32 J awes Muilcnburg 



was surprised to learn that Dykvelt had undergone a radical change 

 of mind. He was no longer content with the King's intention to 

 declare a liberty of conscience. He told Ronquillo that his fears 

 had been aroused by a group of Anglicans, but since then, both 

 he and his master, the Prince, had been warned to place no trust 

 in the King, for a deep-laid scheme was under way. 137 ' m 



The statements of Don Ronquillo are corroborated by the 

 letters of James to his ambassador at the Hague. 139 In a letter 

 of April 1, 1687, 140 Dykvelt wrote to the Deputies that "the 

 King, in his private cabinet, communicated to him his determina- 

 tion to give liberty of conscience in religion to all his subjects, 

 in the manner of their High Mightinesses, adding many Christian 

 and politic considerations and reasons, and stating that a proc- 

 lamation of his intentions, provisionally to be inserted in the 

 Gazette, was already drawn up in council." In this letter, Dyk- 

 velt does not mention "any objections made by him in his own 

 name or that of the Prince." 141 It seems that the King's 

 early prejudices against Dykvelt were removed, for he paid a 



muerte deste Rey, y que quanto esto establa mas oculto le daba mas cuidado, 

 particularmente haviondole un personaje Catholico insinuado esto como con amen- 

 aza: y que este era un cuidada que tocaba mas a los Estados que a nosotros, porque 

 si esto succediere seria su ruina, y por la misma razon a nosotros no nos podia estar 

 mal, respecto de que este reyno en republica dipenderia de Espana, y la de Olanda 

 se perderia, . . ." 



137 Letter of Don Pedro de Ronquillo to the King of Spain, May 26, 1687, from 

 London. Appendix to Mackintosh, p. 698 ff. 



Mackintosh, Continuation, p. 456. 



Dalrymple, Letter of Lady Sunderland, March 7, 1687, vol. ii, Appendix 

 to Part I, p. 187 ff. 



138 The Editor of Mackintosh states (p. 456) that Dykvelt, in entering in with 

 the King's views, departed from his instructions. The instructions, as they are 

 found in Burnet, are too general to allow any such deduction. Moreover, if Ralph's 

 statement is correct that the Prince was willing to repeal the Penal Laws, then 

 Mackintosh is in error. From the sources I have examined and from the account 

 of the Editor of Mackintosh, the latter's statement is an unwarranted assumption. 



139 Mackintosh, Continuation, p. 455. The Editor mentions three other letters: 

 Avaux, April 22, 1687, in the Fox MSS, and two letters of Dykvelt in the Dutch 

 Political Correspondence, March 4 and March 18, 1687. 



140 Ibid, p. 459. 



141 Ibid, idem. 



116 



