one of the daughters of Edward IV., no other dowry than the favour of the King would be asked for with her. Circumstantial as is More's account, it is not likely that Margaret could have expected Richard thus to restore and honour a possible pretender to the throne. However, according to More, this mention of Richmond set Buckingham thinking. He came to the conclusion that it would be better for him to give up his own slender claim to the crown, and to support Richmond's. When he arrived at Brecknock, he talked the matter over with his prisoner, Morton, who strongly encouraged his new view. The peer and prelate at Brecknock opened formal negotiations with Margaret of Richmond. It seems that a project for marrying Richmond to the Princess Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of Edward IV., had been already communicated by Margaret to Elizabeth Woodville (then with her children in sanctuary at Westminster), through a Welsh physician, who ministered medically to both of them. Edward's widow now welcomed the scheme, and promised the co-operation of her friends. Great nobles and prelates entered into the plot all the more eagerly that the murder of the young Edward V. and his brother in the Tower by Richard's command had begun to be bruited abroad. Messengers were sent with money and advice to Richmond in Brittany, and he consented to everything. The 18th of October (1483) was fixed for a general rising. By that day Henry was to arrive in England at the head of an invading force, and co-operate with the levies of Buckingham and his fellow-conspirators.

Stormy weather delayed the arrival of Richmond and scattered his ships. When at last, with a solitary vessel, he neared the coast of Dorsetshire, he found Richard's soldiers confronting him. There was nothing left for him but to return whence he came, and there he soon heard of the failure of Buckingham's insurrection, and of

the capture and execution of Buckingham himself. Lor Stanley's wife had been deep in the plot, but he manage matters so that his own fidelity could not be directly im peached, and might even be represented as having contri buted to the failure of the insurrection. Lord Stanley had married his eldest son George to Joanna, the daughter and heiress of John Lord Strange (her mother, be it noted, was a sister of Elizabeth Woodville), and through this marriage it may be mentioned, there came to the husband and his de scendants the Barony of Strange, a circumstance which accounts for the fact that "Lord Strange" was long the courtesytitle of the eldest sons of the Earls of Derby. Now there has been preserved (it is printed in the "Plumpton Correspondence") a letter from the secretary of this George Stanley, Lord Strange, dated the 18th October (1483), the very day fixed for Buckingham's rising, and it contains the following curious passage. "People in this country"-Edward Plumpton writes from Latham, which, and not Knowsley, was then and for long afterwards the headquarters of the Stanleys-" people in this country be so troubled in such commandment as they have in the King's name and otherwise, marvellously "-the King ordering them one way, lords and landlords in the rebel interest ordering them another—" that they know not what to do. My lord Strange goeth forth from Latham upon Monday next with 10,000 men, whither we cannot say. The Duke of Buckingham has so many as that" it "is said here that he is able to go where he will; but I trust he shall be right withstanded, and -or-" else were great pity." Were the sympathies and antipathies of Lord Strange and of Lord. Strange's father the same as those here expressed by Mr Secretary Plumpton? If Buckingham's rising had begun successfully, and if he had been joined in force by Lord Stanley's step-son, Richmond, would those 10,000 men under

Lord Strange have been ordered to fight for Richard? It may be doubted-Mr Secretary himself did not know whither Lord Strange was bound.1 Certain it is, however, that the

1It might at first seem as if it were Shakespeare's marvellous instinct, unaided by suggestion of chronicler or historian, which, in the passage about to be quoted, led him to represent Richard as distrusting Stanley at the time of Buckingham's insurrection. The truth, however, is that, for his own convenience, Shakespeare suppressed the failure of Richmond's first and unsuccessful expedition, and makes the second and successful one to be contemporaneous with that insurrection; whereas they were separated by nearly two years. For Richard's distrust of Stanley during Richmond's second expedition, and for his demand that Lord Strange should then be placed in his hands as a hostage, there is ample historical warrant; how far it is rightful as regards Lord Strange (the George Stanley of Shakespeare) is another question which will be dealt with hereafter.

"Enter Lord Stanley.

K. Rich. How now, what news with you?

Stan. Richmond is on the seas.

K. Rich. . . . . . Then, tell me, what doth he upon the sea?

Stan. Unless for that, my liege, I cannot guess.

K. Rich. Unless for that he comes to be your liege

You cannot guess wherefore the Welshman comes.
Thou wilt revolt, and fly to him, I fear.

Stan. No, mighty liege; therefore mistrust me not.
K. Rich. Where is thy power, then, to beat him back?

Where are thy tenant and thy followers?

Are they not now up the western shore,

Safe conducting the rebels from their ships?

Stan. No, my good Lord, my friends are in the North.

K. Rich. Cold friends to Richard: what do they in the North,

When they should serve their Sovereign in the West?

Stan. They have not been commanded, mighty Sovereign:

Please it your Majesty to give me leave,

I'll muster up my friends, and meet your Grace

Where and what time your Majesty shall please.

K. Rich. Ay, ay, thou would'st be gone to join with Richmond:

I will not trust you, sir?

Stan. Most mighty Sovereign,

You have no cause to hold my friendship doubtful:

I never was nor never will be false.

K. Rich. Well,

Go muster men; but, hear you, leave behind

Your son, George Stanley: look your faith be firm,

Or else his head's assurance is but frail.

Stan. So deal with him as I prove true to you."

[Exit.

King Richard III.-Act iv. scene 4.

ever-lucky and dexterous Stanley was a gainer by the failure of the insurrection which his wife had fomented. On the very day of Buckingham's execution, Richard granted to Lord Stanley "the Castle and Lordship of Kimbolton, late belonging to the great rebel and traitor Humphrey Stafford, Duke of Buckingham." A few months before and Stanley was in danger, while Buckingham was Richard's chief friend and favourite. Now Buckingham's head rolled from the axe of the executioner, and Stanley throve upon his destruction. Richard might have his doubts, but he kept them to himself, and laboured to persuade Stanley practically that loyalty was the best policy. It was worth the King's while to try to secure the adhesion of a nobleman who could bring 10,000 men into the field.

son.

But Margaret of Richmond's participation in the conspiracy which preceded Buckingham's abortive insurrection was well-known to Richard, and he could not hope to bribe her to be loyal to him or to desert the cause of her own Strange spectacle-while honours were heaped on the husband, all that seemed prudently possible was done to humiliate and punish the wife. Lord Stanley was made Constable of England for life in the December of 1483. Early in the new year, on the 22nd of January, 1484, a parliament met at Westminster, opened by Richard in person, his confidant and instrument, Catesby, being chosen Speaker of the Commons. Among the acts passed by this parliament for the punishment of persons implicated in Buckingham's conspiracy and insurrection, was one directed against "Margaret, Countess of Richmond, mother to the King's great rebel and traitor, Henry, Earl of Richmond." It recited that "she had of late conspired, confederated, and committed treason" against the King, by "sending messages, writings, and tokens to the said Henry; desiring him to come into this realm and make war against

him," and had also raised "great sums of money" to be employed for the same purpose. Nevertheless, it was added, the King considering "the good and faithful service that Thomas Lord Stanley had done, and intendeth to do, and for the good love and trust that the King hath in him, for his sake remitteth and will forbear to her the great punishment of attainder of the said Countess."1 Margaret was, however, disabled from inheriting any lands or dignities, and declared to have forfeited her estates to the crown, only a life interest in them being conceded to Lord Stanley. It was an enactment which did not make the mother of Henry, Earl of Richmond-or for that matter, perhaps, his step-father either-more loyal to Richard of Gloucester.

A year and a half passed away after the opening of the parliament which in the January of 1484 attainted Margaret of Richmond. The summer of 1485 found Richard at Nottingham once more awaiting a landing of Richmond's, and making energetic preparations to crush the second expedition of Lord Stanley's step-son. At the beginning of 1485 Richard acted as if he believed firmly in the fidelity of the Stanleys.2 In the January of that year he issued

1 Rotuli Parliamentorum, vi. 250.

2 It was about this time, probably later rather than earlier, that to help in silencing the reports of his contemplated marriage to her, Richard removed from Court the Princess Elizabeth of York, afterwards wife of Henry VII. About this time, too, the "action" of that curious piece, "The Song of the Lady Bessy," Elizabeth herself, might be supposed to begin. In it Elizabeth is represented as making direct appeals to Lord Stanley to endeavour to place Richmond on the throne. Lord Stanley at first rejects them, then yields to them, and conspires accordingly against Richard.

66

The

Song of the Lady Bessy" professes to be written by Humphrey Brereton, a confidential "esquire" of Lord Stanley's, but it cannot be accepted as genuine autobiography or history, and beyond doubt it is at least partly apocryphal. The best edition of its text is that printed by Mr J. O. Halliwell, in vol. xx. of the Percy Society's publications.