brother, that the Mortimers were never stolen away at all, or that the real agents remained undiscovered, and that Constance's alleged confession is a pure fiction from beginning to end? One thing is plain: there was evidently _some_ reason in the mind of the King why Kent must not openly marry Constance: and knowing Henry's character, and Kent's character as well, I can see none that suits all the facts of the case, unless Constance were one of the hated and proscribed Lollards. The marriage of Constance and Kent, if it really occurred, of which I cannot feel the least doubt, must have taken place between 1401 and 1404 inclusive. It was about February, 1405, that (if this part of the story be true) she broke into Windsor Castle and carried off the young Mortimers, by means of false keys; and she and they had nearly reached Wales when they were recaptured. She was tried before Parliament. Henry the Fourth's records (but he was an atrocious falsifier of state papers) tell us that she confessed that her brother Edward had been her instigator; and that he had attempted, the Christmas before, to scale the walls of Eltham Palace, and assassinate or at least imprison King Henry. This may or may not be true. What is undoubtedly true is that Edward and Constance were arrested and imprisoned; the latter in Kenilworth Castle, whither she was taken at a cost of 10 pounds, in charge of Elmingo Leget (_Rot. Ex, Michs_, 6 H. IV); and that all the estates, goods, and chattels of both were seized by the Crown. (_Ibidem_.) But Kent remained in favour. The length of time which must necessarily have elapsed shows that no sooner was Constance safely shut up than Henry began negotiating with his old friend, Galeazzo Visconti, for the hand of his beautiful cousin Lucia as the bride of Kent. When all was arranged, but not sooner, in November he presented himself at Kenilworth. (_Rot. Pat_, 7 H. IV, Part i.) What means were taken to torture his unhappy cousin into compliance with his iron will can only be conjectured. She did at last consent to disown her marriage, unless the facts alleged in the petition of Kent's sisters are fictions. On January 19th, 1406, "all the goods that belonged to the said Constance, in the custody of the Treasurer of our Household, and were lately seised in our hands for certain causes," were munificently granted to her "of our gift." (_Ibidem_.) On the 24th of the same month, Kent and Lucia were married, and--if his sisters may be believed--Constance was present. (_Rot. Pari_, iv. 375.) And on the 18th of June following, all the lands and tenements of Thomas Le Despenser were restored to his widow. (_Rot. Pat_, 7 H. IV, Part 2.) In May, 1412, she had again offended; for her son was taken from her, and his custody and marriage were granted to trustees, one of whom was his uncle, Edward Duke of York. (_Ibidem_, 13 H. IV, Part 2.) No more is heard of her until the