The Embassy of Everaard van Weede 47 



The Countess then reminds the Prince that the King is at- 

 tempting to secure his written promise while the assurances of the 

 English Court will be only verbal. Moreover, the Prince's con- 

 sent to the repeal of the Test and the Penal Laws would create a 

 feeling against him both in the Council and among the people. 

 She then continues as follows: 



But I have not apprehension enough of your being caught with these fine offers, 

 so have given you this trouble. But how far the offers may touch the ambassadors 

 I did not know, for I am sure there is no offers, nor no dangers, that will not be very 

 artificially showed Monsieur Dickfield. For the last I am sure there is nothing they 

 need apprehend; and I think the offers are full as slight: But a negotiation on any 

 commerce of this kind cannot be to your advantage; but infinitely the contrary; 

 which is the only inducement I have in sending this man with this intelligence, in 

 which I have been so cautious that the bearer does not know he comes from me, 

 or that he has any letter of mine. 



There is a lengthy postscript to the letter which contains an 

 illuminating reference to Lord Sunderland. 



Some Papists the other day that are not satisfied with my Lord, said, that my 

 Lord Sunderland did not dance in a net; for they very well knew, that however he 

 made the King believe, he thought of nothing but of carrying on his business; 

 there was dispensations from Holland as well as from Rome; and that they were 

 sure that I held a correspondence with the Princess of Orange. 



She tells how the letter was delayed for several days because 

 she desired to answer the King with a free conscience when he 

 should call her to account. An interesting feature of the post- 

 script is its repeated reference to Mr. Sidney, who, as was well 

 known, was the lover of the Lady Sunderland. 



The above letter has been attributed by almost every historian 

 to Lord Sunderland. Dalrymple suspects that the letter proper 

 is the dictation of Lord Sunderland and that the postscript is the 

 Countess's. This is a sound inference, it seems to me, because it is 

 hardly likely that Lord Sunderland should know of the letter his 

 wife was sending to her lover. The references to Sidney in the 

 letter are incidental and of little import; those in the postscript 

 are illuminating and material. Klopp believes the letter to be 

 Sunderland's, mostly from the character of the minister. The 

 editor of Mackintosh, with customary care in examination of 

 sources, states that there is no direct proof that Lord Sunderland 



131 



