Holmes exposes Stapleton's identity and inheritance scheme

Holmes exposes Stapleton's concealed identity and inheritance scheme by joining clues that had seemed separate: the woman known as Miss Stapleton was his wife, his past as a schoolmaster could be traced, and an ancestral portrait revealed his resemblance to the Baskervilles. Set against the prospect of a fortune approaching a million pounds, the revelations recast Stapleton's apparent place beside the family as a disguise that served a claim to its succession.

The succession and its stakes

The financial motive becomes legible through the inheritance arrangements Holmes establishes with Dr. Mortimer. Sir Charles's estate was valued at close to a million pounds. Because Rodger Baskerville, Sir Charles's younger brother, had died unmarried, the estate would pass to the Desmonds if Sir Henry died. James Desmond, an elderly clergyman in Westmoreland, was the next heir under the entail; the money would also pass to him unless its current owner made a different will. Mortimer remembered Desmond as a man of saintly life who had declined a settlement from Sir Charles.

Sir Henry had not yet made a will. He nevertheless said that house, land, and money ought to remain together, as he believed Sir Charles had intended, so that the owner could restore the family's standing and maintain the property. Holmes recognized that the fortune made the succession a motive worth investigating. The inheritance was not a vague prize: it joined an entailed estate to substantial money, with the latter subject to the owner's will. That distinction left room for uncertainty in the legal route while making the consequences of Sir Henry's death unmistakable.

A concealed marriage

The personal clues emerge as Holmes and Dr. Watson compare what they know at a hut on the moor. Watson has visited Laura Lyons, whose unhappy marriage had left her facing the possibility of being forced to live with a husband she abhorred. When she wrote to Sir Charles, she believed that help with the expenses of regaining her freedom might bring her peace and independence. Holmes says that her conversation fills a gap in his investigation and identifies her as someone who may help separate Stapleton from his wife.

The revelation changes the meaning of Stapleton's household. The woman introduced as Miss Stapleton is in fact his wife, not his sister. Holmes supports the identification with a trail from Stapleton's earlier life: he had once been a schoolmaster in northern England, and school records and professional agencies made that past traceable. Holmes found a school that had failed under atrocious circumstances; its owner, using a different name, had disappeared with his wife. The descriptions matched, and the missing man's devotion to entomology completed Holmes's identification.

This discovery also clarifies the apparent courtship between Sir Henry and Beryl Stapleton. Stapleton had opposed Sir Henry's attachment, then offered an apology and asked him to defer the matter for three months, presenting his objection as distress at the prospect of losing a beloved sister. Holmes explains that Sir Henry's falling in love could harm no one but Sir Henry, while Stapleton had taken care that the baronet did not court her. The sisterly explanation concealed a marriage and turned Stapleton's interference into part of the deception.

The portrait as confirmation

Holmes finds a second, visual route to the family connection at Baskerville Hall. During supper, he is absorbed by an old portrait whose date, 1647, and name are recorded on its back. Later, he returns to it with a candle. Rather than judging the figure by its clothes, he studies the face; by changing the angle of the light and framing the portrait's hat and curls with his arm, he makes Stapleton's features appear in the painted face.

For Holmes, the resemblance is not merely an intriguing likeness. He reads it as evidence that Stapleton is a Baskerville, a conclusion that supplies a missing link in the inheritance mystery. The portrait turns an abstract suspicion into a visible connection between the man living under another name and the family whose property is at stake. Holmes's confidence rises: he believes the case has brought Stapleton within reach of a trap.

Motive, concealment, and the limits of the solution

The danger to Sir Henry gives the succession clue its urgency. Holmes had insisted that Sir Henry travel to Devonshire with a companion, and Dr. Watson was assigned to remain at his side. Sir Henry resisted the restriction and later chose to go out alone, despite Watson's instructions. His safety therefore depended on a plan whose threat he did not fully understand. After Selden's death, Holmes directs Watson not to tell Sir Henry about the hound, so that he will believe the explanation Stapleton wants him to accept and retain his nerve for the ordeal ahead.

The investigation establishes the identity and motive behind Stapleton's position, but it does not settle exactly how he would have claimed the estate. Holmes notes that a man living near the property under another name would invite suspicion if he suddenly appeared as heir. Beryl Stapleton had heard her husband discuss three possible routes: claim the property from South America after establishing his identity with British authorities there; use a disguise during a brief stay in London; or provide an accomplice with proof and papers to present as heir while keeping a claim on part of the income. Holmes cannot say which route Stapleton would ultimately have chosen. The unresolved alternatives sharpen rather than weaken the exposure: the scheme was prepared around a real legal and financial obstacle, and its author had considered more than one way around it.

The sequence of clues also marks a change in the investigation's shape. Laura Lyons's account, the traceable schoolmaster's past, the concealed marriage, and the portrait converge on one explanation for Stapleton's apparent connection to the Baskervilles. Holmes has not yet revealed every practical step of the inheritance plan, but he has identified the family relationship and the fortune that give the danger its human purpose. The supposed family protector is instead a concealed claimant, and the inherited likeness on the wall makes visible what his assumed name was meant to hide.