30 March) that a revolution had begun in England (Campana di Cavelli, ii. 28). But it was some time before she had any insight into the actual situation of affairs ; and she continued on perfectly good terms with the Prince of Orange and his wife, always a favourite with her (Klopp, iii. 74, 155). A letter in Mary's hand, dated 'Whitehall, 13 March 108),' is addressed 'To my sonne, the Prince of Orange' (Morrison, Autograph Letters).

Her health was at this time precarious. In March and April 1085 the Tuscan minister, Terriesi, and others reported a visible decline in her strength, and already new marriage schemes for the king were suggested (jb. iii. 40; Campaxa dt Cavelli, ii. 29, So); but she was able to bear her part in the coronation ceremony of St, George's day, when her devout demeanour was contrasted with the apathetic bearing of her consort (Bisnop Patrick ap. Plumptre, Life of Ken t .20$; Campaxa di Cavelli, ii. 53 seqq.; and see ik, p. 02, the coronation medal with the absurd legend ' O dea certe *). In all probability the gossips rightly connected the queen's indisposition with the king's continued amour with Catherine Sedley, whom early in 1086 he created Countess of Dorchester. The announcement not long afterwards of James's intention to break with his mistress was reported to have restored the queen to health (Thun ap. Klopp, iii. 173 note; ct Campaxa di Cavelli, ii. HS seqq.) ; but it proved difficult to shake off the new countess. The combined influence of Mary Beatrice and Father Petre prevailed, however, to relegate her to Ireland. Thence the countess managed to incense the queen against the Rochester-Clarendon interest, and thus helped to bringr about its downfall. Mary, however, had little liking for Clarendon's succ' j s*or, Tyrconnel,and it was maliciously reported that he had bribed her into supporting him bv the gift of a precious string of pearls (Macaulay, iii. 156-7, ii. -72; Klopp, ii. 159; Clarendon Corre- spondence, i. 577, ii. 117 note et al. ; Burnet, iii. 120-1 ; Campaxa di Cavelli, ii. 117). The queen was also (September 1685) said to have been vexed by the favours shown by the king: to his illegitimate sons by Arabella Churchill ; and it is clear that her health re- mained uncertain as late as the spring of 16^6 (ib. ii. 78, 106).

Although her influence upon the king's policy, determined as it was by religious motives, increased, her chief interest in Castelmaine's mission to Rome (February 1686) was doubtless the renewed demand of a cardinal's hat for her uncle (ib. ii. $4, 76, 91). This was at last reluctantly granted (ib. ii. 110 seqq., 120 seqq.; cf. Clarke, Life of James II y ii. 75-8). In February 1087 she is described by an observer on the other side (Kaunitz ap' Klopp, iii. 307-8) as leaving the king no peace till he had yielded to her persuasions in the French interest. In the following July she lost her mother, who was said shortly before her death to have addressed special orisons to the Virgin of Loretto for the birth of a son to Mary Beatrice.

In August she proceeded to Bath (which Tbrriesi ap. Campaxa di Cavelli, ii. 140, 146, calls the Baths of Bristol) to drink the waters ; the hopes of the king, who accompanied her (Plumptre, Life of Ken, i. 275 seqq.), were already set on the birth of an heir, and he turned aside from his western progress to offer pravers to St. Winifred at her holy well in Wales (Macaulat, ii. 509-10; Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 129; and for Burnet's additional fiction, Own Time, iii. 246 n.) Before the end of October the news of the queen's pregnancy began to spread through London (Macaulat, ii'. 308: Klopp, iii. 394-6) ; and while exciting enthusiasm among the catholics, was, by the great body of the public, received with a mixture of incredulity and dislike, which very soon passed into a readiness to believe the worst scandals.

At such a time prudence might have prevented division of feeling among the catholics ; and in one important matter the counsels of Mary Beatrice seem to have been on the side of prudence. Ardently attached to the Jesuits (cf. her letter ap. Campaxa di Cavelli, ii. 492 seqq. ; Klopp, iii. 156), she nevertheless sought to resist the recognition of the overbearing influence of their vice-provincial, Father Petre, by his admission into the privy council (Burnet, iii. 102 n. ; Klopp, iit. 390). Though failing in this, she was able to prevent the complete success of his and Sunderland's ambitious intrigues (ib. iii. 397 ; cf. Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 131-2). It would seem as ifin other matters, too, such as the restoration of the forfeited charter of the city of London, her voice was raised in favour of a conciliatory policy (Klopp, iv. 165). On the other hand, she can have been no stranger to the transfer from Cardinal Howard to Cardinal d'Este of the protectorship of English catholics, and the consequent irritation of the powerful conservative section of the bodv (Ellis, Original Letters, 3rd ser. iv. 313-15).

On 19 Jan. 1688 a public thanksgiving had been celebrated for the queen's condition, but according to Clarendon amidst general coldness (Diary, ii. 156; cf. Campana di Cavelli, ii. 165). Her serious indisposition in May, due to the false news of her brother's death (ib. p. 182), caused some anxiety (ib. pp. 165, 192). After a temporary subsidence (Klopp, iv. 39), the popular belief that her pregnancy was feigned grew more obstinate (cf. Burnet's discreditable account, Own Time, iii. 245 seqq., which was refuted by Swift, ib. p. 257 n. ; cf. Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 192 ; Scott, Works of Dryden, ed. Saintsbury, x. 289). Unfortunately the arrangements connected with the birth itself were inpart such as to strengthen suspicion.

The Prince of Wales, James Francis Edward Stuart [q. vj, was born on the morning of 10 June (O.S.) at St. James's Palace, whither the gueen had leisurely betaken herself from Whitehall on the previous evening. Of the fact there can be no question. The news, celebrated by official rejoicings at home and abroad, and by the pens of loyal poets great and small, was coldly received by the public. Burnet not only touches sceptically on the rapidity of the queen's recovery—she first reappeared in public on 5 July (Campana di Cavelli, ii. 239)— but suggests that the illness of the infant prince at Richmond in August was likewise a figment (see, however, ib. ii. 246 seqq. ; Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser. iv. 119 ; Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 161-2). On their return to London from Windsor at the end of September, the king and queen found doubts of the genuineness of the birth generally rampant ; and the attitude of the Princess Anne seems to have convinced the queen of the necessity of the proceedings taken by the king to clear up the subject (Clarendon Correspondence, ii. 198 ; Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 197 ; Dalrymple, who omits the correspondence of the Princess of Orange and Mary Beatrice, which furnishes strong internal evidence of the queen's veracity ; see Ellis, Original Letters, 1st ser. iii. 348 n. ; Clarendon Correspondence, ii. 190 n. ; Miss Strickland, x. 3 seqq.)

Meanwhile the dangers of the situation were thickening. Early in November the queen implored the pope to protect the Prince of Wales (Campana di Cavelli, ii. 319) ; ten days later the nuncio reports that she had given her husband all the money in her hands to aid him in his defence (ib. p. 328). In a postscript to a letter in which she informed her uncle that Innocent XI had consented to James II acting as mediator in his differences with France, she stated that now their own affairs had overwhelmed them, the king had gone to Salisbury, the Prince of Wales had been sent to Portsmouth (ib.) At first there had been some thought of her following the infant thither (ib. p. 291 ; Klopp, iv. 176), but she was left alone in a ' mutinous and discontented city ' (Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 220-1); and calumny was so busy against her, absurdly charging her even with maltreatment of the Princess Anne, that some loyal protestants as well as catholics were prepared: to risk their lives to protect her. One morning she found, thrust into one of her gloves, a pamphlet on the spuriousness of the Prince of 'Wales (Macaulay, ii. 517 ; Campana di Cavelli, ii. 341).

The most fatal act of Mary Beatrice's life was her flight to France with the Prince of Wales, which drew after it that of the king. According to Burnet, who, by the way, entirely misstates the facts of the flight, she was suddenly determined to it by the fear that she would be impeached by the next parliament. On the contrary, it is specially attested that she preserved her presence of mind (ib. ii. 368-369). According to James himself (Clarke, ii. 245), the project was so far from being advised or pressed by her, that she only reluctantly assented to it. It is not impossible that a knowledge of the design of seizing the prince imputed to the managers of the revolution might have suggested the desperate remedy of his removal by his mother (Clarendon Correspondence,)!. 336). But this could have been equally well accomplished, and an irrevocable political blunder avoided, had the queen fled to Flanders instead of to France (Campana di Cavelli, ii. 424-5). It is therefore sufficiently clear, and was in fact confessed to Rizzini by James II at Gravesend, that both he and the queen fell with their eyes open into the net spread before them by Louis XIV, whose purpose it was to furnish James with a legitimate subterfuge against being compelled by English opinion to join the League of Augsburg (ib. ii. 443), as well as to assure his own position in the event of the success of the revolution, by constituting himself the actual protector of the legitimate claimants to the English throne. Tne flight had been eagerly recommended by Rizzini, who had been purchased by Louis XIV (Klopp, iv. 269), and whose advice the king and queen preferred to that of Dartmouth and Terriesi (ib. pp. 251-3). The flaw in Louis's calculation was the uncertainty whether James would adhere to the understanding that he would quickly follow the queen, without which she could not have been induced to fly (Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 252). It is even doubtful whether she felt quite sure that he would follow her instead of recalling her to him (Campana di Cavelli, ii. 416). In any case James before long justified the calculations of his ally.

On the stormy night of 9-10 Dec. the aueen and prince, who had been fetched from Portsmouth, accompanied only by two nurses, Lauzun, Louis XIV's agent, and the Italian Riva (by his own account the real manager of the enterprise), left Whitehall and crossed the river at Horseferry ; thence they pursued their journey in a coach-and-six, lent by Terriesi, to Gravesend, while the queen's esquire, Leybourn, and St. Victor, a gentleman of Avignon, rode by the side. At Gravesend they were joined by Lord and Lady Powis, Madame Davia-Montecuculi, Lady Strickland, the queen's sub-governess, her faithful bedchamber-woman, Pellegrina Turini, who had been the confidante of an earlier scheme of flight, and others, and they entered a yacht officered by three Irish captains. A favourable wind blew it out to sea (ib. ii. 381-413; see also Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 246; Dalrymple, ii. 212; Dangeau, i. 253seqq.; Madame de Sevigne, viii. 351-5; Madame de La Fayette, pp. 192-5; Klopp, iv. 267-80: Macaulay, ii. 544-5).

After a woful crossing the queen landed safely at Calais on 11 Dec. (Miss Strickland, ix. 262). In England she had actually been reported to have landed at Ostend (Ellis, Original Letters, 2nd ser. iv. 177). Her first act was to attend mass at the Capuchin convent. From Calais she wrote the letter, preserved in the British Museum, to Louis XIV signed ' the Queen of England,' and appeal- ing, with a rhetorical phraseology hardly her own, to his protection on behalf of her son. Every attention was shown to her by the governor, the Due deCharost, notwithstanding her wish to avoid publicity; and the Bishop of Beauvais was equally courteous (Madame de La Fayette, pp. 195 seqq.) When her husband failed to join her as she had hoped at Calais (Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 247), she went on to Boulogne. Here she was en- tertained with magnificent hospitality by the governor, the Due d'Aumont ; but James's continued delay filled her with despair ; she wrote letters (one of which was intercepted, Dalrymple, ii. 225) entreating him to follow her (Burnet, iii. 363 ; Madamb de Sevigne, viii. 359 ; Campana di Cavelu, ii. 428-9), and when at last informed of his arrest at Feversham, formed a design of rejoining him in England (Dangeau, i. 256). No sooner, however, had J *ouis XIV become aware of x his project, through D'Aumont and Lauzun, than the latter was instructed to use every endeavour to induce her to proceed on her journey inland. The roads were put under repair, and a splendid equipage and retinue despatched for her use; while Beringhen, the king's master of the horse, received orders, in the event of the queen being required by James II to return to England, to conduct her to Vincennes, where preparations were made for her reception (Campana di Cavelli, ii. 450-454, 413). Soon, however, St. Germains was substituted, and hither the queen pursued her journey, receiving at Beaumont the news of her husband's landing at Ambleteuse, On 28 Dec. Louis XIV met her at Chatou, within a league of St. Germains, accompained by his court in one hundred carriages-and-six (Mme. de Sévigné, viii. 309; cf. Mme. de La Fayette, pp. 205 seqq.), and accompanied her to the palace assigned by his munificence to her and her husband, whom he brought to her on the following day (Dangeau, i. 261-7).

Mary Beatrice bore herself in her new position with a consistent dignity which called forth warm and frequent praises from Louis, whose courtesies to her set the tongues of the gossips wagging, and were said to have aroused the jealousy of Madame de Maintenon, whom the queen was most anxious to please (Mme. de La Fayette, p. 253; cf. Dangeau, i. passim). In marked contrast to her husband, she made a most favourable' impression upon the society of the French court at large (Mme. de Sevigne, viii. 444). In the political designs and efforts of the exiled king she at first took an active part. Restless, and eager for a speedy restoration (ib. p. 448), she for a time cherished the delusion that the throne which had been lost in a religious cause might be regained by a religious war. Not only did she apply to Louis for aid towards an invasion of England (Klopp, iv. 464), but she built hopes upon the goodwill of Innocent XI, whom she desired to reconcile with the French king (Campana di Cavelli, ii. 510-12, 504-565). She even called for a league of all catholic princes in support of the sacred cause, and complained passionately to the general 'of the Jesuits of the indifference of some among them (ib. pp. 492-4). She shared the hopes founded on the election of Pope Alexander VIII (October 1689) by many of the Jacobites, including Melfort, in whom she placed great trust, and whose special mission to Rome was partly brought about by her (Klopp, v. 8-9, 125). But before very long she began to recognise the grave difficulties in her way, and to seek satisfaction in a simple life at St. Germains (ib. iv. 402 ; Campana di Cavelli, ii. 513), and, above all, in the religious consolations to which she had been accustomed from her youth. As time went on, the nunnery of the Visitation (her favourite order) at Chaillot, close to Paris, became her chosen refuge during the absences of her husband and at other seasons of trouble ; a suite of apartments was fitted up for her there by Louis's orders, and everything belonging to or concerning her was preserved in it for the better part of a century (ib. i. 57 seqq.)

In James's Irish expedition of 1689, on which she had seen him start with the deepest anguish (Mme. de Sevigne, viii. 500), she took anxious interest, helping to bring about the despatch of Lauzun in 1690, at the head of a French army in his support (Klopp, v. 170-1), and striving to persuade Louis to allow of the transportation of the Irish forces into England (Clarke, Life of James II, ii. 386). She carried on an active correspondence with the Jacobites in England, some of which was betrayed (Macaulay, iii. 390) ; exulted in Beachy Head (Klopp, v. 134), and consoled herself for the Boyne by her husband's return to France (Clarke, ii. 406). To the Scottish Jacobites of 'the Club' she transmitted or promised large sums (ib, pp. 426, 432; cf. Macaulay, iii. 696).

The courtesies of Louis XIV continued, and in November 1690 Mary Beatrice knelt at church between the two kings (Dangeau, i. 354, 358-9). In 1692, when the great invasion scheme which ended at La Hogue was preparing, she was once more looking forward to the birth of a child (ib. i. 394-6), and by way of bringing home to his subjects the falsity of the calumnies to which they had formerly lent ear, James invited ' his privy council and a number of English peeresses to be present on the occasion (Clarke, ii. 474-475). When, a week after the king's return from La Hogue, a princess, afterwards named, in honour of her godfather, Louisa Mary, was born on 28 June, none of the invited were present, and Madame Meyercron, the wife of the Danish ambassador, was asked to attend, ' as a person on whose testimony the people of England might reasonably rely ' (ib. pp. 496-7).

In September 1694 Mary lost her brother, and her uncle, the Cardinal d'Este, became Duke Rinaldo of Modena (Dangeau, i. 445). It was about this time that funds ran very low at St. Germains, and the queen is said to have proposed the sale of all her jewels (Miss Strickland, ix. 349). In 1696 she took part in an attempt to dissipate the rumours as to the connection of both kings with the assassination plot against William III (Klopp, vii. 198). Before the close of this year, when the desire of Louis to make peace had become irresistible, it fell to her to assure him, through Madame de Maintenon, that her husband and herself were prepared to submit to the inevitable (ib. p. 324). In the subsequent Ryswick negotiations (1697), one of the French demands was the payment of the jointure of 50,000l. a year settled upon her by act of parliament after her marriage. Though the national account with the Stuarts was now, so to speak, being made up, William III naturally inclined to insist in return on the withdrawal of the exiled family from France. Finally, the treaty omitted both points, and though the English plenipotentiaries were authorised to promise the satisfaction of Mary Beatrice's lawful claims, it was afterwards pretended that the promise was conditional, and it may at all events be surmised that it was not intended to be carried out so long as King James remained where he was (see Lexington Papers, p. 301 and note ; Grimblot ap. Klopp, viii. 110; Macaulay, iv. 795 seqq., v. 92 ; cf. Burnet, iv. 380 note). Whether or not, as stated in the ' Review of the Account of the Duchess,' Mary Beatrice declined to sign a receipt for her jointure while her husband was alive (cf. Burnet, iv. 511), none of it was paid to her till the last year of the reign of Anne, when on her oifering to file a bill in chancery for her arrears, the first quarter of an annual sum computed at 47,000/. was actually remitted through the agency of Gaultier (Dangeau, iii. 301-3 ; Miss Strickland, x. 177). She is said to have left her otherwise undiminished arrears, together with other property settled upon her at her marriage, to the king of France, in whose name they are stated to have been afterwards demanded from the British crown by the regent Orleans. After Ryswick James and his (jueen remained at St. Germains, and in receipt, as before, of a monthly pension of fifty thousand crowns (Dangeau, ii. 90-7, 180).

Not even the death of James II, preceded as it was by the promise of Louis XIV to recognise his son, which Macaulay (v. 289), perhaps rightly, connects with Madame de Maintenon's visit of sympathy to Mary Beatrice, made any practical change in her position. On the evening of the day of James's death (6 Sept. 1701) she withdrew to ChailLot; four days afterwards she and her son received ths i visit of their protector (Dangeau, ii. 284-287). Her affliction was profound (Clarke, ii. 590-1, 601-2); her regard for her husband had become such that she is said to have ex- pected his canonisation (Plumptre, Life of Ken, ii. 118). She obeyed his injunction by conveying his dying admonitions to the Princess Anne (Clarke, ii. 602). The attempt made in parliament to attaint her, as having assumed the 'regency' for her son, was allowed to drop (Burnet, iv. 548-9).

The remainder of her days she spent in retirement at St. Germains, and when possible at Chaillot, only appearing at the French court when the interests of her son seemed to demand it (Dangeau, iv. 370-1, 388-90, 393-4, iii. 2 et al.) Her health was shaken in 1693 (Miss Strickland, ix. 343), and again in 1703 (Dangeau, ii, 370), and in 1705 (Miss Strickland, x. 38-9, on this occasion speaks of cancer). On 18 Aug. 1712 she lost her daughter, Louisa Mary, who had become her chosen friend and consoler (see her letter to the Abbess of Chaillot ap. Miss Strickland, x. 105; cf. Burnet, vi. 120 and note). Her condition after this caused anxiety, and in February 1714 she sent farewell messages through Berwick to Louis XIV and Madame de Maintenon, who had shown the utmost solicitude concerning her (Dangeau, iii. 285-286). But she was fated to survive Louis himself for nearly three years. The breakdown of the enterprise of 1715 was communicated to her by Lauzun (Miss Strickland, x. 201 seqq.) After the Chevalier had taken up his residence at Avignon she remained unmolested at St. Germains, where, after a brief illness,' she died on 7 May 1718,

  • as the saint,' says St.-Simon, ' which she

had always been in life,' Her written fare- well to the Chaillot sisters is extant (ib. x, 227) ; the report that she died in discord with her son was baseless, as was another that she left all her property — she had little or nothing to leave — to the regent Orleans (ib. p. 231). Out of the annuity of one hundred , thousand francs paid to her— not always ; punctually — by the French crown, she had in a large measure supported the English colony around her, to which her loss was irreparable (ib. p. 338; Dangeau, iv. 56-7). j By the regent's orders her funeral was solemnised at Chaillot on 27 June at the public cost. With the suppression of the convent vanished all traces of ixer remains (St.-Simon, ed. 1803, x. 41 ; Campana di Cavelli, Introduction, i. 83-8).

St.-Simon, in his noble tribute to the memory of Mary Beatrice, speaks of her as both quick-witted and proud ; and Madame de S6vign6, who likewise credits her with intelligence, quotes the saying of Louis XIV that she presided over her court like a queen in both mind and body (viii. 401, 413). In England she had always been personally un- popular, especially among the great ladies, who disliked her as an Italian and a devote (Melani ap. Cam pana di Cavelli, iii. 470-1 The charge of Italian vindictiveness brought against her in later life was under the circumstances absurd (Stepney ap.KLOPP, viii. 5G4). She was entirely possessed by religious en- thusiasm; her interest in certain religious orders, above all that of the Visitation, of which she had hoped to become a member, and also those of the Ursulines and Carmelites, was unflagging (Campana di Cavelli, i. 174, 405, ii. 90-7, 104, 158, 195). The 'miraculous' conversion of Middieton filled her with ecstasy (Miss Strickland, ix. 427-8); but there seems no satisfactory proof that she was so bigoted as to subject protestant adherents of the Stuart cause to vexatious treatment (see Burnet, iv. 125 note). Out of her religious enthusiasm gradually grew the feeling of devoted attachment to her husband, which is said to have led her to declare that she would rather see her son in his grave than seated on the throne by a bargain to his father's disadvantage (the story cited from Berwick's Memoirs by KLOpp,vi, 245-6, is possibly only incorrect in date; see Macaulay, iv. 797).' She had a warm affection for the members of her own family. Her accomplishments were considerable ; she wrote in Italian, French, and English (her spelling in the last not being worse than that of her English-born contemporaries), and was familiar with Latin. Doubtless her favourite reading was in devotional books (Campana di Cavelli, ii. 96-7), and she had a familiar knowledge of the Bible (ib. i. 03). But though strictly brought up she was in her younger days fond of the chase (ib. ii. 75) and a bold rider (Miss Strickland, ix. 128). Madame de S6vign6 describes her, on the occasion of her arrival at St. Germains in 1689, as thin, with fine dark eyes, a pale complexion, a large mouth with fine teeth, a good figure, very self-possessed and pleasing.

Portraits of her painted by Lely belong to Lord Spencer and Lord Aberdeen. Two anonymous portraits are respectively in the possession of the Earl of Denbigh and P. J. C Howard, esq., of Corby (Stuart Exhibition Catalogue, pp. 46-7, 48, 50, 57). Kneller, Anne Killigrew, Rigaud (?), Goercino's nephew and pupil, Benedetto Gennari, whom she much patronised, and others also painted her. The likeness in the National Portrait Gallery is by William Wissing.

[Miss Strickland's elaborate and enthusiastic Life of Mary Beatrice of Modena fills vol. ix. and part of vol. x. of her Lives of the Queens of England, ed. 1846. It is based on extensive researches among original documents, of which the most interesting is an authentic record of the queen's sayings and doings kept by the nuns of Chaillot, together with a long series of letters from her to Sister Frances Angelica Priolo, to the abbess, and to other nuns of the convent. For the period reaching up to 1690, however, the most complete storehouse of information concerning Mary Beatrice is the Marquise Campana di Cavelli's monumental Les derniers Stuarts à St. Germain-en-Laye, 2 vols. Paris, 1871, where all the original documents concerning her and hers belonging to this period are printed in full from the Modena, Florence, Vienna, and other archives. Prefixed to vol. i. is an engraving of Kneller's portrait of Mary as ‘Duchess of York.’ Thirteen of her letters, unprinted elsewhere, are catalogued (and one partially facsimiled) among Mr. Alfred Morrison's Autograph Letters, 1890, iv. 163–8. The titles of the other works referred to are given in the bibliography to art. James II of England. Dangeau's Journal is in the present article cited from the edition of Madame de Genlis, 4 vols. 1817.]

A. W. W.