{"question_id": 101, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["Because she is in unrequited love with someone else"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory: E-text prepared by Jonathan Ingram, Janet Blenkinship, and the Project\nGutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net/)\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note: The author is Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797).\n\n\n\n\n\nMARY,\n\nA Fiction\n\nL'exercice des plus sublimes vertus éleve et nourrit le génie.\n                                                     ROUSSEAU.\n\nLondon,\nPrinted for J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church-Yard.\n\nMDCCLXXXVIII\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nIn delineating the Heroine of this Fiction, the Author attempts to\ndevelop a character different from those generally portrayed. This woman\nis neither a Clarissa, a Lady G----, nor a[A] Sophie.--It would be vain\nto mention the various modifications of these models, as it would to\nremark, how widely artists wander from nature, when they copy the\noriginals of great masters. They catch the gross parts; but the subtile\nspirit evaporates; and not having the just ties, affectation disgusts,\nwhen grace was expected to charm.\n\nThose compositions only have power to delight, and carry us willing\ncaptives, where the soul of the author is exhibited, and animates the\nhidden springs. Lost in a pleasing enthusiasm, they live in the scenes\nthey represent; and do not measure their steps in a beaten track,\nsolicitous to gather expected flowers, and bind them in a wreath,\naccording to the prescribed rules of art.\n\nThese chosen few, wish to speak for themselves, and not to be an\necho--even of the sweetest sounds--or the reflector of the most sublime\nbeams. The[B] paradise they ramble in, must be of their own creating--or\nthe prospect soon grows insipid, and not varied by a vivifying\nprinciple, fades and dies.\n\nIn an artless tale, without episodes, the mind of a woman, who has\nthinking powers is displayed. The female organs have been thought too\nweak for this arduous employment; and experience seems to justify the\nassertion. Without arguing physically about _possibilities_--in a\nfiction, such a being may be allowed to exist; whose grandeur is derived\nfrom the operations of its own faculties, not subjugated to opinion; but\ndrawn by the individual from the original source.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote A: Rousseau.]\n\n[Footnote B: I here give the Reviewers an opportunity of being very\nwitty about the Paradise of Fools, &c.]\n\n\n\n\nMARY\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n\nMary, the heroine of this fiction, was the daughter of Edward, who\nmarried Eliza, a gentle, fashionable girl, with a kind of indolence in\nher temper, which might be termed negative good-nature: her virtues,\nindeed, were all of that stamp. She carefully attended to the _shews_ of\nthings, and her opinions, I should have said prejudices, were such as\nthe generality approved of. She was educated with the expectation of a\nlarge fortune, of course became a mere machine: the homage of her\nattendants made a great part of her puerile amusements, and she never\nimagined there were any relative duties for her to fulfil: notions of\nher own consequence, by these means, were interwoven in her mind, and\nthe years of youth spent in acquiring a few superficial accomplishments,\nwithout having any taste for them. When she was first introduced into\nthe polite circle, she danced with an officer, whom she faintly wished\nto be united to; but her father soon after recommending another in a\nmore distinguished rank of life, she readily submitted to his will, and\npromised to love, honour, and obey, (a vicious fool,) as in duty bound.\n\nWhile they resided in London, they lived in the usual fashionable style,\nand seldom saw each other; nor were they much more sociable when they\nwooed rural felicity for more than half the year, in a delightful\ncountry, where Nature, with lavish hand, had scattered beauties around;\nfor the master, with brute, unconscious gaze, passed them by unobserved,\nand sought amusement in country sports. He hunted in the morning, and\nafter eating an immoderate dinner, generally fell asleep: this\nseasonable rest enabled him to digest the cumbrous load; he would then\nvisit some of his pretty tenants; and when he compared their ruddy glow\nof health with his wife's countenance, which even rouge could not\nenliven, it is not necessary to say which a _gourmand_ would give the\npreference to. Their vulgar dance of spirits were infinitely more\nagreeable to his fancy than her sickly, die-away languor. Her voice was\nbut the shadow of a sound, and she had, to complete her delicacy, so\nrelaxed her nerves, that she became a mere nothing.\n\nMany such noughts are there in the female world! yet she had a good\nopinion of her own merit,--truly, she said long prayers,--and sometimes\nread her Week's Preparation: she dreaded that horrid place vulgarly\ncalled _hell_, the regions below; but whether her's was a mounting\nspirit, I cannot pretend to determine; or what sort of a planet would\nhave been proper for her, when she left her _material_ part in this\nworld, let metaphysicians settle; I have nothing to say to her unclothed\nspirit.\n\nAs she was sometimes obliged to be alone, or only with her French\nwaiting-maid, she sent to the metropolis for all the new publications,\nand while she was dressing her hair, and she could turn her eyes from\nthe glass, she ran over those most delightful substitutes for bodily\ndissipation, novels. I say bodily, or the animal soul, for a rational\none can find no employment in polite circles. The glare of lights, the\nstudied inelegancies of dress, and the compliments offered up at the\nshrine of false beauty, are all equally addressed to the senses.\n\nWhen she could not any longer indulge the caprices of fancy one way, she\ntried another. The Platonic Marriage, Eliza Warwick, and some other\ninteresting tales were perused with eagerness. Nothing could be more\nnatural than the developement of the passions, nor more striking than\nthe views of the human heart. What delicate struggles! and uncommonly\npretty turns of thought! The picture that was found on a bramble-bush,\nthe new sensitive-plant, or tree, which caught the swain by the\nupper-garment, and presented to his ravished eyes a portrait.--Fatal\nimage!--It planted a thorn in a till then insensible heart, and sent a\nnew kind of a knight-errant into the world. But even this was nothing to\nthe catastrophe, and the circumstance on which it hung, the hornet\nsettling on the sleeping lover's face. What a _heart-rending_ accident!\nShe planted, in imitation of those susceptible souls, a rose bush; but\nthere was not a lover to weep in concert with her, when she watered it\nwith her tears.--Alas! Alas!\n\nIf my readers would excuse the sportiveness of fancy, and give me credit\nfor genius, I would go on and tell them such tales as would force the\nsweet tears of sensibility to flow in copious showers down beautiful\ncheeks, to the discomposure of rouge, &c. &c. Nay, I would make it so\ninteresting, that the fair peruser should beg the hair-dresser to\nsettle the curls himself, and not interrupt her.\n\nShe had besides another resource, two most beautiful dogs, who shared\nher bed, and reclined on cushions near her all the day. These she\nwatched with the most assiduous care, and bestowed on them the warmest\ncaresses. This fondness for animals was not that kind of\n_attendrissement_ which makes a person take pleasure in providing for\nthe subsistence and comfort of a living creature; but it proceeded from\nvanity, it gave her an opportunity of lisping out the prettiest French\nexpressions of ecstatic fondness, in accents that had never been attuned\nby tenderness.\n\nShe was chaste, according to the vulgar acceptation of the word, that\nis, she did not make any actual _faux pas_; she feared the world, and\nwas indolent; but then, to make amends for this seeming self-denial, she\nread all the sentimental novels, dwelt on the love-scenes, and, had she\nthought while she read, her mind would have been contaminated; as she\naccompanied the lovers to the lonely arbors, and would walk with them by\nthe clear light of the moon. She wondered her husband did not stay at\nhome. She was jealous--why did he not love her, sit by her side, squeeze\nher hand, and look unutterable things? Gentle reader, I will tell thee;\nthey neither of them felt what they could not utter. I will not pretend\nto say that they always annexed an idea to a word; but they had none of\nthose feelings which are not easily analyzed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n\nIn due time she brought forth a son, a feeble babe; and the following\nyear a daughter. After the mother's throes she felt very few sentiments\nof maternal tenderness: the children were given to nurses, and she\nplayed with her dogs. Want of exercise prevented the least chance of her\nrecovering strength; and two or three milk-fevers brought on a\nconsumption, to which her constitution tended. Her children all died in\ntheir infancy, except the two first, and she began to grow fond of the\nson, as he was remarkably handsome. For years she divided her time\nbetween the sofa, and the card-table. She thought not of death, though\non the borders of the grave; nor did any of the duties of her station\noccur to her as necessary. Her children were left in the nursery; and\nwhen Mary, the little blushing girl, appeared, she would send the\nawkward thing away. To own the truth, she was awkward enough, in a house\nwithout any play-mates; for her brother had been sent to school, and she\nscarcely knew how to employ herself; she would ramble about the garden,\nadmire the flowers, and play with the dogs. An old house-keeper told her\nstories, read to her, and, at last, taught her to read. Her mother\ntalked of enquiring for a governess when her health would permit; and,\nin the interim desired her own maid to teach her French. As she had\nlearned to read, she perused with avidity every book that came in her\nway. Neglected in every respect, and left to the operations of her own\nmind, she considered every thing that came under her inspection, and\nlearned to think. She had heard of a separate state, and that angels\nsometimes visited this earth. She would sit in a thick wood in the park,\nand talk to them; make little songs addressed to them, and sing them to\ntunes of her own composing; and her native wood notes wild were sweet\nand touching.\n\nHer father always exclaimed against female acquirements, and was glad\nthat his wife's indolence and ill health made her not trouble herself\nabout them. She had besides another reason, she did not wish to have a\nfine tall girl brought forward into notice as her daughter; she still\nexpected to recover, and figure away in the gay world. Her husband was\nvery tyrannical and passionate; indeed so very easily irritated when\ninebriated, that Mary was continually in dread lest he should frighten\nher mother to death; her sickness called forth all Mary's tenderness,\nand exercised her compassion so continually, that it became more than a\nmatch for self-love, and was the governing propensity of her heart\nthrough life. She was violent in her temper; but she saw her father's\nfaults, and would weep when obliged to compare his temper with her\nown.--She did more; artless prayers rose to Heaven for pardon, when she\nwas conscious of having erred; and her contrition was so exceedingly\npainful, that she watched diligently the first movements of anger and\nimpatience, to save herself this cruel remorse.\n\nSublime ideas filled her young mind--always connected with devotional\nsentiments; extemporary effusions of gratitude, and rhapsodies of\npraise would burst often from her, when she listened to the birds, or\npursued the deer. She would gaze on the moon, and ramble through the\ngloomy path, observing the various shapes the clouds assumed, and listen\nto the sea that was not far distant. The wandering spirits, which she\nimagined inhabited every part of nature, were her constant friends and\nconfidants. She began to consider the Great First Cause, formed just\nnotions of his attributes, and, in particular, dwelt on his wisdom and\ngoodness. Could she have loved her father or mother, had they returned\nher affection, she would not so soon, perhaps, have sought out a new\nworld.\n\nHer sensibility prompted her to search for an object to love; on earth\nit was not to be found: her mother had often disappointed her, and the\napparent partiality she shewed to her brother gave her exquisite\npain--produced a kind of habitual melancholy, led her into a fondness\nfor reading tales of woe, and made her almost realize the fictitious\ndistress.\n\nShe had not any notion of death till a little chicken expired at her\nfeet; and her father had a dog hung in a passion. She then concluded\nanimals had souls, or they would not have been subjected to the caprice\nof man; but what was the soul of man or beast? In this style year after\nyear rolled on, her mother still vegetating.\n\nA little girl who attended in the nursery fell sick. Mary paid her great\nattention; contrary to her wish, she was sent out of the house to her\nmother, a poor woman, whom necessity obliged to leave her sick child\nwhile she earned her daily bread. The poor wretch, in a fit of delirium\nstabbed herself, and Mary saw her dead body, and heard the dismal\naccount; and so strongly did it impress her imagination, that every\nnight of her life the bleeding corpse presented itself to her when the\nfirst began to slumber. Tortured by it, she at last made a vow, that if\nshe was ever mistress of a family she would herself watch over every\npart of it. The impression that this accident made was indelible.\n\nAs her mother grew imperceptibly worse and worse, her father, who did\nnot understand such a lingering complaint, imagined his wife was only\ngrown still more whimsical, and that if she could be prevailed on to\nexert herself, her health would soon be re-established. In general he\ntreated her with indifference; but when her illness at all interfered\nwith his pleasures, he expostulated in the most cruel manner, and\nvisibly harassed the invalid. Mary would then assiduously try to turn\nhis attention to something else; and when sent out of the room, would\nwatch at the door, until the storm was over, for unless it was, she\ncould not rest. Other causes also contributed to disturb her repose: her\nmother's luke-warm manner of performing her religious duties, filled her\nwith anguish; and when she observed her father's vices, the unbidden\ntears would flow. She was miserable when beggars were driven from the\ngate without being relieved; if she could do it unperceived, she would\ngive them her own breakfast, and feel gratified, when, in consequence of\nit, she was pinched by hunger.\n\nShe had once, or twice, told her little secrets to her mother; they were\nlaughed at, and she determined never to do it again. In this manner was\nshe left to reflect on her own feelings; and so strengthened were they\nby being meditated on, that her character early became singular and\npermanent. Her understanding was strong and clear, when not clouded by\nher feelings; but she was too much the creature of impulse, and the\nslave of compassion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\nNear her father's house lived a poor widow, who had been brought up in\naffluence, but reduced to great distress by the extravagance of her\nhusband; he had destroyed his constitution while he spent his fortune;\nand dying, left his wife, and five small children, to live on a very\nscanty pittance. The eldest daughter was for some years educated by a\ndistant relation, a Clergyman. While she was with him a young gentleman,\nson to a man of property in the neighbourhood, took particular notice of\nher. It is true, he never talked of love; but then they played and sung\nin concert; drew landscapes together, and while she worked he read to\nher, cultivated her taste, and stole imperceptibly her heart. Just at\nthis juncture, when smiling, unanalyzed hope made every prospect bright,\nand gay expectation danced in her eyes, her benefactor died. She\nreturned to her mother--the companion of her youth forgot her, they took\nno more sweet counsel together. This disappointment spread a sadness\nover her countenance, and made it interesting. She grew fond of\nsolitude, and her character appeared similar to Mary's, though her\nnatural disposition was very different.\n\nShe was several years older than Mary, yet her refinement, her taste,\ncaught her eye, and she eagerly sought her friendship: before her return\nshe had assisted the family, which was almost reduced to the last ebb;\nand now she had another motive to actuate her.\n\nAs she had often occasion to send messages to Ann, her new friend,\nmistakes were frequently made; Ann proposed that in future they should\nbe written ones, to obviate this difficulty, and render their\nintercourse more agreeable. Young people are mostly fond of scribbling;\nMary had had very little instruction; but by copying her friend's\nletters, whose hand she admired, she soon became a proficient; a little\npractice made her write with tolerable correctness, and her genius gave\nforce to it. In conversation, and in writing, when she felt, she was\npathetic, tender and persuasive; and she expressed contempt with such\nenergy, that few could stand the flash of her eyes.\n\nAs she grew more intimate with Ann, her manners were softened, and she\nacquired a degree of equality in her behaviour: yet still her spirits\nwere fluctuating, and her movements rapid. She felt less pain on\naccount of her mother's partiality to her brother, as she hoped now to\nexperience the pleasure of being beloved; but this hope led her into new\nsorrows, and, as usual, paved the way for disappointment. Ann only felt\ngratitude; her heart was entirely engrossed by one object, and\nfriendship could not serve as a substitute; memory officiously retraced\npast scenes, and unavailing wishes made time loiter.\n\nMary was often hurt by the involuntary indifference which these\nconsequences produced. When her friend was all the world to her, she\nfound she was not as necessary to her happiness; and her delicate mind\ncould not bear to obtrude her affection, or receive love as an alms, the\noffspring of pity. Very frequently has she ran to her with delight, and\nnot perceiving any thing of the same kind in Ann's countenance, she has\nshrunk back; and, falling from one extreme into the other, instead of a\nwarm greeting that was just slipping from her tongue, her expressions\nseemed to be dictated by the most chilling insensibility.\n\nShe would then imagine that she looked sickly or unhappy, and then all\nher tenderness would return like a torrent, and bear away all\nreflection. In this manner was her sensibility called forth, and\nexercised, by her mother's illness, her friend's misfortunes, and her\nown unsettled mind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n\nNear to her father's house was a range of mountains; some of them were,\nliterally speaking, cloud-capt, for on them clouds continually rested,\nand gave grandeur to the prospect; and down many of their sides the\nlittle bubbling cascades ran till they swelled a beautiful river.\nThrough the straggling trees and bushes the wind whistled, and on them\nthe birds sung, particularly the robins; they also found shelter in the\nivy of an old castle, a haunted one, as the story went; it was situated\non the brow of one of the mountains, and commanded a view of the sea.\nThis castle had been inhabited by some of her ancestors; and many tales\nhad the old house-keeper told her of the worthies who had resided there.\n\nWhen her mother frowned, and her friend looked cool, she would steal to\nthis retirement, where human foot seldom trod--gaze on the sea, observe\nthe grey clouds, or listen to the wind which struggled to free itself\nfrom the only thing that impeded its course. When more cheerful, she\nadmired the various dispositions of light and shade, the beautiful tints\nthe gleams of sunshine gave to the distant hills; then she rejoiced in\nexistence, and darted into futurity.\n\nOne way home was through the cavity of a rock covered with a thin layer\nof earth, just sufficient to afford nourishment to a few stunted shrubs\nand wild plants, which grew on its sides, and nodded over the summit. A\nclear stream broke out of it, and ran amongst the pieces of rocks\nfallen into it. Here twilight always reigned--it seemed the Temple of\nSolitude; yet, paradoxical as the assertion may appear, when the foot\nsounded on the rock, it terrified the intruder, and inspired a strange\nfeeling, as if the rightful sovereign was dislodged. In this retreat she\nread Thomson's Seasons, Young's Night-Thoughts, and Paradise Lost.\n\nAt a little distance from it were the huts of a few poor fishermen, who\nsupported their numerous children by their precarious labour. In these\nlittle huts she frequently rested, and denied herself every childish\ngratification, in order to relieve the necessities of the inhabitants.\nHer heart yearned for them, and would dance with joy when she had\nrelieved their wants, or afforded them pleasure.\n\nIn these pursuits she learned the luxury of doing good; and the sweet\ntears of benevolence frequently moistened her eyes, and gave them a\nsparkle which, exclusive of that, they had not; on the contrary, they\nwere rather fixed, and would never have been observed if her soul had\nnot animated them. They were not at all like those brilliant ones which\nlook like polished diamonds, and dart from every superfice, giving more\nlight to the beholders than they receive themselves.\n\nHer benevolence, indeed, knew no bounds; the distress of others carried\nher out of herself; and she rested not till she had relieved or\ncomforted them. The warmth of her compassion often made her so diligent,\nthat many things occurred to her, which might have escaped a less\ninterested observer.\n\nIn like manner, she entered with such spirit into whatever she read,\nand the emotions thereby raised were so strong, that it soon became a\npart of her mind.\n\nEnthusiastic sentiments of devotion at this period actuated her; her\nCreator was almost apparent to her senses in his works; but they were\nmostly the grand or solemn features of Nature which she delighted to\ncontemplate. She would stand and behold the waves rolling, and think of\nthe voice that could still the tumultuous deep.\n\nThese propensities gave the colour to her mind, before the passions\nbegan to exercise their tyrannic sway, and particularly pointed out\nthose which the soil would have a tendency to nurse.\n\nYears after, when wandering through the same scenes, her imagination has\nstrayed back, to trace the first placid sentiments they inspired, and\nshe would earnestly desire to regain the same peaceful tranquillity.\n\nMany nights she sat up, if I may be allowed the expression, _conversing_\nwith the Author of Nature, making verses, and singing hymns of her own\ncomposing. She considered also, and tried to discern what end her\nvarious faculties were destined to pursue; and had a glimpse of a truth,\nwhich afterwards more fully unfolded itself.\n\nShe thought that only an infinite being could fill the human soul, and\nthat when other objects were followed as a means of happiness, the\ndelusion led to misery, the consequence of disappointment. Under the\ninfluence of ardent affections, how often has she forgot this\nconviction, and as often returned to it again, when it struck her with\nredoubled force. Often did she taste unmixed delight; her joys, her\necstacies arose from genius.\n\nShe was now fifteen, and she wished to receive the holy sacrament; and\nperusing the scriptures, and discussing some points of doctrine which\npuzzled her, she would sit up half the night, her favourite time for\nemploying her mind; she too plainly perceived that she saw through a\nglass darkly; and that the bounds set to stop our intellectual\nresearches, is one of the trials of a probationary state.\n\nBut her affections were roused by the display of divine mercy; and she\neagerly desired to commemorate the dying love of her great benefactor.\nThe night before the important day, when she was to take on herself her\nbaptismal vow, she could not go to bed; the sun broke in on her\nmeditations, and found her not exhausted by her watching.\n\nThe orient pearls were strewed around--she hailed the morn, and sung\nwith wild delight, Glory to God on high, good will towards men. She was\nindeed so much affected when she joined in the prayer for her eternal\npreservation, that she could hardly conceal her violent emotions; and\nthe recollection never failed to wake her dormant piety when earthly\npassions made it grow languid.\n\nThese various movements of her mind were not commented on, nor were the\nluxuriant shoots restrained by culture. The servants and the poor adored\nher.\n\nIn order to be enabled to gratify herself in the highest degree, she\npracticed the most rigid oeconomy, and had such power over her\nappetites and whims, that without any great effort she conquered them\nso entirely, that when her understanding or affections had an object,\nshe almost forgot she had a body which required nourishment.\n\nThis habit of thinking, this kind of absorption, gave strength to the\npassions.\n\nWe will now enter on the more active field of life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n\nA few months after Mary was turned of seventeen, her brother was\nattacked by a violent fever, and died before his father could reach the\nschool.\n\nShe was now an heiress, and her mother began to think her of\nconsequence, and did not call her _the child_. Proper masters were sent\nfor; she was taught to dance, and an extraordinary master procured to\nperfect her in that most necessary of all accomplishments.\n\nA part of the estate she was to inherit had been litigated, and the heir\nof the person who still carried on a Chancery suit, was only two years\nyounger than our heroine. The fathers, spite of the dispute, frequently\nmet, and, in order to settle it amicably, they one day, over a bottle,\ndetermined to quash it by a marriage, and, by uniting the two estates,\nto preclude all farther enquiries into the merits of their different\nclaims.\n\nWhile this important matter was settling, Mary was otherwise employed.\nAnn's mother's resources were failing; and the ghastly phantom, poverty,\nmade hasty strides to catch them in his clutches. Ann had not fortitude\nenough to brave such accumulated misery; besides, the canker-worm was\nlodged in her heart, and preyed on her health. She denied herself every\nlittle comfort; things that would be no sacrifice when a person is well,\nare absolutely necessary to alleviate bodily pain, and support the\nanimal functions.\n\nThere were many elegant amusements, that she had acquired a relish for,\nwhich might have taken her mind off from its most destructive bent; but\nthese her indigence would not allow her to enjoy: forced then, by way of\nrelaxation, to play the tunes her lover admired, and handle the pencil\nhe taught her to hold, no wonder his image floated on her imagination,\nand that taste invigorated love.\n\nPoverty, and all its inelegant attendants, were in her mother's abode;\nand she, though a good sort of a woman, was not calculated to banish, by\nher trivial, uninteresting chat, the delirium in which her daughter was\nlost.\n\nThis ill-fated love had given a bewitching softness to her manners, a\ndelicacy so truly feminine, that a man of any feeling could not behold\nher without wishing to chase her sorrows away. She was timid and\nirresolute, and rather fond of dissipation; grief only had power to make\nher reflect.\n\nIn every thing it was not the great, but the beautiful, or the pretty,\nthat caught her attention. And in composition, the polish of style, and\nharmony of numbers, interested her much more than the flights of genius,\nor abstracted speculations.\n\nShe often wondered at the books Mary chose, who, though she had a lively\nimagination, would frequently study authors whose works were addressed\nto the understanding. This liking taught her to arrange her thoughts,\nand argue with herself, even when under the influence of the most\nviolent passions.\n\nAnn's misfortunes and ill health were strong ties to bind Mary to her;\nshe wished so continually to have a home to receive her in, that it\ndrove every other desire out of her mind; and, dwelling on the tender\nschemes which compassion and friendship dictated, she longed most\nardently to put them in practice.\n\nFondly as she loved her friend, she did not forget her mother, whose\ndecline was so imperceptible, that they were not aware of her\napproaching dissolution. The physician, however, observing the most\nalarming symptoms; her husband was apprised of her immediate danger; and\nthen first mentioned to her his designs with respect to his daughter.\n\nShe approved of them; Mary was sent for; she was not at home; she had\nrambled to visit Ann, and found her in an hysteric fit. The landlord of\nher little farm had sent his agent for the rent, which had long been due\nto him; and he threatened to seize the stock that still remained, and\nturn them out, if they did not very shortly discharge the arrears.\n\nAs this man made a private fortune by harassing the tenants of the\nperson to whom he was deputy, little was to be expected from his\nforbearance.\n\nAll this was told to Mary--and the mother added, she had many other\ncreditors who would, in all probability, take the alarm, and snatch from\nthem all that had been saved out of the wreck. \"I could bear all,\" she\ncried; \"but what will become of my children? Of this child,\" pointing to\nthe fainting Ann, \"whose constitution is already undermined by care and\ngrief--where will she go?\"--Mary's heart ceased to beat while she asked\nthe question--She attempted to speak; but the inarticulate sounds died\naway. Before she had recovered herself, her father called himself to\nenquire for her; and desired her instantly to accompany him home.\n\nEngrossed by the scene of misery she had been witness to, she walked\nsilently by his side, when he roused her out of her reverie by telling\nher that in all likelihood her mother had not many hours to live; and\nbefore she could return him any answer, informed her that they had both\ndetermined to marry her to Charles, his friend's son; he added, the\nceremony was to be performed directly, that her mother might be witness\nof it; for such a desire she had expressed with childish eagerness.\n\nOverwhelmed by this intelligence, Mary rolled her eyes about, then, with\na vacant stare, fixed them on her father's face; but they were no longer\na sense; they conveyed no ideas to the brain. As she drew near the\nhouse, her wonted presence of mind returned: after this suspension of\nthought, a thousand darted into her mind,--her dying mother,--her\nfriend's miserable situation,--and an extreme horror at taking--at being\nforced to take, such a hasty step; but she did not feel the disgust, the\nreluctance, which arises from a prior attachment.\n\nShe loved Ann better than any one in the world--to snatch her from the\nvery jaws of destruction--she would have encountered a lion. To have\nthis friend constantly with her; to make her mind easy with respect to\nher family, would it not be superlative bliss?\n\nFull of these thoughts she entered her mother's chamber, but they then\nfled at the sight of a dying parent. She went to her, took her hand; it\nfeebly pressed her's. \"My child,\" said the languid mother: the words\nreached her heart; she had seldom heard them pronounced with accents\ndenoting affection; \"My child, I have not always treated you with\nkindness--God forgive me! do you?\"--Mary's tears strayed in a\ndisregarded stream; on her bosom the big drops fell, but did not relieve\nthe fluttering tenant. \"I forgive you!\" said she, in a tone of\nastonishment.\n\nThe clergyman came in to read the service for the sick, and afterwards\nthe marriage ceremony was performed. Mary stood like a statue of\nDespair, and pronounced the awful vow without thinking of it; and then\nran to support her mother, who expired the same night in her arms.\n\nHer husband set off for the continent the same day, with a tutor, to\nfinish his studies at one of the foreign universities.\n\nAnn was sent for to console her, not on account of the departure of her\nnew relation, a boy she seldom took any notice of, but to reconcile her\nto her fate; besides, it was necessary she should have a female\ncompanion, and there was not any maiden aunt in the family, or cousin of\nthe same class.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n\nMary was allowed to pay the rent which gave her so much uneasiness, and\nshe exerted every nerve to prevail on her father effectually to succour\nthe family; but the utmost she could obtain was a small sum very\ninadequate to the purpose, to enable the poor woman to carry into\nexecution a little scheme of industry near the metropolis.\n\nHer intention of leaving that part of the country, had much more weight\nwith him, than Mary's arguments, drawn from motives of philanthropy and\nfriendship; this was a language he did not understand; expressive of\noccult qualities he never thought of, as they could not be seen or\nfelt.\n\nAfter the departure of her mother, Ann still continued to languish,\nthough she had a nurse who was entirely engrossed by the desire of\namusing her. Had her health been re-established, the time would have\npassed in a tranquil, improving manner.\n\nDuring the year of mourning they lived in retirement; music, drawing,\nand reading, filled up the time; and Mary's taste and judgment were both\nimproved by contracting a habit of observation, and permitting the\nsimple beauties of Nature to occupy her thoughts.\n\nShe had a wonderful quickness in discerning distinctions and combining\nideas, that at the first glance did not appear to be similar. But these\nvarious pursuits did not banish all her cares, or carry off all her\nconstitutional black bile. Before she enjoyed Ann's society, she\nimagined it would have made her completely happy: she was disappointed,\nand yet knew not what to complain of.\n\nAs her friend could not accompany her in her walks, and wished to be\nalone, for a very obvious reason, she would return to her old haunts,\nretrace her anticipated pleasures--and wonder how they changed their\ncolour in possession, and proved so futile.\n\nShe had not yet found the companion she looked for. Ann and she were not\ncongenial minds, nor did she contribute to her comfort in the degree she\nexpected. She shielded her from poverty; but this was only a negative\nblessing; when under the pressure it was very grievous, and still more\nso were the apprehensions; but when exempt from them, she was not\ncontented.\n\nSuch is human nature, its laws were not to be inverted to gratify our\nheroine, and stop the progress of her understanding, happiness only\nflourished in paradise--we cannot taste and live.\n\nAnother year passed away with increasing apprehensions. Ann had a hectic\ncough, and many unfavourable prognostics: Mary then forgot every thing\nbut the fear of losing her, and even imagined that her recovery would\nhave made her happy.\n\nHer anxiety led her to study physic, and for some time she only read\nbooks of that cast; and this knowledge, literally speaking, ended in\nvanity and vexation of spirit, as it enabled her to foresee what she\ncould not prevent.\n\nAs her mind expanded, her marriage appeared a dreadful misfortune; she\nwas sometimes reminded of the heavy yoke, and bitter was the\nrecollection!\n\nIn one thing there seemed to be a sympathy between them, for she wrote\nformal answers to his as formal letters. An extreme dislike took root in\nher mind; the found of his name made her turn sick; but she forgot all,\nlistening to Ann's cough, and supporting her languid frame. She would\nthen catch her to her bosom with convulsive eagerness, as if to save her\nfrom sinking into an opening grave.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n\nIt was the will of Providence that Mary should experience almost every\nspecies of sorrow. Her father was thrown from his horse, when his blood\nwas in a very inflammatory state, and the bruises were very dangerous;\nhis recovery was not expected by the physical tribe.\n\nTerrified at seeing him so near death, and yet so ill prepared for it,\nhis daughter sat by his bed, oppressed by the keenest anguish, which her\npiety increased.\n\nHer grief had nothing selfish in it; he was not a friend or protector;\nbut he was her father, an unhappy wretch, going into eternity, depraved\nand thoughtless. Could a life of sensuality be a preparation for a\npeaceful death? Thus meditating, she passed the still midnight hour by\nhis bedside.\n\nThe nurse fell asleep, nor did a violent thunder storm interrupt her\nrepose, though it made the night appear still more terrific to Mary. Her\nfather's unequal breathing alarmed her, when she heard a long drawn\nbreath, she feared it was his last, and watching for another, a dreadful\npeal of thunder struck her ears. Considering the separation of the soul\nand body, this night seemed sadly solemn, and the hours long.\n\nDeath is indeed a king of terrors when he attacks the vicious man! The\ncompassionate heart finds not any comfort; but dreads an eternal\nseparation. No transporting greetings are anticipated, when the\nsurvivors also shall have finished their course; but all is black!--the\ngrave may truly be said to receive the departed--this is the sting of\ndeath!\n\nNight after night Mary watched, and this excessive fatigue impaired her\nown health, but had a worse effect on Ann; though she constantly went to\nbed, she could not rest; a number of uneasy thoughts obtruded\nthemselves; and apprehensions about Mary, whom she loved as well as her\nexhausted heart could love, harassed her mind. After a sleepless,\nfeverish night she had a violent fit of coughing, and burst a\nblood-vessel. The physician, who was in the house, was sent for, and\nwhen he left the patient, Mary, with an authoritative voice, insisted on\nknowing his real opinion. Reluctantly he gave it, that her friend was in\na critical state; and if she passed the approaching winter in England,\nhe imagined she would die in the spring; a season fatal to consumptive\ndisorders. The spring!--Her husband was then expected.--Gracious Heaven,\ncould she bear all this.\n\nIn a few days her father breathed his last. The horrid sensations his\ndeath occasioned were too poignant to be durable: and Ann's danger, and\nher own situation, made Mary deliberate what mode of conduct she should\npursue. She feared this event might hasten the return of her husband,\nand prevent her putting into execution a plan she had determined on. It\nwas to accompany Ann to a more salubrious climate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n\nI mentioned before, that Mary had never had any particular attachment,\nto give rise to the disgust that daily gained ground. Her friendship for\nAnn occupied her heart, and resembled a passion. She had had, indeed,\nseveral transient likings; but they did not amount to love. The society\nof men of genius delighted her, and improved her faculties. With beings\nof this class she did not often meet; it is a rare genus; her first\nfavourites were men past the meridian of life, and of a philosophic\nturn.\n\nDetermined on going to the South of France, or Lisbon; she wrote to the\nman she had promised to obey. The physicians had said change of air was\nnecessary for her as well as her friend. She mentioned this, and added,\n\"Her comfort, almost her existence, depended on the recovery of the\ninvalid she wished to attend; and that should she neglect to follow the\nmedical advice she had received, she should never forgive herself, or\nthose who endeavoured to prevent her.\" Full of her design, she wrote\nwith more than usual freedom; and this letter was like most of her\nothers, a transcript of her heart.\n\n\"This dear friend,\" she exclaimed, \"I love for her agreeable qualities,\nand substantial virtues. Continual attention to her health, and the\ntender office of a nurse, have created an affection very like a maternal\none--I am her only support, she leans on me--could I forsake the\nforsaken, and break the bruised reed--No--I would die first! I must--I\nwill go.\"\n\nShe would have added, \"you would very much oblige me by consenting;\" but\nher heart revolted--and irresolutely she wrote something about wishing\nhim happy.--\"Do I not wish all the world well?\" she cried, as she\nsubscribed her name--It was blotted, the letter sealed in a hurry, and\nsent out of her sight; and she began to prepare for her journey.\n\nBy the return of the post she received an answer; it contained some\ncommon-place remarks on her romantic friendship, as he termed it; \"But\nas the physicians advised change of air, he had no objection.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n\nThere was nothing now to retard their journey; and Mary chose Lisbon\nrather than France, on account of its being further removed from the\nonly person she wished not to see.\n\nThey set off accordingly for Falmouth, in their way to that city. The\njourney was of use to Ann, and Mary's spirits were raised by her\nrecovered looks--She had been in despair--now she gave way to hope, and\nwas intoxicated with it. On ship-board Ann always remained in the cabin;\nthe sight of the water terrified her: on the contrary, Mary, after she\nwas gone to bed, or when she fell asleep in the day, went on deck,\nconversed with the sailors, and surveyed the boundless expanse before\nher with delight. One instant she would regard the ocean, the next the\nbeings who braved its fury. Their insensibility and want of fear, she\ncould not name courage; their thoughtless mirth was quite of an animal\nkind, and their feelings as impetuous and uncertain as the element they\nplowed.\n\nThey had only been a week at sea when they hailed the rock of Lisbon,\nand the next morning anchored at the castle. After the customary visits,\nthey were permitted to go on shore, about three miles from the city; and\nwhile one of the crew, who understood the language, went to procure them\none of the ugly carriages peculiar to the country, they waited in the\nIrish convent, which is situated close to the Tagus.\n\nSome of the people offered to conduct them into the church, where there\nwas a fine organ playing; Mary followed them, but Ann preferred staying\nwith a nun she had entered into conversation with.\n\nOne of the nuns, who had a sweet voice, was singing; Mary was struck\nwith awe; her heart joined in the devotion; and tears of gratitude and\ntenderness flowed from her eyes. My Father, I thank thee! burst from\nher--words were inadequate to express her feelings. Silently, she\nsurveyed the lofty dome; heard unaccustomed sounds; and saw faces,\nstrange ones, that she could not yet greet with fraternal love.\n\nIn an unknown land, she considered that the Being she adored inhabited\neternity, was ever present in unnumbered worlds. When she had not any\none she loved near her, she was particularly sensible of the presence\nof her Almighty Friend.\n\nThe arrival of the carriage put a stop to her speculations; it was to\nconduct them to an hotel, fitted up for the reception of invalids.\nUnfortunately, before they could reach it there was a violent shower of\nrain; and as the wind was very high, it beat against the leather\ncurtains, which they drew along the front of the vehicle, to shelter\nthemselves from it; but it availed not, some of the rain forced its way,\nand Ann felt the effects of it, for she caught cold, spite of Mary's\nprecautions.\n\nAs is the custom, the rest of the invalids, or lodgers, sent to enquire\nafter their health; and as soon as Ann left her chamber, in which her\ncomplaints seldom confined her the whole day, they came in person to pay\ntheir compliments. Three fashionable females, and two gentlemen; the\none a brother of the eldest of the young ladies, and the other an\ninvalid, who came, like themselves, for the benefit of the air. They\nentered into conversation immediately.\n\nPeople who meet in a strange country, and are all together in a house,\nsoon get acquainted, without the formalities which attend visiting in\nseparate houses, where they are surrounded by domestic friends. Ann was\nparticularly delighted at meeting with agreeable society; a little\nhectic fever generally made her low-spirited in the morning, and lively\nin the evening, when she wished for company. Mary, who only thought of\nher, determined to cultivate their acquaintance, as she knew, that if\nher mind could be diverted, her body might gain strength.\n\nThey were all musical, and proposed having little concerts. One of the\ngentlemen played on the violin, and the other on the german-flute. The\ninstruments were brought in, with all the eagerness that attends putting\na new scheme in execution.\n\nMary had not said much, for she was diffident; she seldom joined in\ngeneral conversations; though her quickness of penetration enabled her\nsoon to enter into the characters of those she conversed with; and her\nsensibility made her desirous of pleasing every human creature. Besides,\nif her mind was not occupied by any particular sorrow, or study, she\ncaught reflected pleasure, and was glad to see others happy, though\ntheir mirth did not interest her.\n\nThis day she was continually thinking of Ann's recovery, and encouraging\nthe cheerful hopes, which though they dissipated the spirits that had\nbeen condensed by melancholy, yet made her wish to be silent. The music,\nmore than the conversation, disturbed her reflections; but not at first.\nThe gentleman who played on the german-flute, was a handsome, well-bred,\nsensible man; and his observations, if not original, were pertinent.\n\nThe other, who had not said much, began to touch the violin, and played\na little Scotch ballad; he brought such a thrilling sound out of the\ninstrument, that Mary started, and looking at him with more attention\nthan she had done before, and saw, in a face rather ugly, strong lines\nof genius. His manners were awkward, that kind of awkwardness which is\noften found in literary men: he seemed a thinker, and delivered his\nopinions in elegant expressions, and musical tones of voice.\n\nWhen the concert was over, they all retired to their apartments. Mary\nalways slept with Ann, as she was subject to terrifying dreams; and\nfrequently in the night was obliged to be supported, to avoid\nsuffocation. They chatted about their new acquaintance in their own\napartment, and, with respect to the gentlemen, differed in opinion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n\nEvery day almost they saw their new acquaintance; and civility produced\nintimacy. Mary sometimes left her friend with them; while she indulged\nherself in viewing new modes of life, and searching out the causes which\nproduced them. She had a metaphysical turn, which inclined her to\nreflect on every object that passed by her; and her mind was not like a\nmirror, which receives every floating image, but does not retain them:\nshe had not any prejudices, for every opinion was examined before it was\nadopted.\n\nThe Roman Catholic ceremonies attracted her attention, and gave rise to\nconversations when they all met; and one of the gentlemen continually\nintroduced deistical notions, when he ridiculed the pageantry they all\nwere surprised at observing. Mary thought of both the subjects, the\nRomish tenets, and the deistical doubts; and though not a sceptic,\nthought it right to examine the evidence on which her faith was built.\nShe read Butler's Analogy, and some other authors: and these researches\nmade her a christian from conviction, and she learned charity,\nparticularly with respect to sectaries; saw that apparently good and\nsolid arguments might take their rise from different points of view; and\nshe rejoiced to find that those she should not concur with had some\nreason on their side.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n\nWhen I mentioned the three ladies, I said they were fashionable women;\nand it was all the praise, as a faithful historian, I could bestow on\nthem; the only thing in which they were consistent. I forgot to mention\nthat they were all of one family, a mother, her daughter, and niece. The\ndaughter was sent by her physician, to avoid a northerly winter; the\nmother, her niece, and nephew, accompanied her.\n\nThey were people of rank; but unfortunately, though of an ancient\nfamily, the title had descended to a very remote branch--a branch they\ntook care to be intimate with; and servilely copied the Countess's\nairs. Their minds were shackled with a set of notions concerning\npropriety, the fitness of things for the world's eye, trammels which\nalways hamper weak people. What will the world say? was the first thing\nthat was thought of, when they intended doing any thing they had not\ndone before. Or what would the Countess do on such an occasion? And when\nthis question was answered, the right or wrong was discovered without\nthe trouble of their having any idea of the matter in their own heads.\nThis same Countess was a fine planet, and the satellites observed a most\nharmonic dance around her.\n\nAfter this account it is scarcely necessary to add, that their minds had\nreceived very little cultivation. They were taught French, Italian, and\nSpanish; English was their vulgar tongue. And what did they learn?\nHamlet will tell you--words--words. But let me not forget that they\nsqualled Italian songs in the true _gusto_. Without having any seeds\nsown in their understanding, or the affections of the heart set to work,\nthey were brought out of their nursery, or the place they were secluded\nin, to prevent their faces being common; like blazing stars, to\ncaptivate Lords.\n\nThey were pretty, and hurrying from one party of pleasure to another,\noccasioned the disorder which required change of air. The mother, if we\nexcept her being near twenty years older, was just the same creature;\nand these additional years only served to make her more tenaciously\nadhere to her habits of folly, and decide with stupid gravity, some\ntrivial points of ceremony, as a matter of the last importance; of\nwhich she was a competent judge, from having lived in the fashionable\nworld so long: that world to which the ignorant look up as we do to the\nsun.\n\nIt appears to me that every creature has some notion--or rather relish,\nof the sublime. Riches, and the consequent state, are the sublime of\nweak minds:--These images fill, nay, are too big for their narrow souls.\n\nOne afternoon, which they had engaged to spend together, Ann was so ill,\nthat Mary was obliged to send an apology for not attending the\ntea-table. The apology brought them on the carpet; and the mother, with\na look of solemn importance, turned to the sick man, whose name was\nHenry, and said;\n\n\"Though people of the first fashion are frequently at places of this\nkind, intimate with they know not who; yet I do not choose that my\ndaughter, whose family is so respectable, should be intimate with any\none she would blush to know elsewhere. It is only on that account, for I\nnever suffer her to be with any one but in my company,\" added she,\nsitting more erect; and a smile of self-complacency dressed her\ncountenance.\n\n\"I have enquired concerning these strangers, and find that the one who\nhas the most dignity in her manners, is really a woman of fortune.\"\n\"Lord, mamma, how ill she dresses:\" mamma went on; \"She is a romantic\ncreature, you must not copy her, miss; yet she is an heiress of the\nlarge fortune in ----shire, of which you may remember to have heard the\nCountess speak the night you had on the dancing-dress that was so much\nadmired; but she is married.\"\n\nShe then told them the whole story as she heard it from her maid, who\npicked it out of Mary's servant. \"She is a foolish creature, and this\nfriend that she pays as much attention to as if she was a lady of\nquality, is a beggar.\" \"Well, how strange!\" cried the girls.\n\n\"She is, however, a charming creature,\" said her nephew. Henry sighed,\nand strode across the room once or twice; then took up his violin, and\nplayed the air which first struck Mary; he had often heard her praise\nit.\n\nThe music was uncommonly melodious, \"And came stealing on the senses\nlike the sweet south.\" The well-known sounds reached Mary as she sat by\nher friend--she listened without knowing that she did--and shed tears\nalmost without being conscious of it. Ann soon fell asleep, as she had\ntaken an opiate. Mary, then brooding over her fears, began to imagine\nshe had deceived herself--Ann was still very ill; hope had beguiled many\nheavy hours; yet she was displeased with herself for admitting this\nwelcome guest.--And she worked up her mind to such a degree of anxiety,\nthat she determined, once more, to seek medical aid.\n\nNo sooner did she determine, than she ran down with a discomposed look,\nto enquire of the ladies who she should send for. When she entered the\nroom she could not articulate her fears--it appeared like pronouncing\nAnn's sentence of death; her faultering tongue dropped some broken\nwords, and she remained silent. The ladies wondered that a person of her\nsense should be so little mistress of herself; and began to administer\nsome common-place comfort, as, that it was our duty to submit to the\nwill of Heaven, and the like trite consolations, which Mary did not\nanswer; but waving her hand, with an air of impatience, she exclaimed,\n\"I cannot live without her!--I have no other friend; if I lose her, what\na desart will the world be to me.\" \"No other friend,\" re-echoed they,\n\"have you not a husband?\"\n\nMary shrunk back, and was alternately pale and red. A delicate sense of\npropriety prevented her replying; and recalled her bewildered\nreason.--Assuming, in consequence of her recollection, a more composed\nmanner, she made the intended enquiry, and left the room. Henry's eyes\nfollowed her while the females very freely animadverted on her strange\nbehaviour.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\n\nThe physician was sent for; his prescription afforded Ann a little\ntemporary relief; and they again joined the circle. Unfortunately, the\nweather happened to be constantly wet for more than a week, and confined\nthem to the house. Ann then found the ladies not so agreeable; when they\nsat whole hours together, the thread-bare topics were exhausted; and,\nbut for cards or music, the long evenings would have been yawned away in\nlistless indolence.\n\nThe bad weather had had as ill an effect on Henry as on Ann. He was\nfrequently very thoughtful, or rather melancholy; this melancholy would\nof itself have attracted Mary's notice, if she had not found his\nconversation so infinitely superior to the rest of the group. When she\nconversed with him, all the faculties of her soul unfolded themselves;\ngenius animated her expressive countenance and the most graceful,\nunaffected gestures gave energy to her discourse.\n\nThey frequently discussed very important subjects, while the rest were\nsinging or playing cards, nor were they observed for doing so, as Henry,\nwhom they all were pleased with, in the way of gallantry shewed them all\nmore attention than her. Besides, as there was nothing alluring in her\ndress or manner, they never dreamt of her being preferred to them.\n\nHenry was a man of learning; he had also studied mankind, and knew many\nof the intricacies of the human heart, from having felt the infirmities\nof his own. His taste was just, as it had a standard--Nature, which he\nobserved with a critical eye. Mary could not help thinking that in his\ncompany her mind expanded, as he always went below the surface. She\nincreased her stock of ideas, and her taste was improved.\n\nHe was also a pious man; his rational religious sentiments received\nwarmth from his sensibility; and, except on very particular occasions,\nkept it in proper bounds; these sentiments had likewise formed his\ntemper; he was gentle, and easily to be intreated. The ridiculous\nceremonies they were every day witness to, led them into what are termed\ngrave subjects, and made him explain his opinions, which, at other\ntimes, he was neither ashamed of, nor unnecessarily brought forward to\nnotice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIII.\n\n\nWhen the weather began to clear up, Mary sometimes rode out alone,\npurposely to view the ruins that still remained of the earthquake: or\nshe would ride to the banks of the Tagus, to feast her eyes with the\nsight of that magnificent river. At other times she would visit the\nchurches, as she was particularly fond of seeing historical paintings.\n\nOne of these visits gave rise to the subject, and the whole party\ndescanted on it; but as the ladies could not handle it well, they soon\nadverted to portraits; and talked of the attitudes and characters in\nwhich they should wish to be drawn. Mary did not fix on one--when\nHenry, with more apparent warmth than usual, said, \"I would give the\nworld for your picture, with the expression I have seen in your face,\nwhen you have been supporting your friend.\"\n\nThis delicate compliment did not gratify her vanity, but it reached her\nheart. She then recollected that she had once sat for her picture--for\nwhom was it designed? For a boy! Her cheeks flushed with indignation, so\nstrongly did she feel an emotion of contempt at having been thrown\naway--given in with an estate.\n\nAs Mary again gave way to hope, her mind was more disengaged; and her\nthoughts were employed about the objects around her.\n\nShe visited several convents, and found that solitude only eradicates\nsome passions, to give strength to others; the most baneful ones. She\nsaw that religion does not consist in ceremonies; and that many prayers\nmay fall from the lips without purifying the heart.\n\nThey who imagine they can be religious without governing their tempers,\nor exercising benevolence in its most extensive sense, must certainly\nallow, that their religious duties are only practiced from selfish\nprinciples; how then can they be called good? The pattern of all\ngoodness went about _doing_ good. Wrapped up in themselves, the nuns\nonly thought of inferior gratifications. And a number of intrigues were\ncarried on to accelerate certain points on which their hearts were\nfixed:\n\nSuch as obtaining offices of trust or authority; or avoiding those that\nwere servile or laborious. In short, when they could be neither wives\nnor mothers, they aimed at being superiors, and became the most selfish\ncreatures in the world: the passions that were curbed gave strength to\nthe appetites, or to those mean passions which only tend to provide for\nthe gratification of them. Was this seclusion from the world? or did\nthey conquer its vanities or avoid its vexations?\n\nIn these abodes the unhappy individual, who, in the first paroxysm of\ngrief flies to them for refuge, finds too late she took a wrong step.\nThe same warmth which determined her will make her repent; and sorrow,\nthe rust of the mind, will never have a chance of being rubbed off by\nsensible conversation, or new-born affections of the heart.\n\nShe will find that those affections that have once been called forth and\nstrengthened by exercise, are only smothered, not killed, by\ndisappointment; and that in one form or other discontent will corrode\nthe heart, and produce those maladies of the imagination, for which\nthere is no specific.\n\nThe community at large Mary disliked; but pitied many of them whose\nprivate distresses she was informed of; and to pity and relieve were the\nsame things with her.\n\nThe exercise of her various virtues gave vigor to her genius, and\ndignity to her mind; she was sometimes inconsiderate, and violent; but\nnever mean or cunning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIV.\n\n\nThe Portuguese are certainly the most uncivilized nation in Europe. Dr.\nJohnson would have said, \"They have the least mind.\". And can such serve\ntheir Creator in spirit and in truth? No, the gross ritual of Romish\nceremonies is all they can comprehend: they can do penance, but not\nconquer their revenge, or lust. Religion, or love, has never humanized\ntheir hearts; they want the vital part; the mere body worships. Taste is\nunknown; Gothic finery, and unnatural decorations, which they term\nornaments, are conspicuous in their churches and dress. Reverence for\nmental excellence is only to be found in a polished nation.\n\nCould the contemplation of such a people gratify Mary's heart? No: she\nturned disgusted from the prospects--turned to a man of refinement.\nHenry had been some time ill and low-spirited; Mary would have been\nattentive to any one in that situation; but to him she was particularly\nso; she thought herself bound in gratitude, on account of his constant\nendeavours to amuse Ann, and prevent her dwelling on the dreary prospect\nbefore her, which sometimes she could not help anticipating with a kind\nof quiet despair.\n\nShe found some excuse for going more frequently into the room they all\nmet in; nay, she avowed her desire to amuse him: offered to read to him,\nand tried to draw him into amusing conversations; and when she was full\nof these little schemes, she looked at him with a degree of tenderness\nthat she was not conscious of. This divided attention was of use to her,\nand prevented her continually thinking of Ann, whose fluctuating\ndisorder often gave rise to false hopes.\n\nA trifling thing occurred now which occasioned Mary some uneasiness. Her\nmaid, a well-looking girl, had captivated the clerk of a neighbouring\ncompting-house. As the match was an advantageous one, Mary could not\nraise any objection to it, though at this juncture it was very\ndisagreeable to her to have a stranger about her person. However, the\ngirl consented to delay the marriage, as she had some affection for her\nmistress; and, besides, looked forward to Ann's death as a time of\nharvest.\n\nHenry's illness was not alarming, it was rather pleasing, as it gave\nMary an excuse to herself for shewing him how much she was interested\nabout him; and giving little artless proofs of affection, which the\npurity of her heart made her never wish to restrain.\n\nThe only visible return he made was not obvious to common observers. He\nwould sometimes fix his eyes on her, and take them off with a sigh that\nwas coughed away; or when he was leisurely walking into the room, and\ndid not expect to see her, he would quicken his steps, and come up to\nher with eagerness to ask some trivial question. In the same style, he\nwould try to detain her when he had nothing to say--or said nothing.\n\nAnn did not take notice of either his or Mary's behaviour, nor did she\nsuspect that he was a favourite, on any other account than his\nappearing neither well nor happy. She had often seen that when a person\nwas unfortunate, Mary's pity might easily be mistaken for love, and,\nindeed, it was a temporary sensation of that kind. Such it was--why it\nwas so, let others define, I cannot argue against instincts. As reason\nis cultivated in man, they are supposed to grow weaker, and this may\nhave given rise to the assertion, \"That as judgment improves, genius\nevaporates.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XV.\n\n\nOne morning they set out to visit the aqueduct; though the day was very\nfine when they left home, a very heavy shower fell before they reached\nit; they lengthened their ride, the clouds dispersed, and the sun came\nfrom behind them uncommonly bright.\n\nMary would fain have persuaded Ann not to have left the carriage; but\nshe was in spirits, and obviated all her objections, and insisted on\nwalking, tho' the ground was damp. But her strength was not equal to her\nspirits; she was soon obliged to return to the carriage so much\nfatigued, that she fainted, and remained insensible a long time.\n\nHenry would have supported her; but Mary would not permit him; her\nrecollection was instantaneous, and she feared sitting on the damp\nground might do him a material injury: she was on that account positive,\nthough the company did not guess the cause of her being so. As to\nherself, she did not fear bodily pain; and, when her mind was agitated,\nshe could endure the greatest fatigue without appearing sensible of it.\n\nWhen Ann recovered, they returned slowly home; she was carried to bed,\nand the next morning Mary thought she observed a visible change for the\nworse. The physician was sent for, who pronounced her to be in the most\nimminent danger.\n\nAll Mary's former fears now returned like a torrent, and carried every\nother care away; she even added to her present anguish by upbraiding\nherself for her late tranquillity--it haunted her in the form of a\ncrime.\n\nThe disorder made the most rapid advances--there was no hope!--Bereft of\nit, Mary again was tranquil; but it was a very different kind of\ntranquillity. She stood to brave the approaching storm, conscious she\nonly could be overwhelmed by it.\n\nShe did not think of Henry, or if her thoughts glanced towards him, it\nwas only to find fault with herself for suffering a thought to have\nstrayed from Ann.--Ann!--this dear friend was soon torn from her--she\ndied suddenly as Mary was assisting her to walk across the room.--The\nfirst string was severed from her heart--and this \"slow, sudden-death\"\ndisturbed her reasoning faculties; she seemed stunned by it; unable to\nreflect, or even to feel her misery.\n\nThe body was stolen out of the house the second night, and Mary refused\nto see her former companions. She desired her maid to conclude her\nmarriage, and request her intended husband to inform her when the first\nmerchantman was to leave the port, as the packet had just sailed, and\nshe determined not to stay in that hated place any longer than was\nabsolutely necessary.\n\nShe then sent to request the ladies to visit her; she wished to avoid a\nparade of grief--her sorrows were her own, and appeared to her not to\nadmit of increase or softening. She was right; the sight of them did not\naffect her, or turn the stream of her sullen sorrow; the black wave\nrolled along in the same course, it was equal to her where she cast her\neyes; all was impenetrable gloom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVI.\n\n\nSoon after the ladies left her, she received a message from Henry,\nrequesting, as she saw company, to be permitted to visit her: she\nconsented, and he entered immediately, with an unassured pace. She ran\neagerly up to him--saw the tear trembling in his eye, and his\ncountenance softened by the tenderest compassion; the hand which pressed\nhers seemed that of a fellow-creature. She burst into tears; and, unable\nto restrain them, she hid her face with both her hands; these tears\nrelieved her, (she had before had a difficulty in breathing,) and she\nsat down by him more composed than she had appeared since Ann's death;\nbut her conversation was incoherent.\n\nShe called herself \"a poor disconsolate creature!\"--\"Mine is a selfish\ngrief,\" she exclaimed--\"Yet; Heaven is my witness, I do not wish her\nback now she has reached those peaceful mansions, where the weary rest.\nHer pure spirit is happy; but what a wretch am I!\"\n\nHenry forgot his cautious reserve. \"Would you allow me to call you\nfriend?\" said he in a hesitating voice. \"I feel, dear girl, the tendered\ninterest in whatever concerns thee.\" His eyes spoke the rest. They were\nboth silent a few moments; then Henry resumed the conversation. \"I have\nalso been acquainted with grief! I mourn the loss of a woman who was not\nworthy of my regard. Let me give thee some account of the man who now\nsolicits thy friendship; and who, from motives of the purest\nbenevolence, wishes to give comfort to thy wounded heart.\"\n\n\"I have myself,\" said he, mournfully, \"shaken hands with happiness, and\nam dead to the world; I wait patiently for my dissolution; but, for\nthee, Mary, there may be many bright days in store.\"\n\n\"Impossible,\" replied she, in a peevish tone, as if he had insulted her\nby the supposition; her feelings were so much in unison with his, that\nshe was in love with misery.\n\nHe smiled at her impatience, and went on. \"My father died before I knew\nhim, and my mother was so attached to my eldest brother, that she took\nvery little pains to fit me for the profession to which I was destined:\nand, may I tell thee, I left my family, and, in many different stations,\nrambled about the world; saw mankind in every rank of life; and, in\norder to be independent, exerted those talents Nature has given me:\nthese exertions improved my understanding; and the miseries I was\nwitness to, gave a keener edge to my sensibility. My constitution is\nnaturally weak; and, perhaps, two or three lingering disorders in my\nyouth, first gave me a habit of reflecting, and enabled me to obtain\nsome dominion over my passions. At least,\" added he, stifling a sigh,\n\"over the violent ones, though I fear, refinement and reflection only\nrenders the tender ones more tyrannic.\n\n\"I have told you already I have been in love, and disappointed--the\nobject is now no more; let her faults sleep with her! Yet this passion\nhas pervaded my whole soul, and mixed itself with all my affections and\npursuits.--I am not peacefully indifferent; yet it is only to my violin\nI tell the sorrows I now confide with thee. The object I loved forfeited\nmy esteem; yet, true to the sentiment, my fancy has too frequently\ndelighted to form a creature that I could love, that could convey to my\nsoul sensations which the gross part of mankind have not any conception\nof.\"\n\nHe stopped, as Mary seemed lost in thought; but as she was still in a\nlistening attitude, continued his little narrative. \"I kept up an\nirregular correspondence with my mother; my brother's extravagance and\ningratitude had almost broken her heart, and made her feel something\nlike a pang of remorse, on account of her behaviour to me. I hastened to\ncomfort her--and was a comfort to her.\n\n\"My declining health prevented my taking orders, as I had intended; but\nI with warmth entered into literary pursuits; perhaps my heart, not\nhaving an object, made me embrace the substitute with more eagerness.\nBut, do not imagine I have always been a die-away swain. No: I have\nfrequented the cheerful haunts of men, and wit!--enchanting wit! has\nmade many moments fly free from care. I am too fond of the elegant arts;\nand woman--lovely woman! thou hast charmed me, though, perhaps, it would\nnot be easy to find one to whom my reason would allow me to be constant.\n\n\"I have now only to tell you, that my mother insisted on my spending\nthis winter in a warmer climate; and I fixed on Lisbon, as I had before\nvisited the Continent.\" He then looked Mary full in the face; and, with\nthe most insinuating accents, asked \"if he might hope for her\nfriendship? If she would rely on him as if he was her father; and that\nthe tenderest father could not more anxiously interest himself in the\nfate of a darling child, than he did in her's.\"\n\nSuch a crowd of thoughts all at once rushed into Mary's mind, that she\nin vain attempted to express the sentiments which were most predominant.\nHer heart longed to receive a new guest; there was a void in it:\naccustomed to have some one to love, she was alone, and comfortless, if\nnot engrossed by a particular affection.\n\nHenry saw her distress, and not to increase it, left the room. He had\nexerted himself to turn her thoughts into a new channel, and had\nsucceeded; she thought of him till she began to chide herself for\ndefrauding the dead, and, determining to grieve for Ann, she dwelt on\nHenry's misfortunes and ill health; and the interest he took in her fate\nwas a balm to her sick mind. She did not reason on the subject; but she\nfelt he was attached to her: lost in this delirium, she never asked\nherself what kind of an affection she had for him, or what it tended to;\nnor did she know that love and friendship are very distinct; she thought\nwith rapture, that there was one person in the world who had an\naffection for her, and that person she admired--had a friendship for.\n\nHe had called her his dear girl; the words might have fallen from him by\naccident; but they did not fall to the ground. My child! His child,\nwhat an association of ideas! If I had had a father, such a father!--She\ncould not dwell on the thoughts, the wishes which obtruded themselves.\nHer mind was unhinged, and passion unperceived filled her whole soul.\nLost, in waking dreams, she considered and reconsidered Henry's account\nof himself; till she actually thought she would tell Ann--a bitter\nrecollection then roused her out of her reverie; and aloud she begged\nforgiveness of her.\n\nBy these kind of conflicts the day was lengthened; and when she went to\nbed, the night passed away in feverish slumbers; though they did not\nrefresh her, she was spared the labour of thinking, of restraining her\nimagination; it sported uncontrouled; but took its colour from her\nwaking train of thoughts. One instant she was supporting her dying\nmother; then Ann was breathing her last, and Henry was comforting her.\n\nThe unwelcome light visited her languid eyes; yet, I must tell the\ntruth, she thought she should see Henry, and this hope set her spirits\nin motion: but they were quickly depressed by her maid, who came to tell\nher that she had heard of a vessel on board of which she could be\naccommodated, and that there was to be another female passenger on\nboard, a vulgar one; but perhaps she would be more useful on that\naccount--Mary did not want a companion.\n\nAs she had given orders for her passage to be engaged in the first\nvessel that sailed, she could not now retract; and must prepare for the\nlonely voyage, as the Captain intended taking advantage of the first\nfair wind. She had too much strength of mind to waver in her\ndetermination but to determine wrung her very heart, opened all her old\nwounds, and made them bleed afresh. What was she to do? where go? Could\nshe set a seal to a hasty vow, and tell a deliberate lie; promise to\nlove one man, when the image of another was ever present to her--her\nsoul revolted. \"I might gain the applause of the world by such mock\nheroism; but should I not forfeit my own? forfeit thine, my father!\"\n\nThere is a solemnity in the shortest ejaculation, which, for a while,\nstills the tumult of passion. Mary's mind had been thrown off its poise;\nher devotion had been, perhaps, more fervent for some time past; but\nless regular. She forgot that happiness was not to be found on earth,\nand built a terrestrial paradise liable to be destroyed by the first\nserious thought: when, she reasoned she became inexpressibly sad, to\nrender life bearable she gave way to fancy--this was madness.\n\nIn a few days she must again go to sea; the weather was very\ntempestuous--what of that, the tempest in her soul rendered every other\ntrifling--it was not the contending elements, but _herself_ she feared!\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVII.\n\n\nIn order to gain strength to support the expected interview, she went\nout in a carriage. The day was fine; but all nature was to her a\nuniversal blank; she could neither enjoy it, nor weep that she could\nnot. She passed by the ruins of an old monastery on a very high hill she\ngot out to walk amongst the ruins; the wind blew violently, she did not\navoid its fury, on the contrary, wildly bid it blow on, and seemed glad\nto contend with it, or rather walk against it. Exhausted she returned to\nthe carriage was soon at home, and in the old room.\n\nHenry started at the sight of her altered appearance; the day before her\ncomplexion had been of the most pallid hue; but now her cheeks were\nflushed, and her eyes enlivened with a false vivacity, an unusual fire.\nHe was not well, his illness was apparent in his countenance, and he\nowned he had not closed his eyes all night; this roused her dormant\ntenderness, she forgot they were so soon to part-engrossed by the\npresent happiness of seeing, of hearing him.\n\nOnce or twice she essayed to tell him that she was, in a few days, to\ndepart; but she could not; she was irresolute; it will do to-morrow;\nshould the wind change they could not sail in such a hurry; thus she\nthought, and insensibly grew more calm. The Ladies prevailed on her to\nspend the evening with them; but she retired very early to rest, and sat\non the side of her bed several hours, then threw herself on it, and\nwaited for the dreaded to-morrow.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVIII.\n\n\nThe ladies heard that her servant was to be married that day, and that\nshe was to sail in the vessel which was then clearing out at the\nCustom-house. Henry heard, but did not make any remarks; and Mary called\nup all her fortitude to support her, and enable her to hide from the\nfemales her internal struggles. She durst not encounter Henry's glances\nwhen she found he had been informed of her intention; and, trying to\ndraw a veil over her wretched state of mind, she talked incessantly, she\nknew not what; flashes of wit burst from her, and when she began to\nlaugh she could not stop herself.\n\nHenry smiled at some of her sallies, and looked at her with such\nbenignity and compassion, that he recalled her scattered thoughts; and,\nthe ladies going to dress for dinner, they were left alone; and remained\nsilent a few moments: after the noisy conversation it appeared solemn.\nHenry began. \"You are going, Mary, and going by yourself; your mind is\nnot in a state to be left to its own operations--yet I cannot, dissuade\nyou; if I attempted to do it, I should ill deserve the title I wish to\nmerit. I only think of your happiness; could I obey the strongest\nimpulse of my heart, I should accompany thee to England; but such a step\nmight endanger your future peace.\"\n\nMary, then, with all the frankness which marked her character, explained\nher situation to him and mentioned her fatal tie with such disgust that\nhe trembled for her. \"I cannot see him; he is not the man formed for me\nto love!\" Her delicacy did not restrain her, for her dislike to her\nhusband had taken root in her mind long before she knew Henry. Did she\nnot fix on Lisbon rather than France on purpose to avoid him? and if Ann\nhad been in tolerable health she would have flown with her to some\nremote corner to have escaped from him.\n\n\"I intend,\" said Henry, \"to follow you in the next packet; where shall I\nhear of your health?\" \"Oh! let me hear of thine,\" replied Mary. \"I am\nwell, very well; but thou art very ill--thy health is in the most\nprecarious state.\" She then mentioned her intention of going to Ann's\nrelations. \"I am her representative, I have duties to fulfil for her:\nduring my voyage I have time enough for reflection; though I think I\nhave already determined.\"\n\n\"Be not too hasty, my child,\" interrupted Henry; \"far be it from me to\npersuade thee to do violence to thy feelings--but consider that all thy\nfuture life may probably take its colour from thy present mode of\nconduct. Our affections as well as our sentiments are fluctuating; you\nwill not perhaps always either think or feel as you do at present: the\nobject you now shun may appear in a different light.\" He paused. \"In\nadvising thee in this style, I have only thy good at heart, Mary.\"\n\nShe only answered to expostulate. \"My affections are involuntary--yet\nthey can only be fixed by reflection, and when they are they make quite\na part of my soul, are interwoven in it, animate my actions, and form\nmy taste: certain qualities are calculated to call forth my sympathies,\nand make me all I am capable of being. The governing affection gives its\nstamp to the rest--because I am capable of loving one, I have that kind\nof charity to all my fellow-creatures which is not easily provoked.\nMilton has asserted, That earthly love is the scale by which to heavenly\nwe may ascend.\"\n\nShe went on with eagerness. \"My opinions on some subjects are not\nwavering; my pursuit through life has ever been the same: in solitude\nwere my sentiments formed; they are indelible, and nothing can efface\nthem but death--No, death itself cannot efface them, or my soul must be\ncreated afresh, and not improved. Yet a little while am I parted from\nmy Ann--I could not exist without the hope of seeing her again--I could\nnot bear to think that time could wear away an affection that was\nfounded on what is not liable to perish; you might as well attempt to\npersuade me that my soul is matter, and that its feelings arose from\ncertain modifications of it.\"\n\n\"Dear enthusiastic creature,\" whispered Henry, \"how you steal into my\nsoul.\" She still continued. \"The same turn of mind which leads me to\nadore the Author of all Perfection--which leads me to conclude that he\nonly can fill my soul; forces me to admire the faint image-the shadows\nof his attributes here below; and my imagination gives still bolder\nstrokes to them. I knew I am in some degree under the influence of a\ndelusion--but does not this strong delusion prove that I myself 'am _of\nsubtiler essence than the trodden clod_' these flights of the\nimagination point to futurity; I cannot banish them. Every cause in\nnature produces an effect; and am I an exception to the general rule?\nhave I desires implanted in me only to make me miserable? will they\nnever be gratified? shall I never be happy? My feelings do not accord\nwith the notion of solitary happiness. In a state of bliss, it will be\nthe society of beings we can love, without the alloy that earthly\ninfirmities mix with our best affections, that will constitute great\npart of our happiness.\n\n\"With these notions can I conform to the maxims of worldly wisdom? can\nI listen to the cold dictates of worldly prudence and bid my tumultuous\npassions cease to vex me, be still, find content in grovelling pursuits,\nand the admiration of the misjudging crowd, when it is only one I wish\nto please--one who could be all the world to me. Argue not with me, I am\nbound by human ties; but did my spirit ever promise to love, or could I\nconsider when forced to bind myself--to take a vow, that at the awful\nday of judgment I must give an account of. My conscience does not smite\nme, and that Being who is greater than the internal monitor, may approve\nof what the world condemns; sensible that in Him I live, could I brave\nHis presence, or hope in solitude to find peace, if I acted contrary to\nconviction, that the world might approve of my conduct--what could the\nworld give to compensate for my own esteem? it is ever hostile and armed\nagainst the feeling heart!\n\n\"Riches and honours await me, and the cold moralist might desire me to\nsit down and enjoy them--I cannot conquer my feelings, and till I do,\nwhat are these baubles to me? you may tell me I follow a fleeting good,\nan _ignis fatuus_; but this chase, these struggles prepare me for\neternity--when I no longer see through a glass darkly I shall not reason\nabout, but _feel_ in what happiness consists.\"\n\nHenry had not attempted to interrupt her; he saw she was determined, and\nthat these sentiments were not the effusion of the moment, but well\ndigested ones, the result of strong affections, a high sense of honour,\nand respect for the source of all virtue and truth. He was startled, if\nnot entirely convinced by her arguments; indeed her voice, her gestures\nwere all persuasive.\n\nSome one now entered the room; he looked an answer to her long harangue;\nit was fortunate for him, or he might have been led to say what in a\ncooler moment he had determined to conceal; but were words necessary to\nreveal it? He wished not to influence her conduct--vain precaution; she\nknew she was beloved; and could she forget that such a man loved her, or\nrest satisfied with any inferior gratification. When passion first\nenters the heart, it is only a return of affection that is sought after,\nand every other remembrance and wish is blotted out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIX.\n\n\nTwo days passed away without any particular conversation; Henry, trying\nto be indifferent, or to appear so, was more assiduous than ever. The\nconflict was too violent for his present state of health; the spirit was\nwilling, but the body suffered; he lost his appetite, and looked\nwretchedly; his spirits were calmly low--the world seemed to fade\naway--what was that world to him that Mary did not inhabit; she lived\nnot for him.\n\nHe was mistaken; his affection was her only support; without this dear\nprop she had sunk into the grave of her lost--long-loved friend;--his\nattention snatched her from despair. Inscrutable are the ways of\nHeaven!\n\nThe third day Mary was desired to prepare herself; for if the wind\ncontinued in the same point, they should set sail the next evening. She\ntried to prepare her mind, and her efforts were not useless she appeared\nless agitated than could have been expected, and talked of her voyage\nwith composure. On great occasions she was generally calm and collected,\nher resolution would brace her unstrung nerves; but after the victory\nshe had no triumph; she would sink into a state of moping melancholy,\nand feel ten-fold misery when the heroic enthusiasm was over.\n\nThe morning of the day fixed on for her departure she was alone with\nHenry only a few moments, and an awkward kind of formality made them\nslip away without their having said much to each other. Henry was\nafraid to discover his passion, or give any other name to his regard but\nfriendship; yet his anxious solicitude for her welfare was ever breaking\nout-while she as artlessly expressed again and again, her fears with\nrespect to his declining health.\n\n\"We shall soon meet,\" said he, with a faint smile; Mary smiled too; she\ncaught the sickly beam; it was still fainter by being reflected, and not\nknowing what she wished to do, started up and left the room. When she\nwas alone she regretted she had left him so precipitately. \"The few\nprecious moments I have thus thrown away may never return,\" she\nthought-the reflection led to misery.\n\nShe waited for, nay, almost wished for the summons to depart. She could\nnot avoid spending the intermediate time with the ladies and Henry; and\nthe trivial conversations she was obliged to bear a part in harassed her\nmore than can be well conceived.\n\nThe summons came, and the whole party attended her to the vessel. For a\nwhile the remembrance of Ann banished her regret at parting with Henry,\nthough his pale figure pressed on her sight; it may seem a paradox, but\nhe was more present to her when she sailed; her tears then were all his\nown.\n\n\"My poor Ann!\" thought Mary, \"along this road we came, and near this\nspot you called me your guardian angel--and now I leave thee here! ah!\nno, I do not--thy spirit is not confined to its mouldering tenement!\nTell me, thou soul of her I love, tell me, ah! whither art thou fled?\"\nAnn occupied her until they reached the ship.\n\nThe anchor was weighed. Nothing can be more irksome than waiting to say\nfarewel. As the day was serene, they accompanied her a little way, and\nthen got into the boat; Henry was the last; he pressed her hand, it had\nnot any life in it; she leaned over the side of the ship without looking\nat the boat, till it was so far distant, that she could not see the\ncountenances of those that were in it: a mist spread itself over her\nsight--she longed to exchange one look--tried to recollect the\nlast;--the universe contained no being but Henry!--The grief of parting\nwith him had swept all others clean away. Her eyes followed the keel of\nthe boat, and when she could no longer perceive its traces: she looked\nround on the wide waste of waters, thought of the precious moments\nwhich had been stolen from the waste of murdered time.\n\nShe then descended into the cabin, regardless of the surrounding\nbeauties of nature, and throwing herself on her bed in the little hole\nwhich was called the state-room--she wished to forget her existence. On\nthis bed she remained two days, listening to the dashing waves, unable\nto close her eyes. A small taper made the darkness visible; and the\nthird night, by its glimmering light, she wrote the following fragment.\n\n\"Poor solitary wretch that I am; here alone do I listen to the whistling\nwinds and dashing waves;--on no human support can I rest--when not lost\nto hope I found pleasure in the society of those rough beings; but now\nthey appear not like my fellow creatures; no social ties draw me to\nthem. How long, how dreary has this day been; yet I scarcely wish it\nover--for what will to-morrow bring--to-morrow, and to-morrow will only\nbe marked with unvaried characters of wretchedness.--Yet surely, I am\nnot alone!\"\n\nHer moistened eyes were lifted up to heaven; a crowd of thoughts darted\ninto her mind, and pressing her hand against her forehead, as if to bear\nthe intellectual weight, she tried, but tried in vain, to arrange them.\n\"Father of Mercies, compose this troubled spirit: do I indeed wish it to\nbe composed--to forget my Henry?\" the _my_, the pen was directly drawn\nacross in an agony.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XX.\n\n\nThe mate of the ship, who heard her stir, came to offer her some\nrefreshment; and she, who formerly received every offer of kindness or\ncivility with pleasure, now shrunk away disgusted: peevishly she desired\nhim not to disturb her; but the words were hardly articulated when her\nheart smote her, she called him back, and requested something to drink.\nAfter drinking it, fatigued by her mental exertions, she fell into a\ndeath-like slumber, which lasted some hours; but did not refresh her, on\nthe contrary, she awoke languid and stupid.\n\nThe wind still continued contrary; a week, a dismal week, had she\nstruggled with her sorrows; and the struggle brought on a slow fever,\nwhich sometimes gave her false spirits.\n\nThe winds then became very tempestuous, the Great Deep was troubled, and\nall the passengers appalled. Mary then left her bed, and went on deck,\nto survey the contending elements: the scene accorded with the present\nstate of her soul; she thought in a few hours I may go home; the\nprisoner may be released. The vessel rose on a wave and descended into a\nyawning gulph--Not slower did her mounting soul return to earth,\nfor--Ah! her treasure and her heart was there. The squalls rattled\namongst the sails, which were quickly taken down; the wind would then\ndie away, and the wild undirected waves rushed on every side with a\ntremendous roar. In a little vessel in the midst of such a storm she\nwas not dismayed; she felt herself independent.\n\nJust then one of the crew perceived a signal of distress; by the help of\na glass he could plainly discover a small vessel dismasted, drifted\nabout, for the rudder had been broken by the violence of the storm.\nMary's thoughts were now all engrossed by the crew on the brink of\ndestruction. They bore down to the wreck; they reached it, and hailed\nthe trembling wretches; at the sound of the friendly greeting, loud\ncries of tumultuous joy were mixed with the roaring of the waves, and\nwith ecstatic transport they leaped on the shattered deck, launched\ntheir boat in a moment, and committed themselves to the mercy of the\nsea. Stowed between two casks, and leaning on a sail, she watched the\nboat, and when a wave intercepted it from her view--she ceased to\nbreathe, or rather held her breath until it rose again.\n\nAt last the boat arrived safe along-side the ship, and Mary caught the\npoor trembling wretches as they stumbled into it, and joined them in\nthanking that gracious Being, who though He had not thought fit to still\nthe raging of the sea, had afforded them unexpected succour.\n\nAmongst the wretched crew was one poor woman, who fainted when she was\nhauled on board: Mary undressed her, and when she had recovered, and\nsoothed her, left her to enjoy the rest she required to recruit her\nstrength, which fear had quite exhausted. She returned again to view the\nangry deep; and when she gazed on its perturbed state, she thought of\nthe Being who rode on the wings of the wind, and stilled the noise of\nthe sea; and the madness of the people--He only could speak peace to\nher troubled spirit! she grew more calm; the late transaction had\ngratified her benevolence, and stole her out of herself.\n\nOne of the sailors, happening to say to another, \"that he believed the\nworld was going to be at an end;\" this observation led her into a new\ntrain of thoughts: some of Handel's sublime compositions occurred to\nher, and she sung them to the grand accompaniment. The Lord God\nOmnipotent reigned, and would reign for ever, and ever!--Why then did\nshe fear the sorrows that were passing away, when she knew that He would\nbind up the broken-hearted, and receive those who came out of great\ntribulation. She retired to her cabin; and wrote in the little book that\nwas now her only confident. It was after midnight.\n\n\"At this solemn hour, the great day of judgment fills my thoughts; the\nday of retribution, when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed;\nwhen all worldly distinctions will fade away, and be no more seen. I\nhave not words to express the sublime images which the bare\ncontemplation of this awful day raises in my mind. Then, indeed, the\nLord Omnipotent will reign, and He will wipe the tearful eye, and\nsupport the trembling heart--yet a little while He hideth his face, and\nthe dun shades of sorrow, and the thick clouds of folly separate us from\nour God; but when the glad dawn of an eternal day breaks, we shall know\neven as we are known. Here we walk by faith, and not by sight; and we\nhave this alternative, either to enjoy the pleasures of life which are\nbut for a season, or look forward to the prize of our high calling, and\nwith fortitude, and that wisdom which is from above, endeavour to bear\nthe warfare of life. We know that many run the race; but he that\nstriveth obtaineth the crown of victory. Our race is an arduous one! How\nmany are betrayed by traitors lodged in their own breasts, who wear the\ngarb of Virtue, and are so near akin; we sigh to think they should ever\nlead into folly, and slide imperceptibly into vice. Surely any thing\nlike happiness is madness! Shall probationers of an hour presume to\npluck the fruit of immortality, before they have conquered death? it is\nguarded, when the great day, to which I allude, arrives, the way will\nagain be opened. Ye dear delusions, gay deceits, farewel! and yet I\ncannot banish ye for ever; still does my panting soul push forward, and\nlive in futurity, in the deep shades o'er which darkness hangs.--I try\nto pierce the gloom, and find a resting-place, where my thirst of\nknowledge will be gratified, and my ardent affections find an object to\nfix them. Every thing material must change; happiness and this\nfluctating principle is not compatible. Eternity, immateriality, and\nhappiness,--what are ye? How shall I grasp the mighty and fleeting\nconceptions ye create?\"\n\nAfter writing, serenely she delivered her soul into the hands of the\nFather of Spirits; and slept in peace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXI.\n\n\nMary rose early, refreshed by the seasonable rest, and went to visit the\npoor woman, whom she found quite recovered: and, on enquiry, heard that\nshe had lately buried her husband, a common sailor; and that her only\nsurviving child had been washed over-board the day before. Full of her\nown danger, she scarcely thought of her child till that was over; and\nthen she gave way to boisterous emotions.\n\nMary endeavoured to calm her at first, by sympathizing with her; and she\ntried to point out the only solid source of comfort but in doing this\nshe encountered many difficulties; she found her grossly ignorant, yet\nshe did not despair: and as the poor creature could not receive comfort\nfrom the operations of her own mind, she laboured to beguile the hours,\nwhich grief made heavy, by adapting her conversation to her capacity.\n\nThere are many minds that only receive impressions through the medium of\nthe senses: to them did Mary address herself; she made her some\npresents, and promised to assist her when they should arrive in England.\nThis employment roused her out of her late stupor, and again set the\nfaculties of her soul in motion; made the understanding contend with the\nimagination, and the heart throbbed not so irregularly during the\ncontention. How short-lived was the calm! when the English coast was\ndescried, her sorrows returned with redoubled vigor.--She was to visit\nand comfort the mother of her lost friend--And where then should she\ntake up her residence? These thoughts suspended the exertions of her\nunderstanding; abstracted reflections gave way to alarming\napprehensions; and tenderness undermined fortitude.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXII.\n\n\nIn England then landed the forlorn wanderer. She looked round for some\nfew moments--her affections were not attracted to any particular part of\nthe Island. She knew none of the inhabitants of the vast city to which\nshe was going: the mass of buildings appeared to her a huge body without\nan informing soul. As she passed through the streets in an\nhackney-coach, disgust and horror alternately filled her mind. She met\nsome women drunk; and the manners of those who attacked the sailors,\nmade her shrink into herself, and exclaim, are these my fellow\ncreatures!\n\nDetained by a number of carts near the water-side, for she came up the\nriver in the vessel, not having reason to hasten on shore, she saw\nvulgarity, dirt, and vice--her soul sickened; this was the first time\nsuch complicated misery obtruded itself on her sight.--Forgetting her\nown griefs, she gave the world a much indebted tear; mourned for a world\nin ruins. She then perceived, that great part of her comfort must arise\nfrom viewing the smiling face of nature, and be reflected from the view\nof innocent enjoyments: she was fond of seeing animals play, and could\nnot bear to see her own species sink below them.\n\nIn a little dwelling in one of the villages near London, lived the\nmother of Ann; two of her children still remained with her; but they did\nnot resemble Ann. To her house Mary directed the coach, and told the\nunfortunate mother of her loss. The poor woman, oppressed by it, and her\nmany other cares, after an inundation of tears, began to enumerate all\nher past misfortunes, and present cares. The heavy tale lasted until\nmidnight, and the impression it made on Mary's mind was so strong, that\nit banished sleep till towards morning; when tired nature sought\nforgetfulness, and the soul ceased to ruminate about many things.\n\nShe sent for the poor woman they took up at sea, provided her a lodging,\nand relieved her present necessities. A few days were spent in a kind of\nlistless way; then the mother of Ann began to enquire when she thought\nof returning home. She had hitherto treated her with the greatest\nrespect, and concealed her wonder at Mary's choosing a remote room in\nthe house near the garden, and ordering some alterations to be made, as\nif she intended living in it.\n\nMary did not choose to explain herself; had Ann lived, it is probable\nshe would never have loved Henry so fondly; but if she had, she could\nnot have talked of her passion to any human creature. She deliberated,\nand at last informed the family, that she had a reason for not living\nwith her husband, which must some time remain a secret--they stared--Not\nlive with him! how will you live then? This was a question she could not\nanswer; she had only about eighty pounds remaining, of the money she\ntook with her to Lisbon; when it was exhausted where could she get more?\nI will work, she cried, do any thing rather than be a slave.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIII.\n\n\nUnhappy, she wandered about the village, and relieved the poor; it was\nthe only employment that eased her aching heart; she became more\nintimate with misery--the misery that rises from poverty and the want of\neducation. She was in the vicinity of a great city; the vicious poor in\nand about it must ever grieve a benevolent contemplative mind.\n\nOne evening a man who stood weeping in a little lane, near the house she\nresided in, caught her eye. She accosted him; in a confused manner, he\ninformed her, that his wife was dying, and his children crying for the\nbread he could not earn. Mary desired to be conducted to his\nhabitation; it was not very distant, and was the upper room in an old\nmansion-house, which had been once the abode of luxury. Some tattered\nshreds of rich hangings still remained, covered with cobwebs and filth;\nround the ceiling, through which the rain drop'd, was a beautiful\ncornice mouldering; and a spacious gallery was rendered dark by the\nbroken windows being blocked up; through the apertures the wind forced\nits way in hollow sounds, and reverberated along the former scene of\nfestivity.\n\nIt was crowded with inhabitants: som were scolding, others swearing, or\nsinging indecent songs. What a sight for Mary! Her blood ran cold; yet\nshe had sufficient resolution to mount to the top of the house. On the\nfloor, in one corner of a very small room, lay an emaciated figure of a\nwoman; a window over her head scarcely admitted any light, for the\nbroken panes were stuffed with dirty rags. Near her were five children,\nall young, and covered with dirt; their sallow cheeks, and languid eyes,\nexhibited none of the charms of childhood. Some were fighting, and\nothers crying for food; their yells were mixed with their mother's\ngroans, and the wind which rushed through the passage. Mary was\npetrified; but soon assuming more courage, approached the bed, and,\nregardless of the surrounding nastiness, knelt down by the poor wretch,\nand breathed the most poisonous air; for the unfortunate creature was\ndying of a putrid fever, the consequence of dirt and want.\n\nTheir state did not require much explanation. Mary sent the husband for\na poor neighbour, whom she hired to nurse the woman, and take care of\nthe children; and then went herself to buy them some necessaries at a\nshop not far distant. Her knowledge of physic had enabled her to\nprescribe for the woman; and she left the house, with a mixture of\nhorror and satisfaction.\n\nShe visited them every day, and procured them every comfort; contrary to\nher expectation, the woman began to recover; cleanliness and wholesome\nfood had a wonderful effect; and Mary saw her rising as it were from the\ngrave. Not aware of the danger she ran into, she did not think of it\ntill she perceived she had caught the fever. It made such an alarming\nprogress, that she was prevailed on to send for a physician; but the\ndisorder was so violent, that for some days it baffled his skill; and\nMary felt not her danger, as she was delirious. After the crisis, the\nsymptoms were more favourable, and she slowly recovered, without\nregaining much strength or spirits; indeed they were intolerably low:\nshe wanted a tender nurse.\n\nFor some time she had observed, that she was not treated with the same\nrespect as formerly; her favors were forgotten when no more were\nexpected. This ingratitude hurt her, as did a similar instance in the\nwoman who came out of the ship. Mary had hitherto supported her; as her\nfinances were growing low, she hinted to her, that she ought to try to\nearn her own subsistence: the woman in return loaded her with abuse.\n\nTwo months were elapsed; she had not seen, or heard from Henry. He was\nsick--nay, perhaps had forgotten her; all the world was dreary, and all\nthe people ungrateful.\n\nShe sunk into apathy, and endeavouring to rouse herself out of it, she\nwrote in her book another fragment:\n\n\"Surely life is a dream, a frightful one! and after those rude,\ndisjointed images are fled, will light ever break in? Shall I ever feel\njoy? Do all suffer like me; or am I framed so as to be particularly\nsusceptible of misery? It is true, I have experienced the most rapturous\nemotions--short-lived delight!--ethereal beam, which only serves to shew\nmy present misery--yet lie still, my throbbing heart, or burst; and my\nbrain--why dost thou whirl about at such a terrifying rate? why do\nthoughts so rapidly rush into my mind, and yet when they disappear\nleave such deep traces? I could almost wish for the madman's happiness,\nand in a strong imagination lose a sense of woe.\n\n\"Oh! reason, thou boasted guide, why desert me, like the world, when I\nmost need thy assistance! Canst thou not calm this internal tumult, and\ndrive away the death-like sadness which presses so sorely on me,--a\nsadness surely very nearly allied to despair. I am now the prey of\napathy--I could wish for the former storms! a ray of hope sometimes\nillumined my path; I had a pursuit; but now _it visits not my haunts\nforlorn_. Too well have I loved my fellow creatures! I have been wounded\nby ingratitude; from every one it has something of the serpent's tooth.\n\n\"When overwhelmed by sorrow, I have met unkindness; I looked for some\none to have pity on me; but found none!--The healing balm of sympathy is\ndenied; I weep, a solitary wretch, and the hot tears scald my cheeks. I\nhave not the medicine of life, the dear chimera I have so often chased,\na friend. Shade of my loved Ann! dost thou ever visit thy poor Mary?\nRefined spirit, thou wouldst weep, could angels weep, to see her\nstruggling with passions she cannot subdue; and feelings which corrode\nher small portion of comfort!\"\n\nShe could not write any more; she wished herself far distant from all\nhuman society; a thick gloom spread itself over her mind: but did not\nmake her forget the very beings she wished to fly from. She sent for the\npoor woman she found in the garret; gave her money to clothe herself\nand children, and buy some furniture for a little hut, in a large\ngarden, the master of which agreed to employ her husband, who had been\nbred a gardener. Mary promised to visit the family, and see their new\nabode when she was able to go out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIV.\n\n\nMary still continued weak and low, though it was spring, and all nature\nbegan to look gay; with more than usual brightness the sun shone, and a\nlittle robin which she had cherished during the winter sung one of his\nbest songs. The family were particularly civil this fine morning, and\ntried to prevail on her to walk out. Any thing like kindness melted her;\nshe consented.\n\nSofter emotions banished her melancholy, and she directed her steps to\nthe habitation she had rendered comfortable.\n\nEmerging out of a dreary chamber, all nature looked cheerful; when she\nhad last walked out, snow covered the ground, and bleak winds pierced\nher through and through: now the hedges were green, the blossoms adorned\nthe trees, and the birds sung. She reached the dwelling, without being\nmuch exhausted and while she rested there, observed the children\nsporting on the grass, with improved complexions. The mother with tears\nthanked her deliverer, and pointed out her comforts. Mary's tears flowed\nnot only from sympathy, but a complication of feelings and recollections\nthe affections which bound her to her fellow creatures began again to\nplay, and reanimated nature. She observed the change in herself, tried\nto account for it, and wrote with her pencil a rhapsody on sensibility.\n\n\"Sensibility is the most exquisite feeling of which the human soul is\nsusceptible: when it pervades us, we feel happy; and could it last\nunmixed, we might form some conjecture of the bliss of those\nparadisiacal days, when the obedient passions were under the dominion of\nreason, and the impulses of the heart did not need correction.\n\n\"It is this quickness, this delicacy of feeling, which enables us to\nrelish the sublime touches of the poet, and the painter; it is this,\nwhich expands the soul, gives an enthusiastic greatness, mixed with\ntenderness, when we view the magnificent objects of nature; or hear of a\ngood action. The same effect we experience in the spring, when we hail\nthe returning sun, and the consequent renovation of nature; when the\nflowers unfold themselves, and exhale their sweets, and the voice of\nmusic is heard in the land. Softened by tenderness; the soul is\ndisposed to be virtuous. Is any sensual gratification to be compared to\nthat of feelings the eves moistened after having comforted the\nunfortunate?\n\n\"Sensibility is indeed the foundation of all our happiness; but these\nraptures are unknown to the depraved sensualist, who is only moved by\nwhat strikes his gross senses; the delicate embellishments of nature\nescape his notice; as do the gentle and interesting affections.--But it\nis only to be felt; it escapes discussion.\"\n\nShe then returned home, and partook of the family meal, which was\nrendered more cheerful by the presence of a man, past the meridian of\nlife, of polished manners, and dazzling wit. He endeavoured to draw Mary\nout, and succeeded; she entered into conversation, and some of her\nartless flights of genius struck him with surprise; he found she had a\ncapacious mind, and that her reason was as profound as her imagination\nwas lively. She glanced from earth to heaven, and caught the light of\ntruth. Her expressive countenance shewed what passed in her mind, and\nher tongue was ever the faithful interpreter of her heart; duplicity\nnever threw a shade over her words or actions. Mary found him a man of\nlearning; and the exercise of her understanding would frequently make\nher forget her griefs, when nothing else could, except benevolence.\n\nThis man had known the mistress of the house in her youth; good nature\ninduced him to visit her; but when he saw Mary he had another\ninducement. Her appearance, and above all, her genius, and cultivation\nof mind, roused his curiosity; but her dignified manners had such an\neffect on him, he was obliged to suppress it. He knew men, as well as\nbooks; his conversation was entertaining and improving. In Mary's\ncompany he doubted whether heaven was peopled with spirits masculine;\nand almost forgot that he had called the sex \"the pretty play things\nthat render life tolerable.\"\n\nHe had been the slave of beauty, the captive of sense; love he ne'er had\nfelt; the mind never rivetted the chain, nor had the purity of it made\nthe body appear lovely in his eyes. He was humane, despised meanness;\nbut was vain of his abilities, and by no means a useful member of\nsociety. He talked often of the beauty of virtue; but not having any\nsolid foundation to build the practice on, he was only a shining, or\nrather a sparkling character: and though his fortune enabled him to\nhunt down pleasure, he was discontented.\n\nMary observed his character, and wrote down a train of reflections,\nwhich these observations led her to make; these reflections received a\ntinge from her mind; the present state of it, was that kind of painful\nquietness which arises from reason clouded by disgust; she had not yet\nlearned to be resigned; vague hopes agitated her.\n\n\"There are some subjects that are so enveloped in clouds, as you\ndissipate one, another overspreads it. Of this kind are our reasonings\nconcerning happiness; till we are obliged to cry out with the Apostle,\n_That it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive in what it\ncould consist_, or how satiety could be prevented. Man seems formed for\naction, though the passions are seldom properly managed; they are\neither so languid as not to serve as a spur, or else so violent, as to\noverleap all bounds.\n\n\"Every individual has its own peculiar trials; and anguish, in one shape\nor other, visits every heart. Sensibility produces flights of virtue;\nand not curbed by reason, is on the brink of vice talking, and even\nthinking of virtue.\n\n\"Christianity can only afford just principles to govern the wayward\nfeelings and impulses of the heart: every good disposition runs wild, if\nnot transplanted into this soil; but how hard is it to keep the heart\ndiligently, though convinced that the issues of life depend on it.\n\n\"It is very difficult to discipline the mind of a thinker, or reconcile\nhim to the weakness, the inconsistency of his understanding; and a\nstill more laborious task for him to conquer his passions, and learn to\nseek content, instead of happiness. Good dispositions, and virtuous\npropensities, without the light of the Gospel, produce eccentric\ncharacters: comet-like, they are always in extremes; while revelation\nresembles the laws of attraction, and produces uniformity; but too often\nis the attraction feeble; and the light so obscured by passion, as to\nforce the bewildered soul to fly into void space, and wander in\nconfusion.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXV.\n\n\nA few mornings after, as Mary was sitting ruminating, harassed by\nperplexing thoughts, and fears, a letter was delivered to her: the\nservant waited for an answer. Her heart palpitated; it was from Henry;\nshe held it some time in her hand, then tore it open; it was not a long\none; and only contained an account of a relapse, which prevented his\nsailing in the first packet, as he had intended. Some tender enquiries\nwere added, concerning her health, and state of mind; but they were\nexpressed in rather a formal style: it vexed her, and the more so, as it\nstopped the current of affection, which the account of his arrival and\nillness had made flow to her heart--it ceased to beat for a moment--she\nread the passage over again; but could not tell what she was hurt\nby--only that it did not answer the expectations of her affection. She\nwrote a laconic, incoherent note in return, allowing him to call on her\nthe next day--he had requested permission at the conclusion of his\nletter.\n\nHer mind was then painfully active; she could not read or walk; she\ntried to fly from herself, to forget the long hours that were yet to run\nbefore to-morrow could arrive: she knew not what time he would come;\ncertainly in the morning, she concluded; the morning then was anxiously\nwished for; and every wish produced a sigh, that arose from expectation\non the stretch, damped by fear and vain regret.\n\nTo beguile the tedious time, Henry's favorite tunes were sung; the books\nthey read together turned over; and the short epistle read at least a\nhundred times.--Any one who had seen her, would have supposed that she\nwas trying to decypher Chinese characters.\n\nAfter a sleepless night, she hailed the tardy day, watched the rising\nsun, and then listened for every footstep, and started if she heard the\nstreet door opened. At last he came, and she who had been counting the\nhours, and doubting whether the earth moved, would gladly have escaped\nthe approaching interview.\n\nWith an unequal, irresolute pace, she went to meet him; but when she\nbeheld his emaciated countenance, all the tenderness, which the\nformality of his letter had damped, returned, and a mournful\npresentiment stilled the internal conflict. She caught his hand, and\nlooking wistfully at him, exclaimed, \"Indeed, you are not well!\"\n\n\"I am very far from well; but it matters not,\" added he with a smile of\nresignation; \"my native air may work wonders, and besides, my mother is\na tender nurse, and I shall sometimes see thee.\"\n\nMary felt for the first time in her life, envy; she wished\ninvoluntarily, that all the comfort he received should be from her. She\nenquired about the symptoms of his disorder; and heard that he had been\nvery ill; she hastily drove away the fears, that former dear bought\nexperience suggested: and again and again did she repeat, that she was\nsure he would soon recover. She would then look in his face, to see if\nhe assented, and ask more questions to the same purport. She tried to\navoid speaking of herself, and Henry left her, with, a promise of\nvisiting her the next day.\n\nHer mind was now engrossed by one fear--yet she would not allow herself\nto think that she feared an event she could not name. She still saw his\npale face; the sound of his voice still vibrated on her ears; she tried\nto retain it; she listened, looked round, wept, and prayed.\n\nHenry had enlightened the desolate scene: was this charm of life to fade\naway, and, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck\nbehind? These thoughts disturbed her reason, she shook her head, as if\nto drive them out of it; a weight, a heavy one, was on her heart; all\nwas not well there.\n\nOut of this reverie she was soon woke to keener anguish, by the arrival\nof a letter from her husband; it came to Lisbon after her departure:\nHenry had forwarded it to her, but did not choose to deliver it\nhimself, for a very obvious reason; it might have produced a\nconversation he wished for some time to avoid; and his precaution took\nits rise almost equally from benevolence and love.\n\nShe could not muster up sufficient resolution to break the seal: her\nfears were not prophetic, for the contents gave her comfort. He informed\nher that he intended prolonging his tour, as he was now his own master,\nand wished to remain some time on the continent, and in particular to\nvisit Italy without any restraint: but his reasons for it appeared\nchildish; it was not to cultivate his taste, or tread on classic ground,\nwhere poets and philosophers caught their lore; but to join in the\nmasquerades, and such burlesque amusements.\n\nThese instances of folly relieved Mary, in some degree reconciled her\nto herself added fuel to the devouring flame--and silenced something\nlike a pang, which reason and conscience made her feel, when she\nreflected, that it is the office of Religion to reconcile us to the\nseemingly hard dispensations of providence; and that no inclination,\nhowever strong, should oblige us to desert the post assigned us, or\nforce us to forget that virtue should be an active principle; and that\nthe most desirable station, is the one that exercises our faculties,\nrefines our affections, and enables us to be useful.\n\nOne reflection continually wounded her repose; she feared not poverty;\nher wants were few; but in giving up a fortune, she gave up the power of\ncomforting the miserable, and making the sad heart sing for joy.\n\nHeaven had endowed her with uncommon humanity, to render her one of His\nbenevolent agents, a messenger of peace; and should she attend to her\nown inclinations?\n\nThese suggestions, though they could not subdue a violent passion,\nincreased her misery. One moment she was a heroine, half determined to\nbear whatever fate should inflict; the next, her mind would recoil--and\ntenderness possessed her whole soul. Some instances of Henry's\naffection, his worth and genius, were remembered: and the earth was only\na vale of tears, because he was not to sojourn with her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVI.\n\n\nHenry came the next day, and once or twice in the course of the\nfollowing week; but still Mary kept up some little formality, a certain\nconsciousness restrained her; and Henry did not enter on the subject\nwhich he found she wished to avoid. In the course of conversation,\nhowever, she mentioned to him, that she earnestly desired to obtain a\nplace in one of the public offices for Ann's brother, as the family were\nagain in a declining way.\n\nHenry attended, made a few enquiries, and dropped the subject; but the\nfollowing week, she heard him enter with unusual haste; it was to inform\nher, that he had made interest with a person of some consequence, whom\nhe had once obliged in a very disagreeable exigency, in a foreign\ncountry; and that he had procured a place for her friend, which would\ninfallibly lead to something better, if he behaved with propriety. Mary\ncould not speak to thank him; emotions of gratitude and love suffused\nher face; her blood eloquently spoke. She delighted to receive benefits\nthrough the medium of her fellow creatures; but to receive them from\nHenry was exquisite pleasure.\n\nAs the summer advanced, Henry grew worse; the closeness of the air, in\nthe metropolis, affected his breath; and his mother insisted on his\nfixing on some place in the country, where she would accompany him. He\ncould not think of going far off, but chose a little village on the\nbanks of the Thames, near Mary's dwelling: he then introduced her to his\nmother.\n\nThey frequently went down the river in a boat; Henry would take his\nviolin, and Mary would sometimes sing, or read, to them. She pleased his\nmother; she inchanted him. It was an advantage to Mary that friendship\nfirst possessed her heart; it opened it to all the softer sentiments of\nhumanity:--and when this first affection was torn away, a similar one\nsprung up, with a still tenderer sentiment added to it.\n\nThe last evening they were on the water, the clouds grew suddenly black,\nand broke in violent showers, which interrupted the solemn stillness\nthat had prevailed previous to it. The thunder roared; and the oars\nplying quickly, in order to reach the shore, occasioned a not\nunpleasing sound. Mary drew still nearer Henry; she wished to have\nsought with him a watry grave; to have escaped the horror of surviving\nhim.--She spoke not, but Henry saw the workings of her mind--he felt\nthem; threw his arm round her waist--and they enjoyed the luxury of\nwretchedness.--As they touched the shore, Mary perceived that Henry was\nwet; with eager anxiety she cried, What shall I do!--this day will kill\nthee, and I shall not die with thee!\n\nThis accident put a stop to their pleasurable excursions; it had injured\nhim, and brought on the spitting of blood he was subject to--perhaps it\nwas not the cold that he caught, that occasioned it. In vain did Mary\ntry to shut her eyes; her fate pursued her! Henry every day grew worse\nand worse.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVII.\n\n\nOppressed by her foreboding fears, her sore mind was hurt by new\ninstances of ingratitude: disgusted with the family, whose misfortunes\nhad often disturbed her repose, and lost in anticipated sorrow, she\nrambled she knew not where; when turning down a shady walk, she\ndiscovered her feet had taken the path they delighted to tread. She saw\nHenry sitting in his garden alone; he quickly opened the garden-gate,\nand she sat down by him.\n\n\"I did not,\" said he, \"expect to see thee this evening, my dearest Mary;\nbut I was thinking of thee. Heaven has endowed thee with an uncommon\nportion of fortitude, to support one of the most affectionate hearts in\nthe world. This is not a time for disguise; I know I am dear to\nthee--and my affection for thee is twisted with every fibre of my\nheart.--I loved thee ever since I have been acquainted with thine: thou\nart the being my fancy has delighted to form; but which I imagined\nexisted only there! In a little while the shades of death will encompass\nme--ill-fated love perhaps added strength to my disease, and smoothed\nthe rugged path. Try, my love, to fulfil thy destined course--try to add\nto thy other virtues patience. I could have wished, for thy sake, that\nwe could have died together--or that I could live to shield thee from\nthe assaults of an unfeeling world! Could I but offer thee an asylum in\nthese arms--a faithful bosom, in which thou couldst repose all thy\ngriefs--\" He pressed her to it, and she returned the pressure--he felt her\nthrobbing heart. A mournful silence ensued! when he resumed the\nconversation. \"I wished to prepare thee for the blow--too surely do I\nfeel that it will not be long delayed! The passion I have nursed is so\npure, that death cannot extinguish it--or tear away the impression thy\nvirtues have made on my soul. I would fain comfort thee--\"\n\n\"Talk not of comfort,\" interrupted Mary, \"it will be in heaven with thee\nand Ann--while I shall remain on earth the veriest wretch!\"--She grasped\nhis hand.\n\n\"There we shall meet, my love, my Mary, in our Father's--\" His voice\nfaultered; he could not finish the sentence; he was almost\nsuffocated--they both wept, their tears relieved them; they walked\nslowly to the garden-gate (Mary would not go into the house); they could\nnot say farewel when they reached it--and Mary hurried down the lane; to\nspare Henry the pain of witnessing her emotions.\n\nWhen she lost sight of the house she sat down on the ground, till it\ngrew late, thinking of all that had passed. Full of these thoughts, she\ncrept along, regardless of the descending rain; when lifting up her eyes\nto heaven, and then turning them wildly on the prospects around, without\nmarking them; she only felt that the scene accorded with her present\nstate of mind. It was the last glimmering of twilight, with a full moon,\nover which clouds continually flitted. Where am I wandering, God of\nMercy! she thought; she alluded to the wanderings of her mind. In what a\nlabyrinth am I lost! What miseries have I already encountered--and what\na number lie still before me.\n\nHer thoughts flew rapidly to something. I could be happy listening to\nhim, soothing his cares.--Would he not smile upon me--call me his own\nMary? I am not his--said she with fierceness--I am a wretch! and she\nheaved a sigh that almost broke her heart, while the big tears rolled\ndown her burning cheeks; but still her exercised mind, accustomed to\nthink, began to observe its operation, though the barrier of reason was\nalmost carried away, and all the faculties not restrained by her, were\nrunning into confusion. Wherefore am I made thus? Vain are my\nefforts--I cannot live without loving--and love leads to madness.--Yet\nI will not weep; and her eyes were now fixed by despair, dry and\nmotionless; and then quickly whirled about with a look of distraction.\n\nShe looked for hope; but found none--all was troubled waters.--No where\ncould she find rest. I have already paced to and fro in the earth; it is\nnot my abiding place--may I not too go home! Ah! no. Is this complying\nwith my Henry's request, could a spirit thus disengaged expect to\nassociate with his? Tears of tenderness strayed down her relaxed\ncountenance, and her softened heart heaved more regularly. She felt the\nrain, and turned to her solitary home.\n\nFatigued by the tumultuous emotions she had endured, when she entered\nthe house she ran to her own room, sunk on the bed; and exhausted\nnature soon closed her eyes; but active fancy was still awake, and a\nthousand fearful dreams interrupted her slumbers.\n\nFeverish and languid, she opened her eyes, and saw the unwelcome sun\ndart his rays through a window, the curtains of which she had forgotten\nto draw. The dew hung on the adjacent trees, and added to the lustre;\nthe little robin began his song, and distant birds joined. She looked;\nher countenance was still vacant--her sensibility was absorbed by one\nobject.\n\nDid I ever admire the rising sun, she slightly thought, turning from the\nWindow, and shutting her eyes: she recalled to view the last night's\nscene. His faltering voice, lingering step, and the look of tender woe,\nwere all graven on her heart; as were the words \"Could these arms\nshield thee from sorrow--afford thee an asylum from an unfeeling world.\"\nThe pressure to his bosom was not forgot. For a moment she was happy;\nbut in a long-drawn sigh every delightful sensation evaporated.\nSoon--yes, very soon, will the grave again receive all I love! and the\nremnant of my days--she could not proceed--Were there then days to come\nafter that?\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.\n\n\nJust as she was going to quit her room, to visit Henry, his mother\ncalled on her.\n\n\"My son is worse to-day,\" said she, \"I come to request you to spend not\nonly this day, but a week or two with me.--Why should I conceal any\nthing from you? Last night my child made his mother his confident, and,\nin the anguish of his heart, requested me to be thy friend--when I shall\nbe childless. I will not attempt to describe what I felt when he talked\nthus to me. If I am to lose the support of my age, and be again a\nwidow--may I call her Child whom my Henry wishes me to adopt?\"\n\nThis new instance of Henry's disinterested affection, Mary felt most\nforcibly; and striving to restrain the complicated emotions, and sooth\nthe wretched mother, she almost fainted: when the unhappy parent forced\ntears from her, by saying, \"I deserve this blow; my partial fondness\nmade me neglect him, when most he wanted a mother's care; this neglect,\nperhaps, first injured his constitution: righteous Heaven has made my\ncrime its own punishment; and now I am indeed a mother, I shall loss my\nchild--my only child!\"\n\nWhen they were a little more composed they hastened to the invalide; but\nduring the short ride, the mother related several instances of Henry's\ngoodness of heart. Mary's tears were not those of unmixed anguish; the\ndisplay of his virtues gave her extreme delight--yet human nature\nprevailed; she trembled to think they would soon unfold themselves in a\nmore genial clime.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIX.\n\n\nShe found Henry very ill. The physician had some weeks before declared\nhe never knew a person with a similar pulse recover. Henry was certain\nhe could not live long; all the rest he could obtain, was procured by\nopiates. Mary now enjoyed the melancholy pleasure of nursing him, and\nsoftened by her tenderness the pains she could not remove. Every sigh\ndid she stifle, every tear restrain, when he could see or hear them. She\nwould boast of her resignation--yet catch eagerly at the least ray of\nhope. While he slept she would support his pillow, and rest her head\nwhere she could feel his breath. She loved him better than herself--she\ncould not pray for his recovery; she could only say, The will of Heaven\nbe done.\n\nWhile she was in this state, she labored to acquire fortitude; but one\ntender look destroyed it all--she rather labored, indeed, to make him\nbelieve he was resigned, than really to be so.\n\nShe wished to receive the sacrament with him, as a bond of union which\nwas to extend beyond the grave. She did so, and received comfort from\nit; she rose above her misery.\n\nHis end was now approaching. Mary sat on the side of the bed. His eyes\nappeared fixed--no longer agitated by passion, he only felt that it was\na fearful thing to die. The soul retired to the citadel; but it was not\nnow solely filled by the image of her who in silent despair watched for\nhis last breath. Collected, a frightful calmness stilled every turbulent\nemotion.\n\nThe mother's grief was more audible. Henry had for some time only\nattended to Mary--Mary pitied the parent, whose stings of conscience\nincreased her sorrow; she whispered him, \"Thy mother weeps, disregarded\nby thee; oh! comfort her!--My mother, thy son blesses thee.--\" The\noppressed parent left the room. And Mary _waited_ to see him die.\n\nShe pressed with trembling eagerness his parched lips--he opened his\neyes again; the spreading film retired, and love returned them--he gave\na look--it was never forgotten. My Mary, will you be comforted?\n\nYes, yes, she exclaimed in a firm voice; you go to be happy--I am not a\ncomplete wretch! The words almost choked her.\n\nHe was a long time silent; the opiate produced a kind of stupor. At\nlast, in an agony, he cried, It is dark; I cannot see thee; raise me up.\nWhere is Mary? did she not say she delighted to support me? let me die\nin her arms.\n\nHer arms were opened to receive him; they trembled not. Again he was\nobliged to lie down, resting on her: as the agonies increased he leaned\ntowards her: the soul seemed flying to her, as it escaped out of its\nprison. The breathing was interrupted; she heard distinctly the last\nsigh--and lifting up to Heaven her eyes, Father, receive his spirit, she\ncalmly cried.\n\nThe attendants gathered round; she moved not, nor heard the clamor; the\nhand seemed yet to press hers; it still was warm. A ray of light from\nan opened window discovered the pale face.\n\nShe left the room, and retired to one very near it; and sitting down on\nthe floor, fixed her eyes on the door of the apartment which contained\nthe body. Every event of her life rushed across her mind with wonderful\nrapidity--yet all was still--fate had given the finishing stroke. She\nsat till midnight.--Then rose in a phrensy, went into the apartment, and\ndesired those who watched the body to retire.\n\nShe knelt by the bed side;--an enthusiastic devotion overcame the\ndictates of despair.--She prayed most ardently to be supported, and\ndedicated herself to the service of that Being into whose hands, she had\ncommitted the spirit she almost adored--again--and again,--she prayed\nwildly--and fervently--but attempting to touch the lifeless hand--her\nhead swum--she sunk--\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXX.\n\n\nThree months after, her only friend, the mother of her lost Henry began\nto be alarmed, at observing her altered appearance; and made her own\nhealth a pretext for travelling. These complaints roused Mary out of her\ntorpid state; she imagined a new duty now forced her to exert herself--a\nduty love made sacred!--\n\nThey went to Bath, from that to Bristol; but the latter place they\nquickly left; the sight of the sick that resort there, they neither of\nthem could bear. From Bristol they flew to Southampton. The road was\npleasant--yet Mary shut her eyes;--or if they were open, green fields\nand commons, passed in quick succession, and left no more traces behind\nthan if they had been waves of the sea.\n\nSome time after they were settled at Southampton, they met the man who\ntook so much notice of Mary, soon after her return to England. He\nrenewed his acquaintance; he was really interested in her fate, as he\nhad heard her uncommon story; besides, he knew her husband; knew him to\nbe a good-natured, weak man. He saw him soon after his arrival in his\nnative country, and prevented his hastening to enquire into the reasons\nof Mary's strange conduct. He desired him not to be too precipitate, if\nhe ever wished to possess an invaluable treasure. He was guided by him,\nand allowed him to follow Mary to Southampton, and speak first to her\nfriend.\n\nThis friend determined to trust to her native strength of mind, and\ninformed her of the circumstance; but she overrated it: Mary was not\nable, for a few days after the intelligence, to fix on the mode of\nconduct she ought now to pursue. But at last she conquered her disgust,\nand wrote her _husband_ an account of what had passed since she had\ndropped his correspondence.\n\nHe came in person to answer the letter. Mary fainted when he approached\nher unexpectedly. Her disgust returned with additional force, in spite\nof previous reasonings, whenever he appeared; yet she was prevailed on\nto promise to live with him, if he would permit her to pass one year,\ntravelling from place to place; he was not to accompany her.\n\nThe time too quickly elapsed, and she gave him her hand--the struggle\nwas almost more than she could endure. She tried to appear calm; time\nmellowed her grief, and mitigated her torments; but when her husband\nwould take her hand, or mention any thing like love, she would instantly\nfeel a sickness, a faintness at her heart, and wish, involuntarily, that\nthe earth would open and swallow her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXXI.\n\n\nMary visited the continent, and sought health in different climates; but\nher nerves were not to be restored to their former state. She then\nretired to her house in the country, established manufactories, threw\nthe estate into small farms; and continually employed herself this way\nto dissipate care, and banish unavailing regret. She visited the sick,\nsupported the old, and educated the young.\n\nThese occupations engrossed her mind; but there were hours when all her\nformer woes would return and haunt her.--Whenever she did, or said, any\nthing she thought Henry would have approved of--she could not avoid\nthinking with anguish, of the rapture his approbation ever conveyed to\nher heart--a heart in which there was a void, that even benevolence and\nreligion could not fill. The latter taught her to struggle for\nresignation; and the former rendered life supportable.\n\nHer delicate state of health did not promise long life. In moments of\nsolitary sadness, a gleam of joy would dart across her mind--She thought\nshe was hastening to that world _where there is neither marrying_, nor\ngiving in marriage.\n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: Why does Ann not return Mary's feelings of affection?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 102, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["He does not work."], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory: Transcribed from the 1915 Martin Secker edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                          [Picture: Book cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   THE\n                                COXON FUND\n\n\n                              BY HENRY JAMES\n\n                      [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                          LONDON: MARTIN SECKER\n                     NUMBER FIVE JOHN STREET ADELPHI\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                    This edition first published 1915\n\n                       The text follows that of the\n                            Definitive Edition\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\n“THEY’VE got him for life!” I said to myself that evening on my way back\nto the station; but later on, alone in the compartment (from Wimbledon to\nWaterloo, before the glory of the District Railway) I amended this\ndeclaration in the light of the sense that my friends would probably\nafter all not enjoy a monopoly of Mr. Saltram.  I won’t pretend to have\ntaken his vast measure on that first occasion, but I think I had achieved\na glimpse of what the privilege of his acquaintance might mean for many\npersons in the way of charges accepted.  He had been a great experience,\nand it was this perhaps that had put me into the frame of foreseeing how\nwe should all, sooner or later, have the honour of dealing with him as a\nwhole.  Whatever impression I then received of the amount of this total,\nI had a full enough vision of the patience of the Mulvilles.  He was to\nstay all the winter: Adelaide dropped it in a tone that drew the sting\nfrom the inevitable emphasis.  These excellent people might indeed have\nbeen content to give the circle of hospitality a diameter of six months;\nbut if they didn’t say he was to stay all summer as well it was only\nbecause this was more than they ventured to hope.  I remember that at\ndinner that evening he wore slippers, new and predominantly purple, of\nsome queer carpet-stuff; but the Mulvilles were still in the stage of\nsupposing that he might be snatched from them by higher bidders.  At a\nlater time they grew, poor dears, to fear no snatching; but theirs was a\nfidelity which needed no help from competition to make them proud.\nWonderful indeed as, when all was said, you inevitably pronounced Frank\nSaltram, it was not to be overlooked that the Kent Mulvilles were in\ntheir way still more extraordinary: as striking an instance as could\neasily be encountered of the familiar truth that remarkable men find\nremarkable conveniences.\n\nThey had sent for me from Wimbledon to come out and dine, and there had\nbeen an implication in Adelaide’s note—judged by her notes alone she\nmight have been thought silly—that it was a case in which something\nmomentous was to be determined or done.  I had never known them not be in\na “state” about somebody, and I dare say I tried to be droll on this\npoint in accepting their invitation.  On finding myself in the presence\nof their latest discovery I had not at first felt irreverence droop—and,\nthank heaven, I have never been absolutely deprived of that alternative\nin Mr. Saltram’s company.  I saw, however—I hasten to declare it—that\ncompared to this specimen their other phoenixes had been birds of\ninconsiderable feather, and I afterwards took credit to myself for not\nhaving even in primal bewilderments made a mistake about the essence of\nthe man.  He had an incomparable gift; I never was blind to it—it dazzles\nme still.  It dazzles me perhaps even more in remembrance than in fact,\nfor I’m not unaware that for so rare a subject the imagination goes to\nsome expense, inserting a jewel here and there or giving a twist to a\nplume.  How the art of portraiture would rejoice in this figure if the\nart of portraiture had only the canvas!  Nature, in truth, had largely\nrounded it, and if memory, hovering about it, sometimes holds her breath,\nthis is because the voice that comes back was really golden.\n\nThough the great man was an inmate and didn’t dress, he kept dinner on\nthis occasion waiting, and the first words he uttered on coming into the\nroom were an elated announcement to Mulville that he had found out\nsomething.  Not catching the allusion and gaping doubtless a little at\nhis face, I privately asked Adelaide what he had found out.  I shall\nnever forget the look she gave me as she replied: “Everything!”  She\nreally believed it.  At that moment, at any rate, he had found out that\nthe mercy of the Mulvilles was infinite.  He had previously of course\ndiscovered, as I had myself for that matter, that their dinners were\nsoignés.  Let me not indeed, in saying this, neglect to declare that I\nshall falsify my counterfeit if I seem to hint that there was in his\nnature any ounce of calculation.  He took whatever came, but he never\nplotted for it, and no man who was so much of an absorbent can ever have\nbeen so little of a parasite.  He had a system of the universe, but he\nhad no system of sponging—that was quite hand-to-mouth.  He had fine\ngross easy senses, but it was not his good-natured appetite that wrought\nconfusion.  If he had loved us for our dinners we could have paid with\nour dinners, and it would have been a great economy of finer matter.  I\nmake free in these connexions with the plural possessive because if I was\nnever able to do what the Mulvilles did, and people with still bigger\nhouses and simpler charities, I met, first and last, every demand of\nreflexion, of emotion—particularly perhaps those of gratitude and of\nresentment.  No one, I think, paid the tribute of giving him up so often,\nand if it’s rendering honour to borrow wisdom I’ve a right to talk of my\nsacrifices.  He yielded lessons as the sea yields fish—I lived for a\nwhile on this diet.  Sometimes it almost appeared to me that his massive\nmonstrous failure—if failure after all it was—had been designed for my\nprivate recreation.  He fairly pampered my curiosity; but the history of\nthat experience would take me too far.  This is not the large canvas I\njust now spoke of, and I wouldn’t have approached him with my present\nhand had it been a question of all the features.  Frank Saltram’s\nfeatures, for artistic purposes, are verily the anecdotes that are to be\ngathered.  Their name is legion, and this is only one, of which the\ninterest is that it concerns even more closely several other persons.\nSuch episodes, as one looks back, are the little dramas that made up the\ninnumerable facets of the big drama—which is yet to be reported.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nIT is furthermore remarkable that though the two stories are distinct—my\nown, as it were, and this other—they equally began, in a manner, the\nfirst night of my acquaintance with Frank Saltram, the night I came back\nfrom Wimbledon so agitated with a new sense of life that, in London, for\nthe very thrill of it, I could only walk home.  Walking and swinging my\nstick, I overtook, at Buckingham Gate, George Gravener, and George\nGravener’s story may be said to have begun with my making him, as our\npaths lay together, come home with me for a talk.  I duly remember, let\nme parenthesise, that it was still more that of another person, and also\nthat several years were to elapse before it was to extend to a second\nchapter.  I had much to say to him, none the less, about my visit to the\nMulvilles, whom he more indifferently knew, and I was at any rate so\namusing that for long afterwards he never encountered me without asking\nfor news of the old man of the sea.  I hadn’t said Mr. Saltram was old,\nand it was to be seen that he was of an age to outweather George\nGravener.  I had at that time a lodging in Ebury Street, and Gravener was\nstaying at his brother’s empty house in Eaton Square.  At Cambridge, five\nyears before, even in our devastating set, his intellectual power had\nseemed to me almost awful.  Some one had once asked me privately, with\nblanched cheeks, what it was then that after all such a mind as that left\nstanding.  “It leaves itself!” I could recollect devoutly replying.  I\ncould smile at present for this remembrance, since before we got to Ebury\nStreet I was struck with the fact that, save in the sense of being well\nset up on his legs, George Gravener had actually ceased to tower.  The\nuniverse he laid low had somehow bloomed again—the usual eminences were\nvisible.  I wondered whether he had lost his humour, or only, dreadful\nthought, had never had any—not even when I had fancied him most\nAristophanesque.  What was the need of appealing to laughter, however, I\ncould enviously enquire, where you might appeal so confidently to\nmeasurement?  Mr. Saltram’s queer figure, his thick nose and hanging lip,\nwere fresh to me: in the light of my old friend’s fine cold symmetry they\npresented mere success in amusing as the refuge of conscious ugliness.\nAlready, at hungry twenty-six, Gravener looked as blank and parliamentary\nas if he were fifty and popular.  In my scrap of a residence—he had a\nworldling’s eye for its futile conveniences, but never a comrade’s joke—I\nsounded Frank Saltram in his ears; a circumstance I mention in order to\nnote that even then I was surprised at his impatience of my enlivenment.\nAs he had never before heard of the personage it took indeed the form of\nimpatience of the preposterous Mulvilles, his relation to whom, like\nmine, had had its origin in an early, a childish intimacy with the young\nAdelaide, the fruit of multiplied ties in the previous generation.  When\nshe married Kent Mulville, who was older than Gravener and I and much\nmore amiable, I gained a friend, but Gravener practically lost one.  We\nreacted in different ways from the form taken by what he called their\ndeplorable social action—the form (the term was also his) of nasty\nsecond-rate gush.  I may have held in my ‘for intérieur’ that the good\npeople at Wimbledon were beautiful fools, but when he sniffed at them I\ncouldn’t help taking the opposite line, for I already felt that even\nshould we happen to agree it would always be for reasons that differed.\nIt came home to me that he was admirably British as, without so much as a\nsociable sneer at my bookbinder, he turned away from the serried rows of\nmy little French library.\n\n“Of course I’ve never seen the fellow, but it’s clear enough he’s a\nhumbug.”\n\n“Clear ‘enough’ is just what it isn’t,” I replied; “if it only were!”\nThat ejaculation on my part must have been the beginning of what was to\nbe later a long ache for final frivolous rest.  Gravener was profound\nenough to remark after a moment that in the first place he couldn’t be\nanything but a Dissenter, and when I answered that the very note of his\nfascination was his extraordinary speculative breadth my friend retorted\nthat there was no cad like your cultivated cad, and that I might depend\nupon discovering—since I had had the levity not already to have\nenquired—that my shining light proceeded, a generation back, from a\nMethodist cheesemonger.  I confess I was struck with his insistence, and\nI said, after reflexion: “It may be—I admit it may be; but why on earth\nare you so sure?”—asking the question mainly to lay him the trap of\nsaying that it was because the poor man didn’t dress for dinner.  He took\nan instant to circumvent my trap and come blandly out the other side.\n\n“Because the Kent Mulvilles have invented him.  They’ve an infallible\nhand for frauds.  All their geese are swans.  They were born to be duped,\nthey like it, they cry for it, they don’t know anything from anything,\nand they disgust one—luckily perhaps!—with Christian charity.”  His\nvehemence was doubtless an accident, but it might have been a strange\nforeknowledge.  I forget what protest I dropped; it was at any rate\nsomething that led him to go on after a moment: “I only ask one\nthing—it’s perfectly simple.  Is a man, in a given case, a real\ngentleman?”\n\n“A real gentleman, my dear fellow—that’s so soon said!”\n\n“Not so soon when he isn’t!  If they’ve got hold of one this time he must\nbe a great rascal!”\n\n“I might feel injured,” I answered, “if I didn’t reflect that they don’t\nrave about me.”\n\n“Don’t be too sure!  I’ll grant that he’s a gentleman,” Gravener\npresently added, “if you’ll admit that he’s a scamp.”\n\n“I don’t know which to admire most, your logic or your benevolence.”\n\nMy friend coloured at this, but he didn’t change the subject.  “Where did\nthey pick him up?”\n\n“I think they were struck with something he had published.”\n\n“I can fancy the dreary thing!”\n\n“I believe they found out he had all sorts of worries and difficulties.”\n\n“That of course wasn’t to be endured, so they jumped at the privilege of\npaying his debts!”  I professed that I knew nothing about his debts, and\nI reminded my visitor that though the dear Mulvilles were angels they\nwere neither idiots nor millionaires.  What they mainly aimed at was\nreuniting Mr. Saltram to his wife.  “I was expecting to hear he has\nbasely abandoned her,” Gravener went on, at this, “and I’m too glad you\ndon’t disappoint me.”\n\nI tried to recall exactly what Mrs. Mulville had told me.  “He didn’t\nleave her—no.  It’s she who has left him.”\n\n“Left him to us?” Gravener asked.  “The monster—many thanks!  I decline\nto take him.”\n\n“You’ll hear more about him in spite of yourself.  I can’t, no, I really\ncan’t resist the impression that he’s a big man.”  I was already\nmastering—to my shame perhaps be it said—just the tone my old friend\nleast liked.\n\n“It’s doubtless only a trifle,” he returned, “but you haven’t happened to\nmention what his reputation’s to rest on.”\n\n“Why on what I began by boring you with—his extraordinary mind.”\n\n“As exhibited in his writings?”\n\n“Possibly in his writings, but certainly in his talk, which is far and\naway the richest I ever listened to.”\n\n“And what’s it all about?”\n\n“My dear fellow, don’t ask me!  About everything!” I pursued, reminding\nmyself of poor Adelaide.  “About his ideas of things,” I then more\ncharitably added.  “You must have heard him to know what I mean—it’s\nunlike anything that ever was heard.”  I coloured, I admit, I overcharged\na little, for such a picture was an anticipation of Saltram’s later\ndevelopment and still more of my fuller acquaintance with him.  However,\nI really expressed, a little lyrically perhaps, my actual imagination of\nhim when I proceeded to declare that, in a cloud of tradition, of legend,\nhe might very well go down to posterity as the greatest of all great\ntalkers.  Before we parted George Gravener had wondered why such a row\nshould be made about a chatterbox the more and why he should be pampered\nand pensioned.  The greater the wind-bag the greater the calamity.  Out\nof proportion to everything else on earth had come to be this wagging of\nthe tongue.  We were drenched with talk—our wretched age was dying of it.\nI differed from him here sincerely, only going so far as to concede, and\ngladly, that we were drenched with sound.  It was not however the mere\nspeakers who were killing us—it was the mere stammerers.  Fine talk was\nas rare as it was refreshing—the gift of the gods themselves, the one\nstarry spangle on the ragged cloak of humanity.  How many men were there\nwho rose to this privilege, of how many masters of conversation could he\nboast the acquaintance?  Dying of talk?—why we were dying of the lack of\nit!  Bad writing wasn’t talk, as many people seemed to think, and even\ngood wasn’t always to be compared to it.  From the best talk indeed the\nbest writing had something to learn.  I fancifully added that we too\nshould peradventure be gilded by the legend, should be pointed at for\nhaving listened, for having actually heard.  Gravener, who had glanced at\nhis watch and discovered it was midnight, found to all this a retort\nbeautifully characteristic of him.\n\n“There’s one little fact to be borne in mind in the presence equally of\nthe best talk and of the worst.”  He looked, in saying this, as if he\nmeant great things, and I was sure he could only mean once more that\nneither of them mattered if a man wasn’t a real gentleman.  Perhaps it\nwas what he did mean; he deprived me however of the exultation of being\nright by putting the truth in a slightly different way.  “The only thing\nthat really counts for one’s estimate of a person is his conduct.”  He\nhad his watch still in his palm, and I reproached him with unfair play in\nhaving ascertained beforehand that it was now the hour at which I always\ngave in.  My pleasantry so far failed to mollify him that he promptly\nadded that to the rule he had just enunciated there was absolutely no\nexception.\n\n“None whatever?”\n\n“None whatever.”\n\n“Trust me then to try to be good at any price!” I laughed as I went with\nhim to the door.  “I declare I will be, if I have to be horrible!”\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nIF that first night was one of the liveliest, or at any rate was the\nfreshest, of my exaltations, there was another, four years later, that\nwas one of my great discomposures.  Repetition, I well knew by this time,\nwas the secret of Saltram’s power to alienate, and of course one would\nnever have seen him at his finest if one hadn’t seen him in his remorses.\nThey set in mainly at this season and were magnificent, elemental,\norchestral.  I was quite aware that one of these atmospheric disturbances\nwas now due; but none the less, in our arduous attempt to set him on his\nfeet as a lecturer, it was impossible not to feel that two failures were\na large order, as we said, for a short course of five.  This was the\nsecond time, and it was past nine o’clock; the audience, a muster\nunprecedented and really encouraging, had fortunately the attitude of\nblandness that might have been looked for in persons whom the promise of\n(if I’m not mistaken) An Analysis of Primary Ideas had drawn to the\nneighbourhood of Upper Baker Street.  There was in those days in that\nregion a petty lecture-hall to be secured on terms as moderate as the\nfunds left at our disposal by the irrepressible question of the\nmaintenance of five small Saltrams—I include the mother—and one large\none.  By the time the Saltrams, of different sizes, were all maintained\nwe had pretty well poured out the oil that might have lubricated the\nmachinery for enabling the most original of men to appear to maintain\nthem.\n\nIt was I, the other time, who had been forced into the breach, standing\nup there for an odious lamplit moment to explain to half a dozen thin\nbenches, where earnest brows were virtuously void of anything so cynical\nas a suspicion, that we couldn’t so much as put a finger on Mr. Saltram.\nThere was nothing to plead but that our scouts had been out from the\nearly hours and that we were afraid that on one of his walks abroad—he\ntook one, for meditation, whenever he was to address such a company—some\naccident had disabled or delayed him.  The meditative walks were a\nfiction, for he never, that any one could discover, prepared anything but\na magnificent prospectus; hence his circulars and programmes, of which I\npossess an almost complete collection, are the solemn ghosts of\ngenerations never born.  I put the case, as it seemed to me, at the best;\nbut I admit I had been angry, and Kent Mulville was shocked at my want of\npublic optimism.  This time therefore I left the excuses to his more\npractised patience, only relieving myself in response to a direct appeal\nfrom a young lady next whom, in the hall, I found myself sitting.  My\nposition was an accident, but if it had been calculated the reason would\nscarce have eluded an observer of the fact that no one else in the room\nhad an approach to an appearance.  Our philosopher’s “tail” was\ndeplorably limp.  This visitor was the only person who looked at her\nease, who had come a little in the spirit of adventure.  She seemed to\ncarry amusement in her handsome young head, and her presence spoke, a\nlittle mystifyingly, of a sudden extension of Saltram’s sphere of\ninfluence.  He was doing better than we hoped, and he had chosen such an\noccasion, of all occasions, to succumb to heaven knew which of his fond\ninfirmities.  The young lady produced an impression of auburn hair and\nblack velvet, and had on her other hand a companion of obscurer type,\npresumably a waiting-maid.  She herself might perhaps have been a foreign\ncountess, and before she addressed me I had beguiled our sorry interval\nby finding in her a vague recall of the opening of some novel of Madame\nSand.  It didn’t make her more fathomable to pass in a few minutes from\nthis to the certitude that she was American; it simply engendered\ndepressing reflexions as to the possible check to contributions from\nBoston.  She asked me if, as a person apparently more initiated, I would\nrecommend further waiting, and I answered that if she considered I was on\nmy honour I would privately deprecate it.  Perhaps she didn’t; at any\nrate our talk took a turn that prolonged it till she became aware we were\nleft almost alone.  I presently ascertained she knew Mrs. Saltram, and\nthis explained in a manner the miracle.  The brotherhood of the friends\nof the husband was as nothing to the brotherhood, or perhaps I should say\nthe sisterhood, of the friends of the wife.  Like the Kent Mulvilles I\nbelonged to both fraternities, and even better than they I think I had\nsounded the abyss of Mrs. Saltram’s wrongs.  She bored me to extinction,\nand I knew but too well how she had bored her husband; but there were\nthose who stood by her, the most efficient of whom were indeed the\nhandful of poor Saltram’s backers.  They did her liberal justice, whereas\nher mere patrons and partisans had nothing but hatred for our\nphilosopher.  I’m bound to say it was we, however—we of both camps, as it\nwere—who had always done most for her.\n\nI thought my young lady looked rich—I scarcely knew why; and I hoped she\nhad put her hand in her pocket.  I soon made her out, however, not at all\na fine fanatic—she was but a generous, irresponsible enquirer.  She had\ncome to England to see her aunt, and it was at her aunt’s she had met the\ndreary lady we had all so much on our mind.  I saw she’d help to pass the\ntime when she observed that it was a pity this lady wasn’t intrinsically\nmore interesting.  That was refreshing, for it was an article of faith in\nMrs. Saltram’s circle—at least among those who scorned to know her horrid\nhusband—that she was attractive on her merits.  She was in truth a most\nordinary person, as Saltram himself would have been if he hadn’t been a\nprodigy.  The question of vulgarity had no application to him, but it was\na measure his wife kept challenging you to apply.  I hasten to add that\nthe consequences of your doing so were no sufficient reason for his\nhaving left her to starve.  “He doesn’t seem to have much force of\ncharacter,” said my young lady; at which I laughed out so loud that my\ndeparting friends looked back at me over their shoulders as if I were\nmaking a joke of their discomfiture.  My joke probably cost Saltram a\nsubscription or two, but it helped me on with my interlocutress.  “She\nsays he drinks like a fish,” she sociably continued, “and yet she allows\nthat his mind’s wonderfully clear.”  It was amusing to converse with a\npretty girl who could talk of the clearness of Saltram’s mind.  I\nexpected next to hear she had been assured he was awfully clever.  I\ntried to tell her—I had it almost on my conscience—what was the proper\nway to regard him; an effort attended perhaps more than ever on this\noccasion with the usual effect of my feeling that I wasn’t after all very\nsure of it.  She had come to-night out of high curiosity—she had wanted\nto learn this proper way for herself.  She had read some of his papers\nand hadn’t understood them; but it was at home, at her aunt’s, that her\ncuriosity had been kindled—kindled mainly by his wife’s remarkable\nstories of his want of virtue.  “I suppose they ought to have kept me\naway,” my companion dropped, “and I suppose they’d have done so if I\nhadn’t somehow got an idea that he’s fascinating.  In fact Mrs. Saltram\nherself says he is.”\n\n“So you came to see where the fascination resides?  Well, you’ve seen!”\n\nMy young lady raised fine eyebrows.  “Do you mean in his bad faith?”\n\n“In the extraordinary effects of it; his possession, that is, of some\nquality or other that condemns us in advance to forgive him the\nhumiliation, as I may call it, to which he has subjected us.”\n\n“The humiliation?”\n\n“Why mine, for instance, as one of his guarantors, before you as the\npurchaser of a ticket.”\n\nShe let her charming gay eyes rest on me.  “You don’t look humiliated a\nbit, and if you did I should let you off, disappointed as I am; for the\nmysterious quality you speak of is just the quality I came to see.”\n\n“Oh, you can’t ‘see’ it!” I cried.\n\n“How then do you get at it?”\n\n“You don’t!  You mustn’t suppose he’s good-looking,” I added.\n\n“Why his wife says he’s lovely!”\n\nMy hilarity may have struck her as excessive, but I confess it broke out\nafresh.  Had she acted only in obedience to this singular plea, so\ncharacteristic, on Mrs. Saltram’s part, of what was irritating in the\nnarrowness of that lady’s point of view?  “Mrs. Saltram,” I explained,\n“undervalues him where he’s strongest, so that, to make up for it\nperhaps, she overpraises him where he’s weak.  He’s not, assuredly,\nsuperficially attractive; he’s middle-aged, fat, featureless save for his\ngreat eyes.”\n\n“Yes, his great eyes,” said my young lady attentively.  She had evidently\nheard all about his great eyes—the beaux yeux for which alone we had\nreally done it all.\n\n“They’re tragic and splendid—lights on a dangerous coast.  But he moves\nbadly and dresses worse, and altogether he’s anything but smart.”\n\nMy companion, who appeared to reflect on this, after a moment appealed.\n“Do you call him a real gentleman?”\n\nI started slightly at the question, for I had a sense of recognising it:\nGeorge Gravener, years before, that first flushed night, had put me face\nto face with it.  It had embarrassed me then, but it didn’t embarrass me\nnow, for I had lived with it and overcome it and disposed of it.  “A real\ngentleman?  Emphatically not!”\n\nMy promptitude surprised her a little, but I quickly felt how little it\nwas to Gravener I was now talking.  “Do you say that because he’s—what do\nyou call it in England?—of humble extraction?”\n\n“Not a bit.  His father was a country school-master and his mother the\nwidow of a sexton, but that has nothing to do with it.  I say it simply\nbecause I know him well.”\n\n“But isn’t it an awful drawback?”\n\n“Awful—quite awful.”\n\n“I mean isn’t it positively fatal?”\n\n“Fatal to what?  Not to his magnificent vitality.”\n\nAgain she had a meditative moment.  “And is his magnificent vitality the\ncause of his vices?”\n\n“Your questions are formidable, but I’m glad you put them.  I was\nthinking of his noble intellect.  His vices, as you say, have been much\nexaggerated: they consist mainly after all in one comprehensive defect.”\n\n“A want of will?”\n\n“A want of dignity.”\n\n“He doesn’t recognise his obligations?”\n\n“On the contrary, he recognises them with effusion, especially in public:\nhe smiles and bows and beckons across the street to them.  But when they\npass over he turns away, and he speedily loses them in the crowd.  The\nrecognition’s purely spiritual—it isn’t in the least social.  So he\nleaves all his belongings to other people to take care of.  He accepts\nfavours, loans, sacrifices—all with nothing more deterrent than an agony\nof shame.  Fortunately we’re a little faithful band, and we do what we\ncan.”  I held my tongue about the natural children, engendered, to the\nnumber of three, in the wantonness of his youth.  I only remarked that he\ndid make efforts—often tremendous ones.  “But the efforts,” I said,\n“never come to much: the only things that come to much are the\nabandonments, the surrenders.”\n\n“And how much do they come to?”\n\n“You’re right to put it as if we had a big bill to pay, but, as I’ve told\nyou before, your questions are rather terrible.  They come, these mere\nexercises of genius, to a great sum total of poetry, of philosophy, a\nmighty mass of speculation, notation, quotation.  The genius is there,\nyou see, to meet the surrender; but there’s no genius to support the\ndefence.”\n\n“But what is there, after all, at his age, to show?”\n\n“In the way of achievement recognised and reputation established?” I\nasked.  “To ‘show’ if you will, there isn’t much, since his writing,\nmostly, isn’t as fine, isn’t certainly as showy, as his talk.  Moreover\ntwo-thirds of his work are merely colossal projects and announcements.\n‘Showing’ Frank Saltram is often a poor business,” I went on: “we\nendeavoured, you’ll have observed, to show him to-night!  However, if he\nhad lectured he’d have lectured divinely.  It would just have been his\ntalk.”\n\n“And what would his talk just have been?”\n\nI was conscious of some ineffectiveness, as well perhaps as of a little\nimpatience, as I replied: “The exhibition of a splendid intellect.”  My\nyoung lady looked not quite satisfied at this, but as I wasn’t prepared\nfor another question I hastily pursued: “The sight of a great suspended\nswinging crystal—huge lucid lustrous, a block of light—flashing back\nevery impression of life and every possibility of thought!”\n\nThis gave her something to turn over till we had passed out to the dusky\nporch of the hall, in front of which the lamps of a quiet brougham were\nalmost the only thing Saltram’s treachery hadn’t extinguished.  I went\nwith her to the door of her carriage, out of which she leaned a moment\nafter she had thanked me and taken her seat.  Her smile even in the\ndarkness was pretty.  “I do want to see that crystal!”\n\n“You’ve only to come to the next lecture.”\n\n“I go abroad in a day or two with my aunt.”\n\n“Wait over till next week,” I suggested.  “It’s quite worth it.”\n\nShe became grave.  “Not unless he really comes!”  At which the brougham\nstarted off, carrying her away too fast, fortunately for my manners, to\nallow me to exclaim “Ingratitude!”\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nMRS. SALTRAM made a great affair of her right to be informed where her\nhusband had been the second evening he failed to meet his audience.  She\ncame to me to ascertain, but I couldn’t satisfy her, for in spite of my\ningenuity I remained in ignorance.  It wasn’t till much later that I\nfound this had not been the case with Kent Mulville, whose hope for the\nbest never twirled the thumbs of him more placidly than when he happened\nto know the worst.  He had known it on the occasion I speak of—that is\nimmediately after.  He was impenetrable then, but ultimately confessed.\nWhat he confessed was more than I shall now venture to make public.  It\nwas of course familiar to me that Saltram was incapable of keeping the\nengagements which, after their separation, he had entered into with\nregard to his wife, a deeply wronged, justly resentful, quite\nirreproachable and insufferable person.  She often appeared at my\nchambers to talk over his lapses; for if, as she declared, she had washed\nher hands of him, she had carefully preserved the water of this ablution,\nwhich she handed about for analysis.  She had arts of her own of exciting\none’s impatience, the most infallible of which was perhaps her assumption\nthat we were kind to her because we liked her.  In reality her personal\nfall had been a sort of social rise—since I had seen the moment when, in\nour little conscientious circle, her desolation almost made her the\nfashion.  Her voice was grating and her children ugly; moreover she hated\nthe good Mulvilles, whom I more and more loved.  They were the people who\nby doing most for her husband had in the long run done most for herself;\nand the warm confidence with which he had laid his length upon them was a\npressure gentle compared with her stiffer persuadability.  I’m bound to\nsay he didn’t criticise his benefactors, though practically he got tired\nof them; she, however, had the highest standards about eleemosynary\nforms.  She offered the odd spectacle of a spirit puffed up by\ndependence, and indeed it had introduced her to some excellent society.\nShe pitied me for not knowing certain people who aided her and whom she\ndoubtless patronised in turn for their luck in not knowing me.  I dare\nsay I should have got on with her better if she had had a ray of\nimagination—if it had occasionally seemed to occur to her to regard\nSaltram’s expressions of his nature in any other manner than as separate\nsubjects of woe.  They were all flowers of his character, pearls strung\non an endless thread; but she had a stubborn little way of challenging\nthem one after the other, as if she never suspected that he had a\ncharacter, such as it was, or that deficiencies might be organic; the\nirritating effect of a mind incapable of a generalisation.  One might\ndoubtless have overdone the idea that there was a general licence for\nsuch a man; but if this had happened it would have been through one’s\nfeeling that there could be none for such a woman.\n\nI recognised her superiority when I asked her about the aunt of the\ndisappointed young lady: it sounded like a sentence from an\nEnglish-French or other phrase-book.  She triumphed in what she told me\nand she may have triumphed still more in what she withheld.  My friend of\nthe other evening, Miss Anvoy, had but lately come to England; Lady\nCoxon, the aunt, had been established here for years in consequence of\nher marriage with the late Sir Gregory of that name.  She had a house in\nthe Regent’s Park, a Bath-chair and a fernery; and above all she had\nsympathy.  Mrs. Saltram had made her acquaintance through mutual friends.\nThis vagueness caused me to feel how much I was out of it and how large\nan independent circle Mrs. Saltram had at her command.  I should have\nbeen glad to know more about the disappointed young lady, but I felt I\nshould know most by not depriving her of her advantage, as she might have\nmysterious means of depriving me of my knowledge.  For the present,\nmoreover, this experience was stayed, Lady Coxon having in fact gone\nabroad accompanied by her niece.  The niece, besides being immensely\nclever, was an heiress, Mrs. Saltram said; the only daughter and the\nlight of the eyes of some great American merchant, a man, over there, of\nendless indulgences and dollars.  She had pretty clothes and pretty\nmanners, and she had, what was prettier still, the great thing of all.\nThe great thing of all for Mrs. Saltram was always sympathy, and she\nspoke as if during the absence of these ladies she mightn’t know where to\nturn for it.  A few months later indeed, when they had come back, her\ntone perceptibly changed: she alluded to them, on my leading her up to\nit, rather as to persons in her debt for favours received.  What had\nhappened I didn’t know, but I saw it would take only a little more or a\nlittle less to make her speak of them as thankless subjects of social\ncountenance—people for whom she had vainly tried to do something.  I\nconfess I saw how it wouldn’t be in a mere week or two that I should rid\nmyself of the image of Ruth Anvoy, in whose very name, when I learnt it,\nI found something secretly to like.  I should probably neither see her\nnor hear of her again: the knight’s widow (he had been mayor of\nClockborough) would pass away and the heiress would return to her\ninheritance.  I gathered with surprise that she had not communicated to\nhis wife the story of her attempt to hear Mr..Saltram, and I founded this\nreticence on the easy supposition that Mrs. Saltram had fatigued by\noverpressure the spring of the sympathy of which she boasted.  The girl\nat any rate would forget the small adventure, be distracted, take a\nhusband; besides which she would lack occasion to repeat her experiment.\n\nWe clung to the idea of the brilliant course, delivered without an\naccident, that, as a lecturer, would still make the paying public aware\nof our great man, but the fact remained that in the case of an\ninspiration so unequal there was treachery, there was fallacy at least,\nin the very conception of a series.  In our scrutiny of ways and means we\nwere inevitably subject to the old convention of the synopsis, the\nsyllabus, partly of course not to lose the advantage of his grand free\nhand in drawing up such things; but for myself I laughed at our playbills\neven while I stickled for them.  It was indeed amusing work to be\nscrupulous for Frank Saltram, who also at moments laughed about it, so\nfar as the comfort of a sigh so unstudied as to be cheerful might pass\nfor such a sound.  He admitted with a candour all his own that he was in\ntruth only to be depended on in the Mulvilles’ drawing-room.  “Yes,” he\nsuggestively allowed, “it’s there, I think, that I’m at my best; quite\nlate, when it gets toward eleven—and if I’ve not been too much worried.”\nWe all knew what too much worry meant; it meant too enslaved for the hour\nto the superstition of sobriety.  On the Saturdays I used to bring my\nportmanteau, so as not to have to think of eleven o’clock trains.  I had\na bold theory that as regards this temple of talk and its altars of\ncushioned chintz, its pictures and its flowers, its large fireside and\nclear lamplight, we might really arrive at something if the Mulvilles\nwould but charge for admission.  Here it was, however, that they\nshamelessly broke down; as there’s a flaw in every perfection this was\nthe inexpugnable refuge of their egotism.  They declined to make their\nsaloon a market, so that Saltram’s golden words continued the sole coin\nthat rang there.  It can have happened to no man, however, to be paid a\ngreater price than such an enchanted hush as surrounded him on his\ngreatest nights.  The most profane, on these occasions, felt a presence;\nall minor eloquence grew dumb.  Adelaide Mulville, for the pride of her\nhospitality, anxiously watched the door or stealthily poked the fire.  I\nused to call it the music-room, for we had anticipated Bayreuth.  The\nvery gates of the kingdom of light seemed to open and the horizon of\nthought to flash with the beauty of a sunrise at sea.\n\nIn the consideration of ways and means, the sittings of our little board,\nwe were always conscious of the creak of Mrs. Saltram’s shoes.  She\nhovered, she interrupted, she almost presided, the state of affairs being\nmostly such as to supply her with every incentive for enquiring what was\nto be done next.  It was the pressing pursuit of this knowledge that, in\nconcatenations of omnibuses and usually in very wet weather, led her so\noften to my door.  She thought us spiritless creatures with editors and\npublishers; but she carried matters to no great effect when she\npersonally pushed into back-shops.  She wanted all moneys to be paid to\nherself: they were otherwise liable to such strange adventures.  They\ntrickled away into the desert—they were mainly at best, alas, a slender\nstream.  The editors and the publishers were the last people to take this\nremarkable thinker at the valuation that has now pretty well come to be\nestablished.  The former were half-distraught between the desire to “cut”\nhim and the difficulty of finding a crevice for their shears; and when a\nvolume on this or that portentous subject was proposed to the latter they\nsuggested alternative titles which, as reported to our friend, brought\ninto his face the noble blank melancholy that sometimes made it handsome.\nThe title of an unwritten book didn’t after all much matter, but some\nmasterpiece of Saltram’s may have died in his bosom of the shudder with\nwhich it was then convulsed.  The ideal solution, failing the fee at Kent\nMulville’s door, would have been some system of subscription to projected\ntreatises with their non-appearance provided for—provided for, I mean, by\nthe indulgence of subscribers.  The author’s real misfortune was that\nsubscribers were so wretchedly literal.  When they tastelessly enquired\nwhy publication hadn’t ensued I was tempted to ask who in the world had\never been so published.  Nature herself had brought him out in voluminous\nform, and the money was simply a deposit on borrowing the work.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nI WAS doubtless often a nuisance to my friends in those years; but there\nwere sacrifices I declined to make, and I never passed the hat to George\nGravener.  I never forgot our little discussion in Ebury Street, and I\nthink it stuck in my throat to have to treat him to the avowal I had\nfound so easy to Mss Anvoy.  It had cost me nothing to confide to this\ncharming girl, but it would have cost me much to confide to the friend of\nmy youth, that the character of the “real gentleman” wasn’t an attribute\nof the man I took such pains for.  Was this because I had already\ngeneralised to the point of perceiving that women are really the\nunfastidious sex?  I knew at any rate that Gravener, already quite in\nview but still hungry and frugal, had naturally enough more ambition than\ncharity.  He had sharp aims for stray sovereigns, being in view most from\nthe tall steeple of Clockborough.  His immediate ambition was to occupy à\nlui seul the field of vision of that smokily-seeing city, and all his\nmovements and postures were calculated for the favouring angle.  The\nmovement of the hand as to the pocket had thus to alternate gracefully\nwith the posture of the hand on the heart.  He talked to Clockborough in\nshort only less beguilingly than Frank Saltram talked to his electors;\nwith the difference to our credit, however, that we had already voted and\nthat our candidate had no antagonist but himself.  He had more than once\nbeen at Wimbledon—it was Mrs. Mulville’s work not mine—and by the time\nthe claret was served had seen the god descend.  He took more pains to\nswing his censer than I had expected, but on our way back to town he\nforestalled any little triumph I might have been so artless as to express\nby the observation that such a man was—a hundred times!—a man to use and\nnever a man to be used by.  I remember that this neat remark humiliated\nme almost as much as if virtually, in the fever of broken slumbers, I\nhadn’t often made it myself.  The difference was that on Gravener’s part\na force attached to it that could never attach to it on mine.  He was\nable to use people—he had the machinery; and the irony of Saltram’s being\nmade showy at Clockborough came out to me when he said, as if he had no\nmemory of our original talk and the idea were quite fresh to him: “I hate\nhis type, you know, but I’ll be hanged if I don’t put some of those\nthings in.  I can find a place for them: we might even find a place for\nthe fellow himself.”  I myself should have had some fear—not, I need\nscarcely say, for the “things” themselves, but for some other things very\nnear them; in fine for the rest of my eloquence.\n\nLater on I could see that the oracle of Wimbledon was not in this case so\nappropriate as he would have been had the polities of the gods only\ncoincided more exactly with those of the party.  There was a distinct\nmoment when, without saying anything more definite to me, Gravener\nentertained the idea of annexing Mr. Saltram.  Such a project was\ndelusive, for the discovery of analogies between his body of doctrine and\nthat pressed from headquarters upon Clockborough—the bottling, in a word,\nof the air of those lungs for convenient public uncorking in\ncorn-exchanges—was an experiment for which no one had the leisure.  The\nonly thing would have been to carry him massively about, paid, caged,\nclipped; to turn him on for a particular occasion in a particular\nchannel.  Frank Saltram’s channel, however, was essentially not\ncalculable, and there was no knowing what disastrous floods might have\nensued.  For what there would have been to do The Empire, the great\nnewspaper, was there to look to; but it was no new misfortune that there\nwere delicate situations in which The Empire broke down.  In fine there\nwas an instinctive apprehension that a clever young journalist\ncommissioned to report on Mr. Saltram might never come back from the\nerrand.  No one knew better than George Gravener that that was a time\nwhen prompt returns counted double.  If he therefore found our friend an\nexasperating waste of orthodoxy it was because of his being, as he said,\npoor Gravener, up in the clouds, not because he was down in the dust.\nThe man would have been, just as he was, a real enough gentleman if he\ncould have helped to put in a real gentleman.  Gravener’s great objection\nto the actual member was that he was not one.\n\nLady Coxon had a fine old house, a house with “grounds,” at Clockborough,\nwhich she had let; but after she returned from abroad I learned from Mrs.\nSaltram that the lease had fallen in and that she had gone down to resume\npossession.  I could see the faded red livery, the big square shoulders,\nthe high-walled garden of this decent abode.  As the rumble of\ndissolution grew louder the suitor would have pressed his suit, and I\nfound myself hoping the politics of the late Mayor’s widow wouldn’t be\nsuch as to admonish her to ask him to dinner; perhaps indeed I went so\nfar as to pray, they would naturally form a bar to any contact.  I tried\nto focus the many-buttoned page, in the daily airing, as he perhaps even\npushed the Bath-chair over somebody’s toes.  I was destined to hear, none\nthe less, through Mrs. Saltram—who, I afterwards learned, was in\ncorrespondence with Lady Coxon’s housekeeper—that Gravener was known to\nhave spoken of the habitation I had in my eye as the pleasantest thing at\nClockborough.  On his part, I was sure, this was the voice not of envy\nbut of experience.  The vivid scene was now peopled, and I could see him\nin the old-time garden with Miss Anvoy, who would be certain, and very\njustly, to think him good-looking.  It would be too much to describe\nmyself as troubled by this play of surmise; but I occur to remember the\nrelief, singular enough, of feeling it suddenly brushed away by an\nannoyance really much greater; an annoyance the result of its happening\nto come over me about that time with a rush that I was simply ashamed of\nFrank Saltram.  There were limits after all, and my mark at last had been\nreached.\n\nI had had my disgusts, if I may allow myself to-day such an expression;\nbut this was a supreme revolt.  Certain things cleared up in my mind,\ncertain values stood out.  It was all very well to have an unfortunate\ntemperament; there was nothing so unfortunate as to have, for practical\npurposes, nothing else.  I avoided George Gravener at this moment and\nreflected that at such a time I should do so most effectually by leaving\nEngland.  I wanted to forget Frank Saltram—that was all.  I didn’t want\nto do anything in the world to him but that.  Indignation had withered on\nthe stalk, and I felt that one could pity him as much as one ought only\nby never thinking of him again.  It wasn’t for anything he had done to\nme; it was for what he had done to the Mulvilles.  Adelaide cried about\nit for a week, and her husband, profiting by the example so signally\ngiven him of the fatal effect of a want of character, left the letter,\nthe drop too much, unanswered.  The letter, an incredible one, addressed\nby Saltram to Wimbledon during a stay with the Pudneys at Ramsgate, was\nthe central feature of the incident, which, however, had many features,\neach more painful than whichever other we compared it with.  The Pudneys\nhad behaved shockingly, but that was no excuse.  Base ingratitude, gross\nindecency—one had one’s choice only of such formulas as that the more\nthey fitted the less they gave one rest.  These are dead aches now, and I\nam under no obligation, thank heaven, to be definite about the business.\nThere are things which if I had had to tell them—well, would have stopped\nme off here altogether.\n\nI went abroad for the general election, and if I don’t know how much, on\nthe Continent, I forgot, I at least know how much I missed, him.  At a\ndistance, in a foreign land, ignoring, abjuring, unlearning him, I\ndiscovered what he had done for me.  I owed him, oh unmistakeably,\ncertain noble conceptions; I had lighted my little taper at his smoky\nlamp, and lo it continued to twinkle.  But the light it gave me just\nshowed me how much more I wanted.  I was pursued of course by letters\nfrom Mrs. Saltram which I didn’t scruple not to read, though quite aware\nher embarrassments couldn’t but be now of the gravest.  I sacrificed to\npropriety by simply putting them away, and this is how, one day as my\nabsence drew to an end, my eye, while I rummaged in my desk for another\npaper, was caught by a name on a leaf that had detached itself from the\npacket.  The allusion was to Miss Anvoy, who, it appeared, was engaged to\nbe married to Mr. George Gravener; and the news was two months old.  A\ndirect question of Mrs. Saltram’s had thus remained unanswered—she had\nenquired of me in a postscript what sort of man this aspirant to such a\nhand might be.  The great other fact about him just then was that he had\nbeen triumphantly returned for Clockborough in the interest of the party\nthat had swept the country—so that I might easily have referred Mrs.\nSaltram to the journals of the day.  Yet when I at last wrote her that I\nwas coming home and would discharge my accumulated burden by seeing her,\nI but remarked in regard to her question that she must really put it to\nMiss Anvoy.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nI HAD almost avoided the general election, but some of its consequences,\non my return, had smartly to be faced.  The season, in London, began to\nbreathe again and to flap its folded wings.  Confidence, under the new\nMinistry, was understood to be reviving, and one of the symptoms, in a\nsocial body, was a recovery of appetite.  People once more fed together,\nand it happened that, one Saturday night, at somebody’s house, I fed with\nGeorge Gravener.  When the ladies left the room I moved up to where he\nsat and begged to congratulate him.  “On my election?” he asked after a\nmoment; so that I could feign, jocosely, not to have heard of that\ntriumph and to be alluding to the rumour of a victory still more\npersonal.  I dare say I coloured however, for his political success had\nmomentarily passed out of my mind.  What was present to it was that he\nwas to marry that beautiful girl; and yet his question made me conscious\nof some discomposure—I hadn’t intended to put this before everything.  He\nhimself indeed ought gracefully to have done so, and I remember thinking\nthe whole man was in this assumption that in expressing my sense of what\nhe had won I had fixed my thoughts on his “seat.”  We straightened the\nmatter out, and he was so much lighter in hand than I had lately seen him\nthat his spirits might well have been fed from a twofold source.  He was\nso good as to say that he hoped I should soon make the acquaintance of\nMiss Anvoy, who, with her aunt, was presently coming up to town.  Lady\nCoxon, in the country, had been seriously unwell, and this had delayed\ntheir arrival.  I told him I had heard the marriage would be a splendid\none; on which, brightened and humanised by his luck, he laughed and said\n“Do you mean for her?”  When I had again explained what I meant he went\non: “Oh she’s an American, but you’d scarcely know it; unless, perhaps,”\nhe added, “by her being used to more money than most girls in England,\neven the daughters of rich men.  That wouldn’t in the least do for a\nfellow like me, you know, if it wasn’t for the great liberality of her\nfather.  He really has been most kind, and everything’s quite\nsatisfactory.”  He added that his eldest brother had taken a tremendous\nfancy to her and that during a recent visit at Coldfield she had nearly\nwon over Lady Maddock.  I gathered from something he dropped later on\nthat the free-handed gentleman beyond the seas had not made a settlement,\nbut had given a handsome present and was apparently to be looked to,\nacross the water, for other favours.  People are simplified alike by\ngreat contentments and great yearnings, and, whether or no it was\nGravener’s directness that begot my own, I seem to recall that in some\nturn taken by our talk he almost imposed it on me as an act of decorum to\nask if Miss Anvoy had also by chance expectations from her aunt.  My\nenquiry drew out that Lady Coxon, who was the oddest of women, would have\nin any contingency to act under her late husband’s will, which was odder\nstill, saddling her with a mass of queer obligations complicated with\nqueer loopholes.  There were several dreary people, Coxon cousins, old\nmaids, to whom she would have more or less to minister.  Gravener\nlaughed, without saying no, when I suggested that the young lady might\ncome in through a loophole; then suddenly, as if he suspected my turning\na lantern on him, he declared quite dryly: “That’s all rot—one’s moved by\nother springs!”\n\nA fortnight later, at Lady Coxon’s own house, I understood well enough\nthe springs one was moved by.  Gravener had spoken of me there as an old\nfriend, and I received a gracious invitation to dine.  The Knight’s widow\nwas again indisposed—she had succumbed at the eleventh hour; so that I\nfound Miss Anvoy bravely playing hostess without even Gravener’s help,\nsince, to make matters worse, he had just sent up word that the House,\nthe insatiable House, with which he supposed he had contracted for easier\nterms, positively declined to release him.  I was struck with the\ncourage, the grace and gaiety of the young lady left thus to handle the\nfauna and flora of the Regent’s Park.  I did what I could to help her to\nclassify them, after I had recovered from the confusion of seeing her\nslightly disconcerted at perceiving in the guest introduced by her\nintended the gentleman with whom she had had that talk about Frank\nSaltram.  I had at this moment my first glimpse of the fact that she was\na person who could carry a responsibility; but I leave the reader to\njudge of my sense of the aggravation, for either of us, of such a burden,\nwhen I heard the servant announce Mrs. Saltram.  From what immediately\npassed between the two ladies I gathered that the latter had been sent\nfor post-haste to fill the gap created by the absence of the mistress of\nthe house.  “Good!” I remember crying, “she’ll be put by me;” and my\napprehension was promptly justified.  Mrs. Saltram taken in to dinner,\nand taken in as a consequence of an appeal to her amiability, was Mrs.\nSaltram with a vengeance.  I asked myself what Miss Anvoy meant by doing\nsuch things, but the only answer I arrived at was that Gravener was\nverily fortunate.  She hadn’t happened to tell him of her visit to Upper\nBaker Street, but she’d certainly tell him to-morrow; not indeed that\nthis would make him like any better her having had the innocence to\ninvite such a person as Mrs. Saltram on such an occasion.  It could only\nstrike me that I had never seen a young woman put such ignorance into her\ncleverness, such freedom into her modesty; this, I think, was when, after\ndinner, she said to me frankly, with almost jubilant mirth: “Oh you don’t\nadmire Mrs. Saltram?”  Why should I?  This was truly a young person\nwithout guile.  I had briefly to consider before I could reply that my\nobjection to the lady named was the objection often uttered about people\nmet at the social board—I knew all her stories.  Then as Miss Anvoy\nremained momentarily vague I added: “Those about her husband.”\n\n“Oh yes, but there are some new ones.”\n\n“None for me.  Ah novelty would be pleasant!”\n\n“Doesn’t it appear that of late he has been particularly horrid?”\n\n“His fluctuations don’t matter”, I returned, “for at night all cats are\ngrey.  You saw the shade of this one the night we waited for him\ntogether.  What will you have?  He has no dignity.”\n\nMiss Anvoy, who had been introducing with her American distinctness,\nlooked encouragingly round at some of the combinations she had risked.\n“It’s too bad I can’t see him.”\n\n“You mean Gravener won’t let you?”\n\n“I haven’t asked him.  He lets me do everything.”\n\n“But you know he knows him and wonders what some of us see in him.”\n\n“We haven’t happened to talk of him,” the girl said.\n\n“Get him to take you some day out to see the Mulvilles.”\n\n“I thought Mr. Saltram had thrown the Mulvilles over.”\n\n“Utterly.  But that won’t prevent his being planted there again, to bloom\nlike a rose, within a month or two.”\n\nMiss Anvoy thought a moment.  Then, “I should like to see them,” she said\nwith her fostering smile.\n\n“They’re tremendously worth it.  You mustn’t miss them.”\n\n“I’ll make George take me,” she went on as Mrs. Saltram came up to\ninterrupt us.  She sniffed at this unfortunate as kindly as she had\nsmiled at me and, addressing the question to her, continued: “But the\nchance of a lecture—one of the wonderful lectures?  Isn’t there another\ncourse announced?”\n\n“Another?  There are about thirty!” I exclaimed, turning away and feeling\nMrs. Saltram’s little eyes in my back.  A few days after this I heard\nthat Gravener’s marriage was near at hand—was settled for Whitsuntide;\nbut as no invitation had reached me I had my doubts, and there presently\ncame to me in fact the report of a postponement.  Something was the\nmatter; what was the matter was supposed to be that Lady Coxon was now\ncritically ill.  I had called on her after my dinner in the Regent’s\nPark, but I had neither seen her nor seen Miss Anvoy.  I forget to-day\nthe exact order in which, at this period, sundry incidents occurred and\nthe particular stage at which it suddenly struck me, making me catch my\nbreath a little, that the progression, the acceleration, was for all the\nworld that of fine drama.  This was probably rather late in the day, and\nthe exact order doesn’t signify.  What had already occurred was some\naccident determining a more patient wait.  George Gravener, whom I met\nagain, in fact told me as much, but without signs of perturbation.  Lady\nCoxon had to be constantly attended to, and there were other good reasons\nas well.  Lady Coxon had to be so constantly attended to that on the\noccasion of a second attempt in the Regent’s Park I equally failed to\nobtain a sight of her niece.  I judged it discreet in all the conditions\nnot to make a third; but this didn’t matter, for it was through Adelaide\nMulville that the side-wind of the comedy, though I was at first\nunwitting, began to reach me.  I went to Wimbledon at times because\nSaltram was there, and I went at others because he wasn’t.  The Pudneys,\nwho had taken him to Birmingham, had already got rid of him, and we had a\nhorrible consciousness of his wandering roofless, in dishonour, about the\nsmoky Midlands, almost as the injured Lear wandered on the storm-lashed\nheath.  His room, upstairs, had been lately done up (I could hear the\ncrackle of the new chintz) and the difference only made his smirches and\nbruises, his splendid tainted genius, the more tragic.  If he wasn’t\nbarefoot in the mire he was sure to be unconventionally shod.  These were\nthe things Adelaide and I, who were old enough friends to stare at each\nother in silence, talked about when we didn’t speak.  When we spoke it\nwas only about the brilliant girl George Gravener was to marry and whom\nhe had brought out the other Sunday.  I could see that this presentation\nhad been happy, for Mrs. Mulville commemorated it after her sole fashion\nof showing confidence in a new relation.  “She likes me—she likes me”:\nher native humility exulted in that measure of success.  We all knew for\nourselves how she liked those who liked her, and as regards Ruth Anvoy\nshe was more easily won over than Lady Maddock.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nONE of the consequences, for the Mulvilles, of the sacrifices they made\nfor Frank Saltram was that they had to give up their carriage.  Adelaide\ndrove gently into London in a one-horse greenish thing, an early\nVictorian landau, hired, near at hand, imaginatively, from a broken-down\njobmaster whose wife was in consumption—a vehicle that made people turn\nround all the more when her pensioner sat beside her in a soft white hat\nand a shawl, one of the dear woman’s own.  This was his position and I\ndare say his costume when on an afternoon in July she went to return Miss\nAnvoy’s visit.  The wheel of fate had now revolved, and amid silences\ndeep and exhaustive, compunctions and condonations alike unutterable,\nSaltram was reinstated.  Was it in pride or in penance that Mrs. Mulville\nhad begun immediately to drive him about?  If he was ashamed of his\ningratitude she might have been ashamed of her forgiveness; but she was\nincorrigibly capable of liking him to be conspicuous in the landau while\nshe was in shops or with her acquaintance.  However, if he was in the\npillory for twenty minutes in the Regent’s Park—I mean at Lady Coxon’s\ndoor while his companion paid her call—it wasn’t to the further\nhumiliation of any one concerned that she presently came out for him in\nperson, not even to show either of them what a fool she was that she drew\nhim in to be introduced to the bright young American.  Her account of the\nintroduction I had in its order, but before that, very late in the\nseason, under Gravener’s auspices, I met Miss Anvoy at tea at the House\nof Commons.  The member for Clockborough had gathered a group of pretty\nladies, and the Mulvilles were not of the party.  On the great terrace,\nas I strolled off with her a little, the guest of honour immediately\nexclaimed to me: “I’ve seen him, you know—I’ve seen him!”  She told me\nabout Saltram’s call.\n\n“And how did you find him?”\n\n“Oh so strange!”\n\n“You didn’t like him?”\n\n“I can’t tell till I see him again.”\n\n“You want to do that?”\n\nShe had a pause.  “Immensely.”\n\nWe went no further; I fancied she had become aware Gravener was looking\nat us.  She turned back toward the knot of the others, and I said:\n“Dislike him as much as you will—I see you’re bitten.”\n\n“Bitten?”  I thought she coloured a little.\n\n“Oh it doesn’t matter!” I laughed; “one doesn’t die of it.”\n\n“I hope I shan’t die of anything before I’ve seen more of Mrs. Mulville.”\nI rejoiced with her over plain Adelaide, whom she pronounced the\nloveliest woman she had met in England; but before we separated I\nremarked to her that it was an act of mere humanity to warn her that if\nshe should see more of Frank Saltram—which would be likely to follow on\nany increase of acquaintance with Mrs. Mulville—she might find herself\nflattening her nose against the clear hard pane of an eternal\nquestion—that of the relative, that of the opposed, importances of virtue\nand brains.  She replied that this was surely a subject on which one took\neverything for granted; whereupon I admitted that I had perhaps expressed\nmyself ill.  What I referred to was what I had referred to the night we\nmet in Upper Baker Street—the relative importance (relative to virtue) of\nother gifts.  She asked me if I called virtue a gift—a thing handed to us\nin a parcel on our first birthday; and I declared that this very enquiry\nproved to me the problem had already caught her by the skirt.  She would\nhave help however, the same help I myself had once had, in resisting its\ntendency to make one cross.\n\n“What help do you mean?”\n\n“That of the member for Clockborough.”\n\nShe stared, smiled, then returned: “Why my idea has been to help him!”\n\nShe had helped him—I had his own word for it that at Clockborough her\nbedevilment of the voters had really put him in.  She would do so\ndoubtless again and again, though I heard the very next month that this\nfine faculty had undergone a temporary eclipse.  News of the catastrophe\nfirst came to me from Mrs. Saltram, and it was afterwards confirmed at\nWimbledon: poor Miss Anvoy was in trouble—great disasters in America had\nsuddenly summoned her home.  Her father, in New York, had suffered\nreverses, lost so much money that it was really vexatious as showing how\nmuch he had had.  It was Adelaide who told me she had gone off alone at\nless than a week’s notice.\n\n“Alone?  Gravener has permitted that?”\n\n“What will you have?  The House of Commons!”\n\nI’m afraid I cursed the House of Commons: I was so much interested.  Of\ncourse he’d follow her as soon as he was free to make her his wife; only\nshe mightn’t now be able to bring him anything like the marriage-portion\nof which he had begun by having the virtual promise.  Mrs. Mulville let\nme know what was already said: she was charming, this American girl, but\nreally these American fathers—!  What was a man to do?  Mr. Saltram,\naccording to Mrs. Mulville, was of opinion that a man was never to suffer\nhis relation to money to become a spiritual relation—he was to keep it\nexclusively material.  “Moi pas comprendre!” I commented on this; in\nrejoinder to which Adelaide, with her beautiful sympathy, explained that\nshe supposed he simply meant that the thing was to use it, don’t you\nknow? but not to think too much about it.  “To take it, but not to thank\nyou for it?” I still more profanely enquired.  For a quarter of an hour\nafterwards she wouldn’t look at me, but this didn’t prevent my asking her\nwhat had been the result, that afternoon—in the Regent’s Park, of her\ntaking our friend to see Miss Anvoy.\n\n“Oh so charming!” she answered, brightening.  “He said he recognised in\nher a nature he could absolutely trust.”\n\n“Yes, but I’m speaking of the effect on herself.”\n\nMrs. Mulville had to remount the stream.  “It was everything one could\nwish.”\n\nSomething in her tone made me laugh.  “Do you mean she gave him—a dole?”\n\n“Well, since you ask me!”\n\n“Right there on the spot?”\n\nAgain poor Adelaide faltered.  “It was to me of course she gave it.”\n\nI stared; somehow I couldn’t see the scene.  “Do you mean a sum of\nmoney?”\n\n“It was very handsome.”  Now at last she met my eyes, though I could see\nit was with an effort.  “Thirty pounds.”\n\n“Straight out of her pocket?”\n\n“Out of the drawer of a table at which she had been writing.  She just\nslipped the folded notes into my hand.  He wasn’t looking; it was while\nhe was going back to the carriage.”  “Oh,” said Adelaide reassuringly, “I\ntake care of it for him!”  The dear practical soul thought my agitation,\nfor I confess I was agitated, referred to the employment of the money.\nHer disclosure made me for a moment muse violently, and I dare say that\nduring that moment I wondered if anything else in the world makes people\nso gross as unselfishness.  I uttered, I suppose, some vague synthetic\ncry, for she went on as if she had had a glimpse of my inward amaze at\nsuch passages.  “I assure you, my dear friend, he was in one of his happy\nhours.”\n\nBut I wasn’t thinking of that.  “Truly indeed these Americans!” I said.\n“With her father in the very act, as it were, of swindling her\nbetrothed!”\n\nMrs. Mulville stared.  “Oh I suppose Mr. Anvoy has scarcely gone\nbankrupt—or whatever he has done—on purpose.  Very likely they won’t be\nable to keep it up, but there it was, and it was a very beautiful\nimpulse.”\n\n“You say Saltram was very fine?”\n\n“Beyond everything.  He surprised even me.”\n\n“And I know what you’ve enjoyed.”  After a moment I added: “Had he\nperadventure caught a glimpse of the money in the table-drawer?”\n\nAt this my companion honestly flushed.  “How can you be so cruel when you\nknow how little he calculates?”\n\n“Forgive me, I do know it.  But you tell me things that act on my nerves.\nI’m sure he hadn’t caught a glimpse of anything but some splendid idea.”\n\nMrs. Mulville brightly concurred.  “And perhaps even of her beautiful\nlistening face.”\n\n“Perhaps even!  And what was it all about?”\n\n“His talk?  It was apropos of her engagement, which I had told him about:\nthe idea of marriage, the philosophy, the poetry, the sublimity of it.”\nIt was impossible wholly to restrain one’s mirth at this, and some rude\nripple that I emitted again caused my companion to admonish me.  “It\nsounds a little stale, but you know his freshness.”\n\n“Of illustration?  Indeed I do!”\n\n“And how he has always been right on that great question.”\n\n“On what great question, dear lady, hasn’t he been right?”\n\n“Of what other great men can you equally say it?—and that he has never,\nbut never, had a deflexion?” Mrs. Mulville exultantly demanded.\n\nI tried to think of some other great man, but I had to give it up.\n“Didn’t Miss Anvoy express her satisfaction in any less diffident way\nthan by her charming present?” I was reduced to asking instead.\n\n“Oh yes, she overflowed to me on the steps while he was getting into the\ncarriage.”  These words somehow brushed up a picture of Saltram’s big\nshawled back as he hoisted himself into the green landau.  “She said she\nwasn’t disappointed,” Adelaide pursued.\n\nI turned it over.  “Did he wear his shawl?”\n\n“His shawl?”  She hadn’t even noticed.\n\n“I mean yours.”\n\n“He looked very nice, and you know he’s really clean.  Miss Anvoy used\nsuch a remarkable expression—she said his mind’s like a crystal!”\n\nI pricked up my ears.  “A crystal?”\n\n“Suspended in the moral world—swinging and shining and flashing there.\nShe’s monstrously clever, you know.”\n\nI thought again.  “Monstrously!”\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nGEORGE GRAVENER didn’t follow her, for late in September, after the House\nhad risen, I met him in a railway-carriage.  He was coming up from\nScotland and I had just quitted some relations who lived near Durham.\nThe current of travel back to London wasn’t yet strong; at any rate on\nentering the compartment I found he had had it for some time to himself.\nWe fared in company, and though he had a blue-book in his lap and the\nopen jaws of his bag threatened me with the white teeth of confused\npapers, we inevitably, we even at last sociably conversed.  I saw things\nweren’t well with him, but I asked no question till something dropped by\nhimself made, as it had made on another occasion, an absence of curiosity\ninvidious.  He mentioned that he was worried about his good old friend\nLady Coxon, who, with her niece likely to be detained some time in\nAmerica, lay seriously ill at Clockborough, much on his mind and on his\nhands.\n\n“Ah Miss Anvoy’s in America?”\n\n“Her father has got into horrid straits—has lost no end of money.”\n\nI waited, after expressing due concern, but I eventually said: “I hope\nthat raises no objection to your marriage.”\n\n“None whatever; moreover it’s my trade to meet objections.  But it may\ncreate tiresome delays, of which there have been too many, from various\ncauses, already.  Lady Coxon got very bad, then she got much better.\nThen Mr. Anvoy suddenly began to totter, and now he seems quite on his\nback.  I’m afraid he’s really in for some big reverse.  Lady Coxon’s\nworse again, awfully upset by the news from America, and she sends me\nword that she _must_ have Ruth.  How can I supply her with Ruth?  I\nhaven’t got Ruth myself!”\n\n“Surely you haven’t lost her?” I returned.\n\n“She’s everything to her wretched father.  She writes me every\npost—telling me to smooth her aunt’s pillow.  I’ve other things to\nsmooth; but the old lady, save for her servants, is really alone.  She\nwon’t receive her Coxon relations—she’s angry at so much of her money\ngoing to them.  Besides, she’s hopelessly mad,” said Gravener very\nfrankly.\n\nI don’t remember whether it was this, or what it was, that made me ask if\nshe hadn’t such an appreciation of Mrs. Saltram as might render that\nactive person of some use.\n\nHe gave me a cold glance, wanting to know what had put Mrs. Saltram into\nmy head, and I replied that she was unfortunately never out of it.  I\nhappened to remember the wonderful accounts she had given me of the\nkindness Lady Coxon had shown her.  Gravener declared this to be false;\nLady Coxon, who didn’t care for her, hadn’t seen her three times.  The\nonly foundation for it was that Miss Anvoy, who used, poor girl, to chuck\nmoney about in a manner she must now regret, had for an hour seen in the\nmiserable woman—you could never know what she’d see in people—an\ninteresting pretext for the liberality with which her nature overflowed.\nBut even Miss Anvoy was now quite tired of her.  Gravener told me more\nabout the crash in New York and the annoyance it had been to him, and we\nalso glanced here and there in other directions; but by the time we got\nto Doncaster the principal thing he had let me see was that he was\nkeeping something back.  We stopped at that station, and, at the\ncarriage-door, some one made a movement to get in.  Gravener uttered a\nsound of impatience, and I felt sure that but for this I should have had\nthe secret.  Then the intruder, for some reason, spared us his company;\nwe started afresh, and my hope of a disclosure returned.  My companion\nheld his tongue, however, and I pretended to go to sleep; in fact I\nreally dozed for discouragement.  When I reopened my eyes he was looking\nat me with an injured air.  He tossed away with some vivacity the remnant\nof a cigarette and then said: “If you’re not too sleepy I want to put you\na case.”  I answered that I’d make every effort to attend, and welcomed\nthe note of interest when he went on: “As I told you a while ago, Lady\nCoxon, poor dear, is demented.”  His tone had much behind it—was full of\npromise.  I asked if her ladyship’s misfortune were a trait of her malady\nor only of her character, and he pronounced it a product of both.  The\ncase he wanted to put to me was a matter on which it concerned him to\nhave the impression—the judgement, he might also say—of another person.\n“I mean of the average intelligent man, but you see I take what I can\nget.” There would be the technical, the strictly legal view; then there\nwould be the way the question would strike a man of the world.  He had\nlighted another cigarette while he talked, and I saw he was glad to have\nit to handle when he brought out at last, with a laugh slightly\nartificial: “In fact it’s a subject on which Miss Anvoy and I are pulling\ndifferent ways.”\n\n“And you want me to decide between you?  I decide in advance for Miss\nAnvoy.”\n\n“In advance—that’s quite right.  That’s how I decided when I proposed to\nher.  But my story will interest you only so far as your mind isn’t made\nup.”  Gravener puffed his cigarette a minute and then continued: “Are you\nfamiliar with the idea of the Endowment of Research?”\n\n“Of Research?” I was at sea a moment.\n\n“I give you Lady Coxon’s phrase.  She has it on the brain.”\n\n“She wishes to endow—?”\n\n“Some earnest and ‘loyal’ seeker,” Gravener said.  “It was a sketchy\ndesign of her late husband’s, and he handed it on to her; setting apart\nin his will a sum of money of which she was to enjoy the interest for\nlife, but of which, should she eventually see her opportunity—the matter\nwas left largely to her discretion—she would best honour his memory by\ndetermining the exemplary public use.  This sum of money, no less than\nthirteen thousand pounds, was to be called The Coxon Fund; and poor Sir\nGregory evidently proposed to himself that The Coxon Fund should cover\nhis name with glory—be universally desired and admired.  He left his wife\na full declaration of his views, so far at least as that term may be\napplied to views vitiated by a vagueness really infantine.  A little\nlearning’s a dangerous thing, and a good citizen who happens to have been\nan ass is worse for a community than bad sewerage.  He’s worst of all\nwhen he’s dead, because then he can’t be stopped.  However, such as they\nwere, the poor man’s aspirations are now in his wife’s bosom, or\nfermenting rather in her foolish brain: it lies with her to carry them\nout.  But of course she must first catch her hare.”\n\n“Her earnest loyal seeker?”\n\n“The flower that blushes unseen for want of such a pecuniary independence\nas may aid the light that’s in it to shine upon the human race.  The\nindividual, in a word, who, having the rest of the machinery, the\nspiritual, the intellectual, is most hampered in his search.”\n\n“His search for what?”\n\n“For Moral Truth.  That’s what Sir Gregory calls it.”\n\nI burst out laughing.  “Delightful munificent Sir Gregory!  It’s a\ncharming idea.”\n\n“So Miss Anvoy thinks.”\n\n“Has she a candidate for the Fund?”\n\n“Not that I know of—and she’s perfectly reasonable about it.  But Lady\nCoxon has put the matter before her, and we’ve naturally had a lot of\ntalk.”\n\n“Talk that, as you’ve so interestingly intimated, has landed you in a\ndisagreement.”\n\n“She considers there’s something in it,” Gravener said.\n\n“And you consider there’s nothing?”\n\n“It seems to me a piece of solemn twaddle—which can’t fail to be attended\nwith consequences certainly grotesque and possibly immoral.  To begin\nwith, fancy constituting an endowment without establishing a tribunal—a\nbench of competent people, of judges.”\n\n“The sole tribunal is Lady Coxon?”\n\n“And any one she chooses to invite.”\n\n“But she has invited you,” I noted.\n\n“I’m not competent—I hate the thing.  Besides, she hasn’t,” my friend\nwent on.  “The real history of the matter, I take it, is that the\ninspiration was originally Lady Coxon’s own, that she infected him with\nit, and that the flattering option left her is simply his tribute to her\nbeautiful, her aboriginal enthusiasm.  She came to England forty years\nago, a thin transcendental Bostonian, and even her odd happy frumpy\nClockborough marriage never really materialised her.  She feels indeed\nthat she has become very British—as if that, as a process, as a ‘Werden,’\nas anything but an original sign of grace, were conceivable; but it’s\nprecisely what makes her cling to the notion of the ‘Fund’—cling to it as\nto a link with the ideal.”\n\n“How can she cling if she’s dying?”\n\n“Do you mean how can she act in the matter?” Gravener asked.  “That’s\nprecisely the question.  She can’t!  As she has never yet caught her\nhare, never spied out her lucky impostor—how should she, with the life\nshe has led?—her husband’s intention has come very near lapsing.  His\nidea, to do him justice, was that it _should_ lapse if exactly the right\nperson, the perfect mixture of genius and chill penury, should fail to\nturn up.  Ah the poor dear woman’s very particular—she says there must be\nno mistake.”\n\nI found all this quite thrilling—I took it in with avidity.  “And if she\ndies without doing anything, what becomes of the money?” I demanded.\n\n“It goes back to his family, if she hasn’t made some other disposition of\nit.”\n\n“She may do that then—she may divert it?”\n\n“Her hands are not tied.  She has a grand discretion.  The proof is that\nthree months ago she offered to make the proceeds over to her niece.”\n\n“For Miss Anvoy’s own use?”\n\n“For Miss Anvoy’s own use—on the occasion of her prospective marriage.\nShe was discouraged—the earnest seeker required so earnest a search.  She\nwas afraid of making a mistake; every one she could think of seemed\neither not earnest enough or not poor enough.  On the receipt of the\nfirst bad news about Mr. Anvoy’s affairs she proposed to Ruth to make the\nsacrifice for her.  As the situation in New York got worse she repeated\nher proposal.”\n\n“Which Miss Anvoy declined?”\n\n“Except as a formal trust.”\n\n“You mean except as committing herself legally to place the money?”\n\n“On the head of the deserving object, the great man frustrated,” said\nGravener.  “She only consents to act in the spirit of Sir Gregory’s\nscheme.”\n\n“And you blame her for that?” I asked with some intensity.\n\nMy tone couldn’t have been harsh, but he coloured a little and there was\na queer light in his eye.  “My dear fellow, if I ‘blamed’ the young lady\nI’m engaged to I shouldn’t immediately say it even to so old a friend as\nyou.”  I saw that some deep discomfort, some restless desire to be sided\nwith, reassuringly, approvingly mirrored, had been at the bottom of his\ndrifting so far, and I was genuinely touched by his confidence.  It was\ninconsistent with his habits; but being troubled about a woman was not,\nfor him, a habit: that itself was an inconsistency.  George Gravener\ncould stand straight enough before any other combination of forces.  It\namused me to think that the combination he had succumbed to had an\nAmerican accent, a transcendental aunt and an insolvent father; but all\nmy old loyalty to him mustered to meet this unexpected hint that I could\nhelp him.  I saw that I could from the insincere tone in which he\npursued: “I’ve criticised her of course, I’ve contended with her, and it\nhas been great fun.”  Yet it clearly couldn’t have been such great fun as\nto make it improper for me presently to ask if Miss Anvoy had nothing at\nall settled on herself.  To this he replied that she had only a trifle\nfrom her mother—a mere four hundred a year, which was exactly why it\nwould be convenient to him that she shouldn’t decline, in the face of\nthis total change in her prospects, an accession of income which would\ndistinctly help them to marry.  When I enquired if there were no other\nway in which so rich and so affectionate an aunt could cause the weight\nof her benevolence to be felt, he answered that Lady Coxon was\naffectionate indeed, but was scarcely to be called rich.  She could let\nher project of the Fund lapse for her niece’s benefit, but she couldn’t\ndo anything else.  She had been accustomed to regard her as tremendously\nprovided for, and she was up to her eyes in promises to anxious Coxons.\nShe was a woman of an inordinate conscience, and her conscience was now a\ndistress to her, hovering round her bed in irreconcilable forms of\nresentful husbands, portionless nieces and undiscoverable philosophers.\n\nWe were by this time getting into the whirr of fleeting platforms, the\nmultiplication of lights.  “I think you’ll find,” I said with a laugh,\n“that your predicament will disappear in the very fact that the\nphilosopher _is_ undiscoverable.”\n\nHe began to gather up his papers.  “Who can set a limit to the ingenuity\nof an extravagant woman?”\n\n“Yes, after all, who indeed?” I echoed as I recalled the extravagance\ncommemorated in Adelaide’s anecdote of Miss Anvoy and the thirty pounds.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nTHE thing I had been most sensible of in that talk with George Gravener\nwas the way Saltram’s name kept out of it.  It seemed to me at the time\nthat we were quite pointedly silent about him; but afterwards it appeared\nmore probable there had been on my companion’s part no conscious\navoidance.  Later on I was sure of this, and for the best of reasons—the\nsimple reason of my perceiving more completely that, for evil as well as\nfor good, he said nothing to Gravener’s imagination.  That honest man\ndidn’t fear him—he was too much disgusted with him.  No more did I,\ndoubtless, and for very much the same reason.  I treated my friend’s\nstory as an absolute confidence; but when before Christmas, by Mrs.\nSaltram, I was informed of Lady Coxon’s death without having had news of\nMiss Anvoy’s return, I found myself taking for granted we should hear no\nmore of these nuptials, in which, as obscurely unnatural, I now saw I had\nnever _too_ disconcertedly believed.  I began to ask myself how people\nwho suited each other so little could please each other so much.  The\ncharm was some material charm, some afffinity, exquisite doubtless, yet\nsuperficial some surrender to youth and beauty and passion, to force and\ngrace and fortune, happy accidents and easy contacts.  They might dote on\neach other’s persons, but how could they know each other’s souls?  How\ncould they have the same prejudices, how could they have the same\nhorizon?  Such questions, I confess, seemed quenched but not answered\nwhen, one day in February, going out to Wimbledon, I found our young lady\nin the house.  A passion that had brought her back across the wintry\nocean was as much of a passion as was needed.  No impulse equally strong\nindeed had drawn George Gravener to America; a circumstance on which,\nhowever, I reflected only long enough to remind myself that it was none\nof my business.  Ruth Anvoy was distinctly different, and I felt that the\ndifference was not simply that of her marks of mourning.  Mrs. Mulville\ntold me soon enough what it was: it was the difference between a handsome\ngirl with large expectations and a handsome girl with only four hundred a\nyear.  This explanation indeed didn’t wholly content me, not even when I\nlearned that her mourning had a double cause—learned that poor Mr. Anvoy,\ngiving way altogether, buried under the ruins of his fortune and leaving\nnext to nothing, had died a few weeks before.\n\n“So she has come out to marry George Gravener?” I commented.  “Wouldn’t\nit have been prettier of him to have saved her the trouble?”\n\n“Hasn’t the House just met?” Adelaide replied.  “And for Mr. Gravener the\nHouse—!”  Then she added: “I gather that her having come is exactly a\nsign that the marriage is a little shaky.  If it were quite all right a\nself-respecting girl like Ruth would have waited for him over there.”\n\nI noted that they were already Ruth and Adelaide, but what I said was:\n“Do you mean she’ll have had to return to _make_ it so?”\n\n“No, I mean that she must have come out for some reason independent of\nit.”  Adelaide could only surmise, however, as yet, and there was more,\nas we found, to be revealed.  Mrs. Mulville, on hearing of her arrival,\nhad brought the young lady out in the green landau for the Sunday.  The\nCoxons were in possession of the house in Regent’s Park, and Miss Anvoy\nwas in dreary lodgings.  George Gravener had been with her when Adelaide\ncalled, but had assented graciously enough to the little visit at\nWimbledon.  The carriage, with Mr. Saltram in it but not mentioned, had\nbeen sent off on some errand from which it was to return and pick the\nladies up.  Gravener had left them together, and at the end of an hour,\non the Saturday afternoon, the party of three had driven out to\nWimbledon.  This was the girl’s second glimpse of our great man, and I\nwas interested in asking Mrs. Mulville if the impression made by the\nfirst appeared to have been confirmed.  On her replying after\nconsideration, that of course with time and opportunity it couldn’t fail\nto be, but that she was disappointed, I was sufficiently struck with her\nuse of this last word to question her further.\n\n“Do you mean you’re disappointed because you judge Miss Anvoy to be?”\n\n“Yes; I hoped for a greater effect last evening.  We had two or three\npeople, but he scarcely opened his mouth.”\n\n“He’ll be all the better to-night,” I opined after a moment.  Then I\npursued: “What particular importance do you attach to the idea of her\nbeing impressed?”\n\nAdelaide turned her mild pale eyes on me as for rebuke of my levity.\n“Why the importance of her being as happy as _we_ are!”\n\nI’m afraid that at this my levity grew.  “Oh that’s a happiness almost\ntoo great to wish a person!”  I saw she hadn’t yet in her mind what I had\nin mine, and at any rate the visitor’s actual bliss was limited to a walk\nin the garden with Kent Mulville.  Later in the afternoon I also took\none, and I saw nothing of Miss Anvoy till dinner, at which we failed of\nthe company of Saltram, who had caused it to be reported that he was\nindisposed and lying down.  This made us, most of us—for there were other\nfriends present—convey to each other in silence some of the unutterable\nthings that in those years our eyes had inevitably acquired the art of\nexpressing.  If a fine little American enquirer hadn’t been there we\nwould have expressed them otherwise, and Adelaide would have pretended\nnot to hear.  I had seen her, before the very fact, abstract herself\nnobly; and I knew that more than once, to keep it from the servants,\nmanaging, dissimulating cleverly, she had helped her husband to carry him\nbodily to his room.  Just recently he had been so wise and so deep and so\nhigh that I had begun to get nervous—to wonder if by chance there were\nsomething behind it, if he were kept straight for instance by the\nknowledge that the hated Pudneys would have more to tell us if they\nchose.  He was lying low, but unfortunately it was common wisdom with us\nin this connexion that the biggest splashes took place in the quietest\npools.  We should have had a merry life indeed if all the splashes had\nsprinkled us as refreshingly as the waters we were even then to feel\nabout our ears.  Kent Mulville had been up to his room, but had come back\nwith a face that told as few tales as I had seen it succeed in telling on\nthe evening I waited in the lecture-room with Miss Anvoy.  I said to\nmyself that our friend had gone out, but it was a comfort that the\npresence of a comparative stranger deprived us of the dreary duty of\nsuggesting to each other, in respect of his errand, edifying\npossibilities in which we didn’t ourselves believe.  At ten o’clock he\ncame into the drawing-room with his waistcoat much awry but his eyes\nsending out great signals.  It was precisely with his entrance that I\nceased to be vividly conscious of him.  I saw that the crystal, as I had\ncalled it, had begun to swing, and I had need of my immediate attention\nfor Miss Anvoy.\n\nEven when I was told afterwards that he had, as we might have said\nto-day, broken the record, the manner in which that attention had been\nrewarded relieved me of a sense of loss.  I had of course a perfect\ngeneral consciousness that something great was going on: it was a little\nlike having been etherised to hear Herr Joachim play.  The old music was\nin the air; I felt the strong pulse of thought, the sink and swell, the\nflight, the poise, the plunge; but I knew something about one of the\nlisteners that nobody else knew, and Saltram’s monologue could reach me\nonly through that medium.  To this hour I’m of no use when, as a witness,\nI’m appealed to—for they still absurdly contend about it—as to whether or\nno on that historic night he was drunk; and my position is slightly\nridiculous, for I’ve never cared to tell them what it really was I was\ntaken up with.  What I got out of it is the only morsel of the total\nexperience that is quite my own.  The others were shared, but this is\nincommunicable.  I feel that now, I’m bound to say, even in thus roughly\nevoking the occasion, and it takes something from my pride of clearness.\nHowever, I shall perhaps be as clear as is absolutely needful if I remark\nthat our young lady was too much given up to her own intensity of\nobservation to be sensible of mine.  It was plainly not the question of\nher marriage that had brought her back.  I greatly enjoyed this discovery\nand was sure that had that question alone been involved she would have\nstirred no step.  In this case doubtless Gravener would, in spite of the\nHouse of Commons, have found means to rejoin her.  It afterwards made me\nuncomfortable for her that, alone in the lodging Mrs. Mulville had put\nbefore me as dreary, she should have in any degree the air of waiting for\nher fate; so that I was presently relieved at hearing of her having gone\nto stay at Coldfield.  If she was in England at all while the engagement\nstood the only proper place for her was under Lady Maddock’s wing.  Now\nthat she was unfortunate and relatively poor, perhaps her prospective\nsister-in-law would be wholly won over.\n\nThere would be much to say, if I had space, about the way her behaviour,\nas I caught gleams of it, ministered to the image that had taken birth in\nmy mind, to my private amusement, while that other night I listened to\nGeorge Gravener in the railway-carriage.  I watched her in the light of\nthis queer possibility—a formidable thing certainly to meet—and I was\naware that it coloured, extravagantly perhaps, my interpretation of her\nvery looks and tones.  At Wimbledon for instance it had appeared to me\nshe was literally afraid of Saltram, in dread of a coercion that she had\nbegun already to feel.  I had come up to town with her the next day and\nhad been convinced that, though deeply interested, she was immensely on\nher guard.  She would show as little as possible before she should be\nready to show everything.  What this final exhibition might be on the\npart of a girl perceptibly so able to think things out I found it great\nsport to forecast.  It would have been exciting to be approached by her,\nappealed to by her for advice; but I prayed to heaven I mightn’t find\nmyself in such a predicament.  If there was really a present rigour in\nthe situation of which Gravener had sketched for me the elements, she\nwould have to get out of her difficulty by herself.  It wasn’t I who had\nlaunched her and it wasn’t I who could help her.  I didn’t fail to ask\nmyself why, since I couldn’t help her, I should think so much about her.\nIt was in part my suspense that was responsible for this; I waited\nimpatiently to see whether she wouldn’t have told Mrs. Mulville a portion\nat least of what I had learned from Gravener.  But I saw Mrs. Mulville\nwas still reduced to wonder what she had come out again for if she hadn’t\ncome as a conciliatory bride.  That she had come in some other character\nwas the only thing that fitted all the appearances.  Having for family\nreasons to spend some time that spring in the west of England, I was in a\nmanner out of earshot of the great oceanic rumble—I mean of the\ncontinuous hum of Saltram’s thought—and my uneasiness tended to keep me\nquiet.  There was something I wanted so little to have to say that my\nprudence surmounted my curiosity.  I only wondered if Ruth Anvoy talked\nover the idea of The Coxon Fund with Lady Maddock, and also somewhat why\nI didn’t hear from Wimbledon.  I had a reproachful note about something\nor other from Mrs. Saltram, but it contained no mention of Lady Coxon’s\nniece, on whom her eyes had been much less fixed since the recent\nuntoward events.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nPOOR Adelaide’s silence was fully explained later—practically explained\nwhen in June, returning to London, I was honoured by this admirable woman\nwith an early visit.  As soon as she arrived I guessed everything, and as\nsoon as she told me that darling Ruth had been in her house nearly a\nmonth I had my question ready.  “What in the name of maidenly modesty is\nshe staying in England for?”\n\n“Because she loves me so!” cried Adelaide gaily.  But she hadn’t come to\nsee me only to tell me Miss Anvoy loved her: that was quite sufficiently\nestablished, and what was much more to the point was that Mr. Gravener\nhad now raised an objection to it.  He had protested at least against her\nbeing at Wimbledon, where in the innocence of his heart he had originally\nbrought her himself; he called on her to put an end to their engagement\nin the only proper, the only happy manner.\n\n“And why in the world doesn’t she do do?” I asked.\n\nAdelaide had a pause.  “She says you know.”\n\nThen on my also hesitating she added: “A condition he makes.”\n\n“The Coxon Fund?” I panted.\n\n“He has mentioned to her his having told you about it.”\n\n“Ah but so little!  Do you mean she has accepted the trust?”\n\n“In the most splendid spirit—as a duty about which there can be no two\nopinions.”  To which my friend added: “Of course she’s thinking of Mr.\nSaltram.”\n\nI gave a quick cry at this, which, in its violence, made my visitor turn\npale.  “How very awful!”\n\n“Awful?”\n\n“Why, to have anything to do with such an idea one’s self.”\n\n“I’m sure _you_ needn’t!” and Mrs. Mulville tossed her head.\n\n“He isn’t good enough!” I went on; to which she opposed a sound almost as\ncontentious as my own had been.  This made me, with genuine immediate\nhorror, exclaim: “You haven’t influenced her, I hope!” and my emphasis\nbrought back the blood with a rush to poor Adelaide’s face.  She declared\nwhile she blushed—for I had frightened her again—that she had never\ninfluenced anybody and that the girl had only seen and heard and judged\nfor herself.  _He_ had influenced her, if I would, as he did every one\nwho had a soul: that word, as we knew, even expressed feebly the power of\nthe things he said to haunt the mind.  How could she, Adelaide, help it\nif Miss Anvoy’s mind was haunted?  I demanded with a groan what right a\npretty girl engaged to a rising M.P. had to _have_ a mind; but the only\nexplanation my bewildered friend could give me was that she was so\nclever.  She regarded Mr. Saltram naturally as a tremendous force for\ngood.  She was intelligent enough to understand him and generous enough\nto admire.\n\n“She’s many things enough, but is she, among them, rich enough?” I\ndemanded.  “Rich enough, I mean, to sacrifice such a lot of good money?”\n\n“That’s for herself to judge.  Besides, it’s not her own money; she\ndoesn’t in the least consider it so.”\n\n“And Gravener does, if not _his_ own; and that’s the whole difficulty?”\n\n“The difficulty that brought her back, yes: she had absolutely to see her\npoor aunt’s solicitor.  It’s clear that by Lady Coxon’s will she may have\nthe money, but it’s still clearer to her conscience that the original\ncondition, definite, intensely implied on her uncle’s part, is attached\nto the use of it.  She can only take one view of it.  It’s for the\nEndowment or it’s for nothing.”\n\n“The Endowment,” I permitted myself to observe, “is a conception\nsuperficially sublime, but fundamentally ridiculous.”\n\n“Are you repeating Mr. Gravener’s words?” Adelaide asked.\n\n“Possibly, though I’ve not seen him for months.  It’s simply the way it\nstrikes me too.  It’s an old wife’s tale.  Gravener made some reference\nto the legal aspect, but such an absurdly loose arrangement has _no_\nlegal aspect.”\n\n“Ruth doesn’t insist on that,” said Mrs. Mulville; “and it’s, for her,\nexactly this technical weakness that constitutes the force of the moral\nobligation.”\n\n“Are you repeating _her_ words?” I enquired.  I forget what else Adelaide\nsaid, but she said she was magnificent.  I thought of George Gravener\nconfronted with such magnificence as that, and I asked what could have\nmade two such persons ever suppose they understood each other.  Mrs.\nMulville assured me the girl loved him as such a woman could love and\nthat she suffered as such a woman could suffer.  Nevertheless she wanted\nto see _me_.  At this I sprang up with a groan.  “Oh I’m so sorry!—when?”\nSmall though her sense of humour, I think Adelaide laughed at my\nsequence.  We discussed the day, the nearest it would be convenient I\nshould come out; but before she went I asked my visitor how long she had\nbeen acquainted with these prodigies.\n\n“For several weeks, but I was pledged to secrecy.”\n\n“And that’s why you didn’t write?”\n\n“I couldn’t very well tell you she was with me without telling you that\nno time had even yet been fixed for her marriage.  And I couldn’t very\nwell tell you as much as that without telling you what I knew of the\nreason of it.  It was not till a day or two ago,” Mrs. Mulville went on,\n“that she asked me to ask you if you wouldn’t come and see her.  Then at\nlast she spoke of your knowing about the idea of the Endowment.”\n\nI turned this over.  “Why on earth does she want to see me?”\n\n“To talk with you, naturally, about Mr. Saltram.”\n\n“As a subject for the prize?”  This was hugely obvious, and I presently\nreturned: “I think I’ll sail to-morrow for Australia.”\n\n“Well then—sail!” said Mrs. Mulville, getting up.\n\nBut I frivolously, continued.  “On Thursday at five, we said?”  The\nappointment was made definite and I enquired how, all this time, the\nunconscious candidate had carried himself.\n\n“In perfection, really, by the happiest of chances: he has positively\nbeen a dear.  And then, as to what we revere him for, in the most\nwonderful form.  His very highest—pure celestial light.  You _won’t_ do\nhim an ill turn?” Adelaide pleaded at the door.\n\n“What danger can equal for him the danger to which he’s exposed from\nhimself?” I asked.  “Look out sharp, if he has lately been too prim.\nHe’ll presently take a day off, treat us to some exhibition that will\nmake an Endowment a scandal.”\n\n“A scandal?” Mrs. Mulville dolorously echoed.\n\n“Is Miss Anvoy prepared for that?”\n\nMy visitor, for a moment, screwed her parasol into my carpet.  “He grows\nbigger every day.”\n\n“So do you!” I laughed as she went off.\n\nThat girl at Wimbledon, on the Thursday afternoon, more than justified my\napprehensions.  I recognised fully now the cause of the agitation she had\nproduced in me from the first—the faint foreknowledge that there was\nsomething very stiff I should have to do for her.  I felt more than ever\ncommitted to my fate as, standing before her in the big drawing-room\nwhere they had tactfully left us to ourselves, I tried with a smile to\nstring together the pearls of lucidity which, from her chair, she\nsuccessively tossed me.  Pale and bright, in her monotonous mourning, she\nwas an image of intelligent purpose, of the passion of duty; but I asked\nmyself whether any girl had ever had so charming an instinct as that\nwhich permitted her to laugh out, as for the joy of her difficulty, into\nthe priggish old room.  This remarkable young woman could be earnest\nwithout being solemn, and at moments when I ought doubtless to have\ncursed her obstinacy I found myself watching the unstudied play of her\neyebrows or the recurrence of a singularly intense whiteness produced by\nthe parting of her lips.  These aberrations, I hasten to add, didn’t\nprevent my learning soon enough why she had wished to see me.  Her reason\nfor this was as distinct as her beauty: it was to make me explain what I\nhad meant, on the occasion of our first meeting, by Mr. Saltram’s want of\ndignity.  It wasn’t that she couldn’t imagine, but she desired it there\nfrom my lips.  What she really desired of course was to know whether\nthere was worse about him than what she had found out for herself.  She\nhadn’t been a month so much in the house with him without discovering\nthat he wasn’t a man of monumental bronze.  He was like a jelly minus its\nmould, he had to be embanked; and that was precisely the source of her\ninterest in him and the ground of her project.  She put her project\nboldly before me: there it stood in its preposterous beauty.  She was as\nwilling to take the humorous view of it as I could be: the only\ndifference was that for her the humorous view of a thing wasn’t\nnecessarily prohibitive, wasn’t paralysing.\n\nMoreover she professed that she couldn’t discuss with me the primary\nquestion—the moral obligation: that was in her own breast.  There were\nthings she couldn’t go into—injunctions, impressions she had received.\nThey were a part of the closest intimacy of her intercourse with her\naunt, they were absolutely clear to her; and on questions of delicacy,\nthe interpretation of a fidelity, of a promise, one had always in the\nlast resort to make up one’s mind for one’s self.  It was the idea of the\napplication to the particular case, such a splendid one at last, that\ntroubled her, and she admitted that it stirred very deep things.  She\ndidn’t pretend that such a responsibility was a simple matter; if it\n_had_ been she wouldn’t have attempted to saddle me with any portion of\nit.  The Mulvilles were sympathy itself, but were they absolutely candid?\nCould they indeed be, in their position—would it even have been to be\ndesired?  Yes, she had sent for me to ask no less than that of me—whether\nthere was anything dreadful kept back.  She made no allusion whatever to\nGeorge Gravener—I thought her silence the only good taste and her gaiety\nperhaps a part of the very anxiety of that discretion, the effect of a\ndetermination that people shouldn’t know from herself that her relations\nwith the man she was to marry were strained.  All the weight, however,\nthat she left me to throw was a sufficient implication of the weight _he_\nhad thrown in vain.  Oh she knew the question of character was immense,\nand that one couldn’t entertain any plan for making merit comfortable\nwithout running the gauntlet of that terrible procession of\ninterrogation-points which, like a young ladies’ school out for a walk,\nhooked their uniform noses at the tail of governess Conduct.  But were we\nabsolutely to hold that there was never, never, never an exception,\nnever, never, never an occasion for liberal acceptance, for clever\ncharity, for suspended pedantry—for letting one side, in short,\noutbalance another?  When Miss Anvoy threw off this appeal I could have\nembraced her for so delightfully emphasising her unlikeness to Mrs.\nSaltram.  “Why not have the courage of one’s forgiveness,” she asked, “as\nwell as the enthusiasm of one’s adhesion?”\n\n“Seeing how wonderfully you’ve threshed the whole thing out,” I evasively\nreplied, “gives me an extraordinary notion of the point your enthusiasm\nhas reached.”\n\nShe considered this remark an instant with her eyes on mine, and I\ndivined that it struck her I might possibly intend it as a reference to\nsome personal subjection to our fat philosopher, to some aberration of\nsensibility, some perversion of taste.  At least I couldn’t interpret\notherwise the sudden flash that came into her face.  Such a\nmanifestation, as the result of any word of mine, embarrassed me; but\nwhile I was thinking how to reassure her the flush passed away in a smile\nof exquisite good nature.  “Oh you see one forgets so wonderfully how one\ndislikes him!” she said; and if her tone simply extinguished his strange\nfigure with the brush of its compassion, it also rings in my ear to-day\nas the purest of all our praises.  But with what quick response of fine\npity such a relegation of the man himself made me privately sigh “Ah poor\nSaltram!”  She instantly, with this, took the measure of all I didn’t\nbelieve, and it enabled her to go on: “What can one do when a person has\ngiven such a lift to one’s interest in life?”\n\n“Yes, what can one do?”  If I struck her as a little vague it was because\nI was thinking of another person.  I indulged in another inarticulate\nmurmur—“Poor George Gravener!”  What had become of the lift _he_ had\ngiven that interest?  Later on I made up my mind that she was sore and\nstricken at the appearance he presented of wanting the miserable money.\nThis was the hidden reason of her alienation.  The probable sincerity, in\nspite of the illiberality, of his scruples about the particular use of it\nunder discussion didn’t efface the ugliness of his demand that they\nshould buy a good house with it.  Then, as for _his_ alienation, he\ndidn’t, pardonably enough, grasp the lift Frank Saltram had given her\ninterest in life.  If a mere spectator could ask that last question, with\nwhat rage in his heart the man himself might!  He wasn’t, like her, I was\nto see, too proud to show me why he was disappointed.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nI WAS unable this time to stay to dinner: such at any rate was the plea\non which I took leave.  I desired in truth to get away from my young\nlady, for that obviously helped me not to pretend to satisfy her.  How\n_could_ I satisfy her?  I asked myself—how could I tell her how much had\nbeen kept back?  I didn’t even know and I certainly didn’t desire to\nknow.  My own policy had ever been to learn the least about poor\nSaltram’s weaknesses—not to learn the most.  A great deal that I had in\nfact learned had been forced upon me by his wife.  There was something\neven irritating in Miss Anvoy’s crude conscientiousness, and I wondered\nwhy, after all, she couldn’t have let him alone and been content to\nentrust George Gravener with the purchase of the good house.  I was sure\nhe would have driven a bargain, got something excellent and cheap.  I\nlaughed louder even than she, I temporised, I failed her; I told her I\nmust think over her case.  I professed a horror of responsibilities and\ntwitted her with her own extravagant passion for them.  It wasn’t really\nthat I was afraid of the scandal, the moral discredit for the Fund; what\ntroubled me most was a feeling of a different order.  Of course, as the\nbeneficiary of the Fund was to enjoy a simple life-interest, as it was\nhoped that new beneficiaries would arise and come up to new standards, it\nwouldn’t be a trifle that the first of these worthies shouldn’t have been\na striking example of the domestic virtues.  The Fund would start badly,\nas it were, and the laurel would, in some respects at least, scarcely be\ngreener from the brows of the original wearer.  That idea, however, was\nat that hour, as I have hinted, not the source of solicitude it ought\nperhaps to have been, for I felt less the irregularity of Saltram’s\ngetting the money than that of this exalted young woman’s giving it up.\nI wanted her to have it for herself, and I told her so before I went\naway.  She looked graver at this than she had looked at all, saying she\nhoped such a preference wouldn’t make me dishonest.\n\nIt made me, to begin with, very restless—made me, instead of going\nstraight to the station, fidget a little about that many-coloured Common\nwhich gives Wimbledon horizons.  There was a worry for me to work off, or\nrather keep at a distance, for I declined even to admit to myself that I\nhad, in Miss Anvoy’s phrase, been saddled with it.  What could have been\nclearer indeed than the attitude of recognising perfectly what a world of\ntrouble The Coxon Fund would in future save us, and of yet liking better\nto face a continuance of that trouble than see, and in fact contribute\nto, a deviation from attainable bliss in the life of two other persons in\nwhom I was deeply interested?  Suddenly, at the end of twenty minutes,\nthere was projected across this clearness the image of a massive\nmiddle-aged man seated on a bench under a tree, with sad far-wandering\neyes and plump white hands folded on the head of a stick—a stick I\nrecognised, a stout gold-headed staff that I had given him in devoted\ndays.  I stopped short as he turned his face to me, and it happened that\nfor some reason or other I took in as I had perhaps never done before the\nbeauty of his rich blank gaze.  It was charged with experience as the sky\nis charged with light, and I felt on the instant as if we had been\noverspanned and conjoined by the great arch of a bridge or the great dome\nof a temple.  Doubtless I was rendered peculiarly sensitive to it by\nsomething in the way I had been giving him up and sinking him.  While I\nmet it I stood there smitten, and I felt myself responding to it with a\nsort of guilty grimace.  This brought back his attention in a smile which\nexpressed for me a cheerful weary patience, a bruised noble gentleness.\nI had told Miss Anvoy that he had no dignity, but what did he seem to me,\nall unbuttoned and fatigued as he waited for me to come up, if he didn’t\nseem unconcerned with small things, didn’t seem in short majestic?  There\nwas majesty in his mere unconsciousness of our little conferences and\npuzzlements over his maintenance and his reward.\n\nAfter I had sat by him a few minutes I passed my arm over his big soft\nshoulder—wherever you touched him you found equally little firmness—and\nsaid in a tone of which the suppliance fell oddly on my own ear: “Come\nback to town with me, old friend—come back and spend the evening.”  I\nwanted to hold him, I wanted to keep him, and at Waterloo, an hour later,\nI telegraphed possessively to the Mulvilles.  When he objected, as\nregards staying all night, that he had no things, I asked him if he\nhadn’t everything of mine.  I had abstained from ordering dinner, and it\nwas too late for preliminaries at a club; so we were reduced to tea and\nfried fish at my rooms—reduced also to the transcendent.  Something had\ncome up which made me want him to feel at peace with me—and which,\nprecisely, was all the dear man himself wanted on any occasion.  I had\ntoo often had to press upon him considerations irrelevant, but it gives\nme pleasure now to think that on that particular evening I didn’t even\nmention Mrs. Saltram and the children.  Late into the night we smoked and\ntalked; old shames and old rigours fell away from us; I only let him see\nthat I was conscious of what I owed him.  He was as mild as contrition\nand as copious as faith; he was never so fine as on a shy return, and\neven better at forgiving than at being forgiven.  I dare say it was a\nsmaller matter than that famous night at Wimbledon, the night of the\nproblematical sobriety and of Miss Anvoy’s initiation; but I was as much\nin it on this occasion as I had been out of it then.  At about 1.30 he\nwas sublime.\n\nHe never, in whatever situation, rose till all other risings were over,\nand his breakfasts, at Wimbledon, had always been the principal reason\nmentioned by departing cooks.  The coast was therefore clear for me to\nreceive her when, early the next morning, to my surprise, it was\nannounced to me his wife had called.  I hesitated, after she had come up,\nabout telling her Saltram was in the house, but she herself settled the\nquestion, kept me reticent by drawing forth a sealed letter which,\nlooking at me very hard in the eyes, she placed, with a pregnant absence\nof comment, in my hand.  For a single moment there glimmered before me\nthe fond hope that Mrs. Saltram had tendered me, as it were, her\nresignation and desired to embody the act in an unsparing form.  To bring\nthis about I would have feigned any humiliation; but after my eyes had\ncaught the superscription I heard myself say with a flatness that\nbetrayed a sense of something very different from relief: “Oh the\nPudneys!”  I knew their envelopes though they didn’t know mine.  They\nalways used the kind sold at post-offices with the stamp affixed, and as\nthis letter hadn’t been posted they had wasted a penny on me.  I had seen\ntheir horrid missives to the Mulvilles, but hadn’t been in direct\ncorrespondence with them.\n\n“They enclosed it to me, to be delivered.  They doubtless explain to you\nthat they hadn’t your address.”\n\nI turned the thing over without opening it.  “Why in the world should\nthey write to me?”\n\n“Because they’ve something to tell you.  The worst,” Mrs. Saltram dryly\nadded.\n\nIt was another chapter, I felt, of the history of their lamentable\nquarrel with her husband, the episode in which, vindictively,\ndisingenuously as they themselves had behaved, one had to admit that he\nhad put himself more grossly in the wrong than at any moment of his life.\nHe had begun by insulting the matchless Mulvilles for these more specious\nprotectors, and then, according to his wont at the end of a few months,\nhad dug a still deeper ditch for his aberration than the chasm left\nyawning behind.  The chasm at Wimbledon was now blessedly closed; but the\nPudneys, across their persistent gulf, kept up the nastiest fire.  I\nnever doubted they had a strong case, and I had been from the first for\nnot defending him—reasoning that if they weren’t contradicted they’d\nperhaps subside.  This was above all what I wanted, and I so far\nprevailed that I did arrest the correspondence in time to save our little\ncircle an infliction heavier than it perhaps would have borne.  I knew,\nthat is I divined, that their allegations had gone as yet only as far as\ntheir courage, conscious as they were in their own virtue of an exposed\nplace in which Saltram could have planted a blow.  It was a question with\nthem whether a man who had himself so much to cover up would dare his\nblow; so that these vessels of rancour were in a manner afraid of each\nother.  I judged that on the day the Pudneys should cease for some reason\nor other to be afraid they would treat us to some revelation more\ndisconcerting than any of its predecessors.  As I held Mrs. Saltram’s\nletter in my hand it was distinctly communicated to me that the day had\ncome—they had ceased to be afraid.  “I don’t want to know the worst,” I\npresently declared.\n\n“You’ll have to open the letter.  It also contains an enclosure.”\n\nI felt it—it was fat and uncanny.  “Wheels within wheels!” I exclaimed.\n“There’s something for me too to deliver.”\n\n“So they tell me—to Miss Anvoy.”\n\nI stared; I felt a certain thrill.  “Why don’t they send it to her\ndirectly?”\n\nMrs. Saltram hung fire.  “Because she’s staying with Mr. and Mrs.\nMulville.”\n\n“And why should that prevent?”\n\nAgain my visitor faltered, and I began to reflect on the grotesque, the\nunconscious perversity of her action.  I was the only person save George\nGravener and the Mulvilles who was aware of Sir Gregory Coxon’s and of\nMiss Anvoy’s strange bounty.  Where could there have been a more signal\nillustration of the clumsiness of human affairs than her having\ncomplacently selected this moment to fly in the face of it?  “There’s the\nchance of their seeing her letters.  They know Mr. Pudney’s hand.”\n\nStill I didn’t understand; then it flashed upon me.  “You mean they might\nintercept it?  How can you imply anything so base?” I indignantly\ndemanded.\n\n“It’s not I—it’s Mr. Pudney!” cried Mrs. Saltram with a flush.  “It’s his\nown idea.”\n\n“Then why couldn’t he send the letter to you to be delivered?”\n\nMrs. Saltram’s embarrassment increased; she gave me another hard look.\n“You must make that out for yourself.”\n\nI made it out quickly enough.  “It’s a denunciation?”\n\n“A real lady doesn’t betray her husband!” this virtuous woman exclaimed.\n\nI burst out laughing, and I fear my laugh may have had an effect of\nimpertinence.  “Especially to Miss Anvoy, who’s so easily shocked? Why do\nsuch things concern _her_?” I asked, much at a loss.\n\n“Because she’s there, exposed to all his craft.  Mr. and Mrs. Pudney have\nbeen watching this: they feel she may be taken in.”\n\n“Thank you for all the rest of us!  What difference can it make when she\nhas lost her power to contribute?”\n\nAgain Mrs. Saltram considered; then very nobly: “There are other things\nin the world than money.”  This hadn’t occurred to her so long as the\nyoung lady had any; but she now added, with a glance at my letter, that\nMr. and Mrs. Pudney doubtless explained their motives.  “It’s all in\nkindness,” she continued as she got up.\n\n“Kindness to Miss Anvoy?  You took, on the whole, another view of\nkindness before her reverses.”\n\nMy companion smiled with some acidity “Perhaps you’re no safer than the\nMulvilles!”\n\nI didn’t want her to think that, nor that she should report to the\nPudneys that they had not been happy in their agent; and I well remember\nthat this was the moment at which I began, with considerable emotion, to\npromise myself to enjoin upon Miss Anvoy never to open any letter that\nshould come to her in one of those penny envelopes.  My emotion, and I\nfear I must add my confusion, quickly deepened; I presently should have\nbeen as glad to frighten Mrs. Saltram as to think I might by some\ndiplomacy restore the Pudneys to a quieter vigilance.\n\n“It’s best you should take _my_ view of my safety,” I at any rate soon\nresponded.  When I saw she didn’t know what I meant by this I added: “You\nmay turn out to have done, in bringing me this letter, a thing you’ll\nprofoundly regret.”  My tone had a significance which, I could see, did\nmake her uneasy, and there was a moment, after I had made two or three\nmore remarks of studiously bewildering effect, at which her eyes followed\nso hungrily the little flourish of the letter with which I emphasised\nthem that I instinctively slipped Mr. Pudney’s communication into my\npocket.  She looked, in her embarrassed annoyance, capable of grabbing it\nto send it back to him.  I felt, after she had gone, as if I had almost\ngiven her my word I wouldn’t deliver the enclosure.  The passionate\nmovement, at any rate, with which, in solitude, I transferred the whole\nthing, unopened, from my pocket to a drawer which I double-locked would\nhave amounted, for an initiated observer, to some such pledge.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nMRS. SALTRAM left me drawing my breath more quickly and indeed almost in\npain—as if I had just perilously grazed the loss of something precious.\nI didn’t quite know what it was—it had a shocking resemblance to my\nhonour.  The emotion was the livelier surely in that my pulses even yet\nvibrated to the pleasure with which, the night before, I had rallied to\nthe rare analyst, the great intellectual adventurer and pathfinder.  What\nhad dropped from me like a cumbersome garment as Saltram appeared before\nme in the afternoon on the heath was the disposition to haggle over his\nvalue.  Hang it, one had to choose, one had to put that value somewhere;\nso I would put it really high and have done with it.  Mrs. Mulville drove\nin for him at a discreet hour—the earliest she could suppose him to have\ngot up; and I learned that Miss Anvoy would also have come had she not\nbeen expecting a visit from Mr. Gravener.  I was perfectly mindful that I\nwas under bonds to see this young lady, and also that I had a letter to\nhand to her; but I took my time, I waited from day to day.  I left Mrs.\nSaltram to deal as her apprehensions should prompt with the Pudneys.  I\nknew at last what I meant—I had ceased to wince at my responsibility.  I\ngave this supreme impression of Saltram time to fade if it would; but it\ndidn’t fade, and, individually, it hasn’t faded even now.  During the\nmonth that I thus invited myself to stiffen again, Adelaide Mulville,\nperplexed by my absence, wrote to me to ask why I _was_ so stiff.  At\nthat season of the year I was usually oftener “with” them.  She also\nwrote that she feared a real estrangement had set in between Mr. Gravener\nand her sweet young friend—a state of things but half satisfactory to her\nso long as the advantage resulting to Mr. Saltram failed to disengage\nitself from the merely nebulous state.  She intimated that her sweet\nyoung friend was, if anything, a trifle too reserved; she also intimated\nthat there might now be an opening for another clever young man.  There\nnever was the slightest opening, I may here parenthesise, and of course\nthe question can’t come up to-day.  These are old frustrations now.  Ruth\nAnvoy hasn’t married, I hear, and neither have I.  During the month,\ntoward the end, I wrote to George Gravener to ask if, on a special\nerrand, I might come to see him, and his answer was to knock the very\nnext day at my door.  I saw he had immediately connected my enquiry with\nthe talk we had had in the railway-carriage, and his promptitude showed\nthat the ashes of his eagerness weren’t yet cold.  I told him there was\nsomething I felt I ought in candour to let him know—I recognised the\nobligation his friendly confidence had laid on me.\n\n“You mean Miss Anvoy has talked to you?  She has told me so herself,” he\nsaid.\n\n“It wasn’t to tell you so that I wanted to see you,” I replied; “for it\nseemed to me that such a communication would rest wholly with herself.\nIf however she did speak to you of our conversation she probably told you\nI was discouraging.”\n\n“Discouraging?”\n\n“On the subject of a present application of The Coxon Fund.”\n\n“To the case of Mr. Saltram?  My dear fellow, I don’t know what you call\ndiscouraging!” Gravener cried.\n\n“Well I thought I was, and I thought she thought I was.”\n\n“I believe she did, but such a thing’s measured by the effect.  She’s not\n‘discouraged,’” he said.\n\n“That’s her own affair.  The reason I asked you to see me was that it\nappeared to me I ought to tell you frankly that—decidedly!—I can’t\nundertake to produce that effect.  In fact I don’t want to!”\n\n“It’s very good of you, damn you!” my visitor laughed, red and really\ngrave.  Then he said: “You’d like to see that scoundrel publicly\nglorified—perched on the pedestal of a great complimentary pension?”\n\nI braced myself.  “Taking one form of public recognition with another it\nseems to me on the whole I should be able to bear it.  When I see the\ncompliments that _are_ paid right and left I ask myself why this one\nshouldn’t take its course.  This therefore is what you’re entitled to\nhave looked to me to mention to you.  I’ve some evidence that perhaps\nwould be really dissuasive, but I propose to invite Mss Anvoy to remain\nin ignorance of it.”\n\n“And to invite me to do the same?”\n\n“Oh you don’t require it—you’ve evidence enough.  I speak of a sealed\nletter that I’ve been requested to deliver to her.”\n\n“And you don’t mean to?”\n\n“There’s only one consideration that would make me,” I said.\n\nGravener’s clear handsome eyes plunged into mine a minute, but evidently\nwithout fishing up a clue to this motive—a failure by which I was almost\nwounded.  “What does the letter contain?”\n\n“It’s sealed, as I tell you, and I don’t know what it contains.”\n\n“Why is it sent through you?”\n\n“Rather than you?” I wondered how to put the thing.  “The only\nexplanation I can think of is that the person sending it may have\nimagined your relations with Miss Anvoy to be at an end—may have been\ntold this is the case by Mrs. Saltram.”\n\n“My relations with Miss Anvoy are not at an end,” poor Gravener\nstammered.\n\nAgain for an instant I thought.  “The offer I propose to make you gives\nme the right to address you a question remarkably direct.  Are you still\nengaged to Miss Anvoy?”\n\n“No, I’m not,” he slowly brought out.  “But we’re perfectly good\nfriends.”\n\n“Such good friends that you’ll again become prospective husband and wife\nif the obstacle in your path be removed?”\n\n“Removed?” he anxiously repeated.\n\n“If I send Miss Anvoy the letter I speak of she may give up her idea.”\n\n“Then for God’s sake send it!”\n\n“I’ll do so if you’re ready to assure me that her sacrifice would now\npresumably bring about your marriage.”\n\n“I’d marry her the next day!” my visitor cried.\n\n“Yes, but would she marry _you_?  What I ask of you of course is nothing\nless than your word of honour as to your conviction of this.  If you give\nit me,” I said, “I’ll engage to hand her the letter before night.”\n\nGravener took up his hat; turning it mechanically round he stood looking\na moment hard at its unruffled perfection.  Then very angrily honestly\nand gallantly, “Hand it to the devil!” he broke out; with which he\nclapped the hat on his head and left me.\n\n“Will you read it or not?” I said to Ruth Anvoy, at Wimbledon, when I had\ntold her the story of Mrs. Saltram’s visit.\n\nShe debated for a time probably of the briefest, but long enough to make\nme nervous.  “Have you brought it with you?”\n\n“No indeed.  It’s at home, locked up.”\n\nThere was another great silence, and then she said “Go back and destroy\nit.”\n\nI went back, but I didn’t destroy it till after Saltram’s death, when I\nburnt it unread.  The Pudneys approached her again pressingly, but,\nprompt as they were, The Coxon Fund had already become an operative\nbenefit and a general amaze: Mr. Saltram, while we gathered about, as it\nwere, to watch the manna descend, had begun to draw the magnificent\nincome.  He drew it as he had always drawn everything, with a grand\nabstracted gesture.  Its magnificence, alas, as all the world now knows,\nquite quenched him; it was the beginning of his decline.  It was also\nnaturally a new grievance for his wife, who began to believe in him as\nsoon as he was blighted, and who at this hour accuses us of having bribed\nhim, on the whim of a meddlesome American, to renounce his glorious\noffice, to become, as she says, like everybody else.  The very day he\nfound himself able to publish he wholly ceased to produce.  This deprived\nus, as may easily be imagined, of much of our occupation, and especially\ndeprived the Mulvilles, whose want of self-support I never measured till\nthey lost their great inmate.  They’ve no one to live on now.  Adelaide’s\nmost frequent reference to their destitution is embodied in the remark\nthat dear far-away Ruth’s intentions were doubtless good.  She and Kent\nare even yet looking for another prop, but no one presents a true sphere\nof usefulness.  They complain that people are self-sufficing.  With\nSaltram the fine type of the child of adoption was scattered, the\ngrander, the elder style.  They’ve got their carriage back, but what’s an\nempty carriage?  In short I think we were all happier as well as poorer\nbefore; even including George Gravener, who by the deaths of his brother\nand his nephew has lately become Lord Maddock.  His wife, whose fortune\nclears the property, is criminally dull; he hates being in the Upper\nHouse, and hasn’t yet had high office.  But what are these accidents,\nwhich I should perhaps apologise for mentioning, in the light of the\ngreat eventual boon promised the patient by the rate at which The Coxon\nFund must be rolling up?\n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: What does Frank Saltram do for work?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 103, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["accomplishments"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory: E-text prepared by Jonathan Ingram, Janet Blenkinship, and the Project\nGutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net/)\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note: The author is Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797).\n\n\n\n\n\nMARY,\n\nA Fiction\n\nL'exercice des plus sublimes vertus éleve et nourrit le génie.\n                                                     ROUSSEAU.\n\nLondon,\nPrinted for J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church-Yard.\n\nMDCCLXXXVIII\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nIn delineating the Heroine of this Fiction, the Author attempts to\ndevelop a character different from those generally portrayed. This woman\nis neither a Clarissa, a Lady G----, nor a[A] Sophie.--It would be vain\nto mention the various modifications of these models, as it would to\nremark, how widely artists wander from nature, when they copy the\noriginals of great masters. They catch the gross parts; but the subtile\nspirit evaporates; and not having the just ties, affectation disgusts,\nwhen grace was expected to charm.\n\nThose compositions only have power to delight, and carry us willing\ncaptives, where the soul of the author is exhibited, and animates the\nhidden springs. Lost in a pleasing enthusiasm, they live in the scenes\nthey represent; and do not measure their steps in a beaten track,\nsolicitous to gather expected flowers, and bind them in a wreath,\naccording to the prescribed rules of art.\n\nThese chosen few, wish to speak for themselves, and not to be an\necho--even of the sweetest sounds--or the reflector of the most sublime\nbeams. The[B] paradise they ramble in, must be of their own creating--or\nthe prospect soon grows insipid, and not varied by a vivifying\nprinciple, fades and dies.\n\nIn an artless tale, without episodes, the mind of a woman, who has\nthinking powers is displayed. The female organs have been thought too\nweak for this arduous employment; and experience seems to justify the\nassertion. Without arguing physically about _possibilities_--in a\nfiction, such a being may be allowed to exist; whose grandeur is derived\nfrom the operations of its own faculties, not subjugated to opinion; but\ndrawn by the individual from the original source.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote A: Rousseau.]\n\n[Footnote B: I here give the Reviewers an opportunity of being very\nwitty about the Paradise of Fools, &c.]\n\n\n\n\nMARY\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n\nMary, the heroine of this fiction, was the daughter of Edward, who\nmarried Eliza, a gentle, fashionable girl, with a kind of indolence in\nher temper, which might be termed negative good-nature: her virtues,\nindeed, were all of that stamp. She carefully attended to the _shews_ of\nthings, and her opinions, I should have said prejudices, were such as\nthe generality approved of. She was educated with the expectation of a\nlarge fortune, of course became a mere machine: the homage of her\nattendants made a great part of her puerile amusements, and she never\nimagined there were any relative duties for her to fulfil: notions of\nher own consequence, by these means, were interwoven in her mind, and\nthe years of youth spent in acquiring a few superficial accomplishments,\nwithout having any taste for them. When she was first introduced into\nthe polite circle, she danced with an officer, whom she faintly wished\nto be united to; but her father soon after recommending another in a\nmore distinguished rank of life, she readily submitted to his will, and\npromised to love, honour, and obey, (a vicious fool,) as in duty bound.\n\nWhile they resided in London, they lived in the usual fashionable style,\nand seldom saw each other; nor were they much more sociable when they\nwooed rural felicity for more than half the year, in a delightful\ncountry, where Nature, with lavish hand, had scattered beauties around;\nfor the master, with brute, unconscious gaze, passed them by unobserved,\nand sought amusement in country sports. He hunted in the morning, and\nafter eating an immoderate dinner, generally fell asleep: this\nseasonable rest enabled him to digest the cumbrous load; he would then\nvisit some of his pretty tenants; and when he compared their ruddy glow\nof health with his wife's countenance, which even rouge could not\nenliven, it is not necessary to say which a _gourmand_ would give the\npreference to. Their vulgar dance of spirits were infinitely more\nagreeable to his fancy than her sickly, die-away languor. Her voice was\nbut the shadow of a sound, and she had, to complete her delicacy, so\nrelaxed her nerves, that she became a mere nothing.\n\nMany such noughts are there in the female world! yet she had a good\nopinion of her own merit,--truly, she said long prayers,--and sometimes\nread her Week's Preparation: she dreaded that horrid place vulgarly\ncalled _hell_, the regions below; but whether her's was a mounting\nspirit, I cannot pretend to determine; or what sort of a planet would\nhave been proper for her, when she left her _material_ part in this\nworld, let metaphysicians settle; I have nothing to say to her unclothed\nspirit.\n\nAs she was sometimes obliged to be alone, or only with her French\nwaiting-maid, she sent to the metropolis for all the new publications,\nand while she was dressing her hair, and she could turn her eyes from\nthe glass, she ran over those most delightful substitutes for bodily\ndissipation, novels. I say bodily, or the animal soul, for a rational\none can find no employment in polite circles. The glare of lights, the\nstudied inelegancies of dress, and the compliments offered up at the\nshrine of false beauty, are all equally addressed to the senses.\n\nWhen she could not any longer indulge the caprices of fancy one way, she\ntried another. The Platonic Marriage, Eliza Warwick, and some other\ninteresting tales were perused with eagerness. Nothing could be more\nnatural than the developement of the passions, nor more striking than\nthe views of the human heart. What delicate struggles! and uncommonly\npretty turns of thought! The picture that was found on a bramble-bush,\nthe new sensitive-plant, or tree, which caught the swain by the\nupper-garment, and presented to his ravished eyes a portrait.--Fatal\nimage!--It planted a thorn in a till then insensible heart, and sent a\nnew kind of a knight-errant into the world. But even this was nothing to\nthe catastrophe, and the circumstance on which it hung, the hornet\nsettling on the sleeping lover's face. What a _heart-rending_ accident!\nShe planted, in imitation of those susceptible souls, a rose bush; but\nthere was not a lover to weep in concert with her, when she watered it\nwith her tears.--Alas! Alas!\n\nIf my readers would excuse the sportiveness of fancy, and give me credit\nfor genius, I would go on and tell them such tales as would force the\nsweet tears of sensibility to flow in copious showers down beautiful\ncheeks, to the discomposure of rouge, &c. &c. Nay, I would make it so\ninteresting, that the fair peruser should beg the hair-dresser to\nsettle the curls himself, and not interrupt her.\n\nShe had besides another resource, two most beautiful dogs, who shared\nher bed, and reclined on cushions near her all the day. These she\nwatched with the most assiduous care, and bestowed on them the warmest\ncaresses. This fondness for animals was not that kind of\n_attendrissement_ which makes a person take pleasure in providing for\nthe subsistence and comfort of a living creature; but it proceeded from\nvanity, it gave her an opportunity of lisping out the prettiest French\nexpressions of ecstatic fondness, in accents that had never been attuned\nby tenderness.\n\nShe was chaste, according to the vulgar acceptation of the word, that\nis, she did not make any actual _faux pas_; she feared the world, and\nwas indolent; but then, to make amends for this seeming self-denial, she\nread all the sentimental novels, dwelt on the love-scenes, and, had she\nthought while she read, her mind would have been contaminated; as she\naccompanied the lovers to the lonely arbors, and would walk with them by\nthe clear light of the moon. She wondered her husband did not stay at\nhome. She was jealous--why did he not love her, sit by her side, squeeze\nher hand, and look unutterable things? Gentle reader, I will tell thee;\nthey neither of them felt what they could not utter. I will not pretend\nto say that they always annexed an idea to a word; but they had none of\nthose feelings which are not easily analyzed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n\nIn due time she brought forth a son, a feeble babe; and the following\nyear a daughter. After the mother's throes she felt very few sentiments\nof maternal tenderness: the children were given to nurses, and she\nplayed with her dogs. Want of exercise prevented the least chance of her\nrecovering strength; and two or three milk-fevers brought on a\nconsumption, to which her constitution tended. Her children all died in\ntheir infancy, except the two first, and she began to grow fond of the\nson, as he was remarkably handsome. For years she divided her time\nbetween the sofa, and the card-table. She thought not of death, though\non the borders of the grave; nor did any of the duties of her station\noccur to her as necessary. Her children were left in the nursery; and\nwhen Mary, the little blushing girl, appeared, she would send the\nawkward thing away. To own the truth, she was awkward enough, in a house\nwithout any play-mates; for her brother had been sent to school, and she\nscarcely knew how to employ herself; she would ramble about the garden,\nadmire the flowers, and play with the dogs. An old house-keeper told her\nstories, read to her, and, at last, taught her to read. Her mother\ntalked of enquiring for a governess when her health would permit; and,\nin the interim desired her own maid to teach her French. As she had\nlearned to read, she perused with avidity every book that came in her\nway. Neglected in every respect, and left to the operations of her own\nmind, she considered every thing that came under her inspection, and\nlearned to think. She had heard of a separate state, and that angels\nsometimes visited this earth. She would sit in a thick wood in the park,\nand talk to them; make little songs addressed to them, and sing them to\ntunes of her own composing; and her native wood notes wild were sweet\nand touching.\n\nHer father always exclaimed against female acquirements, and was glad\nthat his wife's indolence and ill health made her not trouble herself\nabout them. She had besides another reason, she did not wish to have a\nfine tall girl brought forward into notice as her daughter; she still\nexpected to recover, and figure away in the gay world. Her husband was\nvery tyrannical and passionate; indeed so very easily irritated when\ninebriated, that Mary was continually in dread lest he should frighten\nher mother to death; her sickness called forth all Mary's tenderness,\nand exercised her compassion so continually, that it became more than a\nmatch for self-love, and was the governing propensity of her heart\nthrough life. She was violent in her temper; but she saw her father's\nfaults, and would weep when obliged to compare his temper with her\nown.--She did more; artless prayers rose to Heaven for pardon, when she\nwas conscious of having erred; and her contrition was so exceedingly\npainful, that she watched diligently the first movements of anger and\nimpatience, to save herself this cruel remorse.\n\nSublime ideas filled her young mind--always connected with devotional\nsentiments; extemporary effusions of gratitude, and rhapsodies of\npraise would burst often from her, when she listened to the birds, or\npursued the deer. She would gaze on the moon, and ramble through the\ngloomy path, observing the various shapes the clouds assumed, and listen\nto the sea that was not far distant. The wandering spirits, which she\nimagined inhabited every part of nature, were her constant friends and\nconfidants. She began to consider the Great First Cause, formed just\nnotions of his attributes, and, in particular, dwelt on his wisdom and\ngoodness. Could she have loved her father or mother, had they returned\nher affection, she would not so soon, perhaps, have sought out a new\nworld.\n\nHer sensibility prompted her to search for an object to love; on earth\nit was not to be found: her mother had often disappointed her, and the\napparent partiality she shewed to her brother gave her exquisite\npain--produced a kind of habitual melancholy, led her into a fondness\nfor reading tales of woe, and made her almost realize the fictitious\ndistress.\n\nShe had not any notion of death till a little chicken expired at her\nfeet; and her father had a dog hung in a passion. She then concluded\nanimals had souls, or they would not have been subjected to the caprice\nof man; but what was the soul of man or beast? In this style year after\nyear rolled on, her mother still vegetating.\n\nA little girl who attended in the nursery fell sick. Mary paid her great\nattention; contrary to her wish, she was sent out of the house to her\nmother, a poor woman, whom necessity obliged to leave her sick child\nwhile she earned her daily bread. The poor wretch, in a fit of delirium\nstabbed herself, and Mary saw her dead body, and heard the dismal\naccount; and so strongly did it impress her imagination, that every\nnight of her life the bleeding corpse presented itself to her when the\nfirst began to slumber. Tortured by it, she at last made a vow, that if\nshe was ever mistress of a family she would herself watch over every\npart of it. The impression that this accident made was indelible.\n\nAs her mother grew imperceptibly worse and worse, her father, who did\nnot understand such a lingering complaint, imagined his wife was only\ngrown still more whimsical, and that if she could be prevailed on to\nexert herself, her health would soon be re-established. In general he\ntreated her with indifference; but when her illness at all interfered\nwith his pleasures, he expostulated in the most cruel manner, and\nvisibly harassed the invalid. Mary would then assiduously try to turn\nhis attention to something else; and when sent out of the room, would\nwatch at the door, until the storm was over, for unless it was, she\ncould not rest. Other causes also contributed to disturb her repose: her\nmother's luke-warm manner of performing her religious duties, filled her\nwith anguish; and when she observed her father's vices, the unbidden\ntears would flow. She was miserable when beggars were driven from the\ngate without being relieved; if she could do it unperceived, she would\ngive them her own breakfast, and feel gratified, when, in consequence of\nit, she was pinched by hunger.\n\nShe had once, or twice, told her little secrets to her mother; they were\nlaughed at, and she determined never to do it again. In this manner was\nshe left to reflect on her own feelings; and so strengthened were they\nby being meditated on, that her character early became singular and\npermanent. Her understanding was strong and clear, when not clouded by\nher feelings; but she was too much the creature of impulse, and the\nslave of compassion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\nNear her father's house lived a poor widow, who had been brought up in\naffluence, but reduced to great distress by the extravagance of her\nhusband; he had destroyed his constitution while he spent his fortune;\nand dying, left his wife, and five small children, to live on a very\nscanty pittance. The eldest daughter was for some years educated by a\ndistant relation, a Clergyman. While she was with him a young gentleman,\nson to a man of property in the neighbourhood, took particular notice of\nher. It is true, he never talked of love; but then they played and sung\nin concert; drew landscapes together, and while she worked he read to\nher, cultivated her taste, and stole imperceptibly her heart. Just at\nthis juncture, when smiling, unanalyzed hope made every prospect bright,\nand gay expectation danced in her eyes, her benefactor died. She\nreturned to her mother--the companion of her youth forgot her, they took\nno more sweet counsel together. This disappointment spread a sadness\nover her countenance, and made it interesting. She grew fond of\nsolitude, and her character appeared similar to Mary's, though her\nnatural disposition was very different.\n\nShe was several years older than Mary, yet her refinement, her taste,\ncaught her eye, and she eagerly sought her friendship: before her return\nshe had assisted the family, which was almost reduced to the last ebb;\nand now she had another motive to actuate her.\n\nAs she had often occasion to send messages to Ann, her new friend,\nmistakes were frequently made; Ann proposed that in future they should\nbe written ones, to obviate this difficulty, and render their\nintercourse more agreeable. Young people are mostly fond of scribbling;\nMary had had very little instruction; but by copying her friend's\nletters, whose hand she admired, she soon became a proficient; a little\npractice made her write with tolerable correctness, and her genius gave\nforce to it. In conversation, and in writing, when she felt, she was\npathetic, tender and persuasive; and she expressed contempt with such\nenergy, that few could stand the flash of her eyes.\n\nAs she grew more intimate with Ann, her manners were softened, and she\nacquired a degree of equality in her behaviour: yet still her spirits\nwere fluctuating, and her movements rapid. She felt less pain on\naccount of her mother's partiality to her brother, as she hoped now to\nexperience the pleasure of being beloved; but this hope led her into new\nsorrows, and, as usual, paved the way for disappointment. Ann only felt\ngratitude; her heart was entirely engrossed by one object, and\nfriendship could not serve as a substitute; memory officiously retraced\npast scenes, and unavailing wishes made time loiter.\n\nMary was often hurt by the involuntary indifference which these\nconsequences produced. When her friend was all the world to her, she\nfound she was not as necessary to her happiness; and her delicate mind\ncould not bear to obtrude her affection, or receive love as an alms, the\noffspring of pity. Very frequently has she ran to her with delight, and\nnot perceiving any thing of the same kind in Ann's countenance, she has\nshrunk back; and, falling from one extreme into the other, instead of a\nwarm greeting that was just slipping from her tongue, her expressions\nseemed to be dictated by the most chilling insensibility.\n\nShe would then imagine that she looked sickly or unhappy, and then all\nher tenderness would return like a torrent, and bear away all\nreflection. In this manner was her sensibility called forth, and\nexercised, by her mother's illness, her friend's misfortunes, and her\nown unsettled mind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n\nNear to her father's house was a range of mountains; some of them were,\nliterally speaking, cloud-capt, for on them clouds continually rested,\nand gave grandeur to the prospect; and down many of their sides the\nlittle bubbling cascades ran till they swelled a beautiful river.\nThrough the straggling trees and bushes the wind whistled, and on them\nthe birds sung, particularly the robins; they also found shelter in the\nivy of an old castle, a haunted one, as the story went; it was situated\non the brow of one of the mountains, and commanded a view of the sea.\nThis castle had been inhabited by some of her ancestors; and many tales\nhad the old house-keeper told her of the worthies who had resided there.\n\nWhen her mother frowned, and her friend looked cool, she would steal to\nthis retirement, where human foot seldom trod--gaze on the sea, observe\nthe grey clouds, or listen to the wind which struggled to free itself\nfrom the only thing that impeded its course. When more cheerful, she\nadmired the various dispositions of light and shade, the beautiful tints\nthe gleams of sunshine gave to the distant hills; then she rejoiced in\nexistence, and darted into futurity.\n\nOne way home was through the cavity of a rock covered with a thin layer\nof earth, just sufficient to afford nourishment to a few stunted shrubs\nand wild plants, which grew on its sides, and nodded over the summit. A\nclear stream broke out of it, and ran amongst the pieces of rocks\nfallen into it. Here twilight always reigned--it seemed the Temple of\nSolitude; yet, paradoxical as the assertion may appear, when the foot\nsounded on the rock, it terrified the intruder, and inspired a strange\nfeeling, as if the rightful sovereign was dislodged. In this retreat she\nread Thomson's Seasons, Young's Night-Thoughts, and Paradise Lost.\n\nAt a little distance from it were the huts of a few poor fishermen, who\nsupported their numerous children by their precarious labour. In these\nlittle huts she frequently rested, and denied herself every childish\ngratification, in order to relieve the necessities of the inhabitants.\nHer heart yearned for them, and would dance with joy when she had\nrelieved their wants, or afforded them pleasure.\n\nIn these pursuits she learned the luxury of doing good; and the sweet\ntears of benevolence frequently moistened her eyes, and gave them a\nsparkle which, exclusive of that, they had not; on the contrary, they\nwere rather fixed, and would never have been observed if her soul had\nnot animated them. They were not at all like those brilliant ones which\nlook like polished diamonds, and dart from every superfice, giving more\nlight to the beholders than they receive themselves.\n\nHer benevolence, indeed, knew no bounds; the distress of others carried\nher out of herself; and she rested not till she had relieved or\ncomforted them. The warmth of her compassion often made her so diligent,\nthat many things occurred to her, which might have escaped a less\ninterested observer.\n\nIn like manner, she entered with such spirit into whatever she read,\nand the emotions thereby raised were so strong, that it soon became a\npart of her mind.\n\nEnthusiastic sentiments of devotion at this period actuated her; her\nCreator was almost apparent to her senses in his works; but they were\nmostly the grand or solemn features of Nature which she delighted to\ncontemplate. She would stand and behold the waves rolling, and think of\nthe voice that could still the tumultuous deep.\n\nThese propensities gave the colour to her mind, before the passions\nbegan to exercise their tyrannic sway, and particularly pointed out\nthose which the soil would have a tendency to nurse.\n\nYears after, when wandering through the same scenes, her imagination has\nstrayed back, to trace the first placid sentiments they inspired, and\nshe would earnestly desire to regain the same peaceful tranquillity.\n\nMany nights she sat up, if I may be allowed the expression, _conversing_\nwith the Author of Nature, making verses, and singing hymns of her own\ncomposing. She considered also, and tried to discern what end her\nvarious faculties were destined to pursue; and had a glimpse of a truth,\nwhich afterwards more fully unfolded itself.\n\nShe thought that only an infinite being could fill the human soul, and\nthat when other objects were followed as a means of happiness, the\ndelusion led to misery, the consequence of disappointment. Under the\ninfluence of ardent affections, how often has she forgot this\nconviction, and as often returned to it again, when it struck her with\nredoubled force. Often did she taste unmixed delight; her joys, her\necstacies arose from genius.\n\nShe was now fifteen, and she wished to receive the holy sacrament; and\nperusing the scriptures, and discussing some points of doctrine which\npuzzled her, she would sit up half the night, her favourite time for\nemploying her mind; she too plainly perceived that she saw through a\nglass darkly; and that the bounds set to stop our intellectual\nresearches, is one of the trials of a probationary state.\n\nBut her affections were roused by the display of divine mercy; and she\neagerly desired to commemorate the dying love of her great benefactor.\nThe night before the important day, when she was to take on herself her\nbaptismal vow, she could not go to bed; the sun broke in on her\nmeditations, and found her not exhausted by her watching.\n\nThe orient pearls were strewed around--she hailed the morn, and sung\nwith wild delight, Glory to God on high, good will towards men. She was\nindeed so much affected when she joined in the prayer for her eternal\npreservation, that she could hardly conceal her violent emotions; and\nthe recollection never failed to wake her dormant piety when earthly\npassions made it grow languid.\n\nThese various movements of her mind were not commented on, nor were the\nluxuriant shoots restrained by culture. The servants and the poor adored\nher.\n\nIn order to be enabled to gratify herself in the highest degree, she\npracticed the most rigid oeconomy, and had such power over her\nappetites and whims, that without any great effort she conquered them\nso entirely, that when her understanding or affections had an object,\nshe almost forgot she had a body which required nourishment.\n\nThis habit of thinking, this kind of absorption, gave strength to the\npassions.\n\nWe will now enter on the more active field of life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n\nA few months after Mary was turned of seventeen, her brother was\nattacked by a violent fever, and died before his father could reach the\nschool.\n\nShe was now an heiress, and her mother began to think her of\nconsequence, and did not call her _the child_. Proper masters were sent\nfor; she was taught to dance, and an extraordinary master procured to\nperfect her in that most necessary of all accomplishments.\n\nA part of the estate she was to inherit had been litigated, and the heir\nof the person who still carried on a Chancery suit, was only two years\nyounger than our heroine. The fathers, spite of the dispute, frequently\nmet, and, in order to settle it amicably, they one day, over a bottle,\ndetermined to quash it by a marriage, and, by uniting the two estates,\nto preclude all farther enquiries into the merits of their different\nclaims.\n\nWhile this important matter was settling, Mary was otherwise employed.\nAnn's mother's resources were failing; and the ghastly phantom, poverty,\nmade hasty strides to catch them in his clutches. Ann had not fortitude\nenough to brave such accumulated misery; besides, the canker-worm was\nlodged in her heart, and preyed on her health. She denied herself every\nlittle comfort; things that would be no sacrifice when a person is well,\nare absolutely necessary to alleviate bodily pain, and support the\nanimal functions.\n\nThere were many elegant amusements, that she had acquired a relish for,\nwhich might have taken her mind off from its most destructive bent; but\nthese her indigence would not allow her to enjoy: forced then, by way of\nrelaxation, to play the tunes her lover admired, and handle the pencil\nhe taught her to hold, no wonder his image floated on her imagination,\nand that taste invigorated love.\n\nPoverty, and all its inelegant attendants, were in her mother's abode;\nand she, though a good sort of a woman, was not calculated to banish, by\nher trivial, uninteresting chat, the delirium in which her daughter was\nlost.\n\nThis ill-fated love had given a bewitching softness to her manners, a\ndelicacy so truly feminine, that a man of any feeling could not behold\nher without wishing to chase her sorrows away. She was timid and\nirresolute, and rather fond of dissipation; grief only had power to make\nher reflect.\n\nIn every thing it was not the great, but the beautiful, or the pretty,\nthat caught her attention. And in composition, the polish of style, and\nharmony of numbers, interested her much more than the flights of genius,\nor abstracted speculations.\n\nShe often wondered at the books Mary chose, who, though she had a lively\nimagination, would frequently study authors whose works were addressed\nto the understanding. This liking taught her to arrange her thoughts,\nand argue with herself, even when under the influence of the most\nviolent passions.\n\nAnn's misfortunes and ill health were strong ties to bind Mary to her;\nshe wished so continually to have a home to receive her in, that it\ndrove every other desire out of her mind; and, dwelling on the tender\nschemes which compassion and friendship dictated, she longed most\nardently to put them in practice.\n\nFondly as she loved her friend, she did not forget her mother, whose\ndecline was so imperceptible, that they were not aware of her\napproaching dissolution. The physician, however, observing the most\nalarming symptoms; her husband was apprised of her immediate danger; and\nthen first mentioned to her his designs with respect to his daughter.\n\nShe approved of them; Mary was sent for; she was not at home; she had\nrambled to visit Ann, and found her in an hysteric fit. The landlord of\nher little farm had sent his agent for the rent, which had long been due\nto him; and he threatened to seize the stock that still remained, and\nturn them out, if they did not very shortly discharge the arrears.\n\nAs this man made a private fortune by harassing the tenants of the\nperson to whom he was deputy, little was to be expected from his\nforbearance.\n\nAll this was told to Mary--and the mother added, she had many other\ncreditors who would, in all probability, take the alarm, and snatch from\nthem all that had been saved out of the wreck. \"I could bear all,\" she\ncried; \"but what will become of my children? Of this child,\" pointing to\nthe fainting Ann, \"whose constitution is already undermined by care and\ngrief--where will she go?\"--Mary's heart ceased to beat while she asked\nthe question--She attempted to speak; but the inarticulate sounds died\naway. Before she had recovered herself, her father called himself to\nenquire for her; and desired her instantly to accompany him home.\n\nEngrossed by the scene of misery she had been witness to, she walked\nsilently by his side, when he roused her out of her reverie by telling\nher that in all likelihood her mother had not many hours to live; and\nbefore she could return him any answer, informed her that they had both\ndetermined to marry her to Charles, his friend's son; he added, the\nceremony was to be performed directly, that her mother might be witness\nof it; for such a desire she had expressed with childish eagerness.\n\nOverwhelmed by this intelligence, Mary rolled her eyes about, then, with\na vacant stare, fixed them on her father's face; but they were no longer\na sense; they conveyed no ideas to the brain. As she drew near the\nhouse, her wonted presence of mind returned: after this suspension of\nthought, a thousand darted into her mind,--her dying mother,--her\nfriend's miserable situation,--and an extreme horror at taking--at being\nforced to take, such a hasty step; but she did not feel the disgust, the\nreluctance, which arises from a prior attachment.\n\nShe loved Ann better than any one in the world--to snatch her from the\nvery jaws of destruction--she would have encountered a lion. To have\nthis friend constantly with her; to make her mind easy with respect to\nher family, would it not be superlative bliss?\n\nFull of these thoughts she entered her mother's chamber, but they then\nfled at the sight of a dying parent. She went to her, took her hand; it\nfeebly pressed her's. \"My child,\" said the languid mother: the words\nreached her heart; she had seldom heard them pronounced with accents\ndenoting affection; \"My child, I have not always treated you with\nkindness--God forgive me! do you?\"--Mary's tears strayed in a\ndisregarded stream; on her bosom the big drops fell, but did not relieve\nthe fluttering tenant. \"I forgive you!\" said she, in a tone of\nastonishment.\n\nThe clergyman came in to read the service for the sick, and afterwards\nthe marriage ceremony was performed. Mary stood like a statue of\nDespair, and pronounced the awful vow without thinking of it; and then\nran to support her mother, who expired the same night in her arms.\n\nHer husband set off for the continent the same day, with a tutor, to\nfinish his studies at one of the foreign universities.\n\nAnn was sent for to console her, not on account of the departure of her\nnew relation, a boy she seldom took any notice of, but to reconcile her\nto her fate; besides, it was necessary she should have a female\ncompanion, and there was not any maiden aunt in the family, or cousin of\nthe same class.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n\nMary was allowed to pay the rent which gave her so much uneasiness, and\nshe exerted every nerve to prevail on her father effectually to succour\nthe family; but the utmost she could obtain was a small sum very\ninadequate to the purpose, to enable the poor woman to carry into\nexecution a little scheme of industry near the metropolis.\n\nHer intention of leaving that part of the country, had much more weight\nwith him, than Mary's arguments, drawn from motives of philanthropy and\nfriendship; this was a language he did not understand; expressive of\noccult qualities he never thought of, as they could not be seen or\nfelt.\n\nAfter the departure of her mother, Ann still continued to languish,\nthough she had a nurse who was entirely engrossed by the desire of\namusing her. Had her health been re-established, the time would have\npassed in a tranquil, improving manner.\n\nDuring the year of mourning they lived in retirement; music, drawing,\nand reading, filled up the time; and Mary's taste and judgment were both\nimproved by contracting a habit of observation, and permitting the\nsimple beauties of Nature to occupy her thoughts.\n\nShe had a wonderful quickness in discerning distinctions and combining\nideas, that at the first glance did not appear to be similar. But these\nvarious pursuits did not banish all her cares, or carry off all her\nconstitutional black bile. Before she enjoyed Ann's society, she\nimagined it would have made her completely happy: she was disappointed,\nand yet knew not what to complain of.\n\nAs her friend could not accompany her in her walks, and wished to be\nalone, for a very obvious reason, she would return to her old haunts,\nretrace her anticipated pleasures--and wonder how they changed their\ncolour in possession, and proved so futile.\n\nShe had not yet found the companion she looked for. Ann and she were not\ncongenial minds, nor did she contribute to her comfort in the degree she\nexpected. She shielded her from poverty; but this was only a negative\nblessing; when under the pressure it was very grievous, and still more\nso were the apprehensions; but when exempt from them, she was not\ncontented.\n\nSuch is human nature, its laws were not to be inverted to gratify our\nheroine, and stop the progress of her understanding, happiness only\nflourished in paradise--we cannot taste and live.\n\nAnother year passed away with increasing apprehensions. Ann had a hectic\ncough, and many unfavourable prognostics: Mary then forgot every thing\nbut the fear of losing her, and even imagined that her recovery would\nhave made her happy.\n\nHer anxiety led her to study physic, and for some time she only read\nbooks of that cast; and this knowledge, literally speaking, ended in\nvanity and vexation of spirit, as it enabled her to foresee what she\ncould not prevent.\n\nAs her mind expanded, her marriage appeared a dreadful misfortune; she\nwas sometimes reminded of the heavy yoke, and bitter was the\nrecollection!\n\nIn one thing there seemed to be a sympathy between them, for she wrote\nformal answers to his as formal letters. An extreme dislike took root in\nher mind; the found of his name made her turn sick; but she forgot all,\nlistening to Ann's cough, and supporting her languid frame. She would\nthen catch her to her bosom with convulsive eagerness, as if to save her\nfrom sinking into an opening grave.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n\nIt was the will of Providence that Mary should experience almost every\nspecies of sorrow. Her father was thrown from his horse, when his blood\nwas in a very inflammatory state, and the bruises were very dangerous;\nhis recovery was not expected by the physical tribe.\n\nTerrified at seeing him so near death, and yet so ill prepared for it,\nhis daughter sat by his bed, oppressed by the keenest anguish, which her\npiety increased.\n\nHer grief had nothing selfish in it; he was not a friend or protector;\nbut he was her father, an unhappy wretch, going into eternity, depraved\nand thoughtless. Could a life of sensuality be a preparation for a\npeaceful death? Thus meditating, she passed the still midnight hour by\nhis bedside.\n\nThe nurse fell asleep, nor did a violent thunder storm interrupt her\nrepose, though it made the night appear still more terrific to Mary. Her\nfather's unequal breathing alarmed her, when she heard a long drawn\nbreath, she feared it was his last, and watching for another, a dreadful\npeal of thunder struck her ears. Considering the separation of the soul\nand body, this night seemed sadly solemn, and the hours long.\n\nDeath is indeed a king of terrors when he attacks the vicious man! The\ncompassionate heart finds not any comfort; but dreads an eternal\nseparation. No transporting greetings are anticipated, when the\nsurvivors also shall have finished their course; but all is black!--the\ngrave may truly be said to receive the departed--this is the sting of\ndeath!\n\nNight after night Mary watched, and this excessive fatigue impaired her\nown health, but had a worse effect on Ann; though she constantly went to\nbed, she could not rest; a number of uneasy thoughts obtruded\nthemselves; and apprehensions about Mary, whom she loved as well as her\nexhausted heart could love, harassed her mind. After a sleepless,\nfeverish night she had a violent fit of coughing, and burst a\nblood-vessel. The physician, who was in the house, was sent for, and\nwhen he left the patient, Mary, with an authoritative voice, insisted on\nknowing his real opinion. Reluctantly he gave it, that her friend was in\na critical state; and if she passed the approaching winter in England,\nhe imagined she would die in the spring; a season fatal to consumptive\ndisorders. The spring!--Her husband was then expected.--Gracious Heaven,\ncould she bear all this.\n\nIn a few days her father breathed his last. The horrid sensations his\ndeath occasioned were too poignant to be durable: and Ann's danger, and\nher own situation, made Mary deliberate what mode of conduct she should\npursue. She feared this event might hasten the return of her husband,\nand prevent her putting into execution a plan she had determined on. It\nwas to accompany Ann to a more salubrious climate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n\nI mentioned before, that Mary had never had any particular attachment,\nto give rise to the disgust that daily gained ground. Her friendship for\nAnn occupied her heart, and resembled a passion. She had had, indeed,\nseveral transient likings; but they did not amount to love. The society\nof men of genius delighted her, and improved her faculties. With beings\nof this class she did not often meet; it is a rare genus; her first\nfavourites were men past the meridian of life, and of a philosophic\nturn.\n\nDetermined on going to the South of France, or Lisbon; she wrote to the\nman she had promised to obey. The physicians had said change of air was\nnecessary for her as well as her friend. She mentioned this, and added,\n\"Her comfort, almost her existence, depended on the recovery of the\ninvalid she wished to attend; and that should she neglect to follow the\nmedical advice she had received, she should never forgive herself, or\nthose who endeavoured to prevent her.\" Full of her design, she wrote\nwith more than usual freedom; and this letter was like most of her\nothers, a transcript of her heart.\n\n\"This dear friend,\" she exclaimed, \"I love for her agreeable qualities,\nand substantial virtues. Continual attention to her health, and the\ntender office of a nurse, have created an affection very like a maternal\none--I am her only support, she leans on me--could I forsake the\nforsaken, and break the bruised reed--No--I would die first! I must--I\nwill go.\"\n\nShe would have added, \"you would very much oblige me by consenting;\" but\nher heart revolted--and irresolutely she wrote something about wishing\nhim happy.--\"Do I not wish all the world well?\" she cried, as she\nsubscribed her name--It was blotted, the letter sealed in a hurry, and\nsent out of her sight; and she began to prepare for her journey.\n\nBy the return of the post she received an answer; it contained some\ncommon-place remarks on her romantic friendship, as he termed it; \"But\nas the physicians advised change of air, he had no objection.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n\nThere was nothing now to retard their journey; and Mary chose Lisbon\nrather than France, on account of its being further removed from the\nonly person she wished not to see.\n\nThey set off accordingly for Falmouth, in their way to that city. The\njourney was of use to Ann, and Mary's spirits were raised by her\nrecovered looks--She had been in despair--now she gave way to hope, and\nwas intoxicated with it. On ship-board Ann always remained in the cabin;\nthe sight of the water terrified her: on the contrary, Mary, after she\nwas gone to bed, or when she fell asleep in the day, went on deck,\nconversed with the sailors, and surveyed the boundless expanse before\nher with delight. One instant she would regard the ocean, the next the\nbeings who braved its fury. Their insensibility and want of fear, she\ncould not name courage; their thoughtless mirth was quite of an animal\nkind, and their feelings as impetuous and uncertain as the element they\nplowed.\n\nThey had only been a week at sea when they hailed the rock of Lisbon,\nand the next morning anchored at the castle. After the customary visits,\nthey were permitted to go on shore, about three miles from the city; and\nwhile one of the crew, who understood the language, went to procure them\none of the ugly carriages peculiar to the country, they waited in the\nIrish convent, which is situated close to the Tagus.\n\nSome of the people offered to conduct them into the church, where there\nwas a fine organ playing; Mary followed them, but Ann preferred staying\nwith a nun she had entered into conversation with.\n\nOne of the nuns, who had a sweet voice, was singing; Mary was struck\nwith awe; her heart joined in the devotion; and tears of gratitude and\ntenderness flowed from her eyes. My Father, I thank thee! burst from\nher--words were inadequate to express her feelings. Silently, she\nsurveyed the lofty dome; heard unaccustomed sounds; and saw faces,\nstrange ones, that she could not yet greet with fraternal love.\n\nIn an unknown land, she considered that the Being she adored inhabited\neternity, was ever present in unnumbered worlds. When she had not any\none she loved near her, she was particularly sensible of the presence\nof her Almighty Friend.\n\nThe arrival of the carriage put a stop to her speculations; it was to\nconduct them to an hotel, fitted up for the reception of invalids.\nUnfortunately, before they could reach it there was a violent shower of\nrain; and as the wind was very high, it beat against the leather\ncurtains, which they drew along the front of the vehicle, to shelter\nthemselves from it; but it availed not, some of the rain forced its way,\nand Ann felt the effects of it, for she caught cold, spite of Mary's\nprecautions.\n\nAs is the custom, the rest of the invalids, or lodgers, sent to enquire\nafter their health; and as soon as Ann left her chamber, in which her\ncomplaints seldom confined her the whole day, they came in person to pay\ntheir compliments. Three fashionable females, and two gentlemen; the\none a brother of the eldest of the young ladies, and the other an\ninvalid, who came, like themselves, for the benefit of the air. They\nentered into conversation immediately.\n\nPeople who meet in a strange country, and are all together in a house,\nsoon get acquainted, without the formalities which attend visiting in\nseparate houses, where they are surrounded by domestic friends. Ann was\nparticularly delighted at meeting with agreeable society; a little\nhectic fever generally made her low-spirited in the morning, and lively\nin the evening, when she wished for company. Mary, who only thought of\nher, determined to cultivate their acquaintance, as she knew, that if\nher mind could be diverted, her body might gain strength.\n\nThey were all musical, and proposed having little concerts. One of the\ngentlemen played on the violin, and the other on the german-flute. The\ninstruments were brought in, with all the eagerness that attends putting\na new scheme in execution.\n\nMary had not said much, for she was diffident; she seldom joined in\ngeneral conversations; though her quickness of penetration enabled her\nsoon to enter into the characters of those she conversed with; and her\nsensibility made her desirous of pleasing every human creature. Besides,\nif her mind was not occupied by any particular sorrow, or study, she\ncaught reflected pleasure, and was glad to see others happy, though\ntheir mirth did not interest her.\n\nThis day she was continually thinking of Ann's recovery, and encouraging\nthe cheerful hopes, which though they dissipated the spirits that had\nbeen condensed by melancholy, yet made her wish to be silent. The music,\nmore than the conversation, disturbed her reflections; but not at first.\nThe gentleman who played on the german-flute, was a handsome, well-bred,\nsensible man; and his observations, if not original, were pertinent.\n\nThe other, who had not said much, began to touch the violin, and played\na little Scotch ballad; he brought such a thrilling sound out of the\ninstrument, that Mary started, and looking at him with more attention\nthan she had done before, and saw, in a face rather ugly, strong lines\nof genius. His manners were awkward, that kind of awkwardness which is\noften found in literary men: he seemed a thinker, and delivered his\nopinions in elegant expressions, and musical tones of voice.\n\nWhen the concert was over, they all retired to their apartments. Mary\nalways slept with Ann, as she was subject to terrifying dreams; and\nfrequently in the night was obliged to be supported, to avoid\nsuffocation. They chatted about their new acquaintance in their own\napartment, and, with respect to the gentlemen, differed in opinion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n\nEvery day almost they saw their new acquaintance; and civility produced\nintimacy. Mary sometimes left her friend with them; while she indulged\nherself in viewing new modes of life, and searching out the causes which\nproduced them. She had a metaphysical turn, which inclined her to\nreflect on every object that passed by her; and her mind was not like a\nmirror, which receives every floating image, but does not retain them:\nshe had not any prejudices, for every opinion was examined before it was\nadopted.\n\nThe Roman Catholic ceremonies attracted her attention, and gave rise to\nconversations when they all met; and one of the gentlemen continually\nintroduced deistical notions, when he ridiculed the pageantry they all\nwere surprised at observing. Mary thought of both the subjects, the\nRomish tenets, and the deistical doubts; and though not a sceptic,\nthought it right to examine the evidence on which her faith was built.\nShe read Butler's Analogy, and some other authors: and these researches\nmade her a christian from conviction, and she learned charity,\nparticularly with respect to sectaries; saw that apparently good and\nsolid arguments might take their rise from different points of view; and\nshe rejoiced to find that those she should not concur with had some\nreason on their side.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n\nWhen I mentioned the three ladies, I said they were fashionable women;\nand it was all the praise, as a faithful historian, I could bestow on\nthem; the only thing in which they were consistent. I forgot to mention\nthat they were all of one family, a mother, her daughter, and niece. The\ndaughter was sent by her physician, to avoid a northerly winter; the\nmother, her niece, and nephew, accompanied her.\n\nThey were people of rank; but unfortunately, though of an ancient\nfamily, the title had descended to a very remote branch--a branch they\ntook care to be intimate with; and servilely copied the Countess's\nairs. Their minds were shackled with a set of notions concerning\npropriety, the fitness of things for the world's eye, trammels which\nalways hamper weak people. What will the world say? was the first thing\nthat was thought of, when they intended doing any thing they had not\ndone before. Or what would the Countess do on such an occasion? And when\nthis question was answered, the right or wrong was discovered without\nthe trouble of their having any idea of the matter in their own heads.\nThis same Countess was a fine planet, and the satellites observed a most\nharmonic dance around her.\n\nAfter this account it is scarcely necessary to add, that their minds had\nreceived very little cultivation. They were taught French, Italian, and\nSpanish; English was their vulgar tongue. And what did they learn?\nHamlet will tell you--words--words. But let me not forget that they\nsqualled Italian songs in the true _gusto_. Without having any seeds\nsown in their understanding, or the affections of the heart set to work,\nthey were brought out of their nursery, or the place they were secluded\nin, to prevent their faces being common; like blazing stars, to\ncaptivate Lords.\n\nThey were pretty, and hurrying from one party of pleasure to another,\noccasioned the disorder which required change of air. The mother, if we\nexcept her being near twenty years older, was just the same creature;\nand these additional years only served to make her more tenaciously\nadhere to her habits of folly, and decide with stupid gravity, some\ntrivial points of ceremony, as a matter of the last importance; of\nwhich she was a competent judge, from having lived in the fashionable\nworld so long: that world to which the ignorant look up as we do to the\nsun.\n\nIt appears to me that every creature has some notion--or rather relish,\nof the sublime. Riches, and the consequent state, are the sublime of\nweak minds:--These images fill, nay, are too big for their narrow souls.\n\nOne afternoon, which they had engaged to spend together, Ann was so ill,\nthat Mary was obliged to send an apology for not attending the\ntea-table. The apology brought them on the carpet; and the mother, with\na look of solemn importance, turned to the sick man, whose name was\nHenry, and said;\n\n\"Though people of the first fashion are frequently at places of this\nkind, intimate with they know not who; yet I do not choose that my\ndaughter, whose family is so respectable, should be intimate with any\none she would blush to know elsewhere. It is only on that account, for I\nnever suffer her to be with any one but in my company,\" added she,\nsitting more erect; and a smile of self-complacency dressed her\ncountenance.\n\n\"I have enquired concerning these strangers, and find that the one who\nhas the most dignity in her manners, is really a woman of fortune.\"\n\"Lord, mamma, how ill she dresses:\" mamma went on; \"She is a romantic\ncreature, you must not copy her, miss; yet she is an heiress of the\nlarge fortune in ----shire, of which you may remember to have heard the\nCountess speak the night you had on the dancing-dress that was so much\nadmired; but she is married.\"\n\nShe then told them the whole story as she heard it from her maid, who\npicked it out of Mary's servant. \"She is a foolish creature, and this\nfriend that she pays as much attention to as if she was a lady of\nquality, is a beggar.\" \"Well, how strange!\" cried the girls.\n\n\"She is, however, a charming creature,\" said her nephew. Henry sighed,\nand strode across the room once or twice; then took up his violin, and\nplayed the air which first struck Mary; he had often heard her praise\nit.\n\nThe music was uncommonly melodious, \"And came stealing on the senses\nlike the sweet south.\" The well-known sounds reached Mary as she sat by\nher friend--she listened without knowing that she did--and shed tears\nalmost without being conscious of it. Ann soon fell asleep, as she had\ntaken an opiate. Mary, then brooding over her fears, began to imagine\nshe had deceived herself--Ann was still very ill; hope had beguiled many\nheavy hours; yet she was displeased with herself for admitting this\nwelcome guest.--And she worked up her mind to such a degree of anxiety,\nthat she determined, once more, to seek medical aid.\n\nNo sooner did she determine, than she ran down with a discomposed look,\nto enquire of the ladies who she should send for. When she entered the\nroom she could not articulate her fears--it appeared like pronouncing\nAnn's sentence of death; her faultering tongue dropped some broken\nwords, and she remained silent. The ladies wondered that a person of her\nsense should be so little mistress of herself; and began to administer\nsome common-place comfort, as, that it was our duty to submit to the\nwill of Heaven, and the like trite consolations, which Mary did not\nanswer; but waving her hand, with an air of impatience, she exclaimed,\n\"I cannot live without her!--I have no other friend; if I lose her, what\na desart will the world be to me.\" \"No other friend,\" re-echoed they,\n\"have you not a husband?\"\n\nMary shrunk back, and was alternately pale and red. A delicate sense of\npropriety prevented her replying; and recalled her bewildered\nreason.--Assuming, in consequence of her recollection, a more composed\nmanner, she made the intended enquiry, and left the room. Henry's eyes\nfollowed her while the females very freely animadverted on her strange\nbehaviour.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\n\nThe physician was sent for; his prescription afforded Ann a little\ntemporary relief; and they again joined the circle. Unfortunately, the\nweather happened to be constantly wet for more than a week, and confined\nthem to the house. Ann then found the ladies not so agreeable; when they\nsat whole hours together, the thread-bare topics were exhausted; and,\nbut for cards or music, the long evenings would have been yawned away in\nlistless indolence.\n\nThe bad weather had had as ill an effect on Henry as on Ann. He was\nfrequently very thoughtful, or rather melancholy; this melancholy would\nof itself have attracted Mary's notice, if she had not found his\nconversation so infinitely superior to the rest of the group. When she\nconversed with him, all the faculties of her soul unfolded themselves;\ngenius animated her expressive countenance and the most graceful,\nunaffected gestures gave energy to her discourse.\n\nThey frequently discussed very important subjects, while the rest were\nsinging or playing cards, nor were they observed for doing so, as Henry,\nwhom they all were pleased with, in the way of gallantry shewed them all\nmore attention than her. Besides, as there was nothing alluring in her\ndress or manner, they never dreamt of her being preferred to them.\n\nHenry was a man of learning; he had also studied mankind, and knew many\nof the intricacies of the human heart, from having felt the infirmities\nof his own. His taste was just, as it had a standard--Nature, which he\nobserved with a critical eye. Mary could not help thinking that in his\ncompany her mind expanded, as he always went below the surface. She\nincreased her stock of ideas, and her taste was improved.\n\nHe was also a pious man; his rational religious sentiments received\nwarmth from his sensibility; and, except on very particular occasions,\nkept it in proper bounds; these sentiments had likewise formed his\ntemper; he was gentle, and easily to be intreated. The ridiculous\nceremonies they were every day witness to, led them into what are termed\ngrave subjects, and made him explain his opinions, which, at other\ntimes, he was neither ashamed of, nor unnecessarily brought forward to\nnotice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIII.\n\n\nWhen the weather began to clear up, Mary sometimes rode out alone,\npurposely to view the ruins that still remained of the earthquake: or\nshe would ride to the banks of the Tagus, to feast her eyes with the\nsight of that magnificent river. At other times she would visit the\nchurches, as she was particularly fond of seeing historical paintings.\n\nOne of these visits gave rise to the subject, and the whole party\ndescanted on it; but as the ladies could not handle it well, they soon\nadverted to portraits; and talked of the attitudes and characters in\nwhich they should wish to be drawn. Mary did not fix on one--when\nHenry, with more apparent warmth than usual, said, \"I would give the\nworld for your picture, with the expression I have seen in your face,\nwhen you have been supporting your friend.\"\n\nThis delicate compliment did not gratify her vanity, but it reached her\nheart. She then recollected that she had once sat for her picture--for\nwhom was it designed? For a boy! Her cheeks flushed with indignation, so\nstrongly did she feel an emotion of contempt at having been thrown\naway--given in with an estate.\n\nAs Mary again gave way to hope, her mind was more disengaged; and her\nthoughts were employed about the objects around her.\n\nShe visited several convents, and found that solitude only eradicates\nsome passions, to give strength to others; the most baneful ones. She\nsaw that religion does not consist in ceremonies; and that many prayers\nmay fall from the lips without purifying the heart.\n\nThey who imagine they can be religious without governing their tempers,\nor exercising benevolence in its most extensive sense, must certainly\nallow, that their religious duties are only practiced from selfish\nprinciples; how then can they be called good? The pattern of all\ngoodness went about _doing_ good. Wrapped up in themselves, the nuns\nonly thought of inferior gratifications. And a number of intrigues were\ncarried on to accelerate certain points on which their hearts were\nfixed:\n\nSuch as obtaining offices of trust or authority; or avoiding those that\nwere servile or laborious. In short, when they could be neither wives\nnor mothers, they aimed at being superiors, and became the most selfish\ncreatures in the world: the passions that were curbed gave strength to\nthe appetites, or to those mean passions which only tend to provide for\nthe gratification of them. Was this seclusion from the world? or did\nthey conquer its vanities or avoid its vexations?\n\nIn these abodes the unhappy individual, who, in the first paroxysm of\ngrief flies to them for refuge, finds too late she took a wrong step.\nThe same warmth which determined her will make her repent; and sorrow,\nthe rust of the mind, will never have a chance of being rubbed off by\nsensible conversation, or new-born affections of the heart.\n\nShe will find that those affections that have once been called forth and\nstrengthened by exercise, are only smothered, not killed, by\ndisappointment; and that in one form or other discontent will corrode\nthe heart, and produce those maladies of the imagination, for which\nthere is no specific.\n\nThe community at large Mary disliked; but pitied many of them whose\nprivate distresses she was informed of; and to pity and relieve were the\nsame things with her.\n\nThe exercise of her various virtues gave vigor to her genius, and\ndignity to her mind; she was sometimes inconsiderate, and violent; but\nnever mean or cunning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIV.\n\n\nThe Portuguese are certainly the most uncivilized nation in Europe. Dr.\nJohnson would have said, \"They have the least mind.\". And can such serve\ntheir Creator in spirit and in truth? No, the gross ritual of Romish\nceremonies is all they can comprehend: they can do penance, but not\nconquer their revenge, or lust. Religion, or love, has never humanized\ntheir hearts; they want the vital part; the mere body worships. Taste is\nunknown; Gothic finery, and unnatural decorations, which they term\nornaments, are conspicuous in their churches and dress. Reverence for\nmental excellence is only to be found in a polished nation.\n\nCould the contemplation of such a people gratify Mary's heart? No: she\nturned disgusted from the prospects--turned to a man of refinement.\nHenry had been some time ill and low-spirited; Mary would have been\nattentive to any one in that situation; but to him she was particularly\nso; she thought herself bound in gratitude, on account of his constant\nendeavours to amuse Ann, and prevent her dwelling on the dreary prospect\nbefore her, which sometimes she could not help anticipating with a kind\nof quiet despair.\n\nShe found some excuse for going more frequently into the room they all\nmet in; nay, she avowed her desire to amuse him: offered to read to him,\nand tried to draw him into amusing conversations; and when she was full\nof these little schemes, she looked at him with a degree of tenderness\nthat she was not conscious of. This divided attention was of use to her,\nand prevented her continually thinking of Ann, whose fluctuating\ndisorder often gave rise to false hopes.\n\nA trifling thing occurred now which occasioned Mary some uneasiness. Her\nmaid, a well-looking girl, had captivated the clerk of a neighbouring\ncompting-house. As the match was an advantageous one, Mary could not\nraise any objection to it, though at this juncture it was very\ndisagreeable to her to have a stranger about her person. However, the\ngirl consented to delay the marriage, as she had some affection for her\nmistress; and, besides, looked forward to Ann's death as a time of\nharvest.\n\nHenry's illness was not alarming, it was rather pleasing, as it gave\nMary an excuse to herself for shewing him how much she was interested\nabout him; and giving little artless proofs of affection, which the\npurity of her heart made her never wish to restrain.\n\nThe only visible return he made was not obvious to common observers. He\nwould sometimes fix his eyes on her, and take them off with a sigh that\nwas coughed away; or when he was leisurely walking into the room, and\ndid not expect to see her, he would quicken his steps, and come up to\nher with eagerness to ask some trivial question. In the same style, he\nwould try to detain her when he had nothing to say--or said nothing.\n\nAnn did not take notice of either his or Mary's behaviour, nor did she\nsuspect that he was a favourite, on any other account than his\nappearing neither well nor happy. She had often seen that when a person\nwas unfortunate, Mary's pity might easily be mistaken for love, and,\nindeed, it was a temporary sensation of that kind. Such it was--why it\nwas so, let others define, I cannot argue against instincts. As reason\nis cultivated in man, they are supposed to grow weaker, and this may\nhave given rise to the assertion, \"That as judgment improves, genius\nevaporates.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XV.\n\n\nOne morning they set out to visit the aqueduct; though the day was very\nfine when they left home, a very heavy shower fell before they reached\nit; they lengthened their ride, the clouds dispersed, and the sun came\nfrom behind them uncommonly bright.\n\nMary would fain have persuaded Ann not to have left the carriage; but\nshe was in spirits, and obviated all her objections, and insisted on\nwalking, tho' the ground was damp. But her strength was not equal to her\nspirits; she was soon obliged to return to the carriage so much\nfatigued, that she fainted, and remained insensible a long time.\n\nHenry would have supported her; but Mary would not permit him; her\nrecollection was instantaneous, and she feared sitting on the damp\nground might do him a material injury: she was on that account positive,\nthough the company did not guess the cause of her being so. As to\nherself, she did not fear bodily pain; and, when her mind was agitated,\nshe could endure the greatest fatigue without appearing sensible of it.\n\nWhen Ann recovered, they returned slowly home; she was carried to bed,\nand the next morning Mary thought she observed a visible change for the\nworse. The physician was sent for, who pronounced her to be in the most\nimminent danger.\n\nAll Mary's former fears now returned like a torrent, and carried every\nother care away; she even added to her present anguish by upbraiding\nherself for her late tranquillity--it haunted her in the form of a\ncrime.\n\nThe disorder made the most rapid advances--there was no hope!--Bereft of\nit, Mary again was tranquil; but it was a very different kind of\ntranquillity. She stood to brave the approaching storm, conscious she\nonly could be overwhelmed by it.\n\nShe did not think of Henry, or if her thoughts glanced towards him, it\nwas only to find fault with herself for suffering a thought to have\nstrayed from Ann.--Ann!--this dear friend was soon torn from her--she\ndied suddenly as Mary was assisting her to walk across the room.--The\nfirst string was severed from her heart--and this \"slow, sudden-death\"\ndisturbed her reasoning faculties; she seemed stunned by it; unable to\nreflect, or even to feel her misery.\n\nThe body was stolen out of the house the second night, and Mary refused\nto see her former companions. She desired her maid to conclude her\nmarriage, and request her intended husband to inform her when the first\nmerchantman was to leave the port, as the packet had just sailed, and\nshe determined not to stay in that hated place any longer than was\nabsolutely necessary.\n\nShe then sent to request the ladies to visit her; she wished to avoid a\nparade of grief--her sorrows were her own, and appeared to her not to\nadmit of increase or softening. She was right; the sight of them did not\naffect her, or turn the stream of her sullen sorrow; the black wave\nrolled along in the same course, it was equal to her where she cast her\neyes; all was impenetrable gloom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVI.\n\n\nSoon after the ladies left her, she received a message from Henry,\nrequesting, as she saw company, to be permitted to visit her: she\nconsented, and he entered immediately, with an unassured pace. She ran\neagerly up to him--saw the tear trembling in his eye, and his\ncountenance softened by the tenderest compassion; the hand which pressed\nhers seemed that of a fellow-creature. She burst into tears; and, unable\nto restrain them, she hid her face with both her hands; these tears\nrelieved her, (she had before had a difficulty in breathing,) and she\nsat down by him more composed than she had appeared since Ann's death;\nbut her conversation was incoherent.\n\nShe called herself \"a poor disconsolate creature!\"--\"Mine is a selfish\ngrief,\" she exclaimed--\"Yet; Heaven is my witness, I do not wish her\nback now she has reached those peaceful mansions, where the weary rest.\nHer pure spirit is happy; but what a wretch am I!\"\n\nHenry forgot his cautious reserve. \"Would you allow me to call you\nfriend?\" said he in a hesitating voice. \"I feel, dear girl, the tendered\ninterest in whatever concerns thee.\" His eyes spoke the rest. They were\nboth silent a few moments; then Henry resumed the conversation. \"I have\nalso been acquainted with grief! I mourn the loss of a woman who was not\nworthy of my regard. Let me give thee some account of the man who now\nsolicits thy friendship; and who, from motives of the purest\nbenevolence, wishes to give comfort to thy wounded heart.\"\n\n\"I have myself,\" said he, mournfully, \"shaken hands with happiness, and\nam dead to the world; I wait patiently for my dissolution; but, for\nthee, Mary, there may be many bright days in store.\"\n\n\"Impossible,\" replied she, in a peevish tone, as if he had insulted her\nby the supposition; her feelings were so much in unison with his, that\nshe was in love with misery.\n\nHe smiled at her impatience, and went on. \"My father died before I knew\nhim, and my mother was so attached to my eldest brother, that she took\nvery little pains to fit me for the profession to which I was destined:\nand, may I tell thee, I left my family, and, in many different stations,\nrambled about the world; saw mankind in every rank of life; and, in\norder to be independent, exerted those talents Nature has given me:\nthese exertions improved my understanding; and the miseries I was\nwitness to, gave a keener edge to my sensibility. My constitution is\nnaturally weak; and, perhaps, two or three lingering disorders in my\nyouth, first gave me a habit of reflecting, and enabled me to obtain\nsome dominion over my passions. At least,\" added he, stifling a sigh,\n\"over the violent ones, though I fear, refinement and reflection only\nrenders the tender ones more tyrannic.\n\n\"I have told you already I have been in love, and disappointed--the\nobject is now no more; let her faults sleep with her! Yet this passion\nhas pervaded my whole soul, and mixed itself with all my affections and\npursuits.--I am not peacefully indifferent; yet it is only to my violin\nI tell the sorrows I now confide with thee. The object I loved forfeited\nmy esteem; yet, true to the sentiment, my fancy has too frequently\ndelighted to form a creature that I could love, that could convey to my\nsoul sensations which the gross part of mankind have not any conception\nof.\"\n\nHe stopped, as Mary seemed lost in thought; but as she was still in a\nlistening attitude, continued his little narrative. \"I kept up an\nirregular correspondence with my mother; my brother's extravagance and\ningratitude had almost broken her heart, and made her feel something\nlike a pang of remorse, on account of her behaviour to me. I hastened to\ncomfort her--and was a comfort to her.\n\n\"My declining health prevented my taking orders, as I had intended; but\nI with warmth entered into literary pursuits; perhaps my heart, not\nhaving an object, made me embrace the substitute with more eagerness.\nBut, do not imagine I have always been a die-away swain. No: I have\nfrequented the cheerful haunts of men, and wit!--enchanting wit! has\nmade many moments fly free from care. I am too fond of the elegant arts;\nand woman--lovely woman! thou hast charmed me, though, perhaps, it would\nnot be easy to find one to whom my reason would allow me to be constant.\n\n\"I have now only to tell you, that my mother insisted on my spending\nthis winter in a warmer climate; and I fixed on Lisbon, as I had before\nvisited the Continent.\" He then looked Mary full in the face; and, with\nthe most insinuating accents, asked \"if he might hope for her\nfriendship? If she would rely on him as if he was her father; and that\nthe tenderest father could not more anxiously interest himself in the\nfate of a darling child, than he did in her's.\"\n\nSuch a crowd of thoughts all at once rushed into Mary's mind, that she\nin vain attempted to express the sentiments which were most predominant.\nHer heart longed to receive a new guest; there was a void in it:\naccustomed to have some one to love, she was alone, and comfortless, if\nnot engrossed by a particular affection.\n\nHenry saw her distress, and not to increase it, left the room. He had\nexerted himself to turn her thoughts into a new channel, and had\nsucceeded; she thought of him till she began to chide herself for\ndefrauding the dead, and, determining to grieve for Ann, she dwelt on\nHenry's misfortunes and ill health; and the interest he took in her fate\nwas a balm to her sick mind. She did not reason on the subject; but she\nfelt he was attached to her: lost in this delirium, she never asked\nherself what kind of an affection she had for him, or what it tended to;\nnor did she know that love and friendship are very distinct; she thought\nwith rapture, that there was one person in the world who had an\naffection for her, and that person she admired--had a friendship for.\n\nHe had called her his dear girl; the words might have fallen from him by\naccident; but they did not fall to the ground. My child! His child,\nwhat an association of ideas! If I had had a father, such a father!--She\ncould not dwell on the thoughts, the wishes which obtruded themselves.\nHer mind was unhinged, and passion unperceived filled her whole soul.\nLost, in waking dreams, she considered and reconsidered Henry's account\nof himself; till she actually thought she would tell Ann--a bitter\nrecollection then roused her out of her reverie; and aloud she begged\nforgiveness of her.\n\nBy these kind of conflicts the day was lengthened; and when she went to\nbed, the night passed away in feverish slumbers; though they did not\nrefresh her, she was spared the labour of thinking, of restraining her\nimagination; it sported uncontrouled; but took its colour from her\nwaking train of thoughts. One instant she was supporting her dying\nmother; then Ann was breathing her last, and Henry was comforting her.\n\nThe unwelcome light visited her languid eyes; yet, I must tell the\ntruth, she thought she should see Henry, and this hope set her spirits\nin motion: but they were quickly depressed by her maid, who came to tell\nher that she had heard of a vessel on board of which she could be\naccommodated, and that there was to be another female passenger on\nboard, a vulgar one; but perhaps she would be more useful on that\naccount--Mary did not want a companion.\n\nAs she had given orders for her passage to be engaged in the first\nvessel that sailed, she could not now retract; and must prepare for the\nlonely voyage, as the Captain intended taking advantage of the first\nfair wind. She had too much strength of mind to waver in her\ndetermination but to determine wrung her very heart, opened all her old\nwounds, and made them bleed afresh. What was she to do? where go? Could\nshe set a seal to a hasty vow, and tell a deliberate lie; promise to\nlove one man, when the image of another was ever present to her--her\nsoul revolted. \"I might gain the applause of the world by such mock\nheroism; but should I not forfeit my own? forfeit thine, my father!\"\n\nThere is a solemnity in the shortest ejaculation, which, for a while,\nstills the tumult of passion. Mary's mind had been thrown off its poise;\nher devotion had been, perhaps, more fervent for some time past; but\nless regular. She forgot that happiness was not to be found on earth,\nand built a terrestrial paradise liable to be destroyed by the first\nserious thought: when, she reasoned she became inexpressibly sad, to\nrender life bearable she gave way to fancy--this was madness.\n\nIn a few days she must again go to sea; the weather was very\ntempestuous--what of that, the tempest in her soul rendered every other\ntrifling--it was not the contending elements, but _herself_ she feared!\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVII.\n\n\nIn order to gain strength to support the expected interview, she went\nout in a carriage. The day was fine; but all nature was to her a\nuniversal blank; she could neither enjoy it, nor weep that she could\nnot. She passed by the ruins of an old monastery on a very high hill she\ngot out to walk amongst the ruins; the wind blew violently, she did not\navoid its fury, on the contrary, wildly bid it blow on, and seemed glad\nto contend with it, or rather walk against it. Exhausted she returned to\nthe carriage was soon at home, and in the old room.\n\nHenry started at the sight of her altered appearance; the day before her\ncomplexion had been of the most pallid hue; but now her cheeks were\nflushed, and her eyes enlivened with a false vivacity, an unusual fire.\nHe was not well, his illness was apparent in his countenance, and he\nowned he had not closed his eyes all night; this roused her dormant\ntenderness, she forgot they were so soon to part-engrossed by the\npresent happiness of seeing, of hearing him.\n\nOnce or twice she essayed to tell him that she was, in a few days, to\ndepart; but she could not; she was irresolute; it will do to-morrow;\nshould the wind change they could not sail in such a hurry; thus she\nthought, and insensibly grew more calm. The Ladies prevailed on her to\nspend the evening with them; but she retired very early to rest, and sat\non the side of her bed several hours, then threw herself on it, and\nwaited for the dreaded to-morrow.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVIII.\n\n\nThe ladies heard that her servant was to be married that day, and that\nshe was to sail in the vessel which was then clearing out at the\nCustom-house. Henry heard, but did not make any remarks; and Mary called\nup all her fortitude to support her, and enable her to hide from the\nfemales her internal struggles. She durst not encounter Henry's glances\nwhen she found he had been informed of her intention; and, trying to\ndraw a veil over her wretched state of mind, she talked incessantly, she\nknew not what; flashes of wit burst from her, and when she began to\nlaugh she could not stop herself.\n\nHenry smiled at some of her sallies, and looked at her with such\nbenignity and compassion, that he recalled her scattered thoughts; and,\nthe ladies going to dress for dinner, they were left alone; and remained\nsilent a few moments: after the noisy conversation it appeared solemn.\nHenry began. \"You are going, Mary, and going by yourself; your mind is\nnot in a state to be left to its own operations--yet I cannot, dissuade\nyou; if I attempted to do it, I should ill deserve the title I wish to\nmerit. I only think of your happiness; could I obey the strongest\nimpulse of my heart, I should accompany thee to England; but such a step\nmight endanger your future peace.\"\n\nMary, then, with all the frankness which marked her character, explained\nher situation to him and mentioned her fatal tie with such disgust that\nhe trembled for her. \"I cannot see him; he is not the man formed for me\nto love!\" Her delicacy did not restrain her, for her dislike to her\nhusband had taken root in her mind long before she knew Henry. Did she\nnot fix on Lisbon rather than France on purpose to avoid him? and if Ann\nhad been in tolerable health she would have flown with her to some\nremote corner to have escaped from him.\n\n\"I intend,\" said Henry, \"to follow you in the next packet; where shall I\nhear of your health?\" \"Oh! let me hear of thine,\" replied Mary. \"I am\nwell, very well; but thou art very ill--thy health is in the most\nprecarious state.\" She then mentioned her intention of going to Ann's\nrelations. \"I am her representative, I have duties to fulfil for her:\nduring my voyage I have time enough for reflection; though I think I\nhave already determined.\"\n\n\"Be not too hasty, my child,\" interrupted Henry; \"far be it from me to\npersuade thee to do violence to thy feelings--but consider that all thy\nfuture life may probably take its colour from thy present mode of\nconduct. Our affections as well as our sentiments are fluctuating; you\nwill not perhaps always either think or feel as you do at present: the\nobject you now shun may appear in a different light.\" He paused. \"In\nadvising thee in this style, I have only thy good at heart, Mary.\"\n\nShe only answered to expostulate. \"My affections are involuntary--yet\nthey can only be fixed by reflection, and when they are they make quite\na part of my soul, are interwoven in it, animate my actions, and form\nmy taste: certain qualities are calculated to call forth my sympathies,\nand make me all I am capable of being. The governing affection gives its\nstamp to the rest--because I am capable of loving one, I have that kind\nof charity to all my fellow-creatures which is not easily provoked.\nMilton has asserted, That earthly love is the scale by which to heavenly\nwe may ascend.\"\n\nShe went on with eagerness. \"My opinions on some subjects are not\nwavering; my pursuit through life has ever been the same: in solitude\nwere my sentiments formed; they are indelible, and nothing can efface\nthem but death--No, death itself cannot efface them, or my soul must be\ncreated afresh, and not improved. Yet a little while am I parted from\nmy Ann--I could not exist without the hope of seeing her again--I could\nnot bear to think that time could wear away an affection that was\nfounded on what is not liable to perish; you might as well attempt to\npersuade me that my soul is matter, and that its feelings arose from\ncertain modifications of it.\"\n\n\"Dear enthusiastic creature,\" whispered Henry, \"how you steal into my\nsoul.\" She still continued. \"The same turn of mind which leads me to\nadore the Author of all Perfection--which leads me to conclude that he\nonly can fill my soul; forces me to admire the faint image-the shadows\nof his attributes here below; and my imagination gives still bolder\nstrokes to them. I knew I am in some degree under the influence of a\ndelusion--but does not this strong delusion prove that I myself 'am _of\nsubtiler essence than the trodden clod_' these flights of the\nimagination point to futurity; I cannot banish them. Every cause in\nnature produces an effect; and am I an exception to the general rule?\nhave I desires implanted in me only to make me miserable? will they\nnever be gratified? shall I never be happy? My feelings do not accord\nwith the notion of solitary happiness. In a state of bliss, it will be\nthe society of beings we can love, without the alloy that earthly\ninfirmities mix with our best affections, that will constitute great\npart of our happiness.\n\n\"With these notions can I conform to the maxims of worldly wisdom? can\nI listen to the cold dictates of worldly prudence and bid my tumultuous\npassions cease to vex me, be still, find content in grovelling pursuits,\nand the admiration of the misjudging crowd, when it is only one I wish\nto please--one who could be all the world to me. Argue not with me, I am\nbound by human ties; but did my spirit ever promise to love, or could I\nconsider when forced to bind myself--to take a vow, that at the awful\nday of judgment I must give an account of. My conscience does not smite\nme, and that Being who is greater than the internal monitor, may approve\nof what the world condemns; sensible that in Him I live, could I brave\nHis presence, or hope in solitude to find peace, if I acted contrary to\nconviction, that the world might approve of my conduct--what could the\nworld give to compensate for my own esteem? it is ever hostile and armed\nagainst the feeling heart!\n\n\"Riches and honours await me, and the cold moralist might desire me to\nsit down and enjoy them--I cannot conquer my feelings, and till I do,\nwhat are these baubles to me? you may tell me I follow a fleeting good,\nan _ignis fatuus_; but this chase, these struggles prepare me for\neternity--when I no longer see through a glass darkly I shall not reason\nabout, but _feel_ in what happiness consists.\"\n\nHenry had not attempted to interrupt her; he saw she was determined, and\nthat these sentiments were not the effusion of the moment, but well\ndigested ones, the result of strong affections, a high sense of honour,\nand respect for the source of all virtue and truth. He was startled, if\nnot entirely convinced by her arguments; indeed her voice, her gestures\nwere all persuasive.\n\nSome one now entered the room; he looked an answer to her long harangue;\nit was fortunate for him, or he might have been led to say what in a\ncooler moment he had determined to conceal; but were words necessary to\nreveal it? He wished not to influence her conduct--vain precaution; she\nknew she was beloved; and could she forget that such a man loved her, or\nrest satisfied with any inferior gratification. When passion first\nenters the heart, it is only a return of affection that is sought after,\nand every other remembrance and wish is blotted out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIX.\n\n\nTwo days passed away without any particular conversation; Henry, trying\nto be indifferent, or to appear so, was more assiduous than ever. The\nconflict was too violent for his present state of health; the spirit was\nwilling, but the body suffered; he lost his appetite, and looked\nwretchedly; his spirits were calmly low--the world seemed to fade\naway--what was that world to him that Mary did not inhabit; she lived\nnot for him.\n\nHe was mistaken; his affection was her only support; without this dear\nprop she had sunk into the grave of her lost--long-loved friend;--his\nattention snatched her from despair. Inscrutable are the ways of\nHeaven!\n\nThe third day Mary was desired to prepare herself; for if the wind\ncontinued in the same point, they should set sail the next evening. She\ntried to prepare her mind, and her efforts were not useless she appeared\nless agitated than could have been expected, and talked of her voyage\nwith composure. On great occasions she was generally calm and collected,\nher resolution would brace her unstrung nerves; but after the victory\nshe had no triumph; she would sink into a state of moping melancholy,\nand feel ten-fold misery when the heroic enthusiasm was over.\n\nThe morning of the day fixed on for her departure she was alone with\nHenry only a few moments, and an awkward kind of formality made them\nslip away without their having said much to each other. Henry was\nafraid to discover his passion, or give any other name to his regard but\nfriendship; yet his anxious solicitude for her welfare was ever breaking\nout-while she as artlessly expressed again and again, her fears with\nrespect to his declining health.\n\n\"We shall soon meet,\" said he, with a faint smile; Mary smiled too; she\ncaught the sickly beam; it was still fainter by being reflected, and not\nknowing what she wished to do, started up and left the room. When she\nwas alone she regretted she had left him so precipitately. \"The few\nprecious moments I have thus thrown away may never return,\" she\nthought-the reflection led to misery.\n\nShe waited for, nay, almost wished for the summons to depart. She could\nnot avoid spending the intermediate time with the ladies and Henry; and\nthe trivial conversations she was obliged to bear a part in harassed her\nmore than can be well conceived.\n\nThe summons came, and the whole party attended her to the vessel. For a\nwhile the remembrance of Ann banished her regret at parting with Henry,\nthough his pale figure pressed on her sight; it may seem a paradox, but\nhe was more present to her when she sailed; her tears then were all his\nown.\n\n\"My poor Ann!\" thought Mary, \"along this road we came, and near this\nspot you called me your guardian angel--and now I leave thee here! ah!\nno, I do not--thy spirit is not confined to its mouldering tenement!\nTell me, thou soul of her I love, tell me, ah! whither art thou fled?\"\nAnn occupied her until they reached the ship.\n\nThe anchor was weighed. Nothing can be more irksome than waiting to say\nfarewel. As the day was serene, they accompanied her a little way, and\nthen got into the boat; Henry was the last; he pressed her hand, it had\nnot any life in it; she leaned over the side of the ship without looking\nat the boat, till it was so far distant, that she could not see the\ncountenances of those that were in it: a mist spread itself over her\nsight--she longed to exchange one look--tried to recollect the\nlast;--the universe contained no being but Henry!--The grief of parting\nwith him had swept all others clean away. Her eyes followed the keel of\nthe boat, and when she could no longer perceive its traces: she looked\nround on the wide waste of waters, thought of the precious moments\nwhich had been stolen from the waste of murdered time.\n\nShe then descended into the cabin, regardless of the surrounding\nbeauties of nature, and throwing herself on her bed in the little hole\nwhich was called the state-room--she wished to forget her existence. On\nthis bed she remained two days, listening to the dashing waves, unable\nto close her eyes. A small taper made the darkness visible; and the\nthird night, by its glimmering light, she wrote the following fragment.\n\n\"Poor solitary wretch that I am; here alone do I listen to the whistling\nwinds and dashing waves;--on no human support can I rest--when not lost\nto hope I found pleasure in the society of those rough beings; but now\nthey appear not like my fellow creatures; no social ties draw me to\nthem. How long, how dreary has this day been; yet I scarcely wish it\nover--for what will to-morrow bring--to-morrow, and to-morrow will only\nbe marked with unvaried characters of wretchedness.--Yet surely, I am\nnot alone!\"\n\nHer moistened eyes were lifted up to heaven; a crowd of thoughts darted\ninto her mind, and pressing her hand against her forehead, as if to bear\nthe intellectual weight, she tried, but tried in vain, to arrange them.\n\"Father of Mercies, compose this troubled spirit: do I indeed wish it to\nbe composed--to forget my Henry?\" the _my_, the pen was directly drawn\nacross in an agony.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XX.\n\n\nThe mate of the ship, who heard her stir, came to offer her some\nrefreshment; and she, who formerly received every offer of kindness or\ncivility with pleasure, now shrunk away disgusted: peevishly she desired\nhim not to disturb her; but the words were hardly articulated when her\nheart smote her, she called him back, and requested something to drink.\nAfter drinking it, fatigued by her mental exertions, she fell into a\ndeath-like slumber, which lasted some hours; but did not refresh her, on\nthe contrary, she awoke languid and stupid.\n\nThe wind still continued contrary; a week, a dismal week, had she\nstruggled with her sorrows; and the struggle brought on a slow fever,\nwhich sometimes gave her false spirits.\n\nThe winds then became very tempestuous, the Great Deep was troubled, and\nall the passengers appalled. Mary then left her bed, and went on deck,\nto survey the contending elements: the scene accorded with the present\nstate of her soul; she thought in a few hours I may go home; the\nprisoner may be released. The vessel rose on a wave and descended into a\nyawning gulph--Not slower did her mounting soul return to earth,\nfor--Ah! her treasure and her heart was there. The squalls rattled\namongst the sails, which were quickly taken down; the wind would then\ndie away, and the wild undirected waves rushed on every side with a\ntremendous roar. In a little vessel in the midst of such a storm she\nwas not dismayed; she felt herself independent.\n\nJust then one of the crew perceived a signal of distress; by the help of\na glass he could plainly discover a small vessel dismasted, drifted\nabout, for the rudder had been broken by the violence of the storm.\nMary's thoughts were now all engrossed by the crew on the brink of\ndestruction. They bore down to the wreck; they reached it, and hailed\nthe trembling wretches; at the sound of the friendly greeting, loud\ncries of tumultuous joy were mixed with the roaring of the waves, and\nwith ecstatic transport they leaped on the shattered deck, launched\ntheir boat in a moment, and committed themselves to the mercy of the\nsea. Stowed between two casks, and leaning on a sail, she watched the\nboat, and when a wave intercepted it from her view--she ceased to\nbreathe, or rather held her breath until it rose again.\n\nAt last the boat arrived safe along-side the ship, and Mary caught the\npoor trembling wretches as they stumbled into it, and joined them in\nthanking that gracious Being, who though He had not thought fit to still\nthe raging of the sea, had afforded them unexpected succour.\n\nAmongst the wretched crew was one poor woman, who fainted when she was\nhauled on board: Mary undressed her, and when she had recovered, and\nsoothed her, left her to enjoy the rest she required to recruit her\nstrength, which fear had quite exhausted. She returned again to view the\nangry deep; and when she gazed on its perturbed state, she thought of\nthe Being who rode on the wings of the wind, and stilled the noise of\nthe sea; and the madness of the people--He only could speak peace to\nher troubled spirit! she grew more calm; the late transaction had\ngratified her benevolence, and stole her out of herself.\n\nOne of the sailors, happening to say to another, \"that he believed the\nworld was going to be at an end;\" this observation led her into a new\ntrain of thoughts: some of Handel's sublime compositions occurred to\nher, and she sung them to the grand accompaniment. The Lord God\nOmnipotent reigned, and would reign for ever, and ever!--Why then did\nshe fear the sorrows that were passing away, when she knew that He would\nbind up the broken-hearted, and receive those who came out of great\ntribulation. She retired to her cabin; and wrote in the little book that\nwas now her only confident. It was after midnight.\n\n\"At this solemn hour, the great day of judgment fills my thoughts; the\nday of retribution, when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed;\nwhen all worldly distinctions will fade away, and be no more seen. I\nhave not words to express the sublime images which the bare\ncontemplation of this awful day raises in my mind. Then, indeed, the\nLord Omnipotent will reign, and He will wipe the tearful eye, and\nsupport the trembling heart--yet a little while He hideth his face, and\nthe dun shades of sorrow, and the thick clouds of folly separate us from\nour God; but when the glad dawn of an eternal day breaks, we shall know\neven as we are known. Here we walk by faith, and not by sight; and we\nhave this alternative, either to enjoy the pleasures of life which are\nbut for a season, or look forward to the prize of our high calling, and\nwith fortitude, and that wisdom which is from above, endeavour to bear\nthe warfare of life. We know that many run the race; but he that\nstriveth obtaineth the crown of victory. Our race is an arduous one! How\nmany are betrayed by traitors lodged in their own breasts, who wear the\ngarb of Virtue, and are so near akin; we sigh to think they should ever\nlead into folly, and slide imperceptibly into vice. Surely any thing\nlike happiness is madness! Shall probationers of an hour presume to\npluck the fruit of immortality, before they have conquered death? it is\nguarded, when the great day, to which I allude, arrives, the way will\nagain be opened. Ye dear delusions, gay deceits, farewel! and yet I\ncannot banish ye for ever; still does my panting soul push forward, and\nlive in futurity, in the deep shades o'er which darkness hangs.--I try\nto pierce the gloom, and find a resting-place, where my thirst of\nknowledge will be gratified, and my ardent affections find an object to\nfix them. Every thing material must change; happiness and this\nfluctating principle is not compatible. Eternity, immateriality, and\nhappiness,--what are ye? How shall I grasp the mighty and fleeting\nconceptions ye create?\"\n\nAfter writing, serenely she delivered her soul into the hands of the\nFather of Spirits; and slept in peace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXI.\n\n\nMary rose early, refreshed by the seasonable rest, and went to visit the\npoor woman, whom she found quite recovered: and, on enquiry, heard that\nshe had lately buried her husband, a common sailor; and that her only\nsurviving child had been washed over-board the day before. Full of her\nown danger, she scarcely thought of her child till that was over; and\nthen she gave way to boisterous emotions.\n\nMary endeavoured to calm her at first, by sympathizing with her; and she\ntried to point out the only solid source of comfort but in doing this\nshe encountered many difficulties; she found her grossly ignorant, yet\nshe did not despair: and as the poor creature could not receive comfort\nfrom the operations of her own mind, she laboured to beguile the hours,\nwhich grief made heavy, by adapting her conversation to her capacity.\n\nThere are many minds that only receive impressions through the medium of\nthe senses: to them did Mary address herself; she made her some\npresents, and promised to assist her when they should arrive in England.\nThis employment roused her out of her late stupor, and again set the\nfaculties of her soul in motion; made the understanding contend with the\nimagination, and the heart throbbed not so irregularly during the\ncontention. How short-lived was the calm! when the English coast was\ndescried, her sorrows returned with redoubled vigor.--She was to visit\nand comfort the mother of her lost friend--And where then should she\ntake up her residence? These thoughts suspended the exertions of her\nunderstanding; abstracted reflections gave way to alarming\napprehensions; and tenderness undermined fortitude.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXII.\n\n\nIn England then landed the forlorn wanderer. She looked round for some\nfew moments--her affections were not attracted to any particular part of\nthe Island. She knew none of the inhabitants of the vast city to which\nshe was going: the mass of buildings appeared to her a huge body without\nan informing soul. As she passed through the streets in an\nhackney-coach, disgust and horror alternately filled her mind. She met\nsome women drunk; and the manners of those who attacked the sailors,\nmade her shrink into herself, and exclaim, are these my fellow\ncreatures!\n\nDetained by a number of carts near the water-side, for she came up the\nriver in the vessel, not having reason to hasten on shore, she saw\nvulgarity, dirt, and vice--her soul sickened; this was the first time\nsuch complicated misery obtruded itself on her sight.--Forgetting her\nown griefs, she gave the world a much indebted tear; mourned for a world\nin ruins. She then perceived, that great part of her comfort must arise\nfrom viewing the smiling face of nature, and be reflected from the view\nof innocent enjoyments: she was fond of seeing animals play, and could\nnot bear to see her own species sink below them.\n\nIn a little dwelling in one of the villages near London, lived the\nmother of Ann; two of her children still remained with her; but they did\nnot resemble Ann. To her house Mary directed the coach, and told the\nunfortunate mother of her loss. The poor woman, oppressed by it, and her\nmany other cares, after an inundation of tears, began to enumerate all\nher past misfortunes, and present cares. The heavy tale lasted until\nmidnight, and the impression it made on Mary's mind was so strong, that\nit banished sleep till towards morning; when tired nature sought\nforgetfulness, and the soul ceased to ruminate about many things.\n\nShe sent for the poor woman they took up at sea, provided her a lodging,\nand relieved her present necessities. A few days were spent in a kind of\nlistless way; then the mother of Ann began to enquire when she thought\nof returning home. She had hitherto treated her with the greatest\nrespect, and concealed her wonder at Mary's choosing a remote room in\nthe house near the garden, and ordering some alterations to be made, as\nif she intended living in it.\n\nMary did not choose to explain herself; had Ann lived, it is probable\nshe would never have loved Henry so fondly; but if she had, she could\nnot have talked of her passion to any human creature. She deliberated,\nand at last informed the family, that she had a reason for not living\nwith her husband, which must some time remain a secret--they stared--Not\nlive with him! how will you live then? This was a question she could not\nanswer; she had only about eighty pounds remaining, of the money she\ntook with her to Lisbon; when it was exhausted where could she get more?\nI will work, she cried, do any thing rather than be a slave.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIII.\n\n\nUnhappy, she wandered about the village, and relieved the poor; it was\nthe only employment that eased her aching heart; she became more\nintimate with misery--the misery that rises from poverty and the want of\neducation. She was in the vicinity of a great city; the vicious poor in\nand about it must ever grieve a benevolent contemplative mind.\n\nOne evening a man who stood weeping in a little lane, near the house she\nresided in, caught her eye. She accosted him; in a confused manner, he\ninformed her, that his wife was dying, and his children crying for the\nbread he could not earn. Mary desired to be conducted to his\nhabitation; it was not very distant, and was the upper room in an old\nmansion-house, which had been once the abode of luxury. Some tattered\nshreds of rich hangings still remained, covered with cobwebs and filth;\nround the ceiling, through which the rain drop'd, was a beautiful\ncornice mouldering; and a spacious gallery was rendered dark by the\nbroken windows being blocked up; through the apertures the wind forced\nits way in hollow sounds, and reverberated along the former scene of\nfestivity.\n\nIt was crowded with inhabitants: som were scolding, others swearing, or\nsinging indecent songs. What a sight for Mary! Her blood ran cold; yet\nshe had sufficient resolution to mount to the top of the house. On the\nfloor, in one corner of a very small room, lay an emaciated figure of a\nwoman; a window over her head scarcely admitted any light, for the\nbroken panes were stuffed with dirty rags. Near her were five children,\nall young, and covered with dirt; their sallow cheeks, and languid eyes,\nexhibited none of the charms of childhood. Some were fighting, and\nothers crying for food; their yells were mixed with their mother's\ngroans, and the wind which rushed through the passage. Mary was\npetrified; but soon assuming more courage, approached the bed, and,\nregardless of the surrounding nastiness, knelt down by the poor wretch,\nand breathed the most poisonous air; for the unfortunate creature was\ndying of a putrid fever, the consequence of dirt and want.\n\nTheir state did not require much explanation. Mary sent the husband for\na poor neighbour, whom she hired to nurse the woman, and take care of\nthe children; and then went herself to buy them some necessaries at a\nshop not far distant. Her knowledge of physic had enabled her to\nprescribe for the woman; and she left the house, with a mixture of\nhorror and satisfaction.\n\nShe visited them every day, and procured them every comfort; contrary to\nher expectation, the woman began to recover; cleanliness and wholesome\nfood had a wonderful effect; and Mary saw her rising as it were from the\ngrave. Not aware of the danger she ran into, she did not think of it\ntill she perceived she had caught the fever. It made such an alarming\nprogress, that she was prevailed on to send for a physician; but the\ndisorder was so violent, that for some days it baffled his skill; and\nMary felt not her danger, as she was delirious. After the crisis, the\nsymptoms were more favourable, and she slowly recovered, without\nregaining much strength or spirits; indeed they were intolerably low:\nshe wanted a tender nurse.\n\nFor some time she had observed, that she was not treated with the same\nrespect as formerly; her favors were forgotten when no more were\nexpected. This ingratitude hurt her, as did a similar instance in the\nwoman who came out of the ship. Mary had hitherto supported her; as her\nfinances were growing low, she hinted to her, that she ought to try to\nearn her own subsistence: the woman in return loaded her with abuse.\n\nTwo months were elapsed; she had not seen, or heard from Henry. He was\nsick--nay, perhaps had forgotten her; all the world was dreary, and all\nthe people ungrateful.\n\nShe sunk into apathy, and endeavouring to rouse herself out of it, she\nwrote in her book another fragment:\n\n\"Surely life is a dream, a frightful one! and after those rude,\ndisjointed images are fled, will light ever break in? Shall I ever feel\njoy? Do all suffer like me; or am I framed so as to be particularly\nsusceptible of misery? It is true, I have experienced the most rapturous\nemotions--short-lived delight!--ethereal beam, which only serves to shew\nmy present misery--yet lie still, my throbbing heart, or burst; and my\nbrain--why dost thou whirl about at such a terrifying rate? why do\nthoughts so rapidly rush into my mind, and yet when they disappear\nleave such deep traces? I could almost wish for the madman's happiness,\nand in a strong imagination lose a sense of woe.\n\n\"Oh! reason, thou boasted guide, why desert me, like the world, when I\nmost need thy assistance! Canst thou not calm this internal tumult, and\ndrive away the death-like sadness which presses so sorely on me,--a\nsadness surely very nearly allied to despair. I am now the prey of\napathy--I could wish for the former storms! a ray of hope sometimes\nillumined my path; I had a pursuit; but now _it visits not my haunts\nforlorn_. Too well have I loved my fellow creatures! I have been wounded\nby ingratitude; from every one it has something of the serpent's tooth.\n\n\"When overwhelmed by sorrow, I have met unkindness; I looked for some\none to have pity on me; but found none!--The healing balm of sympathy is\ndenied; I weep, a solitary wretch, and the hot tears scald my cheeks. I\nhave not the medicine of life, the dear chimera I have so often chased,\na friend. Shade of my loved Ann! dost thou ever visit thy poor Mary?\nRefined spirit, thou wouldst weep, could angels weep, to see her\nstruggling with passions she cannot subdue; and feelings which corrode\nher small portion of comfort!\"\n\nShe could not write any more; she wished herself far distant from all\nhuman society; a thick gloom spread itself over her mind: but did not\nmake her forget the very beings she wished to fly from. She sent for the\npoor woman she found in the garret; gave her money to clothe herself\nand children, and buy some furniture for a little hut, in a large\ngarden, the master of which agreed to employ her husband, who had been\nbred a gardener. Mary promised to visit the family, and see their new\nabode when she was able to go out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIV.\n\n\nMary still continued weak and low, though it was spring, and all nature\nbegan to look gay; with more than usual brightness the sun shone, and a\nlittle robin which she had cherished during the winter sung one of his\nbest songs. The family were particularly civil this fine morning, and\ntried to prevail on her to walk out. Any thing like kindness melted her;\nshe consented.\n\nSofter emotions banished her melancholy, and she directed her steps to\nthe habitation she had rendered comfortable.\n\nEmerging out of a dreary chamber, all nature looked cheerful; when she\nhad last walked out, snow covered the ground, and bleak winds pierced\nher through and through: now the hedges were green, the blossoms adorned\nthe trees, and the birds sung. She reached the dwelling, without being\nmuch exhausted and while she rested there, observed the children\nsporting on the grass, with improved complexions. The mother with tears\nthanked her deliverer, and pointed out her comforts. Mary's tears flowed\nnot only from sympathy, but a complication of feelings and recollections\nthe affections which bound her to her fellow creatures began again to\nplay, and reanimated nature. She observed the change in herself, tried\nto account for it, and wrote with her pencil a rhapsody on sensibility.\n\n\"Sensibility is the most exquisite feeling of which the human soul is\nsusceptible: when it pervades us, we feel happy; and could it last\nunmixed, we might form some conjecture of the bliss of those\nparadisiacal days, when the obedient passions were under the dominion of\nreason, and the impulses of the heart did not need correction.\n\n\"It is this quickness, this delicacy of feeling, which enables us to\nrelish the sublime touches of the poet, and the painter; it is this,\nwhich expands the soul, gives an enthusiastic greatness, mixed with\ntenderness, when we view the magnificent objects of nature; or hear of a\ngood action. The same effect we experience in the spring, when we hail\nthe returning sun, and the consequent renovation of nature; when the\nflowers unfold themselves, and exhale their sweets, and the voice of\nmusic is heard in the land. Softened by tenderness; the soul is\ndisposed to be virtuous. Is any sensual gratification to be compared to\nthat of feelings the eves moistened after having comforted the\nunfortunate?\n\n\"Sensibility is indeed the foundation of all our happiness; but these\nraptures are unknown to the depraved sensualist, who is only moved by\nwhat strikes his gross senses; the delicate embellishments of nature\nescape his notice; as do the gentle and interesting affections.--But it\nis only to be felt; it escapes discussion.\"\n\nShe then returned home, and partook of the family meal, which was\nrendered more cheerful by the presence of a man, past the meridian of\nlife, of polished manners, and dazzling wit. He endeavoured to draw Mary\nout, and succeeded; she entered into conversation, and some of her\nartless flights of genius struck him with surprise; he found she had a\ncapacious mind, and that her reason was as profound as her imagination\nwas lively. She glanced from earth to heaven, and caught the light of\ntruth. Her expressive countenance shewed what passed in her mind, and\nher tongue was ever the faithful interpreter of her heart; duplicity\nnever threw a shade over her words or actions. Mary found him a man of\nlearning; and the exercise of her understanding would frequently make\nher forget her griefs, when nothing else could, except benevolence.\n\nThis man had known the mistress of the house in her youth; good nature\ninduced him to visit her; but when he saw Mary he had another\ninducement. Her appearance, and above all, her genius, and cultivation\nof mind, roused his curiosity; but her dignified manners had such an\neffect on him, he was obliged to suppress it. He knew men, as well as\nbooks; his conversation was entertaining and improving. In Mary's\ncompany he doubted whether heaven was peopled with spirits masculine;\nand almost forgot that he had called the sex \"the pretty play things\nthat render life tolerable.\"\n\nHe had been the slave of beauty, the captive of sense; love he ne'er had\nfelt; the mind never rivetted the chain, nor had the purity of it made\nthe body appear lovely in his eyes. He was humane, despised meanness;\nbut was vain of his abilities, and by no means a useful member of\nsociety. He talked often of the beauty of virtue; but not having any\nsolid foundation to build the practice on, he was only a shining, or\nrather a sparkling character: and though his fortune enabled him to\nhunt down pleasure, he was discontented.\n\nMary observed his character, and wrote down a train of reflections,\nwhich these observations led her to make; these reflections received a\ntinge from her mind; the present state of it, was that kind of painful\nquietness which arises from reason clouded by disgust; she had not yet\nlearned to be resigned; vague hopes agitated her.\n\n\"There are some subjects that are so enveloped in clouds, as you\ndissipate one, another overspreads it. Of this kind are our reasonings\nconcerning happiness; till we are obliged to cry out with the Apostle,\n_That it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive in what it\ncould consist_, or how satiety could be prevented. Man seems formed for\naction, though the passions are seldom properly managed; they are\neither so languid as not to serve as a spur, or else so violent, as to\noverleap all bounds.\n\n\"Every individual has its own peculiar trials; and anguish, in one shape\nor other, visits every heart. Sensibility produces flights of virtue;\nand not curbed by reason, is on the brink of vice talking, and even\nthinking of virtue.\n\n\"Christianity can only afford just principles to govern the wayward\nfeelings and impulses of the heart: every good disposition runs wild, if\nnot transplanted into this soil; but how hard is it to keep the heart\ndiligently, though convinced that the issues of life depend on it.\n\n\"It is very difficult to discipline the mind of a thinker, or reconcile\nhim to the weakness, the inconsistency of his understanding; and a\nstill more laborious task for him to conquer his passions, and learn to\nseek content, instead of happiness. Good dispositions, and virtuous\npropensities, without the light of the Gospel, produce eccentric\ncharacters: comet-like, they are always in extremes; while revelation\nresembles the laws of attraction, and produces uniformity; but too often\nis the attraction feeble; and the light so obscured by passion, as to\nforce the bewildered soul to fly into void space, and wander in\nconfusion.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXV.\n\n\nA few mornings after, as Mary was sitting ruminating, harassed by\nperplexing thoughts, and fears, a letter was delivered to her: the\nservant waited for an answer. Her heart palpitated; it was from Henry;\nshe held it some time in her hand, then tore it open; it was not a long\none; and only contained an account of a relapse, which prevented his\nsailing in the first packet, as he had intended. Some tender enquiries\nwere added, concerning her health, and state of mind; but they were\nexpressed in rather a formal style: it vexed her, and the more so, as it\nstopped the current of affection, which the account of his arrival and\nillness had made flow to her heart--it ceased to beat for a moment--she\nread the passage over again; but could not tell what she was hurt\nby--only that it did not answer the expectations of her affection. She\nwrote a laconic, incoherent note in return, allowing him to call on her\nthe next day--he had requested permission at the conclusion of his\nletter.\n\nHer mind was then painfully active; she could not read or walk; she\ntried to fly from herself, to forget the long hours that were yet to run\nbefore to-morrow could arrive: she knew not what time he would come;\ncertainly in the morning, she concluded; the morning then was anxiously\nwished for; and every wish produced a sigh, that arose from expectation\non the stretch, damped by fear and vain regret.\n\nTo beguile the tedious time, Henry's favorite tunes were sung; the books\nthey read together turned over; and the short epistle read at least a\nhundred times.--Any one who had seen her, would have supposed that she\nwas trying to decypher Chinese characters.\n\nAfter a sleepless night, she hailed the tardy day, watched the rising\nsun, and then listened for every footstep, and started if she heard the\nstreet door opened. At last he came, and she who had been counting the\nhours, and doubting whether the earth moved, would gladly have escaped\nthe approaching interview.\n\nWith an unequal, irresolute pace, she went to meet him; but when she\nbeheld his emaciated countenance, all the tenderness, which the\nformality of his letter had damped, returned, and a mournful\npresentiment stilled the internal conflict. She caught his hand, and\nlooking wistfully at him, exclaimed, \"Indeed, you are not well!\"\n\n\"I am very far from well; but it matters not,\" added he with a smile of\nresignation; \"my native air may work wonders, and besides, my mother is\na tender nurse, and I shall sometimes see thee.\"\n\nMary felt for the first time in her life, envy; she wished\ninvoluntarily, that all the comfort he received should be from her. She\nenquired about the symptoms of his disorder; and heard that he had been\nvery ill; she hastily drove away the fears, that former dear bought\nexperience suggested: and again and again did she repeat, that she was\nsure he would soon recover. She would then look in his face, to see if\nhe assented, and ask more questions to the same purport. She tried to\navoid speaking of herself, and Henry left her, with, a promise of\nvisiting her the next day.\n\nHer mind was now engrossed by one fear--yet she would not allow herself\nto think that she feared an event she could not name. She still saw his\npale face; the sound of his voice still vibrated on her ears; she tried\nto retain it; she listened, looked round, wept, and prayed.\n\nHenry had enlightened the desolate scene: was this charm of life to fade\naway, and, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck\nbehind? These thoughts disturbed her reason, she shook her head, as if\nto drive them out of it; a weight, a heavy one, was on her heart; all\nwas not well there.\n\nOut of this reverie she was soon woke to keener anguish, by the arrival\nof a letter from her husband; it came to Lisbon after her departure:\nHenry had forwarded it to her, but did not choose to deliver it\nhimself, for a very obvious reason; it might have produced a\nconversation he wished for some time to avoid; and his precaution took\nits rise almost equally from benevolence and love.\n\nShe could not muster up sufficient resolution to break the seal: her\nfears were not prophetic, for the contents gave her comfort. He informed\nher that he intended prolonging his tour, as he was now his own master,\nand wished to remain some time on the continent, and in particular to\nvisit Italy without any restraint: but his reasons for it appeared\nchildish; it was not to cultivate his taste, or tread on classic ground,\nwhere poets and philosophers caught their lore; but to join in the\nmasquerades, and such burlesque amusements.\n\nThese instances of folly relieved Mary, in some degree reconciled her\nto herself added fuel to the devouring flame--and silenced something\nlike a pang, which reason and conscience made her feel, when she\nreflected, that it is the office of Religion to reconcile us to the\nseemingly hard dispensations of providence; and that no inclination,\nhowever strong, should oblige us to desert the post assigned us, or\nforce us to forget that virtue should be an active principle; and that\nthe most desirable station, is the one that exercises our faculties,\nrefines our affections, and enables us to be useful.\n\nOne reflection continually wounded her repose; she feared not poverty;\nher wants were few; but in giving up a fortune, she gave up the power of\ncomforting the miserable, and making the sad heart sing for joy.\n\nHeaven had endowed her with uncommon humanity, to render her one of His\nbenevolent agents, a messenger of peace; and should she attend to her\nown inclinations?\n\nThese suggestions, though they could not subdue a violent passion,\nincreased her misery. One moment she was a heroine, half determined to\nbear whatever fate should inflict; the next, her mind would recoil--and\ntenderness possessed her whole soul. Some instances of Henry's\naffection, his worth and genius, were remembered: and the earth was only\na vale of tears, because he was not to sojourn with her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVI.\n\n\nHenry came the next day, and once or twice in the course of the\nfollowing week; but still Mary kept up some little formality, a certain\nconsciousness restrained her; and Henry did not enter on the subject\nwhich he found she wished to avoid. In the course of conversation,\nhowever, she mentioned to him, that she earnestly desired to obtain a\nplace in one of the public offices for Ann's brother, as the family were\nagain in a declining way.\n\nHenry attended, made a few enquiries, and dropped the subject; but the\nfollowing week, she heard him enter with unusual haste; it was to inform\nher, that he had made interest with a person of some consequence, whom\nhe had once obliged in a very disagreeable exigency, in a foreign\ncountry; and that he had procured a place for her friend, which would\ninfallibly lead to something better, if he behaved with propriety. Mary\ncould not speak to thank him; emotions of gratitude and love suffused\nher face; her blood eloquently spoke. She delighted to receive benefits\nthrough the medium of her fellow creatures; but to receive them from\nHenry was exquisite pleasure.\n\nAs the summer advanced, Henry grew worse; the closeness of the air, in\nthe metropolis, affected his breath; and his mother insisted on his\nfixing on some place in the country, where she would accompany him. He\ncould not think of going far off, but chose a little village on the\nbanks of the Thames, near Mary's dwelling: he then introduced her to his\nmother.\n\nThey frequently went down the river in a boat; Henry would take his\nviolin, and Mary would sometimes sing, or read, to them. She pleased his\nmother; she inchanted him. It was an advantage to Mary that friendship\nfirst possessed her heart; it opened it to all the softer sentiments of\nhumanity:--and when this first affection was torn away, a similar one\nsprung up, with a still tenderer sentiment added to it.\n\nThe last evening they were on the water, the clouds grew suddenly black,\nand broke in violent showers, which interrupted the solemn stillness\nthat had prevailed previous to it. The thunder roared; and the oars\nplying quickly, in order to reach the shore, occasioned a not\nunpleasing sound. Mary drew still nearer Henry; she wished to have\nsought with him a watry grave; to have escaped the horror of surviving\nhim.--She spoke not, but Henry saw the workings of her mind--he felt\nthem; threw his arm round her waist--and they enjoyed the luxury of\nwretchedness.--As they touched the shore, Mary perceived that Henry was\nwet; with eager anxiety she cried, What shall I do!--this day will kill\nthee, and I shall not die with thee!\n\nThis accident put a stop to their pleasurable excursions; it had injured\nhim, and brought on the spitting of blood he was subject to--perhaps it\nwas not the cold that he caught, that occasioned it. In vain did Mary\ntry to shut her eyes; her fate pursued her! Henry every day grew worse\nand worse.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVII.\n\n\nOppressed by her foreboding fears, her sore mind was hurt by new\ninstances of ingratitude: disgusted with the family, whose misfortunes\nhad often disturbed her repose, and lost in anticipated sorrow, she\nrambled she knew not where; when turning down a shady walk, she\ndiscovered her feet had taken the path they delighted to tread. She saw\nHenry sitting in his garden alone; he quickly opened the garden-gate,\nand she sat down by him.\n\n\"I did not,\" said he, \"expect to see thee this evening, my dearest Mary;\nbut I was thinking of thee. Heaven has endowed thee with an uncommon\nportion of fortitude, to support one of the most affectionate hearts in\nthe world. This is not a time for disguise; I know I am dear to\nthee--and my affection for thee is twisted with every fibre of my\nheart.--I loved thee ever since I have been acquainted with thine: thou\nart the being my fancy has delighted to form; but which I imagined\nexisted only there! In a little while the shades of death will encompass\nme--ill-fated love perhaps added strength to my disease, and smoothed\nthe rugged path. Try, my love, to fulfil thy destined course--try to add\nto thy other virtues patience. I could have wished, for thy sake, that\nwe could have died together--or that I could live to shield thee from\nthe assaults of an unfeeling world! Could I but offer thee an asylum in\nthese arms--a faithful bosom, in which thou couldst repose all thy\ngriefs--\" He pressed her to it, and she returned the pressure--he felt her\nthrobbing heart. A mournful silence ensued! when he resumed the\nconversation. \"I wished to prepare thee for the blow--too surely do I\nfeel that it will not be long delayed! The passion I have nursed is so\npure, that death cannot extinguish it--or tear away the impression thy\nvirtues have made on my soul. I would fain comfort thee--\"\n\n\"Talk not of comfort,\" interrupted Mary, \"it will be in heaven with thee\nand Ann--while I shall remain on earth the veriest wretch!\"--She grasped\nhis hand.\n\n\"There we shall meet, my love, my Mary, in our Father's--\" His voice\nfaultered; he could not finish the sentence; he was almost\nsuffocated--they both wept, their tears relieved them; they walked\nslowly to the garden-gate (Mary would not go into the house); they could\nnot say farewel when they reached it--and Mary hurried down the lane; to\nspare Henry the pain of witnessing her emotions.\n\nWhen she lost sight of the house she sat down on the ground, till it\ngrew late, thinking of all that had passed. Full of these thoughts, she\ncrept along, regardless of the descending rain; when lifting up her eyes\nto heaven, and then turning them wildly on the prospects around, without\nmarking them; she only felt that the scene accorded with her present\nstate of mind. It was the last glimmering of twilight, with a full moon,\nover which clouds continually flitted. Where am I wandering, God of\nMercy! she thought; she alluded to the wanderings of her mind. In what a\nlabyrinth am I lost! What miseries have I already encountered--and what\na number lie still before me.\n\nHer thoughts flew rapidly to something. I could be happy listening to\nhim, soothing his cares.--Would he not smile upon me--call me his own\nMary? I am not his--said she with fierceness--I am a wretch! and she\nheaved a sigh that almost broke her heart, while the big tears rolled\ndown her burning cheeks; but still her exercised mind, accustomed to\nthink, began to observe its operation, though the barrier of reason was\nalmost carried away, and all the faculties not restrained by her, were\nrunning into confusion. Wherefore am I made thus? Vain are my\nefforts--I cannot live without loving--and love leads to madness.--Yet\nI will not weep; and her eyes were now fixed by despair, dry and\nmotionless; and then quickly whirled about with a look of distraction.\n\nShe looked for hope; but found none--all was troubled waters.--No where\ncould she find rest. I have already paced to and fro in the earth; it is\nnot my abiding place--may I not too go home! Ah! no. Is this complying\nwith my Henry's request, could a spirit thus disengaged expect to\nassociate with his? Tears of tenderness strayed down her relaxed\ncountenance, and her softened heart heaved more regularly. She felt the\nrain, and turned to her solitary home.\n\nFatigued by the tumultuous emotions she had endured, when she entered\nthe house she ran to her own room, sunk on the bed; and exhausted\nnature soon closed her eyes; but active fancy was still awake, and a\nthousand fearful dreams interrupted her slumbers.\n\nFeverish and languid, she opened her eyes, and saw the unwelcome sun\ndart his rays through a window, the curtains of which she had forgotten\nto draw. The dew hung on the adjacent trees, and added to the lustre;\nthe little robin began his song, and distant birds joined. She looked;\nher countenance was still vacant--her sensibility was absorbed by one\nobject.\n\nDid I ever admire the rising sun, she slightly thought, turning from the\nWindow, and shutting her eyes: she recalled to view the last night's\nscene. His faltering voice, lingering step, and the look of tender woe,\nwere all graven on her heart; as were the words \"Could these arms\nshield thee from sorrow--afford thee an asylum from an unfeeling world.\"\nThe pressure to his bosom was not forgot. For a moment she was happy;\nbut in a long-drawn sigh every delightful sensation evaporated.\nSoon--yes, very soon, will the grave again receive all I love! and the\nremnant of my days--she could not proceed--Were there then days to come\nafter that?\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.\n\n\nJust as she was going to quit her room, to visit Henry, his mother\ncalled on her.\n\n\"My son is worse to-day,\" said she, \"I come to request you to spend not\nonly this day, but a week or two with me.--Why should I conceal any\nthing from you? Last night my child made his mother his confident, and,\nin the anguish of his heart, requested me to be thy friend--when I shall\nbe childless. I will not attempt to describe what I felt when he talked\nthus to me. If I am to lose the support of my age, and be again a\nwidow--may I call her Child whom my Henry wishes me to adopt?\"\n\nThis new instance of Henry's disinterested affection, Mary felt most\nforcibly; and striving to restrain the complicated emotions, and sooth\nthe wretched mother, she almost fainted: when the unhappy parent forced\ntears from her, by saying, \"I deserve this blow; my partial fondness\nmade me neglect him, when most he wanted a mother's care; this neglect,\nperhaps, first injured his constitution: righteous Heaven has made my\ncrime its own punishment; and now I am indeed a mother, I shall loss my\nchild--my only child!\"\n\nWhen they were a little more composed they hastened to the invalide; but\nduring the short ride, the mother related several instances of Henry's\ngoodness of heart. Mary's tears were not those of unmixed anguish; the\ndisplay of his virtues gave her extreme delight--yet human nature\nprevailed; she trembled to think they would soon unfold themselves in a\nmore genial clime.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIX.\n\n\nShe found Henry very ill. The physician had some weeks before declared\nhe never knew a person with a similar pulse recover. Henry was certain\nhe could not live long; all the rest he could obtain, was procured by\nopiates. Mary now enjoyed the melancholy pleasure of nursing him, and\nsoftened by her tenderness the pains she could not remove. Every sigh\ndid she stifle, every tear restrain, when he could see or hear them. She\nwould boast of her resignation--yet catch eagerly at the least ray of\nhope. While he slept she would support his pillow, and rest her head\nwhere she could feel his breath. She loved him better than herself--she\ncould not pray for his recovery; she could only say, The will of Heaven\nbe done.\n\nWhile she was in this state, she labored to acquire fortitude; but one\ntender look destroyed it all--she rather labored, indeed, to make him\nbelieve he was resigned, than really to be so.\n\nShe wished to receive the sacrament with him, as a bond of union which\nwas to extend beyond the grave. She did so, and received comfort from\nit; she rose above her misery.\n\nHis end was now approaching. Mary sat on the side of the bed. His eyes\nappeared fixed--no longer agitated by passion, he only felt that it was\na fearful thing to die. The soul retired to the citadel; but it was not\nnow solely filled by the image of her who in silent despair watched for\nhis last breath. Collected, a frightful calmness stilled every turbulent\nemotion.\n\nThe mother's grief was more audible. Henry had for some time only\nattended to Mary--Mary pitied the parent, whose stings of conscience\nincreased her sorrow; she whispered him, \"Thy mother weeps, disregarded\nby thee; oh! comfort her!--My mother, thy son blesses thee.--\" The\noppressed parent left the room. And Mary _waited_ to see him die.\n\nShe pressed with trembling eagerness his parched lips--he opened his\neyes again; the spreading film retired, and love returned them--he gave\na look--it was never forgotten. My Mary, will you be comforted?\n\nYes, yes, she exclaimed in a firm voice; you go to be happy--I am not a\ncomplete wretch! The words almost choked her.\n\nHe was a long time silent; the opiate produced a kind of stupor. At\nlast, in an agony, he cried, It is dark; I cannot see thee; raise me up.\nWhere is Mary? did she not say she delighted to support me? let me die\nin her arms.\n\nHer arms were opened to receive him; they trembled not. Again he was\nobliged to lie down, resting on her: as the agonies increased he leaned\ntowards her: the soul seemed flying to her, as it escaped out of its\nprison. The breathing was interrupted; she heard distinctly the last\nsigh--and lifting up to Heaven her eyes, Father, receive his spirit, she\ncalmly cried.\n\nThe attendants gathered round; she moved not, nor heard the clamor; the\nhand seemed yet to press hers; it still was warm. A ray of light from\nan opened window discovered the pale face.\n\nShe left the room, and retired to one very near it; and sitting down on\nthe floor, fixed her eyes on the door of the apartment which contained\nthe body. Every event of her life rushed across her mind with wonderful\nrapidity--yet all was still--fate had given the finishing stroke. She\nsat till midnight.--Then rose in a phrensy, went into the apartment, and\ndesired those who watched the body to retire.\n\nShe knelt by the bed side;--an enthusiastic devotion overcame the\ndictates of despair.--She prayed most ardently to be supported, and\ndedicated herself to the service of that Being into whose hands, she had\ncommitted the spirit she almost adored--again--and again,--she prayed\nwildly--and fervently--but attempting to touch the lifeless hand--her\nhead swum--she sunk--\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXX.\n\n\nThree months after, her only friend, the mother of her lost Henry began\nto be alarmed, at observing her altered appearance; and made her own\nhealth a pretext for travelling. These complaints roused Mary out of her\ntorpid state; she imagined a new duty now forced her to exert herself--a\nduty love made sacred!--\n\nThey went to Bath, from that to Bristol; but the latter place they\nquickly left; the sight of the sick that resort there, they neither of\nthem could bear. From Bristol they flew to Southampton. The road was\npleasant--yet Mary shut her eyes;--or if they were open, green fields\nand commons, passed in quick succession, and left no more traces behind\nthan if they had been waves of the sea.\n\nSome time after they were settled at Southampton, they met the man who\ntook so much notice of Mary, soon after her return to England. He\nrenewed his acquaintance; he was really interested in her fate, as he\nhad heard her uncommon story; besides, he knew her husband; knew him to\nbe a good-natured, weak man. He saw him soon after his arrival in his\nnative country, and prevented his hastening to enquire into the reasons\nof Mary's strange conduct. He desired him not to be too precipitate, if\nhe ever wished to possess an invaluable treasure. He was guided by him,\nand allowed him to follow Mary to Southampton, and speak first to her\nfriend.\n\nThis friend determined to trust to her native strength of mind, and\ninformed her of the circumstance; but she overrated it: Mary was not\nable, for a few days after the intelligence, to fix on the mode of\nconduct she ought now to pursue. But at last she conquered her disgust,\nand wrote her _husband_ an account of what had passed since she had\ndropped his correspondence.\n\nHe came in person to answer the letter. Mary fainted when he approached\nher unexpectedly. Her disgust returned with additional force, in spite\nof previous reasonings, whenever he appeared; yet she was prevailed on\nto promise to live with him, if he would permit her to pass one year,\ntravelling from place to place; he was not to accompany her.\n\nThe time too quickly elapsed, and she gave him her hand--the struggle\nwas almost more than she could endure. She tried to appear calm; time\nmellowed her grief, and mitigated her torments; but when her husband\nwould take her hand, or mention any thing like love, she would instantly\nfeel a sickness, a faintness at her heart, and wish, involuntarily, that\nthe earth would open and swallow her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXXI.\n\n\nMary visited the continent, and sought health in different climates; but\nher nerves were not to be restored to their former state. She then\nretired to her house in the country, established manufactories, threw\nthe estate into small farms; and continually employed herself this way\nto dissipate care, and banish unavailing regret. She visited the sick,\nsupported the old, and educated the young.\n\nThese occupations engrossed her mind; but there were hours when all her\nformer woes would return and haunt her.--Whenever she did, or said, any\nthing she thought Henry would have approved of--she could not avoid\nthinking with anguish, of the rapture his approbation ever conveyed to\nher heart--a heart in which there was a void, that even benevolence and\nreligion could not fill. The latter taught her to struggle for\nresignation; and the former rendered life supportable.\n\nHer delicate state of health did not promise long life. In moments of\nsolitary sadness, a gleam of joy would dart across her mind--She thought\nshe was hastening to that world _where there is neither marrying_, nor\ngiving in marriage.\n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: What is Mary taught after her brother dies?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 104, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["The duo meet Henry on their travels to Lisbon."], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory: E-text prepared by Jonathan Ingram, Janet Blenkinship, and the Project\nGutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net/)\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note: The author is Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797).\n\n\n\n\n\nMARY,\n\nA Fiction\n\nL'exercice des plus sublimes vertus éleve et nourrit le génie.\n                                                     ROUSSEAU.\n\nLondon,\nPrinted for J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church-Yard.\n\nMDCCLXXXVIII\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nIn delineating the Heroine of this Fiction, the Author attempts to\ndevelop a character different from those generally portrayed. This woman\nis neither a Clarissa, a Lady G----, nor a[A] Sophie.--It would be vain\nto mention the various modifications of these models, as it would to\nremark, how widely artists wander from nature, when they copy the\noriginals of great masters. They catch the gross parts; but the subtile\nspirit evaporates; and not having the just ties, affectation disgusts,\nwhen grace was expected to charm.\n\nThose compositions only have power to delight, and carry us willing\ncaptives, where the soul of the author is exhibited, and animates the\nhidden springs. Lost in a pleasing enthusiasm, they live in the scenes\nthey represent; and do not measure their steps in a beaten track,\nsolicitous to gather expected flowers, and bind them in a wreath,\naccording to the prescribed rules of art.\n\nThese chosen few, wish to speak for themselves, and not to be an\necho--even of the sweetest sounds--or the reflector of the most sublime\nbeams. The[B] paradise they ramble in, must be of their own creating--or\nthe prospect soon grows insipid, and not varied by a vivifying\nprinciple, fades and dies.\n\nIn an artless tale, without episodes, the mind of a woman, who has\nthinking powers is displayed. The female organs have been thought too\nweak for this arduous employment; and experience seems to justify the\nassertion. Without arguing physically about _possibilities_--in a\nfiction, such a being may be allowed to exist; whose grandeur is derived\nfrom the operations of its own faculties, not subjugated to opinion; but\ndrawn by the individual from the original source.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote A: Rousseau.]\n\n[Footnote B: I here give the Reviewers an opportunity of being very\nwitty about the Paradise of Fools, &c.]\n\n\n\n\nMARY\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n\nMary, the heroine of this fiction, was the daughter of Edward, who\nmarried Eliza, a gentle, fashionable girl, with a kind of indolence in\nher temper, which might be termed negative good-nature: her virtues,\nindeed, were all of that stamp. She carefully attended to the _shews_ of\nthings, and her opinions, I should have said prejudices, were such as\nthe generality approved of. She was educated with the expectation of a\nlarge fortune, of course became a mere machine: the homage of her\nattendants made a great part of her puerile amusements, and she never\nimagined there were any relative duties for her to fulfil: notions of\nher own consequence, by these means, were interwoven in her mind, and\nthe years of youth spent in acquiring a few superficial accomplishments,\nwithout having any taste for them. When she was first introduced into\nthe polite circle, she danced with an officer, whom she faintly wished\nto be united to; but her father soon after recommending another in a\nmore distinguished rank of life, she readily submitted to his will, and\npromised to love, honour, and obey, (a vicious fool,) as in duty bound.\n\nWhile they resided in London, they lived in the usual fashionable style,\nand seldom saw each other; nor were they much more sociable when they\nwooed rural felicity for more than half the year, in a delightful\ncountry, where Nature, with lavish hand, had scattered beauties around;\nfor the master, with brute, unconscious gaze, passed them by unobserved,\nand sought amusement in country sports. He hunted in the morning, and\nafter eating an immoderate dinner, generally fell asleep: this\nseasonable rest enabled him to digest the cumbrous load; he would then\nvisit some of his pretty tenants; and when he compared their ruddy glow\nof health with his wife's countenance, which even rouge could not\nenliven, it is not necessary to say which a _gourmand_ would give the\npreference to. Their vulgar dance of spirits were infinitely more\nagreeable to his fancy than her sickly, die-away languor. Her voice was\nbut the shadow of a sound, and she had, to complete her delicacy, so\nrelaxed her nerves, that she became a mere nothing.\n\nMany such noughts are there in the female world! yet she had a good\nopinion of her own merit,--truly, she said long prayers,--and sometimes\nread her Week's Preparation: she dreaded that horrid place vulgarly\ncalled _hell_, the regions below; but whether her's was a mounting\nspirit, I cannot pretend to determine; or what sort of a planet would\nhave been proper for her, when she left her _material_ part in this\nworld, let metaphysicians settle; I have nothing to say to her unclothed\nspirit.\n\nAs she was sometimes obliged to be alone, or only with her French\nwaiting-maid, she sent to the metropolis for all the new publications,\nand while she was dressing her hair, and she could turn her eyes from\nthe glass, she ran over those most delightful substitutes for bodily\ndissipation, novels. I say bodily, or the animal soul, for a rational\none can find no employment in polite circles. The glare of lights, the\nstudied inelegancies of dress, and the compliments offered up at the\nshrine of false beauty, are all equally addressed to the senses.\n\nWhen she could not any longer indulge the caprices of fancy one way, she\ntried another. The Platonic Marriage, Eliza Warwick, and some other\ninteresting tales were perused with eagerness. Nothing could be more\nnatural than the developement of the passions, nor more striking than\nthe views of the human heart. What delicate struggles! and uncommonly\npretty turns of thought! The picture that was found on a bramble-bush,\nthe new sensitive-plant, or tree, which caught the swain by the\nupper-garment, and presented to his ravished eyes a portrait.--Fatal\nimage!--It planted a thorn in a till then insensible heart, and sent a\nnew kind of a knight-errant into the world. But even this was nothing to\nthe catastrophe, and the circumstance on which it hung, the hornet\nsettling on the sleeping lover's face. What a _heart-rending_ accident!\nShe planted, in imitation of those susceptible souls, a rose bush; but\nthere was not a lover to weep in concert with her, when she watered it\nwith her tears.--Alas! Alas!\n\nIf my readers would excuse the sportiveness of fancy, and give me credit\nfor genius, I would go on and tell them such tales as would force the\nsweet tears of sensibility to flow in copious showers down beautiful\ncheeks, to the discomposure of rouge, &c. &c. Nay, I would make it so\ninteresting, that the fair peruser should beg the hair-dresser to\nsettle the curls himself, and not interrupt her.\n\nShe had besides another resource, two most beautiful dogs, who shared\nher bed, and reclined on cushions near her all the day. These she\nwatched with the most assiduous care, and bestowed on them the warmest\ncaresses. This fondness for animals was not that kind of\n_attendrissement_ which makes a person take pleasure in providing for\nthe subsistence and comfort of a living creature; but it proceeded from\nvanity, it gave her an opportunity of lisping out the prettiest French\nexpressions of ecstatic fondness, in accents that had never been attuned\nby tenderness.\n\nShe was chaste, according to the vulgar acceptation of the word, that\nis, she did not make any actual _faux pas_; she feared the world, and\nwas indolent; but then, to make amends for this seeming self-denial, she\nread all the sentimental novels, dwelt on the love-scenes, and, had she\nthought while she read, her mind would have been contaminated; as she\naccompanied the lovers to the lonely arbors, and would walk with them by\nthe clear light of the moon. She wondered her husband did not stay at\nhome. She was jealous--why did he not love her, sit by her side, squeeze\nher hand, and look unutterable things? Gentle reader, I will tell thee;\nthey neither of them felt what they could not utter. I will not pretend\nto say that they always annexed an idea to a word; but they had none of\nthose feelings which are not easily analyzed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n\nIn due time she brought forth a son, a feeble babe; and the following\nyear a daughter. After the mother's throes she felt very few sentiments\nof maternal tenderness: the children were given to nurses, and she\nplayed with her dogs. Want of exercise prevented the least chance of her\nrecovering strength; and two or three milk-fevers brought on a\nconsumption, to which her constitution tended. Her children all died in\ntheir infancy, except the two first, and she began to grow fond of the\nson, as he was remarkably handsome. For years she divided her time\nbetween the sofa, and the card-table. She thought not of death, though\non the borders of the grave; nor did any of the duties of her station\noccur to her as necessary. Her children were left in the nursery; and\nwhen Mary, the little blushing girl, appeared, she would send the\nawkward thing away. To own the truth, she was awkward enough, in a house\nwithout any play-mates; for her brother had been sent to school, and she\nscarcely knew how to employ herself; she would ramble about the garden,\nadmire the flowers, and play with the dogs. An old house-keeper told her\nstories, read to her, and, at last, taught her to read. Her mother\ntalked of enquiring for a governess when her health would permit; and,\nin the interim desired her own maid to teach her French. As she had\nlearned to read, she perused with avidity every book that came in her\nway. Neglected in every respect, and left to the operations of her own\nmind, she considered every thing that came under her inspection, and\nlearned to think. She had heard of a separate state, and that angels\nsometimes visited this earth. She would sit in a thick wood in the park,\nand talk to them; make little songs addressed to them, and sing them to\ntunes of her own composing; and her native wood notes wild were sweet\nand touching.\n\nHer father always exclaimed against female acquirements, and was glad\nthat his wife's indolence and ill health made her not trouble herself\nabout them. She had besides another reason, she did not wish to have a\nfine tall girl brought forward into notice as her daughter; she still\nexpected to recover, and figure away in the gay world. Her husband was\nvery tyrannical and passionate; indeed so very easily irritated when\ninebriated, that Mary was continually in dread lest he should frighten\nher mother to death; her sickness called forth all Mary's tenderness,\nand exercised her compassion so continually, that it became more than a\nmatch for self-love, and was the governing propensity of her heart\nthrough life. She was violent in her temper; but she saw her father's\nfaults, and would weep when obliged to compare his temper with her\nown.--She did more; artless prayers rose to Heaven for pardon, when she\nwas conscious of having erred; and her contrition was so exceedingly\npainful, that she watched diligently the first movements of anger and\nimpatience, to save herself this cruel remorse.\n\nSublime ideas filled her young mind--always connected with devotional\nsentiments; extemporary effusions of gratitude, and rhapsodies of\npraise would burst often from her, when she listened to the birds, or\npursued the deer. She would gaze on the moon, and ramble through the\ngloomy path, observing the various shapes the clouds assumed, and listen\nto the sea that was not far distant. The wandering spirits, which she\nimagined inhabited every part of nature, were her constant friends and\nconfidants. She began to consider the Great First Cause, formed just\nnotions of his attributes, and, in particular, dwelt on his wisdom and\ngoodness. Could she have loved her father or mother, had they returned\nher affection, she would not so soon, perhaps, have sought out a new\nworld.\n\nHer sensibility prompted her to search for an object to love; on earth\nit was not to be found: her mother had often disappointed her, and the\napparent partiality she shewed to her brother gave her exquisite\npain--produced a kind of habitual melancholy, led her into a fondness\nfor reading tales of woe, and made her almost realize the fictitious\ndistress.\n\nShe had not any notion of death till a little chicken expired at her\nfeet; and her father had a dog hung in a passion. She then concluded\nanimals had souls, or they would not have been subjected to the caprice\nof man; but what was the soul of man or beast? In this style year after\nyear rolled on, her mother still vegetating.\n\nA little girl who attended in the nursery fell sick. Mary paid her great\nattention; contrary to her wish, she was sent out of the house to her\nmother, a poor woman, whom necessity obliged to leave her sick child\nwhile she earned her daily bread. The poor wretch, in a fit of delirium\nstabbed herself, and Mary saw her dead body, and heard the dismal\naccount; and so strongly did it impress her imagination, that every\nnight of her life the bleeding corpse presented itself to her when the\nfirst began to slumber. Tortured by it, she at last made a vow, that if\nshe was ever mistress of a family she would herself watch over every\npart of it. The impression that this accident made was indelible.\n\nAs her mother grew imperceptibly worse and worse, her father, who did\nnot understand such a lingering complaint, imagined his wife was only\ngrown still more whimsical, and that if she could be prevailed on to\nexert herself, her health would soon be re-established. In general he\ntreated her with indifference; but when her illness at all interfered\nwith his pleasures, he expostulated in the most cruel manner, and\nvisibly harassed the invalid. Mary would then assiduously try to turn\nhis attention to something else; and when sent out of the room, would\nwatch at the door, until the storm was over, for unless it was, she\ncould not rest. Other causes also contributed to disturb her repose: her\nmother's luke-warm manner of performing her religious duties, filled her\nwith anguish; and when she observed her father's vices, the unbidden\ntears would flow. She was miserable when beggars were driven from the\ngate without being relieved; if she could do it unperceived, she would\ngive them her own breakfast, and feel gratified, when, in consequence of\nit, she was pinched by hunger.\n\nShe had once, or twice, told her little secrets to her mother; they were\nlaughed at, and she determined never to do it again. In this manner was\nshe left to reflect on her own feelings; and so strengthened were they\nby being meditated on, that her character early became singular and\npermanent. Her understanding was strong and clear, when not clouded by\nher feelings; but she was too much the creature of impulse, and the\nslave of compassion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\nNear her father's house lived a poor widow, who had been brought up in\naffluence, but reduced to great distress by the extravagance of her\nhusband; he had destroyed his constitution while he spent his fortune;\nand dying, left his wife, and five small children, to live on a very\nscanty pittance. The eldest daughter was for some years educated by a\ndistant relation, a Clergyman. While she was with him a young gentleman,\nson to a man of property in the neighbourhood, took particular notice of\nher. It is true, he never talked of love; but then they played and sung\nin concert; drew landscapes together, and while she worked he read to\nher, cultivated her taste, and stole imperceptibly her heart. Just at\nthis juncture, when smiling, unanalyzed hope made every prospect bright,\nand gay expectation danced in her eyes, her benefactor died. She\nreturned to her mother--the companion of her youth forgot her, they took\nno more sweet counsel together. This disappointment spread a sadness\nover her countenance, and made it interesting. She grew fond of\nsolitude, and her character appeared similar to Mary's, though her\nnatural disposition was very different.\n\nShe was several years older than Mary, yet her refinement, her taste,\ncaught her eye, and she eagerly sought her friendship: before her return\nshe had assisted the family, which was almost reduced to the last ebb;\nand now she had another motive to actuate her.\n\nAs she had often occasion to send messages to Ann, her new friend,\nmistakes were frequently made; Ann proposed that in future they should\nbe written ones, to obviate this difficulty, and render their\nintercourse more agreeable. Young people are mostly fond of scribbling;\nMary had had very little instruction; but by copying her friend's\nletters, whose hand she admired, she soon became a proficient; a little\npractice made her write with tolerable correctness, and her genius gave\nforce to it. In conversation, and in writing, when she felt, she was\npathetic, tender and persuasive; and she expressed contempt with such\nenergy, that few could stand the flash of her eyes.\n\nAs she grew more intimate with Ann, her manners were softened, and she\nacquired a degree of equality in her behaviour: yet still her spirits\nwere fluctuating, and her movements rapid. She felt less pain on\naccount of her mother's partiality to her brother, as she hoped now to\nexperience the pleasure of being beloved; but this hope led her into new\nsorrows, and, as usual, paved the way for disappointment. Ann only felt\ngratitude; her heart was entirely engrossed by one object, and\nfriendship could not serve as a substitute; memory officiously retraced\npast scenes, and unavailing wishes made time loiter.\n\nMary was often hurt by the involuntary indifference which these\nconsequences produced. When her friend was all the world to her, she\nfound she was not as necessary to her happiness; and her delicate mind\ncould not bear to obtrude her affection, or receive love as an alms, the\noffspring of pity. Very frequently has she ran to her with delight, and\nnot perceiving any thing of the same kind in Ann's countenance, she has\nshrunk back; and, falling from one extreme into the other, instead of a\nwarm greeting that was just slipping from her tongue, her expressions\nseemed to be dictated by the most chilling insensibility.\n\nShe would then imagine that she looked sickly or unhappy, and then all\nher tenderness would return like a torrent, and bear away all\nreflection. In this manner was her sensibility called forth, and\nexercised, by her mother's illness, her friend's misfortunes, and her\nown unsettled mind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n\nNear to her father's house was a range of mountains; some of them were,\nliterally speaking, cloud-capt, for on them clouds continually rested,\nand gave grandeur to the prospect; and down many of their sides the\nlittle bubbling cascades ran till they swelled a beautiful river.\nThrough the straggling trees and bushes the wind whistled, and on them\nthe birds sung, particularly the robins; they also found shelter in the\nivy of an old castle, a haunted one, as the story went; it was situated\non the brow of one of the mountains, and commanded a view of the sea.\nThis castle had been inhabited by some of her ancestors; and many tales\nhad the old house-keeper told her of the worthies who had resided there.\n\nWhen her mother frowned, and her friend looked cool, she would steal to\nthis retirement, where human foot seldom trod--gaze on the sea, observe\nthe grey clouds, or listen to the wind which struggled to free itself\nfrom the only thing that impeded its course. When more cheerful, she\nadmired the various dispositions of light and shade, the beautiful tints\nthe gleams of sunshine gave to the distant hills; then she rejoiced in\nexistence, and darted into futurity.\n\nOne way home was through the cavity of a rock covered with a thin layer\nof earth, just sufficient to afford nourishment to a few stunted shrubs\nand wild plants, which grew on its sides, and nodded over the summit. A\nclear stream broke out of it, and ran amongst the pieces of rocks\nfallen into it. Here twilight always reigned--it seemed the Temple of\nSolitude; yet, paradoxical as the assertion may appear, when the foot\nsounded on the rock, it terrified the intruder, and inspired a strange\nfeeling, as if the rightful sovereign was dislodged. In this retreat she\nread Thomson's Seasons, Young's Night-Thoughts, and Paradise Lost.\n\nAt a little distance from it were the huts of a few poor fishermen, who\nsupported their numerous children by their precarious labour. In these\nlittle huts she frequently rested, and denied herself every childish\ngratification, in order to relieve the necessities of the inhabitants.\nHer heart yearned for them, and would dance with joy when she had\nrelieved their wants, or afforded them pleasure.\n\nIn these pursuits she learned the luxury of doing good; and the sweet\ntears of benevolence frequently moistened her eyes, and gave them a\nsparkle which, exclusive of that, they had not; on the contrary, they\nwere rather fixed, and would never have been observed if her soul had\nnot animated them. They were not at all like those brilliant ones which\nlook like polished diamonds, and dart from every superfice, giving more\nlight to the beholders than they receive themselves.\n\nHer benevolence, indeed, knew no bounds; the distress of others carried\nher out of herself; and she rested not till she had relieved or\ncomforted them. The warmth of her compassion often made her so diligent,\nthat many things occurred to her, which might have escaped a less\ninterested observer.\n\nIn like manner, she entered with such spirit into whatever she read,\nand the emotions thereby raised were so strong, that it soon became a\npart of her mind.\n\nEnthusiastic sentiments of devotion at this period actuated her; her\nCreator was almost apparent to her senses in his works; but they were\nmostly the grand or solemn features of Nature which she delighted to\ncontemplate. She would stand and behold the waves rolling, and think of\nthe voice that could still the tumultuous deep.\n\nThese propensities gave the colour to her mind, before the passions\nbegan to exercise their tyrannic sway, and particularly pointed out\nthose which the soil would have a tendency to nurse.\n\nYears after, when wandering through the same scenes, her imagination has\nstrayed back, to trace the first placid sentiments they inspired, and\nshe would earnestly desire to regain the same peaceful tranquillity.\n\nMany nights she sat up, if I may be allowed the expression, _conversing_\nwith the Author of Nature, making verses, and singing hymns of her own\ncomposing. She considered also, and tried to discern what end her\nvarious faculties were destined to pursue; and had a glimpse of a truth,\nwhich afterwards more fully unfolded itself.\n\nShe thought that only an infinite being could fill the human soul, and\nthat when other objects were followed as a means of happiness, the\ndelusion led to misery, the consequence of disappointment. Under the\ninfluence of ardent affections, how often has she forgot this\nconviction, and as often returned to it again, when it struck her with\nredoubled force. Often did she taste unmixed delight; her joys, her\necstacies arose from genius.\n\nShe was now fifteen, and she wished to receive the holy sacrament; and\nperusing the scriptures, and discussing some points of doctrine which\npuzzled her, she would sit up half the night, her favourite time for\nemploying her mind; she too plainly perceived that she saw through a\nglass darkly; and that the bounds set to stop our intellectual\nresearches, is one of the trials of a probationary state.\n\nBut her affections were roused by the display of divine mercy; and she\neagerly desired to commemorate the dying love of her great benefactor.\nThe night before the important day, when she was to take on herself her\nbaptismal vow, she could not go to bed; the sun broke in on her\nmeditations, and found her not exhausted by her watching.\n\nThe orient pearls were strewed around--she hailed the morn, and sung\nwith wild delight, Glory to God on high, good will towards men. She was\nindeed so much affected when she joined in the prayer for her eternal\npreservation, that she could hardly conceal her violent emotions; and\nthe recollection never failed to wake her dormant piety when earthly\npassions made it grow languid.\n\nThese various movements of her mind were not commented on, nor were the\nluxuriant shoots restrained by culture. The servants and the poor adored\nher.\n\nIn order to be enabled to gratify herself in the highest degree, she\npracticed the most rigid oeconomy, and had such power over her\nappetites and whims, that without any great effort she conquered them\nso entirely, that when her understanding or affections had an object,\nshe almost forgot she had a body which required nourishment.\n\nThis habit of thinking, this kind of absorption, gave strength to the\npassions.\n\nWe will now enter on the more active field of life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n\nA few months after Mary was turned of seventeen, her brother was\nattacked by a violent fever, and died before his father could reach the\nschool.\n\nShe was now an heiress, and her mother began to think her of\nconsequence, and did not call her _the child_. Proper masters were sent\nfor; she was taught to dance, and an extraordinary master procured to\nperfect her in that most necessary of all accomplishments.\n\nA part of the estate she was to inherit had been litigated, and the heir\nof the person who still carried on a Chancery suit, was only two years\nyounger than our heroine. The fathers, spite of the dispute, frequently\nmet, and, in order to settle it amicably, they one day, over a bottle,\ndetermined to quash it by a marriage, and, by uniting the two estates,\nto preclude all farther enquiries into the merits of their different\nclaims.\n\nWhile this important matter was settling, Mary was otherwise employed.\nAnn's mother's resources were failing; and the ghastly phantom, poverty,\nmade hasty strides to catch them in his clutches. Ann had not fortitude\nenough to brave such accumulated misery; besides, the canker-worm was\nlodged in her heart, and preyed on her health. She denied herself every\nlittle comfort; things that would be no sacrifice when a person is well,\nare absolutely necessary to alleviate bodily pain, and support the\nanimal functions.\n\nThere were many elegant amusements, that she had acquired a relish for,\nwhich might have taken her mind off from its most destructive bent; but\nthese her indigence would not allow her to enjoy: forced then, by way of\nrelaxation, to play the tunes her lover admired, and handle the pencil\nhe taught her to hold, no wonder his image floated on her imagination,\nand that taste invigorated love.\n\nPoverty, and all its inelegant attendants, were in her mother's abode;\nand she, though a good sort of a woman, was not calculated to banish, by\nher trivial, uninteresting chat, the delirium in which her daughter was\nlost.\n\nThis ill-fated love had given a bewitching softness to her manners, a\ndelicacy so truly feminine, that a man of any feeling could not behold\nher without wishing to chase her sorrows away. She was timid and\nirresolute, and rather fond of dissipation; grief only had power to make\nher reflect.\n\nIn every thing it was not the great, but the beautiful, or the pretty,\nthat caught her attention. And in composition, the polish of style, and\nharmony of numbers, interested her much more than the flights of genius,\nor abstracted speculations.\n\nShe often wondered at the books Mary chose, who, though she had a lively\nimagination, would frequently study authors whose works were addressed\nto the understanding. This liking taught her to arrange her thoughts,\nand argue with herself, even when under the influence of the most\nviolent passions.\n\nAnn's misfortunes and ill health were strong ties to bind Mary to her;\nshe wished so continually to have a home to receive her in, that it\ndrove every other desire out of her mind; and, dwelling on the tender\nschemes which compassion and friendship dictated, she longed most\nardently to put them in practice.\n\nFondly as she loved her friend, she did not forget her mother, whose\ndecline was so imperceptible, that they were not aware of her\napproaching dissolution. The physician, however, observing the most\nalarming symptoms; her husband was apprised of her immediate danger; and\nthen first mentioned to her his designs with respect to his daughter.\n\nShe approved of them; Mary was sent for; she was not at home; she had\nrambled to visit Ann, and found her in an hysteric fit. The landlord of\nher little farm had sent his agent for the rent, which had long been due\nto him; and he threatened to seize the stock that still remained, and\nturn them out, if they did not very shortly discharge the arrears.\n\nAs this man made a private fortune by harassing the tenants of the\nperson to whom he was deputy, little was to be expected from his\nforbearance.\n\nAll this was told to Mary--and the mother added, she had many other\ncreditors who would, in all probability, take the alarm, and snatch from\nthem all that had been saved out of the wreck. \"I could bear all,\" she\ncried; \"but what will become of my children? Of this child,\" pointing to\nthe fainting Ann, \"whose constitution is already undermined by care and\ngrief--where will she go?\"--Mary's heart ceased to beat while she asked\nthe question--She attempted to speak; but the inarticulate sounds died\naway. Before she had recovered herself, her father called himself to\nenquire for her; and desired her instantly to accompany him home.\n\nEngrossed by the scene of misery she had been witness to, she walked\nsilently by his side, when he roused her out of her reverie by telling\nher that in all likelihood her mother had not many hours to live; and\nbefore she could return him any answer, informed her that they had both\ndetermined to marry her to Charles, his friend's son; he added, the\nceremony was to be performed directly, that her mother might be witness\nof it; for such a desire she had expressed with childish eagerness.\n\nOverwhelmed by this intelligence, Mary rolled her eyes about, then, with\na vacant stare, fixed them on her father's face; but they were no longer\na sense; they conveyed no ideas to the brain. As she drew near the\nhouse, her wonted presence of mind returned: after this suspension of\nthought, a thousand darted into her mind,--her dying mother,--her\nfriend's miserable situation,--and an extreme horror at taking--at being\nforced to take, such a hasty step; but she did not feel the disgust, the\nreluctance, which arises from a prior attachment.\n\nShe loved Ann better than any one in the world--to snatch her from the\nvery jaws of destruction--she would have encountered a lion. To have\nthis friend constantly with her; to make her mind easy with respect to\nher family, would it not be superlative bliss?\n\nFull of these thoughts she entered her mother's chamber, but they then\nfled at the sight of a dying parent. She went to her, took her hand; it\nfeebly pressed her's. \"My child,\" said the languid mother: the words\nreached her heart; she had seldom heard them pronounced with accents\ndenoting affection; \"My child, I have not always treated you with\nkindness--God forgive me! do you?\"--Mary's tears strayed in a\ndisregarded stream; on her bosom the big drops fell, but did not relieve\nthe fluttering tenant. \"I forgive you!\" said she, in a tone of\nastonishment.\n\nThe clergyman came in to read the service for the sick, and afterwards\nthe marriage ceremony was performed. Mary stood like a statue of\nDespair, and pronounced the awful vow without thinking of it; and then\nran to support her mother, who expired the same night in her arms.\n\nHer husband set off for the continent the same day, with a tutor, to\nfinish his studies at one of the foreign universities.\n\nAnn was sent for to console her, not on account of the departure of her\nnew relation, a boy she seldom took any notice of, but to reconcile her\nto her fate; besides, it was necessary she should have a female\ncompanion, and there was not any maiden aunt in the family, or cousin of\nthe same class.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n\nMary was allowed to pay the rent which gave her so much uneasiness, and\nshe exerted every nerve to prevail on her father effectually to succour\nthe family; but the utmost she could obtain was a small sum very\ninadequate to the purpose, to enable the poor woman to carry into\nexecution a little scheme of industry near the metropolis.\n\nHer intention of leaving that part of the country, had much more weight\nwith him, than Mary's arguments, drawn from motives of philanthropy and\nfriendship; this was a language he did not understand; expressive of\noccult qualities he never thought of, as they could not be seen or\nfelt.\n\nAfter the departure of her mother, Ann still continued to languish,\nthough she had a nurse who was entirely engrossed by the desire of\namusing her. Had her health been re-established, the time would have\npassed in a tranquil, improving manner.\n\nDuring the year of mourning they lived in retirement; music, drawing,\nand reading, filled up the time; and Mary's taste and judgment were both\nimproved by contracting a habit of observation, and permitting the\nsimple beauties of Nature to occupy her thoughts.\n\nShe had a wonderful quickness in discerning distinctions and combining\nideas, that at the first glance did not appear to be similar. But these\nvarious pursuits did not banish all her cares, or carry off all her\nconstitutional black bile. Before she enjoyed Ann's society, she\nimagined it would have made her completely happy: she was disappointed,\nand yet knew not what to complain of.\n\nAs her friend could not accompany her in her walks, and wished to be\nalone, for a very obvious reason, she would return to her old haunts,\nretrace her anticipated pleasures--and wonder how they changed their\ncolour in possession, and proved so futile.\n\nShe had not yet found the companion she looked for. Ann and she were not\ncongenial minds, nor did she contribute to her comfort in the degree she\nexpected. She shielded her from poverty; but this was only a negative\nblessing; when under the pressure it was very grievous, and still more\nso were the apprehensions; but when exempt from them, she was not\ncontented.\n\nSuch is human nature, its laws were not to be inverted to gratify our\nheroine, and stop the progress of her understanding, happiness only\nflourished in paradise--we cannot taste and live.\n\nAnother year passed away with increasing apprehensions. Ann had a hectic\ncough, and many unfavourable prognostics: Mary then forgot every thing\nbut the fear of losing her, and even imagined that her recovery would\nhave made her happy.\n\nHer anxiety led her to study physic, and for some time she only read\nbooks of that cast; and this knowledge, literally speaking, ended in\nvanity and vexation of spirit, as it enabled her to foresee what she\ncould not prevent.\n\nAs her mind expanded, her marriage appeared a dreadful misfortune; she\nwas sometimes reminded of the heavy yoke, and bitter was the\nrecollection!\n\nIn one thing there seemed to be a sympathy between them, for she wrote\nformal answers to his as formal letters. An extreme dislike took root in\nher mind; the found of his name made her turn sick; but she forgot all,\nlistening to Ann's cough, and supporting her languid frame. She would\nthen catch her to her bosom with convulsive eagerness, as if to save her\nfrom sinking into an opening grave.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n\nIt was the will of Providence that Mary should experience almost every\nspecies of sorrow. Her father was thrown from his horse, when his blood\nwas in a very inflammatory state, and the bruises were very dangerous;\nhis recovery was not expected by the physical tribe.\n\nTerrified at seeing him so near death, and yet so ill prepared for it,\nhis daughter sat by his bed, oppressed by the keenest anguish, which her\npiety increased.\n\nHer grief had nothing selfish in it; he was not a friend or protector;\nbut he was her father, an unhappy wretch, going into eternity, depraved\nand thoughtless. Could a life of sensuality be a preparation for a\npeaceful death? Thus meditating, she passed the still midnight hour by\nhis bedside.\n\nThe nurse fell asleep, nor did a violent thunder storm interrupt her\nrepose, though it made the night appear still more terrific to Mary. Her\nfather's unequal breathing alarmed her, when she heard a long drawn\nbreath, she feared it was his last, and watching for another, a dreadful\npeal of thunder struck her ears. Considering the separation of the soul\nand body, this night seemed sadly solemn, and the hours long.\n\nDeath is indeed a king of terrors when he attacks the vicious man! The\ncompassionate heart finds not any comfort; but dreads an eternal\nseparation. No transporting greetings are anticipated, when the\nsurvivors also shall have finished their course; but all is black!--the\ngrave may truly be said to receive the departed--this is the sting of\ndeath!\n\nNight after night Mary watched, and this excessive fatigue impaired her\nown health, but had a worse effect on Ann; though she constantly went to\nbed, she could not rest; a number of uneasy thoughts obtruded\nthemselves; and apprehensions about Mary, whom she loved as well as her\nexhausted heart could love, harassed her mind. After a sleepless,\nfeverish night she had a violent fit of coughing, and burst a\nblood-vessel. The physician, who was in the house, was sent for, and\nwhen he left the patient, Mary, with an authoritative voice, insisted on\nknowing his real opinion. Reluctantly he gave it, that her friend was in\na critical state; and if she passed the approaching winter in England,\nhe imagined she would die in the spring; a season fatal to consumptive\ndisorders. The spring!--Her husband was then expected.--Gracious Heaven,\ncould she bear all this.\n\nIn a few days her father breathed his last. The horrid sensations his\ndeath occasioned were too poignant to be durable: and Ann's danger, and\nher own situation, made Mary deliberate what mode of conduct she should\npursue. She feared this event might hasten the return of her husband,\nand prevent her putting into execution a plan she had determined on. It\nwas to accompany Ann to a more salubrious climate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n\nI mentioned before, that Mary had never had any particular attachment,\nto give rise to the disgust that daily gained ground. Her friendship for\nAnn occupied her heart, and resembled a passion. She had had, indeed,\nseveral transient likings; but they did not amount to love. The society\nof men of genius delighted her, and improved her faculties. With beings\nof this class she did not often meet; it is a rare genus; her first\nfavourites were men past the meridian of life, and of a philosophic\nturn.\n\nDetermined on going to the South of France, or Lisbon; she wrote to the\nman she had promised to obey. The physicians had said change of air was\nnecessary for her as well as her friend. She mentioned this, and added,\n\"Her comfort, almost her existence, depended on the recovery of the\ninvalid she wished to attend; and that should she neglect to follow the\nmedical advice she had received, she should never forgive herself, or\nthose who endeavoured to prevent her.\" Full of her design, she wrote\nwith more than usual freedom; and this letter was like most of her\nothers, a transcript of her heart.\n\n\"This dear friend,\" she exclaimed, \"I love for her agreeable qualities,\nand substantial virtues. Continual attention to her health, and the\ntender office of a nurse, have created an affection very like a maternal\none--I am her only support, she leans on me--could I forsake the\nforsaken, and break the bruised reed--No--I would die first! I must--I\nwill go.\"\n\nShe would have added, \"you would very much oblige me by consenting;\" but\nher heart revolted--and irresolutely she wrote something about wishing\nhim happy.--\"Do I not wish all the world well?\" she cried, as she\nsubscribed her name--It was blotted, the letter sealed in a hurry, and\nsent out of her sight; and she began to prepare for her journey.\n\nBy the return of the post she received an answer; it contained some\ncommon-place remarks on her romantic friendship, as he termed it; \"But\nas the physicians advised change of air, he had no objection.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n\nThere was nothing now to retard their journey; and Mary chose Lisbon\nrather than France, on account of its being further removed from the\nonly person she wished not to see.\n\nThey set off accordingly for Falmouth, in their way to that city. The\njourney was of use to Ann, and Mary's spirits were raised by her\nrecovered looks--She had been in despair--now she gave way to hope, and\nwas intoxicated with it. On ship-board Ann always remained in the cabin;\nthe sight of the water terrified her: on the contrary, Mary, after she\nwas gone to bed, or when she fell asleep in the day, went on deck,\nconversed with the sailors, and surveyed the boundless expanse before\nher with delight. One instant she would regard the ocean, the next the\nbeings who braved its fury. Their insensibility and want of fear, she\ncould not name courage; their thoughtless mirth was quite of an animal\nkind, and their feelings as impetuous and uncertain as the element they\nplowed.\n\nThey had only been a week at sea when they hailed the rock of Lisbon,\nand the next morning anchored at the castle. After the customary visits,\nthey were permitted to go on shore, about three miles from the city; and\nwhile one of the crew, who understood the language, went to procure them\none of the ugly carriages peculiar to the country, they waited in the\nIrish convent, which is situated close to the Tagus.\n\nSome of the people offered to conduct them into the church, where there\nwas a fine organ playing; Mary followed them, but Ann preferred staying\nwith a nun she had entered into conversation with.\n\nOne of the nuns, who had a sweet voice, was singing; Mary was struck\nwith awe; her heart joined in the devotion; and tears of gratitude and\ntenderness flowed from her eyes. My Father, I thank thee! burst from\nher--words were inadequate to express her feelings. Silently, she\nsurveyed the lofty dome; heard unaccustomed sounds; and saw faces,\nstrange ones, that she could not yet greet with fraternal love.\n\nIn an unknown land, she considered that the Being she adored inhabited\neternity, was ever present in unnumbered worlds. When she had not any\none she loved near her, she was particularly sensible of the presence\nof her Almighty Friend.\n\nThe arrival of the carriage put a stop to her speculations; it was to\nconduct them to an hotel, fitted up for the reception of invalids.\nUnfortunately, before they could reach it there was a violent shower of\nrain; and as the wind was very high, it beat against the leather\ncurtains, which they drew along the front of the vehicle, to shelter\nthemselves from it; but it availed not, some of the rain forced its way,\nand Ann felt the effects of it, for she caught cold, spite of Mary's\nprecautions.\n\nAs is the custom, the rest of the invalids, or lodgers, sent to enquire\nafter their health; and as soon as Ann left her chamber, in which her\ncomplaints seldom confined her the whole day, they came in person to pay\ntheir compliments. Three fashionable females, and two gentlemen; the\none a brother of the eldest of the young ladies, and the other an\ninvalid, who came, like themselves, for the benefit of the air. They\nentered into conversation immediately.\n\nPeople who meet in a strange country, and are all together in a house,\nsoon get acquainted, without the formalities which attend visiting in\nseparate houses, where they are surrounded by domestic friends. Ann was\nparticularly delighted at meeting with agreeable society; a little\nhectic fever generally made her low-spirited in the morning, and lively\nin the evening, when she wished for company. Mary, who only thought of\nher, determined to cultivate their acquaintance, as she knew, that if\nher mind could be diverted, her body might gain strength.\n\nThey were all musical, and proposed having little concerts. One of the\ngentlemen played on the violin, and the other on the german-flute. The\ninstruments were brought in, with all the eagerness that attends putting\na new scheme in execution.\n\nMary had not said much, for she was diffident; she seldom joined in\ngeneral conversations; though her quickness of penetration enabled her\nsoon to enter into the characters of those she conversed with; and her\nsensibility made her desirous of pleasing every human creature. Besides,\nif her mind was not occupied by any particular sorrow, or study, she\ncaught reflected pleasure, and was glad to see others happy, though\ntheir mirth did not interest her.\n\nThis day she was continually thinking of Ann's recovery, and encouraging\nthe cheerful hopes, which though they dissipated the spirits that had\nbeen condensed by melancholy, yet made her wish to be silent. The music,\nmore than the conversation, disturbed her reflections; but not at first.\nThe gentleman who played on the german-flute, was a handsome, well-bred,\nsensible man; and his observations, if not original, were pertinent.\n\nThe other, who had not said much, began to touch the violin, and played\na little Scotch ballad; he brought such a thrilling sound out of the\ninstrument, that Mary started, and looking at him with more attention\nthan she had done before, and saw, in a face rather ugly, strong lines\nof genius. His manners were awkward, that kind of awkwardness which is\noften found in literary men: he seemed a thinker, and delivered his\nopinions in elegant expressions, and musical tones of voice.\n\nWhen the concert was over, they all retired to their apartments. Mary\nalways slept with Ann, as she was subject to terrifying dreams; and\nfrequently in the night was obliged to be supported, to avoid\nsuffocation. They chatted about their new acquaintance in their own\napartment, and, with respect to the gentlemen, differed in opinion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n\nEvery day almost they saw their new acquaintance; and civility produced\nintimacy. Mary sometimes left her friend with them; while she indulged\nherself in viewing new modes of life, and searching out the causes which\nproduced them. She had a metaphysical turn, which inclined her to\nreflect on every object that passed by her; and her mind was not like a\nmirror, which receives every floating image, but does not retain them:\nshe had not any prejudices, for every opinion was examined before it was\nadopted.\n\nThe Roman Catholic ceremonies attracted her attention, and gave rise to\nconversations when they all met; and one of the gentlemen continually\nintroduced deistical notions, when he ridiculed the pageantry they all\nwere surprised at observing. Mary thought of both the subjects, the\nRomish tenets, and the deistical doubts; and though not a sceptic,\nthought it right to examine the evidence on which her faith was built.\nShe read Butler's Analogy, and some other authors: and these researches\nmade her a christian from conviction, and she learned charity,\nparticularly with respect to sectaries; saw that apparently good and\nsolid arguments might take their rise from different points of view; and\nshe rejoiced to find that those she should not concur with had some\nreason on their side.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n\nWhen I mentioned the three ladies, I said they were fashionable women;\nand it was all the praise, as a faithful historian, I could bestow on\nthem; the only thing in which they were consistent. I forgot to mention\nthat they were all of one family, a mother, her daughter, and niece. The\ndaughter was sent by her physician, to avoid a northerly winter; the\nmother, her niece, and nephew, accompanied her.\n\nThey were people of rank; but unfortunately, though of an ancient\nfamily, the title had descended to a very remote branch--a branch they\ntook care to be intimate with; and servilely copied the Countess's\nairs. Their minds were shackled with a set of notions concerning\npropriety, the fitness of things for the world's eye, trammels which\nalways hamper weak people. What will the world say? was the first thing\nthat was thought of, when they intended doing any thing they had not\ndone before. Or what would the Countess do on such an occasion? And when\nthis question was answered, the right or wrong was discovered without\nthe trouble of their having any idea of the matter in their own heads.\nThis same Countess was a fine planet, and the satellites observed a most\nharmonic dance around her.\n\nAfter this account it is scarcely necessary to add, that their minds had\nreceived very little cultivation. They were taught French, Italian, and\nSpanish; English was their vulgar tongue. And what did they learn?\nHamlet will tell you--words--words. But let me not forget that they\nsqualled Italian songs in the true _gusto_. Without having any seeds\nsown in their understanding, or the affections of the heart set to work,\nthey were brought out of their nursery, or the place they were secluded\nin, to prevent their faces being common; like blazing stars, to\ncaptivate Lords.\n\nThey were pretty, and hurrying from one party of pleasure to another,\noccasioned the disorder which required change of air. The mother, if we\nexcept her being near twenty years older, was just the same creature;\nand these additional years only served to make her more tenaciously\nadhere to her habits of folly, and decide with stupid gravity, some\ntrivial points of ceremony, as a matter of the last importance; of\nwhich she was a competent judge, from having lived in the fashionable\nworld so long: that world to which the ignorant look up as we do to the\nsun.\n\nIt appears to me that every creature has some notion--or rather relish,\nof the sublime. Riches, and the consequent state, are the sublime of\nweak minds:--These images fill, nay, are too big for their narrow souls.\n\nOne afternoon, which they had engaged to spend together, Ann was so ill,\nthat Mary was obliged to send an apology for not attending the\ntea-table. The apology brought them on the carpet; and the mother, with\na look of solemn importance, turned to the sick man, whose name was\nHenry, and said;\n\n\"Though people of the first fashion are frequently at places of this\nkind, intimate with they know not who; yet I do not choose that my\ndaughter, whose family is so respectable, should be intimate with any\none she would blush to know elsewhere. It is only on that account, for I\nnever suffer her to be with any one but in my company,\" added she,\nsitting more erect; and a smile of self-complacency dressed her\ncountenance.\n\n\"I have enquired concerning these strangers, and find that the one who\nhas the most dignity in her manners, is really a woman of fortune.\"\n\"Lord, mamma, how ill she dresses:\" mamma went on; \"She is a romantic\ncreature, you must not copy her, miss; yet she is an heiress of the\nlarge fortune in ----shire, of which you may remember to have heard the\nCountess speak the night you had on the dancing-dress that was so much\nadmired; but she is married.\"\n\nShe then told them the whole story as she heard it from her maid, who\npicked it out of Mary's servant. \"She is a foolish creature, and this\nfriend that she pays as much attention to as if she was a lady of\nquality, is a beggar.\" \"Well, how strange!\" cried the girls.\n\n\"She is, however, a charming creature,\" said her nephew. Henry sighed,\nand strode across the room once or twice; then took up his violin, and\nplayed the air which first struck Mary; he had often heard her praise\nit.\n\nThe music was uncommonly melodious, \"And came stealing on the senses\nlike the sweet south.\" The well-known sounds reached Mary as she sat by\nher friend--she listened without knowing that she did--and shed tears\nalmost without being conscious of it. Ann soon fell asleep, as she had\ntaken an opiate. Mary, then brooding over her fears, began to imagine\nshe had deceived herself--Ann was still very ill; hope had beguiled many\nheavy hours; yet she was displeased with herself for admitting this\nwelcome guest.--And she worked up her mind to such a degree of anxiety,\nthat she determined, once more, to seek medical aid.\n\nNo sooner did she determine, than she ran down with a discomposed look,\nto enquire of the ladies who she should send for. When she entered the\nroom she could not articulate her fears--it appeared like pronouncing\nAnn's sentence of death; her faultering tongue dropped some broken\nwords, and she remained silent. The ladies wondered that a person of her\nsense should be so little mistress of herself; and began to administer\nsome common-place comfort, as, that it was our duty to submit to the\nwill of Heaven, and the like trite consolations, which Mary did not\nanswer; but waving her hand, with an air of impatience, she exclaimed,\n\"I cannot live without her!--I have no other friend; if I lose her, what\na desart will the world be to me.\" \"No other friend,\" re-echoed they,\n\"have you not a husband?\"\n\nMary shrunk back, and was alternately pale and red. A delicate sense of\npropriety prevented her replying; and recalled her bewildered\nreason.--Assuming, in consequence of her recollection, a more composed\nmanner, she made the intended enquiry, and left the room. Henry's eyes\nfollowed her while the females very freely animadverted on her strange\nbehaviour.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\n\nThe physician was sent for; his prescription afforded Ann a little\ntemporary relief; and they again joined the circle. Unfortunately, the\nweather happened to be constantly wet for more than a week, and confined\nthem to the house. Ann then found the ladies not so agreeable; when they\nsat whole hours together, the thread-bare topics were exhausted; and,\nbut for cards or music, the long evenings would have been yawned away in\nlistless indolence.\n\nThe bad weather had had as ill an effect on Henry as on Ann. He was\nfrequently very thoughtful, or rather melancholy; this melancholy would\nof itself have attracted Mary's notice, if she had not found his\nconversation so infinitely superior to the rest of the group. When she\nconversed with him, all the faculties of her soul unfolded themselves;\ngenius animated her expressive countenance and the most graceful,\nunaffected gestures gave energy to her discourse.\n\nThey frequently discussed very important subjects, while the rest were\nsinging or playing cards, nor were they observed for doing so, as Henry,\nwhom they all were pleased with, in the way of gallantry shewed them all\nmore attention than her. Besides, as there was nothing alluring in her\ndress or manner, they never dreamt of her being preferred to them.\n\nHenry was a man of learning; he had also studied mankind, and knew many\nof the intricacies of the human heart, from having felt the infirmities\nof his own. His taste was just, as it had a standard--Nature, which he\nobserved with a critical eye. Mary could not help thinking that in his\ncompany her mind expanded, as he always went below the surface. She\nincreased her stock of ideas, and her taste was improved.\n\nHe was also a pious man; his rational religious sentiments received\nwarmth from his sensibility; and, except on very particular occasions,\nkept it in proper bounds; these sentiments had likewise formed his\ntemper; he was gentle, and easily to be intreated. The ridiculous\nceremonies they were every day witness to, led them into what are termed\ngrave subjects, and made him explain his opinions, which, at other\ntimes, he was neither ashamed of, nor unnecessarily brought forward to\nnotice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIII.\n\n\nWhen the weather began to clear up, Mary sometimes rode out alone,\npurposely to view the ruins that still remained of the earthquake: or\nshe would ride to the banks of the Tagus, to feast her eyes with the\nsight of that magnificent river. At other times she would visit the\nchurches, as she was particularly fond of seeing historical paintings.\n\nOne of these visits gave rise to the subject, and the whole party\ndescanted on it; but as the ladies could not handle it well, they soon\nadverted to portraits; and talked of the attitudes and characters in\nwhich they should wish to be drawn. Mary did not fix on one--when\nHenry, with more apparent warmth than usual, said, \"I would give the\nworld for your picture, with the expression I have seen in your face,\nwhen you have been supporting your friend.\"\n\nThis delicate compliment did not gratify her vanity, but it reached her\nheart. She then recollected that she had once sat for her picture--for\nwhom was it designed? For a boy! Her cheeks flushed with indignation, so\nstrongly did she feel an emotion of contempt at having been thrown\naway--given in with an estate.\n\nAs Mary again gave way to hope, her mind was more disengaged; and her\nthoughts were employed about the objects around her.\n\nShe visited several convents, and found that solitude only eradicates\nsome passions, to give strength to others; the most baneful ones. She\nsaw that religion does not consist in ceremonies; and that many prayers\nmay fall from the lips without purifying the heart.\n\nThey who imagine they can be religious without governing their tempers,\nor exercising benevolence in its most extensive sense, must certainly\nallow, that their religious duties are only practiced from selfish\nprinciples; how then can they be called good? The pattern of all\ngoodness went about _doing_ good. Wrapped up in themselves, the nuns\nonly thought of inferior gratifications. And a number of intrigues were\ncarried on to accelerate certain points on which their hearts were\nfixed:\n\nSuch as obtaining offices of trust or authority; or avoiding those that\nwere servile or laborious. In short, when they could be neither wives\nnor mothers, they aimed at being superiors, and became the most selfish\ncreatures in the world: the passions that were curbed gave strength to\nthe appetites, or to those mean passions which only tend to provide for\nthe gratification of them. Was this seclusion from the world? or did\nthey conquer its vanities or avoid its vexations?\n\nIn these abodes the unhappy individual, who, in the first paroxysm of\ngrief flies to them for refuge, finds too late she took a wrong step.\nThe same warmth which determined her will make her repent; and sorrow,\nthe rust of the mind, will never have a chance of being rubbed off by\nsensible conversation, or new-born affections of the heart.\n\nShe will find that those affections that have once been called forth and\nstrengthened by exercise, are only smothered, not killed, by\ndisappointment; and that in one form or other discontent will corrode\nthe heart, and produce those maladies of the imagination, for which\nthere is no specific.\n\nThe community at large Mary disliked; but pitied many of them whose\nprivate distresses she was informed of; and to pity and relieve were the\nsame things with her.\n\nThe exercise of her various virtues gave vigor to her genius, and\ndignity to her mind; she was sometimes inconsiderate, and violent; but\nnever mean or cunning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIV.\n\n\nThe Portuguese are certainly the most uncivilized nation in Europe. Dr.\nJohnson would have said, \"They have the least mind.\". And can such serve\ntheir Creator in spirit and in truth? No, the gross ritual of Romish\nceremonies is all they can comprehend: they can do penance, but not\nconquer their revenge, or lust. Religion, or love, has never humanized\ntheir hearts; they want the vital part; the mere body worships. Taste is\nunknown; Gothic finery, and unnatural decorations, which they term\nornaments, are conspicuous in their churches and dress. Reverence for\nmental excellence is only to be found in a polished nation.\n\nCould the contemplation of such a people gratify Mary's heart? No: she\nturned disgusted from the prospects--turned to a man of refinement.\nHenry had been some time ill and low-spirited; Mary would have been\nattentive to any one in that situation; but to him she was particularly\nso; she thought herself bound in gratitude, on account of his constant\nendeavours to amuse Ann, and prevent her dwelling on the dreary prospect\nbefore her, which sometimes she could not help anticipating with a kind\nof quiet despair.\n\nShe found some excuse for going more frequently into the room they all\nmet in; nay, she avowed her desire to amuse him: offered to read to him,\nand tried to draw him into amusing conversations; and when she was full\nof these little schemes, she looked at him with a degree of tenderness\nthat she was not conscious of. This divided attention was of use to her,\nand prevented her continually thinking of Ann, whose fluctuating\ndisorder often gave rise to false hopes.\n\nA trifling thing occurred now which occasioned Mary some uneasiness. Her\nmaid, a well-looking girl, had captivated the clerk of a neighbouring\ncompting-house. As the match was an advantageous one, Mary could not\nraise any objection to it, though at this juncture it was very\ndisagreeable to her to have a stranger about her person. However, the\ngirl consented to delay the marriage, as she had some affection for her\nmistress; and, besides, looked forward to Ann's death as a time of\nharvest.\n\nHenry's illness was not alarming, it was rather pleasing, as it gave\nMary an excuse to herself for shewing him how much she was interested\nabout him; and giving little artless proofs of affection, which the\npurity of her heart made her never wish to restrain.\n\nThe only visible return he made was not obvious to common observers. He\nwould sometimes fix his eyes on her, and take them off with a sigh that\nwas coughed away; or when he was leisurely walking into the room, and\ndid not expect to see her, he would quicken his steps, and come up to\nher with eagerness to ask some trivial question. In the same style, he\nwould try to detain her when he had nothing to say--or said nothing.\n\nAnn did not take notice of either his or Mary's behaviour, nor did she\nsuspect that he was a favourite, on any other account than his\nappearing neither well nor happy. She had often seen that when a person\nwas unfortunate, Mary's pity might easily be mistaken for love, and,\nindeed, it was a temporary sensation of that kind. Such it was--why it\nwas so, let others define, I cannot argue against instincts. As reason\nis cultivated in man, they are supposed to grow weaker, and this may\nhave given rise to the assertion, \"That as judgment improves, genius\nevaporates.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XV.\n\n\nOne morning they set out to visit the aqueduct; though the day was very\nfine when they left home, a very heavy shower fell before they reached\nit; they lengthened their ride, the clouds dispersed, and the sun came\nfrom behind them uncommonly bright.\n\nMary would fain have persuaded Ann not to have left the carriage; but\nshe was in spirits, and obviated all her objections, and insisted on\nwalking, tho' the ground was damp. But her strength was not equal to her\nspirits; she was soon obliged to return to the carriage so much\nfatigued, that she fainted, and remained insensible a long time.\n\nHenry would have supported her; but Mary would not permit him; her\nrecollection was instantaneous, and she feared sitting on the damp\nground might do him a material injury: she was on that account positive,\nthough the company did not guess the cause of her being so. As to\nherself, she did not fear bodily pain; and, when her mind was agitated,\nshe could endure the greatest fatigue without appearing sensible of it.\n\nWhen Ann recovered, they returned slowly home; she was carried to bed,\nand the next morning Mary thought she observed a visible change for the\nworse. The physician was sent for, who pronounced her to be in the most\nimminent danger.\n\nAll Mary's former fears now returned like a torrent, and carried every\nother care away; she even added to her present anguish by upbraiding\nherself for her late tranquillity--it haunted her in the form of a\ncrime.\n\nThe disorder made the most rapid advances--there was no hope!--Bereft of\nit, Mary again was tranquil; but it was a very different kind of\ntranquillity. She stood to brave the approaching storm, conscious she\nonly could be overwhelmed by it.\n\nShe did not think of Henry, or if her thoughts glanced towards him, it\nwas only to find fault with herself for suffering a thought to have\nstrayed from Ann.--Ann!--this dear friend was soon torn from her--she\ndied suddenly as Mary was assisting her to walk across the room.--The\nfirst string was severed from her heart--and this \"slow, sudden-death\"\ndisturbed her reasoning faculties; she seemed stunned by it; unable to\nreflect, or even to feel her misery.\n\nThe body was stolen out of the house the second night, and Mary refused\nto see her former companions. She desired her maid to conclude her\nmarriage, and request her intended husband to inform her when the first\nmerchantman was to leave the port, as the packet had just sailed, and\nshe determined not to stay in that hated place any longer than was\nabsolutely necessary.\n\nShe then sent to request the ladies to visit her; she wished to avoid a\nparade of grief--her sorrows were her own, and appeared to her not to\nadmit of increase or softening. She was right; the sight of them did not\naffect her, or turn the stream of her sullen sorrow; the black wave\nrolled along in the same course, it was equal to her where she cast her\neyes; all was impenetrable gloom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVI.\n\n\nSoon after the ladies left her, she received a message from Henry,\nrequesting, as she saw company, to be permitted to visit her: she\nconsented, and he entered immediately, with an unassured pace. She ran\neagerly up to him--saw the tear trembling in his eye, and his\ncountenance softened by the tenderest compassion; the hand which pressed\nhers seemed that of a fellow-creature. She burst into tears; and, unable\nto restrain them, she hid her face with both her hands; these tears\nrelieved her, (she had before had a difficulty in breathing,) and she\nsat down by him more composed than she had appeared since Ann's death;\nbut her conversation was incoherent.\n\nShe called herself \"a poor disconsolate creature!\"--\"Mine is a selfish\ngrief,\" she exclaimed--\"Yet; Heaven is my witness, I do not wish her\nback now she has reached those peaceful mansions, where the weary rest.\nHer pure spirit is happy; but what a wretch am I!\"\n\nHenry forgot his cautious reserve. \"Would you allow me to call you\nfriend?\" said he in a hesitating voice. \"I feel, dear girl, the tendered\ninterest in whatever concerns thee.\" His eyes spoke the rest. They were\nboth silent a few moments; then Henry resumed the conversation. \"I have\nalso been acquainted with grief! I mourn the loss of a woman who was not\nworthy of my regard. Let me give thee some account of the man who now\nsolicits thy friendship; and who, from motives of the purest\nbenevolence, wishes to give comfort to thy wounded heart.\"\n\n\"I have myself,\" said he, mournfully, \"shaken hands with happiness, and\nam dead to the world; I wait patiently for my dissolution; but, for\nthee, Mary, there may be many bright days in store.\"\n\n\"Impossible,\" replied she, in a peevish tone, as if he had insulted her\nby the supposition; her feelings were so much in unison with his, that\nshe was in love with misery.\n\nHe smiled at her impatience, and went on. \"My father died before I knew\nhim, and my mother was so attached to my eldest brother, that she took\nvery little pains to fit me for the profession to which I was destined:\nand, may I tell thee, I left my family, and, in many different stations,\nrambled about the world; saw mankind in every rank of life; and, in\norder to be independent, exerted those talents Nature has given me:\nthese exertions improved my understanding; and the miseries I was\nwitness to, gave a keener edge to my sensibility. My constitution is\nnaturally weak; and, perhaps, two or three lingering disorders in my\nyouth, first gave me a habit of reflecting, and enabled me to obtain\nsome dominion over my passions. At least,\" added he, stifling a sigh,\n\"over the violent ones, though I fear, refinement and reflection only\nrenders the tender ones more tyrannic.\n\n\"I have told you already I have been in love, and disappointed--the\nobject is now no more; let her faults sleep with her! Yet this passion\nhas pervaded my whole soul, and mixed itself with all my affections and\npursuits.--I am not peacefully indifferent; yet it is only to my violin\nI tell the sorrows I now confide with thee. The object I loved forfeited\nmy esteem; yet, true to the sentiment, my fancy has too frequently\ndelighted to form a creature that I could love, that could convey to my\nsoul sensations which the gross part of mankind have not any conception\nof.\"\n\nHe stopped, as Mary seemed lost in thought; but as she was still in a\nlistening attitude, continued his little narrative. \"I kept up an\nirregular correspondence with my mother; my brother's extravagance and\ningratitude had almost broken her heart, and made her feel something\nlike a pang of remorse, on account of her behaviour to me. I hastened to\ncomfort her--and was a comfort to her.\n\n\"My declining health prevented my taking orders, as I had intended; but\nI with warmth entered into literary pursuits; perhaps my heart, not\nhaving an object, made me embrace the substitute with more eagerness.\nBut, do not imagine I have always been a die-away swain. No: I have\nfrequented the cheerful haunts of men, and wit!--enchanting wit! has\nmade many moments fly free from care. I am too fond of the elegant arts;\nand woman--lovely woman! thou hast charmed me, though, perhaps, it would\nnot be easy to find one to whom my reason would allow me to be constant.\n\n\"I have now only to tell you, that my mother insisted on my spending\nthis winter in a warmer climate; and I fixed on Lisbon, as I had before\nvisited the Continent.\" He then looked Mary full in the face; and, with\nthe most insinuating accents, asked \"if he might hope for her\nfriendship? If she would rely on him as if he was her father; and that\nthe tenderest father could not more anxiously interest himself in the\nfate of a darling child, than he did in her's.\"\n\nSuch a crowd of thoughts all at once rushed into Mary's mind, that she\nin vain attempted to express the sentiments which were most predominant.\nHer heart longed to receive a new guest; there was a void in it:\naccustomed to have some one to love, she was alone, and comfortless, if\nnot engrossed by a particular affection.\n\nHenry saw her distress, and not to increase it, left the room. He had\nexerted himself to turn her thoughts into a new channel, and had\nsucceeded; she thought of him till she began to chide herself for\ndefrauding the dead, and, determining to grieve for Ann, she dwelt on\nHenry's misfortunes and ill health; and the interest he took in her fate\nwas a balm to her sick mind. She did not reason on the subject; but she\nfelt he was attached to her: lost in this delirium, she never asked\nherself what kind of an affection she had for him, or what it tended to;\nnor did she know that love and friendship are very distinct; she thought\nwith rapture, that there was one person in the world who had an\naffection for her, and that person she admired--had a friendship for.\n\nHe had called her his dear girl; the words might have fallen from him by\naccident; but they did not fall to the ground. My child! His child,\nwhat an association of ideas! If I had had a father, such a father!--She\ncould not dwell on the thoughts, the wishes which obtruded themselves.\nHer mind was unhinged, and passion unperceived filled her whole soul.\nLost, in waking dreams, she considered and reconsidered Henry's account\nof himself; till she actually thought she would tell Ann--a bitter\nrecollection then roused her out of her reverie; and aloud she begged\nforgiveness of her.\n\nBy these kind of conflicts the day was lengthened; and when she went to\nbed, the night passed away in feverish slumbers; though they did not\nrefresh her, she was spared the labour of thinking, of restraining her\nimagination; it sported uncontrouled; but took its colour from her\nwaking train of thoughts. One instant she was supporting her dying\nmother; then Ann was breathing her last, and Henry was comforting her.\n\nThe unwelcome light visited her languid eyes; yet, I must tell the\ntruth, she thought she should see Henry, and this hope set her spirits\nin motion: but they were quickly depressed by her maid, who came to tell\nher that she had heard of a vessel on board of which she could be\naccommodated, and that there was to be another female passenger on\nboard, a vulgar one; but perhaps she would be more useful on that\naccount--Mary did not want a companion.\n\nAs she had given orders for her passage to be engaged in the first\nvessel that sailed, she could not now retract; and must prepare for the\nlonely voyage, as the Captain intended taking advantage of the first\nfair wind. She had too much strength of mind to waver in her\ndetermination but to determine wrung her very heart, opened all her old\nwounds, and made them bleed afresh. What was she to do? where go? Could\nshe set a seal to a hasty vow, and tell a deliberate lie; promise to\nlove one man, when the image of another was ever present to her--her\nsoul revolted. \"I might gain the applause of the world by such mock\nheroism; but should I not forfeit my own? forfeit thine, my father!\"\n\nThere is a solemnity in the shortest ejaculation, which, for a while,\nstills the tumult of passion. Mary's mind had been thrown off its poise;\nher devotion had been, perhaps, more fervent for some time past; but\nless regular. She forgot that happiness was not to be found on earth,\nand built a terrestrial paradise liable to be destroyed by the first\nserious thought: when, she reasoned she became inexpressibly sad, to\nrender life bearable she gave way to fancy--this was madness.\n\nIn a few days she must again go to sea; the weather was very\ntempestuous--what of that, the tempest in her soul rendered every other\ntrifling--it was not the contending elements, but _herself_ she feared!\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVII.\n\n\nIn order to gain strength to support the expected interview, she went\nout in a carriage. The day was fine; but all nature was to her a\nuniversal blank; she could neither enjoy it, nor weep that she could\nnot. She passed by the ruins of an old monastery on a very high hill she\ngot out to walk amongst the ruins; the wind blew violently, she did not\navoid its fury, on the contrary, wildly bid it blow on, and seemed glad\nto contend with it, or rather walk against it. Exhausted she returned to\nthe carriage was soon at home, and in the old room.\n\nHenry started at the sight of her altered appearance; the day before her\ncomplexion had been of the most pallid hue; but now her cheeks were\nflushed, and her eyes enlivened with a false vivacity, an unusual fire.\nHe was not well, his illness was apparent in his countenance, and he\nowned he had not closed his eyes all night; this roused her dormant\ntenderness, she forgot they were so soon to part-engrossed by the\npresent happiness of seeing, of hearing him.\n\nOnce or twice she essayed to tell him that she was, in a few days, to\ndepart; but she could not; she was irresolute; it will do to-morrow;\nshould the wind change they could not sail in such a hurry; thus she\nthought, and insensibly grew more calm. The Ladies prevailed on her to\nspend the evening with them; but she retired very early to rest, and sat\non the side of her bed several hours, then threw herself on it, and\nwaited for the dreaded to-morrow.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVIII.\n\n\nThe ladies heard that her servant was to be married that day, and that\nshe was to sail in the vessel which was then clearing out at the\nCustom-house. Henry heard, but did not make any remarks; and Mary called\nup all her fortitude to support her, and enable her to hide from the\nfemales her internal struggles. She durst not encounter Henry's glances\nwhen she found he had been informed of her intention; and, trying to\ndraw a veil over her wretched state of mind, she talked incessantly, she\nknew not what; flashes of wit burst from her, and when she began to\nlaugh she could not stop herself.\n\nHenry smiled at some of her sallies, and looked at her with such\nbenignity and compassion, that he recalled her scattered thoughts; and,\nthe ladies going to dress for dinner, they were left alone; and remained\nsilent a few moments: after the noisy conversation it appeared solemn.\nHenry began. \"You are going, Mary, and going by yourself; your mind is\nnot in a state to be left to its own operations--yet I cannot, dissuade\nyou; if I attempted to do it, I should ill deserve the title I wish to\nmerit. I only think of your happiness; could I obey the strongest\nimpulse of my heart, I should accompany thee to England; but such a step\nmight endanger your future peace.\"\n\nMary, then, with all the frankness which marked her character, explained\nher situation to him and mentioned her fatal tie with such disgust that\nhe trembled for her. \"I cannot see him; he is not the man formed for me\nto love!\" Her delicacy did not restrain her, for her dislike to her\nhusband had taken root in her mind long before she knew Henry. Did she\nnot fix on Lisbon rather than France on purpose to avoid him? and if Ann\nhad been in tolerable health she would have flown with her to some\nremote corner to have escaped from him.\n\n\"I intend,\" said Henry, \"to follow you in the next packet; where shall I\nhear of your health?\" \"Oh! let me hear of thine,\" replied Mary. \"I am\nwell, very well; but thou art very ill--thy health is in the most\nprecarious state.\" She then mentioned her intention of going to Ann's\nrelations. \"I am her representative, I have duties to fulfil for her:\nduring my voyage I have time enough for reflection; though I think I\nhave already determined.\"\n\n\"Be not too hasty, my child,\" interrupted Henry; \"far be it from me to\npersuade thee to do violence to thy feelings--but consider that all thy\nfuture life may probably take its colour from thy present mode of\nconduct. Our affections as well as our sentiments are fluctuating; you\nwill not perhaps always either think or feel as you do at present: the\nobject you now shun may appear in a different light.\" He paused. \"In\nadvising thee in this style, I have only thy good at heart, Mary.\"\n\nShe only answered to expostulate. \"My affections are involuntary--yet\nthey can only be fixed by reflection, and when they are they make quite\na part of my soul, are interwoven in it, animate my actions, and form\nmy taste: certain qualities are calculated to call forth my sympathies,\nand make me all I am capable of being. The governing affection gives its\nstamp to the rest--because I am capable of loving one, I have that kind\nof charity to all my fellow-creatures which is not easily provoked.\nMilton has asserted, That earthly love is the scale by which to heavenly\nwe may ascend.\"\n\nShe went on with eagerness. \"My opinions on some subjects are not\nwavering; my pursuit through life has ever been the same: in solitude\nwere my sentiments formed; they are indelible, and nothing can efface\nthem but death--No, death itself cannot efface them, or my soul must be\ncreated afresh, and not improved. Yet a little while am I parted from\nmy Ann--I could not exist without the hope of seeing her again--I could\nnot bear to think that time could wear away an affection that was\nfounded on what is not liable to perish; you might as well attempt to\npersuade me that my soul is matter, and that its feelings arose from\ncertain modifications of it.\"\n\n\"Dear enthusiastic creature,\" whispered Henry, \"how you steal into my\nsoul.\" She still continued. \"The same turn of mind which leads me to\nadore the Author of all Perfection--which leads me to conclude that he\nonly can fill my soul; forces me to admire the faint image-the shadows\nof his attributes here below; and my imagination gives still bolder\nstrokes to them. I knew I am in some degree under the influence of a\ndelusion--but does not this strong delusion prove that I myself 'am _of\nsubtiler essence than the trodden clod_' these flights of the\nimagination point to futurity; I cannot banish them. Every cause in\nnature produces an effect; and am I an exception to the general rule?\nhave I desires implanted in me only to make me miserable? will they\nnever be gratified? shall I never be happy? My feelings do not accord\nwith the notion of solitary happiness. In a state of bliss, it will be\nthe society of beings we can love, without the alloy that earthly\ninfirmities mix with our best affections, that will constitute great\npart of our happiness.\n\n\"With these notions can I conform to the maxims of worldly wisdom? can\nI listen to the cold dictates of worldly prudence and bid my tumultuous\npassions cease to vex me, be still, find content in grovelling pursuits,\nand the admiration of the misjudging crowd, when it is only one I wish\nto please--one who could be all the world to me. Argue not with me, I am\nbound by human ties; but did my spirit ever promise to love, or could I\nconsider when forced to bind myself--to take a vow, that at the awful\nday of judgment I must give an account of. My conscience does not smite\nme, and that Being who is greater than the internal monitor, may approve\nof what the world condemns; sensible that in Him I live, could I brave\nHis presence, or hope in solitude to find peace, if I acted contrary to\nconviction, that the world might approve of my conduct--what could the\nworld give to compensate for my own esteem? it is ever hostile and armed\nagainst the feeling heart!\n\n\"Riches and honours await me, and the cold moralist might desire me to\nsit down and enjoy them--I cannot conquer my feelings, and till I do,\nwhat are these baubles to me? you may tell me I follow a fleeting good,\nan _ignis fatuus_; but this chase, these struggles prepare me for\neternity--when I no longer see through a glass darkly I shall not reason\nabout, but _feel_ in what happiness consists.\"\n\nHenry had not attempted to interrupt her; he saw she was determined, and\nthat these sentiments were not the effusion of the moment, but well\ndigested ones, the result of strong affections, a high sense of honour,\nand respect for the source of all virtue and truth. He was startled, if\nnot entirely convinced by her arguments; indeed her voice, her gestures\nwere all persuasive.\n\nSome one now entered the room; he looked an answer to her long harangue;\nit was fortunate for him, or he might have been led to say what in a\ncooler moment he had determined to conceal; but were words necessary to\nreveal it? He wished not to influence her conduct--vain precaution; she\nknew she was beloved; and could she forget that such a man loved her, or\nrest satisfied with any inferior gratification. When passion first\nenters the heart, it is only a return of affection that is sought after,\nand every other remembrance and wish is blotted out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIX.\n\n\nTwo days passed away without any particular conversation; Henry, trying\nto be indifferent, or to appear so, was more assiduous than ever. The\nconflict was too violent for his present state of health; the spirit was\nwilling, but the body suffered; he lost his appetite, and looked\nwretchedly; his spirits were calmly low--the world seemed to fade\naway--what was that world to him that Mary did not inhabit; she lived\nnot for him.\n\nHe was mistaken; his affection was her only support; without this dear\nprop she had sunk into the grave of her lost--long-loved friend;--his\nattention snatched her from despair. Inscrutable are the ways of\nHeaven!\n\nThe third day Mary was desired to prepare herself; for if the wind\ncontinued in the same point, they should set sail the next evening. She\ntried to prepare her mind, and her efforts were not useless she appeared\nless agitated than could have been expected, and talked of her voyage\nwith composure. On great occasions she was generally calm and collected,\nher resolution would brace her unstrung nerves; but after the victory\nshe had no triumph; she would sink into a state of moping melancholy,\nand feel ten-fold misery when the heroic enthusiasm was over.\n\nThe morning of the day fixed on for her departure she was alone with\nHenry only a few moments, and an awkward kind of formality made them\nslip away without their having said much to each other. Henry was\nafraid to discover his passion, or give any other name to his regard but\nfriendship; yet his anxious solicitude for her welfare was ever breaking\nout-while she as artlessly expressed again and again, her fears with\nrespect to his declining health.\n\n\"We shall soon meet,\" said he, with a faint smile; Mary smiled too; she\ncaught the sickly beam; it was still fainter by being reflected, and not\nknowing what she wished to do, started up and left the room. When she\nwas alone she regretted she had left him so precipitately. \"The few\nprecious moments I have thus thrown away may never return,\" she\nthought-the reflection led to misery.\n\nShe waited for, nay, almost wished for the summons to depart. She could\nnot avoid spending the intermediate time with the ladies and Henry; and\nthe trivial conversations she was obliged to bear a part in harassed her\nmore than can be well conceived.\n\nThe summons came, and the whole party attended her to the vessel. For a\nwhile the remembrance of Ann banished her regret at parting with Henry,\nthough his pale figure pressed on her sight; it may seem a paradox, but\nhe was more present to her when she sailed; her tears then were all his\nown.\n\n\"My poor Ann!\" thought Mary, \"along this road we came, and near this\nspot you called me your guardian angel--and now I leave thee here! ah!\nno, I do not--thy spirit is not confined to its mouldering tenement!\nTell me, thou soul of her I love, tell me, ah! whither art thou fled?\"\nAnn occupied her until they reached the ship.\n\nThe anchor was weighed. Nothing can be more irksome than waiting to say\nfarewel. As the day was serene, they accompanied her a little way, and\nthen got into the boat; Henry was the last; he pressed her hand, it had\nnot any life in it; she leaned over the side of the ship without looking\nat the boat, till it was so far distant, that she could not see the\ncountenances of those that were in it: a mist spread itself over her\nsight--she longed to exchange one look--tried to recollect the\nlast;--the universe contained no being but Henry!--The grief of parting\nwith him had swept all others clean away. Her eyes followed the keel of\nthe boat, and when she could no longer perceive its traces: she looked\nround on the wide waste of waters, thought of the precious moments\nwhich had been stolen from the waste of murdered time.\n\nShe then descended into the cabin, regardless of the surrounding\nbeauties of nature, and throwing herself on her bed in the little hole\nwhich was called the state-room--she wished to forget her existence. On\nthis bed she remained two days, listening to the dashing waves, unable\nto close her eyes. A small taper made the darkness visible; and the\nthird night, by its glimmering light, she wrote the following fragment.\n\n\"Poor solitary wretch that I am; here alone do I listen to the whistling\nwinds and dashing waves;--on no human support can I rest--when not lost\nto hope I found pleasure in the society of those rough beings; but now\nthey appear not like my fellow creatures; no social ties draw me to\nthem. How long, how dreary has this day been; yet I scarcely wish it\nover--for what will to-morrow bring--to-morrow, and to-morrow will only\nbe marked with unvaried characters of wretchedness.--Yet surely, I am\nnot alone!\"\n\nHer moistened eyes were lifted up to heaven; a crowd of thoughts darted\ninto her mind, and pressing her hand against her forehead, as if to bear\nthe intellectual weight, she tried, but tried in vain, to arrange them.\n\"Father of Mercies, compose this troubled spirit: do I indeed wish it to\nbe composed--to forget my Henry?\" the _my_, the pen was directly drawn\nacross in an agony.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XX.\n\n\nThe mate of the ship, who heard her stir, came to offer her some\nrefreshment; and she, who formerly received every offer of kindness or\ncivility with pleasure, now shrunk away disgusted: peevishly she desired\nhim not to disturb her; but the words were hardly articulated when her\nheart smote her, she called him back, and requested something to drink.\nAfter drinking it, fatigued by her mental exertions, she fell into a\ndeath-like slumber, which lasted some hours; but did not refresh her, on\nthe contrary, she awoke languid and stupid.\n\nThe wind still continued contrary; a week, a dismal week, had she\nstruggled with her sorrows; and the struggle brought on a slow fever,\nwhich sometimes gave her false spirits.\n\nThe winds then became very tempestuous, the Great Deep was troubled, and\nall the passengers appalled. Mary then left her bed, and went on deck,\nto survey the contending elements: the scene accorded with the present\nstate of her soul; she thought in a few hours I may go home; the\nprisoner may be released. The vessel rose on a wave and descended into a\nyawning gulph--Not slower did her mounting soul return to earth,\nfor--Ah! her treasure and her heart was there. The squalls rattled\namongst the sails, which were quickly taken down; the wind would then\ndie away, and the wild undirected waves rushed on every side with a\ntremendous roar. In a little vessel in the midst of such a storm she\nwas not dismayed; she felt herself independent.\n\nJust then one of the crew perceived a signal of distress; by the help of\na glass he could plainly discover a small vessel dismasted, drifted\nabout, for the rudder had been broken by the violence of the storm.\nMary's thoughts were now all engrossed by the crew on the brink of\ndestruction. They bore down to the wreck; they reached it, and hailed\nthe trembling wretches; at the sound of the friendly greeting, loud\ncries of tumultuous joy were mixed with the roaring of the waves, and\nwith ecstatic transport they leaped on the shattered deck, launched\ntheir boat in a moment, and committed themselves to the mercy of the\nsea. Stowed between two casks, and leaning on a sail, she watched the\nboat, and when a wave intercepted it from her view--she ceased to\nbreathe, or rather held her breath until it rose again.\n\nAt last the boat arrived safe along-side the ship, and Mary caught the\npoor trembling wretches as they stumbled into it, and joined them in\nthanking that gracious Being, who though He had not thought fit to still\nthe raging of the sea, had afforded them unexpected succour.\n\nAmongst the wretched crew was one poor woman, who fainted when she was\nhauled on board: Mary undressed her, and when she had recovered, and\nsoothed her, left her to enjoy the rest she required to recruit her\nstrength, which fear had quite exhausted. She returned again to view the\nangry deep; and when she gazed on its perturbed state, she thought of\nthe Being who rode on the wings of the wind, and stilled the noise of\nthe sea; and the madness of the people--He only could speak peace to\nher troubled spirit! she grew more calm; the late transaction had\ngratified her benevolence, and stole her out of herself.\n\nOne of the sailors, happening to say to another, \"that he believed the\nworld was going to be at an end;\" this observation led her into a new\ntrain of thoughts: some of Handel's sublime compositions occurred to\nher, and she sung them to the grand accompaniment. The Lord God\nOmnipotent reigned, and would reign for ever, and ever!--Why then did\nshe fear the sorrows that were passing away, when she knew that He would\nbind up the broken-hearted, and receive those who came out of great\ntribulation. She retired to her cabin; and wrote in the little book that\nwas now her only confident. It was after midnight.\n\n\"At this solemn hour, the great day of judgment fills my thoughts; the\nday of retribution, when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed;\nwhen all worldly distinctions will fade away, and be no more seen. I\nhave not words to express the sublime images which the bare\ncontemplation of this awful day raises in my mind. Then, indeed, the\nLord Omnipotent will reign, and He will wipe the tearful eye, and\nsupport the trembling heart--yet a little while He hideth his face, and\nthe dun shades of sorrow, and the thick clouds of folly separate us from\nour God; but when the glad dawn of an eternal day breaks, we shall know\neven as we are known. Here we walk by faith, and not by sight; and we\nhave this alternative, either to enjoy the pleasures of life which are\nbut for a season, or look forward to the prize of our high calling, and\nwith fortitude, and that wisdom which is from above, endeavour to bear\nthe warfare of life. We know that many run the race; but he that\nstriveth obtaineth the crown of victory. Our race is an arduous one! How\nmany are betrayed by traitors lodged in their own breasts, who wear the\ngarb of Virtue, and are so near akin; we sigh to think they should ever\nlead into folly, and slide imperceptibly into vice. Surely any thing\nlike happiness is madness! Shall probationers of an hour presume to\npluck the fruit of immortality, before they have conquered death? it is\nguarded, when the great day, to which I allude, arrives, the way will\nagain be opened. Ye dear delusions, gay deceits, farewel! and yet I\ncannot banish ye for ever; still does my panting soul push forward, and\nlive in futurity, in the deep shades o'er which darkness hangs.--I try\nto pierce the gloom, and find a resting-place, where my thirst of\nknowledge will be gratified, and my ardent affections find an object to\nfix them. Every thing material must change; happiness and this\nfluctating principle is not compatible. Eternity, immateriality, and\nhappiness,--what are ye? How shall I grasp the mighty and fleeting\nconceptions ye create?\"\n\nAfter writing, serenely she delivered her soul into the hands of the\nFather of Spirits; and slept in peace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXI.\n\n\nMary rose early, refreshed by the seasonable rest, and went to visit the\npoor woman, whom she found quite recovered: and, on enquiry, heard that\nshe had lately buried her husband, a common sailor; and that her only\nsurviving child had been washed over-board the day before. Full of her\nown danger, she scarcely thought of her child till that was over; and\nthen she gave way to boisterous emotions.\n\nMary endeavoured to calm her at first, by sympathizing with her; and she\ntried to point out the only solid source of comfort but in doing this\nshe encountered many difficulties; she found her grossly ignorant, yet\nshe did not despair: and as the poor creature could not receive comfort\nfrom the operations of her own mind, she laboured to beguile the hours,\nwhich grief made heavy, by adapting her conversation to her capacity.\n\nThere are many minds that only receive impressions through the medium of\nthe senses: to them did Mary address herself; she made her some\npresents, and promised to assist her when they should arrive in England.\nThis employment roused her out of her late stupor, and again set the\nfaculties of her soul in motion; made the understanding contend with the\nimagination, and the heart throbbed not so irregularly during the\ncontention. How short-lived was the calm! when the English coast was\ndescried, her sorrows returned with redoubled vigor.--She was to visit\nand comfort the mother of her lost friend--And where then should she\ntake up her residence? These thoughts suspended the exertions of her\nunderstanding; abstracted reflections gave way to alarming\napprehensions; and tenderness undermined fortitude.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXII.\n\n\nIn England then landed the forlorn wanderer. She looked round for some\nfew moments--her affections were not attracted to any particular part of\nthe Island. She knew none of the inhabitants of the vast city to which\nshe was going: the mass of buildings appeared to her a huge body without\nan informing soul. As she passed through the streets in an\nhackney-coach, disgust and horror alternately filled her mind. She met\nsome women drunk; and the manners of those who attacked the sailors,\nmade her shrink into herself, and exclaim, are these my fellow\ncreatures!\n\nDetained by a number of carts near the water-side, for she came up the\nriver in the vessel, not having reason to hasten on shore, she saw\nvulgarity, dirt, and vice--her soul sickened; this was the first time\nsuch complicated misery obtruded itself on her sight.--Forgetting her\nown griefs, she gave the world a much indebted tear; mourned for a world\nin ruins. She then perceived, that great part of her comfort must arise\nfrom viewing the smiling face of nature, and be reflected from the view\nof innocent enjoyments: she was fond of seeing animals play, and could\nnot bear to see her own species sink below them.\n\nIn a little dwelling in one of the villages near London, lived the\nmother of Ann; two of her children still remained with her; but they did\nnot resemble Ann. To her house Mary directed the coach, and told the\nunfortunate mother of her loss. The poor woman, oppressed by it, and her\nmany other cares, after an inundation of tears, began to enumerate all\nher past misfortunes, and present cares. The heavy tale lasted until\nmidnight, and the impression it made on Mary's mind was so strong, that\nit banished sleep till towards morning; when tired nature sought\nforgetfulness, and the soul ceased to ruminate about many things.\n\nShe sent for the poor woman they took up at sea, provided her a lodging,\nand relieved her present necessities. A few days were spent in a kind of\nlistless way; then the mother of Ann began to enquire when she thought\nof returning home. She had hitherto treated her with the greatest\nrespect, and concealed her wonder at Mary's choosing a remote room in\nthe house near the garden, and ordering some alterations to be made, as\nif she intended living in it.\n\nMary did not choose to explain herself; had Ann lived, it is probable\nshe would never have loved Henry so fondly; but if she had, she could\nnot have talked of her passion to any human creature. She deliberated,\nand at last informed the family, that she had a reason for not living\nwith her husband, which must some time remain a secret--they stared--Not\nlive with him! how will you live then? This was a question she could not\nanswer; she had only about eighty pounds remaining, of the money she\ntook with her to Lisbon; when it was exhausted where could she get more?\nI will work, she cried, do any thing rather than be a slave.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIII.\n\n\nUnhappy, she wandered about the village, and relieved the poor; it was\nthe only employment that eased her aching heart; she became more\nintimate with misery--the misery that rises from poverty and the want of\neducation. She was in the vicinity of a great city; the vicious poor in\nand about it must ever grieve a benevolent contemplative mind.\n\nOne evening a man who stood weeping in a little lane, near the house she\nresided in, caught her eye. She accosted him; in a confused manner, he\ninformed her, that his wife was dying, and his children crying for the\nbread he could not earn. Mary desired to be conducted to his\nhabitation; it was not very distant, and was the upper room in an old\nmansion-house, which had been once the abode of luxury. Some tattered\nshreds of rich hangings still remained, covered with cobwebs and filth;\nround the ceiling, through which the rain drop'd, was a beautiful\ncornice mouldering; and a spacious gallery was rendered dark by the\nbroken windows being blocked up; through the apertures the wind forced\nits way in hollow sounds, and reverberated along the former scene of\nfestivity.\n\nIt was crowded with inhabitants: som were scolding, others swearing, or\nsinging indecent songs. What a sight for Mary! Her blood ran cold; yet\nshe had sufficient resolution to mount to the top of the house. On the\nfloor, in one corner of a very small room, lay an emaciated figure of a\nwoman; a window over her head scarcely admitted any light, for the\nbroken panes were stuffed with dirty rags. Near her were five children,\nall young, and covered with dirt; their sallow cheeks, and languid eyes,\nexhibited none of the charms of childhood. Some were fighting, and\nothers crying for food; their yells were mixed with their mother's\ngroans, and the wind which rushed through the passage. Mary was\npetrified; but soon assuming more courage, approached the bed, and,\nregardless of the surrounding nastiness, knelt down by the poor wretch,\nand breathed the most poisonous air; for the unfortunate creature was\ndying of a putrid fever, the consequence of dirt and want.\n\nTheir state did not require much explanation. Mary sent the husband for\na poor neighbour, whom she hired to nurse the woman, and take care of\nthe children; and then went herself to buy them some necessaries at a\nshop not far distant. Her knowledge of physic had enabled her to\nprescribe for the woman; and she left the house, with a mixture of\nhorror and satisfaction.\n\nShe visited them every day, and procured them every comfort; contrary to\nher expectation, the woman began to recover; cleanliness and wholesome\nfood had a wonderful effect; and Mary saw her rising as it were from the\ngrave. Not aware of the danger she ran into, she did not think of it\ntill she perceived she had caught the fever. It made such an alarming\nprogress, that she was prevailed on to send for a physician; but the\ndisorder was so violent, that for some days it baffled his skill; and\nMary felt not her danger, as she was delirious. After the crisis, the\nsymptoms were more favourable, and she slowly recovered, without\nregaining much strength or spirits; indeed they were intolerably low:\nshe wanted a tender nurse.\n\nFor some time she had observed, that she was not treated with the same\nrespect as formerly; her favors were forgotten when no more were\nexpected. This ingratitude hurt her, as did a similar instance in the\nwoman who came out of the ship. Mary had hitherto supported her; as her\nfinances were growing low, she hinted to her, that she ought to try to\nearn her own subsistence: the woman in return loaded her with abuse.\n\nTwo months were elapsed; she had not seen, or heard from Henry. He was\nsick--nay, perhaps had forgotten her; all the world was dreary, and all\nthe people ungrateful.\n\nShe sunk into apathy, and endeavouring to rouse herself out of it, she\nwrote in her book another fragment:\n\n\"Surely life is a dream, a frightful one! and after those rude,\ndisjointed images are fled, will light ever break in? Shall I ever feel\njoy? Do all suffer like me; or am I framed so as to be particularly\nsusceptible of misery? It is true, I have experienced the most rapturous\nemotions--short-lived delight!--ethereal beam, which only serves to shew\nmy present misery--yet lie still, my throbbing heart, or burst; and my\nbrain--why dost thou whirl about at such a terrifying rate? why do\nthoughts so rapidly rush into my mind, and yet when they disappear\nleave such deep traces? I could almost wish for the madman's happiness,\nand in a strong imagination lose a sense of woe.\n\n\"Oh! reason, thou boasted guide, why desert me, like the world, when I\nmost need thy assistance! Canst thou not calm this internal tumult, and\ndrive away the death-like sadness which presses so sorely on me,--a\nsadness surely very nearly allied to despair. I am now the prey of\napathy--I could wish for the former storms! a ray of hope sometimes\nillumined my path; I had a pursuit; but now _it visits not my haunts\nforlorn_. Too well have I loved my fellow creatures! I have been wounded\nby ingratitude; from every one it has something of the serpent's tooth.\n\n\"When overwhelmed by sorrow, I have met unkindness; I looked for some\none to have pity on me; but found none!--The healing balm of sympathy is\ndenied; I weep, a solitary wretch, and the hot tears scald my cheeks. I\nhave not the medicine of life, the dear chimera I have so often chased,\na friend. Shade of my loved Ann! dost thou ever visit thy poor Mary?\nRefined spirit, thou wouldst weep, could angels weep, to see her\nstruggling with passions she cannot subdue; and feelings which corrode\nher small portion of comfort!\"\n\nShe could not write any more; she wished herself far distant from all\nhuman society; a thick gloom spread itself over her mind: but did not\nmake her forget the very beings she wished to fly from. She sent for the\npoor woman she found in the garret; gave her money to clothe herself\nand children, and buy some furniture for a little hut, in a large\ngarden, the master of which agreed to employ her husband, who had been\nbred a gardener. Mary promised to visit the family, and see their new\nabode when she was able to go out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIV.\n\n\nMary still continued weak and low, though it was spring, and all nature\nbegan to look gay; with more than usual brightness the sun shone, and a\nlittle robin which she had cherished during the winter sung one of his\nbest songs. The family were particularly civil this fine morning, and\ntried to prevail on her to walk out. Any thing like kindness melted her;\nshe consented.\n\nSofter emotions banished her melancholy, and she directed her steps to\nthe habitation she had rendered comfortable.\n\nEmerging out of a dreary chamber, all nature looked cheerful; when she\nhad last walked out, snow covered the ground, and bleak winds pierced\nher through and through: now the hedges were green, the blossoms adorned\nthe trees, and the birds sung. She reached the dwelling, without being\nmuch exhausted and while she rested there, observed the children\nsporting on the grass, with improved complexions. The mother with tears\nthanked her deliverer, and pointed out her comforts. Mary's tears flowed\nnot only from sympathy, but a complication of feelings and recollections\nthe affections which bound her to her fellow creatures began again to\nplay, and reanimated nature. She observed the change in herself, tried\nto account for it, and wrote with her pencil a rhapsody on sensibility.\n\n\"Sensibility is the most exquisite feeling of which the human soul is\nsusceptible: when it pervades us, we feel happy; and could it last\nunmixed, we might form some conjecture of the bliss of those\nparadisiacal days, when the obedient passions were under the dominion of\nreason, and the impulses of the heart did not need correction.\n\n\"It is this quickness, this delicacy of feeling, which enables us to\nrelish the sublime touches of the poet, and the painter; it is this,\nwhich expands the soul, gives an enthusiastic greatness, mixed with\ntenderness, when we view the magnificent objects of nature; or hear of a\ngood action. The same effect we experience in the spring, when we hail\nthe returning sun, and the consequent renovation of nature; when the\nflowers unfold themselves, and exhale their sweets, and the voice of\nmusic is heard in the land. Softened by tenderness; the soul is\ndisposed to be virtuous. Is any sensual gratification to be compared to\nthat of feelings the eves moistened after having comforted the\nunfortunate?\n\n\"Sensibility is indeed the foundation of all our happiness; but these\nraptures are unknown to the depraved sensualist, who is only moved by\nwhat strikes his gross senses; the delicate embellishments of nature\nescape his notice; as do the gentle and interesting affections.--But it\nis only to be felt; it escapes discussion.\"\n\nShe then returned home, and partook of the family meal, which was\nrendered more cheerful by the presence of a man, past the meridian of\nlife, of polished manners, and dazzling wit. He endeavoured to draw Mary\nout, and succeeded; she entered into conversation, and some of her\nartless flights of genius struck him with surprise; he found she had a\ncapacious mind, and that her reason was as profound as her imagination\nwas lively. She glanced from earth to heaven, and caught the light of\ntruth. Her expressive countenance shewed what passed in her mind, and\nher tongue was ever the faithful interpreter of her heart; duplicity\nnever threw a shade over her words or actions. Mary found him a man of\nlearning; and the exercise of her understanding would frequently make\nher forget her griefs, when nothing else could, except benevolence.\n\nThis man had known the mistress of the house in her youth; good nature\ninduced him to visit her; but when he saw Mary he had another\ninducement. Her appearance, and above all, her genius, and cultivation\nof mind, roused his curiosity; but her dignified manners had such an\neffect on him, he was obliged to suppress it. He knew men, as well as\nbooks; his conversation was entertaining and improving. In Mary's\ncompany he doubted whether heaven was peopled with spirits masculine;\nand almost forgot that he had called the sex \"the pretty play things\nthat render life tolerable.\"\n\nHe had been the slave of beauty, the captive of sense; love he ne'er had\nfelt; the mind never rivetted the chain, nor had the purity of it made\nthe body appear lovely in his eyes. He was humane, despised meanness;\nbut was vain of his abilities, and by no means a useful member of\nsociety. He talked often of the beauty of virtue; but not having any\nsolid foundation to build the practice on, he was only a shining, or\nrather a sparkling character: and though his fortune enabled him to\nhunt down pleasure, he was discontented.\n\nMary observed his character, and wrote down a train of reflections,\nwhich these observations led her to make; these reflections received a\ntinge from her mind; the present state of it, was that kind of painful\nquietness which arises from reason clouded by disgust; she had not yet\nlearned to be resigned; vague hopes agitated her.\n\n\"There are some subjects that are so enveloped in clouds, as you\ndissipate one, another overspreads it. Of this kind are our reasonings\nconcerning happiness; till we are obliged to cry out with the Apostle,\n_That it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive in what it\ncould consist_, or how satiety could be prevented. Man seems formed for\naction, though the passions are seldom properly managed; they are\neither so languid as not to serve as a spur, or else so violent, as to\noverleap all bounds.\n\n\"Every individual has its own peculiar trials; and anguish, in one shape\nor other, visits every heart. Sensibility produces flights of virtue;\nand not curbed by reason, is on the brink of vice talking, and even\nthinking of virtue.\n\n\"Christianity can only afford just principles to govern the wayward\nfeelings and impulses of the heart: every good disposition runs wild, if\nnot transplanted into this soil; but how hard is it to keep the heart\ndiligently, though convinced that the issues of life depend on it.\n\n\"It is very difficult to discipline the mind of a thinker, or reconcile\nhim to the weakness, the inconsistency of his understanding; and a\nstill more laborious task for him to conquer his passions, and learn to\nseek content, instead of happiness. Good dispositions, and virtuous\npropensities, without the light of the Gospel, produce eccentric\ncharacters: comet-like, they are always in extremes; while revelation\nresembles the laws of attraction, and produces uniformity; but too often\nis the attraction feeble; and the light so obscured by passion, as to\nforce the bewildered soul to fly into void space, and wander in\nconfusion.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXV.\n\n\nA few mornings after, as Mary was sitting ruminating, harassed by\nperplexing thoughts, and fears, a letter was delivered to her: the\nservant waited for an answer. Her heart palpitated; it was from Henry;\nshe held it some time in her hand, then tore it open; it was not a long\none; and only contained an account of a relapse, which prevented his\nsailing in the first packet, as he had intended. Some tender enquiries\nwere added, concerning her health, and state of mind; but they were\nexpressed in rather a formal style: it vexed her, and the more so, as it\nstopped the current of affection, which the account of his arrival and\nillness had made flow to her heart--it ceased to beat for a moment--she\nread the passage over again; but could not tell what she was hurt\nby--only that it did not answer the expectations of her affection. She\nwrote a laconic, incoherent note in return, allowing him to call on her\nthe next day--he had requested permission at the conclusion of his\nletter.\n\nHer mind was then painfully active; she could not read or walk; she\ntried to fly from herself, to forget the long hours that were yet to run\nbefore to-morrow could arrive: she knew not what time he would come;\ncertainly in the morning, she concluded; the morning then was anxiously\nwished for; and every wish produced a sigh, that arose from expectation\non the stretch, damped by fear and vain regret.\n\nTo beguile the tedious time, Henry's favorite tunes were sung; the books\nthey read together turned over; and the short epistle read at least a\nhundred times.--Any one who had seen her, would have supposed that she\nwas trying to decypher Chinese characters.\n\nAfter a sleepless night, she hailed the tardy day, watched the rising\nsun, and then listened for every footstep, and started if she heard the\nstreet door opened. At last he came, and she who had been counting the\nhours, and doubting whether the earth moved, would gladly have escaped\nthe approaching interview.\n\nWith an unequal, irresolute pace, she went to meet him; but when she\nbeheld his emaciated countenance, all the tenderness, which the\nformality of his letter had damped, returned, and a mournful\npresentiment stilled the internal conflict. She caught his hand, and\nlooking wistfully at him, exclaimed, \"Indeed, you are not well!\"\n\n\"I am very far from well; but it matters not,\" added he with a smile of\nresignation; \"my native air may work wonders, and besides, my mother is\na tender nurse, and I shall sometimes see thee.\"\n\nMary felt for the first time in her life, envy; she wished\ninvoluntarily, that all the comfort he received should be from her. She\nenquired about the symptoms of his disorder; and heard that he had been\nvery ill; she hastily drove away the fears, that former dear bought\nexperience suggested: and again and again did she repeat, that she was\nsure he would soon recover. She would then look in his face, to see if\nhe assented, and ask more questions to the same purport. She tried to\navoid speaking of herself, and Henry left her, with, a promise of\nvisiting her the next day.\n\nHer mind was now engrossed by one fear--yet she would not allow herself\nto think that she feared an event she could not name. She still saw his\npale face; the sound of his voice still vibrated on her ears; she tried\nto retain it; she listened, looked round, wept, and prayed.\n\nHenry had enlightened the desolate scene: was this charm of life to fade\naway, and, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck\nbehind? These thoughts disturbed her reason, she shook her head, as if\nto drive them out of it; a weight, a heavy one, was on her heart; all\nwas not well there.\n\nOut of this reverie she was soon woke to keener anguish, by the arrival\nof a letter from her husband; it came to Lisbon after her departure:\nHenry had forwarded it to her, but did not choose to deliver it\nhimself, for a very obvious reason; it might have produced a\nconversation he wished for some time to avoid; and his precaution took\nits rise almost equally from benevolence and love.\n\nShe could not muster up sufficient resolution to break the seal: her\nfears were not prophetic, for the contents gave her comfort. He informed\nher that he intended prolonging his tour, as he was now his own master,\nand wished to remain some time on the continent, and in particular to\nvisit Italy without any restraint: but his reasons for it appeared\nchildish; it was not to cultivate his taste, or tread on classic ground,\nwhere poets and philosophers caught their lore; but to join in the\nmasquerades, and such burlesque amusements.\n\nThese instances of folly relieved Mary, in some degree reconciled her\nto herself added fuel to the devouring flame--and silenced something\nlike a pang, which reason and conscience made her feel, when she\nreflected, that it is the office of Religion to reconcile us to the\nseemingly hard dispensations of providence; and that no inclination,\nhowever strong, should oblige us to desert the post assigned us, or\nforce us to forget that virtue should be an active principle; and that\nthe most desirable station, is the one that exercises our faculties,\nrefines our affections, and enables us to be useful.\n\nOne reflection continually wounded her repose; she feared not poverty;\nher wants were few; but in giving up a fortune, she gave up the power of\ncomforting the miserable, and making the sad heart sing for joy.\n\nHeaven had endowed her with uncommon humanity, to render her one of His\nbenevolent agents, a messenger of peace; and should she attend to her\nown inclinations?\n\nThese suggestions, though they could not subdue a violent passion,\nincreased her misery. One moment she was a heroine, half determined to\nbear whatever fate should inflict; the next, her mind would recoil--and\ntenderness possessed her whole soul. Some instances of Henry's\naffection, his worth and genius, were remembered: and the earth was only\na vale of tears, because he was not to sojourn with her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVI.\n\n\nHenry came the next day, and once or twice in the course of the\nfollowing week; but still Mary kept up some little formality, a certain\nconsciousness restrained her; and Henry did not enter on the subject\nwhich he found she wished to avoid. In the course of conversation,\nhowever, she mentioned to him, that she earnestly desired to obtain a\nplace in one of the public offices for Ann's brother, as the family were\nagain in a declining way.\n\nHenry attended, made a few enquiries, and dropped the subject; but the\nfollowing week, she heard him enter with unusual haste; it was to inform\nher, that he had made interest with a person of some consequence, whom\nhe had once obliged in a very disagreeable exigency, in a foreign\ncountry; and that he had procured a place for her friend, which would\ninfallibly lead to something better, if he behaved with propriety. Mary\ncould not speak to thank him; emotions of gratitude and love suffused\nher face; her blood eloquently spoke. She delighted to receive benefits\nthrough the medium of her fellow creatures; but to receive them from\nHenry was exquisite pleasure.\n\nAs the summer advanced, Henry grew worse; the closeness of the air, in\nthe metropolis, affected his breath; and his mother insisted on his\nfixing on some place in the country, where she would accompany him. He\ncould not think of going far off, but chose a little village on the\nbanks of the Thames, near Mary's dwelling: he then introduced her to his\nmother.\n\nThey frequently went down the river in a boat; Henry would take his\nviolin, and Mary would sometimes sing, or read, to them. She pleased his\nmother; she inchanted him. It was an advantage to Mary that friendship\nfirst possessed her heart; it opened it to all the softer sentiments of\nhumanity:--and when this first affection was torn away, a similar one\nsprung up, with a still tenderer sentiment added to it.\n\nThe last evening they were on the water, the clouds grew suddenly black,\nand broke in violent showers, which interrupted the solemn stillness\nthat had prevailed previous to it. The thunder roared; and the oars\nplying quickly, in order to reach the shore, occasioned a not\nunpleasing sound. Mary drew still nearer Henry; she wished to have\nsought with him a watry grave; to have escaped the horror of surviving\nhim.--She spoke not, but Henry saw the workings of her mind--he felt\nthem; threw his arm round her waist--and they enjoyed the luxury of\nwretchedness.--As they touched the shore, Mary perceived that Henry was\nwet; with eager anxiety she cried, What shall I do!--this day will kill\nthee, and I shall not die with thee!\n\nThis accident put a stop to their pleasurable excursions; it had injured\nhim, and brought on the spitting of blood he was subject to--perhaps it\nwas not the cold that he caught, that occasioned it. In vain did Mary\ntry to shut her eyes; her fate pursued her! Henry every day grew worse\nand worse.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVII.\n\n\nOppressed by her foreboding fears, her sore mind was hurt by new\ninstances of ingratitude: disgusted with the family, whose misfortunes\nhad often disturbed her repose, and lost in anticipated sorrow, she\nrambled she knew not where; when turning down a shady walk, she\ndiscovered her feet had taken the path they delighted to tread. She saw\nHenry sitting in his garden alone; he quickly opened the garden-gate,\nand she sat down by him.\n\n\"I did not,\" said he, \"expect to see thee this evening, my dearest Mary;\nbut I was thinking of thee. Heaven has endowed thee with an uncommon\nportion of fortitude, to support one of the most affectionate hearts in\nthe world. This is not a time for disguise; I know I am dear to\nthee--and my affection for thee is twisted with every fibre of my\nheart.--I loved thee ever since I have been acquainted with thine: thou\nart the being my fancy has delighted to form; but which I imagined\nexisted only there! In a little while the shades of death will encompass\nme--ill-fated love perhaps added strength to my disease, and smoothed\nthe rugged path. Try, my love, to fulfil thy destined course--try to add\nto thy other virtues patience. I could have wished, for thy sake, that\nwe could have died together--or that I could live to shield thee from\nthe assaults of an unfeeling world! Could I but offer thee an asylum in\nthese arms--a faithful bosom, in which thou couldst repose all thy\ngriefs--\" He pressed her to it, and she returned the pressure--he felt her\nthrobbing heart. A mournful silence ensued! when he resumed the\nconversation. \"I wished to prepare thee for the blow--too surely do I\nfeel that it will not be long delayed! The passion I have nursed is so\npure, that death cannot extinguish it--or tear away the impression thy\nvirtues have made on my soul. I would fain comfort thee--\"\n\n\"Talk not of comfort,\" interrupted Mary, \"it will be in heaven with thee\nand Ann--while I shall remain on earth the veriest wretch!\"--She grasped\nhis hand.\n\n\"There we shall meet, my love, my Mary, in our Father's--\" His voice\nfaultered; he could not finish the sentence; he was almost\nsuffocated--they both wept, their tears relieved them; they walked\nslowly to the garden-gate (Mary would not go into the house); they could\nnot say farewel when they reached it--and Mary hurried down the lane; to\nspare Henry the pain of witnessing her emotions.\n\nWhen she lost sight of the house she sat down on the ground, till it\ngrew late, thinking of all that had passed. Full of these thoughts, she\ncrept along, regardless of the descending rain; when lifting up her eyes\nto heaven, and then turning them wildly on the prospects around, without\nmarking them; she only felt that the scene accorded with her present\nstate of mind. It was the last glimmering of twilight, with a full moon,\nover which clouds continually flitted. Where am I wandering, God of\nMercy! she thought; she alluded to the wanderings of her mind. In what a\nlabyrinth am I lost! What miseries have I already encountered--and what\na number lie still before me.\n\nHer thoughts flew rapidly to something. I could be happy listening to\nhim, soothing his cares.--Would he not smile upon me--call me his own\nMary? I am not his--said she with fierceness--I am a wretch! and she\nheaved a sigh that almost broke her heart, while the big tears rolled\ndown her burning cheeks; but still her exercised mind, accustomed to\nthink, began to observe its operation, though the barrier of reason was\nalmost carried away, and all the faculties not restrained by her, were\nrunning into confusion. Wherefore am I made thus? Vain are my\nefforts--I cannot live without loving--and love leads to madness.--Yet\nI will not weep; and her eyes were now fixed by despair, dry and\nmotionless; and then quickly whirled about with a look of distraction.\n\nShe looked for hope; but found none--all was troubled waters.--No where\ncould she find rest. I have already paced to and fro in the earth; it is\nnot my abiding place--may I not too go home! Ah! no. Is this complying\nwith my Henry's request, could a spirit thus disengaged expect to\nassociate with his? Tears of tenderness strayed down her relaxed\ncountenance, and her softened heart heaved more regularly. She felt the\nrain, and turned to her solitary home.\n\nFatigued by the tumultuous emotions she had endured, when she entered\nthe house she ran to her own room, sunk on the bed; and exhausted\nnature soon closed her eyes; but active fancy was still awake, and a\nthousand fearful dreams interrupted her slumbers.\n\nFeverish and languid, she opened her eyes, and saw the unwelcome sun\ndart his rays through a window, the curtains of which she had forgotten\nto draw. The dew hung on the adjacent trees, and added to the lustre;\nthe little robin began his song, and distant birds joined. She looked;\nher countenance was still vacant--her sensibility was absorbed by one\nobject.\n\nDid I ever admire the rising sun, she slightly thought, turning from the\nWindow, and shutting her eyes: she recalled to view the last night's\nscene. His faltering voice, lingering step, and the look of tender woe,\nwere all graven on her heart; as were the words \"Could these arms\nshield thee from sorrow--afford thee an asylum from an unfeeling world.\"\nThe pressure to his bosom was not forgot. For a moment she was happy;\nbut in a long-drawn sigh every delightful sensation evaporated.\nSoon--yes, very soon, will the grave again receive all I love! and the\nremnant of my days--she could not proceed--Were there then days to come\nafter that?\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.\n\n\nJust as she was going to quit her room, to visit Henry, his mother\ncalled on her.\n\n\"My son is worse to-day,\" said she, \"I come to request you to spend not\nonly this day, but a week or two with me.--Why should I conceal any\nthing from you? Last night my child made his mother his confident, and,\nin the anguish of his heart, requested me to be thy friend--when I shall\nbe childless. I will not attempt to describe what I felt when he talked\nthus to me. If I am to lose the support of my age, and be again a\nwidow--may I call her Child whom my Henry wishes me to adopt?\"\n\nThis new instance of Henry's disinterested affection, Mary felt most\nforcibly; and striving to restrain the complicated emotions, and sooth\nthe wretched mother, she almost fainted: when the unhappy parent forced\ntears from her, by saying, \"I deserve this blow; my partial fondness\nmade me neglect him, when most he wanted a mother's care; this neglect,\nperhaps, first injured his constitution: righteous Heaven has made my\ncrime its own punishment; and now I am indeed a mother, I shall loss my\nchild--my only child!\"\n\nWhen they were a little more composed they hastened to the invalide; but\nduring the short ride, the mother related several instances of Henry's\ngoodness of heart. Mary's tears were not those of unmixed anguish; the\ndisplay of his virtues gave her extreme delight--yet human nature\nprevailed; she trembled to think they would soon unfold themselves in a\nmore genial clime.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIX.\n\n\nShe found Henry very ill. The physician had some weeks before declared\nhe never knew a person with a similar pulse recover. Henry was certain\nhe could not live long; all the rest he could obtain, was procured by\nopiates. Mary now enjoyed the melancholy pleasure of nursing him, and\nsoftened by her tenderness the pains she could not remove. Every sigh\ndid she stifle, every tear restrain, when he could see or hear them. She\nwould boast of her resignation--yet catch eagerly at the least ray of\nhope. While he slept she would support his pillow, and rest her head\nwhere she could feel his breath. She loved him better than herself--she\ncould not pray for his recovery; she could only say, The will of Heaven\nbe done.\n\nWhile she was in this state, she labored to acquire fortitude; but one\ntender look destroyed it all--she rather labored, indeed, to make him\nbelieve he was resigned, than really to be so.\n\nShe wished to receive the sacrament with him, as a bond of union which\nwas to extend beyond the grave. She did so, and received comfort from\nit; she rose above her misery.\n\nHis end was now approaching. Mary sat on the side of the bed. His eyes\nappeared fixed--no longer agitated by passion, he only felt that it was\na fearful thing to die. The soul retired to the citadel; but it was not\nnow solely filled by the image of her who in silent despair watched for\nhis last breath. Collected, a frightful calmness stilled every turbulent\nemotion.\n\nThe mother's grief was more audible. Henry had for some time only\nattended to Mary--Mary pitied the parent, whose stings of conscience\nincreased her sorrow; she whispered him, \"Thy mother weeps, disregarded\nby thee; oh! comfort her!--My mother, thy son blesses thee.--\" The\noppressed parent left the room. And Mary _waited_ to see him die.\n\nShe pressed with trembling eagerness his parched lips--he opened his\neyes again; the spreading film retired, and love returned them--he gave\na look--it was never forgotten. My Mary, will you be comforted?\n\nYes, yes, she exclaimed in a firm voice; you go to be happy--I am not a\ncomplete wretch! The words almost choked her.\n\nHe was a long time silent; the opiate produced a kind of stupor. At\nlast, in an agony, he cried, It is dark; I cannot see thee; raise me up.\nWhere is Mary? did she not say she delighted to support me? let me die\nin her arms.\n\nHer arms were opened to receive him; they trembled not. Again he was\nobliged to lie down, resting on her: as the agonies increased he leaned\ntowards her: the soul seemed flying to her, as it escaped out of its\nprison. The breathing was interrupted; she heard distinctly the last\nsigh--and lifting up to Heaven her eyes, Father, receive his spirit, she\ncalmly cried.\n\nThe attendants gathered round; she moved not, nor heard the clamor; the\nhand seemed yet to press hers; it still was warm. A ray of light from\nan opened window discovered the pale face.\n\nShe left the room, and retired to one very near it; and sitting down on\nthe floor, fixed her eyes on the door of the apartment which contained\nthe body. Every event of her life rushed across her mind with wonderful\nrapidity--yet all was still--fate had given the finishing stroke. She\nsat till midnight.--Then rose in a phrensy, went into the apartment, and\ndesired those who watched the body to retire.\n\nShe knelt by the bed side;--an enthusiastic devotion overcame the\ndictates of despair.--She prayed most ardently to be supported, and\ndedicated herself to the service of that Being into whose hands, she had\ncommitted the spirit she almost adored--again--and again,--she prayed\nwildly--and fervently--but attempting to touch the lifeless hand--her\nhead swum--she sunk--\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXX.\n\n\nThree months after, her only friend, the mother of her lost Henry began\nto be alarmed, at observing her altered appearance; and made her own\nhealth a pretext for travelling. These complaints roused Mary out of her\ntorpid state; she imagined a new duty now forced her to exert herself--a\nduty love made sacred!--\n\nThey went to Bath, from that to Bristol; but the latter place they\nquickly left; the sight of the sick that resort there, they neither of\nthem could bear. From Bristol they flew to Southampton. The road was\npleasant--yet Mary shut her eyes;--or if they were open, green fields\nand commons, passed in quick succession, and left no more traces behind\nthan if they had been waves of the sea.\n\nSome time after they were settled at Southampton, they met the man who\ntook so much notice of Mary, soon after her return to England. He\nrenewed his acquaintance; he was really interested in her fate, as he\nhad heard her uncommon story; besides, he knew her husband; knew him to\nbe a good-natured, weak man. He saw him soon after his arrival in his\nnative country, and prevented his hastening to enquire into the reasons\nof Mary's strange conduct. He desired him not to be too precipitate, if\nhe ever wished to possess an invaluable treasure. He was guided by him,\nand allowed him to follow Mary to Southampton, and speak first to her\nfriend.\n\nThis friend determined to trust to her native strength of mind, and\ninformed her of the circumstance; but she overrated it: Mary was not\nable, for a few days after the intelligence, to fix on the mode of\nconduct she ought now to pursue. But at last she conquered her disgust,\nand wrote her _husband_ an account of what had passed since she had\ndropped his correspondence.\n\nHe came in person to answer the letter. Mary fainted when he approached\nher unexpectedly. Her disgust returned with additional force, in spite\nof previous reasonings, whenever he appeared; yet she was prevailed on\nto promise to live with him, if he would permit her to pass one year,\ntravelling from place to place; he was not to accompany her.\n\nThe time too quickly elapsed, and she gave him her hand--the struggle\nwas almost more than she could endure. She tried to appear calm; time\nmellowed her grief, and mitigated her torments; but when her husband\nwould take her hand, or mention any thing like love, she would instantly\nfeel a sickness, a faintness at her heart, and wish, involuntarily, that\nthe earth would open and swallow her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXXI.\n\n\nMary visited the continent, and sought health in different climates; but\nher nerves were not to be restored to their former state. She then\nretired to her house in the country, established manufactories, threw\nthe estate into small farms; and continually employed herself this way\nto dissipate care, and banish unavailing regret. She visited the sick,\nsupported the old, and educated the young.\n\nThese occupations engrossed her mind; but there were hours when all her\nformer woes would return and haunt her.--Whenever she did, or said, any\nthing she thought Henry would have approved of--she could not avoid\nthinking with anguish, of the rapture his approbation ever conveyed to\nher heart--a heart in which there was a void, that even benevolence and\nreligion could not fill. The latter taught her to struggle for\nresignation; and the former rendered life supportable.\n\nHer delicate state of health did not promise long life. In moments of\nsolitary sadness, a gleam of joy would dart across her mind--She thought\nshe was hastening to that world _where there is neither marrying_, nor\ngiving in marriage.\n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: Who do Mary and Ann meet is Lisbon?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 105, "category": "longbench_qmsum", "reference": ["The opposition party claimed that the seniors care crisis was a national problem, and the federal government was not taking immediate response. The opposition party pointed out that these failures were the product of systemic neglect.The minister replied that they were fully aware that in long-term care facilities both seniors and persons living with a disability face unique challenges. And considering the severity of this report, the federal government promptly shared it with the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Ontario has initiated an investigation based on the report's findings."], "prompt": "You are given a meeting transcript and a query containing a question or instruction. Answer the query in one or more sentences.\n\nTranscript:\nThe Chair (Hon. Anthony Rota (NipissingTimiskaming, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the 12th meeting of the House of Commons Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. This will be the first hybrid meeting of the committee. Some members will be participating via videoconference and some will be participating in person. This follows the order made by the House on May26,2020. Members who have already participated in a virtual meeting of the special committee may actually not notice any change, except for the fact that some members are also participating from the floor of the House. An additional rubric, that of statements by members, was also added to the proceedings of the committee. In order to ensure that those joining the meeting via video conference can be seen and heard by those in the chamber, two screens have been set up in the chamber on either side of the Speakers chair. Sound amplification for virtual interventions will be available, and members in the chamber can listen to the floor sound or interpretation using the earpieces on their desks. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Please also direct your remarks through the Chair. Thank you. For those of you joining via video conference, I would like to remind you to leave your mike on mute when you are not speaking. Also, please note that if you want to speak in English, you should be on the English channel. If you want to speak French, you should be on the French channel. Should you wish to alternate between the two languages, you should change the channel to the language that you are speaking each time you switch languages. Should members participating by videoconference need to request the floor outside their designated speaking times, they should activate their microphone and state that they have a point of order. Those in the chamber can simply rise in the usual way. Please note that today's proceedings will be televised in the same way as a typical sitting of the House. Next we'll move on to ministerial announcements. I understand that there are no ministerial announcements today, so we'll move on to petitions. We'll be presenting petitions for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. I would like to remind members that any petition presented during a meeting of the special committee must have already been certified by the clerk of petitions. For members participating in person, we ask that they please come and drop the signed certificates off at the table once the petitions are presented. First on our list for presenting petitions is Ms. May, who is joining us virtually.\nMs. Elizabeth May (SaanichGulf Islands, GP): Mr. Chair, what an honour to be the first voice coming to you from the screens on either side of the Speaker of the House. I speak to you from SaanichGulf Islands on the traditional territory of the WSNEC people. Hych'ka Siem. I'm presenting a petition, number 431-00215, and it has been certified. The petitioners call on this House to take note of the fact that Canada is the only country with a universal health care system that does not include the provision of necessary prescription medications. They note that the system across Canada is a patchwork that leaves three million Canadians unprepared and uninsured to be able to purchase necessary medications. They call on the House assembled to put in place a system of universal national pharmacare, bringing down the cost of drugs through bulk purchasing. I think I'll call that a summary, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: The next petition will be presented by Mr. Genuis.\nMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood ParkFort Saskatchewan, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be presenting two petitions before the committee today. The first petition is in support of Bill S-204. This Senate public bill, been put forward by Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the Senate, would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. It also has a mechanism by which somebody could be deemed inadmissible to Canada for being involved in the horrible practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill has been before various Parliaments for over 10 years, and petitioners are hopeful that this Parliament will be the one that finally takes action to address forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The second petition is put forward by folks who are concerned about Bill C-7, particularly the efforts by the government through Bill C-7 to remove vital safeguards that are currently associated with Canada's euthanasia regime. Petitioners are not happy about the fact that the government is trying to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and remove other safeguards that only four short years ago the government thought were essential for the euthanasia and assisted suicide system that they were putting in place. The petitioners call on the government to address that, and they are not supportive of these particular efforts to remove vital safeguards from that regime. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: Is anyone else presenting petitions? Seeing none, we'll move on to statements by members. We will now proceed to Statements by Members for a period not exceeding 15minutes. Each statement will be for one minute. The first will be from Mr.Samson. Mr.Samson, you have the floor.\nMr. Darrell Samson (SackvillePrestonChezzetcook, Lib.): Good afternoon, everyone. It's an honour to be presenting an S. O. 31. This spring has been a difficult one for Nova Scotia and the communities of SackvillePrestonChezzetcook. While residents have banded together to tackle the challenges presented by COVID-19, we have also had to mourn the passing of three remarkable local women: RCMP Constable Heidi Stevenson, well known by many in Cole Harbour and the surrounding areas; our own Sub-Lieutenant Abbigail Cowbrough, who was based out of 12 Wing Shearwater; and Captain Jenn Casey of the Canadian Forces Snowbirds. All three women died in the line of duty in separate tragic events while serving our country. These three brave women, who served with honour on land, at sea and in the air, represent the absolute best of us. Heidi, Abbigail and Jenn were inspirational and will not be forgotten. Thank you.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan (SelkirkInterlakeEastman, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canada needs a prime minister who will create jobs and opportunity, but instead we have a prime minister who is piling up crippling national debt. Yesterday the PBO predicted the federal deficit this year will hit over $252 billion. That is almost equivalent to an average year of government spending before the Liberal government. After five years with this debt, Prime Minister, Canada's national debt is set to hit $1 trillion, with almost nothing to show for it. Industries from coast to coast are either closed or are struggling. Canadian workers need and deserve a prime minister who supports our energy sector and gets our natural resources and agriculture products to market, who supports small business and will make our tax system encourage job creation and growth, and who will bring advanced manufacturing jobs to Canada and keep the automotive industry growing. Most importantly, we need a Conservative prime minister who will get the government finances under control after the massive debt left by this prime minister.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Anandasangaree.\nMr. Gary Anandasangaree (ScarboroughRouge Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I speak today with a very heavy heart. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, we've seen a disproportionate number of deaths in long-term care homes. I'm thankful for the Canadian Armed Forces who were deployed to the Altamont care home in my riding and four other facilities across the GTA. The CAF have brought forward horrifying allegations in the operation of these homes. They include residents being given expired or improper doses of medication; not being cleaned or changed for a prolonged period of time; being forcibly fed, causing choking; being bed-bound for weeks; receiving inadequate nutrition, and much more. Mr. Chair, I call upon Premier Ford to place these five homes under a mandatory management order and to appoint a third party manager to address and rectify these violations. I also call upon the Premier to undertake an independent public inquiry into the tragedy we face in long-term care facilities across Ontario. Finally, Mr. Chair, we need to work with the provinces and territories to set national standards of care for the most vulnerable in our society. We can and must do better. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We have a point of order. Go ahead, Ms. May.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hesitate to interrupt colleagues, but I'm concerned about the petition practice, which, as I understand it, is to summarize a petition but not make a speech. I felt one of our colleagues was trespassing on our usual rules.\nThe Chair: I will remind honourable members that when a petition is presented, we're expected to give a prcis and make it as concise as possible. Thank you. Mr.Champoux, you have the floor.\nMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Mr.Chair, I would like to recognize the resilience of Quebeckers concerned for their jobs or their businesses during the COVID-19 crisis. They need us to plan for after the crisis, and we must do so now. To do so, we need the proper information. We need to know the status of the public finances. That is why the Bloc Qubcois is demanding that the government present an economic update, and that it do so before June17. This is not about making a spectacle. Everyone knows that the deficit will be huge. We had to provide the people with support and we all agree on that. But we have to know to what extent. We also have to know where we are starting from so that we can plan where we are going. This is about respecting the public, because they are the ones who will be paying the bill. In closing, I would like to remind the government that one group is not really contributing to the public purse at the moment. I am talking about the tech giants, the GAFAM group, that have never before been used to the extent that they are now, and that are still not paying a cent in tax in Canada. The Liberals promised to correct this injustice. Now is a great time for them to do so.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Sidhu.\nMs. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Chair, this week is National Paramedic Services Week. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Peel region police, paramedic and firefighting services for keeping Bramptonians safe. In my riding, organizations have stepped up to help our community. Organizations such as the Khalsa Aid Society, the Interfaith Council of Peel, the Brampton YMCA, the Prayer Stone Peoples Church, Unity in the Community, Ste. Louise Outreach Centre, Knights Table, the Yogi Divine Society, Vraj Community Service, Regeneration Brampton and many more have made our community stronger during this difficult time. I also have to address the report that came out yesterday from our brave Canadian Armed Forces. Like many Canadians, I was shocked by this report from the long-term care centres, including one in my riding. The examples of abuse described in the report are unacceptable. Our seniors deserve dignity and respect. We must find a solution. We need to fix this.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mrs. Stubbs.\nMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Chair, Canada's oil and gas sector is in crisis, made worse by five years of bad policies, red tape and barriers to pipelines. Just in the last two months, we saw the largest production cut in Canadian history. Active rigs dropped by 92% and tens of thousands of oil and gas workers lost their jobs, adding to the 200,000 since 2015. Energy is Canada's biggest investor, and exporting could lead the recovery if there are actions, not just words. On March 25, the finance minister promised help in hours or days, not weeks, but he's letting Canadians down. Sixty-three days later, small oil and gas companies still can't apply for BDC loans, and last week's large employer loan terms are predatory, with interest rates escalating to 14% by year five. Those are payday loan rates. The required stock options being at record lows could make the government the largest shareholder. That's not emergency assistance; it's pandemic profiteering. Programs can't help workers if businesses can't or won't actually get the support. The Liberals' death-by-delay tactics are doing exactly what foreign activists in other countries want: to shut down Canada's oil.\nThe Chair: Ms.Bessette, the floor is yours.\nMrs. Lyne Bessette (BromeMissisquoi, Lib.): Mr.Chair, in times of crisis, we stick together. I can state that this is certainly the case in BromeMissisquoi. In the last weeks, I have been calling volunteer action centres in my constituency so that they can tell me their news. I would like to take the time that I have to highlight the work that community organizations are doing tirelessly in my constituency. The crisis has made us realize the extent to which food banks and meals-on-wheels can not only relieve hunger, but also relieve thousands of shut-in seniors of their loneliness. Let me also highlight the devotion of the volunteers giving generously of their time, particularly the initiative of Mabel Hastings in the volunteer aid centre in Mansonville. Like me, she sends out a daily newsletter to keep the public informed about the many resources available for their support. COVID-19 is bringing out the best in our community and I am certain that, together, we will get through it.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Virani.\nMr. Arif Virani (ParkdaleHigh Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, during the COVID-19 pandemic I have been inspired by the courageous work of so many essential workers. I want to thank everyone on the front lines for keeping us safe, keeping us fed and keeping our communities functioning. I want to make special note of one particular essential health care worker, a woman who is a quarantine manager with the Public Health Agency of Canada. I have personally seen her working tirelessly over the past three months to keep all of us safe. That woman is my wife, Suchita Jain. Suchi, I love you, I am very proud of you and I thank you for all of the sacrifices you are making. I want to highlight another woman from my riding of ParkdaleHigh Park, Rachelle LeBlanc. She is a local designer. When the pandemic broke, she saw the need for protective barriers for small shops in Parkdale, so she set about collecting donations. She then put her design talents to work and started designing free-standing protective shields. Rachelle's team has now delivered 25 free COVID protective shields to small shopkeepers in Parkdale, and the team is on track to building 100 more. It's the compassion of Canadians like Rachelle that gives meaning to the phrase we are all in this together.\nThe Chair: Mr.Godin, you have the floor.\nMr. Jol Godin (PortneufJacques-Cartier, CPC): Mr.Chair, the school year has been shattered and our graduating classes must be proud of what they have achieved amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Young men, young women, be proud of your accomplishments! You can believe in the future. Keep learning. It will give you tools that will serve you all your lives. What you have achieved in this extraordinary year will set you apart from the others. I invite you to be inspired by that and turn it to your advantage. The current government has the obligation to promote the values that will lead you to become involved in your communities. Your willingness to learn or to work makes you into better citizens. Knowledge and experience are irreplaceable and invaluable. I implore this government, which is unaware of the damage it is causing, to immediately announce all the positions that have already been approved under the Canada summer jobs program. Urgent action is needed. Let us have confidence in our organizations, our companies, and let us support our youth, a rich resource that we must equip and motivate. I congratulate all the young graduates in the beautiful constituency of PortneufJacques-Cartier.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Fergus.\nMr. Greg Fergus (HullAylmer, Lib.): Mr.Chair, this pandemic lets us see what Canadians are made of. This coming Saturday, May30, more than 2,000Christians of all denominations are coming together virtually for prayer and for action. When the going gets tough, Canadians get going. This could not be more true than with respect to what will be happening on May 30. This Saturday, in more than 2,000 churches and homes, thousands of faith-filled Canadians are gathering to pray and act on those prayers as part of Stand United Canada. They will gather through television, Facebook Live and Instagram Live. Then they are going to deliver much-needed support to at-risk Canadians who live in disadvantaged areas. This is faith in action. I'm sure I speak for all parliamentarians when I wish success to Stand United Canada. I hope it inspires more Canadians to follow in its footsteps. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Harder.\nMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): The best way to safeguard the truth is to allow people to speak freely, but from the very beginning of this pandemic, the Liberals have silenced dissent. Sadly, their short-sightedness has been to the detriment of Canadians. Early on, they propagated the notion that human-to-human transmission wasn't possible. They said that closing the borders wasn't necessary. They told us that wearing face masks wouldn't help. It is undeniable that the Liberal government has put Canadians in danger by silencing alternative points of view and has spread misinformation. Ironically, however, they have now gone ahead and crowned themselves the arbiters of truth. They are spending millions of dollars to censor what Canadians can and cannot say. They are determining what is true and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, what is in and what is out. When freedom of speech is repressed, it is safe to say that democracy is under siege. I call upon the government to restore the personal liberties that are granted under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is Canada. We are not an autocracy; we are a democracy.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Nater.\nMr. John Nater (PerthWellington, CPC): Mr. Chair, small businesses have always been the cornerstone of communities across this country. They provide employment and economic stability and are always the first to support community functions and activities, but small businesses have been particularly hard hit due to COVID-19. They have shut their doors temporarily, and now many worry they'll never be able to open their doors again. With the season cancellations at the Stratford Festival, Drayton Entertainment and Stratford Summer Music, businesses in the tourism, hospitality, accommodation and retail sectors in PerthWellington are struggling. Every day, I talk to small business owners who can't access the Canada emergency business account, and others who find the convoluted commercial rent assistance program to be out of reach. The program is needlessly complicated, frustratingly slow and excessively restrictive. Mr. Chair, the government needs to go back, fix these programs and ensure that support goes to the small businesses that need it.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Collins.\nMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Chair, Canadians have been shaken by this pandemic. It has exposed the gaps in our health care system and our social safety net. It has shown how vulnerable we all are when disaster hits. It has brought us to a crossroads. We can go backwards to so-called business as usual, with horrific conditions in long-term care homes, widespread inequality and no real action on climate change, or we can build for better. In Victoria, people in the community, organizations and municipal leaders have been calling for a new way forward. The City of Victoria has a plan for reinvention, resilience and recovery. Organizations like Greater Victoria Acting Together; Common Vision, Common Action; and Kairos Victoria are exploring ideas for a sustainable and just recovery. We can build for better. We can invest in the infrastructure. We need to fight climate change, homelessness and inequality. We can build a Canada where we take better care of the planet and each other.\nThe Chair: We now move to Ms.DeBellefeuille.\nMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (SalaberrySurot, BQ): Mr.Chair, in this time of pandemic, it is with heartfelt emotion that I want to highlight the excellent work of all the guardian angels at the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest. From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the entire staff, as well as the retirees who have come back to provide their assistance. I admire the managers, at all levels and in all services, working tirelessly so that their teams can answer the call in this difficult situation. My fellow managers and the management teams of the Support Program for the Autonomy of Seniors, both in home support and in residential care, you have my heartfelt congratulations for the herculean work you have done. My thoughts go particularly to Lyne Ricard and Vronique Proulx, managers working diligently with their teams of professionals to support the seniors living in intermediate resources, as we call them. I also warmly recognize the director of nursing services, Chantal Careau, who is facing the current challenge with passion and humanity. Once again, my congratulations go to the entire organization of the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest for their remarkable work in this difficult and very demanding time.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Barlow.\nMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): During the worst of times, we see the best in people. Heroes are born, characters revealed, resiliency is sowed. I cannot say enough about my constituents in Foothillsfront-line health care workers, grocery store clerks, restaurateurs, farmersfor all they are doing to keep our community safe and healthy. I want to shine a light on some of our hidden heroes, such as Owen Plumb, a grade 9 student in Okotoks who is using his 3D printer to build PPE for front-line health care workers. He partnered with the Rotary Club and Evergreen Solutions in Okotoks to help with the manufacturing and assembly. There is also Sam Schofield, the volunteer president of the Pincher Creek Chamber of Commerce, overnight built a resiliency website for COVID-19 by building training tools for businesses throughout his area. He also helped develop the Foothills Business Recovery Taskforce, which is a resource for businesses throughout southern Alberta in my riding. Finally, to the employees of Cargill Foods in High River, I know this has been a very difficult time and that many of you have lost loved ones. I want to say thank you for tirelessly doing all you can to protect our food supply and keep food on our table. Each and every one of you is a hero. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Simms.\nMr. Scott Simms (Coast of BaysCentralNotre Dame, Lib.): Thank you, Chair. I would like to take this time to salute those who go above and beyond the call of duty to provide care and comfort to others. In my 16 years in the House of Commons I have never experienced anything like this, when we find our lives are at a standstill and there is so much sorrow felt by families who suffer from the effects of COVID-19. However, here are two examples of kindness right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Shanna and Fred Patey of Bishop's Falls, along with a few of their friends, spend hours next to the Trans-Canada Highway with just a barbeque and a cooler. They serve free meals for truckers crossing our province each and every day. So far they have provided over 1,500 meals. There is also Mitch Strickland of Grand Falls-Windsor, who owns Appy's Diner. He has continually provided food for the local hospital and other front-line workers through his donations. To all our front-line workers in grocery stores and delivery trucks, and to doctors, nurses, LPNs, paramedics, first responders and, of course, our brave women and men in the military, we will be forever grateful and blessed because of you. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: That's all the time we have today for Statements by Members. Before going on, I just want to remind all the members that it is a one-minute statement, so if you don't mind, please time it before coming in because we do have limited time. The other thing that has come up is that some of you just naturally speak very quickly. I'm not here to judge anybody's way of speaking, but try to consider the translators and interpreters to make sure that everyone understands what is said, because they are working diligently to try to get both languages out. In sum, there are two things: please slow down and please make sure the statement is confined to one minute. We now move to Questions to Ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes in order to allow the employees who are providing support for the sitting to substitute for each other safely.  Our first question goes to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Scheer.\nHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In the early days of the pandemic and the lockdown that followed, Canadians were told by this government that programs would be rolled out very quickly and that gaps and shortcomings would be changed as time went on. While many Canadians are being let down by this government's response and its unnecessarily rigid programs, Conservatives identified solutions weeks ago, yet here we are, two and a half months later, and many of these programs still have not been improved. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. On April 26 the Conservatives asked the Prime Minister to change the criteria for the Canada emergency business account so that small businesses that don't happen to have a business bank account could qualify for those types of programs. It's now May 27. Is the Prime Minister going to make that change?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Chair, we knew from the beginning of this pandemic that we did need to move extremely quickly, and that's what we did. We rolled out the Canada emergency response benefit extremely quickly. Eight million Canadians have had that as a replacement for paycheques lost because of COVID-19. We also moved forward on the wage subsidy and a range of other programs to support workers and small businesses. What we've done in terms of helping small businesses with the Canada emergency business account has had a massive impact on small businesses across the country, but we understand that certain companies and businesses have particularities that mean it's a little more difficult for them to qualify. We are working with them through their regional development agencies, and we encourage them to approach their local RDAs, which will be able to help them get the money they deserve.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, these are very simple technical fixes that can be made by this government. There's no excuse for the delay. It's May 27. They've known about these problems for weeks. They're trying to get patted on the back for actions they took back in March, and yet they are letting so many Canadians down by not making these very simple changes. For example, companies that have acquired another company in the last year have employees whose jobs are threatened. The businesses are not allowed to qualify for the wage subsidy because their revenue is now counted together. We have identified this gap. Again, it's a simple question. Will companies that have acquired another company still be allowed to use the wage subsidy to keep workers on the job, yes or no?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I know that there are many different types of businesses across this country that need support. We have moved forward on supporting as many of them as we possibly can, and we continue to work on filling gaps. I know the member opposite has talked to me a number of times about a tractor company in his riding. I can assure you that finance officials are engaged with that company to see if there's a way to make sure we're getting them the support they need.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: It's actually a very simple fix. I can save him and his officials a lot of time. The government used the word amalgamation when it announced the changes to that program. He can make this very clear, and save a lot of work, just by including the word acquisition. Will he do that?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I can assure you that finance officials are working closely with Brandt Tractor. They're continuing to work with a range of businesses across the country that, for various reasons, are not able to apply for the help we have now. We will continue to work to make sure people who need the help get it.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, it's literally one word. We can email him the text. We can send him the page in the dictionary where that word is defined, if that would help. Another gap that is letting people down is in the rent relief program. The government has set the parameters to qualify for the rent relief program for companies that have experienced a 70% revenue loss. There are untold thousands of businesses that have experienced a 50%, 55%, 60% or 65% loss that are ineligible but have no capacity to pay the rent. We called on the government weeks ago to have a more flexible sliding scale to allow more companies to access this program to keep more people on the job and more businesses open. Will the government introduce some flexibility to this program to help more businesses survive?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, our public servants and policy-makers have been moving creatively and quickly to try to get help to as many people as we possibly can, with our focus being on the people who need it the most. Obviously, this pandemic is affecting everyone and every business across the country in different ways, but our focus has been on ensuring that those who most need it are getting the help they can. We will, of course, continue to work with the parties opposite and all Canadians to ensure that we're getting help to everyone who needs it, but our focus has always been on the most vulnerable, first and foremost.\nThe Chair: The floor now goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet (BeloeilChambly, BQ): Thank you, Mr.Chair. My question is for the Prime Minister. If the Liberal Party of Canada had not taken advantage of the emergency programs, would it have laid off all its staff?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we recognized that a number of organizations and companies were facing difficulties because of COVID-19. People work for those organizations, as accountants, receptionists, assistants or labourers, and those people need to be supported. We are supporting people all over the country through that program.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party one of those organizations in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Any company or organization that can demonstrate a significant drop in its income, whether that be in donations, receipts, profits\nThe Chair: The floor goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we created specific criteria to help organizations in difficulty. Any organization experiencing those difficulties can apply.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: In the Magdalen Islands, fishing companies in difficulty and in need of assistance will not have the money that the Liberals are going to take. Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we have invested in assistance for fishers all across the country. We recognize that it is a difficult situation because of COVID-19. We will be here for our fishers and for industries in difficulty.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: I am not catching many answers, it seems to me. A company in Drummondville that manufactures isolation membranes is in difficulty because a federal program is inadequate. Compared to that company, is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, there are clear criteria for submitting applications under these programs. Companies and organizations that receive money qualify for those programs.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the program criteria establish that the Liberal Party is an organization in difficulty, does that mean that the criteria to determine whether an organization is in difficulty are poorly designed?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, all through this pandemic, our priority has been to be here for workers in difficulty so that they do not lose their jobs. This applies to all organizations and companies in the country to the extent possible. That is what we are in the process of doing.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Given the answers from the Prime Minister, let me ask this question: is the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: No, Mr.Chair. We are doing important work for all Canadians, every day.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Restaurant owners on rue Ontario in Montreal feel that they will not make it through the crisis and that they will never open their doors again. They are in difficulty. By comparison, is the Liberal Party of Canada an organization in difficulty that will not open its doors again after the crisis? We can but hope.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established criteria for that program in order to help those working for various organizations. Any organization that receives the subsidy has qualified for it.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is there a consensus in the Liberal Party caucus that the Liberal Party is in difficulty as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we are working every day to help Canadians and workers in difficulty. We are going to continue to do that work.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Does answering a question put the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, it is a pleasure to be here in the House and to answer questions from Canadians and from members of the opposition.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: You are going to answer a question from a Quebecker, I hope. Companies are struggling in Saguenay, in the Gasp, in Beloeil. Would those companies not deserve to be saved by the money that the supposedly struggling Liberal Party has taken?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: I am always very happy to answer questions from all Canadians currently sitting in the House. We will be here to help workers in difficulty all across the country, including in Quebec.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the Prime Minister is so happy to answer questions, I hope he will be delirious with joy to answer this one. Is the Liberal Party in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established a program to help those working in organizations and who could lose their jobs because of COVID-19. We are here to help workers in organizations and companies all over the country.\nThe Chair: We'll now go on to Mr. Singh.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The conditions of seniors as outlined by the military were appalling, but seniors need more than just compassionate words. They need action. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind excuses and actually show leadership to fix long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the Constitution of Canada is not an excuse. It lays out the divisions of powers and responsibilities, and we respect the provinces' jurisdiction over long-term care facilities. However, from the very beginning, we have indicated our willingness to support the provinces on this very important issue. We need to make sure our seniors right across the country are properly cared for, which is why we sent in the military and why we are there to help the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The former federal health minister, Dr. Philpott, said, We need to stop using jurisdiction as an excuse to not have federal leadership. That is a former federal health minister. Now, we know from the military report that staff were afraid to use vital equipment because of the cost. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, over the past couple of days I've had very good conversations with the premiers of both Quebec and Ontario on this important issue. I look forward to discussing issues around long-term care with all the premiers of the provinces and territories tomorrow evening as well. This is something that Canadians have seen needs concerted action. We will be there to support the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Needles were reused and expired medication was used, according to military reports. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in the care of our seniors?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the contents of that report were deeply disturbing and troubling for all Canadians. That is why we are committed to working with the provinces to fix this situation. Ontarians and indeed people right across the country are deeply preoccupied by what they've seen going on. We need to fix this, and we will do that together.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that cockroaches and flies were present and that food was rotten. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards so that long-term care is governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, our priority right now is ensuring that we are supporting the provinces in their need to make sure that all seniors are protected right across the country in all those institutions. Going forward, we absolutely will need to have more conversations about how we can ensure that every senior across the country is properly supported.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that respecting the dignity of patients was not a priority. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards and for long-term care to be governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, all Canadians know we need to do better by our seniors. This is something we all take very seriously, and all orders of government will work together to make sure that right now, and going forward, we improve our systems. The federal government will be there to work with the provinces on making that happen.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has said that he's willing to work with the provinces. I'm saying that we need to see federal leadership. We need a commitment at the federal level that the Prime Minister will push for things that people need, which is to remove profit from long-term care and to establish national standards. Will the Prime Minister go beyond working with provinces and show some leadership?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, I will always be here to stand up for Canadians in all different situations. We are going to work with the provinces, fully respecting jurisdictions, to make sure that, all across the country, Canadians in long-term care are supported as required and receive the services and the care they deserve.\nThe Chair: Mr. Singh, we have 30 seconds. Ask a brief question, please.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much. The COVID-19 crisis should not be used as an excuse to avoid presenting solutions to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls committee, in particular by delaying action on the calls for justice. This is the same government that would not recognize it as a genocide, the same government that delayed the United Nations declaration legislation and the same government that is still taking indigenous kids to court. Will this government commit to core funding for indigenous services to help women and girls and ensure that the calls for justice are implemented without delay?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, we continue to work very closely with partners on the calls for justice even as we act in many areas, including better funding for shelters and for victims of domestic violence. We will continue to work with those partners, but people will understand that many of those partners are very focused right now on helping front-line workers, not on establishing the report. We will continue to work with them on the report, but the COVID-19 situation has made that more difficult.\nThe Chair: I want to thank the honourable members who are shouting time, but I do have a timer here, and I am taking care of it. I appreciate the help, but I do want to remind them that I have the proper machinery here. We will now go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Prime Minister. He was just talking about the tragic conditions in long-term care facilities in Ontario, and there was a report out from Quebec today. I want to commend the Canadian Armed Forces for witnessing these appalling conditions, putting it in the context of a report, and providing care to our loved ones in these long-term care facilities. The government is saying they didn't receive the report from the department until May 22, but this report came out on May 14. What happened to that report for eight days?\nThe Chair: We will go to the honourable minister. We seem to have a technical issue, Mr. Sajjan. We can't hear you. You might want to put down your bar and keep it down while you're speaking.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Chair, I want to thank our Canadian Armed Forces members for the tremendous work they are doing. They did their duty, noted down their observations and reported them. While those observations were being reported directly to the managers, a report was being compiled. This report was given to me on the 21st. I then forwarded it to the Minister of Public Safety on the 22nd, and that report was then given to the provincial authorities very quickly afterwards.\nMr. James Bezan: I trust that you got the report on the 21st, but the report was written on the 14th, so what happened with that report for seven days? Why wasn't it acted upon? Could you just explain that? Our loved ones were at risk during that entire time.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as we stated, this report was done and given up through the chain of command, and the appropriate leadership did their due diligence. Once we received this report, it was forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Again, I want to commend our Canadian Armed Forces members for not only the tremendous work they are doing but also for doing their duty.\nMr. James Bezan: That report from Ontario documented appalling conditions, horrific care that was being given to the clients, and also the way that the staff conducted themselves. We know that there are 39 members of the Canadian Armed Forces currently infected with COVID-19. Minister, do you believe that the infection could have been transmitted from staff to our soldiers serving in long-term care facilities because proper protocols were not being followed?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to any type of activities that we send our Canadian Armed Forces on, we do our due diligence to make sure that we have the right protocols in place and the appropriate training. This is why we have taken the time to make sure our folks not only did the appropriate training but had the appropriate equipment. We have the right protocols in place, and we will make sure that our members who are infected by COVID will get the appropriate treatment as well.\nMr. James Bezan: Does the Minister of National Defence believe that our soldiers serving in Operation Laser, who have put themselves in harm's way in battling the COVID virus as a war, deserve to have hazard pay benefits?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to looking after Canadian Armed Forces personnel, yes, we are actually in the process as we speak of making sure that our members have the appropriate hazard pay. This is currently being drafted, and we will have more to say on this shortly.\nMr. James Bezan: I hope that means it's a yes. I do encourage the government to provide that compensation to our soldiers and troops serving in Operation Laser. I would finally like to come back to the issue of the timeline from May 14 to May 21, when that report was in the department for one week. Under our parliamentary system, ministers are accountable for the conduct of their departments. Will the minister take responsibility for that report sitting on someone's desk for seven days and not being turned over to the proper authorities?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear: When it comes to the observations that were made, those were immediately reported to the appropriate management of the care facilities and to the appropriate links within the province. At the same time, this report was being compiled and pushed up to the chain of command, and they did their due diligence. As I stated, it was given to us, and on the same day it was forwarded to the Minister of Public Safety, who immediately then sent it to the provincial authorities.\nMr. James Bezan: Was one of those authorities that this was sent to the RCMP?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as stated, this will not only be given to the proper authorities but the appropriate steps will be taken now.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk (BattlefordsLloydminster, CPC): Thank you, Chair. Yesterday it was revealed that the Minister of Digital Government has been promoting a fundraising campaign to sue Global News for their story criticizing the Chinese Communist Party. Why is the minister using her authority to support the Communist Party of China and threatening our media and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray (Minister of Digital Government): Mr. Chair, we value the important work of media right across the country. Attacking the integrity of hard-working journalists is simply not acceptable. Like many members on all sides of the House.... WeChat is a social media platform used to engage and share information with\nThe Chair: Now we'll go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister aware of the efforts that the United Front carries out on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party to influence how Canadians view the People's Republic of China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Thank you for that question. Mr. Chair, I want to just be clear. The participation in the WeChat group, much like Facebook, is guided by posted\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister an active participant in the efforts by the Communists to muzzle a Canadian journalist and deprive Canadians of the facts about China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Muzzling journalists is never acceptable, and our government is very clear on that. I will say that the individual in question posted something outside of the guidelines of my WeChat group and is no longer\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk, I just want to point out that we do have interpreters listening and trying to interpret. They'd appreciate it....\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: My questions are short. That's probably what it is.\nThe Chair: Take a deep breath.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, the Liberals can't shrug this off. The minister admitted to theBreaker that her own political staff manages this WeChat. This is someone who is paid by Canadian taxpayers. Why is the minister using tax dollars to help China attack Global News and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray: I think the member knows very well that the people who post on WeChat are free to post what they choose within certain guidelines. Those guidelines were ignored. That person is no longer part of my WeChat group. The post was completely unacceptable, and I do not share the views of the individual.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, Sam Cooper is an investigative Canadian journalist who has uncovered many different criminal rackets that can be linked back to Beijing. Has the minister apologized to Sam Cooper for attempting to shut down his work?\nHon. Joyce Murray: As we all know, community outreach is a very important part of the work of a member of Parliament. WeChat is one of many social media sites regularly used by members\nThe Chair: We go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, when will the minister apologize to Sam Cooper and Global News?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Mr. Chair, I have been very clear that I do not share the views of the person who posted on my WeChat site, who operated outside of my\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in December 2018 the Liberals passed Bill C-76. This included provisions to prevent foreign interference in Canadian society. Does the government believe that Joyce Murray's actions have violated this portion of the act?\nHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that we are always vigilant in any foreign interference in our national security or issues of political interference in our society. It's monitored carefully by the national security establishment, according to the law as it exists in this country, and we will remain vigilant.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in May 2019, the Liberals launched their digital charter. One of the principles was strong democracy, a commitment to defend freedom of expression. Will the Liberals hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated this part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, we are absolutely committed to the rule of law and will always uphold it. I think, as the minister has made very clear, she was not involved in this process and has no control over the individual who posted that matter.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, unfortunately I don't believe that was a sufficient answer. This is really a yes or no. Will the government hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated their part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that our government remains committed to the rule of law and we will always work tirelessly to uphold the laws of this country.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is that a yes or a no?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I think it was very clear. We will always uphold the laws of Canada.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Still, was that a yes or a no? I'm not hearing a yes or a no.\nHon. Bill Blair: I am doing my very best, Mr. Chair, to answer the question for the House and to assure the member opposite that our government will always remain committed to the rule of law. That is unequivocal.\nThe Chair: We will now move on to the honourable member. The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. I am very happy and proud to be participating in this discussion in the House of Commons today. My question is very simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance): Mr.Chair, we continue to be transparent with our measures. Of course, we want to make sure that our investments, our economy\nThe Chair: The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Let me ask my question to the honourable Minister of Finance once more, since he is talking about transparency. My question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, our economic situation is very fluid. We have made major investments and we are making sure that our economy is working.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the minister's answer is not fluid at all. But the question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, it is important to be transparent with our investments. We look at the investments and the figures every day.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the Minister of Finance may not know what the deficit is, but one great Canadian does know. And he knows that he knows. Could the Minister of Finance be very clear, very fluid and, above all, very transparent with Canadians? What is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I want to be very clear with Canadians: our economic situation is very difficult. The situation is fluid. We are making investments to ensure that our economy will be strong in the future.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, with all due respect to the Minister of Finance, let me point out that, though he is not very clear, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear yesterday. The deficit is $260billion. That is the real number. Why does the government not have the courage to state it clearly, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer did yesterday?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we always want to be clear and transparent. It is very important for the situation to be stable in order to ensure our future. That is our economic approach. We are making investments now so that the situation becomes more stable.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, I know that the Minister of Finance is very good with figures. But he is not able to give us one. Perhaps he could comment on the statement that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made yesterday, that the emergency assistance must have an end date, and if it does not, we are heading to levels of taxation that have not been seen in this country for generations. What is the government going to do to make sure that Canadians will not be overtaxed after this crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to make investments. That way, we will have a resilient economy in the future. That's very important. That way, we know that we'll have a good economy in the future. When we have more information, we will\nThe Chair: Mr.Deltell, you have the floor.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, will the minister commit not to raise taxes after the crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I have said several times that we do not have a plan to raise taxes. That's very important.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Finally a clear answer! However, I'm not convinced that he will apply it. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself has said that there isn't much ammunition left without shifting into a large structural deficit, which can lead directly to tax increases. If the Minister of Finance can't even say today what the deficit is today, how can he be credible when he says that he won't raise taxes?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I think what's most important is that during this pandemic, Canadians and companies across the country need the Government of Canada's help. That is our approach. That way, we will have an economy that will function in the future. Of course, this is important for future generations.\nMr. Grard Deltell: When will there be an economic update?\nHon. Bill Morneau: \nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, all observers are expecting an economic update to know where we're going. When will that happen?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we want our economic update to be accurate. That's why we are looking at information that allow us to make good forecasts.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Chair, the United States, Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam have created an economic prosperity group to diversify some of their key supply chains away from China. Canada has a free trade agreement with six of these seven countries. Why are we not part of this group?\nHon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade): Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for that question. Indeed, we have been working diligently with all of these countries to make sure that we are keeping global supply chains open during this critical time. I think everyone agrees that keeping supply chains open for medical goods, critical agriculture and essential goods is absolutely essential and\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, this government is refusing to come to terms with what COVID-19 will mean for the future of international trade. Why is Canada not at the table with our largest trading partner protecting the viability of our international supply chains and capitalizing on the opportunities of others doing the same?\nThe Chair: Before we go to the minister, one of the members has his mike still on, and I would ask that he turn it off. I am hearing background noise. The hon. minister.\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, Canada has unprecedented access to a number of markets around the world because of the extraordinary agreements that we have made to provide access to customers in those international markets. During COVID-19, we have been working with our G20 partners. I have had two meetings with G20 trade ministers on the importance of keeping supply chains\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, is this payback for the Prime Minister snubbing these countries at the original TPP signing?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we have a CPTPP arrangement with these countries, and we are looking forward to making sure that we get Canadian businesses growing into those markets.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the U.K. will begin applying tariffs at the beginning of next year on Canadian exports such as seafood, beef and cars. These are the items that have had tariffs removed under CETA. Will the government commit to having a new trade agreement with the U.K. in place by January 1?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we are monitoring the situation very carefully. The U.K., of course, is a very important trading partner for Canada. They are in discussions right now. I want to assure Canadian businesses that CETA continues to apply to our trade with the U.K. during this period while they go through Brexit.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, after CUSMA, this government guaranteed to the trade committee that they would publish the objectives of any new trade agreement. When will we see these objectives published and actually have a chance to view them?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we look forward to working to ensure that those objectives are published as we get into future trade discussions.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the resignation of the WTO director-general at this unprecedented time is concerning for the international trade community. Is the government committed to supporting a DG candidate who is dedicated to the massive reforms needed to get the WTO functioning again?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for that good question. The Ottawa group, led by Canada, is working with like-minded countries on the reform of the WTO. We've been doing this work and we continue to do this work. I look forward to making sure that we are leading the way on those discussions with like-minded\nThe Chair: Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, last week the President of the United States considered blocking cattle imports. Our beef producers don't need this. They need stability. Three-quarters of Canada's beef cattle exports go to the U.S. Has the government sought out and received assurances from the United States that no such action will apply to Canadian cattle?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chair, we have an excellent assurance of our trade with the United States, which is our new NAFTA trade agreement that we have negotiated, thanks to the unprecedented co-operation across this country. It is very important to the Canadian economy and Canadian producers.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, going forward post-COVID, there are a lot things that will be changing in supply chains. What is this government doing proactively to look at opportunities in these supply chains that Canadian businesses can take advantage of?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we continue to work with countries around the globe to ensure that Canada's supply chains and those global supply chains, particularly for essential goods, for agricultural products, for medical supplies, continue to remain open. We will keep doing this work.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, on the agriculture side, canola farmers would like to know the status of canola going into China. Can she update the House on that status?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Mr.Chair, I want to assure my colleague that we are continuing to work with our industry representatives, our allies and our trading partners in China.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. McLeod.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod (KamloopsThompsonCariboo, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senior Canadian bureaucrats received very credible reports in early January that China was procuring and hoarding PPE. As a member of cabinet, was the health minister aware?\nHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Health): Mr. Chair, from the very beginning of the outbreak in early January we were aware of the challenges our health sector would face, and we immediately began to work with the provinces and territories to understand what the need would be and how we could best prepare.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: In April, the minister stated there were not enough supplies in the national emergency stockpile. Can she explain why she approved a donation of 16 tonnes of PPE for China on January 31, claiming it would not compromise our supply? She can't have it both ways. We don't have enough; we have enough and it won't compromise it.\nHon. Anita Anand (Minister of Public Services and Procurement): Mr. Chair, we are operating in a highly competitive global environment, and the reality is that we need to make sure we have multiple complementary supply chains operating at the same time, which we have been doing in the past weeks and months, to ensure our front-line health care workers have the supplies they need to keep Canadians safe. That's our priority. That's what we're working on.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Unfortunately, this question was directed to the health minister, referencing things she actually stated in terms of the availability of our supplies. Before the she signed off on the donationand it was the health minister who signed off on the donationdid she consult with the health ministers in the provinces and territories?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, provinces and territories have their own stockpiles, which of course they use to prepare for incidences of outbreak and other illnesses across their jurisdictions. We've worked very closely with the provinces and territories since the beginning of the outbreak to make sure we can provide any particular additional support. In fact, of all the requests made so far, we have been able to complete them.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Health care workers are now having to look at modified full-face snorkels as an alternative to N95 masks. Did it not occur to the minister that our hospitals and care homes could have used that PPE she shipped out, providing a longer opportunity for them to also get procurement done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, the equipment that was donated when China was in its outbreak was an important donation of nearly expired or expired goods that it was in desperate need of in its effort to try to contain the virus. As the member opposite knows, we've been able to work successfully with provinces and territories to ensure they have what they need.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Mr. Chair, I would suggest that during February and March our hospitals would have consumed that almost-expired product very efficiently, but I want to move on to another topic. When defending the sale of 22 seniors' homes to the Chinese government, the Prime Minister stated that we have a strong regulatory regime that imposes rigorous standards. He said that this regime ensures the care our seniors get is top quality. That was in 2017. Now he states he is saddened, shocked, disappointed and angered. Was the Prime Minister completely oblivious to the risks, or was he just too anxious to please the Chinese government when he sold those 22 homes?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the homes the member opposite is referring to are in the province of B.C., and I have to commend the province for the early work it did to protect seniors in those long-term care homes. The member opposite is trying to confuse the issue. As she knows, the review we did was entirely separate from the standards to which the province holds the care homes.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: The Prime Minister does not have authority over seniors' homes, which he has clearly stated, but he does have authority over the act in which he approved the sale. At 18 months, government had an obligation to make sure there was compliance. Was that done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the long-term care homes in each province fall within the jurisdiction of their own particular act, and those provinces and territories are responsible for fulfilling the inspections required under that act.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Under the Investment Canada Act, the government is obligated to review the sale for compliance. Four homes had to close. Since the government approved the sale, it is complicit in the care of our seniors in this country\nHon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry): Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear that we understand how difficult this is for seniors. That is why we follow the appropriate steps, outlined under the Investment Canada Act, to make sure that any measures we take keep seniors and their well-being first and foremost.\nThe Chair: Mr.Therrien, you now have the floor.\nMr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ): Mr.Chair, during the pandemic, the government has given money to companies that don't pay a cent in tax because they use tax havens. We told the government that it didn't make sense. The government's response was that it is no big deal. During the pandemic, the government gave money to Air Canada, but Air Canada never reimbursed customers who did not get the services they paid for. We told the government that it did not make sense. The government's response was that it was no big deal. During the pandemic, the Liberal Party used the emergency wage subsidy to fund partisan activities. We told them that it did not make sense. The government responded that it was no big deal. Is the moral of the story that the government thinks that dipping into the pockets of taxpayers to spend money carelessly is no big deal?\nHon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.Chair, the fight against tax evasion is a priority for our government. We will continue to target companies that use tax evasion schemes. Let me be clear: in everything we do, we will target companies and not innocent workers. Employees are employees, no matter who they work for.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, when I see that it's the Minister of National Revenue answering me, I don't feel like buying a lottery ticket. The Liberal Party used two airplanes in its last election campaign, which seems to indicate that it isn't short of money. However, the Liberals used the emergency wage subsidy. Why? Is it because they want taxpayers to fund a third airplane?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to protect employees across the country and in every economic sector that's experiencing a significant drop in income. That's the approach we've taken to protect people and to ensure that there will be jobs in the future. We will continue this approach.\nMr. Alain Therrien: It's especially important to protect the employees who work for the Liberals to ensure their re-election, yet the Liberal Party has raised more than $7million since the last election. Is the party in jeopardy? Can it go bankrupt?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, as I said, our approach is to protect employees. We think that this principle is very important and that this approach must be maintained in order to have a better job market in the future.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, we still don't know exactly how much money the Liberals took from the cookie jar. We think they may have taken as much as $1million. How many SMEs could have been saved with the $1million that the Liberals took out of the jar and took away from SMEs?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we appreciate the question. We are protecting hundreds of thousands of SMEs through the emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency response benefit and all our programs. We will continue this approach to help SMEs and their employees.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, I will propose a choice of answers, or I won't get any. When did the government decide to use the emergency wage subsidy? Now here are three possible answers. The first possible answer is that when the Liberals brought in the emergency wage subsidy, they set parameters allowing them to use it. The second is that when the Liberals saw the Conservative Partywhich is as rich as they are, but also sanctimonious and self-righteoustake advantage of the subsidy, they thought they could do it too. The third possible answer is that the Liberals hadn't planned to use the subsidy, but they pounced on the cookie jar when they saw it, because that's what they do.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we continue to think it is very important to protect employees in every sector of the economy and across Canada. That's our approach, and I believe it's the right one to protect and preserve jobs across the country during a pandemic.\nThe Chair: We are now going to suspend the proceedings for a few seconds to allow the employees who provide support for the meeting to replace each other safely.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC)): We will now resume the discussion.  We'll continue with Ms. Khalid, the honourable member for MississaugaErin Mills.\nMs. Iqra Khalid (MississaugaErin Mills, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with the member for PickeringUxbridge. Mr. Chair, when the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces stepped in to provide support to five long-term care homes in Ontario at the request of the premier, they released a report that outlined their findings in detail. Military members witnessed residents' cries for help going unanswered. They saw force-feeding. They saw bug infestations, a lack of personal protective equipment and neglect. Canadians are shaken. They are appalled by the horrific conditions outlined in the military report. Almost 1,000 seniors so far have lost their lives in long-term care homes in Ontario alone, over 25 of them in my riding of MississaugaErin Mills. These deaths could have been prevented. Can the Minister of Health please update the House on how our federal government is working with the provinces and territories to prevent further tragic occurrences from happening at long-term care homes and to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors are properly looked after and cared for?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, it's such an important question. I believe all Canadians were deeply horrified to read the details from the Canadian Armed Forces on the conditions in long-term care homes in Ontario. What's happening to seniors in Ontario is completely unacceptable. The report is very troubling. Seniors deserve to live with dignity, with respect and with safety. While long-term care is provincially regulated, we know that we need to work together. The Government of Canada stands ready to support provinces and territories as they continue to respond to this crisis. I had a very good conversation with my provincial and territorial counterparts last night about the work we can do at a national level to support their important work. We also know that seniors want to stay at home longer. That's why our historic investment of $6 billion in home care was so important. We'll continue to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they get the care and dignity they deserve.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Ms. O'Connell.\nMs. Jennifer O'Connell (PickeringUxbridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will sadly report that my community of Pickering has experienced the largest number of deaths at a single COVID-19 outbreak location anywhere in this country. Seventy residents at Orchard Villa long-term care home died during this pandemic. It was a devastating blow to our community. Yesterday, we received the horrific report from the Canadian Armed Forces detailing what they witnessed at Orchard Villa in Pickering, Altamont Care Community in Scarborough, Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke, Hawthorne Place in North York, and Holland Christian Homes' Grace Manor in Brampton. The loved ones of those who have passed away, as well as the homes' workers, have asked for a full public inquiry from the Ontario government. I know that the responsibility for these facilities falls within provincial jurisdiction, but on behalf of our communities, can the Minister of Health update us on the work she is doing to ensure that the Ontario government takes action immediately and initiates a full, independent, non-partisan public inquiry and reverses its decision to create a government-led commission that won't even start until September?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I would say that all Canadians were shocked and horrified to hear about the conditions that existed in these particular care homes. We're so grateful to the members of the armed forces who not only improved conditions but also reported them quickly and appropriately to ensure amelioration of those conditions for those particular individuals. We also know that there are seniors all across the country who are struggling with care and with the appropriate level of care. We have to do better as a country. These are our loved ones. These are our parents and our grandparents. These are the people in our lives who have given so much to us. I stand committed to working with my provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that we do better as a society. We know that there's a role we can play at the federal level with advice, with guidance, with support and, yes, with investments. We look forward to having those conversations about how best we can improve the care for all seniors amongst us.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Mr. Davies from Vancouver Kingsway.\nMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canadians were horrified to hear the report yesterday from our armed forces about the appalling conditions experienced by seniors in our long-term care homes. Page after page detailed the filth, neglect, abuse and danger our seniors in care are exposed to on a daily basis. Shockingly they face injury and death through missed medications, expired medications, unsterile devices and violations of basic contagion rules to stop the spread of COVID-19. Given that evidence of possible criminal conduct was contained in the military's report, will the minister refer this matter to the RCMP for investigation immediately?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, thanks very much to the member for those expressions of concern, which we share. We understand in long-term care facilities both seniors and persons living with a disability face unique challenges, and the findings of this report are in fact deeply concerning and completely unacceptable. Considering the severity of this report, we promptly shared it with the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Ontario has initiated an investigation based on the report's findings. Their investigation includes alerting the province's chief coroner who has the authority to alert the police of jurisdiction. We will continue to work with the province to protect those living in long-term care facilities, and we continue to support them through the deployment of our outstanding Canadian Armed Forces and in our partnership with the Red Cross.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, that's a shocking answer considering there's clear evidence of criminal conduct and negligence in this. That this federal government is not taking immediate steps to refer this to the nation's RCMP is unacceptable. The seniors care crisis is a national problem. COVID-19 has exposed critical vulnerabilities across Canada's entire network of long-term care facilities. Not a single province or territory currently meets the benchmark of 4.1 hours of hands-on care per day. As a result Canada has the worst record of COVID-19 deaths in long-term care among 14 comparable countries, with over 80% of Canadian fatalities occurring in these facilities. Will this government move swiftly to establish binding national standards for long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member opposite is exactly correct when he says that those who are hardest hit in terms of losing their lives and the negative effects of COVID are those who are living in long-term care homes. He's also correct when he indicates that COVID-19 has shown us what many of us have known for a long time, that we need to do better in long-term care and supports for seniors. As the member knows, we started those steps some four years ago or so when we began to make incredible investments in aging at home. We know that is one part of the solution, but we have to do better for those seniors who need a higher level of care. That's the work I'm doing now. I'm working with my colleagues at the provinces and territories to make sure that we come up with a solution that will truly result in better standards for all.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, what we need is binding national standards, just like we set through the Canada Health Act in the health care sector generally. Gross fecal contamination, filthy medical equipment, insect infestations, ignoring patient cries for hourswe would never tolerate these conditions in Canada's hospitals. There's no reason to accept them in Canada's long-term care facilities. Will the minister move to bring long-term care facilities under the Canada Health Act, or similar legislation, with formal funds tied to acceptable standards of care for our seniors, just like we do for hospitals?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member shares the disgust and concern of so many Canadians across the country, not only those who have read the report but many of those who have struggled to provide care to elders in those long-term care homes, regardless of the province in which they live. We know we need to do better. We know that collectively, at all levels of government, we must do better for those people who cared for us and nurtured us all of those years. The member has my commitment that I will work with provinces and territories to find a solution forward to ensure that every person has the right to age with dignity and safety.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. Davies, you have 15 seconds for another question, a short one, and leave time for a response.\nMr. Don Davies: Thank you, Mr. Chair. These failures are the product of systemic neglect often motivated by prioritizing profit over the provision of adequate care. Does the minister agree that we should not be putting profits above the health care needs of Canada's seniors?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I believe that, when we commit to taking care of people, we must do so with the utmost care that is required. I know that provinces and territories have a lot of work to do. So do we, at the federal level, and obviously at the local level. We must all work together to protect those people in our lives who are most vulnerable, whether they be seniors, children or others.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now move on to Mr. Schmale, HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock. Mr. Schmale, go ahead.\nMr. Jamie Schmale (HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock, CPC): Thank you, Chair. According to Vaughn Palmer in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun regarding the secret Wet'suwet'en deal, Palmer writes:     The hereditary chiefs calculated the two governments would sign despite the objections from the elected chiefs. They likewise got the terms they wanted in the MOU while giving up absolutely nothing. Just as they figured governments would keep the contents secret from the public.   Can the minister describe another situation in which the federal government negotiated a secret deal of this magnitude with unelected people?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations): I thank the member for his ongoing concern and I want to remind him that actually it is in keeping with the Supreme Court decision of 1997 that we were to now begin those conversations with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who took the case to the Supreme Court. As we've said many times, this is not an agreement; this is an MOU that establishes the path forward for the substantive discussions towards a final agreement, which would describe the future governance and the implementation of Wet'suwet'en rights and title. It is about a shared commitment.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, if it is a shared commitment, why on the eve of the signing ceremony did the four elected chiefs denounce the hereditary chiefs for keeping them in the dark?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it's really important that the member understand that there was a process for the hereditary chiefs to go back to their communities and discuss with them. Any agreement after the good work that will happen now would have to go back and seek the approval of all of the communities.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, the Burns Lake Band members are openly wondering if they're still a band or if the few unelected hereditary chiefs will control everything now. Minister, can you assure them that going forward you will honour their concerns and take the time to listen?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I ask honourable members to still direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Actually, the honourable member knows that the next steps include the further and ongoing engagement by the Wet'suwet'en in their house groups and that will include the six elected chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en nation, their community members and many others. This is about going forward and making sure that any\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Cynthia Joseph, a chief councillor with the Hagwilget First Nation says the MOU between Ottawa, the province and the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs was only shared with her community members on May 9, two days after it was published in the media. Is this part of the open and transparent government all Canadians can expect of the Prime Minister?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Walking the path of reconciliation means that we work with our partners and there is a way that they do the work within their communities. It is going to be an agreement to begin the work, but any final agreement is going to have to be approved by all members of the nation in terms of developing a consensus for the agreement\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Does the minister have any concerns regarding claims by several former female hereditary chiefs that they were stripped of their hereditary status because they didn't agree with the men?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it is going to be really important that the work take place within the Wet'suwet'en nation to determine their future governance, to determine their way of working with Canada and to make sure\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. For some reason it seems to be a problem to stand up for these hereditary female chiefs who had their titles taken away. Does the minister plan on recognizing band council resolutions denying the authority of hereditary chiefs to sign any future agreements without consent of the elected chiefs and the 3,000 members within the Wet'suwet'en they represent?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: I think the member must understand that, as we begin the work, the nation will do its work and then we will come to the table to determine what the governance would be. Will it be a hybrid model like at Heiltsuk, like Ktunaxa, like some of the communities developing their constitutions, developing their laws and deciding how they will determine their own governance and that partnership with Canada?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (CharlesbourgHaute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. The current restrictions on non-essential travel at the border do not prevent people from claiming refugee protection if they have family in Canada. Why is the minister refusing to allow married people to cross the border?\nHon. Bill Blair: I want to thank the honourable member for a very important question. We have heard from many constituents and members of Parliament from right across the country who are expressing concern about non-status spouses being denied entry into the country because their travel is deemed to be non-essential. I've recently been in touch with all of the provinces and territories because I think it's very important that we have their support for any changes\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: If I understand correctly, Mr.Minister, you are talking to provincial representatives, but a case like that of ChantalTremblay, for instance, is unacceptable. For two months now, she has been trying to bring her spouse to Canada, but it isn't working. Is there a way to issue a directive to border services officers that married spousesit's often marriages with Americanscan cross the border to join their spouses in Canada?\nHon. Bill Blair: Just to be very clearagain, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify thisit is never our intention to separate families, but at the same time, we have imposed appropriate and necessary restrictions on non-essential travel. Our border services officers inquire of everyone coming to that border about the nature of their travel, and for non-citizens who come to that border seeking entry into Canada, if their entry is deemed non-essential, then they exercise their discretion not to allow\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Thank you, Mr.Chair. Information from the Canada Border Services Agency has just come out. Since March21, 425,000people have flown into Canada. Among them were 295,000Canadians, which isn't a problem. However, 100,000foreigners have entered Canada, even though the border is supposedly closed. How does the minister explain the fact that 100,000people arrived in Canada by plane?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify. We have imposed very significant restrictions on non-essential travel, but of course there are circumstances where individuals come to this country and their entry into Canada is deemed essential. For example, someone who is providing medical services and coming into Canada to provide those services would be deemed essential, because there is a great need among Canadians for those services. It's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As you can see by the numbers, we have had a very significant reduction in the travel of all non-Canadians to Canada over the past two months.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: So the minister confirms that the 100,000people who arrived by air were providing a service considered essential to Canada. I'm not talking about the people who crossed the land border, but the people who came to Canada by air.\nHon. Bill Blair: What I can tell you is that at all points of entry, including our air borders, we apply the standard that the travel must be deemed essential, and that determination is utilized to see if a person is eligible to enter into the country.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: We're now learning that the Correctional Service of Canada's investigation into the murder of MarylneLevesque is suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Canadians aren't fooled; they know full well that it is a political decision. All the technological means are available to allow the investigation to continue. I'm proof of that today. Can the minister direct the Correctional Service of Canada to resume the investigation into the death of MarylneLevesque?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member for the question, because we know the concern of the people of Quebec, and the family of Ms. Levesque needs answers and deserves answers. That's why we asked the Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada to convene a board of investigation. Clearly, during COVID transmission, the ability to conduct that investigation and to interview all of the witnesses became extremely difficult and has been temporarily suspended, but at the very earliest opportunity we remain resolute to resume that investigation and get to the bottom of it to provide the answers that the family deserves.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have only 20seconds remaining.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr.Chair, victims of crime are one of the segments of the population most affected by the crisis. As we know, the government refuses to allow victims of crime to participate in parole hearings. For the first time in its history, and to add insult to injury, the government has cancelled all activities related to Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, which was to take place next week. Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on victims?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, at the earliest days of COVID, until arrangements could be put in place, there were restrictions on victims participating. We have put the systems in place to allow victims to present their evidence virtually, either by video or by phone, to ensure that their voices are heard in these important things. We very much respect and support the role of victims in these determinations, and we're making every effort to ensure that they can participate.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll now to Mr. Cumming, Edmonton Centre.\nMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Chair, yesterday I asked the Minister of Small Business how many business credit availability guarantees were issued by EDC, and I didn't get a number. Does she have an exact, finite, number of the guarantees today?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, thank you to the honourable member for that question. Our government has taken swift and immediate action to support Canadian businesses through this time. Money from this program is flowing, and businesses across the country are receiving the important support that they need.\nMr. James Cumming: How many BCAP applications have been received so far?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, these are large loans, and they require important due diligence and adjudication by the financial institutions. We will continue to be open and transparent as the accurate information becomes available.\nMr. James Cumming: How long does it take to be approved for a BCAP guarantee?\nHon. Mary Ng: I want to assure the member that we're going to do everything possible to support businesses and workers during this very important time.\nMr. James Cumming: How many businesses have received funding under the BCAP co-lending program since March?\nHon. Mary Ng: The lending programs, particularly the program to help small businesses, have really helped lots of businesses. Over 630,000 loans have been issued, and this is really helping those\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Unfortunately, lots is not an answer for the businesses that I'm trying to talk to. Can you tell me, for the CEBA changes that were recently announced, when will we be able to see people who have income through a dividend able to apply?\nHon. Mary Ng: That's a very important question, Mr. Chair. There's nothing more important to me and to our government than getting these supports out to businesses. Those small businesses that will meet the expanded CEBA criteria are working very diligently with the financial institutions to make sure that they can get access to those loans as quickly as possible.\nMr. James Cumming: Can the minister give me a day when that will happen?\nHon. Mary Ng: The financial institutions are working very hard to make sure that they can make this available to businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: When will a sole proprietor be able to go for those loans?\nHon. Mary Ng: We will work very hard and very diligently to make sure that these businesses and those sole proprietors are supported.\nMr. James Cumming: Could they go on Monday?\nHon. Mary Ng: There is nothing more important than making sure these businesses weather the difficult time of COVID-19, and our measures are\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How about Tuesday?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think we will all agree that getting support to these businesses is absolutely crucial. Our commitment is always going to be to get support to these businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: I can't get a distinct answer on any of those questions. Can you tell me how much headroom is left on the CEBA program?\nHon. Mary Ng: Today, over 630,000 businesses have received the support to do things like pay for salaries, the 25% top-up for the wage subsidy, pay for rent and pay for insurance and utilities. This is what these loans are helping our small\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars are left in the program so businesses can have some certainty that the program will be available for some time?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think you will see that the businesses across the country that I have talked to really appreciate that the government has stepped up to help them during this difficult time. These include women with businesses, indigenous-owned businesses and those small businesses all across our communities, all across the country, that are getting the necessary help. We are going to keep\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars? It can't be that complicated. How many dollars?\nHon. Mary Ng: There are 630,000 businesses that are getting help, and thousands more businesses will be getting help with the expanded criteria. We're going to keep doing the work that we need to help our businesses across this country through this difficult time.\nMr. James Cumming: I heard from a constituent in my riding that they waited for over four hours on the portal for CECRA. Is there an issue with the portal, and if so, when will it be fixed?\nHon. Mary Ng: Making sure that businesses get the help for commercial rent support is absolutely crucial right now. We are going to endeavour to make sure that this help gets out to those small businesses. Applications have opened in a staggered way and\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have time for one last short question, Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Finally, the Prime Minister yesterday said that a list of all organizations that have been receiving CEWS will be made public. When will that be done?\nHon. Mary Ng: We have committed to making sure that those companies taking the wage subsidy program will be listed publicly. We have committed to doing that and we will do so.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We now go to Mr. d'Entremont from West Nova. Mr. d'Entremont, go ahead.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, but I thought I would say this first. The Canadian Coast Guard is doing a search at this moment following the loss of a vessel off the coast of Newfoundland. From my community, which is a seafaring, fishing community, I just want to put my thoughts out there to the folks of Newfoundland. We are definitely thinking of them during this difficult time. My first question revolves around the lobster fishery. It's been open in Cape Breton since May 15, I believe. The weather has been good. The harvesters have been going at it every day. The price has dropped to $4.25 already. Unstable markets will probably cause it to drop even more. What is the minister doing to make sure the lobster industry survives?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleague for his comments with regard to the tragic accident off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we saw the loss of life in a fishing accident. Of course, as coastal people, we are all in solidarity with the people of Newfoundland right now. We know that the fish and seafood sector has taken extreme hits because of COVID-19. We're working diligently to make sure we support the industry as best we can. We have made available over half a billion dollars to processors and harvesters to make sure they can weather this storm. We have made sure that the harvesters are able to access the harvester benefit as well as the grant, recognizing the unique nature of their business and how they are not able to access some of our other programs. We are continuing to monitor what is happening in the industry. We will continue to make sure we do everything we can to support the fish and seafood sector.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, to continue along this vein for a moment, we are still looking at unstable markets for a longer period of time. At this point, processors are being selective in what they're buying. They're not buying culls and other kinds of lobsters. The plants are filling up, and harvesters are worried that they might stop buying product before the season is complete. What can the fishermen expect, or what kinds of programs can they expect, if the season goes bust?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Chair, we know that this is a very challenging season for our harvesters. We also know that because of the decline in markets, we've had to make accommodations for the processing sector in order to help them be better able to support the harvesters. We have put in $62.5 million, which is allowing the processors to increase capacity in their refrigeration and freezers so that they will continue to be able to purchase product. As I said earlier, we will continue to monitor the situation and make sure we do everything possible to support our harvesters. This is a very difficult\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. d'Entremont.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this next question will go to the Minister of DFO or the Minister of Transport. Oakley Ryerson is a resident of West Nova. He is planning a career on the sea and wants to get his master class four. The problem is that he can't pass the eye exam. He needs full-colour vision. For those who are far-sighted or nearsighted, you just have to put on your glasses to correct it. You can actually fly airplanes. I don't know about space shuttles, but who knows? You can now wear colour-corrected lenses, but Transport Canada still does not recognize these for use. Can the Minister of Transport help Ryerson in attaining his chosen profession?\nHon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport): Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern of my colleague for one of the residents in his riding. I would ask him to write to me and lay out the situation. We have medical standards with respect to a number of different kinds of transportation-related jobs for pilots, mariners and those kinds of occupations, which have to be respected. However, if he sends me the details, I will look into it personally.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. d'Entremont, you have another 20 to 25 seconds left.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr.Chair, the eligibility criteria for financial support include the need to demonstrate a significant loss of income during the months of March and April, yet several SMEs in the tourism industry can't qualify because their operations start with the tourist season, in late May or early June. What will the government do to help them?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, before accessing the emergency wage subsidy, applicants must meet important criteria. However, as we explained last week, we will be adjusting the wage subsidy until the end of August, and we will be reviewing the criteria.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're going to go to the west coast and the member for SaanichGulf Islands. Ms. May, go ahead.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is with regard to the urgent problem of mental health crises across Canada. My colleague, Jenica Atwin from Fredericton, held a press conference this morning in which she used the term echo pandemic. We will face an echo pandemic. We're already seeing increases in suicides on southern Vancouver Island. My question to the minister is this: Will we see direct funding to community mental health services as urgently requested by the Canadian Mental Health Association?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I read the honourable member's colleague's letter just today, and I want to reassure all members that we have invested in mental health supports for Canadians, obviously before the pandemic hit but certainly since we've been living with the pandemic. I'd like to remind all members to direct their constituents to the wellnesstogether.ca website and portal. There Canadians can find online resources, as well as connections to real and alive counsellors and other professionals who can help them with their various concerns.\nMs. Elizabeth May: This question relates to another current emergency: the climate emergency. This week it was reported that the concentration of greenhouse gases reached 417 parts per million. That's not just unprecedented over thousands of years; that's unprecedented over the last one million years. The temperatures in the Arctic broke 86F, 30C in the Arctic circle. The recognized parties in the House have established standing committees to work, but not the committee on the environment. We've asked for this in negotiations. When will the recognized parties remember the June 2019 emergency resolution that we are in a climate emergency, and start making sure that we hit 2020 commitments under the Paris Agreement to improve our targets?\nHon. Marc Garneau: Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's questions. I will remind her that we have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050. We've also committed to surpassing the targets that we had originally set for 2030. We realize that along with the COVID pandemic, which is the major problem that exists in the world today, there is another problem as well that affects the entire planet, and that is the problem associated with climate change. We remain committed to achieving those targets.\nMs. Elizabeth May: My next question will be for Minister Blair, but as an aside, I will say that last answer completely fails to meet the legal requirements of the Paris Agreement to file a new target this year. To save some time, Minister Blair, let's pretend to go back to the questions from my colleague MP Paul-Hus and to your last answer. This is dealt with on a case-by-case basis by CBSA agents. There are thousands of them. They are exercising personal, subjective judgment. This is not acceptable. I'm begging the minister. Could the minister please put out a directive, advice to every CBSA agent on the ground, that when a non-status entry point sees a non-status direct relativehusband, wife, child of a Canadian citizenthat relative be deemed to be entering Canada for an essential purpose?\nHon. Bill Blair: I'd like to thank the member for bringing this issue forward again. It's an important one. We have been working very hard to ensure that we do everything possible to keep families together. At the same time, we've been working with the provinces and territories, listening to the concerns of Canadians about ensuring that travel across our international border, particularly with the United States, is limited to essential travel. As I've indicated, I've had a number of important conversations and necessary conversations with our provincial and territorial partners. I believe there is a consensus on the right way forward on this, and we're working very diligently to put it in place. I want to assure the member opposite that we have given very clear direction to our CBSA officers. I believe our border services officers have been doing an extraordinary job for us in the exercise of their discretion. At the same time, they have been doing the important work of ensuring the health and safety of Canadians at our border.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're now going to Ms. Kwan for Vancouver East. Ms. Kwan, go ahead.\nMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Four out of the five homes listed in the armed forces report were for-profit. It is painfully clear that corporate profits are being put ahead of the well-being of seniors. Will the minister admit that the for-profit model is failing our loved ones and commit to getting profits out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member opposite notes, nobody can read that report or hear those stories without feeling absolute horror and disgust and without demanding better for the elders in our lives. As I have mentioned many times in the House, our government remains committed to working with provinces and territories to ensure that every elder person in our community can age with dignity and in safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Minister, if that's the case, I will ask again. Will the minister make sure that the focus of long-term care homes is taking care of seniors and not taking care of owners' bank accounts?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member will obviously know, long-term care remains in the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, and there is legislation that rules them as such. As the member also knows, we have stood by Ontario and all of the other provinces and territories throughout this outbreak. The Prime Minister has been very clear\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Is the minister refusing to answer the question because she agrees that profit should come before care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: I think it's unfortunate that the member is trying to place words in my mouth. What I do agree with, though, is that long-term care needs to be reformed, and I think all provinces and territories know, and all Canadians know, that we have to do a better job.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: It's simple for the minister. She can just answer the question. Is she willing to defend for-profit care for our seniors? Is she in favour of for-profit private health care too?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: What I am willing to defend is the right for all Canadians to age with safety and dignity.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: To the minister, what is the difference? Why sell out the care of our seniors? Will she commit that she will take profit out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I think the member opposite knows that the only way to actually reform long-term care is to work with provinces and territories, in fact, all levels of government, to ensure that the people who spent their lives caring for and nurturing us can end their lives with caring and nurturing\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I think the minister knows that what we need is national standards for seniors' care. The Revera long-term care homes are owned by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Since the government owns these homes, has the military been sent in there to see what's happening to seniors under their care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, we know that it is important to work with all of the provinces and territories under whose jurisdiction it falls to protect the seniors within those care homes. That's what we've been doing since the beginning of the outbreak of the coronavirus, and that's what we'll continue to do to protect the lives of seniors and strengthen their protection. We will, as I said, Mr. Chair, work with the provinces and territories to have a longer-term plan so that all seniors can age with dignity and safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: The government has a clear responsibility here. What is the government doing to ensure the standards of care in these Revera homes that they own?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as I have repeatedly said, the jurisdiction for care of long-term care homes falls within the provincial and territorial realm. However, that being said, Mr. Chair, we have been there for provinces and territories since the outbreak of the coronavirus, and as the member opposite has clearly or likely heard the Prime Minister say, we will stand with provinces and territories as all elders have the right to age with dignity\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I didn't hear an answer, Mr. Chair, so the answer is nothing, then. Do you think that the families of the seniors in these homes want to hear those excuses about jurisdictional issues? Does the minister not think that the families want to hear that the federal government is doing all it can to care for their parents?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I would remind the members to direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quite frankly, I don't think that families care which level of government is responsible for caring for their elders. I think what they care about is that their elders are cared for. That's in fact what the Prime Minister believes. That's in fact what our government believes, and that's why we have willingly stepped up to say to provinces and territories that we will be there with you to make sure that all seniors in our lives have the right to age with dignity and care.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now give the floor to Mrs.Gill, from the riding of Manicouagan. Go ahead, Mrs.Gill.\nMrs. Marilne Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr.Chair, my question is for the Prime Minister who, earlier, clearly told us that the government's assistance is intended for those who are most in need and most vulnerable. I come from a riding where a lot of people make their living from the tourism industry. I don't know if the PrimeMinister read the newspapers yesterday, but in Quebec, losses to the tune of $4billion are expected until March2021 in the tourism accommodation sector alone. The service sector will lose 93,000jobs. How can I justify to my constituents the fact that a political party, which does not need it, has already seen money from the emergency wage subsidy, when people in my riding don't yet have access to it because of the seasonal nature of their work? These people haven't seen the money that is available through these programs.\nHon. Bill Morneau: We think it is very important to protect the country's employees in all sectors of the economy. Through this approach, there will be more jobs after the pandemic, and the economic situation will be better. We will continue this approach.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, this is the wrong approach. They are saying that they are protecting the jobs of the Liberal Party of Canada, which does not need the money. I'll ask a question similar to the previous one. Fishers in my riding did not qualify for the emergency wage subsidy. Another program was created for them, which isn't quite the same and doesn't really meet their needs. A government whose political wingnot the parliamentary wingdoesn't really need money takes money from the fund, but leaves fishers to make do with less generous programs that don't meet their needs. What do I tell the fishers in my riding?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we know that many sectors of the economy across the country are facing challenges. That's why we have adopted an approach with consistent criteria for all employees in all sectors. We have also introduced specific measures to help certain sectors, such as the fishing industry. We will continue our approach because we believe it's the best way to protect employees and our economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I'm still not satisfied. The government is saying that the best way to proceed is to give money to the political wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, when there are people who are getting nothing. What am I supposed to tell seasonal workers, who have absolutely no assurances for their future? I can't go back to my riding and say I'm proud of the work the government is doing or our efforts in the House. It's true, the House is closed right now. I forgot. I have a very hard time accepting that the government is helping employees of the Liberal Party in preparation for the next election campaign, when communities in my region are dying because their economies revolve around a single industry. I can't tell them I'm not ashamed of what's going on as we speak.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we felt it was necessary to put emergency programs in place in response to the crisis during the pandemic. That is our approach. The emergency wage subsidy is a program that is clearly meant to ensure employees are protected and maintain their relationship with their employer. As for the Canada emergency response benefit, it means a lot to people who don't have a job. We are going to stick to our approach, which is to use consistent criteria to help all employees and all Canadians around the country struggling in any sector of the economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I think the honourable Minister of Finance lives in an ivory tower. No, he is not protecting all jobs. No, he is not protecting all sectors of the economy. Once again, I will say that a party that doesn't need money has already received subsidies. However, people who need that money, people who are actually losing money or who don't know if they'll even be working this summer are getting zilch. There is absolutely no justifying that. I'd at least like to know whether the government is ashamed of what it's doing. When people have a conscience, eventually, they want to make up for their mistakes. Are the Liberals going to return that money? Is the finance minister going to help all sectors of the economy, including tourism, fisheries and seasonal industries?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I'd like to thank the member for her question. Our approach is based on consistent criteria. The emergency wage subsidy is meant for any sector of the economy where revenues have dropped by 30% or more. The measure is hugely important for organizations that are really struggling, because we can protect their workers. We are also providing the Canada emergency response benefit to other employees, meaning, those who have lost their income because of COVID-19. Consequently, we will keep up our approach to ensure we continue to fare as well as possible and the economy works well after the pandemic.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Now we'll go to our last group of interventions, and that will be from Ms. Jansen in CloverdaleLangley City. Ms. Jansen, go ahead.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen (CloverdaleLangley City, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin with a shout-out to the brave waiters and waitresses at our local Earls restaurant and Browns Socialhouse, who have been opened again for on-site dining this week. Here in B.C. we're beginning to find our new normal, and it was great to see how small businesses have so quickly adapted their establishments to keep their workers and patrons safe while allowing people to get back to the business of living. You guys rock. Thanks for taking the lead. Mr. Chair, here in my riding I recently had contact with the mayor of Langley City who was wondering if I had any way of accessing personal protective gear, because our local firefighters were running out of stock. Then again yesterday, I spoke with one of our local homeless shelters that is also looking for PPE. Dr. Tam is telling all Canadians to wear masks in public, but I'm wondering if the Minister of Public Service and Procurement could tell us where exactly we're going to get all those masks with the current shortage.\nHon. Anita Anand: I want to be clear that our priority as a federal government has been to respond to provincial and territorial requests for PPE that goes to front-line health care workers. That is our priority, and we've been procuring goods aggressively in domestic and international markets. We are now actively also exploring ways in which we can assist broader organizations across the country with PPE needs, and that is something that I'll continue to update the House on as we go forward.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: A Globe and Mail article revealed that government orders for N95 masks have steadily been dropping. We've gone from over 200 million ordered to 100 million, according to a federal source. Mr. Chair, the number of N95 masks ordered, as reported on the department's website, does continue to fall. Will the minister tell us why we seem to continue to struggle to supply PPE to Canadians?\nHon. Anita Anand: It is no secret that we are in a global competition for N95 masks and other supplies, so the Government of Canada's approach is to diversify supply chains internationally and build up and retool domestic industry so that we can have these supplies going forward. In terms of the numbers on our web page, we have short-term and long-term contracts in place\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Jansen.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: Yes, I understand that a number of Chinese mask manufacturers have been nationalized, and products for Canadians have been confiscated by the CCP government. Is the drop in N95 orders due to, in actual fact, contracts being cancelled?\nHon. Anita Anand: On N95 masks, I would like to assure the member and the House that we have multiple contracts in place for the procurement of N95 masks, including with 3M in the United States, whose masks are crossing our border weekly over the next month.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: That didn't quite answer my question. Have any of our orders been cancelled by the nationalization of these manufacturers in China?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have an aide in place in China. We have our embassy and other firms actively ensuring that our supplies from the manufacturing source make their way to the warehouse. Over 40 flights have come to Canada with those masks and other supplies. Our supply chains are operating despite the global environment being highly competitive.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: We know many millions of N95 masks have arrived in Canada from China and have been substandard. What is the total number of substandard masks that have arrived?\nHon. Anita Anand: Mr. Chair, as previously explained to the House, about eight million masks did not meet spec by the Public Health Agency of Canada and have been repurposed to some extent in other areas of the system.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: In a previous committee, the deputy minister advised us that Medicom was shoulder-tapped by the government to consider producing PPE. How many other companies did the government approach for this contract?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have operated in a very urgent way in order to procure supplies for front-line health care workers. We are now also moving to ensure that we have competitions run for the procurement of personal protective equipment. It's a multi-pronged approach, and our priority is to get supplies out to front-line health care workers in this time of crisis as quickly as possible. Thank you so much.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Just before we adjourn, I think this another mark of accomplishment on behalf of the great team here at the House of Commons. There have been some great efforts, even since yesterday evening, to get this turned around for today. My compliments to all members joining us here in the House and to all members who have joined by virtual conference. The committee is now adjourned until noon tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned.\n\nNow, answer the query based on the above meeting transcript in one or more sentences.\n\nQuery: What was the discussion about the seniors care crisis?\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 106, "category": "longbench_gov_report", "reference": ["Full implementation of GPRAMA could facilitate efforts to reform the federal government and make it more effective. GPRAMA includes a provision for GAO to review the act's implementation. This report assesses how GPRAMA implementation has affected the federal government's progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing cross-cutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed statutory requirements, OMB guidance, and GAO's recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the key governance challenges. GAO also interviewed OMB staff and surveyed a stratified random sample of 4,395 federal managers from 24 agencies on various performance and management topics. With a 67 percent response rate, the survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have made some progress in more fully implementing the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA), but GAO's work and 2017 survey of federal managers highlight numerous areas where improvements are needed. Cross-cutting issues: Various GPRAMA provisions are aimed at addressing cross-cutting issues, such as cross-agency and agency priority goals and related data-driven reviews of progress towards those goals. To ensure alignment with the current administration's priorities, OMB's 2017 guidance removed the priority status of those goals, which stopped quarterly data-driven reviews and related public progress reports until new goals are published. OMB plans to resume implementation of these provisions in February 2018. GPRAMA also requires OMB and agencies to implement an inventory of federal programs, which could help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. OMB and agencies implemented the inventory once, in May 2013. In October 2014, GAO found several issues limited the usefulness of that inventory. Since then, OMB has postponed updating the inventory, citing among other reasons the passage of subsequent laws. OMB has yet to develop a systematic approach for resuming implementation of the inventory and specific time frames for doing so. A systematic approach to developing the inventory could help ensure it provides useful information for decision makers and the public. Performance information: Survey results show federal managers generally reported no improvements in their use of performance information in decision making for various management activities, or practices that can enhance such use, since GAO's 2013 survey. For example, the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities (an estimated 33 percent in 2017) is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013 (44 percent). In contrast, managers who were familiar with and whose programs were subject to quarterly data-driven reviews reported that those reviews were used to make progress toward agency priority goals. Identifying and sharing practices to expand the use of such reviews—for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could lead to increased use of performance information. Daily operations: Agencies have made progress in developing results-oriented cultures but need to take additional actions. GAO's past work found that high-performing organizations use performance management systems to help individuals connect their daily activities to organizational goals. In 2017, about half of federal managers reported using performance information when setting expectations with employees (no change from GAO's last survey in 2013). Transparent and open government: GAO's past work identified a number of needed improvements to Performance.gov, the central government-wide website required by GPRAMA. The site is to provide quarterly updates on priority goals in effect through September 2017, but those updates stopped in December 2016. According to OMB, the existing information for cross-agency priority goals is the final update, and agencies should publish final updates on their priority goals in annual performance reports. Performance.gov does not provide users with this information, thereby limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results. In addition to following through on plans to resume implementation of key GPRAMA provisions, GAO recommends that OMB (1) consider a systematic approach to developing the program inventory, (2) revise guidance to provide specific time frames for inventory implementation, (3) identify and share practices for expanding the use of data-driven reviews, and (4) update Performance.gov to explain that reporting on priority goals was suspended and provide the location of final progress updates. OMB staff agreed with these recommendations."], "prompt": "You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.\n\nReport:\nGPRAMA significantly enhances GPRA, the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in place during the 1990s to help resolve longstanding performance and management problems in the federal government and provide greater accountability for results. Congress passed GPRAMA in 2010 to address a number of persistent federal performance challenges, including focusing attention on crosscutting issues and enhancing the use and usefulness of performance information. OMB and agencies are to establish various government-wide and agency-specific performance goals, in line with GPRAMA requirements or OMB guidance. These include the following: Cross-agency priority (CAP) goals: CAP goals are crosscutting and include outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of policy areas as well as goals for management improvements needed across the government. OMB is to coordinate with agencies to establish CAP goals at least every 4 years. OMB is also required to coordinate with agencies to develop annual federal government performance plans to, among other things, define the level of performance to be achieved toward the CAP goals. Strategic objectives: A strategic objective is the outcome or impact the agency is intending to achieve through its various programs and initiatives. Agencies establish strategic objectives in their strategic plans and may update the objectives during the annual update of performance plans. Agency priority goals (APG): At the agency level, every 2 years, GPRAMA requires that the heads of certain agencies, in consultation with OMB, identify a subset of agency performance goals as APGs. These goals are to reflect the agencies’ highest priorities. They should be informed by the CAP goals as well as consultations with relevant congressional committees and other interested parties. In a schedule established by GPRAMA, OMB and agencies are to develop and publish new CAP goals, APGs, and strategic plans (with updated strategic objectives) in February 2018. GPRAMA and related OMB guidance require agencies to regularly assess their progress in achieving goals and objectives through performance reviews. Data-driven reviews: Agency leaders and managers are to use regular meetings, at least quarterly, to review data and drive progress toward key performance goals and other management-improvement priorities. For each APG, GPRAMA requires agency leaders to conduct reviews at least quarterly to assess progress toward the goal, determine the risk of the goal not being met, and develop strategies to improve performance. Similarly, the Director of OMB, with relevant parties, is to review progress toward each CAP goal. Strategic reviews: OMB guidance directs agency leaders to annually assess progress toward achieving each strategic objective using a broad range of evidence. GPRAMA establishes certain senior leadership positions and a council, as described below. Chief Operating Officer (COO): The deputy agency head, or equivalent, is designated COO, with overall responsibility for improving agency management and performance. Performance Improvement Officer (PIO): Agency heads are to designate a senior executive within the agency as the PIO. The PIO reports directly to the COO and assists the agency head and COO with various performance management activities. Goal leaders: Goal leaders are responsible for developing strategies to achieve goals, managing execution, and regularly reviewing performance. GPRAMA requires goal leaders for CAP goals and agency performance goals, including APGs. OMB guidance directs agencies to designate goal leaders for strategic objectives. Performance Improvement Council (PIC): The PIC is charged with assisting OMB to improve the performance of the federal government and achieve the CAP goals. The PIC is chaired by the Deputy Director for Management at OMB and includes agency PIOs from each of the 24 CFO Act agencies as well as other PIOs and individuals designated by the chair. Among its responsibilities, the PIC is to work to resolve government-wide or crosscutting performance issues, and facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies. GPRAMA includes several provisions related to providing the public and Congress with information, as described below. Performance.gov: GPRAMA calls for a single, government-wide performance website to communicate government-wide and agency performance information. Among other things, the website— implemented by OMB as Performance.gov—is to include (1) quarterly progress updates on CAP goals and APGs; (2) an inventory of all federal programs; and (3) agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. Reporting burden: GPRAMA establishes a process to reexamine the usefulness of certain existing congressional reporting requirements. Specifically, GPRAMA requires an annual review (including congressional consultation), based on OMB guidance, of agencies’ reporting requirements to Congress. Additionally, OMB is to include in the budget a list of plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative and may submit legislation to eliminate or consolidate such plans or reports. In early 2017, the administration announced several efforts that are intended to improve government performance. The 2018 Budget Blueprint states that the President’s Management Agenda will seek to improve the federal government’s effectiveness by using evidence-based approaches, balancing flexibility with accountability to better achieve results, improving mission support functions, and developing and monitoring critical performance measures. In addition, OMB issued several memoranda detailing the administration’s plans to improve government performance by reorganizing the government, reducing the federal workforce, and reducing federal agency burden. A number of these efforts, which are to leverage GPRAMA and our past work, have the potential to further progress in addressing key governance challenges. As part of reorganization efforts, OMB and agencies are developing government-wide and agency reform plans, respectively, that are to leverage various GPRAMA provisions. For example, an April 2017 memorandum states that OMB intends to monitor implementation of the reform plans using CAP goals, APGs, annual strategic reviews, and Performance.gov. The government-wide plan also is to include crosscutting reform proposals, such as merging agencies or programs that have similar missions. To that end, the memorandum states agencies should consider our reports, including our work on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, as well as inspectors general reports. Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to achieve, such as those related to ensuring public health, providing homeland security, and promoting economic development, require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency, level of government, or sector. For more than 2 decades, we have reported on agencies’ missed opportunities for improved collaboration through the effective implementation of GPRA and, more recently, GPRAMA. Our reports also have demonstrated that collaboration across agencies is critical to address issues of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication as well as many of the areas on our High-Risk List. Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: Since 2011, our annual reports have identified 133 crosscutting areas that require the coordinated effort of more than one federal organization, level of government, or sector. For instance, for the area of federal grant awards, we found in January 2017 that the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service, Food and Nutrition Service, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had not established guidance and formal processes to ensure their grant-management staff review applications for potential duplication and overlap among grants in their agencies before awarding. We recommended that these agencies do so, and they agreed. As of August 2017, these agencies had taken several actions to address the recommendation. For example, the Department of the Interior (Interior) provided documentation showing that the Fish and Wildlife Service now requires discretionary grant applicants to provide a statement that addresses whether there is any overlap or duplication of proposed projects or activities to be funded by the grant. Fish and Wildlife also updated its guidance to grant awarding offices instructing them to perform a potential overlap and duplication review of all selected applicants prior to award. Our Action Tracker provides details on the status of actions from our annual reports. Within the 133 crosscutting areas, since 2011 we have identified 315 targeted actions where opportunities exist to better manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, including 29 new actions in our most recent report issued in April 2017. We found that the executive branch and Congress addressed 145 (46 percent) of the 315 actions. For example, in November 2014, we recommended that the U.S. Coast Guard and Consumer Product Safety Commission establish a formal approach to coordination (such as a memorandum of understanding) to facilitate information sharing; better leverage their resources; and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap that we identified. In response to this recommendation, the two agencies signed a formal policy document to govern their coordination in May 2015. This policy document outlined procedures for determining jurisdictional authority for recreational boat-associated equipment and marine safety items. Specifically, the procedures clarified that upon receiving notice of a possible defect, the agency receiving such notice shall determine whether the item properly falls within its jurisdiction, and if not, initiate discussions to determine the appropriate jurisdiction. These new procedures should help the agencies share information and leverage each other’s resources so they can better ensure that recreational boat-associated equipment and marine safety items are fully regulated. However, more work is needed on the remaining 170 actions (54 percent) that have not been fully addressed. For example, in July 2016, we reported that four federal agencies—the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice—manage at least 10 efforts to collect data on sexual violence, which differ in target population, terminology, measurements, and methodology. We found that data collection efforts use 23 different terms to describe sexual violence. Data collection efforts also differed in how they categorized particular acts of sexual violence, the context in which data were collected, data sources, units of measurement, and time frames. We recommended that OMB convene an interagency forum to better manage fragmentation of efforts to collect sexual violence data. In commenting on that report, OMB stated it would consider implementing the action in the future but did not believe it was the most effective use of resources at that time, in part because the agencies were not far enough along in their research. In response, we stated that given the number of federal data collection efforts, the range of differences across them, and the potential for causing confusion, it would be beneficial for agencies to discuss these differences and determine whether they are, in fact, necessary. As of July 2017, OMB had not provided an update on the status of this recommendation. High-Risk List: Since the early 1990s, our high-risk program has focused attention on government operations with greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or that are in need of transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. As of February 2017, there were 34 high-risk areas covering a wide range of issues including human capital management, modernizing the U.S. financial regulatory system, and ensuring the security of federal information systems and cyber critical infrastructure. Many of these high- risk areas require a coordinated response from more than one branch of government, agency, or sector. In the time between our 2015 and 2017 High-Risk Updates, many of these high-risk areas on our list demonstrated solid progress. During that period, 15 high-risk areas fully met at least one of the five criteria required for removal from the High-Risk List. In many cases, progress was possible through the joint efforts of Congress and leadership and staff in agencies. For example, Congress passed over a dozen laws following our 2015 High-Risk Update to help address high-risk issues. In addition, in 2017, we removed one high-risk area on managing terrorism-related information, because significant progress had been made to strengthen how intelligence on terrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement is shared among federal, state, local, tribal, international, and private sector partners. Despite this progress, continued oversight and attention is also warranted given the issue’s direct relevance to homeland security as well as the constant evolution of terrorist threats and changing technology. Our February 2017 High-Risk Update also highlighted a number of long- standing high-risk areas that require additional attention. We also added three new crosscutting areas to incorporate the management of federal programs that serve tribes and their members, the government’s environmental liabilities, and the 2020 decennial census. Based on our body of work on federal programs that serve tribes and their members, we concluded that federal agencies had (1) ineffectively administered Indian education and health care programs and (2) inefficiently fulfilled their responsibilities for managing the development of Indian energy resources. For example, we identified numerous challenges facing Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS), in administering education and health care services. We concluded that these challenges put the health and safety of American Indians served by these programs at risk. In May 2017, we issued two additional reports on accountability for school construction and safety at schools funded by BIE. Although these agencies have taken some actions to address recommendations we made related to Indian programs, about 50 recommendations have yet to be fully resolved. We are monitoring federal efforts to address the unresolved recommendations. We also are reviewing IHS’s workforce, and tribal nations’ management and use of their energy resources. Many of the crosscutting areas highlighted by our annual reports on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication and designated as high-risk would benefit from enhanced collaboration among the federal agencies involved in them. GPRAMA establishes a framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government performance. Our survey results and past work demonstrate that agencies continue to face difficulties when working together on crosscutting issues, but also that implementing certain GPRAMA requirements can have a positive effect on collaboration. An item related to coordination in our survey of federal managers is statistically significantly lower in 2017, relative to our previous survey in 2013 and our initial survey in 1997. In 2017, an estimated 43 percent of managers agreed that they use information obtained from performance measurement to a great or very great extent when coordinating program efforts with internal or external organizations (compared to an estimated 50 percent in 2013 and an estimated 57 percent in 1997). Moreover, our past work has found that agencies face a variety of challenges when working across organizational boundaries to deliver programs and improve performance. For example, our work has found that interagency groups have, at times, encountered difficulty clarifying roles and responsibilities or developing shared outcomes and performance measures. In contrast, our past work demonstrates that implementing GPRAMA provisions can improve collaboration. For example, in May 2016, we found that OMB and the PIC updated the governance structure for CAP goals to include both agency-level and Executive Office of the President goal leaders and held regular, senior-level reviews on CAP goal progress. Moreover, CAP goal teams told us that the CAP goal designation increased leadership attention and improved interagency collaboration on their crosscutting issues. Furthermore, our prior work has found that priority goals and related data-driven reviews have also been used to help manage crosscutting issues and enhance collaboration. Various GPRAMA requirements are aimed at improving agencies’ coordination of efforts to address crosscutting issues. As with our 2013 survey, our 2017 survey continues to show that CAP goals, APGs, and related data-driven reviews—also called quarterly performance reviews (QPR)—are associated with reported higher levels of collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. For example, our 2017 survey data indicate that about half of federal managers (an estimated 54 percent) reported they were somewhat or very familiar with CAP goals. Among these individuals, those who viewed their programs as contributing to CAP goals to a great or very great extent (36 percent) were more likely to report collaborating outside their program to a great or very great extent to help achieve CAP goals (62 percent), as shown in figure 2. Our analysis shows a similar pattern exists for APGs and QPRs. Our past work also has highlighted ways in which OMB and agencies could better implement GPRAMA’s crosscutting provisions—many of which have been addressed. A continued focus on fully and effectively implementing these provisions will be important as OMB and agencies establish new CAP goals and APGs, and assess progress toward them through related QPRs. Cross-agency priority (CAP) goals: In May 2012 and June 2013, we found that OMB had not always identified relevant agencies and program activities as contributors to the initial set of CAP goals. OMB took actions in response to our recommendations to include relevant contributors. Our most recent review, in May 2016, found that all relevant contributors had been identified for a subsequent set of CAP goals. In that report, we also found that OMB and the PIC had improved implementation of the CAP goals, in part, by helping agencies build their capacity to contribute to implementing the goals. Appendix II summarizes our past recommendations related to GPRAMA and the actions agencies have taken to address them. Agency priority goals (APGs): In April 2013, we found that agencies did not fully explain the relationship between their APGs and crosscutting efforts. Identify contributors: Similar to OMB’s responsibilities with the CAP goals, agencies are to identify the various organizations and programs that contribute to each of their performance goals, including APGs. We found that agencies identified internal contributors for their APGs, but did not list external contributors in some cases. We recommended that the Director of OMB ensure that agencies adhere to OMB’s guidance for website updates by providing complete information about the organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities—both within and external to the agency— that contribute to each APG. In response, in April 2015, OMB asked agencies to identify organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, tax expenditures, and other activities contributing to their 2014-2015 APGs. Based on an analysis of the final quarterly updates for those APGs, published in December 2015, we found that agencies made progress in identifying external organizations and programs for their APGs. Describe how agency goals contribute to CAP goals: Agencies generally did not identify how their APGs contributed to CAP goals. We recommended that OMB direct agencies to describe in their performance plans how the agency’s performance goals—including APGs—contribute to any of the CAP goals as required by GPRAMA. In response, in July 2013, OMB updated its guidance directing agencies to include a list of the CAP goals to which the agency contributes and explain the agency’s contribution to them in their strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports. Data-driven reviews: For their data-driven reviews of agency priority goals, agencies are to include, as appropriate, relevant personnel within and outside the agency who contribute to the accomplishment of each goal. However, in February 2013, we found that most Performance Improvement Officers (PIO) we surveyed (16 of 24) indicated that there was little to no involvement in these reviews from external officials who contribute to achieving agency goals. We recommended that OMB and the PIC help agencies extend their QPRs to include, as relevant, representatives from outside organizations that contribute to achieving their APGs. OMB staff told us that they generally concurred with the recommendation, but believed it would not always be appropriate to regularly include external representatives in agencies’ data-driven reviews, which they considered to be internal management meetings. In a subsequent review, we found in July 2015 that PIOs at 21 of the 22 agencies we surveyed said that their data-driven reviews had a positive effect on collaboration among officials from different offices or programs within the agency. Despite the positive effects, most agency PIOs (17) indicated that there continued to be little to no involvement in the reviews from external officials who contribute to achieving agency goals. In May 2016, OMB and PIC staff reported that, in response to our earlier recommendation, they were working with agencies to identify examples where agencies included representatives from outside organizations in data-driven reviews, and to identify promising practices based on those experiences. PIC staff told us they would disseminate any promising practices identified through the PIC Internal Reviews Working Group and other venues. In August 2017, OMB staff told us they plan to hold a summit with agencies later in the year to discuss implementing various performance management requirements, which could include agencies highlighting experiences and promising practices related to involving external officials in their data-driven reviews. We continue to believe data- driven reviews should include any relevant contributors from outside organizations and will continue to monitor progress. Despite the important role priority goals and related reviews can play in addressing crosscutting issues and enhancing collaboration, OMB recently removed the priority status of the current sets of priority goals. According to OMB staff, removing the priority designation from CAP goals and APGs returned them to regular performance goals, which are not subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of those reviews on Performance.gov. In a June 2017 memorandum, OMB stated that CAP goals and APGs are intended to focus efforts toward achieving the priorities of current political leadership, and therefore reporting on the priority goals of the previous administration on Performance.gov was discontinued for the remainder of the period covered by the goals (through September 30, 2017, the end of fiscal year 2017). The memorandum further noted that agencies and teams working on those goals should continue working on the current goals where they align with the priorities of the current administration. Moreover, the memorandum states that agencies have flexibility in structuring their data-driven reviews, but they should continue such reviews focused on agency priorities. When asked about these actions, OMB staff told us that they believed they were working in line with the intentions of GPRAMA, which realigned the timing of goal setting with presidential terms, to better take into account changes in priorities. This is the first presidential transition since GPRAMA was enacted, and OMB staff told us they thought the act was unclear on how to handle priority goals during the changes in administrations and priorities. They stated that it was not practical to continue reporting on the priority goals of the prior administration as agencies worked to develop new strategic plans and priority goals for publication in February 2018. Hence, they told us OMB ended the current round of CAP goals and directed agencies to remove the priority designation from the APGs, returning them to regular performance goals. OMB staff further told us that although the guidance was published in a June 2017 memorandum, these decisions had been made and previously communicated to agencies during the transition in administrations. Therefore, reporting on the fiscal year 2014-2017 CAP goals, fiscal year 2016-2017 APGs, and related reviews stopped much earlier in the year, well before goal cycles were planned to be completed on September 30, 2017. OMB staff further stated that although the goals no longer had priority designations, work towards them largely continued in 2017. For example, one of the prior administration’s CAP goals was to modernize the federal permitting and review process for major infrastructure projects. OMB staff told us that they and agencies have continued many of the activities intended to achieve that goal, but they are no longer subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of these reviews on Performance.gov. Moreover, they expect most of this work will continue towards a new and refocused CAP goal on infrastructure permitting modernization. OMB staff reaffirmed to us their intentions to resume implementation of CAP goals, APGs, and related data-driven reviews when the new planning and reporting cycle begins in February 2018. This is in line with stated plans to leverage various GPRAMA provisions to track progress of proposed government-wide and agency-specific reforms, as outlined in OMB’s April 2017 memorandum on the reform plans. In addition, OMB’s July 2017 update to its guidance for implementing GPRAMA similarly focuses on continued implementation of the act. Additional aspects of GPRAMA implementation could similarly help improve the management of crosscutting issues. Strategic reviews: OMB’s 2012 guidance implementing GPRAMA established a process in which agencies, beginning in 2014, were to conduct leadership-driven, annual reviews of their progress toward achieving each strategic objective established in their strategic plans. As we found in July 2015, effectively implementing strategic reviews could help identify opportunities to reduce, eliminate, or better manage instances of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. Under OMB’s guidance, agencies are to identify the various organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities that contribute to each objective, both within and outside the agency. Where progress in achieving an objective is lagging, the reviews are intended to identify strategies for improvement, such as strengthening collaboration to better address crosscutting challenges, or using evidence to identify and implement more effective program designs. If successfully implemented in a way that is open, inclusive, and transparent—to Congress, delivery partners, and a full range of stakeholders—this approach could help decision makers assess the relative contributions of various programs to a given objective. Successful strategic reviews could also help decision makers identify and assess the interplay of public policy tools that are being used to ensure that those tools are effective and mutually reinforcing, and that results are being efficiently achieved. In July 2017, OMB released guidance which updated the status of the 2017 strategic reviews. Because agencies are currently developing new strategic goals and objectives, OMB stated that agencies may forego the reporting and categorization requirements for any current strategic objectives that an agency determines will be substantively different or no longer aligned with the current administration’s policy, legislative, regulatory, or budgetary priorities. In addition, OMB stated that while there will be no formal meetings between OMB and the agencies to discuss findings and related progress from the 2017 strategic reviews, it expects that agencies will continue to conduct strategic reviews or assess progress made toward strategic goals and objectives aligned with administration policy. Furthermore, OMB stated that during this transition year, updates of progress on agency strategic objectives will only be published in the agency’s annual performance report and will not be reported to Performance.gov. Full reporting through Performance.gov is to resume after new agency strategic plans are published in February 2018. Agencies are to include a progress update for strategic objectives as part of their progress update in their fiscal year 2017 annual performance reports. Agencies also must address next steps for performance improvement as part of their fiscal year 2019 annual performance plans. Program inventories: GPRAMA requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs, along with related budget and performance information, on a central government-wide website. Such a list could help decision makers and the public fully understand what the federal government does, how it does it, and how well it is doing. An inventory of federal programs could also be a critical tool to help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across the federal government. Agencies developed initial program inventories in May 2013, but since then have not updated or more fully implemented these inventories. In October 2014, we found several issues limited the completeness, comparability, and usefulness of the May 2013 program inventories. OMB and agencies did not take a systematic approach to developing comprehensive inventories. For example, OMB’s guidance in Circular No. A-11 presented five possible approaches agencies could take to define their programs and noted that agencies could use one or more of those approaches in doing so. We found that because the agencies used inconsistent approaches to define their programs, the comparability of programs was limited within agencies as well as government-wide. In addition, we found that the inventories had limited usefulness for decision making, as they did not consistently provide the program and related budget and performance information required by GPRAMA. Moreover, we found that agencies did not solicit feedback on their inventories from external stakeholders—which can include Congress, state and local governments, third party service providers, and the public. Doing so would have provided OMB and agencies an opportunity to ensure they were presenting useful information for stakeholder decision making. We concluded that the ability to tag and sort information about programs through a more dynamic, web-based presentation could make the inventory more useful. In October 2014, we made several recommendations to OMB to update relevant guidance to help develop a more coherent picture of all federal programs and to better ensure relevant information is useful for decision makers. For example, we recommended that OMB revise its guidance to direct agencies to consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders on their approach to defining and identifying programs when developing or updating their inventories. OMB staff generally agreed with these recommendations, but have not yet taken any actions to implement them. OMB’s guidance for the program inventory has largely remained unchanged since 2014, when OMB postponed further development of the program inventory and eliminated portions of the guidance. For example, the guidance no longer describes, or provides directions for agencies to meet, GPRAMA’s requirements for presenting related budget or performance information for each program. OMB decided to postpone implementing a planned May 2014 update to the program inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the public spending reporting required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). OMB subsequently stated that it would not begin implementing the program inventory until after the DATA Act was implemented in May 2017, despite requirements for regular updates to the program inventory to reflect current budget and performance information. The DATA Act is now being implemented, but OMB has postponed resuming the development of the program inventory. In July 2017, OMB staff told us that they are now considering how to align GPRAMA’s program inventory provisions with future implementation of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA). This was reflected in OMB’s July 2017 update to its guidance, which states that OMB is working with agencies to determine the right strategy to merge the implementation of the DATA Act and PMIAA with GPRAMA’s program inventory requirements to the extent possible to avoid duplicating efforts. For example, PMIAA requires OMB to coordinate with agency Program Management Improvement Officers to conduct portfolio reviews of agency programs to assess the quality and effectiveness of program management. GPRAMA requires OMB to issue guidance for implementing the program inventory requirements, among other things. Moreover, federal internal control standards state that organizations should clearly define what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement. As described above, OMB’s current guidance for the program inventory lacks some of those details—such as describing and providing direction to meet GPRAMA’s requirements for budget and performance information—in part because OMB is working with agencies to determine a strategy for implementation. Ensuring all GPRAMA requirements are covered and taking action on our past recommendations would help OMB improve its guidance to more fully implement the program inventory and improve its usefulness. To that end, in a report issued earlier this month, we identified a series of iterative steps that OMB could use in directing agencies to develop a useful inventory, as described in figure 3. A useful inventory would consist of all programs identified, information about each program, and the organizational structure of the programs. Our work showed that the principles and practices of information architecture—a discipline focused on organizing and structuring information—offer an approach for developing such an inventory to support a variety of uses, including increased transparency for federal programs. Such a systematic approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help OMB ensure the inventory is implemented in line with GPRAMA requirements and meets the needs of decision makers and the public, among others. OMB’s guidance also lacks specific time frames, with associated milestones for resuming implementation of the program inventory requirements. As part of PMIAA’s requirements, OMB is to issue standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for agencies by December 2017. OMB staff told us that, within a year after that, they expect to issue further guidance on moving forward with resuming the program inventory. However, that general time frame was not reflected in the July 2017 update to OMB’s guidance. Providing specific time frames and associated milestones would bring the program inventory guidance in line with other portions of OMB’s guidance for implementing GPRAMA requirements, which contains a timeline of various performance planning and reporting requirements, including specific dates for meeting those requirements and related descriptions of required actions. For example, OMB’s July 2017 guidance identifies over 30 actions agencies should take between June 2017 and December 2018 to implement various GPRAMA provision. More specific time frames and milestones related to the program inventory requirements would help agencies prepare for resumed implementation by allowing them to know what actions they would be expected to take and by when. Moreover, publicly disclosing planned implementation time frames and associated milestones also would help ensure that external stakeholders are prepared to engage with agencies as they develop and update their program inventories. Effectively implementing various GPRAMA tools could help inform assessments of the performance of tax expenditures, which are reductions in tax liabilities that result from preferential provisions (figure 4). In fiscal year 2016, tax expenditures represented an estimated $1.4 trillion in forgone revenue, an amount greater than total discretionary spending that year. Despite the magnitude of these investments, our work has also shown that little has been done to determine how well specific tax expenditures work to achieve their stated purposes and how their benefits and costs compare to those of spending programs with similar goals. GPRAMA requires OMB to identify tax expenditures that contribute to the CAP goals. In addition, OMB guidance directs agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their strategic objectives and APGs. However, our past work reviewing GPRAMA implementation found that OMB and agencies rarely identified tax expenditures as contributors to these goals. Fully implementing our recommendation to identify how tax expenditures contribute to various goals could help the federal government establish a process for evaluating the performance of tax expenditures. To that end, in May 2017, we provided the Director of OMB with three priority recommendations that require attention: Develop framework for reviewing performance: In June 1994, and again in September 2005, we recommended that OMB develop a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance. We explained that the framework should (1) outline leadership responsibilities and coordination among agencies with related responsibilities, (2) set a review schedule, (3) identify review methods and ways to address the lack of credible tax expenditure performance information, and (4) identify resources needed for tax expenditure reviews. Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures. Inventory tax expenditures: In October 2014, we found that OMB had not included tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, and therefore was missing an opportunity to increase the transparency of tax expenditures and the outcomes to which they contribute. We recommended that OMB should designate tax expenditures as a program type in relevant guidance, and develop, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its purpose, and related budget and performance information. OMB staff said they neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommended actions. As noted earlier, OMB has not resumed updates to the program inventory. Therefore, OMB had not taken any actions in response to this recommendation, according to OMB staff as of July 2017. Identify contributions to agency goals: In July 2016, we found that agencies had made limited progress identifying tax expenditures’ contribution to agency goals, as directed by OMB guidance. As of January 2016, 7 of the 24 CFO Act agencies identified tax expenditures as contributing to their missions or goals. The 11 tax expenditure they identified—out of the 169 tax expenditures included in the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2017—represented approximately $31.9 billion of the $1.2 trillion in estimated forgone revenues for fiscal year 2015. (See figure 5.) To help address this issue, we recommended that OMB, in collaboration with the Department of the Treasury, work with agencies to identify which tax expenditures contribute to their agency goals, as appropriate. In particular, we recommended that they identify which specific tax expenditures contribute to specific strategic objectives and APGs. In July 2017, OMB staff said they had taken no actions to address the recommendation. Our July 2016 report also identified options for policymakers to further incorporate tax expenditures into federal budgeting processes, several of which options align with the recommendations discussed above. These options could help achieve various benefits, but we also reported that policymakers would need to consider challenges and tradeoffs in deciding whether or how to implement them. For example, one option was to require that all tax expenditures, or some subset of them, expire after a finite period. This option could result in greater oversight, requiring policymakers to explicitly decide whether to extend more or all tax expenditures. One consideration with this option is that it could lead to frequent changes in the tax code, such as from extended or expired tax expenditures, which can create uncertainty and make tax planning more difficult. Our previous work has shown that using performance information in decision making is essential to improving results. Performance information can be used across a range of management activities, such as setting priorities, allocating resources, or identifying problems to be addressed. However, our work continues to show that agencies can better use performance information in decision making, as shown in the example in the text box below. Department of Justice (DOJ) Could Better Analyze Performance Information to Reduce Backlog in Immigration Courts In June 2017, we found that the case backlog—cases pending from previous years that remain open at the start of a new fiscal year—at DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) courts more than doubled from fiscal years 2006 through 2015. Stakeholders identified various factors that potentially contributed to the backlog, including continuances—temporary case adjournments until a different day or time. Our analysis of continuance records showed that the use of continuances increased by 23 percent from fiscal years 2006 through 2015. We found that EOIR collects continuance data but does not systematically assess them. Systematically analyzing the use of continuances could provide EOIR officials with valuable information about challenges the immigration courts may be experiencing, such as with operational issues like courtroom technology malfunctions, or areas that may merit additional guidance for immigration judges. Further, using this information to potentially address operational challenges could help that office meet its goals for completing cases in a timely manner. We recommended that the Director of EOIR systematically analyze immigration court continuance data to identify and address any operational challenges faced by courts or areas for additional guidance or training. EIOR agreed with this recommendation. EOIR stated that it supports conducting additional analysis of immigration court continuance data and recognizes that additional guidance or training regarding continuances may be beneficial to ensure that immigration judges use continuances appropriately in support of EOIR’s mission to adjudicate immigration cases in a careful and timely manner. We will monitor EOIR’s progress in taking these actions. Our 2017 survey of federal managers shows little change in their reported use of performance information. Using a set of survey questions, we previously developed an index that reflects the extent to which managers reported that their agencies used performance information for various management activities and decision making. The index suggests that government-wide use of performance information did not change significantly between 2013 and 2017, and it is statistically significantly lower relative to our 2007 survey, when we created the index. Figure 6 shows the questions included in the index and the government-wide results. In regard to individual survey items, in 2017 federal managers reported no changes or decreases in their use of performance information when compared to our last survey and when those survey items were first introduced. These results are generally consistent with our last few surveys. For example, in 2008 we found that there had been little change in federal managers’ reported use of performance information government-wide from 1997 to our 2007 survey. Citing those results, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that agencies were not consistently using performance information to improve their management and results. The report further stated that provisions in GPRAMA are intended to address those findings and increase the use of performance information to improve performance and results. However, five items that were highlighted in our 2008 statement on the 2007 survey results generally show no improvement when compared to the 2017 results, as shown in figure 7. The one exception is for managers’ reported use of performance information to refine program performance measures. While this item was statistically significantly higher in 2013 relative to 2007—an estimated 46 percent to 53 percent—the 2017 result (43 percent) is a statistically significant decrease relative to 2013 and is not statistically different from the 2007 results. Another item, the use of performance information to adopt new program approaches or change work processes, also was statistically significantly lower in 2017 (47 percent) when compared to 2007 and 2013 (53 and 54 percent, respectively). This is of particular concern as agencies are developing their reform plans. Moreover, when compared to our 1997 survey, the 2017 results show four of the five items are statistically significantly lower, and the remaining item—allocating resources—has not changed. Similarly, we found there was no improvement in 2017 for more recent survey items on other uses of performance information compared to the years in which they were introduced, as shown in figure 8. Although one item, on the use of performance information to develop program strategy, was statistically significantly higher in 2013 relative to 2007 (an estimated 58 and 51 percent, respectively), the 2017 result (53 percent) does not represent a statistically significant change from either of those years. Another item, on the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities, is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013, when it was introduced (from 44 to 33 percent in 2017). This is especially concerning because streamlining and reducing duplication are to be key parts of agencies’ reform plans. There is one area in the survey where we saw improvement: an estimated 46 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that employees who report to them pay attention to their agency’s use of performance information in management decision making. That is statistically significantly higher relative to 2013 (40 percent), as well as when compared to when the item was introduced in 2007 (37 percent). For a new and related item in the 2017 survey that asked managers the amount of attention their employees pay to the use of performance information in decision making when compared to 3 years ago, we found an estimated 48 percent reported that employees pay about the same 33 percent reported that employees pay somewhat or a great deal more attention. In September 2005, we identified five practices that agencies can apply to enhance the use of performance information in their decision making and improve results: demonstrating management commitment; communicating performance information frequently and efficiently; improving the usefulness of performance information, such as by ensuring the accessibility of the information; developing the capacity to use performance information; and aligning agency-wide goals, objectives, and measures. Many of the requirements put in place by GPRAMA reinforce the importance of these practices. Our 2017 survey of federal managers includes a number of items related to these practices. However, the 2017 results suggest that managers have not effectively adopted them. In the following sections, we examine several of the practices to enhance the use of performance information and their related survey items further. In doing so, we also highlight a subset of six survey items related to these practices that, while separate from those in our use of performance information index, we found in September 2014 to have a statistically significant and positive relationship with it. The commitment of agency leaders to results-oriented management is critical to increased use of performance information for policy and program decisions. GPRAMA requires top leadership involvement in performance management, including leading data-driven performance reviews. However, we have previously reported that improvements are needed to strengthen leadership’s commitment to use performance information, as discussed in the text box below. Department of Defense Should Strengthen Leadership Responsibilities for Using Performance Information In January 2005, we designated the Department of Defense’s (DOD) approach to business transformation as high-risk because DOD had not taken the necessary steps to achieve and sustain business reform on a broad, strategic, department-wide, and integrated basis. In the February 2017 update to our High-Risk List, we found that DOD had taken some positive steps to improve its business transformation efforts.continuing to hold business function leaders accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement, and leading regular DOD performance reviews regarding transformation goals and associated metrics and ensuring that business function leaders attend these reviews to facilitate problem solving. In July 2017, DOD officials told us that the department’s performance reviews have been put on hold until after the new Agency Strategic Plan is issued. We will review DOD’s updated Agency Strategic Plan when it is issued (expected in February 2018, as required by GPRAMA) to see if it addresses continuing to hold business function leaders accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement. We will continue to monitor the status of these actions. GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017). Results from our 2017 survey show no statistically significant difference relative to 2013 in managers’ perceptions of leaders’ and supervisors’ attention and commitment to the use of performance information. (See figure 9.) Three items are statistically significantly different from the years when they were introduced. Two items increased between 1997 and 2017: changes by management to my program(s) are based on results-oriented information (from an estimated 16 to 25 percent), and the individual I report to periodically reviews with me the outcomes of my program(s) (from 42 to 54 percent). For the third item, top leadership demonstrates a strong commitment to using performance information to guide decision making, results decreased from 49 percent in 2007 to 42 percent in 2017. New items in the 2017 survey show some improvement in management commitment to the use of performance information in decision making. An estimated 36 percent of federal managers reported that, when compared to 3 years ago, the individual they report to pays somewhat or a great deal more attention to the use of performance information in decision making, while 46 percent said they pay about the same amount of attention. Additionally, an estimated 21 percent of federal managers said that, when compared to 3 years ago, the head of their agency pays somewhat or a great deal more attention to the use of performance information in decision making, while 33 percent said they pay about the same amount of attention. Communicating performance information frequently and effectively throughout an agency can help to achieve the agency’s goals. GPRAMA includes requirements for communicating performance information, such as reporting progress updates for APGs at least quarterly. However, our prior work has found that some agencies could continue to improve in the communication of performance information, as illustrated by the example in the text box below. Department of Education (Education) Could Better Share Effective Practices across States in Grant Program Education awards 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants to states, which in turn competitively award funds to local organizations that use them to offer academic enrichment and other activities to improve students’ academic and behavioral outcomes. In April 2017, we found that states are experiencing substantial difficulty in sustaining their programs after 21st Century funding ends. We further found that Education was missing opportunities in its monitoring efforts to collect information on states’ strategies and practices for program sustainability—information that could be useful for sharing promising practices across states. We recommended that Education use the information it collects from its monitoring visits and ongoing interactions with states to share effective practices across states for sustaining their 21st Century programs once program funding ends. Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation but outlined steps it is taking to address it. We will continue to monitor progress on the implementation of this recommendation. There is no difference for two survey items on federal managers communicating performance information relative to 2013 or since those items were introduced in 2007. In 2017, we estimate that 44 percent of federal managers agreed to a great or very great extent that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis. In addition, 34 percent agreed to a great or very great extent that managers at their level use performance information to share effective program approaches with others. Our 2017 survey data also indicate that agencies may not be effectively communicating to their employees about contributions to CAP goals or progress toward achieving APGs. Of the estimated 54 percent of federal managers who indicated they were familiar with CAP goals, 23 percent reported that their agency has communicated to its employees on those goals to a great or very great extent. Of the 74 percent of federal managers who indicated familiarity with APGs, 44 percent reported that their agency has communicated on progress toward achieving those goals to great or very great extent. Our prior work has shown that agencies should consider users’ differing needs—for accessibility, accuracy, completeness, consistency, ease of use, timeliness, and validity, among others things—to ensure that performance information will be both useful and used. GPRAMA introduced several requirements that could help to address aspects of usefulness, such as requiring agencies to disclose more information about the accuracy and validity of their performance data and actions to address limitations to the data. However, agencies face challenges in ensuring their performance information is useful, with one instance from our past work described in the text box below. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Could Improve Usefulness of Information in Planned Grantee Portal EPA monitors performance reports and program-specific data from grantees to ensure that grants achieve environmental and other program results. However, in July 2016, we found that EPA’s 2014 internal analysis of its grants management business processes identified improvements that, if implemented into EPA’s planned web-based portal, could improve the accessibility and usefulness of information in grantee performance reports for EPA, grantees, and other users. We recommended, among other actions, that EPA incorporate expanded search capability features, such as keyword searches, into its proposed web- based portal for collecting and accessing performance reports to improve their accessibility. EPA agreed with our recommendation but stated that it is a long- term initiative, subject to the agency’s budget process and replacement of its existing grants management system. As of May 2017, EPA officials said that they have not begun work on the web-based portal project, which is subject to the availability of funds. Federal managers generally responded similarly in 2017 on a variety of survey items related to usefulness, relative to earlier surveys. On a broadly worded item, less than half of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that agency managers at their level take steps to ensure that performance information is useful and appropriate. At an estimated 43 percent in 2017, this represents no statistically significant change compared to our last surveys in 2013 or 2007, when the item was introduced. Responses to four survey items indicate no changes in hindrances related to the usefulness of performance information. There is no statistically significant change in managers reporting hindrances compared to 1997 or 2013, as shown in figure 10. In addition, there was a statistically significant increase when compared to 2013 on only one of six items about managers’ views on the usefulness of performance information, as shown in figure 11. As the figure shows, approximately one-third to half of managers agreed to a great or very great extent on each item related to the usefulness of performance information. Although less than half of managers reported having sufficient information on validity of performance data used to make decisions, this represents a statistically significant increase to an estimated 42 percent in 2017 compared to 36 percent in 2013, and from 28 percent in 2000, when this item was introduced. This is a notable improvement because our September 2014 report found that the strongest driver of the use of performance information was whether federal managers had confidence in its validity. Our analysis suggests that easy access to performance information is related to the effective communication of performance information. Of the estimated 49 percent of federal managers in 2017 who agreed to a great or very great extent that performance information is easily accessible to managers at their level, 63 percent also agreed that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a great or very great extent. Conversely, of the 20 percent that agreed to a small or no extent that performance information is easily accessible to managers at their level, 12 percent also agreed that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a great or very great extent. Our prior work has shown that building capacity—including analytical tools and staff expertise—is critical to using performance information in a meaningful manner. GPRAMA lays out specific requirements that reinforce the importance of staff capacity to use performance information. GPRAMA directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to take certain actions to support agency hiring and training of performance management staff. Specifically, by January 2012, OPM was to identify skills and competencies needed by government personnel for setting goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using performance information for improving government efficiency and effectiveness. By January 2013, OPM was to incorporate these skills and competencies into relevant position classifications and to work with each agency to incorporate the identified skills into employee training. In April 2013, we found that OPM had completed its work on the first two responsibilities and taken steps to work with agencies to incorporate performance management staff competencies into training. However, OPM did not assess competency gaps among agency performance management staff to inform its work. Without this information, OPM, working with the PIC, was not well-positioned to focus on the most- needed resources and help other agencies use them. We recommended that the Director of OPM, in coordination with the PIC and the Chief Learning Officer Council, work with agencies to take the following three actions: 1. Identify competency areas needing improvement within agencies. 2. Identify agency training that focuses on needed performance management competencies. 3. Share information about available agency training on competency areas needing improvement. In July 2017, PIC staff stated they have not focused on identifying competency areas because the competencies do not resonate strongly with the performance community. Instead, staff said they identified a need for introductory training on performance management, which they have developed and piloted. They said that they are not sure when they will implement the training, since the PIC is reviewing priorities with its new executive director. We continue to believe that identifying the competency areas would be useful, and will monitor the PIC’s efforts to identify and share training. The need for performance management training is further highlighted by our survey results. Our 2017 survey shows no statistically significant change in managers’ responses about the availability of training on various performance management activities relative to 2013, including the use of performance information to make decisions. However, the response to each of the six questions related to specific training is statistically significantly higher relative to the year in which it was introduced, as shown in figure 12. Similarly, in 2017 there was no statistically significant change on four survey items related to agencies’ analysis and evaluation tools and staff’s skills and competencies when compared to 2013 or when these items were introduced. We estimate that in 2017 29 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies were investing in resources to improve the agencies’ capacity to use performance information; 28 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies were investing the resources needed to ensure that performance data are of sufficient quality; 33 percent of managers reported that they agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies have sufficient analytical tools for managers at their levels to collect, analyze, and use performance information; and 33 percent of managers reported that they agree to a great or very great extent that the programs they are involved with have sufficient staff with the knowledge and skills needed to analyze performance information. Performance reviews can serve as a strategy to bring leadership and other responsible parties together to review performance information and identify important opportunities to drive performance improvements. Our prior work has examined how different types of performance reviews—strategic reviews, data-driven reviews, and retrospective regulatory reviews—can contribute to agencies assessing progress toward desired results. Strategic reviews: As previously mentioned, in implementing GPRAMA, OMB established a review process in which agencies are to annually assess their progress in achieving each strategic objective in their strategic plans, known as strategic reviews. Given the long-term and complex nature of many outcomes, the strategic review should be informed by a variety of evidence regarding the implementation of strategies and their effectiveness in achieving outcomes. OMB’s guidance states that the strategic review process should consider multiple perspectives and sources of evidence to understand the progress made on each strategic objective. It further states that the results of these reviews should inform many of the decision-making processes at the agency, as well as decision making by the agency’s stakeholders, in areas such as long-term strategy, budget formulation, and risk management. In 2017, agencies are completing their fourth round of these reviews. Our prior work has identified ways in which agencies can effectively conduct these reviews and leverage the results that come from them. In July 2015, we identified seven practices federal agencies can employ to facilitate effective strategic reviews. (See sidebar.) In addition, earlier this month we reported on selected agencies’ experiences in implementing these reviews. Specifically, we found that (1) strategic reviews helped direct leadership attention to progress on strategic objectives, (2) agencies used existing management and performance processes to conduct the reviews, and (3) agencies refined their reviews by capturing lessons learned. Data-driven reviews: GPRAMA requires agencies to review progress toward APGs at least once a quarter. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that this approach is aimed at increasing the use of performance information to improve performance and results. In February 2013, we identified nine leading practices to promote successful data-driven performance reviews in the federal government. (See sidebar.) In July 2015, we found that most of the 24 CFO Act agencies were conducting their reviews in line with GPRAMA requirements and our leading practices. Moreover, agencies reported that their data-driven performance reviews had positive effects on progress toward agency goals, collaboration between agency officials, the ability to hold officials accountable for progress, and efforts to improve the efficiency of operations. Our 2017 survey shows that federal managers remain largely unfamiliar with their agency’s data-driven performance reviews, also known as quarterly performance reviews (QPRs). An estimated 35 percent of managers reported familiarity with their agency’s QPRs. Survey results show that a greater percentage of Senior Executive Service (SES) managers than non-SES managers reported that they were familiar with QPRs. Approximately 50 percent of SES managers reported being somewhat or very familiar with QPRs; 34 percent of non-SES reported the same. However, for the estimated 35 percent of managers who reported familiarity with QPRs, the more they viewed their programs being subject to a QPR, the more likely they were to report their agency’s QPRs were driving results and conducted in line with our leading practices. Figure 13 shows several illustrative examples of these survey items. For example, of the estimated 48 percent of federal managers who reported their programs being subject to QPRs to a great or very great extent, 83 percent also reported their agencies use QPRs to identify problems or opportunities associated with agency performance goals. Conversely, for the 24 percent of managers who reported their programs were subject to QPRs to a small or no extent, 22 percent also reported the reviews were used for these purposes to a great or very great extent. Being subject to a QPR is also positively related to viewing QPRs as having led to similar meetings at lower levels. An estimated 62 percent of federal managers who reported being subject to QPRs to a great or very great extent also reported their agencies have similar meetings at lower levels to a great or very great extent. An estimated 16 percent of federal managers subject to QPRs to a small or no extent reported the same. Despite the reported benefits of and results achieved through QPRs, as found by our past work and survey data, these reviews are not necessarily widespread. GPRAMA requires agencies to conduct QPRs for APGs, which represent a small subset of goals—generally 2 to 8 priority goals at each designated agency, with approximately 100 total government-wide. Moreover, these required reviews are at the department (or major independent agency) level. These reasons may explain why most managers reported they were not familiar with the reviews. As was described previously, our 2017 survey data show that the reported use of performance information in decision making generally has not improved and in some cases is lower than it was 20 years ago. Survey data also show that managers generally have not reported increases in their employment of practices that further promote the use of performance information in decision making. This suggests that agencies could increase the use of performance information in decision making and the likelihood of achieving desired results by going beyond the specific GPRAMA requirements and expanding their use of data-driven performance reviews—in line with leading practices—to more broadly cover other agency-wide performance goals, as well as goals at lower levels within the agency. For example, such reviews at the program level could help inform the previously mentioned portfolio reviews required by the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA). We have already suggested expanding reviews to other performance goals. Our management agenda for the presidential and congressional transition includes a key action to expand the use of data-driven performance reviews to assess progress toward meeting agency performance goals. Our prior work has stated that although GPRAMA’s requirements apply at the agency-wide level, they can also serve as leading practices at other organizational levels, such as component agencies, offices, programs, and projects. In addition, federal internal control standards call for the design of appropriate control activities, such as top-level reviews of actual performance and reviews by management at the functional or activity level. The standards also recommend that management design control activities at the appropriate levels in the organizational structure. The July 2017 update to OMB’s guidance states that agency leaders, including various chief officer positions, are to conduct frequent data- driven reviews to drive improvements on various management functions. For example, the agency Chief Human Capital Officer is to conduct quarterly data-driven reviews (known as HRStat) to monitor the progress of human capital goals and measures contained in the human capital operating plan. Beyond these management areas, OMB’s guidance also states that agencies may expand quarterly progress reviews beyond APGs to include other goals and priorities. However, OMB’s guidance does not identify practices for agencies to expand the use of these reviews to other goals, such as other agency-wide performance goals or those at lower levels within the agency. As mentioned previously, one of the responsibilities of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) is to facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies. By working with the PIC to identify and share among agencies practices to expand the use of data- driven reviews, OMB could help agencies increase the use of performance information in decision making and achieve results. Retrospective regulatory reviews: In retrospective reviews, agencies evaluate how existing regulations are working in practice and whether they are achieving expected outcomes. GPRAMA requires agencies to identify and assess how their various program activities and other activities, including regulations, contribute to APGs. However, in April 2014, we found that agencies reported mixed experiences linking retrospective analyses to APGs. We recommended that OMB strengthen these reviews by issuing guidance for agencies to take actions to ensure that contributions made by regulations toward achieving APGs are properly considered, and improve how retrospective regulatory reviews can be used to help inform assessments of progress toward these APGs. OMB staff agreed with this recommendation and stated that the agency was working on strategies to help facilitate agencies’ ability to use retrospective reviews to inform APGs. To that end, in April 2017, OMB issued guidance to agencies that, among other things, emphasized the importance of performance measures related to evaluating and improving the net benefits of their respective regulatory programs. OMB included explicit references to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, which directed agencies’ efforts to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews. Specifically, the updated guidance encourages agencies to establish and report “meaningful performance indicators and goals for the purpose of evaluating and improving the net benefits of their respective regulatory programs.” The guidance further states that agencies’ efforts to improve such net benefits may be conducted as part of developing agency strategic and performance plans and priority goals. In July 2017, OMB confirmed that the updated guidance was issued, in part, to address our April 2014 recommendation. For several years, OMB has encouraged agencies to expand their use of evidence—performance measures, program evaluation results, and other relevant data analytics and research studies—in budget, management, and policy decisions with the goal of improving government effectiveness. In particular, OMB has encouraged agencies to strengthen their program evaluations—systematic studies that use research methods to address specific questions about program performance. Evaluation is closely related to performance measurement and reporting. Evaluations can be designed to better isolate the causal impact of programs from other external economic or environmental conditions in order to assess a program’s effectiveness. Thus, an evaluation study can provide a valuable supplement to ongoing performance reporting by measuring results that are too difficult or expensive to assess annually, explaining the reasons why performance goals were not met, or assessing whether one approach is more effective than another. Despite the valuable insights and information that program evaluations can provide, we continue to find that most federal managers lack access to or awareness of such studies. Our 2017 survey shows that an estimated 40 percent of managers reported that an evaluation had been completed within the past 5 years of any program, operation, or project in which they were involved—comparable to the results in our 2013 survey, when questions about program evaluations were added. In recent years, OMB has encouraged agencies to explore evidence-based tools to strengthen agency and grantee evaluation capacity, consider the effectiveness of their programs, and foster innovation rooted in research and rigorous evaluation. During the past 2 years, we examined several of those tools, as described below. Pay for success: Also known as social impact bonds, pay for success is a contracting mechanism under which investors provide the capital the government uses to provide a social service. The government specifies performance outcomes in pay for success contracts and generally includes a requirement that a program’s impact be independently evaluated. The evaluators also are to regularly review performance data, while those managing and investing in a project focus on performance and accountability, as shown in the figure 14. In September 2015, we found that the federal government’s involvement in pay for success had been limited. In addition, a formal mechanism for federal agencies to collaborate on pay for success did not exist. We concluded that, given the evolving nature of pay for success, a mechanism for federal agencies to collaborate would increase access to leading practices. We therefore recommended that OMB establish a formal means for federal agencies to collaborate on pay for success. OMB concurred and, in February 2016, announced that it had developed the Pay for Success Interagency Learning Network with representatives from 10 federal agencies to share lessons, hone policy, and strengthen implementation. Tiered evidence grants: Tiered evidence grants seek to incorporate evidence of effectiveness into grant making. Federal agencies establish tiers of grant funding based on the level of evidence grantees provide on their approaches to deliver social, educational, health, or other services. (See figure 15.) Smaller awards are used to test new and innovative approaches, while larger awards are used to scale up approaches that have strong evidence of effectiveness. This creates incentives for grantees to use approaches supported by evidence and helps them build the capacity to conduct evaluations. In September 2016, we found that interagency collaboration had helped federal agencies that administer tiered evidence grants address challenges and share lessons learned. At that time, such collaborative efforts relied on informal networks. We recommended that OMB establish a formal means for agencies to collaborate on tiered evidence grants. OMB had no comment on the recommendation. In July 2017, OMB staff told us that they had established an interagency working group and other mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and disseminate information on tiered evidence grants. Performance partnerships: Performance partnerships allow federal agencies to provide grant recipients flexibility in how they use funding across two or more programs along with additional flexibilities. In exchange, the recipient commits to improve and assess progress toward agreed-upon outcomes. Figure 16 provides an overview of the performance partnership model. In April 2017, we examined two performance partnership initiatives authorized by Congress: the Environmental Protection Agency’s Performance Partnership Grants and the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, which allows funding from multiple programs across multiple agencies to be combined into pilot programs serving disconnected youth. For the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, we found that the agencies involved in the initiative had not fully identified the key financial and staff resources each agency would need to contribute over the lifetime of the initiative in line with leading practices for interagency collaboration. This was because agencies primarily had been focused on meeting near-term needs to support design and implementation. We also found that agencies had not developed criteria to help determine whether, how, and when to implement the flexibilities tested by the pilots in a broader context. (This is known as scalability.) Officials involved in the pilots told us it was too early in pilot implementation to determine such criteria. However, by not identifying these criteria while designing the pilots, they were risking not collecting needed data during pilot implementation. We recommended that OMB coordinate with federal agencies to identify (1) agency resource contributions needed for the lifetime of the pilots and (2) criteria and related data for assessing scalability. OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations. We continue to monitor progress on these recommendations. In 2003, we identified nine key practices for effective performance management that collectively create a “line of sight” between individual performance and organizational success. (See sidebar on next page.) Our recent work and the results of our 2017 survey of federal managers highlight areas where agencies have made progress but could take additional action to better reflect several of these practices, thereby better instilling results-oriented cultures. Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals: Our 2003 report found that high-performing organizations use their performance management systems to help individuals see the connection between their daily activities and organizational goals. The executive branch has taken several steps to link individual and organizational results. For example, in October 2000, OPM issued guidance to link SES performance expectations with GPRA-required goals. In January 2012, OPM and OMB released a government-wide SES performance appraisal system that provided agencies with a standard framework to manage the performance of SES members. However, our work continues to identify areas for improvement. Goal leaders and deputy goal leaders are responsible for achieving APGs, but our July 2014 review found that the performance plans for a sample of goal and deputy goal leaders generally did not link their individual performance and the broader goal. We recommended that OMB ensure that those plans demonstrate a clear connection with APGs. OMB staff generally agreed with our recommendation. In July 2017, OMB staff stated that components of both OMB and OPM guidance support accountability for agency priority goals. Despite this, we continue to believe that ensuring an explicit connection in performance plans to APGs will improve accountability, and that additional action is needed to do so. In May 2016, we found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had not aligned Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators’ performance expectations with its organizational goals for implementing the National Disaster Recovery Framework. We concluded that without this linkage, FEMA could not evaluate how effectively the coordinators performed in implementing the framework. We recommended that FEMA align performance expectations consistent with leading practices. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendation. In July 2017, FEMA stated that it is preparing the Field Leader Manual, which will define the core competencies and duties of coordinators. We will continue to monitor FEMA’s actions to implement this recommendation. Our 2017 survey also shows that this linkage could be improved for other federal employees. An estimated 58 percent of federal managers reported using performance information to a great or very great extent in setting expectations for employees they manage or supervise. The 2017 responses do not represent a statistically significant change when compared to our last survey in 2013 (62 percent) or to 1997 (61 percent), the year this survey item was introduced. Address organizational priorities: Our prior work showed that, by requiring and tracking follow-up actions on performance gaps, high- performing organizations underscore the importance of holding individuals accountable for making progress on their priorities. Our past and 2017 surveys have identified differences in responses between SES and non-SES managers reporting being held accountable for results. For example, in 2017, our survey results indicate that there was a statistically significant difference between SES and non-SES managers reporting to a great or very great extent that they were held accountable for results of the programs for which they are responsible. However, our 2017 survey shows no change compared to our last survey in either SES or non-SES managers reporting they were held accountable for results. There are statistically significant increases when compared to 1997, when these survey items were introduced. For example, an estimated 79 percent of SES managers and 64 percent of non-SES managers reported being held accountable to a great or very great extent for results of the programs for which they are responsible in 2017. This does not represent a statistically significant change from our 2013 survey (80 percent and 67 percent, respectively), but it is statistically significantly higher than the 62 percent of SES managers and 54 percent of non-SES managers in 1997. (See figure 17.) Similarly, as shown in figure 18, an estimated 71 percent of SES managers reported being held accountable to a great or very great extent for accomplishing agency strategic goals in 2017. This represents no statistical change since 2013 (73 percent), but it is a statistically significant increase compared to when this item was introduced in 2003 (61 percent). Additionally, as figure 18 shows, a gap between being held accountable for strategic goals and having the decision-making authority needed to help accomplish those goals has nearly closed, due to an increase in the latter survey item. The estimated 69 percent of SES managers who reported having such authority to a great or very great extent in 2017 is a statistically significant increase relative to both 2013 (61 percent) and 1997 (51 percent). As noted earlier, GPRAMA requires goal leaders for CAP goals and APGs. Our past work has generally found that they are in place. GPRAMA also requires agencies to identify an agency official responsible for resolving major management challenges, which can help ensure accountability. (See sidebar.) However, in June 2016 we found that 17 of the 24 CFO Act agencies had not identified an agency official responsible for resolving each of their challenges, partly because OMB guidance was not clear that major management challenges should be identified in agency performance plans. We recommended that the 17 agencies identify such officials in their performance plans, and that OMB clarify its guidance. OMB revised its guidance accordingly in July 2016, and, as of July 2017, 7 of the 17 agencies had identified officials responsible for resolving major management challenges. Link pay to individual and organizational performance: High- performing organizations seek to create pay, incentive, and reward systems that clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to organizational results. Our work has found that agencies have made progress in this area. For example, in July 2013, we found that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lacked mechanisms to monitor how supervisors used its performance management system to recognize and reward performance. To help enhance the credibility of SEC’s performance management system, we recommended that it create mechanisms to monitor how supervisors use the performance management system. In a subsequent (December 2016) report, we found that, in response to our recommendation, SEC began monitoring how supervisors provide feedback, recognize and reward staff, and address poor performance. However, federal managers generally reported no change on three items related to recognizing and rewarding employee performance since our last survey in 2013 (figure 19). One of those items—managers agreeing to a great or very great extent that employees in their agency receive positive recognition for helping the agency to accomplish its strategic goals—had a statistically significant increase between 1997 and 2017 (from an estimated 26 percent to 46 percent). Make meaningful distinctions in performance: Effective performance management requires the organization’s leadership to meaningfully distinguish between acceptable and outstanding performance of individuals and to appropriately reward those who perform at the highest level. For example, in January 2015, we found disparities in performance ratings for SES among agencies. Across the 24 CFO Act agencies, the percent of SES rated at the highest level ranged from about 22 percent to 95 percent in fiscal year 2013. To help address these disparities, we recommended that the Director of OPM consider the need to refine the performance certifications guidelines addressing distinctions in performance. To address this recommendation, OPM informed us, in June 2015, that it had convened a cross-agency working group that developed a standard template for agencies to complete and post on a website to more transparently justify their SES ratings distributions. In May 2016, we found that about 74 percent of non-SES employees under a five-level appraisal system—the most commonly used system— were rated in the top two of five performance categories in 2013. We explored this issue further in our December 2016 review of human capital challenges at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which illustrates the importance of making meaningful distinctions in performance for non- SES employees. We found that in fiscal year 2014, about 73 percent of VHA employees were rated in the top two of five performance categories. This may have been due, in part, to a policy that did not require standards to be defined for each level of performance. We recommended that VHA ensure that meaningful distinctions are being made in employee performance ratings by reviewing and revising performance management policies consistent with leading practices, among other actions. The Department of Veterans Affairs partially concurred with our recommendation. In May 2017, the department stated that it had begun piloting a new performance management process and would analyze results at the end of fiscal year 2017. One key aspect of connecting daily operations to results is aligning program performance measures to agency-wide goals and objectives. However, in 2017, an estimated 50 percent of federal managers agreed to a great or very great extent that managers at their level took steps to create such an alignment. There has been no statistically significant change since this item was introduced in 2007. In addition, GPRAMA calls for agencies to develop a balanced set of performance measures, which reinforces the need for agencies to have a variety of measures across program areas. Our 2017 survey shows that managers have not reported any difference in the availability of performance measures for their programs when compared to the 2013 results. However, the 2017 result (an estimated 87 percent) represents a statistically significant increase when compared to 1997 (76 percent). When asked about the availability of certain types of performance measures, three of the five types (outcome, output, and efficiency) were statistically significantly higher in 2017 when compared to our initial 1997 survey. However, when comparing 2017 results to those in 2013, two of the five types (output and quality) showed a statistically significant decrease, and the other types did not change. These are illustrated in figure 20. Beyond the survey results, our work has found that some agencies had not developed or used outcome measures, but have taken steps to do so. Agencies have been responsible for measuring program outcomes since GPRA was enacted in 1993. The text box below describes two illustrative examples from our past work. Examples of Agencies That Did Not Develop or Use Outcome Measures Patient access to electronic health information: In March 2017, we found that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had invested over $35 billion since 2009 to enhance patient access to electronic health information, among other things. HHS had not developed outcome measures to gauge the effectiveness of these efforts, which meant the department did not have information to determine whether the efforts were contributing to its overall goals. We recommended that HHS develop relevant outcome measures and HHS concurred. Safety interventions: According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), between 2011 and 2015, over 4,000 people died in crashes involving motor carriers each year. GAO, Motor Carriers: Better Information Needed to Assess Effectiveness and Efficiency of Safety Interventions, GAO-17-49 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2016). Further OMB actions could also help agencies make progress in measuring the performance of different program types. In our June 2013 report on initial GPRAMA implementation, we found that agencies experienced common issues in measuring the performance of various types of programs, such as contracts and grants. We recommended that OMB work with the PIC to develop a detailed approach to examine those difficulties. Although they took some actions, OMB and the PIC have not yet developed a comprehensive and detailed approach to address these issues. We concluded that, without such an approach, it would be difficult for the PIC and agencies to fully understand these measurement issues and develop a crosscutting approach to help address them. In August 2017, OMB staff stated that efforts related to the future implementation of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA) could help address this recommendation. As highlighted in table 1, our work continues to show why it is important for OMB and the PIC to take actions to more fully address our recommendation. Congress has passed legislation to increase the transparency and accessibility of federal performance and financial data. For example, GPRAMA modernized agency reporting requirements to ensure that they make timely, relevant data available to inform decision making by Congress and agency officials as well as improve transparency for the public. Results of our 2017 survey, however, show the need for improvements in the public availability of agency performance information. An estimated 17 percent of managers reported that their agency’s performance information is easily accessible to the public to a great or very great extent, the same percentage as in 2013. Moreover, of the 87 percent of managers that reported there are performance measures for the programs they are involved in, 25 percent reported that they use information obtained from performance measurement when informing the public about how programs are performing to a great or very great extent. This is not statistically different from the 30 percent estimated in 2013. The DATA Act, enacted in 2014, built on previous transparency legislation by expanding what federal agencies are required to report regarding their spending. The act significantly increases the types of data that must be reported, requires government-wide data standards, and regular reviews of data quality to help improve the transparency and accountability of federal spending data. OMB provides websites and guidance to make agency performance and financial information available to the public; however, our prior work has identified a number of areas related to Performance.gov and the DATA Act where OMB action is needed to improve the transparency and accessibility of this information. Performance.gov: Since 2013, our work has identified a number of issues with Performance.gov, the website intended to serve as a central source of information on the federal government’s goals and performance. Over time, we have recommended that OMB take a number of specific actions to improve the website. For example, in June 2013, we found that the website offered an inconsistent user experience and presented accessibility and navigation challenges. To clarify the purpose of the website and enhance its usability, we recommended that OMB take steps to systematically collect customer input. In August 2016, we reported that OMB was not meeting all of the reporting requirements for Performance.gov, and did not have a plan to develop and improve the website. We recommended that OMB ensure that information presented on Performance.gov consistently complies with reporting requirements and develop a plan for the website that includes, among other things, a customer outreach plan. OMB agreed with these recommendations and, in July 2017, OMB staff informed us that they will be partnering with a vendor to redesign Performance.gov to improve the accessibility of information on the website. To inform this redesign, OMB staff said that they will consider our previous recommendations and plan to engage a wide group of stakeholders, including Congress, agency staff, and interested members of the public and outside organizations. OMB staff anticipated releasing updated agency reporting guidance in the fall of 2017 and the redesigned website in February 2018. Under GPRAMA, OMB is required to make available, through Performance.gov, quarterly updates on progress toward CAP goals and APGs. As described earlier, in June 2017 OMB announced that reporting to Performance.gov has been discontinued through the end of fiscal year 2017 as agencies develop new priority goals. However, Performance.gov does not state that it will not be updated, nor does it provide the location of the final progress updates for these goals. OMB’s guidance states that agencies should report the results of progress on their previous APGs in their annual performance reports for fiscal year 2017. Moreover, OMB staff told us that the existing updates on Performance.gov for CAP goals, last updated in December 2016, represent the final updates on those goals, although they are not labeled as such on the website. As a result, those interested in progress updates and reported results for the previous priority goals may not know where they will be able to find this information, limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results for decision makers and the public. DATA Act: The DATA Act requires federal agencies to disclose their spending and link this to program activities so that policymakers and the public can more effectively track federal spending. The act has the potential to improve the accuracy and transparency of federal spending information and increase its usefulness for government decision making and oversight. Since the DATA Act became law, OMB and Treasury have taken significant steps to make more complete and accurate federal spending data available. These have included standardizing data element definitions to make it easier to compare different federal agencies’ financial information, and issuing guidance to help agencies submit required data. In May 2017, federal agencies started to report data under the standardized definitions developed under the act. We have made a number of recommendations to address challenges that could affect the consistency and quality of the data. Addressing these recommendations could help ensure that financial data are provided to the public in a transparent and useful manner. For example, in January 2016, we found some standardized data element definitions were imprecise or ambiguous, which could result in inconsistent or potentially misleading reporting. We recommended that OMB provide agencies with additional guidance to address potential issues with the clarity, consistency, and quality of reported data. OMB released guidance in May and November 2016, but in April 2017 we found that additional guidance was needed to help agencies implement certain data definitions to produce data that would be consistent and comparable across agencies. We are in the process of examining the quality of the data that was submitted by agencies in May 2017 and was made available to the public on an early version of the USAspending.gov website. We expect to issue the results of this work in fall 2017. Our past work also identified a number of actions agencies need to take to make performance information more transparent. Increasing the accessibility of this information could enhance oversight and accountability of agency performance and results. CAP goals: In May 2016, we found that while selected CAP goal teams were working to develop performance measures to track progress, they were not consistently reporting on their efforts to develop these measures. We recommended that OMB report on Performance.gov the actions that CAP goal teams are taking to develop performance measures and quarterly targets to help ensure that measures are aligned with major activities, and ensure that it is possible to track teams’ progress toward establishing measures. While OMB agreed with this recommendation, it did not address it before reporting on the CAP goals was discontinued, as discussed earlier. Customer service standards: As we described earlier, in 2017, an estimated 48 percent of federal managers that indicated they have performance measures for the programs they are involved in also agreed to a great or very great extent that they have customer service performance measures. There has been no statistically significant change relative to our last survey in 2013, or the initial survey in 1997. Relatedly, in October 2014, we reviewed customer service standards at five federal agencies. Customer service standards inform customers about what they have a right to expect when they request services, and the standards should include goals for the quality and timeliness of a service an agency provides to its customers. They should also be easily available to the public so that customers know what to expect, when to expect it, and from whom. In our review of standards at five agencies, however, we found that only Customs and Border Protection had standards that were easily available to the public. We recommended the other four agencies—the United States Forest Service, Federal Student Aid, the National Park Service (NPS), and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)—make their standards more easily accessible to the public. As of July 2017, only VBA had done so. Major management challenges: In June 2016, we found that 14 of the 24 CFO Act agencies did not describe their major management challenges in their performance plans, as required by GPRAMA. Furthermore, 22 of the 24 agencies reviewed did not report complete performance information for each of their major management challenges, including performance goals, milestones, indicators, and planned actions that they have developed to address such challenges. As a result, it was not always transparent what these agencies considered to be their major management challenges or how they planned to resolve these challenges. We recommended that the 22 agencies describe their major management challenges in their agency performance plans and include goals, measures, milestones, and information on planned actions and responsible officials. As of August 2017, 8 agencies—the U.S. Agency for International Development, Small Business Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Departments of Education, State, and Veterans Affairs—had fully implemented our recommendations; the other 14 agencies had not. Quality of performance information: In September 2015, we found that six selected agencies reported limited information on the actions they are taking to ensure the quality of their performance information for selected APGs, as required by GPRAMA. We recommended that all six of the agencies work with OMB to fully report this information. In response, the Department of Homeland Security and NASA described how they ensure reliable performance information is reported to external audiences. As of June 2017, the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and Labor had not yet taken actions to address this recommendation by providing more specific explanations of how they ensure reliable performance information is reported for their APGs. Unnecessary reports: GPRAMA requires that OMB guide an annual review of agencies’ plans and reports for Congress and include in the President’s budget a list of those plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative. However, in July 2017, we found that OMB did not implement the report review process on an annual basis, as required. We also found that OMB published the list of agency plans and reports on Performance.gov, rather than in the President’s annual budget, where they may be more visible and useful to congressional decision makers and others. Therefore, we recommended that OMB instruct agencies to identify outdated or duplicative reports on an annual basis and submit or reference the list of identified plans and reports with the President’s annual budget. OMB agreed with these recommendations. In July 2017, OMB stated it would include a list of report modification proposals in the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget as required by GPRAMA. For all of the unimplemented recommendations described above, we will continue to monitor agencies’ actions. In addition to providing access to performance and financial information, federal agencies can directly engage and collaborate with citizens, nonprofits, academic institutions, and other levels of government using open innovation strategies. Open innovation involves using various tools and approaches to harness the ideas, expertise, and resources of those outside an organization to address an issue or achieve specific goals. In October 2016, we found that in recent years agencies had frequently used five open innovation strategies—singularly or in combination—to collaborate with citizens and encourage their participation in agency initiatives. (See figure 21.) Our October 2016 report found that agencies can use these strategies for a variety of purposes. To develop new ideas, solutions to specific problems, or new products: For example, from April 2015 to November 2016, the Department of Energy held a prize competition to create more efficient devices that would double the energy captured from ocean waves. According to the competition’s website, the winning team achieved a five-fold improvement. To enhance collaboration and agency capacity by leveraging external resources, knowledge, and expertise: For example, every 2 years since 2009, the Federal Highway Administration has regularly engaged stakeholders to identify and implement innovative ideas that have measurably improved the execution of highway construction projects. To collect the perspectives and preferences of a broad group of citizens and external stakeholders: For example, the Food and Drug Administration used in-person and online dialogue to engage outside stakeholders in the development of an online platform designed to make key datasets easily accessible to the public. Subsequently, in June 2017, we found that OMB, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the General Services Administration (GSA) developed resources to support the use of open innovation strategies by federal agencies. These resources included guidance, staff to assist agencies in implementing initiatives, and websites to improve access to relevant information. For example, GSA developed a step-by-step implementation guide, program management team, and website to help agency staff carry out prize competitions and challenges. Agencies have also developed their own resources, including guidance, staff positions, and websites, to reach specific audiences and to provide tailored support for open innovation strategies they use frequently. For example, NASA’s Solve website provides a central location for the public to find the agency’s challenges and citizen science projects, as well as links to relevant resources. We also evaluated key government-wide guidance for the five strategies listed above to determine the extent to which the guidance reflects leading practices for effectively implementing open innovation initiatives. We identified these practices in our October 2016 report. We found that the guidance for each strategy reflected these practices to differing extents, as shown in figure 22. We made 22 recommendations to GSA, OMB, and OSTP to enhance the guidance. GSA and OMB generally agreed with these recommendations and OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed. We will monitor their progress toward implementing these recommendations. GPRAMA provides important tools that can help decision makers better achieve results and address the federal government’s significant and long-standing governance challenges. Although OMB and agencies have made progress in improving implementation of the act over the years, our work has highlighted numerous opportunities for further improvements. In 2017, OMB removed the priority designation of CAP goals and APGs. For those goals, this action stopped related data-driven reviews and quarterly updates of progress on Performance.gov until new priority goals are published next year. What OMB considers to be the final results of CAP goals for fiscal years 2014 to 2017 already are on Performance.gov (although not labeled as such). In addition, agencies may report on their former APGs in their annual fiscal year 2017 performance reports. However, Performance.gov does not state that it will not be updated or provide the location of the final progress updates for these goals, limiting transparency and its value to the public. OMB has stated its plans to restart implementation of those provisions in February 2018, with the start of a new goal cycle. We believe it is critical for OMB to do so, given the important role those tools play in addressing key governance challenges and the results we have seen in better managing crosscutting areas and driving performance improvements across the government. In addition, OMB has postponed implementation of the federal program inventory. To date, the inventory has only been developed once, in 2013, despite requirements for regular updates to reflect current budget and performance information. OMB has given a variety of reasons for the delays over the past 4 years—most recently, to determine the right strategy to merge implementation of the DATA Act and PMIAA with GPRAMA’s program inventory requirements. Although OMB staff told us that they expect to issue guidance by the end of 2018 to resume implementation of the program inventory requirements, they have not provided more specific time frames and milestones related to the program inventory requirements. Doing so would help agencies prepare for resumed implementation. Moreover, publicly disclosing planned implementation time frames and associated milestones would help ensure that interested stakeholders, such as federal decision makers and the public, are prepared to engage with agencies as they develop and update their program inventories, which in turn could help ensure the inventories meet stakeholders’ needs. A well-developed inventory would provide key program, budget, and performance information in one place to help federal decision makers better understand the federal investment and results in given policy areas, and better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. Information architecture offers one approach to developing an inventory. As OMB determines a strategy for implementing the program inventory and develops its guidance, considering such a systematic approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help it ensure the inventory meets GPRAMA requirements as well as the needs of decision makers and the public. Moreover, such an approach could also help OMB implement our past recommendations related to the program inventory, which are intended to ensure the inventory provides more complete information and is useful to various stakeholders. Our survey of federal managers continues to generally show no improvement in their reported use of performance information in decision making, nor in the employment of practices that can enhance such use. One area where our survey data and past work show promise is through the use of regular, leadership-driven reviews of performance data at agencies, especially when conducted in line with related leading practices. However, GPRAMA only requires these data-driven reviews for APGs, which represent a small subset of goals, both within individual agencies as well as across the government. This is probably why most federal managers were not familiar with the reviews. Identifying and sharing practices for expanding the use of those reviews—such as for additional agency-wide performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could significantly enhance the use of performance information and drive to better and greater results. We are making the following four recommendations to OMB: The Director of OMB should update Performance.gov to explain that quarterly reporting on the fiscal year 2014 through 2017 CAP goals and fiscal year 2016 and 2017 APGs was suspended, and provide the location of final progress updates for these goals. (Recommendation 1) The Director of OMB should revise and publicly issue OMB guidance— through an update to its Circular No. A-11, a memorandum, or other means—to provide time frames and associated milestones for implementing the federal program inventory. (Recommendation 2) The Director of OMB should consider—as OMB determines its strategy for resumed implementation of the federal program inventory—using a systematic approach, such as the information architecture framework, to help ensure that GPRAMA requirements and our past recommendations for the inventory are addressed. (Recommendation 3) The Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews beyond APGs, such as for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies, that have led to performance improvements. (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment. In comments provided orally and via email, OMB staff agreed with the recommendations in this report. OMB staff also asked us to (1) consider revising the draft title of the report, to better reflect progress in GPRAMA implementation, and (2) clarify our recommendations on issuing guidance for implementing the federal program inventory and expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews, by describing possible actions that could be taken to implement them. We agreed and made revisions accordingly. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of our report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. The GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) includes a statutory provision for us to periodically evaluate implementation of the act. Since 2012, we have issued over 30 products in response to this provision; this is the third summary report. This report assesses how implementation of GPRAMA has affected the federal government’s progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing crosscutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used in decision making, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government. We reviewed relevant statutory requirements, related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, and our recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the four key governance challenges included in our reporting objectives. Specifically, since our last summary report in September 2015, we examined various aspects of GPRAMA implementation in 12 products that covered 35 agencies, including the 24 agencies covered under the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended (identified in table 2). We interviewed OMB and Performance Improvement Council staff to obtain (1) their perspectives on GPRAMA implementation and progress on the four governance challenges, and (2) updates on the status of our past recommendations. We also received updates from other agencies on the status of our past recommendations to them related to GPRAMA implementation. To supplement this review, we administered our periodic survey of federal managers on organizational performance and management issues from November 2016 through March 2017. This survey is comparable to five previous surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2013. We selected a stratified random sample of 4,395 people from a population of approximately 153,779 mid-level and upper-level civilian managers and supervisors working in the 24 executive branch agencies covered by the CFO Act, as shown in table 2. We obtained the sample from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) database as of September 30, 2015, which was the most recent fiscal year data available at the time. We used file designators indicating performance of managerial and supervisory functions. In reporting survey data, we use the term “government-wide” and the phrases “across the government” or “overall” to refer to the 24 CFO Act executive branch agencies. We use the terms “federal managers” and “managers” to collectively refer to both managers and supervisors. We designed the questionnaire to obtain the observations and perceptions of respondents on various aspects of results-oriented management topics. These topics include the presence and use of performance measures, any hindrances to measuring performance and using performance information, agency climate, and program evaluation use. To assess implementation of GPRAMA, the questionnaire included questions to collect respondents’ views on various provisions of GPRAMA, such as cross-agency priority goals, agency priority goals, and related quarterly performance reviews. Similar to the five previous surveys, the sample was stratified by agency and by whether the manager or supervisor was a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES). The management levels covered general schedule (GS) or equivalent schedules at levels comparable to GS-13 through GS-15 and career SES or equivalent. Stratifying the sample in this way ensured that the population from which we sampled covered at least 90 percent of all mid- to upper-level managers and supervisors at the departments and agencies we surveyed. Most of the items on the questionnaire were closed-ended, meaning that depending on the particular item, respondents could choose one or more response categories or rate the strength of their perception on a 5-point extent scale ranging from “no extent” to “very great extent.” On most items, respondents also had an option of choosing the response category “no basis to judge/not applicable.” A few items had other options, such as “yes,” “no,” or “do not know,” or a 3-point familiarity scale (“not familiar,” “somewhat familiar,” and “very familiar”). We asked many of the items on the questionnaire in our earlier surveys, though we introduced a number of new items in 2013, including the sections about GPRAMA and program evaluations. For 2017, we added a new question on use of performance information (question 12) and a new question on program evaluation (question 24). Before administering the survey, questions were reviewed by our staff, including subject matter experts, a survey specialist, and a research methodologist. We also conducted pretests of the new questions with federal managers in several of the 24 CFO Act agencies. We changed the wording of subquestions or added clarifying examples based on pretester feedback. To administer the survey, we e-mailed managers in the sample to notify them of the survey’s availability on our website and we included instructions on how to access and complete the survey. To follow up with managers in the sample who did not respond to the initial notice, we emailed or called multiple times to encourage survey participation or provide technical assistance, as appropriate. Similar to our last survey, we worked with OPM to obtain the names of the managers and supervisors in our sample, except for those within selected subcomponents whose names were withheld from the EHRI database. Since Foreign Service officials from the Department of State (State) are not in the EHRI database, we drew a sample for that group with the assistance from State. We worked with officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to gain access to these individuals to maintain continuity of the population of managers surveyed from previous years. The Department of Justice (DOJ) was concerned about providing identifying information (e.g., names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers) of federal agents to us, so we administered the current survey to DOJ managers in our sample through DOJ officials. To identify the sample of managers whose names were withheld from the EHRI database, we provided DOJ with the last four digits of Social Security numbers, the subcomponent, duty location, and pay grade information. To ensure that DOJ managers received the same survey administration process as the rest of the managers in our sample to the extent possible, we provided DOJ with text for the survey activation and reminder e-mails similar to ones we emailed to managers at other agencies. DOJ administered the survey to these managers and emailed them one reminder to complete the survey. To help determine the reliability and accuracy of the EHRI data elements used to draw our sample of federal managers, we checked the data for reasonableness and the presence of any obvious or potential errors in accuracy and completeness and reviewed past analyses of the reliability of this database. For example, we identified cases where the managers’ names were withheld and contacted OPM to discuss this issue. We also checked the names of the managers in our selected sample provided by OPM with the applicable agency contacts to verify these managers were still employed with the agency. We noted discrepancies when they occurred and excluded them from our population of interest, as applicable. On the basis of these procedures, we believe the data we used from the EHRI database are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of the survey. Of the 4,395 managers selected for the 2017 survey, we found that 388 of the sampled managers had retired, separated, or otherwise left the agency or had some other reason that excluded them from the population of interest. These exclusions included managers that the agency could not locate, and therefore we were unable to request that they participate in the survey. We received usable questionnaires from 2,726 sample respondents, for a weighted response rate of about 67 percent of the remaining eligible sample. The weighted response rate across 23 of the 24 agencies ranged from 57 percent to 82 percent, while DOJ had a weighted response rate of 36 percent. See the supplemental material for each agency’s response rate. We conducted a nonresponse bias analysis using information from the survey and sampling frame as available. The analysis confirmed discrepancies in the tendency to respond to the survey related to agency and SES status. The analysis also revealed some differences in response propensity by age and GS level; however, the direction and magnitude of the differences on these factors were not consistent across agencies or strata. Our data may be subject to bias from unmeasured sources for which we cannot control. Results, and in particular estimates from agencies with low response rates such as DOJ, should be interpreted with caution because these estimates are associated with a higher level of uncertainty. The overall survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers as described above. The responses of each eligible sample member who provided a usable questionnaire were weighted in the analyses to statistically account for all members of the population. All results are subject to some uncertainty or sampling error as well as nonsampling error, including the potential for nonresponse bias as noted above. Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. The magnitude of sampling error will vary across the particular surveys, groups, or items being compared because we (1) used complex survey designs that differed in the underlying sample sizes, usable sample respondents, and associated variances of estimates, and (2) conducted different types of statistical analyses. For example, the 2000 and 2007 surveys were designed to produce agency-level estimates and had effective sample sizes of 2,510 and 2,943, respectively. However, the 1997 and 2003 surveys were designed to obtain government-wide estimates only, and their sample sizes were 905 and 503, respectively. Consequently, in some instances, a difference of a certain magnitude may be statistically significant. In other instances, depending on the nature of the comparison being made, a difference of equal or even greater magnitude may not achieve statistical significance. Because each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. The percentage estimates presented in this report based on our sample for the 2017 survey have 95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus 5.5 percentage points of the estimate itself, unless otherwise noted. We also note in this report when we are 95 percent confident that changes from 1997 or 2013 relative to 2017 are statistically significant. Online supplemental material shows the questions asked on the survey along with the percentage estimates and associated 95 percent confidence intervals for each item for each agency and government-wide. In a few instances, we report estimates with larger margins of error because we deemed them reliable representations of given findings due to the statistical significance of larger differences between comparison groups. In all cases, we report the applicable margins of error. In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information available to respondents, or in how the data were entered into a database or analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. With this survey, we took a number of steps to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, our staff with subject matter expertise designed the questionnaire in collaboration with our survey specialists. As noted earlier, the new questions added to the survey were pretested to ensure they were relevant and clearly stated. When the data were analyzed, a second independent analyst on our staff verified the analysis programs to ensure the accuracy of the code and the appropriateness of the methods used for the computer-generated analysis. Since this was a web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, thereby eliminating the need to have the data keyed into a database, thus avoiding a source of data entry error. To supplement descriptive analysis of the survey questions, we generated an index to gauge government-wide use of performance information. The index, which was identical to one we reported in 2014, averaged manager’s responses to 11 questions deemed to relate to the concept of performance information use. The index runs from 1 (corresponding to an average value of “to no extent”) to 5 (corresponding to an average value of “to a very great extent”). We used Cronbach’s alpha to assess the internal consistency of the scale. Our government- wide index score weights each agency’s contribution equally, and provides a relative measure of the use of performance information over time rather than an absolute indicator of the government-wide level of use of performance information. We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to September 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have taken some actions to address our recommendations related to implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA); however, the majority of recommendations remain open. Since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011, we have made 100 recommendations in 18 reports to OMB and agencies aimed at improving the act’s implementation (table 3). Of those 100, OMB and the agencies have implemented 42 recommendations. Fifty-eight recommendations require additional action. Nearly half (47) of our recommendations are directed to OMB. For the 23 recommendations that OMB has implemented, many represent revisions to guidance to better reflect GPRAMA’s requirements or to enhance implementation. Many of the 24 recommendations to OMB that are not implemented deal with long-standing or complex challenges, on which OMB has taken limited action to date. Of those, we have designated 3 as priorities for OMB to address. Agencies have also taken some action on our recommendations, implementing 19 of the 53 recommendations we have made. The following tables present each of the 100 recommendations along with a summary of actions taken to address it. Tables 4 and 5 provide information about our recommendations to OMB that are implemented and not implemented, respectively. Tables 6 and 7 provide information about our recommendations to other agencies that are implemented and not implemented, respectively. In addition to the above contact, Benjamin T. Licht (Assistant Director) and Shannon Finnegan (Assistant Director) supervised this review and the development of the resulting report. Leah Q. Nash (Assistant Director), Elizabeth Fan (Analyst-in-Charge), and Adam Miles (Analyst-in- Charge) supervised the development and administration of the Federal Managers Survey and the resulting supplemental material. Peter Beck, Valerie Caracelli, Karin Fangman, Steven Flint, Robert Gebhart, Ricky Harrison Jr., John Hussey, Jill Lacey, Won Lee, Krista Loose, Meredith Moles, Anna Maria Ortiz, Steven Putansu, Alan Rozzi, Cindy Saunders, Stephanie Shipman, Shane Spencer, Andrew J. Stephens, and Brian Wanlass also made key contributions. Ann Czapiewski and Donna Miller developed the graphics for this report. John Ahern, Divya Bali, Jeff DeMarco, Alexandra Edwards, Ellen Grady, Jyoti Gupta, Erinn L. Sauer, and Katherine Wulff verified the information presented in this report. Managing for Results: Implementation of GPRA Modernization Act Has Yielded Mixed Progress in Addressing Pressing Governance Challenges. GAO-15-819. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2015. Managing For Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges. GAO-13-518. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013. Supplemental Material for GAO-17-775: 2017 Survey of Federal Managers on Organizational Performance and Management Issues. GAO-17-776SP. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2017. Program Evaluation: Annual Agency-wide Plans Could Enhance Leadership Support for Program Evaluations. GAO-17-743. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2017. Managing for Results: Agencies’ Trends in the Use of Performance Information to Make Decisions. GAO-14-747. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2014. Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges. GAO-13-518. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013. Managing for Results: 2013 Federal Managers Survey on Organizational Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-13-518. GAO-13-519SP. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013. Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making. GAO-13-570. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013. Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve Results. GAO-08-1026T. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008. Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-08-1026T. GAO-08-1036SP. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008. Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-38. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 2004. Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies. GAO-01-592. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001. Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills. GAO-01-127. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2000. The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1997. Federal Programs: Information Architecture Offers a Potential Approach for Inventory Development. GAO-17-739. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2017. Managing for Results: Selected Agencies’ Experiences in Implementing Strategic Reviews. GAO-17-740R. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2017. Federal Reports: OMB and Agencies Should More Fully Implement the Process to Streamline Reporting Requirements. GAO-17-616. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2017. Open Innovation: Executive Branch Developed Resources to Support Implementation, but Guidance Could Better Reflect Leading Practices. GAO-17-507. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2017. Performance Partnerships: Agencies Need to Better Identify Resource Contributions to Sustain Disconnected Youth Pilot Programs and Data to Assess Pilot Results. GAO-17-208. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2017. Open Innovation: Practices to Engage Citizens and Effectively Implement Federal Initiatives. GAO-17-14. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2016. Tiered Evidence Grants: Opportunities Exist to Share Lessons from Early Implementation and Inform Future Federal Efforts. GAO-16-818. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2016. Performance.gov: Long-Term Strategy Needed to Improve Website Usability. GAO-16-693. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2016. Tax Expenditures: Opportunities Exist to Use Budgeting and Agency Performance Processes to Increase Oversight. GAO-16-622. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2016. Managing for Results: Agencies Need to Fully Identify and Report Major Management Challenges and Actions to Resolve them in their Agency Performance Plans. GAO-16-510. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2016. Managing for Results: OMB Improved Implementation of Cross-Agency Priority Goals, But Could Be More Transparent About Measuring Progress. GAO-16-509. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2016. Managing for Results: Greater Transparency Needed in Public Reporting on the Quality of Performance Information for Selected Agencies’ Priority Goals. GAO-15-788. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2015. Pay for Success: Collaboration among Federal Agencies Would Be Helpful as Governments Explore New Financing Mechanisms. GAO-15-646. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2015. Managing for Results: Practices for Effective Agency Strategic Reviews. GAO-15-602. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2015. Managing for Results: Agencies Report Positive Effects of Data-Driven Reviews on Performance but Some Should Strengthen Practices. GAO-15-579. Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2015. Program Evaluation: Some Agencies Reported that Networking, Hiring, and Involving Program Staff Help Build Capacity. GAO-15-25. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2014. Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and Information Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories. GAO-15-83. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2014. Managing for Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service. GAO-15-84. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2014. Managing for Results: Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance. GAO-14-639. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2014. Managing for Results: OMB Should Strengthen Reviews of Cross-Agency Goals. GAO-14-526. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2014. Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups. GAO-14-220. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2014. Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued Development of Performance.gov. GAO-13-517. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2013. Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act. GAO-13-174. Washington, D.C.: April 19, 2013. Managing for Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed. GAO-13-356. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2013. Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies. GAO-13-228. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2013. Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help Inform Congressional Decision Making. GAO-12-621SP. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2012. Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act. GAO-12-620R. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012. Managing for Results: Opportunities for Congress to Address Government Performance Issues. GAO-12-215R. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2011.\n\nNow, write a one-page summary of the report.\n\nSummary:"}
{"question_id": 107, "category": "longbench_qmsum", "reference": ["The opposition party claimed that the supply chain in Canada amidst the pandemic was not stable enough and the government was not doing anything. The minister explained that they would continue to work with countries around the globe to ensure that Canada's supply chains and those global supply chains, particularly for essential goods, for agricultural products, for medical supplies, would continue to remain open."], "prompt": "You are given a meeting transcript and a query containing a question or instruction. Answer the query in one or more sentences.\n\nTranscript:\nThe Chair (Hon. Anthony Rota (NipissingTimiskaming, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the 12th meeting of the House of Commons Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. This will be the first hybrid meeting of the committee. Some members will be participating via videoconference and some will be participating in person. This follows the order made by the House on May26,2020. Members who have already participated in a virtual meeting of the special committee may actually not notice any change, except for the fact that some members are also participating from the floor of the House. An additional rubric, that of statements by members, was also added to the proceedings of the committee. In order to ensure that those joining the meeting via video conference can be seen and heard by those in the chamber, two screens have been set up in the chamber on either side of the Speakers chair. Sound amplification for virtual interventions will be available, and members in the chamber can listen to the floor sound or interpretation using the earpieces on their desks. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Please also direct your remarks through the Chair. Thank you. For those of you joining via video conference, I would like to remind you to leave your mike on mute when you are not speaking. Also, please note that if you want to speak in English, you should be on the English channel. If you want to speak French, you should be on the French channel. Should you wish to alternate between the two languages, you should change the channel to the language that you are speaking each time you switch languages. Should members participating by videoconference need to request the floor outside their designated speaking times, they should activate their microphone and state that they have a point of order. Those in the chamber can simply rise in the usual way. Please note that today's proceedings will be televised in the same way as a typical sitting of the House. Next we'll move on to ministerial announcements. I understand that there are no ministerial announcements today, so we'll move on to petitions. We'll be presenting petitions for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. I would like to remind members that any petition presented during a meeting of the special committee must have already been certified by the clerk of petitions. For members participating in person, we ask that they please come and drop the signed certificates off at the table once the petitions are presented. First on our list for presenting petitions is Ms. May, who is joining us virtually.\nMs. Elizabeth May (SaanichGulf Islands, GP): Mr. Chair, what an honour to be the first voice coming to you from the screens on either side of the Speaker of the House. I speak to you from SaanichGulf Islands on the traditional territory of the WSNEC people. Hych'ka Siem. I'm presenting a petition, number 431-00215, and it has been certified. The petitioners call on this House to take note of the fact that Canada is the only country with a universal health care system that does not include the provision of necessary prescription medications. They note that the system across Canada is a patchwork that leaves three million Canadians unprepared and uninsured to be able to purchase necessary medications. They call on the House assembled to put in place a system of universal national pharmacare, bringing down the cost of drugs through bulk purchasing. I think I'll call that a summary, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: The next petition will be presented by Mr. Genuis.\nMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood ParkFort Saskatchewan, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be presenting two petitions before the committee today. The first petition is in support of Bill S-204. This Senate public bill, been put forward by Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the Senate, would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. It also has a mechanism by which somebody could be deemed inadmissible to Canada for being involved in the horrible practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill has been before various Parliaments for over 10 years, and petitioners are hopeful that this Parliament will be the one that finally takes action to address forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The second petition is put forward by folks who are concerned about Bill C-7, particularly the efforts by the government through Bill C-7 to remove vital safeguards that are currently associated with Canada's euthanasia regime. Petitioners are not happy about the fact that the government is trying to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and remove other safeguards that only four short years ago the government thought were essential for the euthanasia and assisted suicide system that they were putting in place. The petitioners call on the government to address that, and they are not supportive of these particular efforts to remove vital safeguards from that regime. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: Is anyone else presenting petitions? Seeing none, we'll move on to statements by members. We will now proceed to Statements by Members for a period not exceeding 15minutes. Each statement will be for one minute. The first will be from Mr.Samson. Mr.Samson, you have the floor.\nMr. Darrell Samson (SackvillePrestonChezzetcook, Lib.): Good afternoon, everyone. It's an honour to be presenting an S. O. 31. This spring has been a difficult one for Nova Scotia and the communities of SackvillePrestonChezzetcook. While residents have banded together to tackle the challenges presented by COVID-19, we have also had to mourn the passing of three remarkable local women: RCMP Constable Heidi Stevenson, well known by many in Cole Harbour and the surrounding areas; our own Sub-Lieutenant Abbigail Cowbrough, who was based out of 12 Wing Shearwater; and Captain Jenn Casey of the Canadian Forces Snowbirds. All three women died in the line of duty in separate tragic events while serving our country. These three brave women, who served with honour on land, at sea and in the air, represent the absolute best of us. Heidi, Abbigail and Jenn were inspirational and will not be forgotten. Thank you.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan (SelkirkInterlakeEastman, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canada needs a prime minister who will create jobs and opportunity, but instead we have a prime minister who is piling up crippling national debt. Yesterday the PBO predicted the federal deficit this year will hit over $252 billion. That is almost equivalent to an average year of government spending before the Liberal government. After five years with this debt, Prime Minister, Canada's national debt is set to hit $1 trillion, with almost nothing to show for it. Industries from coast to coast are either closed or are struggling. Canadian workers need and deserve a prime minister who supports our energy sector and gets our natural resources and agriculture products to market, who supports small business and will make our tax system encourage job creation and growth, and who will bring advanced manufacturing jobs to Canada and keep the automotive industry growing. Most importantly, we need a Conservative prime minister who will get the government finances under control after the massive debt left by this prime minister.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Anandasangaree.\nMr. Gary Anandasangaree (ScarboroughRouge Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I speak today with a very heavy heart. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, we've seen a disproportionate number of deaths in long-term care homes. I'm thankful for the Canadian Armed Forces who were deployed to the Altamont care home in my riding and four other facilities across the GTA. The CAF have brought forward horrifying allegations in the operation of these homes. They include residents being given expired or improper doses of medication; not being cleaned or changed for a prolonged period of time; being forcibly fed, causing choking; being bed-bound for weeks; receiving inadequate nutrition, and much more. Mr. Chair, I call upon Premier Ford to place these five homes under a mandatory management order and to appoint a third party manager to address and rectify these violations. I also call upon the Premier to undertake an independent public inquiry into the tragedy we face in long-term care facilities across Ontario. Finally, Mr. Chair, we need to work with the provinces and territories to set national standards of care for the most vulnerable in our society. We can and must do better. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We have a point of order. Go ahead, Ms. May.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hesitate to interrupt colleagues, but I'm concerned about the petition practice, which, as I understand it, is to summarize a petition but not make a speech. I felt one of our colleagues was trespassing on our usual rules.\nThe Chair: I will remind honourable members that when a petition is presented, we're expected to give a prcis and make it as concise as possible. Thank you. Mr.Champoux, you have the floor.\nMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Mr.Chair, I would like to recognize the resilience of Quebeckers concerned for their jobs or their businesses during the COVID-19 crisis. They need us to plan for after the crisis, and we must do so now. To do so, we need the proper information. We need to know the status of the public finances. That is why the Bloc Qubcois is demanding that the government present an economic update, and that it do so before June17. This is not about making a spectacle. Everyone knows that the deficit will be huge. We had to provide the people with support and we all agree on that. But we have to know to what extent. We also have to know where we are starting from so that we can plan where we are going. This is about respecting the public, because they are the ones who will be paying the bill. In closing, I would like to remind the government that one group is not really contributing to the public purse at the moment. I am talking about the tech giants, the GAFAM group, that have never before been used to the extent that they are now, and that are still not paying a cent in tax in Canada. The Liberals promised to correct this injustice. Now is a great time for them to do so.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Sidhu.\nMs. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Chair, this week is National Paramedic Services Week. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Peel region police, paramedic and firefighting services for keeping Bramptonians safe. In my riding, organizations have stepped up to help our community. Organizations such as the Khalsa Aid Society, the Interfaith Council of Peel, the Brampton YMCA, the Prayer Stone Peoples Church, Unity in the Community, Ste. Louise Outreach Centre, Knights Table, the Yogi Divine Society, Vraj Community Service, Regeneration Brampton and many more have made our community stronger during this difficult time. I also have to address the report that came out yesterday from our brave Canadian Armed Forces. Like many Canadians, I was shocked by this report from the long-term care centres, including one in my riding. The examples of abuse described in the report are unacceptable. Our seniors deserve dignity and respect. We must find a solution. We need to fix this.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mrs. Stubbs.\nMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Chair, Canada's oil and gas sector is in crisis, made worse by five years of bad policies, red tape and barriers to pipelines. Just in the last two months, we saw the largest production cut in Canadian history. Active rigs dropped by 92% and tens of thousands of oil and gas workers lost their jobs, adding to the 200,000 since 2015. Energy is Canada's biggest investor, and exporting could lead the recovery if there are actions, not just words. On March 25, the finance minister promised help in hours or days, not weeks, but he's letting Canadians down. Sixty-three days later, small oil and gas companies still can't apply for BDC loans, and last week's large employer loan terms are predatory, with interest rates escalating to 14% by year five. Those are payday loan rates. The required stock options being at record lows could make the government the largest shareholder. That's not emergency assistance; it's pandemic profiteering. Programs can't help workers if businesses can't or won't actually get the support. The Liberals' death-by-delay tactics are doing exactly what foreign activists in other countries want: to shut down Canada's oil.\nThe Chair: Ms.Bessette, the floor is yours.\nMrs. Lyne Bessette (BromeMissisquoi, Lib.): Mr.Chair, in times of crisis, we stick together. I can state that this is certainly the case in BromeMissisquoi. In the last weeks, I have been calling volunteer action centres in my constituency so that they can tell me their news. I would like to take the time that I have to highlight the work that community organizations are doing tirelessly in my constituency. The crisis has made us realize the extent to which food banks and meals-on-wheels can not only relieve hunger, but also relieve thousands of shut-in seniors of their loneliness. Let me also highlight the devotion of the volunteers giving generously of their time, particularly the initiative of Mabel Hastings in the volunteer aid centre in Mansonville. Like me, she sends out a daily newsletter to keep the public informed about the many resources available for their support. COVID-19 is bringing out the best in our community and I am certain that, together, we will get through it.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Virani.\nMr. Arif Virani (ParkdaleHigh Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, during the COVID-19 pandemic I have been inspired by the courageous work of so many essential workers. I want to thank everyone on the front lines for keeping us safe, keeping us fed and keeping our communities functioning. I want to make special note of one particular essential health care worker, a woman who is a quarantine manager with the Public Health Agency of Canada. I have personally seen her working tirelessly over the past three months to keep all of us safe. That woman is my wife, Suchita Jain. Suchi, I love you, I am very proud of you and I thank you for all of the sacrifices you are making. I want to highlight another woman from my riding of ParkdaleHigh Park, Rachelle LeBlanc. She is a local designer. When the pandemic broke, she saw the need for protective barriers for small shops in Parkdale, so she set about collecting donations. She then put her design talents to work and started designing free-standing protective shields. Rachelle's team has now delivered 25 free COVID protective shields to small shopkeepers in Parkdale, and the team is on track to building 100 more. It's the compassion of Canadians like Rachelle that gives meaning to the phrase we are all in this together.\nThe Chair: Mr.Godin, you have the floor.\nMr. Jol Godin (PortneufJacques-Cartier, CPC): Mr.Chair, the school year has been shattered and our graduating classes must be proud of what they have achieved amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Young men, young women, be proud of your accomplishments! You can believe in the future. Keep learning. It will give you tools that will serve you all your lives. What you have achieved in this extraordinary year will set you apart from the others. I invite you to be inspired by that and turn it to your advantage. The current government has the obligation to promote the values that will lead you to become involved in your communities. Your willingness to learn or to work makes you into better citizens. Knowledge and experience are irreplaceable and invaluable. I implore this government, which is unaware of the damage it is causing, to immediately announce all the positions that have already been approved under the Canada summer jobs program. Urgent action is needed. Let us have confidence in our organizations, our companies, and let us support our youth, a rich resource that we must equip and motivate. I congratulate all the young graduates in the beautiful constituency of PortneufJacques-Cartier.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Fergus.\nMr. Greg Fergus (HullAylmer, Lib.): Mr.Chair, this pandemic lets us see what Canadians are made of. This coming Saturday, May30, more than 2,000Christians of all denominations are coming together virtually for prayer and for action. When the going gets tough, Canadians get going. This could not be more true than with respect to what will be happening on May 30. This Saturday, in more than 2,000 churches and homes, thousands of faith-filled Canadians are gathering to pray and act on those prayers as part of Stand United Canada. They will gather through television, Facebook Live and Instagram Live. Then they are going to deliver much-needed support to at-risk Canadians who live in disadvantaged areas. This is faith in action. I'm sure I speak for all parliamentarians when I wish success to Stand United Canada. I hope it inspires more Canadians to follow in its footsteps. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Harder.\nMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): The best way to safeguard the truth is to allow people to speak freely, but from the very beginning of this pandemic, the Liberals have silenced dissent. Sadly, their short-sightedness has been to the detriment of Canadians. Early on, they propagated the notion that human-to-human transmission wasn't possible. They said that closing the borders wasn't necessary. They told us that wearing face masks wouldn't help. It is undeniable that the Liberal government has put Canadians in danger by silencing alternative points of view and has spread misinformation. Ironically, however, they have now gone ahead and crowned themselves the arbiters of truth. They are spending millions of dollars to censor what Canadians can and cannot say. They are determining what is true and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, what is in and what is out. When freedom of speech is repressed, it is safe to say that democracy is under siege. I call upon the government to restore the personal liberties that are granted under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is Canada. We are not an autocracy; we are a democracy.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Nater.\nMr. John Nater (PerthWellington, CPC): Mr. Chair, small businesses have always been the cornerstone of communities across this country. They provide employment and economic stability and are always the first to support community functions and activities, but small businesses have been particularly hard hit due to COVID-19. They have shut their doors temporarily, and now many worry they'll never be able to open their doors again. With the season cancellations at the Stratford Festival, Drayton Entertainment and Stratford Summer Music, businesses in the tourism, hospitality, accommodation and retail sectors in PerthWellington are struggling. Every day, I talk to small business owners who can't access the Canada emergency business account, and others who find the convoluted commercial rent assistance program to be out of reach. The program is needlessly complicated, frustratingly slow and excessively restrictive. Mr. Chair, the government needs to go back, fix these programs and ensure that support goes to the small businesses that need it.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Collins.\nMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Chair, Canadians have been shaken by this pandemic. It has exposed the gaps in our health care system and our social safety net. It has shown how vulnerable we all are when disaster hits. It has brought us to a crossroads. We can go backwards to so-called business as usual, with horrific conditions in long-term care homes, widespread inequality and no real action on climate change, or we can build for better. In Victoria, people in the community, organizations and municipal leaders have been calling for a new way forward. The City of Victoria has a plan for reinvention, resilience and recovery. Organizations like Greater Victoria Acting Together; Common Vision, Common Action; and Kairos Victoria are exploring ideas for a sustainable and just recovery. We can build for better. We can invest in the infrastructure. We need to fight climate change, homelessness and inequality. We can build a Canada where we take better care of the planet and each other.\nThe Chair: We now move to Ms.DeBellefeuille.\nMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (SalaberrySurot, BQ): Mr.Chair, in this time of pandemic, it is with heartfelt emotion that I want to highlight the excellent work of all the guardian angels at the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest. From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the entire staff, as well as the retirees who have come back to provide their assistance. I admire the managers, at all levels and in all services, working tirelessly so that their teams can answer the call in this difficult situation. My fellow managers and the management teams of the Support Program for the Autonomy of Seniors, both in home support and in residential care, you have my heartfelt congratulations for the herculean work you have done. My thoughts go particularly to Lyne Ricard and Vronique Proulx, managers working diligently with their teams of professionals to support the seniors living in intermediate resources, as we call them. I also warmly recognize the director of nursing services, Chantal Careau, who is facing the current challenge with passion and humanity. Once again, my congratulations go to the entire organization of the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest for their remarkable work in this difficult and very demanding time.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Barlow.\nMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): During the worst of times, we see the best in people. Heroes are born, characters revealed, resiliency is sowed. I cannot say enough about my constituents in Foothillsfront-line health care workers, grocery store clerks, restaurateurs, farmersfor all they are doing to keep our community safe and healthy. I want to shine a light on some of our hidden heroes, such as Owen Plumb, a grade 9 student in Okotoks who is using his 3D printer to build PPE for front-line health care workers. He partnered with the Rotary Club and Evergreen Solutions in Okotoks to help with the manufacturing and assembly. There is also Sam Schofield, the volunteer president of the Pincher Creek Chamber of Commerce, overnight built a resiliency website for COVID-19 by building training tools for businesses throughout his area. He also helped develop the Foothills Business Recovery Taskforce, which is a resource for businesses throughout southern Alberta in my riding. Finally, to the employees of Cargill Foods in High River, I know this has been a very difficult time and that many of you have lost loved ones. I want to say thank you for tirelessly doing all you can to protect our food supply and keep food on our table. Each and every one of you is a hero. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Simms.\nMr. Scott Simms (Coast of BaysCentralNotre Dame, Lib.): Thank you, Chair. I would like to take this time to salute those who go above and beyond the call of duty to provide care and comfort to others. In my 16 years in the House of Commons I have never experienced anything like this, when we find our lives are at a standstill and there is so much sorrow felt by families who suffer from the effects of COVID-19. However, here are two examples of kindness right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Shanna and Fred Patey of Bishop's Falls, along with a few of their friends, spend hours next to the Trans-Canada Highway with just a barbeque and a cooler. They serve free meals for truckers crossing our province each and every day. So far they have provided over 1,500 meals. There is also Mitch Strickland of Grand Falls-Windsor, who owns Appy's Diner. He has continually provided food for the local hospital and other front-line workers through his donations. To all our front-line workers in grocery stores and delivery trucks, and to doctors, nurses, LPNs, paramedics, first responders and, of course, our brave women and men in the military, we will be forever grateful and blessed because of you. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: That's all the time we have today for Statements by Members. Before going on, I just want to remind all the members that it is a one-minute statement, so if you don't mind, please time it before coming in because we do have limited time. The other thing that has come up is that some of you just naturally speak very quickly. I'm not here to judge anybody's way of speaking, but try to consider the translators and interpreters to make sure that everyone understands what is said, because they are working diligently to try to get both languages out. In sum, there are two things: please slow down and please make sure the statement is confined to one minute. We now move to Questions to Ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes in order to allow the employees who are providing support for the sitting to substitute for each other safely.  Our first question goes to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Scheer.\nHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In the early days of the pandemic and the lockdown that followed, Canadians were told by this government that programs would be rolled out very quickly and that gaps and shortcomings would be changed as time went on. While many Canadians are being let down by this government's response and its unnecessarily rigid programs, Conservatives identified solutions weeks ago, yet here we are, two and a half months later, and many of these programs still have not been improved. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. On April 26 the Conservatives asked the Prime Minister to change the criteria for the Canada emergency business account so that small businesses that don't happen to have a business bank account could qualify for those types of programs. It's now May 27. Is the Prime Minister going to make that change?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Chair, we knew from the beginning of this pandemic that we did need to move extremely quickly, and that's what we did. We rolled out the Canada emergency response benefit extremely quickly. Eight million Canadians have had that as a replacement for paycheques lost because of COVID-19. We also moved forward on the wage subsidy and a range of other programs to support workers and small businesses. What we've done in terms of helping small businesses with the Canada emergency business account has had a massive impact on small businesses across the country, but we understand that certain companies and businesses have particularities that mean it's a little more difficult for them to qualify. We are working with them through their regional development agencies, and we encourage them to approach their local RDAs, which will be able to help them get the money they deserve.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, these are very simple technical fixes that can be made by this government. There's no excuse for the delay. It's May 27. They've known about these problems for weeks. They're trying to get patted on the back for actions they took back in March, and yet they are letting so many Canadians down by not making these very simple changes. For example, companies that have acquired another company in the last year have employees whose jobs are threatened. The businesses are not allowed to qualify for the wage subsidy because their revenue is now counted together. We have identified this gap. Again, it's a simple question. Will companies that have acquired another company still be allowed to use the wage subsidy to keep workers on the job, yes or no?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I know that there are many different types of businesses across this country that need support. We have moved forward on supporting as many of them as we possibly can, and we continue to work on filling gaps. I know the member opposite has talked to me a number of times about a tractor company in his riding. I can assure you that finance officials are engaged with that company to see if there's a way to make sure we're getting them the support they need.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: It's actually a very simple fix. I can save him and his officials a lot of time. The government used the word amalgamation when it announced the changes to that program. He can make this very clear, and save a lot of work, just by including the word acquisition. Will he do that?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I can assure you that finance officials are working closely with Brandt Tractor. They're continuing to work with a range of businesses across the country that, for various reasons, are not able to apply for the help we have now. We will continue to work to make sure people who need the help get it.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, it's literally one word. We can email him the text. We can send him the page in the dictionary where that word is defined, if that would help. Another gap that is letting people down is in the rent relief program. The government has set the parameters to qualify for the rent relief program for companies that have experienced a 70% revenue loss. There are untold thousands of businesses that have experienced a 50%, 55%, 60% or 65% loss that are ineligible but have no capacity to pay the rent. We called on the government weeks ago to have a more flexible sliding scale to allow more companies to access this program to keep more people on the job and more businesses open. Will the government introduce some flexibility to this program to help more businesses survive?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, our public servants and policy-makers have been moving creatively and quickly to try to get help to as many people as we possibly can, with our focus being on the people who need it the most. Obviously, this pandemic is affecting everyone and every business across the country in different ways, but our focus has been on ensuring that those who most need it are getting the help they can. We will, of course, continue to work with the parties opposite and all Canadians to ensure that we're getting help to everyone who needs it, but our focus has always been on the most vulnerable, first and foremost.\nThe Chair: The floor now goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet (BeloeilChambly, BQ): Thank you, Mr.Chair. My question is for the Prime Minister. If the Liberal Party of Canada had not taken advantage of the emergency programs, would it have laid off all its staff?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we recognized that a number of organizations and companies were facing difficulties because of COVID-19. People work for those organizations, as accountants, receptionists, assistants or labourers, and those people need to be supported. We are supporting people all over the country through that program.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party one of those organizations in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Any company or organization that can demonstrate a significant drop in its income, whether that be in donations, receipts, profits\nThe Chair: The floor goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we created specific criteria to help organizations in difficulty. Any organization experiencing those difficulties can apply.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: In the Magdalen Islands, fishing companies in difficulty and in need of assistance will not have the money that the Liberals are going to take. Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we have invested in assistance for fishers all across the country. We recognize that it is a difficult situation because of COVID-19. We will be here for our fishers and for industries in difficulty.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: I am not catching many answers, it seems to me. A company in Drummondville that manufactures isolation membranes is in difficulty because a federal program is inadequate. Compared to that company, is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, there are clear criteria for submitting applications under these programs. Companies and organizations that receive money qualify for those programs.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the program criteria establish that the Liberal Party is an organization in difficulty, does that mean that the criteria to determine whether an organization is in difficulty are poorly designed?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, all through this pandemic, our priority has been to be here for workers in difficulty so that they do not lose their jobs. This applies to all organizations and companies in the country to the extent possible. That is what we are in the process of doing.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Given the answers from the Prime Minister, let me ask this question: is the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: No, Mr.Chair. We are doing important work for all Canadians, every day.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Restaurant owners on rue Ontario in Montreal feel that they will not make it through the crisis and that they will never open their doors again. They are in difficulty. By comparison, is the Liberal Party of Canada an organization in difficulty that will not open its doors again after the crisis? We can but hope.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established criteria for that program in order to help those working for various organizations. Any organization that receives the subsidy has qualified for it.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is there a consensus in the Liberal Party caucus that the Liberal Party is in difficulty as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we are working every day to help Canadians and workers in difficulty. We are going to continue to do that work.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Does answering a question put the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, it is a pleasure to be here in the House and to answer questions from Canadians and from members of the opposition.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: You are going to answer a question from a Quebecker, I hope. Companies are struggling in Saguenay, in the Gasp, in Beloeil. Would those companies not deserve to be saved by the money that the supposedly struggling Liberal Party has taken?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: I am always very happy to answer questions from all Canadians currently sitting in the House. We will be here to help workers in difficulty all across the country, including in Quebec.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the Prime Minister is so happy to answer questions, I hope he will be delirious with joy to answer this one. Is the Liberal Party in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established a program to help those working in organizations and who could lose their jobs because of COVID-19. We are here to help workers in organizations and companies all over the country.\nThe Chair: We'll now go on to Mr. Singh.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The conditions of seniors as outlined by the military were appalling, but seniors need more than just compassionate words. They need action. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind excuses and actually show leadership to fix long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the Constitution of Canada is not an excuse. It lays out the divisions of powers and responsibilities, and we respect the provinces' jurisdiction over long-term care facilities. However, from the very beginning, we have indicated our willingness to support the provinces on this very important issue. We need to make sure our seniors right across the country are properly cared for, which is why we sent in the military and why we are there to help the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The former federal health minister, Dr. Philpott, said, We need to stop using jurisdiction as an excuse to not have federal leadership. That is a former federal health minister. Now, we know from the military report that staff were afraid to use vital equipment because of the cost. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, over the past couple of days I've had very good conversations with the premiers of both Quebec and Ontario on this important issue. I look forward to discussing issues around long-term care with all the premiers of the provinces and territories tomorrow evening as well. This is something that Canadians have seen needs concerted action. We will be there to support the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Needles were reused and expired medication was used, according to military reports. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in the care of our seniors?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the contents of that report were deeply disturbing and troubling for all Canadians. That is why we are committed to working with the provinces to fix this situation. Ontarians and indeed people right across the country are deeply preoccupied by what they've seen going on. We need to fix this, and we will do that together.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that cockroaches and flies were present and that food was rotten. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards so that long-term care is governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, our priority right now is ensuring that we are supporting the provinces in their need to make sure that all seniors are protected right across the country in all those institutions. Going forward, we absolutely will need to have more conversations about how we can ensure that every senior across the country is properly supported.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that respecting the dignity of patients was not a priority. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards and for long-term care to be governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, all Canadians know we need to do better by our seniors. This is something we all take very seriously, and all orders of government will work together to make sure that right now, and going forward, we improve our systems. The federal government will be there to work with the provinces on making that happen.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has said that he's willing to work with the provinces. I'm saying that we need to see federal leadership. We need a commitment at the federal level that the Prime Minister will push for things that people need, which is to remove profit from long-term care and to establish national standards. Will the Prime Minister go beyond working with provinces and show some leadership?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, I will always be here to stand up for Canadians in all different situations. We are going to work with the provinces, fully respecting jurisdictions, to make sure that, all across the country, Canadians in long-term care are supported as required and receive the services and the care they deserve.\nThe Chair: Mr. Singh, we have 30 seconds. Ask a brief question, please.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much. The COVID-19 crisis should not be used as an excuse to avoid presenting solutions to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls committee, in particular by delaying action on the calls for justice. This is the same government that would not recognize it as a genocide, the same government that delayed the United Nations declaration legislation and the same government that is still taking indigenous kids to court. Will this government commit to core funding for indigenous services to help women and girls and ensure that the calls for justice are implemented without delay?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, we continue to work very closely with partners on the calls for justice even as we act in many areas, including better funding for shelters and for victims of domestic violence. We will continue to work with those partners, but people will understand that many of those partners are very focused right now on helping front-line workers, not on establishing the report. We will continue to work with them on the report, but the COVID-19 situation has made that more difficult.\nThe Chair: I want to thank the honourable members who are shouting time, but I do have a timer here, and I am taking care of it. I appreciate the help, but I do want to remind them that I have the proper machinery here. We will now go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Prime Minister. He was just talking about the tragic conditions in long-term care facilities in Ontario, and there was a report out from Quebec today. I want to commend the Canadian Armed Forces for witnessing these appalling conditions, putting it in the context of a report, and providing care to our loved ones in these long-term care facilities. The government is saying they didn't receive the report from the department until May 22, but this report came out on May 14. What happened to that report for eight days?\nThe Chair: We will go to the honourable minister. We seem to have a technical issue, Mr. Sajjan. We can't hear you. You might want to put down your bar and keep it down while you're speaking.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Chair, I want to thank our Canadian Armed Forces members for the tremendous work they are doing. They did their duty, noted down their observations and reported them. While those observations were being reported directly to the managers, a report was being compiled. This report was given to me on the 21st. I then forwarded it to the Minister of Public Safety on the 22nd, and that report was then given to the provincial authorities very quickly afterwards.\nMr. James Bezan: I trust that you got the report on the 21st, but the report was written on the 14th, so what happened with that report for seven days? Why wasn't it acted upon? Could you just explain that? Our loved ones were at risk during that entire time.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as we stated, this report was done and given up through the chain of command, and the appropriate leadership did their due diligence. Once we received this report, it was forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Again, I want to commend our Canadian Armed Forces members for not only the tremendous work they are doing but also for doing their duty.\nMr. James Bezan: That report from Ontario documented appalling conditions, horrific care that was being given to the clients, and also the way that the staff conducted themselves. We know that there are 39 members of the Canadian Armed Forces currently infected with COVID-19. Minister, do you believe that the infection could have been transmitted from staff to our soldiers serving in long-term care facilities because proper protocols were not being followed?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to any type of activities that we send our Canadian Armed Forces on, we do our due diligence to make sure that we have the right protocols in place and the appropriate training. This is why we have taken the time to make sure our folks not only did the appropriate training but had the appropriate equipment. We have the right protocols in place, and we will make sure that our members who are infected by COVID will get the appropriate treatment as well.\nMr. James Bezan: Does the Minister of National Defence believe that our soldiers serving in Operation Laser, who have put themselves in harm's way in battling the COVID virus as a war, deserve to have hazard pay benefits?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to looking after Canadian Armed Forces personnel, yes, we are actually in the process as we speak of making sure that our members have the appropriate hazard pay. This is currently being drafted, and we will have more to say on this shortly.\nMr. James Bezan: I hope that means it's a yes. I do encourage the government to provide that compensation to our soldiers and troops serving in Operation Laser. I would finally like to come back to the issue of the timeline from May 14 to May 21, when that report was in the department for one week. Under our parliamentary system, ministers are accountable for the conduct of their departments. Will the minister take responsibility for that report sitting on someone's desk for seven days and not being turned over to the proper authorities?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear: When it comes to the observations that were made, those were immediately reported to the appropriate management of the care facilities and to the appropriate links within the province. At the same time, this report was being compiled and pushed up to the chain of command, and they did their due diligence. As I stated, it was given to us, and on the same day it was forwarded to the Minister of Public Safety, who immediately then sent it to the provincial authorities.\nMr. James Bezan: Was one of those authorities that this was sent to the RCMP?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as stated, this will not only be given to the proper authorities but the appropriate steps will be taken now.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk (BattlefordsLloydminster, CPC): Thank you, Chair. Yesterday it was revealed that the Minister of Digital Government has been promoting a fundraising campaign to sue Global News for their story criticizing the Chinese Communist Party. Why is the minister using her authority to support the Communist Party of China and threatening our media and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray (Minister of Digital Government): Mr. Chair, we value the important work of media right across the country. Attacking the integrity of hard-working journalists is simply not acceptable. Like many members on all sides of the House.... WeChat is a social media platform used to engage and share information with\nThe Chair: Now we'll go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister aware of the efforts that the United Front carries out on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party to influence how Canadians view the People's Republic of China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Thank you for that question. Mr. Chair, I want to just be clear. The participation in the WeChat group, much like Facebook, is guided by posted\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister an active participant in the efforts by the Communists to muzzle a Canadian journalist and deprive Canadians of the facts about China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Muzzling journalists is never acceptable, and our government is very clear on that. I will say that the individual in question posted something outside of the guidelines of my WeChat group and is no longer\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk, I just want to point out that we do have interpreters listening and trying to interpret. They'd appreciate it....\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: My questions are short. That's probably what it is.\nThe Chair: Take a deep breath.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, the Liberals can't shrug this off. The minister admitted to theBreaker that her own political staff manages this WeChat. This is someone who is paid by Canadian taxpayers. Why is the minister using tax dollars to help China attack Global News and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray: I think the member knows very well that the people who post on WeChat are free to post what they choose within certain guidelines. Those guidelines were ignored. That person is no longer part of my WeChat group. The post was completely unacceptable, and I do not share the views of the individual.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, Sam Cooper is an investigative Canadian journalist who has uncovered many different criminal rackets that can be linked back to Beijing. Has the minister apologized to Sam Cooper for attempting to shut down his work?\nHon. Joyce Murray: As we all know, community outreach is a very important part of the work of a member of Parliament. WeChat is one of many social media sites regularly used by members\nThe Chair: We go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, when will the minister apologize to Sam Cooper and Global News?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Mr. Chair, I have been very clear that I do not share the views of the person who posted on my WeChat site, who operated outside of my\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in December 2018 the Liberals passed Bill C-76. This included provisions to prevent foreign interference in Canadian society. Does the government believe that Joyce Murray's actions have violated this portion of the act?\nHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that we are always vigilant in any foreign interference in our national security or issues of political interference in our society. It's monitored carefully by the national security establishment, according to the law as it exists in this country, and we will remain vigilant.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in May 2019, the Liberals launched their digital charter. One of the principles was strong democracy, a commitment to defend freedom of expression. Will the Liberals hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated this part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, we are absolutely committed to the rule of law and will always uphold it. I think, as the minister has made very clear, she was not involved in this process and has no control over the individual who posted that matter.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, unfortunately I don't believe that was a sufficient answer. This is really a yes or no. Will the government hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated their part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that our government remains committed to the rule of law and we will always work tirelessly to uphold the laws of this country.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is that a yes or a no?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I think it was very clear. We will always uphold the laws of Canada.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Still, was that a yes or a no? I'm not hearing a yes or a no.\nHon. Bill Blair: I am doing my very best, Mr. Chair, to answer the question for the House and to assure the member opposite that our government will always remain committed to the rule of law. That is unequivocal.\nThe Chair: We will now move on to the honourable member. The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. I am very happy and proud to be participating in this discussion in the House of Commons today. My question is very simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance): Mr.Chair, we continue to be transparent with our measures. Of course, we want to make sure that our investments, our economy\nThe Chair: The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Let me ask my question to the honourable Minister of Finance once more, since he is talking about transparency. My question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, our economic situation is very fluid. We have made major investments and we are making sure that our economy is working.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the minister's answer is not fluid at all. But the question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, it is important to be transparent with our investments. We look at the investments and the figures every day.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the Minister of Finance may not know what the deficit is, but one great Canadian does know. And he knows that he knows. Could the Minister of Finance be very clear, very fluid and, above all, very transparent with Canadians? What is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I want to be very clear with Canadians: our economic situation is very difficult. The situation is fluid. We are making investments to ensure that our economy will be strong in the future.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, with all due respect to the Minister of Finance, let me point out that, though he is not very clear, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear yesterday. The deficit is $260billion. That is the real number. Why does the government not have the courage to state it clearly, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer did yesterday?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we always want to be clear and transparent. It is very important for the situation to be stable in order to ensure our future. That is our economic approach. We are making investments now so that the situation becomes more stable.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, I know that the Minister of Finance is very good with figures. But he is not able to give us one. Perhaps he could comment on the statement that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made yesterday, that the emergency assistance must have an end date, and if it does not, we are heading to levels of taxation that have not been seen in this country for generations. What is the government going to do to make sure that Canadians will not be overtaxed after this crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to make investments. That way, we will have a resilient economy in the future. That's very important. That way, we know that we'll have a good economy in the future. When we have more information, we will\nThe Chair: Mr.Deltell, you have the floor.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, will the minister commit not to raise taxes after the crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I have said several times that we do not have a plan to raise taxes. That's very important.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Finally a clear answer! However, I'm not convinced that he will apply it. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself has said that there isn't much ammunition left without shifting into a large structural deficit, which can lead directly to tax increases. If the Minister of Finance can't even say today what the deficit is today, how can he be credible when he says that he won't raise taxes?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I think what's most important is that during this pandemic, Canadians and companies across the country need the Government of Canada's help. That is our approach. That way, we will have an economy that will function in the future. Of course, this is important for future generations.\nMr. Grard Deltell: When will there be an economic update?\nHon. Bill Morneau: \nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, all observers are expecting an economic update to know where we're going. When will that happen?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we want our economic update to be accurate. That's why we are looking at information that allow us to make good forecasts.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Chair, the United States, Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam have created an economic prosperity group to diversify some of their key supply chains away from China. Canada has a free trade agreement with six of these seven countries. Why are we not part of this group?\nHon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade): Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for that question. Indeed, we have been working diligently with all of these countries to make sure that we are keeping global supply chains open during this critical time. I think everyone agrees that keeping supply chains open for medical goods, critical agriculture and essential goods is absolutely essential and\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, this government is refusing to come to terms with what COVID-19 will mean for the future of international trade. Why is Canada not at the table with our largest trading partner protecting the viability of our international supply chains and capitalizing on the opportunities of others doing the same?\nThe Chair: Before we go to the minister, one of the members has his mike still on, and I would ask that he turn it off. I am hearing background noise. The hon. minister.\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, Canada has unprecedented access to a number of markets around the world because of the extraordinary agreements that we have made to provide access to customers in those international markets. During COVID-19, we have been working with our G20 partners. I have had two meetings with G20 trade ministers on the importance of keeping supply chains\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, is this payback for the Prime Minister snubbing these countries at the original TPP signing?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we have a CPTPP arrangement with these countries, and we are looking forward to making sure that we get Canadian businesses growing into those markets.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the U.K. will begin applying tariffs at the beginning of next year on Canadian exports such as seafood, beef and cars. These are the items that have had tariffs removed under CETA. Will the government commit to having a new trade agreement with the U.K. in place by January 1?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we are monitoring the situation very carefully. The U.K., of course, is a very important trading partner for Canada. They are in discussions right now. I want to assure Canadian businesses that CETA continues to apply to our trade with the U.K. during this period while they go through Brexit.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, after CUSMA, this government guaranteed to the trade committee that they would publish the objectives of any new trade agreement. When will we see these objectives published and actually have a chance to view them?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we look forward to working to ensure that those objectives are published as we get into future trade discussions.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the resignation of the WTO director-general at this unprecedented time is concerning for the international trade community. Is the government committed to supporting a DG candidate who is dedicated to the massive reforms needed to get the WTO functioning again?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for that good question. The Ottawa group, led by Canada, is working with like-minded countries on the reform of the WTO. We've been doing this work and we continue to do this work. I look forward to making sure that we are leading the way on those discussions with like-minded\nThe Chair: Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, last week the President of the United States considered blocking cattle imports. Our beef producers don't need this. They need stability. Three-quarters of Canada's beef cattle exports go to the U.S. Has the government sought out and received assurances from the United States that no such action will apply to Canadian cattle?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chair, we have an excellent assurance of our trade with the United States, which is our new NAFTA trade agreement that we have negotiated, thanks to the unprecedented co-operation across this country. It is very important to the Canadian economy and Canadian producers.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, going forward post-COVID, there are a lot things that will be changing in supply chains. What is this government doing proactively to look at opportunities in these supply chains that Canadian businesses can take advantage of?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we continue to work with countries around the globe to ensure that Canada's supply chains and those global supply chains, particularly for essential goods, for agricultural products, for medical supplies, continue to remain open. We will keep doing this work.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, on the agriculture side, canola farmers would like to know the status of canola going into China. Can she update the House on that status?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Mr.Chair, I want to assure my colleague that we are continuing to work with our industry representatives, our allies and our trading partners in China.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. McLeod.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod (KamloopsThompsonCariboo, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senior Canadian bureaucrats received very credible reports in early January that China was procuring and hoarding PPE. As a member of cabinet, was the health minister aware?\nHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Health): Mr. Chair, from the very beginning of the outbreak in early January we were aware of the challenges our health sector would face, and we immediately began to work with the provinces and territories to understand what the need would be and how we could best prepare.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: In April, the minister stated there were not enough supplies in the national emergency stockpile. Can she explain why she approved a donation of 16 tonnes of PPE for China on January 31, claiming it would not compromise our supply? She can't have it both ways. We don't have enough; we have enough and it won't compromise it.\nHon. Anita Anand (Minister of Public Services and Procurement): Mr. Chair, we are operating in a highly competitive global environment, and the reality is that we need to make sure we have multiple complementary supply chains operating at the same time, which we have been doing in the past weeks and months, to ensure our front-line health care workers have the supplies they need to keep Canadians safe. That's our priority. That's what we're working on.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Unfortunately, this question was directed to the health minister, referencing things she actually stated in terms of the availability of our supplies. Before the she signed off on the donationand it was the health minister who signed off on the donationdid she consult with the health ministers in the provinces and territories?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, provinces and territories have their own stockpiles, which of course they use to prepare for incidences of outbreak and other illnesses across their jurisdictions. We've worked very closely with the provinces and territories since the beginning of the outbreak to make sure we can provide any particular additional support. In fact, of all the requests made so far, we have been able to complete them.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Health care workers are now having to look at modified full-face snorkels as an alternative to N95 masks. Did it not occur to the minister that our hospitals and care homes could have used that PPE she shipped out, providing a longer opportunity for them to also get procurement done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, the equipment that was donated when China was in its outbreak was an important donation of nearly expired or expired goods that it was in desperate need of in its effort to try to contain the virus. As the member opposite knows, we've been able to work successfully with provinces and territories to ensure they have what they need.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Mr. Chair, I would suggest that during February and March our hospitals would have consumed that almost-expired product very efficiently, but I want to move on to another topic. When defending the sale of 22 seniors' homes to the Chinese government, the Prime Minister stated that we have a strong regulatory regime that imposes rigorous standards. He said that this regime ensures the care our seniors get is top quality. That was in 2017. Now he states he is saddened, shocked, disappointed and angered. Was the Prime Minister completely oblivious to the risks, or was he just too anxious to please the Chinese government when he sold those 22 homes?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the homes the member opposite is referring to are in the province of B.C., and I have to commend the province for the early work it did to protect seniors in those long-term care homes. The member opposite is trying to confuse the issue. As she knows, the review we did was entirely separate from the standards to which the province holds the care homes.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: The Prime Minister does not have authority over seniors' homes, which he has clearly stated, but he does have authority over the act in which he approved the sale. At 18 months, government had an obligation to make sure there was compliance. Was that done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the long-term care homes in each province fall within the jurisdiction of their own particular act, and those provinces and territories are responsible for fulfilling the inspections required under that act.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Under the Investment Canada Act, the government is obligated to review the sale for compliance. Four homes had to close. Since the government approved the sale, it is complicit in the care of our seniors in this country\nHon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry): Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear that we understand how difficult this is for seniors. That is why we follow the appropriate steps, outlined under the Investment Canada Act, to make sure that any measures we take keep seniors and their well-being first and foremost.\nThe Chair: Mr.Therrien, you now have the floor.\nMr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ): Mr.Chair, during the pandemic, the government has given money to companies that don't pay a cent in tax because they use tax havens. We told the government that it didn't make sense. The government's response was that it is no big deal. During the pandemic, the government gave money to Air Canada, but Air Canada never reimbursed customers who did not get the services they paid for. We told the government that it did not make sense. The government's response was that it was no big deal. During the pandemic, the Liberal Party used the emergency wage subsidy to fund partisan activities. We told them that it did not make sense. The government responded that it was no big deal. Is the moral of the story that the government thinks that dipping into the pockets of taxpayers to spend money carelessly is no big deal?\nHon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.Chair, the fight against tax evasion is a priority for our government. We will continue to target companies that use tax evasion schemes. Let me be clear: in everything we do, we will target companies and not innocent workers. Employees are employees, no matter who they work for.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, when I see that it's the Minister of National Revenue answering me, I don't feel like buying a lottery ticket. The Liberal Party used two airplanes in its last election campaign, which seems to indicate that it isn't short of money. However, the Liberals used the emergency wage subsidy. Why? Is it because they want taxpayers to fund a third airplane?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to protect employees across the country and in every economic sector that's experiencing a significant drop in income. That's the approach we've taken to protect people and to ensure that there will be jobs in the future. We will continue this approach.\nMr. Alain Therrien: It's especially important to protect the employees who work for the Liberals to ensure their re-election, yet the Liberal Party has raised more than $7million since the last election. Is the party in jeopardy? Can it go bankrupt?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, as I said, our approach is to protect employees. We think that this principle is very important and that this approach must be maintained in order to have a better job market in the future.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, we still don't know exactly how much money the Liberals took from the cookie jar. We think they may have taken as much as $1million. How many SMEs could have been saved with the $1million that the Liberals took out of the jar and took away from SMEs?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we appreciate the question. We are protecting hundreds of thousands of SMEs through the emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency response benefit and all our programs. We will continue this approach to help SMEs and their employees.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, I will propose a choice of answers, or I won't get any. When did the government decide to use the emergency wage subsidy? Now here are three possible answers. The first possible answer is that when the Liberals brought in the emergency wage subsidy, they set parameters allowing them to use it. The second is that when the Liberals saw the Conservative Partywhich is as rich as they are, but also sanctimonious and self-righteoustake advantage of the subsidy, they thought they could do it too. The third possible answer is that the Liberals hadn't planned to use the subsidy, but they pounced on the cookie jar when they saw it, because that's what they do.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we continue to think it is very important to protect employees in every sector of the economy and across Canada. That's our approach, and I believe it's the right one to protect and preserve jobs across the country during a pandemic.\nThe Chair: We are now going to suspend the proceedings for a few seconds to allow the employees who provide support for the meeting to replace each other safely.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC)): We will now resume the discussion.  We'll continue with Ms. Khalid, the honourable member for MississaugaErin Mills.\nMs. Iqra Khalid (MississaugaErin Mills, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with the member for PickeringUxbridge. Mr. Chair, when the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces stepped in to provide support to five long-term care homes in Ontario at the request of the premier, they released a report that outlined their findings in detail. Military members witnessed residents' cries for help going unanswered. They saw force-feeding. They saw bug infestations, a lack of personal protective equipment and neglect. Canadians are shaken. They are appalled by the horrific conditions outlined in the military report. Almost 1,000 seniors so far have lost their lives in long-term care homes in Ontario alone, over 25 of them in my riding of MississaugaErin Mills. These deaths could have been prevented. Can the Minister of Health please update the House on how our federal government is working with the provinces and territories to prevent further tragic occurrences from happening at long-term care homes and to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors are properly looked after and cared for?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, it's such an important question. I believe all Canadians were deeply horrified to read the details from the Canadian Armed Forces on the conditions in long-term care homes in Ontario. What's happening to seniors in Ontario is completely unacceptable. The report is very troubling. Seniors deserve to live with dignity, with respect and with safety. While long-term care is provincially regulated, we know that we need to work together. The Government of Canada stands ready to support provinces and territories as they continue to respond to this crisis. I had a very good conversation with my provincial and territorial counterparts last night about the work we can do at a national level to support their important work. We also know that seniors want to stay at home longer. That's why our historic investment of $6 billion in home care was so important. We'll continue to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they get the care and dignity they deserve.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Ms. O'Connell.\nMs. Jennifer O'Connell (PickeringUxbridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will sadly report that my community of Pickering has experienced the largest number of deaths at a single COVID-19 outbreak location anywhere in this country. Seventy residents at Orchard Villa long-term care home died during this pandemic. It was a devastating blow to our community. Yesterday, we received the horrific report from the Canadian Armed Forces detailing what they witnessed at Orchard Villa in Pickering, Altamont Care Community in Scarborough, Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke, Hawthorne Place in North York, and Holland Christian Homes' Grace Manor in Brampton. The loved ones of those who have passed away, as well as the homes' workers, have asked for a full public inquiry from the Ontario government. I know that the responsibility for these facilities falls within provincial jurisdiction, but on behalf of our communities, can the Minister of Health update us on the work she is doing to ensure that the Ontario government takes action immediately and initiates a full, independent, non-partisan public inquiry and reverses its decision to create a government-led commission that won't even start until September?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I would say that all Canadians were shocked and horrified to hear about the conditions that existed in these particular care homes. We're so grateful to the members of the armed forces who not only improved conditions but also reported them quickly and appropriately to ensure amelioration of those conditions for those particular individuals. We also know that there are seniors all across the country who are struggling with care and with the appropriate level of care. We have to do better as a country. These are our loved ones. These are our parents and our grandparents. These are the people in our lives who have given so much to us. I stand committed to working with my provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that we do better as a society. We know that there's a role we can play at the federal level with advice, with guidance, with support and, yes, with investments. We look forward to having those conversations about how best we can improve the care for all seniors amongst us.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Mr. Davies from Vancouver Kingsway.\nMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canadians were horrified to hear the report yesterday from our armed forces about the appalling conditions experienced by seniors in our long-term care homes. Page after page detailed the filth, neglect, abuse and danger our seniors in care are exposed to on a daily basis. Shockingly they face injury and death through missed medications, expired medications, unsterile devices and violations of basic contagion rules to stop the spread of COVID-19. Given that evidence of possible criminal conduct was contained in the military's report, will the minister refer this matter to the RCMP for investigation immediately?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, thanks very much to the member for those expressions of concern, which we share. We understand in long-term care facilities both seniors and persons living with a disability face unique challenges, and the findings of this report are in fact deeply concerning and completely unacceptable. Considering the severity of this report, we promptly shared it with the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Ontario has initiated an investigation based on the report's findings. Their investigation includes alerting the province's chief coroner who has the authority to alert the police of jurisdiction. We will continue to work with the province to protect those living in long-term care facilities, and we continue to support them through the deployment of our outstanding Canadian Armed Forces and in our partnership with the Red Cross.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, that's a shocking answer considering there's clear evidence of criminal conduct and negligence in this. That this federal government is not taking immediate steps to refer this to the nation's RCMP is unacceptable. The seniors care crisis is a national problem. COVID-19 has exposed critical vulnerabilities across Canada's entire network of long-term care facilities. Not a single province or territory currently meets the benchmark of 4.1 hours of hands-on care per day. As a result Canada has the worst record of COVID-19 deaths in long-term care among 14 comparable countries, with over 80% of Canadian fatalities occurring in these facilities. Will this government move swiftly to establish binding national standards for long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member opposite is exactly correct when he says that those who are hardest hit in terms of losing their lives and the negative effects of COVID are those who are living in long-term care homes. He's also correct when he indicates that COVID-19 has shown us what many of us have known for a long time, that we need to do better in long-term care and supports for seniors. As the member knows, we started those steps some four years ago or so when we began to make incredible investments in aging at home. We know that is one part of the solution, but we have to do better for those seniors who need a higher level of care. That's the work I'm doing now. I'm working with my colleagues at the provinces and territories to make sure that we come up with a solution that will truly result in better standards for all.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, what we need is binding national standards, just like we set through the Canada Health Act in the health care sector generally. Gross fecal contamination, filthy medical equipment, insect infestations, ignoring patient cries for hourswe would never tolerate these conditions in Canada's hospitals. There's no reason to accept them in Canada's long-term care facilities. Will the minister move to bring long-term care facilities under the Canada Health Act, or similar legislation, with formal funds tied to acceptable standards of care for our seniors, just like we do for hospitals?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member shares the disgust and concern of so many Canadians across the country, not only those who have read the report but many of those who have struggled to provide care to elders in those long-term care homes, regardless of the province in which they live. We know we need to do better. We know that collectively, at all levels of government, we must do better for those people who cared for us and nurtured us all of those years. The member has my commitment that I will work with provinces and territories to find a solution forward to ensure that every person has the right to age with dignity and safety.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. Davies, you have 15 seconds for another question, a short one, and leave time for a response.\nMr. Don Davies: Thank you, Mr. Chair. These failures are the product of systemic neglect often motivated by prioritizing profit over the provision of adequate care. Does the minister agree that we should not be putting profits above the health care needs of Canada's seniors?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I believe that, when we commit to taking care of people, we must do so with the utmost care that is required. I know that provinces and territories have a lot of work to do. So do we, at the federal level, and obviously at the local level. We must all work together to protect those people in our lives who are most vulnerable, whether they be seniors, children or others.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now move on to Mr. Schmale, HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock. Mr. Schmale, go ahead.\nMr. Jamie Schmale (HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock, CPC): Thank you, Chair. According to Vaughn Palmer in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun regarding the secret Wet'suwet'en deal, Palmer writes:     The hereditary chiefs calculated the two governments would sign despite the objections from the elected chiefs. They likewise got the terms they wanted in the MOU while giving up absolutely nothing. Just as they figured governments would keep the contents secret from the public.   Can the minister describe another situation in which the federal government negotiated a secret deal of this magnitude with unelected people?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations): I thank the member for his ongoing concern and I want to remind him that actually it is in keeping with the Supreme Court decision of 1997 that we were to now begin those conversations with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who took the case to the Supreme Court. As we've said many times, this is not an agreement; this is an MOU that establishes the path forward for the substantive discussions towards a final agreement, which would describe the future governance and the implementation of Wet'suwet'en rights and title. It is about a shared commitment.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, if it is a shared commitment, why on the eve of the signing ceremony did the four elected chiefs denounce the hereditary chiefs for keeping them in the dark?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it's really important that the member understand that there was a process for the hereditary chiefs to go back to their communities and discuss with them. Any agreement after the good work that will happen now would have to go back and seek the approval of all of the communities.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, the Burns Lake Band members are openly wondering if they're still a band or if the few unelected hereditary chiefs will control everything now. Minister, can you assure them that going forward you will honour their concerns and take the time to listen?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I ask honourable members to still direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Actually, the honourable member knows that the next steps include the further and ongoing engagement by the Wet'suwet'en in their house groups and that will include the six elected chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en nation, their community members and many others. This is about going forward and making sure that any\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Cynthia Joseph, a chief councillor with the Hagwilget First Nation says the MOU between Ottawa, the province and the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs was only shared with her community members on May 9, two days after it was published in the media. Is this part of the open and transparent government all Canadians can expect of the Prime Minister?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Walking the path of reconciliation means that we work with our partners and there is a way that they do the work within their communities. It is going to be an agreement to begin the work, but any final agreement is going to have to be approved by all members of the nation in terms of developing a consensus for the agreement\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Does the minister have any concerns regarding claims by several former female hereditary chiefs that they were stripped of their hereditary status because they didn't agree with the men?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it is going to be really important that the work take place within the Wet'suwet'en nation to determine their future governance, to determine their way of working with Canada and to make sure\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. For some reason it seems to be a problem to stand up for these hereditary female chiefs who had their titles taken away. Does the minister plan on recognizing band council resolutions denying the authority of hereditary chiefs to sign any future agreements without consent of the elected chiefs and the 3,000 members within the Wet'suwet'en they represent?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: I think the member must understand that, as we begin the work, the nation will do its work and then we will come to the table to determine what the governance would be. Will it be a hybrid model like at Heiltsuk, like Ktunaxa, like some of the communities developing their constitutions, developing their laws and deciding how they will determine their own governance and that partnership with Canada?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (CharlesbourgHaute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. The current restrictions on non-essential travel at the border do not prevent people from claiming refugee protection if they have family in Canada. Why is the minister refusing to allow married people to cross the border?\nHon. Bill Blair: I want to thank the honourable member for a very important question. We have heard from many constituents and members of Parliament from right across the country who are expressing concern about non-status spouses being denied entry into the country because their travel is deemed to be non-essential. I've recently been in touch with all of the provinces and territories because I think it's very important that we have their support for any changes\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: If I understand correctly, Mr.Minister, you are talking to provincial representatives, but a case like that of ChantalTremblay, for instance, is unacceptable. For two months now, she has been trying to bring her spouse to Canada, but it isn't working. Is there a way to issue a directive to border services officers that married spousesit's often marriages with Americanscan cross the border to join their spouses in Canada?\nHon. Bill Blair: Just to be very clearagain, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify thisit is never our intention to separate families, but at the same time, we have imposed appropriate and necessary restrictions on non-essential travel. Our border services officers inquire of everyone coming to that border about the nature of their travel, and for non-citizens who come to that border seeking entry into Canada, if their entry is deemed non-essential, then they exercise their discretion not to allow\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Thank you, Mr.Chair. Information from the Canada Border Services Agency has just come out. Since March21, 425,000people have flown into Canada. Among them were 295,000Canadians, which isn't a problem. However, 100,000foreigners have entered Canada, even though the border is supposedly closed. How does the minister explain the fact that 100,000people arrived in Canada by plane?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify. We have imposed very significant restrictions on non-essential travel, but of course there are circumstances where individuals come to this country and their entry into Canada is deemed essential. For example, someone who is providing medical services and coming into Canada to provide those services would be deemed essential, because there is a great need among Canadians for those services. It's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As you can see by the numbers, we have had a very significant reduction in the travel of all non-Canadians to Canada over the past two months.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: So the minister confirms that the 100,000people who arrived by air were providing a service considered essential to Canada. I'm not talking about the people who crossed the land border, but the people who came to Canada by air.\nHon. Bill Blair: What I can tell you is that at all points of entry, including our air borders, we apply the standard that the travel must be deemed essential, and that determination is utilized to see if a person is eligible to enter into the country.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: We're now learning that the Correctional Service of Canada's investigation into the murder of MarylneLevesque is suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Canadians aren't fooled; they know full well that it is a political decision. All the technological means are available to allow the investigation to continue. I'm proof of that today. Can the minister direct the Correctional Service of Canada to resume the investigation into the death of MarylneLevesque?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member for the question, because we know the concern of the people of Quebec, and the family of Ms. Levesque needs answers and deserves answers. That's why we asked the Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada to convene a board of investigation. Clearly, during COVID transmission, the ability to conduct that investigation and to interview all of the witnesses became extremely difficult and has been temporarily suspended, but at the very earliest opportunity we remain resolute to resume that investigation and get to the bottom of it to provide the answers that the family deserves.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have only 20seconds remaining.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr.Chair, victims of crime are one of the segments of the population most affected by the crisis. As we know, the government refuses to allow victims of crime to participate in parole hearings. For the first time in its history, and to add insult to injury, the government has cancelled all activities related to Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, which was to take place next week. Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on victims?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, at the earliest days of COVID, until arrangements could be put in place, there were restrictions on victims participating. We have put the systems in place to allow victims to present their evidence virtually, either by video or by phone, to ensure that their voices are heard in these important things. We very much respect and support the role of victims in these determinations, and we're making every effort to ensure that they can participate.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll now to Mr. Cumming, Edmonton Centre.\nMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Chair, yesterday I asked the Minister of Small Business how many business credit availability guarantees were issued by EDC, and I didn't get a number. Does she have an exact, finite, number of the guarantees today?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, thank you to the honourable member for that question. Our government has taken swift and immediate action to support Canadian businesses through this time. Money from this program is flowing, and businesses across the country are receiving the important support that they need.\nMr. James Cumming: How many BCAP applications have been received so far?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, these are large loans, and they require important due diligence and adjudication by the financial institutions. We will continue to be open and transparent as the accurate information becomes available.\nMr. James Cumming: How long does it take to be approved for a BCAP guarantee?\nHon. Mary Ng: I want to assure the member that we're going to do everything possible to support businesses and workers during this very important time.\nMr. James Cumming: How many businesses have received funding under the BCAP co-lending program since March?\nHon. Mary Ng: The lending programs, particularly the program to help small businesses, have really helped lots of businesses. Over 630,000 loans have been issued, and this is really helping those\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Unfortunately, lots is not an answer for the businesses that I'm trying to talk to. Can you tell me, for the CEBA changes that were recently announced, when will we be able to see people who have income through a dividend able to apply?\nHon. Mary Ng: That's a very important question, Mr. Chair. There's nothing more important to me and to our government than getting these supports out to businesses. Those small businesses that will meet the expanded CEBA criteria are working very diligently with the financial institutions to make sure that they can get access to those loans as quickly as possible.\nMr. James Cumming: Can the minister give me a day when that will happen?\nHon. Mary Ng: The financial institutions are working very hard to make sure that they can make this available to businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: When will a sole proprietor be able to go for those loans?\nHon. Mary Ng: We will work very hard and very diligently to make sure that these businesses and those sole proprietors are supported.\nMr. James Cumming: Could they go on Monday?\nHon. Mary Ng: There is nothing more important than making sure these businesses weather the difficult time of COVID-19, and our measures are\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How about Tuesday?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think we will all agree that getting support to these businesses is absolutely crucial. Our commitment is always going to be to get support to these businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: I can't get a distinct answer on any of those questions. Can you tell me how much headroom is left on the CEBA program?\nHon. Mary Ng: Today, over 630,000 businesses have received the support to do things like pay for salaries, the 25% top-up for the wage subsidy, pay for rent and pay for insurance and utilities. This is what these loans are helping our small\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars are left in the program so businesses can have some certainty that the program will be available for some time?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think you will see that the businesses across the country that I have talked to really appreciate that the government has stepped up to help them during this difficult time. These include women with businesses, indigenous-owned businesses and those small businesses all across our communities, all across the country, that are getting the necessary help. We are going to keep\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars? It can't be that complicated. How many dollars?\nHon. Mary Ng: There are 630,000 businesses that are getting help, and thousands more businesses will be getting help with the expanded criteria. We're going to keep doing the work that we need to help our businesses across this country through this difficult time.\nMr. James Cumming: I heard from a constituent in my riding that they waited for over four hours on the portal for CECRA. Is there an issue with the portal, and if so, when will it be fixed?\nHon. Mary Ng: Making sure that businesses get the help for commercial rent support is absolutely crucial right now. We are going to endeavour to make sure that this help gets out to those small businesses. Applications have opened in a staggered way and\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have time for one last short question, Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Finally, the Prime Minister yesterday said that a list of all organizations that have been receiving CEWS will be made public. When will that be done?\nHon. Mary Ng: We have committed to making sure that those companies taking the wage subsidy program will be listed publicly. We have committed to doing that and we will do so.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We now go to Mr. d'Entremont from West Nova. Mr. d'Entremont, go ahead.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, but I thought I would say this first. The Canadian Coast Guard is doing a search at this moment following the loss of a vessel off the coast of Newfoundland. From my community, which is a seafaring, fishing community, I just want to put my thoughts out there to the folks of Newfoundland. We are definitely thinking of them during this difficult time. My first question revolves around the lobster fishery. It's been open in Cape Breton since May 15, I believe. The weather has been good. The harvesters have been going at it every day. The price has dropped to $4.25 already. Unstable markets will probably cause it to drop even more. What is the minister doing to make sure the lobster industry survives?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleague for his comments with regard to the tragic accident off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we saw the loss of life in a fishing accident. Of course, as coastal people, we are all in solidarity with the people of Newfoundland right now. We know that the fish and seafood sector has taken extreme hits because of COVID-19. We're working diligently to make sure we support the industry as best we can. We have made available over half a billion dollars to processors and harvesters to make sure they can weather this storm. We have made sure that the harvesters are able to access the harvester benefit as well as the grant, recognizing the unique nature of their business and how they are not able to access some of our other programs. We are continuing to monitor what is happening in the industry. We will continue to make sure we do everything we can to support the fish and seafood sector.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, to continue along this vein for a moment, we are still looking at unstable markets for a longer period of time. At this point, processors are being selective in what they're buying. They're not buying culls and other kinds of lobsters. The plants are filling up, and harvesters are worried that they might stop buying product before the season is complete. What can the fishermen expect, or what kinds of programs can they expect, if the season goes bust?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Chair, we know that this is a very challenging season for our harvesters. We also know that because of the decline in markets, we've had to make accommodations for the processing sector in order to help them be better able to support the harvesters. We have put in $62.5 million, which is allowing the processors to increase capacity in their refrigeration and freezers so that they will continue to be able to purchase product. As I said earlier, we will continue to monitor the situation and make sure we do everything possible to support our harvesters. This is a very difficult\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. d'Entremont.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this next question will go to the Minister of DFO or the Minister of Transport. Oakley Ryerson is a resident of West Nova. He is planning a career on the sea and wants to get his master class four. The problem is that he can't pass the eye exam. He needs full-colour vision. For those who are far-sighted or nearsighted, you just have to put on your glasses to correct it. You can actually fly airplanes. I don't know about space shuttles, but who knows? You can now wear colour-corrected lenses, but Transport Canada still does not recognize these for use. Can the Minister of Transport help Ryerson in attaining his chosen profession?\nHon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport): Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern of my colleague for one of the residents in his riding. I would ask him to write to me and lay out the situation. We have medical standards with respect to a number of different kinds of transportation-related jobs for pilots, mariners and those kinds of occupations, which have to be respected. However, if he sends me the details, I will look into it personally.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. d'Entremont, you have another 20 to 25 seconds left.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr.Chair, the eligibility criteria for financial support include the need to demonstrate a significant loss of income during the months of March and April, yet several SMEs in the tourism industry can't qualify because their operations start with the tourist season, in late May or early June. What will the government do to help them?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, before accessing the emergency wage subsidy, applicants must meet important criteria. However, as we explained last week, we will be adjusting the wage subsidy until the end of August, and we will be reviewing the criteria.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're going to go to the west coast and the member for SaanichGulf Islands. Ms. May, go ahead.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is with regard to the urgent problem of mental health crises across Canada. My colleague, Jenica Atwin from Fredericton, held a press conference this morning in which she used the term echo pandemic. We will face an echo pandemic. We're already seeing increases in suicides on southern Vancouver Island. My question to the minister is this: Will we see direct funding to community mental health services as urgently requested by the Canadian Mental Health Association?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I read the honourable member's colleague's letter just today, and I want to reassure all members that we have invested in mental health supports for Canadians, obviously before the pandemic hit but certainly since we've been living with the pandemic. I'd like to remind all members to direct their constituents to the wellnesstogether.ca website and portal. There Canadians can find online resources, as well as connections to real and alive counsellors and other professionals who can help them with their various concerns.\nMs. Elizabeth May: This question relates to another current emergency: the climate emergency. This week it was reported that the concentration of greenhouse gases reached 417 parts per million. That's not just unprecedented over thousands of years; that's unprecedented over the last one million years. The temperatures in the Arctic broke 86F, 30C in the Arctic circle. The recognized parties in the House have established standing committees to work, but not the committee on the environment. We've asked for this in negotiations. When will the recognized parties remember the June 2019 emergency resolution that we are in a climate emergency, and start making sure that we hit 2020 commitments under the Paris Agreement to improve our targets?\nHon. Marc Garneau: Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's questions. I will remind her that we have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050. We've also committed to surpassing the targets that we had originally set for 2030. We realize that along with the COVID pandemic, which is the major problem that exists in the world today, there is another problem as well that affects the entire planet, and that is the problem associated with climate change. We remain committed to achieving those targets.\nMs. Elizabeth May: My next question will be for Minister Blair, but as an aside, I will say that last answer completely fails to meet the legal requirements of the Paris Agreement to file a new target this year. To save some time, Minister Blair, let's pretend to go back to the questions from my colleague MP Paul-Hus and to your last answer. This is dealt with on a case-by-case basis by CBSA agents. There are thousands of them. They are exercising personal, subjective judgment. This is not acceptable. I'm begging the minister. Could the minister please put out a directive, advice to every CBSA agent on the ground, that when a non-status entry point sees a non-status direct relativehusband, wife, child of a Canadian citizenthat relative be deemed to be entering Canada for an essential purpose?\nHon. Bill Blair: I'd like to thank the member for bringing this issue forward again. It's an important one. We have been working very hard to ensure that we do everything possible to keep families together. At the same time, we've been working with the provinces and territories, listening to the concerns of Canadians about ensuring that travel across our international border, particularly with the United States, is limited to essential travel. As I've indicated, I've had a number of important conversations and necessary conversations with our provincial and territorial partners. I believe there is a consensus on the right way forward on this, and we're working very diligently to put it in place. I want to assure the member opposite that we have given very clear direction to our CBSA officers. I believe our border services officers have been doing an extraordinary job for us in the exercise of their discretion. At the same time, they have been doing the important work of ensuring the health and safety of Canadians at our border.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're now going to Ms. Kwan for Vancouver East. Ms. Kwan, go ahead.\nMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Four out of the five homes listed in the armed forces report were for-profit. It is painfully clear that corporate profits are being put ahead of the well-being of seniors. Will the minister admit that the for-profit model is failing our loved ones and commit to getting profits out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member opposite notes, nobody can read that report or hear those stories without feeling absolute horror and disgust and without demanding better for the elders in our lives. As I have mentioned many times in the House, our government remains committed to working with provinces and territories to ensure that every elder person in our community can age with dignity and in safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Minister, if that's the case, I will ask again. Will the minister make sure that the focus of long-term care homes is taking care of seniors and not taking care of owners' bank accounts?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member will obviously know, long-term care remains in the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, and there is legislation that rules them as such. As the member also knows, we have stood by Ontario and all of the other provinces and territories throughout this outbreak. The Prime Minister has been very clear\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Is the minister refusing to answer the question because she agrees that profit should come before care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: I think it's unfortunate that the member is trying to place words in my mouth. What I do agree with, though, is that long-term care needs to be reformed, and I think all provinces and territories know, and all Canadians know, that we have to do a better job.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: It's simple for the minister. She can just answer the question. Is she willing to defend for-profit care for our seniors? Is she in favour of for-profit private health care too?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: What I am willing to defend is the right for all Canadians to age with safety and dignity.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: To the minister, what is the difference? Why sell out the care of our seniors? Will she commit that she will take profit out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I think the member opposite knows that the only way to actually reform long-term care is to work with provinces and territories, in fact, all levels of government, to ensure that the people who spent their lives caring for and nurturing us can end their lives with caring and nurturing\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I think the minister knows that what we need is national standards for seniors' care. The Revera long-term care homes are owned by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Since the government owns these homes, has the military been sent in there to see what's happening to seniors under their care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, we know that it is important to work with all of the provinces and territories under whose jurisdiction it falls to protect the seniors within those care homes. That's what we've been doing since the beginning of the outbreak of the coronavirus, and that's what we'll continue to do to protect the lives of seniors and strengthen their protection. We will, as I said, Mr. Chair, work with the provinces and territories to have a longer-term plan so that all seniors can age with dignity and safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: The government has a clear responsibility here. What is the government doing to ensure the standards of care in these Revera homes that they own?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as I have repeatedly said, the jurisdiction for care of long-term care homes falls within the provincial and territorial realm. However, that being said, Mr. Chair, we have been there for provinces and territories since the outbreak of the coronavirus, and as the member opposite has clearly or likely heard the Prime Minister say, we will stand with provinces and territories as all elders have the right to age with dignity\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I didn't hear an answer, Mr. Chair, so the answer is nothing, then. Do you think that the families of the seniors in these homes want to hear those excuses about jurisdictional issues? Does the minister not think that the families want to hear that the federal government is doing all it can to care for their parents?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I would remind the members to direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quite frankly, I don't think that families care which level of government is responsible for caring for their elders. I think what they care about is that their elders are cared for. That's in fact what the Prime Minister believes. That's in fact what our government believes, and that's why we have willingly stepped up to say to provinces and territories that we will be there with you to make sure that all seniors in our lives have the right to age with dignity and care.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now give the floor to Mrs.Gill, from the riding of Manicouagan. Go ahead, Mrs.Gill.\nMrs. Marilne Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr.Chair, my question is for the Prime Minister who, earlier, clearly told us that the government's assistance is intended for those who are most in need and most vulnerable. I come from a riding where a lot of people make their living from the tourism industry. I don't know if the PrimeMinister read the newspapers yesterday, but in Quebec, losses to the tune of $4billion are expected until March2021 in the tourism accommodation sector alone. The service sector will lose 93,000jobs. How can I justify to my constituents the fact that a political party, which does not need it, has already seen money from the emergency wage subsidy, when people in my riding don't yet have access to it because of the seasonal nature of their work? These people haven't seen the money that is available through these programs.\nHon. Bill Morneau: We think it is very important to protect the country's employees in all sectors of the economy. Through this approach, there will be more jobs after the pandemic, and the economic situation will be better. We will continue this approach.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, this is the wrong approach. They are saying that they are protecting the jobs of the Liberal Party of Canada, which does not need the money. I'll ask a question similar to the previous one. Fishers in my riding did not qualify for the emergency wage subsidy. Another program was created for them, which isn't quite the same and doesn't really meet their needs. A government whose political wingnot the parliamentary wingdoesn't really need money takes money from the fund, but leaves fishers to make do with less generous programs that don't meet their needs. What do I tell the fishers in my riding?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we know that many sectors of the economy across the country are facing challenges. That's why we have adopted an approach with consistent criteria for all employees in all sectors. We have also introduced specific measures to help certain sectors, such as the fishing industry. We will continue our approach because we believe it's the best way to protect employees and our economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I'm still not satisfied. The government is saying that the best way to proceed is to give money to the political wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, when there are people who are getting nothing. What am I supposed to tell seasonal workers, who have absolutely no assurances for their future? I can't go back to my riding and say I'm proud of the work the government is doing or our efforts in the House. It's true, the House is closed right now. I forgot. I have a very hard time accepting that the government is helping employees of the Liberal Party in preparation for the next election campaign, when communities in my region are dying because their economies revolve around a single industry. I can't tell them I'm not ashamed of what's going on as we speak.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we felt it was necessary to put emergency programs in place in response to the crisis during the pandemic. That is our approach. The emergency wage subsidy is a program that is clearly meant to ensure employees are protected and maintain their relationship with their employer. As for the Canada emergency response benefit, it means a lot to people who don't have a job. We are going to stick to our approach, which is to use consistent criteria to help all employees and all Canadians around the country struggling in any sector of the economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I think the honourable Minister of Finance lives in an ivory tower. No, he is not protecting all jobs. No, he is not protecting all sectors of the economy. Once again, I will say that a party that doesn't need money has already received subsidies. However, people who need that money, people who are actually losing money or who don't know if they'll even be working this summer are getting zilch. There is absolutely no justifying that. I'd at least like to know whether the government is ashamed of what it's doing. When people have a conscience, eventually, they want to make up for their mistakes. Are the Liberals going to return that money? Is the finance minister going to help all sectors of the economy, including tourism, fisheries and seasonal industries?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I'd like to thank the member for her question. Our approach is based on consistent criteria. The emergency wage subsidy is meant for any sector of the economy where revenues have dropped by 30% or more. The measure is hugely important for organizations that are really struggling, because we can protect their workers. We are also providing the Canada emergency response benefit to other employees, meaning, those who have lost their income because of COVID-19. Consequently, we will keep up our approach to ensure we continue to fare as well as possible and the economy works well after the pandemic.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Now we'll go to our last group of interventions, and that will be from Ms. Jansen in CloverdaleLangley City. Ms. Jansen, go ahead.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen (CloverdaleLangley City, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin with a shout-out to the brave waiters and waitresses at our local Earls restaurant and Browns Socialhouse, who have been opened again for on-site dining this week. Here in B.C. we're beginning to find our new normal, and it was great to see how small businesses have so quickly adapted their establishments to keep their workers and patrons safe while allowing people to get back to the business of living. You guys rock. Thanks for taking the lead. Mr. Chair, here in my riding I recently had contact with the mayor of Langley City who was wondering if I had any way of accessing personal protective gear, because our local firefighters were running out of stock. Then again yesterday, I spoke with one of our local homeless shelters that is also looking for PPE. Dr. Tam is telling all Canadians to wear masks in public, but I'm wondering if the Minister of Public Service and Procurement could tell us where exactly we're going to get all those masks with the current shortage.\nHon. Anita Anand: I want to be clear that our priority as a federal government has been to respond to provincial and territorial requests for PPE that goes to front-line health care workers. That is our priority, and we've been procuring goods aggressively in domestic and international markets. We are now actively also exploring ways in which we can assist broader organizations across the country with PPE needs, and that is something that I'll continue to update the House on as we go forward.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: A Globe and Mail article revealed that government orders for N95 masks have steadily been dropping. We've gone from over 200 million ordered to 100 million, according to a federal source. Mr. Chair, the number of N95 masks ordered, as reported on the department's website, does continue to fall. Will the minister tell us why we seem to continue to struggle to supply PPE to Canadians?\nHon. Anita Anand: It is no secret that we are in a global competition for N95 masks and other supplies, so the Government of Canada's approach is to diversify supply chains internationally and build up and retool domestic industry so that we can have these supplies going forward. In terms of the numbers on our web page, we have short-term and long-term contracts in place\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Jansen.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: Yes, I understand that a number of Chinese mask manufacturers have been nationalized, and products for Canadians have been confiscated by the CCP government. Is the drop in N95 orders due to, in actual fact, contracts being cancelled?\nHon. Anita Anand: On N95 masks, I would like to assure the member and the House that we have multiple contracts in place for the procurement of N95 masks, including with 3M in the United States, whose masks are crossing our border weekly over the next month.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: That didn't quite answer my question. Have any of our orders been cancelled by the nationalization of these manufacturers in China?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have an aide in place in China. We have our embassy and other firms actively ensuring that our supplies from the manufacturing source make their way to the warehouse. Over 40 flights have come to Canada with those masks and other supplies. Our supply chains are operating despite the global environment being highly competitive.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: We know many millions of N95 masks have arrived in Canada from China and have been substandard. What is the total number of substandard masks that have arrived?\nHon. Anita Anand: Mr. Chair, as previously explained to the House, about eight million masks did not meet spec by the Public Health Agency of Canada and have been repurposed to some extent in other areas of the system.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: In a previous committee, the deputy minister advised us that Medicom was shoulder-tapped by the government to consider producing PPE. How many other companies did the government approach for this contract?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have operated in a very urgent way in order to procure supplies for front-line health care workers. We are now also moving to ensure that we have competitions run for the procurement of personal protective equipment. It's a multi-pronged approach, and our priority is to get supplies out to front-line health care workers in this time of crisis as quickly as possible. Thank you so much.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Just before we adjourn, I think this another mark of accomplishment on behalf of the great team here at the House of Commons. There have been some great efforts, even since yesterday evening, to get this turned around for today. My compliments to all members joining us here in the House and to all members who have joined by virtual conference. The committee is now adjourned until noon tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned.\n\nNow, answer the query based on the above meeting transcript in one or more sentences.\n\nQuery: What was the discussion about imports and supply chains?\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 108, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["Charles"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory: E-text prepared by Jonathan Ingram, Janet Blenkinship, and the Project\nGutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net/)\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note: The author is Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797).\n\n\n\n\n\nMARY,\n\nA Fiction\n\nL'exercice des plus sublimes vertus éleve et nourrit le génie.\n                                                     ROUSSEAU.\n\nLondon,\nPrinted for J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church-Yard.\n\nMDCCLXXXVIII\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nIn delineating the Heroine of this Fiction, the Author attempts to\ndevelop a character different from those generally portrayed. This woman\nis neither a Clarissa, a Lady G----, nor a[A] Sophie.--It would be vain\nto mention the various modifications of these models, as it would to\nremark, how widely artists wander from nature, when they copy the\noriginals of great masters. They catch the gross parts; but the subtile\nspirit evaporates; and not having the just ties, affectation disgusts,\nwhen grace was expected to charm.\n\nThose compositions only have power to delight, and carry us willing\ncaptives, where the soul of the author is exhibited, and animates the\nhidden springs. Lost in a pleasing enthusiasm, they live in the scenes\nthey represent; and do not measure their steps in a beaten track,\nsolicitous to gather expected flowers, and bind them in a wreath,\naccording to the prescribed rules of art.\n\nThese chosen few, wish to speak for themselves, and not to be an\necho--even of the sweetest sounds--or the reflector of the most sublime\nbeams. The[B] paradise they ramble in, must be of their own creating--or\nthe prospect soon grows insipid, and not varied by a vivifying\nprinciple, fades and dies.\n\nIn an artless tale, without episodes, the mind of a woman, who has\nthinking powers is displayed. The female organs have been thought too\nweak for this arduous employment; and experience seems to justify the\nassertion. Without arguing physically about _possibilities_--in a\nfiction, such a being may be allowed to exist; whose grandeur is derived\nfrom the operations of its own faculties, not subjugated to opinion; but\ndrawn by the individual from the original source.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote A: Rousseau.]\n\n[Footnote B: I here give the Reviewers an opportunity of being very\nwitty about the Paradise of Fools, &c.]\n\n\n\n\nMARY\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n\nMary, the heroine of this fiction, was the daughter of Edward, who\nmarried Eliza, a gentle, fashionable girl, with a kind of indolence in\nher temper, which might be termed negative good-nature: her virtues,\nindeed, were all of that stamp. She carefully attended to the _shews_ of\nthings, and her opinions, I should have said prejudices, were such as\nthe generality approved of. She was educated with the expectation of a\nlarge fortune, of course became a mere machine: the homage of her\nattendants made a great part of her puerile amusements, and she never\nimagined there were any relative duties for her to fulfil: notions of\nher own consequence, by these means, were interwoven in her mind, and\nthe years of youth spent in acquiring a few superficial accomplishments,\nwithout having any taste for them. When she was first introduced into\nthe polite circle, she danced with an officer, whom she faintly wished\nto be united to; but her father soon after recommending another in a\nmore distinguished rank of life, she readily submitted to his will, and\npromised to love, honour, and obey, (a vicious fool,) as in duty bound.\n\nWhile they resided in London, they lived in the usual fashionable style,\nand seldom saw each other; nor were they much more sociable when they\nwooed rural felicity for more than half the year, in a delightful\ncountry, where Nature, with lavish hand, had scattered beauties around;\nfor the master, with brute, unconscious gaze, passed them by unobserved,\nand sought amusement in country sports. He hunted in the morning, and\nafter eating an immoderate dinner, generally fell asleep: this\nseasonable rest enabled him to digest the cumbrous load; he would then\nvisit some of his pretty tenants; and when he compared their ruddy glow\nof health with his wife's countenance, which even rouge could not\nenliven, it is not necessary to say which a _gourmand_ would give the\npreference to. Their vulgar dance of spirits were infinitely more\nagreeable to his fancy than her sickly, die-away languor. Her voice was\nbut the shadow of a sound, and she had, to complete her delicacy, so\nrelaxed her nerves, that she became a mere nothing.\n\nMany such noughts are there in the female world! yet she had a good\nopinion of her own merit,--truly, she said long prayers,--and sometimes\nread her Week's Preparation: she dreaded that horrid place vulgarly\ncalled _hell_, the regions below; but whether her's was a mounting\nspirit, I cannot pretend to determine; or what sort of a planet would\nhave been proper for her, when she left her _material_ part in this\nworld, let metaphysicians settle; I have nothing to say to her unclothed\nspirit.\n\nAs she was sometimes obliged to be alone, or only with her French\nwaiting-maid, she sent to the metropolis for all the new publications,\nand while she was dressing her hair, and she could turn her eyes from\nthe glass, she ran over those most delightful substitutes for bodily\ndissipation, novels. I say bodily, or the animal soul, for a rational\none can find no employment in polite circles. The glare of lights, the\nstudied inelegancies of dress, and the compliments offered up at the\nshrine of false beauty, are all equally addressed to the senses.\n\nWhen she could not any longer indulge the caprices of fancy one way, she\ntried another. The Platonic Marriage, Eliza Warwick, and some other\ninteresting tales were perused with eagerness. Nothing could be more\nnatural than the developement of the passions, nor more striking than\nthe views of the human heart. What delicate struggles! and uncommonly\npretty turns of thought! The picture that was found on a bramble-bush,\nthe new sensitive-plant, or tree, which caught the swain by the\nupper-garment, and presented to his ravished eyes a portrait.--Fatal\nimage!--It planted a thorn in a till then insensible heart, and sent a\nnew kind of a knight-errant into the world. But even this was nothing to\nthe catastrophe, and the circumstance on which it hung, the hornet\nsettling on the sleeping lover's face. What a _heart-rending_ accident!\nShe planted, in imitation of those susceptible souls, a rose bush; but\nthere was not a lover to weep in concert with her, when she watered it\nwith her tears.--Alas! Alas!\n\nIf my readers would excuse the sportiveness of fancy, and give me credit\nfor genius, I would go on and tell them such tales as would force the\nsweet tears of sensibility to flow in copious showers down beautiful\ncheeks, to the discomposure of rouge, &c. &c. Nay, I would make it so\ninteresting, that the fair peruser should beg the hair-dresser to\nsettle the curls himself, and not interrupt her.\n\nShe had besides another resource, two most beautiful dogs, who shared\nher bed, and reclined on cushions near her all the day. These she\nwatched with the most assiduous care, and bestowed on them the warmest\ncaresses. This fondness for animals was not that kind of\n_attendrissement_ which makes a person take pleasure in providing for\nthe subsistence and comfort of a living creature; but it proceeded from\nvanity, it gave her an opportunity of lisping out the prettiest French\nexpressions of ecstatic fondness, in accents that had never been attuned\nby tenderness.\n\nShe was chaste, according to the vulgar acceptation of the word, that\nis, she did not make any actual _faux pas_; she feared the world, and\nwas indolent; but then, to make amends for this seeming self-denial, she\nread all the sentimental novels, dwelt on the love-scenes, and, had she\nthought while she read, her mind would have been contaminated; as she\naccompanied the lovers to the lonely arbors, and would walk with them by\nthe clear light of the moon. She wondered her husband did not stay at\nhome. She was jealous--why did he not love her, sit by her side, squeeze\nher hand, and look unutterable things? Gentle reader, I will tell thee;\nthey neither of them felt what they could not utter. I will not pretend\nto say that they always annexed an idea to a word; but they had none of\nthose feelings which are not easily analyzed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n\nIn due time she brought forth a son, a feeble babe; and the following\nyear a daughter. After the mother's throes she felt very few sentiments\nof maternal tenderness: the children were given to nurses, and she\nplayed with her dogs. Want of exercise prevented the least chance of her\nrecovering strength; and two or three milk-fevers brought on a\nconsumption, to which her constitution tended. Her children all died in\ntheir infancy, except the two first, and she began to grow fond of the\nson, as he was remarkably handsome. For years she divided her time\nbetween the sofa, and the card-table. She thought not of death, though\non the borders of the grave; nor did any of the duties of her station\noccur to her as necessary. Her children were left in the nursery; and\nwhen Mary, the little blushing girl, appeared, she would send the\nawkward thing away. To own the truth, she was awkward enough, in a house\nwithout any play-mates; for her brother had been sent to school, and she\nscarcely knew how to employ herself; she would ramble about the garden,\nadmire the flowers, and play with the dogs. An old house-keeper told her\nstories, read to her, and, at last, taught her to read. Her mother\ntalked of enquiring for a governess when her health would permit; and,\nin the interim desired her own maid to teach her French. As she had\nlearned to read, she perused with avidity every book that came in her\nway. Neglected in every respect, and left to the operations of her own\nmind, she considered every thing that came under her inspection, and\nlearned to think. She had heard of a separate state, and that angels\nsometimes visited this earth. She would sit in a thick wood in the park,\nand talk to them; make little songs addressed to them, and sing them to\ntunes of her own composing; and her native wood notes wild were sweet\nand touching.\n\nHer father always exclaimed against female acquirements, and was glad\nthat his wife's indolence and ill health made her not trouble herself\nabout them. She had besides another reason, she did not wish to have a\nfine tall girl brought forward into notice as her daughter; she still\nexpected to recover, and figure away in the gay world. Her husband was\nvery tyrannical and passionate; indeed so very easily irritated when\ninebriated, that Mary was continually in dread lest he should frighten\nher mother to death; her sickness called forth all Mary's tenderness,\nand exercised her compassion so continually, that it became more than a\nmatch for self-love, and was the governing propensity of her heart\nthrough life. She was violent in her temper; but she saw her father's\nfaults, and would weep when obliged to compare his temper with her\nown.--She did more; artless prayers rose to Heaven for pardon, when she\nwas conscious of having erred; and her contrition was so exceedingly\npainful, that she watched diligently the first movements of anger and\nimpatience, to save herself this cruel remorse.\n\nSublime ideas filled her young mind--always connected with devotional\nsentiments; extemporary effusions of gratitude, and rhapsodies of\npraise would burst often from her, when she listened to the birds, or\npursued the deer. She would gaze on the moon, and ramble through the\ngloomy path, observing the various shapes the clouds assumed, and listen\nto the sea that was not far distant. The wandering spirits, which she\nimagined inhabited every part of nature, were her constant friends and\nconfidants. She began to consider the Great First Cause, formed just\nnotions of his attributes, and, in particular, dwelt on his wisdom and\ngoodness. Could she have loved her father or mother, had they returned\nher affection, she would not so soon, perhaps, have sought out a new\nworld.\n\nHer sensibility prompted her to search for an object to love; on earth\nit was not to be found: her mother had often disappointed her, and the\napparent partiality she shewed to her brother gave her exquisite\npain--produced a kind of habitual melancholy, led her into a fondness\nfor reading tales of woe, and made her almost realize the fictitious\ndistress.\n\nShe had not any notion of death till a little chicken expired at her\nfeet; and her father had a dog hung in a passion. She then concluded\nanimals had souls, or they would not have been subjected to the caprice\nof man; but what was the soul of man or beast? In this style year after\nyear rolled on, her mother still vegetating.\n\nA little girl who attended in the nursery fell sick. Mary paid her great\nattention; contrary to her wish, she was sent out of the house to her\nmother, a poor woman, whom necessity obliged to leave her sick child\nwhile she earned her daily bread. The poor wretch, in a fit of delirium\nstabbed herself, and Mary saw her dead body, and heard the dismal\naccount; and so strongly did it impress her imagination, that every\nnight of her life the bleeding corpse presented itself to her when the\nfirst began to slumber. Tortured by it, she at last made a vow, that if\nshe was ever mistress of a family she would herself watch over every\npart of it. The impression that this accident made was indelible.\n\nAs her mother grew imperceptibly worse and worse, her father, who did\nnot understand such a lingering complaint, imagined his wife was only\ngrown still more whimsical, and that if she could be prevailed on to\nexert herself, her health would soon be re-established. In general he\ntreated her with indifference; but when her illness at all interfered\nwith his pleasures, he expostulated in the most cruel manner, and\nvisibly harassed the invalid. Mary would then assiduously try to turn\nhis attention to something else; and when sent out of the room, would\nwatch at the door, until the storm was over, for unless it was, she\ncould not rest. Other causes also contributed to disturb her repose: her\nmother's luke-warm manner of performing her religious duties, filled her\nwith anguish; and when she observed her father's vices, the unbidden\ntears would flow. She was miserable when beggars were driven from the\ngate without being relieved; if she could do it unperceived, she would\ngive them her own breakfast, and feel gratified, when, in consequence of\nit, she was pinched by hunger.\n\nShe had once, or twice, told her little secrets to her mother; they were\nlaughed at, and she determined never to do it again. In this manner was\nshe left to reflect on her own feelings; and so strengthened were they\nby being meditated on, that her character early became singular and\npermanent. Her understanding was strong and clear, when not clouded by\nher feelings; but she was too much the creature of impulse, and the\nslave of compassion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\nNear her father's house lived a poor widow, who had been brought up in\naffluence, but reduced to great distress by the extravagance of her\nhusband; he had destroyed his constitution while he spent his fortune;\nand dying, left his wife, and five small children, to live on a very\nscanty pittance. The eldest daughter was for some years educated by a\ndistant relation, a Clergyman. While she was with him a young gentleman,\nson to a man of property in the neighbourhood, took particular notice of\nher. It is true, he never talked of love; but then they played and sung\nin concert; drew landscapes together, and while she worked he read to\nher, cultivated her taste, and stole imperceptibly her heart. Just at\nthis juncture, when smiling, unanalyzed hope made every prospect bright,\nand gay expectation danced in her eyes, her benefactor died. She\nreturned to her mother--the companion of her youth forgot her, they took\nno more sweet counsel together. This disappointment spread a sadness\nover her countenance, and made it interesting. She grew fond of\nsolitude, and her character appeared similar to Mary's, though her\nnatural disposition was very different.\n\nShe was several years older than Mary, yet her refinement, her taste,\ncaught her eye, and she eagerly sought her friendship: before her return\nshe had assisted the family, which was almost reduced to the last ebb;\nand now she had another motive to actuate her.\n\nAs she had often occasion to send messages to Ann, her new friend,\nmistakes were frequently made; Ann proposed that in future they should\nbe written ones, to obviate this difficulty, and render their\nintercourse more agreeable. Young people are mostly fond of scribbling;\nMary had had very little instruction; but by copying her friend's\nletters, whose hand she admired, she soon became a proficient; a little\npractice made her write with tolerable correctness, and her genius gave\nforce to it. In conversation, and in writing, when she felt, she was\npathetic, tender and persuasive; and she expressed contempt with such\nenergy, that few could stand the flash of her eyes.\n\nAs she grew more intimate with Ann, her manners were softened, and she\nacquired a degree of equality in her behaviour: yet still her spirits\nwere fluctuating, and her movements rapid. She felt less pain on\naccount of her mother's partiality to her brother, as she hoped now to\nexperience the pleasure of being beloved; but this hope led her into new\nsorrows, and, as usual, paved the way for disappointment. Ann only felt\ngratitude; her heart was entirely engrossed by one object, and\nfriendship could not serve as a substitute; memory officiously retraced\npast scenes, and unavailing wishes made time loiter.\n\nMary was often hurt by the involuntary indifference which these\nconsequences produced. When her friend was all the world to her, she\nfound she was not as necessary to her happiness; and her delicate mind\ncould not bear to obtrude her affection, or receive love as an alms, the\noffspring of pity. Very frequently has she ran to her with delight, and\nnot perceiving any thing of the same kind in Ann's countenance, she has\nshrunk back; and, falling from one extreme into the other, instead of a\nwarm greeting that was just slipping from her tongue, her expressions\nseemed to be dictated by the most chilling insensibility.\n\nShe would then imagine that she looked sickly or unhappy, and then all\nher tenderness would return like a torrent, and bear away all\nreflection. In this manner was her sensibility called forth, and\nexercised, by her mother's illness, her friend's misfortunes, and her\nown unsettled mind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n\nNear to her father's house was a range of mountains; some of them were,\nliterally speaking, cloud-capt, for on them clouds continually rested,\nand gave grandeur to the prospect; and down many of their sides the\nlittle bubbling cascades ran till they swelled a beautiful river.\nThrough the straggling trees and bushes the wind whistled, and on them\nthe birds sung, particularly the robins; they also found shelter in the\nivy of an old castle, a haunted one, as the story went; it was situated\non the brow of one of the mountains, and commanded a view of the sea.\nThis castle had been inhabited by some of her ancestors; and many tales\nhad the old house-keeper told her of the worthies who had resided there.\n\nWhen her mother frowned, and her friend looked cool, she would steal to\nthis retirement, where human foot seldom trod--gaze on the sea, observe\nthe grey clouds, or listen to the wind which struggled to free itself\nfrom the only thing that impeded its course. When more cheerful, she\nadmired the various dispositions of light and shade, the beautiful tints\nthe gleams of sunshine gave to the distant hills; then she rejoiced in\nexistence, and darted into futurity.\n\nOne way home was through the cavity of a rock covered with a thin layer\nof earth, just sufficient to afford nourishment to a few stunted shrubs\nand wild plants, which grew on its sides, and nodded over the summit. A\nclear stream broke out of it, and ran amongst the pieces of rocks\nfallen into it. Here twilight always reigned--it seemed the Temple of\nSolitude; yet, paradoxical as the assertion may appear, when the foot\nsounded on the rock, it terrified the intruder, and inspired a strange\nfeeling, as if the rightful sovereign was dislodged. In this retreat she\nread Thomson's Seasons, Young's Night-Thoughts, and Paradise Lost.\n\nAt a little distance from it were the huts of a few poor fishermen, who\nsupported their numerous children by their precarious labour. In these\nlittle huts she frequently rested, and denied herself every childish\ngratification, in order to relieve the necessities of the inhabitants.\nHer heart yearned for them, and would dance with joy when she had\nrelieved their wants, or afforded them pleasure.\n\nIn these pursuits she learned the luxury of doing good; and the sweet\ntears of benevolence frequently moistened her eyes, and gave them a\nsparkle which, exclusive of that, they had not; on the contrary, they\nwere rather fixed, and would never have been observed if her soul had\nnot animated them. They were not at all like those brilliant ones which\nlook like polished diamonds, and dart from every superfice, giving more\nlight to the beholders than they receive themselves.\n\nHer benevolence, indeed, knew no bounds; the distress of others carried\nher out of herself; and she rested not till she had relieved or\ncomforted them. The warmth of her compassion often made her so diligent,\nthat many things occurred to her, which might have escaped a less\ninterested observer.\n\nIn like manner, she entered with such spirit into whatever she read,\nand the emotions thereby raised were so strong, that it soon became a\npart of her mind.\n\nEnthusiastic sentiments of devotion at this period actuated her; her\nCreator was almost apparent to her senses in his works; but they were\nmostly the grand or solemn features of Nature which she delighted to\ncontemplate. She would stand and behold the waves rolling, and think of\nthe voice that could still the tumultuous deep.\n\nThese propensities gave the colour to her mind, before the passions\nbegan to exercise their tyrannic sway, and particularly pointed out\nthose which the soil would have a tendency to nurse.\n\nYears after, when wandering through the same scenes, her imagination has\nstrayed back, to trace the first placid sentiments they inspired, and\nshe would earnestly desire to regain the same peaceful tranquillity.\n\nMany nights she sat up, if I may be allowed the expression, _conversing_\nwith the Author of Nature, making verses, and singing hymns of her own\ncomposing. She considered also, and tried to discern what end her\nvarious faculties were destined to pursue; and had a glimpse of a truth,\nwhich afterwards more fully unfolded itself.\n\nShe thought that only an infinite being could fill the human soul, and\nthat when other objects were followed as a means of happiness, the\ndelusion led to misery, the consequence of disappointment. Under the\ninfluence of ardent affections, how often has she forgot this\nconviction, and as often returned to it again, when it struck her with\nredoubled force. Often did she taste unmixed delight; her joys, her\necstacies arose from genius.\n\nShe was now fifteen, and she wished to receive the holy sacrament; and\nperusing the scriptures, and discussing some points of doctrine which\npuzzled her, she would sit up half the night, her favourite time for\nemploying her mind; she too plainly perceived that she saw through a\nglass darkly; and that the bounds set to stop our intellectual\nresearches, is one of the trials of a probationary state.\n\nBut her affections were roused by the display of divine mercy; and she\neagerly desired to commemorate the dying love of her great benefactor.\nThe night before the important day, when she was to take on herself her\nbaptismal vow, she could not go to bed; the sun broke in on her\nmeditations, and found her not exhausted by her watching.\n\nThe orient pearls were strewed around--she hailed the morn, and sung\nwith wild delight, Glory to God on high, good will towards men. She was\nindeed so much affected when she joined in the prayer for her eternal\npreservation, that she could hardly conceal her violent emotions; and\nthe recollection never failed to wake her dormant piety when earthly\npassions made it grow languid.\n\nThese various movements of her mind were not commented on, nor were the\nluxuriant shoots restrained by culture. The servants and the poor adored\nher.\n\nIn order to be enabled to gratify herself in the highest degree, she\npracticed the most rigid oeconomy, and had such power over her\nappetites and whims, that without any great effort she conquered them\nso entirely, that when her understanding or affections had an object,\nshe almost forgot she had a body which required nourishment.\n\nThis habit of thinking, this kind of absorption, gave strength to the\npassions.\n\nWe will now enter on the more active field of life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n\nA few months after Mary was turned of seventeen, her brother was\nattacked by a violent fever, and died before his father could reach the\nschool.\n\nShe was now an heiress, and her mother began to think her of\nconsequence, and did not call her _the child_. Proper masters were sent\nfor; she was taught to dance, and an extraordinary master procured to\nperfect her in that most necessary of all accomplishments.\n\nA part of the estate she was to inherit had been litigated, and the heir\nof the person who still carried on a Chancery suit, was only two years\nyounger than our heroine. The fathers, spite of the dispute, frequently\nmet, and, in order to settle it amicably, they one day, over a bottle,\ndetermined to quash it by a marriage, and, by uniting the two estates,\nto preclude all farther enquiries into the merits of their different\nclaims.\n\nWhile this important matter was settling, Mary was otherwise employed.\nAnn's mother's resources were failing; and the ghastly phantom, poverty,\nmade hasty strides to catch them in his clutches. Ann had not fortitude\nenough to brave such accumulated misery; besides, the canker-worm was\nlodged in her heart, and preyed on her health. She denied herself every\nlittle comfort; things that would be no sacrifice when a person is well,\nare absolutely necessary to alleviate bodily pain, and support the\nanimal functions.\n\nThere were many elegant amusements, that she had acquired a relish for,\nwhich might have taken her mind off from its most destructive bent; but\nthese her indigence would not allow her to enjoy: forced then, by way of\nrelaxation, to play the tunes her lover admired, and handle the pencil\nhe taught her to hold, no wonder his image floated on her imagination,\nand that taste invigorated love.\n\nPoverty, and all its inelegant attendants, were in her mother's abode;\nand she, though a good sort of a woman, was not calculated to banish, by\nher trivial, uninteresting chat, the delirium in which her daughter was\nlost.\n\nThis ill-fated love had given a bewitching softness to her manners, a\ndelicacy so truly feminine, that a man of any feeling could not behold\nher without wishing to chase her sorrows away. She was timid and\nirresolute, and rather fond of dissipation; grief only had power to make\nher reflect.\n\nIn every thing it was not the great, but the beautiful, or the pretty,\nthat caught her attention. And in composition, the polish of style, and\nharmony of numbers, interested her much more than the flights of genius,\nor abstracted speculations.\n\nShe often wondered at the books Mary chose, who, though she had a lively\nimagination, would frequently study authors whose works were addressed\nto the understanding. This liking taught her to arrange her thoughts,\nand argue with herself, even when under the influence of the most\nviolent passions.\n\nAnn's misfortunes and ill health were strong ties to bind Mary to her;\nshe wished so continually to have a home to receive her in, that it\ndrove every other desire out of her mind; and, dwelling on the tender\nschemes which compassion and friendship dictated, she longed most\nardently to put them in practice.\n\nFondly as she loved her friend, she did not forget her mother, whose\ndecline was so imperceptible, that they were not aware of her\napproaching dissolution. The physician, however, observing the most\nalarming symptoms; her husband was apprised of her immediate danger; and\nthen first mentioned to her his designs with respect to his daughter.\n\nShe approved of them; Mary was sent for; she was not at home; she had\nrambled to visit Ann, and found her in an hysteric fit. The landlord of\nher little farm had sent his agent for the rent, which had long been due\nto him; and he threatened to seize the stock that still remained, and\nturn them out, if they did not very shortly discharge the arrears.\n\nAs this man made a private fortune by harassing the tenants of the\nperson to whom he was deputy, little was to be expected from his\nforbearance.\n\nAll this was told to Mary--and the mother added, she had many other\ncreditors who would, in all probability, take the alarm, and snatch from\nthem all that had been saved out of the wreck. \"I could bear all,\" she\ncried; \"but what will become of my children? Of this child,\" pointing to\nthe fainting Ann, \"whose constitution is already undermined by care and\ngrief--where will she go?\"--Mary's heart ceased to beat while she asked\nthe question--She attempted to speak; but the inarticulate sounds died\naway. Before she had recovered herself, her father called himself to\nenquire for her; and desired her instantly to accompany him home.\n\nEngrossed by the scene of misery she had been witness to, she walked\nsilently by his side, when he roused her out of her reverie by telling\nher that in all likelihood her mother had not many hours to live; and\nbefore she could return him any answer, informed her that they had both\ndetermined to marry her to Charles, his friend's son; he added, the\nceremony was to be performed directly, that her mother might be witness\nof it; for such a desire she had expressed with childish eagerness.\n\nOverwhelmed by this intelligence, Mary rolled her eyes about, then, with\na vacant stare, fixed them on her father's face; but they were no longer\na sense; they conveyed no ideas to the brain. As she drew near the\nhouse, her wonted presence of mind returned: after this suspension of\nthought, a thousand darted into her mind,--her dying mother,--her\nfriend's miserable situation,--and an extreme horror at taking--at being\nforced to take, such a hasty step; but she did not feel the disgust, the\nreluctance, which arises from a prior attachment.\n\nShe loved Ann better than any one in the world--to snatch her from the\nvery jaws of destruction--she would have encountered a lion. To have\nthis friend constantly with her; to make her mind easy with respect to\nher family, would it not be superlative bliss?\n\nFull of these thoughts she entered her mother's chamber, but they then\nfled at the sight of a dying parent. She went to her, took her hand; it\nfeebly pressed her's. \"My child,\" said the languid mother: the words\nreached her heart; she had seldom heard them pronounced with accents\ndenoting affection; \"My child, I have not always treated you with\nkindness--God forgive me! do you?\"--Mary's tears strayed in a\ndisregarded stream; on her bosom the big drops fell, but did not relieve\nthe fluttering tenant. \"I forgive you!\" said she, in a tone of\nastonishment.\n\nThe clergyman came in to read the service for the sick, and afterwards\nthe marriage ceremony was performed. Mary stood like a statue of\nDespair, and pronounced the awful vow without thinking of it; and then\nran to support her mother, who expired the same night in her arms.\n\nHer husband set off for the continent the same day, with a tutor, to\nfinish his studies at one of the foreign universities.\n\nAnn was sent for to console her, not on account of the departure of her\nnew relation, a boy she seldom took any notice of, but to reconcile her\nto her fate; besides, it was necessary she should have a female\ncompanion, and there was not any maiden aunt in the family, or cousin of\nthe same class.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n\nMary was allowed to pay the rent which gave her so much uneasiness, and\nshe exerted every nerve to prevail on her father effectually to succour\nthe family; but the utmost she could obtain was a small sum very\ninadequate to the purpose, to enable the poor woman to carry into\nexecution a little scheme of industry near the metropolis.\n\nHer intention of leaving that part of the country, had much more weight\nwith him, than Mary's arguments, drawn from motives of philanthropy and\nfriendship; this was a language he did not understand; expressive of\noccult qualities he never thought of, as they could not be seen or\nfelt.\n\nAfter the departure of her mother, Ann still continued to languish,\nthough she had a nurse who was entirely engrossed by the desire of\namusing her. Had her health been re-established, the time would have\npassed in a tranquil, improving manner.\n\nDuring the year of mourning they lived in retirement; music, drawing,\nand reading, filled up the time; and Mary's taste and judgment were both\nimproved by contracting a habit of observation, and permitting the\nsimple beauties of Nature to occupy her thoughts.\n\nShe had a wonderful quickness in discerning distinctions and combining\nideas, that at the first glance did not appear to be similar. But these\nvarious pursuits did not banish all her cares, or carry off all her\nconstitutional black bile. Before she enjoyed Ann's society, she\nimagined it would have made her completely happy: she was disappointed,\nand yet knew not what to complain of.\n\nAs her friend could not accompany her in her walks, and wished to be\nalone, for a very obvious reason, she would return to her old haunts,\nretrace her anticipated pleasures--and wonder how they changed their\ncolour in possession, and proved so futile.\n\nShe had not yet found the companion she looked for. Ann and she were not\ncongenial minds, nor did she contribute to her comfort in the degree she\nexpected. She shielded her from poverty; but this was only a negative\nblessing; when under the pressure it was very grievous, and still more\nso were the apprehensions; but when exempt from them, she was not\ncontented.\n\nSuch is human nature, its laws were not to be inverted to gratify our\nheroine, and stop the progress of her understanding, happiness only\nflourished in paradise--we cannot taste and live.\n\nAnother year passed away with increasing apprehensions. Ann had a hectic\ncough, and many unfavourable prognostics: Mary then forgot every thing\nbut the fear of losing her, and even imagined that her recovery would\nhave made her happy.\n\nHer anxiety led her to study physic, and for some time she only read\nbooks of that cast; and this knowledge, literally speaking, ended in\nvanity and vexation of spirit, as it enabled her to foresee what she\ncould not prevent.\n\nAs her mind expanded, her marriage appeared a dreadful misfortune; she\nwas sometimes reminded of the heavy yoke, and bitter was the\nrecollection!\n\nIn one thing there seemed to be a sympathy between them, for she wrote\nformal answers to his as formal letters. An extreme dislike took root in\nher mind; the found of his name made her turn sick; but she forgot all,\nlistening to Ann's cough, and supporting her languid frame. She would\nthen catch her to her bosom with convulsive eagerness, as if to save her\nfrom sinking into an opening grave.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n\nIt was the will of Providence that Mary should experience almost every\nspecies of sorrow. Her father was thrown from his horse, when his blood\nwas in a very inflammatory state, and the bruises were very dangerous;\nhis recovery was not expected by the physical tribe.\n\nTerrified at seeing him so near death, and yet so ill prepared for it,\nhis daughter sat by his bed, oppressed by the keenest anguish, which her\npiety increased.\n\nHer grief had nothing selfish in it; he was not a friend or protector;\nbut he was her father, an unhappy wretch, going into eternity, depraved\nand thoughtless. Could a life of sensuality be a preparation for a\npeaceful death? Thus meditating, she passed the still midnight hour by\nhis bedside.\n\nThe nurse fell asleep, nor did a violent thunder storm interrupt her\nrepose, though it made the night appear still more terrific to Mary. Her\nfather's unequal breathing alarmed her, when she heard a long drawn\nbreath, she feared it was his last, and watching for another, a dreadful\npeal of thunder struck her ears. Considering the separation of the soul\nand body, this night seemed sadly solemn, and the hours long.\n\nDeath is indeed a king of terrors when he attacks the vicious man! The\ncompassionate heart finds not any comfort; but dreads an eternal\nseparation. No transporting greetings are anticipated, when the\nsurvivors also shall have finished their course; but all is black!--the\ngrave may truly be said to receive the departed--this is the sting of\ndeath!\n\nNight after night Mary watched, and this excessive fatigue impaired her\nown health, but had a worse effect on Ann; though she constantly went to\nbed, she could not rest; a number of uneasy thoughts obtruded\nthemselves; and apprehensions about Mary, whom she loved as well as her\nexhausted heart could love, harassed her mind. After a sleepless,\nfeverish night she had a violent fit of coughing, and burst a\nblood-vessel. The physician, who was in the house, was sent for, and\nwhen he left the patient, Mary, with an authoritative voice, insisted on\nknowing his real opinion. Reluctantly he gave it, that her friend was in\na critical state; and if she passed the approaching winter in England,\nhe imagined she would die in the spring; a season fatal to consumptive\ndisorders. The spring!--Her husband was then expected.--Gracious Heaven,\ncould she bear all this.\n\nIn a few days her father breathed his last. The horrid sensations his\ndeath occasioned were too poignant to be durable: and Ann's danger, and\nher own situation, made Mary deliberate what mode of conduct she should\npursue. She feared this event might hasten the return of her husband,\nand prevent her putting into execution a plan she had determined on. It\nwas to accompany Ann to a more salubrious climate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n\nI mentioned before, that Mary had never had any particular attachment,\nto give rise to the disgust that daily gained ground. Her friendship for\nAnn occupied her heart, and resembled a passion. She had had, indeed,\nseveral transient likings; but they did not amount to love. The society\nof men of genius delighted her, and improved her faculties. With beings\nof this class she did not often meet; it is a rare genus; her first\nfavourites were men past the meridian of life, and of a philosophic\nturn.\n\nDetermined on going to the South of France, or Lisbon; she wrote to the\nman she had promised to obey. The physicians had said change of air was\nnecessary for her as well as her friend. She mentioned this, and added,\n\"Her comfort, almost her existence, depended on the recovery of the\ninvalid she wished to attend; and that should she neglect to follow the\nmedical advice she had received, she should never forgive herself, or\nthose who endeavoured to prevent her.\" Full of her design, she wrote\nwith more than usual freedom; and this letter was like most of her\nothers, a transcript of her heart.\n\n\"This dear friend,\" she exclaimed, \"I love for her agreeable qualities,\nand substantial virtues. Continual attention to her health, and the\ntender office of a nurse, have created an affection very like a maternal\none--I am her only support, she leans on me--could I forsake the\nforsaken, and break the bruised reed--No--I would die first! I must--I\nwill go.\"\n\nShe would have added, \"you would very much oblige me by consenting;\" but\nher heart revolted--and irresolutely she wrote something about wishing\nhim happy.--\"Do I not wish all the world well?\" she cried, as she\nsubscribed her name--It was blotted, the letter sealed in a hurry, and\nsent out of her sight; and she began to prepare for her journey.\n\nBy the return of the post she received an answer; it contained some\ncommon-place remarks on her romantic friendship, as he termed it; \"But\nas the physicians advised change of air, he had no objection.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n\nThere was nothing now to retard their journey; and Mary chose Lisbon\nrather than France, on account of its being further removed from the\nonly person she wished not to see.\n\nThey set off accordingly for Falmouth, in their way to that city. The\njourney was of use to Ann, and Mary's spirits were raised by her\nrecovered looks--She had been in despair--now she gave way to hope, and\nwas intoxicated with it. On ship-board Ann always remained in the cabin;\nthe sight of the water terrified her: on the contrary, Mary, after she\nwas gone to bed, or when she fell asleep in the day, went on deck,\nconversed with the sailors, and surveyed the boundless expanse before\nher with delight. One instant she would regard the ocean, the next the\nbeings who braved its fury. Their insensibility and want of fear, she\ncould not name courage; their thoughtless mirth was quite of an animal\nkind, and their feelings as impetuous and uncertain as the element they\nplowed.\n\nThey had only been a week at sea when they hailed the rock of Lisbon,\nand the next morning anchored at the castle. After the customary visits,\nthey were permitted to go on shore, about three miles from the city; and\nwhile one of the crew, who understood the language, went to procure them\none of the ugly carriages peculiar to the country, they waited in the\nIrish convent, which is situated close to the Tagus.\n\nSome of the people offered to conduct them into the church, where there\nwas a fine organ playing; Mary followed them, but Ann preferred staying\nwith a nun she had entered into conversation with.\n\nOne of the nuns, who had a sweet voice, was singing; Mary was struck\nwith awe; her heart joined in the devotion; and tears of gratitude and\ntenderness flowed from her eyes. My Father, I thank thee! burst from\nher--words were inadequate to express her feelings. Silently, she\nsurveyed the lofty dome; heard unaccustomed sounds; and saw faces,\nstrange ones, that she could not yet greet with fraternal love.\n\nIn an unknown land, she considered that the Being she adored inhabited\neternity, was ever present in unnumbered worlds. When she had not any\none she loved near her, she was particularly sensible of the presence\nof her Almighty Friend.\n\nThe arrival of the carriage put a stop to her speculations; it was to\nconduct them to an hotel, fitted up for the reception of invalids.\nUnfortunately, before they could reach it there was a violent shower of\nrain; and as the wind was very high, it beat against the leather\ncurtains, which they drew along the front of the vehicle, to shelter\nthemselves from it; but it availed not, some of the rain forced its way,\nand Ann felt the effects of it, for she caught cold, spite of Mary's\nprecautions.\n\nAs is the custom, the rest of the invalids, or lodgers, sent to enquire\nafter their health; and as soon as Ann left her chamber, in which her\ncomplaints seldom confined her the whole day, they came in person to pay\ntheir compliments. Three fashionable females, and two gentlemen; the\none a brother of the eldest of the young ladies, and the other an\ninvalid, who came, like themselves, for the benefit of the air. They\nentered into conversation immediately.\n\nPeople who meet in a strange country, and are all together in a house,\nsoon get acquainted, without the formalities which attend visiting in\nseparate houses, where they are surrounded by domestic friends. Ann was\nparticularly delighted at meeting with agreeable society; a little\nhectic fever generally made her low-spirited in the morning, and lively\nin the evening, when she wished for company. Mary, who only thought of\nher, determined to cultivate their acquaintance, as she knew, that if\nher mind could be diverted, her body might gain strength.\n\nThey were all musical, and proposed having little concerts. One of the\ngentlemen played on the violin, and the other on the german-flute. The\ninstruments were brought in, with all the eagerness that attends putting\na new scheme in execution.\n\nMary had not said much, for she was diffident; she seldom joined in\ngeneral conversations; though her quickness of penetration enabled her\nsoon to enter into the characters of those she conversed with; and her\nsensibility made her desirous of pleasing every human creature. Besides,\nif her mind was not occupied by any particular sorrow, or study, she\ncaught reflected pleasure, and was glad to see others happy, though\ntheir mirth did not interest her.\n\nThis day she was continually thinking of Ann's recovery, and encouraging\nthe cheerful hopes, which though they dissipated the spirits that had\nbeen condensed by melancholy, yet made her wish to be silent. The music,\nmore than the conversation, disturbed her reflections; but not at first.\nThe gentleman who played on the german-flute, was a handsome, well-bred,\nsensible man; and his observations, if not original, were pertinent.\n\nThe other, who had not said much, began to touch the violin, and played\na little Scotch ballad; he brought such a thrilling sound out of the\ninstrument, that Mary started, and looking at him with more attention\nthan she had done before, and saw, in a face rather ugly, strong lines\nof genius. His manners were awkward, that kind of awkwardness which is\noften found in literary men: he seemed a thinker, and delivered his\nopinions in elegant expressions, and musical tones of voice.\n\nWhen the concert was over, they all retired to their apartments. Mary\nalways slept with Ann, as she was subject to terrifying dreams; and\nfrequently in the night was obliged to be supported, to avoid\nsuffocation. They chatted about their new acquaintance in their own\napartment, and, with respect to the gentlemen, differed in opinion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n\nEvery day almost they saw their new acquaintance; and civility produced\nintimacy. Mary sometimes left her friend with them; while she indulged\nherself in viewing new modes of life, and searching out the causes which\nproduced them. She had a metaphysical turn, which inclined her to\nreflect on every object that passed by her; and her mind was not like a\nmirror, which receives every floating image, but does not retain them:\nshe had not any prejudices, for every opinion was examined before it was\nadopted.\n\nThe Roman Catholic ceremonies attracted her attention, and gave rise to\nconversations when they all met; and one of the gentlemen continually\nintroduced deistical notions, when he ridiculed the pageantry they all\nwere surprised at observing. Mary thought of both the subjects, the\nRomish tenets, and the deistical doubts; and though not a sceptic,\nthought it right to examine the evidence on which her faith was built.\nShe read Butler's Analogy, and some other authors: and these researches\nmade her a christian from conviction, and she learned charity,\nparticularly with respect to sectaries; saw that apparently good and\nsolid arguments might take their rise from different points of view; and\nshe rejoiced to find that those she should not concur with had some\nreason on their side.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n\nWhen I mentioned the three ladies, I said they were fashionable women;\nand it was all the praise, as a faithful historian, I could bestow on\nthem; the only thing in which they were consistent. I forgot to mention\nthat they were all of one family, a mother, her daughter, and niece. The\ndaughter was sent by her physician, to avoid a northerly winter; the\nmother, her niece, and nephew, accompanied her.\n\nThey were people of rank; but unfortunately, though of an ancient\nfamily, the title had descended to a very remote branch--a branch they\ntook care to be intimate with; and servilely copied the Countess's\nairs. Their minds were shackled with a set of notions concerning\npropriety, the fitness of things for the world's eye, trammels which\nalways hamper weak people. What will the world say? was the first thing\nthat was thought of, when they intended doing any thing they had not\ndone before. Or what would the Countess do on such an occasion? And when\nthis question was answered, the right or wrong was discovered without\nthe trouble of their having any idea of the matter in their own heads.\nThis same Countess was a fine planet, and the satellites observed a most\nharmonic dance around her.\n\nAfter this account it is scarcely necessary to add, that their minds had\nreceived very little cultivation. They were taught French, Italian, and\nSpanish; English was their vulgar tongue. And what did they learn?\nHamlet will tell you--words--words. But let me not forget that they\nsqualled Italian songs in the true _gusto_. Without having any seeds\nsown in their understanding, or the affections of the heart set to work,\nthey were brought out of their nursery, or the place they were secluded\nin, to prevent their faces being common; like blazing stars, to\ncaptivate Lords.\n\nThey were pretty, and hurrying from one party of pleasure to another,\noccasioned the disorder which required change of air. The mother, if we\nexcept her being near twenty years older, was just the same creature;\nand these additional years only served to make her more tenaciously\nadhere to her habits of folly, and decide with stupid gravity, some\ntrivial points of ceremony, as a matter of the last importance; of\nwhich she was a competent judge, from having lived in the fashionable\nworld so long: that world to which the ignorant look up as we do to the\nsun.\n\nIt appears to me that every creature has some notion--or rather relish,\nof the sublime. Riches, and the consequent state, are the sublime of\nweak minds:--These images fill, nay, are too big for their narrow souls.\n\nOne afternoon, which they had engaged to spend together, Ann was so ill,\nthat Mary was obliged to send an apology for not attending the\ntea-table. The apology brought them on the carpet; and the mother, with\na look of solemn importance, turned to the sick man, whose name was\nHenry, and said;\n\n\"Though people of the first fashion are frequently at places of this\nkind, intimate with they know not who; yet I do not choose that my\ndaughter, whose family is so respectable, should be intimate with any\none she would blush to know elsewhere. It is only on that account, for I\nnever suffer her to be with any one but in my company,\" added she,\nsitting more erect; and a smile of self-complacency dressed her\ncountenance.\n\n\"I have enquired concerning these strangers, and find that the one who\nhas the most dignity in her manners, is really a woman of fortune.\"\n\"Lord, mamma, how ill she dresses:\" mamma went on; \"She is a romantic\ncreature, you must not copy her, miss; yet she is an heiress of the\nlarge fortune in ----shire, of which you may remember to have heard the\nCountess speak the night you had on the dancing-dress that was so much\nadmired; but she is married.\"\n\nShe then told them the whole story as she heard it from her maid, who\npicked it out of Mary's servant. \"She is a foolish creature, and this\nfriend that she pays as much attention to as if she was a lady of\nquality, is a beggar.\" \"Well, how strange!\" cried the girls.\n\n\"She is, however, a charming creature,\" said her nephew. Henry sighed,\nand strode across the room once or twice; then took up his violin, and\nplayed the air which first struck Mary; he had often heard her praise\nit.\n\nThe music was uncommonly melodious, \"And came stealing on the senses\nlike the sweet south.\" The well-known sounds reached Mary as she sat by\nher friend--she listened without knowing that she did--and shed tears\nalmost without being conscious of it. Ann soon fell asleep, as she had\ntaken an opiate. Mary, then brooding over her fears, began to imagine\nshe had deceived herself--Ann was still very ill; hope had beguiled many\nheavy hours; yet she was displeased with herself for admitting this\nwelcome guest.--And she worked up her mind to such a degree of anxiety,\nthat she determined, once more, to seek medical aid.\n\nNo sooner did she determine, than she ran down with a discomposed look,\nto enquire of the ladies who she should send for. When she entered the\nroom she could not articulate her fears--it appeared like pronouncing\nAnn's sentence of death; her faultering tongue dropped some broken\nwords, and she remained silent. The ladies wondered that a person of her\nsense should be so little mistress of herself; and began to administer\nsome common-place comfort, as, that it was our duty to submit to the\nwill of Heaven, and the like trite consolations, which Mary did not\nanswer; but waving her hand, with an air of impatience, she exclaimed,\n\"I cannot live without her!--I have no other friend; if I lose her, what\na desart will the world be to me.\" \"No other friend,\" re-echoed they,\n\"have you not a husband?\"\n\nMary shrunk back, and was alternately pale and red. A delicate sense of\npropriety prevented her replying; and recalled her bewildered\nreason.--Assuming, in consequence of her recollection, a more composed\nmanner, she made the intended enquiry, and left the room. Henry's eyes\nfollowed her while the females very freely animadverted on her strange\nbehaviour.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\n\nThe physician was sent for; his prescription afforded Ann a little\ntemporary relief; and they again joined the circle. Unfortunately, the\nweather happened to be constantly wet for more than a week, and confined\nthem to the house. Ann then found the ladies not so agreeable; when they\nsat whole hours together, the thread-bare topics were exhausted; and,\nbut for cards or music, the long evenings would have been yawned away in\nlistless indolence.\n\nThe bad weather had had as ill an effect on Henry as on Ann. He was\nfrequently very thoughtful, or rather melancholy; this melancholy would\nof itself have attracted Mary's notice, if she had not found his\nconversation so infinitely superior to the rest of the group. When she\nconversed with him, all the faculties of her soul unfolded themselves;\ngenius animated her expressive countenance and the most graceful,\nunaffected gestures gave energy to her discourse.\n\nThey frequently discussed very important subjects, while the rest were\nsinging or playing cards, nor were they observed for doing so, as Henry,\nwhom they all were pleased with, in the way of gallantry shewed them all\nmore attention than her. Besides, as there was nothing alluring in her\ndress or manner, they never dreamt of her being preferred to them.\n\nHenry was a man of learning; he had also studied mankind, and knew many\nof the intricacies of the human heart, from having felt the infirmities\nof his own. His taste was just, as it had a standard--Nature, which he\nobserved with a critical eye. Mary could not help thinking that in his\ncompany her mind expanded, as he always went below the surface. She\nincreased her stock of ideas, and her taste was improved.\n\nHe was also a pious man; his rational religious sentiments received\nwarmth from his sensibility; and, except on very particular occasions,\nkept it in proper bounds; these sentiments had likewise formed his\ntemper; he was gentle, and easily to be intreated. The ridiculous\nceremonies they were every day witness to, led them into what are termed\ngrave subjects, and made him explain his opinions, which, at other\ntimes, he was neither ashamed of, nor unnecessarily brought forward to\nnotice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIII.\n\n\nWhen the weather began to clear up, Mary sometimes rode out alone,\npurposely to view the ruins that still remained of the earthquake: or\nshe would ride to the banks of the Tagus, to feast her eyes with the\nsight of that magnificent river. At other times she would visit the\nchurches, as she was particularly fond of seeing historical paintings.\n\nOne of these visits gave rise to the subject, and the whole party\ndescanted on it; but as the ladies could not handle it well, they soon\nadverted to portraits; and talked of the attitudes and characters in\nwhich they should wish to be drawn. Mary did not fix on one--when\nHenry, with more apparent warmth than usual, said, \"I would give the\nworld for your picture, with the expression I have seen in your face,\nwhen you have been supporting your friend.\"\n\nThis delicate compliment did not gratify her vanity, but it reached her\nheart. She then recollected that she had once sat for her picture--for\nwhom was it designed? For a boy! Her cheeks flushed with indignation, so\nstrongly did she feel an emotion of contempt at having been thrown\naway--given in with an estate.\n\nAs Mary again gave way to hope, her mind was more disengaged; and her\nthoughts were employed about the objects around her.\n\nShe visited several convents, and found that solitude only eradicates\nsome passions, to give strength to others; the most baneful ones. She\nsaw that religion does not consist in ceremonies; and that many prayers\nmay fall from the lips without purifying the heart.\n\nThey who imagine they can be religious without governing their tempers,\nor exercising benevolence in its most extensive sense, must certainly\nallow, that their religious duties are only practiced from selfish\nprinciples; how then can they be called good? The pattern of all\ngoodness went about _doing_ good. Wrapped up in themselves, the nuns\nonly thought of inferior gratifications. And a number of intrigues were\ncarried on to accelerate certain points on which their hearts were\nfixed:\n\nSuch as obtaining offices of trust or authority; or avoiding those that\nwere servile or laborious. In short, when they could be neither wives\nnor mothers, they aimed at being superiors, and became the most selfish\ncreatures in the world: the passions that were curbed gave strength to\nthe appetites, or to those mean passions which only tend to provide for\nthe gratification of them. Was this seclusion from the world? or did\nthey conquer its vanities or avoid its vexations?\n\nIn these abodes the unhappy individual, who, in the first paroxysm of\ngrief flies to them for refuge, finds too late she took a wrong step.\nThe same warmth which determined her will make her repent; and sorrow,\nthe rust of the mind, will never have a chance of being rubbed off by\nsensible conversation, or new-born affections of the heart.\n\nShe will find that those affections that have once been called forth and\nstrengthened by exercise, are only smothered, not killed, by\ndisappointment; and that in one form or other discontent will corrode\nthe heart, and produce those maladies of the imagination, for which\nthere is no specific.\n\nThe community at large Mary disliked; but pitied many of them whose\nprivate distresses she was informed of; and to pity and relieve were the\nsame things with her.\n\nThe exercise of her various virtues gave vigor to her genius, and\ndignity to her mind; she was sometimes inconsiderate, and violent; but\nnever mean or cunning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIV.\n\n\nThe Portuguese are certainly the most uncivilized nation in Europe. Dr.\nJohnson would have said, \"They have the least mind.\". And can such serve\ntheir Creator in spirit and in truth? No, the gross ritual of Romish\nceremonies is all they can comprehend: they can do penance, but not\nconquer their revenge, or lust. Religion, or love, has never humanized\ntheir hearts; they want the vital part; the mere body worships. Taste is\nunknown; Gothic finery, and unnatural decorations, which they term\nornaments, are conspicuous in their churches and dress. Reverence for\nmental excellence is only to be found in a polished nation.\n\nCould the contemplation of such a people gratify Mary's heart? No: she\nturned disgusted from the prospects--turned to a man of refinement.\nHenry had been some time ill and low-spirited; Mary would have been\nattentive to any one in that situation; but to him she was particularly\nso; she thought herself bound in gratitude, on account of his constant\nendeavours to amuse Ann, and prevent her dwelling on the dreary prospect\nbefore her, which sometimes she could not help anticipating with a kind\nof quiet despair.\n\nShe found some excuse for going more frequently into the room they all\nmet in; nay, she avowed her desire to amuse him: offered to read to him,\nand tried to draw him into amusing conversations; and when she was full\nof these little schemes, she looked at him with a degree of tenderness\nthat she was not conscious of. This divided attention was of use to her,\nand prevented her continually thinking of Ann, whose fluctuating\ndisorder often gave rise to false hopes.\n\nA trifling thing occurred now which occasioned Mary some uneasiness. Her\nmaid, a well-looking girl, had captivated the clerk of a neighbouring\ncompting-house. As the match was an advantageous one, Mary could not\nraise any objection to it, though at this juncture it was very\ndisagreeable to her to have a stranger about her person. However, the\ngirl consented to delay the marriage, as she had some affection for her\nmistress; and, besides, looked forward to Ann's death as a time of\nharvest.\n\nHenry's illness was not alarming, it was rather pleasing, as it gave\nMary an excuse to herself for shewing him how much she was interested\nabout him; and giving little artless proofs of affection, which the\npurity of her heart made her never wish to restrain.\n\nThe only visible return he made was not obvious to common observers. He\nwould sometimes fix his eyes on her, and take them off with a sigh that\nwas coughed away; or when he was leisurely walking into the room, and\ndid not expect to see her, he would quicken his steps, and come up to\nher with eagerness to ask some trivial question. In the same style, he\nwould try to detain her when he had nothing to say--or said nothing.\n\nAnn did not take notice of either his or Mary's behaviour, nor did she\nsuspect that he was a favourite, on any other account than his\nappearing neither well nor happy. She had often seen that when a person\nwas unfortunate, Mary's pity might easily be mistaken for love, and,\nindeed, it was a temporary sensation of that kind. Such it was--why it\nwas so, let others define, I cannot argue against instincts. As reason\nis cultivated in man, they are supposed to grow weaker, and this may\nhave given rise to the assertion, \"That as judgment improves, genius\nevaporates.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XV.\n\n\nOne morning they set out to visit the aqueduct; though the day was very\nfine when they left home, a very heavy shower fell before they reached\nit; they lengthened their ride, the clouds dispersed, and the sun came\nfrom behind them uncommonly bright.\n\nMary would fain have persuaded Ann not to have left the carriage; but\nshe was in spirits, and obviated all her objections, and insisted on\nwalking, tho' the ground was damp. But her strength was not equal to her\nspirits; she was soon obliged to return to the carriage so much\nfatigued, that she fainted, and remained insensible a long time.\n\nHenry would have supported her; but Mary would not permit him; her\nrecollection was instantaneous, and she feared sitting on the damp\nground might do him a material injury: she was on that account positive,\nthough the company did not guess the cause of her being so. As to\nherself, she did not fear bodily pain; and, when her mind was agitated,\nshe could endure the greatest fatigue without appearing sensible of it.\n\nWhen Ann recovered, they returned slowly home; she was carried to bed,\nand the next morning Mary thought she observed a visible change for the\nworse. The physician was sent for, who pronounced her to be in the most\nimminent danger.\n\nAll Mary's former fears now returned like a torrent, and carried every\nother care away; she even added to her present anguish by upbraiding\nherself for her late tranquillity--it haunted her in the form of a\ncrime.\n\nThe disorder made the most rapid advances--there was no hope!--Bereft of\nit, Mary again was tranquil; but it was a very different kind of\ntranquillity. She stood to brave the approaching storm, conscious she\nonly could be overwhelmed by it.\n\nShe did not think of Henry, or if her thoughts glanced towards him, it\nwas only to find fault with herself for suffering a thought to have\nstrayed from Ann.--Ann!--this dear friend was soon torn from her--she\ndied suddenly as Mary was assisting her to walk across the room.--The\nfirst string was severed from her heart--and this \"slow, sudden-death\"\ndisturbed her reasoning faculties; she seemed stunned by it; unable to\nreflect, or even to feel her misery.\n\nThe body was stolen out of the house the second night, and Mary refused\nto see her former companions. She desired her maid to conclude her\nmarriage, and request her intended husband to inform her when the first\nmerchantman was to leave the port, as the packet had just sailed, and\nshe determined not to stay in that hated place any longer than was\nabsolutely necessary.\n\nShe then sent to request the ladies to visit her; she wished to avoid a\nparade of grief--her sorrows were her own, and appeared to her not to\nadmit of increase or softening. She was right; the sight of them did not\naffect her, or turn the stream of her sullen sorrow; the black wave\nrolled along in the same course, it was equal to her where she cast her\neyes; all was impenetrable gloom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVI.\n\n\nSoon after the ladies left her, she received a message from Henry,\nrequesting, as she saw company, to be permitted to visit her: she\nconsented, and he entered immediately, with an unassured pace. She ran\neagerly up to him--saw the tear trembling in his eye, and his\ncountenance softened by the tenderest compassion; the hand which pressed\nhers seemed that of a fellow-creature. She burst into tears; and, unable\nto restrain them, she hid her face with both her hands; these tears\nrelieved her, (she had before had a difficulty in breathing,) and she\nsat down by him more composed than she had appeared since Ann's death;\nbut her conversation was incoherent.\n\nShe called herself \"a poor disconsolate creature!\"--\"Mine is a selfish\ngrief,\" she exclaimed--\"Yet; Heaven is my witness, I do not wish her\nback now she has reached those peaceful mansions, where the weary rest.\nHer pure spirit is happy; but what a wretch am I!\"\n\nHenry forgot his cautious reserve. \"Would you allow me to call you\nfriend?\" said he in a hesitating voice. \"I feel, dear girl, the tendered\ninterest in whatever concerns thee.\" His eyes spoke the rest. They were\nboth silent a few moments; then Henry resumed the conversation. \"I have\nalso been acquainted with grief! I mourn the loss of a woman who was not\nworthy of my regard. Let me give thee some account of the man who now\nsolicits thy friendship; and who, from motives of the purest\nbenevolence, wishes to give comfort to thy wounded heart.\"\n\n\"I have myself,\" said he, mournfully, \"shaken hands with happiness, and\nam dead to the world; I wait patiently for my dissolution; but, for\nthee, Mary, there may be many bright days in store.\"\n\n\"Impossible,\" replied she, in a peevish tone, as if he had insulted her\nby the supposition; her feelings were so much in unison with his, that\nshe was in love with misery.\n\nHe smiled at her impatience, and went on. \"My father died before I knew\nhim, and my mother was so attached to my eldest brother, that she took\nvery little pains to fit me for the profession to which I was destined:\nand, may I tell thee, I left my family, and, in many different stations,\nrambled about the world; saw mankind in every rank of life; and, in\norder to be independent, exerted those talents Nature has given me:\nthese exertions improved my understanding; and the miseries I was\nwitness to, gave a keener edge to my sensibility. My constitution is\nnaturally weak; and, perhaps, two or three lingering disorders in my\nyouth, first gave me a habit of reflecting, and enabled me to obtain\nsome dominion over my passions. At least,\" added he, stifling a sigh,\n\"over the violent ones, though I fear, refinement and reflection only\nrenders the tender ones more tyrannic.\n\n\"I have told you already I have been in love, and disappointed--the\nobject is now no more; let her faults sleep with her! Yet this passion\nhas pervaded my whole soul, and mixed itself with all my affections and\npursuits.--I am not peacefully indifferent; yet it is only to my violin\nI tell the sorrows I now confide with thee. The object I loved forfeited\nmy esteem; yet, true to the sentiment, my fancy has too frequently\ndelighted to form a creature that I could love, that could convey to my\nsoul sensations which the gross part of mankind have not any conception\nof.\"\n\nHe stopped, as Mary seemed lost in thought; but as she was still in a\nlistening attitude, continued his little narrative. \"I kept up an\nirregular correspondence with my mother; my brother's extravagance and\ningratitude had almost broken her heart, and made her feel something\nlike a pang of remorse, on account of her behaviour to me. I hastened to\ncomfort her--and was a comfort to her.\n\n\"My declining health prevented my taking orders, as I had intended; but\nI with warmth entered into literary pursuits; perhaps my heart, not\nhaving an object, made me embrace the substitute with more eagerness.\nBut, do not imagine I have always been a die-away swain. No: I have\nfrequented the cheerful haunts of men, and wit!--enchanting wit! has\nmade many moments fly free from care. I am too fond of the elegant arts;\nand woman--lovely woman! thou hast charmed me, though, perhaps, it would\nnot be easy to find one to whom my reason would allow me to be constant.\n\n\"I have now only to tell you, that my mother insisted on my spending\nthis winter in a warmer climate; and I fixed on Lisbon, as I had before\nvisited the Continent.\" He then looked Mary full in the face; and, with\nthe most insinuating accents, asked \"if he might hope for her\nfriendship? If she would rely on him as if he was her father; and that\nthe tenderest father could not more anxiously interest himself in the\nfate of a darling child, than he did in her's.\"\n\nSuch a crowd of thoughts all at once rushed into Mary's mind, that she\nin vain attempted to express the sentiments which were most predominant.\nHer heart longed to receive a new guest; there was a void in it:\naccustomed to have some one to love, she was alone, and comfortless, if\nnot engrossed by a particular affection.\n\nHenry saw her distress, and not to increase it, left the room. He had\nexerted himself to turn her thoughts into a new channel, and had\nsucceeded; she thought of him till she began to chide herself for\ndefrauding the dead, and, determining to grieve for Ann, she dwelt on\nHenry's misfortunes and ill health; and the interest he took in her fate\nwas a balm to her sick mind. She did not reason on the subject; but she\nfelt he was attached to her: lost in this delirium, she never asked\nherself what kind of an affection she had for him, or what it tended to;\nnor did she know that love and friendship are very distinct; she thought\nwith rapture, that there was one person in the world who had an\naffection for her, and that person she admired--had a friendship for.\n\nHe had called her his dear girl; the words might have fallen from him by\naccident; but they did not fall to the ground. My child! His child,\nwhat an association of ideas! If I had had a father, such a father!--She\ncould not dwell on the thoughts, the wishes which obtruded themselves.\nHer mind was unhinged, and passion unperceived filled her whole soul.\nLost, in waking dreams, she considered and reconsidered Henry's account\nof himself; till she actually thought she would tell Ann--a bitter\nrecollection then roused her out of her reverie; and aloud she begged\nforgiveness of her.\n\nBy these kind of conflicts the day was lengthened; and when she went to\nbed, the night passed away in feverish slumbers; though they did not\nrefresh her, she was spared the labour of thinking, of restraining her\nimagination; it sported uncontrouled; but took its colour from her\nwaking train of thoughts. One instant she was supporting her dying\nmother; then Ann was breathing her last, and Henry was comforting her.\n\nThe unwelcome light visited her languid eyes; yet, I must tell the\ntruth, she thought she should see Henry, and this hope set her spirits\nin motion: but they were quickly depressed by her maid, who came to tell\nher that she had heard of a vessel on board of which she could be\naccommodated, and that there was to be another female passenger on\nboard, a vulgar one; but perhaps she would be more useful on that\naccount--Mary did not want a companion.\n\nAs she had given orders for her passage to be engaged in the first\nvessel that sailed, she could not now retract; and must prepare for the\nlonely voyage, as the Captain intended taking advantage of the first\nfair wind. She had too much strength of mind to waver in her\ndetermination but to determine wrung her very heart, opened all her old\nwounds, and made them bleed afresh. What was she to do? where go? Could\nshe set a seal to a hasty vow, and tell a deliberate lie; promise to\nlove one man, when the image of another was ever present to her--her\nsoul revolted. \"I might gain the applause of the world by such mock\nheroism; but should I not forfeit my own? forfeit thine, my father!\"\n\nThere is a solemnity in the shortest ejaculation, which, for a while,\nstills the tumult of passion. Mary's mind had been thrown off its poise;\nher devotion had been, perhaps, more fervent for some time past; but\nless regular. She forgot that happiness was not to be found on earth,\nand built a terrestrial paradise liable to be destroyed by the first\nserious thought: when, she reasoned she became inexpressibly sad, to\nrender life bearable she gave way to fancy--this was madness.\n\nIn a few days she must again go to sea; the weather was very\ntempestuous--what of that, the tempest in her soul rendered every other\ntrifling--it was not the contending elements, but _herself_ she feared!\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVII.\n\n\nIn order to gain strength to support the expected interview, she went\nout in a carriage. The day was fine; but all nature was to her a\nuniversal blank; she could neither enjoy it, nor weep that she could\nnot. She passed by the ruins of an old monastery on a very high hill she\ngot out to walk amongst the ruins; the wind blew violently, she did not\navoid its fury, on the contrary, wildly bid it blow on, and seemed glad\nto contend with it, or rather walk against it. Exhausted she returned to\nthe carriage was soon at home, and in the old room.\n\nHenry started at the sight of her altered appearance; the day before her\ncomplexion had been of the most pallid hue; but now her cheeks were\nflushed, and her eyes enlivened with a false vivacity, an unusual fire.\nHe was not well, his illness was apparent in his countenance, and he\nowned he had not closed his eyes all night; this roused her dormant\ntenderness, she forgot they were so soon to part-engrossed by the\npresent happiness of seeing, of hearing him.\n\nOnce or twice she essayed to tell him that she was, in a few days, to\ndepart; but she could not; she was irresolute; it will do to-morrow;\nshould the wind change they could not sail in such a hurry; thus she\nthought, and insensibly grew more calm. The Ladies prevailed on her to\nspend the evening with them; but she retired very early to rest, and sat\non the side of her bed several hours, then threw herself on it, and\nwaited for the dreaded to-morrow.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVIII.\n\n\nThe ladies heard that her servant was to be married that day, and that\nshe was to sail in the vessel which was then clearing out at the\nCustom-house. Henry heard, but did not make any remarks; and Mary called\nup all her fortitude to support her, and enable her to hide from the\nfemales her internal struggles. She durst not encounter Henry's glances\nwhen she found he had been informed of her intention; and, trying to\ndraw a veil over her wretched state of mind, she talked incessantly, she\nknew not what; flashes of wit burst from her, and when she began to\nlaugh she could not stop herself.\n\nHenry smiled at some of her sallies, and looked at her with such\nbenignity and compassion, that he recalled her scattered thoughts; and,\nthe ladies going to dress for dinner, they were left alone; and remained\nsilent a few moments: after the noisy conversation it appeared solemn.\nHenry began. \"You are going, Mary, and going by yourself; your mind is\nnot in a state to be left to its own operations--yet I cannot, dissuade\nyou; if I attempted to do it, I should ill deserve the title I wish to\nmerit. I only think of your happiness; could I obey the strongest\nimpulse of my heart, I should accompany thee to England; but such a step\nmight endanger your future peace.\"\n\nMary, then, with all the frankness which marked her character, explained\nher situation to him and mentioned her fatal tie with such disgust that\nhe trembled for her. \"I cannot see him; he is not the man formed for me\nto love!\" Her delicacy did not restrain her, for her dislike to her\nhusband had taken root in her mind long before she knew Henry. Did she\nnot fix on Lisbon rather than France on purpose to avoid him? and if Ann\nhad been in tolerable health she would have flown with her to some\nremote corner to have escaped from him.\n\n\"I intend,\" said Henry, \"to follow you in the next packet; where shall I\nhear of your health?\" \"Oh! let me hear of thine,\" replied Mary. \"I am\nwell, very well; but thou art very ill--thy health is in the most\nprecarious state.\" She then mentioned her intention of going to Ann's\nrelations. \"I am her representative, I have duties to fulfil for her:\nduring my voyage I have time enough for reflection; though I think I\nhave already determined.\"\n\n\"Be not too hasty, my child,\" interrupted Henry; \"far be it from me to\npersuade thee to do violence to thy feelings--but consider that all thy\nfuture life may probably take its colour from thy present mode of\nconduct. Our affections as well as our sentiments are fluctuating; you\nwill not perhaps always either think or feel as you do at present: the\nobject you now shun may appear in a different light.\" He paused. \"In\nadvising thee in this style, I have only thy good at heart, Mary.\"\n\nShe only answered to expostulate. \"My affections are involuntary--yet\nthey can only be fixed by reflection, and when they are they make quite\na part of my soul, are interwoven in it, animate my actions, and form\nmy taste: certain qualities are calculated to call forth my sympathies,\nand make me all I am capable of being. The governing affection gives its\nstamp to the rest--because I am capable of loving one, I have that kind\nof charity to all my fellow-creatures which is not easily provoked.\nMilton has asserted, That earthly love is the scale by which to heavenly\nwe may ascend.\"\n\nShe went on with eagerness. \"My opinions on some subjects are not\nwavering; my pursuit through life has ever been the same: in solitude\nwere my sentiments formed; they are indelible, and nothing can efface\nthem but death--No, death itself cannot efface them, or my soul must be\ncreated afresh, and not improved. Yet a little while am I parted from\nmy Ann--I could not exist without the hope of seeing her again--I could\nnot bear to think that time could wear away an affection that was\nfounded on what is not liable to perish; you might as well attempt to\npersuade me that my soul is matter, and that its feelings arose from\ncertain modifications of it.\"\n\n\"Dear enthusiastic creature,\" whispered Henry, \"how you steal into my\nsoul.\" She still continued. \"The same turn of mind which leads me to\nadore the Author of all Perfection--which leads me to conclude that he\nonly can fill my soul; forces me to admire the faint image-the shadows\nof his attributes here below; and my imagination gives still bolder\nstrokes to them. I knew I am in some degree under the influence of a\ndelusion--but does not this strong delusion prove that I myself 'am _of\nsubtiler essence than the trodden clod_' these flights of the\nimagination point to futurity; I cannot banish them. Every cause in\nnature produces an effect; and am I an exception to the general rule?\nhave I desires implanted in me only to make me miserable? will they\nnever be gratified? shall I never be happy? My feelings do not accord\nwith the notion of solitary happiness. In a state of bliss, it will be\nthe society of beings we can love, without the alloy that earthly\ninfirmities mix with our best affections, that will constitute great\npart of our happiness.\n\n\"With these notions can I conform to the maxims of worldly wisdom? can\nI listen to the cold dictates of worldly prudence and bid my tumultuous\npassions cease to vex me, be still, find content in grovelling pursuits,\nand the admiration of the misjudging crowd, when it is only one I wish\nto please--one who could be all the world to me. Argue not with me, I am\nbound by human ties; but did my spirit ever promise to love, or could I\nconsider when forced to bind myself--to take a vow, that at the awful\nday of judgment I must give an account of. My conscience does not smite\nme, and that Being who is greater than the internal monitor, may approve\nof what the world condemns; sensible that in Him I live, could I brave\nHis presence, or hope in solitude to find peace, if I acted contrary to\nconviction, that the world might approve of my conduct--what could the\nworld give to compensate for my own esteem? it is ever hostile and armed\nagainst the feeling heart!\n\n\"Riches and honours await me, and the cold moralist might desire me to\nsit down and enjoy them--I cannot conquer my feelings, and till I do,\nwhat are these baubles to me? you may tell me I follow a fleeting good,\nan _ignis fatuus_; but this chase, these struggles prepare me for\neternity--when I no longer see through a glass darkly I shall not reason\nabout, but _feel_ in what happiness consists.\"\n\nHenry had not attempted to interrupt her; he saw she was determined, and\nthat these sentiments were not the effusion of the moment, but well\ndigested ones, the result of strong affections, a high sense of honour,\nand respect for the source of all virtue and truth. He was startled, if\nnot entirely convinced by her arguments; indeed her voice, her gestures\nwere all persuasive.\n\nSome one now entered the room; he looked an answer to her long harangue;\nit was fortunate for him, or he might have been led to say what in a\ncooler moment he had determined to conceal; but were words necessary to\nreveal it? He wished not to influence her conduct--vain precaution; she\nknew she was beloved; and could she forget that such a man loved her, or\nrest satisfied with any inferior gratification. When passion first\nenters the heart, it is only a return of affection that is sought after,\nand every other remembrance and wish is blotted out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIX.\n\n\nTwo days passed away without any particular conversation; Henry, trying\nto be indifferent, or to appear so, was more assiduous than ever. The\nconflict was too violent for his present state of health; the spirit was\nwilling, but the body suffered; he lost his appetite, and looked\nwretchedly; his spirits were calmly low--the world seemed to fade\naway--what was that world to him that Mary did not inhabit; she lived\nnot for him.\n\nHe was mistaken; his affection was her only support; without this dear\nprop she had sunk into the grave of her lost--long-loved friend;--his\nattention snatched her from despair. Inscrutable are the ways of\nHeaven!\n\nThe third day Mary was desired to prepare herself; for if the wind\ncontinued in the same point, they should set sail the next evening. She\ntried to prepare her mind, and her efforts were not useless she appeared\nless agitated than could have been expected, and talked of her voyage\nwith composure. On great occasions she was generally calm and collected,\nher resolution would brace her unstrung nerves; but after the victory\nshe had no triumph; she would sink into a state of moping melancholy,\nand feel ten-fold misery when the heroic enthusiasm was over.\n\nThe morning of the day fixed on for her departure she was alone with\nHenry only a few moments, and an awkward kind of formality made them\nslip away without their having said much to each other. Henry was\nafraid to discover his passion, or give any other name to his regard but\nfriendship; yet his anxious solicitude for her welfare was ever breaking\nout-while she as artlessly expressed again and again, her fears with\nrespect to his declining health.\n\n\"We shall soon meet,\" said he, with a faint smile; Mary smiled too; she\ncaught the sickly beam; it was still fainter by being reflected, and not\nknowing what she wished to do, started up and left the room. When she\nwas alone she regretted she had left him so precipitately. \"The few\nprecious moments I have thus thrown away may never return,\" she\nthought-the reflection led to misery.\n\nShe waited for, nay, almost wished for the summons to depart. She could\nnot avoid spending the intermediate time with the ladies and Henry; and\nthe trivial conversations she was obliged to bear a part in harassed her\nmore than can be well conceived.\n\nThe summons came, and the whole party attended her to the vessel. For a\nwhile the remembrance of Ann banished her regret at parting with Henry,\nthough his pale figure pressed on her sight; it may seem a paradox, but\nhe was more present to her when she sailed; her tears then were all his\nown.\n\n\"My poor Ann!\" thought Mary, \"along this road we came, and near this\nspot you called me your guardian angel--and now I leave thee here! ah!\nno, I do not--thy spirit is not confined to its mouldering tenement!\nTell me, thou soul of her I love, tell me, ah! whither art thou fled?\"\nAnn occupied her until they reached the ship.\n\nThe anchor was weighed. Nothing can be more irksome than waiting to say\nfarewel. As the day was serene, they accompanied her a little way, and\nthen got into the boat; Henry was the last; he pressed her hand, it had\nnot any life in it; she leaned over the side of the ship without looking\nat the boat, till it was so far distant, that she could not see the\ncountenances of those that were in it: a mist spread itself over her\nsight--she longed to exchange one look--tried to recollect the\nlast;--the universe contained no being but Henry!--The grief of parting\nwith him had swept all others clean away. Her eyes followed the keel of\nthe boat, and when she could no longer perceive its traces: she looked\nround on the wide waste of waters, thought of the precious moments\nwhich had been stolen from the waste of murdered time.\n\nShe then descended into the cabin, regardless of the surrounding\nbeauties of nature, and throwing herself on her bed in the little hole\nwhich was called the state-room--she wished to forget her existence. On\nthis bed she remained two days, listening to the dashing waves, unable\nto close her eyes. A small taper made the darkness visible; and the\nthird night, by its glimmering light, she wrote the following fragment.\n\n\"Poor solitary wretch that I am; here alone do I listen to the whistling\nwinds and dashing waves;--on no human support can I rest--when not lost\nto hope I found pleasure in the society of those rough beings; but now\nthey appear not like my fellow creatures; no social ties draw me to\nthem. How long, how dreary has this day been; yet I scarcely wish it\nover--for what will to-morrow bring--to-morrow, and to-morrow will only\nbe marked with unvaried characters of wretchedness.--Yet surely, I am\nnot alone!\"\n\nHer moistened eyes were lifted up to heaven; a crowd of thoughts darted\ninto her mind, and pressing her hand against her forehead, as if to bear\nthe intellectual weight, she tried, but tried in vain, to arrange them.\n\"Father of Mercies, compose this troubled spirit: do I indeed wish it to\nbe composed--to forget my Henry?\" the _my_, the pen was directly drawn\nacross in an agony.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XX.\n\n\nThe mate of the ship, who heard her stir, came to offer her some\nrefreshment; and she, who formerly received every offer of kindness or\ncivility with pleasure, now shrunk away disgusted: peevishly she desired\nhim not to disturb her; but the words were hardly articulated when her\nheart smote her, she called him back, and requested something to drink.\nAfter drinking it, fatigued by her mental exertions, she fell into a\ndeath-like slumber, which lasted some hours; but did not refresh her, on\nthe contrary, she awoke languid and stupid.\n\nThe wind still continued contrary; a week, a dismal week, had she\nstruggled with her sorrows; and the struggle brought on a slow fever,\nwhich sometimes gave her false spirits.\n\nThe winds then became very tempestuous, the Great Deep was troubled, and\nall the passengers appalled. Mary then left her bed, and went on deck,\nto survey the contending elements: the scene accorded with the present\nstate of her soul; she thought in a few hours I may go home; the\nprisoner may be released. The vessel rose on a wave and descended into a\nyawning gulph--Not slower did her mounting soul return to earth,\nfor--Ah! her treasure and her heart was there. The squalls rattled\namongst the sails, which were quickly taken down; the wind would then\ndie away, and the wild undirected waves rushed on every side with a\ntremendous roar. In a little vessel in the midst of such a storm she\nwas not dismayed; she felt herself independent.\n\nJust then one of the crew perceived a signal of distress; by the help of\na glass he could plainly discover a small vessel dismasted, drifted\nabout, for the rudder had been broken by the violence of the storm.\nMary's thoughts were now all engrossed by the crew on the brink of\ndestruction. They bore down to the wreck; they reached it, and hailed\nthe trembling wretches; at the sound of the friendly greeting, loud\ncries of tumultuous joy were mixed with the roaring of the waves, and\nwith ecstatic transport they leaped on the shattered deck, launched\ntheir boat in a moment, and committed themselves to the mercy of the\nsea. Stowed between two casks, and leaning on a sail, she watched the\nboat, and when a wave intercepted it from her view--she ceased to\nbreathe, or rather held her breath until it rose again.\n\nAt last the boat arrived safe along-side the ship, and Mary caught the\npoor trembling wretches as they stumbled into it, and joined them in\nthanking that gracious Being, who though He had not thought fit to still\nthe raging of the sea, had afforded them unexpected succour.\n\nAmongst the wretched crew was one poor woman, who fainted when she was\nhauled on board: Mary undressed her, and when she had recovered, and\nsoothed her, left her to enjoy the rest she required to recruit her\nstrength, which fear had quite exhausted. She returned again to view the\nangry deep; and when she gazed on its perturbed state, she thought of\nthe Being who rode on the wings of the wind, and stilled the noise of\nthe sea; and the madness of the people--He only could speak peace to\nher troubled spirit! she grew more calm; the late transaction had\ngratified her benevolence, and stole her out of herself.\n\nOne of the sailors, happening to say to another, \"that he believed the\nworld was going to be at an end;\" this observation led her into a new\ntrain of thoughts: some of Handel's sublime compositions occurred to\nher, and she sung them to the grand accompaniment. The Lord God\nOmnipotent reigned, and would reign for ever, and ever!--Why then did\nshe fear the sorrows that were passing away, when she knew that He would\nbind up the broken-hearted, and receive those who came out of great\ntribulation. She retired to her cabin; and wrote in the little book that\nwas now her only confident. It was after midnight.\n\n\"At this solemn hour, the great day of judgment fills my thoughts; the\nday of retribution, when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed;\nwhen all worldly distinctions will fade away, and be no more seen. I\nhave not words to express the sublime images which the bare\ncontemplation of this awful day raises in my mind. Then, indeed, the\nLord Omnipotent will reign, and He will wipe the tearful eye, and\nsupport the trembling heart--yet a little while He hideth his face, and\nthe dun shades of sorrow, and the thick clouds of folly separate us from\nour God; but when the glad dawn of an eternal day breaks, we shall know\neven as we are known. Here we walk by faith, and not by sight; and we\nhave this alternative, either to enjoy the pleasures of life which are\nbut for a season, or look forward to the prize of our high calling, and\nwith fortitude, and that wisdom which is from above, endeavour to bear\nthe warfare of life. We know that many run the race; but he that\nstriveth obtaineth the crown of victory. Our race is an arduous one! How\nmany are betrayed by traitors lodged in their own breasts, who wear the\ngarb of Virtue, and are so near akin; we sigh to think they should ever\nlead into folly, and slide imperceptibly into vice. Surely any thing\nlike happiness is madness! Shall probationers of an hour presume to\npluck the fruit of immortality, before they have conquered death? it is\nguarded, when the great day, to which I allude, arrives, the way will\nagain be opened. Ye dear delusions, gay deceits, farewel! and yet I\ncannot banish ye for ever; still does my panting soul push forward, and\nlive in futurity, in the deep shades o'er which darkness hangs.--I try\nto pierce the gloom, and find a resting-place, where my thirst of\nknowledge will be gratified, and my ardent affections find an object to\nfix them. Every thing material must change; happiness and this\nfluctating principle is not compatible. Eternity, immateriality, and\nhappiness,--what are ye? How shall I grasp the mighty and fleeting\nconceptions ye create?\"\n\nAfter writing, serenely she delivered her soul into the hands of the\nFather of Spirits; and slept in peace.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXI.\n\n\nMary rose early, refreshed by the seasonable rest, and went to visit the\npoor woman, whom she found quite recovered: and, on enquiry, heard that\nshe had lately buried her husband, a common sailor; and that her only\nsurviving child had been washed over-board the day before. Full of her\nown danger, she scarcely thought of her child till that was over; and\nthen she gave way to boisterous emotions.\n\nMary endeavoured to calm her at first, by sympathizing with her; and she\ntried to point out the only solid source of comfort but in doing this\nshe encountered many difficulties; she found her grossly ignorant, yet\nshe did not despair: and as the poor creature could not receive comfort\nfrom the operations of her own mind, she laboured to beguile the hours,\nwhich grief made heavy, by adapting her conversation to her capacity.\n\nThere are many minds that only receive impressions through the medium of\nthe senses: to them did Mary address herself; she made her some\npresents, and promised to assist her when they should arrive in England.\nThis employment roused her out of her late stupor, and again set the\nfaculties of her soul in motion; made the understanding contend with the\nimagination, and the heart throbbed not so irregularly during the\ncontention. How short-lived was the calm! when the English coast was\ndescried, her sorrows returned with redoubled vigor.--She was to visit\nand comfort the mother of her lost friend--And where then should she\ntake up her residence? These thoughts suspended the exertions of her\nunderstanding; abstracted reflections gave way to alarming\napprehensions; and tenderness undermined fortitude.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXII.\n\n\nIn England then landed the forlorn wanderer. She looked round for some\nfew moments--her affections were not attracted to any particular part of\nthe Island. She knew none of the inhabitants of the vast city to which\nshe was going: the mass of buildings appeared to her a huge body without\nan informing soul. As she passed through the streets in an\nhackney-coach, disgust and horror alternately filled her mind. She met\nsome women drunk; and the manners of those who attacked the sailors,\nmade her shrink into herself, and exclaim, are these my fellow\ncreatures!\n\nDetained by a number of carts near the water-side, for she came up the\nriver in the vessel, not having reason to hasten on shore, she saw\nvulgarity, dirt, and vice--her soul sickened; this was the first time\nsuch complicated misery obtruded itself on her sight.--Forgetting her\nown griefs, she gave the world a much indebted tear; mourned for a world\nin ruins. She then perceived, that great part of her comfort must arise\nfrom viewing the smiling face of nature, and be reflected from the view\nof innocent enjoyments: she was fond of seeing animals play, and could\nnot bear to see her own species sink below them.\n\nIn a little dwelling in one of the villages near London, lived the\nmother of Ann; two of her children still remained with her; but they did\nnot resemble Ann. To her house Mary directed the coach, and told the\nunfortunate mother of her loss. The poor woman, oppressed by it, and her\nmany other cares, after an inundation of tears, began to enumerate all\nher past misfortunes, and present cares. The heavy tale lasted until\nmidnight, and the impression it made on Mary's mind was so strong, that\nit banished sleep till towards morning; when tired nature sought\nforgetfulness, and the soul ceased to ruminate about many things.\n\nShe sent for the poor woman they took up at sea, provided her a lodging,\nand relieved her present necessities. A few days were spent in a kind of\nlistless way; then the mother of Ann began to enquire when she thought\nof returning home. She had hitherto treated her with the greatest\nrespect, and concealed her wonder at Mary's choosing a remote room in\nthe house near the garden, and ordering some alterations to be made, as\nif she intended living in it.\n\nMary did not choose to explain herself; had Ann lived, it is probable\nshe would never have loved Henry so fondly; but if she had, she could\nnot have talked of her passion to any human creature. She deliberated,\nand at last informed the family, that she had a reason for not living\nwith her husband, which must some time remain a secret--they stared--Not\nlive with him! how will you live then? This was a question she could not\nanswer; she had only about eighty pounds remaining, of the money she\ntook with her to Lisbon; when it was exhausted where could she get more?\nI will work, she cried, do any thing rather than be a slave.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIII.\n\n\nUnhappy, she wandered about the village, and relieved the poor; it was\nthe only employment that eased her aching heart; she became more\nintimate with misery--the misery that rises from poverty and the want of\neducation. She was in the vicinity of a great city; the vicious poor in\nand about it must ever grieve a benevolent contemplative mind.\n\nOne evening a man who stood weeping in a little lane, near the house she\nresided in, caught her eye. She accosted him; in a confused manner, he\ninformed her, that his wife was dying, and his children crying for the\nbread he could not earn. Mary desired to be conducted to his\nhabitation; it was not very distant, and was the upper room in an old\nmansion-house, which had been once the abode of luxury. Some tattered\nshreds of rich hangings still remained, covered with cobwebs and filth;\nround the ceiling, through which the rain drop'd, was a beautiful\ncornice mouldering; and a spacious gallery was rendered dark by the\nbroken windows being blocked up; through the apertures the wind forced\nits way in hollow sounds, and reverberated along the former scene of\nfestivity.\n\nIt was crowded with inhabitants: som were scolding, others swearing, or\nsinging indecent songs. What a sight for Mary! Her blood ran cold; yet\nshe had sufficient resolution to mount to the top of the house. On the\nfloor, in one corner of a very small room, lay an emaciated figure of a\nwoman; a window over her head scarcely admitted any light, for the\nbroken panes were stuffed with dirty rags. Near her were five children,\nall young, and covered with dirt; their sallow cheeks, and languid eyes,\nexhibited none of the charms of childhood. Some were fighting, and\nothers crying for food; their yells were mixed with their mother's\ngroans, and the wind which rushed through the passage. Mary was\npetrified; but soon assuming more courage, approached the bed, and,\nregardless of the surrounding nastiness, knelt down by the poor wretch,\nand breathed the most poisonous air; for the unfortunate creature was\ndying of a putrid fever, the consequence of dirt and want.\n\nTheir state did not require much explanation. Mary sent the husband for\na poor neighbour, whom she hired to nurse the woman, and take care of\nthe children; and then went herself to buy them some necessaries at a\nshop not far distant. Her knowledge of physic had enabled her to\nprescribe for the woman; and she left the house, with a mixture of\nhorror and satisfaction.\n\nShe visited them every day, and procured them every comfort; contrary to\nher expectation, the woman began to recover; cleanliness and wholesome\nfood had a wonderful effect; and Mary saw her rising as it were from the\ngrave. Not aware of the danger she ran into, she did not think of it\ntill she perceived she had caught the fever. It made such an alarming\nprogress, that she was prevailed on to send for a physician; but the\ndisorder was so violent, that for some days it baffled his skill; and\nMary felt not her danger, as she was delirious. After the crisis, the\nsymptoms were more favourable, and she slowly recovered, without\nregaining much strength or spirits; indeed they were intolerably low:\nshe wanted a tender nurse.\n\nFor some time she had observed, that she was not treated with the same\nrespect as formerly; her favors were forgotten when no more were\nexpected. This ingratitude hurt her, as did a similar instance in the\nwoman who came out of the ship. Mary had hitherto supported her; as her\nfinances were growing low, she hinted to her, that she ought to try to\nearn her own subsistence: the woman in return loaded her with abuse.\n\nTwo months were elapsed; she had not seen, or heard from Henry. He was\nsick--nay, perhaps had forgotten her; all the world was dreary, and all\nthe people ungrateful.\n\nShe sunk into apathy, and endeavouring to rouse herself out of it, she\nwrote in her book another fragment:\n\n\"Surely life is a dream, a frightful one! and after those rude,\ndisjointed images are fled, will light ever break in? Shall I ever feel\njoy? Do all suffer like me; or am I framed so as to be particularly\nsusceptible of misery? It is true, I have experienced the most rapturous\nemotions--short-lived delight!--ethereal beam, which only serves to shew\nmy present misery--yet lie still, my throbbing heart, or burst; and my\nbrain--why dost thou whirl about at such a terrifying rate? why do\nthoughts so rapidly rush into my mind, and yet when they disappear\nleave such deep traces? I could almost wish for the madman's happiness,\nand in a strong imagination lose a sense of woe.\n\n\"Oh! reason, thou boasted guide, why desert me, like the world, when I\nmost need thy assistance! Canst thou not calm this internal tumult, and\ndrive away the death-like sadness which presses so sorely on me,--a\nsadness surely very nearly allied to despair. I am now the prey of\napathy--I could wish for the former storms! a ray of hope sometimes\nillumined my path; I had a pursuit; but now _it visits not my haunts\nforlorn_. Too well have I loved my fellow creatures! I have been wounded\nby ingratitude; from every one it has something of the serpent's tooth.\n\n\"When overwhelmed by sorrow, I have met unkindness; I looked for some\none to have pity on me; but found none!--The healing balm of sympathy is\ndenied; I weep, a solitary wretch, and the hot tears scald my cheeks. I\nhave not the medicine of life, the dear chimera I have so often chased,\na friend. Shade of my loved Ann! dost thou ever visit thy poor Mary?\nRefined spirit, thou wouldst weep, could angels weep, to see her\nstruggling with passions she cannot subdue; and feelings which corrode\nher small portion of comfort!\"\n\nShe could not write any more; she wished herself far distant from all\nhuman society; a thick gloom spread itself over her mind: but did not\nmake her forget the very beings she wished to fly from. She sent for the\npoor woman she found in the garret; gave her money to clothe herself\nand children, and buy some furniture for a little hut, in a large\ngarden, the master of which agreed to employ her husband, who had been\nbred a gardener. Mary promised to visit the family, and see their new\nabode when she was able to go out.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIV.\n\n\nMary still continued weak and low, though it was spring, and all nature\nbegan to look gay; with more than usual brightness the sun shone, and a\nlittle robin which she had cherished during the winter sung one of his\nbest songs. The family were particularly civil this fine morning, and\ntried to prevail on her to walk out. Any thing like kindness melted her;\nshe consented.\n\nSofter emotions banished her melancholy, and she directed her steps to\nthe habitation she had rendered comfortable.\n\nEmerging out of a dreary chamber, all nature looked cheerful; when she\nhad last walked out, snow covered the ground, and bleak winds pierced\nher through and through: now the hedges were green, the blossoms adorned\nthe trees, and the birds sung. She reached the dwelling, without being\nmuch exhausted and while she rested there, observed the children\nsporting on the grass, with improved complexions. The mother with tears\nthanked her deliverer, and pointed out her comforts. Mary's tears flowed\nnot only from sympathy, but a complication of feelings and recollections\nthe affections which bound her to her fellow creatures began again to\nplay, and reanimated nature. She observed the change in herself, tried\nto account for it, and wrote with her pencil a rhapsody on sensibility.\n\n\"Sensibility is the most exquisite feeling of which the human soul is\nsusceptible: when it pervades us, we feel happy; and could it last\nunmixed, we might form some conjecture of the bliss of those\nparadisiacal days, when the obedient passions were under the dominion of\nreason, and the impulses of the heart did not need correction.\n\n\"It is this quickness, this delicacy of feeling, which enables us to\nrelish the sublime touches of the poet, and the painter; it is this,\nwhich expands the soul, gives an enthusiastic greatness, mixed with\ntenderness, when we view the magnificent objects of nature; or hear of a\ngood action. The same effect we experience in the spring, when we hail\nthe returning sun, and the consequent renovation of nature; when the\nflowers unfold themselves, and exhale their sweets, and the voice of\nmusic is heard in the land. Softened by tenderness; the soul is\ndisposed to be virtuous. Is any sensual gratification to be compared to\nthat of feelings the eves moistened after having comforted the\nunfortunate?\n\n\"Sensibility is indeed the foundation of all our happiness; but these\nraptures are unknown to the depraved sensualist, who is only moved by\nwhat strikes his gross senses; the delicate embellishments of nature\nescape his notice; as do the gentle and interesting affections.--But it\nis only to be felt; it escapes discussion.\"\n\nShe then returned home, and partook of the family meal, which was\nrendered more cheerful by the presence of a man, past the meridian of\nlife, of polished manners, and dazzling wit. He endeavoured to draw Mary\nout, and succeeded; she entered into conversation, and some of her\nartless flights of genius struck him with surprise; he found she had a\ncapacious mind, and that her reason was as profound as her imagination\nwas lively. She glanced from earth to heaven, and caught the light of\ntruth. Her expressive countenance shewed what passed in her mind, and\nher tongue was ever the faithful interpreter of her heart; duplicity\nnever threw a shade over her words or actions. Mary found him a man of\nlearning; and the exercise of her understanding would frequently make\nher forget her griefs, when nothing else could, except benevolence.\n\nThis man had known the mistress of the house in her youth; good nature\ninduced him to visit her; but when he saw Mary he had another\ninducement. Her appearance, and above all, her genius, and cultivation\nof mind, roused his curiosity; but her dignified manners had such an\neffect on him, he was obliged to suppress it. He knew men, as well as\nbooks; his conversation was entertaining and improving. In Mary's\ncompany he doubted whether heaven was peopled with spirits masculine;\nand almost forgot that he had called the sex \"the pretty play things\nthat render life tolerable.\"\n\nHe had been the slave of beauty, the captive of sense; love he ne'er had\nfelt; the mind never rivetted the chain, nor had the purity of it made\nthe body appear lovely in his eyes. He was humane, despised meanness;\nbut was vain of his abilities, and by no means a useful member of\nsociety. He talked often of the beauty of virtue; but not having any\nsolid foundation to build the practice on, he was only a shining, or\nrather a sparkling character: and though his fortune enabled him to\nhunt down pleasure, he was discontented.\n\nMary observed his character, and wrote down a train of reflections,\nwhich these observations led her to make; these reflections received a\ntinge from her mind; the present state of it, was that kind of painful\nquietness which arises from reason clouded by disgust; she had not yet\nlearned to be resigned; vague hopes agitated her.\n\n\"There are some subjects that are so enveloped in clouds, as you\ndissipate one, another overspreads it. Of this kind are our reasonings\nconcerning happiness; till we are obliged to cry out with the Apostle,\n_That it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive in what it\ncould consist_, or how satiety could be prevented. Man seems formed for\naction, though the passions are seldom properly managed; they are\neither so languid as not to serve as a spur, or else so violent, as to\noverleap all bounds.\n\n\"Every individual has its own peculiar trials; and anguish, in one shape\nor other, visits every heart. Sensibility produces flights of virtue;\nand not curbed by reason, is on the brink of vice talking, and even\nthinking of virtue.\n\n\"Christianity can only afford just principles to govern the wayward\nfeelings and impulses of the heart: every good disposition runs wild, if\nnot transplanted into this soil; but how hard is it to keep the heart\ndiligently, though convinced that the issues of life depend on it.\n\n\"It is very difficult to discipline the mind of a thinker, or reconcile\nhim to the weakness, the inconsistency of his understanding; and a\nstill more laborious task for him to conquer his passions, and learn to\nseek content, instead of happiness. Good dispositions, and virtuous\npropensities, without the light of the Gospel, produce eccentric\ncharacters: comet-like, they are always in extremes; while revelation\nresembles the laws of attraction, and produces uniformity; but too often\nis the attraction feeble; and the light so obscured by passion, as to\nforce the bewildered soul to fly into void space, and wander in\nconfusion.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXV.\n\n\nA few mornings after, as Mary was sitting ruminating, harassed by\nperplexing thoughts, and fears, a letter was delivered to her: the\nservant waited for an answer. Her heart palpitated; it was from Henry;\nshe held it some time in her hand, then tore it open; it was not a long\none; and only contained an account of a relapse, which prevented his\nsailing in the first packet, as he had intended. Some tender enquiries\nwere added, concerning her health, and state of mind; but they were\nexpressed in rather a formal style: it vexed her, and the more so, as it\nstopped the current of affection, which the account of his arrival and\nillness had made flow to her heart--it ceased to beat for a moment--she\nread the passage over again; but could not tell what she was hurt\nby--only that it did not answer the expectations of her affection. She\nwrote a laconic, incoherent note in return, allowing him to call on her\nthe next day--he had requested permission at the conclusion of his\nletter.\n\nHer mind was then painfully active; she could not read or walk; she\ntried to fly from herself, to forget the long hours that were yet to run\nbefore to-morrow could arrive: she knew not what time he would come;\ncertainly in the morning, she concluded; the morning then was anxiously\nwished for; and every wish produced a sigh, that arose from expectation\non the stretch, damped by fear and vain regret.\n\nTo beguile the tedious time, Henry's favorite tunes were sung; the books\nthey read together turned over; and the short epistle read at least a\nhundred times.--Any one who had seen her, would have supposed that she\nwas trying to decypher Chinese characters.\n\nAfter a sleepless night, she hailed the tardy day, watched the rising\nsun, and then listened for every footstep, and started if she heard the\nstreet door opened. At last he came, and she who had been counting the\nhours, and doubting whether the earth moved, would gladly have escaped\nthe approaching interview.\n\nWith an unequal, irresolute pace, she went to meet him; but when she\nbeheld his emaciated countenance, all the tenderness, which the\nformality of his letter had damped, returned, and a mournful\npresentiment stilled the internal conflict. She caught his hand, and\nlooking wistfully at him, exclaimed, \"Indeed, you are not well!\"\n\n\"I am very far from well; but it matters not,\" added he with a smile of\nresignation; \"my native air may work wonders, and besides, my mother is\na tender nurse, and I shall sometimes see thee.\"\n\nMary felt for the first time in her life, envy; she wished\ninvoluntarily, that all the comfort he received should be from her. She\nenquired about the symptoms of his disorder; and heard that he had been\nvery ill; she hastily drove away the fears, that former dear bought\nexperience suggested: and again and again did she repeat, that she was\nsure he would soon recover. She would then look in his face, to see if\nhe assented, and ask more questions to the same purport. She tried to\navoid speaking of herself, and Henry left her, with, a promise of\nvisiting her the next day.\n\nHer mind was now engrossed by one fear--yet she would not allow herself\nto think that she feared an event she could not name. She still saw his\npale face; the sound of his voice still vibrated on her ears; she tried\nto retain it; she listened, looked round, wept, and prayed.\n\nHenry had enlightened the desolate scene: was this charm of life to fade\naway, and, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck\nbehind? These thoughts disturbed her reason, she shook her head, as if\nto drive them out of it; a weight, a heavy one, was on her heart; all\nwas not well there.\n\nOut of this reverie she was soon woke to keener anguish, by the arrival\nof a letter from her husband; it came to Lisbon after her departure:\nHenry had forwarded it to her, but did not choose to deliver it\nhimself, for a very obvious reason; it might have produced a\nconversation he wished for some time to avoid; and his precaution took\nits rise almost equally from benevolence and love.\n\nShe could not muster up sufficient resolution to break the seal: her\nfears were not prophetic, for the contents gave her comfort. He informed\nher that he intended prolonging his tour, as he was now his own master,\nand wished to remain some time on the continent, and in particular to\nvisit Italy without any restraint: but his reasons for it appeared\nchildish; it was not to cultivate his taste, or tread on classic ground,\nwhere poets and philosophers caught their lore; but to join in the\nmasquerades, and such burlesque amusements.\n\nThese instances of folly relieved Mary, in some degree reconciled her\nto herself added fuel to the devouring flame--and silenced something\nlike a pang, which reason and conscience made her feel, when she\nreflected, that it is the office of Religion to reconcile us to the\nseemingly hard dispensations of providence; and that no inclination,\nhowever strong, should oblige us to desert the post assigned us, or\nforce us to forget that virtue should be an active principle; and that\nthe most desirable station, is the one that exercises our faculties,\nrefines our affections, and enables us to be useful.\n\nOne reflection continually wounded her repose; she feared not poverty;\nher wants were few; but in giving up a fortune, she gave up the power of\ncomforting the miserable, and making the sad heart sing for joy.\n\nHeaven had endowed her with uncommon humanity, to render her one of His\nbenevolent agents, a messenger of peace; and should she attend to her\nown inclinations?\n\nThese suggestions, though they could not subdue a violent passion,\nincreased her misery. One moment she was a heroine, half determined to\nbear whatever fate should inflict; the next, her mind would recoil--and\ntenderness possessed her whole soul. Some instances of Henry's\naffection, his worth and genius, were remembered: and the earth was only\na vale of tears, because he was not to sojourn with her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVI.\n\n\nHenry came the next day, and once or twice in the course of the\nfollowing week; but still Mary kept up some little formality, a certain\nconsciousness restrained her; and Henry did not enter on the subject\nwhich he found she wished to avoid. In the course of conversation,\nhowever, she mentioned to him, that she earnestly desired to obtain a\nplace in one of the public offices for Ann's brother, as the family were\nagain in a declining way.\n\nHenry attended, made a few enquiries, and dropped the subject; but the\nfollowing week, she heard him enter with unusual haste; it was to inform\nher, that he had made interest with a person of some consequence, whom\nhe had once obliged in a very disagreeable exigency, in a foreign\ncountry; and that he had procured a place for her friend, which would\ninfallibly lead to something better, if he behaved with propriety. Mary\ncould not speak to thank him; emotions of gratitude and love suffused\nher face; her blood eloquently spoke. She delighted to receive benefits\nthrough the medium of her fellow creatures; but to receive them from\nHenry was exquisite pleasure.\n\nAs the summer advanced, Henry grew worse; the closeness of the air, in\nthe metropolis, affected his breath; and his mother insisted on his\nfixing on some place in the country, where she would accompany him. He\ncould not think of going far off, but chose a little village on the\nbanks of the Thames, near Mary's dwelling: he then introduced her to his\nmother.\n\nThey frequently went down the river in a boat; Henry would take his\nviolin, and Mary would sometimes sing, or read, to them. She pleased his\nmother; she inchanted him. It was an advantage to Mary that friendship\nfirst possessed her heart; it opened it to all the softer sentiments of\nhumanity:--and when this first affection was torn away, a similar one\nsprung up, with a still tenderer sentiment added to it.\n\nThe last evening they were on the water, the clouds grew suddenly black,\nand broke in violent showers, which interrupted the solemn stillness\nthat had prevailed previous to it. The thunder roared; and the oars\nplying quickly, in order to reach the shore, occasioned a not\nunpleasing sound. Mary drew still nearer Henry; she wished to have\nsought with him a watry grave; to have escaped the horror of surviving\nhim.--She spoke not, but Henry saw the workings of her mind--he felt\nthem; threw his arm round her waist--and they enjoyed the luxury of\nwretchedness.--As they touched the shore, Mary perceived that Henry was\nwet; with eager anxiety she cried, What shall I do!--this day will kill\nthee, and I shall not die with thee!\n\nThis accident put a stop to their pleasurable excursions; it had injured\nhim, and brought on the spitting of blood he was subject to--perhaps it\nwas not the cold that he caught, that occasioned it. In vain did Mary\ntry to shut her eyes; her fate pursued her! Henry every day grew worse\nand worse.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVII.\n\n\nOppressed by her foreboding fears, her sore mind was hurt by new\ninstances of ingratitude: disgusted with the family, whose misfortunes\nhad often disturbed her repose, and lost in anticipated sorrow, she\nrambled she knew not where; when turning down a shady walk, she\ndiscovered her feet had taken the path they delighted to tread. She saw\nHenry sitting in his garden alone; he quickly opened the garden-gate,\nand she sat down by him.\n\n\"I did not,\" said he, \"expect to see thee this evening, my dearest Mary;\nbut I was thinking of thee. Heaven has endowed thee with an uncommon\nportion of fortitude, to support one of the most affectionate hearts in\nthe world. This is not a time for disguise; I know I am dear to\nthee--and my affection for thee is twisted with every fibre of my\nheart.--I loved thee ever since I have been acquainted with thine: thou\nart the being my fancy has delighted to form; but which I imagined\nexisted only there! In a little while the shades of death will encompass\nme--ill-fated love perhaps added strength to my disease, and smoothed\nthe rugged path. Try, my love, to fulfil thy destined course--try to add\nto thy other virtues patience. I could have wished, for thy sake, that\nwe could have died together--or that I could live to shield thee from\nthe assaults of an unfeeling world! Could I but offer thee an asylum in\nthese arms--a faithful bosom, in which thou couldst repose all thy\ngriefs--\" He pressed her to it, and she returned the pressure--he felt her\nthrobbing heart. A mournful silence ensued! when he resumed the\nconversation. \"I wished to prepare thee for the blow--too surely do I\nfeel that it will not be long delayed! The passion I have nursed is so\npure, that death cannot extinguish it--or tear away the impression thy\nvirtues have made on my soul. I would fain comfort thee--\"\n\n\"Talk not of comfort,\" interrupted Mary, \"it will be in heaven with thee\nand Ann--while I shall remain on earth the veriest wretch!\"--She grasped\nhis hand.\n\n\"There we shall meet, my love, my Mary, in our Father's--\" His voice\nfaultered; he could not finish the sentence; he was almost\nsuffocated--they both wept, their tears relieved them; they walked\nslowly to the garden-gate (Mary would not go into the house); they could\nnot say farewel when they reached it--and Mary hurried down the lane; to\nspare Henry the pain of witnessing her emotions.\n\nWhen she lost sight of the house she sat down on the ground, till it\ngrew late, thinking of all that had passed. Full of these thoughts, she\ncrept along, regardless of the descending rain; when lifting up her eyes\nto heaven, and then turning them wildly on the prospects around, without\nmarking them; she only felt that the scene accorded with her present\nstate of mind. It was the last glimmering of twilight, with a full moon,\nover which clouds continually flitted. Where am I wandering, God of\nMercy! she thought; she alluded to the wanderings of her mind. In what a\nlabyrinth am I lost! What miseries have I already encountered--and what\na number lie still before me.\n\nHer thoughts flew rapidly to something. I could be happy listening to\nhim, soothing his cares.--Would he not smile upon me--call me his own\nMary? I am not his--said she with fierceness--I am a wretch! and she\nheaved a sigh that almost broke her heart, while the big tears rolled\ndown her burning cheeks; but still her exercised mind, accustomed to\nthink, began to observe its operation, though the barrier of reason was\nalmost carried away, and all the faculties not restrained by her, were\nrunning into confusion. Wherefore am I made thus? Vain are my\nefforts--I cannot live without loving--and love leads to madness.--Yet\nI will not weep; and her eyes were now fixed by despair, dry and\nmotionless; and then quickly whirled about with a look of distraction.\n\nShe looked for hope; but found none--all was troubled waters.--No where\ncould she find rest. I have already paced to and fro in the earth; it is\nnot my abiding place--may I not too go home! Ah! no. Is this complying\nwith my Henry's request, could a spirit thus disengaged expect to\nassociate with his? Tears of tenderness strayed down her relaxed\ncountenance, and her softened heart heaved more regularly. She felt the\nrain, and turned to her solitary home.\n\nFatigued by the tumultuous emotions she had endured, when she entered\nthe house she ran to her own room, sunk on the bed; and exhausted\nnature soon closed her eyes; but active fancy was still awake, and a\nthousand fearful dreams interrupted her slumbers.\n\nFeverish and languid, she opened her eyes, and saw the unwelcome sun\ndart his rays through a window, the curtains of which she had forgotten\nto draw. The dew hung on the adjacent trees, and added to the lustre;\nthe little robin began his song, and distant birds joined. She looked;\nher countenance was still vacant--her sensibility was absorbed by one\nobject.\n\nDid I ever admire the rising sun, she slightly thought, turning from the\nWindow, and shutting her eyes: she recalled to view the last night's\nscene. His faltering voice, lingering step, and the look of tender woe,\nwere all graven on her heart; as were the words \"Could these arms\nshield thee from sorrow--afford thee an asylum from an unfeeling world.\"\nThe pressure to his bosom was not forgot. For a moment she was happy;\nbut in a long-drawn sigh every delightful sensation evaporated.\nSoon--yes, very soon, will the grave again receive all I love! and the\nremnant of my days--she could not proceed--Were there then days to come\nafter that?\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXVIII.\n\n\nJust as she was going to quit her room, to visit Henry, his mother\ncalled on her.\n\n\"My son is worse to-day,\" said she, \"I come to request you to spend not\nonly this day, but a week or two with me.--Why should I conceal any\nthing from you? Last night my child made his mother his confident, and,\nin the anguish of his heart, requested me to be thy friend--when I shall\nbe childless. I will not attempt to describe what I felt when he talked\nthus to me. If I am to lose the support of my age, and be again a\nwidow--may I call her Child whom my Henry wishes me to adopt?\"\n\nThis new instance of Henry's disinterested affection, Mary felt most\nforcibly; and striving to restrain the complicated emotions, and sooth\nthe wretched mother, she almost fainted: when the unhappy parent forced\ntears from her, by saying, \"I deserve this blow; my partial fondness\nmade me neglect him, when most he wanted a mother's care; this neglect,\nperhaps, first injured his constitution: righteous Heaven has made my\ncrime its own punishment; and now I am indeed a mother, I shall loss my\nchild--my only child!\"\n\nWhen they were a little more composed they hastened to the invalide; but\nduring the short ride, the mother related several instances of Henry's\ngoodness of heart. Mary's tears were not those of unmixed anguish; the\ndisplay of his virtues gave her extreme delight--yet human nature\nprevailed; she trembled to think they would soon unfold themselves in a\nmore genial clime.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXIX.\n\n\nShe found Henry very ill. The physician had some weeks before declared\nhe never knew a person with a similar pulse recover. Henry was certain\nhe could not live long; all the rest he could obtain, was procured by\nopiates. Mary now enjoyed the melancholy pleasure of nursing him, and\nsoftened by her tenderness the pains she could not remove. Every sigh\ndid she stifle, every tear restrain, when he could see or hear them. She\nwould boast of her resignation--yet catch eagerly at the least ray of\nhope. While he slept she would support his pillow, and rest her head\nwhere she could feel his breath. She loved him better than herself--she\ncould not pray for his recovery; she could only say, The will of Heaven\nbe done.\n\nWhile she was in this state, she labored to acquire fortitude; but one\ntender look destroyed it all--she rather labored, indeed, to make him\nbelieve he was resigned, than really to be so.\n\nShe wished to receive the sacrament with him, as a bond of union which\nwas to extend beyond the grave. She did so, and received comfort from\nit; she rose above her misery.\n\nHis end was now approaching. Mary sat on the side of the bed. His eyes\nappeared fixed--no longer agitated by passion, he only felt that it was\na fearful thing to die. The soul retired to the citadel; but it was not\nnow solely filled by the image of her who in silent despair watched for\nhis last breath. Collected, a frightful calmness stilled every turbulent\nemotion.\n\nThe mother's grief was more audible. Henry had for some time only\nattended to Mary--Mary pitied the parent, whose stings of conscience\nincreased her sorrow; she whispered him, \"Thy mother weeps, disregarded\nby thee; oh! comfort her!--My mother, thy son blesses thee.--\" The\noppressed parent left the room. And Mary _waited_ to see him die.\n\nShe pressed with trembling eagerness his parched lips--he opened his\neyes again; the spreading film retired, and love returned them--he gave\na look--it was never forgotten. My Mary, will you be comforted?\n\nYes, yes, she exclaimed in a firm voice; you go to be happy--I am not a\ncomplete wretch! The words almost choked her.\n\nHe was a long time silent; the opiate produced a kind of stupor. At\nlast, in an agony, he cried, It is dark; I cannot see thee; raise me up.\nWhere is Mary? did she not say she delighted to support me? let me die\nin her arms.\n\nHer arms were opened to receive him; they trembled not. Again he was\nobliged to lie down, resting on her: as the agonies increased he leaned\ntowards her: the soul seemed flying to her, as it escaped out of its\nprison. The breathing was interrupted; she heard distinctly the last\nsigh--and lifting up to Heaven her eyes, Father, receive his spirit, she\ncalmly cried.\n\nThe attendants gathered round; she moved not, nor heard the clamor; the\nhand seemed yet to press hers; it still was warm. A ray of light from\nan opened window discovered the pale face.\n\nShe left the room, and retired to one very near it; and sitting down on\nthe floor, fixed her eyes on the door of the apartment which contained\nthe body. Every event of her life rushed across her mind with wonderful\nrapidity--yet all was still--fate had given the finishing stroke. She\nsat till midnight.--Then rose in a phrensy, went into the apartment, and\ndesired those who watched the body to retire.\n\nShe knelt by the bed side;--an enthusiastic devotion overcame the\ndictates of despair.--She prayed most ardently to be supported, and\ndedicated herself to the service of that Being into whose hands, she had\ncommitted the spirit she almost adored--again--and again,--she prayed\nwildly--and fervently--but attempting to touch the lifeless hand--her\nhead swum--she sunk--\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXX.\n\n\nThree months after, her only friend, the mother of her lost Henry began\nto be alarmed, at observing her altered appearance; and made her own\nhealth a pretext for travelling. These complaints roused Mary out of her\ntorpid state; she imagined a new duty now forced her to exert herself--a\nduty love made sacred!--\n\nThey went to Bath, from that to Bristol; but the latter place they\nquickly left; the sight of the sick that resort there, they neither of\nthem could bear. From Bristol they flew to Southampton. The road was\npleasant--yet Mary shut her eyes;--or if they were open, green fields\nand commons, passed in quick succession, and left no more traces behind\nthan if they had been waves of the sea.\n\nSome time after they were settled at Southampton, they met the man who\ntook so much notice of Mary, soon after her return to England. He\nrenewed his acquaintance; he was really interested in her fate, as he\nhad heard her uncommon story; besides, he knew her husband; knew him to\nbe a good-natured, weak man. He saw him soon after his arrival in his\nnative country, and prevented his hastening to enquire into the reasons\nof Mary's strange conduct. He desired him not to be too precipitate, if\nhe ever wished to possess an invaluable treasure. He was guided by him,\nand allowed him to follow Mary to Southampton, and speak first to her\nfriend.\n\nThis friend determined to trust to her native strength of mind, and\ninformed her of the circumstance; but she overrated it: Mary was not\nable, for a few days after the intelligence, to fix on the mode of\nconduct she ought now to pursue. But at last she conquered her disgust,\nand wrote her _husband_ an account of what had passed since she had\ndropped his correspondence.\n\nHe came in person to answer the letter. Mary fainted when he approached\nher unexpectedly. Her disgust returned with additional force, in spite\nof previous reasonings, whenever he appeared; yet she was prevailed on\nto promise to live with him, if he would permit her to pass one year,\ntravelling from place to place; he was not to accompany her.\n\nThe time too quickly elapsed, and she gave him her hand--the struggle\nwas almost more than she could endure. She tried to appear calm; time\nmellowed her grief, and mitigated her torments; but when her husband\nwould take her hand, or mention any thing like love, she would instantly\nfeel a sickness, a faintness at her heart, and wish, involuntarily, that\nthe earth would open and swallow her.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XXXI.\n\n\nMary visited the continent, and sought health in different climates; but\nher nerves were not to be restored to their former state. She then\nretired to her house in the country, established manufactories, threw\nthe estate into small farms; and continually employed herself this way\nto dissipate care, and banish unavailing regret. She visited the sick,\nsupported the old, and educated the young.\n\nThese occupations engrossed her mind; but there were hours when all her\nformer woes would return and haunt her.--Whenever she did, or said, any\nthing she thought Henry would have approved of--she could not avoid\nthinking with anguish, of the rapture his approbation ever conveyed to\nher heart--a heart in which there was a void, that even benevolence and\nreligion could not fill. The latter taught her to struggle for\nresignation; and the former rendered life supportable.\n\nHer delicate state of health did not promise long life. In moments of\nsolitary sadness, a gleam of joy would dart across her mind--She thought\nshe was hastening to that world _where there is neither marrying_, nor\ngiving in marriage.\n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: Who does Mary marry?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 109, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["Falder"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory:  Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nGALSWORTHY PLAYS\n\nSECOND SERIES--NO. 1\n\n\nJUSTICE\n\nBy John Galsworthy\n\n\n\nPERSONS OF THE PLAY\n\n JAMES HOW, solicitor\n WALTER HOW, solicitor\n ROBERT COKESON, their managing clerk\n WILLIAM FALDER, their junior clerk\n SWEEDLE, their office-boy\n WISTER, a detective\n COWLEY, a cashier\n MR. JUSTICE FLOYD, a judge\n HAROLD CLEAVER, an old advocate\n HECTOR FROME, a young advocate\n CAPTAIN DANSON, V.C., a prison governor\n THE REV. HUGH MILLER, a prison chaplain\n EDWARD CLEMENT, a prison doctor\n WOODER, a chief warder\n MOANEY, convict\n CLIFTON, convict\n O'CLEARY, convict\n RUTH HONEYWILL, a woman\n A NUMBER OF BARRISTERS, SOLICITERS, SPECTATORS, USHERS, REPORTERS,\n JURYMEN, WARDERS, AND PRISONERS\n\n\n\n  TIME: The Present.\n\n\n  ACT I. The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.  July.\n\n  ACT II. Assizes.  Afternoon.  October.\n\n  ACT III.  A prison.  December.\n       SCENE I.  The Governor's office.\n       SCENE II.  A corridor.\n       SCENE III.  A cell.\n\n  ACT IV.  The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.\n            March, two years later.\n\n\n\nCAST OF THE FIRST PRODUCTION\n\n   AT THE DUKE OF YORK'S THEATRE, FEBRUARY 21, 1910\n\n   James How           MR.  SYDNEY VALENTINE\n   Walter How          MR.  CHARLES MAUDE\n   Cokeson             MR.  EDMUND GWENN\n   Falder              MR.  DENNIS EADIE\n   The Office-boy      MR.  GEORGE HERSEE\n   The Detective       MR.  LESLIE CARTER\n   The Cashier         MR.  C. E. VERNON\n   The Judge           MR.  DION BOUCICAULT\n   The Old Advocate    MR.  OSCAR ADYE\n   The Young Advocate  MR.  CHARLES BRYANT\n   The Prison Governor MR.  GRENDON BENTLEY\n   The Prison Chaplain MR.  HUBERT HARBEN\n   The Prison Doctor   MR.  LEWIS CASSON\n   Wooder              MR.  FREDERICK LLOYD\n   Moaney              MR.  ROBERT PATEMAN\n   Clipton             MR.  O. P. HEGGIE\n   O'Cleary            MR.  WHITFORD KANE\n   Ruth Honeywill      Miss EDYTH OLIVE\n\n\n\n\nACT I\n\n     The scene is the managing clerk's room, at the offices of James\n     and Walter How, on a July morning.  The room is old fashioned,\n     furnished with well-worn  mahogany and leather, and lined with\n     tin boxes and   estate plans.  It has three doors.  Two of them\n     are close together in the centre of a wall.  One of these two\n     doors leads to the outer office, which is only divided from the\n     managing clerk's room by a   partition of wood and clear glass;\n     and when the door into this outer office is opened there can be\n     seen the wide outer door leading out on to the stone stairway of\n     the building.  The other of these two   centre doors leads to\n     the junior clerk's room.  The third door is that leading to the\n     partners' room.\n\n     The managing clerk, COKESON, is sitting at his table adding up\n     figures in a pass-book, and murmuring their numbers to himself.\n     He is a man of sixty, wearing spectacles; rather short, with a\n     bald head, and an honest, pugdog face.  He is dressed in a\n     well-worn black frock-coat and pepper-and-salt trousers.\n\nCOKESON.  And five's twelve, and three--fifteen, nineteen,\ntwenty-three, thirty-two, forty-one-and carry four. [He ticks the\npage, and goes on murmuring]  Five, seven, twelve, seventeen,\ntwenty-four and nine, thirty-three, thirteen and carry one.\n\n     He again makes a tick.  The outer office door is opened, and\n     SWEEDLE, the office-boy, appears, closing the door behind him.\n     He is a pale youth of sixteen, with spiky hair.\n\nCOKESON.  [With grumpy expectation]  And carry one.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's a party wants to see Falder, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Five, nine, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-nine--and carry\ntwo.  Send him to Morris's.  What name?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Honeywill.\n\nCOKESON.  What's his business?\n\nSWEEDLE.  It's a woman.\n\nCOKESON.  A lady?\n\nSWEEDLE.  No, a person.\n\nCOKESON.  Ask her in.  Take this pass-book to Mr. James.  [He closes\nthe pass-book.]\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Reopening the door]  Will you come in, please?\n\n     RUTH HONEYWILL comes in.  She is a tall woman, twenty-six years\n     old, unpretentiously dressed, with black hair and eyes, and an\n     ivory-white, clear-cut face.  She stands very still, having a\n     natural dignity of pose and gesture.\n\n     SWEEDLE goes out into the partners' room with the pass-book.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking round at RUTH]  The young man's out.\n[Suspiciously]  State your business, please.\n\nRUTH.  [Who speaks in a matter-of-fact voice, and with a slight\nWest-Country accent]  It's a personal matter, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  We don't allow private callers here.  Will you leave a\nmessage?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather see him, please.\n\n     She narrows her dark eyes and gives him a honeyed look.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expanding]  It's all against the rules.  Suppose I had my\nfriends here to see me!  It'd never do!\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [A little taken aback]  Exactly!  And here you are wanting\nto see a junior clerk!\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir; I must see him.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning full round to her with a sort of outraged\ninterest]  But this is a lawyer's office.  Go to his private address.\n\nRUTH.  He's not there.\n\nCOKESON.  [Uneasy]  Are you related to the party?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [In real embarrassment]  I don't know what to say.  It's no\naffair of the office.\n\nRUTH.  But what am I to do?\n\nCOKESON.  Dear me!  I can't tell you that.\n\n     SWEEDLE comes back.  He crosses to the outer office and passes\n     through into it, with a quizzical look at Cokeson, carefully\n     leaving the door an inch or two open.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fortified by this look]  This won't do, you know, this\nwon't do at all.  Suppose one of the partners came in!\n\n     An incoherent knocking and chuckling is heard from the outer\n     door of the outer office.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Putting his head in]  There's some children outside here.\n\nRUTH.  They're mine, please.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I hold them in check?\n\nRUTH.  They're quite small, sir. [She takes a step towards COKESON]\n\nCOKESON.  You mustn't take up his time in office hours; we're a clerk\nshort as it is.\n\nRUTH.  It's a matter of life and death.\n\nCOKESON.  [Again outraged]  Life and death!\n\nSWEEDLE.  Here is Falder.\n\n     FALDER has entered through the outer office.  He is a pale,\n     good-looking young man, with quick, rather scared eyes.  He\n     moves towards the door of the clerks' office, and stands there\n     irresolute.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll give you a minute.  It's not regular.\n\n     Taking up a bundle of papers, he goes out into the partners'\n     room.\n\nRUTH.  [In a low, hurried voice]  He's on the drink again, Will.  He\ntried to cut my throat last night.  I came out with the children\nbefore he was awake.  I went round to you.\n\nFALDER.  I've changed my digs.\n\nRUTH.  Is it all ready for to-night?\n\nFALDER.  I've got the tickets.  Meet me 11.45 at the booking office.\nFor God's sake don't forget we're man and wife!  [Looking at her with\ntragic intensity]  Ruth!\n\nRUTH.  You're not afraid of going, are you?\n\nFALDER.  Have you got your things, and the children's?\n\nRUTH.  Had to leave them, for fear of waking Honeywill, all but one\nbag.  I can't go near home again.\n\nFALDER.  [Wincing]  All that money gone for nothing.\nHow much must you have?\n\nRUTH.  Six pounds--I could do with that, I think.\n\nFALDER.  Don't give away where we're going.  [As if to himself]  When\nI get out there I mean to forget it all.\n\nRUTH.  If you're sorry, say so.  I'd sooner he killed me than take\nyou against your will.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer smile]  We've got to go.  I don't care; I'll\nhave you.\n\nRUTH.  You've just to say; it's not too late.\n\nFALDER.  It is too late.  Here's seven pounds.  Booking office 11.45\nto-night.  If you weren't what you are to me, Ruth----!\n\nRUTH.  Kiss me!\n\n     They cling together passionately, there fly apart just as\n     COKESON re-enters the room.  RUTH turns and goes out through the\n     outer office.  COKESON advances deliberately to his chair and\n     seats himself.\n\nCOKESON.  This isn't right, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  It shan't occur again, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  It's an improper use of these premises.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  You quite understand-the party was in some distress; and,\nhaving children with her, I allowed my feelings----[He opens a\ndrawer and produces from it a tract]  Just take this!  \"Purity in the\nHome.\"  It's a well-written thing.\n\nFALDER.  [Taking it, with a peculiar expression]  Thank you, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  And look here, Falder, before Mr. Walter comes, have you\nfinished up that cataloguing Davis had in hand before he left?\n\nFALDER.  I shall have done with it to-morrow, sir--for good.\n\nCOKESON.  It's over a week since Davis went.  Now it won't do,\nFalder.  You're neglecting your work for private life.  I shan't\nmention about the party having called, but----\n\nFALDER.  [Passing into his room] Thank you, sir.\n\n     COKESON stares at the door through which FALDER has gone out;\n     then shakes his head, and is just settling down to write, when\n     WALTER How comes in through the outer Office.  He is a rather\n     refined-looking man of thirty-five, with a pleasant, almost\n     apologetic voice.\n\nWALTER.  Good-morning, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Morning, Mr. Walter.\n\nWALTER.  My father here?\n\nCOKESON.  [Always with a certain patronage as to a young man who\nmight be doing better]  Mr. James has been here since eleven o'clock.\n\nWALTER.  I've been in to see the pictures, at the Guildhall.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as though this were exactly what was to be\nexpected]  Have you now--ye--es.  This lease of Boulter's--am I to\nsend it to counsel?\n\nWALTER.  What does my father say?\n\nCOKESON.  'Aven't bothered him.\n\nWALTER.  Well, we can't be too careful.\n\nCOKESON.  It's such a little thing--hardly worth the fees.  I thought\nyou'd do it yourself.\n\nWALTER.  Send it, please.  I don't want the responsibility.\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indescribable air of compassion]  Just as you\nlike.  This \"right-of-way\" case--we've got 'em on the deeds.\n\nWALTER.  I know; but the intention was obviously to exclude that bit\nof common ground.\n\nCOKESON.  We needn't worry about that.  We're the right side of the\nlaw.\n\nWALTER.  I don't like it,\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  We shan't want to set ourselves\nup against the law.  Your father wouldn't waste his time doing that.\n\n     As he speaks JAMES How comes in from the partners' room.  He is\n     a shortish man, with white side-whiskers, plentiful grey hair,\n     shrewd eyes, and gold pince-nez.\n\nJAMES.  Morning, Walter.\n\nWALTER.  How are you, father?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking down his nose at the papers in his hand as though\ndeprecating their size] I'll just take Boulter's lease in to young\nFalder to draft the instructions. [He goes out into FALDER'S room.]\n\nWALTER.  About that right-of-way case?\n\nJAMES.  Oh, well, we must go forward there.  I thought you told me\nyesterday the firm's balance was over four hundred.\n\nWALTER.  So it is.\n\nJAMES.  [Holding out the pass-book to his son] Three--five--one, no\nrecent cheques.  Just get me out the cheque-book.\n\n     WALTER goes to a cupboard, unlocks a drawer and produces a\n     cheque-book.\n\nJAMES.  Tick the pounds in the counterfoils.  Five, fifty-four,\nseven, five, twenty-eight, twenty, ninety, eleven, fifty-two,\nseventy-one.  Tally?\n\nWALTER.  [Nodding]  Can't understand.  Made sure it was over four\nhundred.\n\nJAMES.  Give me the cheque-book.  [He takes the check-book and cons\nthe counterfoils] What's this ninety?\n\nWALTER.  Who drew it?\n\nJAMES.  You.\n\nWALTER.  [Taking the cheque-book]  July 7th?  That's the day I went\ndown to look over the Trenton Estate--last Friday week; I came back\non the Tuesday, you remember.  But look here, father, it was nine I\ndrew a cheque for.  Five guineas to Smithers and my expenses.  It\njust covered all but half a crown.\n\nJAMES.  [Gravely]  Let's look at that ninety cheque.  [He sorts the\ncheque out from the bundle in the pocket of the pass-book] Seems all\nright.  There's no nine here.  This is bad.  Who cashed that\nnine-pound cheque?\n\nWALTER.  [Puzzled and pained]  Let's see!  I was finishing Mrs.\nReddy's will--only just had time; yes--I gave it to Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Look at that 't' 'y': that yours?\n\nWALTER.  [After consideration]  My y's curl back a little; this\ndoesn't.\n\nJAMES.  [As COKESON re-enters from FALDER'S room]  We must ask him.\nJust come here and carry your mind back a bit, Cokeson.  D'you\nremember cashing a cheque for Mr. Walter last Friday week--the day\nhe went to Trenton?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  Nine pounds.\n\nJAMES.  Look at this.  [Handing him the cheque.]\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nine pounds.  My lunch was just coming in; and of\ncourse I like it hot; I gave the cheque to Davis to run round to the\nbank.  He brought it back, all gold--you remember, Mr. Walter, you\nwanted some silver to pay your cab.  [With a certain contemptuous\ncompassion]  Here, let me see.  You've got the wrong cheque.\n\n     He takes cheque-book and pass-book from WALTER.\n\nWALTER.  Afraid not.\n\nCOKESON.  [Having seen for himself]  It's funny.\n\nJAMES.  You gave it to Davis, and Davis sailed for Australia on\nMonday.  Looks black, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Puzzled and upset]  why this'd be a felony!  No, no!\nthere's some mistake.\n\nJAMES.  I hope so.\n\nCOKESON.  There's never been anything of that sort in the office the\ntwenty-nine years I've been here.\n\nJAMES.  [Looking at cheque and counterfoil]  This is a very clever\nbit of work; a warning to you not to leave space after your figures,\nWalter.\n\nWALTER.  [Vexed]  Yes, I know--I was in such a tearing hurry that\nafternoon.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  This has upset me.\n\nJAMES.  The counterfoil altered too--very deliberate piece of\nswindling.  What was Davis's ship?\n\nWALTER.  'City of Rangoon'.\n\nJAMES.  We ought to wire and have him arrested at Naples; he can't be\nthere yet.\n\nCOKESON.  His poor young wife.  I liked the young man.  Dear, oh\ndear!  In this office!\n\nWALTER.  Shall I go to the bank and ask the cashier?\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly]  Bring him round here.  And ring up Scotland Yard.\n\nWALTER.  Really?\n\n     He goes out through the outer office.  JAMES paces the room.  He\n     stops and looks at COKESON, who is disconsolately rubbing the\n     knees of his trousers.\n\nJAMES.  Well, Cokeson!  There's something in character, isn't there?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him over his spectacles]  I don't quite take\nyou, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Your story, would sound d----d thin to any one who didn't\nknow you.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es!  [He laughs.  Then with a sudden gravity]  I'm sorry\nfor that young man.  I feel it as if it was my own son, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  A nasty business!\n\nCOKESON.  It unsettles you.  All goes on regular, and then a thing\nlike this happens.  Shan't relish my lunch to-day.\n\nJAMES.  As bad as that, Cokeson?\n\nCOKESON.  It makes you think.  [Confidentially]  He must have had\ntemptation.\n\nJAMES.  Not so fast.  We haven't convicted him yet.\n\nCOKESON.  I'd sooner have lost a month's salary than had this happen.\n    [He broods.]\n\nJAMES.  I hope that fellow will hurry up.\n\nCOKESON.  [Keeping things pleasant for the cashier]  It isn't fifty\nyards, Mr. James.  He won't be a minute.\n\nJAMES.  The idea of dishonesty about this office it hits me hard,\nCokeson.\n\n     He goes towards the door of the partners' room.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering quietly, to COKESON in a low voice]  She's popped\nup again, sir-something she forgot to say to Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  [Roused from his abstraction]  Eh?  Impossible.  Send her\naway!\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\nCOKESON.  Nothing, Mr. James.  A private matter.  Here, I'll come\nmyself.  [He goes into the outer office as JAMES passes into the\npartners' room]  Now, you really mustn't--we can't have anybody just\nnow.\n\nRUTH.  Not for a minute, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Reely!  Reely!  I can't have it.  If you want him, wait\nabout; he'll be going out for his lunch directly.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\n     WALTER, entering with the cashier, passes RUTH as she leaves the\n     outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  [To the cashier, who resembles a sedentary dragoon]\nGood-morning.  [To WALTER]  Your father's in there.\n\n     WALTER crosses and goes into the partners' room.\n\nCOKESON.  It's a nahsty, unpleasant little matter, Mr. Cowley.  I'm\nquite ashamed to have to trouble you.\n\nCOWLEY.  I remember the cheque quite well.  [As if it were a liver]\nSeemed in perfect order.\n\nCOKESON.  Sit down, won't you?  I'm not a sensitive man, but a thing\nlike this about the place--it's not nice.  I like people to be open\nand jolly together.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite so.\n\nCOKESON.  [Buttonholing him, and glancing toward the partners' room]\nOf course he's a young man.  I've told him about it before now--\nleaving space after his figures, but he will do it.\n\nCOWLEY.  I should remember the person's face--quite a youth.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't think we shall be able to show him to you, as a\nmatter of fact.\n\n     JAMES and WALTER have come back from the partners' room.\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley.  You've seen my son and myself,\nyou've seen Mr. Cokeson, and you've seen Sweedle, my office-boy.  It\nwas none of us, I take it.\n\n     The cashier shakes his head with a smile.\n\nJAMES.  Be so good as to sit there.  Cokeson, engage Mr. Cowley in\nconversation, will you?\n\n     He goes toward FALDER'S room.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nCOKESON.  You don't want to upset the young man in there, do you?\nHe's a nervous young feller.\n\nJAMES.  This must be thoroughly cleared up, Cokeson, for the sake of\nFalder's name, to say nothing of yours.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Some dignity] That'll look after itself, sir.  He's\nbeen upset once this morning; I don't want him startled again.\n\nJAMES.  It's a matter of form; but I can't stand upon niceness over a\nthing like this--too serious.  Just talk to Mr. Cowley.\n\n     He opens the door of FALDER'S room.\n\nJAMES.  Bring in the papers in Boulter's lease, will you, Falder?\n\nCOKESON.  [Bursting into voice]  Do you keep dogs?\n\n     The cashier, with his eyes fixed on the door, does not answer.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't such a thing as a bulldog pup you could spare\nme, I suppose?\n\n     At the look on the cashier's face his jaw drops, and he turns to\n     see FALDER standing in the doorway, with his eyes fixed on\n     COWLEY, like the eyes of a rabbit fastened on a snake.\n\nFALDER.  [Advancing with the papers] Here they are, sir!\n\nJAMES.  [Taking them] Thank you.\n\nFALDER.  Do you want me, sir?\n\nJAMES.  No, thanks!\n\n     FALDER turns and goes back into his own room.  As he shuts the\n     door JAMES gives the cashier an interrogative look, and the\n     cashier nods.\n\nJAMES.  Sure?  This isn't as we suspected.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite.  He knew me.  I suppose he can't slip out of that\nroom?\n\nCOKESON.  [Gloomily]  There's only the window--a whole floor and a\nbasement.\n\n     The door of FALDER'S room is quietly opened, and FALDER, with\n     his hat in his hand, moves towards the door of the outer office.\n\nJAMES.  [Quietly]  Where are you going, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  To have my lunch, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Wait a few minutes, would you?  I want to speak to you about\nthis lease.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.  [He goes back into his room.]\n\nCOWLEY.  If I'm wanted, I can swear that's the young man who cashed\nthe cheque.  It was the last cheque I handled that morning before my\nlunch.  These are the numbers of the notes he had.  [He puts a slip\nof paper on the table; then, brushing his hat round]  Good-morning!\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley!\n\nCOWLEY.  [To COKESON]  Good-morning.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Stupefaction]  Good-morning.\n\n     The cashier goes out through the outer office. COKESON sits down\n     in his chair, as though it were the only place left in the\n     morass of his feelings.\n\nWALTER.  What are you going to do?\n\nJAMES.  Have him in.  Give me the cheque and the counterfoil.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.  I thought young Davis----\n\nJAMES.  We shall see.\n\nWALTER.  One moment, father: have you thought it out?\n\nJAMES.  Call him in!\n\nCOKESON.  [Rising with difficulty and opening FALDER'S door;\nhoarsely]  Step in here a minute.\n\nFALDER.  [Impassively]  Yes, sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Turning to him suddenly with the cheque held out]  You know\nthis cheque, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nJADES.  Look at it.  You cashed it last Friday week.\n\nFALDER.  Oh! yes, sir; that one--Davis gave it me.\n\nJAMES.  I know. And you gave Davis the cash?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nJAMES.  When Davis gave you the cheque was it exactly like this?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I think so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  You know that Mr. Walter drew that cheque for nine pounds?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--ninety.\n\nJAMES.  Nine, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  I don't understand, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The suggestion, of course, is that the cheque was altered;\nwhether by you or Davis is the question.\n\nFALDER.  I--I\n\nCOKESON.  Take your time, take your time.\n\nFALDER.  [Regaining his impassivity]  Not by me, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The cheque was handed to--Cokeson by Mr. Walter at one\no'clock; we know that because Mr. Cokeson's lunch had just arrived.\n\nCOKESON.  I couldn't leave it.\n\nJAMES.  Exactly; he therefore gave the cheque to Davis.  It was\ncashed by you at 1.15.  We know that because the cashier recollects\nit for the last cheque he handled before his lunch.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, Davis gave it to me because some friends were\ngiving him a farewell luncheon.\n\nJAMES.  [Puzzled] You accuse Davis, then?\n\nFALDER.  I don't know, sir--it's very funny.\n\n     WALTER, who has come close to his father, says something to him\n     in a low voice.\n\nJAMES.  Davis was not here again after that Saturday, was he?\n\nCOKESON.  [Anxious to be of assistance to the young man, and seeing\nfaint signs of their all being jolly once more] No, he sailed on the\nMonday.\n\nJAMES.  Was he, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [Very faintly]  No, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Very well, then, how do you account for the fact that this\nnought was added to the nine in the counterfoil on or after Tuesday?\n\nCOKESON.  [Surprised]  How's that?\n\n     FALDER gives a sort of lurch; he tries to pull himself together,\n     but he has gone all to pieces.\n\nJAMES.  [Very grimly]  Out, I'm afraid, Cokeson.  The cheque-book\nremained in Mr. Walter's pocket till he came back from Trenton on\nTuesday morning.  In the face of this, Falder, do you still deny that\nyou altered both cheque and counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--no, Mr. How.  I did it, sir; I did it.\n\nCOKESON.  [Succumbing to his feelings]  Dear, dear! what a thing to\ndo!\n\nFALDER.  I wanted the money so badly, sir.  I didn't know what I was\ndoing.\n\nCOKESON.  However such a thing could have come into your head!\n\nFALDER.  [Grasping at the words]  I can't think, sir, really!  It was\njust a minute of madness.\n\nJAMES.  A long minute, Falder.  [Tapping the counterfoil] Four days\nat least.\n\nFALDER.  Sir, I swear I didn't know what I'd done till afterwards,\nand then I hadn't the pluck.  Oh!  Sir, look over it!  I'll pay the\nmoney back--I will, I promise.\n\nJAMES.  Go into your room.\n\n     FALDER, with a swift imploring look, goes back into his room.\n     There is silence.\n\nJAMES.  About as bad a case as there could be.\n\nCOKESON.  To break the law like that-in here!\n\nWALTER.  What's to be done?\n\nJAMES.  Nothing for it.  Prosecute.\n\nWALTER.  It's his first offence.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head]  I've grave doubts of that.  Too neat a\npiece of swindling altogether.\n\nCOKESON.  I shouldn't be surprised if he was tempted.\n\nJAMES.  Life's one long temptation, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm speaking of the flesh and the devil, Mr.\nJames.  There was a woman come to see him this morning.\n\nWALTER.  The woman we passed as we came in just now.  Is it his wife?\n\nCOKESON.  No, no relation.  [Restraining what in jollier\ncircumstances would have been a wink]  A married person, though.\n\nWALTER.  How do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Brought her children.  [Scandalised]  There they were\noutside the office.\n\nJAMES.  A real bad egg.\n\nWALTER.  I should like to give him a chance.\n\nJAMES.  I can't forgive him for the sneaky way he went to work--\ncounting on our suspecting young Davis if the matter came to light.\nIt was the merest accident the cheque-book stayed in your pocket.\n\nWALTER.  It must have been the temptation of a moment.  He hadn't\ntime.\n\nJAMES.  A man doesn't succumb like that in a moment, if he's a clean\nmind and habits.  He's rotten; got the eyes of a man who can't keep\nhis hands off when there's money about.\n\nWALTER.  [Dryly] We hadn't noticed that before.\n\nJAMES.  [Brushing the remark aside] I've seen lots of those fellows\nin my time.  No doing anything with them except to keep 'em out of\nharm's way.  They've got a blind spat.\n\nWALTER.  It's penal servitude.\n\nCOKESON.  They're nahsty places-prisons.\n\nJAMES.  [Hesitating] I don't see how it's possible to spare him.  Out\nof the question to keep him in this office--honesty's the 'sine qua\nnon'.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hypnotised] Of course it is.\n\nJAMES.  Equally out of the question to send him out amongst people\nwho've no knowledge of his character.  One must think of society.\n\nWALTER.  But to brand him like this?\n\nJAMES.  If it had been a straightforward case I'd give him another\nchance.  It's far from that.  He has dissolute habits.\n\nCOKESON.  I didn't say that--extenuating circumstances.\n\nJAMES.  Same thing.  He's gone to work in the most cold-blooded way\nto defraud his employers, and cast the blame on an innocent man.  If\nthat's not a case for the law to take its course, I don't know what\nis.\n\nWALTER.  For the sake of his future, though.\n\nJAMES.  [Sarcastically]  According to you, no one would ever\nprosecute.\n\nWALTER.  [Nettled]  I hate the idea of it.\n\nCOKESON.  That's rather 'ex parte', Mr. Walter!  We must have\nprotection.\n\nJAMES.  This is degenerating into talk.\n\n     He moves towards the partners' room.\n\nWALTER.  Put yourself in his place, father.\n\nJAMES.  You ask too much of me.\n\nWALTER.  We can't possibly tell the pressure there was on him.\n\nJAMES.  You may depend on it, my boy, if a man is going to do this\nsort of thing he'll do it, pressure or no pressure; if he isn't\nnothing'll make him.\n\nWALTER.  He'll never do it again.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fatuously] S'pose I were to have a talk with him.  We\ndon't want to be hard on the young man.\n\nJAMES.  That'll do, Cokeson.  I've made up my mind.  [He passes into\nthe partners' room.]\n\nCOKESON.  [After a doubtful moment]  We must excuse your father.  I\ndon't want to go against your father; if he thinks it right.\n\nWALTER.  Confound it, Cokeson! why don't you back me up?  You know\nyou feel----\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity]  I really can't say what I feel.\n\nWALTER.  We shall regret it.\n\nCOKESON.  He must have known what he was doing.\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly]  \"The quality of mercy is not strained.\"\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him askance]  Come, come, Mr. Walter.  We must\ntry and see it sensible.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering with a tray] Your lunch, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Put it down!\n\n     While SWEEDLE is putting it down on COKESON's table, the\n     detective, WISTER, enters the outer office, and, finding no one\n     there, comes to the inner doorway.  He is a square, medium-sized\n     man, clean-shaved, in a serviceable blue serge suit and strong\n     boots.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hoarsely]  Here!  Here!  What are we doing?\n\nWISTER.  [To WALTER]  From Scotland Yard, sir.  Detective-Sergeant\nBlister.\n\nWALTER.  [Askance] Very well!  I'll speak to my father.\n\n     He goes into the partners' room.  JAMES enters.\n\nJAMES.  Morning!  [In answer to an appealing gesture from COKESON]\nI'm sorry; I'd stop short of this if I felt I could.  Open that door.\n[SWEEDLE, wondering and scared, opens it] Come here, Mr. Falder.\n\n     As FALDER comes shrinkingly out, the detective in obedience to a\n     sign from JAMES, slips his hand out and grasps his arm.\n\nFALDER.  [Recoiling] Oh! no,--oh! no!\n\nWALTER.  Come, come, there's a good lad.\n\nJAMES.  I charge him with felony.\n\nFALTER.  Oh, sir!  There's some one--I did it for her.  Let me be\ntill to-morrow.\n\n     JAMES motions with his hand.  At that sign of hardness, FALDER\n     becomes rigid.  Then, turning, he goes out quietly in the\n     detective's grip.  JAMES follows, stiff and erect.  SWEEDLE,\n     rushing to the door with open mouth, pursues them through the\n     outer office into the corridor.  When they have all disappeared\n     COKESON spins completely round and makes a rush for the outer\n     office.\n\nCOKESON: [Hoarsely] Here!  What are we doing?\n\n     There is silence.  He takes out his handkerchief and mops the\n     sweat from his face.  Going back blindly to his table, sits\n     down, and stares blankly at his lunch.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\nACT II\n\nA Court of Justice, on a foggy October afternoon crowded with\nbarristers, solicitors, reporters, ushers, and jurymen.  Sitting in\nthe large, solid dock is FALDER, with a warder on either side of him,\nplaced there for his safe custody, but seemingly indifferent to and\nunconscious of his presence.  FALDER is sitting exactly opposite to\nthe JUDGE, who, raised above the clamour of the court, also seems\nunconscious of and indifferent to everything.  HAROLD CLEAVER, the\ncounsel for the Crown, is a dried, yellowish man, of more than middle\nage, in a wig worn almost to the colour of his face.  HECTOR FROME,\nthe counsel for the defence, is a young, tall man, clean shaved, in a\nvery white wig.  Among the spectators,  having already given their\nevidence, are JAMES and WALTER HOW, and COWLEY, the cashier.  WISTER,\nthe detective, is just leaving the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  That is the case for the Crown, me lud!\n\n     Gathering his robes together, he sits down.\n\nFROME.  [Rising and bowing to the JUDGE] If it please your lordship\nand gentlemen of the jury.  I am not going to dispute the fact that\nthe prisoner altered this cheque, but I am going to put before you\nevidence as to the condition of his mind, and to submit that you\nwould not be justified in finding that he was responsible for his\nactions at the time.  I am going to show you, in fact, that he did\nthis in a moment of aberration, amounting to temporary insanity,\ncaused by the violent distress under which he was labouring.\nGentlemen, the prisoner is only twenty-three years old.  I shall call\nbefore you a woman from whom you will learn the events that led up to\nthis act.  You will hear from her own lips the tragic circumstances\nof her life, the still more tragic infatuation with which she has\ninspired the prisoner.  This woman, gentlemen, has been leading a\nmiserable existence with a husband who habitually ill-uses her, from\nwhom she actually goes in terror of her life.  I am not, of course,\nsaying that it's either right or desirable for a young man to fall in\nlove with a married woman, or that it's his business to rescue her\nfrom an ogre-like husband.  I'm not saying anything of the sort.  But\nwe all know the power of the passion of love; and I would ask you to\nremember, gentlemen, in listening to her evidence, that, married to a\ndrunken and violent husband, she has no power to get rid of him; for,\nas you know, another offence besides violence is necessary to enable\na woman to obtain a divorce; and of this offence it does not appear\nthat her husband is guilty.\n\nJUDGE.  Is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  My lord, I submit, extremely--I shall be able to show your\nlordship that directly.\n\nJUDGE.  Very well.\n\nFROME.  In these circumstances, what alternatives were left to her?\nShe could either go on living with this drunkard, in terror of her\nlife; or she could apply to the Court for a separation order.  Well,\ngentlemen, my experience of such cases assures me that this would\nhave given her very insufficient protection from the violence of such\na man; and even if effectual would very likely have reduced her\neither to the workhouse or the streets--for it's not easy, as she is\nnow finding, for an unskilled woman without means of livelihood to\nsupport herself and her children without resorting either to the Poor\nLaw or--to speak quite plainly--to the sale of her body.\n\nJUDGE.  You are ranging rather far, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  I shall fire point-blank in a minute, my lord.\n\nJUDGE.  Let us hope so.\n\nFROME.  Now, gentlemen, mark--and this is what I have been leading up\nto--this woman will tell you, and the prisoner will confirm her,\nthat, confronted with such alternatives, she set her whole hopes on\nhimself, knowing the feeling with which she had inspired him.  She\nsaw a way out of her misery by going with him to a new country, where\nthey would both be unknown, and might pass as husband and wife.  This\nwas a desperate and, as my friend Mr. Cleaver will no doubt call it,\nan immoral resolution; but, as a fact, the minds of both of them were\nconstantly turned towards it.  One wrong is no excuse for another,\nand those who are never likely to be faced by such a situation\npossibly have the right to hold up their hands--as to that I prefer\nto say nothing.  But whatever view you take, gentlemen, of this part\nof the prisoner's story--whatever opinion you form of the right of\nthese two young people under such circumstances to take the law into\ntheir own hands--the fact remains that this young woman in her\ndistress, and this young man, little more than a boy, who was so\ndevotedly attached to her, did conceive this--if you like--\nreprehensible design of going away together.  Now, for that, of\ncourse, they required money, and--they had none.  As to the actual\nevents of the morning of July 7th, on which this cheque was altered,\nthe events on which I rely to prove the defendant's irresponsibility\n--I shall allow those events to speak for themselves, through the\nlips of my witness.  Robert Cokeson.  [He turns, looks round, takes\nup a sheet of paper, and waits.]\n\n     COKESON is summoned into court, and goes into the witness-box,\n     holding his hat before him.  The oath is administered to him.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nCOKESON.  Robert Cokeson.\n\nFROME.  Are you managing clerk to the firm of solicitors who employ\nthe prisoner?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  How long had the prisoner been in their employ?\n\nCOKESON.  Two years.  No, I'm wrong there--all but seventeen days.\n\nFROME.  Had you him under your eye all that time?\n\nCOKESON.  Except Sundays and holidays.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  Let us hear, please, what you have to say about\nhis general character during those two years.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially to the jury, and as if a little surprised\nat being asked]  He was a nice, pleasant-spoken young man.  I'd no\nfault to find with him--quite the contrary.  It was a great surprise\nto me when he did a thing like that.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever give you reason to suspect his honesty?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  To have dishonesty in our office, that'd never do.\n\nFROME.  I'm sure the jury fully appreciate that, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Every man of business knows that honesty's 'the sign qua\nnon'.\n\nFROME.  Do you give him a good character all round, or do you not?\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning to the JUDGE]  Certainly.  We were all very jolly\nand pleasant together, until this happened.  Quite upset me.\n\nFROME.  Now, coming to the morning of the 7th of July, the morning on\nwhich the cheque was altered.  What have you to say about his\ndemeanour that morning?\n\nCOKESON.  [To the jury]  If you ask me, I don't think he was quite\ncompos when he did it.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  Are you suggesting that he was insane?\n\nCOKESON.  Not compos.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  A little more precision, please.\n\nFROME.  [Smoothly]  Just tell us, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Somewhat outraged]  Well, in my opinion--[looking at the\nJUDGE]--such as it is--he was jumpy at the time.  The jury will\nunderstand my meaning.\n\nFROME.  Will you tell us how you came to that conclusion?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I will.  I have my lunch in from the restaurant, a\nchop and a potato--saves time.  That day it happened to come just as\nMr. Walter How handed me the cheque.  Well, I like it hot; so I went\ninto the clerks' office and I handed the cheque to Davis, the other\nclerk, and told him to get change.  I noticed young Falder walking up\nand down.  I said to him: \"This is not the Zoological Gardens,\nFalder.\"\n\nFROME.  Do you remember what he answered?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es: \"I wish to God it were!\"  Struck me as funny.\n\nFROME.  Did you notice anything else peculiar?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  What was that?\n\nCOKESON.  His collar was unbuttoned.  Now, I like a young man to be\nneat.  I said to him: \"Your collar's unbuttoned.\"\n\nFROME.  And what did he answer?\n\nCOKESON.  Stared at me.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Stared at you?  Isn't that a very common practice?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but it was the look in his eyes.  I can't explain my\nmeaning--it was funny.\n\nFROME.  Had you ever seen such a look in his eyes before?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  If I had I should have spoken to the partners.  We\ncan't have anything eccentric in our profession.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Did you speak to them on that occasion?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, I didn't like to trouble them about\nprime facey evidence.\n\nFROME.  But it made a very distinct impression on your mind?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  The clerk Davis could have told you the same.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  It's very unfortunate that we've not got him here.\nNow can you tell me of the morning on which the discovery of the\nforgery was made?  That would be the 18th.  Did anything happen that\nmorning?\n\nCOKESON.  [With his hand to his ear]  I'm a little deaf.\n\nFROME.  Was there anything in the course of that morning--I mean\nbefore the discovery--that caught your attention?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es--a woman.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  How is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  I am trying to establish the state of mind in which the\nprisoner committed this act, my lord.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I quite appreciate that.  But this was long after the\nact.\n\nFROME.  Yes, my lord, but it contributes to my contention.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Well!\n\nFROME.  You say a woman.  Do you mean that she came to the office?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  What for?\n\nCOKESON.  Asked to see young Falder; he was out at the moment.\n\nFROME.  Did you see her?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  Did she come alone?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, there you put me in a difficulty.\nI mustn't tell you what the office-boy told me.\n\nFROME.  Quite so, Mr. Cokeson, quite so----\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in with an air of \"You are young--leave it to\nme\"]  But I think we can get round it.  In answer to a question put\nto her by a third party the woman said to me: \"They're mine, sir.\"\n\nTHE JUDGE.  What are?  What were?\n\nCOKESON.  Her children.  They were outside.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  HOW do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Your lordship mustn't ask me that, or I shall have to tell\nyou what I was told--and that'd never do.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Smiling]  The office-boy made a statement.\n\nCOKESON.  Egg-zactly.\n\nFROME.  What I want to ask you, Mr. Cokeson, is this.  In the course\nof her appeal to see Falder, did the woman say anything that you\nspecially remember?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as if to encourage him to complete the\nsentence]  A leetle more, sir.\n\nFROME.  Or did she not?\n\nCOKESON.  She did.  I shouldn't like you to have led me to the\nanswer.\n\nFROME.  [With an irritated smile]  Will you tell the jury what it\nwas?\n\nCOKESON.  \"It's a matter of life and death.\"\n\nFOREMAN OF THE JURY.  Do you mean the woman said that?\n\nCOKESON.  [Nodding]  It's not the sort of thing you like to have said\nto you.\n\nFROME.  [A little impatiently]  Did Falder come in while she was\nthere?  [COKESON nods]  And she saw him, and went away?\n\nCOKESON.  Ah!  there I can't follow you.  I didn't see her go.\n\nFROME.  Well, is she there now?\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  No!\n\nFROME.  Thank you, Mr. Cokeson.  [He sits down.]\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rising] You say that on the morning of the forgery the\nprisoner was jumpy.  Well, now, sir, what precisely do you mean by\nthat word?\n\nCOKESON.  [Indulgently]  I want you to understand.  Have you ever\nseen a dog that's lost its master?  He was kind of everywhere at once\nwith his eyes.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I was coming to his eyes.  You called them\n\"funny.\"  What are we to understand by that?  Strange, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, funny.\n\nCOKESON.  [Sharply]  Yes, sir, but what may be funny to you may not\nbe funny to me, or to the jury.  Did they look frightened, or shy, or\nfierce, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  You make it very hard for me.  I give you the word, and you\nwant me to give you another.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rapping his desk] Does \"funny\" mean mad?\n\nCLEAVER.  Not mad, fun----\n\nCLEAVER.  Very well!  Now you say he had his collar unbuttoned?  Was\nit a hot day?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es; I think it was.\n\nCLEAVER.  And did he button it when you called his attention to it?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I think he did.\n\nCLEAVER.  Would you say that that denoted insanity?\n\n     He sits downs.  COKESON, who has opened his mouth to reply, is\n     left gaping.\n\nFROME.  [Rising hastily] Have you ever caught him in that dishevelled\nstate before?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  He was always clean and quiet.\n\nFROME.  That will do, thank you.\n\n     COKESON turns blandly to the JUDGE, as though to rebuke counsel\n     for not remembering that the JUDGE might wish to have a chance;\n     arriving at the conclusion that he is to be asked nothing\n     further, he turns and descends from the box, and sits down next\n     to JAMES and WALTER.\n\nFROME.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\n     RUTH comes into court, and takes her stand stoically in the\n     witness-box.  She is sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name, please?\n\nRUTH.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\nFROME.  How old are you?\n\nRUTH.  Twenty-six.\n\nFROME.  You are a married woman, living with your husband?  A little\nlouder.\n\nRUTH.  No, sir; not since July.\n\nFROME.  Have you any children?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir, two.\n\nFROME.  Are they living with you?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  You know the prisoner?\n\nRUTH. [Looking at him]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  What was the nature of your relations with him?\n\nRUTH.  We were friends.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Friends?\n\nRUTH.  [Simply]  Lovers, sir.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  In what sense do you use that word?\n\nRUTH.  We love each other.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, but----\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  No, your lordship--not yet.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  'Not yet!  H'm!  [He looks from RUTH to FALDER]  Well!\n\nFROME.  What is your husband?\n\nRUTH.  Traveller.\n\nFROME.  And what was the nature of your married life?\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  It don't bear talking about.\n\nFROME.  Did he ill-treat you, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Ever since my first was born.\n\nFROME.  In what way?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather not say.  All sorts of ways.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I am afraid I must stop this, you know.\n\nRUTH.  [Pointing to FALDER]  He offered to take me out of it, sir.\nWe were going to South America.\n\nFROME.  [Hastily]  Yes, quite--and what prevented you?\n\nRUTH.  I was outside his office when he was taken away.  It nearly\nbroke my heart.\n\nFROME.  You knew, then, that he had been arrested?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.  I called at his office afterwards, and  [pointing\nto COKESON] that gentleman told me all about it.\n\nFROME.  Now, do you remember the morning of Friday, July 7th?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Why?\n\nRUTH.  My husband nearly strangled me that morning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Nearly strangled you!\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head] Yes, my lord.\n\nFROME.  With his hands, or----?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I just managed to get away from him.  I went straight to\nmy friend.  It was eight o'clock.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  In the morning?  Your husband was not under the influence\nof liquor then?\n\nRUTH.  It wasn't always that.\n\nFROME.  In what condition were you?\n\nRUTH.  In very bad condition, sir.  My dress was torn, and I was half\nchoking.\n\nFROME.  Did you tell your friend what had happened?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I wish I never had.\n\nFROME.  It upset him?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever speak to you about a cheque?\n\nRUTH.  Never.\n\nFROZE.  Did he ever give you any money?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  When was that?\n\nRUTH.  On Saturday.\n\nFROME.  The 8th?\n\nRUTH.  To buy an outfit for me and the children, and get all ready to\nstart.\n\nFROME.  Did that surprise you, or not?\n\nRUTH.  What, sir?\n\nFROME.  That he had money to give you.\n\nRing.  Yes, because on the morning when my husband nearly killed me\nmy friend cried because he hadn't the money to get me away.  He told\nme afterwards he'd come into a windfall.\n\nFROME.  And when did you last see him?\n\nRUTH.  The day he was taken away, sir.  It was the day we were to\nhave started.\n\nFROME.  Oh, yes, the morning of the arrest.  Well, did you see him at\nall between the Friday and that morning?  [RUTH nods]  What was his\nmanner then?\n\nRUTH.  Dumb--like--sometimes he didn't seem able to say a word.\n\nFROME.  As if something unusual had happened to him?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Painful, or pleasant, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Like a fate hanging over him.\n\nFROME.  [Hesitating]  Tell me, did you love the prisoner very much?\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  And had he a very great affection for you?\n\nRUTH.  [Looking at FALDER]  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  Now, ma'am, do you or do you not think that your danger and\nunhappiness would seriously affect his balance, his control over his\nactions?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  His reason, even?\n\nRUTH.  For a moment like, I think it would.\n\nFROME.  Was he very much upset that Friday morning, or was he fairly\ncalm?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully upset.  I could hardly bear to let him go from me.\n\nFROME.  Do you still love him?\n\nRUTH.  [With her eyes on FALDER]  He's ruined himself for me.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.\n\n     He sits down.  RUTH remains stoically upright in the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  [In a considerate voice]  When you left him on the morning\nof Friday the 7th you would not say that he was out of his mind, I\nsuppose?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I've no further questions to ask you.\n\nRUTH.  [Bending a little forward to the jury]  I would have done the\nsame for him; I would indeed.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Please, please!  You say your married life is an unhappy\none?  Faults on both sides?\n\nRUTH.  Only that I never bowed down to him.  I don't see why I\nshould, sir, not to a man like that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You refused to obey him?\n\nRUTH.  [Avoiding the question]  I've always studied him to keep\nthings nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Until you met the prisoner--was that it?\n\nRUTH.  No; even after that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I ask, you know, because you seem to me to glory in this\naffection of yours for the prisoner.\n\nRUTH.  [Hesitating]  I--I do.  It's the only thing in my life now.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Staring at her hard] Well, step down, please.\n\n     RUTH looks at FALDER, then passes quietly down and takes her\n     seat among the witnesses.\n\nFROME.  I call the prisoner, my lord.\n\n     FALDER leaves the dock; goes into the witness-box, and is duly\n     sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nFALDER.  William Falder.\n\nFROME.  And age?\n\nFALDER.  Twenty-three.\n\nFROME.  You are not married?\n\n     FALDER shakes his head\n\nFROME.  How long have you known the last witness?\n\nFALDER.  Six months.\n\nFROME.  Is her account of the relationship between you a correct one?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  You became devotedly attached to her, however?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Though you knew she was a married woman?\n\nFALDER.  I couldn't help it, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Couldn't help it?\n\nFALDER.  I didn't seem able to.\n\n     The JUDGE slightly shrugs his shoulders.\n\nFROME.  How did you come to know her?\n\nFALDER.  Through my married sister.\n\nFROME.  Did you know whether she was happy with her husband?\n\nFALDER.  It was trouble all the time.\n\nFROME.  You knew her husband?\n\nFALDER.  Only through her--he's a brute.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I can't allow indiscriminate abuse of a person not\npresent.\n\nFROME.  [Bowing]  If your lordship pleases.  [To FALDER]  You admit\naltering this cheque?\n\nFALDER bows his head.\n\nFROME.  Carry your mind, please, to the morning of Friday, July the\n7th, and tell the jury what happened.\n\nFALDER.  [Turning to the jury]  I was having my breakfast when she\ncame.  Her dress was all torn, and she was gasping and couldn't seem\nto get her breath at all; there were the marks of his fingers round\nher throat; her arm was bruised, and the blood had got into her eyes\ndreadfully.  It frightened me, and then when she told me, I felt--I\nfelt--well--it was too much for me!  [Hardening suddenly]  If you'd\nseen it, having the feelings for her that I had, you'd have felt the\nsame, I know.\n\nFROME.  Yes?\n\nFALDER.  When she left me--because I had to go to the office--I was\nout of my senses for fear that he'd do it again, and thinking what I\ncould do.  I couldn't work--all the morning I was like that--simply\ncouldn't fix my mind on anything.  I couldn't think at all.  I seemed\nto have to keep moving.  When Davis--the other clerk--gave me the\ncheque--he said: \"It'll do you good, Will, to have a run with this.\nYou seem half off your chump this morning.\"  Then when I had it in my\nhand--I don't know how it came, but it just flashed across me that if\nI put the 'ty' and the nought there would be the money to get her\naway.  It just came and went--I never thought of it again.  Then\nDavis went out to his luncheon, and I don't really remember what I\ndid till I'd pushed the cheque through to the cashier under the rail.\nI remember his saying \"Gold or notes?\"  Then I suppose I knew what\nI'd done.  Anyway, when I got outside I wanted to chuck myself under\na bus; I wanted to throw the money away; but it seemed I was in for\nit, so I thought at any rate I'd save her.  Of course the tickets I\ntook for the passage and the little I gave her's been wasted, and\nall, except what I was obliged to spend myself, I've restored.  I\nkeep thinking over and over however it was I came to do it, and how I\ncan't have it all again to do differently!\n\n     FALDER is silent, twisting his hands before him.\n\nFROME.  How far is it from your office to the bank?\n\nFALDER.  Not more than fifty yards, sir.\n\nFROME.  From the time Davis went out to lunch to the time you cashed\nthe cheque, how long do you say it must have been?\n\nFALDER.  It couldn't have been four minutes, sir, because I ran all\nthe way.\n\nFROME.  During those four minutes you say you remember nothing?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir; only that I ran.\n\nFROME.  Not even adding the 'ty' and the nought?'\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.  I don't really.\n\n     FROME sits down, and CLEAVER rises.\n\nCLEAVER.  But you remember running, do you?\n\nFALDER.  I was all out of breath when I got to the bank.\n\nCLEAVER.  And you don't remember altering the cheque?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Divested of the romantic glamour which my friend is casting\nover the case, is this anything but an ordinary forgery?  Come.\n\nFALDER.  I was half frantic all that morning, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Now, now!  You don't deny that the 'ty' and the nought were\nso like the rest of the handwriting as to thoroughly deceive the\ncashier?\n\nFALDER.  It was an accident.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Cheerfully]  Queer sort of accident, wasn't it?  On which\nday did you alter the counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  [Hanging his head]  On the Wednesday morning.\n\nCLEAVER.  Was that an accident too?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No.\n\nCLEAVER.  To do that you had to watch your opportunity, I suppose?\n\nFALDER.  [Almost inaudibly] Yes.\n\nCLEAVER.  You don't suggest that you were suffering under great\nexcitement when you did that?\n\nFALDER.  I was haunted.\n\nCLEAVER.  With the fear of being found out?\n\nFALDER.  [Very low] Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Didn't it occur to you that the only thing for you to do\nwas to confess to your employers, and restore the money?\n\nFALDER.  I was afraid. [There is silence]\n\nCLEAVER.  You desired, too, no doubt, to complete your design of\ntaking this woman away?\n\nFALDER.  When I found I'd done a thing like that, to do it for\nnothing seemed so dreadful.  I might just as well have chucked myself\ninto the river.\n\nCLEAVER.  You knew that the clerk Davis was about to leave England\n--didn't it occur to you when you altered this cheque that suspicion\nwould fall on him?\n\nFALDER.  It was all done in a moment.  I thought of it afterwards.\n\nCLEAVER.  And that didn't lead you to avow what you'd done?\n\nFALDER.  [Sullenly]  I meant to write when I got out there--I would\nhave repaid the money.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  But in the meantime your innocent fellow clerk might have\nbeen prosecuted.\n\nFALDER.  I knew he was a long way off, your lordship.  I thought\nthere'd be time.  I didn't think they'd find it out so soon.\n\nFROME.  I might remind your lordship that as Mr. Walter How had the\ncheque-book in his pocket till after Davis had sailed, if the\ndiscovery had been made only one day later Falder himself would have\nleft, and suspicion would have attached to him, and not to Davis,\nfrom the beginning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  The question is whether the prisoner knew that suspicion\nwould light on himself, and not on Davis.  [To FALDER sharply] Did\nyou know that Mr. Walter How had the cheque-book till after Davis\nhad sailed?\n\nFALDER.  I--I--thought--he----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Now speak the truth-yes or no!\n\nFALDER.  [Very low]  No, my lord.  I had no means of knowing.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  That disposes of your point, Mr. Frome.\n\n     [FROME bows to the JUDGE]\n\nCLEAVER.  Has any aberration of this nature ever attacked you before?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  You had recovered sufficiently to go back to your work that\nafternoon?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I had to take the money back.\n\nCLEAVER.  You mean the nine pounds.  Your wits were sufficiently keen\nfor you to remember that?  And you still persist in saying you don't\nremember altering this cheque.  [He sits down]\n\nFALDER.  If I hadn't been mad I should never have had the courage.\n\nFROME.  [Rising]  Did you have your lunch before going back?\n\nFALDER.  I never ate a thing all day; and at night I couldn't sleep.\n\nFROME.  Now, as to the four minutes that elapsed between Davis's\ngoing out and your cashing the cheque: do you say that you recollect\nnothing during those four minutes?\n\nFALDER.  [After a moment] I remember thinking of Mr. Cokeson's face.\n\nFROME.  Of Mr. Cokeson's face!  Had that any connection with what you\nwere doing?\n\nFALDER.  No, Sir.\n\nFROME.  Was that in the office, before you ran out?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and while I was running.\n\nFROME.  And that lasted till the cashier said: \"Will you have gold or\nnotes?\"\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and then I seemed to come to myself--and it was too\nlate.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.  That closes the evidence for the defence, my\nlord.\n\n     The JUDGE nods, and FALDER goes back to his seat in the dock.\n\nFROME.  [Gathering up notes]  If it please your lordship--Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--My friend in cross-examination has shown a disposition\nto sneer at the defence which has been set up in this case, and I am\nfree to admit that nothing I can say will move you, if the evidence\nhas not already convinced you that the prisoner committed this act in\na moment when to all practical intents and purposes he was not\nresponsible for his actions; a moment of such mental and moral\nvacuity, arising from the violent emotional agitation under which he\nhad been suffering, as to amount to temporary madness.  My friend has\nalluded to the \"romantic glamour\" with which I have sought to invest\nthis case.  Gentlemen, I have done nothing of the kind.  I have\nmerely shown you the background of \"life\"--that palpitating life\nwhich, believe me--whatever my friend may say--always lies behind the\ncommission of a crime.  Now gentlemen, we live in a highly, civilized\nage, and the sight of brutal violence disturbs us in a very strange\nway, even when we have no personal interest in the matter.  But when\nwe see it inflicted on a woman whom we love--what then?  Just think\nof what your own feelings would have been, each of you, at the\nprisoner's age; and then look at him.  Well!  he is hardly the\ncomfortable, shall we say bucolic, person likely to contemplate with\nequanimity marks of gross violence on a woman to whom he was\ndevotedly attached.  Yes, gentlemen, look at him!  He has not a\nstrong face; but neither has he a vicious face.  He is just the sort\nof man who would easily become the prey of his emotions.  You have\nheard the description of his eyes.  My friend may laugh at the word\n\"funny\"--I think it better describes the peculiar uncanny look of\nthose who are strained to breaking-point than any other word which\ncould have been used.  I don't pretend, mind you, that his mental\nirresponsibility--was more than a flash of darkness, in which all\nsense of proportion became lost; but to contend, that, just as a man\nwho destroys himself at such a moment may be, and often is, absolved\nfrom the stigma attaching to the crime of self-murder, so he may, and\nfrequently does, commit other crimes while in this irresponsible\ncondition, and that he may as justly be acquitted of criminal intent\nand treated as a patient.  I admit that this is a plea which might\nwell be abused.  It is a matter for discretion.  But here you have a\ncase in which there is every reason to give the benefit of the doubt.\nYou heard me ask the prisoner what he thought of during those four\nfatal minutes.  What was his answer?  \"I thought of Mr. Cokeson's\nface!\"  Gentlemen, no man could invent an answer like that; it is\nabsolutely stamped with truth.  You have seen the great affection\n[legitimate or not] existing between him and this woman, who came\nhere to give evidence for him at the risk of her life.  It is\nimpossible for you to doubt his distress on the morning when he\ncommitted this act.  We well know what terrible havoc such distress\ncan make in weak and highly nervous people.  It was all the work of a\nmoment.  The rest has followed, as death follows a stab to the heart,\nor water drops if you hold up a jug to empty it.  Believe me,\ngentlemen, there is nothing more tragic in life than the utter\nimpossibility of changing what you have done.  Once this cheque was\naltered and presented, the work of four minutes--four mad minutes\n--the rest has been silence.  But in those four minutes the boy\nbefore you has slipped through a door, hardly opened, into that great\ncage which never again quite lets a man go--the cage of the Law.  His\nfurther acts, his failure to confess, the alteration of the\ncounterfoil, his preparations for flight, are all evidence--not of\ndeliberate and guilty intention when he committed the prime act from\nwhich these subsequent acts arose; no--they are merely evidence of\nthe weak character which is clearly enough his misfortune.  But is a\nman to be lost because he is bred and born with a weak character?\nGentlemen, men like the prisoner are destroyed daily under our law\nfor want of that human insight which sees them as they are, patients,\nand not criminals.  If the prisoner be found guilty, and treated as\nthough he were a criminal type, he will, as all experience shows, in\nall probability become one.  I beg you not to return a verdict that\nmay thrust him back into prison and brand him for ever.  Gentlemen,\nJustice is a machine that, when some one has once given it the\nstarting push, rolls on of itself.  Is this young man to be ground to\npieces under this machine for an act which at the worst was one of\nweakness?  Is he to become a member of the luckless crews that man\nthose dark, ill-starred ships called prisons?  Is that to be his\nvoyage-from which so few return?  Or is he to have another chance, to\nbe still looked on as one who has gone a little astray, but who will\ncome back?  I urge you, gentlemen, do not ruin this young man!  For,\nas a result of those four minutes, ruin, utter and irretrievable,\nstares him in the face.  He can be saved now.  Imprison him as a\ncriminal, and I affirm to you that he will be lost.  He has neither\nthe face nor the manner of one who can survive that terrible ordeal.\nWeigh in the scales his criminality and the suffering he has\nundergone.  The latter is ten times heavier already.  He has lain in\nprison under this charge for more than two months.  Is he likely ever\nto forget that?  Imagine the anguish of his mind during that time.\nHe has had his punishment, gentlemen, you may depend.  The rolling of\nthe chariot-wheels of Justice over this boy began when it was decided\nto prosecute him.  We are now already at the second stage.  If you\npermit it to go on to the third I would not give--that for him.\n\n     He holds up finger and thumb in the form of a circle, drops his\n     hand, and sits dozen.\n\nThe jury stir, and consult each other's faces; then they turn towards\nthe counsel for the Crown, who rises, and, fixing his eyes on a spot\nthat seems to give him satisfaction, slides them every now and then\ntowards the jury.\n\nCLEAVER.  May it please your lordship--[Rising on his toes] Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--The facts in this case are not disputed, and the\ndefence, if my friend will allow me to say so, is so thin that I\ndon't propose to waste the time of the Court by taking you over the\nevidence.  The plea is one of temporary insanity.  Well, gentlemen, I\ndaresay it is clearer to me than it is to you why this rather--what\nshall we call it?--bizarre defence has been set up.  The alternative\nwould have been to plead guilty.  Now, gentlemen, if the prisoner had\npleaded guilty my friend would have had to rely on a simple appeal to\nhis lordship.  Instead of that, he has gone into the byways and\nhedges and found this--er--peculiar plea, which has enabled him to\nshow you the proverbial woman, to put her in the box--to give, in\nfact, a romantic glow to this affair.  I compliment my friend; I\nthink it highly ingenious of him.  By these means, he has--to a\ncertain extent--got round the Law.  He has brought the whole story of\nmotive and stress out in court, at first hand, in a way that he would\nnot otherwise have been able to do.  But when you have once grasped\nthat fact, gentlemen, you have grasped everything.  [With\ngood-humoured contempt]  For look at this plea of insanity; we can't\nput it lower than that.  You have heard the woman.  She has every\nreason to favour the prisoner, but what did she say?  She said that\nthe prisoner was not insane when she left him in the morning.  If he\nwere going out of his mind through distress, that was obviously the\nmoment when insanity would have shown itself.  You have heard the\nmanaging clerk, another witness for the defence.  With some\ndifficulty I elicited from him the admission that the prisoner,\nthough jumpy [a word that he seemed to think you would understand,\ngentlemen, and I'm sure I hope you do], was not mad when the cheque\nwas handed to Davis.  I agree with my friend that it's unfortunate\nthat we have not got Davis here, but the prisoner has told you the\nwords with which Davis in turn handed him the cheque; he obviously,\ntherefore, was not mad when he received it, or he would not have\nremembered those words.  The cashier has told you that he was\ncertainly in his senses when he cashed it.  We have therefore the\nplea that a man who is sane at ten minutes past one, and sane at\nfifteen minutes past, may, for the purposes of avoiding the\nconsequences of a crime, call himself insane between those points of\ntime.  Really, gentlemen, this is so peculiar a proposition that I am\nnot disposed to weary you with further argument.  You will form your\nown opinion of its value.  My friend has adopted this way of saying a\ngreat deal to you--and very eloquently--on the score of youth,\ntemptation, and the like.  I might point out, however, that the\noffence with which the prisoner is charged is one of the most serious\nknown to our law; and there are certain features in this case, such\nas the suspicion which he allowed to rest on his innocent fellow-clerk,\nand his relations with this married woman, which will render it\ndifficult for you to attach too much importance to such pleading. I\nask you, in short, gentlemen, for that verdict of guilty which, in the\ncircumstances, I regard you as, unfortunately, bound to record.\n\n     Letting his eyes travel from the JUDGE and the jury to FROME, he\n     sits down.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Bending a little towards the jury, and speaking in a\nbusiness-like voice]  Gentlemen, you have heard the evidence, and the\ncomments on it.  My only business is to make clear to you the issues\nyou have to try.  The facts are admitted, so far as the alteration of\nthis cheque and counterfoil by the prisoner.  The defence set up is\nthat he was not in a responsible condition when he committed the\ncrime.  Well, you have heard the prisoner's story, and the evidence\nof the other witnesses--so far as it bears on the point of insanity.\nIf you think that what you have heard establishes the fact that the\nprisoner was insane at the time of the forgery, you will find him\nguilty, but insane.  If, on the other hand, you conclude from what\nyou have seen and heard that the prisoner was sane--and nothing short\nof insanity will count--you will find him guilty.  In reviewing the\ntestimony as to his mental condition you must bear in mind very\ncarefully the evidence as to his demeanour and conduct both before\nand after the act of forgery--the evidence of the prisoner himself,\nof the woman, of the witness--er--COKESON, and--er--of the cashier.\nAnd in regard to that I especially direct your attention to the\nprisoner's admission that the idea of adding the 'ty' and the nought\ndid come into his mind at the moment when the cheque was handed to\nhim; and also to the alteration of the counterfoil, and to his\nsubsequent conduct generally.  The bearing of all this on the\nquestion of premeditation [and premeditation will imply sanity] is\nvery obvious.  You must not allow any considerations of age or\ntemptation to weigh with you in the finding of your verdict.  Before\nyou can come to a verdict of guilty but insane you must be well and\nthoroughly convinced that the condition of his mind was such as would\nhave qualified him at the moment for a lunatic asylum.  [He pauses,\nthen, seeing that the jury are doubtful whether to retire or no,\nadds:] You may retire, gentlemen, if you wish to do so.\n\n     The jury retire by a door behind the JUDGE.  The JUDGE bends\n     over his notes.  FALDER, leaning from the dock, speaks excitedly\n     to his solicitor, pointing dawn at RUTH.  The solicitor in turn\n     speaks to FROME.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] My lord.  The prisoner is very anxious that I should\nask you if your lordship would kindly request the reporters not to\ndisclose the name of the woman witness in the Press reports of these\nproceedings.  Your lordship will understand that the consequences\nmight be extremely serious to her.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Pointedly--with the suspicion of a smile]  well, Mr.\nFrome, you deliberately took this course which involved bringing her\nhere.\n\nFROME. [With an ironic bow]  If your lordship thinks I could have\nbrought out the full facts in any other way?\n\nTHE JUDGE.  H'm!  Well.\n\nFROME.  There is very real danger to her, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You see, I have to take your word for all that.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship would be so kind.  I can assure your\nlordship that I am not exaggerating.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  It goes very much against the grain with me that the name\nof a witness should ever be suppressed.  [With a glance at FALDER,\nwho is gripping and clasping his hands before him, and then at RUTH,\nwho is sitting perfectly rigid with her eyes fixed on FALDER]  I'll\nconsider your application.  It must depend.  I have to remember that\nshe may have come here to commit perjury on the prisoner's behalf.\n\nFROME.  Your lordship, I really----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, yes--I don't suggest anything of the sort, Mr.\nFrome.  Leave it at that for the moment.\n\n     As he finishes speaking, the jury return, and file back into the\n     box.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Gentlemen, are you agreed on your verdict?\n\nFOREMAN.  We are.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Is it Guilty, or Guilty but insane?\n\nFOREMAN.  Guilty.\n\n     The JUDGE nods; then, gathering up his notes, sits looking at\n     FALDER, who stands motionless.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] If your lordship would allow me to address you in\nmitigation of sentence.  I don't know if your lordship thinks I can\nadd anything to what I have said to the jury on the score of the\nprisoner's youth, and the great stress under which he acted.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I don't think you can, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship says so--I do most earnestly beg your\nlordship to give the utmost weight to my plea.  [He sits down.]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [To the CLERK] Call upon him.\n\nTHE CLERK.  Prisoner at the bar, you stand convicted of felony.  Have\nyou anything to say for yourself, why the Court should not give you\njudgment according to law?  [FALDER shakes his head]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  William Falder, you have been given fair trial and found\nguilty, in my opinion rightly found guilty, of forgery.  [He pauses;\nthen, consulting his notes, goes on]  The defence was set up that you\nwere not responsible for your actions at the moment of committing\nthis crime.  There is no, doubt, I think, that this was a device to\nbring out at first hand the nature of the temptation to which you\nsuccumbed.  For throughout the trial your counsel was in reality\nmaking an appeal for mercy.  The setting up of this defence of course\nenabled him to put in some evidence that might weigh in that\ndirection.  Whether he was well advised to so is another matter.  He\nclaimed that you should be treated rather as a patient than as a\ncriminal.  And this plea of his, which in the end amounted to a\npassionate appeal, he based in effect on an indictment of the march\nof Justice, which he practically accused of confirming and completing\nthe process of criminality.  Now, in considering how far I should\nallow weight to his appeal; I have a number of factors to take into\naccount.  I have to consider on the one hand the grave nature of your\noffence, the deliberate way in which you subsequently altered the\ncounterfoil, the danger you caused to an innocent man--and that, to\nmy mind, is a very grave point--and finally I have to consider the\nnecessity of deterring others from following your example.  On the\nother hand, I have to bear in mind that you are young, that you have\nhitherto borne a good character, that you were, if I am to believe\nyour evidence and that of your witnesses, in a state of some\nemotional excitement when you committed this crime.  I have every\nwish, consistently with my duty--not only to you, but to the\ncommunity--to treat you with leniency.  And this brings me to what\nare the determining factors in my mind in my consideration of your\ncase.  You are a clerk in a lawyer's office--that is a very serious\nelement in this case; there can be no possible excuse made for you on\nthe ground that you were not fully conversant with the nature of the\ncrime you were committing, and the penalties that attach to it.  It\nis said, however, that you were carried away by your emotions.  The\nstory has been told here to-day of your relations with this--er--Mrs.\nHoneywill; on that story both the defence and the plea for mercy were\nin effect based.  Now what is that story?  It is that you, a young\nman, and she, a young woman, unhappily married, had formed an\nattachment, which you both say--with what truth I am unable to gauge\n--had not yet resulted in immoral relations, but which you both admit\nwas about to result in such relationship.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to palliate this, on the ground that the woman is in what he\ndescribes, I think, as \"a hopeless position.\"  As to that I can\nexpress no opinion.  She is a married woman, and the fact is patent\nthat you committed this crime with the view of furthering an immoral\ndesign.  Now, however I might wish, I am not able to justify to my\nconscience a plea for mercy which has a basis inimical to morality.\nIt is vitiated 'ab initio', and would, if successful, free you for\nthe completion of this immoral project.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to trace your offence back to what he seems to suggest is a\ndefect in the marriage law; he has made an attempt also to show that\nto punish you with further imprisonment would be unjust.  I do not\nfollow him in these flights.  The Law is what it is--a majestic\nedifice, sheltering all of us, each stone of which rests on another.\nI am concerned only with its administration.  The crime you have\ncommitted is a very serious one.  I cannot feel it in accordance with\nmy duty to Society to exercise the powers I have in your favour.  You\nwill go to penal servitude for three years.\n\n     FALDER, who throughout the JUDGE'S speech has looked at him\n     steadily, lets his head fall forward on his breast.  RUTH starts\n     up from her seat as he is taken out by the warders.  There is a\n     bustle in court.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Speaking to the reporters] Gentlemen of the Press, I\nthink that the name of the female witness should not be reported.\n\n     The reporters bow their acquiescence.  THE JUDGE.  [To RUTH, who\n     is staring in the direction in which FALDER has disappeared] Do\n     you understand, your name will not be mentioned?\n\nCOKESON.  [Pulling her sleeve]  The judge is speaking to you.\n\n     RUTH turns, stares at the JUDGE, and turns away.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I shall sit rather late to-day.  Call the next case.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  [To a warder]  Put up John Booley.\n\n     To cries of \"Witnesses in the case of Booley\":\n\n\n                    The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT III\n\nSCENE I\n\n     A prison.  A plainly furnished room, with two large barred\n     windows, overlooking the prisoners' exercise yard, where men, in\n     yellow clothes marked with arrows, and yellow brimless caps, are\n     seen in single file at a distance of four yards from each other,\n     walking rapidly on serpentine white lines marked on the concrete\n     floor of the yard.  Two warders in blue uniforms, with peaked\n     caps and swords, are stationed amongst them.  The room has\n     distempered walls, a bookcase with numerous official-looking\n     books, a cupboard between the windows, a plan of the prison on\n     the wall, a writing-table covered with documents.  It is\n     Christmas Eve.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, a neat, grave-looking man, with a trim, fair\n     moustache, the eyes of a theorist, and grizzled hair, receding\n     from the temples, is standing close to this writing-table\n     looking at a sort of rough saw made out of a piece of metal.\n     The hand in which he holds it is gloved, for two fingers\n     are missing.  The chief warder, WOODER, a tall, thin,\n     military-looking man of sixty, with grey moustache and\n     melancholy, monkey-like eyes, stands very upright two paces\n     from him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a faint, abstracted smile]  Queer-looking\naffair, Mr. Wooder!  Where did you find it?\n\nWOODER.  In his mattress, sir.  Haven't come across such a thing for\ntwo years now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With curiosity] Had he any set plan?\n\nWOODER.  He'd sawed his window-bar about that much.  [He holds up his\nthumb and finger a quarter of an inch apart]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll see him this afternoon.  What's his name?\nMoaney!  An old hand, I think?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir-fourth spell of penal.  You'd think an old lag like\nhim would have had more sense by now.  [With pitying contempt]\nOccupied his mind, he said.  Breaking in and breaking out--that's all\nthey think about.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Who's next him?\n\nWOODER.  O'Cleary, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  The Irishman.\n\nWOODER.  Next him again there's that young fellow, Falder--star\nclass--and next him old Clipton.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Ah, yes!  \"The philosopher.\"  I want to see him about\nhis eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Curious thing, sir: they seem to know when there's one of\nthese tries at escape going on.  It makes them restive--there's a\nregular wave going through them just now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Meditatively]  Odd things--those waves.  [Turning to\nlook at the prisoners exercising]  Seem quiet enough out here!\n\nWOODER.  That Irishman, O'Cleary, began banging on his door this\nmorning.  Little thing like that's quite enough to upset the whole\nlot.  They're just like dumb animals at times.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I've seen it with horses before thunder--it'll run\nright through cavalry lines.\n\n     The prison CHAPLAIN has entered.  He is a dark-haired, ascetic\n     man, in clerical undress, with a peculiarly steady, tight-lipped\n     face and slow, cultured speech.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Holding up the saw]  Seen this, Miller?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Useful-looking specimen.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Do for the Museum, eh!  [He goes to the cupboard and\nopens it, displaying to view a number of quaint ropes, hooks, and\nmetal tools with labels tied on them]  That'll do, thanks, Mr.\nWooder.\n\nWOODER.  [Saluting]  Thank you, sir.  [He goes out]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Account for the state of the men last day or two,\nMiller?  Seems going through the whole place.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  No.  I don't know of anything.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  By the way, will you dine with us on Christmas Day?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  To-morrow.  Thanks very much.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Worries me to feel the men discontented.  [Gazing at\nthe saw]  Have to punish this poor devil.  Can't help liking a man\nwho tries to escape.  [He places the saw in his pocket and locks the\ncupboard again]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Extraordinary perverted will-power--some of them.\nNothing to be done till it's broken.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  And not much afterwards, I'm afraid.  Ground too hard\nfor golf?\n\n     WOODER comes in again.\n\nWOODER.  Visitor who's been seeing Q 3007 asks to speak to you, sir.\nI told him it wasn't usual.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What about?\n\nWOODER.  Shall I put him off, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Resignedly]  No, no.  Let's see him.  Don't go,\nMiller.\n\nWOODER motions to some one without, and as the visitor comes in\nwithdraws.\n\n     The visitor is COKESON, who is attired in a thick overcoat to\n     the knees, woollen gloves, and carries a top hat.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry to trouble you.  I've been talking to the young\nman.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  We have a good many here.\n\nCOKESON.  Name of Falder, forgery.  [Producing a card, and handing it\nto the GOVERNOR]  Firm of James and Walter How.  Well known in the\nlaw.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Receiving the card-with a faint smile]  What do you\nwant to see me about, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly seeing the prisoners at exercise]  Why! what a\nsight!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, we have that privilege from here; my office is\nbeing done up.  [Sitting down at his table]  Now, please!\n\nCOKESON.  [Dragging his eyes with difficulty from the window] I\nwanted to say a word to you; I shan't keep you long.\n[Confidentially]  Fact is, I oughtn't to be here by rights.  His\nsister came to me--he's got no father and mother--and she was in some\ndistress.  \"My husband won't let me go and see him,\" she said; \"says\nhe's disgraced the family.  And his other sister,\" she said, \"is an\ninvalid.\"  And she asked me to come.  Well, I take an interest in\nhim.  He was our junior--I go to the same chapel--and I didn't like\nto refuse.  And what I wanted to tell you was, he seems lonely here.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not unnaturally.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm afraid it'll prey on my mind.  I see a lot of them\nabout working together.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Those are local prisoners.  The convicts serve their\nthree months here in separate confinement, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  But we don't want to be unreasonable.  He's quite\ndownhearted.  I wanted to ask you to let him run about with the\nothers.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With faint amusement]  Ring the bell-would you,\nMiller?  [To COKESON]  You'd like to hear what the doctor says about\nhim, perhaps.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Ringing the bell]  You are not accustomed to prisons,\nit would seem, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  No.  But it's a pitiful sight.  He's quite a young fellow.\nI said to him: \"Before a month's up\" I said, \"you'll be out and about\nwith the others; it'll be a nice change for you.\"  \"A month!\" he said\n--like that!  \"Come!\" I said, \"we mustn't exaggerate.  What's a\nmonth?  Why, it's nothing!\"  \"A day,\" he said, \"shut up in your cell\nthinking and brooding as I do, it's longer than a year outside.  I\ncan't help it,\" he said; \"I try--but I'm built that way, Mr.\nCOKESON.\"  And, he held his hand up to his face.  I could see the\ntears trickling through his fingers.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  He's a young man with large, rather peculiar eyes,\nisn't he?  Not Church of England, I think?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  I know.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To WOODER, who has come in]  Ask the doctor to be\ngood enough to come here for a minute.  [WOODER salutes, and goes\nout]  Let's see, he's not married?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  [Confidentially]  But there's a party he's very much\nattached to, not altogether com-il-fa.  It's a sad story.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  If it wasn't for drink and women, sir, this prison\nmight be closed.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at the CHAPLAIN over his spectacles] Ye-es, but I\nwanted to tell you about that, special.  He had hopes they'd have let\nher come and see him, but they haven't.  Of course he asked me\nquestions.  I did my best, but I couldn't tell the poor young fellow\na lie, with him in here--seemed like hitting him.  But I'm afraid\nit's made him worse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What was this news then?\n\nCOKESON.  Like this.  The woman had a nahsty, spiteful feller for a\nhusband, and she'd left him.  Fact is, she was going away with our\nyoung friend.  It's not nice--but I've looked over it.  Well, when he\nwas put in here she said she'd earn her living apart, and wait for\nhim to come out.  That was a great consolation to him.  But after a\nmonth she came to me--I don't know her personally--and she said:\n\"I can't earn the children's living, let alone my own--I've got no\nfriends.  I'm obliged to keep out of everybody's way, else my\nhusband'd get to know where I was.  I'm very much reduced,\" she said.\nAnd she has lost flesh.  \"I'll have to go in the workhouse!\" It's a\npainful story.  I said to her: \"No,\" I said, \"not that!  I've got a\nwife an' family, but sooner than you should do that I'll spare you a\nlittle myself.\"  \"Really,\" she said--she's a nice creature--\"I don't\nlike to take it from you.  I think I'd better go back to my husband.\"\nWell, I know he's a nahsty, spiteful feller--drinks--but I didn't\nlike to persuade her not to.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely, no.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm sorry now; it's upset the poor young fellow\ndreadfully.  And what I wanted to say was: He's got his three years\nto serve.  I want things to be pleasant for him.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [With a touch of impatience] The Law hardly shares\nyour view, I'm afraid.\n\nCOKESON.  But I can't help thinking that to shut him up there by\nhimself'll turn him silly.  And nobody wants that, I s'pose.  I don't\nlike to see a man cry.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  It's a very rare thing for them to give way like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him-in a tone of sudden dogged hostility]\nI keep dogs.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Indeed?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  And I say this: I wouldn't shut one of them up all\nby himself, month after month, not if he'd bit me all over.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Unfortunately, the criminal is not a dog; he has a\nsense of right and wrong.\n\nCOKESON.  But that's not the way to make him feel it.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Ah!  there I'm afraid we must differ.\n\nCOKESON.  It's the same with dogs.  If you treat 'em with kindness\nthey'll do anything for you; but to shut 'em up alone, it only makes\n'em savage.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely you should allow those who have had a little\nmore experience than yourself to know what is best for prisoners.\n\nCOKESON.  [Doggedly]  I know this young feller, I've watched him for\nyears.  He's eurotic--got no stamina.  His father died of\nconsumption.  I'm thinking of his future.  If he's to be kept there\nshut up by himself, without a cat to keep him company, it'll do him\nharm.  I said to him: \"Where do you feel it?\"  \"I can't tell you, Mr.\nCOKESON,\" he said, \"but sometimes I could beat my head against the\nwall.\"  It's not nice.\n\n     During this speech the DOCTOR has entered.  He is a\n     medium-Sized, rather good-looking man, with a quick eye.\n     He stands leaning against the window.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This gentleman thinks the separate is telling on\nQ 3007--Falder, young thin fellow, star class.  What do you say,\nDoctor Clements?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  He doesn't like it, but it's not doing him any harm.\n\nCOKESON.  But he's told me.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Of course he'd say so, but we can always tell.  He's\nlost no weight since he's been here.\n\nCOKESON.  It's his state of mind I'm speaking of.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  His mind's all right so far.  He's nervous, rather\nmelancholy.  I don't see signs of anything more.  I'm watching him\ncarefully.\n\nCOKESON.  [Nonplussed]  I'm glad to hear you say that.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [More suavely] It's just at this period that we are\nable to make some impression on them, sir.  I am speaking from my\nspecial standpoint.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning bewildered to the GOVERNOR] I don't want to be\nunpleasant, but having given him this news, I do feel it's awkward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll make a point of seeing him to-day.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm much obliged to you.  I thought perhaps seeing him\nevery day you wouldn't notice it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather sharply]  If any sign of injury to his health\nshows itself his case will be reported at once.  That's fully\nprovided for.  [He rises]\n\nCOKESON.  [Following his own thoughts]  Of course, what you don't see\ndoesn't trouble you; but having seen him, I don't want to have him on\nmy mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I think you may safely leave it to us, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Mollified and apologetic]  I thought you'd understand me.\nI'm a plain man--never set myself up against authority.  [Expanding\nto the CHAPLAIN]  Nothing personal meant.  Good-morning.\n\n     As he goes out the three officials do not look at each other,\n     but their faces wear peculiar expressions.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Our friend seems to think that prison is a hospital.\n\nCOKESON.  [Returning suddenly with an apologetic air]  There's just\none little thing.  This woman--I suppose I mustn't ask you to let him\nsee her.  It'd be a rare treat for them both.  He's thinking about\nher all the time.  Of course she's not his wife.  But he's quite safe\nin here.  They're a pitiful couple.  You couldn't make an exception?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Wearily] As you say, my dear sir, I couldn't make an\nexception; he won't be allowed another visit of any sort till he goes\nto a convict prison.\n\nCOKESON.  I see.  [Rather coldly] Sorry to have troubled you.\n[He again goes out]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Shrugging his shoulders]  The plain man indeed, poor\nfellow.  Come and have some lunch, Clements?\n\n\n     He and the DOCTOR go out talking.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, with a sigh, sits down at his table and takes up a\n     pen.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE II\n\n     Part of the ground corridor of the prison.  The walls are\n     coloured with greenish distemper up to a stripe of deeper green\n     about the height of a man's shoulder, and above this line are\n     whitewashed.  The floor is of blackened stones.  Daylight is\n     filtering through a heavily barred window at the end.  The doors\n     of four cells are visible.  Each cell door has a little round\n     peep-hole at the level of a man's eye, covered by a little round\n     disc, which, raised upwards, affords a view o f the cell.  On\n     the wall, close to each cell door, hangs a little square board\n     with the prisoner's name, number, and record.\n\n     Overhead can be seen the iron structures of the first-floor and\n     second-floor corridors.\n\n     The WARDER INSTRUCTOR, a bearded man in blue uniform, with an\n     apron, and some dangling keys, is just emerging from one of the\n     cells.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Speaking from the door into the cell]  I'll have\nanother bit for you when that's finished.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Unseen--in an Irish voice] Little doubt o' that, sirr.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Gossiping]  Well, you'd rather have it than nothing, I\ns'pose.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' that's the blessed truth.\n\n     Sounds are heard of a cell door being closed and locked, and of\n     approaching footsteps.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [In a sharp, changed voice]  Look alive over it!\n\n     He shuts the cell door, and stands at attention.\n\n     The GOVERNOR comes walking down the corridor, followed by\n     WOODER.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to report?\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Saluting]  Q 3007  [he points to a cell]  is behind\nwith his work, sir.  He'll lose marks to-day.\n\n     The GOVERNOR nods and passes on to the end cell.  The INSTRUCTOR\n     goes away.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This is our maker of saws, isn't it?\n\n     He takes the saw from his pocket as WOODER throws open the door\n     of the cell.  The convict MOANEY is seen lying on his bed,\n     athwart the cell, with his cap on.  He springs up and stands in\n     the middle of the cell.  He is a raw-boned fellow, about\n     fifty-six years old, with outstanding bat's ears and fierce,\n     staring, steel-coloured eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Cap off!  [MOANEY removes his cap] Out here! [MOANEY Comes\nto the door]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out into the corridor, and holding up\nthe saw--with the manner of an officer speaking to a private]\nAnything to say about this, my man?  [MOANEY is silent]  Come!\n\nMOANEY.  It passed the time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing into the cell]  Not enough to do, eh?\n\nMOANEY.  It don't occupy your mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Tapping the saw]  You might find a better way than\nthis.\n\nMOANEY.  [Sullenly]  Well!  What way?  I must keep my hand in against\nthe time I get out.  What's the good of anything else to me at my\ntime of life?  [With a gradual change to civility, as his tongue\nwarms]  Ye know that, sir.  I'll be in again within a year or two,\nafter I've done this lot.  I don't want to disgrace meself when I'm\nout.  You've got your pride keeping the prison smart; well, I've got\nmine.  [Seeing that the GOVERNOR is listening with interest, he goes\non, pointing to the saw]  I must be doin' a little o' this.  It's no\nharm to any one.  I was five weeks makin' that saw--a bit of all\nright it is, too; now I'll get cells, I suppose, or seven days' bread\nand water.  You can't help it, sir, I know that--I quite put meself\nin your place.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Now, look here, Moaney, if I pass it over will you\ngive me your word not to try it on again?  Think!  [He goes into the\ncell, walks to the end of it, mounts the stool, and tries the\nwindow-bars]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Returning]  Well?\n\nMOANEY.  [Who has been reflecting] I've got another six weeks to do\nin here, alone.  I can't do it and think o' nothing.  I must have\nsomething to interest me.  You've made me a sporting offer, sir, but\nI can't pass my word about it.  I shouldn't like to deceive a\ngentleman.  [Pointing into the cell] Another four hours' steady work\nwould have done it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, and what then?  Caught, brought back, punishment.\nFive weeks' hard work to make this, and cells at the end of it, while\nthey put anew bar to your window.  Is it worth it, Moaney?\n\nMOANEY.  [With a sort of fierceness] Yes, it is.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Putting his hand to his brow] Oh, well!  Two days'\ncells-bread and water.\n\nMOANEY.  Thank 'e, sir.\n\n     He turns quickly like an animal and slips into his cell.\n\n     The GOVERNOR looks after him and shakes his head as WOODER\n     closes and locks the cell door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open Clipton's cell.\n\n     WOODER opens the door of CLIPTON'S cell.   CLIPTON is sitting on\n     a stool just inside the door, at work on a pair of trousers.  He\n     is a small, thick, oldish man, with an almost shaven head, and\n     smouldering little dark eyes behind smoked spectacles.  He gets\n     up and stands motionless in the doorway, peering at his\n     visitors.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning] Come out here a minute, Clipton.\n\n     CLIPTON, with a sort of dreadful quietness, comes into the\n     corridor, the needle and thread in his hand.  The GOVERNOR signs\n     to WOODER, who goes into the cell and inspects it carefully.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How are your eyes?\n\nCLIFTON.  I don't complain of them.  I don't see the sun here.  [He\nmakes a stealthy movement, protruding his neck a little]  There's\njust one thing, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.  I wish you'd\nask the cove next door here to keep a bit quieter.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What's the matter?  I don't want any tales, Clipton.\n\nCLIPTON.  He keeps me awake.  I don't know who he is.  [With\ncontempt]  One of this star class, I expect.  Oughtn't to be here\nwith us.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Quietly]  Quite right, Clipton.  He'll be moved when\nthere's a cell vacant.\n\nCLIPTON.  He knocks about like a wild beast in the early morning.\nI'm not used to it--stops me getting my sleep out.  In the evening\ntoo.  It's not fair, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.\nSleep's the comfort I've got here; I'm entitled to take it out full.\n\n     WOODER comes out of the cell, and instantly, as though\n     extinguished, CLIPTON moves with stealthy suddenness back into\n     his cell.\n\nWOODER.  All right, sir.\n\n     THE GOVERNOR nods.  The door is closed and locked.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Which is the man who banged on his door this morning?\n\nWOODER.  [Going towards O'CLEARY'S cell]  This one, sir; O'Cleary.\n\n     He lifts the disc and glances through the peephole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open.\n\n     WOODER throws open the door.  O'CLEARY, who is seated at a\n     little table by the door as if listening, springs up and stands\n     at attention jest inside the doorway.  He is a broad-faced,\n     middle-aged man, with a wide, thin, flexible mouth, and little\n     holes under his high cheek-bones.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Where's the joke, O'Cleary?\n\nO'CLEARY.  The joke, your honour?  I've not seen one for a long time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Banging on your door?\n\nO'CLEARY.  Oh! that!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It's womanish.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' it's that I'm becoming this two months past.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to complain of?\n\nO'CLEARY.  NO, Sirr.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You're an old hand; you ought to know better.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Yes, I've been through it all.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've got a youngster next door; you'll upset him.\n\nO'CLEARY.  It cam' over me, your honour.  I can't always be the same\nsteady man.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Work all right?\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Taking up a rush mat he is making]  Oh! I can do it on me\nhead.  It's the miserablest stuff--don't take the brains of a mouse.\n[Working his mouth]  It's here I feel it--the want of a little noise\n--a terrible little wud ease me.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know as well as I do that if you were out in the\nshops you wouldn't be allowed to talk.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [With a look of profound meaning]  Not with my mouth.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, then?\n\nO'CLEARY.  But it's the great conversation I'd have.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a smile] Well, no more conversation on your\ndoor.\n\nO'CLEARY.  No, sirr, I wud not have the little wit to repeat meself.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Turning]  Good-night.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Good-night, your honour.\n\n     He turns into his cell.  The GOVERNOR shuts the door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Looking at the record card]  Can't help liking the\npoor blackguard.\n\nWOODER.  He's an amiable man, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing down the corridor] Ask the doctor to come\nhere, Mr. Wooder.\n\n     WOODER salutes and goes away down the corridor.\n\n     The GOVERNOR goes to the door of FALDER'S cell.  He raises his\n     uninjured hand to uncover the peep-hole; but, without uncovering\n     it, shakes his head and drops his hand; then, after scrutinising\n     the record board, he opens the cell door.  FALDER, who is\n     standing against it, lurches forward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out]  Now tell me: can't you settle\ndown, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [In a breathless voice]  Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know what I mean?  It's no good running your head\nagainst a stone wall, is it?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, come.\n\nFALDER.  I try, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Can't you sleep?\n\nFALDER.  Very little.  Between two o'clock and getting up's the worst\ntime.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How's that?\n\nFALDER.  [His lips twitch with a sort of smile] I don't know, sir.  I\nwas always nervous.  [Suddenly voluble]  Everything seems to get such\na size then.  I feel I'll never get out as long as I live.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  That's morbid, my lad.  Pull yourself together.\n\nFALDER.  [With an equally sudden dogged resentment] Yes--I've got to.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Think of all these other fellows?\n\nFALDER.  They're used to it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  They all had to go through it once for the first time,\njust as you're doing now.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, I shall get to be like them in time, I suppose.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather taken aback]  H'm!  Well!  That rests with\nyou.  Now come.  Set your mind to it, like a good fellow.  You're\nstill quite young.  A man can make himself what he likes.\n\nFALDER.  [Wistfully] Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Take a good hold of yourself.  Do you read?\n\nFALDER.  I don't take the words in.  [Hanging his head] I know it's\nno good; but I can't help thinking of what's going on outside.  In my\ncell I can't see out at all.  It's thick glass, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've had a visitor.  Bad news?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mustn't think about it.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking back at his cell]  How can I help it, sir?\n\n     He suddenly becomes motionless as WOODER and the DOCTOR\n     approach.  The GOVERNOR motions to him to go back into his cell.\n\nFALDER.  [Quick and low]  I'm quite right in my head, sir.  [He goes\nback into his cell.]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To the DOCTOR]  Just go in and see him, Clements.\n\n     The DOCTOR goes into the cell.  The GOVERNOR pushes the door to,\n     nearly closing it, and walks towards the window.\n\nWOODER.  [Following]  Sorry you should be troubled like this, sir.\nVery contented lot of men, on the whole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Shortly]  You think so?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir.  It's Christmas doing it, in my opinion.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To himself]  Queer, that!\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Christmas!\n\n     He turns towards the window, leaving WOODER looking at him with\n     a sort of pained anxiety.\n\nWOODER.  [Suddenly]  Do you think we make show enough, sir?  If you'd\nlike us to have more holly?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not at all, Mr. Wooder.\n\nWOODER.  Very good, sir.\n\n     The DOCTOR has come out of FALDER's Cell, and the GOVERNOR\n     beckons to him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  I can't make anything much of him.  He's nervous, of\ncourse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Is there any sort of case to report?  Quite frankly,\nDoctor.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Well, I don't think the separates doing him any good;\nbut then I could say the same of a lot of them--they'd get on better\nin the shops, there's no doubt.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mean you'd have to recommend others?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  A dozen at least.  It's on his nerves.  There's nothing\ntangible.  That fellow there [pointing to O'CLEARY'S cell], for\ninstance--feels it just as much, in his way.  If I once get away from\nphysical facts--I shan't know where I am.  Conscientiously, sir, I\ndon't know how to differentiate him.  He hasn't lost weight.  Nothing\nwrong with his eyes.  His pulse is good.  Talks all right.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It doesn't amount to melancholia?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  [Shaking his head]  I can report on him if you like; but\nif I do I ought to report on others.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I see.  [Looking towards FALDER'S cell]  The poor\ndevil must just stick it then.\n\n     As he says thin he looks absently at WOODER.\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\n     For answer the GOVERNOR stares at him, turns on his heel, and\n     walks away.  There is a sound as of beating on metal.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Stopping]  Mr. Wooder?\n\nWOODER.  Banging on his door, sir.  I thought we should have more of\nthat.\n\n     He hurries forward, passing the GOVERNOR, who follows closely.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE III\n\n     FALDER's cell, a whitewashed space thirteen feet broad by seven\n     deep, and nine feet high, with a rounded  ceiling.  The floor is\n     of shiny blackened bricks.  The barred window of opaque glass,\n     with a ventilator, is high up in the middle of the end wall.  In\n     the middle of the opposite end wall is the narrow door.  In a\n     corner are the mattress and bedding rolled up [two blankets, two\n     sheets, and a coverlet].  Above them is a quarter-circular\n     wooden shelf, on which is a Bible and several little devotional\n     books, piled in a symmetrical pyramid; there are also a black\n     hair brush, tooth-brush, and a bit of soap.  In another corner\n     is the wooden frame of a bed, standing on end.  There is a dark\n     ventilator under the window, and another over the door.\n     FALDER'S work [a shirt to which he is putting buttonholes] is\n     hung to a nail on the wall over a small wooden table, on which\n     the novel \"Lorna Doone\" lies open.  Low down in the corner by\n     the door is a thick glass screen, about a foot square, covering\n     the gas-jet let into the wall. There is also a wooden stool, and\n     a pair of shoes beneath it.  Three bright round tins are set\n     under the window.\n\n     In fast-failing daylight, FALDER, in his stockings, is seen\n     standing motionless, with his head inclined towards the door,\n     listening.  He moves a little closer to the door, his stockinged\n     feet making no noise.  He stops at the door.  He is trying\n     harder and harder to hear something, any little thing that is\n     going on outside.  He springs suddenly upright--as if at a\n     sound-and remains perfectly motionless.  Then, with a heavy\n     sigh, he moves to his work, and stands looking at it, with his\n     head doom; he does a stitch or two, having the air of a man so\n     lost in sadness that each stitch is, as it were, a coming to\n     life.  Then turning abruptly, he begins pacing the cell, moving\n     his head, like an animal pacing its cage.  He stops again at the\n     door, listens, and, placing the palms of hip hands against it\n     with his fingers spread out, leans his forehead against the\n     iron.  Turning from it, presently, he moves slowly back towards\n     the window, tracing his way with his finger along the top line\n     of the distemper that runs round the wall.  He stops under the\n     window, and, picking up the lid of one of the tins, peers into\n     it.  It has grown very nearly dark.  Suddenly the lid falls out\n     of his hand with a clatter--the only sound that has broken the\n     silence--and he stands staring intently at the wall where the\n     stuff of the shirt is hanging rather white in the darkness--he\n     seems to be seeing somebody or something there.  There is a\n     sharp tap and click; the cell light behind the glass screen has\n     been turned up.  The cell is brightly lighted.  FALDER is seen\n     gasping for breath.\n\n     A sound from far away, as of distant, dull beating on thick\n     metal, is suddenly audible.  FALDER shrinks back, not able to\n     bear this sudden clamour.  But the sound grows, as though some\n     great tumbril were rolling towards the cell.  And gradually it\n     seems to hypnotise him.  He begins creeping inch by inch\n     nearer to the door.  The banging sound, travelling from cell to\n     cell, draws closer and closer; FALDER'S hands are seen moving as\n     if his spirit had already joined in this beating, and the sound\n     swells till it seems to have entered the very cell.  He suddenly\n     raises his clenched fists.  Panting violently, he flings himself\n     at his door, and beats on it.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT IV\n\n     The scene is again COKESON'S room, at a few minutes to ten of a\n     March morning, two years later.  The doors are all open.\n     SWEEDLE, now blessed with a sprouting moustache, is getting the\n     offices ready.  He arranges papers on COKESON'S table; then goes\n     to a covered washstand, raises the lid, and looks at himself in\n     the mirror.  While he is gazing his full RUTH HONEYWILL comes in\n     through the outer office and stands in the doorway.  There seems\n     a kind of exultation and excitement behind her habitual\n     impassivity.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Suddenly seeing her, and dropping the lid of the washstand\nwith a bang] Hello!  It's you!\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's only me here!  They don't waste their time hurrying\ndown in the morning.  Why, it must be two years since we had the\npleasure of seeing you.  [Nervously]  What have you been doing with\nyourself?\n\nRUTH.  [Sardonically] Living.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Impressed]  If you want to see him [he points to COKESON'S\nchair], he'll be here directly--never misses--not much.  [Delicately]\nI hope our friend's back from the country.  His time's been up these\nthree months, if I remember.  [RUTH nods] I was awful sorry about\nthat.  The governor made a mistake--if you ask me.\n\nRUTH.  He did.\n\nSWEEDLE.  He ought to have given him a chanst.  And, I say, the judge\nought to ha' let him go after that.  They've forgot what human\nnature's like.  Whereas we know. [RUTH gives him a honeyed smile]\n\nSWEEDLE.  They come down on you like a cartload of bricks, flatten\nyou out, and when you don't swell up again they complain of it.  I\nknow 'em--seen a lot of that sort of thing in my time.  [He shakes\nhis head in the plenitude of wisdom]  Why, only the other day the\ngovernor----\n\n     But COKESON has come in through the outer office; brisk with\n     east wind, and decidedly greyer.\n\nCOKESON.  [Drawing off his coat and gloves]  Why! it's you!  [Then\nmotioning SWEEDLE out, and closing the door]  Quite a stranger!  Must\nbe two years.  D'you want to see me?  I can give you a minute.  Sit\ndown!  Family well?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I'm not living where I was.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing her askance] I hope things are more comfortable at\nhome.\n\nRUTH.  I couldn't stay with Honeywill, after all.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't done anything rash, I hope.  I should be sorry\nif you'd done anything rash.\n\nRUTH.  I've kept the children with me.\n\nCOKESON.  [Beginning to feel that things are not so jolly as ha had\nhoped]  Well, I'm glad to have seen you.  You've not heard from the\nyoung man, I suppose, since he came out?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I ran across him yesterday.\n\nCOKESON.  I hope he's well.\n\nRUTH.  [With sudden fierceness]  He can't get anything to do.  It's\ndreadful to see him.  He's just skin and bone.\n\nCOKESON.  [With genuine concern] Dear me!  I'm sorry to hear that.\n[On his guard again]  Didn't they find him a place when his time was\nup?\n\nRUTH.  He was only there three weeks.  It got out.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure I don't know what I can do for you.  I don't like\nto be snubby.\n\nRUTH.  I can't bear his being like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Scanning her not unprosperous figure] I know his relations\naren't very forthy about him.  Perhaps you can do something for him,\ntill he finds his feet.\n\nRUTH.  Not now.  I could have--but not now.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.\n\nRUTH.  [Proudly]  I've seen him again--that's all over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Staring at her--disturbed]  I'm a family man--I don't want\nto hear anything unpleasant.  Excuse me--I'm very busy.\n\nRUTH.  I'd have gone home to my people in the country long ago, but\nthey've never got over me marrying Honeywill.  I never was waywise,\nMr. Cokeson, but I'm proud.  I was only a girl, you see, when I\nmarried him.  I thought the world of him, of course...  he used\nto come travelling to our farm.\n\nCOKESON.  [Regretfully]  I did hope you'd have got on better, after\nyou saw me.\n\nRUTH.  He used me worse than ever.  He couldn't break my nerve, but I\nlost my health; and then he began knocking the children about.  I\ncouldn't stand that.  I wouldn't go back now, if he were dying.\n\nCOKESON.  [Who has risen and is shifting about as though dodging a\nstream of lava] We mustn't be violent, must we?\n\nRUTH.  [Smouldering]  A man that can't behave better than that--\n[There is silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Fascinated in spite of himself]  Then there you were!  And\nwhat did you do then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a shrug]  Tried the same as when I left him before...,\nmaking skirts... cheap things.  It was the best I could get, but I\nnever made more than ten shillings a week, buying my own cotton and\nworking all day; I hardly ever got to bed till past twelve.  I kept\nat it for nine months.  [Fiercely]  Well, I'm not fit for that; I\nwasn't made for it.  I'd rather die.\n\nCOKESON.  My dear woman!  We mustn't talk like that.\n\nRUTH.  It was starvation for the children too--after what they'd\nalways had.  I soon got not to care.  I used to be too tired. [She is\nsilent]\n\nCOKESON.  [With fearful curiosity]  Why, what happened then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a laugh] My employer happened then--he's happened ever\nsince.\n\nCOKESON.  Dear!  Oh dear!  I never came across a thing like this.\n\nRUTH.  [Dully] He's treated me all right.  But I've done with that.\n[Suddenly her lips begin to quiver, and she hides them with the back\nof her hand] I never thought I'd see him again, you see.  It was just\na chance I met him by Hyde Park.  We went in there and sat down, and\nhe told me all about himself.  Oh!  Mr. Cokeson, give him another\nchance.\n\nCOKESON.  [Greatly disturbed]  Then you've both lost your livings!\nWhat a horrible position!\n\nRUTH.  If he could only get here--where there's nothing to find out\nabout him!\n\nCOKESON.  We can't have anything derogative to the firm.\n\nRUTH.  I've no one else to go to.\n\nCOKESON.  I'll speak to the partners, but I don't think they'll take\nhim, under the circumstances.  I don't really.\n\nRUTH.  He came with me; he's down there in the street. [She points to\nthe window.]\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity] He shouldn't have done that until he's\nsent for.  [Then softening at the look on her face]  We've got a\nvacancy, as it happens, but I can't promise anything.\n\nRUTH.  It would be the saving of him.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll do what I can, but I'm not sanguine.  Now tell\nhim that I don't want him till I see how things are.  Leave your\naddress?  [Repeating her] 83 Mullingar Street?  [He notes it on\nblotting-paper] Good-morning.\n\nRUTH.  Thank you.\n\n     She moves towards the door, turns as if to speak, but does not,\n     and goes away.\n\nCOKESON.  [Wiping his head and forehead with a large white cotton\nhandkerchief] What a business!  [Then looking amongst his papers, he\nsounds his bell.  SWEEDLE answers it]\n\nCOKESON.  Was that young Richards coming here to-day after the\nclerk's place?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, keep him in the air; I don't want to see him yet.\n\nSWEEDLE.  What shall I tell him, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [With asperity] invent something.  Use your brains.  Don't\nstump him off altogether.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I tell him that we've got illness, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nothing untrue.  Say I'm not here to-day.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes, sir.  Keep him hankering?\n\nCOKESON.  Exactly.  And look here.  You remember Falder?  I may be\nhaving him round to see me.  Now, treat him like you'd have him treat\nyou in a similar position.\n\nSWEEDLE.  I naturally should do.\n\nCOKESON.  That's right.  When a man's down never hit 'im.  'Tisn't\nnecessary.  Give him a hand up.  That's a metaphor I recommend to you\nin life.  It's sound policy.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Do you think the governors will take him on again, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Can't say anything about that.  [At the sound of some one\nhaving entered the outer office]  Who's there?\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Going to the door and looking] It's Falder, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Vexed]  Dear me!  That's very naughty of her.  Tell him to\ncall again.  I don't want----\n\n     He breaks off as FALDER comes in.  FALDER is thin, pale, older,\n     his eyes have grown more restless.  His clothes are very worn\n     and loose.\n\n     SWEEDLE, nodding cheerfully, withdraws.\n\nCOKESON.  Glad to see you.  You're rather previous.  [Trying to keep\nthings pleasant]  Shake hands!  She's striking while the iron's hot.\n[He wipes his forehead] I don't blame her.  She's anxious.\n\n     FALDER  timidly takes COKESON's hand and glances towards the\n     partners' door.\n\nCOKESON.  No--not yet!  Sit down!  [FALDER sits in the chair at the\naide of COKESON's table, on which he places his cap]  Now you are\nhere I'd like you to give me a little account of yourself.  [Looking\nat him over his spectacles]  How's your health?\n\nFALDER.  I'm alive, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Preoccupied]  I'm glad to hear that.  About this matter.\nI don't like doing anything out of the ordinary; it's not my habit.\nI'm a plain man, and I want everything smooth and straight.  But I\npromised your friend to speak to the partners, and I always keep my\nword.\n\nFALDER.  I just want a chance, Mr. Cokeson.  I've paid for that job a\nthousand times and more.  I have, sir.  No one knows.  They say I\nweighed more when I came out than when I went in.  They couldn't\nweigh me here [he touches his head]  or here [he touches--his heart,\nand gives a sort of laugh].  Till last night I'd have thought there\nwas nothing in here at all.\n\nCOKESON.  [Concerned] You've not got heart disease?\n\nFALDER.  Oh!  they passed me sound enough.\n\nCOKESON.  But they got you a place, didn't they?\n\nFALSER.  Yes; very good people, knew all about it--very kind to me.\nI thought I was going to get on first rate.  But one day, all of a\nsudden, the other clerks got wind of it....  I couldn't stick it, Mr.\nCOKESON, I couldn't, sir.\n\nCOKESON. Easy, my dear fellow, easy!\n\nFALDER.  I had one small job after that, but it didn't last.\n\nCOKESON.  How was that?\n\nFALDER.  It's no good deceiving you, Mr. Cokeson.  The fact is, I\nseem to be struggling against a thing that's all round me.  I can't\nexplain it: it's as if I was in a net; as fast as I cut it here, it\ngrows up there.  I didn't act as I ought to have, about references;\nbut what are you to do?  You must have them.  And that made me\nafraid, and I left.  In fact, I'm--I'm afraid all the time now.\n\n     He bows his head and leans dejectedly silent over the table.\n\nCOKESON.  I feel for you--I do really.  Aren't your sisters going to\ndo anything for you?\n\nFALDER.  One's in consumption.  And the other----\n\nCOKESON.  Ye...es.  She told me her husband wasn't quite pleased with\nyou.\n\nFALDER.  When I went there--they were at supper--my sister wanted to\ngive me a kiss--I know.  But he just looked at her, and said: \"What\nhave you come for?\"  Well, I pocketed my pride and I said: \"Aren't\nyou going to give me your hand, Jim?  Cis is, I know,\" I said.  \"Look\nhere!\" he said, \"that's all very well, but we'd better come to an\nunderstanding.  I've been expecting you, and I've made up my mind.\nI'll give you fifteen pounds to go to Canada with.\"  \"I see,\" I\nsaid--\"good riddance!  No, thanks; keep your fifteen pounds.\"\nFriendship's a queer thing when you've been where I have.\n\nCOKESON.  I understand.  Will you take the fifteen pound from me?\n[Flustered, as FALDER regards him with a queer smile]  Quite without\nprejudice; I meant it kindly.\n\nFALDER.  I'm not allowed to leave the country.\n\nCOKESON.  Oh!  ye...es--ticket-of-leave?  You aren't looking the\nthing.\n\nFALDER.  I've slept in the Park three nights this week.  The dawns\naren't all poetry there.  But meeting her--I feel a different man\nthis morning.  I've often thought the being fond of hers the best\nthing about me; it's sacred, somehow--and yet it did for me.  That's\nqueer, isn't it?\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure we're all very sorry for you.\n\nFALDER.  That's what I've found, Mr. Cokeson.  Awfully sorry for me.\n[With quiet bitterness]  But it doesn't do to associate with\ncriminals!\n\nCOKESON.  Come, come, it's no use calling yourself names.  That never\ndid a man any good.  Put a face on it.\n\nFALDER.  It's easy enough to put a face on it, sir, when you're\nindependent.  Try it when you're down like me.  They talk about\ngiving you your deserts.  Well, I think I've had just a bit over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing him askance over his spectacles]  I hope they haven't\nmade a Socialist of you.\n\n     FALDER is suddenly still, as if brooding over his past self; he\n     utters a peculiar laugh.\n\nCOKESON.  You must give them credit for the best intentions.  Really\nyou must.  Nobody wishes you harm, I'm sure.\n\nFALDER.  I believe that, Mr. Cokeson.  Nobody wishes you harm, but\nthey down you all the same.  This feeling--[He stares round him, as\nthough at something closing in]  It's crushing me.  [With sudden\nimpersonality]  I know it is.\n\nCOKESON.  [Horribly disturbed] There's nothing there!  We must try\nand take it quiet.  I'm sure I've often had you in my prayers.  Now\nleave it to me.  I'll use my gumption and take 'em when they're\njolly.  [As he speaks the two partners come in]\n\nCOKESON  [Rather disconcerted, but trying to put them all at ease]\nI didn't expect you quite so soon.  I've just been having a talk with\nthis young man.  I think you'll remember him.\n\nJAMES.  [With a grave, keen look] Quite well.  How are you, Falder?\n\nWALTER.  [Holding out his hand almost timidly] Very glad to see you\nagain, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Who has recovered his self-control, takes the hand] Thank\nyou, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.  [To FALDER, pointing to the\nclerks' office] You might go in there a minute.  You know your way.\nOur junior won't be coming this morning.  His wife's just had a\nlittle family.\n\n     FALDER, goes uncertainly out into the clerks' office.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially] I'm bound to tell you all about it.  He's\nquite penitent.  But there's a prejudice against him.  And you're not\nseeing him to advantage this morning; he's under-nourished.  It's\nvery trying to go without your dinner.\n\nJAMES.  Is that so, COKESON?\n\nCOKESON.  I wanted to ask you.  He's had his lesson.  Now we know all\nabout him, and we want a clerk.  There is a young fellow applying,\nbut I'm keeping him in the air.\n\nJAMES.  A gaol-bird in the office, COKESON?  I don't see it.\n\nWALTER.  \"The rolling of the chariot-wheels of Justice!\"  I've never\ngot that out of my head.\n\nJAMES.  I've nothing to reproach myself with in this affair.  What's\nhe been doing since he came out?\n\nCOKESON.  He's had one or two places, but he hasn't kept them.  He's\nsensitive--quite natural.  Seems to fancy everybody's down on him.\n\nJAMES.  Bad sign.  Don't like the fellow--never did from the first.\n\"Weak character\"'s written all over him.\n\nWALTER.  I think we owe him a leg up.\n\nJAMES.  He brought it all on himself.\n\nWALTER.  The doctrine of full responsibility doesn't quite hold in\nthese days.\n\nJAMES.  [Rather grimly]  You'll find it safer to hold it for all\nthat, my boy.\n\nWALTER.  For oneself, yes--not for other people, thanks.\n\nJAMES.  Well!  I don't want to be hard.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm glad to hear you say that.  He seems to see something\n[spreading his arms] round him.  'Tisn't healthy.\n\nJAMES.  What about that woman he was mixed up with?  I saw some one\nuncommonly like her outside as we came in.\n\nCOKESON.  That!  Well, I can't keep anything from you.  He has met\nher.\n\nJAMES.  Is she with her husband?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nJAMES.  Falder living with her, I suppose?\n\nCOKESON.  [Desperately trying to retain the new-found jollity] I\ndon't know that of my own knowledge.  'Tisn't my business.\n\nJAMES.  It's our business, if we're going to engage him, COKESON.\n\nCOKESON.  [Reluctantly] I ought to tell you, perhaps.  I've had the\nparty here this morning.\n\nJAMES.  I thought so.  [To WALTER] No, my dear boy, it won't do.  Too\nshady altogether!\n\nCOKESON.  The two things together make it very awkward for you--I see\nthat.\n\nWALTER.  [Tentatively]  I don't quite know what we have to do with\nhis private life.\n\nJAMES.  No, no!  He must make a clean sheet of it, or he can't come\nhere.\n\nWALTER.  Poor devil!\n\nCOKESON.  Will you--have him in?  [And as JAMES nods] I think I can\nget him to see reason.\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly] You can leave that to me, COKESON.\n\nWALTER.  [To JAMES, in a low voice, while COKESON is summoning\nFALDER]  His whole future may depend on what we do, dad.\n\nFALDER comes in.  He has pulled himself together, and presents a\nsteady front.\n\nJAMES.  Now look here, Falder.  My son and I want to give you another\nchance; but there are two things I must say to you.  In the first\nplace: It's no good coming here as a victim.  If you've any notion\nthat you've been unjustly treated--get rid of it.  You can't play\nfast and loose with morality and hope to go scot-free.  If Society\ndidn't take care of itself, nobody would--the sooner you realise that\nthe better.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir; but--may I say something?\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nFALDER.  I had a lot of time to think it over in prison.  [He stops]\n\nCOKESON.  [Encouraging him] I'm sure you did.\n\nFALDER.  There were all sorts there.  And what I mean, sir, is, that\nif we'd been treated differently the first time, and put under\nsomebody that could look after us a bit, and not put in prison, not a\nquarter of us would ever have got there.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head] I'm afraid I've very grave doubts of that,\nFalder.\n\nFALDER.  [With a gleam of malice] Yes, sir, so I found.\n\nJAMES.  My good fellow, don't forget that you began it.\n\nFALDER.  I never wanted to do wrong.\n\nJAMES.  Perhaps not.  But you did.\n\nFALDER.  [With all the bitterness of his past suffering] It's knocked\nme out of time.  [Pulling himself up]  That is, I mean, I'm not what\nI was.\n\nJAMES.  This isn't encouraging for us, Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  He's putting it awkwardly, Mr. James.\n\nFALDER.  [Throwing over his caution from the intensity of his\nfeeling]  I mean it, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Now, lay aside all those thoughts, Falder, and look to the\nfuture.\n\nFALDER.  [Almost eagerly] Yes, sir, but you don't understand what\nprison is.  It's here it gets you.\n\n     He grips his chest.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a whisper to James] I told you he wanted nourishment.\n\nWALTER.  Yes, but, my dear fellow, that'll pass away.  Time's\nmerciful.\n\nFALDER.  [With his face twitching]  I hope so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  [Much more gently]  Now, my boy, what you've got to do is to\nput all the past behind you and build yourself up a steady\nreputation.  And that brings me to the second thing.  This woman you\nwere mixed up with you must give us your word, you know, to have done\nwith that.  There's no chance of your keeping straight if you're\ngoing to begin your future with such a relationship.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking from one to the other with a hunted expression] But\nsir...  but sir...  it's the one thing I looked forward to\nall that time.  And she too...  I couldn't find her before last\nnight.\n\n     During this and what follows COKESON becomes more and more\n     uneasy.\n\nJAMES.  This is painful, Falder.  But you must see for yourself that\nit's impossible for a firm like this to close its eyes to everything.\nGive us this proof of your resolve to keep straight, and you can come\nback--not otherwise.\n\nFALDER.  [After staring at JAMES, suddenly stiffens himself]  I\ncouldn't give her up.  I couldn't!  Oh, sir!\n\n     I'm all she's got to look to.  And I'm sure she's all I've got.\n\nJAMES.  I'm very sorry, Falder, but I must be firm.  It's for the\nbenefit of you both in the long run.  No good can come of this\nconnection.  It was the cause of all your disaster.\n\nFALDER.  But sir, it means-having gone through all that-getting\nbroken up--my nerves are in an awful state--for nothing.  I did it\nfor her.\n\nJAMES.  Come!  If she's anything of a woman she'll see it for\nherself.  She won't want to drag you down further.  If there were a\nprospect of your being able to marry her--it might be another thing.\n\nFALDER.  It's not my fault, sir, that she couldn't get rid of him\n--she would have if she could.  That's been the whole trouble from\nthe beginning.  [Looking suddenly at WALTER]...  If anybody\nwould help her!  It's only money wants now, I'm sure.\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in, as WALTER hesitates, and is about to speak] I\ndon't think we need consider that--it's rather far-fetched.\n\nFALDER.  [To WALTER, appealing]  He must have given her full cause\nsince; she could prove that he drove her to leave him.\n\nWALTER.  I'm inclined to do what you say, Falder, if it can be\nmanaged.\n\nFALDER.  Oh, sir!\n\nHe goes to the window and looks down into the street.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hurriedly]  You don't take me, Mr. Walter.  I have my\nreasons.\n\nFALDER.  [From the window]  She's down there, sir.  Will you see her?\nI can beckon to her from here.\n\n     WALTER hesitates, and looks from COKESON to JAMES.\n\nJAMES.  [With a sharp nod] Yes, let her come.\n\nFALDER beckons from the window.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a low fluster to JAMES and WALTER]  No, Mr. James.\nShe's not been quite what she ought to ha' been, while this young\nman's been away.  She's lost her chance.  We can't consult how to\nswindle the Law.\n\n     FALDER has come from the window.  The three men look at him in a\n     sort of awed silence.\n\nFALDER.  [With instinctive apprehension of some change--looking from\none to the other]  There's been nothing between us, sir, to prevent\nit....  What I said at the trial was true.  And last night we\nonly just sat in the Park.\n\nSWEEDLE comes in from the outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  What is it?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Mrs. Honeywill.   [There is silence]\n\nJAMES.  Show her in.\n\n     RUTH comes slowly in, and stands stoically with FALDER on one\n     side and the three men on the other.  No one speaks.  COKESON\n     turns to his table, bending over his papers as though the burden\n     of the situation were forcing him back into his accustomed\n     groove.\n\nJAMES.  [Sharply]  Shut the door there.  [SWEEDLE shuts the door]\nWe've asked you to come up because there are certain facts to be\nfaced in this matter.  I understand you have only just met Falder\nagain.\n\nRUTH.  Yes--only yesterday.\n\nJAMES.  He's told us about himself, and we're very sorry for him.\nI've promised to take him back here if he'll make a fresh start.\n[Looking steadily at RUTH] This is a matter that requires courage,\nma'am.\n\nRUTH, who is looking at FALDER, begins to twist her hands in front of\nher as though prescient of disaster.\n\nFALDER.  Mr. Walter How is good enough to say that he'll help us to\nget you a divorce.\n\n     RUTH flashes a startled glance at JAMES and WALTER.\n\nJAMES.  I don't think that's practicable, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  But, Sir----!\n\nJAMES.  [Steadily]  Now, Mrs. Honeywill.  You're fond of him.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, Sir; I love him.\n\n     She looks miserably at FALDER.\n\nJAMES.  Then you don't want to stand in his way, do you?\n\nRUTH.  [In a faint voice] I could take care of him.\n\nJAMES.  The best way you can take care of him will be to give him up.\n\nFALDER.  Nothing shall make me give you up.  You can get a divorce.\nThere's been nothing between us, has there?\n\nRUTH.  [Mournfully shaking her head-without looking at him]  No.\n\nFALDER.  We'll keep apart till it's over, sir; if you'll only help\nus--we promise.\n\nJAMES.  [To RUTH]  You see the thing plainly, don't you?  You see\nwhat I mean?\n\nRUTH.  [Just above a whisper]  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  [To himself] There's a dear woman.\n\nJAMES.  The situation is impossible.\n\nRUTH.  Must I, Sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Forcing himself to look at her] I put it to you, ma'am.  His\nfuture is in your hands.\n\nRUTH.  [Miserably] I want to do the best for him.\n\nJAMES.  [A little huskily] That's right, that's right!\n\nFALDER.  I don't understand.  You're not going to give me up--after\nall this?  There's something--[Starting forward to JAMES] Sir, I\nswear solemnly there's been nothing between us.\n\nJAMES.  I believe you, Falder.  Come, my lad, be as plucky as she is.\n\nFALDER.  Just now you were going to help us.  [He starts at RUTH, who\nis standing absolutely still; his face and hands twitch and quiver as\nthe truth dawns on him]  What is it?  You've not been--\n\nWALTER.  Father!\n\nJAMES.  [Hurriedly]  There, there!  That'll do, that'll do!  I'll\ngive you your chance, Falder.  Don't let me know what you do with\nyourselves, that's all.\n\nFALDER.  [As if he has not heard] Ruth?\n\n     RUTH looks at him; and FALDER covers his face with his hands.\n     There is silence.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  There's some one out there.  [To RUTH]  Go in\nhere.  You'll feel better by yourself for a minute.\n\n     He points to the clerks' room and moves towards the outer\n     office.  FALDER does not move.  RUTH puts out her hand timidly.\n     He shrinks back from the touch.  She turns and goes miserably\n     into the clerks' room.  With a brusque movement he follows,\n     seizing her by the shoulder just inside the doorway.  COKESON\n     shuts the door.\n\nJAMES.  [Pointing to the outer office]  Get rid of that, whoever it\nis.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Opening the office door, in a scared voice]\nDetective-Sergeant blister.\n\n     The detective enters, and closes the door behind him.\n\nWISTER.  Sorry to disturb you, sir.  A clerk you had here, two years\nand a half ago: I arrested him in, this room.\n\nJAMES.  What about him?\n\nWISTER.  I thought perhaps I might get his whereabouts from you.\n[There is an awkward silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Pleasantly, coming to the rescue] We're not responsible\nfor his movements; you know that.\n\nJAMES.  What do you want with him?\n\nWISTER.  He's failed to report himself this last four weeks.\n\nWALTER.  How d'you mean?\n\nWISTER.  Ticket-of-leave won't be up for another six months, sir.\n\nWALTER.  Has he to keep in touch with the police till then?\n\nWISTER.  We're bound to know where he sleeps every night.  I dare say\nwe shouldn't interfere, sir, even though he hasn't reported himself.\nBut we've just heard there's a serious matter of obtaining employment\nwith a forged reference.  What with the two things together--we must\nhave him.\n\n     Again there is silence.  WALTER and COKESON steal glances at\n     JAMES, who stands staring steadily at the detective.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expansively]  We're very busy at the moment.  If you could\nmake it convenient to call again we might be able to tell you then.\n\nJAMES.  [Decisively] I'm a servant of the Law, but I dislike\npeaching.  In fact, I can't do such a thing.  If you want him you\nmust find him without us.\n\n     As he speaks his eye falls on FALDER'S cap, still lying on the\n     table, and his face contracts.\n\nWISTER.  [Noting the gesture--quietly]  Very good, sir.  I ought to\nwarn you that, having broken the terms of his licence, he's still a\nconvict, and sheltering a convict.\n\nJAMES.  I shelter no one.  But you mustn't come here and ask\nquestions which it's not my business to answer.\n\nWISTER.  [Dryly] I won't trouble you further then, gentlemen.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry we couldn't give you the information.  You quite\nunderstand, don't you?  Good-morning!\n\n     WISTER turns to go, but instead of going to the door of the\n     outer office he goes to the door of the clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  The other door....  the other door!\n\n     WISTER opens the clerks' door.  RUTHS's voice is heard: \"Oh,\n     do!\" and FALDER'S: \"I can't!\"  There is a little pause; then,\n     with sharp fright, RUTH says: \"Who's that?\"\n\n     WISTER has gone in.\n\n     The three men look aghast at the door.\n\nWISTER  [From within]  Keep back, please!\n\n     He comes swiftly out with his arm twisted in FALDER'S.  The\n     latter gives a white, staring look at the three men.\n\nWALTER.  Let him go this time, for God's sake!\n\nWISTER.  I couldn't take the responsibility, sir.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer, desperate laugh]  Good!\n\n     Flinging a look back at RUTH, he throws up his head, and goes\n     out through the outer office, half dragging WISTER after him.\n\nWALTER.  [With despair]  That finishes him.  It'll go on for ever\nnow.\n\n     SWEEDLE can be seen staring through the outer door.  There are\n     sounds of footsteps descending the stone stairs; suddenly a dull\n     thud, a faint \"My God!\" in WISTER's voice.\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\n     SWEEDLE dashes forward.  The door swings to behind him.  There\n     is dead silence.\n\nWALTER.  [Starting forward to the inner room] The woman-she's\nfainting!\n\n     He and COKESON support the fainting RUTH from the doorway of the\n     clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  [Distracted]  Here, my dear!  There, there!\n\nWALTER.  Have you any brandy?\n\nCOKESON.  I've got sherry.\n\nWALTER.  Get it, then.  Quick!\n\n     He places RUTH in a chair--which JAMES has dragged forward.\n\nCOKESON.  [With sherry] Here!  It's good strong sherry.  [They try to\nforce the sherry between her lips.]\n\n     There is the sound of feet, and they stop to listen.\n\n     The outer door is reopened--WISTER and SWEEDLE are seen carrying\n     some burden.\n\nJAMES.  [Hurrying forward]  What is it?\n\n     They lay the burden doom in the outer office, out of sight, and\n     all but RUTH cluster round it, speaking in hushed voices.\n\nWISTER.  He jumped--neck's broken.\n\nWALTER.  Good God!\n\nWISTER.  He must have been mad to think he could give me the slip\nlike that.  And what was it--just a few months!\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly] Was that all?\n\nJAMES.  What a desperate thing!  [Then, in a voice unlike his own]\nRun for a doctor--you!  [SWEEDLE rushes from the outer office] An\nambulance!\n\n     WISTER goes out.  On RUTH's face an expression of fear and\n     horror has been seen growing, as if she dared not turn towards\n     the voices.  She now rises and steals towards them.\n\nWALTER.  [Turning suddenly] Look!\n\n     The three men shrink back out of her way, one by one, into\n     COKESON'S room.  RUTH drops on her knees by the body.\n\nRUTH.  [In a whisper]  What is it?  He's not breathing.  [She\ncrouches over him]  My dear!  My pretty!\n\n     In the outer office doorway the figures of men am seen standing.\n\nRUTH.  [Leaping to her feet] No, no!  No, no!  He's dead!\n\n     [The figures of the men shrink back]\n\nCOKESON.  [Stealing forward.  In a hoarse voice] There, there, poor\ndear woman!\n\n     At the sound behind her RUTH faces round at him.\n\nCOKESON.  No one'll touch him now!  Never again!  He's safe with\ngentle Jesus!\n\n     RUTH stands as though turned to stone in the doorway staring at\n     COKESON, who, bending humbly before her, holds out his hand as\n     one would to a lost dog.\n\n\n\nThe curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\n End of Project Gutenberg's Justice (Second Series Plays), by John Galsworthy\n\n \n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: Who did Ruth Honeywill plan to escape with?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 110, "category": "longbench_qmsum", "reference": ["The opposition party claimed that people across Canada were appalled by the situation in care homes which left seniors suffering. The minister explained that the government was fully aware of the situation. The minister promised that they would fully play their role federal level with advice, with guidance, with support and with investments. They were going to have those conversations about how best they can improve the care for all seniors."], "prompt": "You are given a meeting transcript and a query containing a question or instruction. Answer the query in one or more sentences.\n\nTranscript:\nThe Chair (Hon. Anthony Rota (NipissingTimiskaming, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the 12th meeting of the House of Commons Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. This will be the first hybrid meeting of the committee. Some members will be participating via videoconference and some will be participating in person. This follows the order made by the House on May26,2020. Members who have already participated in a virtual meeting of the special committee may actually not notice any change, except for the fact that some members are also participating from the floor of the House. An additional rubric, that of statements by members, was also added to the proceedings of the committee. In order to ensure that those joining the meeting via video conference can be seen and heard by those in the chamber, two screens have been set up in the chamber on either side of the Speakers chair. Sound amplification for virtual interventions will be available, and members in the chamber can listen to the floor sound or interpretation using the earpieces on their desks. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Please also direct your remarks through the Chair. Thank you. For those of you joining via video conference, I would like to remind you to leave your mike on mute when you are not speaking. Also, please note that if you want to speak in English, you should be on the English channel. If you want to speak French, you should be on the French channel. Should you wish to alternate between the two languages, you should change the channel to the language that you are speaking each time you switch languages. Should members participating by videoconference need to request the floor outside their designated speaking times, they should activate their microphone and state that they have a point of order. Those in the chamber can simply rise in the usual way. Please note that today's proceedings will be televised in the same way as a typical sitting of the House. Next we'll move on to ministerial announcements. I understand that there are no ministerial announcements today, so we'll move on to petitions. We'll be presenting petitions for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. I would like to remind members that any petition presented during a meeting of the special committee must have already been certified by the clerk of petitions. For members participating in person, we ask that they please come and drop the signed certificates off at the table once the petitions are presented. First on our list for presenting petitions is Ms. May, who is joining us virtually.\nMs. Elizabeth May (SaanichGulf Islands, GP): Mr. Chair, what an honour to be the first voice coming to you from the screens on either side of the Speaker of the House. I speak to you from SaanichGulf Islands on the traditional territory of the WSNEC people. Hych'ka Siem. I'm presenting a petition, number 431-00215, and it has been certified. The petitioners call on this House to take note of the fact that Canada is the only country with a universal health care system that does not include the provision of necessary prescription medications. They note that the system across Canada is a patchwork that leaves three million Canadians unprepared and uninsured to be able to purchase necessary medications. They call on the House assembled to put in place a system of universal national pharmacare, bringing down the cost of drugs through bulk purchasing. I think I'll call that a summary, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: The next petition will be presented by Mr. Genuis.\nMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood ParkFort Saskatchewan, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be presenting two petitions before the committee today. The first petition is in support of Bill S-204. This Senate public bill, been put forward by Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the Senate, would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. It also has a mechanism by which somebody could be deemed inadmissible to Canada for being involved in the horrible practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill has been before various Parliaments for over 10 years, and petitioners are hopeful that this Parliament will be the one that finally takes action to address forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The second petition is put forward by folks who are concerned about Bill C-7, particularly the efforts by the government through Bill C-7 to remove vital safeguards that are currently associated with Canada's euthanasia regime. Petitioners are not happy about the fact that the government is trying to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and remove other safeguards that only four short years ago the government thought were essential for the euthanasia and assisted suicide system that they were putting in place. The petitioners call on the government to address that, and they are not supportive of these particular efforts to remove vital safeguards from that regime. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: Is anyone else presenting petitions? Seeing none, we'll move on to statements by members. We will now proceed to Statements by Members for a period not exceeding 15minutes. Each statement will be for one minute. The first will be from Mr.Samson. Mr.Samson, you have the floor.\nMr. Darrell Samson (SackvillePrestonChezzetcook, Lib.): Good afternoon, everyone. It's an honour to be presenting an S. O. 31. This spring has been a difficult one for Nova Scotia and the communities of SackvillePrestonChezzetcook. While residents have banded together to tackle the challenges presented by COVID-19, we have also had to mourn the passing of three remarkable local women: RCMP Constable Heidi Stevenson, well known by many in Cole Harbour and the surrounding areas; our own Sub-Lieutenant Abbigail Cowbrough, who was based out of 12 Wing Shearwater; and Captain Jenn Casey of the Canadian Forces Snowbirds. All three women died in the line of duty in separate tragic events while serving our country. These three brave women, who served with honour on land, at sea and in the air, represent the absolute best of us. Heidi, Abbigail and Jenn were inspirational and will not be forgotten. Thank you.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan (SelkirkInterlakeEastman, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canada needs a prime minister who will create jobs and opportunity, but instead we have a prime minister who is piling up crippling national debt. Yesterday the PBO predicted the federal deficit this year will hit over $252 billion. That is almost equivalent to an average year of government spending before the Liberal government. After five years with this debt, Prime Minister, Canada's national debt is set to hit $1 trillion, with almost nothing to show for it. Industries from coast to coast are either closed or are struggling. Canadian workers need and deserve a prime minister who supports our energy sector and gets our natural resources and agriculture products to market, who supports small business and will make our tax system encourage job creation and growth, and who will bring advanced manufacturing jobs to Canada and keep the automotive industry growing. Most importantly, we need a Conservative prime minister who will get the government finances under control after the massive debt left by this prime minister.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Anandasangaree.\nMr. Gary Anandasangaree (ScarboroughRouge Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I speak today with a very heavy heart. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, we've seen a disproportionate number of deaths in long-term care homes. I'm thankful for the Canadian Armed Forces who were deployed to the Altamont care home in my riding and four other facilities across the GTA. The CAF have brought forward horrifying allegations in the operation of these homes. They include residents being given expired or improper doses of medication; not being cleaned or changed for a prolonged period of time; being forcibly fed, causing choking; being bed-bound for weeks; receiving inadequate nutrition, and much more. Mr. Chair, I call upon Premier Ford to place these five homes under a mandatory management order and to appoint a third party manager to address and rectify these violations. I also call upon the Premier to undertake an independent public inquiry into the tragedy we face in long-term care facilities across Ontario. Finally, Mr. Chair, we need to work with the provinces and territories to set national standards of care for the most vulnerable in our society. We can and must do better. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We have a point of order. Go ahead, Ms. May.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hesitate to interrupt colleagues, but I'm concerned about the petition practice, which, as I understand it, is to summarize a petition but not make a speech. I felt one of our colleagues was trespassing on our usual rules.\nThe Chair: I will remind honourable members that when a petition is presented, we're expected to give a prcis and make it as concise as possible. Thank you. Mr.Champoux, you have the floor.\nMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Mr.Chair, I would like to recognize the resilience of Quebeckers concerned for their jobs or their businesses during the COVID-19 crisis. They need us to plan for after the crisis, and we must do so now. To do so, we need the proper information. We need to know the status of the public finances. That is why the Bloc Qubcois is demanding that the government present an economic update, and that it do so before June17. This is not about making a spectacle. Everyone knows that the deficit will be huge. We had to provide the people with support and we all agree on that. But we have to know to what extent. We also have to know where we are starting from so that we can plan where we are going. This is about respecting the public, because they are the ones who will be paying the bill. In closing, I would like to remind the government that one group is not really contributing to the public purse at the moment. I am talking about the tech giants, the GAFAM group, that have never before been used to the extent that they are now, and that are still not paying a cent in tax in Canada. The Liberals promised to correct this injustice. Now is a great time for them to do so.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Sidhu.\nMs. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Chair, this week is National Paramedic Services Week. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Peel region police, paramedic and firefighting services for keeping Bramptonians safe. In my riding, organizations have stepped up to help our community. Organizations such as the Khalsa Aid Society, the Interfaith Council of Peel, the Brampton YMCA, the Prayer Stone Peoples Church, Unity in the Community, Ste. Louise Outreach Centre, Knights Table, the Yogi Divine Society, Vraj Community Service, Regeneration Brampton and many more have made our community stronger during this difficult time. I also have to address the report that came out yesterday from our brave Canadian Armed Forces. Like many Canadians, I was shocked by this report from the long-term care centres, including one in my riding. The examples of abuse described in the report are unacceptable. Our seniors deserve dignity and respect. We must find a solution. We need to fix this.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mrs. Stubbs.\nMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Chair, Canada's oil and gas sector is in crisis, made worse by five years of bad policies, red tape and barriers to pipelines. Just in the last two months, we saw the largest production cut in Canadian history. Active rigs dropped by 92% and tens of thousands of oil and gas workers lost their jobs, adding to the 200,000 since 2015. Energy is Canada's biggest investor, and exporting could lead the recovery if there are actions, not just words. On March 25, the finance minister promised help in hours or days, not weeks, but he's letting Canadians down. Sixty-three days later, small oil and gas companies still can't apply for BDC loans, and last week's large employer loan terms are predatory, with interest rates escalating to 14% by year five. Those are payday loan rates. The required stock options being at record lows could make the government the largest shareholder. That's not emergency assistance; it's pandemic profiteering. Programs can't help workers if businesses can't or won't actually get the support. The Liberals' death-by-delay tactics are doing exactly what foreign activists in other countries want: to shut down Canada's oil.\nThe Chair: Ms.Bessette, the floor is yours.\nMrs. Lyne Bessette (BromeMissisquoi, Lib.): Mr.Chair, in times of crisis, we stick together. I can state that this is certainly the case in BromeMissisquoi. In the last weeks, I have been calling volunteer action centres in my constituency so that they can tell me their news. I would like to take the time that I have to highlight the work that community organizations are doing tirelessly in my constituency. The crisis has made us realize the extent to which food banks and meals-on-wheels can not only relieve hunger, but also relieve thousands of shut-in seniors of their loneliness. Let me also highlight the devotion of the volunteers giving generously of their time, particularly the initiative of Mabel Hastings in the volunteer aid centre in Mansonville. Like me, she sends out a daily newsletter to keep the public informed about the many resources available for their support. COVID-19 is bringing out the best in our community and I am certain that, together, we will get through it.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Virani.\nMr. Arif Virani (ParkdaleHigh Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, during the COVID-19 pandemic I have been inspired by the courageous work of so many essential workers. I want to thank everyone on the front lines for keeping us safe, keeping us fed and keeping our communities functioning. I want to make special note of one particular essential health care worker, a woman who is a quarantine manager with the Public Health Agency of Canada. I have personally seen her working tirelessly over the past three months to keep all of us safe. That woman is my wife, Suchita Jain. Suchi, I love you, I am very proud of you and I thank you for all of the sacrifices you are making. I want to highlight another woman from my riding of ParkdaleHigh Park, Rachelle LeBlanc. She is a local designer. When the pandemic broke, she saw the need for protective barriers for small shops in Parkdale, so she set about collecting donations. She then put her design talents to work and started designing free-standing protective shields. Rachelle's team has now delivered 25 free COVID protective shields to small shopkeepers in Parkdale, and the team is on track to building 100 more. It's the compassion of Canadians like Rachelle that gives meaning to the phrase we are all in this together.\nThe Chair: Mr.Godin, you have the floor.\nMr. Jol Godin (PortneufJacques-Cartier, CPC): Mr.Chair, the school year has been shattered and our graduating classes must be proud of what they have achieved amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Young men, young women, be proud of your accomplishments! You can believe in the future. Keep learning. It will give you tools that will serve you all your lives. What you have achieved in this extraordinary year will set you apart from the others. I invite you to be inspired by that and turn it to your advantage. The current government has the obligation to promote the values that will lead you to become involved in your communities. Your willingness to learn or to work makes you into better citizens. Knowledge and experience are irreplaceable and invaluable. I implore this government, which is unaware of the damage it is causing, to immediately announce all the positions that have already been approved under the Canada summer jobs program. Urgent action is needed. Let us have confidence in our organizations, our companies, and let us support our youth, a rich resource that we must equip and motivate. I congratulate all the young graduates in the beautiful constituency of PortneufJacques-Cartier.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Fergus.\nMr. Greg Fergus (HullAylmer, Lib.): Mr.Chair, this pandemic lets us see what Canadians are made of. This coming Saturday, May30, more than 2,000Christians of all denominations are coming together virtually for prayer and for action. When the going gets tough, Canadians get going. This could not be more true than with respect to what will be happening on May 30. This Saturday, in more than 2,000 churches and homes, thousands of faith-filled Canadians are gathering to pray and act on those prayers as part of Stand United Canada. They will gather through television, Facebook Live and Instagram Live. Then they are going to deliver much-needed support to at-risk Canadians who live in disadvantaged areas. This is faith in action. I'm sure I speak for all parliamentarians when I wish success to Stand United Canada. I hope it inspires more Canadians to follow in its footsteps. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Harder.\nMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): The best way to safeguard the truth is to allow people to speak freely, but from the very beginning of this pandemic, the Liberals have silenced dissent. Sadly, their short-sightedness has been to the detriment of Canadians. Early on, they propagated the notion that human-to-human transmission wasn't possible. They said that closing the borders wasn't necessary. They told us that wearing face masks wouldn't help. It is undeniable that the Liberal government has put Canadians in danger by silencing alternative points of view and has spread misinformation. Ironically, however, they have now gone ahead and crowned themselves the arbiters of truth. They are spending millions of dollars to censor what Canadians can and cannot say. They are determining what is true and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, what is in and what is out. When freedom of speech is repressed, it is safe to say that democracy is under siege. I call upon the government to restore the personal liberties that are granted under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is Canada. We are not an autocracy; we are a democracy.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Nater.\nMr. John Nater (PerthWellington, CPC): Mr. Chair, small businesses have always been the cornerstone of communities across this country. They provide employment and economic stability and are always the first to support community functions and activities, but small businesses have been particularly hard hit due to COVID-19. They have shut their doors temporarily, and now many worry they'll never be able to open their doors again. With the season cancellations at the Stratford Festival, Drayton Entertainment and Stratford Summer Music, businesses in the tourism, hospitality, accommodation and retail sectors in PerthWellington are struggling. Every day, I talk to small business owners who can't access the Canada emergency business account, and others who find the convoluted commercial rent assistance program to be out of reach. The program is needlessly complicated, frustratingly slow and excessively restrictive. Mr. Chair, the government needs to go back, fix these programs and ensure that support goes to the small businesses that need it.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Collins.\nMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Chair, Canadians have been shaken by this pandemic. It has exposed the gaps in our health care system and our social safety net. It has shown how vulnerable we all are when disaster hits. It has brought us to a crossroads. We can go backwards to so-called business as usual, with horrific conditions in long-term care homes, widespread inequality and no real action on climate change, or we can build for better. In Victoria, people in the community, organizations and municipal leaders have been calling for a new way forward. The City of Victoria has a plan for reinvention, resilience and recovery. Organizations like Greater Victoria Acting Together; Common Vision, Common Action; and Kairos Victoria are exploring ideas for a sustainable and just recovery. We can build for better. We can invest in the infrastructure. We need to fight climate change, homelessness and inequality. We can build a Canada where we take better care of the planet and each other.\nThe Chair: We now move to Ms.DeBellefeuille.\nMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (SalaberrySurot, BQ): Mr.Chair, in this time of pandemic, it is with heartfelt emotion that I want to highlight the excellent work of all the guardian angels at the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest. From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the entire staff, as well as the retirees who have come back to provide their assistance. I admire the managers, at all levels and in all services, working tirelessly so that their teams can answer the call in this difficult situation. My fellow managers and the management teams of the Support Program for the Autonomy of Seniors, both in home support and in residential care, you have my heartfelt congratulations for the herculean work you have done. My thoughts go particularly to Lyne Ricard and Vronique Proulx, managers working diligently with their teams of professionals to support the seniors living in intermediate resources, as we call them. I also warmly recognize the director of nursing services, Chantal Careau, who is facing the current challenge with passion and humanity. Once again, my congratulations go to the entire organization of the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest for their remarkable work in this difficult and very demanding time.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Barlow.\nMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): During the worst of times, we see the best in people. Heroes are born, characters revealed, resiliency is sowed. I cannot say enough about my constituents in Foothillsfront-line health care workers, grocery store clerks, restaurateurs, farmersfor all they are doing to keep our community safe and healthy. I want to shine a light on some of our hidden heroes, such as Owen Plumb, a grade 9 student in Okotoks who is using his 3D printer to build PPE for front-line health care workers. He partnered with the Rotary Club and Evergreen Solutions in Okotoks to help with the manufacturing and assembly. There is also Sam Schofield, the volunteer president of the Pincher Creek Chamber of Commerce, overnight built a resiliency website for COVID-19 by building training tools for businesses throughout his area. He also helped develop the Foothills Business Recovery Taskforce, which is a resource for businesses throughout southern Alberta in my riding. Finally, to the employees of Cargill Foods in High River, I know this has been a very difficult time and that many of you have lost loved ones. I want to say thank you for tirelessly doing all you can to protect our food supply and keep food on our table. Each and every one of you is a hero. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Simms.\nMr. Scott Simms (Coast of BaysCentralNotre Dame, Lib.): Thank you, Chair. I would like to take this time to salute those who go above and beyond the call of duty to provide care and comfort to others. In my 16 years in the House of Commons I have never experienced anything like this, when we find our lives are at a standstill and there is so much sorrow felt by families who suffer from the effects of COVID-19. However, here are two examples of kindness right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Shanna and Fred Patey of Bishop's Falls, along with a few of their friends, spend hours next to the Trans-Canada Highway with just a barbeque and a cooler. They serve free meals for truckers crossing our province each and every day. So far they have provided over 1,500 meals. There is also Mitch Strickland of Grand Falls-Windsor, who owns Appy's Diner. He has continually provided food for the local hospital and other front-line workers through his donations. To all our front-line workers in grocery stores and delivery trucks, and to doctors, nurses, LPNs, paramedics, first responders and, of course, our brave women and men in the military, we will be forever grateful and blessed because of you. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: That's all the time we have today for Statements by Members. Before going on, I just want to remind all the members that it is a one-minute statement, so if you don't mind, please time it before coming in because we do have limited time. The other thing that has come up is that some of you just naturally speak very quickly. I'm not here to judge anybody's way of speaking, but try to consider the translators and interpreters to make sure that everyone understands what is said, because they are working diligently to try to get both languages out. In sum, there are two things: please slow down and please make sure the statement is confined to one minute. We now move to Questions to Ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes in order to allow the employees who are providing support for the sitting to substitute for each other safely.  Our first question goes to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Scheer.\nHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In the early days of the pandemic and the lockdown that followed, Canadians were told by this government that programs would be rolled out very quickly and that gaps and shortcomings would be changed as time went on. While many Canadians are being let down by this government's response and its unnecessarily rigid programs, Conservatives identified solutions weeks ago, yet here we are, two and a half months later, and many of these programs still have not been improved. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. On April 26 the Conservatives asked the Prime Minister to change the criteria for the Canada emergency business account so that small businesses that don't happen to have a business bank account could qualify for those types of programs. It's now May 27. Is the Prime Minister going to make that change?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Chair, we knew from the beginning of this pandemic that we did need to move extremely quickly, and that's what we did. We rolled out the Canada emergency response benefit extremely quickly. Eight million Canadians have had that as a replacement for paycheques lost because of COVID-19. We also moved forward on the wage subsidy and a range of other programs to support workers and small businesses. What we've done in terms of helping small businesses with the Canada emergency business account has had a massive impact on small businesses across the country, but we understand that certain companies and businesses have particularities that mean it's a little more difficult for them to qualify. We are working with them through their regional development agencies, and we encourage them to approach their local RDAs, which will be able to help them get the money they deserve.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, these are very simple technical fixes that can be made by this government. There's no excuse for the delay. It's May 27. They've known about these problems for weeks. They're trying to get patted on the back for actions they took back in March, and yet they are letting so many Canadians down by not making these very simple changes. For example, companies that have acquired another company in the last year have employees whose jobs are threatened. The businesses are not allowed to qualify for the wage subsidy because their revenue is now counted together. We have identified this gap. Again, it's a simple question. Will companies that have acquired another company still be allowed to use the wage subsidy to keep workers on the job, yes or no?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I know that there are many different types of businesses across this country that need support. We have moved forward on supporting as many of them as we possibly can, and we continue to work on filling gaps. I know the member opposite has talked to me a number of times about a tractor company in his riding. I can assure you that finance officials are engaged with that company to see if there's a way to make sure we're getting them the support they need.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: It's actually a very simple fix. I can save him and his officials a lot of time. The government used the word amalgamation when it announced the changes to that program. He can make this very clear, and save a lot of work, just by including the word acquisition. Will he do that?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I can assure you that finance officials are working closely with Brandt Tractor. They're continuing to work with a range of businesses across the country that, for various reasons, are not able to apply for the help we have now. We will continue to work to make sure people who need the help get it.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, it's literally one word. We can email him the text. We can send him the page in the dictionary where that word is defined, if that would help. Another gap that is letting people down is in the rent relief program. The government has set the parameters to qualify for the rent relief program for companies that have experienced a 70% revenue loss. There are untold thousands of businesses that have experienced a 50%, 55%, 60% or 65% loss that are ineligible but have no capacity to pay the rent. We called on the government weeks ago to have a more flexible sliding scale to allow more companies to access this program to keep more people on the job and more businesses open. Will the government introduce some flexibility to this program to help more businesses survive?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, our public servants and policy-makers have been moving creatively and quickly to try to get help to as many people as we possibly can, with our focus being on the people who need it the most. Obviously, this pandemic is affecting everyone and every business across the country in different ways, but our focus has been on ensuring that those who most need it are getting the help they can. We will, of course, continue to work with the parties opposite and all Canadians to ensure that we're getting help to everyone who needs it, but our focus has always been on the most vulnerable, first and foremost.\nThe Chair: The floor now goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet (BeloeilChambly, BQ): Thank you, Mr.Chair. My question is for the Prime Minister. If the Liberal Party of Canada had not taken advantage of the emergency programs, would it have laid off all its staff?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we recognized that a number of organizations and companies were facing difficulties because of COVID-19. People work for those organizations, as accountants, receptionists, assistants or labourers, and those people need to be supported. We are supporting people all over the country through that program.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party one of those organizations in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Any company or organization that can demonstrate a significant drop in its income, whether that be in donations, receipts, profits\nThe Chair: The floor goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we created specific criteria to help organizations in difficulty. Any organization experiencing those difficulties can apply.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: In the Magdalen Islands, fishing companies in difficulty and in need of assistance will not have the money that the Liberals are going to take. Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we have invested in assistance for fishers all across the country. We recognize that it is a difficult situation because of COVID-19. We will be here for our fishers and for industries in difficulty.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: I am not catching many answers, it seems to me. A company in Drummondville that manufactures isolation membranes is in difficulty because a federal program is inadequate. Compared to that company, is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, there are clear criteria for submitting applications under these programs. Companies and organizations that receive money qualify for those programs.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the program criteria establish that the Liberal Party is an organization in difficulty, does that mean that the criteria to determine whether an organization is in difficulty are poorly designed?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, all through this pandemic, our priority has been to be here for workers in difficulty so that they do not lose their jobs. This applies to all organizations and companies in the country to the extent possible. That is what we are in the process of doing.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Given the answers from the Prime Minister, let me ask this question: is the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: No, Mr.Chair. We are doing important work for all Canadians, every day.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Restaurant owners on rue Ontario in Montreal feel that they will not make it through the crisis and that they will never open their doors again. They are in difficulty. By comparison, is the Liberal Party of Canada an organization in difficulty that will not open its doors again after the crisis? We can but hope.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established criteria for that program in order to help those working for various organizations. Any organization that receives the subsidy has qualified for it.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is there a consensus in the Liberal Party caucus that the Liberal Party is in difficulty as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we are working every day to help Canadians and workers in difficulty. We are going to continue to do that work.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Does answering a question put the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, it is a pleasure to be here in the House and to answer questions from Canadians and from members of the opposition.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: You are going to answer a question from a Quebecker, I hope. Companies are struggling in Saguenay, in the Gasp, in Beloeil. Would those companies not deserve to be saved by the money that the supposedly struggling Liberal Party has taken?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: I am always very happy to answer questions from all Canadians currently sitting in the House. We will be here to help workers in difficulty all across the country, including in Quebec.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the Prime Minister is so happy to answer questions, I hope he will be delirious with joy to answer this one. Is the Liberal Party in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established a program to help those working in organizations and who could lose their jobs because of COVID-19. We are here to help workers in organizations and companies all over the country.\nThe Chair: We'll now go on to Mr. Singh.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The conditions of seniors as outlined by the military were appalling, but seniors need more than just compassionate words. They need action. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind excuses and actually show leadership to fix long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the Constitution of Canada is not an excuse. It lays out the divisions of powers and responsibilities, and we respect the provinces' jurisdiction over long-term care facilities. However, from the very beginning, we have indicated our willingness to support the provinces on this very important issue. We need to make sure our seniors right across the country are properly cared for, which is why we sent in the military and why we are there to help the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The former federal health minister, Dr. Philpott, said, We need to stop using jurisdiction as an excuse to not have federal leadership. That is a former federal health minister. Now, we know from the military report that staff were afraid to use vital equipment because of the cost. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, over the past couple of days I've had very good conversations with the premiers of both Quebec and Ontario on this important issue. I look forward to discussing issues around long-term care with all the premiers of the provinces and territories tomorrow evening as well. This is something that Canadians have seen needs concerted action. We will be there to support the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Needles were reused and expired medication was used, according to military reports. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in the care of our seniors?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the contents of that report were deeply disturbing and troubling for all Canadians. That is why we are committed to working with the provinces to fix this situation. Ontarians and indeed people right across the country are deeply preoccupied by what they've seen going on. We need to fix this, and we will do that together.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that cockroaches and flies were present and that food was rotten. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards so that long-term care is governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, our priority right now is ensuring that we are supporting the provinces in their need to make sure that all seniors are protected right across the country in all those institutions. Going forward, we absolutely will need to have more conversations about how we can ensure that every senior across the country is properly supported.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that respecting the dignity of patients was not a priority. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards and for long-term care to be governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, all Canadians know we need to do better by our seniors. This is something we all take very seriously, and all orders of government will work together to make sure that right now, and going forward, we improve our systems. The federal government will be there to work with the provinces on making that happen.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has said that he's willing to work with the provinces. I'm saying that we need to see federal leadership. We need a commitment at the federal level that the Prime Minister will push for things that people need, which is to remove profit from long-term care and to establish national standards. Will the Prime Minister go beyond working with provinces and show some leadership?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, I will always be here to stand up for Canadians in all different situations. We are going to work with the provinces, fully respecting jurisdictions, to make sure that, all across the country, Canadians in long-term care are supported as required and receive the services and the care they deserve.\nThe Chair: Mr. Singh, we have 30 seconds. Ask a brief question, please.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much. The COVID-19 crisis should not be used as an excuse to avoid presenting solutions to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls committee, in particular by delaying action on the calls for justice. This is the same government that would not recognize it as a genocide, the same government that delayed the United Nations declaration legislation and the same government that is still taking indigenous kids to court. Will this government commit to core funding for indigenous services to help women and girls and ensure that the calls for justice are implemented without delay?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, we continue to work very closely with partners on the calls for justice even as we act in many areas, including better funding for shelters and for victims of domestic violence. We will continue to work with those partners, but people will understand that many of those partners are very focused right now on helping front-line workers, not on establishing the report. We will continue to work with them on the report, but the COVID-19 situation has made that more difficult.\nThe Chair: I want to thank the honourable members who are shouting time, but I do have a timer here, and I am taking care of it. I appreciate the help, but I do want to remind them that I have the proper machinery here. We will now go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Prime Minister. He was just talking about the tragic conditions in long-term care facilities in Ontario, and there was a report out from Quebec today. I want to commend the Canadian Armed Forces for witnessing these appalling conditions, putting it in the context of a report, and providing care to our loved ones in these long-term care facilities. The government is saying they didn't receive the report from the department until May 22, but this report came out on May 14. What happened to that report for eight days?\nThe Chair: We will go to the honourable minister. We seem to have a technical issue, Mr. Sajjan. We can't hear you. You might want to put down your bar and keep it down while you're speaking.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Chair, I want to thank our Canadian Armed Forces members for the tremendous work they are doing. They did their duty, noted down their observations and reported them. While those observations were being reported directly to the managers, a report was being compiled. This report was given to me on the 21st. I then forwarded it to the Minister of Public Safety on the 22nd, and that report was then given to the provincial authorities very quickly afterwards.\nMr. James Bezan: I trust that you got the report on the 21st, but the report was written on the 14th, so what happened with that report for seven days? Why wasn't it acted upon? Could you just explain that? Our loved ones were at risk during that entire time.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as we stated, this report was done and given up through the chain of command, and the appropriate leadership did their due diligence. Once we received this report, it was forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Again, I want to commend our Canadian Armed Forces members for not only the tremendous work they are doing but also for doing their duty.\nMr. James Bezan: That report from Ontario documented appalling conditions, horrific care that was being given to the clients, and also the way that the staff conducted themselves. We know that there are 39 members of the Canadian Armed Forces currently infected with COVID-19. Minister, do you believe that the infection could have been transmitted from staff to our soldiers serving in long-term care facilities because proper protocols were not being followed?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to any type of activities that we send our Canadian Armed Forces on, we do our due diligence to make sure that we have the right protocols in place and the appropriate training. This is why we have taken the time to make sure our folks not only did the appropriate training but had the appropriate equipment. We have the right protocols in place, and we will make sure that our members who are infected by COVID will get the appropriate treatment as well.\nMr. James Bezan: Does the Minister of National Defence believe that our soldiers serving in Operation Laser, who have put themselves in harm's way in battling the COVID virus as a war, deserve to have hazard pay benefits?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to looking after Canadian Armed Forces personnel, yes, we are actually in the process as we speak of making sure that our members have the appropriate hazard pay. This is currently being drafted, and we will have more to say on this shortly.\nMr. James Bezan: I hope that means it's a yes. I do encourage the government to provide that compensation to our soldiers and troops serving in Operation Laser. I would finally like to come back to the issue of the timeline from May 14 to May 21, when that report was in the department for one week. Under our parliamentary system, ministers are accountable for the conduct of their departments. Will the minister take responsibility for that report sitting on someone's desk for seven days and not being turned over to the proper authorities?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear: When it comes to the observations that were made, those were immediately reported to the appropriate management of the care facilities and to the appropriate links within the province. At the same time, this report was being compiled and pushed up to the chain of command, and they did their due diligence. As I stated, it was given to us, and on the same day it was forwarded to the Minister of Public Safety, who immediately then sent it to the provincial authorities.\nMr. James Bezan: Was one of those authorities that this was sent to the RCMP?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as stated, this will not only be given to the proper authorities but the appropriate steps will be taken now.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk (BattlefordsLloydminster, CPC): Thank you, Chair. Yesterday it was revealed that the Minister of Digital Government has been promoting a fundraising campaign to sue Global News for their story criticizing the Chinese Communist Party. Why is the minister using her authority to support the Communist Party of China and threatening our media and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray (Minister of Digital Government): Mr. Chair, we value the important work of media right across the country. Attacking the integrity of hard-working journalists is simply not acceptable. Like many members on all sides of the House.... WeChat is a social media platform used to engage and share information with\nThe Chair: Now we'll go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister aware of the efforts that the United Front carries out on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party to influence how Canadians view the People's Republic of China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Thank you for that question. Mr. Chair, I want to just be clear. The participation in the WeChat group, much like Facebook, is guided by posted\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister an active participant in the efforts by the Communists to muzzle a Canadian journalist and deprive Canadians of the facts about China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Muzzling journalists is never acceptable, and our government is very clear on that. I will say that the individual in question posted something outside of the guidelines of my WeChat group and is no longer\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk, I just want to point out that we do have interpreters listening and trying to interpret. They'd appreciate it....\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: My questions are short. That's probably what it is.\nThe Chair: Take a deep breath.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, the Liberals can't shrug this off. The minister admitted to theBreaker that her own political staff manages this WeChat. This is someone who is paid by Canadian taxpayers. Why is the minister using tax dollars to help China attack Global News and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray: I think the member knows very well that the people who post on WeChat are free to post what they choose within certain guidelines. Those guidelines were ignored. That person is no longer part of my WeChat group. The post was completely unacceptable, and I do not share the views of the individual.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, Sam Cooper is an investigative Canadian journalist who has uncovered many different criminal rackets that can be linked back to Beijing. Has the minister apologized to Sam Cooper for attempting to shut down his work?\nHon. Joyce Murray: As we all know, community outreach is a very important part of the work of a member of Parliament. WeChat is one of many social media sites regularly used by members\nThe Chair: We go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, when will the minister apologize to Sam Cooper and Global News?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Mr. Chair, I have been very clear that I do not share the views of the person who posted on my WeChat site, who operated outside of my\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in December 2018 the Liberals passed Bill C-76. This included provisions to prevent foreign interference in Canadian society. Does the government believe that Joyce Murray's actions have violated this portion of the act?\nHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that we are always vigilant in any foreign interference in our national security or issues of political interference in our society. It's monitored carefully by the national security establishment, according to the law as it exists in this country, and we will remain vigilant.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in May 2019, the Liberals launched their digital charter. One of the principles was strong democracy, a commitment to defend freedom of expression. Will the Liberals hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated this part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, we are absolutely committed to the rule of law and will always uphold it. I think, as the minister has made very clear, she was not involved in this process and has no control over the individual who posted that matter.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, unfortunately I don't believe that was a sufficient answer. This is really a yes or no. Will the government hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated their part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that our government remains committed to the rule of law and we will always work tirelessly to uphold the laws of this country.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is that a yes or a no?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I think it was very clear. We will always uphold the laws of Canada.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Still, was that a yes or a no? I'm not hearing a yes or a no.\nHon. Bill Blair: I am doing my very best, Mr. Chair, to answer the question for the House and to assure the member opposite that our government will always remain committed to the rule of law. That is unequivocal.\nThe Chair: We will now move on to the honourable member. The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. I am very happy and proud to be participating in this discussion in the House of Commons today. My question is very simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance): Mr.Chair, we continue to be transparent with our measures. Of course, we want to make sure that our investments, our economy\nThe Chair: The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Let me ask my question to the honourable Minister of Finance once more, since he is talking about transparency. My question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, our economic situation is very fluid. We have made major investments and we are making sure that our economy is working.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the minister's answer is not fluid at all. But the question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, it is important to be transparent with our investments. We look at the investments and the figures every day.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the Minister of Finance may not know what the deficit is, but one great Canadian does know. And he knows that he knows. Could the Minister of Finance be very clear, very fluid and, above all, very transparent with Canadians? What is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I want to be very clear with Canadians: our economic situation is very difficult. The situation is fluid. We are making investments to ensure that our economy will be strong in the future.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, with all due respect to the Minister of Finance, let me point out that, though he is not very clear, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear yesterday. The deficit is $260billion. That is the real number. Why does the government not have the courage to state it clearly, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer did yesterday?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we always want to be clear and transparent. It is very important for the situation to be stable in order to ensure our future. That is our economic approach. We are making investments now so that the situation becomes more stable.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, I know that the Minister of Finance is very good with figures. But he is not able to give us one. Perhaps he could comment on the statement that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made yesterday, that the emergency assistance must have an end date, and if it does not, we are heading to levels of taxation that have not been seen in this country for generations. What is the government going to do to make sure that Canadians will not be overtaxed after this crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to make investments. That way, we will have a resilient economy in the future. That's very important. That way, we know that we'll have a good economy in the future. When we have more information, we will\nThe Chair: Mr.Deltell, you have the floor.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, will the minister commit not to raise taxes after the crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I have said several times that we do not have a plan to raise taxes. That's very important.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Finally a clear answer! However, I'm not convinced that he will apply it. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself has said that there isn't much ammunition left without shifting into a large structural deficit, which can lead directly to tax increases. If the Minister of Finance can't even say today what the deficit is today, how can he be credible when he says that he won't raise taxes?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I think what's most important is that during this pandemic, Canadians and companies across the country need the Government of Canada's help. That is our approach. That way, we will have an economy that will function in the future. Of course, this is important for future generations.\nMr. Grard Deltell: When will there be an economic update?\nHon. Bill Morneau: \nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, all observers are expecting an economic update to know where we're going. When will that happen?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we want our economic update to be accurate. That's why we are looking at information that allow us to make good forecasts.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Chair, the United States, Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam have created an economic prosperity group to diversify some of their key supply chains away from China. Canada has a free trade agreement with six of these seven countries. Why are we not part of this group?\nHon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade): Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for that question. Indeed, we have been working diligently with all of these countries to make sure that we are keeping global supply chains open during this critical time. I think everyone agrees that keeping supply chains open for medical goods, critical agriculture and essential goods is absolutely essential and\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, this government is refusing to come to terms with what COVID-19 will mean for the future of international trade. Why is Canada not at the table with our largest trading partner protecting the viability of our international supply chains and capitalizing on the opportunities of others doing the same?\nThe Chair: Before we go to the minister, one of the members has his mike still on, and I would ask that he turn it off. I am hearing background noise. The hon. minister.\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, Canada has unprecedented access to a number of markets around the world because of the extraordinary agreements that we have made to provide access to customers in those international markets. During COVID-19, we have been working with our G20 partners. I have had two meetings with G20 trade ministers on the importance of keeping supply chains\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, is this payback for the Prime Minister snubbing these countries at the original TPP signing?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we have a CPTPP arrangement with these countries, and we are looking forward to making sure that we get Canadian businesses growing into those markets.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the U.K. will begin applying tariffs at the beginning of next year on Canadian exports such as seafood, beef and cars. These are the items that have had tariffs removed under CETA. Will the government commit to having a new trade agreement with the U.K. in place by January 1?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we are monitoring the situation very carefully. The U.K., of course, is a very important trading partner for Canada. They are in discussions right now. I want to assure Canadian businesses that CETA continues to apply to our trade with the U.K. during this period while they go through Brexit.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, after CUSMA, this government guaranteed to the trade committee that they would publish the objectives of any new trade agreement. When will we see these objectives published and actually have a chance to view them?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we look forward to working to ensure that those objectives are published as we get into future trade discussions.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the resignation of the WTO director-general at this unprecedented time is concerning for the international trade community. Is the government committed to supporting a DG candidate who is dedicated to the massive reforms needed to get the WTO functioning again?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for that good question. The Ottawa group, led by Canada, is working with like-minded countries on the reform of the WTO. We've been doing this work and we continue to do this work. I look forward to making sure that we are leading the way on those discussions with like-minded\nThe Chair: Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, last week the President of the United States considered blocking cattle imports. Our beef producers don't need this. They need stability. Three-quarters of Canada's beef cattle exports go to the U.S. Has the government sought out and received assurances from the United States that no such action will apply to Canadian cattle?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chair, we have an excellent assurance of our trade with the United States, which is our new NAFTA trade agreement that we have negotiated, thanks to the unprecedented co-operation across this country. It is very important to the Canadian economy and Canadian producers.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, going forward post-COVID, there are a lot things that will be changing in supply chains. What is this government doing proactively to look at opportunities in these supply chains that Canadian businesses can take advantage of?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we continue to work with countries around the globe to ensure that Canada's supply chains and those global supply chains, particularly for essential goods, for agricultural products, for medical supplies, continue to remain open. We will keep doing this work.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, on the agriculture side, canola farmers would like to know the status of canola going into China. Can she update the House on that status?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Mr.Chair, I want to assure my colleague that we are continuing to work with our industry representatives, our allies and our trading partners in China.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. McLeod.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod (KamloopsThompsonCariboo, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senior Canadian bureaucrats received very credible reports in early January that China was procuring and hoarding PPE. As a member of cabinet, was the health minister aware?\nHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Health): Mr. Chair, from the very beginning of the outbreak in early January we were aware of the challenges our health sector would face, and we immediately began to work with the provinces and territories to understand what the need would be and how we could best prepare.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: In April, the minister stated there were not enough supplies in the national emergency stockpile. Can she explain why she approved a donation of 16 tonnes of PPE for China on January 31, claiming it would not compromise our supply? She can't have it both ways. We don't have enough; we have enough and it won't compromise it.\nHon. Anita Anand (Minister of Public Services and Procurement): Mr. Chair, we are operating in a highly competitive global environment, and the reality is that we need to make sure we have multiple complementary supply chains operating at the same time, which we have been doing in the past weeks and months, to ensure our front-line health care workers have the supplies they need to keep Canadians safe. That's our priority. That's what we're working on.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Unfortunately, this question was directed to the health minister, referencing things she actually stated in terms of the availability of our supplies. Before the she signed off on the donationand it was the health minister who signed off on the donationdid she consult with the health ministers in the provinces and territories?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, provinces and territories have their own stockpiles, which of course they use to prepare for incidences of outbreak and other illnesses across their jurisdictions. We've worked very closely with the provinces and territories since the beginning of the outbreak to make sure we can provide any particular additional support. In fact, of all the requests made so far, we have been able to complete them.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Health care workers are now having to look at modified full-face snorkels as an alternative to N95 masks. Did it not occur to the minister that our hospitals and care homes could have used that PPE she shipped out, providing a longer opportunity for them to also get procurement done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, the equipment that was donated when China was in its outbreak was an important donation of nearly expired or expired goods that it was in desperate need of in its effort to try to contain the virus. As the member opposite knows, we've been able to work successfully with provinces and territories to ensure they have what they need.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Mr. Chair, I would suggest that during February and March our hospitals would have consumed that almost-expired product very efficiently, but I want to move on to another topic. When defending the sale of 22 seniors' homes to the Chinese government, the Prime Minister stated that we have a strong regulatory regime that imposes rigorous standards. He said that this regime ensures the care our seniors get is top quality. That was in 2017. Now he states he is saddened, shocked, disappointed and angered. Was the Prime Minister completely oblivious to the risks, or was he just too anxious to please the Chinese government when he sold those 22 homes?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the homes the member opposite is referring to are in the province of B.C., and I have to commend the province for the early work it did to protect seniors in those long-term care homes. The member opposite is trying to confuse the issue. As she knows, the review we did was entirely separate from the standards to which the province holds the care homes.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: The Prime Minister does not have authority over seniors' homes, which he has clearly stated, but he does have authority over the act in which he approved the sale. At 18 months, government had an obligation to make sure there was compliance. Was that done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the long-term care homes in each province fall within the jurisdiction of their own particular act, and those provinces and territories are responsible for fulfilling the inspections required under that act.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Under the Investment Canada Act, the government is obligated to review the sale for compliance. Four homes had to close. Since the government approved the sale, it is complicit in the care of our seniors in this country\nHon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry): Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear that we understand how difficult this is for seniors. That is why we follow the appropriate steps, outlined under the Investment Canada Act, to make sure that any measures we take keep seniors and their well-being first and foremost.\nThe Chair: Mr.Therrien, you now have the floor.\nMr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ): Mr.Chair, during the pandemic, the government has given money to companies that don't pay a cent in tax because they use tax havens. We told the government that it didn't make sense. The government's response was that it is no big deal. During the pandemic, the government gave money to Air Canada, but Air Canada never reimbursed customers who did not get the services they paid for. We told the government that it did not make sense. The government's response was that it was no big deal. During the pandemic, the Liberal Party used the emergency wage subsidy to fund partisan activities. We told them that it did not make sense. The government responded that it was no big deal. Is the moral of the story that the government thinks that dipping into the pockets of taxpayers to spend money carelessly is no big deal?\nHon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.Chair, the fight against tax evasion is a priority for our government. We will continue to target companies that use tax evasion schemes. Let me be clear: in everything we do, we will target companies and not innocent workers. Employees are employees, no matter who they work for.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, when I see that it's the Minister of National Revenue answering me, I don't feel like buying a lottery ticket. The Liberal Party used two airplanes in its last election campaign, which seems to indicate that it isn't short of money. However, the Liberals used the emergency wage subsidy. Why? Is it because they want taxpayers to fund a third airplane?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to protect employees across the country and in every economic sector that's experiencing a significant drop in income. That's the approach we've taken to protect people and to ensure that there will be jobs in the future. We will continue this approach.\nMr. Alain Therrien: It's especially important to protect the employees who work for the Liberals to ensure their re-election, yet the Liberal Party has raised more than $7million since the last election. Is the party in jeopardy? Can it go bankrupt?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, as I said, our approach is to protect employees. We think that this principle is very important and that this approach must be maintained in order to have a better job market in the future.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, we still don't know exactly how much money the Liberals took from the cookie jar. We think they may have taken as much as $1million. How many SMEs could have been saved with the $1million that the Liberals took out of the jar and took away from SMEs?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we appreciate the question. We are protecting hundreds of thousands of SMEs through the emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency response benefit and all our programs. We will continue this approach to help SMEs and their employees.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, I will propose a choice of answers, or I won't get any. When did the government decide to use the emergency wage subsidy? Now here are three possible answers. The first possible answer is that when the Liberals brought in the emergency wage subsidy, they set parameters allowing them to use it. The second is that when the Liberals saw the Conservative Partywhich is as rich as they are, but also sanctimonious and self-righteoustake advantage of the subsidy, they thought they could do it too. The third possible answer is that the Liberals hadn't planned to use the subsidy, but they pounced on the cookie jar when they saw it, because that's what they do.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we continue to think it is very important to protect employees in every sector of the economy and across Canada. That's our approach, and I believe it's the right one to protect and preserve jobs across the country during a pandemic.\nThe Chair: We are now going to suspend the proceedings for a few seconds to allow the employees who provide support for the meeting to replace each other safely.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC)): We will now resume the discussion.  We'll continue with Ms. Khalid, the honourable member for MississaugaErin Mills.\nMs. Iqra Khalid (MississaugaErin Mills, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with the member for PickeringUxbridge. Mr. Chair, when the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces stepped in to provide support to five long-term care homes in Ontario at the request of the premier, they released a report that outlined their findings in detail. Military members witnessed residents' cries for help going unanswered. They saw force-feeding. They saw bug infestations, a lack of personal protective equipment and neglect. Canadians are shaken. They are appalled by the horrific conditions outlined in the military report. Almost 1,000 seniors so far have lost their lives in long-term care homes in Ontario alone, over 25 of them in my riding of MississaugaErin Mills. These deaths could have been prevented. Can the Minister of Health please update the House on how our federal government is working with the provinces and territories to prevent further tragic occurrences from happening at long-term care homes and to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors are properly looked after and cared for?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, it's such an important question. I believe all Canadians were deeply horrified to read the details from the Canadian Armed Forces on the conditions in long-term care homes in Ontario. What's happening to seniors in Ontario is completely unacceptable. The report is very troubling. Seniors deserve to live with dignity, with respect and with safety. While long-term care is provincially regulated, we know that we need to work together. The Government of Canada stands ready to support provinces and territories as they continue to respond to this crisis. I had a very good conversation with my provincial and territorial counterparts last night about the work we can do at a national level to support their important work. We also know that seniors want to stay at home longer. That's why our historic investment of $6 billion in home care was so important. We'll continue to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they get the care and dignity they deserve.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Ms. O'Connell.\nMs. Jennifer O'Connell (PickeringUxbridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will sadly report that my community of Pickering has experienced the largest number of deaths at a single COVID-19 outbreak location anywhere in this country. Seventy residents at Orchard Villa long-term care home died during this pandemic. It was a devastating blow to our community. Yesterday, we received the horrific report from the Canadian Armed Forces detailing what they witnessed at Orchard Villa in Pickering, Altamont Care Community in Scarborough, Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke, Hawthorne Place in North York, and Holland Christian Homes' Grace Manor in Brampton. The loved ones of those who have passed away, as well as the homes' workers, have asked for a full public inquiry from the Ontario government. I know that the responsibility for these facilities falls within provincial jurisdiction, but on behalf of our communities, can the Minister of Health update us on the work she is doing to ensure that the Ontario government takes action immediately and initiates a full, independent, non-partisan public inquiry and reverses its decision to create a government-led commission that won't even start until September?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I would say that all Canadians were shocked and horrified to hear about the conditions that existed in these particular care homes. We're so grateful to the members of the armed forces who not only improved conditions but also reported them quickly and appropriately to ensure amelioration of those conditions for those particular individuals. We also know that there are seniors all across the country who are struggling with care and with the appropriate level of care. We have to do better as a country. These are our loved ones. These are our parents and our grandparents. These are the people in our lives who have given so much to us. I stand committed to working with my provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that we do better as a society. We know that there's a role we can play at the federal level with advice, with guidance, with support and, yes, with investments. We look forward to having those conversations about how best we can improve the care for all seniors amongst us.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Mr. Davies from Vancouver Kingsway.\nMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canadians were horrified to hear the report yesterday from our armed forces about the appalling conditions experienced by seniors in our long-term care homes. Page after page detailed the filth, neglect, abuse and danger our seniors in care are exposed to on a daily basis. Shockingly they face injury and death through missed medications, expired medications, unsterile devices and violations of basic contagion rules to stop the spread of COVID-19. Given that evidence of possible criminal conduct was contained in the military's report, will the minister refer this matter to the RCMP for investigation immediately?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, thanks very much to the member for those expressions of concern, which we share. We understand in long-term care facilities both seniors and persons living with a disability face unique challenges, and the findings of this report are in fact deeply concerning and completely unacceptable. Considering the severity of this report, we promptly shared it with the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Ontario has initiated an investigation based on the report's findings. Their investigation includes alerting the province's chief coroner who has the authority to alert the police of jurisdiction. We will continue to work with the province to protect those living in long-term care facilities, and we continue to support them through the deployment of our outstanding Canadian Armed Forces and in our partnership with the Red Cross.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, that's a shocking answer considering there's clear evidence of criminal conduct and negligence in this. That this federal government is not taking immediate steps to refer this to the nation's RCMP is unacceptable. The seniors care crisis is a national problem. COVID-19 has exposed critical vulnerabilities across Canada's entire network of long-term care facilities. Not a single province or territory currently meets the benchmark of 4.1 hours of hands-on care per day. As a result Canada has the worst record of COVID-19 deaths in long-term care among 14 comparable countries, with over 80% of Canadian fatalities occurring in these facilities. Will this government move swiftly to establish binding national standards for long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member opposite is exactly correct when he says that those who are hardest hit in terms of losing their lives and the negative effects of COVID are those who are living in long-term care homes. He's also correct when he indicates that COVID-19 has shown us what many of us have known for a long time, that we need to do better in long-term care and supports for seniors. As the member knows, we started those steps some four years ago or so when we began to make incredible investments in aging at home. We know that is one part of the solution, but we have to do better for those seniors who need a higher level of care. That's the work I'm doing now. I'm working with my colleagues at the provinces and territories to make sure that we come up with a solution that will truly result in better standards for all.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, what we need is binding national standards, just like we set through the Canada Health Act in the health care sector generally. Gross fecal contamination, filthy medical equipment, insect infestations, ignoring patient cries for hourswe would never tolerate these conditions in Canada's hospitals. There's no reason to accept them in Canada's long-term care facilities. Will the minister move to bring long-term care facilities under the Canada Health Act, or similar legislation, with formal funds tied to acceptable standards of care for our seniors, just like we do for hospitals?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member shares the disgust and concern of so many Canadians across the country, not only those who have read the report but many of those who have struggled to provide care to elders in those long-term care homes, regardless of the province in which they live. We know we need to do better. We know that collectively, at all levels of government, we must do better for those people who cared for us and nurtured us all of those years. The member has my commitment that I will work with provinces and territories to find a solution forward to ensure that every person has the right to age with dignity and safety.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. Davies, you have 15 seconds for another question, a short one, and leave time for a response.\nMr. Don Davies: Thank you, Mr. Chair. These failures are the product of systemic neglect often motivated by prioritizing profit over the provision of adequate care. Does the minister agree that we should not be putting profits above the health care needs of Canada's seniors?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I believe that, when we commit to taking care of people, we must do so with the utmost care that is required. I know that provinces and territories have a lot of work to do. So do we, at the federal level, and obviously at the local level. We must all work together to protect those people in our lives who are most vulnerable, whether they be seniors, children or others.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now move on to Mr. Schmale, HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock. Mr. Schmale, go ahead.\nMr. Jamie Schmale (HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock, CPC): Thank you, Chair. According to Vaughn Palmer in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun regarding the secret Wet'suwet'en deal, Palmer writes:     The hereditary chiefs calculated the two governments would sign despite the objections from the elected chiefs. They likewise got the terms they wanted in the MOU while giving up absolutely nothing. Just as they figured governments would keep the contents secret from the public.   Can the minister describe another situation in which the federal government negotiated a secret deal of this magnitude with unelected people?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations): I thank the member for his ongoing concern and I want to remind him that actually it is in keeping with the Supreme Court decision of 1997 that we were to now begin those conversations with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who took the case to the Supreme Court. As we've said many times, this is not an agreement; this is an MOU that establishes the path forward for the substantive discussions towards a final agreement, which would describe the future governance and the implementation of Wet'suwet'en rights and title. It is about a shared commitment.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, if it is a shared commitment, why on the eve of the signing ceremony did the four elected chiefs denounce the hereditary chiefs for keeping them in the dark?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it's really important that the member understand that there was a process for the hereditary chiefs to go back to their communities and discuss with them. Any agreement after the good work that will happen now would have to go back and seek the approval of all of the communities.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, the Burns Lake Band members are openly wondering if they're still a band or if the few unelected hereditary chiefs will control everything now. Minister, can you assure them that going forward you will honour their concerns and take the time to listen?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I ask honourable members to still direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Actually, the honourable member knows that the next steps include the further and ongoing engagement by the Wet'suwet'en in their house groups and that will include the six elected chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en nation, their community members and many others. This is about going forward and making sure that any\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Cynthia Joseph, a chief councillor with the Hagwilget First Nation says the MOU between Ottawa, the province and the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs was only shared with her community members on May 9, two days after it was published in the media. Is this part of the open and transparent government all Canadians can expect of the Prime Minister?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Walking the path of reconciliation means that we work with our partners and there is a way that they do the work within their communities. It is going to be an agreement to begin the work, but any final agreement is going to have to be approved by all members of the nation in terms of developing a consensus for the agreement\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Does the minister have any concerns regarding claims by several former female hereditary chiefs that they were stripped of their hereditary status because they didn't agree with the men?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it is going to be really important that the work take place within the Wet'suwet'en nation to determine their future governance, to determine their way of working with Canada and to make sure\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. For some reason it seems to be a problem to stand up for these hereditary female chiefs who had their titles taken away. Does the minister plan on recognizing band council resolutions denying the authority of hereditary chiefs to sign any future agreements without consent of the elected chiefs and the 3,000 members within the Wet'suwet'en they represent?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: I think the member must understand that, as we begin the work, the nation will do its work and then we will come to the table to determine what the governance would be. Will it be a hybrid model like at Heiltsuk, like Ktunaxa, like some of the communities developing their constitutions, developing their laws and deciding how they will determine their own governance and that partnership with Canada?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (CharlesbourgHaute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. The current restrictions on non-essential travel at the border do not prevent people from claiming refugee protection if they have family in Canada. Why is the minister refusing to allow married people to cross the border?\nHon. Bill Blair: I want to thank the honourable member for a very important question. We have heard from many constituents and members of Parliament from right across the country who are expressing concern about non-status spouses being denied entry into the country because their travel is deemed to be non-essential. I've recently been in touch with all of the provinces and territories because I think it's very important that we have their support for any changes\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: If I understand correctly, Mr.Minister, you are talking to provincial representatives, but a case like that of ChantalTremblay, for instance, is unacceptable. For two months now, she has been trying to bring her spouse to Canada, but it isn't working. Is there a way to issue a directive to border services officers that married spousesit's often marriages with Americanscan cross the border to join their spouses in Canada?\nHon. Bill Blair: Just to be very clearagain, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify thisit is never our intention to separate families, but at the same time, we have imposed appropriate and necessary restrictions on non-essential travel. Our border services officers inquire of everyone coming to that border about the nature of their travel, and for non-citizens who come to that border seeking entry into Canada, if their entry is deemed non-essential, then they exercise their discretion not to allow\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Thank you, Mr.Chair. Information from the Canada Border Services Agency has just come out. Since March21, 425,000people have flown into Canada. Among them were 295,000Canadians, which isn't a problem. However, 100,000foreigners have entered Canada, even though the border is supposedly closed. How does the minister explain the fact that 100,000people arrived in Canada by plane?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify. We have imposed very significant restrictions on non-essential travel, but of course there are circumstances where individuals come to this country and their entry into Canada is deemed essential. For example, someone who is providing medical services and coming into Canada to provide those services would be deemed essential, because there is a great need among Canadians for those services. It's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As you can see by the numbers, we have had a very significant reduction in the travel of all non-Canadians to Canada over the past two months.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: So the minister confirms that the 100,000people who arrived by air were providing a service considered essential to Canada. I'm not talking about the people who crossed the land border, but the people who came to Canada by air.\nHon. Bill Blair: What I can tell you is that at all points of entry, including our air borders, we apply the standard that the travel must be deemed essential, and that determination is utilized to see if a person is eligible to enter into the country.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: We're now learning that the Correctional Service of Canada's investigation into the murder of MarylneLevesque is suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Canadians aren't fooled; they know full well that it is a political decision. All the technological means are available to allow the investigation to continue. I'm proof of that today. Can the minister direct the Correctional Service of Canada to resume the investigation into the death of MarylneLevesque?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member for the question, because we know the concern of the people of Quebec, and the family of Ms. Levesque needs answers and deserves answers. That's why we asked the Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada to convene a board of investigation. Clearly, during COVID transmission, the ability to conduct that investigation and to interview all of the witnesses became extremely difficult and has been temporarily suspended, but at the very earliest opportunity we remain resolute to resume that investigation and get to the bottom of it to provide the answers that the family deserves.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have only 20seconds remaining.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr.Chair, victims of crime are one of the segments of the population most affected by the crisis. As we know, the government refuses to allow victims of crime to participate in parole hearings. For the first time in its history, and to add insult to injury, the government has cancelled all activities related to Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, which was to take place next week. Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on victims?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, at the earliest days of COVID, until arrangements could be put in place, there were restrictions on victims participating. We have put the systems in place to allow victims to present their evidence virtually, either by video or by phone, to ensure that their voices are heard in these important things. We very much respect and support the role of victims in these determinations, and we're making every effort to ensure that they can participate.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll now to Mr. Cumming, Edmonton Centre.\nMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Chair, yesterday I asked the Minister of Small Business how many business credit availability guarantees were issued by EDC, and I didn't get a number. Does she have an exact, finite, number of the guarantees today?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, thank you to the honourable member for that question. Our government has taken swift and immediate action to support Canadian businesses through this time. Money from this program is flowing, and businesses across the country are receiving the important support that they need.\nMr. James Cumming: How many BCAP applications have been received so far?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, these are large loans, and they require important due diligence and adjudication by the financial institutions. We will continue to be open and transparent as the accurate information becomes available.\nMr. James Cumming: How long does it take to be approved for a BCAP guarantee?\nHon. Mary Ng: I want to assure the member that we're going to do everything possible to support businesses and workers during this very important time.\nMr. James Cumming: How many businesses have received funding under the BCAP co-lending program since March?\nHon. Mary Ng: The lending programs, particularly the program to help small businesses, have really helped lots of businesses. Over 630,000 loans have been issued, and this is really helping those\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Unfortunately, lots is not an answer for the businesses that I'm trying to talk to. Can you tell me, for the CEBA changes that were recently announced, when will we be able to see people who have income through a dividend able to apply?\nHon. Mary Ng: That's a very important question, Mr. Chair. There's nothing more important to me and to our government than getting these supports out to businesses. Those small businesses that will meet the expanded CEBA criteria are working very diligently with the financial institutions to make sure that they can get access to those loans as quickly as possible.\nMr. James Cumming: Can the minister give me a day when that will happen?\nHon. Mary Ng: The financial institutions are working very hard to make sure that they can make this available to businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: When will a sole proprietor be able to go for those loans?\nHon. Mary Ng: We will work very hard and very diligently to make sure that these businesses and those sole proprietors are supported.\nMr. James Cumming: Could they go on Monday?\nHon. Mary Ng: There is nothing more important than making sure these businesses weather the difficult time of COVID-19, and our measures are\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How about Tuesday?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think we will all agree that getting support to these businesses is absolutely crucial. Our commitment is always going to be to get support to these businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: I can't get a distinct answer on any of those questions. Can you tell me how much headroom is left on the CEBA program?\nHon. Mary Ng: Today, over 630,000 businesses have received the support to do things like pay for salaries, the 25% top-up for the wage subsidy, pay for rent and pay for insurance and utilities. This is what these loans are helping our small\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars are left in the program so businesses can have some certainty that the program will be available for some time?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think you will see that the businesses across the country that I have talked to really appreciate that the government has stepped up to help them during this difficult time. These include women with businesses, indigenous-owned businesses and those small businesses all across our communities, all across the country, that are getting the necessary help. We are going to keep\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars? It can't be that complicated. How many dollars?\nHon. Mary Ng: There are 630,000 businesses that are getting help, and thousands more businesses will be getting help with the expanded criteria. We're going to keep doing the work that we need to help our businesses across this country through this difficult time.\nMr. James Cumming: I heard from a constituent in my riding that they waited for over four hours on the portal for CECRA. Is there an issue with the portal, and if so, when will it be fixed?\nHon. Mary Ng: Making sure that businesses get the help for commercial rent support is absolutely crucial right now. We are going to endeavour to make sure that this help gets out to those small businesses. Applications have opened in a staggered way and\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have time for one last short question, Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Finally, the Prime Minister yesterday said that a list of all organizations that have been receiving CEWS will be made public. When will that be done?\nHon. Mary Ng: We have committed to making sure that those companies taking the wage subsidy program will be listed publicly. We have committed to doing that and we will do so.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We now go to Mr. d'Entremont from West Nova. Mr. d'Entremont, go ahead.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, but I thought I would say this first. The Canadian Coast Guard is doing a search at this moment following the loss of a vessel off the coast of Newfoundland. From my community, which is a seafaring, fishing community, I just want to put my thoughts out there to the folks of Newfoundland. We are definitely thinking of them during this difficult time. My first question revolves around the lobster fishery. It's been open in Cape Breton since May 15, I believe. The weather has been good. The harvesters have been going at it every day. The price has dropped to $4.25 already. Unstable markets will probably cause it to drop even more. What is the minister doing to make sure the lobster industry survives?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleague for his comments with regard to the tragic accident off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we saw the loss of life in a fishing accident. Of course, as coastal people, we are all in solidarity with the people of Newfoundland right now. We know that the fish and seafood sector has taken extreme hits because of COVID-19. We're working diligently to make sure we support the industry as best we can. We have made available over half a billion dollars to processors and harvesters to make sure they can weather this storm. We have made sure that the harvesters are able to access the harvester benefit as well as the grant, recognizing the unique nature of their business and how they are not able to access some of our other programs. We are continuing to monitor what is happening in the industry. We will continue to make sure we do everything we can to support the fish and seafood sector.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, to continue along this vein for a moment, we are still looking at unstable markets for a longer period of time. At this point, processors are being selective in what they're buying. They're not buying culls and other kinds of lobsters. The plants are filling up, and harvesters are worried that they might stop buying product before the season is complete. What can the fishermen expect, or what kinds of programs can they expect, if the season goes bust?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Chair, we know that this is a very challenging season for our harvesters. We also know that because of the decline in markets, we've had to make accommodations for the processing sector in order to help them be better able to support the harvesters. We have put in $62.5 million, which is allowing the processors to increase capacity in their refrigeration and freezers so that they will continue to be able to purchase product. As I said earlier, we will continue to monitor the situation and make sure we do everything possible to support our harvesters. This is a very difficult\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. d'Entremont.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this next question will go to the Minister of DFO or the Minister of Transport. Oakley Ryerson is a resident of West Nova. He is planning a career on the sea and wants to get his master class four. The problem is that he can't pass the eye exam. He needs full-colour vision. For those who are far-sighted or nearsighted, you just have to put on your glasses to correct it. You can actually fly airplanes. I don't know about space shuttles, but who knows? You can now wear colour-corrected lenses, but Transport Canada still does not recognize these for use. Can the Minister of Transport help Ryerson in attaining his chosen profession?\nHon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport): Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern of my colleague for one of the residents in his riding. I would ask him to write to me and lay out the situation. We have medical standards with respect to a number of different kinds of transportation-related jobs for pilots, mariners and those kinds of occupations, which have to be respected. However, if he sends me the details, I will look into it personally.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. d'Entremont, you have another 20 to 25 seconds left.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr.Chair, the eligibility criteria for financial support include the need to demonstrate a significant loss of income during the months of March and April, yet several SMEs in the tourism industry can't qualify because their operations start with the tourist season, in late May or early June. What will the government do to help them?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, before accessing the emergency wage subsidy, applicants must meet important criteria. However, as we explained last week, we will be adjusting the wage subsidy until the end of August, and we will be reviewing the criteria.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're going to go to the west coast and the member for SaanichGulf Islands. Ms. May, go ahead.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is with regard to the urgent problem of mental health crises across Canada. My colleague, Jenica Atwin from Fredericton, held a press conference this morning in which she used the term echo pandemic. We will face an echo pandemic. We're already seeing increases in suicides on southern Vancouver Island. My question to the minister is this: Will we see direct funding to community mental health services as urgently requested by the Canadian Mental Health Association?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I read the honourable member's colleague's letter just today, and I want to reassure all members that we have invested in mental health supports for Canadians, obviously before the pandemic hit but certainly since we've been living with the pandemic. I'd like to remind all members to direct their constituents to the wellnesstogether.ca website and portal. There Canadians can find online resources, as well as connections to real and alive counsellors and other professionals who can help them with their various concerns.\nMs. Elizabeth May: This question relates to another current emergency: the climate emergency. This week it was reported that the concentration of greenhouse gases reached 417 parts per million. That's not just unprecedented over thousands of years; that's unprecedented over the last one million years. The temperatures in the Arctic broke 86F, 30C in the Arctic circle. The recognized parties in the House have established standing committees to work, but not the committee on the environment. We've asked for this in negotiations. When will the recognized parties remember the June 2019 emergency resolution that we are in a climate emergency, and start making sure that we hit 2020 commitments under the Paris Agreement to improve our targets?\nHon. Marc Garneau: Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's questions. I will remind her that we have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050. We've also committed to surpassing the targets that we had originally set for 2030. We realize that along with the COVID pandemic, which is the major problem that exists in the world today, there is another problem as well that affects the entire planet, and that is the problem associated with climate change. We remain committed to achieving those targets.\nMs. Elizabeth May: My next question will be for Minister Blair, but as an aside, I will say that last answer completely fails to meet the legal requirements of the Paris Agreement to file a new target this year. To save some time, Minister Blair, let's pretend to go back to the questions from my colleague MP Paul-Hus and to your last answer. This is dealt with on a case-by-case basis by CBSA agents. There are thousands of them. They are exercising personal, subjective judgment. This is not acceptable. I'm begging the minister. Could the minister please put out a directive, advice to every CBSA agent on the ground, that when a non-status entry point sees a non-status direct relativehusband, wife, child of a Canadian citizenthat relative be deemed to be entering Canada for an essential purpose?\nHon. Bill Blair: I'd like to thank the member for bringing this issue forward again. It's an important one. We have been working very hard to ensure that we do everything possible to keep families together. At the same time, we've been working with the provinces and territories, listening to the concerns of Canadians about ensuring that travel across our international border, particularly with the United States, is limited to essential travel. As I've indicated, I've had a number of important conversations and necessary conversations with our provincial and territorial partners. I believe there is a consensus on the right way forward on this, and we're working very diligently to put it in place. I want to assure the member opposite that we have given very clear direction to our CBSA officers. I believe our border services officers have been doing an extraordinary job for us in the exercise of their discretion. At the same time, they have been doing the important work of ensuring the health and safety of Canadians at our border.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're now going to Ms. Kwan for Vancouver East. Ms. Kwan, go ahead.\nMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Four out of the five homes listed in the armed forces report were for-profit. It is painfully clear that corporate profits are being put ahead of the well-being of seniors. Will the minister admit that the for-profit model is failing our loved ones and commit to getting profits out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member opposite notes, nobody can read that report or hear those stories without feeling absolute horror and disgust and without demanding better for the elders in our lives. As I have mentioned many times in the House, our government remains committed to working with provinces and territories to ensure that every elder person in our community can age with dignity and in safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Minister, if that's the case, I will ask again. Will the minister make sure that the focus of long-term care homes is taking care of seniors and not taking care of owners' bank accounts?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member will obviously know, long-term care remains in the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, and there is legislation that rules them as such. As the member also knows, we have stood by Ontario and all of the other provinces and territories throughout this outbreak. The Prime Minister has been very clear\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Is the minister refusing to answer the question because she agrees that profit should come before care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: I think it's unfortunate that the member is trying to place words in my mouth. What I do agree with, though, is that long-term care needs to be reformed, and I think all provinces and territories know, and all Canadians know, that we have to do a better job.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: It's simple for the minister. She can just answer the question. Is she willing to defend for-profit care for our seniors? Is she in favour of for-profit private health care too?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: What I am willing to defend is the right for all Canadians to age with safety and dignity.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: To the minister, what is the difference? Why sell out the care of our seniors? Will she commit that she will take profit out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I think the member opposite knows that the only way to actually reform long-term care is to work with provinces and territories, in fact, all levels of government, to ensure that the people who spent their lives caring for and nurturing us can end their lives with caring and nurturing\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I think the minister knows that what we need is national standards for seniors' care. The Revera long-term care homes are owned by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Since the government owns these homes, has the military been sent in there to see what's happening to seniors under their care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, we know that it is important to work with all of the provinces and territories under whose jurisdiction it falls to protect the seniors within those care homes. That's what we've been doing since the beginning of the outbreak of the coronavirus, and that's what we'll continue to do to protect the lives of seniors and strengthen their protection. We will, as I said, Mr. Chair, work with the provinces and territories to have a longer-term plan so that all seniors can age with dignity and safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: The government has a clear responsibility here. What is the government doing to ensure the standards of care in these Revera homes that they own?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as I have repeatedly said, the jurisdiction for care of long-term care homes falls within the provincial and territorial realm. However, that being said, Mr. Chair, we have been there for provinces and territories since the outbreak of the coronavirus, and as the member opposite has clearly or likely heard the Prime Minister say, we will stand with provinces and territories as all elders have the right to age with dignity\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I didn't hear an answer, Mr. Chair, so the answer is nothing, then. Do you think that the families of the seniors in these homes want to hear those excuses about jurisdictional issues? Does the minister not think that the families want to hear that the federal government is doing all it can to care for their parents?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I would remind the members to direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quite frankly, I don't think that families care which level of government is responsible for caring for their elders. I think what they care about is that their elders are cared for. That's in fact what the Prime Minister believes. That's in fact what our government believes, and that's why we have willingly stepped up to say to provinces and territories that we will be there with you to make sure that all seniors in our lives have the right to age with dignity and care.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now give the floor to Mrs.Gill, from the riding of Manicouagan. Go ahead, Mrs.Gill.\nMrs. Marilne Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr.Chair, my question is for the Prime Minister who, earlier, clearly told us that the government's assistance is intended for those who are most in need and most vulnerable. I come from a riding where a lot of people make their living from the tourism industry. I don't know if the PrimeMinister read the newspapers yesterday, but in Quebec, losses to the tune of $4billion are expected until March2021 in the tourism accommodation sector alone. The service sector will lose 93,000jobs. How can I justify to my constituents the fact that a political party, which does not need it, has already seen money from the emergency wage subsidy, when people in my riding don't yet have access to it because of the seasonal nature of their work? These people haven't seen the money that is available through these programs.\nHon. Bill Morneau: We think it is very important to protect the country's employees in all sectors of the economy. Through this approach, there will be more jobs after the pandemic, and the economic situation will be better. We will continue this approach.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, this is the wrong approach. They are saying that they are protecting the jobs of the Liberal Party of Canada, which does not need the money. I'll ask a question similar to the previous one. Fishers in my riding did not qualify for the emergency wage subsidy. Another program was created for them, which isn't quite the same and doesn't really meet their needs. A government whose political wingnot the parliamentary wingdoesn't really need money takes money from the fund, but leaves fishers to make do with less generous programs that don't meet their needs. What do I tell the fishers in my riding?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we know that many sectors of the economy across the country are facing challenges. That's why we have adopted an approach with consistent criteria for all employees in all sectors. We have also introduced specific measures to help certain sectors, such as the fishing industry. We will continue our approach because we believe it's the best way to protect employees and our economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I'm still not satisfied. The government is saying that the best way to proceed is to give money to the political wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, when there are people who are getting nothing. What am I supposed to tell seasonal workers, who have absolutely no assurances for their future? I can't go back to my riding and say I'm proud of the work the government is doing or our efforts in the House. It's true, the House is closed right now. I forgot. I have a very hard time accepting that the government is helping employees of the Liberal Party in preparation for the next election campaign, when communities in my region are dying because their economies revolve around a single industry. I can't tell them I'm not ashamed of what's going on as we speak.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we felt it was necessary to put emergency programs in place in response to the crisis during the pandemic. That is our approach. The emergency wage subsidy is a program that is clearly meant to ensure employees are protected and maintain their relationship with their employer. As for the Canada emergency response benefit, it means a lot to people who don't have a job. We are going to stick to our approach, which is to use consistent criteria to help all employees and all Canadians around the country struggling in any sector of the economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I think the honourable Minister of Finance lives in an ivory tower. No, he is not protecting all jobs. No, he is not protecting all sectors of the economy. Once again, I will say that a party that doesn't need money has already received subsidies. However, people who need that money, people who are actually losing money or who don't know if they'll even be working this summer are getting zilch. There is absolutely no justifying that. I'd at least like to know whether the government is ashamed of what it's doing. When people have a conscience, eventually, they want to make up for their mistakes. Are the Liberals going to return that money? Is the finance minister going to help all sectors of the economy, including tourism, fisheries and seasonal industries?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I'd like to thank the member for her question. Our approach is based on consistent criteria. The emergency wage subsidy is meant for any sector of the economy where revenues have dropped by 30% or more. The measure is hugely important for organizations that are really struggling, because we can protect their workers. We are also providing the Canada emergency response benefit to other employees, meaning, those who have lost their income because of COVID-19. Consequently, we will keep up our approach to ensure we continue to fare as well as possible and the economy works well after the pandemic.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Now we'll go to our last group of interventions, and that will be from Ms. Jansen in CloverdaleLangley City. Ms. Jansen, go ahead.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen (CloverdaleLangley City, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin with a shout-out to the brave waiters and waitresses at our local Earls restaurant and Browns Socialhouse, who have been opened again for on-site dining this week. Here in B.C. we're beginning to find our new normal, and it was great to see how small businesses have so quickly adapted their establishments to keep their workers and patrons safe while allowing people to get back to the business of living. You guys rock. Thanks for taking the lead. Mr. Chair, here in my riding I recently had contact with the mayor of Langley City who was wondering if I had any way of accessing personal protective gear, because our local firefighters were running out of stock. Then again yesterday, I spoke with one of our local homeless shelters that is also looking for PPE. Dr. Tam is telling all Canadians to wear masks in public, but I'm wondering if the Minister of Public Service and Procurement could tell us where exactly we're going to get all those masks with the current shortage.\nHon. Anita Anand: I want to be clear that our priority as a federal government has been to respond to provincial and territorial requests for PPE that goes to front-line health care workers. That is our priority, and we've been procuring goods aggressively in domestic and international markets. We are now actively also exploring ways in which we can assist broader organizations across the country with PPE needs, and that is something that I'll continue to update the House on as we go forward.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: A Globe and Mail article revealed that government orders for N95 masks have steadily been dropping. We've gone from over 200 million ordered to 100 million, according to a federal source. Mr. Chair, the number of N95 masks ordered, as reported on the department's website, does continue to fall. Will the minister tell us why we seem to continue to struggle to supply PPE to Canadians?\nHon. Anita Anand: It is no secret that we are in a global competition for N95 masks and other supplies, so the Government of Canada's approach is to diversify supply chains internationally and build up and retool domestic industry so that we can have these supplies going forward. In terms of the numbers on our web page, we have short-term and long-term contracts in place\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Jansen.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: Yes, I understand that a number of Chinese mask manufacturers have been nationalized, and products for Canadians have been confiscated by the CCP government. Is the drop in N95 orders due to, in actual fact, contracts being cancelled?\nHon. Anita Anand: On N95 masks, I would like to assure the member and the House that we have multiple contracts in place for the procurement of N95 masks, including with 3M in the United States, whose masks are crossing our border weekly over the next month.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: That didn't quite answer my question. Have any of our orders been cancelled by the nationalization of these manufacturers in China?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have an aide in place in China. We have our embassy and other firms actively ensuring that our supplies from the manufacturing source make their way to the warehouse. Over 40 flights have come to Canada with those masks and other supplies. Our supply chains are operating despite the global environment being highly competitive.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: We know many millions of N95 masks have arrived in Canada from China and have been substandard. What is the total number of substandard masks that have arrived?\nHon. Anita Anand: Mr. Chair, as previously explained to the House, about eight million masks did not meet spec by the Public Health Agency of Canada and have been repurposed to some extent in other areas of the system.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: In a previous committee, the deputy minister advised us that Medicom was shoulder-tapped by the government to consider producing PPE. How many other companies did the government approach for this contract?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have operated in a very urgent way in order to procure supplies for front-line health care workers. We are now also moving to ensure that we have competitions run for the procurement of personal protective equipment. It's a multi-pronged approach, and our priority is to get supplies out to front-line health care workers in this time of crisis as quickly as possible. Thank you so much.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Just before we adjourn, I think this another mark of accomplishment on behalf of the great team here at the House of Commons. There have been some great efforts, even since yesterday evening, to get this turned around for today. My compliments to all members joining us here in the House and to all members who have joined by virtual conference. The committee is now adjourned until noon tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned.\n\nNow, answer the query based on the above meeting transcript in one or more sentences.\n\nQuery: What was the discussion about the government's policy to improve long-term care facilities and protect the seniors?\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 111, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["He failed to report"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory:  Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nGALSWORTHY PLAYS\n\nSECOND SERIES--NO. 1\n\n\nJUSTICE\n\nBy John Galsworthy\n\n\n\nPERSONS OF THE PLAY\n\n JAMES HOW, solicitor\n WALTER HOW, solicitor\n ROBERT COKESON, their managing clerk\n WILLIAM FALDER, their junior clerk\n SWEEDLE, their office-boy\n WISTER, a detective\n COWLEY, a cashier\n MR. JUSTICE FLOYD, a judge\n HAROLD CLEAVER, an old advocate\n HECTOR FROME, a young advocate\n CAPTAIN DANSON, V.C., a prison governor\n THE REV. HUGH MILLER, a prison chaplain\n EDWARD CLEMENT, a prison doctor\n WOODER, a chief warder\n MOANEY, convict\n CLIFTON, convict\n O'CLEARY, convict\n RUTH HONEYWILL, a woman\n A NUMBER OF BARRISTERS, SOLICITERS, SPECTATORS, USHERS, REPORTERS,\n JURYMEN, WARDERS, AND PRISONERS\n\n\n\n  TIME: The Present.\n\n\n  ACT I. The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.  July.\n\n  ACT II. Assizes.  Afternoon.  October.\n\n  ACT III.  A prison.  December.\n       SCENE I.  The Governor's office.\n       SCENE II.  A corridor.\n       SCENE III.  A cell.\n\n  ACT IV.  The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.\n            March, two years later.\n\n\n\nCAST OF THE FIRST PRODUCTION\n\n   AT THE DUKE OF YORK'S THEATRE, FEBRUARY 21, 1910\n\n   James How           MR.  SYDNEY VALENTINE\n   Walter How          MR.  CHARLES MAUDE\n   Cokeson             MR.  EDMUND GWENN\n   Falder              MR.  DENNIS EADIE\n   The Office-boy      MR.  GEORGE HERSEE\n   The Detective       MR.  LESLIE CARTER\n   The Cashier         MR.  C. E. VERNON\n   The Judge           MR.  DION BOUCICAULT\n   The Old Advocate    MR.  OSCAR ADYE\n   The Young Advocate  MR.  CHARLES BRYANT\n   The Prison Governor MR.  GRENDON BENTLEY\n   The Prison Chaplain MR.  HUBERT HARBEN\n   The Prison Doctor   MR.  LEWIS CASSON\n   Wooder              MR.  FREDERICK LLOYD\n   Moaney              MR.  ROBERT PATEMAN\n   Clipton             MR.  O. P. HEGGIE\n   O'Cleary            MR.  WHITFORD KANE\n   Ruth Honeywill      Miss EDYTH OLIVE\n\n\n\n\nACT I\n\n     The scene is the managing clerk's room, at the offices of James\n     and Walter How, on a July morning.  The room is old fashioned,\n     furnished with well-worn  mahogany and leather, and lined with\n     tin boxes and   estate plans.  It has three doors.  Two of them\n     are close together in the centre of a wall.  One of these two\n     doors leads to the outer office, which is only divided from the\n     managing clerk's room by a   partition of wood and clear glass;\n     and when the door into this outer office is opened there can be\n     seen the wide outer door leading out on to the stone stairway of\n     the building.  The other of these two   centre doors leads to\n     the junior clerk's room.  The third door is that leading to the\n     partners' room.\n\n     The managing clerk, COKESON, is sitting at his table adding up\n     figures in a pass-book, and murmuring their numbers to himself.\n     He is a man of sixty, wearing spectacles; rather short, with a\n     bald head, and an honest, pugdog face.  He is dressed in a\n     well-worn black frock-coat and pepper-and-salt trousers.\n\nCOKESON.  And five's twelve, and three--fifteen, nineteen,\ntwenty-three, thirty-two, forty-one-and carry four. [He ticks the\npage, and goes on murmuring]  Five, seven, twelve, seventeen,\ntwenty-four and nine, thirty-three, thirteen and carry one.\n\n     He again makes a tick.  The outer office door is opened, and\n     SWEEDLE, the office-boy, appears, closing the door behind him.\n     He is a pale youth of sixteen, with spiky hair.\n\nCOKESON.  [With grumpy expectation]  And carry one.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's a party wants to see Falder, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Five, nine, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-nine--and carry\ntwo.  Send him to Morris's.  What name?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Honeywill.\n\nCOKESON.  What's his business?\n\nSWEEDLE.  It's a woman.\n\nCOKESON.  A lady?\n\nSWEEDLE.  No, a person.\n\nCOKESON.  Ask her in.  Take this pass-book to Mr. James.  [He closes\nthe pass-book.]\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Reopening the door]  Will you come in, please?\n\n     RUTH HONEYWILL comes in.  She is a tall woman, twenty-six years\n     old, unpretentiously dressed, with black hair and eyes, and an\n     ivory-white, clear-cut face.  She stands very still, having a\n     natural dignity of pose and gesture.\n\n     SWEEDLE goes out into the partners' room with the pass-book.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking round at RUTH]  The young man's out.\n[Suspiciously]  State your business, please.\n\nRUTH.  [Who speaks in a matter-of-fact voice, and with a slight\nWest-Country accent]  It's a personal matter, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  We don't allow private callers here.  Will you leave a\nmessage?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather see him, please.\n\n     She narrows her dark eyes and gives him a honeyed look.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expanding]  It's all against the rules.  Suppose I had my\nfriends here to see me!  It'd never do!\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [A little taken aback]  Exactly!  And here you are wanting\nto see a junior clerk!\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir; I must see him.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning full round to her with a sort of outraged\ninterest]  But this is a lawyer's office.  Go to his private address.\n\nRUTH.  He's not there.\n\nCOKESON.  [Uneasy]  Are you related to the party?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [In real embarrassment]  I don't know what to say.  It's no\naffair of the office.\n\nRUTH.  But what am I to do?\n\nCOKESON.  Dear me!  I can't tell you that.\n\n     SWEEDLE comes back.  He crosses to the outer office and passes\n     through into it, with a quizzical look at Cokeson, carefully\n     leaving the door an inch or two open.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fortified by this look]  This won't do, you know, this\nwon't do at all.  Suppose one of the partners came in!\n\n     An incoherent knocking and chuckling is heard from the outer\n     door of the outer office.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Putting his head in]  There's some children outside here.\n\nRUTH.  They're mine, please.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I hold them in check?\n\nRUTH.  They're quite small, sir. [She takes a step towards COKESON]\n\nCOKESON.  You mustn't take up his time in office hours; we're a clerk\nshort as it is.\n\nRUTH.  It's a matter of life and death.\n\nCOKESON.  [Again outraged]  Life and death!\n\nSWEEDLE.  Here is Falder.\n\n     FALDER has entered through the outer office.  He is a pale,\n     good-looking young man, with quick, rather scared eyes.  He\n     moves towards the door of the clerks' office, and stands there\n     irresolute.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll give you a minute.  It's not regular.\n\n     Taking up a bundle of papers, he goes out into the partners'\n     room.\n\nRUTH.  [In a low, hurried voice]  He's on the drink again, Will.  He\ntried to cut my throat last night.  I came out with the children\nbefore he was awake.  I went round to you.\n\nFALDER.  I've changed my digs.\n\nRUTH.  Is it all ready for to-night?\n\nFALDER.  I've got the tickets.  Meet me 11.45 at the booking office.\nFor God's sake don't forget we're man and wife!  [Looking at her with\ntragic intensity]  Ruth!\n\nRUTH.  You're not afraid of going, are you?\n\nFALDER.  Have you got your things, and the children's?\n\nRUTH.  Had to leave them, for fear of waking Honeywill, all but one\nbag.  I can't go near home again.\n\nFALDER.  [Wincing]  All that money gone for nothing.\nHow much must you have?\n\nRUTH.  Six pounds--I could do with that, I think.\n\nFALDER.  Don't give away where we're going.  [As if to himself]  When\nI get out there I mean to forget it all.\n\nRUTH.  If you're sorry, say so.  I'd sooner he killed me than take\nyou against your will.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer smile]  We've got to go.  I don't care; I'll\nhave you.\n\nRUTH.  You've just to say; it's not too late.\n\nFALDER.  It is too late.  Here's seven pounds.  Booking office 11.45\nto-night.  If you weren't what you are to me, Ruth----!\n\nRUTH.  Kiss me!\n\n     They cling together passionately, there fly apart just as\n     COKESON re-enters the room.  RUTH turns and goes out through the\n     outer office.  COKESON advances deliberately to his chair and\n     seats himself.\n\nCOKESON.  This isn't right, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  It shan't occur again, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  It's an improper use of these premises.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  You quite understand-the party was in some distress; and,\nhaving children with her, I allowed my feelings----[He opens a\ndrawer and produces from it a tract]  Just take this!  \"Purity in the\nHome.\"  It's a well-written thing.\n\nFALDER.  [Taking it, with a peculiar expression]  Thank you, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  And look here, Falder, before Mr. Walter comes, have you\nfinished up that cataloguing Davis had in hand before he left?\n\nFALDER.  I shall have done with it to-morrow, sir--for good.\n\nCOKESON.  It's over a week since Davis went.  Now it won't do,\nFalder.  You're neglecting your work for private life.  I shan't\nmention about the party having called, but----\n\nFALDER.  [Passing into his room] Thank you, sir.\n\n     COKESON stares at the door through which FALDER has gone out;\n     then shakes his head, and is just settling down to write, when\n     WALTER How comes in through the outer Office.  He is a rather\n     refined-looking man of thirty-five, with a pleasant, almost\n     apologetic voice.\n\nWALTER.  Good-morning, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Morning, Mr. Walter.\n\nWALTER.  My father here?\n\nCOKESON.  [Always with a certain patronage as to a young man who\nmight be doing better]  Mr. James has been here since eleven o'clock.\n\nWALTER.  I've been in to see the pictures, at the Guildhall.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as though this were exactly what was to be\nexpected]  Have you now--ye--es.  This lease of Boulter's--am I to\nsend it to counsel?\n\nWALTER.  What does my father say?\n\nCOKESON.  'Aven't bothered him.\n\nWALTER.  Well, we can't be too careful.\n\nCOKESON.  It's such a little thing--hardly worth the fees.  I thought\nyou'd do it yourself.\n\nWALTER.  Send it, please.  I don't want the responsibility.\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indescribable air of compassion]  Just as you\nlike.  This \"right-of-way\" case--we've got 'em on the deeds.\n\nWALTER.  I know; but the intention was obviously to exclude that bit\nof common ground.\n\nCOKESON.  We needn't worry about that.  We're the right side of the\nlaw.\n\nWALTER.  I don't like it,\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  We shan't want to set ourselves\nup against the law.  Your father wouldn't waste his time doing that.\n\n     As he speaks JAMES How comes in from the partners' room.  He is\n     a shortish man, with white side-whiskers, plentiful grey hair,\n     shrewd eyes, and gold pince-nez.\n\nJAMES.  Morning, Walter.\n\nWALTER.  How are you, father?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking down his nose at the papers in his hand as though\ndeprecating their size] I'll just take Boulter's lease in to young\nFalder to draft the instructions. [He goes out into FALDER'S room.]\n\nWALTER.  About that right-of-way case?\n\nJAMES.  Oh, well, we must go forward there.  I thought you told me\nyesterday the firm's balance was over four hundred.\n\nWALTER.  So it is.\n\nJAMES.  [Holding out the pass-book to his son] Three--five--one, no\nrecent cheques.  Just get me out the cheque-book.\n\n     WALTER goes to a cupboard, unlocks a drawer and produces a\n     cheque-book.\n\nJAMES.  Tick the pounds in the counterfoils.  Five, fifty-four,\nseven, five, twenty-eight, twenty, ninety, eleven, fifty-two,\nseventy-one.  Tally?\n\nWALTER.  [Nodding]  Can't understand.  Made sure it was over four\nhundred.\n\nJAMES.  Give me the cheque-book.  [He takes the check-book and cons\nthe counterfoils] What's this ninety?\n\nWALTER.  Who drew it?\n\nJAMES.  You.\n\nWALTER.  [Taking the cheque-book]  July 7th?  That's the day I went\ndown to look over the Trenton Estate--last Friday week; I came back\non the Tuesday, you remember.  But look here, father, it was nine I\ndrew a cheque for.  Five guineas to Smithers and my expenses.  It\njust covered all but half a crown.\n\nJAMES.  [Gravely]  Let's look at that ninety cheque.  [He sorts the\ncheque out from the bundle in the pocket of the pass-book] Seems all\nright.  There's no nine here.  This is bad.  Who cashed that\nnine-pound cheque?\n\nWALTER.  [Puzzled and pained]  Let's see!  I was finishing Mrs.\nReddy's will--only just had time; yes--I gave it to Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Look at that 't' 'y': that yours?\n\nWALTER.  [After consideration]  My y's curl back a little; this\ndoesn't.\n\nJAMES.  [As COKESON re-enters from FALDER'S room]  We must ask him.\nJust come here and carry your mind back a bit, Cokeson.  D'you\nremember cashing a cheque for Mr. Walter last Friday week--the day\nhe went to Trenton?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  Nine pounds.\n\nJAMES.  Look at this.  [Handing him the cheque.]\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nine pounds.  My lunch was just coming in; and of\ncourse I like it hot; I gave the cheque to Davis to run round to the\nbank.  He brought it back, all gold--you remember, Mr. Walter, you\nwanted some silver to pay your cab.  [With a certain contemptuous\ncompassion]  Here, let me see.  You've got the wrong cheque.\n\n     He takes cheque-book and pass-book from WALTER.\n\nWALTER.  Afraid not.\n\nCOKESON.  [Having seen for himself]  It's funny.\n\nJAMES.  You gave it to Davis, and Davis sailed for Australia on\nMonday.  Looks black, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Puzzled and upset]  why this'd be a felony!  No, no!\nthere's some mistake.\n\nJAMES.  I hope so.\n\nCOKESON.  There's never been anything of that sort in the office the\ntwenty-nine years I've been here.\n\nJAMES.  [Looking at cheque and counterfoil]  This is a very clever\nbit of work; a warning to you not to leave space after your figures,\nWalter.\n\nWALTER.  [Vexed]  Yes, I know--I was in such a tearing hurry that\nafternoon.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  This has upset me.\n\nJAMES.  The counterfoil altered too--very deliberate piece of\nswindling.  What was Davis's ship?\n\nWALTER.  'City of Rangoon'.\n\nJAMES.  We ought to wire and have him arrested at Naples; he can't be\nthere yet.\n\nCOKESON.  His poor young wife.  I liked the young man.  Dear, oh\ndear!  In this office!\n\nWALTER.  Shall I go to the bank and ask the cashier?\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly]  Bring him round here.  And ring up Scotland Yard.\n\nWALTER.  Really?\n\n     He goes out through the outer office.  JAMES paces the room.  He\n     stops and looks at COKESON, who is disconsolately rubbing the\n     knees of his trousers.\n\nJAMES.  Well, Cokeson!  There's something in character, isn't there?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him over his spectacles]  I don't quite take\nyou, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Your story, would sound d----d thin to any one who didn't\nknow you.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es!  [He laughs.  Then with a sudden gravity]  I'm sorry\nfor that young man.  I feel it as if it was my own son, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  A nasty business!\n\nCOKESON.  It unsettles you.  All goes on regular, and then a thing\nlike this happens.  Shan't relish my lunch to-day.\n\nJAMES.  As bad as that, Cokeson?\n\nCOKESON.  It makes you think.  [Confidentially]  He must have had\ntemptation.\n\nJAMES.  Not so fast.  We haven't convicted him yet.\n\nCOKESON.  I'd sooner have lost a month's salary than had this happen.\n    [He broods.]\n\nJAMES.  I hope that fellow will hurry up.\n\nCOKESON.  [Keeping things pleasant for the cashier]  It isn't fifty\nyards, Mr. James.  He won't be a minute.\n\nJAMES.  The idea of dishonesty about this office it hits me hard,\nCokeson.\n\n     He goes towards the door of the partners' room.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering quietly, to COKESON in a low voice]  She's popped\nup again, sir-something she forgot to say to Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  [Roused from his abstraction]  Eh?  Impossible.  Send her\naway!\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\nCOKESON.  Nothing, Mr. James.  A private matter.  Here, I'll come\nmyself.  [He goes into the outer office as JAMES passes into the\npartners' room]  Now, you really mustn't--we can't have anybody just\nnow.\n\nRUTH.  Not for a minute, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Reely!  Reely!  I can't have it.  If you want him, wait\nabout; he'll be going out for his lunch directly.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\n     WALTER, entering with the cashier, passes RUTH as she leaves the\n     outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  [To the cashier, who resembles a sedentary dragoon]\nGood-morning.  [To WALTER]  Your father's in there.\n\n     WALTER crosses and goes into the partners' room.\n\nCOKESON.  It's a nahsty, unpleasant little matter, Mr. Cowley.  I'm\nquite ashamed to have to trouble you.\n\nCOWLEY.  I remember the cheque quite well.  [As if it were a liver]\nSeemed in perfect order.\n\nCOKESON.  Sit down, won't you?  I'm not a sensitive man, but a thing\nlike this about the place--it's not nice.  I like people to be open\nand jolly together.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite so.\n\nCOKESON.  [Buttonholing him, and glancing toward the partners' room]\nOf course he's a young man.  I've told him about it before now--\nleaving space after his figures, but he will do it.\n\nCOWLEY.  I should remember the person's face--quite a youth.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't think we shall be able to show him to you, as a\nmatter of fact.\n\n     JAMES and WALTER have come back from the partners' room.\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley.  You've seen my son and myself,\nyou've seen Mr. Cokeson, and you've seen Sweedle, my office-boy.  It\nwas none of us, I take it.\n\n     The cashier shakes his head with a smile.\n\nJAMES.  Be so good as to sit there.  Cokeson, engage Mr. Cowley in\nconversation, will you?\n\n     He goes toward FALDER'S room.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nCOKESON.  You don't want to upset the young man in there, do you?\nHe's a nervous young feller.\n\nJAMES.  This must be thoroughly cleared up, Cokeson, for the sake of\nFalder's name, to say nothing of yours.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Some dignity] That'll look after itself, sir.  He's\nbeen upset once this morning; I don't want him startled again.\n\nJAMES.  It's a matter of form; but I can't stand upon niceness over a\nthing like this--too serious.  Just talk to Mr. Cowley.\n\n     He opens the door of FALDER'S room.\n\nJAMES.  Bring in the papers in Boulter's lease, will you, Falder?\n\nCOKESON.  [Bursting into voice]  Do you keep dogs?\n\n     The cashier, with his eyes fixed on the door, does not answer.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't such a thing as a bulldog pup you could spare\nme, I suppose?\n\n     At the look on the cashier's face his jaw drops, and he turns to\n     see FALDER standing in the doorway, with his eyes fixed on\n     COWLEY, like the eyes of a rabbit fastened on a snake.\n\nFALDER.  [Advancing with the papers] Here they are, sir!\n\nJAMES.  [Taking them] Thank you.\n\nFALDER.  Do you want me, sir?\n\nJAMES.  No, thanks!\n\n     FALDER turns and goes back into his own room.  As he shuts the\n     door JAMES gives the cashier an interrogative look, and the\n     cashier nods.\n\nJAMES.  Sure?  This isn't as we suspected.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite.  He knew me.  I suppose he can't slip out of that\nroom?\n\nCOKESON.  [Gloomily]  There's only the window--a whole floor and a\nbasement.\n\n     The door of FALDER'S room is quietly opened, and FALDER, with\n     his hat in his hand, moves towards the door of the outer office.\n\nJAMES.  [Quietly]  Where are you going, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  To have my lunch, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Wait a few minutes, would you?  I want to speak to you about\nthis lease.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.  [He goes back into his room.]\n\nCOWLEY.  If I'm wanted, I can swear that's the young man who cashed\nthe cheque.  It was the last cheque I handled that morning before my\nlunch.  These are the numbers of the notes he had.  [He puts a slip\nof paper on the table; then, brushing his hat round]  Good-morning!\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley!\n\nCOWLEY.  [To COKESON]  Good-morning.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Stupefaction]  Good-morning.\n\n     The cashier goes out through the outer office. COKESON sits down\n     in his chair, as though it were the only place left in the\n     morass of his feelings.\n\nWALTER.  What are you going to do?\n\nJAMES.  Have him in.  Give me the cheque and the counterfoil.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.  I thought young Davis----\n\nJAMES.  We shall see.\n\nWALTER.  One moment, father: have you thought it out?\n\nJAMES.  Call him in!\n\nCOKESON.  [Rising with difficulty and opening FALDER'S door;\nhoarsely]  Step in here a minute.\n\nFALDER.  [Impassively]  Yes, sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Turning to him suddenly with the cheque held out]  You know\nthis cheque, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nJADES.  Look at it.  You cashed it last Friday week.\n\nFALDER.  Oh! yes, sir; that one--Davis gave it me.\n\nJAMES.  I know. And you gave Davis the cash?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nJAMES.  When Davis gave you the cheque was it exactly like this?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I think so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  You know that Mr. Walter drew that cheque for nine pounds?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--ninety.\n\nJAMES.  Nine, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  I don't understand, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The suggestion, of course, is that the cheque was altered;\nwhether by you or Davis is the question.\n\nFALDER.  I--I\n\nCOKESON.  Take your time, take your time.\n\nFALDER.  [Regaining his impassivity]  Not by me, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The cheque was handed to--Cokeson by Mr. Walter at one\no'clock; we know that because Mr. Cokeson's lunch had just arrived.\n\nCOKESON.  I couldn't leave it.\n\nJAMES.  Exactly; he therefore gave the cheque to Davis.  It was\ncashed by you at 1.15.  We know that because the cashier recollects\nit for the last cheque he handled before his lunch.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, Davis gave it to me because some friends were\ngiving him a farewell luncheon.\n\nJAMES.  [Puzzled] You accuse Davis, then?\n\nFALDER.  I don't know, sir--it's very funny.\n\n     WALTER, who has come close to his father, says something to him\n     in a low voice.\n\nJAMES.  Davis was not here again after that Saturday, was he?\n\nCOKESON.  [Anxious to be of assistance to the young man, and seeing\nfaint signs of their all being jolly once more] No, he sailed on the\nMonday.\n\nJAMES.  Was he, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [Very faintly]  No, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Very well, then, how do you account for the fact that this\nnought was added to the nine in the counterfoil on or after Tuesday?\n\nCOKESON.  [Surprised]  How's that?\n\n     FALDER gives a sort of lurch; he tries to pull himself together,\n     but he has gone all to pieces.\n\nJAMES.  [Very grimly]  Out, I'm afraid, Cokeson.  The cheque-book\nremained in Mr. Walter's pocket till he came back from Trenton on\nTuesday morning.  In the face of this, Falder, do you still deny that\nyou altered both cheque and counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--no, Mr. How.  I did it, sir; I did it.\n\nCOKESON.  [Succumbing to his feelings]  Dear, dear! what a thing to\ndo!\n\nFALDER.  I wanted the money so badly, sir.  I didn't know what I was\ndoing.\n\nCOKESON.  However such a thing could have come into your head!\n\nFALDER.  [Grasping at the words]  I can't think, sir, really!  It was\njust a minute of madness.\n\nJAMES.  A long minute, Falder.  [Tapping the counterfoil] Four days\nat least.\n\nFALDER.  Sir, I swear I didn't know what I'd done till afterwards,\nand then I hadn't the pluck.  Oh!  Sir, look over it!  I'll pay the\nmoney back--I will, I promise.\n\nJAMES.  Go into your room.\n\n     FALDER, with a swift imploring look, goes back into his room.\n     There is silence.\n\nJAMES.  About as bad a case as there could be.\n\nCOKESON.  To break the law like that-in here!\n\nWALTER.  What's to be done?\n\nJAMES.  Nothing for it.  Prosecute.\n\nWALTER.  It's his first offence.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head]  I've grave doubts of that.  Too neat a\npiece of swindling altogether.\n\nCOKESON.  I shouldn't be surprised if he was tempted.\n\nJAMES.  Life's one long temptation, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm speaking of the flesh and the devil, Mr.\nJames.  There was a woman come to see him this morning.\n\nWALTER.  The woman we passed as we came in just now.  Is it his wife?\n\nCOKESON.  No, no relation.  [Restraining what in jollier\ncircumstances would have been a wink]  A married person, though.\n\nWALTER.  How do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Brought her children.  [Scandalised]  There they were\noutside the office.\n\nJAMES.  A real bad egg.\n\nWALTER.  I should like to give him a chance.\n\nJAMES.  I can't forgive him for the sneaky way he went to work--\ncounting on our suspecting young Davis if the matter came to light.\nIt was the merest accident the cheque-book stayed in your pocket.\n\nWALTER.  It must have been the temptation of a moment.  He hadn't\ntime.\n\nJAMES.  A man doesn't succumb like that in a moment, if he's a clean\nmind and habits.  He's rotten; got the eyes of a man who can't keep\nhis hands off when there's money about.\n\nWALTER.  [Dryly] We hadn't noticed that before.\n\nJAMES.  [Brushing the remark aside] I've seen lots of those fellows\nin my time.  No doing anything with them except to keep 'em out of\nharm's way.  They've got a blind spat.\n\nWALTER.  It's penal servitude.\n\nCOKESON.  They're nahsty places-prisons.\n\nJAMES.  [Hesitating] I don't see how it's possible to spare him.  Out\nof the question to keep him in this office--honesty's the 'sine qua\nnon'.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hypnotised] Of course it is.\n\nJAMES.  Equally out of the question to send him out amongst people\nwho've no knowledge of his character.  One must think of society.\n\nWALTER.  But to brand him like this?\n\nJAMES.  If it had been a straightforward case I'd give him another\nchance.  It's far from that.  He has dissolute habits.\n\nCOKESON.  I didn't say that--extenuating circumstances.\n\nJAMES.  Same thing.  He's gone to work in the most cold-blooded way\nto defraud his employers, and cast the blame on an innocent man.  If\nthat's not a case for the law to take its course, I don't know what\nis.\n\nWALTER.  For the sake of his future, though.\n\nJAMES.  [Sarcastically]  According to you, no one would ever\nprosecute.\n\nWALTER.  [Nettled]  I hate the idea of it.\n\nCOKESON.  That's rather 'ex parte', Mr. Walter!  We must have\nprotection.\n\nJAMES.  This is degenerating into talk.\n\n     He moves towards the partners' room.\n\nWALTER.  Put yourself in his place, father.\n\nJAMES.  You ask too much of me.\n\nWALTER.  We can't possibly tell the pressure there was on him.\n\nJAMES.  You may depend on it, my boy, if a man is going to do this\nsort of thing he'll do it, pressure or no pressure; if he isn't\nnothing'll make him.\n\nWALTER.  He'll never do it again.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fatuously] S'pose I were to have a talk with him.  We\ndon't want to be hard on the young man.\n\nJAMES.  That'll do, Cokeson.  I've made up my mind.  [He passes into\nthe partners' room.]\n\nCOKESON.  [After a doubtful moment]  We must excuse your father.  I\ndon't want to go against your father; if he thinks it right.\n\nWALTER.  Confound it, Cokeson! why don't you back me up?  You know\nyou feel----\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity]  I really can't say what I feel.\n\nWALTER.  We shall regret it.\n\nCOKESON.  He must have known what he was doing.\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly]  \"The quality of mercy is not strained.\"\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him askance]  Come, come, Mr. Walter.  We must\ntry and see it sensible.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering with a tray] Your lunch, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Put it down!\n\n     While SWEEDLE is putting it down on COKESON's table, the\n     detective, WISTER, enters the outer office, and, finding no one\n     there, comes to the inner doorway.  He is a square, medium-sized\n     man, clean-shaved, in a serviceable blue serge suit and strong\n     boots.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hoarsely]  Here!  Here!  What are we doing?\n\nWISTER.  [To WALTER]  From Scotland Yard, sir.  Detective-Sergeant\nBlister.\n\nWALTER.  [Askance] Very well!  I'll speak to my father.\n\n     He goes into the partners' room.  JAMES enters.\n\nJAMES.  Morning!  [In answer to an appealing gesture from COKESON]\nI'm sorry; I'd stop short of this if I felt I could.  Open that door.\n[SWEEDLE, wondering and scared, opens it] Come here, Mr. Falder.\n\n     As FALDER comes shrinkingly out, the detective in obedience to a\n     sign from JAMES, slips his hand out and grasps his arm.\n\nFALDER.  [Recoiling] Oh! no,--oh! no!\n\nWALTER.  Come, come, there's a good lad.\n\nJAMES.  I charge him with felony.\n\nFALTER.  Oh, sir!  There's some one--I did it for her.  Let me be\ntill to-morrow.\n\n     JAMES motions with his hand.  At that sign of hardness, FALDER\n     becomes rigid.  Then, turning, he goes out quietly in the\n     detective's grip.  JAMES follows, stiff and erect.  SWEEDLE,\n     rushing to the door with open mouth, pursues them through the\n     outer office into the corridor.  When they have all disappeared\n     COKESON spins completely round and makes a rush for the outer\n     office.\n\nCOKESON: [Hoarsely] Here!  What are we doing?\n\n     There is silence.  He takes out his handkerchief and mops the\n     sweat from his face.  Going back blindly to his table, sits\n     down, and stares blankly at his lunch.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\nACT II\n\nA Court of Justice, on a foggy October afternoon crowded with\nbarristers, solicitors, reporters, ushers, and jurymen.  Sitting in\nthe large, solid dock is FALDER, with a warder on either side of him,\nplaced there for his safe custody, but seemingly indifferent to and\nunconscious of his presence.  FALDER is sitting exactly opposite to\nthe JUDGE, who, raised above the clamour of the court, also seems\nunconscious of and indifferent to everything.  HAROLD CLEAVER, the\ncounsel for the Crown, is a dried, yellowish man, of more than middle\nage, in a wig worn almost to the colour of his face.  HECTOR FROME,\nthe counsel for the defence, is a young, tall man, clean shaved, in a\nvery white wig.  Among the spectators,  having already given their\nevidence, are JAMES and WALTER HOW, and COWLEY, the cashier.  WISTER,\nthe detective, is just leaving the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  That is the case for the Crown, me lud!\n\n     Gathering his robes together, he sits down.\n\nFROME.  [Rising and bowing to the JUDGE] If it please your lordship\nand gentlemen of the jury.  I am not going to dispute the fact that\nthe prisoner altered this cheque, but I am going to put before you\nevidence as to the condition of his mind, and to submit that you\nwould not be justified in finding that he was responsible for his\nactions at the time.  I am going to show you, in fact, that he did\nthis in a moment of aberration, amounting to temporary insanity,\ncaused by the violent distress under which he was labouring.\nGentlemen, the prisoner is only twenty-three years old.  I shall call\nbefore you a woman from whom you will learn the events that led up to\nthis act.  You will hear from her own lips the tragic circumstances\nof her life, the still more tragic infatuation with which she has\ninspired the prisoner.  This woman, gentlemen, has been leading a\nmiserable existence with a husband who habitually ill-uses her, from\nwhom she actually goes in terror of her life.  I am not, of course,\nsaying that it's either right or desirable for a young man to fall in\nlove with a married woman, or that it's his business to rescue her\nfrom an ogre-like husband.  I'm not saying anything of the sort.  But\nwe all know the power of the passion of love; and I would ask you to\nremember, gentlemen, in listening to her evidence, that, married to a\ndrunken and violent husband, she has no power to get rid of him; for,\nas you know, another offence besides violence is necessary to enable\na woman to obtain a divorce; and of this offence it does not appear\nthat her husband is guilty.\n\nJUDGE.  Is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  My lord, I submit, extremely--I shall be able to show your\nlordship that directly.\n\nJUDGE.  Very well.\n\nFROME.  In these circumstances, what alternatives were left to her?\nShe could either go on living with this drunkard, in terror of her\nlife; or she could apply to the Court for a separation order.  Well,\ngentlemen, my experience of such cases assures me that this would\nhave given her very insufficient protection from the violence of such\na man; and even if effectual would very likely have reduced her\neither to the workhouse or the streets--for it's not easy, as she is\nnow finding, for an unskilled woman without means of livelihood to\nsupport herself and her children without resorting either to the Poor\nLaw or--to speak quite plainly--to the sale of her body.\n\nJUDGE.  You are ranging rather far, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  I shall fire point-blank in a minute, my lord.\n\nJUDGE.  Let us hope so.\n\nFROME.  Now, gentlemen, mark--and this is what I have been leading up\nto--this woman will tell you, and the prisoner will confirm her,\nthat, confronted with such alternatives, she set her whole hopes on\nhimself, knowing the feeling with which she had inspired him.  She\nsaw a way out of her misery by going with him to a new country, where\nthey would both be unknown, and might pass as husband and wife.  This\nwas a desperate and, as my friend Mr. Cleaver will no doubt call it,\nan immoral resolution; but, as a fact, the minds of both of them were\nconstantly turned towards it.  One wrong is no excuse for another,\nand those who are never likely to be faced by such a situation\npossibly have the right to hold up their hands--as to that I prefer\nto say nothing.  But whatever view you take, gentlemen, of this part\nof the prisoner's story--whatever opinion you form of the right of\nthese two young people under such circumstances to take the law into\ntheir own hands--the fact remains that this young woman in her\ndistress, and this young man, little more than a boy, who was so\ndevotedly attached to her, did conceive this--if you like--\nreprehensible design of going away together.  Now, for that, of\ncourse, they required money, and--they had none.  As to the actual\nevents of the morning of July 7th, on which this cheque was altered,\nthe events on which I rely to prove the defendant's irresponsibility\n--I shall allow those events to speak for themselves, through the\nlips of my witness.  Robert Cokeson.  [He turns, looks round, takes\nup a sheet of paper, and waits.]\n\n     COKESON is summoned into court, and goes into the witness-box,\n     holding his hat before him.  The oath is administered to him.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nCOKESON.  Robert Cokeson.\n\nFROME.  Are you managing clerk to the firm of solicitors who employ\nthe prisoner?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  How long had the prisoner been in their employ?\n\nCOKESON.  Two years.  No, I'm wrong there--all but seventeen days.\n\nFROME.  Had you him under your eye all that time?\n\nCOKESON.  Except Sundays and holidays.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  Let us hear, please, what you have to say about\nhis general character during those two years.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially to the jury, and as if a little surprised\nat being asked]  He was a nice, pleasant-spoken young man.  I'd no\nfault to find with him--quite the contrary.  It was a great surprise\nto me when he did a thing like that.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever give you reason to suspect his honesty?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  To have dishonesty in our office, that'd never do.\n\nFROME.  I'm sure the jury fully appreciate that, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Every man of business knows that honesty's 'the sign qua\nnon'.\n\nFROME.  Do you give him a good character all round, or do you not?\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning to the JUDGE]  Certainly.  We were all very jolly\nand pleasant together, until this happened.  Quite upset me.\n\nFROME.  Now, coming to the morning of the 7th of July, the morning on\nwhich the cheque was altered.  What have you to say about his\ndemeanour that morning?\n\nCOKESON.  [To the jury]  If you ask me, I don't think he was quite\ncompos when he did it.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  Are you suggesting that he was insane?\n\nCOKESON.  Not compos.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  A little more precision, please.\n\nFROME.  [Smoothly]  Just tell us, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Somewhat outraged]  Well, in my opinion--[looking at the\nJUDGE]--such as it is--he was jumpy at the time.  The jury will\nunderstand my meaning.\n\nFROME.  Will you tell us how you came to that conclusion?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I will.  I have my lunch in from the restaurant, a\nchop and a potato--saves time.  That day it happened to come just as\nMr. Walter How handed me the cheque.  Well, I like it hot; so I went\ninto the clerks' office and I handed the cheque to Davis, the other\nclerk, and told him to get change.  I noticed young Falder walking up\nand down.  I said to him: \"This is not the Zoological Gardens,\nFalder.\"\n\nFROME.  Do you remember what he answered?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es: \"I wish to God it were!\"  Struck me as funny.\n\nFROME.  Did you notice anything else peculiar?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  What was that?\n\nCOKESON.  His collar was unbuttoned.  Now, I like a young man to be\nneat.  I said to him: \"Your collar's unbuttoned.\"\n\nFROME.  And what did he answer?\n\nCOKESON.  Stared at me.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Stared at you?  Isn't that a very common practice?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but it was the look in his eyes.  I can't explain my\nmeaning--it was funny.\n\nFROME.  Had you ever seen such a look in his eyes before?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  If I had I should have spoken to the partners.  We\ncan't have anything eccentric in our profession.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Did you speak to them on that occasion?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, I didn't like to trouble them about\nprime facey evidence.\n\nFROME.  But it made a very distinct impression on your mind?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  The clerk Davis could have told you the same.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  It's very unfortunate that we've not got him here.\nNow can you tell me of the morning on which the discovery of the\nforgery was made?  That would be the 18th.  Did anything happen that\nmorning?\n\nCOKESON.  [With his hand to his ear]  I'm a little deaf.\n\nFROME.  Was there anything in the course of that morning--I mean\nbefore the discovery--that caught your attention?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es--a woman.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  How is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  I am trying to establish the state of mind in which the\nprisoner committed this act, my lord.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I quite appreciate that.  But this was long after the\nact.\n\nFROME.  Yes, my lord, but it contributes to my contention.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Well!\n\nFROME.  You say a woman.  Do you mean that she came to the office?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  What for?\n\nCOKESON.  Asked to see young Falder; he was out at the moment.\n\nFROME.  Did you see her?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  Did she come alone?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, there you put me in a difficulty.\nI mustn't tell you what the office-boy told me.\n\nFROME.  Quite so, Mr. Cokeson, quite so----\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in with an air of \"You are young--leave it to\nme\"]  But I think we can get round it.  In answer to a question put\nto her by a third party the woman said to me: \"They're mine, sir.\"\n\nTHE JUDGE.  What are?  What were?\n\nCOKESON.  Her children.  They were outside.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  HOW do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Your lordship mustn't ask me that, or I shall have to tell\nyou what I was told--and that'd never do.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Smiling]  The office-boy made a statement.\n\nCOKESON.  Egg-zactly.\n\nFROME.  What I want to ask you, Mr. Cokeson, is this.  In the course\nof her appeal to see Falder, did the woman say anything that you\nspecially remember?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as if to encourage him to complete the\nsentence]  A leetle more, sir.\n\nFROME.  Or did she not?\n\nCOKESON.  She did.  I shouldn't like you to have led me to the\nanswer.\n\nFROME.  [With an irritated smile]  Will you tell the jury what it\nwas?\n\nCOKESON.  \"It's a matter of life and death.\"\n\nFOREMAN OF THE JURY.  Do you mean the woman said that?\n\nCOKESON.  [Nodding]  It's not the sort of thing you like to have said\nto you.\n\nFROME.  [A little impatiently]  Did Falder come in while she was\nthere?  [COKESON nods]  And she saw him, and went away?\n\nCOKESON.  Ah!  there I can't follow you.  I didn't see her go.\n\nFROME.  Well, is she there now?\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  No!\n\nFROME.  Thank you, Mr. Cokeson.  [He sits down.]\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rising] You say that on the morning of the forgery the\nprisoner was jumpy.  Well, now, sir, what precisely do you mean by\nthat word?\n\nCOKESON.  [Indulgently]  I want you to understand.  Have you ever\nseen a dog that's lost its master?  He was kind of everywhere at once\nwith his eyes.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I was coming to his eyes.  You called them\n\"funny.\"  What are we to understand by that?  Strange, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, funny.\n\nCOKESON.  [Sharply]  Yes, sir, but what may be funny to you may not\nbe funny to me, or to the jury.  Did they look frightened, or shy, or\nfierce, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  You make it very hard for me.  I give you the word, and you\nwant me to give you another.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rapping his desk] Does \"funny\" mean mad?\n\nCLEAVER.  Not mad, fun----\n\nCLEAVER.  Very well!  Now you say he had his collar unbuttoned?  Was\nit a hot day?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es; I think it was.\n\nCLEAVER.  And did he button it when you called his attention to it?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I think he did.\n\nCLEAVER.  Would you say that that denoted insanity?\n\n     He sits downs.  COKESON, who has opened his mouth to reply, is\n     left gaping.\n\nFROME.  [Rising hastily] Have you ever caught him in that dishevelled\nstate before?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  He was always clean and quiet.\n\nFROME.  That will do, thank you.\n\n     COKESON turns blandly to the JUDGE, as though to rebuke counsel\n     for not remembering that the JUDGE might wish to have a chance;\n     arriving at the conclusion that he is to be asked nothing\n     further, he turns and descends from the box, and sits down next\n     to JAMES and WALTER.\n\nFROME.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\n     RUTH comes into court, and takes her stand stoically in the\n     witness-box.  She is sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name, please?\n\nRUTH.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\nFROME.  How old are you?\n\nRUTH.  Twenty-six.\n\nFROME.  You are a married woman, living with your husband?  A little\nlouder.\n\nRUTH.  No, sir; not since July.\n\nFROME.  Have you any children?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir, two.\n\nFROME.  Are they living with you?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  You know the prisoner?\n\nRUTH. [Looking at him]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  What was the nature of your relations with him?\n\nRUTH.  We were friends.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Friends?\n\nRUTH.  [Simply]  Lovers, sir.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  In what sense do you use that word?\n\nRUTH.  We love each other.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, but----\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  No, your lordship--not yet.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  'Not yet!  H'm!  [He looks from RUTH to FALDER]  Well!\n\nFROME.  What is your husband?\n\nRUTH.  Traveller.\n\nFROME.  And what was the nature of your married life?\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  It don't bear talking about.\n\nFROME.  Did he ill-treat you, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Ever since my first was born.\n\nFROME.  In what way?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather not say.  All sorts of ways.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I am afraid I must stop this, you know.\n\nRUTH.  [Pointing to FALDER]  He offered to take me out of it, sir.\nWe were going to South America.\n\nFROME.  [Hastily]  Yes, quite--and what prevented you?\n\nRUTH.  I was outside his office when he was taken away.  It nearly\nbroke my heart.\n\nFROME.  You knew, then, that he had been arrested?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.  I called at his office afterwards, and  [pointing\nto COKESON] that gentleman told me all about it.\n\nFROME.  Now, do you remember the morning of Friday, July 7th?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Why?\n\nRUTH.  My husband nearly strangled me that morning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Nearly strangled you!\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head] Yes, my lord.\n\nFROME.  With his hands, or----?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I just managed to get away from him.  I went straight to\nmy friend.  It was eight o'clock.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  In the morning?  Your husband was not under the influence\nof liquor then?\n\nRUTH.  It wasn't always that.\n\nFROME.  In what condition were you?\n\nRUTH.  In very bad condition, sir.  My dress was torn, and I was half\nchoking.\n\nFROME.  Did you tell your friend what had happened?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I wish I never had.\n\nFROME.  It upset him?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever speak to you about a cheque?\n\nRUTH.  Never.\n\nFROZE.  Did he ever give you any money?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  When was that?\n\nRUTH.  On Saturday.\n\nFROME.  The 8th?\n\nRUTH.  To buy an outfit for me and the children, and get all ready to\nstart.\n\nFROME.  Did that surprise you, or not?\n\nRUTH.  What, sir?\n\nFROME.  That he had money to give you.\n\nRing.  Yes, because on the morning when my husband nearly killed me\nmy friend cried because he hadn't the money to get me away.  He told\nme afterwards he'd come into a windfall.\n\nFROME.  And when did you last see him?\n\nRUTH.  The day he was taken away, sir.  It was the day we were to\nhave started.\n\nFROME.  Oh, yes, the morning of the arrest.  Well, did you see him at\nall between the Friday and that morning?  [RUTH nods]  What was his\nmanner then?\n\nRUTH.  Dumb--like--sometimes he didn't seem able to say a word.\n\nFROME.  As if something unusual had happened to him?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Painful, or pleasant, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Like a fate hanging over him.\n\nFROME.  [Hesitating]  Tell me, did you love the prisoner very much?\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  And had he a very great affection for you?\n\nRUTH.  [Looking at FALDER]  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  Now, ma'am, do you or do you not think that your danger and\nunhappiness would seriously affect his balance, his control over his\nactions?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  His reason, even?\n\nRUTH.  For a moment like, I think it would.\n\nFROME.  Was he very much upset that Friday morning, or was he fairly\ncalm?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully upset.  I could hardly bear to let him go from me.\n\nFROME.  Do you still love him?\n\nRUTH.  [With her eyes on FALDER]  He's ruined himself for me.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.\n\n     He sits down.  RUTH remains stoically upright in the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  [In a considerate voice]  When you left him on the morning\nof Friday the 7th you would not say that he was out of his mind, I\nsuppose?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I've no further questions to ask you.\n\nRUTH.  [Bending a little forward to the jury]  I would have done the\nsame for him; I would indeed.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Please, please!  You say your married life is an unhappy\none?  Faults on both sides?\n\nRUTH.  Only that I never bowed down to him.  I don't see why I\nshould, sir, not to a man like that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You refused to obey him?\n\nRUTH.  [Avoiding the question]  I've always studied him to keep\nthings nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Until you met the prisoner--was that it?\n\nRUTH.  No; even after that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I ask, you know, because you seem to me to glory in this\naffection of yours for the prisoner.\n\nRUTH.  [Hesitating]  I--I do.  It's the only thing in my life now.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Staring at her hard] Well, step down, please.\n\n     RUTH looks at FALDER, then passes quietly down and takes her\n     seat among the witnesses.\n\nFROME.  I call the prisoner, my lord.\n\n     FALDER leaves the dock; goes into the witness-box, and is duly\n     sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nFALDER.  William Falder.\n\nFROME.  And age?\n\nFALDER.  Twenty-three.\n\nFROME.  You are not married?\n\n     FALDER shakes his head\n\nFROME.  How long have you known the last witness?\n\nFALDER.  Six months.\n\nFROME.  Is her account of the relationship between you a correct one?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  You became devotedly attached to her, however?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Though you knew she was a married woman?\n\nFALDER.  I couldn't help it, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Couldn't help it?\n\nFALDER.  I didn't seem able to.\n\n     The JUDGE slightly shrugs his shoulders.\n\nFROME.  How did you come to know her?\n\nFALDER.  Through my married sister.\n\nFROME.  Did you know whether she was happy with her husband?\n\nFALDER.  It was trouble all the time.\n\nFROME.  You knew her husband?\n\nFALDER.  Only through her--he's a brute.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I can't allow indiscriminate abuse of a person not\npresent.\n\nFROME.  [Bowing]  If your lordship pleases.  [To FALDER]  You admit\naltering this cheque?\n\nFALDER bows his head.\n\nFROME.  Carry your mind, please, to the morning of Friday, July the\n7th, and tell the jury what happened.\n\nFALDER.  [Turning to the jury]  I was having my breakfast when she\ncame.  Her dress was all torn, and she was gasping and couldn't seem\nto get her breath at all; there were the marks of his fingers round\nher throat; her arm was bruised, and the blood had got into her eyes\ndreadfully.  It frightened me, and then when she told me, I felt--I\nfelt--well--it was too much for me!  [Hardening suddenly]  If you'd\nseen it, having the feelings for her that I had, you'd have felt the\nsame, I know.\n\nFROME.  Yes?\n\nFALDER.  When she left me--because I had to go to the office--I was\nout of my senses for fear that he'd do it again, and thinking what I\ncould do.  I couldn't work--all the morning I was like that--simply\ncouldn't fix my mind on anything.  I couldn't think at all.  I seemed\nto have to keep moving.  When Davis--the other clerk--gave me the\ncheque--he said: \"It'll do you good, Will, to have a run with this.\nYou seem half off your chump this morning.\"  Then when I had it in my\nhand--I don't know how it came, but it just flashed across me that if\nI put the 'ty' and the nought there would be the money to get her\naway.  It just came and went--I never thought of it again.  Then\nDavis went out to his luncheon, and I don't really remember what I\ndid till I'd pushed the cheque through to the cashier under the rail.\nI remember his saying \"Gold or notes?\"  Then I suppose I knew what\nI'd done.  Anyway, when I got outside I wanted to chuck myself under\na bus; I wanted to throw the money away; but it seemed I was in for\nit, so I thought at any rate I'd save her.  Of course the tickets I\ntook for the passage and the little I gave her's been wasted, and\nall, except what I was obliged to spend myself, I've restored.  I\nkeep thinking over and over however it was I came to do it, and how I\ncan't have it all again to do differently!\n\n     FALDER is silent, twisting his hands before him.\n\nFROME.  How far is it from your office to the bank?\n\nFALDER.  Not more than fifty yards, sir.\n\nFROME.  From the time Davis went out to lunch to the time you cashed\nthe cheque, how long do you say it must have been?\n\nFALDER.  It couldn't have been four minutes, sir, because I ran all\nthe way.\n\nFROME.  During those four minutes you say you remember nothing?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir; only that I ran.\n\nFROME.  Not even adding the 'ty' and the nought?'\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.  I don't really.\n\n     FROME sits down, and CLEAVER rises.\n\nCLEAVER.  But you remember running, do you?\n\nFALDER.  I was all out of breath when I got to the bank.\n\nCLEAVER.  And you don't remember altering the cheque?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Divested of the romantic glamour which my friend is casting\nover the case, is this anything but an ordinary forgery?  Come.\n\nFALDER.  I was half frantic all that morning, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Now, now!  You don't deny that the 'ty' and the nought were\nso like the rest of the handwriting as to thoroughly deceive the\ncashier?\n\nFALDER.  It was an accident.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Cheerfully]  Queer sort of accident, wasn't it?  On which\nday did you alter the counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  [Hanging his head]  On the Wednesday morning.\n\nCLEAVER.  Was that an accident too?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No.\n\nCLEAVER.  To do that you had to watch your opportunity, I suppose?\n\nFALDER.  [Almost inaudibly] Yes.\n\nCLEAVER.  You don't suggest that you were suffering under great\nexcitement when you did that?\n\nFALDER.  I was haunted.\n\nCLEAVER.  With the fear of being found out?\n\nFALDER.  [Very low] Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Didn't it occur to you that the only thing for you to do\nwas to confess to your employers, and restore the money?\n\nFALDER.  I was afraid. [There is silence]\n\nCLEAVER.  You desired, too, no doubt, to complete your design of\ntaking this woman away?\n\nFALDER.  When I found I'd done a thing like that, to do it for\nnothing seemed so dreadful.  I might just as well have chucked myself\ninto the river.\n\nCLEAVER.  You knew that the clerk Davis was about to leave England\n--didn't it occur to you when you altered this cheque that suspicion\nwould fall on him?\n\nFALDER.  It was all done in a moment.  I thought of it afterwards.\n\nCLEAVER.  And that didn't lead you to avow what you'd done?\n\nFALDER.  [Sullenly]  I meant to write when I got out there--I would\nhave repaid the money.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  But in the meantime your innocent fellow clerk might have\nbeen prosecuted.\n\nFALDER.  I knew he was a long way off, your lordship.  I thought\nthere'd be time.  I didn't think they'd find it out so soon.\n\nFROME.  I might remind your lordship that as Mr. Walter How had the\ncheque-book in his pocket till after Davis had sailed, if the\ndiscovery had been made only one day later Falder himself would have\nleft, and suspicion would have attached to him, and not to Davis,\nfrom the beginning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  The question is whether the prisoner knew that suspicion\nwould light on himself, and not on Davis.  [To FALDER sharply] Did\nyou know that Mr. Walter How had the cheque-book till after Davis\nhad sailed?\n\nFALDER.  I--I--thought--he----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Now speak the truth-yes or no!\n\nFALDER.  [Very low]  No, my lord.  I had no means of knowing.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  That disposes of your point, Mr. Frome.\n\n     [FROME bows to the JUDGE]\n\nCLEAVER.  Has any aberration of this nature ever attacked you before?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  You had recovered sufficiently to go back to your work that\nafternoon?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I had to take the money back.\n\nCLEAVER.  You mean the nine pounds.  Your wits were sufficiently keen\nfor you to remember that?  And you still persist in saying you don't\nremember altering this cheque.  [He sits down]\n\nFALDER.  If I hadn't been mad I should never have had the courage.\n\nFROME.  [Rising]  Did you have your lunch before going back?\n\nFALDER.  I never ate a thing all day; and at night I couldn't sleep.\n\nFROME.  Now, as to the four minutes that elapsed between Davis's\ngoing out and your cashing the cheque: do you say that you recollect\nnothing during those four minutes?\n\nFALDER.  [After a moment] I remember thinking of Mr. Cokeson's face.\n\nFROME.  Of Mr. Cokeson's face!  Had that any connection with what you\nwere doing?\n\nFALDER.  No, Sir.\n\nFROME.  Was that in the office, before you ran out?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and while I was running.\n\nFROME.  And that lasted till the cashier said: \"Will you have gold or\nnotes?\"\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and then I seemed to come to myself--and it was too\nlate.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.  That closes the evidence for the defence, my\nlord.\n\n     The JUDGE nods, and FALDER goes back to his seat in the dock.\n\nFROME.  [Gathering up notes]  If it please your lordship--Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--My friend in cross-examination has shown a disposition\nto sneer at the defence which has been set up in this case, and I am\nfree to admit that nothing I can say will move you, if the evidence\nhas not already convinced you that the prisoner committed this act in\na moment when to all practical intents and purposes he was not\nresponsible for his actions; a moment of such mental and moral\nvacuity, arising from the violent emotional agitation under which he\nhad been suffering, as to amount to temporary madness.  My friend has\nalluded to the \"romantic glamour\" with which I have sought to invest\nthis case.  Gentlemen, I have done nothing of the kind.  I have\nmerely shown you the background of \"life\"--that palpitating life\nwhich, believe me--whatever my friend may say--always lies behind the\ncommission of a crime.  Now gentlemen, we live in a highly, civilized\nage, and the sight of brutal violence disturbs us in a very strange\nway, even when we have no personal interest in the matter.  But when\nwe see it inflicted on a woman whom we love--what then?  Just think\nof what your own feelings would have been, each of you, at the\nprisoner's age; and then look at him.  Well!  he is hardly the\ncomfortable, shall we say bucolic, person likely to contemplate with\nequanimity marks of gross violence on a woman to whom he was\ndevotedly attached.  Yes, gentlemen, look at him!  He has not a\nstrong face; but neither has he a vicious face.  He is just the sort\nof man who would easily become the prey of his emotions.  You have\nheard the description of his eyes.  My friend may laugh at the word\n\"funny\"--I think it better describes the peculiar uncanny look of\nthose who are strained to breaking-point than any other word which\ncould have been used.  I don't pretend, mind you, that his mental\nirresponsibility--was more than a flash of darkness, in which all\nsense of proportion became lost; but to contend, that, just as a man\nwho destroys himself at such a moment may be, and often is, absolved\nfrom the stigma attaching to the crime of self-murder, so he may, and\nfrequently does, commit other crimes while in this irresponsible\ncondition, and that he may as justly be acquitted of criminal intent\nand treated as a patient.  I admit that this is a plea which might\nwell be abused.  It is a matter for discretion.  But here you have a\ncase in which there is every reason to give the benefit of the doubt.\nYou heard me ask the prisoner what he thought of during those four\nfatal minutes.  What was his answer?  \"I thought of Mr. Cokeson's\nface!\"  Gentlemen, no man could invent an answer like that; it is\nabsolutely stamped with truth.  You have seen the great affection\n[legitimate or not] existing between him and this woman, who came\nhere to give evidence for him at the risk of her life.  It is\nimpossible for you to doubt his distress on the morning when he\ncommitted this act.  We well know what terrible havoc such distress\ncan make in weak and highly nervous people.  It was all the work of a\nmoment.  The rest has followed, as death follows a stab to the heart,\nor water drops if you hold up a jug to empty it.  Believe me,\ngentlemen, there is nothing more tragic in life than the utter\nimpossibility of changing what you have done.  Once this cheque was\naltered and presented, the work of four minutes--four mad minutes\n--the rest has been silence.  But in those four minutes the boy\nbefore you has slipped through a door, hardly opened, into that great\ncage which never again quite lets a man go--the cage of the Law.  His\nfurther acts, his failure to confess, the alteration of the\ncounterfoil, his preparations for flight, are all evidence--not of\ndeliberate and guilty intention when he committed the prime act from\nwhich these subsequent acts arose; no--they are merely evidence of\nthe weak character which is clearly enough his misfortune.  But is a\nman to be lost because he is bred and born with a weak character?\nGentlemen, men like the prisoner are destroyed daily under our law\nfor want of that human insight which sees them as they are, patients,\nand not criminals.  If the prisoner be found guilty, and treated as\nthough he were a criminal type, he will, as all experience shows, in\nall probability become one.  I beg you not to return a verdict that\nmay thrust him back into prison and brand him for ever.  Gentlemen,\nJustice is a machine that, when some one has once given it the\nstarting push, rolls on of itself.  Is this young man to be ground to\npieces under this machine for an act which at the worst was one of\nweakness?  Is he to become a member of the luckless crews that man\nthose dark, ill-starred ships called prisons?  Is that to be his\nvoyage-from which so few return?  Or is he to have another chance, to\nbe still looked on as one who has gone a little astray, but who will\ncome back?  I urge you, gentlemen, do not ruin this young man!  For,\nas a result of those four minutes, ruin, utter and irretrievable,\nstares him in the face.  He can be saved now.  Imprison him as a\ncriminal, and I affirm to you that he will be lost.  He has neither\nthe face nor the manner of one who can survive that terrible ordeal.\nWeigh in the scales his criminality and the suffering he has\nundergone.  The latter is ten times heavier already.  He has lain in\nprison under this charge for more than two months.  Is he likely ever\nto forget that?  Imagine the anguish of his mind during that time.\nHe has had his punishment, gentlemen, you may depend.  The rolling of\nthe chariot-wheels of Justice over this boy began when it was decided\nto prosecute him.  We are now already at the second stage.  If you\npermit it to go on to the third I would not give--that for him.\n\n     He holds up finger and thumb in the form of a circle, drops his\n     hand, and sits dozen.\n\nThe jury stir, and consult each other's faces; then they turn towards\nthe counsel for the Crown, who rises, and, fixing his eyes on a spot\nthat seems to give him satisfaction, slides them every now and then\ntowards the jury.\n\nCLEAVER.  May it please your lordship--[Rising on his toes] Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--The facts in this case are not disputed, and the\ndefence, if my friend will allow me to say so, is so thin that I\ndon't propose to waste the time of the Court by taking you over the\nevidence.  The plea is one of temporary insanity.  Well, gentlemen, I\ndaresay it is clearer to me than it is to you why this rather--what\nshall we call it?--bizarre defence has been set up.  The alternative\nwould have been to plead guilty.  Now, gentlemen, if the prisoner had\npleaded guilty my friend would have had to rely on a simple appeal to\nhis lordship.  Instead of that, he has gone into the byways and\nhedges and found this--er--peculiar plea, which has enabled him to\nshow you the proverbial woman, to put her in the box--to give, in\nfact, a romantic glow to this affair.  I compliment my friend; I\nthink it highly ingenious of him.  By these means, he has--to a\ncertain extent--got round the Law.  He has brought the whole story of\nmotive and stress out in court, at first hand, in a way that he would\nnot otherwise have been able to do.  But when you have once grasped\nthat fact, gentlemen, you have grasped everything.  [With\ngood-humoured contempt]  For look at this plea of insanity; we can't\nput it lower than that.  You have heard the woman.  She has every\nreason to favour the prisoner, but what did she say?  She said that\nthe prisoner was not insane when she left him in the morning.  If he\nwere going out of his mind through distress, that was obviously the\nmoment when insanity would have shown itself.  You have heard the\nmanaging clerk, another witness for the defence.  With some\ndifficulty I elicited from him the admission that the prisoner,\nthough jumpy [a word that he seemed to think you would understand,\ngentlemen, and I'm sure I hope you do], was not mad when the cheque\nwas handed to Davis.  I agree with my friend that it's unfortunate\nthat we have not got Davis here, but the prisoner has told you the\nwords with which Davis in turn handed him the cheque; he obviously,\ntherefore, was not mad when he received it, or he would not have\nremembered those words.  The cashier has told you that he was\ncertainly in his senses when he cashed it.  We have therefore the\nplea that a man who is sane at ten minutes past one, and sane at\nfifteen minutes past, may, for the purposes of avoiding the\nconsequences of a crime, call himself insane between those points of\ntime.  Really, gentlemen, this is so peculiar a proposition that I am\nnot disposed to weary you with further argument.  You will form your\nown opinion of its value.  My friend has adopted this way of saying a\ngreat deal to you--and very eloquently--on the score of youth,\ntemptation, and the like.  I might point out, however, that the\noffence with which the prisoner is charged is one of the most serious\nknown to our law; and there are certain features in this case, such\nas the suspicion which he allowed to rest on his innocent fellow-clerk,\nand his relations with this married woman, which will render it\ndifficult for you to attach too much importance to such pleading. I\nask you, in short, gentlemen, for that verdict of guilty which, in the\ncircumstances, I regard you as, unfortunately, bound to record.\n\n     Letting his eyes travel from the JUDGE and the jury to FROME, he\n     sits down.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Bending a little towards the jury, and speaking in a\nbusiness-like voice]  Gentlemen, you have heard the evidence, and the\ncomments on it.  My only business is to make clear to you the issues\nyou have to try.  The facts are admitted, so far as the alteration of\nthis cheque and counterfoil by the prisoner.  The defence set up is\nthat he was not in a responsible condition when he committed the\ncrime.  Well, you have heard the prisoner's story, and the evidence\nof the other witnesses--so far as it bears on the point of insanity.\nIf you think that what you have heard establishes the fact that the\nprisoner was insane at the time of the forgery, you will find him\nguilty, but insane.  If, on the other hand, you conclude from what\nyou have seen and heard that the prisoner was sane--and nothing short\nof insanity will count--you will find him guilty.  In reviewing the\ntestimony as to his mental condition you must bear in mind very\ncarefully the evidence as to his demeanour and conduct both before\nand after the act of forgery--the evidence of the prisoner himself,\nof the woman, of the witness--er--COKESON, and--er--of the cashier.\nAnd in regard to that I especially direct your attention to the\nprisoner's admission that the idea of adding the 'ty' and the nought\ndid come into his mind at the moment when the cheque was handed to\nhim; and also to the alteration of the counterfoil, and to his\nsubsequent conduct generally.  The bearing of all this on the\nquestion of premeditation [and premeditation will imply sanity] is\nvery obvious.  You must not allow any considerations of age or\ntemptation to weigh with you in the finding of your verdict.  Before\nyou can come to a verdict of guilty but insane you must be well and\nthoroughly convinced that the condition of his mind was such as would\nhave qualified him at the moment for a lunatic asylum.  [He pauses,\nthen, seeing that the jury are doubtful whether to retire or no,\nadds:] You may retire, gentlemen, if you wish to do so.\n\n     The jury retire by a door behind the JUDGE.  The JUDGE bends\n     over his notes.  FALDER, leaning from the dock, speaks excitedly\n     to his solicitor, pointing dawn at RUTH.  The solicitor in turn\n     speaks to FROME.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] My lord.  The prisoner is very anxious that I should\nask you if your lordship would kindly request the reporters not to\ndisclose the name of the woman witness in the Press reports of these\nproceedings.  Your lordship will understand that the consequences\nmight be extremely serious to her.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Pointedly--with the suspicion of a smile]  well, Mr.\nFrome, you deliberately took this course which involved bringing her\nhere.\n\nFROME. [With an ironic bow]  If your lordship thinks I could have\nbrought out the full facts in any other way?\n\nTHE JUDGE.  H'm!  Well.\n\nFROME.  There is very real danger to her, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You see, I have to take your word for all that.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship would be so kind.  I can assure your\nlordship that I am not exaggerating.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  It goes very much against the grain with me that the name\nof a witness should ever be suppressed.  [With a glance at FALDER,\nwho is gripping and clasping his hands before him, and then at RUTH,\nwho is sitting perfectly rigid with her eyes fixed on FALDER]  I'll\nconsider your application.  It must depend.  I have to remember that\nshe may have come here to commit perjury on the prisoner's behalf.\n\nFROME.  Your lordship, I really----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, yes--I don't suggest anything of the sort, Mr.\nFrome.  Leave it at that for the moment.\n\n     As he finishes speaking, the jury return, and file back into the\n     box.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Gentlemen, are you agreed on your verdict?\n\nFOREMAN.  We are.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Is it Guilty, or Guilty but insane?\n\nFOREMAN.  Guilty.\n\n     The JUDGE nods; then, gathering up his notes, sits looking at\n     FALDER, who stands motionless.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] If your lordship would allow me to address you in\nmitigation of sentence.  I don't know if your lordship thinks I can\nadd anything to what I have said to the jury on the score of the\nprisoner's youth, and the great stress under which he acted.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I don't think you can, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship says so--I do most earnestly beg your\nlordship to give the utmost weight to my plea.  [He sits down.]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [To the CLERK] Call upon him.\n\nTHE CLERK.  Prisoner at the bar, you stand convicted of felony.  Have\nyou anything to say for yourself, why the Court should not give you\njudgment according to law?  [FALDER shakes his head]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  William Falder, you have been given fair trial and found\nguilty, in my opinion rightly found guilty, of forgery.  [He pauses;\nthen, consulting his notes, goes on]  The defence was set up that you\nwere not responsible for your actions at the moment of committing\nthis crime.  There is no, doubt, I think, that this was a device to\nbring out at first hand the nature of the temptation to which you\nsuccumbed.  For throughout the trial your counsel was in reality\nmaking an appeal for mercy.  The setting up of this defence of course\nenabled him to put in some evidence that might weigh in that\ndirection.  Whether he was well advised to so is another matter.  He\nclaimed that you should be treated rather as a patient than as a\ncriminal.  And this plea of his, which in the end amounted to a\npassionate appeal, he based in effect on an indictment of the march\nof Justice, which he practically accused of confirming and completing\nthe process of criminality.  Now, in considering how far I should\nallow weight to his appeal; I have a number of factors to take into\naccount.  I have to consider on the one hand the grave nature of your\noffence, the deliberate way in which you subsequently altered the\ncounterfoil, the danger you caused to an innocent man--and that, to\nmy mind, is a very grave point--and finally I have to consider the\nnecessity of deterring others from following your example.  On the\nother hand, I have to bear in mind that you are young, that you have\nhitherto borne a good character, that you were, if I am to believe\nyour evidence and that of your witnesses, in a state of some\nemotional excitement when you committed this crime.  I have every\nwish, consistently with my duty--not only to you, but to the\ncommunity--to treat you with leniency.  And this brings me to what\nare the determining factors in my mind in my consideration of your\ncase.  You are a clerk in a lawyer's office--that is a very serious\nelement in this case; there can be no possible excuse made for you on\nthe ground that you were not fully conversant with the nature of the\ncrime you were committing, and the penalties that attach to it.  It\nis said, however, that you were carried away by your emotions.  The\nstory has been told here to-day of your relations with this--er--Mrs.\nHoneywill; on that story both the defence and the plea for mercy were\nin effect based.  Now what is that story?  It is that you, a young\nman, and she, a young woman, unhappily married, had formed an\nattachment, which you both say--with what truth I am unable to gauge\n--had not yet resulted in immoral relations, but which you both admit\nwas about to result in such relationship.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to palliate this, on the ground that the woman is in what he\ndescribes, I think, as \"a hopeless position.\"  As to that I can\nexpress no opinion.  She is a married woman, and the fact is patent\nthat you committed this crime with the view of furthering an immoral\ndesign.  Now, however I might wish, I am not able to justify to my\nconscience a plea for mercy which has a basis inimical to morality.\nIt is vitiated 'ab initio', and would, if successful, free you for\nthe completion of this immoral project.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to trace your offence back to what he seems to suggest is a\ndefect in the marriage law; he has made an attempt also to show that\nto punish you with further imprisonment would be unjust.  I do not\nfollow him in these flights.  The Law is what it is--a majestic\nedifice, sheltering all of us, each stone of which rests on another.\nI am concerned only with its administration.  The crime you have\ncommitted is a very serious one.  I cannot feel it in accordance with\nmy duty to Society to exercise the powers I have in your favour.  You\nwill go to penal servitude for three years.\n\n     FALDER, who throughout the JUDGE'S speech has looked at him\n     steadily, lets his head fall forward on his breast.  RUTH starts\n     up from her seat as he is taken out by the warders.  There is a\n     bustle in court.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Speaking to the reporters] Gentlemen of the Press, I\nthink that the name of the female witness should not be reported.\n\n     The reporters bow their acquiescence.  THE JUDGE.  [To RUTH, who\n     is staring in the direction in which FALDER has disappeared] Do\n     you understand, your name will not be mentioned?\n\nCOKESON.  [Pulling her sleeve]  The judge is speaking to you.\n\n     RUTH turns, stares at the JUDGE, and turns away.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I shall sit rather late to-day.  Call the next case.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  [To a warder]  Put up John Booley.\n\n     To cries of \"Witnesses in the case of Booley\":\n\n\n                    The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT III\n\nSCENE I\n\n     A prison.  A plainly furnished room, with two large barred\n     windows, overlooking the prisoners' exercise yard, where men, in\n     yellow clothes marked with arrows, and yellow brimless caps, are\n     seen in single file at a distance of four yards from each other,\n     walking rapidly on serpentine white lines marked on the concrete\n     floor of the yard.  Two warders in blue uniforms, with peaked\n     caps and swords, are stationed amongst them.  The room has\n     distempered walls, a bookcase with numerous official-looking\n     books, a cupboard between the windows, a plan of the prison on\n     the wall, a writing-table covered with documents.  It is\n     Christmas Eve.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, a neat, grave-looking man, with a trim, fair\n     moustache, the eyes of a theorist, and grizzled hair, receding\n     from the temples, is standing close to this writing-table\n     looking at a sort of rough saw made out of a piece of metal.\n     The hand in which he holds it is gloved, for two fingers\n     are missing.  The chief warder, WOODER, a tall, thin,\n     military-looking man of sixty, with grey moustache and\n     melancholy, monkey-like eyes, stands very upright two paces\n     from him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a faint, abstracted smile]  Queer-looking\naffair, Mr. Wooder!  Where did you find it?\n\nWOODER.  In his mattress, sir.  Haven't come across such a thing for\ntwo years now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With curiosity] Had he any set plan?\n\nWOODER.  He'd sawed his window-bar about that much.  [He holds up his\nthumb and finger a quarter of an inch apart]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll see him this afternoon.  What's his name?\nMoaney!  An old hand, I think?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir-fourth spell of penal.  You'd think an old lag like\nhim would have had more sense by now.  [With pitying contempt]\nOccupied his mind, he said.  Breaking in and breaking out--that's all\nthey think about.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Who's next him?\n\nWOODER.  O'Cleary, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  The Irishman.\n\nWOODER.  Next him again there's that young fellow, Falder--star\nclass--and next him old Clipton.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Ah, yes!  \"The philosopher.\"  I want to see him about\nhis eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Curious thing, sir: they seem to know when there's one of\nthese tries at escape going on.  It makes them restive--there's a\nregular wave going through them just now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Meditatively]  Odd things--those waves.  [Turning to\nlook at the prisoners exercising]  Seem quiet enough out here!\n\nWOODER.  That Irishman, O'Cleary, began banging on his door this\nmorning.  Little thing like that's quite enough to upset the whole\nlot.  They're just like dumb animals at times.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I've seen it with horses before thunder--it'll run\nright through cavalry lines.\n\n     The prison CHAPLAIN has entered.  He is a dark-haired, ascetic\n     man, in clerical undress, with a peculiarly steady, tight-lipped\n     face and slow, cultured speech.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Holding up the saw]  Seen this, Miller?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Useful-looking specimen.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Do for the Museum, eh!  [He goes to the cupboard and\nopens it, displaying to view a number of quaint ropes, hooks, and\nmetal tools with labels tied on them]  That'll do, thanks, Mr.\nWooder.\n\nWOODER.  [Saluting]  Thank you, sir.  [He goes out]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Account for the state of the men last day or two,\nMiller?  Seems going through the whole place.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  No.  I don't know of anything.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  By the way, will you dine with us on Christmas Day?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  To-morrow.  Thanks very much.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Worries me to feel the men discontented.  [Gazing at\nthe saw]  Have to punish this poor devil.  Can't help liking a man\nwho tries to escape.  [He places the saw in his pocket and locks the\ncupboard again]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Extraordinary perverted will-power--some of them.\nNothing to be done till it's broken.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  And not much afterwards, I'm afraid.  Ground too hard\nfor golf?\n\n     WOODER comes in again.\n\nWOODER.  Visitor who's been seeing Q 3007 asks to speak to you, sir.\nI told him it wasn't usual.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What about?\n\nWOODER.  Shall I put him off, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Resignedly]  No, no.  Let's see him.  Don't go,\nMiller.\n\nWOODER motions to some one without, and as the visitor comes in\nwithdraws.\n\n     The visitor is COKESON, who is attired in a thick overcoat to\n     the knees, woollen gloves, and carries a top hat.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry to trouble you.  I've been talking to the young\nman.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  We have a good many here.\n\nCOKESON.  Name of Falder, forgery.  [Producing a card, and handing it\nto the GOVERNOR]  Firm of James and Walter How.  Well known in the\nlaw.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Receiving the card-with a faint smile]  What do you\nwant to see me about, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly seeing the prisoners at exercise]  Why! what a\nsight!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, we have that privilege from here; my office is\nbeing done up.  [Sitting down at his table]  Now, please!\n\nCOKESON.  [Dragging his eyes with difficulty from the window] I\nwanted to say a word to you; I shan't keep you long.\n[Confidentially]  Fact is, I oughtn't to be here by rights.  His\nsister came to me--he's got no father and mother--and she was in some\ndistress.  \"My husband won't let me go and see him,\" she said; \"says\nhe's disgraced the family.  And his other sister,\" she said, \"is an\ninvalid.\"  And she asked me to come.  Well, I take an interest in\nhim.  He was our junior--I go to the same chapel--and I didn't like\nto refuse.  And what I wanted to tell you was, he seems lonely here.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not unnaturally.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm afraid it'll prey on my mind.  I see a lot of them\nabout working together.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Those are local prisoners.  The convicts serve their\nthree months here in separate confinement, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  But we don't want to be unreasonable.  He's quite\ndownhearted.  I wanted to ask you to let him run about with the\nothers.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With faint amusement]  Ring the bell-would you,\nMiller?  [To COKESON]  You'd like to hear what the doctor says about\nhim, perhaps.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Ringing the bell]  You are not accustomed to prisons,\nit would seem, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  No.  But it's a pitiful sight.  He's quite a young fellow.\nI said to him: \"Before a month's up\" I said, \"you'll be out and about\nwith the others; it'll be a nice change for you.\"  \"A month!\" he said\n--like that!  \"Come!\" I said, \"we mustn't exaggerate.  What's a\nmonth?  Why, it's nothing!\"  \"A day,\" he said, \"shut up in your cell\nthinking and brooding as I do, it's longer than a year outside.  I\ncan't help it,\" he said; \"I try--but I'm built that way, Mr.\nCOKESON.\"  And, he held his hand up to his face.  I could see the\ntears trickling through his fingers.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  He's a young man with large, rather peculiar eyes,\nisn't he?  Not Church of England, I think?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  I know.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To WOODER, who has come in]  Ask the doctor to be\ngood enough to come here for a minute.  [WOODER salutes, and goes\nout]  Let's see, he's not married?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  [Confidentially]  But there's a party he's very much\nattached to, not altogether com-il-fa.  It's a sad story.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  If it wasn't for drink and women, sir, this prison\nmight be closed.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at the CHAPLAIN over his spectacles] Ye-es, but I\nwanted to tell you about that, special.  He had hopes they'd have let\nher come and see him, but they haven't.  Of course he asked me\nquestions.  I did my best, but I couldn't tell the poor young fellow\na lie, with him in here--seemed like hitting him.  But I'm afraid\nit's made him worse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What was this news then?\n\nCOKESON.  Like this.  The woman had a nahsty, spiteful feller for a\nhusband, and she'd left him.  Fact is, she was going away with our\nyoung friend.  It's not nice--but I've looked over it.  Well, when he\nwas put in here she said she'd earn her living apart, and wait for\nhim to come out.  That was a great consolation to him.  But after a\nmonth she came to me--I don't know her personally--and she said:\n\"I can't earn the children's living, let alone my own--I've got no\nfriends.  I'm obliged to keep out of everybody's way, else my\nhusband'd get to know where I was.  I'm very much reduced,\" she said.\nAnd she has lost flesh.  \"I'll have to go in the workhouse!\" It's a\npainful story.  I said to her: \"No,\" I said, \"not that!  I've got a\nwife an' family, but sooner than you should do that I'll spare you a\nlittle myself.\"  \"Really,\" she said--she's a nice creature--\"I don't\nlike to take it from you.  I think I'd better go back to my husband.\"\nWell, I know he's a nahsty, spiteful feller--drinks--but I didn't\nlike to persuade her not to.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely, no.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm sorry now; it's upset the poor young fellow\ndreadfully.  And what I wanted to say was: He's got his three years\nto serve.  I want things to be pleasant for him.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [With a touch of impatience] The Law hardly shares\nyour view, I'm afraid.\n\nCOKESON.  But I can't help thinking that to shut him up there by\nhimself'll turn him silly.  And nobody wants that, I s'pose.  I don't\nlike to see a man cry.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  It's a very rare thing for them to give way like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him-in a tone of sudden dogged hostility]\nI keep dogs.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Indeed?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  And I say this: I wouldn't shut one of them up all\nby himself, month after month, not if he'd bit me all over.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Unfortunately, the criminal is not a dog; he has a\nsense of right and wrong.\n\nCOKESON.  But that's not the way to make him feel it.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Ah!  there I'm afraid we must differ.\n\nCOKESON.  It's the same with dogs.  If you treat 'em with kindness\nthey'll do anything for you; but to shut 'em up alone, it only makes\n'em savage.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely you should allow those who have had a little\nmore experience than yourself to know what is best for prisoners.\n\nCOKESON.  [Doggedly]  I know this young feller, I've watched him for\nyears.  He's eurotic--got no stamina.  His father died of\nconsumption.  I'm thinking of his future.  If he's to be kept there\nshut up by himself, without a cat to keep him company, it'll do him\nharm.  I said to him: \"Where do you feel it?\"  \"I can't tell you, Mr.\nCOKESON,\" he said, \"but sometimes I could beat my head against the\nwall.\"  It's not nice.\n\n     During this speech the DOCTOR has entered.  He is a\n     medium-Sized, rather good-looking man, with a quick eye.\n     He stands leaning against the window.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This gentleman thinks the separate is telling on\nQ 3007--Falder, young thin fellow, star class.  What do you say,\nDoctor Clements?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  He doesn't like it, but it's not doing him any harm.\n\nCOKESON.  But he's told me.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Of course he'd say so, but we can always tell.  He's\nlost no weight since he's been here.\n\nCOKESON.  It's his state of mind I'm speaking of.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  His mind's all right so far.  He's nervous, rather\nmelancholy.  I don't see signs of anything more.  I'm watching him\ncarefully.\n\nCOKESON.  [Nonplussed]  I'm glad to hear you say that.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [More suavely] It's just at this period that we are\nable to make some impression on them, sir.  I am speaking from my\nspecial standpoint.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning bewildered to the GOVERNOR] I don't want to be\nunpleasant, but having given him this news, I do feel it's awkward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll make a point of seeing him to-day.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm much obliged to you.  I thought perhaps seeing him\nevery day you wouldn't notice it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather sharply]  If any sign of injury to his health\nshows itself his case will be reported at once.  That's fully\nprovided for.  [He rises]\n\nCOKESON.  [Following his own thoughts]  Of course, what you don't see\ndoesn't trouble you; but having seen him, I don't want to have him on\nmy mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I think you may safely leave it to us, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Mollified and apologetic]  I thought you'd understand me.\nI'm a plain man--never set myself up against authority.  [Expanding\nto the CHAPLAIN]  Nothing personal meant.  Good-morning.\n\n     As he goes out the three officials do not look at each other,\n     but their faces wear peculiar expressions.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Our friend seems to think that prison is a hospital.\n\nCOKESON.  [Returning suddenly with an apologetic air]  There's just\none little thing.  This woman--I suppose I mustn't ask you to let him\nsee her.  It'd be a rare treat for them both.  He's thinking about\nher all the time.  Of course she's not his wife.  But he's quite safe\nin here.  They're a pitiful couple.  You couldn't make an exception?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Wearily] As you say, my dear sir, I couldn't make an\nexception; he won't be allowed another visit of any sort till he goes\nto a convict prison.\n\nCOKESON.  I see.  [Rather coldly] Sorry to have troubled you.\n[He again goes out]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Shrugging his shoulders]  The plain man indeed, poor\nfellow.  Come and have some lunch, Clements?\n\n\n     He and the DOCTOR go out talking.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, with a sigh, sits down at his table and takes up a\n     pen.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE II\n\n     Part of the ground corridor of the prison.  The walls are\n     coloured with greenish distemper up to a stripe of deeper green\n     about the height of a man's shoulder, and above this line are\n     whitewashed.  The floor is of blackened stones.  Daylight is\n     filtering through a heavily barred window at the end.  The doors\n     of four cells are visible.  Each cell door has a little round\n     peep-hole at the level of a man's eye, covered by a little round\n     disc, which, raised upwards, affords a view o f the cell.  On\n     the wall, close to each cell door, hangs a little square board\n     with the prisoner's name, number, and record.\n\n     Overhead can be seen the iron structures of the first-floor and\n     second-floor corridors.\n\n     The WARDER INSTRUCTOR, a bearded man in blue uniform, with an\n     apron, and some dangling keys, is just emerging from one of the\n     cells.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Speaking from the door into the cell]  I'll have\nanother bit for you when that's finished.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Unseen--in an Irish voice] Little doubt o' that, sirr.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Gossiping]  Well, you'd rather have it than nothing, I\ns'pose.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' that's the blessed truth.\n\n     Sounds are heard of a cell door being closed and locked, and of\n     approaching footsteps.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [In a sharp, changed voice]  Look alive over it!\n\n     He shuts the cell door, and stands at attention.\n\n     The GOVERNOR comes walking down the corridor, followed by\n     WOODER.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to report?\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Saluting]  Q 3007  [he points to a cell]  is behind\nwith his work, sir.  He'll lose marks to-day.\n\n     The GOVERNOR nods and passes on to the end cell.  The INSTRUCTOR\n     goes away.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This is our maker of saws, isn't it?\n\n     He takes the saw from his pocket as WOODER throws open the door\n     of the cell.  The convict MOANEY is seen lying on his bed,\n     athwart the cell, with his cap on.  He springs up and stands in\n     the middle of the cell.  He is a raw-boned fellow, about\n     fifty-six years old, with outstanding bat's ears and fierce,\n     staring, steel-coloured eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Cap off!  [MOANEY removes his cap] Out here! [MOANEY Comes\nto the door]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out into the corridor, and holding up\nthe saw--with the manner of an officer speaking to a private]\nAnything to say about this, my man?  [MOANEY is silent]  Come!\n\nMOANEY.  It passed the time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing into the cell]  Not enough to do, eh?\n\nMOANEY.  It don't occupy your mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Tapping the saw]  You might find a better way than\nthis.\n\nMOANEY.  [Sullenly]  Well!  What way?  I must keep my hand in against\nthe time I get out.  What's the good of anything else to me at my\ntime of life?  [With a gradual change to civility, as his tongue\nwarms]  Ye know that, sir.  I'll be in again within a year or two,\nafter I've done this lot.  I don't want to disgrace meself when I'm\nout.  You've got your pride keeping the prison smart; well, I've got\nmine.  [Seeing that the GOVERNOR is listening with interest, he goes\non, pointing to the saw]  I must be doin' a little o' this.  It's no\nharm to any one.  I was five weeks makin' that saw--a bit of all\nright it is, too; now I'll get cells, I suppose, or seven days' bread\nand water.  You can't help it, sir, I know that--I quite put meself\nin your place.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Now, look here, Moaney, if I pass it over will you\ngive me your word not to try it on again?  Think!  [He goes into the\ncell, walks to the end of it, mounts the stool, and tries the\nwindow-bars]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Returning]  Well?\n\nMOANEY.  [Who has been reflecting] I've got another six weeks to do\nin here, alone.  I can't do it and think o' nothing.  I must have\nsomething to interest me.  You've made me a sporting offer, sir, but\nI can't pass my word about it.  I shouldn't like to deceive a\ngentleman.  [Pointing into the cell] Another four hours' steady work\nwould have done it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, and what then?  Caught, brought back, punishment.\nFive weeks' hard work to make this, and cells at the end of it, while\nthey put anew bar to your window.  Is it worth it, Moaney?\n\nMOANEY.  [With a sort of fierceness] Yes, it is.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Putting his hand to his brow] Oh, well!  Two days'\ncells-bread and water.\n\nMOANEY.  Thank 'e, sir.\n\n     He turns quickly like an animal and slips into his cell.\n\n     The GOVERNOR looks after him and shakes his head as WOODER\n     closes and locks the cell door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open Clipton's cell.\n\n     WOODER opens the door of CLIPTON'S cell.   CLIPTON is sitting on\n     a stool just inside the door, at work on a pair of trousers.  He\n     is a small, thick, oldish man, with an almost shaven head, and\n     smouldering little dark eyes behind smoked spectacles.  He gets\n     up and stands motionless in the doorway, peering at his\n     visitors.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning] Come out here a minute, Clipton.\n\n     CLIPTON, with a sort of dreadful quietness, comes into the\n     corridor, the needle and thread in his hand.  The GOVERNOR signs\n     to WOODER, who goes into the cell and inspects it carefully.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How are your eyes?\n\nCLIFTON.  I don't complain of them.  I don't see the sun here.  [He\nmakes a stealthy movement, protruding his neck a little]  There's\njust one thing, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.  I wish you'd\nask the cove next door here to keep a bit quieter.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What's the matter?  I don't want any tales, Clipton.\n\nCLIPTON.  He keeps me awake.  I don't know who he is.  [With\ncontempt]  One of this star class, I expect.  Oughtn't to be here\nwith us.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Quietly]  Quite right, Clipton.  He'll be moved when\nthere's a cell vacant.\n\nCLIPTON.  He knocks about like a wild beast in the early morning.\nI'm not used to it--stops me getting my sleep out.  In the evening\ntoo.  It's not fair, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.\nSleep's the comfort I've got here; I'm entitled to take it out full.\n\n     WOODER comes out of the cell, and instantly, as though\n     extinguished, CLIPTON moves with stealthy suddenness back into\n     his cell.\n\nWOODER.  All right, sir.\n\n     THE GOVERNOR nods.  The door is closed and locked.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Which is the man who banged on his door this morning?\n\nWOODER.  [Going towards O'CLEARY'S cell]  This one, sir; O'Cleary.\n\n     He lifts the disc and glances through the peephole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open.\n\n     WOODER throws open the door.  O'CLEARY, who is seated at a\n     little table by the door as if listening, springs up and stands\n     at attention jest inside the doorway.  He is a broad-faced,\n     middle-aged man, with a wide, thin, flexible mouth, and little\n     holes under his high cheek-bones.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Where's the joke, O'Cleary?\n\nO'CLEARY.  The joke, your honour?  I've not seen one for a long time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Banging on your door?\n\nO'CLEARY.  Oh! that!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It's womanish.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' it's that I'm becoming this two months past.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to complain of?\n\nO'CLEARY.  NO, Sirr.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You're an old hand; you ought to know better.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Yes, I've been through it all.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've got a youngster next door; you'll upset him.\n\nO'CLEARY.  It cam' over me, your honour.  I can't always be the same\nsteady man.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Work all right?\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Taking up a rush mat he is making]  Oh! I can do it on me\nhead.  It's the miserablest stuff--don't take the brains of a mouse.\n[Working his mouth]  It's here I feel it--the want of a little noise\n--a terrible little wud ease me.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know as well as I do that if you were out in the\nshops you wouldn't be allowed to talk.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [With a look of profound meaning]  Not with my mouth.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, then?\n\nO'CLEARY.  But it's the great conversation I'd have.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a smile] Well, no more conversation on your\ndoor.\n\nO'CLEARY.  No, sirr, I wud not have the little wit to repeat meself.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Turning]  Good-night.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Good-night, your honour.\n\n     He turns into his cell.  The GOVERNOR shuts the door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Looking at the record card]  Can't help liking the\npoor blackguard.\n\nWOODER.  He's an amiable man, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing down the corridor] Ask the doctor to come\nhere, Mr. Wooder.\n\n     WOODER salutes and goes away down the corridor.\n\n     The GOVERNOR goes to the door of FALDER'S cell.  He raises his\n     uninjured hand to uncover the peep-hole; but, without uncovering\n     it, shakes his head and drops his hand; then, after scrutinising\n     the record board, he opens the cell door.  FALDER, who is\n     standing against it, lurches forward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out]  Now tell me: can't you settle\ndown, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [In a breathless voice]  Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know what I mean?  It's no good running your head\nagainst a stone wall, is it?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, come.\n\nFALDER.  I try, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Can't you sleep?\n\nFALDER.  Very little.  Between two o'clock and getting up's the worst\ntime.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How's that?\n\nFALDER.  [His lips twitch with a sort of smile] I don't know, sir.  I\nwas always nervous.  [Suddenly voluble]  Everything seems to get such\na size then.  I feel I'll never get out as long as I live.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  That's morbid, my lad.  Pull yourself together.\n\nFALDER.  [With an equally sudden dogged resentment] Yes--I've got to.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Think of all these other fellows?\n\nFALDER.  They're used to it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  They all had to go through it once for the first time,\njust as you're doing now.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, I shall get to be like them in time, I suppose.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather taken aback]  H'm!  Well!  That rests with\nyou.  Now come.  Set your mind to it, like a good fellow.  You're\nstill quite young.  A man can make himself what he likes.\n\nFALDER.  [Wistfully] Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Take a good hold of yourself.  Do you read?\n\nFALDER.  I don't take the words in.  [Hanging his head] I know it's\nno good; but I can't help thinking of what's going on outside.  In my\ncell I can't see out at all.  It's thick glass, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've had a visitor.  Bad news?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mustn't think about it.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking back at his cell]  How can I help it, sir?\n\n     He suddenly becomes motionless as WOODER and the DOCTOR\n     approach.  The GOVERNOR motions to him to go back into his cell.\n\nFALDER.  [Quick and low]  I'm quite right in my head, sir.  [He goes\nback into his cell.]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To the DOCTOR]  Just go in and see him, Clements.\n\n     The DOCTOR goes into the cell.  The GOVERNOR pushes the door to,\n     nearly closing it, and walks towards the window.\n\nWOODER.  [Following]  Sorry you should be troubled like this, sir.\nVery contented lot of men, on the whole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Shortly]  You think so?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir.  It's Christmas doing it, in my opinion.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To himself]  Queer, that!\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Christmas!\n\n     He turns towards the window, leaving WOODER looking at him with\n     a sort of pained anxiety.\n\nWOODER.  [Suddenly]  Do you think we make show enough, sir?  If you'd\nlike us to have more holly?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not at all, Mr. Wooder.\n\nWOODER.  Very good, sir.\n\n     The DOCTOR has come out of FALDER's Cell, and the GOVERNOR\n     beckons to him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  I can't make anything much of him.  He's nervous, of\ncourse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Is there any sort of case to report?  Quite frankly,\nDoctor.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Well, I don't think the separates doing him any good;\nbut then I could say the same of a lot of them--they'd get on better\nin the shops, there's no doubt.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mean you'd have to recommend others?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  A dozen at least.  It's on his nerves.  There's nothing\ntangible.  That fellow there [pointing to O'CLEARY'S cell], for\ninstance--feels it just as much, in his way.  If I once get away from\nphysical facts--I shan't know where I am.  Conscientiously, sir, I\ndon't know how to differentiate him.  He hasn't lost weight.  Nothing\nwrong with his eyes.  His pulse is good.  Talks all right.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It doesn't amount to melancholia?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  [Shaking his head]  I can report on him if you like; but\nif I do I ought to report on others.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I see.  [Looking towards FALDER'S cell]  The poor\ndevil must just stick it then.\n\n     As he says thin he looks absently at WOODER.\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\n     For answer the GOVERNOR stares at him, turns on his heel, and\n     walks away.  There is a sound as of beating on metal.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Stopping]  Mr. Wooder?\n\nWOODER.  Banging on his door, sir.  I thought we should have more of\nthat.\n\n     He hurries forward, passing the GOVERNOR, who follows closely.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE III\n\n     FALDER's cell, a whitewashed space thirteen feet broad by seven\n     deep, and nine feet high, with a rounded  ceiling.  The floor is\n     of shiny blackened bricks.  The barred window of opaque glass,\n     with a ventilator, is high up in the middle of the end wall.  In\n     the middle of the opposite end wall is the narrow door.  In a\n     corner are the mattress and bedding rolled up [two blankets, two\n     sheets, and a coverlet].  Above them is a quarter-circular\n     wooden shelf, on which is a Bible and several little devotional\n     books, piled in a symmetrical pyramid; there are also a black\n     hair brush, tooth-brush, and a bit of soap.  In another corner\n     is the wooden frame of a bed, standing on end.  There is a dark\n     ventilator under the window, and another over the door.\n     FALDER'S work [a shirt to which he is putting buttonholes] is\n     hung to a nail on the wall over a small wooden table, on which\n     the novel \"Lorna Doone\" lies open.  Low down in the corner by\n     the door is a thick glass screen, about a foot square, covering\n     the gas-jet let into the wall. There is also a wooden stool, and\n     a pair of shoes beneath it.  Three bright round tins are set\n     under the window.\n\n     In fast-failing daylight, FALDER, in his stockings, is seen\n     standing motionless, with his head inclined towards the door,\n     listening.  He moves a little closer to the door, his stockinged\n     feet making no noise.  He stops at the door.  He is trying\n     harder and harder to hear something, any little thing that is\n     going on outside.  He springs suddenly upright--as if at a\n     sound-and remains perfectly motionless.  Then, with a heavy\n     sigh, he moves to his work, and stands looking at it, with his\n     head doom; he does a stitch or two, having the air of a man so\n     lost in sadness that each stitch is, as it were, a coming to\n     life.  Then turning abruptly, he begins pacing the cell, moving\n     his head, like an animal pacing its cage.  He stops again at the\n     door, listens, and, placing the palms of hip hands against it\n     with his fingers spread out, leans his forehead against the\n     iron.  Turning from it, presently, he moves slowly back towards\n     the window, tracing his way with his finger along the top line\n     of the distemper that runs round the wall.  He stops under the\n     window, and, picking up the lid of one of the tins, peers into\n     it.  It has grown very nearly dark.  Suddenly the lid falls out\n     of his hand with a clatter--the only sound that has broken the\n     silence--and he stands staring intently at the wall where the\n     stuff of the shirt is hanging rather white in the darkness--he\n     seems to be seeing somebody or something there.  There is a\n     sharp tap and click; the cell light behind the glass screen has\n     been turned up.  The cell is brightly lighted.  FALDER is seen\n     gasping for breath.\n\n     A sound from far away, as of distant, dull beating on thick\n     metal, is suddenly audible.  FALDER shrinks back, not able to\n     bear this sudden clamour.  But the sound grows, as though some\n     great tumbril were rolling towards the cell.  And gradually it\n     seems to hypnotise him.  He begins creeping inch by inch\n     nearer to the door.  The banging sound, travelling from cell to\n     cell, draws closer and closer; FALDER'S hands are seen moving as\n     if his spirit had already joined in this beating, and the sound\n     swells till it seems to have entered the very cell.  He suddenly\n     raises his clenched fists.  Panting violently, he flings himself\n     at his door, and beats on it.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT IV\n\n     The scene is again COKESON'S room, at a few minutes to ten of a\n     March morning, two years later.  The doors are all open.\n     SWEEDLE, now blessed with a sprouting moustache, is getting the\n     offices ready.  He arranges papers on COKESON'S table; then goes\n     to a covered washstand, raises the lid, and looks at himself in\n     the mirror.  While he is gazing his full RUTH HONEYWILL comes in\n     through the outer office and stands in the doorway.  There seems\n     a kind of exultation and excitement behind her habitual\n     impassivity.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Suddenly seeing her, and dropping the lid of the washstand\nwith a bang] Hello!  It's you!\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's only me here!  They don't waste their time hurrying\ndown in the morning.  Why, it must be two years since we had the\npleasure of seeing you.  [Nervously]  What have you been doing with\nyourself?\n\nRUTH.  [Sardonically] Living.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Impressed]  If you want to see him [he points to COKESON'S\nchair], he'll be here directly--never misses--not much.  [Delicately]\nI hope our friend's back from the country.  His time's been up these\nthree months, if I remember.  [RUTH nods] I was awful sorry about\nthat.  The governor made a mistake--if you ask me.\n\nRUTH.  He did.\n\nSWEEDLE.  He ought to have given him a chanst.  And, I say, the judge\nought to ha' let him go after that.  They've forgot what human\nnature's like.  Whereas we know. [RUTH gives him a honeyed smile]\n\nSWEEDLE.  They come down on you like a cartload of bricks, flatten\nyou out, and when you don't swell up again they complain of it.  I\nknow 'em--seen a lot of that sort of thing in my time.  [He shakes\nhis head in the plenitude of wisdom]  Why, only the other day the\ngovernor----\n\n     But COKESON has come in through the outer office; brisk with\n     east wind, and decidedly greyer.\n\nCOKESON.  [Drawing off his coat and gloves]  Why! it's you!  [Then\nmotioning SWEEDLE out, and closing the door]  Quite a stranger!  Must\nbe two years.  D'you want to see me?  I can give you a minute.  Sit\ndown!  Family well?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I'm not living where I was.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing her askance] I hope things are more comfortable at\nhome.\n\nRUTH.  I couldn't stay with Honeywill, after all.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't done anything rash, I hope.  I should be sorry\nif you'd done anything rash.\n\nRUTH.  I've kept the children with me.\n\nCOKESON.  [Beginning to feel that things are not so jolly as ha had\nhoped]  Well, I'm glad to have seen you.  You've not heard from the\nyoung man, I suppose, since he came out?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I ran across him yesterday.\n\nCOKESON.  I hope he's well.\n\nRUTH.  [With sudden fierceness]  He can't get anything to do.  It's\ndreadful to see him.  He's just skin and bone.\n\nCOKESON.  [With genuine concern] Dear me!  I'm sorry to hear that.\n[On his guard again]  Didn't they find him a place when his time was\nup?\n\nRUTH.  He was only there three weeks.  It got out.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure I don't know what I can do for you.  I don't like\nto be snubby.\n\nRUTH.  I can't bear his being like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Scanning her not unprosperous figure] I know his relations\naren't very forthy about him.  Perhaps you can do something for him,\ntill he finds his feet.\n\nRUTH.  Not now.  I could have--but not now.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.\n\nRUTH.  [Proudly]  I've seen him again--that's all over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Staring at her--disturbed]  I'm a family man--I don't want\nto hear anything unpleasant.  Excuse me--I'm very busy.\n\nRUTH.  I'd have gone home to my people in the country long ago, but\nthey've never got over me marrying Honeywill.  I never was waywise,\nMr. Cokeson, but I'm proud.  I was only a girl, you see, when I\nmarried him.  I thought the world of him, of course...  he used\nto come travelling to our farm.\n\nCOKESON.  [Regretfully]  I did hope you'd have got on better, after\nyou saw me.\n\nRUTH.  He used me worse than ever.  He couldn't break my nerve, but I\nlost my health; and then he began knocking the children about.  I\ncouldn't stand that.  I wouldn't go back now, if he were dying.\n\nCOKESON.  [Who has risen and is shifting about as though dodging a\nstream of lava] We mustn't be violent, must we?\n\nRUTH.  [Smouldering]  A man that can't behave better than that--\n[There is silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Fascinated in spite of himself]  Then there you were!  And\nwhat did you do then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a shrug]  Tried the same as when I left him before...,\nmaking skirts... cheap things.  It was the best I could get, but I\nnever made more than ten shillings a week, buying my own cotton and\nworking all day; I hardly ever got to bed till past twelve.  I kept\nat it for nine months.  [Fiercely]  Well, I'm not fit for that; I\nwasn't made for it.  I'd rather die.\n\nCOKESON.  My dear woman!  We mustn't talk like that.\n\nRUTH.  It was starvation for the children too--after what they'd\nalways had.  I soon got not to care.  I used to be too tired. [She is\nsilent]\n\nCOKESON.  [With fearful curiosity]  Why, what happened then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a laugh] My employer happened then--he's happened ever\nsince.\n\nCOKESON.  Dear!  Oh dear!  I never came across a thing like this.\n\nRUTH.  [Dully] He's treated me all right.  But I've done with that.\n[Suddenly her lips begin to quiver, and she hides them with the back\nof her hand] I never thought I'd see him again, you see.  It was just\na chance I met him by Hyde Park.  We went in there and sat down, and\nhe told me all about himself.  Oh!  Mr. Cokeson, give him another\nchance.\n\nCOKESON.  [Greatly disturbed]  Then you've both lost your livings!\nWhat a horrible position!\n\nRUTH.  If he could only get here--where there's nothing to find out\nabout him!\n\nCOKESON.  We can't have anything derogative to the firm.\n\nRUTH.  I've no one else to go to.\n\nCOKESON.  I'll speak to the partners, but I don't think they'll take\nhim, under the circumstances.  I don't really.\n\nRUTH.  He came with me; he's down there in the street. [She points to\nthe window.]\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity] He shouldn't have done that until he's\nsent for.  [Then softening at the look on her face]  We've got a\nvacancy, as it happens, but I can't promise anything.\n\nRUTH.  It would be the saving of him.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll do what I can, but I'm not sanguine.  Now tell\nhim that I don't want him till I see how things are.  Leave your\naddress?  [Repeating her] 83 Mullingar Street?  [He notes it on\nblotting-paper] Good-morning.\n\nRUTH.  Thank you.\n\n     She moves towards the door, turns as if to speak, but does not,\n     and goes away.\n\nCOKESON.  [Wiping his head and forehead with a large white cotton\nhandkerchief] What a business!  [Then looking amongst his papers, he\nsounds his bell.  SWEEDLE answers it]\n\nCOKESON.  Was that young Richards coming here to-day after the\nclerk's place?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, keep him in the air; I don't want to see him yet.\n\nSWEEDLE.  What shall I tell him, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [With asperity] invent something.  Use your brains.  Don't\nstump him off altogether.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I tell him that we've got illness, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nothing untrue.  Say I'm not here to-day.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes, sir.  Keep him hankering?\n\nCOKESON.  Exactly.  And look here.  You remember Falder?  I may be\nhaving him round to see me.  Now, treat him like you'd have him treat\nyou in a similar position.\n\nSWEEDLE.  I naturally should do.\n\nCOKESON.  That's right.  When a man's down never hit 'im.  'Tisn't\nnecessary.  Give him a hand up.  That's a metaphor I recommend to you\nin life.  It's sound policy.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Do you think the governors will take him on again, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Can't say anything about that.  [At the sound of some one\nhaving entered the outer office]  Who's there?\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Going to the door and looking] It's Falder, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Vexed]  Dear me!  That's very naughty of her.  Tell him to\ncall again.  I don't want----\n\n     He breaks off as FALDER comes in.  FALDER is thin, pale, older,\n     his eyes have grown more restless.  His clothes are very worn\n     and loose.\n\n     SWEEDLE, nodding cheerfully, withdraws.\n\nCOKESON.  Glad to see you.  You're rather previous.  [Trying to keep\nthings pleasant]  Shake hands!  She's striking while the iron's hot.\n[He wipes his forehead] I don't blame her.  She's anxious.\n\n     FALDER  timidly takes COKESON's hand and glances towards the\n     partners' door.\n\nCOKESON.  No--not yet!  Sit down!  [FALDER sits in the chair at the\naide of COKESON's table, on which he places his cap]  Now you are\nhere I'd like you to give me a little account of yourself.  [Looking\nat him over his spectacles]  How's your health?\n\nFALDER.  I'm alive, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Preoccupied]  I'm glad to hear that.  About this matter.\nI don't like doing anything out of the ordinary; it's not my habit.\nI'm a plain man, and I want everything smooth and straight.  But I\npromised your friend to speak to the partners, and I always keep my\nword.\n\nFALDER.  I just want a chance, Mr. Cokeson.  I've paid for that job a\nthousand times and more.  I have, sir.  No one knows.  They say I\nweighed more when I came out than when I went in.  They couldn't\nweigh me here [he touches his head]  or here [he touches--his heart,\nand gives a sort of laugh].  Till last night I'd have thought there\nwas nothing in here at all.\n\nCOKESON.  [Concerned] You've not got heart disease?\n\nFALDER.  Oh!  they passed me sound enough.\n\nCOKESON.  But they got you a place, didn't they?\n\nFALSER.  Yes; very good people, knew all about it--very kind to me.\nI thought I was going to get on first rate.  But one day, all of a\nsudden, the other clerks got wind of it....  I couldn't stick it, Mr.\nCOKESON, I couldn't, sir.\n\nCOKESON. Easy, my dear fellow, easy!\n\nFALDER.  I had one small job after that, but it didn't last.\n\nCOKESON.  How was that?\n\nFALDER.  It's no good deceiving you, Mr. Cokeson.  The fact is, I\nseem to be struggling against a thing that's all round me.  I can't\nexplain it: it's as if I was in a net; as fast as I cut it here, it\ngrows up there.  I didn't act as I ought to have, about references;\nbut what are you to do?  You must have them.  And that made me\nafraid, and I left.  In fact, I'm--I'm afraid all the time now.\n\n     He bows his head and leans dejectedly silent over the table.\n\nCOKESON.  I feel for you--I do really.  Aren't your sisters going to\ndo anything for you?\n\nFALDER.  One's in consumption.  And the other----\n\nCOKESON.  Ye...es.  She told me her husband wasn't quite pleased with\nyou.\n\nFALDER.  When I went there--they were at supper--my sister wanted to\ngive me a kiss--I know.  But he just looked at her, and said: \"What\nhave you come for?\"  Well, I pocketed my pride and I said: \"Aren't\nyou going to give me your hand, Jim?  Cis is, I know,\" I said.  \"Look\nhere!\" he said, \"that's all very well, but we'd better come to an\nunderstanding.  I've been expecting you, and I've made up my mind.\nI'll give you fifteen pounds to go to Canada with.\"  \"I see,\" I\nsaid--\"good riddance!  No, thanks; keep your fifteen pounds.\"\nFriendship's a queer thing when you've been where I have.\n\nCOKESON.  I understand.  Will you take the fifteen pound from me?\n[Flustered, as FALDER regards him with a queer smile]  Quite without\nprejudice; I meant it kindly.\n\nFALDER.  I'm not allowed to leave the country.\n\nCOKESON.  Oh!  ye...es--ticket-of-leave?  You aren't looking the\nthing.\n\nFALDER.  I've slept in the Park three nights this week.  The dawns\naren't all poetry there.  But meeting her--I feel a different man\nthis morning.  I've often thought the being fond of hers the best\nthing about me; it's sacred, somehow--and yet it did for me.  That's\nqueer, isn't it?\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure we're all very sorry for you.\n\nFALDER.  That's what I've found, Mr. Cokeson.  Awfully sorry for me.\n[With quiet bitterness]  But it doesn't do to associate with\ncriminals!\n\nCOKESON.  Come, come, it's no use calling yourself names.  That never\ndid a man any good.  Put a face on it.\n\nFALDER.  It's easy enough to put a face on it, sir, when you're\nindependent.  Try it when you're down like me.  They talk about\ngiving you your deserts.  Well, I think I've had just a bit over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing him askance over his spectacles]  I hope they haven't\nmade a Socialist of you.\n\n     FALDER is suddenly still, as if brooding over his past self; he\n     utters a peculiar laugh.\n\nCOKESON.  You must give them credit for the best intentions.  Really\nyou must.  Nobody wishes you harm, I'm sure.\n\nFALDER.  I believe that, Mr. Cokeson.  Nobody wishes you harm, but\nthey down you all the same.  This feeling--[He stares round him, as\nthough at something closing in]  It's crushing me.  [With sudden\nimpersonality]  I know it is.\n\nCOKESON.  [Horribly disturbed] There's nothing there!  We must try\nand take it quiet.  I'm sure I've often had you in my prayers.  Now\nleave it to me.  I'll use my gumption and take 'em when they're\njolly.  [As he speaks the two partners come in]\n\nCOKESON  [Rather disconcerted, but trying to put them all at ease]\nI didn't expect you quite so soon.  I've just been having a talk with\nthis young man.  I think you'll remember him.\n\nJAMES.  [With a grave, keen look] Quite well.  How are you, Falder?\n\nWALTER.  [Holding out his hand almost timidly] Very glad to see you\nagain, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Who has recovered his self-control, takes the hand] Thank\nyou, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.  [To FALDER, pointing to the\nclerks' office] You might go in there a minute.  You know your way.\nOur junior won't be coming this morning.  His wife's just had a\nlittle family.\n\n     FALDER, goes uncertainly out into the clerks' office.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially] I'm bound to tell you all about it.  He's\nquite penitent.  But there's a prejudice against him.  And you're not\nseeing him to advantage this morning; he's under-nourished.  It's\nvery trying to go without your dinner.\n\nJAMES.  Is that so, COKESON?\n\nCOKESON.  I wanted to ask you.  He's had his lesson.  Now we know all\nabout him, and we want a clerk.  There is a young fellow applying,\nbut I'm keeping him in the air.\n\nJAMES.  A gaol-bird in the office, COKESON?  I don't see it.\n\nWALTER.  \"The rolling of the chariot-wheels of Justice!\"  I've never\ngot that out of my head.\n\nJAMES.  I've nothing to reproach myself with in this affair.  What's\nhe been doing since he came out?\n\nCOKESON.  He's had one or two places, but he hasn't kept them.  He's\nsensitive--quite natural.  Seems to fancy everybody's down on him.\n\nJAMES.  Bad sign.  Don't like the fellow--never did from the first.\n\"Weak character\"'s written all over him.\n\nWALTER.  I think we owe him a leg up.\n\nJAMES.  He brought it all on himself.\n\nWALTER.  The doctrine of full responsibility doesn't quite hold in\nthese days.\n\nJAMES.  [Rather grimly]  You'll find it safer to hold it for all\nthat, my boy.\n\nWALTER.  For oneself, yes--not for other people, thanks.\n\nJAMES.  Well!  I don't want to be hard.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm glad to hear you say that.  He seems to see something\n[spreading his arms] round him.  'Tisn't healthy.\n\nJAMES.  What about that woman he was mixed up with?  I saw some one\nuncommonly like her outside as we came in.\n\nCOKESON.  That!  Well, I can't keep anything from you.  He has met\nher.\n\nJAMES.  Is she with her husband?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nJAMES.  Falder living with her, I suppose?\n\nCOKESON.  [Desperately trying to retain the new-found jollity] I\ndon't know that of my own knowledge.  'Tisn't my business.\n\nJAMES.  It's our business, if we're going to engage him, COKESON.\n\nCOKESON.  [Reluctantly] I ought to tell you, perhaps.  I've had the\nparty here this morning.\n\nJAMES.  I thought so.  [To WALTER] No, my dear boy, it won't do.  Too\nshady altogether!\n\nCOKESON.  The two things together make it very awkward for you--I see\nthat.\n\nWALTER.  [Tentatively]  I don't quite know what we have to do with\nhis private life.\n\nJAMES.  No, no!  He must make a clean sheet of it, or he can't come\nhere.\n\nWALTER.  Poor devil!\n\nCOKESON.  Will you--have him in?  [And as JAMES nods] I think I can\nget him to see reason.\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly] You can leave that to me, COKESON.\n\nWALTER.  [To JAMES, in a low voice, while COKESON is summoning\nFALDER]  His whole future may depend on what we do, dad.\n\nFALDER comes in.  He has pulled himself together, and presents a\nsteady front.\n\nJAMES.  Now look here, Falder.  My son and I want to give you another\nchance; but there are two things I must say to you.  In the first\nplace: It's no good coming here as a victim.  If you've any notion\nthat you've been unjustly treated--get rid of it.  You can't play\nfast and loose with morality and hope to go scot-free.  If Society\ndidn't take care of itself, nobody would--the sooner you realise that\nthe better.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir; but--may I say something?\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nFALDER.  I had a lot of time to think it over in prison.  [He stops]\n\nCOKESON.  [Encouraging him] I'm sure you did.\n\nFALDER.  There were all sorts there.  And what I mean, sir, is, that\nif we'd been treated differently the first time, and put under\nsomebody that could look after us a bit, and not put in prison, not a\nquarter of us would ever have got there.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head] I'm afraid I've very grave doubts of that,\nFalder.\n\nFALDER.  [With a gleam of malice] Yes, sir, so I found.\n\nJAMES.  My good fellow, don't forget that you began it.\n\nFALDER.  I never wanted to do wrong.\n\nJAMES.  Perhaps not.  But you did.\n\nFALDER.  [With all the bitterness of his past suffering] It's knocked\nme out of time.  [Pulling himself up]  That is, I mean, I'm not what\nI was.\n\nJAMES.  This isn't encouraging for us, Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  He's putting it awkwardly, Mr. James.\n\nFALDER.  [Throwing over his caution from the intensity of his\nfeeling]  I mean it, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Now, lay aside all those thoughts, Falder, and look to the\nfuture.\n\nFALDER.  [Almost eagerly] Yes, sir, but you don't understand what\nprison is.  It's here it gets you.\n\n     He grips his chest.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a whisper to James] I told you he wanted nourishment.\n\nWALTER.  Yes, but, my dear fellow, that'll pass away.  Time's\nmerciful.\n\nFALDER.  [With his face twitching]  I hope so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  [Much more gently]  Now, my boy, what you've got to do is to\nput all the past behind you and build yourself up a steady\nreputation.  And that brings me to the second thing.  This woman you\nwere mixed up with you must give us your word, you know, to have done\nwith that.  There's no chance of your keeping straight if you're\ngoing to begin your future with such a relationship.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking from one to the other with a hunted expression] But\nsir...  but sir...  it's the one thing I looked forward to\nall that time.  And she too...  I couldn't find her before last\nnight.\n\n     During this and what follows COKESON becomes more and more\n     uneasy.\n\nJAMES.  This is painful, Falder.  But you must see for yourself that\nit's impossible for a firm like this to close its eyes to everything.\nGive us this proof of your resolve to keep straight, and you can come\nback--not otherwise.\n\nFALDER.  [After staring at JAMES, suddenly stiffens himself]  I\ncouldn't give her up.  I couldn't!  Oh, sir!\n\n     I'm all she's got to look to.  And I'm sure she's all I've got.\n\nJAMES.  I'm very sorry, Falder, but I must be firm.  It's for the\nbenefit of you both in the long run.  No good can come of this\nconnection.  It was the cause of all your disaster.\n\nFALDER.  But sir, it means-having gone through all that-getting\nbroken up--my nerves are in an awful state--for nothing.  I did it\nfor her.\n\nJAMES.  Come!  If she's anything of a woman she'll see it for\nherself.  She won't want to drag you down further.  If there were a\nprospect of your being able to marry her--it might be another thing.\n\nFALDER.  It's not my fault, sir, that she couldn't get rid of him\n--she would have if she could.  That's been the whole trouble from\nthe beginning.  [Looking suddenly at WALTER]...  If anybody\nwould help her!  It's only money wants now, I'm sure.\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in, as WALTER hesitates, and is about to speak] I\ndon't think we need consider that--it's rather far-fetched.\n\nFALDER.  [To WALTER, appealing]  He must have given her full cause\nsince; she could prove that he drove her to leave him.\n\nWALTER.  I'm inclined to do what you say, Falder, if it can be\nmanaged.\n\nFALDER.  Oh, sir!\n\nHe goes to the window and looks down into the street.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hurriedly]  You don't take me, Mr. Walter.  I have my\nreasons.\n\nFALDER.  [From the window]  She's down there, sir.  Will you see her?\nI can beckon to her from here.\n\n     WALTER hesitates, and looks from COKESON to JAMES.\n\nJAMES.  [With a sharp nod] Yes, let her come.\n\nFALDER beckons from the window.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a low fluster to JAMES and WALTER]  No, Mr. James.\nShe's not been quite what she ought to ha' been, while this young\nman's been away.  She's lost her chance.  We can't consult how to\nswindle the Law.\n\n     FALDER has come from the window.  The three men look at him in a\n     sort of awed silence.\n\nFALDER.  [With instinctive apprehension of some change--looking from\none to the other]  There's been nothing between us, sir, to prevent\nit....  What I said at the trial was true.  And last night we\nonly just sat in the Park.\n\nSWEEDLE comes in from the outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  What is it?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Mrs. Honeywill.   [There is silence]\n\nJAMES.  Show her in.\n\n     RUTH comes slowly in, and stands stoically with FALDER on one\n     side and the three men on the other.  No one speaks.  COKESON\n     turns to his table, bending over his papers as though the burden\n     of the situation were forcing him back into his accustomed\n     groove.\n\nJAMES.  [Sharply]  Shut the door there.  [SWEEDLE shuts the door]\nWe've asked you to come up because there are certain facts to be\nfaced in this matter.  I understand you have only just met Falder\nagain.\n\nRUTH.  Yes--only yesterday.\n\nJAMES.  He's told us about himself, and we're very sorry for him.\nI've promised to take him back here if he'll make a fresh start.\n[Looking steadily at RUTH] This is a matter that requires courage,\nma'am.\n\nRUTH, who is looking at FALDER, begins to twist her hands in front of\nher as though prescient of disaster.\n\nFALDER.  Mr. Walter How is good enough to say that he'll help us to\nget you a divorce.\n\n     RUTH flashes a startled glance at JAMES and WALTER.\n\nJAMES.  I don't think that's practicable, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  But, Sir----!\n\nJAMES.  [Steadily]  Now, Mrs. Honeywill.  You're fond of him.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, Sir; I love him.\n\n     She looks miserably at FALDER.\n\nJAMES.  Then you don't want to stand in his way, do you?\n\nRUTH.  [In a faint voice] I could take care of him.\n\nJAMES.  The best way you can take care of him will be to give him up.\n\nFALDER.  Nothing shall make me give you up.  You can get a divorce.\nThere's been nothing between us, has there?\n\nRUTH.  [Mournfully shaking her head-without looking at him]  No.\n\nFALDER.  We'll keep apart till it's over, sir; if you'll only help\nus--we promise.\n\nJAMES.  [To RUTH]  You see the thing plainly, don't you?  You see\nwhat I mean?\n\nRUTH.  [Just above a whisper]  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  [To himself] There's a dear woman.\n\nJAMES.  The situation is impossible.\n\nRUTH.  Must I, Sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Forcing himself to look at her] I put it to you, ma'am.  His\nfuture is in your hands.\n\nRUTH.  [Miserably] I want to do the best for him.\n\nJAMES.  [A little huskily] That's right, that's right!\n\nFALDER.  I don't understand.  You're not going to give me up--after\nall this?  There's something--[Starting forward to JAMES] Sir, I\nswear solemnly there's been nothing between us.\n\nJAMES.  I believe you, Falder.  Come, my lad, be as plucky as she is.\n\nFALDER.  Just now you were going to help us.  [He starts at RUTH, who\nis standing absolutely still; his face and hands twitch and quiver as\nthe truth dawns on him]  What is it?  You've not been--\n\nWALTER.  Father!\n\nJAMES.  [Hurriedly]  There, there!  That'll do, that'll do!  I'll\ngive you your chance, Falder.  Don't let me know what you do with\nyourselves, that's all.\n\nFALDER.  [As if he has not heard] Ruth?\n\n     RUTH looks at him; and FALDER covers his face with his hands.\n     There is silence.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  There's some one out there.  [To RUTH]  Go in\nhere.  You'll feel better by yourself for a minute.\n\n     He points to the clerks' room and moves towards the outer\n     office.  FALDER does not move.  RUTH puts out her hand timidly.\n     He shrinks back from the touch.  She turns and goes miserably\n     into the clerks' room.  With a brusque movement he follows,\n     seizing her by the shoulder just inside the doorway.  COKESON\n     shuts the door.\n\nJAMES.  [Pointing to the outer office]  Get rid of that, whoever it\nis.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Opening the office door, in a scared voice]\nDetective-Sergeant blister.\n\n     The detective enters, and closes the door behind him.\n\nWISTER.  Sorry to disturb you, sir.  A clerk you had here, two years\nand a half ago: I arrested him in, this room.\n\nJAMES.  What about him?\n\nWISTER.  I thought perhaps I might get his whereabouts from you.\n[There is an awkward silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Pleasantly, coming to the rescue] We're not responsible\nfor his movements; you know that.\n\nJAMES.  What do you want with him?\n\nWISTER.  He's failed to report himself this last four weeks.\n\nWALTER.  How d'you mean?\n\nWISTER.  Ticket-of-leave won't be up for another six months, sir.\n\nWALTER.  Has he to keep in touch with the police till then?\n\nWISTER.  We're bound to know where he sleeps every night.  I dare say\nwe shouldn't interfere, sir, even though he hasn't reported himself.\nBut we've just heard there's a serious matter of obtaining employment\nwith a forged reference.  What with the two things together--we must\nhave him.\n\n     Again there is silence.  WALTER and COKESON steal glances at\n     JAMES, who stands staring steadily at the detective.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expansively]  We're very busy at the moment.  If you could\nmake it convenient to call again we might be able to tell you then.\n\nJAMES.  [Decisively] I'm a servant of the Law, but I dislike\npeaching.  In fact, I can't do such a thing.  If you want him you\nmust find him without us.\n\n     As he speaks his eye falls on FALDER'S cap, still lying on the\n     table, and his face contracts.\n\nWISTER.  [Noting the gesture--quietly]  Very good, sir.  I ought to\nwarn you that, having broken the terms of his licence, he's still a\nconvict, and sheltering a convict.\n\nJAMES.  I shelter no one.  But you mustn't come here and ask\nquestions which it's not my business to answer.\n\nWISTER.  [Dryly] I won't trouble you further then, gentlemen.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry we couldn't give you the information.  You quite\nunderstand, don't you?  Good-morning!\n\n     WISTER turns to go, but instead of going to the door of the\n     outer office he goes to the door of the clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  The other door....  the other door!\n\n     WISTER opens the clerks' door.  RUTHS's voice is heard: \"Oh,\n     do!\" and FALDER'S: \"I can't!\"  There is a little pause; then,\n     with sharp fright, RUTH says: \"Who's that?\"\n\n     WISTER has gone in.\n\n     The three men look aghast at the door.\n\nWISTER  [From within]  Keep back, please!\n\n     He comes swiftly out with his arm twisted in FALDER'S.  The\n     latter gives a white, staring look at the three men.\n\nWALTER.  Let him go this time, for God's sake!\n\nWISTER.  I couldn't take the responsibility, sir.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer, desperate laugh]  Good!\n\n     Flinging a look back at RUTH, he throws up his head, and goes\n     out through the outer office, half dragging WISTER after him.\n\nWALTER.  [With despair]  That finishes him.  It'll go on for ever\nnow.\n\n     SWEEDLE can be seen staring through the outer door.  There are\n     sounds of footsteps descending the stone stairs; suddenly a dull\n     thud, a faint \"My God!\" in WISTER's voice.\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\n     SWEEDLE dashes forward.  The door swings to behind him.  There\n     is dead silence.\n\nWALTER.  [Starting forward to the inner room] The woman-she's\nfainting!\n\n     He and COKESON support the fainting RUTH from the doorway of the\n     clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  [Distracted]  Here, my dear!  There, there!\n\nWALTER.  Have you any brandy?\n\nCOKESON.  I've got sherry.\n\nWALTER.  Get it, then.  Quick!\n\n     He places RUTH in a chair--which JAMES has dragged forward.\n\nCOKESON.  [With sherry] Here!  It's good strong sherry.  [They try to\nforce the sherry between her lips.]\n\n     There is the sound of feet, and they stop to listen.\n\n     The outer door is reopened--WISTER and SWEEDLE are seen carrying\n     some burden.\n\nJAMES.  [Hurrying forward]  What is it?\n\n     They lay the burden doom in the outer office, out of sight, and\n     all but RUTH cluster round it, speaking in hushed voices.\n\nWISTER.  He jumped--neck's broken.\n\nWALTER.  Good God!\n\nWISTER.  He must have been mad to think he could give me the slip\nlike that.  And what was it--just a few months!\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly] Was that all?\n\nJAMES.  What a desperate thing!  [Then, in a voice unlike his own]\nRun for a doctor--you!  [SWEEDLE rushes from the outer office] An\nambulance!\n\n     WISTER goes out.  On RUTH's face an expression of fear and\n     horror has been seen growing, as if she dared not turn towards\n     the voices.  She now rises and steals towards them.\n\nWALTER.  [Turning suddenly] Look!\n\n     The three men shrink back out of her way, one by one, into\n     COKESON'S room.  RUTH drops on her knees by the body.\n\nRUTH.  [In a whisper]  What is it?  He's not breathing.  [She\ncrouches over him]  My dear!  My pretty!\n\n     In the outer office doorway the figures of men am seen standing.\n\nRUTH.  [Leaping to her feet] No, no!  No, no!  He's dead!\n\n     [The figures of the men shrink back]\n\nCOKESON.  [Stealing forward.  In a hoarse voice] There, there, poor\ndear woman!\n\n     At the sound behind her RUTH faces round at him.\n\nCOKESON.  No one'll touch him now!  Never again!  He's safe with\ngentle Jesus!\n\n     RUTH stands as though turned to stone in the doorway staring at\n     COKESON, who, bending humbly before her, holds out his hand as\n     one would to a lost dog.\n\n\n\nThe curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\n End of Project Gutenberg's Justice (Second Series Plays), by John Galsworthy\n\n \n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: Why did the police come back for Falder after he left prison?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 112, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["Ruth Anvoy"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory: Transcribed from the 1915 Martin Secker edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                          [Picture: Book cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   THE\n                                COXON FUND\n\n\n                              BY HENRY JAMES\n\n                      [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                          LONDON: MARTIN SECKER\n                     NUMBER FIVE JOHN STREET ADELPHI\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                    This edition first published 1915\n\n                       The text follows that of the\n                            Definitive Edition\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\n“THEY’VE got him for life!” I said to myself that evening on my way back\nto the station; but later on, alone in the compartment (from Wimbledon to\nWaterloo, before the glory of the District Railway) I amended this\ndeclaration in the light of the sense that my friends would probably\nafter all not enjoy a monopoly of Mr. Saltram.  I won’t pretend to have\ntaken his vast measure on that first occasion, but I think I had achieved\na glimpse of what the privilege of his acquaintance might mean for many\npersons in the way of charges accepted.  He had been a great experience,\nand it was this perhaps that had put me into the frame of foreseeing how\nwe should all, sooner or later, have the honour of dealing with him as a\nwhole.  Whatever impression I then received of the amount of this total,\nI had a full enough vision of the patience of the Mulvilles.  He was to\nstay all the winter: Adelaide dropped it in a tone that drew the sting\nfrom the inevitable emphasis.  These excellent people might indeed have\nbeen content to give the circle of hospitality a diameter of six months;\nbut if they didn’t say he was to stay all summer as well it was only\nbecause this was more than they ventured to hope.  I remember that at\ndinner that evening he wore slippers, new and predominantly purple, of\nsome queer carpet-stuff; but the Mulvilles were still in the stage of\nsupposing that he might be snatched from them by higher bidders.  At a\nlater time they grew, poor dears, to fear no snatching; but theirs was a\nfidelity which needed no help from competition to make them proud.\nWonderful indeed as, when all was said, you inevitably pronounced Frank\nSaltram, it was not to be overlooked that the Kent Mulvilles were in\ntheir way still more extraordinary: as striking an instance as could\neasily be encountered of the familiar truth that remarkable men find\nremarkable conveniences.\n\nThey had sent for me from Wimbledon to come out and dine, and there had\nbeen an implication in Adelaide’s note—judged by her notes alone she\nmight have been thought silly—that it was a case in which something\nmomentous was to be determined or done.  I had never known them not be in\na “state” about somebody, and I dare say I tried to be droll on this\npoint in accepting their invitation.  On finding myself in the presence\nof their latest discovery I had not at first felt irreverence droop—and,\nthank heaven, I have never been absolutely deprived of that alternative\nin Mr. Saltram’s company.  I saw, however—I hasten to declare it—that\ncompared to this specimen their other phoenixes had been birds of\ninconsiderable feather, and I afterwards took credit to myself for not\nhaving even in primal bewilderments made a mistake about the essence of\nthe man.  He had an incomparable gift; I never was blind to it—it dazzles\nme still.  It dazzles me perhaps even more in remembrance than in fact,\nfor I’m not unaware that for so rare a subject the imagination goes to\nsome expense, inserting a jewel here and there or giving a twist to a\nplume.  How the art of portraiture would rejoice in this figure if the\nart of portraiture had only the canvas!  Nature, in truth, had largely\nrounded it, and if memory, hovering about it, sometimes holds her breath,\nthis is because the voice that comes back was really golden.\n\nThough the great man was an inmate and didn’t dress, he kept dinner on\nthis occasion waiting, and the first words he uttered on coming into the\nroom were an elated announcement to Mulville that he had found out\nsomething.  Not catching the allusion and gaping doubtless a little at\nhis face, I privately asked Adelaide what he had found out.  I shall\nnever forget the look she gave me as she replied: “Everything!”  She\nreally believed it.  At that moment, at any rate, he had found out that\nthe mercy of the Mulvilles was infinite.  He had previously of course\ndiscovered, as I had myself for that matter, that their dinners were\nsoignés.  Let me not indeed, in saying this, neglect to declare that I\nshall falsify my counterfeit if I seem to hint that there was in his\nnature any ounce of calculation.  He took whatever came, but he never\nplotted for it, and no man who was so much of an absorbent can ever have\nbeen so little of a parasite.  He had a system of the universe, but he\nhad no system of sponging—that was quite hand-to-mouth.  He had fine\ngross easy senses, but it was not his good-natured appetite that wrought\nconfusion.  If he had loved us for our dinners we could have paid with\nour dinners, and it would have been a great economy of finer matter.  I\nmake free in these connexions with the plural possessive because if I was\nnever able to do what the Mulvilles did, and people with still bigger\nhouses and simpler charities, I met, first and last, every demand of\nreflexion, of emotion—particularly perhaps those of gratitude and of\nresentment.  No one, I think, paid the tribute of giving him up so often,\nand if it’s rendering honour to borrow wisdom I’ve a right to talk of my\nsacrifices.  He yielded lessons as the sea yields fish—I lived for a\nwhile on this diet.  Sometimes it almost appeared to me that his massive\nmonstrous failure—if failure after all it was—had been designed for my\nprivate recreation.  He fairly pampered my curiosity; but the history of\nthat experience would take me too far.  This is not the large canvas I\njust now spoke of, and I wouldn’t have approached him with my present\nhand had it been a question of all the features.  Frank Saltram’s\nfeatures, for artistic purposes, are verily the anecdotes that are to be\ngathered.  Their name is legion, and this is only one, of which the\ninterest is that it concerns even more closely several other persons.\nSuch episodes, as one looks back, are the little dramas that made up the\ninnumerable facets of the big drama—which is yet to be reported.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nIT is furthermore remarkable that though the two stories are distinct—my\nown, as it were, and this other—they equally began, in a manner, the\nfirst night of my acquaintance with Frank Saltram, the night I came back\nfrom Wimbledon so agitated with a new sense of life that, in London, for\nthe very thrill of it, I could only walk home.  Walking and swinging my\nstick, I overtook, at Buckingham Gate, George Gravener, and George\nGravener’s story may be said to have begun with my making him, as our\npaths lay together, come home with me for a talk.  I duly remember, let\nme parenthesise, that it was still more that of another person, and also\nthat several years were to elapse before it was to extend to a second\nchapter.  I had much to say to him, none the less, about my visit to the\nMulvilles, whom he more indifferently knew, and I was at any rate so\namusing that for long afterwards he never encountered me without asking\nfor news of the old man of the sea.  I hadn’t said Mr. Saltram was old,\nand it was to be seen that he was of an age to outweather George\nGravener.  I had at that time a lodging in Ebury Street, and Gravener was\nstaying at his brother’s empty house in Eaton Square.  At Cambridge, five\nyears before, even in our devastating set, his intellectual power had\nseemed to me almost awful.  Some one had once asked me privately, with\nblanched cheeks, what it was then that after all such a mind as that left\nstanding.  “It leaves itself!” I could recollect devoutly replying.  I\ncould smile at present for this remembrance, since before we got to Ebury\nStreet I was struck with the fact that, save in the sense of being well\nset up on his legs, George Gravener had actually ceased to tower.  The\nuniverse he laid low had somehow bloomed again—the usual eminences were\nvisible.  I wondered whether he had lost his humour, or only, dreadful\nthought, had never had any—not even when I had fancied him most\nAristophanesque.  What was the need of appealing to laughter, however, I\ncould enviously enquire, where you might appeal so confidently to\nmeasurement?  Mr. Saltram’s queer figure, his thick nose and hanging lip,\nwere fresh to me: in the light of my old friend’s fine cold symmetry they\npresented mere success in amusing as the refuge of conscious ugliness.\nAlready, at hungry twenty-six, Gravener looked as blank and parliamentary\nas if he were fifty and popular.  In my scrap of a residence—he had a\nworldling’s eye for its futile conveniences, but never a comrade’s joke—I\nsounded Frank Saltram in his ears; a circumstance I mention in order to\nnote that even then I was surprised at his impatience of my enlivenment.\nAs he had never before heard of the personage it took indeed the form of\nimpatience of the preposterous Mulvilles, his relation to whom, like\nmine, had had its origin in an early, a childish intimacy with the young\nAdelaide, the fruit of multiplied ties in the previous generation.  When\nshe married Kent Mulville, who was older than Gravener and I and much\nmore amiable, I gained a friend, but Gravener practically lost one.  We\nreacted in different ways from the form taken by what he called their\ndeplorable social action—the form (the term was also his) of nasty\nsecond-rate gush.  I may have held in my ‘for intérieur’ that the good\npeople at Wimbledon were beautiful fools, but when he sniffed at them I\ncouldn’t help taking the opposite line, for I already felt that even\nshould we happen to agree it would always be for reasons that differed.\nIt came home to me that he was admirably British as, without so much as a\nsociable sneer at my bookbinder, he turned away from the serried rows of\nmy little French library.\n\n“Of course I’ve never seen the fellow, but it’s clear enough he’s a\nhumbug.”\n\n“Clear ‘enough’ is just what it isn’t,” I replied; “if it only were!”\nThat ejaculation on my part must have been the beginning of what was to\nbe later a long ache for final frivolous rest.  Gravener was profound\nenough to remark after a moment that in the first place he couldn’t be\nanything but a Dissenter, and when I answered that the very note of his\nfascination was his extraordinary speculative breadth my friend retorted\nthat there was no cad like your cultivated cad, and that I might depend\nupon discovering—since I had had the levity not already to have\nenquired—that my shining light proceeded, a generation back, from a\nMethodist cheesemonger.  I confess I was struck with his insistence, and\nI said, after reflexion: “It may be—I admit it may be; but why on earth\nare you so sure?”—asking the question mainly to lay him the trap of\nsaying that it was because the poor man didn’t dress for dinner.  He took\nan instant to circumvent my trap and come blandly out the other side.\n\n“Because the Kent Mulvilles have invented him.  They’ve an infallible\nhand for frauds.  All their geese are swans.  They were born to be duped,\nthey like it, they cry for it, they don’t know anything from anything,\nand they disgust one—luckily perhaps!—with Christian charity.”  His\nvehemence was doubtless an accident, but it might have been a strange\nforeknowledge.  I forget what protest I dropped; it was at any rate\nsomething that led him to go on after a moment: “I only ask one\nthing—it’s perfectly simple.  Is a man, in a given case, a real\ngentleman?”\n\n“A real gentleman, my dear fellow—that’s so soon said!”\n\n“Not so soon when he isn’t!  If they’ve got hold of one this time he must\nbe a great rascal!”\n\n“I might feel injured,” I answered, “if I didn’t reflect that they don’t\nrave about me.”\n\n“Don’t be too sure!  I’ll grant that he’s a gentleman,” Gravener\npresently added, “if you’ll admit that he’s a scamp.”\n\n“I don’t know which to admire most, your logic or your benevolence.”\n\nMy friend coloured at this, but he didn’t change the subject.  “Where did\nthey pick him up?”\n\n“I think they were struck with something he had published.”\n\n“I can fancy the dreary thing!”\n\n“I believe they found out he had all sorts of worries and difficulties.”\n\n“That of course wasn’t to be endured, so they jumped at the privilege of\npaying his debts!”  I professed that I knew nothing about his debts, and\nI reminded my visitor that though the dear Mulvilles were angels they\nwere neither idiots nor millionaires.  What they mainly aimed at was\nreuniting Mr. Saltram to his wife.  “I was expecting to hear he has\nbasely abandoned her,” Gravener went on, at this, “and I’m too glad you\ndon’t disappoint me.”\n\nI tried to recall exactly what Mrs. Mulville had told me.  “He didn’t\nleave her—no.  It’s she who has left him.”\n\n“Left him to us?” Gravener asked.  “The monster—many thanks!  I decline\nto take him.”\n\n“You’ll hear more about him in spite of yourself.  I can’t, no, I really\ncan’t resist the impression that he’s a big man.”  I was already\nmastering—to my shame perhaps be it said—just the tone my old friend\nleast liked.\n\n“It’s doubtless only a trifle,” he returned, “but you haven’t happened to\nmention what his reputation’s to rest on.”\n\n“Why on what I began by boring you with—his extraordinary mind.”\n\n“As exhibited in his writings?”\n\n“Possibly in his writings, but certainly in his talk, which is far and\naway the richest I ever listened to.”\n\n“And what’s it all about?”\n\n“My dear fellow, don’t ask me!  About everything!” I pursued, reminding\nmyself of poor Adelaide.  “About his ideas of things,” I then more\ncharitably added.  “You must have heard him to know what I mean—it’s\nunlike anything that ever was heard.”  I coloured, I admit, I overcharged\na little, for such a picture was an anticipation of Saltram’s later\ndevelopment and still more of my fuller acquaintance with him.  However,\nI really expressed, a little lyrically perhaps, my actual imagination of\nhim when I proceeded to declare that, in a cloud of tradition, of legend,\nhe might very well go down to posterity as the greatest of all great\ntalkers.  Before we parted George Gravener had wondered why such a row\nshould be made about a chatterbox the more and why he should be pampered\nand pensioned.  The greater the wind-bag the greater the calamity.  Out\nof proportion to everything else on earth had come to be this wagging of\nthe tongue.  We were drenched with talk—our wretched age was dying of it.\nI differed from him here sincerely, only going so far as to concede, and\ngladly, that we were drenched with sound.  It was not however the mere\nspeakers who were killing us—it was the mere stammerers.  Fine talk was\nas rare as it was refreshing—the gift of the gods themselves, the one\nstarry spangle on the ragged cloak of humanity.  How many men were there\nwho rose to this privilege, of how many masters of conversation could he\nboast the acquaintance?  Dying of talk?—why we were dying of the lack of\nit!  Bad writing wasn’t talk, as many people seemed to think, and even\ngood wasn’t always to be compared to it.  From the best talk indeed the\nbest writing had something to learn.  I fancifully added that we too\nshould peradventure be gilded by the legend, should be pointed at for\nhaving listened, for having actually heard.  Gravener, who had glanced at\nhis watch and discovered it was midnight, found to all this a retort\nbeautifully characteristic of him.\n\n“There’s one little fact to be borne in mind in the presence equally of\nthe best talk and of the worst.”  He looked, in saying this, as if he\nmeant great things, and I was sure he could only mean once more that\nneither of them mattered if a man wasn’t a real gentleman.  Perhaps it\nwas what he did mean; he deprived me however of the exultation of being\nright by putting the truth in a slightly different way.  “The only thing\nthat really counts for one’s estimate of a person is his conduct.”  He\nhad his watch still in his palm, and I reproached him with unfair play in\nhaving ascertained beforehand that it was now the hour at which I always\ngave in.  My pleasantry so far failed to mollify him that he promptly\nadded that to the rule he had just enunciated there was absolutely no\nexception.\n\n“None whatever?”\n\n“None whatever.”\n\n“Trust me then to try to be good at any price!” I laughed as I went with\nhim to the door.  “I declare I will be, if I have to be horrible!”\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nIF that first night was one of the liveliest, or at any rate was the\nfreshest, of my exaltations, there was another, four years later, that\nwas one of my great discomposures.  Repetition, I well knew by this time,\nwas the secret of Saltram’s power to alienate, and of course one would\nnever have seen him at his finest if one hadn’t seen him in his remorses.\nThey set in mainly at this season and were magnificent, elemental,\norchestral.  I was quite aware that one of these atmospheric disturbances\nwas now due; but none the less, in our arduous attempt to set him on his\nfeet as a lecturer, it was impossible not to feel that two failures were\na large order, as we said, for a short course of five.  This was the\nsecond time, and it was past nine o’clock; the audience, a muster\nunprecedented and really encouraging, had fortunately the attitude of\nblandness that might have been looked for in persons whom the promise of\n(if I’m not mistaken) An Analysis of Primary Ideas had drawn to the\nneighbourhood of Upper Baker Street.  There was in those days in that\nregion a petty lecture-hall to be secured on terms as moderate as the\nfunds left at our disposal by the irrepressible question of the\nmaintenance of five small Saltrams—I include the mother—and one large\none.  By the time the Saltrams, of different sizes, were all maintained\nwe had pretty well poured out the oil that might have lubricated the\nmachinery for enabling the most original of men to appear to maintain\nthem.\n\nIt was I, the other time, who had been forced into the breach, standing\nup there for an odious lamplit moment to explain to half a dozen thin\nbenches, where earnest brows were virtuously void of anything so cynical\nas a suspicion, that we couldn’t so much as put a finger on Mr. Saltram.\nThere was nothing to plead but that our scouts had been out from the\nearly hours and that we were afraid that on one of his walks abroad—he\ntook one, for meditation, whenever he was to address such a company—some\naccident had disabled or delayed him.  The meditative walks were a\nfiction, for he never, that any one could discover, prepared anything but\na magnificent prospectus; hence his circulars and programmes, of which I\npossess an almost complete collection, are the solemn ghosts of\ngenerations never born.  I put the case, as it seemed to me, at the best;\nbut I admit I had been angry, and Kent Mulville was shocked at my want of\npublic optimism.  This time therefore I left the excuses to his more\npractised patience, only relieving myself in response to a direct appeal\nfrom a young lady next whom, in the hall, I found myself sitting.  My\nposition was an accident, but if it had been calculated the reason would\nscarce have eluded an observer of the fact that no one else in the room\nhad an approach to an appearance.  Our philosopher’s “tail” was\ndeplorably limp.  This visitor was the only person who looked at her\nease, who had come a little in the spirit of adventure.  She seemed to\ncarry amusement in her handsome young head, and her presence spoke, a\nlittle mystifyingly, of a sudden extension of Saltram’s sphere of\ninfluence.  He was doing better than we hoped, and he had chosen such an\noccasion, of all occasions, to succumb to heaven knew which of his fond\ninfirmities.  The young lady produced an impression of auburn hair and\nblack velvet, and had on her other hand a companion of obscurer type,\npresumably a waiting-maid.  She herself might perhaps have been a foreign\ncountess, and before she addressed me I had beguiled our sorry interval\nby finding in her a vague recall of the opening of some novel of Madame\nSand.  It didn’t make her more fathomable to pass in a few minutes from\nthis to the certitude that she was American; it simply engendered\ndepressing reflexions as to the possible check to contributions from\nBoston.  She asked me if, as a person apparently more initiated, I would\nrecommend further waiting, and I answered that if she considered I was on\nmy honour I would privately deprecate it.  Perhaps she didn’t; at any\nrate our talk took a turn that prolonged it till she became aware we were\nleft almost alone.  I presently ascertained she knew Mrs. Saltram, and\nthis explained in a manner the miracle.  The brotherhood of the friends\nof the husband was as nothing to the brotherhood, or perhaps I should say\nthe sisterhood, of the friends of the wife.  Like the Kent Mulvilles I\nbelonged to both fraternities, and even better than they I think I had\nsounded the abyss of Mrs. Saltram’s wrongs.  She bored me to extinction,\nand I knew but too well how she had bored her husband; but there were\nthose who stood by her, the most efficient of whom were indeed the\nhandful of poor Saltram’s backers.  They did her liberal justice, whereas\nher mere patrons and partisans had nothing but hatred for our\nphilosopher.  I’m bound to say it was we, however—we of both camps, as it\nwere—who had always done most for her.\n\nI thought my young lady looked rich—I scarcely knew why; and I hoped she\nhad put her hand in her pocket.  I soon made her out, however, not at all\na fine fanatic—she was but a generous, irresponsible enquirer.  She had\ncome to England to see her aunt, and it was at her aunt’s she had met the\ndreary lady we had all so much on our mind.  I saw she’d help to pass the\ntime when she observed that it was a pity this lady wasn’t intrinsically\nmore interesting.  That was refreshing, for it was an article of faith in\nMrs. Saltram’s circle—at least among those who scorned to know her horrid\nhusband—that she was attractive on her merits.  She was in truth a most\nordinary person, as Saltram himself would have been if he hadn’t been a\nprodigy.  The question of vulgarity had no application to him, but it was\na measure his wife kept challenging you to apply.  I hasten to add that\nthe consequences of your doing so were no sufficient reason for his\nhaving left her to starve.  “He doesn’t seem to have much force of\ncharacter,” said my young lady; at which I laughed out so loud that my\ndeparting friends looked back at me over their shoulders as if I were\nmaking a joke of their discomfiture.  My joke probably cost Saltram a\nsubscription or two, but it helped me on with my interlocutress.  “She\nsays he drinks like a fish,” she sociably continued, “and yet she allows\nthat his mind’s wonderfully clear.”  It was amusing to converse with a\npretty girl who could talk of the clearness of Saltram’s mind.  I\nexpected next to hear she had been assured he was awfully clever.  I\ntried to tell her—I had it almost on my conscience—what was the proper\nway to regard him; an effort attended perhaps more than ever on this\noccasion with the usual effect of my feeling that I wasn’t after all very\nsure of it.  She had come to-night out of high curiosity—she had wanted\nto learn this proper way for herself.  She had read some of his papers\nand hadn’t understood them; but it was at home, at her aunt’s, that her\ncuriosity had been kindled—kindled mainly by his wife’s remarkable\nstories of his want of virtue.  “I suppose they ought to have kept me\naway,” my companion dropped, “and I suppose they’d have done so if I\nhadn’t somehow got an idea that he’s fascinating.  In fact Mrs. Saltram\nherself says he is.”\n\n“So you came to see where the fascination resides?  Well, you’ve seen!”\n\nMy young lady raised fine eyebrows.  “Do you mean in his bad faith?”\n\n“In the extraordinary effects of it; his possession, that is, of some\nquality or other that condemns us in advance to forgive him the\nhumiliation, as I may call it, to which he has subjected us.”\n\n“The humiliation?”\n\n“Why mine, for instance, as one of his guarantors, before you as the\npurchaser of a ticket.”\n\nShe let her charming gay eyes rest on me.  “You don’t look humiliated a\nbit, and if you did I should let you off, disappointed as I am; for the\nmysterious quality you speak of is just the quality I came to see.”\n\n“Oh, you can’t ‘see’ it!” I cried.\n\n“How then do you get at it?”\n\n“You don’t!  You mustn’t suppose he’s good-looking,” I added.\n\n“Why his wife says he’s lovely!”\n\nMy hilarity may have struck her as excessive, but I confess it broke out\nafresh.  Had she acted only in obedience to this singular plea, so\ncharacteristic, on Mrs. Saltram’s part, of what was irritating in the\nnarrowness of that lady’s point of view?  “Mrs. Saltram,” I explained,\n“undervalues him where he’s strongest, so that, to make up for it\nperhaps, she overpraises him where he’s weak.  He’s not, assuredly,\nsuperficially attractive; he’s middle-aged, fat, featureless save for his\ngreat eyes.”\n\n“Yes, his great eyes,” said my young lady attentively.  She had evidently\nheard all about his great eyes—the beaux yeux for which alone we had\nreally done it all.\n\n“They’re tragic and splendid—lights on a dangerous coast.  But he moves\nbadly and dresses worse, and altogether he’s anything but smart.”\n\nMy companion, who appeared to reflect on this, after a moment appealed.\n“Do you call him a real gentleman?”\n\nI started slightly at the question, for I had a sense of recognising it:\nGeorge Gravener, years before, that first flushed night, had put me face\nto face with it.  It had embarrassed me then, but it didn’t embarrass me\nnow, for I had lived with it and overcome it and disposed of it.  “A real\ngentleman?  Emphatically not!”\n\nMy promptitude surprised her a little, but I quickly felt how little it\nwas to Gravener I was now talking.  “Do you say that because he’s—what do\nyou call it in England?—of humble extraction?”\n\n“Not a bit.  His father was a country school-master and his mother the\nwidow of a sexton, but that has nothing to do with it.  I say it simply\nbecause I know him well.”\n\n“But isn’t it an awful drawback?”\n\n“Awful—quite awful.”\n\n“I mean isn’t it positively fatal?”\n\n“Fatal to what?  Not to his magnificent vitality.”\n\nAgain she had a meditative moment.  “And is his magnificent vitality the\ncause of his vices?”\n\n“Your questions are formidable, but I’m glad you put them.  I was\nthinking of his noble intellect.  His vices, as you say, have been much\nexaggerated: they consist mainly after all in one comprehensive defect.”\n\n“A want of will?”\n\n“A want of dignity.”\n\n“He doesn’t recognise his obligations?”\n\n“On the contrary, he recognises them with effusion, especially in public:\nhe smiles and bows and beckons across the street to them.  But when they\npass over he turns away, and he speedily loses them in the crowd.  The\nrecognition’s purely spiritual—it isn’t in the least social.  So he\nleaves all his belongings to other people to take care of.  He accepts\nfavours, loans, sacrifices—all with nothing more deterrent than an agony\nof shame.  Fortunately we’re a little faithful band, and we do what we\ncan.”  I held my tongue about the natural children, engendered, to the\nnumber of three, in the wantonness of his youth.  I only remarked that he\ndid make efforts—often tremendous ones.  “But the efforts,” I said,\n“never come to much: the only things that come to much are the\nabandonments, the surrenders.”\n\n“And how much do they come to?”\n\n“You’re right to put it as if we had a big bill to pay, but, as I’ve told\nyou before, your questions are rather terrible.  They come, these mere\nexercises of genius, to a great sum total of poetry, of philosophy, a\nmighty mass of speculation, notation, quotation.  The genius is there,\nyou see, to meet the surrender; but there’s no genius to support the\ndefence.”\n\n“But what is there, after all, at his age, to show?”\n\n“In the way of achievement recognised and reputation established?” I\nasked.  “To ‘show’ if you will, there isn’t much, since his writing,\nmostly, isn’t as fine, isn’t certainly as showy, as his talk.  Moreover\ntwo-thirds of his work are merely colossal projects and announcements.\n‘Showing’ Frank Saltram is often a poor business,” I went on: “we\nendeavoured, you’ll have observed, to show him to-night!  However, if he\nhad lectured he’d have lectured divinely.  It would just have been his\ntalk.”\n\n“And what would his talk just have been?”\n\nI was conscious of some ineffectiveness, as well perhaps as of a little\nimpatience, as I replied: “The exhibition of a splendid intellect.”  My\nyoung lady looked not quite satisfied at this, but as I wasn’t prepared\nfor another question I hastily pursued: “The sight of a great suspended\nswinging crystal—huge lucid lustrous, a block of light—flashing back\nevery impression of life and every possibility of thought!”\n\nThis gave her something to turn over till we had passed out to the dusky\nporch of the hall, in front of which the lamps of a quiet brougham were\nalmost the only thing Saltram’s treachery hadn’t extinguished.  I went\nwith her to the door of her carriage, out of which she leaned a moment\nafter she had thanked me and taken her seat.  Her smile even in the\ndarkness was pretty.  “I do want to see that crystal!”\n\n“You’ve only to come to the next lecture.”\n\n“I go abroad in a day or two with my aunt.”\n\n“Wait over till next week,” I suggested.  “It’s quite worth it.”\n\nShe became grave.  “Not unless he really comes!”  At which the brougham\nstarted off, carrying her away too fast, fortunately for my manners, to\nallow me to exclaim “Ingratitude!”\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nMRS. SALTRAM made a great affair of her right to be informed where her\nhusband had been the second evening he failed to meet his audience.  She\ncame to me to ascertain, but I couldn’t satisfy her, for in spite of my\ningenuity I remained in ignorance.  It wasn’t till much later that I\nfound this had not been the case with Kent Mulville, whose hope for the\nbest never twirled the thumbs of him more placidly than when he happened\nto know the worst.  He had known it on the occasion I speak of—that is\nimmediately after.  He was impenetrable then, but ultimately confessed.\nWhat he confessed was more than I shall now venture to make public.  It\nwas of course familiar to me that Saltram was incapable of keeping the\nengagements which, after their separation, he had entered into with\nregard to his wife, a deeply wronged, justly resentful, quite\nirreproachable and insufferable person.  She often appeared at my\nchambers to talk over his lapses; for if, as she declared, she had washed\nher hands of him, she had carefully preserved the water of this ablution,\nwhich she handed about for analysis.  She had arts of her own of exciting\none’s impatience, the most infallible of which was perhaps her assumption\nthat we were kind to her because we liked her.  In reality her personal\nfall had been a sort of social rise—since I had seen the moment when, in\nour little conscientious circle, her desolation almost made her the\nfashion.  Her voice was grating and her children ugly; moreover she hated\nthe good Mulvilles, whom I more and more loved.  They were the people who\nby doing most for her husband had in the long run done most for herself;\nand the warm confidence with which he had laid his length upon them was a\npressure gentle compared with her stiffer persuadability.  I’m bound to\nsay he didn’t criticise his benefactors, though practically he got tired\nof them; she, however, had the highest standards about eleemosynary\nforms.  She offered the odd spectacle of a spirit puffed up by\ndependence, and indeed it had introduced her to some excellent society.\nShe pitied me for not knowing certain people who aided her and whom she\ndoubtless patronised in turn for their luck in not knowing me.  I dare\nsay I should have got on with her better if she had had a ray of\nimagination—if it had occasionally seemed to occur to her to regard\nSaltram’s expressions of his nature in any other manner than as separate\nsubjects of woe.  They were all flowers of his character, pearls strung\non an endless thread; but she had a stubborn little way of challenging\nthem one after the other, as if she never suspected that he had a\ncharacter, such as it was, or that deficiencies might be organic; the\nirritating effect of a mind incapable of a generalisation.  One might\ndoubtless have overdone the idea that there was a general licence for\nsuch a man; but if this had happened it would have been through one’s\nfeeling that there could be none for such a woman.\n\nI recognised her superiority when I asked her about the aunt of the\ndisappointed young lady: it sounded like a sentence from an\nEnglish-French or other phrase-book.  She triumphed in what she told me\nand she may have triumphed still more in what she withheld.  My friend of\nthe other evening, Miss Anvoy, had but lately come to England; Lady\nCoxon, the aunt, had been established here for years in consequence of\nher marriage with the late Sir Gregory of that name.  She had a house in\nthe Regent’s Park, a Bath-chair and a fernery; and above all she had\nsympathy.  Mrs. Saltram had made her acquaintance through mutual friends.\nThis vagueness caused me to feel how much I was out of it and how large\nan independent circle Mrs. Saltram had at her command.  I should have\nbeen glad to know more about the disappointed young lady, but I felt I\nshould know most by not depriving her of her advantage, as she might have\nmysterious means of depriving me of my knowledge.  For the present,\nmoreover, this experience was stayed, Lady Coxon having in fact gone\nabroad accompanied by her niece.  The niece, besides being immensely\nclever, was an heiress, Mrs. Saltram said; the only daughter and the\nlight of the eyes of some great American merchant, a man, over there, of\nendless indulgences and dollars.  She had pretty clothes and pretty\nmanners, and she had, what was prettier still, the great thing of all.\nThe great thing of all for Mrs. Saltram was always sympathy, and she\nspoke as if during the absence of these ladies she mightn’t know where to\nturn for it.  A few months later indeed, when they had come back, her\ntone perceptibly changed: she alluded to them, on my leading her up to\nit, rather as to persons in her debt for favours received.  What had\nhappened I didn’t know, but I saw it would take only a little more or a\nlittle less to make her speak of them as thankless subjects of social\ncountenance—people for whom she had vainly tried to do something.  I\nconfess I saw how it wouldn’t be in a mere week or two that I should rid\nmyself of the image of Ruth Anvoy, in whose very name, when I learnt it,\nI found something secretly to like.  I should probably neither see her\nnor hear of her again: the knight’s widow (he had been mayor of\nClockborough) would pass away and the heiress would return to her\ninheritance.  I gathered with surprise that she had not communicated to\nhis wife the story of her attempt to hear Mr..Saltram, and I founded this\nreticence on the easy supposition that Mrs. Saltram had fatigued by\noverpressure the spring of the sympathy of which she boasted.  The girl\nat any rate would forget the small adventure, be distracted, take a\nhusband; besides which she would lack occasion to repeat her experiment.\n\nWe clung to the idea of the brilliant course, delivered without an\naccident, that, as a lecturer, would still make the paying public aware\nof our great man, but the fact remained that in the case of an\ninspiration so unequal there was treachery, there was fallacy at least,\nin the very conception of a series.  In our scrutiny of ways and means we\nwere inevitably subject to the old convention of the synopsis, the\nsyllabus, partly of course not to lose the advantage of his grand free\nhand in drawing up such things; but for myself I laughed at our playbills\neven while I stickled for them.  It was indeed amusing work to be\nscrupulous for Frank Saltram, who also at moments laughed about it, so\nfar as the comfort of a sigh so unstudied as to be cheerful might pass\nfor such a sound.  He admitted with a candour all his own that he was in\ntruth only to be depended on in the Mulvilles’ drawing-room.  “Yes,” he\nsuggestively allowed, “it’s there, I think, that I’m at my best; quite\nlate, when it gets toward eleven—and if I’ve not been too much worried.”\nWe all knew what too much worry meant; it meant too enslaved for the hour\nto the superstition of sobriety.  On the Saturdays I used to bring my\nportmanteau, so as not to have to think of eleven o’clock trains.  I had\na bold theory that as regards this temple of talk and its altars of\ncushioned chintz, its pictures and its flowers, its large fireside and\nclear lamplight, we might really arrive at something if the Mulvilles\nwould but charge for admission.  Here it was, however, that they\nshamelessly broke down; as there’s a flaw in every perfection this was\nthe inexpugnable refuge of their egotism.  They declined to make their\nsaloon a market, so that Saltram’s golden words continued the sole coin\nthat rang there.  It can have happened to no man, however, to be paid a\ngreater price than such an enchanted hush as surrounded him on his\ngreatest nights.  The most profane, on these occasions, felt a presence;\nall minor eloquence grew dumb.  Adelaide Mulville, for the pride of her\nhospitality, anxiously watched the door or stealthily poked the fire.  I\nused to call it the music-room, for we had anticipated Bayreuth.  The\nvery gates of the kingdom of light seemed to open and the horizon of\nthought to flash with the beauty of a sunrise at sea.\n\nIn the consideration of ways and means, the sittings of our little board,\nwe were always conscious of the creak of Mrs. Saltram’s shoes.  She\nhovered, she interrupted, she almost presided, the state of affairs being\nmostly such as to supply her with every incentive for enquiring what was\nto be done next.  It was the pressing pursuit of this knowledge that, in\nconcatenations of omnibuses and usually in very wet weather, led her so\noften to my door.  She thought us spiritless creatures with editors and\npublishers; but she carried matters to no great effect when she\npersonally pushed into back-shops.  She wanted all moneys to be paid to\nherself: they were otherwise liable to such strange adventures.  They\ntrickled away into the desert—they were mainly at best, alas, a slender\nstream.  The editors and the publishers were the last people to take this\nremarkable thinker at the valuation that has now pretty well come to be\nestablished.  The former were half-distraught between the desire to “cut”\nhim and the difficulty of finding a crevice for their shears; and when a\nvolume on this or that portentous subject was proposed to the latter they\nsuggested alternative titles which, as reported to our friend, brought\ninto his face the noble blank melancholy that sometimes made it handsome.\nThe title of an unwritten book didn’t after all much matter, but some\nmasterpiece of Saltram’s may have died in his bosom of the shudder with\nwhich it was then convulsed.  The ideal solution, failing the fee at Kent\nMulville’s door, would have been some system of subscription to projected\ntreatises with their non-appearance provided for—provided for, I mean, by\nthe indulgence of subscribers.  The author’s real misfortune was that\nsubscribers were so wretchedly literal.  When they tastelessly enquired\nwhy publication hadn’t ensued I was tempted to ask who in the world had\never been so published.  Nature herself had brought him out in voluminous\nform, and the money was simply a deposit on borrowing the work.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nI WAS doubtless often a nuisance to my friends in those years; but there\nwere sacrifices I declined to make, and I never passed the hat to George\nGravener.  I never forgot our little discussion in Ebury Street, and I\nthink it stuck in my throat to have to treat him to the avowal I had\nfound so easy to Mss Anvoy.  It had cost me nothing to confide to this\ncharming girl, but it would have cost me much to confide to the friend of\nmy youth, that the character of the “real gentleman” wasn’t an attribute\nof the man I took such pains for.  Was this because I had already\ngeneralised to the point of perceiving that women are really the\nunfastidious sex?  I knew at any rate that Gravener, already quite in\nview but still hungry and frugal, had naturally enough more ambition than\ncharity.  He had sharp aims for stray sovereigns, being in view most from\nthe tall steeple of Clockborough.  His immediate ambition was to occupy à\nlui seul the field of vision of that smokily-seeing city, and all his\nmovements and postures were calculated for the favouring angle.  The\nmovement of the hand as to the pocket had thus to alternate gracefully\nwith the posture of the hand on the heart.  He talked to Clockborough in\nshort only less beguilingly than Frank Saltram talked to his electors;\nwith the difference to our credit, however, that we had already voted and\nthat our candidate had no antagonist but himself.  He had more than once\nbeen at Wimbledon—it was Mrs. Mulville’s work not mine—and by the time\nthe claret was served had seen the god descend.  He took more pains to\nswing his censer than I had expected, but on our way back to town he\nforestalled any little triumph I might have been so artless as to express\nby the observation that such a man was—a hundred times!—a man to use and\nnever a man to be used by.  I remember that this neat remark humiliated\nme almost as much as if virtually, in the fever of broken slumbers, I\nhadn’t often made it myself.  The difference was that on Gravener’s part\na force attached to it that could never attach to it on mine.  He was\nable to use people—he had the machinery; and the irony of Saltram’s being\nmade showy at Clockborough came out to me when he said, as if he had no\nmemory of our original talk and the idea were quite fresh to him: “I hate\nhis type, you know, but I’ll be hanged if I don’t put some of those\nthings in.  I can find a place for them: we might even find a place for\nthe fellow himself.”  I myself should have had some fear—not, I need\nscarcely say, for the “things” themselves, but for some other things very\nnear them; in fine for the rest of my eloquence.\n\nLater on I could see that the oracle of Wimbledon was not in this case so\nappropriate as he would have been had the polities of the gods only\ncoincided more exactly with those of the party.  There was a distinct\nmoment when, without saying anything more definite to me, Gravener\nentertained the idea of annexing Mr. Saltram.  Such a project was\ndelusive, for the discovery of analogies between his body of doctrine and\nthat pressed from headquarters upon Clockborough—the bottling, in a word,\nof the air of those lungs for convenient public uncorking in\ncorn-exchanges—was an experiment for which no one had the leisure.  The\nonly thing would have been to carry him massively about, paid, caged,\nclipped; to turn him on for a particular occasion in a particular\nchannel.  Frank Saltram’s channel, however, was essentially not\ncalculable, and there was no knowing what disastrous floods might have\nensued.  For what there would have been to do The Empire, the great\nnewspaper, was there to look to; but it was no new misfortune that there\nwere delicate situations in which The Empire broke down.  In fine there\nwas an instinctive apprehension that a clever young journalist\ncommissioned to report on Mr. Saltram might never come back from the\nerrand.  No one knew better than George Gravener that that was a time\nwhen prompt returns counted double.  If he therefore found our friend an\nexasperating waste of orthodoxy it was because of his being, as he said,\npoor Gravener, up in the clouds, not because he was down in the dust.\nThe man would have been, just as he was, a real enough gentleman if he\ncould have helped to put in a real gentleman.  Gravener’s great objection\nto the actual member was that he was not one.\n\nLady Coxon had a fine old house, a house with “grounds,” at Clockborough,\nwhich she had let; but after she returned from abroad I learned from Mrs.\nSaltram that the lease had fallen in and that she had gone down to resume\npossession.  I could see the faded red livery, the big square shoulders,\nthe high-walled garden of this decent abode.  As the rumble of\ndissolution grew louder the suitor would have pressed his suit, and I\nfound myself hoping the politics of the late Mayor’s widow wouldn’t be\nsuch as to admonish her to ask him to dinner; perhaps indeed I went so\nfar as to pray, they would naturally form a bar to any contact.  I tried\nto focus the many-buttoned page, in the daily airing, as he perhaps even\npushed the Bath-chair over somebody’s toes.  I was destined to hear, none\nthe less, through Mrs. Saltram—who, I afterwards learned, was in\ncorrespondence with Lady Coxon’s housekeeper—that Gravener was known to\nhave spoken of the habitation I had in my eye as the pleasantest thing at\nClockborough.  On his part, I was sure, this was the voice not of envy\nbut of experience.  The vivid scene was now peopled, and I could see him\nin the old-time garden with Miss Anvoy, who would be certain, and very\njustly, to think him good-looking.  It would be too much to describe\nmyself as troubled by this play of surmise; but I occur to remember the\nrelief, singular enough, of feeling it suddenly brushed away by an\nannoyance really much greater; an annoyance the result of its happening\nto come over me about that time with a rush that I was simply ashamed of\nFrank Saltram.  There were limits after all, and my mark at last had been\nreached.\n\nI had had my disgusts, if I may allow myself to-day such an expression;\nbut this was a supreme revolt.  Certain things cleared up in my mind,\ncertain values stood out.  It was all very well to have an unfortunate\ntemperament; there was nothing so unfortunate as to have, for practical\npurposes, nothing else.  I avoided George Gravener at this moment and\nreflected that at such a time I should do so most effectually by leaving\nEngland.  I wanted to forget Frank Saltram—that was all.  I didn’t want\nto do anything in the world to him but that.  Indignation had withered on\nthe stalk, and I felt that one could pity him as much as one ought only\nby never thinking of him again.  It wasn’t for anything he had done to\nme; it was for what he had done to the Mulvilles.  Adelaide cried about\nit for a week, and her husband, profiting by the example so signally\ngiven him of the fatal effect of a want of character, left the letter,\nthe drop too much, unanswered.  The letter, an incredible one, addressed\nby Saltram to Wimbledon during a stay with the Pudneys at Ramsgate, was\nthe central feature of the incident, which, however, had many features,\neach more painful than whichever other we compared it with.  The Pudneys\nhad behaved shockingly, but that was no excuse.  Base ingratitude, gross\nindecency—one had one’s choice only of such formulas as that the more\nthey fitted the less they gave one rest.  These are dead aches now, and I\nam under no obligation, thank heaven, to be definite about the business.\nThere are things which if I had had to tell them—well, would have stopped\nme off here altogether.\n\nI went abroad for the general election, and if I don’t know how much, on\nthe Continent, I forgot, I at least know how much I missed, him.  At a\ndistance, in a foreign land, ignoring, abjuring, unlearning him, I\ndiscovered what he had done for me.  I owed him, oh unmistakeably,\ncertain noble conceptions; I had lighted my little taper at his smoky\nlamp, and lo it continued to twinkle.  But the light it gave me just\nshowed me how much more I wanted.  I was pursued of course by letters\nfrom Mrs. Saltram which I didn’t scruple not to read, though quite aware\nher embarrassments couldn’t but be now of the gravest.  I sacrificed to\npropriety by simply putting them away, and this is how, one day as my\nabsence drew to an end, my eye, while I rummaged in my desk for another\npaper, was caught by a name on a leaf that had detached itself from the\npacket.  The allusion was to Miss Anvoy, who, it appeared, was engaged to\nbe married to Mr. George Gravener; and the news was two months old.  A\ndirect question of Mrs. Saltram’s had thus remained unanswered—she had\nenquired of me in a postscript what sort of man this aspirant to such a\nhand might be.  The great other fact about him just then was that he had\nbeen triumphantly returned for Clockborough in the interest of the party\nthat had swept the country—so that I might easily have referred Mrs.\nSaltram to the journals of the day.  Yet when I at last wrote her that I\nwas coming home and would discharge my accumulated burden by seeing her,\nI but remarked in regard to her question that she must really put it to\nMiss Anvoy.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nI HAD almost avoided the general election, but some of its consequences,\non my return, had smartly to be faced.  The season, in London, began to\nbreathe again and to flap its folded wings.  Confidence, under the new\nMinistry, was understood to be reviving, and one of the symptoms, in a\nsocial body, was a recovery of appetite.  People once more fed together,\nand it happened that, one Saturday night, at somebody’s house, I fed with\nGeorge Gravener.  When the ladies left the room I moved up to where he\nsat and begged to congratulate him.  “On my election?” he asked after a\nmoment; so that I could feign, jocosely, not to have heard of that\ntriumph and to be alluding to the rumour of a victory still more\npersonal.  I dare say I coloured however, for his political success had\nmomentarily passed out of my mind.  What was present to it was that he\nwas to marry that beautiful girl; and yet his question made me conscious\nof some discomposure—I hadn’t intended to put this before everything.  He\nhimself indeed ought gracefully to have done so, and I remember thinking\nthe whole man was in this assumption that in expressing my sense of what\nhe had won I had fixed my thoughts on his “seat.”  We straightened the\nmatter out, and he was so much lighter in hand than I had lately seen him\nthat his spirits might well have been fed from a twofold source.  He was\nso good as to say that he hoped I should soon make the acquaintance of\nMiss Anvoy, who, with her aunt, was presently coming up to town.  Lady\nCoxon, in the country, had been seriously unwell, and this had delayed\ntheir arrival.  I told him I had heard the marriage would be a splendid\none; on which, brightened and humanised by his luck, he laughed and said\n“Do you mean for her?”  When I had again explained what I meant he went\non: “Oh she’s an American, but you’d scarcely know it; unless, perhaps,”\nhe added, “by her being used to more money than most girls in England,\neven the daughters of rich men.  That wouldn’t in the least do for a\nfellow like me, you know, if it wasn’t for the great liberality of her\nfather.  He really has been most kind, and everything’s quite\nsatisfactory.”  He added that his eldest brother had taken a tremendous\nfancy to her and that during a recent visit at Coldfield she had nearly\nwon over Lady Maddock.  I gathered from something he dropped later on\nthat the free-handed gentleman beyond the seas had not made a settlement,\nbut had given a handsome present and was apparently to be looked to,\nacross the water, for other favours.  People are simplified alike by\ngreat contentments and great yearnings, and, whether or no it was\nGravener’s directness that begot my own, I seem to recall that in some\nturn taken by our talk he almost imposed it on me as an act of decorum to\nask if Miss Anvoy had also by chance expectations from her aunt.  My\nenquiry drew out that Lady Coxon, who was the oddest of women, would have\nin any contingency to act under her late husband’s will, which was odder\nstill, saddling her with a mass of queer obligations complicated with\nqueer loopholes.  There were several dreary people, Coxon cousins, old\nmaids, to whom she would have more or less to minister.  Gravener\nlaughed, without saying no, when I suggested that the young lady might\ncome in through a loophole; then suddenly, as if he suspected my turning\na lantern on him, he declared quite dryly: “That’s all rot—one’s moved by\nother springs!”\n\nA fortnight later, at Lady Coxon’s own house, I understood well enough\nthe springs one was moved by.  Gravener had spoken of me there as an old\nfriend, and I received a gracious invitation to dine.  The Knight’s widow\nwas again indisposed—she had succumbed at the eleventh hour; so that I\nfound Miss Anvoy bravely playing hostess without even Gravener’s help,\nsince, to make matters worse, he had just sent up word that the House,\nthe insatiable House, with which he supposed he had contracted for easier\nterms, positively declined to release him.  I was struck with the\ncourage, the grace and gaiety of the young lady left thus to handle the\nfauna and flora of the Regent’s Park.  I did what I could to help her to\nclassify them, after I had recovered from the confusion of seeing her\nslightly disconcerted at perceiving in the guest introduced by her\nintended the gentleman with whom she had had that talk about Frank\nSaltram.  I had at this moment my first glimpse of the fact that she was\na person who could carry a responsibility; but I leave the reader to\njudge of my sense of the aggravation, for either of us, of such a burden,\nwhen I heard the servant announce Mrs. Saltram.  From what immediately\npassed between the two ladies I gathered that the latter had been sent\nfor post-haste to fill the gap created by the absence of the mistress of\nthe house.  “Good!” I remember crying, “she’ll be put by me;” and my\napprehension was promptly justified.  Mrs. Saltram taken in to dinner,\nand taken in as a consequence of an appeal to her amiability, was Mrs.\nSaltram with a vengeance.  I asked myself what Miss Anvoy meant by doing\nsuch things, but the only answer I arrived at was that Gravener was\nverily fortunate.  She hadn’t happened to tell him of her visit to Upper\nBaker Street, but she’d certainly tell him to-morrow; not indeed that\nthis would make him like any better her having had the innocence to\ninvite such a person as Mrs. Saltram on such an occasion.  It could only\nstrike me that I had never seen a young woman put such ignorance into her\ncleverness, such freedom into her modesty; this, I think, was when, after\ndinner, she said to me frankly, with almost jubilant mirth: “Oh you don’t\nadmire Mrs. Saltram?”  Why should I?  This was truly a young person\nwithout guile.  I had briefly to consider before I could reply that my\nobjection to the lady named was the objection often uttered about people\nmet at the social board—I knew all her stories.  Then as Miss Anvoy\nremained momentarily vague I added: “Those about her husband.”\n\n“Oh yes, but there are some new ones.”\n\n“None for me.  Ah novelty would be pleasant!”\n\n“Doesn’t it appear that of late he has been particularly horrid?”\n\n“His fluctuations don’t matter”, I returned, “for at night all cats are\ngrey.  You saw the shade of this one the night we waited for him\ntogether.  What will you have?  He has no dignity.”\n\nMiss Anvoy, who had been introducing with her American distinctness,\nlooked encouragingly round at some of the combinations she had risked.\n“It’s too bad I can’t see him.”\n\n“You mean Gravener won’t let you?”\n\n“I haven’t asked him.  He lets me do everything.”\n\n“But you know he knows him and wonders what some of us see in him.”\n\n“We haven’t happened to talk of him,” the girl said.\n\n“Get him to take you some day out to see the Mulvilles.”\n\n“I thought Mr. Saltram had thrown the Mulvilles over.”\n\n“Utterly.  But that won’t prevent his being planted there again, to bloom\nlike a rose, within a month or two.”\n\nMiss Anvoy thought a moment.  Then, “I should like to see them,” she said\nwith her fostering smile.\n\n“They’re tremendously worth it.  You mustn’t miss them.”\n\n“I’ll make George take me,” she went on as Mrs. Saltram came up to\ninterrupt us.  She sniffed at this unfortunate as kindly as she had\nsmiled at me and, addressing the question to her, continued: “But the\nchance of a lecture—one of the wonderful lectures?  Isn’t there another\ncourse announced?”\n\n“Another?  There are about thirty!” I exclaimed, turning away and feeling\nMrs. Saltram’s little eyes in my back.  A few days after this I heard\nthat Gravener’s marriage was near at hand—was settled for Whitsuntide;\nbut as no invitation had reached me I had my doubts, and there presently\ncame to me in fact the report of a postponement.  Something was the\nmatter; what was the matter was supposed to be that Lady Coxon was now\ncritically ill.  I had called on her after my dinner in the Regent’s\nPark, but I had neither seen her nor seen Miss Anvoy.  I forget to-day\nthe exact order in which, at this period, sundry incidents occurred and\nthe particular stage at which it suddenly struck me, making me catch my\nbreath a little, that the progression, the acceleration, was for all the\nworld that of fine drama.  This was probably rather late in the day, and\nthe exact order doesn’t signify.  What had already occurred was some\naccident determining a more patient wait.  George Gravener, whom I met\nagain, in fact told me as much, but without signs of perturbation.  Lady\nCoxon had to be constantly attended to, and there were other good reasons\nas well.  Lady Coxon had to be so constantly attended to that on the\noccasion of a second attempt in the Regent’s Park I equally failed to\nobtain a sight of her niece.  I judged it discreet in all the conditions\nnot to make a third; but this didn’t matter, for it was through Adelaide\nMulville that the side-wind of the comedy, though I was at first\nunwitting, began to reach me.  I went to Wimbledon at times because\nSaltram was there, and I went at others because he wasn’t.  The Pudneys,\nwho had taken him to Birmingham, had already got rid of him, and we had a\nhorrible consciousness of his wandering roofless, in dishonour, about the\nsmoky Midlands, almost as the injured Lear wandered on the storm-lashed\nheath.  His room, upstairs, had been lately done up (I could hear the\ncrackle of the new chintz) and the difference only made his smirches and\nbruises, his splendid tainted genius, the more tragic.  If he wasn’t\nbarefoot in the mire he was sure to be unconventionally shod.  These were\nthe things Adelaide and I, who were old enough friends to stare at each\nother in silence, talked about when we didn’t speak.  When we spoke it\nwas only about the brilliant girl George Gravener was to marry and whom\nhe had brought out the other Sunday.  I could see that this presentation\nhad been happy, for Mrs. Mulville commemorated it after her sole fashion\nof showing confidence in a new relation.  “She likes me—she likes me”:\nher native humility exulted in that measure of success.  We all knew for\nourselves how she liked those who liked her, and as regards Ruth Anvoy\nshe was more easily won over than Lady Maddock.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nONE of the consequences, for the Mulvilles, of the sacrifices they made\nfor Frank Saltram was that they had to give up their carriage.  Adelaide\ndrove gently into London in a one-horse greenish thing, an early\nVictorian landau, hired, near at hand, imaginatively, from a broken-down\njobmaster whose wife was in consumption—a vehicle that made people turn\nround all the more when her pensioner sat beside her in a soft white hat\nand a shawl, one of the dear woman’s own.  This was his position and I\ndare say his costume when on an afternoon in July she went to return Miss\nAnvoy’s visit.  The wheel of fate had now revolved, and amid silences\ndeep and exhaustive, compunctions and condonations alike unutterable,\nSaltram was reinstated.  Was it in pride or in penance that Mrs. Mulville\nhad begun immediately to drive him about?  If he was ashamed of his\ningratitude she might have been ashamed of her forgiveness; but she was\nincorrigibly capable of liking him to be conspicuous in the landau while\nshe was in shops or with her acquaintance.  However, if he was in the\npillory for twenty minutes in the Regent’s Park—I mean at Lady Coxon’s\ndoor while his companion paid her call—it wasn’t to the further\nhumiliation of any one concerned that she presently came out for him in\nperson, not even to show either of them what a fool she was that she drew\nhim in to be introduced to the bright young American.  Her account of the\nintroduction I had in its order, but before that, very late in the\nseason, under Gravener’s auspices, I met Miss Anvoy at tea at the House\nof Commons.  The member for Clockborough had gathered a group of pretty\nladies, and the Mulvilles were not of the party.  On the great terrace,\nas I strolled off with her a little, the guest of honour immediately\nexclaimed to me: “I’ve seen him, you know—I’ve seen him!”  She told me\nabout Saltram’s call.\n\n“And how did you find him?”\n\n“Oh so strange!”\n\n“You didn’t like him?”\n\n“I can’t tell till I see him again.”\n\n“You want to do that?”\n\nShe had a pause.  “Immensely.”\n\nWe went no further; I fancied she had become aware Gravener was looking\nat us.  She turned back toward the knot of the others, and I said:\n“Dislike him as much as you will—I see you’re bitten.”\n\n“Bitten?”  I thought she coloured a little.\n\n“Oh it doesn’t matter!” I laughed; “one doesn’t die of it.”\n\n“I hope I shan’t die of anything before I’ve seen more of Mrs. Mulville.”\nI rejoiced with her over plain Adelaide, whom she pronounced the\nloveliest woman she had met in England; but before we separated I\nremarked to her that it was an act of mere humanity to warn her that if\nshe should see more of Frank Saltram—which would be likely to follow on\nany increase of acquaintance with Mrs. Mulville—she might find herself\nflattening her nose against the clear hard pane of an eternal\nquestion—that of the relative, that of the opposed, importances of virtue\nand brains.  She replied that this was surely a subject on which one took\neverything for granted; whereupon I admitted that I had perhaps expressed\nmyself ill.  What I referred to was what I had referred to the night we\nmet in Upper Baker Street—the relative importance (relative to virtue) of\nother gifts.  She asked me if I called virtue a gift—a thing handed to us\nin a parcel on our first birthday; and I declared that this very enquiry\nproved to me the problem had already caught her by the skirt.  She would\nhave help however, the same help I myself had once had, in resisting its\ntendency to make one cross.\n\n“What help do you mean?”\n\n“That of the member for Clockborough.”\n\nShe stared, smiled, then returned: “Why my idea has been to help him!”\n\nShe had helped him—I had his own word for it that at Clockborough her\nbedevilment of the voters had really put him in.  She would do so\ndoubtless again and again, though I heard the very next month that this\nfine faculty had undergone a temporary eclipse.  News of the catastrophe\nfirst came to me from Mrs. Saltram, and it was afterwards confirmed at\nWimbledon: poor Miss Anvoy was in trouble—great disasters in America had\nsuddenly summoned her home.  Her father, in New York, had suffered\nreverses, lost so much money that it was really vexatious as showing how\nmuch he had had.  It was Adelaide who told me she had gone off alone at\nless than a week’s notice.\n\n“Alone?  Gravener has permitted that?”\n\n“What will you have?  The House of Commons!”\n\nI’m afraid I cursed the House of Commons: I was so much interested.  Of\ncourse he’d follow her as soon as he was free to make her his wife; only\nshe mightn’t now be able to bring him anything like the marriage-portion\nof which he had begun by having the virtual promise.  Mrs. Mulville let\nme know what was already said: she was charming, this American girl, but\nreally these American fathers—!  What was a man to do?  Mr. Saltram,\naccording to Mrs. Mulville, was of opinion that a man was never to suffer\nhis relation to money to become a spiritual relation—he was to keep it\nexclusively material.  “Moi pas comprendre!” I commented on this; in\nrejoinder to which Adelaide, with her beautiful sympathy, explained that\nshe supposed he simply meant that the thing was to use it, don’t you\nknow? but not to think too much about it.  “To take it, but not to thank\nyou for it?” I still more profanely enquired.  For a quarter of an hour\nafterwards she wouldn’t look at me, but this didn’t prevent my asking her\nwhat had been the result, that afternoon—in the Regent’s Park, of her\ntaking our friend to see Miss Anvoy.\n\n“Oh so charming!” she answered, brightening.  “He said he recognised in\nher a nature he could absolutely trust.”\n\n“Yes, but I’m speaking of the effect on herself.”\n\nMrs. Mulville had to remount the stream.  “It was everything one could\nwish.”\n\nSomething in her tone made me laugh.  “Do you mean she gave him—a dole?”\n\n“Well, since you ask me!”\n\n“Right there on the spot?”\n\nAgain poor Adelaide faltered.  “It was to me of course she gave it.”\n\nI stared; somehow I couldn’t see the scene.  “Do you mean a sum of\nmoney?”\n\n“It was very handsome.”  Now at last she met my eyes, though I could see\nit was with an effort.  “Thirty pounds.”\n\n“Straight out of her pocket?”\n\n“Out of the drawer of a table at which she had been writing.  She just\nslipped the folded notes into my hand.  He wasn’t looking; it was while\nhe was going back to the carriage.”  “Oh,” said Adelaide reassuringly, “I\ntake care of it for him!”  The dear practical soul thought my agitation,\nfor I confess I was agitated, referred to the employment of the money.\nHer disclosure made me for a moment muse violently, and I dare say that\nduring that moment I wondered if anything else in the world makes people\nso gross as unselfishness.  I uttered, I suppose, some vague synthetic\ncry, for she went on as if she had had a glimpse of my inward amaze at\nsuch passages.  “I assure you, my dear friend, he was in one of his happy\nhours.”\n\nBut I wasn’t thinking of that.  “Truly indeed these Americans!” I said.\n“With her father in the very act, as it were, of swindling her\nbetrothed!”\n\nMrs. Mulville stared.  “Oh I suppose Mr. Anvoy has scarcely gone\nbankrupt—or whatever he has done—on purpose.  Very likely they won’t be\nable to keep it up, but there it was, and it was a very beautiful\nimpulse.”\n\n“You say Saltram was very fine?”\n\n“Beyond everything.  He surprised even me.”\n\n“And I know what you’ve enjoyed.”  After a moment I added: “Had he\nperadventure caught a glimpse of the money in the table-drawer?”\n\nAt this my companion honestly flushed.  “How can you be so cruel when you\nknow how little he calculates?”\n\n“Forgive me, I do know it.  But you tell me things that act on my nerves.\nI’m sure he hadn’t caught a glimpse of anything but some splendid idea.”\n\nMrs. Mulville brightly concurred.  “And perhaps even of her beautiful\nlistening face.”\n\n“Perhaps even!  And what was it all about?”\n\n“His talk?  It was apropos of her engagement, which I had told him about:\nthe idea of marriage, the philosophy, the poetry, the sublimity of it.”\nIt was impossible wholly to restrain one’s mirth at this, and some rude\nripple that I emitted again caused my companion to admonish me.  “It\nsounds a little stale, but you know his freshness.”\n\n“Of illustration?  Indeed I do!”\n\n“And how he has always been right on that great question.”\n\n“On what great question, dear lady, hasn’t he been right?”\n\n“Of what other great men can you equally say it?—and that he has never,\nbut never, had a deflexion?” Mrs. Mulville exultantly demanded.\n\nI tried to think of some other great man, but I had to give it up.\n“Didn’t Miss Anvoy express her satisfaction in any less diffident way\nthan by her charming present?” I was reduced to asking instead.\n\n“Oh yes, she overflowed to me on the steps while he was getting into the\ncarriage.”  These words somehow brushed up a picture of Saltram’s big\nshawled back as he hoisted himself into the green landau.  “She said she\nwasn’t disappointed,” Adelaide pursued.\n\nI turned it over.  “Did he wear his shawl?”\n\n“His shawl?”  She hadn’t even noticed.\n\n“I mean yours.”\n\n“He looked very nice, and you know he’s really clean.  Miss Anvoy used\nsuch a remarkable expression—she said his mind’s like a crystal!”\n\nI pricked up my ears.  “A crystal?”\n\n“Suspended in the moral world—swinging and shining and flashing there.\nShe’s monstrously clever, you know.”\n\nI thought again.  “Monstrously!”\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nGEORGE GRAVENER didn’t follow her, for late in September, after the House\nhad risen, I met him in a railway-carriage.  He was coming up from\nScotland and I had just quitted some relations who lived near Durham.\nThe current of travel back to London wasn’t yet strong; at any rate on\nentering the compartment I found he had had it for some time to himself.\nWe fared in company, and though he had a blue-book in his lap and the\nopen jaws of his bag threatened me with the white teeth of confused\npapers, we inevitably, we even at last sociably conversed.  I saw things\nweren’t well with him, but I asked no question till something dropped by\nhimself made, as it had made on another occasion, an absence of curiosity\ninvidious.  He mentioned that he was worried about his good old friend\nLady Coxon, who, with her niece likely to be detained some time in\nAmerica, lay seriously ill at Clockborough, much on his mind and on his\nhands.\n\n“Ah Miss Anvoy’s in America?”\n\n“Her father has got into horrid straits—has lost no end of money.”\n\nI waited, after expressing due concern, but I eventually said: “I hope\nthat raises no objection to your marriage.”\n\n“None whatever; moreover it’s my trade to meet objections.  But it may\ncreate tiresome delays, of which there have been too many, from various\ncauses, already.  Lady Coxon got very bad, then she got much better.\nThen Mr. Anvoy suddenly began to totter, and now he seems quite on his\nback.  I’m afraid he’s really in for some big reverse.  Lady Coxon’s\nworse again, awfully upset by the news from America, and she sends me\nword that she _must_ have Ruth.  How can I supply her with Ruth?  I\nhaven’t got Ruth myself!”\n\n“Surely you haven’t lost her?” I returned.\n\n“She’s everything to her wretched father.  She writes me every\npost—telling me to smooth her aunt’s pillow.  I’ve other things to\nsmooth; but the old lady, save for her servants, is really alone.  She\nwon’t receive her Coxon relations—she’s angry at so much of her money\ngoing to them.  Besides, she’s hopelessly mad,” said Gravener very\nfrankly.\n\nI don’t remember whether it was this, or what it was, that made me ask if\nshe hadn’t such an appreciation of Mrs. Saltram as might render that\nactive person of some use.\n\nHe gave me a cold glance, wanting to know what had put Mrs. Saltram into\nmy head, and I replied that she was unfortunately never out of it.  I\nhappened to remember the wonderful accounts she had given me of the\nkindness Lady Coxon had shown her.  Gravener declared this to be false;\nLady Coxon, who didn’t care for her, hadn’t seen her three times.  The\nonly foundation for it was that Miss Anvoy, who used, poor girl, to chuck\nmoney about in a manner she must now regret, had for an hour seen in the\nmiserable woman—you could never know what she’d see in people—an\ninteresting pretext for the liberality with which her nature overflowed.\nBut even Miss Anvoy was now quite tired of her.  Gravener told me more\nabout the crash in New York and the annoyance it had been to him, and we\nalso glanced here and there in other directions; but by the time we got\nto Doncaster the principal thing he had let me see was that he was\nkeeping something back.  We stopped at that station, and, at the\ncarriage-door, some one made a movement to get in.  Gravener uttered a\nsound of impatience, and I felt sure that but for this I should have had\nthe secret.  Then the intruder, for some reason, spared us his company;\nwe started afresh, and my hope of a disclosure returned.  My companion\nheld his tongue, however, and I pretended to go to sleep; in fact I\nreally dozed for discouragement.  When I reopened my eyes he was looking\nat me with an injured air.  He tossed away with some vivacity the remnant\nof a cigarette and then said: “If you’re not too sleepy I want to put you\na case.”  I answered that I’d make every effort to attend, and welcomed\nthe note of interest when he went on: “As I told you a while ago, Lady\nCoxon, poor dear, is demented.”  His tone had much behind it—was full of\npromise.  I asked if her ladyship’s misfortune were a trait of her malady\nor only of her character, and he pronounced it a product of both.  The\ncase he wanted to put to me was a matter on which it concerned him to\nhave the impression—the judgement, he might also say—of another person.\n“I mean of the average intelligent man, but you see I take what I can\nget.” There would be the technical, the strictly legal view; then there\nwould be the way the question would strike a man of the world.  He had\nlighted another cigarette while he talked, and I saw he was glad to have\nit to handle when he brought out at last, with a laugh slightly\nartificial: “In fact it’s a subject on which Miss Anvoy and I are pulling\ndifferent ways.”\n\n“And you want me to decide between you?  I decide in advance for Miss\nAnvoy.”\n\n“In advance—that’s quite right.  That’s how I decided when I proposed to\nher.  But my story will interest you only so far as your mind isn’t made\nup.”  Gravener puffed his cigarette a minute and then continued: “Are you\nfamiliar with the idea of the Endowment of Research?”\n\n“Of Research?” I was at sea a moment.\n\n“I give you Lady Coxon’s phrase.  She has it on the brain.”\n\n“She wishes to endow—?”\n\n“Some earnest and ‘loyal’ seeker,” Gravener said.  “It was a sketchy\ndesign of her late husband’s, and he handed it on to her; setting apart\nin his will a sum of money of which she was to enjoy the interest for\nlife, but of which, should she eventually see her opportunity—the matter\nwas left largely to her discretion—she would best honour his memory by\ndetermining the exemplary public use.  This sum of money, no less than\nthirteen thousand pounds, was to be called The Coxon Fund; and poor Sir\nGregory evidently proposed to himself that The Coxon Fund should cover\nhis name with glory—be universally desired and admired.  He left his wife\na full declaration of his views, so far at least as that term may be\napplied to views vitiated by a vagueness really infantine.  A little\nlearning’s a dangerous thing, and a good citizen who happens to have been\nan ass is worse for a community than bad sewerage.  He’s worst of all\nwhen he’s dead, because then he can’t be stopped.  However, such as they\nwere, the poor man’s aspirations are now in his wife’s bosom, or\nfermenting rather in her foolish brain: it lies with her to carry them\nout.  But of course she must first catch her hare.”\n\n“Her earnest loyal seeker?”\n\n“The flower that blushes unseen for want of such a pecuniary independence\nas may aid the light that’s in it to shine upon the human race.  The\nindividual, in a word, who, having the rest of the machinery, the\nspiritual, the intellectual, is most hampered in his search.”\n\n“His search for what?”\n\n“For Moral Truth.  That’s what Sir Gregory calls it.”\n\nI burst out laughing.  “Delightful munificent Sir Gregory!  It’s a\ncharming idea.”\n\n“So Miss Anvoy thinks.”\n\n“Has she a candidate for the Fund?”\n\n“Not that I know of—and she’s perfectly reasonable about it.  But Lady\nCoxon has put the matter before her, and we’ve naturally had a lot of\ntalk.”\n\n“Talk that, as you’ve so interestingly intimated, has landed you in a\ndisagreement.”\n\n“She considers there’s something in it,” Gravener said.\n\n“And you consider there’s nothing?”\n\n“It seems to me a piece of solemn twaddle—which can’t fail to be attended\nwith consequences certainly grotesque and possibly immoral.  To begin\nwith, fancy constituting an endowment without establishing a tribunal—a\nbench of competent people, of judges.”\n\n“The sole tribunal is Lady Coxon?”\n\n“And any one she chooses to invite.”\n\n“But she has invited you,” I noted.\n\n“I’m not competent—I hate the thing.  Besides, she hasn’t,” my friend\nwent on.  “The real history of the matter, I take it, is that the\ninspiration was originally Lady Coxon’s own, that she infected him with\nit, and that the flattering option left her is simply his tribute to her\nbeautiful, her aboriginal enthusiasm.  She came to England forty years\nago, a thin transcendental Bostonian, and even her odd happy frumpy\nClockborough marriage never really materialised her.  She feels indeed\nthat she has become very British—as if that, as a process, as a ‘Werden,’\nas anything but an original sign of grace, were conceivable; but it’s\nprecisely what makes her cling to the notion of the ‘Fund’—cling to it as\nto a link with the ideal.”\n\n“How can she cling if she’s dying?”\n\n“Do you mean how can she act in the matter?” Gravener asked.  “That’s\nprecisely the question.  She can’t!  As she has never yet caught her\nhare, never spied out her lucky impostor—how should she, with the life\nshe has led?—her husband’s intention has come very near lapsing.  His\nidea, to do him justice, was that it _should_ lapse if exactly the right\nperson, the perfect mixture of genius and chill penury, should fail to\nturn up.  Ah the poor dear woman’s very particular—she says there must be\nno mistake.”\n\nI found all this quite thrilling—I took it in with avidity.  “And if she\ndies without doing anything, what becomes of the money?” I demanded.\n\n“It goes back to his family, if she hasn’t made some other disposition of\nit.”\n\n“She may do that then—she may divert it?”\n\n“Her hands are not tied.  She has a grand discretion.  The proof is that\nthree months ago she offered to make the proceeds over to her niece.”\n\n“For Miss Anvoy’s own use?”\n\n“For Miss Anvoy’s own use—on the occasion of her prospective marriage.\nShe was discouraged—the earnest seeker required so earnest a search.  She\nwas afraid of making a mistake; every one she could think of seemed\neither not earnest enough or not poor enough.  On the receipt of the\nfirst bad news about Mr. Anvoy’s affairs she proposed to Ruth to make the\nsacrifice for her.  As the situation in New York got worse she repeated\nher proposal.”\n\n“Which Miss Anvoy declined?”\n\n“Except as a formal trust.”\n\n“You mean except as committing herself legally to place the money?”\n\n“On the head of the deserving object, the great man frustrated,” said\nGravener.  “She only consents to act in the spirit of Sir Gregory’s\nscheme.”\n\n“And you blame her for that?” I asked with some intensity.\n\nMy tone couldn’t have been harsh, but he coloured a little and there was\na queer light in his eye.  “My dear fellow, if I ‘blamed’ the young lady\nI’m engaged to I shouldn’t immediately say it even to so old a friend as\nyou.”  I saw that some deep discomfort, some restless desire to be sided\nwith, reassuringly, approvingly mirrored, had been at the bottom of his\ndrifting so far, and I was genuinely touched by his confidence.  It was\ninconsistent with his habits; but being troubled about a woman was not,\nfor him, a habit: that itself was an inconsistency.  George Gravener\ncould stand straight enough before any other combination of forces.  It\namused me to think that the combination he had succumbed to had an\nAmerican accent, a transcendental aunt and an insolvent father; but all\nmy old loyalty to him mustered to meet this unexpected hint that I could\nhelp him.  I saw that I could from the insincere tone in which he\npursued: “I’ve criticised her of course, I’ve contended with her, and it\nhas been great fun.”  Yet it clearly couldn’t have been such great fun as\nto make it improper for me presently to ask if Miss Anvoy had nothing at\nall settled on herself.  To this he replied that she had only a trifle\nfrom her mother—a mere four hundred a year, which was exactly why it\nwould be convenient to him that she shouldn’t decline, in the face of\nthis total change in her prospects, an accession of income which would\ndistinctly help them to marry.  When I enquired if there were no other\nway in which so rich and so affectionate an aunt could cause the weight\nof her benevolence to be felt, he answered that Lady Coxon was\naffectionate indeed, but was scarcely to be called rich.  She could let\nher project of the Fund lapse for her niece’s benefit, but she couldn’t\ndo anything else.  She had been accustomed to regard her as tremendously\nprovided for, and she was up to her eyes in promises to anxious Coxons.\nShe was a woman of an inordinate conscience, and her conscience was now a\ndistress to her, hovering round her bed in irreconcilable forms of\nresentful husbands, portionless nieces and undiscoverable philosophers.\n\nWe were by this time getting into the whirr of fleeting platforms, the\nmultiplication of lights.  “I think you’ll find,” I said with a laugh,\n“that your predicament will disappear in the very fact that the\nphilosopher _is_ undiscoverable.”\n\nHe began to gather up his papers.  “Who can set a limit to the ingenuity\nof an extravagant woman?”\n\n“Yes, after all, who indeed?” I echoed as I recalled the extravagance\ncommemorated in Adelaide’s anecdote of Miss Anvoy and the thirty pounds.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nTHE thing I had been most sensible of in that talk with George Gravener\nwas the way Saltram’s name kept out of it.  It seemed to me at the time\nthat we were quite pointedly silent about him; but afterwards it appeared\nmore probable there had been on my companion’s part no conscious\navoidance.  Later on I was sure of this, and for the best of reasons—the\nsimple reason of my perceiving more completely that, for evil as well as\nfor good, he said nothing to Gravener’s imagination.  That honest man\ndidn’t fear him—he was too much disgusted with him.  No more did I,\ndoubtless, and for very much the same reason.  I treated my friend’s\nstory as an absolute confidence; but when before Christmas, by Mrs.\nSaltram, I was informed of Lady Coxon’s death without having had news of\nMiss Anvoy’s return, I found myself taking for granted we should hear no\nmore of these nuptials, in which, as obscurely unnatural, I now saw I had\nnever _too_ disconcertedly believed.  I began to ask myself how people\nwho suited each other so little could please each other so much.  The\ncharm was some material charm, some afffinity, exquisite doubtless, yet\nsuperficial some surrender to youth and beauty and passion, to force and\ngrace and fortune, happy accidents and easy contacts.  They might dote on\neach other’s persons, but how could they know each other’s souls?  How\ncould they have the same prejudices, how could they have the same\nhorizon?  Such questions, I confess, seemed quenched but not answered\nwhen, one day in February, going out to Wimbledon, I found our young lady\nin the house.  A passion that had brought her back across the wintry\nocean was as much of a passion as was needed.  No impulse equally strong\nindeed had drawn George Gravener to America; a circumstance on which,\nhowever, I reflected only long enough to remind myself that it was none\nof my business.  Ruth Anvoy was distinctly different, and I felt that the\ndifference was not simply that of her marks of mourning.  Mrs. Mulville\ntold me soon enough what it was: it was the difference between a handsome\ngirl with large expectations and a handsome girl with only four hundred a\nyear.  This explanation indeed didn’t wholly content me, not even when I\nlearned that her mourning had a double cause—learned that poor Mr. Anvoy,\ngiving way altogether, buried under the ruins of his fortune and leaving\nnext to nothing, had died a few weeks before.\n\n“So she has come out to marry George Gravener?” I commented.  “Wouldn’t\nit have been prettier of him to have saved her the trouble?”\n\n“Hasn’t the House just met?” Adelaide replied.  “And for Mr. Gravener the\nHouse—!”  Then she added: “I gather that her having come is exactly a\nsign that the marriage is a little shaky.  If it were quite all right a\nself-respecting girl like Ruth would have waited for him over there.”\n\nI noted that they were already Ruth and Adelaide, but what I said was:\n“Do you mean she’ll have had to return to _make_ it so?”\n\n“No, I mean that she must have come out for some reason independent of\nit.”  Adelaide could only surmise, however, as yet, and there was more,\nas we found, to be revealed.  Mrs. Mulville, on hearing of her arrival,\nhad brought the young lady out in the green landau for the Sunday.  The\nCoxons were in possession of the house in Regent’s Park, and Miss Anvoy\nwas in dreary lodgings.  George Gravener had been with her when Adelaide\ncalled, but had assented graciously enough to the little visit at\nWimbledon.  The carriage, with Mr. Saltram in it but not mentioned, had\nbeen sent off on some errand from which it was to return and pick the\nladies up.  Gravener had left them together, and at the end of an hour,\non the Saturday afternoon, the party of three had driven out to\nWimbledon.  This was the girl’s second glimpse of our great man, and I\nwas interested in asking Mrs. Mulville if the impression made by the\nfirst appeared to have been confirmed.  On her replying after\nconsideration, that of course with time and opportunity it couldn’t fail\nto be, but that she was disappointed, I was sufficiently struck with her\nuse of this last word to question her further.\n\n“Do you mean you’re disappointed because you judge Miss Anvoy to be?”\n\n“Yes; I hoped for a greater effect last evening.  We had two or three\npeople, but he scarcely opened his mouth.”\n\n“He’ll be all the better to-night,” I opined after a moment.  Then I\npursued: “What particular importance do you attach to the idea of her\nbeing impressed?”\n\nAdelaide turned her mild pale eyes on me as for rebuke of my levity.\n“Why the importance of her being as happy as _we_ are!”\n\nI’m afraid that at this my levity grew.  “Oh that’s a happiness almost\ntoo great to wish a person!”  I saw she hadn’t yet in her mind what I had\nin mine, and at any rate the visitor’s actual bliss was limited to a walk\nin the garden with Kent Mulville.  Later in the afternoon I also took\none, and I saw nothing of Miss Anvoy till dinner, at which we failed of\nthe company of Saltram, who had caused it to be reported that he was\nindisposed and lying down.  This made us, most of us—for there were other\nfriends present—convey to each other in silence some of the unutterable\nthings that in those years our eyes had inevitably acquired the art of\nexpressing.  If a fine little American enquirer hadn’t been there we\nwould have expressed them otherwise, and Adelaide would have pretended\nnot to hear.  I had seen her, before the very fact, abstract herself\nnobly; and I knew that more than once, to keep it from the servants,\nmanaging, dissimulating cleverly, she had helped her husband to carry him\nbodily to his room.  Just recently he had been so wise and so deep and so\nhigh that I had begun to get nervous—to wonder if by chance there were\nsomething behind it, if he were kept straight for instance by the\nknowledge that the hated Pudneys would have more to tell us if they\nchose.  He was lying low, but unfortunately it was common wisdom with us\nin this connexion that the biggest splashes took place in the quietest\npools.  We should have had a merry life indeed if all the splashes had\nsprinkled us as refreshingly as the waters we were even then to feel\nabout our ears.  Kent Mulville had been up to his room, but had come back\nwith a face that told as few tales as I had seen it succeed in telling on\nthe evening I waited in the lecture-room with Miss Anvoy.  I said to\nmyself that our friend had gone out, but it was a comfort that the\npresence of a comparative stranger deprived us of the dreary duty of\nsuggesting to each other, in respect of his errand, edifying\npossibilities in which we didn’t ourselves believe.  At ten o’clock he\ncame into the drawing-room with his waistcoat much awry but his eyes\nsending out great signals.  It was precisely with his entrance that I\nceased to be vividly conscious of him.  I saw that the crystal, as I had\ncalled it, had begun to swing, and I had need of my immediate attention\nfor Miss Anvoy.\n\nEven when I was told afterwards that he had, as we might have said\nto-day, broken the record, the manner in which that attention had been\nrewarded relieved me of a sense of loss.  I had of course a perfect\ngeneral consciousness that something great was going on: it was a little\nlike having been etherised to hear Herr Joachim play.  The old music was\nin the air; I felt the strong pulse of thought, the sink and swell, the\nflight, the poise, the plunge; but I knew something about one of the\nlisteners that nobody else knew, and Saltram’s monologue could reach me\nonly through that medium.  To this hour I’m of no use when, as a witness,\nI’m appealed to—for they still absurdly contend about it—as to whether or\nno on that historic night he was drunk; and my position is slightly\nridiculous, for I’ve never cared to tell them what it really was I was\ntaken up with.  What I got out of it is the only morsel of the total\nexperience that is quite my own.  The others were shared, but this is\nincommunicable.  I feel that now, I’m bound to say, even in thus roughly\nevoking the occasion, and it takes something from my pride of clearness.\nHowever, I shall perhaps be as clear as is absolutely needful if I remark\nthat our young lady was too much given up to her own intensity of\nobservation to be sensible of mine.  It was plainly not the question of\nher marriage that had brought her back.  I greatly enjoyed this discovery\nand was sure that had that question alone been involved she would have\nstirred no step.  In this case doubtless Gravener would, in spite of the\nHouse of Commons, have found means to rejoin her.  It afterwards made me\nuncomfortable for her that, alone in the lodging Mrs. Mulville had put\nbefore me as dreary, she should have in any degree the air of waiting for\nher fate; so that I was presently relieved at hearing of her having gone\nto stay at Coldfield.  If she was in England at all while the engagement\nstood the only proper place for her was under Lady Maddock’s wing.  Now\nthat she was unfortunate and relatively poor, perhaps her prospective\nsister-in-law would be wholly won over.\n\nThere would be much to say, if I had space, about the way her behaviour,\nas I caught gleams of it, ministered to the image that had taken birth in\nmy mind, to my private amusement, while that other night I listened to\nGeorge Gravener in the railway-carriage.  I watched her in the light of\nthis queer possibility—a formidable thing certainly to meet—and I was\naware that it coloured, extravagantly perhaps, my interpretation of her\nvery looks and tones.  At Wimbledon for instance it had appeared to me\nshe was literally afraid of Saltram, in dread of a coercion that she had\nbegun already to feel.  I had come up to town with her the next day and\nhad been convinced that, though deeply interested, she was immensely on\nher guard.  She would show as little as possible before she should be\nready to show everything.  What this final exhibition might be on the\npart of a girl perceptibly so able to think things out I found it great\nsport to forecast.  It would have been exciting to be approached by her,\nappealed to by her for advice; but I prayed to heaven I mightn’t find\nmyself in such a predicament.  If there was really a present rigour in\nthe situation of which Gravener had sketched for me the elements, she\nwould have to get out of her difficulty by herself.  It wasn’t I who had\nlaunched her and it wasn’t I who could help her.  I didn’t fail to ask\nmyself why, since I couldn’t help her, I should think so much about her.\nIt was in part my suspense that was responsible for this; I waited\nimpatiently to see whether she wouldn’t have told Mrs. Mulville a portion\nat least of what I had learned from Gravener.  But I saw Mrs. Mulville\nwas still reduced to wonder what she had come out again for if she hadn’t\ncome as a conciliatory bride.  That she had come in some other character\nwas the only thing that fitted all the appearances.  Having for family\nreasons to spend some time that spring in the west of England, I was in a\nmanner out of earshot of the great oceanic rumble—I mean of the\ncontinuous hum of Saltram’s thought—and my uneasiness tended to keep me\nquiet.  There was something I wanted so little to have to say that my\nprudence surmounted my curiosity.  I only wondered if Ruth Anvoy talked\nover the idea of The Coxon Fund with Lady Maddock, and also somewhat why\nI didn’t hear from Wimbledon.  I had a reproachful note about something\nor other from Mrs. Saltram, but it contained no mention of Lady Coxon’s\nniece, on whom her eyes had been much less fixed since the recent\nuntoward events.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nPOOR Adelaide’s silence was fully explained later—practically explained\nwhen in June, returning to London, I was honoured by this admirable woman\nwith an early visit.  As soon as she arrived I guessed everything, and as\nsoon as she told me that darling Ruth had been in her house nearly a\nmonth I had my question ready.  “What in the name of maidenly modesty is\nshe staying in England for?”\n\n“Because she loves me so!” cried Adelaide gaily.  But she hadn’t come to\nsee me only to tell me Miss Anvoy loved her: that was quite sufficiently\nestablished, and what was much more to the point was that Mr. Gravener\nhad now raised an objection to it.  He had protested at least against her\nbeing at Wimbledon, where in the innocence of his heart he had originally\nbrought her himself; he called on her to put an end to their engagement\nin the only proper, the only happy manner.\n\n“And why in the world doesn’t she do do?” I asked.\n\nAdelaide had a pause.  “She says you know.”\n\nThen on my also hesitating she added: “A condition he makes.”\n\n“The Coxon Fund?” I panted.\n\n“He has mentioned to her his having told you about it.”\n\n“Ah but so little!  Do you mean she has accepted the trust?”\n\n“In the most splendid spirit—as a duty about which there can be no two\nopinions.”  To which my friend added: “Of course she’s thinking of Mr.\nSaltram.”\n\nI gave a quick cry at this, which, in its violence, made my visitor turn\npale.  “How very awful!”\n\n“Awful?”\n\n“Why, to have anything to do with such an idea one’s self.”\n\n“I’m sure _you_ needn’t!” and Mrs. Mulville tossed her head.\n\n“He isn’t good enough!” I went on; to which she opposed a sound almost as\ncontentious as my own had been.  This made me, with genuine immediate\nhorror, exclaim: “You haven’t influenced her, I hope!” and my emphasis\nbrought back the blood with a rush to poor Adelaide’s face.  She declared\nwhile she blushed—for I had frightened her again—that she had never\ninfluenced anybody and that the girl had only seen and heard and judged\nfor herself.  _He_ had influenced her, if I would, as he did every one\nwho had a soul: that word, as we knew, even expressed feebly the power of\nthe things he said to haunt the mind.  How could she, Adelaide, help it\nif Miss Anvoy’s mind was haunted?  I demanded with a groan what right a\npretty girl engaged to a rising M.P. had to _have_ a mind; but the only\nexplanation my bewildered friend could give me was that she was so\nclever.  She regarded Mr. Saltram naturally as a tremendous force for\ngood.  She was intelligent enough to understand him and generous enough\nto admire.\n\n“She’s many things enough, but is she, among them, rich enough?” I\ndemanded.  “Rich enough, I mean, to sacrifice such a lot of good money?”\n\n“That’s for herself to judge.  Besides, it’s not her own money; she\ndoesn’t in the least consider it so.”\n\n“And Gravener does, if not _his_ own; and that’s the whole difficulty?”\n\n“The difficulty that brought her back, yes: she had absolutely to see her\npoor aunt’s solicitor.  It’s clear that by Lady Coxon’s will she may have\nthe money, but it’s still clearer to her conscience that the original\ncondition, definite, intensely implied on her uncle’s part, is attached\nto the use of it.  She can only take one view of it.  It’s for the\nEndowment or it’s for nothing.”\n\n“The Endowment,” I permitted myself to observe, “is a conception\nsuperficially sublime, but fundamentally ridiculous.”\n\n“Are you repeating Mr. Gravener’s words?” Adelaide asked.\n\n“Possibly, though I’ve not seen him for months.  It’s simply the way it\nstrikes me too.  It’s an old wife’s tale.  Gravener made some reference\nto the legal aspect, but such an absurdly loose arrangement has _no_\nlegal aspect.”\n\n“Ruth doesn’t insist on that,” said Mrs. Mulville; “and it’s, for her,\nexactly this technical weakness that constitutes the force of the moral\nobligation.”\n\n“Are you repeating _her_ words?” I enquired.  I forget what else Adelaide\nsaid, but she said she was magnificent.  I thought of George Gravener\nconfronted with such magnificence as that, and I asked what could have\nmade two such persons ever suppose they understood each other.  Mrs.\nMulville assured me the girl loved him as such a woman could love and\nthat she suffered as such a woman could suffer.  Nevertheless she wanted\nto see _me_.  At this I sprang up with a groan.  “Oh I’m so sorry!—when?”\nSmall though her sense of humour, I think Adelaide laughed at my\nsequence.  We discussed the day, the nearest it would be convenient I\nshould come out; but before she went I asked my visitor how long she had\nbeen acquainted with these prodigies.\n\n“For several weeks, but I was pledged to secrecy.”\n\n“And that’s why you didn’t write?”\n\n“I couldn’t very well tell you she was with me without telling you that\nno time had even yet been fixed for her marriage.  And I couldn’t very\nwell tell you as much as that without telling you what I knew of the\nreason of it.  It was not till a day or two ago,” Mrs. Mulville went on,\n“that she asked me to ask you if you wouldn’t come and see her.  Then at\nlast she spoke of your knowing about the idea of the Endowment.”\n\nI turned this over.  “Why on earth does she want to see me?”\n\n“To talk with you, naturally, about Mr. Saltram.”\n\n“As a subject for the prize?”  This was hugely obvious, and I presently\nreturned: “I think I’ll sail to-morrow for Australia.”\n\n“Well then—sail!” said Mrs. Mulville, getting up.\n\nBut I frivolously, continued.  “On Thursday at five, we said?”  The\nappointment was made definite and I enquired how, all this time, the\nunconscious candidate had carried himself.\n\n“In perfection, really, by the happiest of chances: he has positively\nbeen a dear.  And then, as to what we revere him for, in the most\nwonderful form.  His very highest—pure celestial light.  You _won’t_ do\nhim an ill turn?” Adelaide pleaded at the door.\n\n“What danger can equal for him the danger to which he’s exposed from\nhimself?” I asked.  “Look out sharp, if he has lately been too prim.\nHe’ll presently take a day off, treat us to some exhibition that will\nmake an Endowment a scandal.”\n\n“A scandal?” Mrs. Mulville dolorously echoed.\n\n“Is Miss Anvoy prepared for that?”\n\nMy visitor, for a moment, screwed her parasol into my carpet.  “He grows\nbigger every day.”\n\n“So do you!” I laughed as she went off.\n\nThat girl at Wimbledon, on the Thursday afternoon, more than justified my\napprehensions.  I recognised fully now the cause of the agitation she had\nproduced in me from the first—the faint foreknowledge that there was\nsomething very stiff I should have to do for her.  I felt more than ever\ncommitted to my fate as, standing before her in the big drawing-room\nwhere they had tactfully left us to ourselves, I tried with a smile to\nstring together the pearls of lucidity which, from her chair, she\nsuccessively tossed me.  Pale and bright, in her monotonous mourning, she\nwas an image of intelligent purpose, of the passion of duty; but I asked\nmyself whether any girl had ever had so charming an instinct as that\nwhich permitted her to laugh out, as for the joy of her difficulty, into\nthe priggish old room.  This remarkable young woman could be earnest\nwithout being solemn, and at moments when I ought doubtless to have\ncursed her obstinacy I found myself watching the unstudied play of her\neyebrows or the recurrence of a singularly intense whiteness produced by\nthe parting of her lips.  These aberrations, I hasten to add, didn’t\nprevent my learning soon enough why she had wished to see me.  Her reason\nfor this was as distinct as her beauty: it was to make me explain what I\nhad meant, on the occasion of our first meeting, by Mr. Saltram’s want of\ndignity.  It wasn’t that she couldn’t imagine, but she desired it there\nfrom my lips.  What she really desired of course was to know whether\nthere was worse about him than what she had found out for herself.  She\nhadn’t been a month so much in the house with him without discovering\nthat he wasn’t a man of monumental bronze.  He was like a jelly minus its\nmould, he had to be embanked; and that was precisely the source of her\ninterest in him and the ground of her project.  She put her project\nboldly before me: there it stood in its preposterous beauty.  She was as\nwilling to take the humorous view of it as I could be: the only\ndifference was that for her the humorous view of a thing wasn’t\nnecessarily prohibitive, wasn’t paralysing.\n\nMoreover she professed that she couldn’t discuss with me the primary\nquestion—the moral obligation: that was in her own breast.  There were\nthings she couldn’t go into—injunctions, impressions she had received.\nThey were a part of the closest intimacy of her intercourse with her\naunt, they were absolutely clear to her; and on questions of delicacy,\nthe interpretation of a fidelity, of a promise, one had always in the\nlast resort to make up one’s mind for one’s self.  It was the idea of the\napplication to the particular case, such a splendid one at last, that\ntroubled her, and she admitted that it stirred very deep things.  She\ndidn’t pretend that such a responsibility was a simple matter; if it\n_had_ been she wouldn’t have attempted to saddle me with any portion of\nit.  The Mulvilles were sympathy itself, but were they absolutely candid?\nCould they indeed be, in their position—would it even have been to be\ndesired?  Yes, she had sent for me to ask no less than that of me—whether\nthere was anything dreadful kept back.  She made no allusion whatever to\nGeorge Gravener—I thought her silence the only good taste and her gaiety\nperhaps a part of the very anxiety of that discretion, the effect of a\ndetermination that people shouldn’t know from herself that her relations\nwith the man she was to marry were strained.  All the weight, however,\nthat she left me to throw was a sufficient implication of the weight _he_\nhad thrown in vain.  Oh she knew the question of character was immense,\nand that one couldn’t entertain any plan for making merit comfortable\nwithout running the gauntlet of that terrible procession of\ninterrogation-points which, like a young ladies’ school out for a walk,\nhooked their uniform noses at the tail of governess Conduct.  But were we\nabsolutely to hold that there was never, never, never an exception,\nnever, never, never an occasion for liberal acceptance, for clever\ncharity, for suspended pedantry—for letting one side, in short,\noutbalance another?  When Miss Anvoy threw off this appeal I could have\nembraced her for so delightfully emphasising her unlikeness to Mrs.\nSaltram.  “Why not have the courage of one’s forgiveness,” she asked, “as\nwell as the enthusiasm of one’s adhesion?”\n\n“Seeing how wonderfully you’ve threshed the whole thing out,” I evasively\nreplied, “gives me an extraordinary notion of the point your enthusiasm\nhas reached.”\n\nShe considered this remark an instant with her eyes on mine, and I\ndivined that it struck her I might possibly intend it as a reference to\nsome personal subjection to our fat philosopher, to some aberration of\nsensibility, some perversion of taste.  At least I couldn’t interpret\notherwise the sudden flash that came into her face.  Such a\nmanifestation, as the result of any word of mine, embarrassed me; but\nwhile I was thinking how to reassure her the flush passed away in a smile\nof exquisite good nature.  “Oh you see one forgets so wonderfully how one\ndislikes him!” she said; and if her tone simply extinguished his strange\nfigure with the brush of its compassion, it also rings in my ear to-day\nas the purest of all our praises.  But with what quick response of fine\npity such a relegation of the man himself made me privately sigh “Ah poor\nSaltram!”  She instantly, with this, took the measure of all I didn’t\nbelieve, and it enabled her to go on: “What can one do when a person has\ngiven such a lift to one’s interest in life?”\n\n“Yes, what can one do?”  If I struck her as a little vague it was because\nI was thinking of another person.  I indulged in another inarticulate\nmurmur—“Poor George Gravener!”  What had become of the lift _he_ had\ngiven that interest?  Later on I made up my mind that she was sore and\nstricken at the appearance he presented of wanting the miserable money.\nThis was the hidden reason of her alienation.  The probable sincerity, in\nspite of the illiberality, of his scruples about the particular use of it\nunder discussion didn’t efface the ugliness of his demand that they\nshould buy a good house with it.  Then, as for _his_ alienation, he\ndidn’t, pardonably enough, grasp the lift Frank Saltram had given her\ninterest in life.  If a mere spectator could ask that last question, with\nwhat rage in his heart the man himself might!  He wasn’t, like her, I was\nto see, too proud to show me why he was disappointed.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nI WAS unable this time to stay to dinner: such at any rate was the plea\non which I took leave.  I desired in truth to get away from my young\nlady, for that obviously helped me not to pretend to satisfy her.  How\n_could_ I satisfy her?  I asked myself—how could I tell her how much had\nbeen kept back?  I didn’t even know and I certainly didn’t desire to\nknow.  My own policy had ever been to learn the least about poor\nSaltram’s weaknesses—not to learn the most.  A great deal that I had in\nfact learned had been forced upon me by his wife.  There was something\neven irritating in Miss Anvoy’s crude conscientiousness, and I wondered\nwhy, after all, she couldn’t have let him alone and been content to\nentrust George Gravener with the purchase of the good house.  I was sure\nhe would have driven a bargain, got something excellent and cheap.  I\nlaughed louder even than she, I temporised, I failed her; I told her I\nmust think over her case.  I professed a horror of responsibilities and\ntwitted her with her own extravagant passion for them.  It wasn’t really\nthat I was afraid of the scandal, the moral discredit for the Fund; what\ntroubled me most was a feeling of a different order.  Of course, as the\nbeneficiary of the Fund was to enjoy a simple life-interest, as it was\nhoped that new beneficiaries would arise and come up to new standards, it\nwouldn’t be a trifle that the first of these worthies shouldn’t have been\na striking example of the domestic virtues.  The Fund would start badly,\nas it were, and the laurel would, in some respects at least, scarcely be\ngreener from the brows of the original wearer.  That idea, however, was\nat that hour, as I have hinted, not the source of solicitude it ought\nperhaps to have been, for I felt less the irregularity of Saltram’s\ngetting the money than that of this exalted young woman’s giving it up.\nI wanted her to have it for herself, and I told her so before I went\naway.  She looked graver at this than she had looked at all, saying she\nhoped such a preference wouldn’t make me dishonest.\n\nIt made me, to begin with, very restless—made me, instead of going\nstraight to the station, fidget a little about that many-coloured Common\nwhich gives Wimbledon horizons.  There was a worry for me to work off, or\nrather keep at a distance, for I declined even to admit to myself that I\nhad, in Miss Anvoy’s phrase, been saddled with it.  What could have been\nclearer indeed than the attitude of recognising perfectly what a world of\ntrouble The Coxon Fund would in future save us, and of yet liking better\nto face a continuance of that trouble than see, and in fact contribute\nto, a deviation from attainable bliss in the life of two other persons in\nwhom I was deeply interested?  Suddenly, at the end of twenty minutes,\nthere was projected across this clearness the image of a massive\nmiddle-aged man seated on a bench under a tree, with sad far-wandering\neyes and plump white hands folded on the head of a stick—a stick I\nrecognised, a stout gold-headed staff that I had given him in devoted\ndays.  I stopped short as he turned his face to me, and it happened that\nfor some reason or other I took in as I had perhaps never done before the\nbeauty of his rich blank gaze.  It was charged with experience as the sky\nis charged with light, and I felt on the instant as if we had been\noverspanned and conjoined by the great arch of a bridge or the great dome\nof a temple.  Doubtless I was rendered peculiarly sensitive to it by\nsomething in the way I had been giving him up and sinking him.  While I\nmet it I stood there smitten, and I felt myself responding to it with a\nsort of guilty grimace.  This brought back his attention in a smile which\nexpressed for me a cheerful weary patience, a bruised noble gentleness.\nI had told Miss Anvoy that he had no dignity, but what did he seem to me,\nall unbuttoned and fatigued as he waited for me to come up, if he didn’t\nseem unconcerned with small things, didn’t seem in short majestic?  There\nwas majesty in his mere unconsciousness of our little conferences and\npuzzlements over his maintenance and his reward.\n\nAfter I had sat by him a few minutes I passed my arm over his big soft\nshoulder—wherever you touched him you found equally little firmness—and\nsaid in a tone of which the suppliance fell oddly on my own ear: “Come\nback to town with me, old friend—come back and spend the evening.”  I\nwanted to hold him, I wanted to keep him, and at Waterloo, an hour later,\nI telegraphed possessively to the Mulvilles.  When he objected, as\nregards staying all night, that he had no things, I asked him if he\nhadn’t everything of mine.  I had abstained from ordering dinner, and it\nwas too late for preliminaries at a club; so we were reduced to tea and\nfried fish at my rooms—reduced also to the transcendent.  Something had\ncome up which made me want him to feel at peace with me—and which,\nprecisely, was all the dear man himself wanted on any occasion.  I had\ntoo often had to press upon him considerations irrelevant, but it gives\nme pleasure now to think that on that particular evening I didn’t even\nmention Mrs. Saltram and the children.  Late into the night we smoked and\ntalked; old shames and old rigours fell away from us; I only let him see\nthat I was conscious of what I owed him.  He was as mild as contrition\nand as copious as faith; he was never so fine as on a shy return, and\neven better at forgiving than at being forgiven.  I dare say it was a\nsmaller matter than that famous night at Wimbledon, the night of the\nproblematical sobriety and of Miss Anvoy’s initiation; but I was as much\nin it on this occasion as I had been out of it then.  At about 1.30 he\nwas sublime.\n\nHe never, in whatever situation, rose till all other risings were over,\nand his breakfasts, at Wimbledon, had always been the principal reason\nmentioned by departing cooks.  The coast was therefore clear for me to\nreceive her when, early the next morning, to my surprise, it was\nannounced to me his wife had called.  I hesitated, after she had come up,\nabout telling her Saltram was in the house, but she herself settled the\nquestion, kept me reticent by drawing forth a sealed letter which,\nlooking at me very hard in the eyes, she placed, with a pregnant absence\nof comment, in my hand.  For a single moment there glimmered before me\nthe fond hope that Mrs. Saltram had tendered me, as it were, her\nresignation and desired to embody the act in an unsparing form.  To bring\nthis about I would have feigned any humiliation; but after my eyes had\ncaught the superscription I heard myself say with a flatness that\nbetrayed a sense of something very different from relief: “Oh the\nPudneys!”  I knew their envelopes though they didn’t know mine.  They\nalways used the kind sold at post-offices with the stamp affixed, and as\nthis letter hadn’t been posted they had wasted a penny on me.  I had seen\ntheir horrid missives to the Mulvilles, but hadn’t been in direct\ncorrespondence with them.\n\n“They enclosed it to me, to be delivered.  They doubtless explain to you\nthat they hadn’t your address.”\n\nI turned the thing over without opening it.  “Why in the world should\nthey write to me?”\n\n“Because they’ve something to tell you.  The worst,” Mrs. Saltram dryly\nadded.\n\nIt was another chapter, I felt, of the history of their lamentable\nquarrel with her husband, the episode in which, vindictively,\ndisingenuously as they themselves had behaved, one had to admit that he\nhad put himself more grossly in the wrong than at any moment of his life.\nHe had begun by insulting the matchless Mulvilles for these more specious\nprotectors, and then, according to his wont at the end of a few months,\nhad dug a still deeper ditch for his aberration than the chasm left\nyawning behind.  The chasm at Wimbledon was now blessedly closed; but the\nPudneys, across their persistent gulf, kept up the nastiest fire.  I\nnever doubted they had a strong case, and I had been from the first for\nnot defending him—reasoning that if they weren’t contradicted they’d\nperhaps subside.  This was above all what I wanted, and I so far\nprevailed that I did arrest the correspondence in time to save our little\ncircle an infliction heavier than it perhaps would have borne.  I knew,\nthat is I divined, that their allegations had gone as yet only as far as\ntheir courage, conscious as they were in their own virtue of an exposed\nplace in which Saltram could have planted a blow.  It was a question with\nthem whether a man who had himself so much to cover up would dare his\nblow; so that these vessels of rancour were in a manner afraid of each\nother.  I judged that on the day the Pudneys should cease for some reason\nor other to be afraid they would treat us to some revelation more\ndisconcerting than any of its predecessors.  As I held Mrs. Saltram’s\nletter in my hand it was distinctly communicated to me that the day had\ncome—they had ceased to be afraid.  “I don’t want to know the worst,” I\npresently declared.\n\n“You’ll have to open the letter.  It also contains an enclosure.”\n\nI felt it—it was fat and uncanny.  “Wheels within wheels!” I exclaimed.\n“There’s something for me too to deliver.”\n\n“So they tell me—to Miss Anvoy.”\n\nI stared; I felt a certain thrill.  “Why don’t they send it to her\ndirectly?”\n\nMrs. Saltram hung fire.  “Because she’s staying with Mr. and Mrs.\nMulville.”\n\n“And why should that prevent?”\n\nAgain my visitor faltered, and I began to reflect on the grotesque, the\nunconscious perversity of her action.  I was the only person save George\nGravener and the Mulvilles who was aware of Sir Gregory Coxon’s and of\nMiss Anvoy’s strange bounty.  Where could there have been a more signal\nillustration of the clumsiness of human affairs than her having\ncomplacently selected this moment to fly in the face of it?  “There’s the\nchance of their seeing her letters.  They know Mr. Pudney’s hand.”\n\nStill I didn’t understand; then it flashed upon me.  “You mean they might\nintercept it?  How can you imply anything so base?” I indignantly\ndemanded.\n\n“It’s not I—it’s Mr. Pudney!” cried Mrs. Saltram with a flush.  “It’s his\nown idea.”\n\n“Then why couldn’t he send the letter to you to be delivered?”\n\nMrs. Saltram’s embarrassment increased; she gave me another hard look.\n“You must make that out for yourself.”\n\nI made it out quickly enough.  “It’s a denunciation?”\n\n“A real lady doesn’t betray her husband!” this virtuous woman exclaimed.\n\nI burst out laughing, and I fear my laugh may have had an effect of\nimpertinence.  “Especially to Miss Anvoy, who’s so easily shocked? Why do\nsuch things concern _her_?” I asked, much at a loss.\n\n“Because she’s there, exposed to all his craft.  Mr. and Mrs. Pudney have\nbeen watching this: they feel she may be taken in.”\n\n“Thank you for all the rest of us!  What difference can it make when she\nhas lost her power to contribute?”\n\nAgain Mrs. Saltram considered; then very nobly: “There are other things\nin the world than money.”  This hadn’t occurred to her so long as the\nyoung lady had any; but she now added, with a glance at my letter, that\nMr. and Mrs. Pudney doubtless explained their motives.  “It’s all in\nkindness,” she continued as she got up.\n\n“Kindness to Miss Anvoy?  You took, on the whole, another view of\nkindness before her reverses.”\n\nMy companion smiled with some acidity “Perhaps you’re no safer than the\nMulvilles!”\n\nI didn’t want her to think that, nor that she should report to the\nPudneys that they had not been happy in their agent; and I well remember\nthat this was the moment at which I began, with considerable emotion, to\npromise myself to enjoin upon Miss Anvoy never to open any letter that\nshould come to her in one of those penny envelopes.  My emotion, and I\nfear I must add my confusion, quickly deepened; I presently should have\nbeen as glad to frighten Mrs. Saltram as to think I might by some\ndiplomacy restore the Pudneys to a quieter vigilance.\n\n“It’s best you should take _my_ view of my safety,” I at any rate soon\nresponded.  When I saw she didn’t know what I meant by this I added: “You\nmay turn out to have done, in bringing me this letter, a thing you’ll\nprofoundly regret.”  My tone had a significance which, I could see, did\nmake her uneasy, and there was a moment, after I had made two or three\nmore remarks of studiously bewildering effect, at which her eyes followed\nso hungrily the little flourish of the letter with which I emphasised\nthem that I instinctively slipped Mr. Pudney’s communication into my\npocket.  She looked, in her embarrassed annoyance, capable of grabbing it\nto send it back to him.  I felt, after she had gone, as if I had almost\ngiven her my word I wouldn’t deliver the enclosure.  The passionate\nmovement, at any rate, with which, in solitude, I transferred the whole\nthing, unopened, from my pocket to a drawer which I double-locked would\nhave amounted, for an initiated observer, to some such pledge.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nMRS. SALTRAM left me drawing my breath more quickly and indeed almost in\npain—as if I had just perilously grazed the loss of something precious.\nI didn’t quite know what it was—it had a shocking resemblance to my\nhonour.  The emotion was the livelier surely in that my pulses even yet\nvibrated to the pleasure with which, the night before, I had rallied to\nthe rare analyst, the great intellectual adventurer and pathfinder.  What\nhad dropped from me like a cumbersome garment as Saltram appeared before\nme in the afternoon on the heath was the disposition to haggle over his\nvalue.  Hang it, one had to choose, one had to put that value somewhere;\nso I would put it really high and have done with it.  Mrs. Mulville drove\nin for him at a discreet hour—the earliest she could suppose him to have\ngot up; and I learned that Miss Anvoy would also have come had she not\nbeen expecting a visit from Mr. Gravener.  I was perfectly mindful that I\nwas under bonds to see this young lady, and also that I had a letter to\nhand to her; but I took my time, I waited from day to day.  I left Mrs.\nSaltram to deal as her apprehensions should prompt with the Pudneys.  I\nknew at last what I meant—I had ceased to wince at my responsibility.  I\ngave this supreme impression of Saltram time to fade if it would; but it\ndidn’t fade, and, individually, it hasn’t faded even now.  During the\nmonth that I thus invited myself to stiffen again, Adelaide Mulville,\nperplexed by my absence, wrote to me to ask why I _was_ so stiff.  At\nthat season of the year I was usually oftener “with” them.  She also\nwrote that she feared a real estrangement had set in between Mr. Gravener\nand her sweet young friend—a state of things but half satisfactory to her\nso long as the advantage resulting to Mr. Saltram failed to disengage\nitself from the merely nebulous state.  She intimated that her sweet\nyoung friend was, if anything, a trifle too reserved; she also intimated\nthat there might now be an opening for another clever young man.  There\nnever was the slightest opening, I may here parenthesise, and of course\nthe question can’t come up to-day.  These are old frustrations now.  Ruth\nAnvoy hasn’t married, I hear, and neither have I.  During the month,\ntoward the end, I wrote to George Gravener to ask if, on a special\nerrand, I might come to see him, and his answer was to knock the very\nnext day at my door.  I saw he had immediately connected my enquiry with\nthe talk we had had in the railway-carriage, and his promptitude showed\nthat the ashes of his eagerness weren’t yet cold.  I told him there was\nsomething I felt I ought in candour to let him know—I recognised the\nobligation his friendly confidence had laid on me.\n\n“You mean Miss Anvoy has talked to you?  She has told me so herself,” he\nsaid.\n\n“It wasn’t to tell you so that I wanted to see you,” I replied; “for it\nseemed to me that such a communication would rest wholly with herself.\nIf however she did speak to you of our conversation she probably told you\nI was discouraging.”\n\n“Discouraging?”\n\n“On the subject of a present application of The Coxon Fund.”\n\n“To the case of Mr. Saltram?  My dear fellow, I don’t know what you call\ndiscouraging!” Gravener cried.\n\n“Well I thought I was, and I thought she thought I was.”\n\n“I believe she did, but such a thing’s measured by the effect.  She’s not\n‘discouraged,’” he said.\n\n“That’s her own affair.  The reason I asked you to see me was that it\nappeared to me I ought to tell you frankly that—decidedly!—I can’t\nundertake to produce that effect.  In fact I don’t want to!”\n\n“It’s very good of you, damn you!” my visitor laughed, red and really\ngrave.  Then he said: “You’d like to see that scoundrel publicly\nglorified—perched on the pedestal of a great complimentary pension?”\n\nI braced myself.  “Taking one form of public recognition with another it\nseems to me on the whole I should be able to bear it.  When I see the\ncompliments that _are_ paid right and left I ask myself why this one\nshouldn’t take its course.  This therefore is what you’re entitled to\nhave looked to me to mention to you.  I’ve some evidence that perhaps\nwould be really dissuasive, but I propose to invite Mss Anvoy to remain\nin ignorance of it.”\n\n“And to invite me to do the same?”\n\n“Oh you don’t require it—you’ve evidence enough.  I speak of a sealed\nletter that I’ve been requested to deliver to her.”\n\n“And you don’t mean to?”\n\n“There’s only one consideration that would make me,” I said.\n\nGravener’s clear handsome eyes plunged into mine a minute, but evidently\nwithout fishing up a clue to this motive—a failure by which I was almost\nwounded.  “What does the letter contain?”\n\n“It’s sealed, as I tell you, and I don’t know what it contains.”\n\n“Why is it sent through you?”\n\n“Rather than you?” I wondered how to put the thing.  “The only\nexplanation I can think of is that the person sending it may have\nimagined your relations with Miss Anvoy to be at an end—may have been\ntold this is the case by Mrs. Saltram.”\n\n“My relations with Miss Anvoy are not at an end,” poor Gravener\nstammered.\n\nAgain for an instant I thought.  “The offer I propose to make you gives\nme the right to address you a question remarkably direct.  Are you still\nengaged to Miss Anvoy?”\n\n“No, I’m not,” he slowly brought out.  “But we’re perfectly good\nfriends.”\n\n“Such good friends that you’ll again become prospective husband and wife\nif the obstacle in your path be removed?”\n\n“Removed?” he anxiously repeated.\n\n“If I send Miss Anvoy the letter I speak of she may give up her idea.”\n\n“Then for God’s sake send it!”\n\n“I’ll do so if you’re ready to assure me that her sacrifice would now\npresumably bring about your marriage.”\n\n“I’d marry her the next day!” my visitor cried.\n\n“Yes, but would she marry _you_?  What I ask of you of course is nothing\nless than your word of honour as to your conviction of this.  If you give\nit me,” I said, “I’ll engage to hand her the letter before night.”\n\nGravener took up his hat; turning it mechanically round he stood looking\na moment hard at its unruffled perfection.  Then very angrily honestly\nand gallantly, “Hand it to the devil!” he broke out; with which he\nclapped the hat on his head and left me.\n\n“Will you read it or not?” I said to Ruth Anvoy, at Wimbledon, when I had\ntold her the story of Mrs. Saltram’s visit.\n\nShe debated for a time probably of the briefest, but long enough to make\nme nervous.  “Have you brought it with you?”\n\n“No indeed.  It’s at home, locked up.”\n\nThere was another great silence, and then she said “Go back and destroy\nit.”\n\nI went back, but I didn’t destroy it till after Saltram’s death, when I\nburnt it unread.  The Pudneys approached her again pressingly, but,\nprompt as they were, The Coxon Fund had already become an operative\nbenefit and a general amaze: Mr. Saltram, while we gathered about, as it\nwere, to watch the manna descend, had begun to draw the magnificent\nincome.  He drew it as he had always drawn everything, with a grand\nabstracted gesture.  Its magnificence, alas, as all the world now knows,\nquite quenched him; it was the beginning of his decline.  It was also\nnaturally a new grievance for his wife, who began to believe in him as\nsoon as he was blighted, and who at this hour accuses us of having bribed\nhim, on the whim of a meddlesome American, to renounce his glorious\noffice, to become, as she says, like everybody else.  The very day he\nfound himself able to publish he wholly ceased to produce.  This deprived\nus, as may easily be imagined, of much of our occupation, and especially\ndeprived the Mulvilles, whose want of self-support I never measured till\nthey lost their great inmate.  They’ve no one to live on now.  Adelaide’s\nmost frequent reference to their destitution is embodied in the remark\nthat dear far-away Ruth’s intentions were doubtless good.  She and Kent\nare even yet looking for another prop, but no one presents a true sphere\nof usefulness.  They complain that people are self-sufficing.  With\nSaltram the fine type of the child of adoption was scattered, the\ngrander, the elder style.  They’ve got their carriage back, but what’s an\nempty carriage?  In short I think we were all happier as well as poorer\nbefore; even including George Gravener, who by the deaths of his brother\nand his nephew has lately become Lord Maddock.  His wife, whose fortune\nclears the property, is criminally dull; he hates being in the Upper\nHouse, and hasn’t yet had high office.  But what are these accidents,\nwhich I should perhaps apologise for mentioning, in the light of the\ngreat eventual boon promised the patient by the rate at which The Coxon\nFund must be rolling up?\n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: Who traveled to Britain to visit her aunt?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 113, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["He throws himself down the stairs"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory:  Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nGALSWORTHY PLAYS\n\nSECOND SERIES--NO. 1\n\n\nJUSTICE\n\nBy John Galsworthy\n\n\n\nPERSONS OF THE PLAY\n\n JAMES HOW, solicitor\n WALTER HOW, solicitor\n ROBERT COKESON, their managing clerk\n WILLIAM FALDER, their junior clerk\n SWEEDLE, their office-boy\n WISTER, a detective\n COWLEY, a cashier\n MR. JUSTICE FLOYD, a judge\n HAROLD CLEAVER, an old advocate\n HECTOR FROME, a young advocate\n CAPTAIN DANSON, V.C., a prison governor\n THE REV. HUGH MILLER, a prison chaplain\n EDWARD CLEMENT, a prison doctor\n WOODER, a chief warder\n MOANEY, convict\n CLIFTON, convict\n O'CLEARY, convict\n RUTH HONEYWILL, a woman\n A NUMBER OF BARRISTERS, SOLICITERS, SPECTATORS, USHERS, REPORTERS,\n JURYMEN, WARDERS, AND PRISONERS\n\n\n\n  TIME: The Present.\n\n\n  ACT I. The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.  July.\n\n  ACT II. Assizes.  Afternoon.  October.\n\n  ACT III.  A prison.  December.\n       SCENE I.  The Governor's office.\n       SCENE II.  A corridor.\n       SCENE III.  A cell.\n\n  ACT IV.  The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.\n            March, two years later.\n\n\n\nCAST OF THE FIRST PRODUCTION\n\n   AT THE DUKE OF YORK'S THEATRE, FEBRUARY 21, 1910\n\n   James How           MR.  SYDNEY VALENTINE\n   Walter How          MR.  CHARLES MAUDE\n   Cokeson             MR.  EDMUND GWENN\n   Falder              MR.  DENNIS EADIE\n   The Office-boy      MR.  GEORGE HERSEE\n   The Detective       MR.  LESLIE CARTER\n   The Cashier         MR.  C. E. VERNON\n   The Judge           MR.  DION BOUCICAULT\n   The Old Advocate    MR.  OSCAR ADYE\n   The Young Advocate  MR.  CHARLES BRYANT\n   The Prison Governor MR.  GRENDON BENTLEY\n   The Prison Chaplain MR.  HUBERT HARBEN\n   The Prison Doctor   MR.  LEWIS CASSON\n   Wooder              MR.  FREDERICK LLOYD\n   Moaney              MR.  ROBERT PATEMAN\n   Clipton             MR.  O. P. HEGGIE\n   O'Cleary            MR.  WHITFORD KANE\n   Ruth Honeywill      Miss EDYTH OLIVE\n\n\n\n\nACT I\n\n     The scene is the managing clerk's room, at the offices of James\n     and Walter How, on a July morning.  The room is old fashioned,\n     furnished with well-worn  mahogany and leather, and lined with\n     tin boxes and   estate plans.  It has three doors.  Two of them\n     are close together in the centre of a wall.  One of these two\n     doors leads to the outer office, which is only divided from the\n     managing clerk's room by a   partition of wood and clear glass;\n     and when the door into this outer office is opened there can be\n     seen the wide outer door leading out on to the stone stairway of\n     the building.  The other of these two   centre doors leads to\n     the junior clerk's room.  The third door is that leading to the\n     partners' room.\n\n     The managing clerk, COKESON, is sitting at his table adding up\n     figures in a pass-book, and murmuring their numbers to himself.\n     He is a man of sixty, wearing spectacles; rather short, with a\n     bald head, and an honest, pugdog face.  He is dressed in a\n     well-worn black frock-coat and pepper-and-salt trousers.\n\nCOKESON.  And five's twelve, and three--fifteen, nineteen,\ntwenty-three, thirty-two, forty-one-and carry four. [He ticks the\npage, and goes on murmuring]  Five, seven, twelve, seventeen,\ntwenty-four and nine, thirty-three, thirteen and carry one.\n\n     He again makes a tick.  The outer office door is opened, and\n     SWEEDLE, the office-boy, appears, closing the door behind him.\n     He is a pale youth of sixteen, with spiky hair.\n\nCOKESON.  [With grumpy expectation]  And carry one.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's a party wants to see Falder, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Five, nine, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-nine--and carry\ntwo.  Send him to Morris's.  What name?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Honeywill.\n\nCOKESON.  What's his business?\n\nSWEEDLE.  It's a woman.\n\nCOKESON.  A lady?\n\nSWEEDLE.  No, a person.\n\nCOKESON.  Ask her in.  Take this pass-book to Mr. James.  [He closes\nthe pass-book.]\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Reopening the door]  Will you come in, please?\n\n     RUTH HONEYWILL comes in.  She is a tall woman, twenty-six years\n     old, unpretentiously dressed, with black hair and eyes, and an\n     ivory-white, clear-cut face.  She stands very still, having a\n     natural dignity of pose and gesture.\n\n     SWEEDLE goes out into the partners' room with the pass-book.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking round at RUTH]  The young man's out.\n[Suspiciously]  State your business, please.\n\nRUTH.  [Who speaks in a matter-of-fact voice, and with a slight\nWest-Country accent]  It's a personal matter, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  We don't allow private callers here.  Will you leave a\nmessage?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather see him, please.\n\n     She narrows her dark eyes and gives him a honeyed look.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expanding]  It's all against the rules.  Suppose I had my\nfriends here to see me!  It'd never do!\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [A little taken aback]  Exactly!  And here you are wanting\nto see a junior clerk!\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir; I must see him.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning full round to her with a sort of outraged\ninterest]  But this is a lawyer's office.  Go to his private address.\n\nRUTH.  He's not there.\n\nCOKESON.  [Uneasy]  Are you related to the party?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [In real embarrassment]  I don't know what to say.  It's no\naffair of the office.\n\nRUTH.  But what am I to do?\n\nCOKESON.  Dear me!  I can't tell you that.\n\n     SWEEDLE comes back.  He crosses to the outer office and passes\n     through into it, with a quizzical look at Cokeson, carefully\n     leaving the door an inch or two open.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fortified by this look]  This won't do, you know, this\nwon't do at all.  Suppose one of the partners came in!\n\n     An incoherent knocking and chuckling is heard from the outer\n     door of the outer office.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Putting his head in]  There's some children outside here.\n\nRUTH.  They're mine, please.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I hold them in check?\n\nRUTH.  They're quite small, sir. [She takes a step towards COKESON]\n\nCOKESON.  You mustn't take up his time in office hours; we're a clerk\nshort as it is.\n\nRUTH.  It's a matter of life and death.\n\nCOKESON.  [Again outraged]  Life and death!\n\nSWEEDLE.  Here is Falder.\n\n     FALDER has entered through the outer office.  He is a pale,\n     good-looking young man, with quick, rather scared eyes.  He\n     moves towards the door of the clerks' office, and stands there\n     irresolute.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll give you a minute.  It's not regular.\n\n     Taking up a bundle of papers, he goes out into the partners'\n     room.\n\nRUTH.  [In a low, hurried voice]  He's on the drink again, Will.  He\ntried to cut my throat last night.  I came out with the children\nbefore he was awake.  I went round to you.\n\nFALDER.  I've changed my digs.\n\nRUTH.  Is it all ready for to-night?\n\nFALDER.  I've got the tickets.  Meet me 11.45 at the booking office.\nFor God's sake don't forget we're man and wife!  [Looking at her with\ntragic intensity]  Ruth!\n\nRUTH.  You're not afraid of going, are you?\n\nFALDER.  Have you got your things, and the children's?\n\nRUTH.  Had to leave them, for fear of waking Honeywill, all but one\nbag.  I can't go near home again.\n\nFALDER.  [Wincing]  All that money gone for nothing.\nHow much must you have?\n\nRUTH.  Six pounds--I could do with that, I think.\n\nFALDER.  Don't give away where we're going.  [As if to himself]  When\nI get out there I mean to forget it all.\n\nRUTH.  If you're sorry, say so.  I'd sooner he killed me than take\nyou against your will.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer smile]  We've got to go.  I don't care; I'll\nhave you.\n\nRUTH.  You've just to say; it's not too late.\n\nFALDER.  It is too late.  Here's seven pounds.  Booking office 11.45\nto-night.  If you weren't what you are to me, Ruth----!\n\nRUTH.  Kiss me!\n\n     They cling together passionately, there fly apart just as\n     COKESON re-enters the room.  RUTH turns and goes out through the\n     outer office.  COKESON advances deliberately to his chair and\n     seats himself.\n\nCOKESON.  This isn't right, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  It shan't occur again, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  It's an improper use of these premises.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  You quite understand-the party was in some distress; and,\nhaving children with her, I allowed my feelings----[He opens a\ndrawer and produces from it a tract]  Just take this!  \"Purity in the\nHome.\"  It's a well-written thing.\n\nFALDER.  [Taking it, with a peculiar expression]  Thank you, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  And look here, Falder, before Mr. Walter comes, have you\nfinished up that cataloguing Davis had in hand before he left?\n\nFALDER.  I shall have done with it to-morrow, sir--for good.\n\nCOKESON.  It's over a week since Davis went.  Now it won't do,\nFalder.  You're neglecting your work for private life.  I shan't\nmention about the party having called, but----\n\nFALDER.  [Passing into his room] Thank you, sir.\n\n     COKESON stares at the door through which FALDER has gone out;\n     then shakes his head, and is just settling down to write, when\n     WALTER How comes in through the outer Office.  He is a rather\n     refined-looking man of thirty-five, with a pleasant, almost\n     apologetic voice.\n\nWALTER.  Good-morning, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Morning, Mr. Walter.\n\nWALTER.  My father here?\n\nCOKESON.  [Always with a certain patronage as to a young man who\nmight be doing better]  Mr. James has been here since eleven o'clock.\n\nWALTER.  I've been in to see the pictures, at the Guildhall.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as though this were exactly what was to be\nexpected]  Have you now--ye--es.  This lease of Boulter's--am I to\nsend it to counsel?\n\nWALTER.  What does my father say?\n\nCOKESON.  'Aven't bothered him.\n\nWALTER.  Well, we can't be too careful.\n\nCOKESON.  It's such a little thing--hardly worth the fees.  I thought\nyou'd do it yourself.\n\nWALTER.  Send it, please.  I don't want the responsibility.\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indescribable air of compassion]  Just as you\nlike.  This \"right-of-way\" case--we've got 'em on the deeds.\n\nWALTER.  I know; but the intention was obviously to exclude that bit\nof common ground.\n\nCOKESON.  We needn't worry about that.  We're the right side of the\nlaw.\n\nWALTER.  I don't like it,\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  We shan't want to set ourselves\nup against the law.  Your father wouldn't waste his time doing that.\n\n     As he speaks JAMES How comes in from the partners' room.  He is\n     a shortish man, with white side-whiskers, plentiful grey hair,\n     shrewd eyes, and gold pince-nez.\n\nJAMES.  Morning, Walter.\n\nWALTER.  How are you, father?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking down his nose at the papers in his hand as though\ndeprecating their size] I'll just take Boulter's lease in to young\nFalder to draft the instructions. [He goes out into FALDER'S room.]\n\nWALTER.  About that right-of-way case?\n\nJAMES.  Oh, well, we must go forward there.  I thought you told me\nyesterday the firm's balance was over four hundred.\n\nWALTER.  So it is.\n\nJAMES.  [Holding out the pass-book to his son] Three--five--one, no\nrecent cheques.  Just get me out the cheque-book.\n\n     WALTER goes to a cupboard, unlocks a drawer and produces a\n     cheque-book.\n\nJAMES.  Tick the pounds in the counterfoils.  Five, fifty-four,\nseven, five, twenty-eight, twenty, ninety, eleven, fifty-two,\nseventy-one.  Tally?\n\nWALTER.  [Nodding]  Can't understand.  Made sure it was over four\nhundred.\n\nJAMES.  Give me the cheque-book.  [He takes the check-book and cons\nthe counterfoils] What's this ninety?\n\nWALTER.  Who drew it?\n\nJAMES.  You.\n\nWALTER.  [Taking the cheque-book]  July 7th?  That's the day I went\ndown to look over the Trenton Estate--last Friday week; I came back\non the Tuesday, you remember.  But look here, father, it was nine I\ndrew a cheque for.  Five guineas to Smithers and my expenses.  It\njust covered all but half a crown.\n\nJAMES.  [Gravely]  Let's look at that ninety cheque.  [He sorts the\ncheque out from the bundle in the pocket of the pass-book] Seems all\nright.  There's no nine here.  This is bad.  Who cashed that\nnine-pound cheque?\n\nWALTER.  [Puzzled and pained]  Let's see!  I was finishing Mrs.\nReddy's will--only just had time; yes--I gave it to Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Look at that 't' 'y': that yours?\n\nWALTER.  [After consideration]  My y's curl back a little; this\ndoesn't.\n\nJAMES.  [As COKESON re-enters from FALDER'S room]  We must ask him.\nJust come here and carry your mind back a bit, Cokeson.  D'you\nremember cashing a cheque for Mr. Walter last Friday week--the day\nhe went to Trenton?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  Nine pounds.\n\nJAMES.  Look at this.  [Handing him the cheque.]\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nine pounds.  My lunch was just coming in; and of\ncourse I like it hot; I gave the cheque to Davis to run round to the\nbank.  He brought it back, all gold--you remember, Mr. Walter, you\nwanted some silver to pay your cab.  [With a certain contemptuous\ncompassion]  Here, let me see.  You've got the wrong cheque.\n\n     He takes cheque-book and pass-book from WALTER.\n\nWALTER.  Afraid not.\n\nCOKESON.  [Having seen for himself]  It's funny.\n\nJAMES.  You gave it to Davis, and Davis sailed for Australia on\nMonday.  Looks black, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Puzzled and upset]  why this'd be a felony!  No, no!\nthere's some mistake.\n\nJAMES.  I hope so.\n\nCOKESON.  There's never been anything of that sort in the office the\ntwenty-nine years I've been here.\n\nJAMES.  [Looking at cheque and counterfoil]  This is a very clever\nbit of work; a warning to you not to leave space after your figures,\nWalter.\n\nWALTER.  [Vexed]  Yes, I know--I was in such a tearing hurry that\nafternoon.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  This has upset me.\n\nJAMES.  The counterfoil altered too--very deliberate piece of\nswindling.  What was Davis's ship?\n\nWALTER.  'City of Rangoon'.\n\nJAMES.  We ought to wire and have him arrested at Naples; he can't be\nthere yet.\n\nCOKESON.  His poor young wife.  I liked the young man.  Dear, oh\ndear!  In this office!\n\nWALTER.  Shall I go to the bank and ask the cashier?\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly]  Bring him round here.  And ring up Scotland Yard.\n\nWALTER.  Really?\n\n     He goes out through the outer office.  JAMES paces the room.  He\n     stops and looks at COKESON, who is disconsolately rubbing the\n     knees of his trousers.\n\nJAMES.  Well, Cokeson!  There's something in character, isn't there?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him over his spectacles]  I don't quite take\nyou, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Your story, would sound d----d thin to any one who didn't\nknow you.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es!  [He laughs.  Then with a sudden gravity]  I'm sorry\nfor that young man.  I feel it as if it was my own son, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  A nasty business!\n\nCOKESON.  It unsettles you.  All goes on regular, and then a thing\nlike this happens.  Shan't relish my lunch to-day.\n\nJAMES.  As bad as that, Cokeson?\n\nCOKESON.  It makes you think.  [Confidentially]  He must have had\ntemptation.\n\nJAMES.  Not so fast.  We haven't convicted him yet.\n\nCOKESON.  I'd sooner have lost a month's salary than had this happen.\n    [He broods.]\n\nJAMES.  I hope that fellow will hurry up.\n\nCOKESON.  [Keeping things pleasant for the cashier]  It isn't fifty\nyards, Mr. James.  He won't be a minute.\n\nJAMES.  The idea of dishonesty about this office it hits me hard,\nCokeson.\n\n     He goes towards the door of the partners' room.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering quietly, to COKESON in a low voice]  She's popped\nup again, sir-something she forgot to say to Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  [Roused from his abstraction]  Eh?  Impossible.  Send her\naway!\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\nCOKESON.  Nothing, Mr. James.  A private matter.  Here, I'll come\nmyself.  [He goes into the outer office as JAMES passes into the\npartners' room]  Now, you really mustn't--we can't have anybody just\nnow.\n\nRUTH.  Not for a minute, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Reely!  Reely!  I can't have it.  If you want him, wait\nabout; he'll be going out for his lunch directly.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\n     WALTER, entering with the cashier, passes RUTH as she leaves the\n     outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  [To the cashier, who resembles a sedentary dragoon]\nGood-morning.  [To WALTER]  Your father's in there.\n\n     WALTER crosses and goes into the partners' room.\n\nCOKESON.  It's a nahsty, unpleasant little matter, Mr. Cowley.  I'm\nquite ashamed to have to trouble you.\n\nCOWLEY.  I remember the cheque quite well.  [As if it were a liver]\nSeemed in perfect order.\n\nCOKESON.  Sit down, won't you?  I'm not a sensitive man, but a thing\nlike this about the place--it's not nice.  I like people to be open\nand jolly together.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite so.\n\nCOKESON.  [Buttonholing him, and glancing toward the partners' room]\nOf course he's a young man.  I've told him about it before now--\nleaving space after his figures, but he will do it.\n\nCOWLEY.  I should remember the person's face--quite a youth.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't think we shall be able to show him to you, as a\nmatter of fact.\n\n     JAMES and WALTER have come back from the partners' room.\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley.  You've seen my son and myself,\nyou've seen Mr. Cokeson, and you've seen Sweedle, my office-boy.  It\nwas none of us, I take it.\n\n     The cashier shakes his head with a smile.\n\nJAMES.  Be so good as to sit there.  Cokeson, engage Mr. Cowley in\nconversation, will you?\n\n     He goes toward FALDER'S room.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nCOKESON.  You don't want to upset the young man in there, do you?\nHe's a nervous young feller.\n\nJAMES.  This must be thoroughly cleared up, Cokeson, for the sake of\nFalder's name, to say nothing of yours.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Some dignity] That'll look after itself, sir.  He's\nbeen upset once this morning; I don't want him startled again.\n\nJAMES.  It's a matter of form; but I can't stand upon niceness over a\nthing like this--too serious.  Just talk to Mr. Cowley.\n\n     He opens the door of FALDER'S room.\n\nJAMES.  Bring in the papers in Boulter's lease, will you, Falder?\n\nCOKESON.  [Bursting into voice]  Do you keep dogs?\n\n     The cashier, with his eyes fixed on the door, does not answer.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't such a thing as a bulldog pup you could spare\nme, I suppose?\n\n     At the look on the cashier's face his jaw drops, and he turns to\n     see FALDER standing in the doorway, with his eyes fixed on\n     COWLEY, like the eyes of a rabbit fastened on a snake.\n\nFALDER.  [Advancing with the papers] Here they are, sir!\n\nJAMES.  [Taking them] Thank you.\n\nFALDER.  Do you want me, sir?\n\nJAMES.  No, thanks!\n\n     FALDER turns and goes back into his own room.  As he shuts the\n     door JAMES gives the cashier an interrogative look, and the\n     cashier nods.\n\nJAMES.  Sure?  This isn't as we suspected.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite.  He knew me.  I suppose he can't slip out of that\nroom?\n\nCOKESON.  [Gloomily]  There's only the window--a whole floor and a\nbasement.\n\n     The door of FALDER'S room is quietly opened, and FALDER, with\n     his hat in his hand, moves towards the door of the outer office.\n\nJAMES.  [Quietly]  Where are you going, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  To have my lunch, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Wait a few minutes, would you?  I want to speak to you about\nthis lease.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.  [He goes back into his room.]\n\nCOWLEY.  If I'm wanted, I can swear that's the young man who cashed\nthe cheque.  It was the last cheque I handled that morning before my\nlunch.  These are the numbers of the notes he had.  [He puts a slip\nof paper on the table; then, brushing his hat round]  Good-morning!\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley!\n\nCOWLEY.  [To COKESON]  Good-morning.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Stupefaction]  Good-morning.\n\n     The cashier goes out through the outer office. COKESON sits down\n     in his chair, as though it were the only place left in the\n     morass of his feelings.\n\nWALTER.  What are you going to do?\n\nJAMES.  Have him in.  Give me the cheque and the counterfoil.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.  I thought young Davis----\n\nJAMES.  We shall see.\n\nWALTER.  One moment, father: have you thought it out?\n\nJAMES.  Call him in!\n\nCOKESON.  [Rising with difficulty and opening FALDER'S door;\nhoarsely]  Step in here a minute.\n\nFALDER.  [Impassively]  Yes, sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Turning to him suddenly with the cheque held out]  You know\nthis cheque, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nJADES.  Look at it.  You cashed it last Friday week.\n\nFALDER.  Oh! yes, sir; that one--Davis gave it me.\n\nJAMES.  I know. And you gave Davis the cash?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nJAMES.  When Davis gave you the cheque was it exactly like this?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I think so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  You know that Mr. Walter drew that cheque for nine pounds?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--ninety.\n\nJAMES.  Nine, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  I don't understand, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The suggestion, of course, is that the cheque was altered;\nwhether by you or Davis is the question.\n\nFALDER.  I--I\n\nCOKESON.  Take your time, take your time.\n\nFALDER.  [Regaining his impassivity]  Not by me, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The cheque was handed to--Cokeson by Mr. Walter at one\no'clock; we know that because Mr. Cokeson's lunch had just arrived.\n\nCOKESON.  I couldn't leave it.\n\nJAMES.  Exactly; he therefore gave the cheque to Davis.  It was\ncashed by you at 1.15.  We know that because the cashier recollects\nit for the last cheque he handled before his lunch.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, Davis gave it to me because some friends were\ngiving him a farewell luncheon.\n\nJAMES.  [Puzzled] You accuse Davis, then?\n\nFALDER.  I don't know, sir--it's very funny.\n\n     WALTER, who has come close to his father, says something to him\n     in a low voice.\n\nJAMES.  Davis was not here again after that Saturday, was he?\n\nCOKESON.  [Anxious to be of assistance to the young man, and seeing\nfaint signs of their all being jolly once more] No, he sailed on the\nMonday.\n\nJAMES.  Was he, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [Very faintly]  No, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Very well, then, how do you account for the fact that this\nnought was added to the nine in the counterfoil on or after Tuesday?\n\nCOKESON.  [Surprised]  How's that?\n\n     FALDER gives a sort of lurch; he tries to pull himself together,\n     but he has gone all to pieces.\n\nJAMES.  [Very grimly]  Out, I'm afraid, Cokeson.  The cheque-book\nremained in Mr. Walter's pocket till he came back from Trenton on\nTuesday morning.  In the face of this, Falder, do you still deny that\nyou altered both cheque and counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--no, Mr. How.  I did it, sir; I did it.\n\nCOKESON.  [Succumbing to his feelings]  Dear, dear! what a thing to\ndo!\n\nFALDER.  I wanted the money so badly, sir.  I didn't know what I was\ndoing.\n\nCOKESON.  However such a thing could have come into your head!\n\nFALDER.  [Grasping at the words]  I can't think, sir, really!  It was\njust a minute of madness.\n\nJAMES.  A long minute, Falder.  [Tapping the counterfoil] Four days\nat least.\n\nFALDER.  Sir, I swear I didn't know what I'd done till afterwards,\nand then I hadn't the pluck.  Oh!  Sir, look over it!  I'll pay the\nmoney back--I will, I promise.\n\nJAMES.  Go into your room.\n\n     FALDER, with a swift imploring look, goes back into his room.\n     There is silence.\n\nJAMES.  About as bad a case as there could be.\n\nCOKESON.  To break the law like that-in here!\n\nWALTER.  What's to be done?\n\nJAMES.  Nothing for it.  Prosecute.\n\nWALTER.  It's his first offence.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head]  I've grave doubts of that.  Too neat a\npiece of swindling altogether.\n\nCOKESON.  I shouldn't be surprised if he was tempted.\n\nJAMES.  Life's one long temptation, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm speaking of the flesh and the devil, Mr.\nJames.  There was a woman come to see him this morning.\n\nWALTER.  The woman we passed as we came in just now.  Is it his wife?\n\nCOKESON.  No, no relation.  [Restraining what in jollier\ncircumstances would have been a wink]  A married person, though.\n\nWALTER.  How do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Brought her children.  [Scandalised]  There they were\noutside the office.\n\nJAMES.  A real bad egg.\n\nWALTER.  I should like to give him a chance.\n\nJAMES.  I can't forgive him for the sneaky way he went to work--\ncounting on our suspecting young Davis if the matter came to light.\nIt was the merest accident the cheque-book stayed in your pocket.\n\nWALTER.  It must have been the temptation of a moment.  He hadn't\ntime.\n\nJAMES.  A man doesn't succumb like that in a moment, if he's a clean\nmind and habits.  He's rotten; got the eyes of a man who can't keep\nhis hands off when there's money about.\n\nWALTER.  [Dryly] We hadn't noticed that before.\n\nJAMES.  [Brushing the remark aside] I've seen lots of those fellows\nin my time.  No doing anything with them except to keep 'em out of\nharm's way.  They've got a blind spat.\n\nWALTER.  It's penal servitude.\n\nCOKESON.  They're nahsty places-prisons.\n\nJAMES.  [Hesitating] I don't see how it's possible to spare him.  Out\nof the question to keep him in this office--honesty's the 'sine qua\nnon'.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hypnotised] Of course it is.\n\nJAMES.  Equally out of the question to send him out amongst people\nwho've no knowledge of his character.  One must think of society.\n\nWALTER.  But to brand him like this?\n\nJAMES.  If it had been a straightforward case I'd give him another\nchance.  It's far from that.  He has dissolute habits.\n\nCOKESON.  I didn't say that--extenuating circumstances.\n\nJAMES.  Same thing.  He's gone to work in the most cold-blooded way\nto defraud his employers, and cast the blame on an innocent man.  If\nthat's not a case for the law to take its course, I don't know what\nis.\n\nWALTER.  For the sake of his future, though.\n\nJAMES.  [Sarcastically]  According to you, no one would ever\nprosecute.\n\nWALTER.  [Nettled]  I hate the idea of it.\n\nCOKESON.  That's rather 'ex parte', Mr. Walter!  We must have\nprotection.\n\nJAMES.  This is degenerating into talk.\n\n     He moves towards the partners' room.\n\nWALTER.  Put yourself in his place, father.\n\nJAMES.  You ask too much of me.\n\nWALTER.  We can't possibly tell the pressure there was on him.\n\nJAMES.  You may depend on it, my boy, if a man is going to do this\nsort of thing he'll do it, pressure or no pressure; if he isn't\nnothing'll make him.\n\nWALTER.  He'll never do it again.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fatuously] S'pose I were to have a talk with him.  We\ndon't want to be hard on the young man.\n\nJAMES.  That'll do, Cokeson.  I've made up my mind.  [He passes into\nthe partners' room.]\n\nCOKESON.  [After a doubtful moment]  We must excuse your father.  I\ndon't want to go against your father; if he thinks it right.\n\nWALTER.  Confound it, Cokeson! why don't you back me up?  You know\nyou feel----\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity]  I really can't say what I feel.\n\nWALTER.  We shall regret it.\n\nCOKESON.  He must have known what he was doing.\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly]  \"The quality of mercy is not strained.\"\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him askance]  Come, come, Mr. Walter.  We must\ntry and see it sensible.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering with a tray] Your lunch, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Put it down!\n\n     While SWEEDLE is putting it down on COKESON's table, the\n     detective, WISTER, enters the outer office, and, finding no one\n     there, comes to the inner doorway.  He is a square, medium-sized\n     man, clean-shaved, in a serviceable blue serge suit and strong\n     boots.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hoarsely]  Here!  Here!  What are we doing?\n\nWISTER.  [To WALTER]  From Scotland Yard, sir.  Detective-Sergeant\nBlister.\n\nWALTER.  [Askance] Very well!  I'll speak to my father.\n\n     He goes into the partners' room.  JAMES enters.\n\nJAMES.  Morning!  [In answer to an appealing gesture from COKESON]\nI'm sorry; I'd stop short of this if I felt I could.  Open that door.\n[SWEEDLE, wondering and scared, opens it] Come here, Mr. Falder.\n\n     As FALDER comes shrinkingly out, the detective in obedience to a\n     sign from JAMES, slips his hand out and grasps his arm.\n\nFALDER.  [Recoiling] Oh! no,--oh! no!\n\nWALTER.  Come, come, there's a good lad.\n\nJAMES.  I charge him with felony.\n\nFALTER.  Oh, sir!  There's some one--I did it for her.  Let me be\ntill to-morrow.\n\n     JAMES motions with his hand.  At that sign of hardness, FALDER\n     becomes rigid.  Then, turning, he goes out quietly in the\n     detective's grip.  JAMES follows, stiff and erect.  SWEEDLE,\n     rushing to the door with open mouth, pursues them through the\n     outer office into the corridor.  When they have all disappeared\n     COKESON spins completely round and makes a rush for the outer\n     office.\n\nCOKESON: [Hoarsely] Here!  What are we doing?\n\n     There is silence.  He takes out his handkerchief and mops the\n     sweat from his face.  Going back blindly to his table, sits\n     down, and stares blankly at his lunch.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\nACT II\n\nA Court of Justice, on a foggy October afternoon crowded with\nbarristers, solicitors, reporters, ushers, and jurymen.  Sitting in\nthe large, solid dock is FALDER, with a warder on either side of him,\nplaced there for his safe custody, but seemingly indifferent to and\nunconscious of his presence.  FALDER is sitting exactly opposite to\nthe JUDGE, who, raised above the clamour of the court, also seems\nunconscious of and indifferent to everything.  HAROLD CLEAVER, the\ncounsel for the Crown, is a dried, yellowish man, of more than middle\nage, in a wig worn almost to the colour of his face.  HECTOR FROME,\nthe counsel for the defence, is a young, tall man, clean shaved, in a\nvery white wig.  Among the spectators,  having already given their\nevidence, are JAMES and WALTER HOW, and COWLEY, the cashier.  WISTER,\nthe detective, is just leaving the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  That is the case for the Crown, me lud!\n\n     Gathering his robes together, he sits down.\n\nFROME.  [Rising and bowing to the JUDGE] If it please your lordship\nand gentlemen of the jury.  I am not going to dispute the fact that\nthe prisoner altered this cheque, but I am going to put before you\nevidence as to the condition of his mind, and to submit that you\nwould not be justified in finding that he was responsible for his\nactions at the time.  I am going to show you, in fact, that he did\nthis in a moment of aberration, amounting to temporary insanity,\ncaused by the violent distress under which he was labouring.\nGentlemen, the prisoner is only twenty-three years old.  I shall call\nbefore you a woman from whom you will learn the events that led up to\nthis act.  You will hear from her own lips the tragic circumstances\nof her life, the still more tragic infatuation with which she has\ninspired the prisoner.  This woman, gentlemen, has been leading a\nmiserable existence with a husband who habitually ill-uses her, from\nwhom she actually goes in terror of her life.  I am not, of course,\nsaying that it's either right or desirable for a young man to fall in\nlove with a married woman, or that it's his business to rescue her\nfrom an ogre-like husband.  I'm not saying anything of the sort.  But\nwe all know the power of the passion of love; and I would ask you to\nremember, gentlemen, in listening to her evidence, that, married to a\ndrunken and violent husband, she has no power to get rid of him; for,\nas you know, another offence besides violence is necessary to enable\na woman to obtain a divorce; and of this offence it does not appear\nthat her husband is guilty.\n\nJUDGE.  Is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  My lord, I submit, extremely--I shall be able to show your\nlordship that directly.\n\nJUDGE.  Very well.\n\nFROME.  In these circumstances, what alternatives were left to her?\nShe could either go on living with this drunkard, in terror of her\nlife; or she could apply to the Court for a separation order.  Well,\ngentlemen, my experience of such cases assures me that this would\nhave given her very insufficient protection from the violence of such\na man; and even if effectual would very likely have reduced her\neither to the workhouse or the streets--for it's not easy, as she is\nnow finding, for an unskilled woman without means of livelihood to\nsupport herself and her children without resorting either to the Poor\nLaw or--to speak quite plainly--to the sale of her body.\n\nJUDGE.  You are ranging rather far, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  I shall fire point-blank in a minute, my lord.\n\nJUDGE.  Let us hope so.\n\nFROME.  Now, gentlemen, mark--and this is what I have been leading up\nto--this woman will tell you, and the prisoner will confirm her,\nthat, confronted with such alternatives, she set her whole hopes on\nhimself, knowing the feeling with which she had inspired him.  She\nsaw a way out of her misery by going with him to a new country, where\nthey would both be unknown, and might pass as husband and wife.  This\nwas a desperate and, as my friend Mr. Cleaver will no doubt call it,\nan immoral resolution; but, as a fact, the minds of both of them were\nconstantly turned towards it.  One wrong is no excuse for another,\nand those who are never likely to be faced by such a situation\npossibly have the right to hold up their hands--as to that I prefer\nto say nothing.  But whatever view you take, gentlemen, of this part\nof the prisoner's story--whatever opinion you form of the right of\nthese two young people under such circumstances to take the law into\ntheir own hands--the fact remains that this young woman in her\ndistress, and this young man, little more than a boy, who was so\ndevotedly attached to her, did conceive this--if you like--\nreprehensible design of going away together.  Now, for that, of\ncourse, they required money, and--they had none.  As to the actual\nevents of the morning of July 7th, on which this cheque was altered,\nthe events on which I rely to prove the defendant's irresponsibility\n--I shall allow those events to speak for themselves, through the\nlips of my witness.  Robert Cokeson.  [He turns, looks round, takes\nup a sheet of paper, and waits.]\n\n     COKESON is summoned into court, and goes into the witness-box,\n     holding his hat before him.  The oath is administered to him.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nCOKESON.  Robert Cokeson.\n\nFROME.  Are you managing clerk to the firm of solicitors who employ\nthe prisoner?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  How long had the prisoner been in their employ?\n\nCOKESON.  Two years.  No, I'm wrong there--all but seventeen days.\n\nFROME.  Had you him under your eye all that time?\n\nCOKESON.  Except Sundays and holidays.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  Let us hear, please, what you have to say about\nhis general character during those two years.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially to the jury, and as if a little surprised\nat being asked]  He was a nice, pleasant-spoken young man.  I'd no\nfault to find with him--quite the contrary.  It was a great surprise\nto me when he did a thing like that.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever give you reason to suspect his honesty?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  To have dishonesty in our office, that'd never do.\n\nFROME.  I'm sure the jury fully appreciate that, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Every man of business knows that honesty's 'the sign qua\nnon'.\n\nFROME.  Do you give him a good character all round, or do you not?\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning to the JUDGE]  Certainly.  We were all very jolly\nand pleasant together, until this happened.  Quite upset me.\n\nFROME.  Now, coming to the morning of the 7th of July, the morning on\nwhich the cheque was altered.  What have you to say about his\ndemeanour that morning?\n\nCOKESON.  [To the jury]  If you ask me, I don't think he was quite\ncompos when he did it.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  Are you suggesting that he was insane?\n\nCOKESON.  Not compos.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  A little more precision, please.\n\nFROME.  [Smoothly]  Just tell us, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Somewhat outraged]  Well, in my opinion--[looking at the\nJUDGE]--such as it is--he was jumpy at the time.  The jury will\nunderstand my meaning.\n\nFROME.  Will you tell us how you came to that conclusion?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I will.  I have my lunch in from the restaurant, a\nchop and a potato--saves time.  That day it happened to come just as\nMr. Walter How handed me the cheque.  Well, I like it hot; so I went\ninto the clerks' office and I handed the cheque to Davis, the other\nclerk, and told him to get change.  I noticed young Falder walking up\nand down.  I said to him: \"This is not the Zoological Gardens,\nFalder.\"\n\nFROME.  Do you remember what he answered?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es: \"I wish to God it were!\"  Struck me as funny.\n\nFROME.  Did you notice anything else peculiar?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  What was that?\n\nCOKESON.  His collar was unbuttoned.  Now, I like a young man to be\nneat.  I said to him: \"Your collar's unbuttoned.\"\n\nFROME.  And what did he answer?\n\nCOKESON.  Stared at me.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Stared at you?  Isn't that a very common practice?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but it was the look in his eyes.  I can't explain my\nmeaning--it was funny.\n\nFROME.  Had you ever seen such a look in his eyes before?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  If I had I should have spoken to the partners.  We\ncan't have anything eccentric in our profession.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Did you speak to them on that occasion?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, I didn't like to trouble them about\nprime facey evidence.\n\nFROME.  But it made a very distinct impression on your mind?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  The clerk Davis could have told you the same.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  It's very unfortunate that we've not got him here.\nNow can you tell me of the morning on which the discovery of the\nforgery was made?  That would be the 18th.  Did anything happen that\nmorning?\n\nCOKESON.  [With his hand to his ear]  I'm a little deaf.\n\nFROME.  Was there anything in the course of that morning--I mean\nbefore the discovery--that caught your attention?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es--a woman.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  How is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  I am trying to establish the state of mind in which the\nprisoner committed this act, my lord.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I quite appreciate that.  But this was long after the\nact.\n\nFROME.  Yes, my lord, but it contributes to my contention.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Well!\n\nFROME.  You say a woman.  Do you mean that she came to the office?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  What for?\n\nCOKESON.  Asked to see young Falder; he was out at the moment.\n\nFROME.  Did you see her?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  Did she come alone?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, there you put me in a difficulty.\nI mustn't tell you what the office-boy told me.\n\nFROME.  Quite so, Mr. Cokeson, quite so----\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in with an air of \"You are young--leave it to\nme\"]  But I think we can get round it.  In answer to a question put\nto her by a third party the woman said to me: \"They're mine, sir.\"\n\nTHE JUDGE.  What are?  What were?\n\nCOKESON.  Her children.  They were outside.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  HOW do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Your lordship mustn't ask me that, or I shall have to tell\nyou what I was told--and that'd never do.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Smiling]  The office-boy made a statement.\n\nCOKESON.  Egg-zactly.\n\nFROME.  What I want to ask you, Mr. Cokeson, is this.  In the course\nof her appeal to see Falder, did the woman say anything that you\nspecially remember?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as if to encourage him to complete the\nsentence]  A leetle more, sir.\n\nFROME.  Or did she not?\n\nCOKESON.  She did.  I shouldn't like you to have led me to the\nanswer.\n\nFROME.  [With an irritated smile]  Will you tell the jury what it\nwas?\n\nCOKESON.  \"It's a matter of life and death.\"\n\nFOREMAN OF THE JURY.  Do you mean the woman said that?\n\nCOKESON.  [Nodding]  It's not the sort of thing you like to have said\nto you.\n\nFROME.  [A little impatiently]  Did Falder come in while she was\nthere?  [COKESON nods]  And she saw him, and went away?\n\nCOKESON.  Ah!  there I can't follow you.  I didn't see her go.\n\nFROME.  Well, is she there now?\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  No!\n\nFROME.  Thank you, Mr. Cokeson.  [He sits down.]\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rising] You say that on the morning of the forgery the\nprisoner was jumpy.  Well, now, sir, what precisely do you mean by\nthat word?\n\nCOKESON.  [Indulgently]  I want you to understand.  Have you ever\nseen a dog that's lost its master?  He was kind of everywhere at once\nwith his eyes.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I was coming to his eyes.  You called them\n\"funny.\"  What are we to understand by that?  Strange, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, funny.\n\nCOKESON.  [Sharply]  Yes, sir, but what may be funny to you may not\nbe funny to me, or to the jury.  Did they look frightened, or shy, or\nfierce, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  You make it very hard for me.  I give you the word, and you\nwant me to give you another.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rapping his desk] Does \"funny\" mean mad?\n\nCLEAVER.  Not mad, fun----\n\nCLEAVER.  Very well!  Now you say he had his collar unbuttoned?  Was\nit a hot day?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es; I think it was.\n\nCLEAVER.  And did he button it when you called his attention to it?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I think he did.\n\nCLEAVER.  Would you say that that denoted insanity?\n\n     He sits downs.  COKESON, who has opened his mouth to reply, is\n     left gaping.\n\nFROME.  [Rising hastily] Have you ever caught him in that dishevelled\nstate before?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  He was always clean and quiet.\n\nFROME.  That will do, thank you.\n\n     COKESON turns blandly to the JUDGE, as though to rebuke counsel\n     for not remembering that the JUDGE might wish to have a chance;\n     arriving at the conclusion that he is to be asked nothing\n     further, he turns and descends from the box, and sits down next\n     to JAMES and WALTER.\n\nFROME.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\n     RUTH comes into court, and takes her stand stoically in the\n     witness-box.  She is sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name, please?\n\nRUTH.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\nFROME.  How old are you?\n\nRUTH.  Twenty-six.\n\nFROME.  You are a married woman, living with your husband?  A little\nlouder.\n\nRUTH.  No, sir; not since July.\n\nFROME.  Have you any children?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir, two.\n\nFROME.  Are they living with you?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  You know the prisoner?\n\nRUTH. [Looking at him]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  What was the nature of your relations with him?\n\nRUTH.  We were friends.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Friends?\n\nRUTH.  [Simply]  Lovers, sir.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  In what sense do you use that word?\n\nRUTH.  We love each other.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, but----\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  No, your lordship--not yet.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  'Not yet!  H'm!  [He looks from RUTH to FALDER]  Well!\n\nFROME.  What is your husband?\n\nRUTH.  Traveller.\n\nFROME.  And what was the nature of your married life?\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  It don't bear talking about.\n\nFROME.  Did he ill-treat you, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Ever since my first was born.\n\nFROME.  In what way?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather not say.  All sorts of ways.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I am afraid I must stop this, you know.\n\nRUTH.  [Pointing to FALDER]  He offered to take me out of it, sir.\nWe were going to South America.\n\nFROME.  [Hastily]  Yes, quite--and what prevented you?\n\nRUTH.  I was outside his office when he was taken away.  It nearly\nbroke my heart.\n\nFROME.  You knew, then, that he had been arrested?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.  I called at his office afterwards, and  [pointing\nto COKESON] that gentleman told me all about it.\n\nFROME.  Now, do you remember the morning of Friday, July 7th?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Why?\n\nRUTH.  My husband nearly strangled me that morning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Nearly strangled you!\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head] Yes, my lord.\n\nFROME.  With his hands, or----?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I just managed to get away from him.  I went straight to\nmy friend.  It was eight o'clock.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  In the morning?  Your husband was not under the influence\nof liquor then?\n\nRUTH.  It wasn't always that.\n\nFROME.  In what condition were you?\n\nRUTH.  In very bad condition, sir.  My dress was torn, and I was half\nchoking.\n\nFROME.  Did you tell your friend what had happened?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I wish I never had.\n\nFROME.  It upset him?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever speak to you about a cheque?\n\nRUTH.  Never.\n\nFROZE.  Did he ever give you any money?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  When was that?\n\nRUTH.  On Saturday.\n\nFROME.  The 8th?\n\nRUTH.  To buy an outfit for me and the children, and get all ready to\nstart.\n\nFROME.  Did that surprise you, or not?\n\nRUTH.  What, sir?\n\nFROME.  That he had money to give you.\n\nRing.  Yes, because on the morning when my husband nearly killed me\nmy friend cried because he hadn't the money to get me away.  He told\nme afterwards he'd come into a windfall.\n\nFROME.  And when did you last see him?\n\nRUTH.  The day he was taken away, sir.  It was the day we were to\nhave started.\n\nFROME.  Oh, yes, the morning of the arrest.  Well, did you see him at\nall between the Friday and that morning?  [RUTH nods]  What was his\nmanner then?\n\nRUTH.  Dumb--like--sometimes he didn't seem able to say a word.\n\nFROME.  As if something unusual had happened to him?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Painful, or pleasant, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Like a fate hanging over him.\n\nFROME.  [Hesitating]  Tell me, did you love the prisoner very much?\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  And had he a very great affection for you?\n\nRUTH.  [Looking at FALDER]  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  Now, ma'am, do you or do you not think that your danger and\nunhappiness would seriously affect his balance, his control over his\nactions?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  His reason, even?\n\nRUTH.  For a moment like, I think it would.\n\nFROME.  Was he very much upset that Friday morning, or was he fairly\ncalm?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully upset.  I could hardly bear to let him go from me.\n\nFROME.  Do you still love him?\n\nRUTH.  [With her eyes on FALDER]  He's ruined himself for me.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.\n\n     He sits down.  RUTH remains stoically upright in the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  [In a considerate voice]  When you left him on the morning\nof Friday the 7th you would not say that he was out of his mind, I\nsuppose?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I've no further questions to ask you.\n\nRUTH.  [Bending a little forward to the jury]  I would have done the\nsame for him; I would indeed.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Please, please!  You say your married life is an unhappy\none?  Faults on both sides?\n\nRUTH.  Only that I never bowed down to him.  I don't see why I\nshould, sir, not to a man like that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You refused to obey him?\n\nRUTH.  [Avoiding the question]  I've always studied him to keep\nthings nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Until you met the prisoner--was that it?\n\nRUTH.  No; even after that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I ask, you know, because you seem to me to glory in this\naffection of yours for the prisoner.\n\nRUTH.  [Hesitating]  I--I do.  It's the only thing in my life now.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Staring at her hard] Well, step down, please.\n\n     RUTH looks at FALDER, then passes quietly down and takes her\n     seat among the witnesses.\n\nFROME.  I call the prisoner, my lord.\n\n     FALDER leaves the dock; goes into the witness-box, and is duly\n     sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nFALDER.  William Falder.\n\nFROME.  And age?\n\nFALDER.  Twenty-three.\n\nFROME.  You are not married?\n\n     FALDER shakes his head\n\nFROME.  How long have you known the last witness?\n\nFALDER.  Six months.\n\nFROME.  Is her account of the relationship between you a correct one?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  You became devotedly attached to her, however?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Though you knew she was a married woman?\n\nFALDER.  I couldn't help it, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Couldn't help it?\n\nFALDER.  I didn't seem able to.\n\n     The JUDGE slightly shrugs his shoulders.\n\nFROME.  How did you come to know her?\n\nFALDER.  Through my married sister.\n\nFROME.  Did you know whether she was happy with her husband?\n\nFALDER.  It was trouble all the time.\n\nFROME.  You knew her husband?\n\nFALDER.  Only through her--he's a brute.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I can't allow indiscriminate abuse of a person not\npresent.\n\nFROME.  [Bowing]  If your lordship pleases.  [To FALDER]  You admit\naltering this cheque?\n\nFALDER bows his head.\n\nFROME.  Carry your mind, please, to the morning of Friday, July the\n7th, and tell the jury what happened.\n\nFALDER.  [Turning to the jury]  I was having my breakfast when she\ncame.  Her dress was all torn, and she was gasping and couldn't seem\nto get her breath at all; there were the marks of his fingers round\nher throat; her arm was bruised, and the blood had got into her eyes\ndreadfully.  It frightened me, and then when she told me, I felt--I\nfelt--well--it was too much for me!  [Hardening suddenly]  If you'd\nseen it, having the feelings for her that I had, you'd have felt the\nsame, I know.\n\nFROME.  Yes?\n\nFALDER.  When she left me--because I had to go to the office--I was\nout of my senses for fear that he'd do it again, and thinking what I\ncould do.  I couldn't work--all the morning I was like that--simply\ncouldn't fix my mind on anything.  I couldn't think at all.  I seemed\nto have to keep moving.  When Davis--the other clerk--gave me the\ncheque--he said: \"It'll do you good, Will, to have a run with this.\nYou seem half off your chump this morning.\"  Then when I had it in my\nhand--I don't know how it came, but it just flashed across me that if\nI put the 'ty' and the nought there would be the money to get her\naway.  It just came and went--I never thought of it again.  Then\nDavis went out to his luncheon, and I don't really remember what I\ndid till I'd pushed the cheque through to the cashier under the rail.\nI remember his saying \"Gold or notes?\"  Then I suppose I knew what\nI'd done.  Anyway, when I got outside I wanted to chuck myself under\na bus; I wanted to throw the money away; but it seemed I was in for\nit, so I thought at any rate I'd save her.  Of course the tickets I\ntook for the passage and the little I gave her's been wasted, and\nall, except what I was obliged to spend myself, I've restored.  I\nkeep thinking over and over however it was I came to do it, and how I\ncan't have it all again to do differently!\n\n     FALDER is silent, twisting his hands before him.\n\nFROME.  How far is it from your office to the bank?\n\nFALDER.  Not more than fifty yards, sir.\n\nFROME.  From the time Davis went out to lunch to the time you cashed\nthe cheque, how long do you say it must have been?\n\nFALDER.  It couldn't have been four minutes, sir, because I ran all\nthe way.\n\nFROME.  During those four minutes you say you remember nothing?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir; only that I ran.\n\nFROME.  Not even adding the 'ty' and the nought?'\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.  I don't really.\n\n     FROME sits down, and CLEAVER rises.\n\nCLEAVER.  But you remember running, do you?\n\nFALDER.  I was all out of breath when I got to the bank.\n\nCLEAVER.  And you don't remember altering the cheque?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Divested of the romantic glamour which my friend is casting\nover the case, is this anything but an ordinary forgery?  Come.\n\nFALDER.  I was half frantic all that morning, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Now, now!  You don't deny that the 'ty' and the nought were\nso like the rest of the handwriting as to thoroughly deceive the\ncashier?\n\nFALDER.  It was an accident.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Cheerfully]  Queer sort of accident, wasn't it?  On which\nday did you alter the counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  [Hanging his head]  On the Wednesday morning.\n\nCLEAVER.  Was that an accident too?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No.\n\nCLEAVER.  To do that you had to watch your opportunity, I suppose?\n\nFALDER.  [Almost inaudibly] Yes.\n\nCLEAVER.  You don't suggest that you were suffering under great\nexcitement when you did that?\n\nFALDER.  I was haunted.\n\nCLEAVER.  With the fear of being found out?\n\nFALDER.  [Very low] Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Didn't it occur to you that the only thing for you to do\nwas to confess to your employers, and restore the money?\n\nFALDER.  I was afraid. [There is silence]\n\nCLEAVER.  You desired, too, no doubt, to complete your design of\ntaking this woman away?\n\nFALDER.  When I found I'd done a thing like that, to do it for\nnothing seemed so dreadful.  I might just as well have chucked myself\ninto the river.\n\nCLEAVER.  You knew that the clerk Davis was about to leave England\n--didn't it occur to you when you altered this cheque that suspicion\nwould fall on him?\n\nFALDER.  It was all done in a moment.  I thought of it afterwards.\n\nCLEAVER.  And that didn't lead you to avow what you'd done?\n\nFALDER.  [Sullenly]  I meant to write when I got out there--I would\nhave repaid the money.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  But in the meantime your innocent fellow clerk might have\nbeen prosecuted.\n\nFALDER.  I knew he was a long way off, your lordship.  I thought\nthere'd be time.  I didn't think they'd find it out so soon.\n\nFROME.  I might remind your lordship that as Mr. Walter How had the\ncheque-book in his pocket till after Davis had sailed, if the\ndiscovery had been made only one day later Falder himself would have\nleft, and suspicion would have attached to him, and not to Davis,\nfrom the beginning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  The question is whether the prisoner knew that suspicion\nwould light on himself, and not on Davis.  [To FALDER sharply] Did\nyou know that Mr. Walter How had the cheque-book till after Davis\nhad sailed?\n\nFALDER.  I--I--thought--he----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Now speak the truth-yes or no!\n\nFALDER.  [Very low]  No, my lord.  I had no means of knowing.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  That disposes of your point, Mr. Frome.\n\n     [FROME bows to the JUDGE]\n\nCLEAVER.  Has any aberration of this nature ever attacked you before?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  You had recovered sufficiently to go back to your work that\nafternoon?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I had to take the money back.\n\nCLEAVER.  You mean the nine pounds.  Your wits were sufficiently keen\nfor you to remember that?  And you still persist in saying you don't\nremember altering this cheque.  [He sits down]\n\nFALDER.  If I hadn't been mad I should never have had the courage.\n\nFROME.  [Rising]  Did you have your lunch before going back?\n\nFALDER.  I never ate a thing all day; and at night I couldn't sleep.\n\nFROME.  Now, as to the four minutes that elapsed between Davis's\ngoing out and your cashing the cheque: do you say that you recollect\nnothing during those four minutes?\n\nFALDER.  [After a moment] I remember thinking of Mr. Cokeson's face.\n\nFROME.  Of Mr. Cokeson's face!  Had that any connection with what you\nwere doing?\n\nFALDER.  No, Sir.\n\nFROME.  Was that in the office, before you ran out?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and while I was running.\n\nFROME.  And that lasted till the cashier said: \"Will you have gold or\nnotes?\"\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and then I seemed to come to myself--and it was too\nlate.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.  That closes the evidence for the defence, my\nlord.\n\n     The JUDGE nods, and FALDER goes back to his seat in the dock.\n\nFROME.  [Gathering up notes]  If it please your lordship--Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--My friend in cross-examination has shown a disposition\nto sneer at the defence which has been set up in this case, and I am\nfree to admit that nothing I can say will move you, if the evidence\nhas not already convinced you that the prisoner committed this act in\na moment when to all practical intents and purposes he was not\nresponsible for his actions; a moment of such mental and moral\nvacuity, arising from the violent emotional agitation under which he\nhad been suffering, as to amount to temporary madness.  My friend has\nalluded to the \"romantic glamour\" with which I have sought to invest\nthis case.  Gentlemen, I have done nothing of the kind.  I have\nmerely shown you the background of \"life\"--that palpitating life\nwhich, believe me--whatever my friend may say--always lies behind the\ncommission of a crime.  Now gentlemen, we live in a highly, civilized\nage, and the sight of brutal violence disturbs us in a very strange\nway, even when we have no personal interest in the matter.  But when\nwe see it inflicted on a woman whom we love--what then?  Just think\nof what your own feelings would have been, each of you, at the\nprisoner's age; and then look at him.  Well!  he is hardly the\ncomfortable, shall we say bucolic, person likely to contemplate with\nequanimity marks of gross violence on a woman to whom he was\ndevotedly attached.  Yes, gentlemen, look at him!  He has not a\nstrong face; but neither has he a vicious face.  He is just the sort\nof man who would easily become the prey of his emotions.  You have\nheard the description of his eyes.  My friend may laugh at the word\n\"funny\"--I think it better describes the peculiar uncanny look of\nthose who are strained to breaking-point than any other word which\ncould have been used.  I don't pretend, mind you, that his mental\nirresponsibility--was more than a flash of darkness, in which all\nsense of proportion became lost; but to contend, that, just as a man\nwho destroys himself at such a moment may be, and often is, absolved\nfrom the stigma attaching to the crime of self-murder, so he may, and\nfrequently does, commit other crimes while in this irresponsible\ncondition, and that he may as justly be acquitted of criminal intent\nand treated as a patient.  I admit that this is a plea which might\nwell be abused.  It is a matter for discretion.  But here you have a\ncase in which there is every reason to give the benefit of the doubt.\nYou heard me ask the prisoner what he thought of during those four\nfatal minutes.  What was his answer?  \"I thought of Mr. Cokeson's\nface!\"  Gentlemen, no man could invent an answer like that; it is\nabsolutely stamped with truth.  You have seen the great affection\n[legitimate or not] existing between him and this woman, who came\nhere to give evidence for him at the risk of her life.  It is\nimpossible for you to doubt his distress on the morning when he\ncommitted this act.  We well know what terrible havoc such distress\ncan make in weak and highly nervous people.  It was all the work of a\nmoment.  The rest has followed, as death follows a stab to the heart,\nor water drops if you hold up a jug to empty it.  Believe me,\ngentlemen, there is nothing more tragic in life than the utter\nimpossibility of changing what you have done.  Once this cheque was\naltered and presented, the work of four minutes--four mad minutes\n--the rest has been silence.  But in those four minutes the boy\nbefore you has slipped through a door, hardly opened, into that great\ncage which never again quite lets a man go--the cage of the Law.  His\nfurther acts, his failure to confess, the alteration of the\ncounterfoil, his preparations for flight, are all evidence--not of\ndeliberate and guilty intention when he committed the prime act from\nwhich these subsequent acts arose; no--they are merely evidence of\nthe weak character which is clearly enough his misfortune.  But is a\nman to be lost because he is bred and born with a weak character?\nGentlemen, men like the prisoner are destroyed daily under our law\nfor want of that human insight which sees them as they are, patients,\nand not criminals.  If the prisoner be found guilty, and treated as\nthough he were a criminal type, he will, as all experience shows, in\nall probability become one.  I beg you not to return a verdict that\nmay thrust him back into prison and brand him for ever.  Gentlemen,\nJustice is a machine that, when some one has once given it the\nstarting push, rolls on of itself.  Is this young man to be ground to\npieces under this machine for an act which at the worst was one of\nweakness?  Is he to become a member of the luckless crews that man\nthose dark, ill-starred ships called prisons?  Is that to be his\nvoyage-from which so few return?  Or is he to have another chance, to\nbe still looked on as one who has gone a little astray, but who will\ncome back?  I urge you, gentlemen, do not ruin this young man!  For,\nas a result of those four minutes, ruin, utter and irretrievable,\nstares him in the face.  He can be saved now.  Imprison him as a\ncriminal, and I affirm to you that he will be lost.  He has neither\nthe face nor the manner of one who can survive that terrible ordeal.\nWeigh in the scales his criminality and the suffering he has\nundergone.  The latter is ten times heavier already.  He has lain in\nprison under this charge for more than two months.  Is he likely ever\nto forget that?  Imagine the anguish of his mind during that time.\nHe has had his punishment, gentlemen, you may depend.  The rolling of\nthe chariot-wheels of Justice over this boy began when it was decided\nto prosecute him.  We are now already at the second stage.  If you\npermit it to go on to the third I would not give--that for him.\n\n     He holds up finger and thumb in the form of a circle, drops his\n     hand, and sits dozen.\n\nThe jury stir, and consult each other's faces; then they turn towards\nthe counsel for the Crown, who rises, and, fixing his eyes on a spot\nthat seems to give him satisfaction, slides them every now and then\ntowards the jury.\n\nCLEAVER.  May it please your lordship--[Rising on his toes] Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--The facts in this case are not disputed, and the\ndefence, if my friend will allow me to say so, is so thin that I\ndon't propose to waste the time of the Court by taking you over the\nevidence.  The plea is one of temporary insanity.  Well, gentlemen, I\ndaresay it is clearer to me than it is to you why this rather--what\nshall we call it?--bizarre defence has been set up.  The alternative\nwould have been to plead guilty.  Now, gentlemen, if the prisoner had\npleaded guilty my friend would have had to rely on a simple appeal to\nhis lordship.  Instead of that, he has gone into the byways and\nhedges and found this--er--peculiar plea, which has enabled him to\nshow you the proverbial woman, to put her in the box--to give, in\nfact, a romantic glow to this affair.  I compliment my friend; I\nthink it highly ingenious of him.  By these means, he has--to a\ncertain extent--got round the Law.  He has brought the whole story of\nmotive and stress out in court, at first hand, in a way that he would\nnot otherwise have been able to do.  But when you have once grasped\nthat fact, gentlemen, you have grasped everything.  [With\ngood-humoured contempt]  For look at this plea of insanity; we can't\nput it lower than that.  You have heard the woman.  She has every\nreason to favour the prisoner, but what did she say?  She said that\nthe prisoner was not insane when she left him in the morning.  If he\nwere going out of his mind through distress, that was obviously the\nmoment when insanity would have shown itself.  You have heard the\nmanaging clerk, another witness for the defence.  With some\ndifficulty I elicited from him the admission that the prisoner,\nthough jumpy [a word that he seemed to think you would understand,\ngentlemen, and I'm sure I hope you do], was not mad when the cheque\nwas handed to Davis.  I agree with my friend that it's unfortunate\nthat we have not got Davis here, but the prisoner has told you the\nwords with which Davis in turn handed him the cheque; he obviously,\ntherefore, was not mad when he received it, or he would not have\nremembered those words.  The cashier has told you that he was\ncertainly in his senses when he cashed it.  We have therefore the\nplea that a man who is sane at ten minutes past one, and sane at\nfifteen minutes past, may, for the purposes of avoiding the\nconsequences of a crime, call himself insane between those points of\ntime.  Really, gentlemen, this is so peculiar a proposition that I am\nnot disposed to weary you with further argument.  You will form your\nown opinion of its value.  My friend has adopted this way of saying a\ngreat deal to you--and very eloquently--on the score of youth,\ntemptation, and the like.  I might point out, however, that the\noffence with which the prisoner is charged is one of the most serious\nknown to our law; and there are certain features in this case, such\nas the suspicion which he allowed to rest on his innocent fellow-clerk,\nand his relations with this married woman, which will render it\ndifficult for you to attach too much importance to such pleading. I\nask you, in short, gentlemen, for that verdict of guilty which, in the\ncircumstances, I regard you as, unfortunately, bound to record.\n\n     Letting his eyes travel from the JUDGE and the jury to FROME, he\n     sits down.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Bending a little towards the jury, and speaking in a\nbusiness-like voice]  Gentlemen, you have heard the evidence, and the\ncomments on it.  My only business is to make clear to you the issues\nyou have to try.  The facts are admitted, so far as the alteration of\nthis cheque and counterfoil by the prisoner.  The defence set up is\nthat he was not in a responsible condition when he committed the\ncrime.  Well, you have heard the prisoner's story, and the evidence\nof the other witnesses--so far as it bears on the point of insanity.\nIf you think that what you have heard establishes the fact that the\nprisoner was insane at the time of the forgery, you will find him\nguilty, but insane.  If, on the other hand, you conclude from what\nyou have seen and heard that the prisoner was sane--and nothing short\nof insanity will count--you will find him guilty.  In reviewing the\ntestimony as to his mental condition you must bear in mind very\ncarefully the evidence as to his demeanour and conduct both before\nand after the act of forgery--the evidence of the prisoner himself,\nof the woman, of the witness--er--COKESON, and--er--of the cashier.\nAnd in regard to that I especially direct your attention to the\nprisoner's admission that the idea of adding the 'ty' and the nought\ndid come into his mind at the moment when the cheque was handed to\nhim; and also to the alteration of the counterfoil, and to his\nsubsequent conduct generally.  The bearing of all this on the\nquestion of premeditation [and premeditation will imply sanity] is\nvery obvious.  You must not allow any considerations of age or\ntemptation to weigh with you in the finding of your verdict.  Before\nyou can come to a verdict of guilty but insane you must be well and\nthoroughly convinced that the condition of his mind was such as would\nhave qualified him at the moment for a lunatic asylum.  [He pauses,\nthen, seeing that the jury are doubtful whether to retire or no,\nadds:] You may retire, gentlemen, if you wish to do so.\n\n     The jury retire by a door behind the JUDGE.  The JUDGE bends\n     over his notes.  FALDER, leaning from the dock, speaks excitedly\n     to his solicitor, pointing dawn at RUTH.  The solicitor in turn\n     speaks to FROME.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] My lord.  The prisoner is very anxious that I should\nask you if your lordship would kindly request the reporters not to\ndisclose the name of the woman witness in the Press reports of these\nproceedings.  Your lordship will understand that the consequences\nmight be extremely serious to her.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Pointedly--with the suspicion of a smile]  well, Mr.\nFrome, you deliberately took this course which involved bringing her\nhere.\n\nFROME. [With an ironic bow]  If your lordship thinks I could have\nbrought out the full facts in any other way?\n\nTHE JUDGE.  H'm!  Well.\n\nFROME.  There is very real danger to her, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You see, I have to take your word for all that.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship would be so kind.  I can assure your\nlordship that I am not exaggerating.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  It goes very much against the grain with me that the name\nof a witness should ever be suppressed.  [With a glance at FALDER,\nwho is gripping and clasping his hands before him, and then at RUTH,\nwho is sitting perfectly rigid with her eyes fixed on FALDER]  I'll\nconsider your application.  It must depend.  I have to remember that\nshe may have come here to commit perjury on the prisoner's behalf.\n\nFROME.  Your lordship, I really----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, yes--I don't suggest anything of the sort, Mr.\nFrome.  Leave it at that for the moment.\n\n     As he finishes speaking, the jury return, and file back into the\n     box.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Gentlemen, are you agreed on your verdict?\n\nFOREMAN.  We are.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Is it Guilty, or Guilty but insane?\n\nFOREMAN.  Guilty.\n\n     The JUDGE nods; then, gathering up his notes, sits looking at\n     FALDER, who stands motionless.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] If your lordship would allow me to address you in\nmitigation of sentence.  I don't know if your lordship thinks I can\nadd anything to what I have said to the jury on the score of the\nprisoner's youth, and the great stress under which he acted.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I don't think you can, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship says so--I do most earnestly beg your\nlordship to give the utmost weight to my plea.  [He sits down.]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [To the CLERK] Call upon him.\n\nTHE CLERK.  Prisoner at the bar, you stand convicted of felony.  Have\nyou anything to say for yourself, why the Court should not give you\njudgment according to law?  [FALDER shakes his head]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  William Falder, you have been given fair trial and found\nguilty, in my opinion rightly found guilty, of forgery.  [He pauses;\nthen, consulting his notes, goes on]  The defence was set up that you\nwere not responsible for your actions at the moment of committing\nthis crime.  There is no, doubt, I think, that this was a device to\nbring out at first hand the nature of the temptation to which you\nsuccumbed.  For throughout the trial your counsel was in reality\nmaking an appeal for mercy.  The setting up of this defence of course\nenabled him to put in some evidence that might weigh in that\ndirection.  Whether he was well advised to so is another matter.  He\nclaimed that you should be treated rather as a patient than as a\ncriminal.  And this plea of his, which in the end amounted to a\npassionate appeal, he based in effect on an indictment of the march\nof Justice, which he practically accused of confirming and completing\nthe process of criminality.  Now, in considering how far I should\nallow weight to his appeal; I have a number of factors to take into\naccount.  I have to consider on the one hand the grave nature of your\noffence, the deliberate way in which you subsequently altered the\ncounterfoil, the danger you caused to an innocent man--and that, to\nmy mind, is a very grave point--and finally I have to consider the\nnecessity of deterring others from following your example.  On the\nother hand, I have to bear in mind that you are young, that you have\nhitherto borne a good character, that you were, if I am to believe\nyour evidence and that of your witnesses, in a state of some\nemotional excitement when you committed this crime.  I have every\nwish, consistently with my duty--not only to you, but to the\ncommunity--to treat you with leniency.  And this brings me to what\nare the determining factors in my mind in my consideration of your\ncase.  You are a clerk in a lawyer's office--that is a very serious\nelement in this case; there can be no possible excuse made for you on\nthe ground that you were not fully conversant with the nature of the\ncrime you were committing, and the penalties that attach to it.  It\nis said, however, that you were carried away by your emotions.  The\nstory has been told here to-day of your relations with this--er--Mrs.\nHoneywill; on that story both the defence and the plea for mercy were\nin effect based.  Now what is that story?  It is that you, a young\nman, and she, a young woman, unhappily married, had formed an\nattachment, which you both say--with what truth I am unable to gauge\n--had not yet resulted in immoral relations, but which you both admit\nwas about to result in such relationship.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to palliate this, on the ground that the woman is in what he\ndescribes, I think, as \"a hopeless position.\"  As to that I can\nexpress no opinion.  She is a married woman, and the fact is patent\nthat you committed this crime with the view of furthering an immoral\ndesign.  Now, however I might wish, I am not able to justify to my\nconscience a plea for mercy which has a basis inimical to morality.\nIt is vitiated 'ab initio', and would, if successful, free you for\nthe completion of this immoral project.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to trace your offence back to what he seems to suggest is a\ndefect in the marriage law; he has made an attempt also to show that\nto punish you with further imprisonment would be unjust.  I do not\nfollow him in these flights.  The Law is what it is--a majestic\nedifice, sheltering all of us, each stone of which rests on another.\nI am concerned only with its administration.  The crime you have\ncommitted is a very serious one.  I cannot feel it in accordance with\nmy duty to Society to exercise the powers I have in your favour.  You\nwill go to penal servitude for three years.\n\n     FALDER, who throughout the JUDGE'S speech has looked at him\n     steadily, lets his head fall forward on his breast.  RUTH starts\n     up from her seat as he is taken out by the warders.  There is a\n     bustle in court.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Speaking to the reporters] Gentlemen of the Press, I\nthink that the name of the female witness should not be reported.\n\n     The reporters bow their acquiescence.  THE JUDGE.  [To RUTH, who\n     is staring in the direction in which FALDER has disappeared] Do\n     you understand, your name will not be mentioned?\n\nCOKESON.  [Pulling her sleeve]  The judge is speaking to you.\n\n     RUTH turns, stares at the JUDGE, and turns away.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I shall sit rather late to-day.  Call the next case.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  [To a warder]  Put up John Booley.\n\n     To cries of \"Witnesses in the case of Booley\":\n\n\n                    The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT III\n\nSCENE I\n\n     A prison.  A plainly furnished room, with two large barred\n     windows, overlooking the prisoners' exercise yard, where men, in\n     yellow clothes marked with arrows, and yellow brimless caps, are\n     seen in single file at a distance of four yards from each other,\n     walking rapidly on serpentine white lines marked on the concrete\n     floor of the yard.  Two warders in blue uniforms, with peaked\n     caps and swords, are stationed amongst them.  The room has\n     distempered walls, a bookcase with numerous official-looking\n     books, a cupboard between the windows, a plan of the prison on\n     the wall, a writing-table covered with documents.  It is\n     Christmas Eve.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, a neat, grave-looking man, with a trim, fair\n     moustache, the eyes of a theorist, and grizzled hair, receding\n     from the temples, is standing close to this writing-table\n     looking at a sort of rough saw made out of a piece of metal.\n     The hand in which he holds it is gloved, for two fingers\n     are missing.  The chief warder, WOODER, a tall, thin,\n     military-looking man of sixty, with grey moustache and\n     melancholy, monkey-like eyes, stands very upright two paces\n     from him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a faint, abstracted smile]  Queer-looking\naffair, Mr. Wooder!  Where did you find it?\n\nWOODER.  In his mattress, sir.  Haven't come across such a thing for\ntwo years now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With curiosity] Had he any set plan?\n\nWOODER.  He'd sawed his window-bar about that much.  [He holds up his\nthumb and finger a quarter of an inch apart]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll see him this afternoon.  What's his name?\nMoaney!  An old hand, I think?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir-fourth spell of penal.  You'd think an old lag like\nhim would have had more sense by now.  [With pitying contempt]\nOccupied his mind, he said.  Breaking in and breaking out--that's all\nthey think about.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Who's next him?\n\nWOODER.  O'Cleary, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  The Irishman.\n\nWOODER.  Next him again there's that young fellow, Falder--star\nclass--and next him old Clipton.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Ah, yes!  \"The philosopher.\"  I want to see him about\nhis eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Curious thing, sir: they seem to know when there's one of\nthese tries at escape going on.  It makes them restive--there's a\nregular wave going through them just now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Meditatively]  Odd things--those waves.  [Turning to\nlook at the prisoners exercising]  Seem quiet enough out here!\n\nWOODER.  That Irishman, O'Cleary, began banging on his door this\nmorning.  Little thing like that's quite enough to upset the whole\nlot.  They're just like dumb animals at times.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I've seen it with horses before thunder--it'll run\nright through cavalry lines.\n\n     The prison CHAPLAIN has entered.  He is a dark-haired, ascetic\n     man, in clerical undress, with a peculiarly steady, tight-lipped\n     face and slow, cultured speech.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Holding up the saw]  Seen this, Miller?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Useful-looking specimen.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Do for the Museum, eh!  [He goes to the cupboard and\nopens it, displaying to view a number of quaint ropes, hooks, and\nmetal tools with labels tied on them]  That'll do, thanks, Mr.\nWooder.\n\nWOODER.  [Saluting]  Thank you, sir.  [He goes out]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Account for the state of the men last day or two,\nMiller?  Seems going through the whole place.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  No.  I don't know of anything.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  By the way, will you dine with us on Christmas Day?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  To-morrow.  Thanks very much.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Worries me to feel the men discontented.  [Gazing at\nthe saw]  Have to punish this poor devil.  Can't help liking a man\nwho tries to escape.  [He places the saw in his pocket and locks the\ncupboard again]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Extraordinary perverted will-power--some of them.\nNothing to be done till it's broken.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  And not much afterwards, I'm afraid.  Ground too hard\nfor golf?\n\n     WOODER comes in again.\n\nWOODER.  Visitor who's been seeing Q 3007 asks to speak to you, sir.\nI told him it wasn't usual.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What about?\n\nWOODER.  Shall I put him off, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Resignedly]  No, no.  Let's see him.  Don't go,\nMiller.\n\nWOODER motions to some one without, and as the visitor comes in\nwithdraws.\n\n     The visitor is COKESON, who is attired in a thick overcoat to\n     the knees, woollen gloves, and carries a top hat.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry to trouble you.  I've been talking to the young\nman.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  We have a good many here.\n\nCOKESON.  Name of Falder, forgery.  [Producing a card, and handing it\nto the GOVERNOR]  Firm of James and Walter How.  Well known in the\nlaw.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Receiving the card-with a faint smile]  What do you\nwant to see me about, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly seeing the prisoners at exercise]  Why! what a\nsight!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, we have that privilege from here; my office is\nbeing done up.  [Sitting down at his table]  Now, please!\n\nCOKESON.  [Dragging his eyes with difficulty from the window] I\nwanted to say a word to you; I shan't keep you long.\n[Confidentially]  Fact is, I oughtn't to be here by rights.  His\nsister came to me--he's got no father and mother--and she was in some\ndistress.  \"My husband won't let me go and see him,\" she said; \"says\nhe's disgraced the family.  And his other sister,\" she said, \"is an\ninvalid.\"  And she asked me to come.  Well, I take an interest in\nhim.  He was our junior--I go to the same chapel--and I didn't like\nto refuse.  And what I wanted to tell you was, he seems lonely here.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not unnaturally.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm afraid it'll prey on my mind.  I see a lot of them\nabout working together.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Those are local prisoners.  The convicts serve their\nthree months here in separate confinement, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  But we don't want to be unreasonable.  He's quite\ndownhearted.  I wanted to ask you to let him run about with the\nothers.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With faint amusement]  Ring the bell-would you,\nMiller?  [To COKESON]  You'd like to hear what the doctor says about\nhim, perhaps.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Ringing the bell]  You are not accustomed to prisons,\nit would seem, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  No.  But it's a pitiful sight.  He's quite a young fellow.\nI said to him: \"Before a month's up\" I said, \"you'll be out and about\nwith the others; it'll be a nice change for you.\"  \"A month!\" he said\n--like that!  \"Come!\" I said, \"we mustn't exaggerate.  What's a\nmonth?  Why, it's nothing!\"  \"A day,\" he said, \"shut up in your cell\nthinking and brooding as I do, it's longer than a year outside.  I\ncan't help it,\" he said; \"I try--but I'm built that way, Mr.\nCOKESON.\"  And, he held his hand up to his face.  I could see the\ntears trickling through his fingers.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  He's a young man with large, rather peculiar eyes,\nisn't he?  Not Church of England, I think?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  I know.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To WOODER, who has come in]  Ask the doctor to be\ngood enough to come here for a minute.  [WOODER salutes, and goes\nout]  Let's see, he's not married?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  [Confidentially]  But there's a party he's very much\nattached to, not altogether com-il-fa.  It's a sad story.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  If it wasn't for drink and women, sir, this prison\nmight be closed.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at the CHAPLAIN over his spectacles] Ye-es, but I\nwanted to tell you about that, special.  He had hopes they'd have let\nher come and see him, but they haven't.  Of course he asked me\nquestions.  I did my best, but I couldn't tell the poor young fellow\na lie, with him in here--seemed like hitting him.  But I'm afraid\nit's made him worse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What was this news then?\n\nCOKESON.  Like this.  The woman had a nahsty, spiteful feller for a\nhusband, and she'd left him.  Fact is, she was going away with our\nyoung friend.  It's not nice--but I've looked over it.  Well, when he\nwas put in here she said she'd earn her living apart, and wait for\nhim to come out.  That was a great consolation to him.  But after a\nmonth she came to me--I don't know her personally--and she said:\n\"I can't earn the children's living, let alone my own--I've got no\nfriends.  I'm obliged to keep out of everybody's way, else my\nhusband'd get to know where I was.  I'm very much reduced,\" she said.\nAnd she has lost flesh.  \"I'll have to go in the workhouse!\" It's a\npainful story.  I said to her: \"No,\" I said, \"not that!  I've got a\nwife an' family, but sooner than you should do that I'll spare you a\nlittle myself.\"  \"Really,\" she said--she's a nice creature--\"I don't\nlike to take it from you.  I think I'd better go back to my husband.\"\nWell, I know he's a nahsty, spiteful feller--drinks--but I didn't\nlike to persuade her not to.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely, no.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm sorry now; it's upset the poor young fellow\ndreadfully.  And what I wanted to say was: He's got his three years\nto serve.  I want things to be pleasant for him.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [With a touch of impatience] The Law hardly shares\nyour view, I'm afraid.\n\nCOKESON.  But I can't help thinking that to shut him up there by\nhimself'll turn him silly.  And nobody wants that, I s'pose.  I don't\nlike to see a man cry.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  It's a very rare thing for them to give way like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him-in a tone of sudden dogged hostility]\nI keep dogs.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Indeed?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  And I say this: I wouldn't shut one of them up all\nby himself, month after month, not if he'd bit me all over.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Unfortunately, the criminal is not a dog; he has a\nsense of right and wrong.\n\nCOKESON.  But that's not the way to make him feel it.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Ah!  there I'm afraid we must differ.\n\nCOKESON.  It's the same with dogs.  If you treat 'em with kindness\nthey'll do anything for you; but to shut 'em up alone, it only makes\n'em savage.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely you should allow those who have had a little\nmore experience than yourself to know what is best for prisoners.\n\nCOKESON.  [Doggedly]  I know this young feller, I've watched him for\nyears.  He's eurotic--got no stamina.  His father died of\nconsumption.  I'm thinking of his future.  If he's to be kept there\nshut up by himself, without a cat to keep him company, it'll do him\nharm.  I said to him: \"Where do you feel it?\"  \"I can't tell you, Mr.\nCOKESON,\" he said, \"but sometimes I could beat my head against the\nwall.\"  It's not nice.\n\n     During this speech the DOCTOR has entered.  He is a\n     medium-Sized, rather good-looking man, with a quick eye.\n     He stands leaning against the window.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This gentleman thinks the separate is telling on\nQ 3007--Falder, young thin fellow, star class.  What do you say,\nDoctor Clements?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  He doesn't like it, but it's not doing him any harm.\n\nCOKESON.  But he's told me.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Of course he'd say so, but we can always tell.  He's\nlost no weight since he's been here.\n\nCOKESON.  It's his state of mind I'm speaking of.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  His mind's all right so far.  He's nervous, rather\nmelancholy.  I don't see signs of anything more.  I'm watching him\ncarefully.\n\nCOKESON.  [Nonplussed]  I'm glad to hear you say that.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [More suavely] It's just at this period that we are\nable to make some impression on them, sir.  I am speaking from my\nspecial standpoint.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning bewildered to the GOVERNOR] I don't want to be\nunpleasant, but having given him this news, I do feel it's awkward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll make a point of seeing him to-day.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm much obliged to you.  I thought perhaps seeing him\nevery day you wouldn't notice it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather sharply]  If any sign of injury to his health\nshows itself his case will be reported at once.  That's fully\nprovided for.  [He rises]\n\nCOKESON.  [Following his own thoughts]  Of course, what you don't see\ndoesn't trouble you; but having seen him, I don't want to have him on\nmy mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I think you may safely leave it to us, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Mollified and apologetic]  I thought you'd understand me.\nI'm a plain man--never set myself up against authority.  [Expanding\nto the CHAPLAIN]  Nothing personal meant.  Good-morning.\n\n     As he goes out the three officials do not look at each other,\n     but their faces wear peculiar expressions.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Our friend seems to think that prison is a hospital.\n\nCOKESON.  [Returning suddenly with an apologetic air]  There's just\none little thing.  This woman--I suppose I mustn't ask you to let him\nsee her.  It'd be a rare treat for them both.  He's thinking about\nher all the time.  Of course she's not his wife.  But he's quite safe\nin here.  They're a pitiful couple.  You couldn't make an exception?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Wearily] As you say, my dear sir, I couldn't make an\nexception; he won't be allowed another visit of any sort till he goes\nto a convict prison.\n\nCOKESON.  I see.  [Rather coldly] Sorry to have troubled you.\n[He again goes out]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Shrugging his shoulders]  The plain man indeed, poor\nfellow.  Come and have some lunch, Clements?\n\n\n     He and the DOCTOR go out talking.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, with a sigh, sits down at his table and takes up a\n     pen.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE II\n\n     Part of the ground corridor of the prison.  The walls are\n     coloured with greenish distemper up to a stripe of deeper green\n     about the height of a man's shoulder, and above this line are\n     whitewashed.  The floor is of blackened stones.  Daylight is\n     filtering through a heavily barred window at the end.  The doors\n     of four cells are visible.  Each cell door has a little round\n     peep-hole at the level of a man's eye, covered by a little round\n     disc, which, raised upwards, affords a view o f the cell.  On\n     the wall, close to each cell door, hangs a little square board\n     with the prisoner's name, number, and record.\n\n     Overhead can be seen the iron structures of the first-floor and\n     second-floor corridors.\n\n     The WARDER INSTRUCTOR, a bearded man in blue uniform, with an\n     apron, and some dangling keys, is just emerging from one of the\n     cells.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Speaking from the door into the cell]  I'll have\nanother bit for you when that's finished.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Unseen--in an Irish voice] Little doubt o' that, sirr.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Gossiping]  Well, you'd rather have it than nothing, I\ns'pose.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' that's the blessed truth.\n\n     Sounds are heard of a cell door being closed and locked, and of\n     approaching footsteps.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [In a sharp, changed voice]  Look alive over it!\n\n     He shuts the cell door, and stands at attention.\n\n     The GOVERNOR comes walking down the corridor, followed by\n     WOODER.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to report?\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Saluting]  Q 3007  [he points to a cell]  is behind\nwith his work, sir.  He'll lose marks to-day.\n\n     The GOVERNOR nods and passes on to the end cell.  The INSTRUCTOR\n     goes away.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This is our maker of saws, isn't it?\n\n     He takes the saw from his pocket as WOODER throws open the door\n     of the cell.  The convict MOANEY is seen lying on his bed,\n     athwart the cell, with his cap on.  He springs up and stands in\n     the middle of the cell.  He is a raw-boned fellow, about\n     fifty-six years old, with outstanding bat's ears and fierce,\n     staring, steel-coloured eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Cap off!  [MOANEY removes his cap] Out here! [MOANEY Comes\nto the door]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out into the corridor, and holding up\nthe saw--with the manner of an officer speaking to a private]\nAnything to say about this, my man?  [MOANEY is silent]  Come!\n\nMOANEY.  It passed the time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing into the cell]  Not enough to do, eh?\n\nMOANEY.  It don't occupy your mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Tapping the saw]  You might find a better way than\nthis.\n\nMOANEY.  [Sullenly]  Well!  What way?  I must keep my hand in against\nthe time I get out.  What's the good of anything else to me at my\ntime of life?  [With a gradual change to civility, as his tongue\nwarms]  Ye know that, sir.  I'll be in again within a year or two,\nafter I've done this lot.  I don't want to disgrace meself when I'm\nout.  You've got your pride keeping the prison smart; well, I've got\nmine.  [Seeing that the GOVERNOR is listening with interest, he goes\non, pointing to the saw]  I must be doin' a little o' this.  It's no\nharm to any one.  I was five weeks makin' that saw--a bit of all\nright it is, too; now I'll get cells, I suppose, or seven days' bread\nand water.  You can't help it, sir, I know that--I quite put meself\nin your place.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Now, look here, Moaney, if I pass it over will you\ngive me your word not to try it on again?  Think!  [He goes into the\ncell, walks to the end of it, mounts the stool, and tries the\nwindow-bars]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Returning]  Well?\n\nMOANEY.  [Who has been reflecting] I've got another six weeks to do\nin here, alone.  I can't do it and think o' nothing.  I must have\nsomething to interest me.  You've made me a sporting offer, sir, but\nI can't pass my word about it.  I shouldn't like to deceive a\ngentleman.  [Pointing into the cell] Another four hours' steady work\nwould have done it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, and what then?  Caught, brought back, punishment.\nFive weeks' hard work to make this, and cells at the end of it, while\nthey put anew bar to your window.  Is it worth it, Moaney?\n\nMOANEY.  [With a sort of fierceness] Yes, it is.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Putting his hand to his brow] Oh, well!  Two days'\ncells-bread and water.\n\nMOANEY.  Thank 'e, sir.\n\n     He turns quickly like an animal and slips into his cell.\n\n     The GOVERNOR looks after him and shakes his head as WOODER\n     closes and locks the cell door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open Clipton's cell.\n\n     WOODER opens the door of CLIPTON'S cell.   CLIPTON is sitting on\n     a stool just inside the door, at work on a pair of trousers.  He\n     is a small, thick, oldish man, with an almost shaven head, and\n     smouldering little dark eyes behind smoked spectacles.  He gets\n     up and stands motionless in the doorway, peering at his\n     visitors.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning] Come out here a minute, Clipton.\n\n     CLIPTON, with a sort of dreadful quietness, comes into the\n     corridor, the needle and thread in his hand.  The GOVERNOR signs\n     to WOODER, who goes into the cell and inspects it carefully.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How are your eyes?\n\nCLIFTON.  I don't complain of them.  I don't see the sun here.  [He\nmakes a stealthy movement, protruding his neck a little]  There's\njust one thing, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.  I wish you'd\nask the cove next door here to keep a bit quieter.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What's the matter?  I don't want any tales, Clipton.\n\nCLIPTON.  He keeps me awake.  I don't know who he is.  [With\ncontempt]  One of this star class, I expect.  Oughtn't to be here\nwith us.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Quietly]  Quite right, Clipton.  He'll be moved when\nthere's a cell vacant.\n\nCLIPTON.  He knocks about like a wild beast in the early morning.\nI'm not used to it--stops me getting my sleep out.  In the evening\ntoo.  It's not fair, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.\nSleep's the comfort I've got here; I'm entitled to take it out full.\n\n     WOODER comes out of the cell, and instantly, as though\n     extinguished, CLIPTON moves with stealthy suddenness back into\n     his cell.\n\nWOODER.  All right, sir.\n\n     THE GOVERNOR nods.  The door is closed and locked.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Which is the man who banged on his door this morning?\n\nWOODER.  [Going towards O'CLEARY'S cell]  This one, sir; O'Cleary.\n\n     He lifts the disc and glances through the peephole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open.\n\n     WOODER throws open the door.  O'CLEARY, who is seated at a\n     little table by the door as if listening, springs up and stands\n     at attention jest inside the doorway.  He is a broad-faced,\n     middle-aged man, with a wide, thin, flexible mouth, and little\n     holes under his high cheek-bones.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Where's the joke, O'Cleary?\n\nO'CLEARY.  The joke, your honour?  I've not seen one for a long time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Banging on your door?\n\nO'CLEARY.  Oh! that!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It's womanish.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' it's that I'm becoming this two months past.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to complain of?\n\nO'CLEARY.  NO, Sirr.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You're an old hand; you ought to know better.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Yes, I've been through it all.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've got a youngster next door; you'll upset him.\n\nO'CLEARY.  It cam' over me, your honour.  I can't always be the same\nsteady man.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Work all right?\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Taking up a rush mat he is making]  Oh! I can do it on me\nhead.  It's the miserablest stuff--don't take the brains of a mouse.\n[Working his mouth]  It's here I feel it--the want of a little noise\n--a terrible little wud ease me.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know as well as I do that if you were out in the\nshops you wouldn't be allowed to talk.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [With a look of profound meaning]  Not with my mouth.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, then?\n\nO'CLEARY.  But it's the great conversation I'd have.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a smile] Well, no more conversation on your\ndoor.\n\nO'CLEARY.  No, sirr, I wud not have the little wit to repeat meself.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Turning]  Good-night.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Good-night, your honour.\n\n     He turns into his cell.  The GOVERNOR shuts the door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Looking at the record card]  Can't help liking the\npoor blackguard.\n\nWOODER.  He's an amiable man, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing down the corridor] Ask the doctor to come\nhere, Mr. Wooder.\n\n     WOODER salutes and goes away down the corridor.\n\n     The GOVERNOR goes to the door of FALDER'S cell.  He raises his\n     uninjured hand to uncover the peep-hole; but, without uncovering\n     it, shakes his head and drops his hand; then, after scrutinising\n     the record board, he opens the cell door.  FALDER, who is\n     standing against it, lurches forward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out]  Now tell me: can't you settle\ndown, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [In a breathless voice]  Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know what I mean?  It's no good running your head\nagainst a stone wall, is it?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, come.\n\nFALDER.  I try, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Can't you sleep?\n\nFALDER.  Very little.  Between two o'clock and getting up's the worst\ntime.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How's that?\n\nFALDER.  [His lips twitch with a sort of smile] I don't know, sir.  I\nwas always nervous.  [Suddenly voluble]  Everything seems to get such\na size then.  I feel I'll never get out as long as I live.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  That's morbid, my lad.  Pull yourself together.\n\nFALDER.  [With an equally sudden dogged resentment] Yes--I've got to.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Think of all these other fellows?\n\nFALDER.  They're used to it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  They all had to go through it once for the first time,\njust as you're doing now.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, I shall get to be like them in time, I suppose.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather taken aback]  H'm!  Well!  That rests with\nyou.  Now come.  Set your mind to it, like a good fellow.  You're\nstill quite young.  A man can make himself what he likes.\n\nFALDER.  [Wistfully] Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Take a good hold of yourself.  Do you read?\n\nFALDER.  I don't take the words in.  [Hanging his head] I know it's\nno good; but I can't help thinking of what's going on outside.  In my\ncell I can't see out at all.  It's thick glass, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've had a visitor.  Bad news?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mustn't think about it.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking back at his cell]  How can I help it, sir?\n\n     He suddenly becomes motionless as WOODER and the DOCTOR\n     approach.  The GOVERNOR motions to him to go back into his cell.\n\nFALDER.  [Quick and low]  I'm quite right in my head, sir.  [He goes\nback into his cell.]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To the DOCTOR]  Just go in and see him, Clements.\n\n     The DOCTOR goes into the cell.  The GOVERNOR pushes the door to,\n     nearly closing it, and walks towards the window.\n\nWOODER.  [Following]  Sorry you should be troubled like this, sir.\nVery contented lot of men, on the whole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Shortly]  You think so?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir.  It's Christmas doing it, in my opinion.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To himself]  Queer, that!\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Christmas!\n\n     He turns towards the window, leaving WOODER looking at him with\n     a sort of pained anxiety.\n\nWOODER.  [Suddenly]  Do you think we make show enough, sir?  If you'd\nlike us to have more holly?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not at all, Mr. Wooder.\n\nWOODER.  Very good, sir.\n\n     The DOCTOR has come out of FALDER's Cell, and the GOVERNOR\n     beckons to him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  I can't make anything much of him.  He's nervous, of\ncourse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Is there any sort of case to report?  Quite frankly,\nDoctor.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Well, I don't think the separates doing him any good;\nbut then I could say the same of a lot of them--they'd get on better\nin the shops, there's no doubt.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mean you'd have to recommend others?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  A dozen at least.  It's on his nerves.  There's nothing\ntangible.  That fellow there [pointing to O'CLEARY'S cell], for\ninstance--feels it just as much, in his way.  If I once get away from\nphysical facts--I shan't know where I am.  Conscientiously, sir, I\ndon't know how to differentiate him.  He hasn't lost weight.  Nothing\nwrong with his eyes.  His pulse is good.  Talks all right.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It doesn't amount to melancholia?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  [Shaking his head]  I can report on him if you like; but\nif I do I ought to report on others.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I see.  [Looking towards FALDER'S cell]  The poor\ndevil must just stick it then.\n\n     As he says thin he looks absently at WOODER.\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\n     For answer the GOVERNOR stares at him, turns on his heel, and\n     walks away.  There is a sound as of beating on metal.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Stopping]  Mr. Wooder?\n\nWOODER.  Banging on his door, sir.  I thought we should have more of\nthat.\n\n     He hurries forward, passing the GOVERNOR, who follows closely.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE III\n\n     FALDER's cell, a whitewashed space thirteen feet broad by seven\n     deep, and nine feet high, with a rounded  ceiling.  The floor is\n     of shiny blackened bricks.  The barred window of opaque glass,\n     with a ventilator, is high up in the middle of the end wall.  In\n     the middle of the opposite end wall is the narrow door.  In a\n     corner are the mattress and bedding rolled up [two blankets, two\n     sheets, and a coverlet].  Above them is a quarter-circular\n     wooden shelf, on which is a Bible and several little devotional\n     books, piled in a symmetrical pyramid; there are also a black\n     hair brush, tooth-brush, and a bit of soap.  In another corner\n     is the wooden frame of a bed, standing on end.  There is a dark\n     ventilator under the window, and another over the door.\n     FALDER'S work [a shirt to which he is putting buttonholes] is\n     hung to a nail on the wall over a small wooden table, on which\n     the novel \"Lorna Doone\" lies open.  Low down in the corner by\n     the door is a thick glass screen, about a foot square, covering\n     the gas-jet let into the wall. There is also a wooden stool, and\n     a pair of shoes beneath it.  Three bright round tins are set\n     under the window.\n\n     In fast-failing daylight, FALDER, in his stockings, is seen\n     standing motionless, with his head inclined towards the door,\n     listening.  He moves a little closer to the door, his stockinged\n     feet making no noise.  He stops at the door.  He is trying\n     harder and harder to hear something, any little thing that is\n     going on outside.  He springs suddenly upright--as if at a\n     sound-and remains perfectly motionless.  Then, with a heavy\n     sigh, he moves to his work, and stands looking at it, with his\n     head doom; he does a stitch or two, having the air of a man so\n     lost in sadness that each stitch is, as it were, a coming to\n     life.  Then turning abruptly, he begins pacing the cell, moving\n     his head, like an animal pacing its cage.  He stops again at the\n     door, listens, and, placing the palms of hip hands against it\n     with his fingers spread out, leans his forehead against the\n     iron.  Turning from it, presently, he moves slowly back towards\n     the window, tracing his way with his finger along the top line\n     of the distemper that runs round the wall.  He stops under the\n     window, and, picking up the lid of one of the tins, peers into\n     it.  It has grown very nearly dark.  Suddenly the lid falls out\n     of his hand with a clatter--the only sound that has broken the\n     silence--and he stands staring intently at the wall where the\n     stuff of the shirt is hanging rather white in the darkness--he\n     seems to be seeing somebody or something there.  There is a\n     sharp tap and click; the cell light behind the glass screen has\n     been turned up.  The cell is brightly lighted.  FALDER is seen\n     gasping for breath.\n\n     A sound from far away, as of distant, dull beating on thick\n     metal, is suddenly audible.  FALDER shrinks back, not able to\n     bear this sudden clamour.  But the sound grows, as though some\n     great tumbril were rolling towards the cell.  And gradually it\n     seems to hypnotise him.  He begins creeping inch by inch\n     nearer to the door.  The banging sound, travelling from cell to\n     cell, draws closer and closer; FALDER'S hands are seen moving as\n     if his spirit had already joined in this beating, and the sound\n     swells till it seems to have entered the very cell.  He suddenly\n     raises his clenched fists.  Panting violently, he flings himself\n     at his door, and beats on it.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT IV\n\n     The scene is again COKESON'S room, at a few minutes to ten of a\n     March morning, two years later.  The doors are all open.\n     SWEEDLE, now blessed with a sprouting moustache, is getting the\n     offices ready.  He arranges papers on COKESON'S table; then goes\n     to a covered washstand, raises the lid, and looks at himself in\n     the mirror.  While he is gazing his full RUTH HONEYWILL comes in\n     through the outer office and stands in the doorway.  There seems\n     a kind of exultation and excitement behind her habitual\n     impassivity.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Suddenly seeing her, and dropping the lid of the washstand\nwith a bang] Hello!  It's you!\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's only me here!  They don't waste their time hurrying\ndown in the morning.  Why, it must be two years since we had the\npleasure of seeing you.  [Nervously]  What have you been doing with\nyourself?\n\nRUTH.  [Sardonically] Living.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Impressed]  If you want to see him [he points to COKESON'S\nchair], he'll be here directly--never misses--not much.  [Delicately]\nI hope our friend's back from the country.  His time's been up these\nthree months, if I remember.  [RUTH nods] I was awful sorry about\nthat.  The governor made a mistake--if you ask me.\n\nRUTH.  He did.\n\nSWEEDLE.  He ought to have given him a chanst.  And, I say, the judge\nought to ha' let him go after that.  They've forgot what human\nnature's like.  Whereas we know. [RUTH gives him a honeyed smile]\n\nSWEEDLE.  They come down on you like a cartload of bricks, flatten\nyou out, and when you don't swell up again they complain of it.  I\nknow 'em--seen a lot of that sort of thing in my time.  [He shakes\nhis head in the plenitude of wisdom]  Why, only the other day the\ngovernor----\n\n     But COKESON has come in through the outer office; brisk with\n     east wind, and decidedly greyer.\n\nCOKESON.  [Drawing off his coat and gloves]  Why! it's you!  [Then\nmotioning SWEEDLE out, and closing the door]  Quite a stranger!  Must\nbe two years.  D'you want to see me?  I can give you a minute.  Sit\ndown!  Family well?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I'm not living where I was.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing her askance] I hope things are more comfortable at\nhome.\n\nRUTH.  I couldn't stay with Honeywill, after all.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't done anything rash, I hope.  I should be sorry\nif you'd done anything rash.\n\nRUTH.  I've kept the children with me.\n\nCOKESON.  [Beginning to feel that things are not so jolly as ha had\nhoped]  Well, I'm glad to have seen you.  You've not heard from the\nyoung man, I suppose, since he came out?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I ran across him yesterday.\n\nCOKESON.  I hope he's well.\n\nRUTH.  [With sudden fierceness]  He can't get anything to do.  It's\ndreadful to see him.  He's just skin and bone.\n\nCOKESON.  [With genuine concern] Dear me!  I'm sorry to hear that.\n[On his guard again]  Didn't they find him a place when his time was\nup?\n\nRUTH.  He was only there three weeks.  It got out.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure I don't know what I can do for you.  I don't like\nto be snubby.\n\nRUTH.  I can't bear his being like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Scanning her not unprosperous figure] I know his relations\naren't very forthy about him.  Perhaps you can do something for him,\ntill he finds his feet.\n\nRUTH.  Not now.  I could have--but not now.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.\n\nRUTH.  [Proudly]  I've seen him again--that's all over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Staring at her--disturbed]  I'm a family man--I don't want\nto hear anything unpleasant.  Excuse me--I'm very busy.\n\nRUTH.  I'd have gone home to my people in the country long ago, but\nthey've never got over me marrying Honeywill.  I never was waywise,\nMr. Cokeson, but I'm proud.  I was only a girl, you see, when I\nmarried him.  I thought the world of him, of course...  he used\nto come travelling to our farm.\n\nCOKESON.  [Regretfully]  I did hope you'd have got on better, after\nyou saw me.\n\nRUTH.  He used me worse than ever.  He couldn't break my nerve, but I\nlost my health; and then he began knocking the children about.  I\ncouldn't stand that.  I wouldn't go back now, if he were dying.\n\nCOKESON.  [Who has risen and is shifting about as though dodging a\nstream of lava] We mustn't be violent, must we?\n\nRUTH.  [Smouldering]  A man that can't behave better than that--\n[There is silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Fascinated in spite of himself]  Then there you were!  And\nwhat did you do then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a shrug]  Tried the same as when I left him before...,\nmaking skirts... cheap things.  It was the best I could get, but I\nnever made more than ten shillings a week, buying my own cotton and\nworking all day; I hardly ever got to bed till past twelve.  I kept\nat it for nine months.  [Fiercely]  Well, I'm not fit for that; I\nwasn't made for it.  I'd rather die.\n\nCOKESON.  My dear woman!  We mustn't talk like that.\n\nRUTH.  It was starvation for the children too--after what they'd\nalways had.  I soon got not to care.  I used to be too tired. [She is\nsilent]\n\nCOKESON.  [With fearful curiosity]  Why, what happened then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a laugh] My employer happened then--he's happened ever\nsince.\n\nCOKESON.  Dear!  Oh dear!  I never came across a thing like this.\n\nRUTH.  [Dully] He's treated me all right.  But I've done with that.\n[Suddenly her lips begin to quiver, and she hides them with the back\nof her hand] I never thought I'd see him again, you see.  It was just\na chance I met him by Hyde Park.  We went in there and sat down, and\nhe told me all about himself.  Oh!  Mr. Cokeson, give him another\nchance.\n\nCOKESON.  [Greatly disturbed]  Then you've both lost your livings!\nWhat a horrible position!\n\nRUTH.  If he could only get here--where there's nothing to find out\nabout him!\n\nCOKESON.  We can't have anything derogative to the firm.\n\nRUTH.  I've no one else to go to.\n\nCOKESON.  I'll speak to the partners, but I don't think they'll take\nhim, under the circumstances.  I don't really.\n\nRUTH.  He came with me; he's down there in the street. [She points to\nthe window.]\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity] He shouldn't have done that until he's\nsent for.  [Then softening at the look on her face]  We've got a\nvacancy, as it happens, but I can't promise anything.\n\nRUTH.  It would be the saving of him.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll do what I can, but I'm not sanguine.  Now tell\nhim that I don't want him till I see how things are.  Leave your\naddress?  [Repeating her] 83 Mullingar Street?  [He notes it on\nblotting-paper] Good-morning.\n\nRUTH.  Thank you.\n\n     She moves towards the door, turns as if to speak, but does not,\n     and goes away.\n\nCOKESON.  [Wiping his head and forehead with a large white cotton\nhandkerchief] What a business!  [Then looking amongst his papers, he\nsounds his bell.  SWEEDLE answers it]\n\nCOKESON.  Was that young Richards coming here to-day after the\nclerk's place?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, keep him in the air; I don't want to see him yet.\n\nSWEEDLE.  What shall I tell him, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [With asperity] invent something.  Use your brains.  Don't\nstump him off altogether.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I tell him that we've got illness, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nothing untrue.  Say I'm not here to-day.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes, sir.  Keep him hankering?\n\nCOKESON.  Exactly.  And look here.  You remember Falder?  I may be\nhaving him round to see me.  Now, treat him like you'd have him treat\nyou in a similar position.\n\nSWEEDLE.  I naturally should do.\n\nCOKESON.  That's right.  When a man's down never hit 'im.  'Tisn't\nnecessary.  Give him a hand up.  That's a metaphor I recommend to you\nin life.  It's sound policy.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Do you think the governors will take him on again, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Can't say anything about that.  [At the sound of some one\nhaving entered the outer office]  Who's there?\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Going to the door and looking] It's Falder, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Vexed]  Dear me!  That's very naughty of her.  Tell him to\ncall again.  I don't want----\n\n     He breaks off as FALDER comes in.  FALDER is thin, pale, older,\n     his eyes have grown more restless.  His clothes are very worn\n     and loose.\n\n     SWEEDLE, nodding cheerfully, withdraws.\n\nCOKESON.  Glad to see you.  You're rather previous.  [Trying to keep\nthings pleasant]  Shake hands!  She's striking while the iron's hot.\n[He wipes his forehead] I don't blame her.  She's anxious.\n\n     FALDER  timidly takes COKESON's hand and glances towards the\n     partners' door.\n\nCOKESON.  No--not yet!  Sit down!  [FALDER sits in the chair at the\naide of COKESON's table, on which he places his cap]  Now you are\nhere I'd like you to give me a little account of yourself.  [Looking\nat him over his spectacles]  How's your health?\n\nFALDER.  I'm alive, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Preoccupied]  I'm glad to hear that.  About this matter.\nI don't like doing anything out of the ordinary; it's not my habit.\nI'm a plain man, and I want everything smooth and straight.  But I\npromised your friend to speak to the partners, and I always keep my\nword.\n\nFALDER.  I just want a chance, Mr. Cokeson.  I've paid for that job a\nthousand times and more.  I have, sir.  No one knows.  They say I\nweighed more when I came out than when I went in.  They couldn't\nweigh me here [he touches his head]  or here [he touches--his heart,\nand gives a sort of laugh].  Till last night I'd have thought there\nwas nothing in here at all.\n\nCOKESON.  [Concerned] You've not got heart disease?\n\nFALDER.  Oh!  they passed me sound enough.\n\nCOKESON.  But they got you a place, didn't they?\n\nFALSER.  Yes; very good people, knew all about it--very kind to me.\nI thought I was going to get on first rate.  But one day, all of a\nsudden, the other clerks got wind of it....  I couldn't stick it, Mr.\nCOKESON, I couldn't, sir.\n\nCOKESON. Easy, my dear fellow, easy!\n\nFALDER.  I had one small job after that, but it didn't last.\n\nCOKESON.  How was that?\n\nFALDER.  It's no good deceiving you, Mr. Cokeson.  The fact is, I\nseem to be struggling against a thing that's all round me.  I can't\nexplain it: it's as if I was in a net; as fast as I cut it here, it\ngrows up there.  I didn't act as I ought to have, about references;\nbut what are you to do?  You must have them.  And that made me\nafraid, and I left.  In fact, I'm--I'm afraid all the time now.\n\n     He bows his head and leans dejectedly silent over the table.\n\nCOKESON.  I feel for you--I do really.  Aren't your sisters going to\ndo anything for you?\n\nFALDER.  One's in consumption.  And the other----\n\nCOKESON.  Ye...es.  She told me her husband wasn't quite pleased with\nyou.\n\nFALDER.  When I went there--they were at supper--my sister wanted to\ngive me a kiss--I know.  But he just looked at her, and said: \"What\nhave you come for?\"  Well, I pocketed my pride and I said: \"Aren't\nyou going to give me your hand, Jim?  Cis is, I know,\" I said.  \"Look\nhere!\" he said, \"that's all very well, but we'd better come to an\nunderstanding.  I've been expecting you, and I've made up my mind.\nI'll give you fifteen pounds to go to Canada with.\"  \"I see,\" I\nsaid--\"good riddance!  No, thanks; keep your fifteen pounds.\"\nFriendship's a queer thing when you've been where I have.\n\nCOKESON.  I understand.  Will you take the fifteen pound from me?\n[Flustered, as FALDER regards him with a queer smile]  Quite without\nprejudice; I meant it kindly.\n\nFALDER.  I'm not allowed to leave the country.\n\nCOKESON.  Oh!  ye...es--ticket-of-leave?  You aren't looking the\nthing.\n\nFALDER.  I've slept in the Park three nights this week.  The dawns\naren't all poetry there.  But meeting her--I feel a different man\nthis morning.  I've often thought the being fond of hers the best\nthing about me; it's sacred, somehow--and yet it did for me.  That's\nqueer, isn't it?\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure we're all very sorry for you.\n\nFALDER.  That's what I've found, Mr. Cokeson.  Awfully sorry for me.\n[With quiet bitterness]  But it doesn't do to associate with\ncriminals!\n\nCOKESON.  Come, come, it's no use calling yourself names.  That never\ndid a man any good.  Put a face on it.\n\nFALDER.  It's easy enough to put a face on it, sir, when you're\nindependent.  Try it when you're down like me.  They talk about\ngiving you your deserts.  Well, I think I've had just a bit over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing him askance over his spectacles]  I hope they haven't\nmade a Socialist of you.\n\n     FALDER is suddenly still, as if brooding over his past self; he\n     utters a peculiar laugh.\n\nCOKESON.  You must give them credit for the best intentions.  Really\nyou must.  Nobody wishes you harm, I'm sure.\n\nFALDER.  I believe that, Mr. Cokeson.  Nobody wishes you harm, but\nthey down you all the same.  This feeling--[He stares round him, as\nthough at something closing in]  It's crushing me.  [With sudden\nimpersonality]  I know it is.\n\nCOKESON.  [Horribly disturbed] There's nothing there!  We must try\nand take it quiet.  I'm sure I've often had you in my prayers.  Now\nleave it to me.  I'll use my gumption and take 'em when they're\njolly.  [As he speaks the two partners come in]\n\nCOKESON  [Rather disconcerted, but trying to put them all at ease]\nI didn't expect you quite so soon.  I've just been having a talk with\nthis young man.  I think you'll remember him.\n\nJAMES.  [With a grave, keen look] Quite well.  How are you, Falder?\n\nWALTER.  [Holding out his hand almost timidly] Very glad to see you\nagain, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Who has recovered his self-control, takes the hand] Thank\nyou, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.  [To FALDER, pointing to the\nclerks' office] You might go in there a minute.  You know your way.\nOur junior won't be coming this morning.  His wife's just had a\nlittle family.\n\n     FALDER, goes uncertainly out into the clerks' office.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially] I'm bound to tell you all about it.  He's\nquite penitent.  But there's a prejudice against him.  And you're not\nseeing him to advantage this morning; he's under-nourished.  It's\nvery trying to go without your dinner.\n\nJAMES.  Is that so, COKESON?\n\nCOKESON.  I wanted to ask you.  He's had his lesson.  Now we know all\nabout him, and we want a clerk.  There is a young fellow applying,\nbut I'm keeping him in the air.\n\nJAMES.  A gaol-bird in the office, COKESON?  I don't see it.\n\nWALTER.  \"The rolling of the chariot-wheels of Justice!\"  I've never\ngot that out of my head.\n\nJAMES.  I've nothing to reproach myself with in this affair.  What's\nhe been doing since he came out?\n\nCOKESON.  He's had one or two places, but he hasn't kept them.  He's\nsensitive--quite natural.  Seems to fancy everybody's down on him.\n\nJAMES.  Bad sign.  Don't like the fellow--never did from the first.\n\"Weak character\"'s written all over him.\n\nWALTER.  I think we owe him a leg up.\n\nJAMES.  He brought it all on himself.\n\nWALTER.  The doctrine of full responsibility doesn't quite hold in\nthese days.\n\nJAMES.  [Rather grimly]  You'll find it safer to hold it for all\nthat, my boy.\n\nWALTER.  For oneself, yes--not for other people, thanks.\n\nJAMES.  Well!  I don't want to be hard.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm glad to hear you say that.  He seems to see something\n[spreading his arms] round him.  'Tisn't healthy.\n\nJAMES.  What about that woman he was mixed up with?  I saw some one\nuncommonly like her outside as we came in.\n\nCOKESON.  That!  Well, I can't keep anything from you.  He has met\nher.\n\nJAMES.  Is she with her husband?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nJAMES.  Falder living with her, I suppose?\n\nCOKESON.  [Desperately trying to retain the new-found jollity] I\ndon't know that of my own knowledge.  'Tisn't my business.\n\nJAMES.  It's our business, if we're going to engage him, COKESON.\n\nCOKESON.  [Reluctantly] I ought to tell you, perhaps.  I've had the\nparty here this morning.\n\nJAMES.  I thought so.  [To WALTER] No, my dear boy, it won't do.  Too\nshady altogether!\n\nCOKESON.  The two things together make it very awkward for you--I see\nthat.\n\nWALTER.  [Tentatively]  I don't quite know what we have to do with\nhis private life.\n\nJAMES.  No, no!  He must make a clean sheet of it, or he can't come\nhere.\n\nWALTER.  Poor devil!\n\nCOKESON.  Will you--have him in?  [And as JAMES nods] I think I can\nget him to see reason.\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly] You can leave that to me, COKESON.\n\nWALTER.  [To JAMES, in a low voice, while COKESON is summoning\nFALDER]  His whole future may depend on what we do, dad.\n\nFALDER comes in.  He has pulled himself together, and presents a\nsteady front.\n\nJAMES.  Now look here, Falder.  My son and I want to give you another\nchance; but there are two things I must say to you.  In the first\nplace: It's no good coming here as a victim.  If you've any notion\nthat you've been unjustly treated--get rid of it.  You can't play\nfast and loose with morality and hope to go scot-free.  If Society\ndidn't take care of itself, nobody would--the sooner you realise that\nthe better.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir; but--may I say something?\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nFALDER.  I had a lot of time to think it over in prison.  [He stops]\n\nCOKESON.  [Encouraging him] I'm sure you did.\n\nFALDER.  There were all sorts there.  And what I mean, sir, is, that\nif we'd been treated differently the first time, and put under\nsomebody that could look after us a bit, and not put in prison, not a\nquarter of us would ever have got there.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head] I'm afraid I've very grave doubts of that,\nFalder.\n\nFALDER.  [With a gleam of malice] Yes, sir, so I found.\n\nJAMES.  My good fellow, don't forget that you began it.\n\nFALDER.  I never wanted to do wrong.\n\nJAMES.  Perhaps not.  But you did.\n\nFALDER.  [With all the bitterness of his past suffering] It's knocked\nme out of time.  [Pulling himself up]  That is, I mean, I'm not what\nI was.\n\nJAMES.  This isn't encouraging for us, Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  He's putting it awkwardly, Mr. James.\n\nFALDER.  [Throwing over his caution from the intensity of his\nfeeling]  I mean it, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Now, lay aside all those thoughts, Falder, and look to the\nfuture.\n\nFALDER.  [Almost eagerly] Yes, sir, but you don't understand what\nprison is.  It's here it gets you.\n\n     He grips his chest.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a whisper to James] I told you he wanted nourishment.\n\nWALTER.  Yes, but, my dear fellow, that'll pass away.  Time's\nmerciful.\n\nFALDER.  [With his face twitching]  I hope so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  [Much more gently]  Now, my boy, what you've got to do is to\nput all the past behind you and build yourself up a steady\nreputation.  And that brings me to the second thing.  This woman you\nwere mixed up with you must give us your word, you know, to have done\nwith that.  There's no chance of your keeping straight if you're\ngoing to begin your future with such a relationship.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking from one to the other with a hunted expression] But\nsir...  but sir...  it's the one thing I looked forward to\nall that time.  And she too...  I couldn't find her before last\nnight.\n\n     During this and what follows COKESON becomes more and more\n     uneasy.\n\nJAMES.  This is painful, Falder.  But you must see for yourself that\nit's impossible for a firm like this to close its eyes to everything.\nGive us this proof of your resolve to keep straight, and you can come\nback--not otherwise.\n\nFALDER.  [After staring at JAMES, suddenly stiffens himself]  I\ncouldn't give her up.  I couldn't!  Oh, sir!\n\n     I'm all she's got to look to.  And I'm sure she's all I've got.\n\nJAMES.  I'm very sorry, Falder, but I must be firm.  It's for the\nbenefit of you both in the long run.  No good can come of this\nconnection.  It was the cause of all your disaster.\n\nFALDER.  But sir, it means-having gone through all that-getting\nbroken up--my nerves are in an awful state--for nothing.  I did it\nfor her.\n\nJAMES.  Come!  If she's anything of a woman she'll see it for\nherself.  She won't want to drag you down further.  If there were a\nprospect of your being able to marry her--it might be another thing.\n\nFALDER.  It's not my fault, sir, that she couldn't get rid of him\n--she would have if she could.  That's been the whole trouble from\nthe beginning.  [Looking suddenly at WALTER]...  If anybody\nwould help her!  It's only money wants now, I'm sure.\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in, as WALTER hesitates, and is about to speak] I\ndon't think we need consider that--it's rather far-fetched.\n\nFALDER.  [To WALTER, appealing]  He must have given her full cause\nsince; she could prove that he drove her to leave him.\n\nWALTER.  I'm inclined to do what you say, Falder, if it can be\nmanaged.\n\nFALDER.  Oh, sir!\n\nHe goes to the window and looks down into the street.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hurriedly]  You don't take me, Mr. Walter.  I have my\nreasons.\n\nFALDER.  [From the window]  She's down there, sir.  Will you see her?\nI can beckon to her from here.\n\n     WALTER hesitates, and looks from COKESON to JAMES.\n\nJAMES.  [With a sharp nod] Yes, let her come.\n\nFALDER beckons from the window.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a low fluster to JAMES and WALTER]  No, Mr. James.\nShe's not been quite what she ought to ha' been, while this young\nman's been away.  She's lost her chance.  We can't consult how to\nswindle the Law.\n\n     FALDER has come from the window.  The three men look at him in a\n     sort of awed silence.\n\nFALDER.  [With instinctive apprehension of some change--looking from\none to the other]  There's been nothing between us, sir, to prevent\nit....  What I said at the trial was true.  And last night we\nonly just sat in the Park.\n\nSWEEDLE comes in from the outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  What is it?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Mrs. Honeywill.   [There is silence]\n\nJAMES.  Show her in.\n\n     RUTH comes slowly in, and stands stoically with FALDER on one\n     side and the three men on the other.  No one speaks.  COKESON\n     turns to his table, bending over his papers as though the burden\n     of the situation were forcing him back into his accustomed\n     groove.\n\nJAMES.  [Sharply]  Shut the door there.  [SWEEDLE shuts the door]\nWe've asked you to come up because there are certain facts to be\nfaced in this matter.  I understand you have only just met Falder\nagain.\n\nRUTH.  Yes--only yesterday.\n\nJAMES.  He's told us about himself, and we're very sorry for him.\nI've promised to take him back here if he'll make a fresh start.\n[Looking steadily at RUTH] This is a matter that requires courage,\nma'am.\n\nRUTH, who is looking at FALDER, begins to twist her hands in front of\nher as though prescient of disaster.\n\nFALDER.  Mr. Walter How is good enough to say that he'll help us to\nget you a divorce.\n\n     RUTH flashes a startled glance at JAMES and WALTER.\n\nJAMES.  I don't think that's practicable, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  But, Sir----!\n\nJAMES.  [Steadily]  Now, Mrs. Honeywill.  You're fond of him.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, Sir; I love him.\n\n     She looks miserably at FALDER.\n\nJAMES.  Then you don't want to stand in his way, do you?\n\nRUTH.  [In a faint voice] I could take care of him.\n\nJAMES.  The best way you can take care of him will be to give him up.\n\nFALDER.  Nothing shall make me give you up.  You can get a divorce.\nThere's been nothing between us, has there?\n\nRUTH.  [Mournfully shaking her head-without looking at him]  No.\n\nFALDER.  We'll keep apart till it's over, sir; if you'll only help\nus--we promise.\n\nJAMES.  [To RUTH]  You see the thing plainly, don't you?  You see\nwhat I mean?\n\nRUTH.  [Just above a whisper]  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  [To himself] There's a dear woman.\n\nJAMES.  The situation is impossible.\n\nRUTH.  Must I, Sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Forcing himself to look at her] I put it to you, ma'am.  His\nfuture is in your hands.\n\nRUTH.  [Miserably] I want to do the best for him.\n\nJAMES.  [A little huskily] That's right, that's right!\n\nFALDER.  I don't understand.  You're not going to give me up--after\nall this?  There's something--[Starting forward to JAMES] Sir, I\nswear solemnly there's been nothing between us.\n\nJAMES.  I believe you, Falder.  Come, my lad, be as plucky as she is.\n\nFALDER.  Just now you were going to help us.  [He starts at RUTH, who\nis standing absolutely still; his face and hands twitch and quiver as\nthe truth dawns on him]  What is it?  You've not been--\n\nWALTER.  Father!\n\nJAMES.  [Hurriedly]  There, there!  That'll do, that'll do!  I'll\ngive you your chance, Falder.  Don't let me know what you do with\nyourselves, that's all.\n\nFALDER.  [As if he has not heard] Ruth?\n\n     RUTH looks at him; and FALDER covers his face with his hands.\n     There is silence.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  There's some one out there.  [To RUTH]  Go in\nhere.  You'll feel better by yourself for a minute.\n\n     He points to the clerks' room and moves towards the outer\n     office.  FALDER does not move.  RUTH puts out her hand timidly.\n     He shrinks back from the touch.  She turns and goes miserably\n     into the clerks' room.  With a brusque movement he follows,\n     seizing her by the shoulder just inside the doorway.  COKESON\n     shuts the door.\n\nJAMES.  [Pointing to the outer office]  Get rid of that, whoever it\nis.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Opening the office door, in a scared voice]\nDetective-Sergeant blister.\n\n     The detective enters, and closes the door behind him.\n\nWISTER.  Sorry to disturb you, sir.  A clerk you had here, two years\nand a half ago: I arrested him in, this room.\n\nJAMES.  What about him?\n\nWISTER.  I thought perhaps I might get his whereabouts from you.\n[There is an awkward silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Pleasantly, coming to the rescue] We're not responsible\nfor his movements; you know that.\n\nJAMES.  What do you want with him?\n\nWISTER.  He's failed to report himself this last four weeks.\n\nWALTER.  How d'you mean?\n\nWISTER.  Ticket-of-leave won't be up for another six months, sir.\n\nWALTER.  Has he to keep in touch with the police till then?\n\nWISTER.  We're bound to know where he sleeps every night.  I dare say\nwe shouldn't interfere, sir, even though he hasn't reported himself.\nBut we've just heard there's a serious matter of obtaining employment\nwith a forged reference.  What with the two things together--we must\nhave him.\n\n     Again there is silence.  WALTER and COKESON steal glances at\n     JAMES, who stands staring steadily at the detective.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expansively]  We're very busy at the moment.  If you could\nmake it convenient to call again we might be able to tell you then.\n\nJAMES.  [Decisively] I'm a servant of the Law, but I dislike\npeaching.  In fact, I can't do such a thing.  If you want him you\nmust find him without us.\n\n     As he speaks his eye falls on FALDER'S cap, still lying on the\n     table, and his face contracts.\n\nWISTER.  [Noting the gesture--quietly]  Very good, sir.  I ought to\nwarn you that, having broken the terms of his licence, he's still a\nconvict, and sheltering a convict.\n\nJAMES.  I shelter no one.  But you mustn't come here and ask\nquestions which it's not my business to answer.\n\nWISTER.  [Dryly] I won't trouble you further then, gentlemen.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry we couldn't give you the information.  You quite\nunderstand, don't you?  Good-morning!\n\n     WISTER turns to go, but instead of going to the door of the\n     outer office he goes to the door of the clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  The other door....  the other door!\n\n     WISTER opens the clerks' door.  RUTHS's voice is heard: \"Oh,\n     do!\" and FALDER'S: \"I can't!\"  There is a little pause; then,\n     with sharp fright, RUTH says: \"Who's that?\"\n\n     WISTER has gone in.\n\n     The three men look aghast at the door.\n\nWISTER  [From within]  Keep back, please!\n\n     He comes swiftly out with his arm twisted in FALDER'S.  The\n     latter gives a white, staring look at the three men.\n\nWALTER.  Let him go this time, for God's sake!\n\nWISTER.  I couldn't take the responsibility, sir.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer, desperate laugh]  Good!\n\n     Flinging a look back at RUTH, he throws up his head, and goes\n     out through the outer office, half dragging WISTER after him.\n\nWALTER.  [With despair]  That finishes him.  It'll go on for ever\nnow.\n\n     SWEEDLE can be seen staring through the outer door.  There are\n     sounds of footsteps descending the stone stairs; suddenly a dull\n     thud, a faint \"My God!\" in WISTER's voice.\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\n     SWEEDLE dashes forward.  The door swings to behind him.  There\n     is dead silence.\n\nWALTER.  [Starting forward to the inner room] The woman-she's\nfainting!\n\n     He and COKESON support the fainting RUTH from the doorway of the\n     clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  [Distracted]  Here, my dear!  There, there!\n\nWALTER.  Have you any brandy?\n\nCOKESON.  I've got sherry.\n\nWALTER.  Get it, then.  Quick!\n\n     He places RUTH in a chair--which JAMES has dragged forward.\n\nCOKESON.  [With sherry] Here!  It's good strong sherry.  [They try to\nforce the sherry between her lips.]\n\n     There is the sound of feet, and they stop to listen.\n\n     The outer door is reopened--WISTER and SWEEDLE are seen carrying\n     some burden.\n\nJAMES.  [Hurrying forward]  What is it?\n\n     They lay the burden doom in the outer office, out of sight, and\n     all but RUTH cluster round it, speaking in hushed voices.\n\nWISTER.  He jumped--neck's broken.\n\nWALTER.  Good God!\n\nWISTER.  He must have been mad to think he could give me the slip\nlike that.  And what was it--just a few months!\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly] Was that all?\n\nJAMES.  What a desperate thing!  [Then, in a voice unlike his own]\nRun for a doctor--you!  [SWEEDLE rushes from the outer office] An\nambulance!\n\n     WISTER goes out.  On RUTH's face an expression of fear and\n     horror has been seen growing, as if she dared not turn towards\n     the voices.  She now rises and steals towards them.\n\nWALTER.  [Turning suddenly] Look!\n\n     The three men shrink back out of her way, one by one, into\n     COKESON'S room.  RUTH drops on her knees by the body.\n\nRUTH.  [In a whisper]  What is it?  He's not breathing.  [She\ncrouches over him]  My dear!  My pretty!\n\n     In the outer office doorway the figures of men am seen standing.\n\nRUTH.  [Leaping to her feet] No, no!  No, no!  He's dead!\n\n     [The figures of the men shrink back]\n\nCOKESON.  [Stealing forward.  In a hoarse voice] There, there, poor\ndear woman!\n\n     At the sound behind her RUTH faces round at him.\n\nCOKESON.  No one'll touch him now!  Never again!  He's safe with\ngentle Jesus!\n\n     RUTH stands as though turned to stone in the doorway staring at\n     COKESON, who, bending humbly before her, holds out his hand as\n     one would to a lost dog.\n\n\n\nThe curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\n End of Project Gutenberg's Justice (Second Series Plays), by John Galsworthy\n\n \n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: How does Falder break his neck?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 114, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["Frome"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory:  Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nGALSWORTHY PLAYS\n\nSECOND SERIES--NO. 1\n\n\nJUSTICE\n\nBy John Galsworthy\n\n\n\nPERSONS OF THE PLAY\n\n JAMES HOW, solicitor\n WALTER HOW, solicitor\n ROBERT COKESON, their managing clerk\n WILLIAM FALDER, their junior clerk\n SWEEDLE, their office-boy\n WISTER, a detective\n COWLEY, a cashier\n MR. JUSTICE FLOYD, a judge\n HAROLD CLEAVER, an old advocate\n HECTOR FROME, a young advocate\n CAPTAIN DANSON, V.C., a prison governor\n THE REV. HUGH MILLER, a prison chaplain\n EDWARD CLEMENT, a prison doctor\n WOODER, a chief warder\n MOANEY, convict\n CLIFTON, convict\n O'CLEARY, convict\n RUTH HONEYWILL, a woman\n A NUMBER OF BARRISTERS, SOLICITERS, SPECTATORS, USHERS, REPORTERS,\n JURYMEN, WARDERS, AND PRISONERS\n\n\n\n  TIME: The Present.\n\n\n  ACT I. The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.  July.\n\n  ACT II. Assizes.  Afternoon.  October.\n\n  ACT III.  A prison.  December.\n       SCENE I.  The Governor's office.\n       SCENE II.  A corridor.\n       SCENE III.  A cell.\n\n  ACT IV.  The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.\n            March, two years later.\n\n\n\nCAST OF THE FIRST PRODUCTION\n\n   AT THE DUKE OF YORK'S THEATRE, FEBRUARY 21, 1910\n\n   James How           MR.  SYDNEY VALENTINE\n   Walter How          MR.  CHARLES MAUDE\n   Cokeson             MR.  EDMUND GWENN\n   Falder              MR.  DENNIS EADIE\n   The Office-boy      MR.  GEORGE HERSEE\n   The Detective       MR.  LESLIE CARTER\n   The Cashier         MR.  C. E. VERNON\n   The Judge           MR.  DION BOUCICAULT\n   The Old Advocate    MR.  OSCAR ADYE\n   The Young Advocate  MR.  CHARLES BRYANT\n   The Prison Governor MR.  GRENDON BENTLEY\n   The Prison Chaplain MR.  HUBERT HARBEN\n   The Prison Doctor   MR.  LEWIS CASSON\n   Wooder              MR.  FREDERICK LLOYD\n   Moaney              MR.  ROBERT PATEMAN\n   Clipton             MR.  O. P. HEGGIE\n   O'Cleary            MR.  WHITFORD KANE\n   Ruth Honeywill      Miss EDYTH OLIVE\n\n\n\n\nACT I\n\n     The scene is the managing clerk's room, at the offices of James\n     and Walter How, on a July morning.  The room is old fashioned,\n     furnished with well-worn  mahogany and leather, and lined with\n     tin boxes and   estate plans.  It has three doors.  Two of them\n     are close together in the centre of a wall.  One of these two\n     doors leads to the outer office, which is only divided from the\n     managing clerk's room by a   partition of wood and clear glass;\n     and when the door into this outer office is opened there can be\n     seen the wide outer door leading out on to the stone stairway of\n     the building.  The other of these two   centre doors leads to\n     the junior clerk's room.  The third door is that leading to the\n     partners' room.\n\n     The managing clerk, COKESON, is sitting at his table adding up\n     figures in a pass-book, and murmuring their numbers to himself.\n     He is a man of sixty, wearing spectacles; rather short, with a\n     bald head, and an honest, pugdog face.  He is dressed in a\n     well-worn black frock-coat and pepper-and-salt trousers.\n\nCOKESON.  And five's twelve, and three--fifteen, nineteen,\ntwenty-three, thirty-two, forty-one-and carry four. [He ticks the\npage, and goes on murmuring]  Five, seven, twelve, seventeen,\ntwenty-four and nine, thirty-three, thirteen and carry one.\n\n     He again makes a tick.  The outer office door is opened, and\n     SWEEDLE, the office-boy, appears, closing the door behind him.\n     He is a pale youth of sixteen, with spiky hair.\n\nCOKESON.  [With grumpy expectation]  And carry one.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's a party wants to see Falder, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Five, nine, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-nine--and carry\ntwo.  Send him to Morris's.  What name?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Honeywill.\n\nCOKESON.  What's his business?\n\nSWEEDLE.  It's a woman.\n\nCOKESON.  A lady?\n\nSWEEDLE.  No, a person.\n\nCOKESON.  Ask her in.  Take this pass-book to Mr. James.  [He closes\nthe pass-book.]\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Reopening the door]  Will you come in, please?\n\n     RUTH HONEYWILL comes in.  She is a tall woman, twenty-six years\n     old, unpretentiously dressed, with black hair and eyes, and an\n     ivory-white, clear-cut face.  She stands very still, having a\n     natural dignity of pose and gesture.\n\n     SWEEDLE goes out into the partners' room with the pass-book.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking round at RUTH]  The young man's out.\n[Suspiciously]  State your business, please.\n\nRUTH.  [Who speaks in a matter-of-fact voice, and with a slight\nWest-Country accent]  It's a personal matter, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  We don't allow private callers here.  Will you leave a\nmessage?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather see him, please.\n\n     She narrows her dark eyes and gives him a honeyed look.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expanding]  It's all against the rules.  Suppose I had my\nfriends here to see me!  It'd never do!\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [A little taken aback]  Exactly!  And here you are wanting\nto see a junior clerk!\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir; I must see him.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning full round to her with a sort of outraged\ninterest]  But this is a lawyer's office.  Go to his private address.\n\nRUTH.  He's not there.\n\nCOKESON.  [Uneasy]  Are you related to the party?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [In real embarrassment]  I don't know what to say.  It's no\naffair of the office.\n\nRUTH.  But what am I to do?\n\nCOKESON.  Dear me!  I can't tell you that.\n\n     SWEEDLE comes back.  He crosses to the outer office and passes\n     through into it, with a quizzical look at Cokeson, carefully\n     leaving the door an inch or two open.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fortified by this look]  This won't do, you know, this\nwon't do at all.  Suppose one of the partners came in!\n\n     An incoherent knocking and chuckling is heard from the outer\n     door of the outer office.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Putting his head in]  There's some children outside here.\n\nRUTH.  They're mine, please.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I hold them in check?\n\nRUTH.  They're quite small, sir. [She takes a step towards COKESON]\n\nCOKESON.  You mustn't take up his time in office hours; we're a clerk\nshort as it is.\n\nRUTH.  It's a matter of life and death.\n\nCOKESON.  [Again outraged]  Life and death!\n\nSWEEDLE.  Here is Falder.\n\n     FALDER has entered through the outer office.  He is a pale,\n     good-looking young man, with quick, rather scared eyes.  He\n     moves towards the door of the clerks' office, and stands there\n     irresolute.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll give you a minute.  It's not regular.\n\n     Taking up a bundle of papers, he goes out into the partners'\n     room.\n\nRUTH.  [In a low, hurried voice]  He's on the drink again, Will.  He\ntried to cut my throat last night.  I came out with the children\nbefore he was awake.  I went round to you.\n\nFALDER.  I've changed my digs.\n\nRUTH.  Is it all ready for to-night?\n\nFALDER.  I've got the tickets.  Meet me 11.45 at the booking office.\nFor God's sake don't forget we're man and wife!  [Looking at her with\ntragic intensity]  Ruth!\n\nRUTH.  You're not afraid of going, are you?\n\nFALDER.  Have you got your things, and the children's?\n\nRUTH.  Had to leave them, for fear of waking Honeywill, all but one\nbag.  I can't go near home again.\n\nFALDER.  [Wincing]  All that money gone for nothing.\nHow much must you have?\n\nRUTH.  Six pounds--I could do with that, I think.\n\nFALDER.  Don't give away where we're going.  [As if to himself]  When\nI get out there I mean to forget it all.\n\nRUTH.  If you're sorry, say so.  I'd sooner he killed me than take\nyou against your will.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer smile]  We've got to go.  I don't care; I'll\nhave you.\n\nRUTH.  You've just to say; it's not too late.\n\nFALDER.  It is too late.  Here's seven pounds.  Booking office 11.45\nto-night.  If you weren't what you are to me, Ruth----!\n\nRUTH.  Kiss me!\n\n     They cling together passionately, there fly apart just as\n     COKESON re-enters the room.  RUTH turns and goes out through the\n     outer office.  COKESON advances deliberately to his chair and\n     seats himself.\n\nCOKESON.  This isn't right, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  It shan't occur again, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  It's an improper use of these premises.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  You quite understand-the party was in some distress; and,\nhaving children with her, I allowed my feelings----[He opens a\ndrawer and produces from it a tract]  Just take this!  \"Purity in the\nHome.\"  It's a well-written thing.\n\nFALDER.  [Taking it, with a peculiar expression]  Thank you, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  And look here, Falder, before Mr. Walter comes, have you\nfinished up that cataloguing Davis had in hand before he left?\n\nFALDER.  I shall have done with it to-morrow, sir--for good.\n\nCOKESON.  It's over a week since Davis went.  Now it won't do,\nFalder.  You're neglecting your work for private life.  I shan't\nmention about the party having called, but----\n\nFALDER.  [Passing into his room] Thank you, sir.\n\n     COKESON stares at the door through which FALDER has gone out;\n     then shakes his head, and is just settling down to write, when\n     WALTER How comes in through the outer Office.  He is a rather\n     refined-looking man of thirty-five, with a pleasant, almost\n     apologetic voice.\n\nWALTER.  Good-morning, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Morning, Mr. Walter.\n\nWALTER.  My father here?\n\nCOKESON.  [Always with a certain patronage as to a young man who\nmight be doing better]  Mr. James has been here since eleven o'clock.\n\nWALTER.  I've been in to see the pictures, at the Guildhall.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as though this were exactly what was to be\nexpected]  Have you now--ye--es.  This lease of Boulter's--am I to\nsend it to counsel?\n\nWALTER.  What does my father say?\n\nCOKESON.  'Aven't bothered him.\n\nWALTER.  Well, we can't be too careful.\n\nCOKESON.  It's such a little thing--hardly worth the fees.  I thought\nyou'd do it yourself.\n\nWALTER.  Send it, please.  I don't want the responsibility.\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indescribable air of compassion]  Just as you\nlike.  This \"right-of-way\" case--we've got 'em on the deeds.\n\nWALTER.  I know; but the intention was obviously to exclude that bit\nof common ground.\n\nCOKESON.  We needn't worry about that.  We're the right side of the\nlaw.\n\nWALTER.  I don't like it,\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  We shan't want to set ourselves\nup against the law.  Your father wouldn't waste his time doing that.\n\n     As he speaks JAMES How comes in from the partners' room.  He is\n     a shortish man, with white side-whiskers, plentiful grey hair,\n     shrewd eyes, and gold pince-nez.\n\nJAMES.  Morning, Walter.\n\nWALTER.  How are you, father?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking down his nose at the papers in his hand as though\ndeprecating their size] I'll just take Boulter's lease in to young\nFalder to draft the instructions. [He goes out into FALDER'S room.]\n\nWALTER.  About that right-of-way case?\n\nJAMES.  Oh, well, we must go forward there.  I thought you told me\nyesterday the firm's balance was over four hundred.\n\nWALTER.  So it is.\n\nJAMES.  [Holding out the pass-book to his son] Three--five--one, no\nrecent cheques.  Just get me out the cheque-book.\n\n     WALTER goes to a cupboard, unlocks a drawer and produces a\n     cheque-book.\n\nJAMES.  Tick the pounds in the counterfoils.  Five, fifty-four,\nseven, five, twenty-eight, twenty, ninety, eleven, fifty-two,\nseventy-one.  Tally?\n\nWALTER.  [Nodding]  Can't understand.  Made sure it was over four\nhundred.\n\nJAMES.  Give me the cheque-book.  [He takes the check-book and cons\nthe counterfoils] What's this ninety?\n\nWALTER.  Who drew it?\n\nJAMES.  You.\n\nWALTER.  [Taking the cheque-book]  July 7th?  That's the day I went\ndown to look over the Trenton Estate--last Friday week; I came back\non the Tuesday, you remember.  But look here, father, it was nine I\ndrew a cheque for.  Five guineas to Smithers and my expenses.  It\njust covered all but half a crown.\n\nJAMES.  [Gravely]  Let's look at that ninety cheque.  [He sorts the\ncheque out from the bundle in the pocket of the pass-book] Seems all\nright.  There's no nine here.  This is bad.  Who cashed that\nnine-pound cheque?\n\nWALTER.  [Puzzled and pained]  Let's see!  I was finishing Mrs.\nReddy's will--only just had time; yes--I gave it to Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Look at that 't' 'y': that yours?\n\nWALTER.  [After consideration]  My y's curl back a little; this\ndoesn't.\n\nJAMES.  [As COKESON re-enters from FALDER'S room]  We must ask him.\nJust come here and carry your mind back a bit, Cokeson.  D'you\nremember cashing a cheque for Mr. Walter last Friday week--the day\nhe went to Trenton?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  Nine pounds.\n\nJAMES.  Look at this.  [Handing him the cheque.]\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nine pounds.  My lunch was just coming in; and of\ncourse I like it hot; I gave the cheque to Davis to run round to the\nbank.  He brought it back, all gold--you remember, Mr. Walter, you\nwanted some silver to pay your cab.  [With a certain contemptuous\ncompassion]  Here, let me see.  You've got the wrong cheque.\n\n     He takes cheque-book and pass-book from WALTER.\n\nWALTER.  Afraid not.\n\nCOKESON.  [Having seen for himself]  It's funny.\n\nJAMES.  You gave it to Davis, and Davis sailed for Australia on\nMonday.  Looks black, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Puzzled and upset]  why this'd be a felony!  No, no!\nthere's some mistake.\n\nJAMES.  I hope so.\n\nCOKESON.  There's never been anything of that sort in the office the\ntwenty-nine years I've been here.\n\nJAMES.  [Looking at cheque and counterfoil]  This is a very clever\nbit of work; a warning to you not to leave space after your figures,\nWalter.\n\nWALTER.  [Vexed]  Yes, I know--I was in such a tearing hurry that\nafternoon.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  This has upset me.\n\nJAMES.  The counterfoil altered too--very deliberate piece of\nswindling.  What was Davis's ship?\n\nWALTER.  'City of Rangoon'.\n\nJAMES.  We ought to wire and have him arrested at Naples; he can't be\nthere yet.\n\nCOKESON.  His poor young wife.  I liked the young man.  Dear, oh\ndear!  In this office!\n\nWALTER.  Shall I go to the bank and ask the cashier?\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly]  Bring him round here.  And ring up Scotland Yard.\n\nWALTER.  Really?\n\n     He goes out through the outer office.  JAMES paces the room.  He\n     stops and looks at COKESON, who is disconsolately rubbing the\n     knees of his trousers.\n\nJAMES.  Well, Cokeson!  There's something in character, isn't there?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him over his spectacles]  I don't quite take\nyou, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Your story, would sound d----d thin to any one who didn't\nknow you.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es!  [He laughs.  Then with a sudden gravity]  I'm sorry\nfor that young man.  I feel it as if it was my own son, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  A nasty business!\n\nCOKESON.  It unsettles you.  All goes on regular, and then a thing\nlike this happens.  Shan't relish my lunch to-day.\n\nJAMES.  As bad as that, Cokeson?\n\nCOKESON.  It makes you think.  [Confidentially]  He must have had\ntemptation.\n\nJAMES.  Not so fast.  We haven't convicted him yet.\n\nCOKESON.  I'd sooner have lost a month's salary than had this happen.\n    [He broods.]\n\nJAMES.  I hope that fellow will hurry up.\n\nCOKESON.  [Keeping things pleasant for the cashier]  It isn't fifty\nyards, Mr. James.  He won't be a minute.\n\nJAMES.  The idea of dishonesty about this office it hits me hard,\nCokeson.\n\n     He goes towards the door of the partners' room.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering quietly, to COKESON in a low voice]  She's popped\nup again, sir-something she forgot to say to Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  [Roused from his abstraction]  Eh?  Impossible.  Send her\naway!\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\nCOKESON.  Nothing, Mr. James.  A private matter.  Here, I'll come\nmyself.  [He goes into the outer office as JAMES passes into the\npartners' room]  Now, you really mustn't--we can't have anybody just\nnow.\n\nRUTH.  Not for a minute, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Reely!  Reely!  I can't have it.  If you want him, wait\nabout; he'll be going out for his lunch directly.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\n     WALTER, entering with the cashier, passes RUTH as she leaves the\n     outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  [To the cashier, who resembles a sedentary dragoon]\nGood-morning.  [To WALTER]  Your father's in there.\n\n     WALTER crosses and goes into the partners' room.\n\nCOKESON.  It's a nahsty, unpleasant little matter, Mr. Cowley.  I'm\nquite ashamed to have to trouble you.\n\nCOWLEY.  I remember the cheque quite well.  [As if it were a liver]\nSeemed in perfect order.\n\nCOKESON.  Sit down, won't you?  I'm not a sensitive man, but a thing\nlike this about the place--it's not nice.  I like people to be open\nand jolly together.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite so.\n\nCOKESON.  [Buttonholing him, and glancing toward the partners' room]\nOf course he's a young man.  I've told him about it before now--\nleaving space after his figures, but he will do it.\n\nCOWLEY.  I should remember the person's face--quite a youth.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't think we shall be able to show him to you, as a\nmatter of fact.\n\n     JAMES and WALTER have come back from the partners' room.\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley.  You've seen my son and myself,\nyou've seen Mr. Cokeson, and you've seen Sweedle, my office-boy.  It\nwas none of us, I take it.\n\n     The cashier shakes his head with a smile.\n\nJAMES.  Be so good as to sit there.  Cokeson, engage Mr. Cowley in\nconversation, will you?\n\n     He goes toward FALDER'S room.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nCOKESON.  You don't want to upset the young man in there, do you?\nHe's a nervous young feller.\n\nJAMES.  This must be thoroughly cleared up, Cokeson, for the sake of\nFalder's name, to say nothing of yours.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Some dignity] That'll look after itself, sir.  He's\nbeen upset once this morning; I don't want him startled again.\n\nJAMES.  It's a matter of form; but I can't stand upon niceness over a\nthing like this--too serious.  Just talk to Mr. Cowley.\n\n     He opens the door of FALDER'S room.\n\nJAMES.  Bring in the papers in Boulter's lease, will you, Falder?\n\nCOKESON.  [Bursting into voice]  Do you keep dogs?\n\n     The cashier, with his eyes fixed on the door, does not answer.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't such a thing as a bulldog pup you could spare\nme, I suppose?\n\n     At the look on the cashier's face his jaw drops, and he turns to\n     see FALDER standing in the doorway, with his eyes fixed on\n     COWLEY, like the eyes of a rabbit fastened on a snake.\n\nFALDER.  [Advancing with the papers] Here they are, sir!\n\nJAMES.  [Taking them] Thank you.\n\nFALDER.  Do you want me, sir?\n\nJAMES.  No, thanks!\n\n     FALDER turns and goes back into his own room.  As he shuts the\n     door JAMES gives the cashier an interrogative look, and the\n     cashier nods.\n\nJAMES.  Sure?  This isn't as we suspected.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite.  He knew me.  I suppose he can't slip out of that\nroom?\n\nCOKESON.  [Gloomily]  There's only the window--a whole floor and a\nbasement.\n\n     The door of FALDER'S room is quietly opened, and FALDER, with\n     his hat in his hand, moves towards the door of the outer office.\n\nJAMES.  [Quietly]  Where are you going, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  To have my lunch, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Wait a few minutes, would you?  I want to speak to you about\nthis lease.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.  [He goes back into his room.]\n\nCOWLEY.  If I'm wanted, I can swear that's the young man who cashed\nthe cheque.  It was the last cheque I handled that morning before my\nlunch.  These are the numbers of the notes he had.  [He puts a slip\nof paper on the table; then, brushing his hat round]  Good-morning!\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley!\n\nCOWLEY.  [To COKESON]  Good-morning.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Stupefaction]  Good-morning.\n\n     The cashier goes out through the outer office. COKESON sits down\n     in his chair, as though it were the only place left in the\n     morass of his feelings.\n\nWALTER.  What are you going to do?\n\nJAMES.  Have him in.  Give me the cheque and the counterfoil.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.  I thought young Davis----\n\nJAMES.  We shall see.\n\nWALTER.  One moment, father: have you thought it out?\n\nJAMES.  Call him in!\n\nCOKESON.  [Rising with difficulty and opening FALDER'S door;\nhoarsely]  Step in here a minute.\n\nFALDER.  [Impassively]  Yes, sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Turning to him suddenly with the cheque held out]  You know\nthis cheque, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nJADES.  Look at it.  You cashed it last Friday week.\n\nFALDER.  Oh! yes, sir; that one--Davis gave it me.\n\nJAMES.  I know. And you gave Davis the cash?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nJAMES.  When Davis gave you the cheque was it exactly like this?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I think so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  You know that Mr. Walter drew that cheque for nine pounds?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--ninety.\n\nJAMES.  Nine, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  I don't understand, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The suggestion, of course, is that the cheque was altered;\nwhether by you or Davis is the question.\n\nFALDER.  I--I\n\nCOKESON.  Take your time, take your time.\n\nFALDER.  [Regaining his impassivity]  Not by me, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The cheque was handed to--Cokeson by Mr. Walter at one\no'clock; we know that because Mr. Cokeson's lunch had just arrived.\n\nCOKESON.  I couldn't leave it.\n\nJAMES.  Exactly; he therefore gave the cheque to Davis.  It was\ncashed by you at 1.15.  We know that because the cashier recollects\nit for the last cheque he handled before his lunch.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, Davis gave it to me because some friends were\ngiving him a farewell luncheon.\n\nJAMES.  [Puzzled] You accuse Davis, then?\n\nFALDER.  I don't know, sir--it's very funny.\n\n     WALTER, who has come close to his father, says something to him\n     in a low voice.\n\nJAMES.  Davis was not here again after that Saturday, was he?\n\nCOKESON.  [Anxious to be of assistance to the young man, and seeing\nfaint signs of their all being jolly once more] No, he sailed on the\nMonday.\n\nJAMES.  Was he, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [Very faintly]  No, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Very well, then, how do you account for the fact that this\nnought was added to the nine in the counterfoil on or after Tuesday?\n\nCOKESON.  [Surprised]  How's that?\n\n     FALDER gives a sort of lurch; he tries to pull himself together,\n     but he has gone all to pieces.\n\nJAMES.  [Very grimly]  Out, I'm afraid, Cokeson.  The cheque-book\nremained in Mr. Walter's pocket till he came back from Trenton on\nTuesday morning.  In the face of this, Falder, do you still deny that\nyou altered both cheque and counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--no, Mr. How.  I did it, sir; I did it.\n\nCOKESON.  [Succumbing to his feelings]  Dear, dear! what a thing to\ndo!\n\nFALDER.  I wanted the money so badly, sir.  I didn't know what I was\ndoing.\n\nCOKESON.  However such a thing could have come into your head!\n\nFALDER.  [Grasping at the words]  I can't think, sir, really!  It was\njust a minute of madness.\n\nJAMES.  A long minute, Falder.  [Tapping the counterfoil] Four days\nat least.\n\nFALDER.  Sir, I swear I didn't know what I'd done till afterwards,\nand then I hadn't the pluck.  Oh!  Sir, look over it!  I'll pay the\nmoney back--I will, I promise.\n\nJAMES.  Go into your room.\n\n     FALDER, with a swift imploring look, goes back into his room.\n     There is silence.\n\nJAMES.  About as bad a case as there could be.\n\nCOKESON.  To break the law like that-in here!\n\nWALTER.  What's to be done?\n\nJAMES.  Nothing for it.  Prosecute.\n\nWALTER.  It's his first offence.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head]  I've grave doubts of that.  Too neat a\npiece of swindling altogether.\n\nCOKESON.  I shouldn't be surprised if he was tempted.\n\nJAMES.  Life's one long temptation, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm speaking of the flesh and the devil, Mr.\nJames.  There was a woman come to see him this morning.\n\nWALTER.  The woman we passed as we came in just now.  Is it his wife?\n\nCOKESON.  No, no relation.  [Restraining what in jollier\ncircumstances would have been a wink]  A married person, though.\n\nWALTER.  How do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Brought her children.  [Scandalised]  There they were\noutside the office.\n\nJAMES.  A real bad egg.\n\nWALTER.  I should like to give him a chance.\n\nJAMES.  I can't forgive him for the sneaky way he went to work--\ncounting on our suspecting young Davis if the matter came to light.\nIt was the merest accident the cheque-book stayed in your pocket.\n\nWALTER.  It must have been the temptation of a moment.  He hadn't\ntime.\n\nJAMES.  A man doesn't succumb like that in a moment, if he's a clean\nmind and habits.  He's rotten; got the eyes of a man who can't keep\nhis hands off when there's money about.\n\nWALTER.  [Dryly] We hadn't noticed that before.\n\nJAMES.  [Brushing the remark aside] I've seen lots of those fellows\nin my time.  No doing anything with them except to keep 'em out of\nharm's way.  They've got a blind spat.\n\nWALTER.  It's penal servitude.\n\nCOKESON.  They're nahsty places-prisons.\n\nJAMES.  [Hesitating] I don't see how it's possible to spare him.  Out\nof the question to keep him in this office--honesty's the 'sine qua\nnon'.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hypnotised] Of course it is.\n\nJAMES.  Equally out of the question to send him out amongst people\nwho've no knowledge of his character.  One must think of society.\n\nWALTER.  But to brand him like this?\n\nJAMES.  If it had been a straightforward case I'd give him another\nchance.  It's far from that.  He has dissolute habits.\n\nCOKESON.  I didn't say that--extenuating circumstances.\n\nJAMES.  Same thing.  He's gone to work in the most cold-blooded way\nto defraud his employers, and cast the blame on an innocent man.  If\nthat's not a case for the law to take its course, I don't know what\nis.\n\nWALTER.  For the sake of his future, though.\n\nJAMES.  [Sarcastically]  According to you, no one would ever\nprosecute.\n\nWALTER.  [Nettled]  I hate the idea of it.\n\nCOKESON.  That's rather 'ex parte', Mr. Walter!  We must have\nprotection.\n\nJAMES.  This is degenerating into talk.\n\n     He moves towards the partners' room.\n\nWALTER.  Put yourself in his place, father.\n\nJAMES.  You ask too much of me.\n\nWALTER.  We can't possibly tell the pressure there was on him.\n\nJAMES.  You may depend on it, my boy, if a man is going to do this\nsort of thing he'll do it, pressure or no pressure; if he isn't\nnothing'll make him.\n\nWALTER.  He'll never do it again.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fatuously] S'pose I were to have a talk with him.  We\ndon't want to be hard on the young man.\n\nJAMES.  That'll do, Cokeson.  I've made up my mind.  [He passes into\nthe partners' room.]\n\nCOKESON.  [After a doubtful moment]  We must excuse your father.  I\ndon't want to go against your father; if he thinks it right.\n\nWALTER.  Confound it, Cokeson! why don't you back me up?  You know\nyou feel----\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity]  I really can't say what I feel.\n\nWALTER.  We shall regret it.\n\nCOKESON.  He must have known what he was doing.\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly]  \"The quality of mercy is not strained.\"\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him askance]  Come, come, Mr. Walter.  We must\ntry and see it sensible.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering with a tray] Your lunch, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Put it down!\n\n     While SWEEDLE is putting it down on COKESON's table, the\n     detective, WISTER, enters the outer office, and, finding no one\n     there, comes to the inner doorway.  He is a square, medium-sized\n     man, clean-shaved, in a serviceable blue serge suit and strong\n     boots.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hoarsely]  Here!  Here!  What are we doing?\n\nWISTER.  [To WALTER]  From Scotland Yard, sir.  Detective-Sergeant\nBlister.\n\nWALTER.  [Askance] Very well!  I'll speak to my father.\n\n     He goes into the partners' room.  JAMES enters.\n\nJAMES.  Morning!  [In answer to an appealing gesture from COKESON]\nI'm sorry; I'd stop short of this if I felt I could.  Open that door.\n[SWEEDLE, wondering and scared, opens it] Come here, Mr. Falder.\n\n     As FALDER comes shrinkingly out, the detective in obedience to a\n     sign from JAMES, slips his hand out and grasps his arm.\n\nFALDER.  [Recoiling] Oh! no,--oh! no!\n\nWALTER.  Come, come, there's a good lad.\n\nJAMES.  I charge him with felony.\n\nFALTER.  Oh, sir!  There's some one--I did it for her.  Let me be\ntill to-morrow.\n\n     JAMES motions with his hand.  At that sign of hardness, FALDER\n     becomes rigid.  Then, turning, he goes out quietly in the\n     detective's grip.  JAMES follows, stiff and erect.  SWEEDLE,\n     rushing to the door with open mouth, pursues them through the\n     outer office into the corridor.  When they have all disappeared\n     COKESON spins completely round and makes a rush for the outer\n     office.\n\nCOKESON: [Hoarsely] Here!  What are we doing?\n\n     There is silence.  He takes out his handkerchief and mops the\n     sweat from his face.  Going back blindly to his table, sits\n     down, and stares blankly at his lunch.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\nACT II\n\nA Court of Justice, on a foggy October afternoon crowded with\nbarristers, solicitors, reporters, ushers, and jurymen.  Sitting in\nthe large, solid dock is FALDER, with a warder on either side of him,\nplaced there for his safe custody, but seemingly indifferent to and\nunconscious of his presence.  FALDER is sitting exactly opposite to\nthe JUDGE, who, raised above the clamour of the court, also seems\nunconscious of and indifferent to everything.  HAROLD CLEAVER, the\ncounsel for the Crown, is a dried, yellowish man, of more than middle\nage, in a wig worn almost to the colour of his face.  HECTOR FROME,\nthe counsel for the defence, is a young, tall man, clean shaved, in a\nvery white wig.  Among the spectators,  having already given their\nevidence, are JAMES and WALTER HOW, and COWLEY, the cashier.  WISTER,\nthe detective, is just leaving the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  That is the case for the Crown, me lud!\n\n     Gathering his robes together, he sits down.\n\nFROME.  [Rising and bowing to the JUDGE] If it please your lordship\nand gentlemen of the jury.  I am not going to dispute the fact that\nthe prisoner altered this cheque, but I am going to put before you\nevidence as to the condition of his mind, and to submit that you\nwould not be justified in finding that he was responsible for his\nactions at the time.  I am going to show you, in fact, that he did\nthis in a moment of aberration, amounting to temporary insanity,\ncaused by the violent distress under which he was labouring.\nGentlemen, the prisoner is only twenty-three years old.  I shall call\nbefore you a woman from whom you will learn the events that led up to\nthis act.  You will hear from her own lips the tragic circumstances\nof her life, the still more tragic infatuation with which she has\ninspired the prisoner.  This woman, gentlemen, has been leading a\nmiserable existence with a husband who habitually ill-uses her, from\nwhom she actually goes in terror of her life.  I am not, of course,\nsaying that it's either right or desirable for a young man to fall in\nlove with a married woman, or that it's his business to rescue her\nfrom an ogre-like husband.  I'm not saying anything of the sort.  But\nwe all know the power of the passion of love; and I would ask you to\nremember, gentlemen, in listening to her evidence, that, married to a\ndrunken and violent husband, she has no power to get rid of him; for,\nas you know, another offence besides violence is necessary to enable\na woman to obtain a divorce; and of this offence it does not appear\nthat her husband is guilty.\n\nJUDGE.  Is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  My lord, I submit, extremely--I shall be able to show your\nlordship that directly.\n\nJUDGE.  Very well.\n\nFROME.  In these circumstances, what alternatives were left to her?\nShe could either go on living with this drunkard, in terror of her\nlife; or she could apply to the Court for a separation order.  Well,\ngentlemen, my experience of such cases assures me that this would\nhave given her very insufficient protection from the violence of such\na man; and even if effectual would very likely have reduced her\neither to the workhouse or the streets--for it's not easy, as she is\nnow finding, for an unskilled woman without means of livelihood to\nsupport herself and her children without resorting either to the Poor\nLaw or--to speak quite plainly--to the sale of her body.\n\nJUDGE.  You are ranging rather far, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  I shall fire point-blank in a minute, my lord.\n\nJUDGE.  Let us hope so.\n\nFROME.  Now, gentlemen, mark--and this is what I have been leading up\nto--this woman will tell you, and the prisoner will confirm her,\nthat, confronted with such alternatives, she set her whole hopes on\nhimself, knowing the feeling with which she had inspired him.  She\nsaw a way out of her misery by going with him to a new country, where\nthey would both be unknown, and might pass as husband and wife.  This\nwas a desperate and, as my friend Mr. Cleaver will no doubt call it,\nan immoral resolution; but, as a fact, the minds of both of them were\nconstantly turned towards it.  One wrong is no excuse for another,\nand those who are never likely to be faced by such a situation\npossibly have the right to hold up their hands--as to that I prefer\nto say nothing.  But whatever view you take, gentlemen, of this part\nof the prisoner's story--whatever opinion you form of the right of\nthese two young people under such circumstances to take the law into\ntheir own hands--the fact remains that this young woman in her\ndistress, and this young man, little more than a boy, who was so\ndevotedly attached to her, did conceive this--if you like--\nreprehensible design of going away together.  Now, for that, of\ncourse, they required money, and--they had none.  As to the actual\nevents of the morning of July 7th, on which this cheque was altered,\nthe events on which I rely to prove the defendant's irresponsibility\n--I shall allow those events to speak for themselves, through the\nlips of my witness.  Robert Cokeson.  [He turns, looks round, takes\nup a sheet of paper, and waits.]\n\n     COKESON is summoned into court, and goes into the witness-box,\n     holding his hat before him.  The oath is administered to him.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nCOKESON.  Robert Cokeson.\n\nFROME.  Are you managing clerk to the firm of solicitors who employ\nthe prisoner?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  How long had the prisoner been in their employ?\n\nCOKESON.  Two years.  No, I'm wrong there--all but seventeen days.\n\nFROME.  Had you him under your eye all that time?\n\nCOKESON.  Except Sundays and holidays.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  Let us hear, please, what you have to say about\nhis general character during those two years.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially to the jury, and as if a little surprised\nat being asked]  He was a nice, pleasant-spoken young man.  I'd no\nfault to find with him--quite the contrary.  It was a great surprise\nto me when he did a thing like that.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever give you reason to suspect his honesty?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  To have dishonesty in our office, that'd never do.\n\nFROME.  I'm sure the jury fully appreciate that, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Every man of business knows that honesty's 'the sign qua\nnon'.\n\nFROME.  Do you give him a good character all round, or do you not?\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning to the JUDGE]  Certainly.  We were all very jolly\nand pleasant together, until this happened.  Quite upset me.\n\nFROME.  Now, coming to the morning of the 7th of July, the morning on\nwhich the cheque was altered.  What have you to say about his\ndemeanour that morning?\n\nCOKESON.  [To the jury]  If you ask me, I don't think he was quite\ncompos when he did it.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  Are you suggesting that he was insane?\n\nCOKESON.  Not compos.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  A little more precision, please.\n\nFROME.  [Smoothly]  Just tell us, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Somewhat outraged]  Well, in my opinion--[looking at the\nJUDGE]--such as it is--he was jumpy at the time.  The jury will\nunderstand my meaning.\n\nFROME.  Will you tell us how you came to that conclusion?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I will.  I have my lunch in from the restaurant, a\nchop and a potato--saves time.  That day it happened to come just as\nMr. Walter How handed me the cheque.  Well, I like it hot; so I went\ninto the clerks' office and I handed the cheque to Davis, the other\nclerk, and told him to get change.  I noticed young Falder walking up\nand down.  I said to him: \"This is not the Zoological Gardens,\nFalder.\"\n\nFROME.  Do you remember what he answered?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es: \"I wish to God it were!\"  Struck me as funny.\n\nFROME.  Did you notice anything else peculiar?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  What was that?\n\nCOKESON.  His collar was unbuttoned.  Now, I like a young man to be\nneat.  I said to him: \"Your collar's unbuttoned.\"\n\nFROME.  And what did he answer?\n\nCOKESON.  Stared at me.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Stared at you?  Isn't that a very common practice?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but it was the look in his eyes.  I can't explain my\nmeaning--it was funny.\n\nFROME.  Had you ever seen such a look in his eyes before?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  If I had I should have spoken to the partners.  We\ncan't have anything eccentric in our profession.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Did you speak to them on that occasion?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, I didn't like to trouble them about\nprime facey evidence.\n\nFROME.  But it made a very distinct impression on your mind?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  The clerk Davis could have told you the same.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  It's very unfortunate that we've not got him here.\nNow can you tell me of the morning on which the discovery of the\nforgery was made?  That would be the 18th.  Did anything happen that\nmorning?\n\nCOKESON.  [With his hand to his ear]  I'm a little deaf.\n\nFROME.  Was there anything in the course of that morning--I mean\nbefore the discovery--that caught your attention?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es--a woman.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  How is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  I am trying to establish the state of mind in which the\nprisoner committed this act, my lord.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I quite appreciate that.  But this was long after the\nact.\n\nFROME.  Yes, my lord, but it contributes to my contention.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Well!\n\nFROME.  You say a woman.  Do you mean that she came to the office?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  What for?\n\nCOKESON.  Asked to see young Falder; he was out at the moment.\n\nFROME.  Did you see her?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  Did she come alone?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, there you put me in a difficulty.\nI mustn't tell you what the office-boy told me.\n\nFROME.  Quite so, Mr. Cokeson, quite so----\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in with an air of \"You are young--leave it to\nme\"]  But I think we can get round it.  In answer to a question put\nto her by a third party the woman said to me: \"They're mine, sir.\"\n\nTHE JUDGE.  What are?  What were?\n\nCOKESON.  Her children.  They were outside.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  HOW do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Your lordship mustn't ask me that, or I shall have to tell\nyou what I was told--and that'd never do.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Smiling]  The office-boy made a statement.\n\nCOKESON.  Egg-zactly.\n\nFROME.  What I want to ask you, Mr. Cokeson, is this.  In the course\nof her appeal to see Falder, did the woman say anything that you\nspecially remember?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as if to encourage him to complete the\nsentence]  A leetle more, sir.\n\nFROME.  Or did she not?\n\nCOKESON.  She did.  I shouldn't like you to have led me to the\nanswer.\n\nFROME.  [With an irritated smile]  Will you tell the jury what it\nwas?\n\nCOKESON.  \"It's a matter of life and death.\"\n\nFOREMAN OF THE JURY.  Do you mean the woman said that?\n\nCOKESON.  [Nodding]  It's not the sort of thing you like to have said\nto you.\n\nFROME.  [A little impatiently]  Did Falder come in while she was\nthere?  [COKESON nods]  And she saw him, and went away?\n\nCOKESON.  Ah!  there I can't follow you.  I didn't see her go.\n\nFROME.  Well, is she there now?\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  No!\n\nFROME.  Thank you, Mr. Cokeson.  [He sits down.]\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rising] You say that on the morning of the forgery the\nprisoner was jumpy.  Well, now, sir, what precisely do you mean by\nthat word?\n\nCOKESON.  [Indulgently]  I want you to understand.  Have you ever\nseen a dog that's lost its master?  He was kind of everywhere at once\nwith his eyes.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I was coming to his eyes.  You called them\n\"funny.\"  What are we to understand by that?  Strange, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, funny.\n\nCOKESON.  [Sharply]  Yes, sir, but what may be funny to you may not\nbe funny to me, or to the jury.  Did they look frightened, or shy, or\nfierce, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  You make it very hard for me.  I give you the word, and you\nwant me to give you another.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rapping his desk] Does \"funny\" mean mad?\n\nCLEAVER.  Not mad, fun----\n\nCLEAVER.  Very well!  Now you say he had his collar unbuttoned?  Was\nit a hot day?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es; I think it was.\n\nCLEAVER.  And did he button it when you called his attention to it?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I think he did.\n\nCLEAVER.  Would you say that that denoted insanity?\n\n     He sits downs.  COKESON, who has opened his mouth to reply, is\n     left gaping.\n\nFROME.  [Rising hastily] Have you ever caught him in that dishevelled\nstate before?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  He was always clean and quiet.\n\nFROME.  That will do, thank you.\n\n     COKESON turns blandly to the JUDGE, as though to rebuke counsel\n     for not remembering that the JUDGE might wish to have a chance;\n     arriving at the conclusion that he is to be asked nothing\n     further, he turns and descends from the box, and sits down next\n     to JAMES and WALTER.\n\nFROME.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\n     RUTH comes into court, and takes her stand stoically in the\n     witness-box.  She is sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name, please?\n\nRUTH.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\nFROME.  How old are you?\n\nRUTH.  Twenty-six.\n\nFROME.  You are a married woman, living with your husband?  A little\nlouder.\n\nRUTH.  No, sir; not since July.\n\nFROME.  Have you any children?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir, two.\n\nFROME.  Are they living with you?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  You know the prisoner?\n\nRUTH. [Looking at him]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  What was the nature of your relations with him?\n\nRUTH.  We were friends.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Friends?\n\nRUTH.  [Simply]  Lovers, sir.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  In what sense do you use that word?\n\nRUTH.  We love each other.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, but----\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  No, your lordship--not yet.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  'Not yet!  H'm!  [He looks from RUTH to FALDER]  Well!\n\nFROME.  What is your husband?\n\nRUTH.  Traveller.\n\nFROME.  And what was the nature of your married life?\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  It don't bear talking about.\n\nFROME.  Did he ill-treat you, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Ever since my first was born.\n\nFROME.  In what way?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather not say.  All sorts of ways.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I am afraid I must stop this, you know.\n\nRUTH.  [Pointing to FALDER]  He offered to take me out of it, sir.\nWe were going to South America.\n\nFROME.  [Hastily]  Yes, quite--and what prevented you?\n\nRUTH.  I was outside his office when he was taken away.  It nearly\nbroke my heart.\n\nFROME.  You knew, then, that he had been arrested?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.  I called at his office afterwards, and  [pointing\nto COKESON] that gentleman told me all about it.\n\nFROME.  Now, do you remember the morning of Friday, July 7th?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Why?\n\nRUTH.  My husband nearly strangled me that morning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Nearly strangled you!\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head] Yes, my lord.\n\nFROME.  With his hands, or----?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I just managed to get away from him.  I went straight to\nmy friend.  It was eight o'clock.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  In the morning?  Your husband was not under the influence\nof liquor then?\n\nRUTH.  It wasn't always that.\n\nFROME.  In what condition were you?\n\nRUTH.  In very bad condition, sir.  My dress was torn, and I was half\nchoking.\n\nFROME.  Did you tell your friend what had happened?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I wish I never had.\n\nFROME.  It upset him?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever speak to you about a cheque?\n\nRUTH.  Never.\n\nFROZE.  Did he ever give you any money?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  When was that?\n\nRUTH.  On Saturday.\n\nFROME.  The 8th?\n\nRUTH.  To buy an outfit for me and the children, and get all ready to\nstart.\n\nFROME.  Did that surprise you, or not?\n\nRUTH.  What, sir?\n\nFROME.  That he had money to give you.\n\nRing.  Yes, because on the morning when my husband nearly killed me\nmy friend cried because he hadn't the money to get me away.  He told\nme afterwards he'd come into a windfall.\n\nFROME.  And when did you last see him?\n\nRUTH.  The day he was taken away, sir.  It was the day we were to\nhave started.\n\nFROME.  Oh, yes, the morning of the arrest.  Well, did you see him at\nall between the Friday and that morning?  [RUTH nods]  What was his\nmanner then?\n\nRUTH.  Dumb--like--sometimes he didn't seem able to say a word.\n\nFROME.  As if something unusual had happened to him?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Painful, or pleasant, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Like a fate hanging over him.\n\nFROME.  [Hesitating]  Tell me, did you love the prisoner very much?\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  And had he a very great affection for you?\n\nRUTH.  [Looking at FALDER]  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  Now, ma'am, do you or do you not think that your danger and\nunhappiness would seriously affect his balance, his control over his\nactions?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  His reason, even?\n\nRUTH.  For a moment like, I think it would.\n\nFROME.  Was he very much upset that Friday morning, or was he fairly\ncalm?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully upset.  I could hardly bear to let him go from me.\n\nFROME.  Do you still love him?\n\nRUTH.  [With her eyes on FALDER]  He's ruined himself for me.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.\n\n     He sits down.  RUTH remains stoically upright in the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  [In a considerate voice]  When you left him on the morning\nof Friday the 7th you would not say that he was out of his mind, I\nsuppose?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I've no further questions to ask you.\n\nRUTH.  [Bending a little forward to the jury]  I would have done the\nsame for him; I would indeed.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Please, please!  You say your married life is an unhappy\none?  Faults on both sides?\n\nRUTH.  Only that I never bowed down to him.  I don't see why I\nshould, sir, not to a man like that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You refused to obey him?\n\nRUTH.  [Avoiding the question]  I've always studied him to keep\nthings nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Until you met the prisoner--was that it?\n\nRUTH.  No; even after that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I ask, you know, because you seem to me to glory in this\naffection of yours for the prisoner.\n\nRUTH.  [Hesitating]  I--I do.  It's the only thing in my life now.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Staring at her hard] Well, step down, please.\n\n     RUTH looks at FALDER, then passes quietly down and takes her\n     seat among the witnesses.\n\nFROME.  I call the prisoner, my lord.\n\n     FALDER leaves the dock; goes into the witness-box, and is duly\n     sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nFALDER.  William Falder.\n\nFROME.  And age?\n\nFALDER.  Twenty-three.\n\nFROME.  You are not married?\n\n     FALDER shakes his head\n\nFROME.  How long have you known the last witness?\n\nFALDER.  Six months.\n\nFROME.  Is her account of the relationship between you a correct one?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  You became devotedly attached to her, however?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Though you knew she was a married woman?\n\nFALDER.  I couldn't help it, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Couldn't help it?\n\nFALDER.  I didn't seem able to.\n\n     The JUDGE slightly shrugs his shoulders.\n\nFROME.  How did you come to know her?\n\nFALDER.  Through my married sister.\n\nFROME.  Did you know whether she was happy with her husband?\n\nFALDER.  It was trouble all the time.\n\nFROME.  You knew her husband?\n\nFALDER.  Only through her--he's a brute.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I can't allow indiscriminate abuse of a person not\npresent.\n\nFROME.  [Bowing]  If your lordship pleases.  [To FALDER]  You admit\naltering this cheque?\n\nFALDER bows his head.\n\nFROME.  Carry your mind, please, to the morning of Friday, July the\n7th, and tell the jury what happened.\n\nFALDER.  [Turning to the jury]  I was having my breakfast when she\ncame.  Her dress was all torn, and she was gasping and couldn't seem\nto get her breath at all; there were the marks of his fingers round\nher throat; her arm was bruised, and the blood had got into her eyes\ndreadfully.  It frightened me, and then when she told me, I felt--I\nfelt--well--it was too much for me!  [Hardening suddenly]  If you'd\nseen it, having the feelings for her that I had, you'd have felt the\nsame, I know.\n\nFROME.  Yes?\n\nFALDER.  When she left me--because I had to go to the office--I was\nout of my senses for fear that he'd do it again, and thinking what I\ncould do.  I couldn't work--all the morning I was like that--simply\ncouldn't fix my mind on anything.  I couldn't think at all.  I seemed\nto have to keep moving.  When Davis--the other clerk--gave me the\ncheque--he said: \"It'll do you good, Will, to have a run with this.\nYou seem half off your chump this morning.\"  Then when I had it in my\nhand--I don't know how it came, but it just flashed across me that if\nI put the 'ty' and the nought there would be the money to get her\naway.  It just came and went--I never thought of it again.  Then\nDavis went out to his luncheon, and I don't really remember what I\ndid till I'd pushed the cheque through to the cashier under the rail.\nI remember his saying \"Gold or notes?\"  Then I suppose I knew what\nI'd done.  Anyway, when I got outside I wanted to chuck myself under\na bus; I wanted to throw the money away; but it seemed I was in for\nit, so I thought at any rate I'd save her.  Of course the tickets I\ntook for the passage and the little I gave her's been wasted, and\nall, except what I was obliged to spend myself, I've restored.  I\nkeep thinking over and over however it was I came to do it, and how I\ncan't have it all again to do differently!\n\n     FALDER is silent, twisting his hands before him.\n\nFROME.  How far is it from your office to the bank?\n\nFALDER.  Not more than fifty yards, sir.\n\nFROME.  From the time Davis went out to lunch to the time you cashed\nthe cheque, how long do you say it must have been?\n\nFALDER.  It couldn't have been four minutes, sir, because I ran all\nthe way.\n\nFROME.  During those four minutes you say you remember nothing?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir; only that I ran.\n\nFROME.  Not even adding the 'ty' and the nought?'\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.  I don't really.\n\n     FROME sits down, and CLEAVER rises.\n\nCLEAVER.  But you remember running, do you?\n\nFALDER.  I was all out of breath when I got to the bank.\n\nCLEAVER.  And you don't remember altering the cheque?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Divested of the romantic glamour which my friend is casting\nover the case, is this anything but an ordinary forgery?  Come.\n\nFALDER.  I was half frantic all that morning, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Now, now!  You don't deny that the 'ty' and the nought were\nso like the rest of the handwriting as to thoroughly deceive the\ncashier?\n\nFALDER.  It was an accident.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Cheerfully]  Queer sort of accident, wasn't it?  On which\nday did you alter the counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  [Hanging his head]  On the Wednesday morning.\n\nCLEAVER.  Was that an accident too?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No.\n\nCLEAVER.  To do that you had to watch your opportunity, I suppose?\n\nFALDER.  [Almost inaudibly] Yes.\n\nCLEAVER.  You don't suggest that you were suffering under great\nexcitement when you did that?\n\nFALDER.  I was haunted.\n\nCLEAVER.  With the fear of being found out?\n\nFALDER.  [Very low] Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Didn't it occur to you that the only thing for you to do\nwas to confess to your employers, and restore the money?\n\nFALDER.  I was afraid. [There is silence]\n\nCLEAVER.  You desired, too, no doubt, to complete your design of\ntaking this woman away?\n\nFALDER.  When I found I'd done a thing like that, to do it for\nnothing seemed so dreadful.  I might just as well have chucked myself\ninto the river.\n\nCLEAVER.  You knew that the clerk Davis was about to leave England\n--didn't it occur to you when you altered this cheque that suspicion\nwould fall on him?\n\nFALDER.  It was all done in a moment.  I thought of it afterwards.\n\nCLEAVER.  And that didn't lead you to avow what you'd done?\n\nFALDER.  [Sullenly]  I meant to write when I got out there--I would\nhave repaid the money.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  But in the meantime your innocent fellow clerk might have\nbeen prosecuted.\n\nFALDER.  I knew he was a long way off, your lordship.  I thought\nthere'd be time.  I didn't think they'd find it out so soon.\n\nFROME.  I might remind your lordship that as Mr. Walter How had the\ncheque-book in his pocket till after Davis had sailed, if the\ndiscovery had been made only one day later Falder himself would have\nleft, and suspicion would have attached to him, and not to Davis,\nfrom the beginning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  The question is whether the prisoner knew that suspicion\nwould light on himself, and not on Davis.  [To FALDER sharply] Did\nyou know that Mr. Walter How had the cheque-book till after Davis\nhad sailed?\n\nFALDER.  I--I--thought--he----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Now speak the truth-yes or no!\n\nFALDER.  [Very low]  No, my lord.  I had no means of knowing.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  That disposes of your point, Mr. Frome.\n\n     [FROME bows to the JUDGE]\n\nCLEAVER.  Has any aberration of this nature ever attacked you before?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  You had recovered sufficiently to go back to your work that\nafternoon?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I had to take the money back.\n\nCLEAVER.  You mean the nine pounds.  Your wits were sufficiently keen\nfor you to remember that?  And you still persist in saying you don't\nremember altering this cheque.  [He sits down]\n\nFALDER.  If I hadn't been mad I should never have had the courage.\n\nFROME.  [Rising]  Did you have your lunch before going back?\n\nFALDER.  I never ate a thing all day; and at night I couldn't sleep.\n\nFROME.  Now, as to the four minutes that elapsed between Davis's\ngoing out and your cashing the cheque: do you say that you recollect\nnothing during those four minutes?\n\nFALDER.  [After a moment] I remember thinking of Mr. Cokeson's face.\n\nFROME.  Of Mr. Cokeson's face!  Had that any connection with what you\nwere doing?\n\nFALDER.  No, Sir.\n\nFROME.  Was that in the office, before you ran out?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and while I was running.\n\nFROME.  And that lasted till the cashier said: \"Will you have gold or\nnotes?\"\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and then I seemed to come to myself--and it was too\nlate.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.  That closes the evidence for the defence, my\nlord.\n\n     The JUDGE nods, and FALDER goes back to his seat in the dock.\n\nFROME.  [Gathering up notes]  If it please your lordship--Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--My friend in cross-examination has shown a disposition\nto sneer at the defence which has been set up in this case, and I am\nfree to admit that nothing I can say will move you, if the evidence\nhas not already convinced you that the prisoner committed this act in\na moment when to all practical intents and purposes he was not\nresponsible for his actions; a moment of such mental and moral\nvacuity, arising from the violent emotional agitation under which he\nhad been suffering, as to amount to temporary madness.  My friend has\nalluded to the \"romantic glamour\" with which I have sought to invest\nthis case.  Gentlemen, I have done nothing of the kind.  I have\nmerely shown you the background of \"life\"--that palpitating life\nwhich, believe me--whatever my friend may say--always lies behind the\ncommission of a crime.  Now gentlemen, we live in a highly, civilized\nage, and the sight of brutal violence disturbs us in a very strange\nway, even when we have no personal interest in the matter.  But when\nwe see it inflicted on a woman whom we love--what then?  Just think\nof what your own feelings would have been, each of you, at the\nprisoner's age; and then look at him.  Well!  he is hardly the\ncomfortable, shall we say bucolic, person likely to contemplate with\nequanimity marks of gross violence on a woman to whom he was\ndevotedly attached.  Yes, gentlemen, look at him!  He has not a\nstrong face; but neither has he a vicious face.  He is just the sort\nof man who would easily become the prey of his emotions.  You have\nheard the description of his eyes.  My friend may laugh at the word\n\"funny\"--I think it better describes the peculiar uncanny look of\nthose who are strained to breaking-point than any other word which\ncould have been used.  I don't pretend, mind you, that his mental\nirresponsibility--was more than a flash of darkness, in which all\nsense of proportion became lost; but to contend, that, just as a man\nwho destroys himself at such a moment may be, and often is, absolved\nfrom the stigma attaching to the crime of self-murder, so he may, and\nfrequently does, commit other crimes while in this irresponsible\ncondition, and that he may as justly be acquitted of criminal intent\nand treated as a patient.  I admit that this is a plea which might\nwell be abused.  It is a matter for discretion.  But here you have a\ncase in which there is every reason to give the benefit of the doubt.\nYou heard me ask the prisoner what he thought of during those four\nfatal minutes.  What was his answer?  \"I thought of Mr. Cokeson's\nface!\"  Gentlemen, no man could invent an answer like that; it is\nabsolutely stamped with truth.  You have seen the great affection\n[legitimate or not] existing between him and this woman, who came\nhere to give evidence for him at the risk of her life.  It is\nimpossible for you to doubt his distress on the morning when he\ncommitted this act.  We well know what terrible havoc such distress\ncan make in weak and highly nervous people.  It was all the work of a\nmoment.  The rest has followed, as death follows a stab to the heart,\nor water drops if you hold up a jug to empty it.  Believe me,\ngentlemen, there is nothing more tragic in life than the utter\nimpossibility of changing what you have done.  Once this cheque was\naltered and presented, the work of four minutes--four mad minutes\n--the rest has been silence.  But in those four minutes the boy\nbefore you has slipped through a door, hardly opened, into that great\ncage which never again quite lets a man go--the cage of the Law.  His\nfurther acts, his failure to confess, the alteration of the\ncounterfoil, his preparations for flight, are all evidence--not of\ndeliberate and guilty intention when he committed the prime act from\nwhich these subsequent acts arose; no--they are merely evidence of\nthe weak character which is clearly enough his misfortune.  But is a\nman to be lost because he is bred and born with a weak character?\nGentlemen, men like the prisoner are destroyed daily under our law\nfor want of that human insight which sees them as they are, patients,\nand not criminals.  If the prisoner be found guilty, and treated as\nthough he were a criminal type, he will, as all experience shows, in\nall probability become one.  I beg you not to return a verdict that\nmay thrust him back into prison and brand him for ever.  Gentlemen,\nJustice is a machine that, when some one has once given it the\nstarting push, rolls on of itself.  Is this young man to be ground to\npieces under this machine for an act which at the worst was one of\nweakness?  Is he to become a member of the luckless crews that man\nthose dark, ill-starred ships called prisons?  Is that to be his\nvoyage-from which so few return?  Or is he to have another chance, to\nbe still looked on as one who has gone a little astray, but who will\ncome back?  I urge you, gentlemen, do not ruin this young man!  For,\nas a result of those four minutes, ruin, utter and irretrievable,\nstares him in the face.  He can be saved now.  Imprison him as a\ncriminal, and I affirm to you that he will be lost.  He has neither\nthe face nor the manner of one who can survive that terrible ordeal.\nWeigh in the scales his criminality and the suffering he has\nundergone.  The latter is ten times heavier already.  He has lain in\nprison under this charge for more than two months.  Is he likely ever\nto forget that?  Imagine the anguish of his mind during that time.\nHe has had his punishment, gentlemen, you may depend.  The rolling of\nthe chariot-wheels of Justice over this boy began when it was decided\nto prosecute him.  We are now already at the second stage.  If you\npermit it to go on to the third I would not give--that for him.\n\n     He holds up finger and thumb in the form of a circle, drops his\n     hand, and sits dozen.\n\nThe jury stir, and consult each other's faces; then they turn towards\nthe counsel for the Crown, who rises, and, fixing his eyes on a spot\nthat seems to give him satisfaction, slides them every now and then\ntowards the jury.\n\nCLEAVER.  May it please your lordship--[Rising on his toes] Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--The facts in this case are not disputed, and the\ndefence, if my friend will allow me to say so, is so thin that I\ndon't propose to waste the time of the Court by taking you over the\nevidence.  The plea is one of temporary insanity.  Well, gentlemen, I\ndaresay it is clearer to me than it is to you why this rather--what\nshall we call it?--bizarre defence has been set up.  The alternative\nwould have been to plead guilty.  Now, gentlemen, if the prisoner had\npleaded guilty my friend would have had to rely on a simple appeal to\nhis lordship.  Instead of that, he has gone into the byways and\nhedges and found this--er--peculiar plea, which has enabled him to\nshow you the proverbial woman, to put her in the box--to give, in\nfact, a romantic glow to this affair.  I compliment my friend; I\nthink it highly ingenious of him.  By these means, he has--to a\ncertain extent--got round the Law.  He has brought the whole story of\nmotive and stress out in court, at first hand, in a way that he would\nnot otherwise have been able to do.  But when you have once grasped\nthat fact, gentlemen, you have grasped everything.  [With\ngood-humoured contempt]  For look at this plea of insanity; we can't\nput it lower than that.  You have heard the woman.  She has every\nreason to favour the prisoner, but what did she say?  She said that\nthe prisoner was not insane when she left him in the morning.  If he\nwere going out of his mind through distress, that was obviously the\nmoment when insanity would have shown itself.  You have heard the\nmanaging clerk, another witness for the defence.  With some\ndifficulty I elicited from him the admission that the prisoner,\nthough jumpy [a word that he seemed to think you would understand,\ngentlemen, and I'm sure I hope you do], was not mad when the cheque\nwas handed to Davis.  I agree with my friend that it's unfortunate\nthat we have not got Davis here, but the prisoner has told you the\nwords with which Davis in turn handed him the cheque; he obviously,\ntherefore, was not mad when he received it, or he would not have\nremembered those words.  The cashier has told you that he was\ncertainly in his senses when he cashed it.  We have therefore the\nplea that a man who is sane at ten minutes past one, and sane at\nfifteen minutes past, may, for the purposes of avoiding the\nconsequences of a crime, call himself insane between those points of\ntime.  Really, gentlemen, this is so peculiar a proposition that I am\nnot disposed to weary you with further argument.  You will form your\nown opinion of its value.  My friend has adopted this way of saying a\ngreat deal to you--and very eloquently--on the score of youth,\ntemptation, and the like.  I might point out, however, that the\noffence with which the prisoner is charged is one of the most serious\nknown to our law; and there are certain features in this case, such\nas the suspicion which he allowed to rest on his innocent fellow-clerk,\nand his relations with this married woman, which will render it\ndifficult for you to attach too much importance to such pleading. I\nask you, in short, gentlemen, for that verdict of guilty which, in the\ncircumstances, I regard you as, unfortunately, bound to record.\n\n     Letting his eyes travel from the JUDGE and the jury to FROME, he\n     sits down.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Bending a little towards the jury, and speaking in a\nbusiness-like voice]  Gentlemen, you have heard the evidence, and the\ncomments on it.  My only business is to make clear to you the issues\nyou have to try.  The facts are admitted, so far as the alteration of\nthis cheque and counterfoil by the prisoner.  The defence set up is\nthat he was not in a responsible condition when he committed the\ncrime.  Well, you have heard the prisoner's story, and the evidence\nof the other witnesses--so far as it bears on the point of insanity.\nIf you think that what you have heard establishes the fact that the\nprisoner was insane at the time of the forgery, you will find him\nguilty, but insane.  If, on the other hand, you conclude from what\nyou have seen and heard that the prisoner was sane--and nothing short\nof insanity will count--you will find him guilty.  In reviewing the\ntestimony as to his mental condition you must bear in mind very\ncarefully the evidence as to his demeanour and conduct both before\nand after the act of forgery--the evidence of the prisoner himself,\nof the woman, of the witness--er--COKESON, and--er--of the cashier.\nAnd in regard to that I especially direct your attention to the\nprisoner's admission that the idea of adding the 'ty' and the nought\ndid come into his mind at the moment when the cheque was handed to\nhim; and also to the alteration of the counterfoil, and to his\nsubsequent conduct generally.  The bearing of all this on the\nquestion of premeditation [and premeditation will imply sanity] is\nvery obvious.  You must not allow any considerations of age or\ntemptation to weigh with you in the finding of your verdict.  Before\nyou can come to a verdict of guilty but insane you must be well and\nthoroughly convinced that the condition of his mind was such as would\nhave qualified him at the moment for a lunatic asylum.  [He pauses,\nthen, seeing that the jury are doubtful whether to retire or no,\nadds:] You may retire, gentlemen, if you wish to do so.\n\n     The jury retire by a door behind the JUDGE.  The JUDGE bends\n     over his notes.  FALDER, leaning from the dock, speaks excitedly\n     to his solicitor, pointing dawn at RUTH.  The solicitor in turn\n     speaks to FROME.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] My lord.  The prisoner is very anxious that I should\nask you if your lordship would kindly request the reporters not to\ndisclose the name of the woman witness in the Press reports of these\nproceedings.  Your lordship will understand that the consequences\nmight be extremely serious to her.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Pointedly--with the suspicion of a smile]  well, Mr.\nFrome, you deliberately took this course which involved bringing her\nhere.\n\nFROME. [With an ironic bow]  If your lordship thinks I could have\nbrought out the full facts in any other way?\n\nTHE JUDGE.  H'm!  Well.\n\nFROME.  There is very real danger to her, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You see, I have to take your word for all that.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship would be so kind.  I can assure your\nlordship that I am not exaggerating.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  It goes very much against the grain with me that the name\nof a witness should ever be suppressed.  [With a glance at FALDER,\nwho is gripping and clasping his hands before him, and then at RUTH,\nwho is sitting perfectly rigid with her eyes fixed on FALDER]  I'll\nconsider your application.  It must depend.  I have to remember that\nshe may have come here to commit perjury on the prisoner's behalf.\n\nFROME.  Your lordship, I really----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, yes--I don't suggest anything of the sort, Mr.\nFrome.  Leave it at that for the moment.\n\n     As he finishes speaking, the jury return, and file back into the\n     box.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Gentlemen, are you agreed on your verdict?\n\nFOREMAN.  We are.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Is it Guilty, or Guilty but insane?\n\nFOREMAN.  Guilty.\n\n     The JUDGE nods; then, gathering up his notes, sits looking at\n     FALDER, who stands motionless.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] If your lordship would allow me to address you in\nmitigation of sentence.  I don't know if your lordship thinks I can\nadd anything to what I have said to the jury on the score of the\nprisoner's youth, and the great stress under which he acted.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I don't think you can, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship says so--I do most earnestly beg your\nlordship to give the utmost weight to my plea.  [He sits down.]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [To the CLERK] Call upon him.\n\nTHE CLERK.  Prisoner at the bar, you stand convicted of felony.  Have\nyou anything to say for yourself, why the Court should not give you\njudgment according to law?  [FALDER shakes his head]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  William Falder, you have been given fair trial and found\nguilty, in my opinion rightly found guilty, of forgery.  [He pauses;\nthen, consulting his notes, goes on]  The defence was set up that you\nwere not responsible for your actions at the moment of committing\nthis crime.  There is no, doubt, I think, that this was a device to\nbring out at first hand the nature of the temptation to which you\nsuccumbed.  For throughout the trial your counsel was in reality\nmaking an appeal for mercy.  The setting up of this defence of course\nenabled him to put in some evidence that might weigh in that\ndirection.  Whether he was well advised to so is another matter.  He\nclaimed that you should be treated rather as a patient than as a\ncriminal.  And this plea of his, which in the end amounted to a\npassionate appeal, he based in effect on an indictment of the march\nof Justice, which he practically accused of confirming and completing\nthe process of criminality.  Now, in considering how far I should\nallow weight to his appeal; I have a number of factors to take into\naccount.  I have to consider on the one hand the grave nature of your\noffence, the deliberate way in which you subsequently altered the\ncounterfoil, the danger you caused to an innocent man--and that, to\nmy mind, is a very grave point--and finally I have to consider the\nnecessity of deterring others from following your example.  On the\nother hand, I have to bear in mind that you are young, that you have\nhitherto borne a good character, that you were, if I am to believe\nyour evidence and that of your witnesses, in a state of some\nemotional excitement when you committed this crime.  I have every\nwish, consistently with my duty--not only to you, but to the\ncommunity--to treat you with leniency.  And this brings me to what\nare the determining factors in my mind in my consideration of your\ncase.  You are a clerk in a lawyer's office--that is a very serious\nelement in this case; there can be no possible excuse made for you on\nthe ground that you were not fully conversant with the nature of the\ncrime you were committing, and the penalties that attach to it.  It\nis said, however, that you were carried away by your emotions.  The\nstory has been told here to-day of your relations with this--er--Mrs.\nHoneywill; on that story both the defence and the plea for mercy were\nin effect based.  Now what is that story?  It is that you, a young\nman, and she, a young woman, unhappily married, had formed an\nattachment, which you both say--with what truth I am unable to gauge\n--had not yet resulted in immoral relations, but which you both admit\nwas about to result in such relationship.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to palliate this, on the ground that the woman is in what he\ndescribes, I think, as \"a hopeless position.\"  As to that I can\nexpress no opinion.  She is a married woman, and the fact is patent\nthat you committed this crime with the view of furthering an immoral\ndesign.  Now, however I might wish, I am not able to justify to my\nconscience a plea for mercy which has a basis inimical to morality.\nIt is vitiated 'ab initio', and would, if successful, free you for\nthe completion of this immoral project.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to trace your offence back to what he seems to suggest is a\ndefect in the marriage law; he has made an attempt also to show that\nto punish you with further imprisonment would be unjust.  I do not\nfollow him in these flights.  The Law is what it is--a majestic\nedifice, sheltering all of us, each stone of which rests on another.\nI am concerned only with its administration.  The crime you have\ncommitted is a very serious one.  I cannot feel it in accordance with\nmy duty to Society to exercise the powers I have in your favour.  You\nwill go to penal servitude for three years.\n\n     FALDER, who throughout the JUDGE'S speech has looked at him\n     steadily, lets his head fall forward on his breast.  RUTH starts\n     up from her seat as he is taken out by the warders.  There is a\n     bustle in court.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Speaking to the reporters] Gentlemen of the Press, I\nthink that the name of the female witness should not be reported.\n\n     The reporters bow their acquiescence.  THE JUDGE.  [To RUTH, who\n     is staring in the direction in which FALDER has disappeared] Do\n     you understand, your name will not be mentioned?\n\nCOKESON.  [Pulling her sleeve]  The judge is speaking to you.\n\n     RUTH turns, stares at the JUDGE, and turns away.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I shall sit rather late to-day.  Call the next case.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  [To a warder]  Put up John Booley.\n\n     To cries of \"Witnesses in the case of Booley\":\n\n\n                    The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT III\n\nSCENE I\n\n     A prison.  A plainly furnished room, with two large barred\n     windows, overlooking the prisoners' exercise yard, where men, in\n     yellow clothes marked with arrows, and yellow brimless caps, are\n     seen in single file at a distance of four yards from each other,\n     walking rapidly on serpentine white lines marked on the concrete\n     floor of the yard.  Two warders in blue uniforms, with peaked\n     caps and swords, are stationed amongst them.  The room has\n     distempered walls, a bookcase with numerous official-looking\n     books, a cupboard between the windows, a plan of the prison on\n     the wall, a writing-table covered with documents.  It is\n     Christmas Eve.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, a neat, grave-looking man, with a trim, fair\n     moustache, the eyes of a theorist, and grizzled hair, receding\n     from the temples, is standing close to this writing-table\n     looking at a sort of rough saw made out of a piece of metal.\n     The hand in which he holds it is gloved, for two fingers\n     are missing.  The chief warder, WOODER, a tall, thin,\n     military-looking man of sixty, with grey moustache and\n     melancholy, monkey-like eyes, stands very upright two paces\n     from him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a faint, abstracted smile]  Queer-looking\naffair, Mr. Wooder!  Where did you find it?\n\nWOODER.  In his mattress, sir.  Haven't come across such a thing for\ntwo years now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With curiosity] Had he any set plan?\n\nWOODER.  He'd sawed his window-bar about that much.  [He holds up his\nthumb and finger a quarter of an inch apart]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll see him this afternoon.  What's his name?\nMoaney!  An old hand, I think?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir-fourth spell of penal.  You'd think an old lag like\nhim would have had more sense by now.  [With pitying contempt]\nOccupied his mind, he said.  Breaking in and breaking out--that's all\nthey think about.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Who's next him?\n\nWOODER.  O'Cleary, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  The Irishman.\n\nWOODER.  Next him again there's that young fellow, Falder--star\nclass--and next him old Clipton.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Ah, yes!  \"The philosopher.\"  I want to see him about\nhis eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Curious thing, sir: they seem to know when there's one of\nthese tries at escape going on.  It makes them restive--there's a\nregular wave going through them just now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Meditatively]  Odd things--those waves.  [Turning to\nlook at the prisoners exercising]  Seem quiet enough out here!\n\nWOODER.  That Irishman, O'Cleary, began banging on his door this\nmorning.  Little thing like that's quite enough to upset the whole\nlot.  They're just like dumb animals at times.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I've seen it with horses before thunder--it'll run\nright through cavalry lines.\n\n     The prison CHAPLAIN has entered.  He is a dark-haired, ascetic\n     man, in clerical undress, with a peculiarly steady, tight-lipped\n     face and slow, cultured speech.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Holding up the saw]  Seen this, Miller?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Useful-looking specimen.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Do for the Museum, eh!  [He goes to the cupboard and\nopens it, displaying to view a number of quaint ropes, hooks, and\nmetal tools with labels tied on them]  That'll do, thanks, Mr.\nWooder.\n\nWOODER.  [Saluting]  Thank you, sir.  [He goes out]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Account for the state of the men last day or two,\nMiller?  Seems going through the whole place.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  No.  I don't know of anything.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  By the way, will you dine with us on Christmas Day?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  To-morrow.  Thanks very much.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Worries me to feel the men discontented.  [Gazing at\nthe saw]  Have to punish this poor devil.  Can't help liking a man\nwho tries to escape.  [He places the saw in his pocket and locks the\ncupboard again]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Extraordinary perverted will-power--some of them.\nNothing to be done till it's broken.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  And not much afterwards, I'm afraid.  Ground too hard\nfor golf?\n\n     WOODER comes in again.\n\nWOODER.  Visitor who's been seeing Q 3007 asks to speak to you, sir.\nI told him it wasn't usual.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What about?\n\nWOODER.  Shall I put him off, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Resignedly]  No, no.  Let's see him.  Don't go,\nMiller.\n\nWOODER motions to some one without, and as the visitor comes in\nwithdraws.\n\n     The visitor is COKESON, who is attired in a thick overcoat to\n     the knees, woollen gloves, and carries a top hat.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry to trouble you.  I've been talking to the young\nman.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  We have a good many here.\n\nCOKESON.  Name of Falder, forgery.  [Producing a card, and handing it\nto the GOVERNOR]  Firm of James and Walter How.  Well known in the\nlaw.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Receiving the card-with a faint smile]  What do you\nwant to see me about, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly seeing the prisoners at exercise]  Why! what a\nsight!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, we have that privilege from here; my office is\nbeing done up.  [Sitting down at his table]  Now, please!\n\nCOKESON.  [Dragging his eyes with difficulty from the window] I\nwanted to say a word to you; I shan't keep you long.\n[Confidentially]  Fact is, I oughtn't to be here by rights.  His\nsister came to me--he's got no father and mother--and she was in some\ndistress.  \"My husband won't let me go and see him,\" she said; \"says\nhe's disgraced the family.  And his other sister,\" she said, \"is an\ninvalid.\"  And she asked me to come.  Well, I take an interest in\nhim.  He was our junior--I go to the same chapel--and I didn't like\nto refuse.  And what I wanted to tell you was, he seems lonely here.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not unnaturally.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm afraid it'll prey on my mind.  I see a lot of them\nabout working together.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Those are local prisoners.  The convicts serve their\nthree months here in separate confinement, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  But we don't want to be unreasonable.  He's quite\ndownhearted.  I wanted to ask you to let him run about with the\nothers.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With faint amusement]  Ring the bell-would you,\nMiller?  [To COKESON]  You'd like to hear what the doctor says about\nhim, perhaps.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Ringing the bell]  You are not accustomed to prisons,\nit would seem, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  No.  But it's a pitiful sight.  He's quite a young fellow.\nI said to him: \"Before a month's up\" I said, \"you'll be out and about\nwith the others; it'll be a nice change for you.\"  \"A month!\" he said\n--like that!  \"Come!\" I said, \"we mustn't exaggerate.  What's a\nmonth?  Why, it's nothing!\"  \"A day,\" he said, \"shut up in your cell\nthinking and brooding as I do, it's longer than a year outside.  I\ncan't help it,\" he said; \"I try--but I'm built that way, Mr.\nCOKESON.\"  And, he held his hand up to his face.  I could see the\ntears trickling through his fingers.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  He's a young man with large, rather peculiar eyes,\nisn't he?  Not Church of England, I think?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  I know.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To WOODER, who has come in]  Ask the doctor to be\ngood enough to come here for a minute.  [WOODER salutes, and goes\nout]  Let's see, he's not married?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  [Confidentially]  But there's a party he's very much\nattached to, not altogether com-il-fa.  It's a sad story.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  If it wasn't for drink and women, sir, this prison\nmight be closed.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at the CHAPLAIN over his spectacles] Ye-es, but I\nwanted to tell you about that, special.  He had hopes they'd have let\nher come and see him, but they haven't.  Of course he asked me\nquestions.  I did my best, but I couldn't tell the poor young fellow\na lie, with him in here--seemed like hitting him.  But I'm afraid\nit's made him worse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What was this news then?\n\nCOKESON.  Like this.  The woman had a nahsty, spiteful feller for a\nhusband, and she'd left him.  Fact is, she was going away with our\nyoung friend.  It's not nice--but I've looked over it.  Well, when he\nwas put in here she said she'd earn her living apart, and wait for\nhim to come out.  That was a great consolation to him.  But after a\nmonth she came to me--I don't know her personally--and she said:\n\"I can't earn the children's living, let alone my own--I've got no\nfriends.  I'm obliged to keep out of everybody's way, else my\nhusband'd get to know where I was.  I'm very much reduced,\" she said.\nAnd she has lost flesh.  \"I'll have to go in the workhouse!\" It's a\npainful story.  I said to her: \"No,\" I said, \"not that!  I've got a\nwife an' family, but sooner than you should do that I'll spare you a\nlittle myself.\"  \"Really,\" she said--she's a nice creature--\"I don't\nlike to take it from you.  I think I'd better go back to my husband.\"\nWell, I know he's a nahsty, spiteful feller--drinks--but I didn't\nlike to persuade her not to.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely, no.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm sorry now; it's upset the poor young fellow\ndreadfully.  And what I wanted to say was: He's got his three years\nto serve.  I want things to be pleasant for him.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [With a touch of impatience] The Law hardly shares\nyour view, I'm afraid.\n\nCOKESON.  But I can't help thinking that to shut him up there by\nhimself'll turn him silly.  And nobody wants that, I s'pose.  I don't\nlike to see a man cry.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  It's a very rare thing for them to give way like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him-in a tone of sudden dogged hostility]\nI keep dogs.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Indeed?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  And I say this: I wouldn't shut one of them up all\nby himself, month after month, not if he'd bit me all over.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Unfortunately, the criminal is not a dog; he has a\nsense of right and wrong.\n\nCOKESON.  But that's not the way to make him feel it.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Ah!  there I'm afraid we must differ.\n\nCOKESON.  It's the same with dogs.  If you treat 'em with kindness\nthey'll do anything for you; but to shut 'em up alone, it only makes\n'em savage.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely you should allow those who have had a little\nmore experience than yourself to know what is best for prisoners.\n\nCOKESON.  [Doggedly]  I know this young feller, I've watched him for\nyears.  He's eurotic--got no stamina.  His father died of\nconsumption.  I'm thinking of his future.  If he's to be kept there\nshut up by himself, without a cat to keep him company, it'll do him\nharm.  I said to him: \"Where do you feel it?\"  \"I can't tell you, Mr.\nCOKESON,\" he said, \"but sometimes I could beat my head against the\nwall.\"  It's not nice.\n\n     During this speech the DOCTOR has entered.  He is a\n     medium-Sized, rather good-looking man, with a quick eye.\n     He stands leaning against the window.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This gentleman thinks the separate is telling on\nQ 3007--Falder, young thin fellow, star class.  What do you say,\nDoctor Clements?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  He doesn't like it, but it's not doing him any harm.\n\nCOKESON.  But he's told me.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Of course he'd say so, but we can always tell.  He's\nlost no weight since he's been here.\n\nCOKESON.  It's his state of mind I'm speaking of.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  His mind's all right so far.  He's nervous, rather\nmelancholy.  I don't see signs of anything more.  I'm watching him\ncarefully.\n\nCOKESON.  [Nonplussed]  I'm glad to hear you say that.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [More suavely] It's just at this period that we are\nable to make some impression on them, sir.  I am speaking from my\nspecial standpoint.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning bewildered to the GOVERNOR] I don't want to be\nunpleasant, but having given him this news, I do feel it's awkward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll make a point of seeing him to-day.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm much obliged to you.  I thought perhaps seeing him\nevery day you wouldn't notice it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather sharply]  If any sign of injury to his health\nshows itself his case will be reported at once.  That's fully\nprovided for.  [He rises]\n\nCOKESON.  [Following his own thoughts]  Of course, what you don't see\ndoesn't trouble you; but having seen him, I don't want to have him on\nmy mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I think you may safely leave it to us, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Mollified and apologetic]  I thought you'd understand me.\nI'm a plain man--never set myself up against authority.  [Expanding\nto the CHAPLAIN]  Nothing personal meant.  Good-morning.\n\n     As he goes out the three officials do not look at each other,\n     but their faces wear peculiar expressions.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Our friend seems to think that prison is a hospital.\n\nCOKESON.  [Returning suddenly with an apologetic air]  There's just\none little thing.  This woman--I suppose I mustn't ask you to let him\nsee her.  It'd be a rare treat for them both.  He's thinking about\nher all the time.  Of course she's not his wife.  But he's quite safe\nin here.  They're a pitiful couple.  You couldn't make an exception?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Wearily] As you say, my dear sir, I couldn't make an\nexception; he won't be allowed another visit of any sort till he goes\nto a convict prison.\n\nCOKESON.  I see.  [Rather coldly] Sorry to have troubled you.\n[He again goes out]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Shrugging his shoulders]  The plain man indeed, poor\nfellow.  Come and have some lunch, Clements?\n\n\n     He and the DOCTOR go out talking.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, with a sigh, sits down at his table and takes up a\n     pen.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE II\n\n     Part of the ground corridor of the prison.  The walls are\n     coloured with greenish distemper up to a stripe of deeper green\n     about the height of a man's shoulder, and above this line are\n     whitewashed.  The floor is of blackened stones.  Daylight is\n     filtering through a heavily barred window at the end.  The doors\n     of four cells are visible.  Each cell door has a little round\n     peep-hole at the level of a man's eye, covered by a little round\n     disc, which, raised upwards, affords a view o f the cell.  On\n     the wall, close to each cell door, hangs a little square board\n     with the prisoner's name, number, and record.\n\n     Overhead can be seen the iron structures of the first-floor and\n     second-floor corridors.\n\n     The WARDER INSTRUCTOR, a bearded man in blue uniform, with an\n     apron, and some dangling keys, is just emerging from one of the\n     cells.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Speaking from the door into the cell]  I'll have\nanother bit for you when that's finished.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Unseen--in an Irish voice] Little doubt o' that, sirr.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Gossiping]  Well, you'd rather have it than nothing, I\ns'pose.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' that's the blessed truth.\n\n     Sounds are heard of a cell door being closed and locked, and of\n     approaching footsteps.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [In a sharp, changed voice]  Look alive over it!\n\n     He shuts the cell door, and stands at attention.\n\n     The GOVERNOR comes walking down the corridor, followed by\n     WOODER.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to report?\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Saluting]  Q 3007  [he points to a cell]  is behind\nwith his work, sir.  He'll lose marks to-day.\n\n     The GOVERNOR nods and passes on to the end cell.  The INSTRUCTOR\n     goes away.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This is our maker of saws, isn't it?\n\n     He takes the saw from his pocket as WOODER throws open the door\n     of the cell.  The convict MOANEY is seen lying on his bed,\n     athwart the cell, with his cap on.  He springs up and stands in\n     the middle of the cell.  He is a raw-boned fellow, about\n     fifty-six years old, with outstanding bat's ears and fierce,\n     staring, steel-coloured eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Cap off!  [MOANEY removes his cap] Out here! [MOANEY Comes\nto the door]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out into the corridor, and holding up\nthe saw--with the manner of an officer speaking to a private]\nAnything to say about this, my man?  [MOANEY is silent]  Come!\n\nMOANEY.  It passed the time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing into the cell]  Not enough to do, eh?\n\nMOANEY.  It don't occupy your mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Tapping the saw]  You might find a better way than\nthis.\n\nMOANEY.  [Sullenly]  Well!  What way?  I must keep my hand in against\nthe time I get out.  What's the good of anything else to me at my\ntime of life?  [With a gradual change to civility, as his tongue\nwarms]  Ye know that, sir.  I'll be in again within a year or two,\nafter I've done this lot.  I don't want to disgrace meself when I'm\nout.  You've got your pride keeping the prison smart; well, I've got\nmine.  [Seeing that the GOVERNOR is listening with interest, he goes\non, pointing to the saw]  I must be doin' a little o' this.  It's no\nharm to any one.  I was five weeks makin' that saw--a bit of all\nright it is, too; now I'll get cells, I suppose, or seven days' bread\nand water.  You can't help it, sir, I know that--I quite put meself\nin your place.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Now, look here, Moaney, if I pass it over will you\ngive me your word not to try it on again?  Think!  [He goes into the\ncell, walks to the end of it, mounts the stool, and tries the\nwindow-bars]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Returning]  Well?\n\nMOANEY.  [Who has been reflecting] I've got another six weeks to do\nin here, alone.  I can't do it and think o' nothing.  I must have\nsomething to interest me.  You've made me a sporting offer, sir, but\nI can't pass my word about it.  I shouldn't like to deceive a\ngentleman.  [Pointing into the cell] Another four hours' steady work\nwould have done it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, and what then?  Caught, brought back, punishment.\nFive weeks' hard work to make this, and cells at the end of it, while\nthey put anew bar to your window.  Is it worth it, Moaney?\n\nMOANEY.  [With a sort of fierceness] Yes, it is.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Putting his hand to his brow] Oh, well!  Two days'\ncells-bread and water.\n\nMOANEY.  Thank 'e, sir.\n\n     He turns quickly like an animal and slips into his cell.\n\n     The GOVERNOR looks after him and shakes his head as WOODER\n     closes and locks the cell door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open Clipton's cell.\n\n     WOODER opens the door of CLIPTON'S cell.   CLIPTON is sitting on\n     a stool just inside the door, at work on a pair of trousers.  He\n     is a small, thick, oldish man, with an almost shaven head, and\n     smouldering little dark eyes behind smoked spectacles.  He gets\n     up and stands motionless in the doorway, peering at his\n     visitors.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning] Come out here a minute, Clipton.\n\n     CLIPTON, with a sort of dreadful quietness, comes into the\n     corridor, the needle and thread in his hand.  The GOVERNOR signs\n     to WOODER, who goes into the cell and inspects it carefully.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How are your eyes?\n\nCLIFTON.  I don't complain of them.  I don't see the sun here.  [He\nmakes a stealthy movement, protruding his neck a little]  There's\njust one thing, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.  I wish you'd\nask the cove next door here to keep a bit quieter.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What's the matter?  I don't want any tales, Clipton.\n\nCLIPTON.  He keeps me awake.  I don't know who he is.  [With\ncontempt]  One of this star class, I expect.  Oughtn't to be here\nwith us.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Quietly]  Quite right, Clipton.  He'll be moved when\nthere's a cell vacant.\n\nCLIPTON.  He knocks about like a wild beast in the early morning.\nI'm not used to it--stops me getting my sleep out.  In the evening\ntoo.  It's not fair, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.\nSleep's the comfort I've got here; I'm entitled to take it out full.\n\n     WOODER comes out of the cell, and instantly, as though\n     extinguished, CLIPTON moves with stealthy suddenness back into\n     his cell.\n\nWOODER.  All right, sir.\n\n     THE GOVERNOR nods.  The door is closed and locked.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Which is the man who banged on his door this morning?\n\nWOODER.  [Going towards O'CLEARY'S cell]  This one, sir; O'Cleary.\n\n     He lifts the disc and glances through the peephole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open.\n\n     WOODER throws open the door.  O'CLEARY, who is seated at a\n     little table by the door as if listening, springs up and stands\n     at attention jest inside the doorway.  He is a broad-faced,\n     middle-aged man, with a wide, thin, flexible mouth, and little\n     holes under his high cheek-bones.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Where's the joke, O'Cleary?\n\nO'CLEARY.  The joke, your honour?  I've not seen one for a long time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Banging on your door?\n\nO'CLEARY.  Oh! that!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It's womanish.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' it's that I'm becoming this two months past.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to complain of?\n\nO'CLEARY.  NO, Sirr.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You're an old hand; you ought to know better.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Yes, I've been through it all.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've got a youngster next door; you'll upset him.\n\nO'CLEARY.  It cam' over me, your honour.  I can't always be the same\nsteady man.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Work all right?\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Taking up a rush mat he is making]  Oh! I can do it on me\nhead.  It's the miserablest stuff--don't take the brains of a mouse.\n[Working his mouth]  It's here I feel it--the want of a little noise\n--a terrible little wud ease me.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know as well as I do that if you were out in the\nshops you wouldn't be allowed to talk.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [With a look of profound meaning]  Not with my mouth.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, then?\n\nO'CLEARY.  But it's the great conversation I'd have.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a smile] Well, no more conversation on your\ndoor.\n\nO'CLEARY.  No, sirr, I wud not have the little wit to repeat meself.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Turning]  Good-night.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Good-night, your honour.\n\n     He turns into his cell.  The GOVERNOR shuts the door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Looking at the record card]  Can't help liking the\npoor blackguard.\n\nWOODER.  He's an amiable man, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing down the corridor] Ask the doctor to come\nhere, Mr. Wooder.\n\n     WOODER salutes and goes away down the corridor.\n\n     The GOVERNOR goes to the door of FALDER'S cell.  He raises his\n     uninjured hand to uncover the peep-hole; but, without uncovering\n     it, shakes his head and drops his hand; then, after scrutinising\n     the record board, he opens the cell door.  FALDER, who is\n     standing against it, lurches forward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out]  Now tell me: can't you settle\ndown, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [In a breathless voice]  Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know what I mean?  It's no good running your head\nagainst a stone wall, is it?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, come.\n\nFALDER.  I try, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Can't you sleep?\n\nFALDER.  Very little.  Between two o'clock and getting up's the worst\ntime.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How's that?\n\nFALDER.  [His lips twitch with a sort of smile] I don't know, sir.  I\nwas always nervous.  [Suddenly voluble]  Everything seems to get such\na size then.  I feel I'll never get out as long as I live.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  That's morbid, my lad.  Pull yourself together.\n\nFALDER.  [With an equally sudden dogged resentment] Yes--I've got to.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Think of all these other fellows?\n\nFALDER.  They're used to it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  They all had to go through it once for the first time,\njust as you're doing now.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, I shall get to be like them in time, I suppose.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather taken aback]  H'm!  Well!  That rests with\nyou.  Now come.  Set your mind to it, like a good fellow.  You're\nstill quite young.  A man can make himself what he likes.\n\nFALDER.  [Wistfully] Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Take a good hold of yourself.  Do you read?\n\nFALDER.  I don't take the words in.  [Hanging his head] I know it's\nno good; but I can't help thinking of what's going on outside.  In my\ncell I can't see out at all.  It's thick glass, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've had a visitor.  Bad news?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mustn't think about it.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking back at his cell]  How can I help it, sir?\n\n     He suddenly becomes motionless as WOODER and the DOCTOR\n     approach.  The GOVERNOR motions to him to go back into his cell.\n\nFALDER.  [Quick and low]  I'm quite right in my head, sir.  [He goes\nback into his cell.]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To the DOCTOR]  Just go in and see him, Clements.\n\n     The DOCTOR goes into the cell.  The GOVERNOR pushes the door to,\n     nearly closing it, and walks towards the window.\n\nWOODER.  [Following]  Sorry you should be troubled like this, sir.\nVery contented lot of men, on the whole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Shortly]  You think so?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir.  It's Christmas doing it, in my opinion.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To himself]  Queer, that!\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Christmas!\n\n     He turns towards the window, leaving WOODER looking at him with\n     a sort of pained anxiety.\n\nWOODER.  [Suddenly]  Do you think we make show enough, sir?  If you'd\nlike us to have more holly?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not at all, Mr. Wooder.\n\nWOODER.  Very good, sir.\n\n     The DOCTOR has come out of FALDER's Cell, and the GOVERNOR\n     beckons to him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  I can't make anything much of him.  He's nervous, of\ncourse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Is there any sort of case to report?  Quite frankly,\nDoctor.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Well, I don't think the separates doing him any good;\nbut then I could say the same of a lot of them--they'd get on better\nin the shops, there's no doubt.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mean you'd have to recommend others?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  A dozen at least.  It's on his nerves.  There's nothing\ntangible.  That fellow there [pointing to O'CLEARY'S cell], for\ninstance--feels it just as much, in his way.  If I once get away from\nphysical facts--I shan't know where I am.  Conscientiously, sir, I\ndon't know how to differentiate him.  He hasn't lost weight.  Nothing\nwrong with his eyes.  His pulse is good.  Talks all right.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It doesn't amount to melancholia?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  [Shaking his head]  I can report on him if you like; but\nif I do I ought to report on others.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I see.  [Looking towards FALDER'S cell]  The poor\ndevil must just stick it then.\n\n     As he says thin he looks absently at WOODER.\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\n     For answer the GOVERNOR stares at him, turns on his heel, and\n     walks away.  There is a sound as of beating on metal.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Stopping]  Mr. Wooder?\n\nWOODER.  Banging on his door, sir.  I thought we should have more of\nthat.\n\n     He hurries forward, passing the GOVERNOR, who follows closely.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE III\n\n     FALDER's cell, a whitewashed space thirteen feet broad by seven\n     deep, and nine feet high, with a rounded  ceiling.  The floor is\n     of shiny blackened bricks.  The barred window of opaque glass,\n     with a ventilator, is high up in the middle of the end wall.  In\n     the middle of the opposite end wall is the narrow door.  In a\n     corner are the mattress and bedding rolled up [two blankets, two\n     sheets, and a coverlet].  Above them is a quarter-circular\n     wooden shelf, on which is a Bible and several little devotional\n     books, piled in a symmetrical pyramid; there are also a black\n     hair brush, tooth-brush, and a bit of soap.  In another corner\n     is the wooden frame of a bed, standing on end.  There is a dark\n     ventilator under the window, and another over the door.\n     FALDER'S work [a shirt to which he is putting buttonholes] is\n     hung to a nail on the wall over a small wooden table, on which\n     the novel \"Lorna Doone\" lies open.  Low down in the corner by\n     the door is a thick glass screen, about a foot square, covering\n     the gas-jet let into the wall. There is also a wooden stool, and\n     a pair of shoes beneath it.  Three bright round tins are set\n     under the window.\n\n     In fast-failing daylight, FALDER, in his stockings, is seen\n     standing motionless, with his head inclined towards the door,\n     listening.  He moves a little closer to the door, his stockinged\n     feet making no noise.  He stops at the door.  He is trying\n     harder and harder to hear something, any little thing that is\n     going on outside.  He springs suddenly upright--as if at a\n     sound-and remains perfectly motionless.  Then, with a heavy\n     sigh, he moves to his work, and stands looking at it, with his\n     head doom; he does a stitch or two, having the air of a man so\n     lost in sadness that each stitch is, as it were, a coming to\n     life.  Then turning abruptly, he begins pacing the cell, moving\n     his head, like an animal pacing its cage.  He stops again at the\n     door, listens, and, placing the palms of hip hands against it\n     with his fingers spread out, leans his forehead against the\n     iron.  Turning from it, presently, he moves slowly back towards\n     the window, tracing his way with his finger along the top line\n     of the distemper that runs round the wall.  He stops under the\n     window, and, picking up the lid of one of the tins, peers into\n     it.  It has grown very nearly dark.  Suddenly the lid falls out\n     of his hand with a clatter--the only sound that has broken the\n     silence--and he stands staring intently at the wall where the\n     stuff of the shirt is hanging rather white in the darkness--he\n     seems to be seeing somebody or something there.  There is a\n     sharp tap and click; the cell light behind the glass screen has\n     been turned up.  The cell is brightly lighted.  FALDER is seen\n     gasping for breath.\n\n     A sound from far away, as of distant, dull beating on thick\n     metal, is suddenly audible.  FALDER shrinks back, not able to\n     bear this sudden clamour.  But the sound grows, as though some\n     great tumbril were rolling towards the cell.  And gradually it\n     seems to hypnotise him.  He begins creeping inch by inch\n     nearer to the door.  The banging sound, travelling from cell to\n     cell, draws closer and closer; FALDER'S hands are seen moving as\n     if his spirit had already joined in this beating, and the sound\n     swells till it seems to have entered the very cell.  He suddenly\n     raises his clenched fists.  Panting violently, he flings himself\n     at his door, and beats on it.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT IV\n\n     The scene is again COKESON'S room, at a few minutes to ten of a\n     March morning, two years later.  The doors are all open.\n     SWEEDLE, now blessed with a sprouting moustache, is getting the\n     offices ready.  He arranges papers on COKESON'S table; then goes\n     to a covered washstand, raises the lid, and looks at himself in\n     the mirror.  While he is gazing his full RUTH HONEYWILL comes in\n     through the outer office and stands in the doorway.  There seems\n     a kind of exultation and excitement behind her habitual\n     impassivity.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Suddenly seeing her, and dropping the lid of the washstand\nwith a bang] Hello!  It's you!\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's only me here!  They don't waste their time hurrying\ndown in the morning.  Why, it must be two years since we had the\npleasure of seeing you.  [Nervously]  What have you been doing with\nyourself?\n\nRUTH.  [Sardonically] Living.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Impressed]  If you want to see him [he points to COKESON'S\nchair], he'll be here directly--never misses--not much.  [Delicately]\nI hope our friend's back from the country.  His time's been up these\nthree months, if I remember.  [RUTH nods] I was awful sorry about\nthat.  The governor made a mistake--if you ask me.\n\nRUTH.  He did.\n\nSWEEDLE.  He ought to have given him a chanst.  And, I say, the judge\nought to ha' let him go after that.  They've forgot what human\nnature's like.  Whereas we know. [RUTH gives him a honeyed smile]\n\nSWEEDLE.  They come down on you like a cartload of bricks, flatten\nyou out, and when you don't swell up again they complain of it.  I\nknow 'em--seen a lot of that sort of thing in my time.  [He shakes\nhis head in the plenitude of wisdom]  Why, only the other day the\ngovernor----\n\n     But COKESON has come in through the outer office; brisk with\n     east wind, and decidedly greyer.\n\nCOKESON.  [Drawing off his coat and gloves]  Why! it's you!  [Then\nmotioning SWEEDLE out, and closing the door]  Quite a stranger!  Must\nbe two years.  D'you want to see me?  I can give you a minute.  Sit\ndown!  Family well?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I'm not living where I was.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing her askance] I hope things are more comfortable at\nhome.\n\nRUTH.  I couldn't stay with Honeywill, after all.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't done anything rash, I hope.  I should be sorry\nif you'd done anything rash.\n\nRUTH.  I've kept the children with me.\n\nCOKESON.  [Beginning to feel that things are not so jolly as ha had\nhoped]  Well, I'm glad to have seen you.  You've not heard from the\nyoung man, I suppose, since he came out?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I ran across him yesterday.\n\nCOKESON.  I hope he's well.\n\nRUTH.  [With sudden fierceness]  He can't get anything to do.  It's\ndreadful to see him.  He's just skin and bone.\n\nCOKESON.  [With genuine concern] Dear me!  I'm sorry to hear that.\n[On his guard again]  Didn't they find him a place when his time was\nup?\n\nRUTH.  He was only there three weeks.  It got out.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure I don't know what I can do for you.  I don't like\nto be snubby.\n\nRUTH.  I can't bear his being like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Scanning her not unprosperous figure] I know his relations\naren't very forthy about him.  Perhaps you can do something for him,\ntill he finds his feet.\n\nRUTH.  Not now.  I could have--but not now.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.\n\nRUTH.  [Proudly]  I've seen him again--that's all over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Staring at her--disturbed]  I'm a family man--I don't want\nto hear anything unpleasant.  Excuse me--I'm very busy.\n\nRUTH.  I'd have gone home to my people in the country long ago, but\nthey've never got over me marrying Honeywill.  I never was waywise,\nMr. Cokeson, but I'm proud.  I was only a girl, you see, when I\nmarried him.  I thought the world of him, of course...  he used\nto come travelling to our farm.\n\nCOKESON.  [Regretfully]  I did hope you'd have got on better, after\nyou saw me.\n\nRUTH.  He used me worse than ever.  He couldn't break my nerve, but I\nlost my health; and then he began knocking the children about.  I\ncouldn't stand that.  I wouldn't go back now, if he were dying.\n\nCOKESON.  [Who has risen and is shifting about as though dodging a\nstream of lava] We mustn't be violent, must we?\n\nRUTH.  [Smouldering]  A man that can't behave better than that--\n[There is silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Fascinated in spite of himself]  Then there you were!  And\nwhat did you do then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a shrug]  Tried the same as when I left him before...,\nmaking skirts... cheap things.  It was the best I could get, but I\nnever made more than ten shillings a week, buying my own cotton and\nworking all day; I hardly ever got to bed till past twelve.  I kept\nat it for nine months.  [Fiercely]  Well, I'm not fit for that; I\nwasn't made for it.  I'd rather die.\n\nCOKESON.  My dear woman!  We mustn't talk like that.\n\nRUTH.  It was starvation for the children too--after what they'd\nalways had.  I soon got not to care.  I used to be too tired. [She is\nsilent]\n\nCOKESON.  [With fearful curiosity]  Why, what happened then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a laugh] My employer happened then--he's happened ever\nsince.\n\nCOKESON.  Dear!  Oh dear!  I never came across a thing like this.\n\nRUTH.  [Dully] He's treated me all right.  But I've done with that.\n[Suddenly her lips begin to quiver, and she hides them with the back\nof her hand] I never thought I'd see him again, you see.  It was just\na chance I met him by Hyde Park.  We went in there and sat down, and\nhe told me all about himself.  Oh!  Mr. Cokeson, give him another\nchance.\n\nCOKESON.  [Greatly disturbed]  Then you've both lost your livings!\nWhat a horrible position!\n\nRUTH.  If he could only get here--where there's nothing to find out\nabout him!\n\nCOKESON.  We can't have anything derogative to the firm.\n\nRUTH.  I've no one else to go to.\n\nCOKESON.  I'll speak to the partners, but I don't think they'll take\nhim, under the circumstances.  I don't really.\n\nRUTH.  He came with me; he's down there in the street. [She points to\nthe window.]\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity] He shouldn't have done that until he's\nsent for.  [Then softening at the look on her face]  We've got a\nvacancy, as it happens, but I can't promise anything.\n\nRUTH.  It would be the saving of him.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll do what I can, but I'm not sanguine.  Now tell\nhim that I don't want him till I see how things are.  Leave your\naddress?  [Repeating her] 83 Mullingar Street?  [He notes it on\nblotting-paper] Good-morning.\n\nRUTH.  Thank you.\n\n     She moves towards the door, turns as if to speak, but does not,\n     and goes away.\n\nCOKESON.  [Wiping his head and forehead with a large white cotton\nhandkerchief] What a business!  [Then looking amongst his papers, he\nsounds his bell.  SWEEDLE answers it]\n\nCOKESON.  Was that young Richards coming here to-day after the\nclerk's place?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, keep him in the air; I don't want to see him yet.\n\nSWEEDLE.  What shall I tell him, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [With asperity] invent something.  Use your brains.  Don't\nstump him off altogether.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I tell him that we've got illness, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nothing untrue.  Say I'm not here to-day.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes, sir.  Keep him hankering?\n\nCOKESON.  Exactly.  And look here.  You remember Falder?  I may be\nhaving him round to see me.  Now, treat him like you'd have him treat\nyou in a similar position.\n\nSWEEDLE.  I naturally should do.\n\nCOKESON.  That's right.  When a man's down never hit 'im.  'Tisn't\nnecessary.  Give him a hand up.  That's a metaphor I recommend to you\nin life.  It's sound policy.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Do you think the governors will take him on again, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Can't say anything about that.  [At the sound of some one\nhaving entered the outer office]  Who's there?\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Going to the door and looking] It's Falder, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Vexed]  Dear me!  That's very naughty of her.  Tell him to\ncall again.  I don't want----\n\n     He breaks off as FALDER comes in.  FALDER is thin, pale, older,\n     his eyes have grown more restless.  His clothes are very worn\n     and loose.\n\n     SWEEDLE, nodding cheerfully, withdraws.\n\nCOKESON.  Glad to see you.  You're rather previous.  [Trying to keep\nthings pleasant]  Shake hands!  She's striking while the iron's hot.\n[He wipes his forehead] I don't blame her.  She's anxious.\n\n     FALDER  timidly takes COKESON's hand and glances towards the\n     partners' door.\n\nCOKESON.  No--not yet!  Sit down!  [FALDER sits in the chair at the\naide of COKESON's table, on which he places his cap]  Now you are\nhere I'd like you to give me a little account of yourself.  [Looking\nat him over his spectacles]  How's your health?\n\nFALDER.  I'm alive, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Preoccupied]  I'm glad to hear that.  About this matter.\nI don't like doing anything out of the ordinary; it's not my habit.\nI'm a plain man, and I want everything smooth and straight.  But I\npromised your friend to speak to the partners, and I always keep my\nword.\n\nFALDER.  I just want a chance, Mr. Cokeson.  I've paid for that job a\nthousand times and more.  I have, sir.  No one knows.  They say I\nweighed more when I came out than when I went in.  They couldn't\nweigh me here [he touches his head]  or here [he touches--his heart,\nand gives a sort of laugh].  Till last night I'd have thought there\nwas nothing in here at all.\n\nCOKESON.  [Concerned] You've not got heart disease?\n\nFALDER.  Oh!  they passed me sound enough.\n\nCOKESON.  But they got you a place, didn't they?\n\nFALSER.  Yes; very good people, knew all about it--very kind to me.\nI thought I was going to get on first rate.  But one day, all of a\nsudden, the other clerks got wind of it....  I couldn't stick it, Mr.\nCOKESON, I couldn't, sir.\n\nCOKESON. Easy, my dear fellow, easy!\n\nFALDER.  I had one small job after that, but it didn't last.\n\nCOKESON.  How was that?\n\nFALDER.  It's no good deceiving you, Mr. Cokeson.  The fact is, I\nseem to be struggling against a thing that's all round me.  I can't\nexplain it: it's as if I was in a net; as fast as I cut it here, it\ngrows up there.  I didn't act as I ought to have, about references;\nbut what are you to do?  You must have them.  And that made me\nafraid, and I left.  In fact, I'm--I'm afraid all the time now.\n\n     He bows his head and leans dejectedly silent over the table.\n\nCOKESON.  I feel for you--I do really.  Aren't your sisters going to\ndo anything for you?\n\nFALDER.  One's in consumption.  And the other----\n\nCOKESON.  Ye...es.  She told me her husband wasn't quite pleased with\nyou.\n\nFALDER.  When I went there--they were at supper--my sister wanted to\ngive me a kiss--I know.  But he just looked at her, and said: \"What\nhave you come for?\"  Well, I pocketed my pride and I said: \"Aren't\nyou going to give me your hand, Jim?  Cis is, I know,\" I said.  \"Look\nhere!\" he said, \"that's all very well, but we'd better come to an\nunderstanding.  I've been expecting you, and I've made up my mind.\nI'll give you fifteen pounds to go to Canada with.\"  \"I see,\" I\nsaid--\"good riddance!  No, thanks; keep your fifteen pounds.\"\nFriendship's a queer thing when you've been where I have.\n\nCOKESON.  I understand.  Will you take the fifteen pound from me?\n[Flustered, as FALDER regards him with a queer smile]  Quite without\nprejudice; I meant it kindly.\n\nFALDER.  I'm not allowed to leave the country.\n\nCOKESON.  Oh!  ye...es--ticket-of-leave?  You aren't looking the\nthing.\n\nFALDER.  I've slept in the Park three nights this week.  The dawns\naren't all poetry there.  But meeting her--I feel a different man\nthis morning.  I've often thought the being fond of hers the best\nthing about me; it's sacred, somehow--and yet it did for me.  That's\nqueer, isn't it?\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure we're all very sorry for you.\n\nFALDER.  That's what I've found, Mr. Cokeson.  Awfully sorry for me.\n[With quiet bitterness]  But it doesn't do to associate with\ncriminals!\n\nCOKESON.  Come, come, it's no use calling yourself names.  That never\ndid a man any good.  Put a face on it.\n\nFALDER.  It's easy enough to put a face on it, sir, when you're\nindependent.  Try it when you're down like me.  They talk about\ngiving you your deserts.  Well, I think I've had just a bit over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing him askance over his spectacles]  I hope they haven't\nmade a Socialist of you.\n\n     FALDER is suddenly still, as if brooding over his past self; he\n     utters a peculiar laugh.\n\nCOKESON.  You must give them credit for the best intentions.  Really\nyou must.  Nobody wishes you harm, I'm sure.\n\nFALDER.  I believe that, Mr. Cokeson.  Nobody wishes you harm, but\nthey down you all the same.  This feeling--[He stares round him, as\nthough at something closing in]  It's crushing me.  [With sudden\nimpersonality]  I know it is.\n\nCOKESON.  [Horribly disturbed] There's nothing there!  We must try\nand take it quiet.  I'm sure I've often had you in my prayers.  Now\nleave it to me.  I'll use my gumption and take 'em when they're\njolly.  [As he speaks the two partners come in]\n\nCOKESON  [Rather disconcerted, but trying to put them all at ease]\nI didn't expect you quite so soon.  I've just been having a talk with\nthis young man.  I think you'll remember him.\n\nJAMES.  [With a grave, keen look] Quite well.  How are you, Falder?\n\nWALTER.  [Holding out his hand almost timidly] Very glad to see you\nagain, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Who has recovered his self-control, takes the hand] Thank\nyou, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.  [To FALDER, pointing to the\nclerks' office] You might go in there a minute.  You know your way.\nOur junior won't be coming this morning.  His wife's just had a\nlittle family.\n\n     FALDER, goes uncertainly out into the clerks' office.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially] I'm bound to tell you all about it.  He's\nquite penitent.  But there's a prejudice against him.  And you're not\nseeing him to advantage this morning; he's under-nourished.  It's\nvery trying to go without your dinner.\n\nJAMES.  Is that so, COKESON?\n\nCOKESON.  I wanted to ask you.  He's had his lesson.  Now we know all\nabout him, and we want a clerk.  There is a young fellow applying,\nbut I'm keeping him in the air.\n\nJAMES.  A gaol-bird in the office, COKESON?  I don't see it.\n\nWALTER.  \"The rolling of the chariot-wheels of Justice!\"  I've never\ngot that out of my head.\n\nJAMES.  I've nothing to reproach myself with in this affair.  What's\nhe been doing since he came out?\n\nCOKESON.  He's had one or two places, but he hasn't kept them.  He's\nsensitive--quite natural.  Seems to fancy everybody's down on him.\n\nJAMES.  Bad sign.  Don't like the fellow--never did from the first.\n\"Weak character\"'s written all over him.\n\nWALTER.  I think we owe him a leg up.\n\nJAMES.  He brought it all on himself.\n\nWALTER.  The doctrine of full responsibility doesn't quite hold in\nthese days.\n\nJAMES.  [Rather grimly]  You'll find it safer to hold it for all\nthat, my boy.\n\nWALTER.  For oneself, yes--not for other people, thanks.\n\nJAMES.  Well!  I don't want to be hard.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm glad to hear you say that.  He seems to see something\n[spreading his arms] round him.  'Tisn't healthy.\n\nJAMES.  What about that woman he was mixed up with?  I saw some one\nuncommonly like her outside as we came in.\n\nCOKESON.  That!  Well, I can't keep anything from you.  He has met\nher.\n\nJAMES.  Is she with her husband?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nJAMES.  Falder living with her, I suppose?\n\nCOKESON.  [Desperately trying to retain the new-found jollity] I\ndon't know that of my own knowledge.  'Tisn't my business.\n\nJAMES.  It's our business, if we're going to engage him, COKESON.\n\nCOKESON.  [Reluctantly] I ought to tell you, perhaps.  I've had the\nparty here this morning.\n\nJAMES.  I thought so.  [To WALTER] No, my dear boy, it won't do.  Too\nshady altogether!\n\nCOKESON.  The two things together make it very awkward for you--I see\nthat.\n\nWALTER.  [Tentatively]  I don't quite know what we have to do with\nhis private life.\n\nJAMES.  No, no!  He must make a clean sheet of it, or he can't come\nhere.\n\nWALTER.  Poor devil!\n\nCOKESON.  Will you--have him in?  [And as JAMES nods] I think I can\nget him to see reason.\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly] You can leave that to me, COKESON.\n\nWALTER.  [To JAMES, in a low voice, while COKESON is summoning\nFALDER]  His whole future may depend on what we do, dad.\n\nFALDER comes in.  He has pulled himself together, and presents a\nsteady front.\n\nJAMES.  Now look here, Falder.  My son and I want to give you another\nchance; but there are two things I must say to you.  In the first\nplace: It's no good coming here as a victim.  If you've any notion\nthat you've been unjustly treated--get rid of it.  You can't play\nfast and loose with morality and hope to go scot-free.  If Society\ndidn't take care of itself, nobody would--the sooner you realise that\nthe better.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir; but--may I say something?\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nFALDER.  I had a lot of time to think it over in prison.  [He stops]\n\nCOKESON.  [Encouraging him] I'm sure you did.\n\nFALDER.  There were all sorts there.  And what I mean, sir, is, that\nif we'd been treated differently the first time, and put under\nsomebody that could look after us a bit, and not put in prison, not a\nquarter of us would ever have got there.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head] I'm afraid I've very grave doubts of that,\nFalder.\n\nFALDER.  [With a gleam of malice] Yes, sir, so I found.\n\nJAMES.  My good fellow, don't forget that you began it.\n\nFALDER.  I never wanted to do wrong.\n\nJAMES.  Perhaps not.  But you did.\n\nFALDER.  [With all the bitterness of his past suffering] It's knocked\nme out of time.  [Pulling himself up]  That is, I mean, I'm not what\nI was.\n\nJAMES.  This isn't encouraging for us, Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  He's putting it awkwardly, Mr. James.\n\nFALDER.  [Throwing over his caution from the intensity of his\nfeeling]  I mean it, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Now, lay aside all those thoughts, Falder, and look to the\nfuture.\n\nFALDER.  [Almost eagerly] Yes, sir, but you don't understand what\nprison is.  It's here it gets you.\n\n     He grips his chest.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a whisper to James] I told you he wanted nourishment.\n\nWALTER.  Yes, but, my dear fellow, that'll pass away.  Time's\nmerciful.\n\nFALDER.  [With his face twitching]  I hope so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  [Much more gently]  Now, my boy, what you've got to do is to\nput all the past behind you and build yourself up a steady\nreputation.  And that brings me to the second thing.  This woman you\nwere mixed up with you must give us your word, you know, to have done\nwith that.  There's no chance of your keeping straight if you're\ngoing to begin your future with such a relationship.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking from one to the other with a hunted expression] But\nsir...  but sir...  it's the one thing I looked forward to\nall that time.  And she too...  I couldn't find her before last\nnight.\n\n     During this and what follows COKESON becomes more and more\n     uneasy.\n\nJAMES.  This is painful, Falder.  But you must see for yourself that\nit's impossible for a firm like this to close its eyes to everything.\nGive us this proof of your resolve to keep straight, and you can come\nback--not otherwise.\n\nFALDER.  [After staring at JAMES, suddenly stiffens himself]  I\ncouldn't give her up.  I couldn't!  Oh, sir!\n\n     I'm all she's got to look to.  And I'm sure she's all I've got.\n\nJAMES.  I'm very sorry, Falder, but I must be firm.  It's for the\nbenefit of you both in the long run.  No good can come of this\nconnection.  It was the cause of all your disaster.\n\nFALDER.  But sir, it means-having gone through all that-getting\nbroken up--my nerves are in an awful state--for nothing.  I did it\nfor her.\n\nJAMES.  Come!  If she's anything of a woman she'll see it for\nherself.  She won't want to drag you down further.  If there were a\nprospect of your being able to marry her--it might be another thing.\n\nFALDER.  It's not my fault, sir, that she couldn't get rid of him\n--she would have if she could.  That's been the whole trouble from\nthe beginning.  [Looking suddenly at WALTER]...  If anybody\nwould help her!  It's only money wants now, I'm sure.\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in, as WALTER hesitates, and is about to speak] I\ndon't think we need consider that--it's rather far-fetched.\n\nFALDER.  [To WALTER, appealing]  He must have given her full cause\nsince; she could prove that he drove her to leave him.\n\nWALTER.  I'm inclined to do what you say, Falder, if it can be\nmanaged.\n\nFALDER.  Oh, sir!\n\nHe goes to the window and looks down into the street.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hurriedly]  You don't take me, Mr. Walter.  I have my\nreasons.\n\nFALDER.  [From the window]  She's down there, sir.  Will you see her?\nI can beckon to her from here.\n\n     WALTER hesitates, and looks from COKESON to JAMES.\n\nJAMES.  [With a sharp nod] Yes, let her come.\n\nFALDER beckons from the window.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a low fluster to JAMES and WALTER]  No, Mr. James.\nShe's not been quite what she ought to ha' been, while this young\nman's been away.  She's lost her chance.  We can't consult how to\nswindle the Law.\n\n     FALDER has come from the window.  The three men look at him in a\n     sort of awed silence.\n\nFALDER.  [With instinctive apprehension of some change--looking from\none to the other]  There's been nothing between us, sir, to prevent\nit....  What I said at the trial was true.  And last night we\nonly just sat in the Park.\n\nSWEEDLE comes in from the outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  What is it?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Mrs. Honeywill.   [There is silence]\n\nJAMES.  Show her in.\n\n     RUTH comes slowly in, and stands stoically with FALDER on one\n     side and the three men on the other.  No one speaks.  COKESON\n     turns to his table, bending over his papers as though the burden\n     of the situation were forcing him back into his accustomed\n     groove.\n\nJAMES.  [Sharply]  Shut the door there.  [SWEEDLE shuts the door]\nWe've asked you to come up because there are certain facts to be\nfaced in this matter.  I understand you have only just met Falder\nagain.\n\nRUTH.  Yes--only yesterday.\n\nJAMES.  He's told us about himself, and we're very sorry for him.\nI've promised to take him back here if he'll make a fresh start.\n[Looking steadily at RUTH] This is a matter that requires courage,\nma'am.\n\nRUTH, who is looking at FALDER, begins to twist her hands in front of\nher as though prescient of disaster.\n\nFALDER.  Mr. Walter How is good enough to say that he'll help us to\nget you a divorce.\n\n     RUTH flashes a startled glance at JAMES and WALTER.\n\nJAMES.  I don't think that's practicable, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  But, Sir----!\n\nJAMES.  [Steadily]  Now, Mrs. Honeywill.  You're fond of him.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, Sir; I love him.\n\n     She looks miserably at FALDER.\n\nJAMES.  Then you don't want to stand in his way, do you?\n\nRUTH.  [In a faint voice] I could take care of him.\n\nJAMES.  The best way you can take care of him will be to give him up.\n\nFALDER.  Nothing shall make me give you up.  You can get a divorce.\nThere's been nothing between us, has there?\n\nRUTH.  [Mournfully shaking her head-without looking at him]  No.\n\nFALDER.  We'll keep apart till it's over, sir; if you'll only help\nus--we promise.\n\nJAMES.  [To RUTH]  You see the thing plainly, don't you?  You see\nwhat I mean?\n\nRUTH.  [Just above a whisper]  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  [To himself] There's a dear woman.\n\nJAMES.  The situation is impossible.\n\nRUTH.  Must I, Sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Forcing himself to look at her] I put it to you, ma'am.  His\nfuture is in your hands.\n\nRUTH.  [Miserably] I want to do the best for him.\n\nJAMES.  [A little huskily] That's right, that's right!\n\nFALDER.  I don't understand.  You're not going to give me up--after\nall this?  There's something--[Starting forward to JAMES] Sir, I\nswear solemnly there's been nothing between us.\n\nJAMES.  I believe you, Falder.  Come, my lad, be as plucky as she is.\n\nFALDER.  Just now you were going to help us.  [He starts at RUTH, who\nis standing absolutely still; his face and hands twitch and quiver as\nthe truth dawns on him]  What is it?  You've not been--\n\nWALTER.  Father!\n\nJAMES.  [Hurriedly]  There, there!  That'll do, that'll do!  I'll\ngive you your chance, Falder.  Don't let me know what you do with\nyourselves, that's all.\n\nFALDER.  [As if he has not heard] Ruth?\n\n     RUTH looks at him; and FALDER covers his face with his hands.\n     There is silence.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  There's some one out there.  [To RUTH]  Go in\nhere.  You'll feel better by yourself for a minute.\n\n     He points to the clerks' room and moves towards the outer\n     office.  FALDER does not move.  RUTH puts out her hand timidly.\n     He shrinks back from the touch.  She turns and goes miserably\n     into the clerks' room.  With a brusque movement he follows,\n     seizing her by the shoulder just inside the doorway.  COKESON\n     shuts the door.\n\nJAMES.  [Pointing to the outer office]  Get rid of that, whoever it\nis.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Opening the office door, in a scared voice]\nDetective-Sergeant blister.\n\n     The detective enters, and closes the door behind him.\n\nWISTER.  Sorry to disturb you, sir.  A clerk you had here, two years\nand a half ago: I arrested him in, this room.\n\nJAMES.  What about him?\n\nWISTER.  I thought perhaps I might get his whereabouts from you.\n[There is an awkward silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Pleasantly, coming to the rescue] We're not responsible\nfor his movements; you know that.\n\nJAMES.  What do you want with him?\n\nWISTER.  He's failed to report himself this last four weeks.\n\nWALTER.  How d'you mean?\n\nWISTER.  Ticket-of-leave won't be up for another six months, sir.\n\nWALTER.  Has he to keep in touch with the police till then?\n\nWISTER.  We're bound to know where he sleeps every night.  I dare say\nwe shouldn't interfere, sir, even though he hasn't reported himself.\nBut we've just heard there's a serious matter of obtaining employment\nwith a forged reference.  What with the two things together--we must\nhave him.\n\n     Again there is silence.  WALTER and COKESON steal glances at\n     JAMES, who stands staring steadily at the detective.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expansively]  We're very busy at the moment.  If you could\nmake it convenient to call again we might be able to tell you then.\n\nJAMES.  [Decisively] I'm a servant of the Law, but I dislike\npeaching.  In fact, I can't do such a thing.  If you want him you\nmust find him without us.\n\n     As he speaks his eye falls on FALDER'S cap, still lying on the\n     table, and his face contracts.\n\nWISTER.  [Noting the gesture--quietly]  Very good, sir.  I ought to\nwarn you that, having broken the terms of his licence, he's still a\nconvict, and sheltering a convict.\n\nJAMES.  I shelter no one.  But you mustn't come here and ask\nquestions which it's not my business to answer.\n\nWISTER.  [Dryly] I won't trouble you further then, gentlemen.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry we couldn't give you the information.  You quite\nunderstand, don't you?  Good-morning!\n\n     WISTER turns to go, but instead of going to the door of the\n     outer office he goes to the door of the clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  The other door....  the other door!\n\n     WISTER opens the clerks' door.  RUTHS's voice is heard: \"Oh,\n     do!\" and FALDER'S: \"I can't!\"  There is a little pause; then,\n     with sharp fright, RUTH says: \"Who's that?\"\n\n     WISTER has gone in.\n\n     The three men look aghast at the door.\n\nWISTER  [From within]  Keep back, please!\n\n     He comes swiftly out with his arm twisted in FALDER'S.  The\n     latter gives a white, staring look at the three men.\n\nWALTER.  Let him go this time, for God's sake!\n\nWISTER.  I couldn't take the responsibility, sir.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer, desperate laugh]  Good!\n\n     Flinging a look back at RUTH, he throws up his head, and goes\n     out through the outer office, half dragging WISTER after him.\n\nWALTER.  [With despair]  That finishes him.  It'll go on for ever\nnow.\n\n     SWEEDLE can be seen staring through the outer door.  There are\n     sounds of footsteps descending the stone stairs; suddenly a dull\n     thud, a faint \"My God!\" in WISTER's voice.\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\n     SWEEDLE dashes forward.  The door swings to behind him.  There\n     is dead silence.\n\nWALTER.  [Starting forward to the inner room] The woman-she's\nfainting!\n\n     He and COKESON support the fainting RUTH from the doorway of the\n     clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  [Distracted]  Here, my dear!  There, there!\n\nWALTER.  Have you any brandy?\n\nCOKESON.  I've got sherry.\n\nWALTER.  Get it, then.  Quick!\n\n     He places RUTH in a chair--which JAMES has dragged forward.\n\nCOKESON.  [With sherry] Here!  It's good strong sherry.  [They try to\nforce the sherry between her lips.]\n\n     There is the sound of feet, and they stop to listen.\n\n     The outer door is reopened--WISTER and SWEEDLE are seen carrying\n     some burden.\n\nJAMES.  [Hurrying forward]  What is it?\n\n     They lay the burden doom in the outer office, out of sight, and\n     all but RUTH cluster round it, speaking in hushed voices.\n\nWISTER.  He jumped--neck's broken.\n\nWALTER.  Good God!\n\nWISTER.  He must have been mad to think he could give me the slip\nlike that.  And what was it--just a few months!\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly] Was that all?\n\nJAMES.  What a desperate thing!  [Then, in a voice unlike his own]\nRun for a doctor--you!  [SWEEDLE rushes from the outer office] An\nambulance!\n\n     WISTER goes out.  On RUTH's face an expression of fear and\n     horror has been seen growing, as if she dared not turn towards\n     the voices.  She now rises and steals towards them.\n\nWALTER.  [Turning suddenly] Look!\n\n     The three men shrink back out of her way, one by one, into\n     COKESON'S room.  RUTH drops on her knees by the body.\n\nRUTH.  [In a whisper]  What is it?  He's not breathing.  [She\ncrouches over him]  My dear!  My pretty!\n\n     In the outer office doorway the figures of men am seen standing.\n\nRUTH.  [Leaping to her feet] No, no!  No, no!  He's dead!\n\n     [The figures of the men shrink back]\n\nCOKESON.  [Stealing forward.  In a hoarse voice] There, there, poor\ndear woman!\n\n     At the sound behind her RUTH faces round at him.\n\nCOKESON.  No one'll touch him now!  Never again!  He's safe with\ngentle Jesus!\n\n     RUTH stands as though turned to stone in the doorway staring at\n     COKESON, who, bending humbly before her, holds out his hand as\n     one would to a lost dog.\n\n\n\nThe curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\n End of Project Gutenberg's Justice (Second Series Plays), by John Galsworthy\n\n \n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: Who acts as Falder's lawyer?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 115, "category": "longbench_qmsum", "reference": ["The minister argued that it was very important to be transparent with our investments and the government would look at the investments and the figures every day and be transparent about it. The minister promised that Canada would have a good economy in the future, and the government would not raise taxes after the crisis to tackle the deficit. Hence, the opposition party demanded a regular economy update."], "prompt": "You are given a meeting transcript and a query containing a question or instruction. Answer the query in one or more sentences.\n\nTranscript:\nThe Chair (Hon. Anthony Rota (NipissingTimiskaming, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the 12th meeting of the House of Commons Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. This will be the first hybrid meeting of the committee. Some members will be participating via videoconference and some will be participating in person. This follows the order made by the House on May26,2020. Members who have already participated in a virtual meeting of the special committee may actually not notice any change, except for the fact that some members are also participating from the floor of the House. An additional rubric, that of statements by members, was also added to the proceedings of the committee. In order to ensure that those joining the meeting via video conference can be seen and heard by those in the chamber, two screens have been set up in the chamber on either side of the Speakers chair. Sound amplification for virtual interventions will be available, and members in the chamber can listen to the floor sound or interpretation using the earpieces on their desks. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Please also direct your remarks through the Chair. Thank you. For those of you joining via video conference, I would like to remind you to leave your mike on mute when you are not speaking. Also, please note that if you want to speak in English, you should be on the English channel. If you want to speak French, you should be on the French channel. Should you wish to alternate between the two languages, you should change the channel to the language that you are speaking each time you switch languages. Should members participating by videoconference need to request the floor outside their designated speaking times, they should activate their microphone and state that they have a point of order. Those in the chamber can simply rise in the usual way. Please note that today's proceedings will be televised in the same way as a typical sitting of the House. Next we'll move on to ministerial announcements. I understand that there are no ministerial announcements today, so we'll move on to petitions. We'll be presenting petitions for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. I would like to remind members that any petition presented during a meeting of the special committee must have already been certified by the clerk of petitions. For members participating in person, we ask that they please come and drop the signed certificates off at the table once the petitions are presented. First on our list for presenting petitions is Ms. May, who is joining us virtually.\nMs. Elizabeth May (SaanichGulf Islands, GP): Mr. Chair, what an honour to be the first voice coming to you from the screens on either side of the Speaker of the House. I speak to you from SaanichGulf Islands on the traditional territory of the WSNEC people. Hych'ka Siem. I'm presenting a petition, number 431-00215, and it has been certified. The petitioners call on this House to take note of the fact that Canada is the only country with a universal health care system that does not include the provision of necessary prescription medications. They note that the system across Canada is a patchwork that leaves three million Canadians unprepared and uninsured to be able to purchase necessary medications. They call on the House assembled to put in place a system of universal national pharmacare, bringing down the cost of drugs through bulk purchasing. I think I'll call that a summary, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: The next petition will be presented by Mr. Genuis.\nMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood ParkFort Saskatchewan, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be presenting two petitions before the committee today. The first petition is in support of Bill S-204. This Senate public bill, been put forward by Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the Senate, would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. It also has a mechanism by which somebody could be deemed inadmissible to Canada for being involved in the horrible practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill has been before various Parliaments for over 10 years, and petitioners are hopeful that this Parliament will be the one that finally takes action to address forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The second petition is put forward by folks who are concerned about Bill C-7, particularly the efforts by the government through Bill C-7 to remove vital safeguards that are currently associated with Canada's euthanasia regime. Petitioners are not happy about the fact that the government is trying to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and remove other safeguards that only four short years ago the government thought were essential for the euthanasia and assisted suicide system that they were putting in place. The petitioners call on the government to address that, and they are not supportive of these particular efforts to remove vital safeguards from that regime. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: Is anyone else presenting petitions? Seeing none, we'll move on to statements by members. We will now proceed to Statements by Members for a period not exceeding 15minutes. Each statement will be for one minute. The first will be from Mr.Samson. Mr.Samson, you have the floor.\nMr. Darrell Samson (SackvillePrestonChezzetcook, Lib.): Good afternoon, everyone. It's an honour to be presenting an S. O. 31. This spring has been a difficult one for Nova Scotia and the communities of SackvillePrestonChezzetcook. While residents have banded together to tackle the challenges presented by COVID-19, we have also had to mourn the passing of three remarkable local women: RCMP Constable Heidi Stevenson, well known by many in Cole Harbour and the surrounding areas; our own Sub-Lieutenant Abbigail Cowbrough, who was based out of 12 Wing Shearwater; and Captain Jenn Casey of the Canadian Forces Snowbirds. All three women died in the line of duty in separate tragic events while serving our country. These three brave women, who served with honour on land, at sea and in the air, represent the absolute best of us. Heidi, Abbigail and Jenn were inspirational and will not be forgotten. Thank you.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan (SelkirkInterlakeEastman, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canada needs a prime minister who will create jobs and opportunity, but instead we have a prime minister who is piling up crippling national debt. Yesterday the PBO predicted the federal deficit this year will hit over $252 billion. That is almost equivalent to an average year of government spending before the Liberal government. After five years with this debt, Prime Minister, Canada's national debt is set to hit $1 trillion, with almost nothing to show for it. Industries from coast to coast are either closed or are struggling. Canadian workers need and deserve a prime minister who supports our energy sector and gets our natural resources and agriculture products to market, who supports small business and will make our tax system encourage job creation and growth, and who will bring advanced manufacturing jobs to Canada and keep the automotive industry growing. Most importantly, we need a Conservative prime minister who will get the government finances under control after the massive debt left by this prime minister.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Anandasangaree.\nMr. Gary Anandasangaree (ScarboroughRouge Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I speak today with a very heavy heart. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, we've seen a disproportionate number of deaths in long-term care homes. I'm thankful for the Canadian Armed Forces who were deployed to the Altamont care home in my riding and four other facilities across the GTA. The CAF have brought forward horrifying allegations in the operation of these homes. They include residents being given expired or improper doses of medication; not being cleaned or changed for a prolonged period of time; being forcibly fed, causing choking; being bed-bound for weeks; receiving inadequate nutrition, and much more. Mr. Chair, I call upon Premier Ford to place these five homes under a mandatory management order and to appoint a third party manager to address and rectify these violations. I also call upon the Premier to undertake an independent public inquiry into the tragedy we face in long-term care facilities across Ontario. Finally, Mr. Chair, we need to work with the provinces and territories to set national standards of care for the most vulnerable in our society. We can and must do better. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We have a point of order. Go ahead, Ms. May.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hesitate to interrupt colleagues, but I'm concerned about the petition practice, which, as I understand it, is to summarize a petition but not make a speech. I felt one of our colleagues was trespassing on our usual rules.\nThe Chair: I will remind honourable members that when a petition is presented, we're expected to give a prcis and make it as concise as possible. Thank you. Mr.Champoux, you have the floor.\nMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Mr.Chair, I would like to recognize the resilience of Quebeckers concerned for their jobs or their businesses during the COVID-19 crisis. They need us to plan for after the crisis, and we must do so now. To do so, we need the proper information. We need to know the status of the public finances. That is why the Bloc Qubcois is demanding that the government present an economic update, and that it do so before June17. This is not about making a spectacle. Everyone knows that the deficit will be huge. We had to provide the people with support and we all agree on that. But we have to know to what extent. We also have to know where we are starting from so that we can plan where we are going. This is about respecting the public, because they are the ones who will be paying the bill. In closing, I would like to remind the government that one group is not really contributing to the public purse at the moment. I am talking about the tech giants, the GAFAM group, that have never before been used to the extent that they are now, and that are still not paying a cent in tax in Canada. The Liberals promised to correct this injustice. Now is a great time for them to do so.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Sidhu.\nMs. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Chair, this week is National Paramedic Services Week. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Peel region police, paramedic and firefighting services for keeping Bramptonians safe. In my riding, organizations have stepped up to help our community. Organizations such as the Khalsa Aid Society, the Interfaith Council of Peel, the Brampton YMCA, the Prayer Stone Peoples Church, Unity in the Community, Ste. Louise Outreach Centre, Knights Table, the Yogi Divine Society, Vraj Community Service, Regeneration Brampton and many more have made our community stronger during this difficult time. I also have to address the report that came out yesterday from our brave Canadian Armed Forces. Like many Canadians, I was shocked by this report from the long-term care centres, including one in my riding. The examples of abuse described in the report are unacceptable. Our seniors deserve dignity and respect. We must find a solution. We need to fix this.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mrs. Stubbs.\nMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Chair, Canada's oil and gas sector is in crisis, made worse by five years of bad policies, red tape and barriers to pipelines. Just in the last two months, we saw the largest production cut in Canadian history. Active rigs dropped by 92% and tens of thousands of oil and gas workers lost their jobs, adding to the 200,000 since 2015. Energy is Canada's biggest investor, and exporting could lead the recovery if there are actions, not just words. On March 25, the finance minister promised help in hours or days, not weeks, but he's letting Canadians down. Sixty-three days later, small oil and gas companies still can't apply for BDC loans, and last week's large employer loan terms are predatory, with interest rates escalating to 14% by year five. Those are payday loan rates. The required stock options being at record lows could make the government the largest shareholder. That's not emergency assistance; it's pandemic profiteering. Programs can't help workers if businesses can't or won't actually get the support. The Liberals' death-by-delay tactics are doing exactly what foreign activists in other countries want: to shut down Canada's oil.\nThe Chair: Ms.Bessette, the floor is yours.\nMrs. Lyne Bessette (BromeMissisquoi, Lib.): Mr.Chair, in times of crisis, we stick together. I can state that this is certainly the case in BromeMissisquoi. In the last weeks, I have been calling volunteer action centres in my constituency so that they can tell me their news. I would like to take the time that I have to highlight the work that community organizations are doing tirelessly in my constituency. The crisis has made us realize the extent to which food banks and meals-on-wheels can not only relieve hunger, but also relieve thousands of shut-in seniors of their loneliness. Let me also highlight the devotion of the volunteers giving generously of their time, particularly the initiative of Mabel Hastings in the volunteer aid centre in Mansonville. Like me, she sends out a daily newsletter to keep the public informed about the many resources available for their support. COVID-19 is bringing out the best in our community and I am certain that, together, we will get through it.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Virani.\nMr. Arif Virani (ParkdaleHigh Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, during the COVID-19 pandemic I have been inspired by the courageous work of so many essential workers. I want to thank everyone on the front lines for keeping us safe, keeping us fed and keeping our communities functioning. I want to make special note of one particular essential health care worker, a woman who is a quarantine manager with the Public Health Agency of Canada. I have personally seen her working tirelessly over the past three months to keep all of us safe. That woman is my wife, Suchita Jain. Suchi, I love you, I am very proud of you and I thank you for all of the sacrifices you are making. I want to highlight another woman from my riding of ParkdaleHigh Park, Rachelle LeBlanc. She is a local designer. When the pandemic broke, she saw the need for protective barriers for small shops in Parkdale, so she set about collecting donations. She then put her design talents to work and started designing free-standing protective shields. Rachelle's team has now delivered 25 free COVID protective shields to small shopkeepers in Parkdale, and the team is on track to building 100 more. It's the compassion of Canadians like Rachelle that gives meaning to the phrase we are all in this together.\nThe Chair: Mr.Godin, you have the floor.\nMr. Jol Godin (PortneufJacques-Cartier, CPC): Mr.Chair, the school year has been shattered and our graduating classes must be proud of what they have achieved amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Young men, young women, be proud of your accomplishments! You can believe in the future. Keep learning. It will give you tools that will serve you all your lives. What you have achieved in this extraordinary year will set you apart from the others. I invite you to be inspired by that and turn it to your advantage. The current government has the obligation to promote the values that will lead you to become involved in your communities. Your willingness to learn or to work makes you into better citizens. Knowledge and experience are irreplaceable and invaluable. I implore this government, which is unaware of the damage it is causing, to immediately announce all the positions that have already been approved under the Canada summer jobs program. Urgent action is needed. Let us have confidence in our organizations, our companies, and let us support our youth, a rich resource that we must equip and motivate. I congratulate all the young graduates in the beautiful constituency of PortneufJacques-Cartier.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Fergus.\nMr. Greg Fergus (HullAylmer, Lib.): Mr.Chair, this pandemic lets us see what Canadians are made of. This coming Saturday, May30, more than 2,000Christians of all denominations are coming together virtually for prayer and for action. When the going gets tough, Canadians get going. This could not be more true than with respect to what will be happening on May 30. This Saturday, in more than 2,000 churches and homes, thousands of faith-filled Canadians are gathering to pray and act on those prayers as part of Stand United Canada. They will gather through television, Facebook Live and Instagram Live. Then they are going to deliver much-needed support to at-risk Canadians who live in disadvantaged areas. This is faith in action. I'm sure I speak for all parliamentarians when I wish success to Stand United Canada. I hope it inspires more Canadians to follow in its footsteps. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Harder.\nMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): The best way to safeguard the truth is to allow people to speak freely, but from the very beginning of this pandemic, the Liberals have silenced dissent. Sadly, their short-sightedness has been to the detriment of Canadians. Early on, they propagated the notion that human-to-human transmission wasn't possible. They said that closing the borders wasn't necessary. They told us that wearing face masks wouldn't help. It is undeniable that the Liberal government has put Canadians in danger by silencing alternative points of view and has spread misinformation. Ironically, however, they have now gone ahead and crowned themselves the arbiters of truth. They are spending millions of dollars to censor what Canadians can and cannot say. They are determining what is true and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, what is in and what is out. When freedom of speech is repressed, it is safe to say that democracy is under siege. I call upon the government to restore the personal liberties that are granted under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is Canada. We are not an autocracy; we are a democracy.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Nater.\nMr. John Nater (PerthWellington, CPC): Mr. Chair, small businesses have always been the cornerstone of communities across this country. They provide employment and economic stability and are always the first to support community functions and activities, but small businesses have been particularly hard hit due to COVID-19. They have shut their doors temporarily, and now many worry they'll never be able to open their doors again. With the season cancellations at the Stratford Festival, Drayton Entertainment and Stratford Summer Music, businesses in the tourism, hospitality, accommodation and retail sectors in PerthWellington are struggling. Every day, I talk to small business owners who can't access the Canada emergency business account, and others who find the convoluted commercial rent assistance program to be out of reach. The program is needlessly complicated, frustratingly slow and excessively restrictive. Mr. Chair, the government needs to go back, fix these programs and ensure that support goes to the small businesses that need it.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Collins.\nMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Chair, Canadians have been shaken by this pandemic. It has exposed the gaps in our health care system and our social safety net. It has shown how vulnerable we all are when disaster hits. It has brought us to a crossroads. We can go backwards to so-called business as usual, with horrific conditions in long-term care homes, widespread inequality and no real action on climate change, or we can build for better. In Victoria, people in the community, organizations and municipal leaders have been calling for a new way forward. The City of Victoria has a plan for reinvention, resilience and recovery. Organizations like Greater Victoria Acting Together; Common Vision, Common Action; and Kairos Victoria are exploring ideas for a sustainable and just recovery. We can build for better. We can invest in the infrastructure. We need to fight climate change, homelessness and inequality. We can build a Canada where we take better care of the planet and each other.\nThe Chair: We now move to Ms.DeBellefeuille.\nMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (SalaberrySurot, BQ): Mr.Chair, in this time of pandemic, it is with heartfelt emotion that I want to highlight the excellent work of all the guardian angels at the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest. From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the entire staff, as well as the retirees who have come back to provide their assistance. I admire the managers, at all levels and in all services, working tirelessly so that their teams can answer the call in this difficult situation. My fellow managers and the management teams of the Support Program for the Autonomy of Seniors, both in home support and in residential care, you have my heartfelt congratulations for the herculean work you have done. My thoughts go particularly to Lyne Ricard and Vronique Proulx, managers working diligently with their teams of professionals to support the seniors living in intermediate resources, as we call them. I also warmly recognize the director of nursing services, Chantal Careau, who is facing the current challenge with passion and humanity. Once again, my congratulations go to the entire organization of the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest for their remarkable work in this difficult and very demanding time.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Barlow.\nMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): During the worst of times, we see the best in people. Heroes are born, characters revealed, resiliency is sowed. I cannot say enough about my constituents in Foothillsfront-line health care workers, grocery store clerks, restaurateurs, farmersfor all they are doing to keep our community safe and healthy. I want to shine a light on some of our hidden heroes, such as Owen Plumb, a grade 9 student in Okotoks who is using his 3D printer to build PPE for front-line health care workers. He partnered with the Rotary Club and Evergreen Solutions in Okotoks to help with the manufacturing and assembly. There is also Sam Schofield, the volunteer president of the Pincher Creek Chamber of Commerce, overnight built a resiliency website for COVID-19 by building training tools for businesses throughout his area. He also helped develop the Foothills Business Recovery Taskforce, which is a resource for businesses throughout southern Alberta in my riding. Finally, to the employees of Cargill Foods in High River, I know this has been a very difficult time and that many of you have lost loved ones. I want to say thank you for tirelessly doing all you can to protect our food supply and keep food on our table. Each and every one of you is a hero. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Simms.\nMr. Scott Simms (Coast of BaysCentralNotre Dame, Lib.): Thank you, Chair. I would like to take this time to salute those who go above and beyond the call of duty to provide care and comfort to others. In my 16 years in the House of Commons I have never experienced anything like this, when we find our lives are at a standstill and there is so much sorrow felt by families who suffer from the effects of COVID-19. However, here are two examples of kindness right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Shanna and Fred Patey of Bishop's Falls, along with a few of their friends, spend hours next to the Trans-Canada Highway with just a barbeque and a cooler. They serve free meals for truckers crossing our province each and every day. So far they have provided over 1,500 meals. There is also Mitch Strickland of Grand Falls-Windsor, who owns Appy's Diner. He has continually provided food for the local hospital and other front-line workers through his donations. To all our front-line workers in grocery stores and delivery trucks, and to doctors, nurses, LPNs, paramedics, first responders and, of course, our brave women and men in the military, we will be forever grateful and blessed because of you. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: That's all the time we have today for Statements by Members. Before going on, I just want to remind all the members that it is a one-minute statement, so if you don't mind, please time it before coming in because we do have limited time. The other thing that has come up is that some of you just naturally speak very quickly. I'm not here to judge anybody's way of speaking, but try to consider the translators and interpreters to make sure that everyone understands what is said, because they are working diligently to try to get both languages out. In sum, there are two things: please slow down and please make sure the statement is confined to one minute. We now move to Questions to Ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes in order to allow the employees who are providing support for the sitting to substitute for each other safely.  Our first question goes to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Scheer.\nHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In the early days of the pandemic and the lockdown that followed, Canadians were told by this government that programs would be rolled out very quickly and that gaps and shortcomings would be changed as time went on. While many Canadians are being let down by this government's response and its unnecessarily rigid programs, Conservatives identified solutions weeks ago, yet here we are, two and a half months later, and many of these programs still have not been improved. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. On April 26 the Conservatives asked the Prime Minister to change the criteria for the Canada emergency business account so that small businesses that don't happen to have a business bank account could qualify for those types of programs. It's now May 27. Is the Prime Minister going to make that change?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Chair, we knew from the beginning of this pandemic that we did need to move extremely quickly, and that's what we did. We rolled out the Canada emergency response benefit extremely quickly. Eight million Canadians have had that as a replacement for paycheques lost because of COVID-19. We also moved forward on the wage subsidy and a range of other programs to support workers and small businesses. What we've done in terms of helping small businesses with the Canada emergency business account has had a massive impact on small businesses across the country, but we understand that certain companies and businesses have particularities that mean it's a little more difficult for them to qualify. We are working with them through their regional development agencies, and we encourage them to approach their local RDAs, which will be able to help them get the money they deserve.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, these are very simple technical fixes that can be made by this government. There's no excuse for the delay. It's May 27. They've known about these problems for weeks. They're trying to get patted on the back for actions they took back in March, and yet they are letting so many Canadians down by not making these very simple changes. For example, companies that have acquired another company in the last year have employees whose jobs are threatened. The businesses are not allowed to qualify for the wage subsidy because their revenue is now counted together. We have identified this gap. Again, it's a simple question. Will companies that have acquired another company still be allowed to use the wage subsidy to keep workers on the job, yes or no?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I know that there are many different types of businesses across this country that need support. We have moved forward on supporting as many of them as we possibly can, and we continue to work on filling gaps. I know the member opposite has talked to me a number of times about a tractor company in his riding. I can assure you that finance officials are engaged with that company to see if there's a way to make sure we're getting them the support they need.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: It's actually a very simple fix. I can save him and his officials a lot of time. The government used the word amalgamation when it announced the changes to that program. He can make this very clear, and save a lot of work, just by including the word acquisition. Will he do that?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I can assure you that finance officials are working closely with Brandt Tractor. They're continuing to work with a range of businesses across the country that, for various reasons, are not able to apply for the help we have now. We will continue to work to make sure people who need the help get it.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, it's literally one word. We can email him the text. We can send him the page in the dictionary where that word is defined, if that would help. Another gap that is letting people down is in the rent relief program. The government has set the parameters to qualify for the rent relief program for companies that have experienced a 70% revenue loss. There are untold thousands of businesses that have experienced a 50%, 55%, 60% or 65% loss that are ineligible but have no capacity to pay the rent. We called on the government weeks ago to have a more flexible sliding scale to allow more companies to access this program to keep more people on the job and more businesses open. Will the government introduce some flexibility to this program to help more businesses survive?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, our public servants and policy-makers have been moving creatively and quickly to try to get help to as many people as we possibly can, with our focus being on the people who need it the most. Obviously, this pandemic is affecting everyone and every business across the country in different ways, but our focus has been on ensuring that those who most need it are getting the help they can. We will, of course, continue to work with the parties opposite and all Canadians to ensure that we're getting help to everyone who needs it, but our focus has always been on the most vulnerable, first and foremost.\nThe Chair: The floor now goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet (BeloeilChambly, BQ): Thank you, Mr.Chair. My question is for the Prime Minister. If the Liberal Party of Canada had not taken advantage of the emergency programs, would it have laid off all its staff?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we recognized that a number of organizations and companies were facing difficulties because of COVID-19. People work for those organizations, as accountants, receptionists, assistants or labourers, and those people need to be supported. We are supporting people all over the country through that program.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party one of those organizations in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Any company or organization that can demonstrate a significant drop in its income, whether that be in donations, receipts, profits\nThe Chair: The floor goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we created specific criteria to help organizations in difficulty. Any organization experiencing those difficulties can apply.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: In the Magdalen Islands, fishing companies in difficulty and in need of assistance will not have the money that the Liberals are going to take. Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we have invested in assistance for fishers all across the country. We recognize that it is a difficult situation because of COVID-19. We will be here for our fishers and for industries in difficulty.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: I am not catching many answers, it seems to me. A company in Drummondville that manufactures isolation membranes is in difficulty because a federal program is inadequate. Compared to that company, is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, there are clear criteria for submitting applications under these programs. Companies and organizations that receive money qualify for those programs.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the program criteria establish that the Liberal Party is an organization in difficulty, does that mean that the criteria to determine whether an organization is in difficulty are poorly designed?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, all through this pandemic, our priority has been to be here for workers in difficulty so that they do not lose their jobs. This applies to all organizations and companies in the country to the extent possible. That is what we are in the process of doing.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Given the answers from the Prime Minister, let me ask this question: is the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: No, Mr.Chair. We are doing important work for all Canadians, every day.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Restaurant owners on rue Ontario in Montreal feel that they will not make it through the crisis and that they will never open their doors again. They are in difficulty. By comparison, is the Liberal Party of Canada an organization in difficulty that will not open its doors again after the crisis? We can but hope.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established criteria for that program in order to help those working for various organizations. Any organization that receives the subsidy has qualified for it.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is there a consensus in the Liberal Party caucus that the Liberal Party is in difficulty as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we are working every day to help Canadians and workers in difficulty. We are going to continue to do that work.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Does answering a question put the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, it is a pleasure to be here in the House and to answer questions from Canadians and from members of the opposition.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: You are going to answer a question from a Quebecker, I hope. Companies are struggling in Saguenay, in the Gasp, in Beloeil. Would those companies not deserve to be saved by the money that the supposedly struggling Liberal Party has taken?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: I am always very happy to answer questions from all Canadians currently sitting in the House. We will be here to help workers in difficulty all across the country, including in Quebec.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the Prime Minister is so happy to answer questions, I hope he will be delirious with joy to answer this one. Is the Liberal Party in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established a program to help those working in organizations and who could lose their jobs because of COVID-19. We are here to help workers in organizations and companies all over the country.\nThe Chair: We'll now go on to Mr. Singh.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The conditions of seniors as outlined by the military were appalling, but seniors need more than just compassionate words. They need action. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind excuses and actually show leadership to fix long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the Constitution of Canada is not an excuse. It lays out the divisions of powers and responsibilities, and we respect the provinces' jurisdiction over long-term care facilities. However, from the very beginning, we have indicated our willingness to support the provinces on this very important issue. We need to make sure our seniors right across the country are properly cared for, which is why we sent in the military and why we are there to help the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The former federal health minister, Dr. Philpott, said, We need to stop using jurisdiction as an excuse to not have federal leadership. That is a former federal health minister. Now, we know from the military report that staff were afraid to use vital equipment because of the cost. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, over the past couple of days I've had very good conversations with the premiers of both Quebec and Ontario on this important issue. I look forward to discussing issues around long-term care with all the premiers of the provinces and territories tomorrow evening as well. This is something that Canadians have seen needs concerted action. We will be there to support the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Needles were reused and expired medication was used, according to military reports. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in the care of our seniors?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the contents of that report were deeply disturbing and troubling for all Canadians. That is why we are committed to working with the provinces to fix this situation. Ontarians and indeed people right across the country are deeply preoccupied by what they've seen going on. We need to fix this, and we will do that together.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that cockroaches and flies were present and that food was rotten. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards so that long-term care is governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, our priority right now is ensuring that we are supporting the provinces in their need to make sure that all seniors are protected right across the country in all those institutions. Going forward, we absolutely will need to have more conversations about how we can ensure that every senior across the country is properly supported.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that respecting the dignity of patients was not a priority. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards and for long-term care to be governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, all Canadians know we need to do better by our seniors. This is something we all take very seriously, and all orders of government will work together to make sure that right now, and going forward, we improve our systems. The federal government will be there to work with the provinces on making that happen.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has said that he's willing to work with the provinces. I'm saying that we need to see federal leadership. We need a commitment at the federal level that the Prime Minister will push for things that people need, which is to remove profit from long-term care and to establish national standards. Will the Prime Minister go beyond working with provinces and show some leadership?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, I will always be here to stand up for Canadians in all different situations. We are going to work with the provinces, fully respecting jurisdictions, to make sure that, all across the country, Canadians in long-term care are supported as required and receive the services and the care they deserve.\nThe Chair: Mr. Singh, we have 30 seconds. Ask a brief question, please.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much. The COVID-19 crisis should not be used as an excuse to avoid presenting solutions to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls committee, in particular by delaying action on the calls for justice. This is the same government that would not recognize it as a genocide, the same government that delayed the United Nations declaration legislation and the same government that is still taking indigenous kids to court. Will this government commit to core funding for indigenous services to help women and girls and ensure that the calls for justice are implemented without delay?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, we continue to work very closely with partners on the calls for justice even as we act in many areas, including better funding for shelters and for victims of domestic violence. We will continue to work with those partners, but people will understand that many of those partners are very focused right now on helping front-line workers, not on establishing the report. We will continue to work with them on the report, but the COVID-19 situation has made that more difficult.\nThe Chair: I want to thank the honourable members who are shouting time, but I do have a timer here, and I am taking care of it. I appreciate the help, but I do want to remind them that I have the proper machinery here. We will now go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Prime Minister. He was just talking about the tragic conditions in long-term care facilities in Ontario, and there was a report out from Quebec today. I want to commend the Canadian Armed Forces for witnessing these appalling conditions, putting it in the context of a report, and providing care to our loved ones in these long-term care facilities. The government is saying they didn't receive the report from the department until May 22, but this report came out on May 14. What happened to that report for eight days?\nThe Chair: We will go to the honourable minister. We seem to have a technical issue, Mr. Sajjan. We can't hear you. You might want to put down your bar and keep it down while you're speaking.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Chair, I want to thank our Canadian Armed Forces members for the tremendous work they are doing. They did their duty, noted down their observations and reported them. While those observations were being reported directly to the managers, a report was being compiled. This report was given to me on the 21st. I then forwarded it to the Minister of Public Safety on the 22nd, and that report was then given to the provincial authorities very quickly afterwards.\nMr. James Bezan: I trust that you got the report on the 21st, but the report was written on the 14th, so what happened with that report for seven days? Why wasn't it acted upon? Could you just explain that? Our loved ones were at risk during that entire time.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as we stated, this report was done and given up through the chain of command, and the appropriate leadership did their due diligence. Once we received this report, it was forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Again, I want to commend our Canadian Armed Forces members for not only the tremendous work they are doing but also for doing their duty.\nMr. James Bezan: That report from Ontario documented appalling conditions, horrific care that was being given to the clients, and also the way that the staff conducted themselves. We know that there are 39 members of the Canadian Armed Forces currently infected with COVID-19. Minister, do you believe that the infection could have been transmitted from staff to our soldiers serving in long-term care facilities because proper protocols were not being followed?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to any type of activities that we send our Canadian Armed Forces on, we do our due diligence to make sure that we have the right protocols in place and the appropriate training. This is why we have taken the time to make sure our folks not only did the appropriate training but had the appropriate equipment. We have the right protocols in place, and we will make sure that our members who are infected by COVID will get the appropriate treatment as well.\nMr. James Bezan: Does the Minister of National Defence believe that our soldiers serving in Operation Laser, who have put themselves in harm's way in battling the COVID virus as a war, deserve to have hazard pay benefits?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to looking after Canadian Armed Forces personnel, yes, we are actually in the process as we speak of making sure that our members have the appropriate hazard pay. This is currently being drafted, and we will have more to say on this shortly.\nMr. James Bezan: I hope that means it's a yes. I do encourage the government to provide that compensation to our soldiers and troops serving in Operation Laser. I would finally like to come back to the issue of the timeline from May 14 to May 21, when that report was in the department for one week. Under our parliamentary system, ministers are accountable for the conduct of their departments. Will the minister take responsibility for that report sitting on someone's desk for seven days and not being turned over to the proper authorities?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear: When it comes to the observations that were made, those were immediately reported to the appropriate management of the care facilities and to the appropriate links within the province. At the same time, this report was being compiled and pushed up to the chain of command, and they did their due diligence. As I stated, it was given to us, and on the same day it was forwarded to the Minister of Public Safety, who immediately then sent it to the provincial authorities.\nMr. James Bezan: Was one of those authorities that this was sent to the RCMP?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as stated, this will not only be given to the proper authorities but the appropriate steps will be taken now.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk (BattlefordsLloydminster, CPC): Thank you, Chair. Yesterday it was revealed that the Minister of Digital Government has been promoting a fundraising campaign to sue Global News for their story criticizing the Chinese Communist Party. Why is the minister using her authority to support the Communist Party of China and threatening our media and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray (Minister of Digital Government): Mr. Chair, we value the important work of media right across the country. Attacking the integrity of hard-working journalists is simply not acceptable. Like many members on all sides of the House.... WeChat is a social media platform used to engage and share information with\nThe Chair: Now we'll go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister aware of the efforts that the United Front carries out on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party to influence how Canadians view the People's Republic of China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Thank you for that question. Mr. Chair, I want to just be clear. The participation in the WeChat group, much like Facebook, is guided by posted\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister an active participant in the efforts by the Communists to muzzle a Canadian journalist and deprive Canadians of the facts about China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Muzzling journalists is never acceptable, and our government is very clear on that. I will say that the individual in question posted something outside of the guidelines of my WeChat group and is no longer\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk, I just want to point out that we do have interpreters listening and trying to interpret. They'd appreciate it....\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: My questions are short. That's probably what it is.\nThe Chair: Take a deep breath.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, the Liberals can't shrug this off. The minister admitted to theBreaker that her own political staff manages this WeChat. This is someone who is paid by Canadian taxpayers. Why is the minister using tax dollars to help China attack Global News and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray: I think the member knows very well that the people who post on WeChat are free to post what they choose within certain guidelines. Those guidelines were ignored. That person is no longer part of my WeChat group. The post was completely unacceptable, and I do not share the views of the individual.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, Sam Cooper is an investigative Canadian journalist who has uncovered many different criminal rackets that can be linked back to Beijing. Has the minister apologized to Sam Cooper for attempting to shut down his work?\nHon. Joyce Murray: As we all know, community outreach is a very important part of the work of a member of Parliament. WeChat is one of many social media sites regularly used by members\nThe Chair: We go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, when will the minister apologize to Sam Cooper and Global News?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Mr. Chair, I have been very clear that I do not share the views of the person who posted on my WeChat site, who operated outside of my\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in December 2018 the Liberals passed Bill C-76. This included provisions to prevent foreign interference in Canadian society. Does the government believe that Joyce Murray's actions have violated this portion of the act?\nHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that we are always vigilant in any foreign interference in our national security or issues of political interference in our society. It's monitored carefully by the national security establishment, according to the law as it exists in this country, and we will remain vigilant.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in May 2019, the Liberals launched their digital charter. One of the principles was strong democracy, a commitment to defend freedom of expression. Will the Liberals hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated this part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, we are absolutely committed to the rule of law and will always uphold it. I think, as the minister has made very clear, she was not involved in this process and has no control over the individual who posted that matter.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, unfortunately I don't believe that was a sufficient answer. This is really a yes or no. Will the government hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated their part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that our government remains committed to the rule of law and we will always work tirelessly to uphold the laws of this country.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is that a yes or a no?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I think it was very clear. We will always uphold the laws of Canada.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Still, was that a yes or a no? I'm not hearing a yes or a no.\nHon. Bill Blair: I am doing my very best, Mr. Chair, to answer the question for the House and to assure the member opposite that our government will always remain committed to the rule of law. That is unequivocal.\nThe Chair: We will now move on to the honourable member. The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. I am very happy and proud to be participating in this discussion in the House of Commons today. My question is very simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance): Mr.Chair, we continue to be transparent with our measures. Of course, we want to make sure that our investments, our economy\nThe Chair: The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Let me ask my question to the honourable Minister of Finance once more, since he is talking about transparency. My question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, our economic situation is very fluid. We have made major investments and we are making sure that our economy is working.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the minister's answer is not fluid at all. But the question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, it is important to be transparent with our investments. We look at the investments and the figures every day.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the Minister of Finance may not know what the deficit is, but one great Canadian does know. And he knows that he knows. Could the Minister of Finance be very clear, very fluid and, above all, very transparent with Canadians? What is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I want to be very clear with Canadians: our economic situation is very difficult. The situation is fluid. We are making investments to ensure that our economy will be strong in the future.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, with all due respect to the Minister of Finance, let me point out that, though he is not very clear, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear yesterday. The deficit is $260billion. That is the real number. Why does the government not have the courage to state it clearly, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer did yesterday?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we always want to be clear and transparent. It is very important for the situation to be stable in order to ensure our future. That is our economic approach. We are making investments now so that the situation becomes more stable.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, I know that the Minister of Finance is very good with figures. But he is not able to give us one. Perhaps he could comment on the statement that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made yesterday, that the emergency assistance must have an end date, and if it does not, we are heading to levels of taxation that have not been seen in this country for generations. What is the government going to do to make sure that Canadians will not be overtaxed after this crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to make investments. That way, we will have a resilient economy in the future. That's very important. That way, we know that we'll have a good economy in the future. When we have more information, we will\nThe Chair: Mr.Deltell, you have the floor.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, will the minister commit not to raise taxes after the crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I have said several times that we do not have a plan to raise taxes. That's very important.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Finally a clear answer! However, I'm not convinced that he will apply it. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself has said that there isn't much ammunition left without shifting into a large structural deficit, which can lead directly to tax increases. If the Minister of Finance can't even say today what the deficit is today, how can he be credible when he says that he won't raise taxes?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I think what's most important is that during this pandemic, Canadians and companies across the country need the Government of Canada's help. That is our approach. That way, we will have an economy that will function in the future. Of course, this is important for future generations.\nMr. Grard Deltell: When will there be an economic update?\nHon. Bill Morneau: \nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, all observers are expecting an economic update to know where we're going. When will that happen?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we want our economic update to be accurate. That's why we are looking at information that allow us to make good forecasts.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Chair, the United States, Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam have created an economic prosperity group to diversify some of their key supply chains away from China. Canada has a free trade agreement with six of these seven countries. Why are we not part of this group?\nHon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade): Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for that question. Indeed, we have been working diligently with all of these countries to make sure that we are keeping global supply chains open during this critical time. I think everyone agrees that keeping supply chains open for medical goods, critical agriculture and essential goods is absolutely essential and\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, this government is refusing to come to terms with what COVID-19 will mean for the future of international trade. Why is Canada not at the table with our largest trading partner protecting the viability of our international supply chains and capitalizing on the opportunities of others doing the same?\nThe Chair: Before we go to the minister, one of the members has his mike still on, and I would ask that he turn it off. I am hearing background noise. The hon. minister.\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, Canada has unprecedented access to a number of markets around the world because of the extraordinary agreements that we have made to provide access to customers in those international markets. During COVID-19, we have been working with our G20 partners. I have had two meetings with G20 trade ministers on the importance of keeping supply chains\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, is this payback for the Prime Minister snubbing these countries at the original TPP signing?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we have a CPTPP arrangement with these countries, and we are looking forward to making sure that we get Canadian businesses growing into those markets.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the U.K. will begin applying tariffs at the beginning of next year on Canadian exports such as seafood, beef and cars. These are the items that have had tariffs removed under CETA. Will the government commit to having a new trade agreement with the U.K. in place by January 1?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we are monitoring the situation very carefully. The U.K., of course, is a very important trading partner for Canada. They are in discussions right now. I want to assure Canadian businesses that CETA continues to apply to our trade with the U.K. during this period while they go through Brexit.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, after CUSMA, this government guaranteed to the trade committee that they would publish the objectives of any new trade agreement. When will we see these objectives published and actually have a chance to view them?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we look forward to working to ensure that those objectives are published as we get into future trade discussions.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the resignation of the WTO director-general at this unprecedented time is concerning for the international trade community. Is the government committed to supporting a DG candidate who is dedicated to the massive reforms needed to get the WTO functioning again?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for that good question. The Ottawa group, led by Canada, is working with like-minded countries on the reform of the WTO. We've been doing this work and we continue to do this work. I look forward to making sure that we are leading the way on those discussions with like-minded\nThe Chair: Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, last week the President of the United States considered blocking cattle imports. Our beef producers don't need this. They need stability. Three-quarters of Canada's beef cattle exports go to the U.S. Has the government sought out and received assurances from the United States that no such action will apply to Canadian cattle?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chair, we have an excellent assurance of our trade with the United States, which is our new NAFTA trade agreement that we have negotiated, thanks to the unprecedented co-operation across this country. It is very important to the Canadian economy and Canadian producers.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, going forward post-COVID, there are a lot things that will be changing in supply chains. What is this government doing proactively to look at opportunities in these supply chains that Canadian businesses can take advantage of?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we continue to work with countries around the globe to ensure that Canada's supply chains and those global supply chains, particularly for essential goods, for agricultural products, for medical supplies, continue to remain open. We will keep doing this work.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, on the agriculture side, canola farmers would like to know the status of canola going into China. Can she update the House on that status?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Mr.Chair, I want to assure my colleague that we are continuing to work with our industry representatives, our allies and our trading partners in China.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. McLeod.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod (KamloopsThompsonCariboo, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senior Canadian bureaucrats received very credible reports in early January that China was procuring and hoarding PPE. As a member of cabinet, was the health minister aware?\nHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Health): Mr. Chair, from the very beginning of the outbreak in early January we were aware of the challenges our health sector would face, and we immediately began to work with the provinces and territories to understand what the need would be and how we could best prepare.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: In April, the minister stated there were not enough supplies in the national emergency stockpile. Can she explain why she approved a donation of 16 tonnes of PPE for China on January 31, claiming it would not compromise our supply? She can't have it both ways. We don't have enough; we have enough and it won't compromise it.\nHon. Anita Anand (Minister of Public Services and Procurement): Mr. Chair, we are operating in a highly competitive global environment, and the reality is that we need to make sure we have multiple complementary supply chains operating at the same time, which we have been doing in the past weeks and months, to ensure our front-line health care workers have the supplies they need to keep Canadians safe. That's our priority. That's what we're working on.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Unfortunately, this question was directed to the health minister, referencing things she actually stated in terms of the availability of our supplies. Before the she signed off on the donationand it was the health minister who signed off on the donationdid she consult with the health ministers in the provinces and territories?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, provinces and territories have their own stockpiles, which of course they use to prepare for incidences of outbreak and other illnesses across their jurisdictions. We've worked very closely with the provinces and territories since the beginning of the outbreak to make sure we can provide any particular additional support. In fact, of all the requests made so far, we have been able to complete them.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Health care workers are now having to look at modified full-face snorkels as an alternative to N95 masks. Did it not occur to the minister that our hospitals and care homes could have used that PPE she shipped out, providing a longer opportunity for them to also get procurement done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, the equipment that was donated when China was in its outbreak was an important donation of nearly expired or expired goods that it was in desperate need of in its effort to try to contain the virus. As the member opposite knows, we've been able to work successfully with provinces and territories to ensure they have what they need.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Mr. Chair, I would suggest that during February and March our hospitals would have consumed that almost-expired product very efficiently, but I want to move on to another topic. When defending the sale of 22 seniors' homes to the Chinese government, the Prime Minister stated that we have a strong regulatory regime that imposes rigorous standards. He said that this regime ensures the care our seniors get is top quality. That was in 2017. Now he states he is saddened, shocked, disappointed and angered. Was the Prime Minister completely oblivious to the risks, or was he just too anxious to please the Chinese government when he sold those 22 homes?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the homes the member opposite is referring to are in the province of B.C., and I have to commend the province for the early work it did to protect seniors in those long-term care homes. The member opposite is trying to confuse the issue. As she knows, the review we did was entirely separate from the standards to which the province holds the care homes.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: The Prime Minister does not have authority over seniors' homes, which he has clearly stated, but he does have authority over the act in which he approved the sale. At 18 months, government had an obligation to make sure there was compliance. Was that done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the long-term care homes in each province fall within the jurisdiction of their own particular act, and those provinces and territories are responsible for fulfilling the inspections required under that act.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Under the Investment Canada Act, the government is obligated to review the sale for compliance. Four homes had to close. Since the government approved the sale, it is complicit in the care of our seniors in this country\nHon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry): Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear that we understand how difficult this is for seniors. That is why we follow the appropriate steps, outlined under the Investment Canada Act, to make sure that any measures we take keep seniors and their well-being first and foremost.\nThe Chair: Mr.Therrien, you now have the floor.\nMr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ): Mr.Chair, during the pandemic, the government has given money to companies that don't pay a cent in tax because they use tax havens. We told the government that it didn't make sense. The government's response was that it is no big deal. During the pandemic, the government gave money to Air Canada, but Air Canada never reimbursed customers who did not get the services they paid for. We told the government that it did not make sense. The government's response was that it was no big deal. During the pandemic, the Liberal Party used the emergency wage subsidy to fund partisan activities. We told them that it did not make sense. The government responded that it was no big deal. Is the moral of the story that the government thinks that dipping into the pockets of taxpayers to spend money carelessly is no big deal?\nHon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.Chair, the fight against tax evasion is a priority for our government. We will continue to target companies that use tax evasion schemes. Let me be clear: in everything we do, we will target companies and not innocent workers. Employees are employees, no matter who they work for.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, when I see that it's the Minister of National Revenue answering me, I don't feel like buying a lottery ticket. The Liberal Party used two airplanes in its last election campaign, which seems to indicate that it isn't short of money. However, the Liberals used the emergency wage subsidy. Why? Is it because they want taxpayers to fund a third airplane?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to protect employees across the country and in every economic sector that's experiencing a significant drop in income. That's the approach we've taken to protect people and to ensure that there will be jobs in the future. We will continue this approach.\nMr. Alain Therrien: It's especially important to protect the employees who work for the Liberals to ensure their re-election, yet the Liberal Party has raised more than $7million since the last election. Is the party in jeopardy? Can it go bankrupt?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, as I said, our approach is to protect employees. We think that this principle is very important and that this approach must be maintained in order to have a better job market in the future.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, we still don't know exactly how much money the Liberals took from the cookie jar. We think they may have taken as much as $1million. How many SMEs could have been saved with the $1million that the Liberals took out of the jar and took away from SMEs?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we appreciate the question. We are protecting hundreds of thousands of SMEs through the emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency response benefit and all our programs. We will continue this approach to help SMEs and their employees.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, I will propose a choice of answers, or I won't get any. When did the government decide to use the emergency wage subsidy? Now here are three possible answers. The first possible answer is that when the Liberals brought in the emergency wage subsidy, they set parameters allowing them to use it. The second is that when the Liberals saw the Conservative Partywhich is as rich as they are, but also sanctimonious and self-righteoustake advantage of the subsidy, they thought they could do it too. The third possible answer is that the Liberals hadn't planned to use the subsidy, but they pounced on the cookie jar when they saw it, because that's what they do.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we continue to think it is very important to protect employees in every sector of the economy and across Canada. That's our approach, and I believe it's the right one to protect and preserve jobs across the country during a pandemic.\nThe Chair: We are now going to suspend the proceedings for a few seconds to allow the employees who provide support for the meeting to replace each other safely.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC)): We will now resume the discussion.  We'll continue with Ms. Khalid, the honourable member for MississaugaErin Mills.\nMs. Iqra Khalid (MississaugaErin Mills, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with the member for PickeringUxbridge. Mr. Chair, when the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces stepped in to provide support to five long-term care homes in Ontario at the request of the premier, they released a report that outlined their findings in detail. Military members witnessed residents' cries for help going unanswered. They saw force-feeding. They saw bug infestations, a lack of personal protective equipment and neglect. Canadians are shaken. They are appalled by the horrific conditions outlined in the military report. Almost 1,000 seniors so far have lost their lives in long-term care homes in Ontario alone, over 25 of them in my riding of MississaugaErin Mills. These deaths could have been prevented. Can the Minister of Health please update the House on how our federal government is working with the provinces and territories to prevent further tragic occurrences from happening at long-term care homes and to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors are properly looked after and cared for?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, it's such an important question. I believe all Canadians were deeply horrified to read the details from the Canadian Armed Forces on the conditions in long-term care homes in Ontario. What's happening to seniors in Ontario is completely unacceptable. The report is very troubling. Seniors deserve to live with dignity, with respect and with safety. While long-term care is provincially regulated, we know that we need to work together. The Government of Canada stands ready to support provinces and territories as they continue to respond to this crisis. I had a very good conversation with my provincial and territorial counterparts last night about the work we can do at a national level to support their important work. We also know that seniors want to stay at home longer. That's why our historic investment of $6 billion in home care was so important. We'll continue to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they get the care and dignity they deserve.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Ms. O'Connell.\nMs. Jennifer O'Connell (PickeringUxbridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will sadly report that my community of Pickering has experienced the largest number of deaths at a single COVID-19 outbreak location anywhere in this country. Seventy residents at Orchard Villa long-term care home died during this pandemic. It was a devastating blow to our community. Yesterday, we received the horrific report from the Canadian Armed Forces detailing what they witnessed at Orchard Villa in Pickering, Altamont Care Community in Scarborough, Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke, Hawthorne Place in North York, and Holland Christian Homes' Grace Manor in Brampton. The loved ones of those who have passed away, as well as the homes' workers, have asked for a full public inquiry from the Ontario government. I know that the responsibility for these facilities falls within provincial jurisdiction, but on behalf of our communities, can the Minister of Health update us on the work she is doing to ensure that the Ontario government takes action immediately and initiates a full, independent, non-partisan public inquiry and reverses its decision to create a government-led commission that won't even start until September?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I would say that all Canadians were shocked and horrified to hear about the conditions that existed in these particular care homes. We're so grateful to the members of the armed forces who not only improved conditions but also reported them quickly and appropriately to ensure amelioration of those conditions for those particular individuals. We also know that there are seniors all across the country who are struggling with care and with the appropriate level of care. We have to do better as a country. These are our loved ones. These are our parents and our grandparents. These are the people in our lives who have given so much to us. I stand committed to working with my provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that we do better as a society. We know that there's a role we can play at the federal level with advice, with guidance, with support and, yes, with investments. We look forward to having those conversations about how best we can improve the care for all seniors amongst us.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Mr. Davies from Vancouver Kingsway.\nMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canadians were horrified to hear the report yesterday from our armed forces about the appalling conditions experienced by seniors in our long-term care homes. Page after page detailed the filth, neglect, abuse and danger our seniors in care are exposed to on a daily basis. Shockingly they face injury and death through missed medications, expired medications, unsterile devices and violations of basic contagion rules to stop the spread of COVID-19. Given that evidence of possible criminal conduct was contained in the military's report, will the minister refer this matter to the RCMP for investigation immediately?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, thanks very much to the member for those expressions of concern, which we share. We understand in long-term care facilities both seniors and persons living with a disability face unique challenges, and the findings of this report are in fact deeply concerning and completely unacceptable. Considering the severity of this report, we promptly shared it with the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Ontario has initiated an investigation based on the report's findings. Their investigation includes alerting the province's chief coroner who has the authority to alert the police of jurisdiction. We will continue to work with the province to protect those living in long-term care facilities, and we continue to support them through the deployment of our outstanding Canadian Armed Forces and in our partnership with the Red Cross.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, that's a shocking answer considering there's clear evidence of criminal conduct and negligence in this. That this federal government is not taking immediate steps to refer this to the nation's RCMP is unacceptable. The seniors care crisis is a national problem. COVID-19 has exposed critical vulnerabilities across Canada's entire network of long-term care facilities. Not a single province or territory currently meets the benchmark of 4.1 hours of hands-on care per day. As a result Canada has the worst record of COVID-19 deaths in long-term care among 14 comparable countries, with over 80% of Canadian fatalities occurring in these facilities. Will this government move swiftly to establish binding national standards for long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member opposite is exactly correct when he says that those who are hardest hit in terms of losing their lives and the negative effects of COVID are those who are living in long-term care homes. He's also correct when he indicates that COVID-19 has shown us what many of us have known for a long time, that we need to do better in long-term care and supports for seniors. As the member knows, we started those steps some four years ago or so when we began to make incredible investments in aging at home. We know that is one part of the solution, but we have to do better for those seniors who need a higher level of care. That's the work I'm doing now. I'm working with my colleagues at the provinces and territories to make sure that we come up with a solution that will truly result in better standards for all.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, what we need is binding national standards, just like we set through the Canada Health Act in the health care sector generally. Gross fecal contamination, filthy medical equipment, insect infestations, ignoring patient cries for hourswe would never tolerate these conditions in Canada's hospitals. There's no reason to accept them in Canada's long-term care facilities. Will the minister move to bring long-term care facilities under the Canada Health Act, or similar legislation, with formal funds tied to acceptable standards of care for our seniors, just like we do for hospitals?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member shares the disgust and concern of so many Canadians across the country, not only those who have read the report but many of those who have struggled to provide care to elders in those long-term care homes, regardless of the province in which they live. We know we need to do better. We know that collectively, at all levels of government, we must do better for those people who cared for us and nurtured us all of those years. The member has my commitment that I will work with provinces and territories to find a solution forward to ensure that every person has the right to age with dignity and safety.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. Davies, you have 15 seconds for another question, a short one, and leave time for a response.\nMr. Don Davies: Thank you, Mr. Chair. These failures are the product of systemic neglect often motivated by prioritizing profit over the provision of adequate care. Does the minister agree that we should not be putting profits above the health care needs of Canada's seniors?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I believe that, when we commit to taking care of people, we must do so with the utmost care that is required. I know that provinces and territories have a lot of work to do. So do we, at the federal level, and obviously at the local level. We must all work together to protect those people in our lives who are most vulnerable, whether they be seniors, children or others.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now move on to Mr. Schmale, HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock. Mr. Schmale, go ahead.\nMr. Jamie Schmale (HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock, CPC): Thank you, Chair. According to Vaughn Palmer in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun regarding the secret Wet'suwet'en deal, Palmer writes:     The hereditary chiefs calculated the two governments would sign despite the objections from the elected chiefs. They likewise got the terms they wanted in the MOU while giving up absolutely nothing. Just as they figured governments would keep the contents secret from the public.   Can the minister describe another situation in which the federal government negotiated a secret deal of this magnitude with unelected people?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations): I thank the member for his ongoing concern and I want to remind him that actually it is in keeping with the Supreme Court decision of 1997 that we were to now begin those conversations with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who took the case to the Supreme Court. As we've said many times, this is not an agreement; this is an MOU that establishes the path forward for the substantive discussions towards a final agreement, which would describe the future governance and the implementation of Wet'suwet'en rights and title. It is about a shared commitment.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, if it is a shared commitment, why on the eve of the signing ceremony did the four elected chiefs denounce the hereditary chiefs for keeping them in the dark?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it's really important that the member understand that there was a process for the hereditary chiefs to go back to their communities and discuss with them. Any agreement after the good work that will happen now would have to go back and seek the approval of all of the communities.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, the Burns Lake Band members are openly wondering if they're still a band or if the few unelected hereditary chiefs will control everything now. Minister, can you assure them that going forward you will honour their concerns and take the time to listen?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I ask honourable members to still direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Actually, the honourable member knows that the next steps include the further and ongoing engagement by the Wet'suwet'en in their house groups and that will include the six elected chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en nation, their community members and many others. This is about going forward and making sure that any\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Cynthia Joseph, a chief councillor with the Hagwilget First Nation says the MOU between Ottawa, the province and the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs was only shared with her community members on May 9, two days after it was published in the media. Is this part of the open and transparent government all Canadians can expect of the Prime Minister?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Walking the path of reconciliation means that we work with our partners and there is a way that they do the work within their communities. It is going to be an agreement to begin the work, but any final agreement is going to have to be approved by all members of the nation in terms of developing a consensus for the agreement\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Does the minister have any concerns regarding claims by several former female hereditary chiefs that they were stripped of their hereditary status because they didn't agree with the men?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it is going to be really important that the work take place within the Wet'suwet'en nation to determine their future governance, to determine their way of working with Canada and to make sure\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. For some reason it seems to be a problem to stand up for these hereditary female chiefs who had their titles taken away. Does the minister plan on recognizing band council resolutions denying the authority of hereditary chiefs to sign any future agreements without consent of the elected chiefs and the 3,000 members within the Wet'suwet'en they represent?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: I think the member must understand that, as we begin the work, the nation will do its work and then we will come to the table to determine what the governance would be. Will it be a hybrid model like at Heiltsuk, like Ktunaxa, like some of the communities developing their constitutions, developing their laws and deciding how they will determine their own governance and that partnership with Canada?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (CharlesbourgHaute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. The current restrictions on non-essential travel at the border do not prevent people from claiming refugee protection if they have family in Canada. Why is the minister refusing to allow married people to cross the border?\nHon. Bill Blair: I want to thank the honourable member for a very important question. We have heard from many constituents and members of Parliament from right across the country who are expressing concern about non-status spouses being denied entry into the country because their travel is deemed to be non-essential. I've recently been in touch with all of the provinces and territories because I think it's very important that we have their support for any changes\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: If I understand correctly, Mr.Minister, you are talking to provincial representatives, but a case like that of ChantalTremblay, for instance, is unacceptable. For two months now, she has been trying to bring her spouse to Canada, but it isn't working. Is there a way to issue a directive to border services officers that married spousesit's often marriages with Americanscan cross the border to join their spouses in Canada?\nHon. Bill Blair: Just to be very clearagain, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify thisit is never our intention to separate families, but at the same time, we have imposed appropriate and necessary restrictions on non-essential travel. Our border services officers inquire of everyone coming to that border about the nature of their travel, and for non-citizens who come to that border seeking entry into Canada, if their entry is deemed non-essential, then they exercise their discretion not to allow\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Thank you, Mr.Chair. Information from the Canada Border Services Agency has just come out. Since March21, 425,000people have flown into Canada. Among them were 295,000Canadians, which isn't a problem. However, 100,000foreigners have entered Canada, even though the border is supposedly closed. How does the minister explain the fact that 100,000people arrived in Canada by plane?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify. We have imposed very significant restrictions on non-essential travel, but of course there are circumstances where individuals come to this country and their entry into Canada is deemed essential. For example, someone who is providing medical services and coming into Canada to provide those services would be deemed essential, because there is a great need among Canadians for those services. It's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As you can see by the numbers, we have had a very significant reduction in the travel of all non-Canadians to Canada over the past two months.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: So the minister confirms that the 100,000people who arrived by air were providing a service considered essential to Canada. I'm not talking about the people who crossed the land border, but the people who came to Canada by air.\nHon. Bill Blair: What I can tell you is that at all points of entry, including our air borders, we apply the standard that the travel must be deemed essential, and that determination is utilized to see if a person is eligible to enter into the country.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: We're now learning that the Correctional Service of Canada's investigation into the murder of MarylneLevesque is suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Canadians aren't fooled; they know full well that it is a political decision. All the technological means are available to allow the investigation to continue. I'm proof of that today. Can the minister direct the Correctional Service of Canada to resume the investigation into the death of MarylneLevesque?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member for the question, because we know the concern of the people of Quebec, and the family of Ms. Levesque needs answers and deserves answers. That's why we asked the Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada to convene a board of investigation. Clearly, during COVID transmission, the ability to conduct that investigation and to interview all of the witnesses became extremely difficult and has been temporarily suspended, but at the very earliest opportunity we remain resolute to resume that investigation and get to the bottom of it to provide the answers that the family deserves.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have only 20seconds remaining.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr.Chair, victims of crime are one of the segments of the population most affected by the crisis. As we know, the government refuses to allow victims of crime to participate in parole hearings. For the first time in its history, and to add insult to injury, the government has cancelled all activities related to Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, which was to take place next week. Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on victims?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, at the earliest days of COVID, until arrangements could be put in place, there were restrictions on victims participating. We have put the systems in place to allow victims to present their evidence virtually, either by video or by phone, to ensure that their voices are heard in these important things. We very much respect and support the role of victims in these determinations, and we're making every effort to ensure that they can participate.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll now to Mr. Cumming, Edmonton Centre.\nMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Chair, yesterday I asked the Minister of Small Business how many business credit availability guarantees were issued by EDC, and I didn't get a number. Does she have an exact, finite, number of the guarantees today?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, thank you to the honourable member for that question. Our government has taken swift and immediate action to support Canadian businesses through this time. Money from this program is flowing, and businesses across the country are receiving the important support that they need.\nMr. James Cumming: How many BCAP applications have been received so far?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, these are large loans, and they require important due diligence and adjudication by the financial institutions. We will continue to be open and transparent as the accurate information becomes available.\nMr. James Cumming: How long does it take to be approved for a BCAP guarantee?\nHon. Mary Ng: I want to assure the member that we're going to do everything possible to support businesses and workers during this very important time.\nMr. James Cumming: How many businesses have received funding under the BCAP co-lending program since March?\nHon. Mary Ng: The lending programs, particularly the program to help small businesses, have really helped lots of businesses. Over 630,000 loans have been issued, and this is really helping those\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Unfortunately, lots is not an answer for the businesses that I'm trying to talk to. Can you tell me, for the CEBA changes that were recently announced, when will we be able to see people who have income through a dividend able to apply?\nHon. Mary Ng: That's a very important question, Mr. Chair. There's nothing more important to me and to our government than getting these supports out to businesses. Those small businesses that will meet the expanded CEBA criteria are working very diligently with the financial institutions to make sure that they can get access to those loans as quickly as possible.\nMr. James Cumming: Can the minister give me a day when that will happen?\nHon. Mary Ng: The financial institutions are working very hard to make sure that they can make this available to businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: When will a sole proprietor be able to go for those loans?\nHon. Mary Ng: We will work very hard and very diligently to make sure that these businesses and those sole proprietors are supported.\nMr. James Cumming: Could they go on Monday?\nHon. Mary Ng: There is nothing more important than making sure these businesses weather the difficult time of COVID-19, and our measures are\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How about Tuesday?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think we will all agree that getting support to these businesses is absolutely crucial. Our commitment is always going to be to get support to these businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: I can't get a distinct answer on any of those questions. Can you tell me how much headroom is left on the CEBA program?\nHon. Mary Ng: Today, over 630,000 businesses have received the support to do things like pay for salaries, the 25% top-up for the wage subsidy, pay for rent and pay for insurance and utilities. This is what these loans are helping our small\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars are left in the program so businesses can have some certainty that the program will be available for some time?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think you will see that the businesses across the country that I have talked to really appreciate that the government has stepped up to help them during this difficult time. These include women with businesses, indigenous-owned businesses and those small businesses all across our communities, all across the country, that are getting the necessary help. We are going to keep\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars? It can't be that complicated. How many dollars?\nHon. Mary Ng: There are 630,000 businesses that are getting help, and thousands more businesses will be getting help with the expanded criteria. We're going to keep doing the work that we need to help our businesses across this country through this difficult time.\nMr. James Cumming: I heard from a constituent in my riding that they waited for over four hours on the portal for CECRA. Is there an issue with the portal, and if so, when will it be fixed?\nHon. Mary Ng: Making sure that businesses get the help for commercial rent support is absolutely crucial right now. We are going to endeavour to make sure that this help gets out to those small businesses. Applications have opened in a staggered way and\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have time for one last short question, Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Finally, the Prime Minister yesterday said that a list of all organizations that have been receiving CEWS will be made public. When will that be done?\nHon. Mary Ng: We have committed to making sure that those companies taking the wage subsidy program will be listed publicly. We have committed to doing that and we will do so.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We now go to Mr. d'Entremont from West Nova. Mr. d'Entremont, go ahead.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, but I thought I would say this first. The Canadian Coast Guard is doing a search at this moment following the loss of a vessel off the coast of Newfoundland. From my community, which is a seafaring, fishing community, I just want to put my thoughts out there to the folks of Newfoundland. We are definitely thinking of them during this difficult time. My first question revolves around the lobster fishery. It's been open in Cape Breton since May 15, I believe. The weather has been good. The harvesters have been going at it every day. The price has dropped to $4.25 already. Unstable markets will probably cause it to drop even more. What is the minister doing to make sure the lobster industry survives?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleague for his comments with regard to the tragic accident off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we saw the loss of life in a fishing accident. Of course, as coastal people, we are all in solidarity with the people of Newfoundland right now. We know that the fish and seafood sector has taken extreme hits because of COVID-19. We're working diligently to make sure we support the industry as best we can. We have made available over half a billion dollars to processors and harvesters to make sure they can weather this storm. We have made sure that the harvesters are able to access the harvester benefit as well as the grant, recognizing the unique nature of their business and how they are not able to access some of our other programs. We are continuing to monitor what is happening in the industry. We will continue to make sure we do everything we can to support the fish and seafood sector.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, to continue along this vein for a moment, we are still looking at unstable markets for a longer period of time. At this point, processors are being selective in what they're buying. They're not buying culls and other kinds of lobsters. The plants are filling up, and harvesters are worried that they might stop buying product before the season is complete. What can the fishermen expect, or what kinds of programs can they expect, if the season goes bust?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Chair, we know that this is a very challenging season for our harvesters. We also know that because of the decline in markets, we've had to make accommodations for the processing sector in order to help them be better able to support the harvesters. We have put in $62.5 million, which is allowing the processors to increase capacity in their refrigeration and freezers so that they will continue to be able to purchase product. As I said earlier, we will continue to monitor the situation and make sure we do everything possible to support our harvesters. This is a very difficult\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. d'Entremont.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this next question will go to the Minister of DFO or the Minister of Transport. Oakley Ryerson is a resident of West Nova. He is planning a career on the sea and wants to get his master class four. The problem is that he can't pass the eye exam. He needs full-colour vision. For those who are far-sighted or nearsighted, you just have to put on your glasses to correct it. You can actually fly airplanes. I don't know about space shuttles, but who knows? You can now wear colour-corrected lenses, but Transport Canada still does not recognize these for use. Can the Minister of Transport help Ryerson in attaining his chosen profession?\nHon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport): Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern of my colleague for one of the residents in his riding. I would ask him to write to me and lay out the situation. We have medical standards with respect to a number of different kinds of transportation-related jobs for pilots, mariners and those kinds of occupations, which have to be respected. However, if he sends me the details, I will look into it personally.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. d'Entremont, you have another 20 to 25 seconds left.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr.Chair, the eligibility criteria for financial support include the need to demonstrate a significant loss of income during the months of March and April, yet several SMEs in the tourism industry can't qualify because their operations start with the tourist season, in late May or early June. What will the government do to help them?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, before accessing the emergency wage subsidy, applicants must meet important criteria. However, as we explained last week, we will be adjusting the wage subsidy until the end of August, and we will be reviewing the criteria.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're going to go to the west coast and the member for SaanichGulf Islands. Ms. May, go ahead.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is with regard to the urgent problem of mental health crises across Canada. My colleague, Jenica Atwin from Fredericton, held a press conference this morning in which she used the term echo pandemic. We will face an echo pandemic. We're already seeing increases in suicides on southern Vancouver Island. My question to the minister is this: Will we see direct funding to community mental health services as urgently requested by the Canadian Mental Health Association?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I read the honourable member's colleague's letter just today, and I want to reassure all members that we have invested in mental health supports for Canadians, obviously before the pandemic hit but certainly since we've been living with the pandemic. I'd like to remind all members to direct their constituents to the wellnesstogether.ca website and portal. There Canadians can find online resources, as well as connections to real and alive counsellors and other professionals who can help them with their various concerns.\nMs. Elizabeth May: This question relates to another current emergency: the climate emergency. This week it was reported that the concentration of greenhouse gases reached 417 parts per million. That's not just unprecedented over thousands of years; that's unprecedented over the last one million years. The temperatures in the Arctic broke 86F, 30C in the Arctic circle. The recognized parties in the House have established standing committees to work, but not the committee on the environment. We've asked for this in negotiations. When will the recognized parties remember the June 2019 emergency resolution that we are in a climate emergency, and start making sure that we hit 2020 commitments under the Paris Agreement to improve our targets?\nHon. Marc Garneau: Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's questions. I will remind her that we have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050. We've also committed to surpassing the targets that we had originally set for 2030. We realize that along with the COVID pandemic, which is the major problem that exists in the world today, there is another problem as well that affects the entire planet, and that is the problem associated with climate change. We remain committed to achieving those targets.\nMs. Elizabeth May: My next question will be for Minister Blair, but as an aside, I will say that last answer completely fails to meet the legal requirements of the Paris Agreement to file a new target this year. To save some time, Minister Blair, let's pretend to go back to the questions from my colleague MP Paul-Hus and to your last answer. This is dealt with on a case-by-case basis by CBSA agents. There are thousands of them. They are exercising personal, subjective judgment. This is not acceptable. I'm begging the minister. Could the minister please put out a directive, advice to every CBSA agent on the ground, that when a non-status entry point sees a non-status direct relativehusband, wife, child of a Canadian citizenthat relative be deemed to be entering Canada for an essential purpose?\nHon. Bill Blair: I'd like to thank the member for bringing this issue forward again. It's an important one. We have been working very hard to ensure that we do everything possible to keep families together. At the same time, we've been working with the provinces and territories, listening to the concerns of Canadians about ensuring that travel across our international border, particularly with the United States, is limited to essential travel. As I've indicated, I've had a number of important conversations and necessary conversations with our provincial and territorial partners. I believe there is a consensus on the right way forward on this, and we're working very diligently to put it in place. I want to assure the member opposite that we have given very clear direction to our CBSA officers. I believe our border services officers have been doing an extraordinary job for us in the exercise of their discretion. At the same time, they have been doing the important work of ensuring the health and safety of Canadians at our border.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're now going to Ms. Kwan for Vancouver East. Ms. Kwan, go ahead.\nMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Four out of the five homes listed in the armed forces report were for-profit. It is painfully clear that corporate profits are being put ahead of the well-being of seniors. Will the minister admit that the for-profit model is failing our loved ones and commit to getting profits out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member opposite notes, nobody can read that report or hear those stories without feeling absolute horror and disgust and without demanding better for the elders in our lives. As I have mentioned many times in the House, our government remains committed to working with provinces and territories to ensure that every elder person in our community can age with dignity and in safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Minister, if that's the case, I will ask again. Will the minister make sure that the focus of long-term care homes is taking care of seniors and not taking care of owners' bank accounts?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member will obviously know, long-term care remains in the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, and there is legislation that rules them as such. As the member also knows, we have stood by Ontario and all of the other provinces and territories throughout this outbreak. The Prime Minister has been very clear\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Is the minister refusing to answer the question because she agrees that profit should come before care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: I think it's unfortunate that the member is trying to place words in my mouth. What I do agree with, though, is that long-term care needs to be reformed, and I think all provinces and territories know, and all Canadians know, that we have to do a better job.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: It's simple for the minister. She can just answer the question. Is she willing to defend for-profit care for our seniors? Is she in favour of for-profit private health care too?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: What I am willing to defend is the right for all Canadians to age with safety and dignity.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: To the minister, what is the difference? Why sell out the care of our seniors? Will she commit that she will take profit out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I think the member opposite knows that the only way to actually reform long-term care is to work with provinces and territories, in fact, all levels of government, to ensure that the people who spent their lives caring for and nurturing us can end their lives with caring and nurturing\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I think the minister knows that what we need is national standards for seniors' care. The Revera long-term care homes are owned by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Since the government owns these homes, has the military been sent in there to see what's happening to seniors under their care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, we know that it is important to work with all of the provinces and territories under whose jurisdiction it falls to protect the seniors within those care homes. That's what we've been doing since the beginning of the outbreak of the coronavirus, and that's what we'll continue to do to protect the lives of seniors and strengthen their protection. We will, as I said, Mr. Chair, work with the provinces and territories to have a longer-term plan so that all seniors can age with dignity and safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: The government has a clear responsibility here. What is the government doing to ensure the standards of care in these Revera homes that they own?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as I have repeatedly said, the jurisdiction for care of long-term care homes falls within the provincial and territorial realm. However, that being said, Mr. Chair, we have been there for provinces and territories since the outbreak of the coronavirus, and as the member opposite has clearly or likely heard the Prime Minister say, we will stand with provinces and territories as all elders have the right to age with dignity\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I didn't hear an answer, Mr. Chair, so the answer is nothing, then. Do you think that the families of the seniors in these homes want to hear those excuses about jurisdictional issues? Does the minister not think that the families want to hear that the federal government is doing all it can to care for their parents?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I would remind the members to direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quite frankly, I don't think that families care which level of government is responsible for caring for their elders. I think what they care about is that their elders are cared for. That's in fact what the Prime Minister believes. That's in fact what our government believes, and that's why we have willingly stepped up to say to provinces and territories that we will be there with you to make sure that all seniors in our lives have the right to age with dignity and care.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now give the floor to Mrs.Gill, from the riding of Manicouagan. Go ahead, Mrs.Gill.\nMrs. Marilne Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr.Chair, my question is for the Prime Minister who, earlier, clearly told us that the government's assistance is intended for those who are most in need and most vulnerable. I come from a riding where a lot of people make their living from the tourism industry. I don't know if the PrimeMinister read the newspapers yesterday, but in Quebec, losses to the tune of $4billion are expected until March2021 in the tourism accommodation sector alone. The service sector will lose 93,000jobs. How can I justify to my constituents the fact that a political party, which does not need it, has already seen money from the emergency wage subsidy, when people in my riding don't yet have access to it because of the seasonal nature of their work? These people haven't seen the money that is available through these programs.\nHon. Bill Morneau: We think it is very important to protect the country's employees in all sectors of the economy. Through this approach, there will be more jobs after the pandemic, and the economic situation will be better. We will continue this approach.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, this is the wrong approach. They are saying that they are protecting the jobs of the Liberal Party of Canada, which does not need the money. I'll ask a question similar to the previous one. Fishers in my riding did not qualify for the emergency wage subsidy. Another program was created for them, which isn't quite the same and doesn't really meet their needs. A government whose political wingnot the parliamentary wingdoesn't really need money takes money from the fund, but leaves fishers to make do with less generous programs that don't meet their needs. What do I tell the fishers in my riding?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we know that many sectors of the economy across the country are facing challenges. That's why we have adopted an approach with consistent criteria for all employees in all sectors. We have also introduced specific measures to help certain sectors, such as the fishing industry. We will continue our approach because we believe it's the best way to protect employees and our economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I'm still not satisfied. The government is saying that the best way to proceed is to give money to the political wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, when there are people who are getting nothing. What am I supposed to tell seasonal workers, who have absolutely no assurances for their future? I can't go back to my riding and say I'm proud of the work the government is doing or our efforts in the House. It's true, the House is closed right now. I forgot. I have a very hard time accepting that the government is helping employees of the Liberal Party in preparation for the next election campaign, when communities in my region are dying because their economies revolve around a single industry. I can't tell them I'm not ashamed of what's going on as we speak.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we felt it was necessary to put emergency programs in place in response to the crisis during the pandemic. That is our approach. The emergency wage subsidy is a program that is clearly meant to ensure employees are protected and maintain their relationship with their employer. As for the Canada emergency response benefit, it means a lot to people who don't have a job. We are going to stick to our approach, which is to use consistent criteria to help all employees and all Canadians around the country struggling in any sector of the economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I think the honourable Minister of Finance lives in an ivory tower. No, he is not protecting all jobs. No, he is not protecting all sectors of the economy. Once again, I will say that a party that doesn't need money has already received subsidies. However, people who need that money, people who are actually losing money or who don't know if they'll even be working this summer are getting zilch. There is absolutely no justifying that. I'd at least like to know whether the government is ashamed of what it's doing. When people have a conscience, eventually, they want to make up for their mistakes. Are the Liberals going to return that money? Is the finance minister going to help all sectors of the economy, including tourism, fisheries and seasonal industries?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I'd like to thank the member for her question. Our approach is based on consistent criteria. The emergency wage subsidy is meant for any sector of the economy where revenues have dropped by 30% or more. The measure is hugely important for organizations that are really struggling, because we can protect their workers. We are also providing the Canada emergency response benefit to other employees, meaning, those who have lost their income because of COVID-19. Consequently, we will keep up our approach to ensure we continue to fare as well as possible and the economy works well after the pandemic.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Now we'll go to our last group of interventions, and that will be from Ms. Jansen in CloverdaleLangley City. Ms. Jansen, go ahead.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen (CloverdaleLangley City, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin with a shout-out to the brave waiters and waitresses at our local Earls restaurant and Browns Socialhouse, who have been opened again for on-site dining this week. Here in B.C. we're beginning to find our new normal, and it was great to see how small businesses have so quickly adapted their establishments to keep their workers and patrons safe while allowing people to get back to the business of living. You guys rock. Thanks for taking the lead. Mr. Chair, here in my riding I recently had contact with the mayor of Langley City who was wondering if I had any way of accessing personal protective gear, because our local firefighters were running out of stock. Then again yesterday, I spoke with one of our local homeless shelters that is also looking for PPE. Dr. Tam is telling all Canadians to wear masks in public, but I'm wondering if the Minister of Public Service and Procurement could tell us where exactly we're going to get all those masks with the current shortage.\nHon. Anita Anand: I want to be clear that our priority as a federal government has been to respond to provincial and territorial requests for PPE that goes to front-line health care workers. That is our priority, and we've been procuring goods aggressively in domestic and international markets. We are now actively also exploring ways in which we can assist broader organizations across the country with PPE needs, and that is something that I'll continue to update the House on as we go forward.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: A Globe and Mail article revealed that government orders for N95 masks have steadily been dropping. We've gone from over 200 million ordered to 100 million, according to a federal source. Mr. Chair, the number of N95 masks ordered, as reported on the department's website, does continue to fall. Will the minister tell us why we seem to continue to struggle to supply PPE to Canadians?\nHon. Anita Anand: It is no secret that we are in a global competition for N95 masks and other supplies, so the Government of Canada's approach is to diversify supply chains internationally and build up and retool domestic industry so that we can have these supplies going forward. In terms of the numbers on our web page, we have short-term and long-term contracts in place\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Jansen.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: Yes, I understand that a number of Chinese mask manufacturers have been nationalized, and products for Canadians have been confiscated by the CCP government. Is the drop in N95 orders due to, in actual fact, contracts being cancelled?\nHon. Anita Anand: On N95 masks, I would like to assure the member and the House that we have multiple contracts in place for the procurement of N95 masks, including with 3M in the United States, whose masks are crossing our border weekly over the next month.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: That didn't quite answer my question. Have any of our orders been cancelled by the nationalization of these manufacturers in China?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have an aide in place in China. We have our embassy and other firms actively ensuring that our supplies from the manufacturing source make their way to the warehouse. Over 40 flights have come to Canada with those masks and other supplies. Our supply chains are operating despite the global environment being highly competitive.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: We know many millions of N95 masks have arrived in Canada from China and have been substandard. What is the total number of substandard masks that have arrived?\nHon. Anita Anand: Mr. Chair, as previously explained to the House, about eight million masks did not meet spec by the Public Health Agency of Canada and have been repurposed to some extent in other areas of the system.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: In a previous committee, the deputy minister advised us that Medicom was shoulder-tapped by the government to consider producing PPE. How many other companies did the government approach for this contract?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have operated in a very urgent way in order to procure supplies for front-line health care workers. We are now also moving to ensure that we have competitions run for the procurement of personal protective equipment. It's a multi-pronged approach, and our priority is to get supplies out to front-line health care workers in this time of crisis as quickly as possible. Thank you so much.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Just before we adjourn, I think this another mark of accomplishment on behalf of the great team here at the House of Commons. There have been some great efforts, even since yesterday evening, to get this turned around for today. My compliments to all members joining us here in the House and to all members who have joined by virtual conference. The committee is now adjourned until noon tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned.\n\nNow, answer the query based on the above meeting transcript in one or more sentences.\n\nQuery: What policy the government was going to roll out to ease the deficit?\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 116, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["Her husband abused her"], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory:  Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nGALSWORTHY PLAYS\n\nSECOND SERIES--NO. 1\n\n\nJUSTICE\n\nBy John Galsworthy\n\n\n\nPERSONS OF THE PLAY\n\n JAMES HOW, solicitor\n WALTER HOW, solicitor\n ROBERT COKESON, their managing clerk\n WILLIAM FALDER, their junior clerk\n SWEEDLE, their office-boy\n WISTER, a detective\n COWLEY, a cashier\n MR. JUSTICE FLOYD, a judge\n HAROLD CLEAVER, an old advocate\n HECTOR FROME, a young advocate\n CAPTAIN DANSON, V.C., a prison governor\n THE REV. HUGH MILLER, a prison chaplain\n EDWARD CLEMENT, a prison doctor\n WOODER, a chief warder\n MOANEY, convict\n CLIFTON, convict\n O'CLEARY, convict\n RUTH HONEYWILL, a woman\n A NUMBER OF BARRISTERS, SOLICITERS, SPECTATORS, USHERS, REPORTERS,\n JURYMEN, WARDERS, AND PRISONERS\n\n\n\n  TIME: The Present.\n\n\n  ACT I. The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.  July.\n\n  ACT II. Assizes.  Afternoon.  October.\n\n  ACT III.  A prison.  December.\n       SCENE I.  The Governor's office.\n       SCENE II.  A corridor.\n       SCENE III.  A cell.\n\n  ACT IV.  The office of James and Walter How.  Morning.\n            March, two years later.\n\n\n\nCAST OF THE FIRST PRODUCTION\n\n   AT THE DUKE OF YORK'S THEATRE, FEBRUARY 21, 1910\n\n   James How           MR.  SYDNEY VALENTINE\n   Walter How          MR.  CHARLES MAUDE\n   Cokeson             MR.  EDMUND GWENN\n   Falder              MR.  DENNIS EADIE\n   The Office-boy      MR.  GEORGE HERSEE\n   The Detective       MR.  LESLIE CARTER\n   The Cashier         MR.  C. E. VERNON\n   The Judge           MR.  DION BOUCICAULT\n   The Old Advocate    MR.  OSCAR ADYE\n   The Young Advocate  MR.  CHARLES BRYANT\n   The Prison Governor MR.  GRENDON BENTLEY\n   The Prison Chaplain MR.  HUBERT HARBEN\n   The Prison Doctor   MR.  LEWIS CASSON\n   Wooder              MR.  FREDERICK LLOYD\n   Moaney              MR.  ROBERT PATEMAN\n   Clipton             MR.  O. P. HEGGIE\n   O'Cleary            MR.  WHITFORD KANE\n   Ruth Honeywill      Miss EDYTH OLIVE\n\n\n\n\nACT I\n\n     The scene is the managing clerk's room, at the offices of James\n     and Walter How, on a July morning.  The room is old fashioned,\n     furnished with well-worn  mahogany and leather, and lined with\n     tin boxes and   estate plans.  It has three doors.  Two of them\n     are close together in the centre of a wall.  One of these two\n     doors leads to the outer office, which is only divided from the\n     managing clerk's room by a   partition of wood and clear glass;\n     and when the door into this outer office is opened there can be\n     seen the wide outer door leading out on to the stone stairway of\n     the building.  The other of these two   centre doors leads to\n     the junior clerk's room.  The third door is that leading to the\n     partners' room.\n\n     The managing clerk, COKESON, is sitting at his table adding up\n     figures in a pass-book, and murmuring their numbers to himself.\n     He is a man of sixty, wearing spectacles; rather short, with a\n     bald head, and an honest, pugdog face.  He is dressed in a\n     well-worn black frock-coat and pepper-and-salt trousers.\n\nCOKESON.  And five's twelve, and three--fifteen, nineteen,\ntwenty-three, thirty-two, forty-one-and carry four. [He ticks the\npage, and goes on murmuring]  Five, seven, twelve, seventeen,\ntwenty-four and nine, thirty-three, thirteen and carry one.\n\n     He again makes a tick.  The outer office door is opened, and\n     SWEEDLE, the office-boy, appears, closing the door behind him.\n     He is a pale youth of sixteen, with spiky hair.\n\nCOKESON.  [With grumpy expectation]  And carry one.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's a party wants to see Falder, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Five, nine, sixteen, twenty-one, twenty-nine--and carry\ntwo.  Send him to Morris's.  What name?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Honeywill.\n\nCOKESON.  What's his business?\n\nSWEEDLE.  It's a woman.\n\nCOKESON.  A lady?\n\nSWEEDLE.  No, a person.\n\nCOKESON.  Ask her in.  Take this pass-book to Mr. James.  [He closes\nthe pass-book.]\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Reopening the door]  Will you come in, please?\n\n     RUTH HONEYWILL comes in.  She is a tall woman, twenty-six years\n     old, unpretentiously dressed, with black hair and eyes, and an\n     ivory-white, clear-cut face.  She stands very still, having a\n     natural dignity of pose and gesture.\n\n     SWEEDLE goes out into the partners' room with the pass-book.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking round at RUTH]  The young man's out.\n[Suspiciously]  State your business, please.\n\nRUTH.  [Who speaks in a matter-of-fact voice, and with a slight\nWest-Country accent]  It's a personal matter, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  We don't allow private callers here.  Will you leave a\nmessage?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather see him, please.\n\n     She narrows her dark eyes and gives him a honeyed look.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expanding]  It's all against the rules.  Suppose I had my\nfriends here to see me!  It'd never do!\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [A little taken aback]  Exactly!  And here you are wanting\nto see a junior clerk!\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir; I must see him.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning full round to her with a sort of outraged\ninterest]  But this is a lawyer's office.  Go to his private address.\n\nRUTH.  He's not there.\n\nCOKESON.  [Uneasy]  Are you related to the party?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [In real embarrassment]  I don't know what to say.  It's no\naffair of the office.\n\nRUTH.  But what am I to do?\n\nCOKESON.  Dear me!  I can't tell you that.\n\n     SWEEDLE comes back.  He crosses to the outer office and passes\n     through into it, with a quizzical look at Cokeson, carefully\n     leaving the door an inch or two open.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fortified by this look]  This won't do, you know, this\nwon't do at all.  Suppose one of the partners came in!\n\n     An incoherent knocking and chuckling is heard from the outer\n     door of the outer office.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Putting his head in]  There's some children outside here.\n\nRUTH.  They're mine, please.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I hold them in check?\n\nRUTH.  They're quite small, sir. [She takes a step towards COKESON]\n\nCOKESON.  You mustn't take up his time in office hours; we're a clerk\nshort as it is.\n\nRUTH.  It's a matter of life and death.\n\nCOKESON.  [Again outraged]  Life and death!\n\nSWEEDLE.  Here is Falder.\n\n     FALDER has entered through the outer office.  He is a pale,\n     good-looking young man, with quick, rather scared eyes.  He\n     moves towards the door of the clerks' office, and stands there\n     irresolute.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll give you a minute.  It's not regular.\n\n     Taking up a bundle of papers, he goes out into the partners'\n     room.\n\nRUTH.  [In a low, hurried voice]  He's on the drink again, Will.  He\ntried to cut my throat last night.  I came out with the children\nbefore he was awake.  I went round to you.\n\nFALDER.  I've changed my digs.\n\nRUTH.  Is it all ready for to-night?\n\nFALDER.  I've got the tickets.  Meet me 11.45 at the booking office.\nFor God's sake don't forget we're man and wife!  [Looking at her with\ntragic intensity]  Ruth!\n\nRUTH.  You're not afraid of going, are you?\n\nFALDER.  Have you got your things, and the children's?\n\nRUTH.  Had to leave them, for fear of waking Honeywill, all but one\nbag.  I can't go near home again.\n\nFALDER.  [Wincing]  All that money gone for nothing.\nHow much must you have?\n\nRUTH.  Six pounds--I could do with that, I think.\n\nFALDER.  Don't give away where we're going.  [As if to himself]  When\nI get out there I mean to forget it all.\n\nRUTH.  If you're sorry, say so.  I'd sooner he killed me than take\nyou against your will.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer smile]  We've got to go.  I don't care; I'll\nhave you.\n\nRUTH.  You've just to say; it's not too late.\n\nFALDER.  It is too late.  Here's seven pounds.  Booking office 11.45\nto-night.  If you weren't what you are to me, Ruth----!\n\nRUTH.  Kiss me!\n\n     They cling together passionately, there fly apart just as\n     COKESON re-enters the room.  RUTH turns and goes out through the\n     outer office.  COKESON advances deliberately to his chair and\n     seats himself.\n\nCOKESON.  This isn't right, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  It shan't occur again, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  It's an improper use of these premises.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  You quite understand-the party was in some distress; and,\nhaving children with her, I allowed my feelings----[He opens a\ndrawer and produces from it a tract]  Just take this!  \"Purity in the\nHome.\"  It's a well-written thing.\n\nFALDER.  [Taking it, with a peculiar expression]  Thank you, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  And look here, Falder, before Mr. Walter comes, have you\nfinished up that cataloguing Davis had in hand before he left?\n\nFALDER.  I shall have done with it to-morrow, sir--for good.\n\nCOKESON.  It's over a week since Davis went.  Now it won't do,\nFalder.  You're neglecting your work for private life.  I shan't\nmention about the party having called, but----\n\nFALDER.  [Passing into his room] Thank you, sir.\n\n     COKESON stares at the door through which FALDER has gone out;\n     then shakes his head, and is just settling down to write, when\n     WALTER How comes in through the outer Office.  He is a rather\n     refined-looking man of thirty-five, with a pleasant, almost\n     apologetic voice.\n\nWALTER.  Good-morning, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Morning, Mr. Walter.\n\nWALTER.  My father here?\n\nCOKESON.  [Always with a certain patronage as to a young man who\nmight be doing better]  Mr. James has been here since eleven o'clock.\n\nWALTER.  I've been in to see the pictures, at the Guildhall.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as though this were exactly what was to be\nexpected]  Have you now--ye--es.  This lease of Boulter's--am I to\nsend it to counsel?\n\nWALTER.  What does my father say?\n\nCOKESON.  'Aven't bothered him.\n\nWALTER.  Well, we can't be too careful.\n\nCOKESON.  It's such a little thing--hardly worth the fees.  I thought\nyou'd do it yourself.\n\nWALTER.  Send it, please.  I don't want the responsibility.\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indescribable air of compassion]  Just as you\nlike.  This \"right-of-way\" case--we've got 'em on the deeds.\n\nWALTER.  I know; but the intention was obviously to exclude that bit\nof common ground.\n\nCOKESON.  We needn't worry about that.  We're the right side of the\nlaw.\n\nWALTER.  I don't like it,\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  We shan't want to set ourselves\nup against the law.  Your father wouldn't waste his time doing that.\n\n     As he speaks JAMES How comes in from the partners' room.  He is\n     a shortish man, with white side-whiskers, plentiful grey hair,\n     shrewd eyes, and gold pince-nez.\n\nJAMES.  Morning, Walter.\n\nWALTER.  How are you, father?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking down his nose at the papers in his hand as though\ndeprecating their size] I'll just take Boulter's lease in to young\nFalder to draft the instructions. [He goes out into FALDER'S room.]\n\nWALTER.  About that right-of-way case?\n\nJAMES.  Oh, well, we must go forward there.  I thought you told me\nyesterday the firm's balance was over four hundred.\n\nWALTER.  So it is.\n\nJAMES.  [Holding out the pass-book to his son] Three--five--one, no\nrecent cheques.  Just get me out the cheque-book.\n\n     WALTER goes to a cupboard, unlocks a drawer and produces a\n     cheque-book.\n\nJAMES.  Tick the pounds in the counterfoils.  Five, fifty-four,\nseven, five, twenty-eight, twenty, ninety, eleven, fifty-two,\nseventy-one.  Tally?\n\nWALTER.  [Nodding]  Can't understand.  Made sure it was over four\nhundred.\n\nJAMES.  Give me the cheque-book.  [He takes the check-book and cons\nthe counterfoils] What's this ninety?\n\nWALTER.  Who drew it?\n\nJAMES.  You.\n\nWALTER.  [Taking the cheque-book]  July 7th?  That's the day I went\ndown to look over the Trenton Estate--last Friday week; I came back\non the Tuesday, you remember.  But look here, father, it was nine I\ndrew a cheque for.  Five guineas to Smithers and my expenses.  It\njust covered all but half a crown.\n\nJAMES.  [Gravely]  Let's look at that ninety cheque.  [He sorts the\ncheque out from the bundle in the pocket of the pass-book] Seems all\nright.  There's no nine here.  This is bad.  Who cashed that\nnine-pound cheque?\n\nWALTER.  [Puzzled and pained]  Let's see!  I was finishing Mrs.\nReddy's will--only just had time; yes--I gave it to Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Look at that 't' 'y': that yours?\n\nWALTER.  [After consideration]  My y's curl back a little; this\ndoesn't.\n\nJAMES.  [As COKESON re-enters from FALDER'S room]  We must ask him.\nJust come here and carry your mind back a bit, Cokeson.  D'you\nremember cashing a cheque for Mr. Walter last Friday week--the day\nhe went to Trenton?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  Nine pounds.\n\nJAMES.  Look at this.  [Handing him the cheque.]\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nine pounds.  My lunch was just coming in; and of\ncourse I like it hot; I gave the cheque to Davis to run round to the\nbank.  He brought it back, all gold--you remember, Mr. Walter, you\nwanted some silver to pay your cab.  [With a certain contemptuous\ncompassion]  Here, let me see.  You've got the wrong cheque.\n\n     He takes cheque-book and pass-book from WALTER.\n\nWALTER.  Afraid not.\n\nCOKESON.  [Having seen for himself]  It's funny.\n\nJAMES.  You gave it to Davis, and Davis sailed for Australia on\nMonday.  Looks black, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Puzzled and upset]  why this'd be a felony!  No, no!\nthere's some mistake.\n\nJAMES.  I hope so.\n\nCOKESON.  There's never been anything of that sort in the office the\ntwenty-nine years I've been here.\n\nJAMES.  [Looking at cheque and counterfoil]  This is a very clever\nbit of work; a warning to you not to leave space after your figures,\nWalter.\n\nWALTER.  [Vexed]  Yes, I know--I was in such a tearing hurry that\nafternoon.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  This has upset me.\n\nJAMES.  The counterfoil altered too--very deliberate piece of\nswindling.  What was Davis's ship?\n\nWALTER.  'City of Rangoon'.\n\nJAMES.  We ought to wire and have him arrested at Naples; he can't be\nthere yet.\n\nCOKESON.  His poor young wife.  I liked the young man.  Dear, oh\ndear!  In this office!\n\nWALTER.  Shall I go to the bank and ask the cashier?\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly]  Bring him round here.  And ring up Scotland Yard.\n\nWALTER.  Really?\n\n     He goes out through the outer office.  JAMES paces the room.  He\n     stops and looks at COKESON, who is disconsolately rubbing the\n     knees of his trousers.\n\nJAMES.  Well, Cokeson!  There's something in character, isn't there?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him over his spectacles]  I don't quite take\nyou, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Your story, would sound d----d thin to any one who didn't\nknow you.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es!  [He laughs.  Then with a sudden gravity]  I'm sorry\nfor that young man.  I feel it as if it was my own son, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  A nasty business!\n\nCOKESON.  It unsettles you.  All goes on regular, and then a thing\nlike this happens.  Shan't relish my lunch to-day.\n\nJAMES.  As bad as that, Cokeson?\n\nCOKESON.  It makes you think.  [Confidentially]  He must have had\ntemptation.\n\nJAMES.  Not so fast.  We haven't convicted him yet.\n\nCOKESON.  I'd sooner have lost a month's salary than had this happen.\n    [He broods.]\n\nJAMES.  I hope that fellow will hurry up.\n\nCOKESON.  [Keeping things pleasant for the cashier]  It isn't fifty\nyards, Mr. James.  He won't be a minute.\n\nJAMES.  The idea of dishonesty about this office it hits me hard,\nCokeson.\n\n     He goes towards the door of the partners' room.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering quietly, to COKESON in a low voice]  She's popped\nup again, sir-something she forgot to say to Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  [Roused from his abstraction]  Eh?  Impossible.  Send her\naway!\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\nCOKESON.  Nothing, Mr. James.  A private matter.  Here, I'll come\nmyself.  [He goes into the outer office as JAMES passes into the\npartners' room]  Now, you really mustn't--we can't have anybody just\nnow.\n\nRUTH.  Not for a minute, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Reely!  Reely!  I can't have it.  If you want him, wait\nabout; he'll be going out for his lunch directly.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\n     WALTER, entering with the cashier, passes RUTH as she leaves the\n     outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  [To the cashier, who resembles a sedentary dragoon]\nGood-morning.  [To WALTER]  Your father's in there.\n\n     WALTER crosses and goes into the partners' room.\n\nCOKESON.  It's a nahsty, unpleasant little matter, Mr. Cowley.  I'm\nquite ashamed to have to trouble you.\n\nCOWLEY.  I remember the cheque quite well.  [As if it were a liver]\nSeemed in perfect order.\n\nCOKESON.  Sit down, won't you?  I'm not a sensitive man, but a thing\nlike this about the place--it's not nice.  I like people to be open\nand jolly together.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite so.\n\nCOKESON.  [Buttonholing him, and glancing toward the partners' room]\nOf course he's a young man.  I've told him about it before now--\nleaving space after his figures, but he will do it.\n\nCOWLEY.  I should remember the person's face--quite a youth.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't think we shall be able to show him to you, as a\nmatter of fact.\n\n     JAMES and WALTER have come back from the partners' room.\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley.  You've seen my son and myself,\nyou've seen Mr. Cokeson, and you've seen Sweedle, my office-boy.  It\nwas none of us, I take it.\n\n     The cashier shakes his head with a smile.\n\nJAMES.  Be so good as to sit there.  Cokeson, engage Mr. Cowley in\nconversation, will you?\n\n     He goes toward FALDER'S room.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nCOKESON.  You don't want to upset the young man in there, do you?\nHe's a nervous young feller.\n\nJAMES.  This must be thoroughly cleared up, Cokeson, for the sake of\nFalder's name, to say nothing of yours.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Some dignity] That'll look after itself, sir.  He's\nbeen upset once this morning; I don't want him startled again.\n\nJAMES.  It's a matter of form; but I can't stand upon niceness over a\nthing like this--too serious.  Just talk to Mr. Cowley.\n\n     He opens the door of FALDER'S room.\n\nJAMES.  Bring in the papers in Boulter's lease, will you, Falder?\n\nCOKESON.  [Bursting into voice]  Do you keep dogs?\n\n     The cashier, with his eyes fixed on the door, does not answer.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't such a thing as a bulldog pup you could spare\nme, I suppose?\n\n     At the look on the cashier's face his jaw drops, and he turns to\n     see FALDER standing in the doorway, with his eyes fixed on\n     COWLEY, like the eyes of a rabbit fastened on a snake.\n\nFALDER.  [Advancing with the papers] Here they are, sir!\n\nJAMES.  [Taking them] Thank you.\n\nFALDER.  Do you want me, sir?\n\nJAMES.  No, thanks!\n\n     FALDER turns and goes back into his own room.  As he shuts the\n     door JAMES gives the cashier an interrogative look, and the\n     cashier nods.\n\nJAMES.  Sure?  This isn't as we suspected.\n\nCOWLEY.  Quite.  He knew me.  I suppose he can't slip out of that\nroom?\n\nCOKESON.  [Gloomily]  There's only the window--a whole floor and a\nbasement.\n\n     The door of FALDER'S room is quietly opened, and FALDER, with\n     his hat in his hand, moves towards the door of the outer office.\n\nJAMES.  [Quietly]  Where are you going, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  To have my lunch, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Wait a few minutes, would you?  I want to speak to you about\nthis lease.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.  [He goes back into his room.]\n\nCOWLEY.  If I'm wanted, I can swear that's the young man who cashed\nthe cheque.  It was the last cheque I handled that morning before my\nlunch.  These are the numbers of the notes he had.  [He puts a slip\nof paper on the table; then, brushing his hat round]  Good-morning!\n\nJAMES.  Good-morning, Mr. Cowley!\n\nCOWLEY.  [To COKESON]  Good-morning.\n\nCOKESON.  [With Stupefaction]  Good-morning.\n\n     The cashier goes out through the outer office. COKESON sits down\n     in his chair, as though it were the only place left in the\n     morass of his feelings.\n\nWALTER.  What are you going to do?\n\nJAMES.  Have him in.  Give me the cheque and the counterfoil.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.  I thought young Davis----\n\nJAMES.  We shall see.\n\nWALTER.  One moment, father: have you thought it out?\n\nJAMES.  Call him in!\n\nCOKESON.  [Rising with difficulty and opening FALDER'S door;\nhoarsely]  Step in here a minute.\n\nFALDER.  [Impassively]  Yes, sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Turning to him suddenly with the cheque held out]  You know\nthis cheque, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nJADES.  Look at it.  You cashed it last Friday week.\n\nFALDER.  Oh! yes, sir; that one--Davis gave it me.\n\nJAMES.  I know. And you gave Davis the cash?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir.\n\nJAMES.  When Davis gave you the cheque was it exactly like this?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I think so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  You know that Mr. Walter drew that cheque for nine pounds?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--ninety.\n\nJAMES.  Nine, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  I don't understand, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The suggestion, of course, is that the cheque was altered;\nwhether by you or Davis is the question.\n\nFALDER.  I--I\n\nCOKESON.  Take your time, take your time.\n\nFALDER.  [Regaining his impassivity]  Not by me, sir.\n\nJAMES.  The cheque was handed to--Cokeson by Mr. Walter at one\no'clock; we know that because Mr. Cokeson's lunch had just arrived.\n\nCOKESON.  I couldn't leave it.\n\nJAMES.  Exactly; he therefore gave the cheque to Davis.  It was\ncashed by you at 1.15.  We know that because the cashier recollects\nit for the last cheque he handled before his lunch.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, Davis gave it to me because some friends were\ngiving him a farewell luncheon.\n\nJAMES.  [Puzzled] You accuse Davis, then?\n\nFALDER.  I don't know, sir--it's very funny.\n\n     WALTER, who has come close to his father, says something to him\n     in a low voice.\n\nJAMES.  Davis was not here again after that Saturday, was he?\n\nCOKESON.  [Anxious to be of assistance to the young man, and seeing\nfaint signs of their all being jolly once more] No, he sailed on the\nMonday.\n\nJAMES.  Was he, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [Very faintly]  No, sir.\n\nJAMES.  Very well, then, how do you account for the fact that this\nnought was added to the nine in the counterfoil on or after Tuesday?\n\nCOKESON.  [Surprised]  How's that?\n\n     FALDER gives a sort of lurch; he tries to pull himself together,\n     but he has gone all to pieces.\n\nJAMES.  [Very grimly]  Out, I'm afraid, Cokeson.  The cheque-book\nremained in Mr. Walter's pocket till he came back from Trenton on\nTuesday morning.  In the face of this, Falder, do you still deny that\nyou altered both cheque and counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir--no, Mr. How.  I did it, sir; I did it.\n\nCOKESON.  [Succumbing to his feelings]  Dear, dear! what a thing to\ndo!\n\nFALDER.  I wanted the money so badly, sir.  I didn't know what I was\ndoing.\n\nCOKESON.  However such a thing could have come into your head!\n\nFALDER.  [Grasping at the words]  I can't think, sir, really!  It was\njust a minute of madness.\n\nJAMES.  A long minute, Falder.  [Tapping the counterfoil] Four days\nat least.\n\nFALDER.  Sir, I swear I didn't know what I'd done till afterwards,\nand then I hadn't the pluck.  Oh!  Sir, look over it!  I'll pay the\nmoney back--I will, I promise.\n\nJAMES.  Go into your room.\n\n     FALDER, with a swift imploring look, goes back into his room.\n     There is silence.\n\nJAMES.  About as bad a case as there could be.\n\nCOKESON.  To break the law like that-in here!\n\nWALTER.  What's to be done?\n\nJAMES.  Nothing for it.  Prosecute.\n\nWALTER.  It's his first offence.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head]  I've grave doubts of that.  Too neat a\npiece of swindling altogether.\n\nCOKESON.  I shouldn't be surprised if he was tempted.\n\nJAMES.  Life's one long temptation, Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm speaking of the flesh and the devil, Mr.\nJames.  There was a woman come to see him this morning.\n\nWALTER.  The woman we passed as we came in just now.  Is it his wife?\n\nCOKESON.  No, no relation.  [Restraining what in jollier\ncircumstances would have been a wink]  A married person, though.\n\nWALTER.  How do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Brought her children.  [Scandalised]  There they were\noutside the office.\n\nJAMES.  A real bad egg.\n\nWALTER.  I should like to give him a chance.\n\nJAMES.  I can't forgive him for the sneaky way he went to work--\ncounting on our suspecting young Davis if the matter came to light.\nIt was the merest accident the cheque-book stayed in your pocket.\n\nWALTER.  It must have been the temptation of a moment.  He hadn't\ntime.\n\nJAMES.  A man doesn't succumb like that in a moment, if he's a clean\nmind and habits.  He's rotten; got the eyes of a man who can't keep\nhis hands off when there's money about.\n\nWALTER.  [Dryly] We hadn't noticed that before.\n\nJAMES.  [Brushing the remark aside] I've seen lots of those fellows\nin my time.  No doing anything with them except to keep 'em out of\nharm's way.  They've got a blind spat.\n\nWALTER.  It's penal servitude.\n\nCOKESON.  They're nahsty places-prisons.\n\nJAMES.  [Hesitating] I don't see how it's possible to spare him.  Out\nof the question to keep him in this office--honesty's the 'sine qua\nnon'.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hypnotised] Of course it is.\n\nJAMES.  Equally out of the question to send him out amongst people\nwho've no knowledge of his character.  One must think of society.\n\nWALTER.  But to brand him like this?\n\nJAMES.  If it had been a straightforward case I'd give him another\nchance.  It's far from that.  He has dissolute habits.\n\nCOKESON.  I didn't say that--extenuating circumstances.\n\nJAMES.  Same thing.  He's gone to work in the most cold-blooded way\nto defraud his employers, and cast the blame on an innocent man.  If\nthat's not a case for the law to take its course, I don't know what\nis.\n\nWALTER.  For the sake of his future, though.\n\nJAMES.  [Sarcastically]  According to you, no one would ever\nprosecute.\n\nWALTER.  [Nettled]  I hate the idea of it.\n\nCOKESON.  That's rather 'ex parte', Mr. Walter!  We must have\nprotection.\n\nJAMES.  This is degenerating into talk.\n\n     He moves towards the partners' room.\n\nWALTER.  Put yourself in his place, father.\n\nJAMES.  You ask too much of me.\n\nWALTER.  We can't possibly tell the pressure there was on him.\n\nJAMES.  You may depend on it, my boy, if a man is going to do this\nsort of thing he'll do it, pressure or no pressure; if he isn't\nnothing'll make him.\n\nWALTER.  He'll never do it again.\n\nCOKESON.  [Fatuously] S'pose I were to have a talk with him.  We\ndon't want to be hard on the young man.\n\nJAMES.  That'll do, Cokeson.  I've made up my mind.  [He passes into\nthe partners' room.]\n\nCOKESON.  [After a doubtful moment]  We must excuse your father.  I\ndon't want to go against your father; if he thinks it right.\n\nWALTER.  Confound it, Cokeson! why don't you back me up?  You know\nyou feel----\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity]  I really can't say what I feel.\n\nWALTER.  We shall regret it.\n\nCOKESON.  He must have known what he was doing.\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly]  \"The quality of mercy is not strained.\"\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him askance]  Come, come, Mr. Walter.  We must\ntry and see it sensible.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Entering with a tray] Your lunch, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Put it down!\n\n     While SWEEDLE is putting it down on COKESON's table, the\n     detective, WISTER, enters the outer office, and, finding no one\n     there, comes to the inner doorway.  He is a square, medium-sized\n     man, clean-shaved, in a serviceable blue serge suit and strong\n     boots.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hoarsely]  Here!  Here!  What are we doing?\n\nWISTER.  [To WALTER]  From Scotland Yard, sir.  Detective-Sergeant\nBlister.\n\nWALTER.  [Askance] Very well!  I'll speak to my father.\n\n     He goes into the partners' room.  JAMES enters.\n\nJAMES.  Morning!  [In answer to an appealing gesture from COKESON]\nI'm sorry; I'd stop short of this if I felt I could.  Open that door.\n[SWEEDLE, wondering and scared, opens it] Come here, Mr. Falder.\n\n     As FALDER comes shrinkingly out, the detective in obedience to a\n     sign from JAMES, slips his hand out and grasps his arm.\n\nFALDER.  [Recoiling] Oh! no,--oh! no!\n\nWALTER.  Come, come, there's a good lad.\n\nJAMES.  I charge him with felony.\n\nFALTER.  Oh, sir!  There's some one--I did it for her.  Let me be\ntill to-morrow.\n\n     JAMES motions with his hand.  At that sign of hardness, FALDER\n     becomes rigid.  Then, turning, he goes out quietly in the\n     detective's grip.  JAMES follows, stiff and erect.  SWEEDLE,\n     rushing to the door with open mouth, pursues them through the\n     outer office into the corridor.  When they have all disappeared\n     COKESON spins completely round and makes a rush for the outer\n     office.\n\nCOKESON: [Hoarsely] Here!  What are we doing?\n\n     There is silence.  He takes out his handkerchief and mops the\n     sweat from his face.  Going back blindly to his table, sits\n     down, and stares blankly at his lunch.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\nACT II\n\nA Court of Justice, on a foggy October afternoon crowded with\nbarristers, solicitors, reporters, ushers, and jurymen.  Sitting in\nthe large, solid dock is FALDER, with a warder on either side of him,\nplaced there for his safe custody, but seemingly indifferent to and\nunconscious of his presence.  FALDER is sitting exactly opposite to\nthe JUDGE, who, raised above the clamour of the court, also seems\nunconscious of and indifferent to everything.  HAROLD CLEAVER, the\ncounsel for the Crown, is a dried, yellowish man, of more than middle\nage, in a wig worn almost to the colour of his face.  HECTOR FROME,\nthe counsel for the defence, is a young, tall man, clean shaved, in a\nvery white wig.  Among the spectators,  having already given their\nevidence, are JAMES and WALTER HOW, and COWLEY, the cashier.  WISTER,\nthe detective, is just leaving the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  That is the case for the Crown, me lud!\n\n     Gathering his robes together, he sits down.\n\nFROME.  [Rising and bowing to the JUDGE] If it please your lordship\nand gentlemen of the jury.  I am not going to dispute the fact that\nthe prisoner altered this cheque, but I am going to put before you\nevidence as to the condition of his mind, and to submit that you\nwould not be justified in finding that he was responsible for his\nactions at the time.  I am going to show you, in fact, that he did\nthis in a moment of aberration, amounting to temporary insanity,\ncaused by the violent distress under which he was labouring.\nGentlemen, the prisoner is only twenty-three years old.  I shall call\nbefore you a woman from whom you will learn the events that led up to\nthis act.  You will hear from her own lips the tragic circumstances\nof her life, the still more tragic infatuation with which she has\ninspired the prisoner.  This woman, gentlemen, has been leading a\nmiserable existence with a husband who habitually ill-uses her, from\nwhom she actually goes in terror of her life.  I am not, of course,\nsaying that it's either right or desirable for a young man to fall in\nlove with a married woman, or that it's his business to rescue her\nfrom an ogre-like husband.  I'm not saying anything of the sort.  But\nwe all know the power of the passion of love; and I would ask you to\nremember, gentlemen, in listening to her evidence, that, married to a\ndrunken and violent husband, she has no power to get rid of him; for,\nas you know, another offence besides violence is necessary to enable\na woman to obtain a divorce; and of this offence it does not appear\nthat her husband is guilty.\n\nJUDGE.  Is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  My lord, I submit, extremely--I shall be able to show your\nlordship that directly.\n\nJUDGE.  Very well.\n\nFROME.  In these circumstances, what alternatives were left to her?\nShe could either go on living with this drunkard, in terror of her\nlife; or she could apply to the Court for a separation order.  Well,\ngentlemen, my experience of such cases assures me that this would\nhave given her very insufficient protection from the violence of such\na man; and even if effectual would very likely have reduced her\neither to the workhouse or the streets--for it's not easy, as she is\nnow finding, for an unskilled woman without means of livelihood to\nsupport herself and her children without resorting either to the Poor\nLaw or--to speak quite plainly--to the sale of her body.\n\nJUDGE.  You are ranging rather far, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  I shall fire point-blank in a minute, my lord.\n\nJUDGE.  Let us hope so.\n\nFROME.  Now, gentlemen, mark--and this is what I have been leading up\nto--this woman will tell you, and the prisoner will confirm her,\nthat, confronted with such alternatives, she set her whole hopes on\nhimself, knowing the feeling with which she had inspired him.  She\nsaw a way out of her misery by going with him to a new country, where\nthey would both be unknown, and might pass as husband and wife.  This\nwas a desperate and, as my friend Mr. Cleaver will no doubt call it,\nan immoral resolution; but, as a fact, the minds of both of them were\nconstantly turned towards it.  One wrong is no excuse for another,\nand those who are never likely to be faced by such a situation\npossibly have the right to hold up their hands--as to that I prefer\nto say nothing.  But whatever view you take, gentlemen, of this part\nof the prisoner's story--whatever opinion you form of the right of\nthese two young people under such circumstances to take the law into\ntheir own hands--the fact remains that this young woman in her\ndistress, and this young man, little more than a boy, who was so\ndevotedly attached to her, did conceive this--if you like--\nreprehensible design of going away together.  Now, for that, of\ncourse, they required money, and--they had none.  As to the actual\nevents of the morning of July 7th, on which this cheque was altered,\nthe events on which I rely to prove the defendant's irresponsibility\n--I shall allow those events to speak for themselves, through the\nlips of my witness.  Robert Cokeson.  [He turns, looks round, takes\nup a sheet of paper, and waits.]\n\n     COKESON is summoned into court, and goes into the witness-box,\n     holding his hat before him.  The oath is administered to him.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nCOKESON.  Robert Cokeson.\n\nFROME.  Are you managing clerk to the firm of solicitors who employ\nthe prisoner?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  How long had the prisoner been in their employ?\n\nCOKESON.  Two years.  No, I'm wrong there--all but seventeen days.\n\nFROME.  Had you him under your eye all that time?\n\nCOKESON.  Except Sundays and holidays.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  Let us hear, please, what you have to say about\nhis general character during those two years.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially to the jury, and as if a little surprised\nat being asked]  He was a nice, pleasant-spoken young man.  I'd no\nfault to find with him--quite the contrary.  It was a great surprise\nto me when he did a thing like that.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever give you reason to suspect his honesty?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  To have dishonesty in our office, that'd never do.\n\nFROME.  I'm sure the jury fully appreciate that, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  Every man of business knows that honesty's 'the sign qua\nnon'.\n\nFROME.  Do you give him a good character all round, or do you not?\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning to the JUDGE]  Certainly.  We were all very jolly\nand pleasant together, until this happened.  Quite upset me.\n\nFROME.  Now, coming to the morning of the 7th of July, the morning on\nwhich the cheque was altered.  What have you to say about his\ndemeanour that morning?\n\nCOKESON.  [To the jury]  If you ask me, I don't think he was quite\ncompos when he did it.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  Are you suggesting that he was insane?\n\nCOKESON.  Not compos.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  A little more precision, please.\n\nFROME.  [Smoothly]  Just tell us, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Somewhat outraged]  Well, in my opinion--[looking at the\nJUDGE]--such as it is--he was jumpy at the time.  The jury will\nunderstand my meaning.\n\nFROME.  Will you tell us how you came to that conclusion?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I will.  I have my lunch in from the restaurant, a\nchop and a potato--saves time.  That day it happened to come just as\nMr. Walter How handed me the cheque.  Well, I like it hot; so I went\ninto the clerks' office and I handed the cheque to Davis, the other\nclerk, and told him to get change.  I noticed young Falder walking up\nand down.  I said to him: \"This is not the Zoological Gardens,\nFalder.\"\n\nFROME.  Do you remember what he answered?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es: \"I wish to God it were!\"  Struck me as funny.\n\nFROME.  Did you notice anything else peculiar?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  What was that?\n\nCOKESON.  His collar was unbuttoned.  Now, I like a young man to be\nneat.  I said to him: \"Your collar's unbuttoned.\"\n\nFROME.  And what did he answer?\n\nCOKESON.  Stared at me.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Stared at you?  Isn't that a very common practice?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but it was the look in his eyes.  I can't explain my\nmeaning--it was funny.\n\nFROME.  Had you ever seen such a look in his eyes before?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  If I had I should have spoken to the partners.  We\ncan't have anything eccentric in our profession.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Did you speak to them on that occasion?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, I didn't like to trouble them about\nprime facey evidence.\n\nFROME.  But it made a very distinct impression on your mind?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  The clerk Davis could have told you the same.\n\nFROME.  Quite so.  It's very unfortunate that we've not got him here.\nNow can you tell me of the morning on which the discovery of the\nforgery was made?  That would be the 18th.  Did anything happen that\nmorning?\n\nCOKESON.  [With his hand to his ear]  I'm a little deaf.\n\nFROME.  Was there anything in the course of that morning--I mean\nbefore the discovery--that caught your attention?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es--a woman.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  How is this relevant, Mr. Frome?\n\nFROME.  I am trying to establish the state of mind in which the\nprisoner committed this act, my lord.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I quite appreciate that.  But this was long after the\nact.\n\nFROME.  Yes, my lord, but it contributes to my contention.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Well!\n\nFROME.  You say a woman.  Do you mean that she came to the office?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.\n\nFROME.  What for?\n\nCOKESON.  Asked to see young Falder; he was out at the moment.\n\nFROME.  Did you see her?\n\nCOKESON.  I did.\n\nFROME.  Did she come alone?\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially]  Well, there you put me in a difficulty.\nI mustn't tell you what the office-boy told me.\n\nFROME.  Quite so, Mr. Cokeson, quite so----\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in with an air of \"You are young--leave it to\nme\"]  But I think we can get round it.  In answer to a question put\nto her by a third party the woman said to me: \"They're mine, sir.\"\n\nTHE JUDGE.  What are?  What were?\n\nCOKESON.  Her children.  They were outside.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  HOW do you know?\n\nCOKESON.  Your lordship mustn't ask me that, or I shall have to tell\nyou what I was told--and that'd never do.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Smiling]  The office-boy made a statement.\n\nCOKESON.  Egg-zactly.\n\nFROME.  What I want to ask you, Mr. Cokeson, is this.  In the course\nof her appeal to see Falder, did the woman say anything that you\nspecially remember?\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him as if to encourage him to complete the\nsentence]  A leetle more, sir.\n\nFROME.  Or did she not?\n\nCOKESON.  She did.  I shouldn't like you to have led me to the\nanswer.\n\nFROME.  [With an irritated smile]  Will you tell the jury what it\nwas?\n\nCOKESON.  \"It's a matter of life and death.\"\n\nFOREMAN OF THE JURY.  Do you mean the woman said that?\n\nCOKESON.  [Nodding]  It's not the sort of thing you like to have said\nto you.\n\nFROME.  [A little impatiently]  Did Falder come in while she was\nthere?  [COKESON nods]  And she saw him, and went away?\n\nCOKESON.  Ah!  there I can't follow you.  I didn't see her go.\n\nFROME.  Well, is she there now?\n\nCOKESON.  [With an indulgent smile]  No!\n\nFROME.  Thank you, Mr. Cokeson.  [He sits down.]\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rising] You say that on the morning of the forgery the\nprisoner was jumpy.  Well, now, sir, what precisely do you mean by\nthat word?\n\nCOKESON.  [Indulgently]  I want you to understand.  Have you ever\nseen a dog that's lost its master?  He was kind of everywhere at once\nwith his eyes.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I was coming to his eyes.  You called them\n\"funny.\"  What are we to understand by that?  Strange, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, funny.\n\nCOKESON.  [Sharply]  Yes, sir, but what may be funny to you may not\nbe funny to me, or to the jury.  Did they look frightened, or shy, or\nfierce, or what?\n\nCOKESON.  You make it very hard for me.  I give you the word, and you\nwant me to give you another.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Rapping his desk] Does \"funny\" mean mad?\n\nCLEAVER.  Not mad, fun----\n\nCLEAVER.  Very well!  Now you say he had his collar unbuttoned?  Was\nit a hot day?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es; I think it was.\n\nCLEAVER.  And did he button it when you called his attention to it?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, I think he did.\n\nCLEAVER.  Would you say that that denoted insanity?\n\n     He sits downs.  COKESON, who has opened his mouth to reply, is\n     left gaping.\n\nFROME.  [Rising hastily] Have you ever caught him in that dishevelled\nstate before?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  He was always clean and quiet.\n\nFROME.  That will do, thank you.\n\n     COKESON turns blandly to the JUDGE, as though to rebuke counsel\n     for not remembering that the JUDGE might wish to have a chance;\n     arriving at the conclusion that he is to be asked nothing\n     further, he turns and descends from the box, and sits down next\n     to JAMES and WALTER.\n\nFROME.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\n     RUTH comes into court, and takes her stand stoically in the\n     witness-box.  She is sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name, please?\n\nRUTH.  Ruth Honeywill.\n\nFROME.  How old are you?\n\nRUTH.  Twenty-six.\n\nFROME.  You are a married woman, living with your husband?  A little\nlouder.\n\nRUTH.  No, sir; not since July.\n\nFROME.  Have you any children?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir, two.\n\nFROME.  Are they living with you?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  You know the prisoner?\n\nRUTH. [Looking at him]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  What was the nature of your relations with him?\n\nRUTH.  We were friends.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Friends?\n\nRUTH.  [Simply]  Lovers, sir.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Sharply]  In what sense do you use that word?\n\nRUTH.  We love each other.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, but----\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  No, your lordship--not yet.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  'Not yet!  H'm!  [He looks from RUTH to FALDER]  Well!\n\nFROME.  What is your husband?\n\nRUTH.  Traveller.\n\nFROME.  And what was the nature of your married life?\n\nRUTH.  [Shaking her head]  It don't bear talking about.\n\nFROME.  Did he ill-treat you, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Ever since my first was born.\n\nFROME.  In what way?\n\nRUTH.  I'd rather not say.  All sorts of ways.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I am afraid I must stop this, you know.\n\nRUTH.  [Pointing to FALDER]  He offered to take me out of it, sir.\nWe were going to South America.\n\nFROME.  [Hastily]  Yes, quite--and what prevented you?\n\nRUTH.  I was outside his office when he was taken away.  It nearly\nbroke my heart.\n\nFROME.  You knew, then, that he had been arrested?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, sir.  I called at his office afterwards, and  [pointing\nto COKESON] that gentleman told me all about it.\n\nFROME.  Now, do you remember the morning of Friday, July 7th?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Why?\n\nRUTH.  My husband nearly strangled me that morning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Nearly strangled you!\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head] Yes, my lord.\n\nFROME.  With his hands, or----?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I just managed to get away from him.  I went straight to\nmy friend.  It was eight o'clock.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  In the morning?  Your husband was not under the influence\nof liquor then?\n\nRUTH.  It wasn't always that.\n\nFROME.  In what condition were you?\n\nRUTH.  In very bad condition, sir.  My dress was torn, and I was half\nchoking.\n\nFROME.  Did you tell your friend what had happened?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I wish I never had.\n\nFROME.  It upset him?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully.\n\nFROME.  Did he ever speak to you about a cheque?\n\nRUTH.  Never.\n\nFROZE.  Did he ever give you any money?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  When was that?\n\nRUTH.  On Saturday.\n\nFROME.  The 8th?\n\nRUTH.  To buy an outfit for me and the children, and get all ready to\nstart.\n\nFROME.  Did that surprise you, or not?\n\nRUTH.  What, sir?\n\nFROME.  That he had money to give you.\n\nRing.  Yes, because on the morning when my husband nearly killed me\nmy friend cried because he hadn't the money to get me away.  He told\nme afterwards he'd come into a windfall.\n\nFROME.  And when did you last see him?\n\nRUTH.  The day he was taken away, sir.  It was the day we were to\nhave started.\n\nFROME.  Oh, yes, the morning of the arrest.  Well, did you see him at\nall between the Friday and that morning?  [RUTH nods]  What was his\nmanner then?\n\nRUTH.  Dumb--like--sometimes he didn't seem able to say a word.\n\nFROME.  As if something unusual had happened to him?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  Painful, or pleasant, or what?\n\nRUTH.  Like a fate hanging over him.\n\nFROME.  [Hesitating]  Tell me, did you love the prisoner very much?\n\nRUTH.  [Bowing her head]  Yes.\n\nFROME.  And had he a very great affection for you?\n\nRUTH.  [Looking at FALDER]  Yes, sir.\n\nFROME.  Now, ma'am, do you or do you not think that your danger and\nunhappiness would seriously affect his balance, his control over his\nactions?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  His reason, even?\n\nRUTH.  For a moment like, I think it would.\n\nFROME.  Was he very much upset that Friday morning, or was he fairly\ncalm?\n\nRUTH.  Dreadfully upset.  I could hardly bear to let him go from me.\n\nFROME.  Do you still love him?\n\nRUTH.  [With her eyes on FALDER]  He's ruined himself for me.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.\n\n     He sits down.  RUTH remains stoically upright in the witness-box.\n\nCLEAVER.  [In a considerate voice]  When you left him on the morning\nof Friday the 7th you would not say that he was out of his mind, I\nsuppose?\n\nRUTH.  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Thank you; I've no further questions to ask you.\n\nRUTH.  [Bending a little forward to the jury]  I would have done the\nsame for him; I would indeed.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Please, please!  You say your married life is an unhappy\none?  Faults on both sides?\n\nRUTH.  Only that I never bowed down to him.  I don't see why I\nshould, sir, not to a man like that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You refused to obey him?\n\nRUTH.  [Avoiding the question]  I've always studied him to keep\nthings nice.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Until you met the prisoner--was that it?\n\nRUTH.  No; even after that.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I ask, you know, because you seem to me to glory in this\naffection of yours for the prisoner.\n\nRUTH.  [Hesitating]  I--I do.  It's the only thing in my life now.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Staring at her hard] Well, step down, please.\n\n     RUTH looks at FALDER, then passes quietly down and takes her\n     seat among the witnesses.\n\nFROME.  I call the prisoner, my lord.\n\n     FALDER leaves the dock; goes into the witness-box, and is duly\n     sworn.\n\nFROME.  What is your name?\n\nFALDER.  William Falder.\n\nFROME.  And age?\n\nFALDER.  Twenty-three.\n\nFROME.  You are not married?\n\n     FALDER shakes his head\n\nFROME.  How long have you known the last witness?\n\nFALDER.  Six months.\n\nFROME.  Is her account of the relationship between you a correct one?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nFROME.  You became devotedly attached to her, however?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Though you knew she was a married woman?\n\nFALDER.  I couldn't help it, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Couldn't help it?\n\nFALDER.  I didn't seem able to.\n\n     The JUDGE slightly shrugs his shoulders.\n\nFROME.  How did you come to know her?\n\nFALDER.  Through my married sister.\n\nFROME.  Did you know whether she was happy with her husband?\n\nFALDER.  It was trouble all the time.\n\nFROME.  You knew her husband?\n\nFALDER.  Only through her--he's a brute.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I can't allow indiscriminate abuse of a person not\npresent.\n\nFROME.  [Bowing]  If your lordship pleases.  [To FALDER]  You admit\naltering this cheque?\n\nFALDER bows his head.\n\nFROME.  Carry your mind, please, to the morning of Friday, July the\n7th, and tell the jury what happened.\n\nFALDER.  [Turning to the jury]  I was having my breakfast when she\ncame.  Her dress was all torn, and she was gasping and couldn't seem\nto get her breath at all; there were the marks of his fingers round\nher throat; her arm was bruised, and the blood had got into her eyes\ndreadfully.  It frightened me, and then when she told me, I felt--I\nfelt--well--it was too much for me!  [Hardening suddenly]  If you'd\nseen it, having the feelings for her that I had, you'd have felt the\nsame, I know.\n\nFROME.  Yes?\n\nFALDER.  When she left me--because I had to go to the office--I was\nout of my senses for fear that he'd do it again, and thinking what I\ncould do.  I couldn't work--all the morning I was like that--simply\ncouldn't fix my mind on anything.  I couldn't think at all.  I seemed\nto have to keep moving.  When Davis--the other clerk--gave me the\ncheque--he said: \"It'll do you good, Will, to have a run with this.\nYou seem half off your chump this morning.\"  Then when I had it in my\nhand--I don't know how it came, but it just flashed across me that if\nI put the 'ty' and the nought there would be the money to get her\naway.  It just came and went--I never thought of it again.  Then\nDavis went out to his luncheon, and I don't really remember what I\ndid till I'd pushed the cheque through to the cashier under the rail.\nI remember his saying \"Gold or notes?\"  Then I suppose I knew what\nI'd done.  Anyway, when I got outside I wanted to chuck myself under\na bus; I wanted to throw the money away; but it seemed I was in for\nit, so I thought at any rate I'd save her.  Of course the tickets I\ntook for the passage and the little I gave her's been wasted, and\nall, except what I was obliged to spend myself, I've restored.  I\nkeep thinking over and over however it was I came to do it, and how I\ncan't have it all again to do differently!\n\n     FALDER is silent, twisting his hands before him.\n\nFROME.  How far is it from your office to the bank?\n\nFALDER.  Not more than fifty yards, sir.\n\nFROME.  From the time Davis went out to lunch to the time you cashed\nthe cheque, how long do you say it must have been?\n\nFALDER.  It couldn't have been four minutes, sir, because I ran all\nthe way.\n\nFROME.  During those four minutes you say you remember nothing?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir; only that I ran.\n\nFROME.  Not even adding the 'ty' and the nought?'\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.  I don't really.\n\n     FROME sits down, and CLEAVER rises.\n\nCLEAVER.  But you remember running, do you?\n\nFALDER.  I was all out of breath when I got to the bank.\n\nCLEAVER.  And you don't remember altering the cheque?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Divested of the romantic glamour which my friend is casting\nover the case, is this anything but an ordinary forgery?  Come.\n\nFALDER.  I was half frantic all that morning, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  Now, now!  You don't deny that the 'ty' and the nought were\nso like the rest of the handwriting as to thoroughly deceive the\ncashier?\n\nFALDER.  It was an accident.\n\nCLEAVER.  [Cheerfully]  Queer sort of accident, wasn't it?  On which\nday did you alter the counterfoil?\n\nFALDER.  [Hanging his head]  On the Wednesday morning.\n\nCLEAVER.  Was that an accident too?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No.\n\nCLEAVER.  To do that you had to watch your opportunity, I suppose?\n\nFALDER.  [Almost inaudibly] Yes.\n\nCLEAVER.  You don't suggest that you were suffering under great\nexcitement when you did that?\n\nFALDER.  I was haunted.\n\nCLEAVER.  With the fear of being found out?\n\nFALDER.  [Very low] Yes.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Didn't it occur to you that the only thing for you to do\nwas to confess to your employers, and restore the money?\n\nFALDER.  I was afraid. [There is silence]\n\nCLEAVER.  You desired, too, no doubt, to complete your design of\ntaking this woman away?\n\nFALDER.  When I found I'd done a thing like that, to do it for\nnothing seemed so dreadful.  I might just as well have chucked myself\ninto the river.\n\nCLEAVER.  You knew that the clerk Davis was about to leave England\n--didn't it occur to you when you altered this cheque that suspicion\nwould fall on him?\n\nFALDER.  It was all done in a moment.  I thought of it afterwards.\n\nCLEAVER.  And that didn't lead you to avow what you'd done?\n\nFALDER.  [Sullenly]  I meant to write when I got out there--I would\nhave repaid the money.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  But in the meantime your innocent fellow clerk might have\nbeen prosecuted.\n\nFALDER.  I knew he was a long way off, your lordship.  I thought\nthere'd be time.  I didn't think they'd find it out so soon.\n\nFROME.  I might remind your lordship that as Mr. Walter How had the\ncheque-book in his pocket till after Davis had sailed, if the\ndiscovery had been made only one day later Falder himself would have\nleft, and suspicion would have attached to him, and not to Davis,\nfrom the beginning.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  The question is whether the prisoner knew that suspicion\nwould light on himself, and not on Davis.  [To FALDER sharply] Did\nyou know that Mr. Walter How had the cheque-book till after Davis\nhad sailed?\n\nFALDER.  I--I--thought--he----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Now speak the truth-yes or no!\n\nFALDER.  [Very low]  No, my lord.  I had no means of knowing.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  That disposes of your point, Mr. Frome.\n\n     [FROME bows to the JUDGE]\n\nCLEAVER.  Has any aberration of this nature ever attacked you before?\n\nFALDER.  [Faintly]  No, sir.\n\nCLEAVER.  You had recovered sufficiently to go back to your work that\nafternoon?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, I had to take the money back.\n\nCLEAVER.  You mean the nine pounds.  Your wits were sufficiently keen\nfor you to remember that?  And you still persist in saying you don't\nremember altering this cheque.  [He sits down]\n\nFALDER.  If I hadn't been mad I should never have had the courage.\n\nFROME.  [Rising]  Did you have your lunch before going back?\n\nFALDER.  I never ate a thing all day; and at night I couldn't sleep.\n\nFROME.  Now, as to the four minutes that elapsed between Davis's\ngoing out and your cashing the cheque: do you say that you recollect\nnothing during those four minutes?\n\nFALDER.  [After a moment] I remember thinking of Mr. Cokeson's face.\n\nFROME.  Of Mr. Cokeson's face!  Had that any connection with what you\nwere doing?\n\nFALDER.  No, Sir.\n\nFROME.  Was that in the office, before you ran out?\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and while I was running.\n\nFROME.  And that lasted till the cashier said: \"Will you have gold or\nnotes?\"\n\nFALDER.  Yes, and then I seemed to come to myself--and it was too\nlate.\n\nFROME.  Thank you.  That closes the evidence for the defence, my\nlord.\n\n     The JUDGE nods, and FALDER goes back to his seat in the dock.\n\nFROME.  [Gathering up notes]  If it please your lordship--Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--My friend in cross-examination has shown a disposition\nto sneer at the defence which has been set up in this case, and I am\nfree to admit that nothing I can say will move you, if the evidence\nhas not already convinced you that the prisoner committed this act in\na moment when to all practical intents and purposes he was not\nresponsible for his actions; a moment of such mental and moral\nvacuity, arising from the violent emotional agitation under which he\nhad been suffering, as to amount to temporary madness.  My friend has\nalluded to the \"romantic glamour\" with which I have sought to invest\nthis case.  Gentlemen, I have done nothing of the kind.  I have\nmerely shown you the background of \"life\"--that palpitating life\nwhich, believe me--whatever my friend may say--always lies behind the\ncommission of a crime.  Now gentlemen, we live in a highly, civilized\nage, and the sight of brutal violence disturbs us in a very strange\nway, even when we have no personal interest in the matter.  But when\nwe see it inflicted on a woman whom we love--what then?  Just think\nof what your own feelings would have been, each of you, at the\nprisoner's age; and then look at him.  Well!  he is hardly the\ncomfortable, shall we say bucolic, person likely to contemplate with\nequanimity marks of gross violence on a woman to whom he was\ndevotedly attached.  Yes, gentlemen, look at him!  He has not a\nstrong face; but neither has he a vicious face.  He is just the sort\nof man who would easily become the prey of his emotions.  You have\nheard the description of his eyes.  My friend may laugh at the word\n\"funny\"--I think it better describes the peculiar uncanny look of\nthose who are strained to breaking-point than any other word which\ncould have been used.  I don't pretend, mind you, that his mental\nirresponsibility--was more than a flash of darkness, in which all\nsense of proportion became lost; but to contend, that, just as a man\nwho destroys himself at such a moment may be, and often is, absolved\nfrom the stigma attaching to the crime of self-murder, so he may, and\nfrequently does, commit other crimes while in this irresponsible\ncondition, and that he may as justly be acquitted of criminal intent\nand treated as a patient.  I admit that this is a plea which might\nwell be abused.  It is a matter for discretion.  But here you have a\ncase in which there is every reason to give the benefit of the doubt.\nYou heard me ask the prisoner what he thought of during those four\nfatal minutes.  What was his answer?  \"I thought of Mr. Cokeson's\nface!\"  Gentlemen, no man could invent an answer like that; it is\nabsolutely stamped with truth.  You have seen the great affection\n[legitimate or not] existing between him and this woman, who came\nhere to give evidence for him at the risk of her life.  It is\nimpossible for you to doubt his distress on the morning when he\ncommitted this act.  We well know what terrible havoc such distress\ncan make in weak and highly nervous people.  It was all the work of a\nmoment.  The rest has followed, as death follows a stab to the heart,\nor water drops if you hold up a jug to empty it.  Believe me,\ngentlemen, there is nothing more tragic in life than the utter\nimpossibility of changing what you have done.  Once this cheque was\naltered and presented, the work of four minutes--four mad minutes\n--the rest has been silence.  But in those four minutes the boy\nbefore you has slipped through a door, hardly opened, into that great\ncage which never again quite lets a man go--the cage of the Law.  His\nfurther acts, his failure to confess, the alteration of the\ncounterfoil, his preparations for flight, are all evidence--not of\ndeliberate and guilty intention when he committed the prime act from\nwhich these subsequent acts arose; no--they are merely evidence of\nthe weak character which is clearly enough his misfortune.  But is a\nman to be lost because he is bred and born with a weak character?\nGentlemen, men like the prisoner are destroyed daily under our law\nfor want of that human insight which sees them as they are, patients,\nand not criminals.  If the prisoner be found guilty, and treated as\nthough he were a criminal type, he will, as all experience shows, in\nall probability become one.  I beg you not to return a verdict that\nmay thrust him back into prison and brand him for ever.  Gentlemen,\nJustice is a machine that, when some one has once given it the\nstarting push, rolls on of itself.  Is this young man to be ground to\npieces under this machine for an act which at the worst was one of\nweakness?  Is he to become a member of the luckless crews that man\nthose dark, ill-starred ships called prisons?  Is that to be his\nvoyage-from which so few return?  Or is he to have another chance, to\nbe still looked on as one who has gone a little astray, but who will\ncome back?  I urge you, gentlemen, do not ruin this young man!  For,\nas a result of those four minutes, ruin, utter and irretrievable,\nstares him in the face.  He can be saved now.  Imprison him as a\ncriminal, and I affirm to you that he will be lost.  He has neither\nthe face nor the manner of one who can survive that terrible ordeal.\nWeigh in the scales his criminality and the suffering he has\nundergone.  The latter is ten times heavier already.  He has lain in\nprison under this charge for more than two months.  Is he likely ever\nto forget that?  Imagine the anguish of his mind during that time.\nHe has had his punishment, gentlemen, you may depend.  The rolling of\nthe chariot-wheels of Justice over this boy began when it was decided\nto prosecute him.  We are now already at the second stage.  If you\npermit it to go on to the third I would not give--that for him.\n\n     He holds up finger and thumb in the form of a circle, drops his\n     hand, and sits dozen.\n\nThe jury stir, and consult each other's faces; then they turn towards\nthe counsel for the Crown, who rises, and, fixing his eyes on a spot\nthat seems to give him satisfaction, slides them every now and then\ntowards the jury.\n\nCLEAVER.  May it please your lordship--[Rising on his toes] Gentlemen\nof the Jury,--The facts in this case are not disputed, and the\ndefence, if my friend will allow me to say so, is so thin that I\ndon't propose to waste the time of the Court by taking you over the\nevidence.  The plea is one of temporary insanity.  Well, gentlemen, I\ndaresay it is clearer to me than it is to you why this rather--what\nshall we call it?--bizarre defence has been set up.  The alternative\nwould have been to plead guilty.  Now, gentlemen, if the prisoner had\npleaded guilty my friend would have had to rely on a simple appeal to\nhis lordship.  Instead of that, he has gone into the byways and\nhedges and found this--er--peculiar plea, which has enabled him to\nshow you the proverbial woman, to put her in the box--to give, in\nfact, a romantic glow to this affair.  I compliment my friend; I\nthink it highly ingenious of him.  By these means, he has--to a\ncertain extent--got round the Law.  He has brought the whole story of\nmotive and stress out in court, at first hand, in a way that he would\nnot otherwise have been able to do.  But when you have once grasped\nthat fact, gentlemen, you have grasped everything.  [With\ngood-humoured contempt]  For look at this plea of insanity; we can't\nput it lower than that.  You have heard the woman.  She has every\nreason to favour the prisoner, but what did she say?  She said that\nthe prisoner was not insane when she left him in the morning.  If he\nwere going out of his mind through distress, that was obviously the\nmoment when insanity would have shown itself.  You have heard the\nmanaging clerk, another witness for the defence.  With some\ndifficulty I elicited from him the admission that the prisoner,\nthough jumpy [a word that he seemed to think you would understand,\ngentlemen, and I'm sure I hope you do], was not mad when the cheque\nwas handed to Davis.  I agree with my friend that it's unfortunate\nthat we have not got Davis here, but the prisoner has told you the\nwords with which Davis in turn handed him the cheque; he obviously,\ntherefore, was not mad when he received it, or he would not have\nremembered those words.  The cashier has told you that he was\ncertainly in his senses when he cashed it.  We have therefore the\nplea that a man who is sane at ten minutes past one, and sane at\nfifteen minutes past, may, for the purposes of avoiding the\nconsequences of a crime, call himself insane between those points of\ntime.  Really, gentlemen, this is so peculiar a proposition that I am\nnot disposed to weary you with further argument.  You will form your\nown opinion of its value.  My friend has adopted this way of saying a\ngreat deal to you--and very eloquently--on the score of youth,\ntemptation, and the like.  I might point out, however, that the\noffence with which the prisoner is charged is one of the most serious\nknown to our law; and there are certain features in this case, such\nas the suspicion which he allowed to rest on his innocent fellow-clerk,\nand his relations with this married woman, which will render it\ndifficult for you to attach too much importance to such pleading. I\nask you, in short, gentlemen, for that verdict of guilty which, in the\ncircumstances, I regard you as, unfortunately, bound to record.\n\n     Letting his eyes travel from the JUDGE and the jury to FROME, he\n     sits down.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Bending a little towards the jury, and speaking in a\nbusiness-like voice]  Gentlemen, you have heard the evidence, and the\ncomments on it.  My only business is to make clear to you the issues\nyou have to try.  The facts are admitted, so far as the alteration of\nthis cheque and counterfoil by the prisoner.  The defence set up is\nthat he was not in a responsible condition when he committed the\ncrime.  Well, you have heard the prisoner's story, and the evidence\nof the other witnesses--so far as it bears on the point of insanity.\nIf you think that what you have heard establishes the fact that the\nprisoner was insane at the time of the forgery, you will find him\nguilty, but insane.  If, on the other hand, you conclude from what\nyou have seen and heard that the prisoner was sane--and nothing short\nof insanity will count--you will find him guilty.  In reviewing the\ntestimony as to his mental condition you must bear in mind very\ncarefully the evidence as to his demeanour and conduct both before\nand after the act of forgery--the evidence of the prisoner himself,\nof the woman, of the witness--er--COKESON, and--er--of the cashier.\nAnd in regard to that I especially direct your attention to the\nprisoner's admission that the idea of adding the 'ty' and the nought\ndid come into his mind at the moment when the cheque was handed to\nhim; and also to the alteration of the counterfoil, and to his\nsubsequent conduct generally.  The bearing of all this on the\nquestion of premeditation [and premeditation will imply sanity] is\nvery obvious.  You must not allow any considerations of age or\ntemptation to weigh with you in the finding of your verdict.  Before\nyou can come to a verdict of guilty but insane you must be well and\nthoroughly convinced that the condition of his mind was such as would\nhave qualified him at the moment for a lunatic asylum.  [He pauses,\nthen, seeing that the jury are doubtful whether to retire or no,\nadds:] You may retire, gentlemen, if you wish to do so.\n\n     The jury retire by a door behind the JUDGE.  The JUDGE bends\n     over his notes.  FALDER, leaning from the dock, speaks excitedly\n     to his solicitor, pointing dawn at RUTH.  The solicitor in turn\n     speaks to FROME.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] My lord.  The prisoner is very anxious that I should\nask you if your lordship would kindly request the reporters not to\ndisclose the name of the woman witness in the Press reports of these\nproceedings.  Your lordship will understand that the consequences\nmight be extremely serious to her.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Pointedly--with the suspicion of a smile]  well, Mr.\nFrome, you deliberately took this course which involved bringing her\nhere.\n\nFROME. [With an ironic bow]  If your lordship thinks I could have\nbrought out the full facts in any other way?\n\nTHE JUDGE.  H'm!  Well.\n\nFROME.  There is very real danger to her, your lordship.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  You see, I have to take your word for all that.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship would be so kind.  I can assure your\nlordship that I am not exaggerating.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  It goes very much against the grain with me that the name\nof a witness should ever be suppressed.  [With a glance at FALDER,\nwho is gripping and clasping his hands before him, and then at RUTH,\nwho is sitting perfectly rigid with her eyes fixed on FALDER]  I'll\nconsider your application.  It must depend.  I have to remember that\nshe may have come here to commit perjury on the prisoner's behalf.\n\nFROME.  Your lordship, I really----\n\nTHE JUDGE.  Yes, yes--I don't suggest anything of the sort, Mr.\nFrome.  Leave it at that for the moment.\n\n     As he finishes speaking, the jury return, and file back into the\n     box.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Gentlemen, are you agreed on your verdict?\n\nFOREMAN.  We are.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  Is it Guilty, or Guilty but insane?\n\nFOREMAN.  Guilty.\n\n     The JUDGE nods; then, gathering up his notes, sits looking at\n     FALDER, who stands motionless.\n\nFROME.  [Rising] If your lordship would allow me to address you in\nmitigation of sentence.  I don't know if your lordship thinks I can\nadd anything to what I have said to the jury on the score of the\nprisoner's youth, and the great stress under which he acted.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I don't think you can, Mr. Frome.\n\nFROME.  If your lordship says so--I do most earnestly beg your\nlordship to give the utmost weight to my plea.  [He sits down.]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [To the CLERK] Call upon him.\n\nTHE CLERK.  Prisoner at the bar, you stand convicted of felony.  Have\nyou anything to say for yourself, why the Court should not give you\njudgment according to law?  [FALDER shakes his head]\n\nTHE JUDGE.  William Falder, you have been given fair trial and found\nguilty, in my opinion rightly found guilty, of forgery.  [He pauses;\nthen, consulting his notes, goes on]  The defence was set up that you\nwere not responsible for your actions at the moment of committing\nthis crime.  There is no, doubt, I think, that this was a device to\nbring out at first hand the nature of the temptation to which you\nsuccumbed.  For throughout the trial your counsel was in reality\nmaking an appeal for mercy.  The setting up of this defence of course\nenabled him to put in some evidence that might weigh in that\ndirection.  Whether he was well advised to so is another matter.  He\nclaimed that you should be treated rather as a patient than as a\ncriminal.  And this plea of his, which in the end amounted to a\npassionate appeal, he based in effect on an indictment of the march\nof Justice, which he practically accused of confirming and completing\nthe process of criminality.  Now, in considering how far I should\nallow weight to his appeal; I have a number of factors to take into\naccount.  I have to consider on the one hand the grave nature of your\noffence, the deliberate way in which you subsequently altered the\ncounterfoil, the danger you caused to an innocent man--and that, to\nmy mind, is a very grave point--and finally I have to consider the\nnecessity of deterring others from following your example.  On the\nother hand, I have to bear in mind that you are young, that you have\nhitherto borne a good character, that you were, if I am to believe\nyour evidence and that of your witnesses, in a state of some\nemotional excitement when you committed this crime.  I have every\nwish, consistently with my duty--not only to you, but to the\ncommunity--to treat you with leniency.  And this brings me to what\nare the determining factors in my mind in my consideration of your\ncase.  You are a clerk in a lawyer's office--that is a very serious\nelement in this case; there can be no possible excuse made for you on\nthe ground that you were not fully conversant with the nature of the\ncrime you were committing, and the penalties that attach to it.  It\nis said, however, that you were carried away by your emotions.  The\nstory has been told here to-day of your relations with this--er--Mrs.\nHoneywill; on that story both the defence and the plea for mercy were\nin effect based.  Now what is that story?  It is that you, a young\nman, and she, a young woman, unhappily married, had formed an\nattachment, which you both say--with what truth I am unable to gauge\n--had not yet resulted in immoral relations, but which you both admit\nwas about to result in such relationship.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to palliate this, on the ground that the woman is in what he\ndescribes, I think, as \"a hopeless position.\"  As to that I can\nexpress no opinion.  She is a married woman, and the fact is patent\nthat you committed this crime with the view of furthering an immoral\ndesign.  Now, however I might wish, I am not able to justify to my\nconscience a plea for mercy which has a basis inimical to morality.\nIt is vitiated 'ab initio', and would, if successful, free you for\nthe completion of this immoral project.  Your counsel has made an\nattempt to trace your offence back to what he seems to suggest is a\ndefect in the marriage law; he has made an attempt also to show that\nto punish you with further imprisonment would be unjust.  I do not\nfollow him in these flights.  The Law is what it is--a majestic\nedifice, sheltering all of us, each stone of which rests on another.\nI am concerned only with its administration.  The crime you have\ncommitted is a very serious one.  I cannot feel it in accordance with\nmy duty to Society to exercise the powers I have in your favour.  You\nwill go to penal servitude for three years.\n\n     FALDER, who throughout the JUDGE'S speech has looked at him\n     steadily, lets his head fall forward on his breast.  RUTH starts\n     up from her seat as he is taken out by the warders.  There is a\n     bustle in court.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  [Speaking to the reporters] Gentlemen of the Press, I\nthink that the name of the female witness should not be reported.\n\n     The reporters bow their acquiescence.  THE JUDGE.  [To RUTH, who\n     is staring in the direction in which FALDER has disappeared] Do\n     you understand, your name will not be mentioned?\n\nCOKESON.  [Pulling her sleeve]  The judge is speaking to you.\n\n     RUTH turns, stares at the JUDGE, and turns away.\n\nTHE JUDGE.  I shall sit rather late to-day.  Call the next case.\n\nCLERK of ASSIZE.  [To a warder]  Put up John Booley.\n\n     To cries of \"Witnesses in the case of Booley\":\n\n\n                    The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT III\n\nSCENE I\n\n     A prison.  A plainly furnished room, with two large barred\n     windows, overlooking the prisoners' exercise yard, where men, in\n     yellow clothes marked with arrows, and yellow brimless caps, are\n     seen in single file at a distance of four yards from each other,\n     walking rapidly on serpentine white lines marked on the concrete\n     floor of the yard.  Two warders in blue uniforms, with peaked\n     caps and swords, are stationed amongst them.  The room has\n     distempered walls, a bookcase with numerous official-looking\n     books, a cupboard between the windows, a plan of the prison on\n     the wall, a writing-table covered with documents.  It is\n     Christmas Eve.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, a neat, grave-looking man, with a trim, fair\n     moustache, the eyes of a theorist, and grizzled hair, receding\n     from the temples, is standing close to this writing-table\n     looking at a sort of rough saw made out of a piece of metal.\n     The hand in which he holds it is gloved, for two fingers\n     are missing.  The chief warder, WOODER, a tall, thin,\n     military-looking man of sixty, with grey moustache and\n     melancholy, monkey-like eyes, stands very upright two paces\n     from him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a faint, abstracted smile]  Queer-looking\naffair, Mr. Wooder!  Where did you find it?\n\nWOODER.  In his mattress, sir.  Haven't come across such a thing for\ntwo years now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With curiosity] Had he any set plan?\n\nWOODER.  He'd sawed his window-bar about that much.  [He holds up his\nthumb and finger a quarter of an inch apart]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll see him this afternoon.  What's his name?\nMoaney!  An old hand, I think?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir-fourth spell of penal.  You'd think an old lag like\nhim would have had more sense by now.  [With pitying contempt]\nOccupied his mind, he said.  Breaking in and breaking out--that's all\nthey think about.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Who's next him?\n\nWOODER.  O'Cleary, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  The Irishman.\n\nWOODER.  Next him again there's that young fellow, Falder--star\nclass--and next him old Clipton.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Ah, yes!  \"The philosopher.\"  I want to see him about\nhis eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Curious thing, sir: they seem to know when there's one of\nthese tries at escape going on.  It makes them restive--there's a\nregular wave going through them just now.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Meditatively]  Odd things--those waves.  [Turning to\nlook at the prisoners exercising]  Seem quiet enough out here!\n\nWOODER.  That Irishman, O'Cleary, began banging on his door this\nmorning.  Little thing like that's quite enough to upset the whole\nlot.  They're just like dumb animals at times.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I've seen it with horses before thunder--it'll run\nright through cavalry lines.\n\n     The prison CHAPLAIN has entered.  He is a dark-haired, ascetic\n     man, in clerical undress, with a peculiarly steady, tight-lipped\n     face and slow, cultured speech.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Holding up the saw]  Seen this, Miller?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Useful-looking specimen.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Do for the Museum, eh!  [He goes to the cupboard and\nopens it, displaying to view a number of quaint ropes, hooks, and\nmetal tools with labels tied on them]  That'll do, thanks, Mr.\nWooder.\n\nWOODER.  [Saluting]  Thank you, sir.  [He goes out]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Account for the state of the men last day or two,\nMiller?  Seems going through the whole place.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  No.  I don't know of anything.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  By the way, will you dine with us on Christmas Day?\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  To-morrow.  Thanks very much.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Worries me to feel the men discontented.  [Gazing at\nthe saw]  Have to punish this poor devil.  Can't help liking a man\nwho tries to escape.  [He places the saw in his pocket and locks the\ncupboard again]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Extraordinary perverted will-power--some of them.\nNothing to be done till it's broken.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  And not much afterwards, I'm afraid.  Ground too hard\nfor golf?\n\n     WOODER comes in again.\n\nWOODER.  Visitor who's been seeing Q 3007 asks to speak to you, sir.\nI told him it wasn't usual.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What about?\n\nWOODER.  Shall I put him off, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Resignedly]  No, no.  Let's see him.  Don't go,\nMiller.\n\nWOODER motions to some one without, and as the visitor comes in\nwithdraws.\n\n     The visitor is COKESON, who is attired in a thick overcoat to\n     the knees, woollen gloves, and carries a top hat.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry to trouble you.  I've been talking to the young\nman.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  We have a good many here.\n\nCOKESON.  Name of Falder, forgery.  [Producing a card, and handing it\nto the GOVERNOR]  Firm of James and Walter How.  Well known in the\nlaw.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Receiving the card-with a faint smile]  What do you\nwant to see me about, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly seeing the prisoners at exercise]  Why! what a\nsight!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, we have that privilege from here; my office is\nbeing done up.  [Sitting down at his table]  Now, please!\n\nCOKESON.  [Dragging his eyes with difficulty from the window] I\nwanted to say a word to you; I shan't keep you long.\n[Confidentially]  Fact is, I oughtn't to be here by rights.  His\nsister came to me--he's got no father and mother--and she was in some\ndistress.  \"My husband won't let me go and see him,\" she said; \"says\nhe's disgraced the family.  And his other sister,\" she said, \"is an\ninvalid.\"  And she asked me to come.  Well, I take an interest in\nhim.  He was our junior--I go to the same chapel--and I didn't like\nto refuse.  And what I wanted to tell you was, he seems lonely here.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not unnaturally.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm afraid it'll prey on my mind.  I see a lot of them\nabout working together.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Those are local prisoners.  The convicts serve their\nthree months here in separate confinement, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  But we don't want to be unreasonable.  He's quite\ndownhearted.  I wanted to ask you to let him run about with the\nothers.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With faint amusement]  Ring the bell-would you,\nMiller?  [To COKESON]  You'd like to hear what the doctor says about\nhim, perhaps.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Ringing the bell]  You are not accustomed to prisons,\nit would seem, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  No.  But it's a pitiful sight.  He's quite a young fellow.\nI said to him: \"Before a month's up\" I said, \"you'll be out and about\nwith the others; it'll be a nice change for you.\"  \"A month!\" he said\n--like that!  \"Come!\" I said, \"we mustn't exaggerate.  What's a\nmonth?  Why, it's nothing!\"  \"A day,\" he said, \"shut up in your cell\nthinking and brooding as I do, it's longer than a year outside.  I\ncan't help it,\" he said; \"I try--but I'm built that way, Mr.\nCOKESON.\"  And, he held his hand up to his face.  I could see the\ntears trickling through his fingers.  It wasn't nice.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  He's a young man with large, rather peculiar eyes,\nisn't he?  Not Church of England, I think?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  I know.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To WOODER, who has come in]  Ask the doctor to be\ngood enough to come here for a minute.  [WOODER salutes, and goes\nout]  Let's see, he's not married?\n\nCOKESON.  No.  [Confidentially]  But there's a party he's very much\nattached to, not altogether com-il-fa.  It's a sad story.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  If it wasn't for drink and women, sir, this prison\nmight be closed.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at the CHAPLAIN over his spectacles] Ye-es, but I\nwanted to tell you about that, special.  He had hopes they'd have let\nher come and see him, but they haven't.  Of course he asked me\nquestions.  I did my best, but I couldn't tell the poor young fellow\na lie, with him in here--seemed like hitting him.  But I'm afraid\nit's made him worse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What was this news then?\n\nCOKESON.  Like this.  The woman had a nahsty, spiteful feller for a\nhusband, and she'd left him.  Fact is, she was going away with our\nyoung friend.  It's not nice--but I've looked over it.  Well, when he\nwas put in here she said she'd earn her living apart, and wait for\nhim to come out.  That was a great consolation to him.  But after a\nmonth she came to me--I don't know her personally--and she said:\n\"I can't earn the children's living, let alone my own--I've got no\nfriends.  I'm obliged to keep out of everybody's way, else my\nhusband'd get to know where I was.  I'm very much reduced,\" she said.\nAnd she has lost flesh.  \"I'll have to go in the workhouse!\" It's a\npainful story.  I said to her: \"No,\" I said, \"not that!  I've got a\nwife an' family, but sooner than you should do that I'll spare you a\nlittle myself.\"  \"Really,\" she said--she's a nice creature--\"I don't\nlike to take it from you.  I think I'd better go back to my husband.\"\nWell, I know he's a nahsty, spiteful feller--drinks--but I didn't\nlike to persuade her not to.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely, no.\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es, but I'm sorry now; it's upset the poor young fellow\ndreadfully.  And what I wanted to say was: He's got his three years\nto serve.  I want things to be pleasant for him.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [With a touch of impatience] The Law hardly shares\nyour view, I'm afraid.\n\nCOKESON.  But I can't help thinking that to shut him up there by\nhimself'll turn him silly.  And nobody wants that, I s'pose.  I don't\nlike to see a man cry.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  It's a very rare thing for them to give way like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Looking at him-in a tone of sudden dogged hostility]\nI keep dogs.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Indeed?\n\nCOKESON.  Ye-es.  And I say this: I wouldn't shut one of them up all\nby himself, month after month, not if he'd bit me all over.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Unfortunately, the criminal is not a dog; he has a\nsense of right and wrong.\n\nCOKESON.  But that's not the way to make him feel it.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Ah!  there I'm afraid we must differ.\n\nCOKESON.  It's the same with dogs.  If you treat 'em with kindness\nthey'll do anything for you; but to shut 'em up alone, it only makes\n'em savage.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Surely you should allow those who have had a little\nmore experience than yourself to know what is best for prisoners.\n\nCOKESON.  [Doggedly]  I know this young feller, I've watched him for\nyears.  He's eurotic--got no stamina.  His father died of\nconsumption.  I'm thinking of his future.  If he's to be kept there\nshut up by himself, without a cat to keep him company, it'll do him\nharm.  I said to him: \"Where do you feel it?\"  \"I can't tell you, Mr.\nCOKESON,\" he said, \"but sometimes I could beat my head against the\nwall.\"  It's not nice.\n\n     During this speech the DOCTOR has entered.  He is a\n     medium-Sized, rather good-looking man, with a quick eye.\n     He stands leaning against the window.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This gentleman thinks the separate is telling on\nQ 3007--Falder, young thin fellow, star class.  What do you say,\nDoctor Clements?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  He doesn't like it, but it's not doing him any harm.\n\nCOKESON.  But he's told me.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Of course he'd say so, but we can always tell.  He's\nlost no weight since he's been here.\n\nCOKESON.  It's his state of mind I'm speaking of.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  His mind's all right so far.  He's nervous, rather\nmelancholy.  I don't see signs of anything more.  I'm watching him\ncarefully.\n\nCOKESON.  [Nonplussed]  I'm glad to hear you say that.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [More suavely] It's just at this period that we are\nable to make some impression on them, sir.  I am speaking from my\nspecial standpoint.\n\nCOKESON.  [Turning bewildered to the GOVERNOR] I don't want to be\nunpleasant, but having given him this news, I do feel it's awkward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I'll make a point of seeing him to-day.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm much obliged to you.  I thought perhaps seeing him\nevery day you wouldn't notice it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather sharply]  If any sign of injury to his health\nshows itself his case will be reported at once.  That's fully\nprovided for.  [He rises]\n\nCOKESON.  [Following his own thoughts]  Of course, what you don't see\ndoesn't trouble you; but having seen him, I don't want to have him on\nmy mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I think you may safely leave it to us, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Mollified and apologetic]  I thought you'd understand me.\nI'm a plain man--never set myself up against authority.  [Expanding\nto the CHAPLAIN]  Nothing personal meant.  Good-morning.\n\n     As he goes out the three officials do not look at each other,\n     but their faces wear peculiar expressions.\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  Our friend seems to think that prison is a hospital.\n\nCOKESON.  [Returning suddenly with an apologetic air]  There's just\none little thing.  This woman--I suppose I mustn't ask you to let him\nsee her.  It'd be a rare treat for them both.  He's thinking about\nher all the time.  Of course she's not his wife.  But he's quite safe\nin here.  They're a pitiful couple.  You couldn't make an exception?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Wearily] As you say, my dear sir, I couldn't make an\nexception; he won't be allowed another visit of any sort till he goes\nto a convict prison.\n\nCOKESON.  I see.  [Rather coldly] Sorry to have troubled you.\n[He again goes out]\n\nTHE CHAPLAIN.  [Shrugging his shoulders]  The plain man indeed, poor\nfellow.  Come and have some lunch, Clements?\n\n\n     He and the DOCTOR go out talking.\n\n     The GOVERNOR, with a sigh, sits down at his table and takes up a\n     pen.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE II\n\n     Part of the ground corridor of the prison.  The walls are\n     coloured with greenish distemper up to a stripe of deeper green\n     about the height of a man's shoulder, and above this line are\n     whitewashed.  The floor is of blackened stones.  Daylight is\n     filtering through a heavily barred window at the end.  The doors\n     of four cells are visible.  Each cell door has a little round\n     peep-hole at the level of a man's eye, covered by a little round\n     disc, which, raised upwards, affords a view o f the cell.  On\n     the wall, close to each cell door, hangs a little square board\n     with the prisoner's name, number, and record.\n\n     Overhead can be seen the iron structures of the first-floor and\n     second-floor corridors.\n\n     The WARDER INSTRUCTOR, a bearded man in blue uniform, with an\n     apron, and some dangling keys, is just emerging from one of the\n     cells.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Speaking from the door into the cell]  I'll have\nanother bit for you when that's finished.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Unseen--in an Irish voice] Little doubt o' that, sirr.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Gossiping]  Well, you'd rather have it than nothing, I\ns'pose.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' that's the blessed truth.\n\n     Sounds are heard of a cell door being closed and locked, and of\n     approaching footsteps.\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [In a sharp, changed voice]  Look alive over it!\n\n     He shuts the cell door, and stands at attention.\n\n     The GOVERNOR comes walking down the corridor, followed by\n     WOODER.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to report?\n\nINSTRUCTOR.  [Saluting]  Q 3007  [he points to a cell]  is behind\nwith his work, sir.  He'll lose marks to-day.\n\n     The GOVERNOR nods and passes on to the end cell.  The INSTRUCTOR\n     goes away.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  This is our maker of saws, isn't it?\n\n     He takes the saw from his pocket as WOODER throws open the door\n     of the cell.  The convict MOANEY is seen lying on his bed,\n     athwart the cell, with his cap on.  He springs up and stands in\n     the middle of the cell.  He is a raw-boned fellow, about\n     fifty-six years old, with outstanding bat's ears and fierce,\n     staring, steel-coloured eyes.\n\nWOODER.  Cap off!  [MOANEY removes his cap] Out here! [MOANEY Comes\nto the door]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out into the corridor, and holding up\nthe saw--with the manner of an officer speaking to a private]\nAnything to say about this, my man?  [MOANEY is silent]  Come!\n\nMOANEY.  It passed the time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing into the cell]  Not enough to do, eh?\n\nMOANEY.  It don't occupy your mind.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Tapping the saw]  You might find a better way than\nthis.\n\nMOANEY.  [Sullenly]  Well!  What way?  I must keep my hand in against\nthe time I get out.  What's the good of anything else to me at my\ntime of life?  [With a gradual change to civility, as his tongue\nwarms]  Ye know that, sir.  I'll be in again within a year or two,\nafter I've done this lot.  I don't want to disgrace meself when I'm\nout.  You've got your pride keeping the prison smart; well, I've got\nmine.  [Seeing that the GOVERNOR is listening with interest, he goes\non, pointing to the saw]  I must be doin' a little o' this.  It's no\nharm to any one.  I was five weeks makin' that saw--a bit of all\nright it is, too; now I'll get cells, I suppose, or seven days' bread\nand water.  You can't help it, sir, I know that--I quite put meself\nin your place.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Now, look here, Moaney, if I pass it over will you\ngive me your word not to try it on again?  Think!  [He goes into the\ncell, walks to the end of it, mounts the stool, and tries the\nwindow-bars]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Returning]  Well?\n\nMOANEY.  [Who has been reflecting] I've got another six weeks to do\nin here, alone.  I can't do it and think o' nothing.  I must have\nsomething to interest me.  You've made me a sporting offer, sir, but\nI can't pass my word about it.  I shouldn't like to deceive a\ngentleman.  [Pointing into the cell] Another four hours' steady work\nwould have done it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Yes, and what then?  Caught, brought back, punishment.\nFive weeks' hard work to make this, and cells at the end of it, while\nthey put anew bar to your window.  Is it worth it, Moaney?\n\nMOANEY.  [With a sort of fierceness] Yes, it is.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Putting his hand to his brow] Oh, well!  Two days'\ncells-bread and water.\n\nMOANEY.  Thank 'e, sir.\n\n     He turns quickly like an animal and slips into his cell.\n\n     The GOVERNOR looks after him and shakes his head as WOODER\n     closes and locks the cell door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open Clipton's cell.\n\n     WOODER opens the door of CLIPTON'S cell.   CLIPTON is sitting on\n     a stool just inside the door, at work on a pair of trousers.  He\n     is a small, thick, oldish man, with an almost shaven head, and\n     smouldering little dark eyes behind smoked spectacles.  He gets\n     up and stands motionless in the doorway, peering at his\n     visitors.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning] Come out here a minute, Clipton.\n\n     CLIPTON, with a sort of dreadful quietness, comes into the\n     corridor, the needle and thread in his hand.  The GOVERNOR signs\n     to WOODER, who goes into the cell and inspects it carefully.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How are your eyes?\n\nCLIFTON.  I don't complain of them.  I don't see the sun here.  [He\nmakes a stealthy movement, protruding his neck a little]  There's\njust one thing, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.  I wish you'd\nask the cove next door here to keep a bit quieter.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  What's the matter?  I don't want any tales, Clipton.\n\nCLIPTON.  He keeps me awake.  I don't know who he is.  [With\ncontempt]  One of this star class, I expect.  Oughtn't to be here\nwith us.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Quietly]  Quite right, Clipton.  He'll be moved when\nthere's a cell vacant.\n\nCLIPTON.  He knocks about like a wild beast in the early morning.\nI'm not used to it--stops me getting my sleep out.  In the evening\ntoo.  It's not fair, Mr. Governor, as you're speaking to me.\nSleep's the comfort I've got here; I'm entitled to take it out full.\n\n     WOODER comes out of the cell, and instantly, as though\n     extinguished, CLIPTON moves with stealthy suddenness back into\n     his cell.\n\nWOODER.  All right, sir.\n\n     THE GOVERNOR nods.  The door is closed and locked.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Which is the man who banged on his door this morning?\n\nWOODER.  [Going towards O'CLEARY'S cell]  This one, sir; O'Cleary.\n\n     He lifts the disc and glances through the peephole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Open.\n\n     WOODER throws open the door.  O'CLEARY, who is seated at a\n     little table by the door as if listening, springs up and stands\n     at attention jest inside the doorway.  He is a broad-faced,\n     middle-aged man, with a wide, thin, flexible mouth, and little\n     holes under his high cheek-bones.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Where's the joke, O'Cleary?\n\nO'CLEARY.  The joke, your honour?  I've not seen one for a long time.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Banging on your door?\n\nO'CLEARY.  Oh! that!\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It's womanish.\n\nO'CLEARY.  An' it's that I'm becoming this two months past.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Anything to complain of?\n\nO'CLEARY.  NO, Sirr.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You're an old hand; you ought to know better.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Yes, I've been through it all.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've got a youngster next door; you'll upset him.\n\nO'CLEARY.  It cam' over me, your honour.  I can't always be the same\nsteady man.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Work all right?\n\nO'CLEARY.  [Taking up a rush mat he is making]  Oh! I can do it on me\nhead.  It's the miserablest stuff--don't take the brains of a mouse.\n[Working his mouth]  It's here I feel it--the want of a little noise\n--a terrible little wud ease me.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know as well as I do that if you were out in the\nshops you wouldn't be allowed to talk.\n\nO'CLEARY.  [With a look of profound meaning]  Not with my mouth.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, then?\n\nO'CLEARY.  But it's the great conversation I'd have.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [With a smile] Well, no more conversation on your\ndoor.\n\nO'CLEARY.  No, sirr, I wud not have the little wit to repeat meself.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Turning]  Good-night.\n\nO'CLEARY.  Good-night, your honour.\n\n     He turns into his cell.  The GOVERNOR shuts the door.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Looking at the record card]  Can't help liking the\npoor blackguard.\n\nWOODER.  He's an amiable man, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Pointing down the corridor] Ask the doctor to come\nhere, Mr. Wooder.\n\n     WOODER salutes and goes away down the corridor.\n\n     The GOVERNOR goes to the door of FALDER'S cell.  He raises his\n     uninjured hand to uncover the peep-hole; but, without uncovering\n     it, shakes his head and drops his hand; then, after scrutinising\n     the record board, he opens the cell door.  FALDER, who is\n     standing against it, lurches forward.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Beckoning him out]  Now tell me: can't you settle\ndown, Falder?\n\nFALDER.  [In a breathless voice]  Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You know what I mean?  It's no good running your head\nagainst a stone wall, is it?\n\nFALDER.  No, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well, come.\n\nFALDER.  I try, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Can't you sleep?\n\nFALDER.  Very little.  Between two o'clock and getting up's the worst\ntime.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  How's that?\n\nFALDER.  [His lips twitch with a sort of smile] I don't know, sir.  I\nwas always nervous.  [Suddenly voluble]  Everything seems to get such\na size then.  I feel I'll never get out as long as I live.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  That's morbid, my lad.  Pull yourself together.\n\nFALDER.  [With an equally sudden dogged resentment] Yes--I've got to.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Think of all these other fellows?\n\nFALDER.  They're used to it.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  They all had to go through it once for the first time,\njust as you're doing now.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir, I shall get to be like them in time, I suppose.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Rather taken aback]  H'm!  Well!  That rests with\nyou.  Now come.  Set your mind to it, like a good fellow.  You're\nstill quite young.  A man can make himself what he likes.\n\nFALDER.  [Wistfully] Yes, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Take a good hold of yourself.  Do you read?\n\nFALDER.  I don't take the words in.  [Hanging his head] I know it's\nno good; but I can't help thinking of what's going on outside.  In my\ncell I can't see out at all.  It's thick glass, sir.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You've had a visitor.  Bad news?\n\nFALDER.  Yes.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mustn't think about it.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking back at his cell]  How can I help it, sir?\n\n     He suddenly becomes motionless as WOODER and the DOCTOR\n     approach.  The GOVERNOR motions to him to go back into his cell.\n\nFALDER.  [Quick and low]  I'm quite right in my head, sir.  [He goes\nback into his cell.]\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To the DOCTOR]  Just go in and see him, Clements.\n\n     The DOCTOR goes into the cell.  The GOVERNOR pushes the door to,\n     nearly closing it, and walks towards the window.\n\nWOODER.  [Following]  Sorry you should be troubled like this, sir.\nVery contented lot of men, on the whole.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Shortly]  You think so?\n\nWOODER.  Yes, sir.  It's Christmas doing it, in my opinion.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [To himself]  Queer, that!\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Christmas!\n\n     He turns towards the window, leaving WOODER looking at him with\n     a sort of pained anxiety.\n\nWOODER.  [Suddenly]  Do you think we make show enough, sir?  If you'd\nlike us to have more holly?\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Not at all, Mr. Wooder.\n\nWOODER.  Very good, sir.\n\n     The DOCTOR has come out of FALDER's Cell, and the GOVERNOR\n     beckons to him.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Well?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  I can't make anything much of him.  He's nervous, of\ncourse.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  Is there any sort of case to report?  Quite frankly,\nDoctor.\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  Well, I don't think the separates doing him any good;\nbut then I could say the same of a lot of them--they'd get on better\nin the shops, there's no doubt.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  You mean you'd have to recommend others?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  A dozen at least.  It's on his nerves.  There's nothing\ntangible.  That fellow there [pointing to O'CLEARY'S cell], for\ninstance--feels it just as much, in his way.  If I once get away from\nphysical facts--I shan't know where I am.  Conscientiously, sir, I\ndon't know how to differentiate him.  He hasn't lost weight.  Nothing\nwrong with his eyes.  His pulse is good.  Talks all right.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  It doesn't amount to melancholia?\n\nTHE DOCTOR.  [Shaking his head]  I can report on him if you like; but\nif I do I ought to report on others.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  I see.  [Looking towards FALDER'S cell]  The poor\ndevil must just stick it then.\n\n     As he says thin he looks absently at WOODER.\n\nWOODER.  Beg pardon, sir?\n\n     For answer the GOVERNOR stares at him, turns on his heel, and\n     walks away.  There is a sound as of beating on metal.\n\nTHE GOVERNOR.  [Stopping]  Mr. Wooder?\n\nWOODER.  Banging on his door, sir.  I thought we should have more of\nthat.\n\n     He hurries forward, passing the GOVERNOR, who follows closely.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\nSCENE III\n\n     FALDER's cell, a whitewashed space thirteen feet broad by seven\n     deep, and nine feet high, with a rounded  ceiling.  The floor is\n     of shiny blackened bricks.  The barred window of opaque glass,\n     with a ventilator, is high up in the middle of the end wall.  In\n     the middle of the opposite end wall is the narrow door.  In a\n     corner are the mattress and bedding rolled up [two blankets, two\n     sheets, and a coverlet].  Above them is a quarter-circular\n     wooden shelf, on which is a Bible and several little devotional\n     books, piled in a symmetrical pyramid; there are also a black\n     hair brush, tooth-brush, and a bit of soap.  In another corner\n     is the wooden frame of a bed, standing on end.  There is a dark\n     ventilator under the window, and another over the door.\n     FALDER'S work [a shirt to which he is putting buttonholes] is\n     hung to a nail on the wall over a small wooden table, on which\n     the novel \"Lorna Doone\" lies open.  Low down in the corner by\n     the door is a thick glass screen, about a foot square, covering\n     the gas-jet let into the wall. There is also a wooden stool, and\n     a pair of shoes beneath it.  Three bright round tins are set\n     under the window.\n\n     In fast-failing daylight, FALDER, in his stockings, is seen\n     standing motionless, with his head inclined towards the door,\n     listening.  He moves a little closer to the door, his stockinged\n     feet making no noise.  He stops at the door.  He is trying\n     harder and harder to hear something, any little thing that is\n     going on outside.  He springs suddenly upright--as if at a\n     sound-and remains perfectly motionless.  Then, with a heavy\n     sigh, he moves to his work, and stands looking at it, with his\n     head doom; he does a stitch or two, having the air of a man so\n     lost in sadness that each stitch is, as it were, a coming to\n     life.  Then turning abruptly, he begins pacing the cell, moving\n     his head, like an animal pacing its cage.  He stops again at the\n     door, listens, and, placing the palms of hip hands against it\n     with his fingers spread out, leans his forehead against the\n     iron.  Turning from it, presently, he moves slowly back towards\n     the window, tracing his way with his finger along the top line\n     of the distemper that runs round the wall.  He stops under the\n     window, and, picking up the lid of one of the tins, peers into\n     it.  It has grown very nearly dark.  Suddenly the lid falls out\n     of his hand with a clatter--the only sound that has broken the\n     silence--and he stands staring intently at the wall where the\n     stuff of the shirt is hanging rather white in the darkness--he\n     seems to be seeing somebody or something there.  There is a\n     sharp tap and click; the cell light behind the glass screen has\n     been turned up.  The cell is brightly lighted.  FALDER is seen\n     gasping for breath.\n\n     A sound from far away, as of distant, dull beating on thick\n     metal, is suddenly audible.  FALDER shrinks back, not able to\n     bear this sudden clamour.  But the sound grows, as though some\n     great tumbril were rolling towards the cell.  And gradually it\n     seems to hypnotise him.  He begins creeping inch by inch\n     nearer to the door.  The banging sound, travelling from cell to\n     cell, draws closer and closer; FALDER'S hands are seen moving as\n     if his spirit had already joined in this beating, and the sound\n     swells till it seems to have entered the very cell.  He suddenly\n     raises his clenched fists.  Panting violently, he flings himself\n     at his door, and beats on it.\n\n\n                         The curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\nACT IV\n\n     The scene is again COKESON'S room, at a few minutes to ten of a\n     March morning, two years later.  The doors are all open.\n     SWEEDLE, now blessed with a sprouting moustache, is getting the\n     offices ready.  He arranges papers on COKESON'S table; then goes\n     to a covered washstand, raises the lid, and looks at himself in\n     the mirror.  While he is gazing his full RUTH HONEYWILL comes in\n     through the outer office and stands in the doorway.  There seems\n     a kind of exultation and excitement behind her habitual\n     impassivity.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Suddenly seeing her, and dropping the lid of the washstand\nwith a bang] Hello!  It's you!\n\nRUTH.  Yes.\n\nSWEEDLE.  There's only me here!  They don't waste their time hurrying\ndown in the morning.  Why, it must be two years since we had the\npleasure of seeing you.  [Nervously]  What have you been doing with\nyourself?\n\nRUTH.  [Sardonically] Living.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Impressed]  If you want to see him [he points to COKESON'S\nchair], he'll be here directly--never misses--not much.  [Delicately]\nI hope our friend's back from the country.  His time's been up these\nthree months, if I remember.  [RUTH nods] I was awful sorry about\nthat.  The governor made a mistake--if you ask me.\n\nRUTH.  He did.\n\nSWEEDLE.  He ought to have given him a chanst.  And, I say, the judge\nought to ha' let him go after that.  They've forgot what human\nnature's like.  Whereas we know. [RUTH gives him a honeyed smile]\n\nSWEEDLE.  They come down on you like a cartload of bricks, flatten\nyou out, and when you don't swell up again they complain of it.  I\nknow 'em--seen a lot of that sort of thing in my time.  [He shakes\nhis head in the plenitude of wisdom]  Why, only the other day the\ngovernor----\n\n     But COKESON has come in through the outer office; brisk with\n     east wind, and decidedly greyer.\n\nCOKESON.  [Drawing off his coat and gloves]  Why! it's you!  [Then\nmotioning SWEEDLE out, and closing the door]  Quite a stranger!  Must\nbe two years.  D'you want to see me?  I can give you a minute.  Sit\ndown!  Family well?\n\nRUTH.  Yes.  I'm not living where I was.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing her askance] I hope things are more comfortable at\nhome.\n\nRUTH.  I couldn't stay with Honeywill, after all.\n\nCOKESON.  You haven't done anything rash, I hope.  I should be sorry\nif you'd done anything rash.\n\nRUTH.  I've kept the children with me.\n\nCOKESON.  [Beginning to feel that things are not so jolly as ha had\nhoped]  Well, I'm glad to have seen you.  You've not heard from the\nyoung man, I suppose, since he came out?\n\nRUTH.  Yes, I ran across him yesterday.\n\nCOKESON.  I hope he's well.\n\nRUTH.  [With sudden fierceness]  He can't get anything to do.  It's\ndreadful to see him.  He's just skin and bone.\n\nCOKESON.  [With genuine concern] Dear me!  I'm sorry to hear that.\n[On his guard again]  Didn't they find him a place when his time was\nup?\n\nRUTH.  He was only there three weeks.  It got out.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure I don't know what I can do for you.  I don't like\nto be snubby.\n\nRUTH.  I can't bear his being like that.\n\nCOKESON.  [Scanning her not unprosperous figure] I know his relations\naren't very forthy about him.  Perhaps you can do something for him,\ntill he finds his feet.\n\nRUTH.  Not now.  I could have--but not now.\n\nCOKESON.  I don't understand.\n\nRUTH.  [Proudly]  I've seen him again--that's all over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Staring at her--disturbed]  I'm a family man--I don't want\nto hear anything unpleasant.  Excuse me--I'm very busy.\n\nRUTH.  I'd have gone home to my people in the country long ago, but\nthey've never got over me marrying Honeywill.  I never was waywise,\nMr. Cokeson, but I'm proud.  I was only a girl, you see, when I\nmarried him.  I thought the world of him, of course...  he used\nto come travelling to our farm.\n\nCOKESON.  [Regretfully]  I did hope you'd have got on better, after\nyou saw me.\n\nRUTH.  He used me worse than ever.  He couldn't break my nerve, but I\nlost my health; and then he began knocking the children about.  I\ncouldn't stand that.  I wouldn't go back now, if he were dying.\n\nCOKESON.  [Who has risen and is shifting about as though dodging a\nstream of lava] We mustn't be violent, must we?\n\nRUTH.  [Smouldering]  A man that can't behave better than that--\n[There is silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Fascinated in spite of himself]  Then there you were!  And\nwhat did you do then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a shrug]  Tried the same as when I left him before...,\nmaking skirts... cheap things.  It was the best I could get, but I\nnever made more than ten shillings a week, buying my own cotton and\nworking all day; I hardly ever got to bed till past twelve.  I kept\nat it for nine months.  [Fiercely]  Well, I'm not fit for that; I\nwasn't made for it.  I'd rather die.\n\nCOKESON.  My dear woman!  We mustn't talk like that.\n\nRUTH.  It was starvation for the children too--after what they'd\nalways had.  I soon got not to care.  I used to be too tired. [She is\nsilent]\n\nCOKESON.  [With fearful curiosity]  Why, what happened then?\n\nRUTH.  [With a laugh] My employer happened then--he's happened ever\nsince.\n\nCOKESON.  Dear!  Oh dear!  I never came across a thing like this.\n\nRUTH.  [Dully] He's treated me all right.  But I've done with that.\n[Suddenly her lips begin to quiver, and she hides them with the back\nof her hand] I never thought I'd see him again, you see.  It was just\na chance I met him by Hyde Park.  We went in there and sat down, and\nhe told me all about himself.  Oh!  Mr. Cokeson, give him another\nchance.\n\nCOKESON.  [Greatly disturbed]  Then you've both lost your livings!\nWhat a horrible position!\n\nRUTH.  If he could only get here--where there's nothing to find out\nabout him!\n\nCOKESON.  We can't have anything derogative to the firm.\n\nRUTH.  I've no one else to go to.\n\nCOKESON.  I'll speak to the partners, but I don't think they'll take\nhim, under the circumstances.  I don't really.\n\nRUTH.  He came with me; he's down there in the street. [She points to\nthe window.]\n\nCOKESON.  [On his dignity] He shouldn't have done that until he's\nsent for.  [Then softening at the look on her face]  We've got a\nvacancy, as it happens, but I can't promise anything.\n\nRUTH.  It would be the saving of him.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, I'll do what I can, but I'm not sanguine.  Now tell\nhim that I don't want him till I see how things are.  Leave your\naddress?  [Repeating her] 83 Mullingar Street?  [He notes it on\nblotting-paper] Good-morning.\n\nRUTH.  Thank you.\n\n     She moves towards the door, turns as if to speak, but does not,\n     and goes away.\n\nCOKESON.  [Wiping his head and forehead with a large white cotton\nhandkerchief] What a business!  [Then looking amongst his papers, he\nsounds his bell.  SWEEDLE answers it]\n\nCOKESON.  Was that young Richards coming here to-day after the\nclerk's place?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  Well, keep him in the air; I don't want to see him yet.\n\nSWEEDLE.  What shall I tell him, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  [With asperity] invent something.  Use your brains.  Don't\nstump him off altogether.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Shall I tell him that we've got illness, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  No!  Nothing untrue.  Say I'm not here to-day.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Yes, sir.  Keep him hankering?\n\nCOKESON.  Exactly.  And look here.  You remember Falder?  I may be\nhaving him round to see me.  Now, treat him like you'd have him treat\nyou in a similar position.\n\nSWEEDLE.  I naturally should do.\n\nCOKESON.  That's right.  When a man's down never hit 'im.  'Tisn't\nnecessary.  Give him a hand up.  That's a metaphor I recommend to you\nin life.  It's sound policy.\n\nSWEEDLE.  Do you think the governors will take him on again, sir?\n\nCOKESON.  Can't say anything about that.  [At the sound of some one\nhaving entered the outer office]  Who's there?\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Going to the door and looking] It's Falder, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  [Vexed]  Dear me!  That's very naughty of her.  Tell him to\ncall again.  I don't want----\n\n     He breaks off as FALDER comes in.  FALDER is thin, pale, older,\n     his eyes have grown more restless.  His clothes are very worn\n     and loose.\n\n     SWEEDLE, nodding cheerfully, withdraws.\n\nCOKESON.  Glad to see you.  You're rather previous.  [Trying to keep\nthings pleasant]  Shake hands!  She's striking while the iron's hot.\n[He wipes his forehead] I don't blame her.  She's anxious.\n\n     FALDER  timidly takes COKESON's hand and glances towards the\n     partners' door.\n\nCOKESON.  No--not yet!  Sit down!  [FALDER sits in the chair at the\naide of COKESON's table, on which he places his cap]  Now you are\nhere I'd like you to give me a little account of yourself.  [Looking\nat him over his spectacles]  How's your health?\n\nFALDER.  I'm alive, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nCOKESON.  [Preoccupied]  I'm glad to hear that.  About this matter.\nI don't like doing anything out of the ordinary; it's not my habit.\nI'm a plain man, and I want everything smooth and straight.  But I\npromised your friend to speak to the partners, and I always keep my\nword.\n\nFALDER.  I just want a chance, Mr. Cokeson.  I've paid for that job a\nthousand times and more.  I have, sir.  No one knows.  They say I\nweighed more when I came out than when I went in.  They couldn't\nweigh me here [he touches his head]  or here [he touches--his heart,\nand gives a sort of laugh].  Till last night I'd have thought there\nwas nothing in here at all.\n\nCOKESON.  [Concerned] You've not got heart disease?\n\nFALDER.  Oh!  they passed me sound enough.\n\nCOKESON.  But they got you a place, didn't they?\n\nFALSER.  Yes; very good people, knew all about it--very kind to me.\nI thought I was going to get on first rate.  But one day, all of a\nsudden, the other clerks got wind of it....  I couldn't stick it, Mr.\nCOKESON, I couldn't, sir.\n\nCOKESON. Easy, my dear fellow, easy!\n\nFALDER.  I had one small job after that, but it didn't last.\n\nCOKESON.  How was that?\n\nFALDER.  It's no good deceiving you, Mr. Cokeson.  The fact is, I\nseem to be struggling against a thing that's all round me.  I can't\nexplain it: it's as if I was in a net; as fast as I cut it here, it\ngrows up there.  I didn't act as I ought to have, about references;\nbut what are you to do?  You must have them.  And that made me\nafraid, and I left.  In fact, I'm--I'm afraid all the time now.\n\n     He bows his head and leans dejectedly silent over the table.\n\nCOKESON.  I feel for you--I do really.  Aren't your sisters going to\ndo anything for you?\n\nFALDER.  One's in consumption.  And the other----\n\nCOKESON.  Ye...es.  She told me her husband wasn't quite pleased with\nyou.\n\nFALDER.  When I went there--they were at supper--my sister wanted to\ngive me a kiss--I know.  But he just looked at her, and said: \"What\nhave you come for?\"  Well, I pocketed my pride and I said: \"Aren't\nyou going to give me your hand, Jim?  Cis is, I know,\" I said.  \"Look\nhere!\" he said, \"that's all very well, but we'd better come to an\nunderstanding.  I've been expecting you, and I've made up my mind.\nI'll give you fifteen pounds to go to Canada with.\"  \"I see,\" I\nsaid--\"good riddance!  No, thanks; keep your fifteen pounds.\"\nFriendship's a queer thing when you've been where I have.\n\nCOKESON.  I understand.  Will you take the fifteen pound from me?\n[Flustered, as FALDER regards him with a queer smile]  Quite without\nprejudice; I meant it kindly.\n\nFALDER.  I'm not allowed to leave the country.\n\nCOKESON.  Oh!  ye...es--ticket-of-leave?  You aren't looking the\nthing.\n\nFALDER.  I've slept in the Park three nights this week.  The dawns\naren't all poetry there.  But meeting her--I feel a different man\nthis morning.  I've often thought the being fond of hers the best\nthing about me; it's sacred, somehow--and yet it did for me.  That's\nqueer, isn't it?\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sure we're all very sorry for you.\n\nFALDER.  That's what I've found, Mr. Cokeson.  Awfully sorry for me.\n[With quiet bitterness]  But it doesn't do to associate with\ncriminals!\n\nCOKESON.  Come, come, it's no use calling yourself names.  That never\ndid a man any good.  Put a face on it.\n\nFALDER.  It's easy enough to put a face on it, sir, when you're\nindependent.  Try it when you're down like me.  They talk about\ngiving you your deserts.  Well, I think I've had just a bit over.\n\nCOKESON.  [Eyeing him askance over his spectacles]  I hope they haven't\nmade a Socialist of you.\n\n     FALDER is suddenly still, as if brooding over his past self; he\n     utters a peculiar laugh.\n\nCOKESON.  You must give them credit for the best intentions.  Really\nyou must.  Nobody wishes you harm, I'm sure.\n\nFALDER.  I believe that, Mr. Cokeson.  Nobody wishes you harm, but\nthey down you all the same.  This feeling--[He stares round him, as\nthough at something closing in]  It's crushing me.  [With sudden\nimpersonality]  I know it is.\n\nCOKESON.  [Horribly disturbed] There's nothing there!  We must try\nand take it quiet.  I'm sure I've often had you in my prayers.  Now\nleave it to me.  I'll use my gumption and take 'em when they're\njolly.  [As he speaks the two partners come in]\n\nCOKESON  [Rather disconcerted, but trying to put them all at ease]\nI didn't expect you quite so soon.  I've just been having a talk with\nthis young man.  I think you'll remember him.\n\nJAMES.  [With a grave, keen look] Quite well.  How are you, Falder?\n\nWALTER.  [Holding out his hand almost timidly] Very glad to see you\nagain, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  [Who has recovered his self-control, takes the hand] Thank\nyou, sir.\n\nCOKESON.  Just a word, Mr. James.  [To FALDER, pointing to the\nclerks' office] You might go in there a minute.  You know your way.\nOur junior won't be coming this morning.  His wife's just had a\nlittle family.\n\n     FALDER, goes uncertainly out into the clerks' office.\n\nCOKESON.  [Confidentially] I'm bound to tell you all about it.  He's\nquite penitent.  But there's a prejudice against him.  And you're not\nseeing him to advantage this morning; he's under-nourished.  It's\nvery trying to go without your dinner.\n\nJAMES.  Is that so, COKESON?\n\nCOKESON.  I wanted to ask you.  He's had his lesson.  Now we know all\nabout him, and we want a clerk.  There is a young fellow applying,\nbut I'm keeping him in the air.\n\nJAMES.  A gaol-bird in the office, COKESON?  I don't see it.\n\nWALTER.  \"The rolling of the chariot-wheels of Justice!\"  I've never\ngot that out of my head.\n\nJAMES.  I've nothing to reproach myself with in this affair.  What's\nhe been doing since he came out?\n\nCOKESON.  He's had one or two places, but he hasn't kept them.  He's\nsensitive--quite natural.  Seems to fancy everybody's down on him.\n\nJAMES.  Bad sign.  Don't like the fellow--never did from the first.\n\"Weak character\"'s written all over him.\n\nWALTER.  I think we owe him a leg up.\n\nJAMES.  He brought it all on himself.\n\nWALTER.  The doctrine of full responsibility doesn't quite hold in\nthese days.\n\nJAMES.  [Rather grimly]  You'll find it safer to hold it for all\nthat, my boy.\n\nWALTER.  For oneself, yes--not for other people, thanks.\n\nJAMES.  Well!  I don't want to be hard.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm glad to hear you say that.  He seems to see something\n[spreading his arms] round him.  'Tisn't healthy.\n\nJAMES.  What about that woman he was mixed up with?  I saw some one\nuncommonly like her outside as we came in.\n\nCOKESON.  That!  Well, I can't keep anything from you.  He has met\nher.\n\nJAMES.  Is she with her husband?\n\nCOKESON.  No.\n\nJAMES.  Falder living with her, I suppose?\n\nCOKESON.  [Desperately trying to retain the new-found jollity] I\ndon't know that of my own knowledge.  'Tisn't my business.\n\nJAMES.  It's our business, if we're going to engage him, COKESON.\n\nCOKESON.  [Reluctantly] I ought to tell you, perhaps.  I've had the\nparty here this morning.\n\nJAMES.  I thought so.  [To WALTER] No, my dear boy, it won't do.  Too\nshady altogether!\n\nCOKESON.  The two things together make it very awkward for you--I see\nthat.\n\nWALTER.  [Tentatively]  I don't quite know what we have to do with\nhis private life.\n\nJAMES.  No, no!  He must make a clean sheet of it, or he can't come\nhere.\n\nWALTER.  Poor devil!\n\nCOKESON.  Will you--have him in?  [And as JAMES nods] I think I can\nget him to see reason.\n\nJAMES.  [Grimly] You can leave that to me, COKESON.\n\nWALTER.  [To JAMES, in a low voice, while COKESON is summoning\nFALDER]  His whole future may depend on what we do, dad.\n\nFALDER comes in.  He has pulled himself together, and presents a\nsteady front.\n\nJAMES.  Now look here, Falder.  My son and I want to give you another\nchance; but there are two things I must say to you.  In the first\nplace: It's no good coming here as a victim.  If you've any notion\nthat you've been unjustly treated--get rid of it.  You can't play\nfast and loose with morality and hope to go scot-free.  If Society\ndidn't take care of itself, nobody would--the sooner you realise that\nthe better.\n\nFALDER.  Yes, sir; but--may I say something?\n\nJAMES.  Well?\n\nFALDER.  I had a lot of time to think it over in prison.  [He stops]\n\nCOKESON.  [Encouraging him] I'm sure you did.\n\nFALDER.  There were all sorts there.  And what I mean, sir, is, that\nif we'd been treated differently the first time, and put under\nsomebody that could look after us a bit, and not put in prison, not a\nquarter of us would ever have got there.\n\nJAMES.  [Shaking his head] I'm afraid I've very grave doubts of that,\nFalder.\n\nFALDER.  [With a gleam of malice] Yes, sir, so I found.\n\nJAMES.  My good fellow, don't forget that you began it.\n\nFALDER.  I never wanted to do wrong.\n\nJAMES.  Perhaps not.  But you did.\n\nFALDER.  [With all the bitterness of his past suffering] It's knocked\nme out of time.  [Pulling himself up]  That is, I mean, I'm not what\nI was.\n\nJAMES.  This isn't encouraging for us, Falder.\n\nCOKESON.  He's putting it awkwardly, Mr. James.\n\nFALDER.  [Throwing over his caution from the intensity of his\nfeeling]  I mean it, Mr. Cokeson.\n\nJAMES.  Now, lay aside all those thoughts, Falder, and look to the\nfuture.\n\nFALDER.  [Almost eagerly] Yes, sir, but you don't understand what\nprison is.  It's here it gets you.\n\n     He grips his chest.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a whisper to James] I told you he wanted nourishment.\n\nWALTER.  Yes, but, my dear fellow, that'll pass away.  Time's\nmerciful.\n\nFALDER.  [With his face twitching]  I hope so, sir.\n\nJAMES.  [Much more gently]  Now, my boy, what you've got to do is to\nput all the past behind you and build yourself up a steady\nreputation.  And that brings me to the second thing.  This woman you\nwere mixed up with you must give us your word, you know, to have done\nwith that.  There's no chance of your keeping straight if you're\ngoing to begin your future with such a relationship.\n\nFALDER.  [Looking from one to the other with a hunted expression] But\nsir...  but sir...  it's the one thing I looked forward to\nall that time.  And she too...  I couldn't find her before last\nnight.\n\n     During this and what follows COKESON becomes more and more\n     uneasy.\n\nJAMES.  This is painful, Falder.  But you must see for yourself that\nit's impossible for a firm like this to close its eyes to everything.\nGive us this proof of your resolve to keep straight, and you can come\nback--not otherwise.\n\nFALDER.  [After staring at JAMES, suddenly stiffens himself]  I\ncouldn't give her up.  I couldn't!  Oh, sir!\n\n     I'm all she's got to look to.  And I'm sure she's all I've got.\n\nJAMES.  I'm very sorry, Falder, but I must be firm.  It's for the\nbenefit of you both in the long run.  No good can come of this\nconnection.  It was the cause of all your disaster.\n\nFALDER.  But sir, it means-having gone through all that-getting\nbroken up--my nerves are in an awful state--for nothing.  I did it\nfor her.\n\nJAMES.  Come!  If she's anything of a woman she'll see it for\nherself.  She won't want to drag you down further.  If there were a\nprospect of your being able to marry her--it might be another thing.\n\nFALDER.  It's not my fault, sir, that she couldn't get rid of him\n--she would have if she could.  That's been the whole trouble from\nthe beginning.  [Looking suddenly at WALTER]...  If anybody\nwould help her!  It's only money wants now, I'm sure.\n\nCOKESON.  [Breaking in, as WALTER hesitates, and is about to speak] I\ndon't think we need consider that--it's rather far-fetched.\n\nFALDER.  [To WALTER, appealing]  He must have given her full cause\nsince; she could prove that he drove her to leave him.\n\nWALTER.  I'm inclined to do what you say, Falder, if it can be\nmanaged.\n\nFALDER.  Oh, sir!\n\nHe goes to the window and looks down into the street.\n\nCOKESON.  [Hurriedly]  You don't take me, Mr. Walter.  I have my\nreasons.\n\nFALDER.  [From the window]  She's down there, sir.  Will you see her?\nI can beckon to her from here.\n\n     WALTER hesitates, and looks from COKESON to JAMES.\n\nJAMES.  [With a sharp nod] Yes, let her come.\n\nFALDER beckons from the window.\n\nCOKESON.  [In a low fluster to JAMES and WALTER]  No, Mr. James.\nShe's not been quite what she ought to ha' been, while this young\nman's been away.  She's lost her chance.  We can't consult how to\nswindle the Law.\n\n     FALDER has come from the window.  The three men look at him in a\n     sort of awed silence.\n\nFALDER.  [With instinctive apprehension of some change--looking from\none to the other]  There's been nothing between us, sir, to prevent\nit....  What I said at the trial was true.  And last night we\nonly just sat in the Park.\n\nSWEEDLE comes in from the outer office.\n\nCOKESON.  What is it?\n\nSWEEDLE.  Mrs. Honeywill.   [There is silence]\n\nJAMES.  Show her in.\n\n     RUTH comes slowly in, and stands stoically with FALDER on one\n     side and the three men on the other.  No one speaks.  COKESON\n     turns to his table, bending over his papers as though the burden\n     of the situation were forcing him back into his accustomed\n     groove.\n\nJAMES.  [Sharply]  Shut the door there.  [SWEEDLE shuts the door]\nWe've asked you to come up because there are certain facts to be\nfaced in this matter.  I understand you have only just met Falder\nagain.\n\nRUTH.  Yes--only yesterday.\n\nJAMES.  He's told us about himself, and we're very sorry for him.\nI've promised to take him back here if he'll make a fresh start.\n[Looking steadily at RUTH] This is a matter that requires courage,\nma'am.\n\nRUTH, who is looking at FALDER, begins to twist her hands in front of\nher as though prescient of disaster.\n\nFALDER.  Mr. Walter How is good enough to say that he'll help us to\nget you a divorce.\n\n     RUTH flashes a startled glance at JAMES and WALTER.\n\nJAMES.  I don't think that's practicable, Falder.\n\nFALDER.  But, Sir----!\n\nJAMES.  [Steadily]  Now, Mrs. Honeywill.  You're fond of him.\n\nRUTH.  Yes, Sir; I love him.\n\n     She looks miserably at FALDER.\n\nJAMES.  Then you don't want to stand in his way, do you?\n\nRUTH.  [In a faint voice] I could take care of him.\n\nJAMES.  The best way you can take care of him will be to give him up.\n\nFALDER.  Nothing shall make me give you up.  You can get a divorce.\nThere's been nothing between us, has there?\n\nRUTH.  [Mournfully shaking her head-without looking at him]  No.\n\nFALDER.  We'll keep apart till it's over, sir; if you'll only help\nus--we promise.\n\nJAMES.  [To RUTH]  You see the thing plainly, don't you?  You see\nwhat I mean?\n\nRUTH.  [Just above a whisper]  Yes.\n\nCOKESON.  [To himself] There's a dear woman.\n\nJAMES.  The situation is impossible.\n\nRUTH.  Must I, Sir?\n\nJAMES.  [Forcing himself to look at her] I put it to you, ma'am.  His\nfuture is in your hands.\n\nRUTH.  [Miserably] I want to do the best for him.\n\nJAMES.  [A little huskily] That's right, that's right!\n\nFALDER.  I don't understand.  You're not going to give me up--after\nall this?  There's something--[Starting forward to JAMES] Sir, I\nswear solemnly there's been nothing between us.\n\nJAMES.  I believe you, Falder.  Come, my lad, be as plucky as she is.\n\nFALDER.  Just now you were going to help us.  [He starts at RUTH, who\nis standing absolutely still; his face and hands twitch and quiver as\nthe truth dawns on him]  What is it?  You've not been--\n\nWALTER.  Father!\n\nJAMES.  [Hurriedly]  There, there!  That'll do, that'll do!  I'll\ngive you your chance, Falder.  Don't let me know what you do with\nyourselves, that's all.\n\nFALDER.  [As if he has not heard] Ruth?\n\n     RUTH looks at him; and FALDER covers his face with his hands.\n     There is silence.\n\nCOKESON.  [Suddenly]  There's some one out there.  [To RUTH]  Go in\nhere.  You'll feel better by yourself for a minute.\n\n     He points to the clerks' room and moves towards the outer\n     office.  FALDER does not move.  RUTH puts out her hand timidly.\n     He shrinks back from the touch.  She turns and goes miserably\n     into the clerks' room.  With a brusque movement he follows,\n     seizing her by the shoulder just inside the doorway.  COKESON\n     shuts the door.\n\nJAMES.  [Pointing to the outer office]  Get rid of that, whoever it\nis.\n\nSWEEDLE.  [Opening the office door, in a scared voice]\nDetective-Sergeant blister.\n\n     The detective enters, and closes the door behind him.\n\nWISTER.  Sorry to disturb you, sir.  A clerk you had here, two years\nand a half ago: I arrested him in, this room.\n\nJAMES.  What about him?\n\nWISTER.  I thought perhaps I might get his whereabouts from you.\n[There is an awkward silence]\n\nCOKESON.  [Pleasantly, coming to the rescue] We're not responsible\nfor his movements; you know that.\n\nJAMES.  What do you want with him?\n\nWISTER.  He's failed to report himself this last four weeks.\n\nWALTER.  How d'you mean?\n\nWISTER.  Ticket-of-leave won't be up for another six months, sir.\n\nWALTER.  Has he to keep in touch with the police till then?\n\nWISTER.  We're bound to know where he sleeps every night.  I dare say\nwe shouldn't interfere, sir, even though he hasn't reported himself.\nBut we've just heard there's a serious matter of obtaining employment\nwith a forged reference.  What with the two things together--we must\nhave him.\n\n     Again there is silence.  WALTER and COKESON steal glances at\n     JAMES, who stands staring steadily at the detective.\n\nCOKESON.  [Expansively]  We're very busy at the moment.  If you could\nmake it convenient to call again we might be able to tell you then.\n\nJAMES.  [Decisively] I'm a servant of the Law, but I dislike\npeaching.  In fact, I can't do such a thing.  If you want him you\nmust find him without us.\n\n     As he speaks his eye falls on FALDER'S cap, still lying on the\n     table, and his face contracts.\n\nWISTER.  [Noting the gesture--quietly]  Very good, sir.  I ought to\nwarn you that, having broken the terms of his licence, he's still a\nconvict, and sheltering a convict.\n\nJAMES.  I shelter no one.  But you mustn't come here and ask\nquestions which it's not my business to answer.\n\nWISTER.  [Dryly] I won't trouble you further then, gentlemen.\n\nCOKESON.  I'm sorry we couldn't give you the information.  You quite\nunderstand, don't you?  Good-morning!\n\n     WISTER turns to go, but instead of going to the door of the\n     outer office he goes to the door of the clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  The other door....  the other door!\n\n     WISTER opens the clerks' door.  RUTHS's voice is heard: \"Oh,\n     do!\" and FALDER'S: \"I can't!\"  There is a little pause; then,\n     with sharp fright, RUTH says: \"Who's that?\"\n\n     WISTER has gone in.\n\n     The three men look aghast at the door.\n\nWISTER  [From within]  Keep back, please!\n\n     He comes swiftly out with his arm twisted in FALDER'S.  The\n     latter gives a white, staring look at the three men.\n\nWALTER.  Let him go this time, for God's sake!\n\nWISTER.  I couldn't take the responsibility, sir.\n\nFALDER.  [With a queer, desperate laugh]  Good!\n\n     Flinging a look back at RUTH, he throws up his head, and goes\n     out through the outer office, half dragging WISTER after him.\n\nWALTER.  [With despair]  That finishes him.  It'll go on for ever\nnow.\n\n     SWEEDLE can be seen staring through the outer door.  There are\n     sounds of footsteps descending the stone stairs; suddenly a dull\n     thud, a faint \"My God!\" in WISTER's voice.\n\nJAMES.  What's that?\n\n     SWEEDLE dashes forward.  The door swings to behind him.  There\n     is dead silence.\n\nWALTER.  [Starting forward to the inner room] The woman-she's\nfainting!\n\n     He and COKESON support the fainting RUTH from the doorway of the\n     clerks' room.\n\nCOKESON.  [Distracted]  Here, my dear!  There, there!\n\nWALTER.  Have you any brandy?\n\nCOKESON.  I've got sherry.\n\nWALTER.  Get it, then.  Quick!\n\n     He places RUTH in a chair--which JAMES has dragged forward.\n\nCOKESON.  [With sherry] Here!  It's good strong sherry.  [They try to\nforce the sherry between her lips.]\n\n     There is the sound of feet, and they stop to listen.\n\n     The outer door is reopened--WISTER and SWEEDLE are seen carrying\n     some burden.\n\nJAMES.  [Hurrying forward]  What is it?\n\n     They lay the burden doom in the outer office, out of sight, and\n     all but RUTH cluster round it, speaking in hushed voices.\n\nWISTER.  He jumped--neck's broken.\n\nWALTER.  Good God!\n\nWISTER.  He must have been mad to think he could give me the slip\nlike that.  And what was it--just a few months!\n\nWALTER.  [Bitterly] Was that all?\n\nJAMES.  What a desperate thing!  [Then, in a voice unlike his own]\nRun for a doctor--you!  [SWEEDLE rushes from the outer office] An\nambulance!\n\n     WISTER goes out.  On RUTH's face an expression of fear and\n     horror has been seen growing, as if she dared not turn towards\n     the voices.  She now rises and steals towards them.\n\nWALTER.  [Turning suddenly] Look!\n\n     The three men shrink back out of her way, one by one, into\n     COKESON'S room.  RUTH drops on her knees by the body.\n\nRUTH.  [In a whisper]  What is it?  He's not breathing.  [She\ncrouches over him]  My dear!  My pretty!\n\n     In the outer office doorway the figures of men am seen standing.\n\nRUTH.  [Leaping to her feet] No, no!  No, no!  He's dead!\n\n     [The figures of the men shrink back]\n\nCOKESON.  [Stealing forward.  In a hoarse voice] There, there, poor\ndear woman!\n\n     At the sound behind her RUTH faces round at him.\n\nCOKESON.  No one'll touch him now!  Never again!  He's safe with\ngentle Jesus!\n\n     RUTH stands as though turned to stone in the doorway staring at\n     COKESON, who, bending humbly before her, holds out his hand as\n     one would to a lost dog.\n\n\n\nThe curtain falls.\n\n\n\n\n\n End of Project Gutenberg's Justice (Second Series Plays), by John Galsworthy\n\n \n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: Why was Falder worried about Ruth?\n\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 117, "category": "longbench_gov_report", "reference": ["Historically, the United States' leadership of the global trading system has ensured the United States a seat at the table to shape the international trade agenda in ways that both advance and defend U.S. interests. The evolution of U.S. leadership and the global trade agenda remain of interest to Congress, which holds constitutional authority over foreign commerce and establishes trade negotiating objectives and principles through legislation. Congress has recognized the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the \"foundation of the global trading system\" within trade promotion authority (TPA) and plays a direct legislative and oversight role over WTO agreements. The statutory basis for U.S. WTO membership is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465), and U.S. priorities and objectives for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO have been reflected in various TPA legislation since 1974. Congress also has oversight of the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies that participate in WTO meetings and enforce WTO commitments. The WTO is a 164-member international organization that was created to oversee and administer multilateral trade rules, serve as a forum for trade liberalization negotiations, and resolve trade disputes. The United States was a major force behind the establishment of the WTO in 1995, and the rules and agreements resulting from multilateral trade negotiations. The WTO encompassed and succeeded the GATT, established in 1947 among the United States and 22 other countries. Through the GATT and WTO, the United States, with other countries, sought to establish a more open, rules-based trading system in the postwar era, with the goal of fostering international economic cooperation and raising economic prosperity worldwide. Today, 98% of global trade is among WTO members. The WTO is a consensus and member-driven organization. Its core principles include nondiscrimination (most favored nation treatment and national treatment), freer trade, fair competition, transparency, and encouraging development. These are enshrined in a series of WTO trade agreements covering goods, agriculture, services, intellectual property rights, and trade facilitation, among other issues. Some countries, including China, have been motivated to join the WTO not just to expand access to foreign markets but to spur domestic economic reforms, help transition to market economies, and promote the rule of law. The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) provides an enforceable means for members to resolve disputes over WTO commitments and obligations. The WTO has processed more than 500 disputes, and the United States has been an active user of the dispute settlement system. Supporters of the multilateral trading system consider the dispute settlement mechanism an important success of the system. At the same time, some members, including the United States, contend it has procedural shortcomings and has exceeded its mandate in deciding cases. Many observers are concerned that the effectiveness of the WTO has diminished since the collapse of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, which began in 2001, and believe the WTO needs to adopt reforms to continue its role as the foundation of the global trading system. To date, WTO members have been unable to reach consensus for a new comprehensive multilateral agreement on trade liberalization and rules. While global supply chains and technology have transformed international trade and investment, global trade rules have not kept up with the pace of change. Many countries have turned to negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs) outside the WTO as well as plurilateral agreements involving subsets of WTO members rather than all members. At the latest WTO Ministerial conference in December 2017, no major deliverables were announced. Several members committed to make progress on ongoing talks, such as fisheries subsidies and e-commerce, while other areas remain stalled. While many were disappointed by the limited progress, in the U.S. view, the outcome signaled that \"the impasse at the WTO was broken,\" paving the way for groups of like-minded countries to pursue new work in other key areas. Certain WTO members have begun to explore aspects of reform and future negotiations. Potential reforms concern the administration of the organization, its procedures and practices, and attempts to address the inability of WTO members to conclude new agreements. Proposed DS reforms also attempt to improve the working of the dispute settlement system, particularly the Appellate Body—the seven-member body that reviews appeals by WTO members of a panel's findings in a dispute case. Some U.S. frustrations with the WTO are not new and many are shared by other trading partners, such as the European Union. At the same time, the Administration's overall approach has spurred new questions regarding the future of U.S. leadership and U.S. priorities for improving the multilateral trading system. Concerns have emphasized that the Administration's recent actions to unilaterally raise tariffs under U.S. trade laws and to possibly impede the functioning of the dispute settlement system might undermine the credibility of the WTO system. A growing question of some observers is whether the WTO would flounder for lack of U.S. leadership, or whether other WTO members like the EU and China taking on larger roles would continue to make it a meaningful actor in the global trade environment. The growing debate over the role and future direction of the WTO may be of interest to Congress. Important issues it may address include how current and future WTO agreements affect the U.S. economy, the value of U.S. membership and leadership in the WTO, whether new U.S. negotiating objectives or oversight hearings are needed to address prospects for new WTO reforms and rulemaking, and the relevant authorities and impact of potential U.S. withdrawal from the WTO on U.S. economic and foreign policy interests."], "prompt": "You are given a report by a government agency. Write a one-page summary of the report.\n\nReport:\nThe World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international organization that administers the trade rules and agreements negotiated by its 164 members to eliminate trade barriers and create nondiscriminatory rules to govern trade. It also serves as an important forum for resolving trade disputes. The United States was a major force behind the establishment of the WTO in 1995 and the rules and agreements that resulted from the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (1986-1994). The WTO encompassed and expanded on the commitments and institutional functions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was established in 1947 by the United States and 22 other nations. Through the GATT and WTO, the United States and other countries sought to establish a more open, rules-based trading system in the postwar era, with the goal of fostering international economic cooperation, stability, and prosperity worldwide. Today, the vast majority of world trade, approximately 98%, takes place among WTO members. The evolution of U.S. leadership in the WTO and the institution's future agenda have been of interest to Congress. The terms set by the WTO agreements govern the majority of U.S. trading relationships. Some 65% of U.S. global trade is with countries that do not have free trade agreements (FTAs) with the United States, including China, the European Union (EU), India, and Japan, and thus rely on the terms of WTO agreements. Congress has recognized the WTO as the \"foundation of the global trading system\" within U.S. trade legislation and plays a direct legislative and oversight role over WTO agreements. U.S. FTAs also build on core WTO agreements. While the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) represents the United States at the WTO, Congress holds constitutional authority over foreign commerce and establishes U.S. trade negotiating objectives and principles and implements U.S. trade agreements through legislation. U.S. priorities and objectives for the GATT/WTO are reflected in trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation since 1974. Congress also has oversight of the USTR and other executive branch agencies that participate in WTO meetings and enforce WTO commitments. The WTO's effectiveness as a negotiating body for broad-based trade liberalization has come under intensified scrutiny, as has its role in resolving trade disputes. The WTO has often struggled to reach consensus over issues that can place developed against developing country members (such as agricultural subsidies, industrial goods tariffs, and intellectual property rights protection). It has also struggled to address newer trade barriers, such as digital trade restrictions and the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in international commerce, which have become more prominent in the years since the WTO was established. Global supply chains and advances in technology have transformed global commerce, but trade rules have failed to keep up with the pace of change; since 1995 WTO members have been unable to reach consensus for a new comprehensive multilateral agreement. As a result, many countries have turned to negotiating FTAs with one another outside the WTO to build on core WTO agreements and advance trade liberalization and new rules. Plurilateral negotiations, involving subsets of WTO members rather than all members, are also becoming a more popular forum for tackling newer issues on the global trade agenda. The most recent round of WTO negotiations, the Doha Round, began in November 2001, but concluded with no clear path forward, leaving multiple unresolved issues after the 10 th Ministerial conference in 2015. Efforts to build on current WTO agreements outside of the Doha agenda continue. While WTO members have made some progress toward determining future work plans, no major deliverables or negotiated outcomes were announced at the 11 th Ministerial conference in December 2017 and no consensus Ministerial Declaration was released. Many have concerns that the growing use of protectionist trade policies by developed and developing countries, recent U.S. tariff actions and counterretaliation, and escalating trade disputes between major economies may further strain the multilateral trading system. The WTO is faced with resolving several significant pending disputes, which involve the United States, and resolving debates about the role and procedures of its Appellate Body, which reviews appeals of dispute cases. In a break from past Administrations' approaches, U.S. officials have recently expressed doubt over the value of the WTO institution to the U.S. economy and questioned whether leadership in the organization is a benefit or cost to the United States. While USTR Robert Lighthizer acknowledged at the most recent Ministerial that the WTO is an \"important institution\" that does an \"enormous amount of good,\" the Trump Administration has expressed deep skepticism toward multilateral trade deals, including those negotiated within the WTO. In remarks to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in November 2017, President Trump stated the following: \"Simply put, we have not been treated fairly by the World Trade Organization.... What we will no longer do is enter into large agreements that tie our hands, surrender our sovereignty, and make meaningful enforcement practically impossible.\" President Trump has also at times threatened to withdraw the United States from the WTO. In addition, amid concerns about \"judicial overreach\" in WTO dispute findings, the Administration is currently withholding approval for judge appointments to the WTO Appellate Body—a practice that began under the Obama Administration. While many of the U.S. concerns are not new and are shared by other trading partners, questions remain about U.S. priorities for improving the system. With growing debate over the role and future direction of the WTO, a number of issues may be of interest to Congress, including the value of U.S. membership and leadership in the WTO, whether new U.S. negotiating objectives or oversight hearings are needed to address prospects for new WTO reforms and rulemaking, and the relevant authorities and the impact of potential WTO withdrawal on U.S. economic and foreign policy interests. This report provides background history of the WTO, its organization, and current status of negotiations. The report also explores concerns some have regarding the WTO's future direction and key policy issues for Congress. Following World War II, nations throughout the world, led by the United States and several other developed countries, sought to establish a more open and nondiscriminatory trading system with the goal of raising the economic well-being of all countries. Aware of the role of tit-for-tat trade barriers resulting from the U.S. Smoot-Hawley tariffs in exacerbating the economic depression in the 1930s, including severe drops in world trade, global production, and employment, the countries that met to discuss the new trading system considered open trade as essential for peace and economic stability. The intent of these negotiators was to establish an International Trade Organization (ITO) to address not only trade barriers but other issues indirectly related to trade, including employment, investment, restrictive business practices, and commodity agreements. Unable to secure approval for such a comprehensive agreement, however, they reached a provisional agreement on tariffs and trade rules, known as the GATT, which went into effect in 1948. This provisional agreement became the principal set of rules governing international trade for the next 47 years, until the establishment of the WTO. The GATT was neither a formal treaty nor an international organization, but an agreement between governments, to which they were contracting parties. The GATT parties established a secretariat based in Geneva, but it remained relatively small, especially compared to the staffs of international economic institutions created by the postwar Bretton Woods conference—the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Based on a mission to promote trade liberalization, the GATT became the principal set of rules and disciplines governing international trade. The core principles and articles of the GATT (which were carried over to the WTO) committed the original 23 members, including the United States, to lower tariffs on a range of industrial goods and to apply tariffs in a nondiscriminatory manner—the so-called most-favored nation or MFN principle (see text box ). By having to extend the same benefits and concessions to members, the economic gains from trade liberalization were magnified. Exceptions to the MFN principle are allowed, however, including for preferential trade agreements outside the GATT/WTO covering \"substantially\" all trade among members and for nonreciprocal preferences for developing countries. GATT members also agreed to provide \"national treatment\" for imports from other members. For example, countries could not establish one set of health and safety regulations on domestic products while imposing more stringent regulations on imports. Although the GATT mechanism for the enforcement of these rules or principles was generally viewed as largely ineffective, the agreement nonetheless brought about a substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers. The eight \"negotiating rounds\" of the GATT succeeded in reducing average tariffs on industrial products from between 20%-30% to just below 4%, facilitating a 14-fold increase in world trade over its 47-year history (see Table 1 ). When the first round concluded in 1947, 23 nations had participated, which accounted for a majority of global trade at the time. When the Uruguay Round establishing the WTO concluded in 1994, 123 countries had participated and the amount of trade affected was nearly $3.7 trillion. As of the end of 2018, there are 164 WTO members, and trade flows totaled $22.6 trillion in 2017. During the first trade round held in Geneva in 1947, members negotiated a 20% reciprocal tariff reduction on industrial products, and made further cuts in subsequent rounds. The Tokyo Round represented the first attempt to reform the trade rules that had existed unchanged since 1947 by including issues and policies that could distort international trade. As a result, Tokyo Round negotiators established several plurilateral codes dealing with nontariff issues such as antidumping, subsidies, technical barriers to trade, import licensing, customs valuation, and government procurement. Countries could choose which, if any, of these codes they wished to adopt. While the United States agreed to all of the codes, the majority of GATT signatories, including most developing countries, chose not to sign the codes. The Uruguay Round, which took eight years to negotiate (1986-1994), proved to be the most comprehensive GATT trade round. This round further lowered tariffs in industrial goods and liberalized trade in areas that had eluded previous negotiators, notably agriculture and textiles and apparel. It also extended rules to new areas such as services, trade-related investment measures, and intellectual property rights. It created a trade policy review mechanism, which periodically examines each member's trade policies and practices. Significantly, the Uruguay Round created the WTO as a legal international organization charged with administering a revised and stronger dispute settlement mechanism—a principal U.S. negotiating objective (see text box )—as well as many new trade agreements adopted during the long negotiation. For the most part, the Uruguay Round agreements were accepted as a single package or single undertaking , meaning that all participants and future WTO members were required to subscribe to all of the agreements. The WTO succeeded the GATT in 1995. In contrast to the GATT, the WTO was created as a permanent organization. But as with the GATT, the WTO secretariat and support staff is small by international standards and lacks independent power. The power to write rules and negotiate future trade liberalization resides specifically with the member countries, and not the WTO director-general (DG) or staff. Thus, the WTO is referred to as a member-driven organization. Decisions within the WTO are made by consensus, although majority voting can be used in limited circumstances. The highest-level body in the WTO is the Ministerial Conference, which is the body of political representatives (trade ministers) from each member country ( Figure 1 ). The body that oversees the day-to-day operations of the WTO is the General Council, which consists of a representative from each member country. Many other councils and committees deal with particular issues, and members of these bodies are also national representatives. In general, the WTO has three broad functions: administering the rules of the trading system; establishing new rules through negotiations; and resolving disputes between member states. The WTO administers the global rules and principles negotiated and signed by its members. The main purpose of the rules is \"to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably, and freely as possible.\" WTO rules and agreements are essentially contracts that bind governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits. A number of fundamental principles guide WTO rules. In general, as with the GATT, these key principles are nondiscrimination and the notion that freer trade through the gradual reduction of trade barriers strengthens the world economy and increases prosperity. The WTO agreements apply the GATT principles of nondiscrimination as discussed above: MFN treatment and national treatment. The trade barriers concerned include tariffs, quotas, and a growing range of nontariff measures, such as product standards, food safety measures, subsidies, and discriminatory domestic regulations. The fundamental principle of reciprocity is also behind members' aim of \"entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations.\" Transparency is another key principle of the WTO, which aims to reduce information asymmetry in markets, ensure trust, and, therefore, foster greater stability in the global trading system. Transparency commitments are incorporated into individual WTO agreements. Active participation in various WTO committees also aims to ensure that agreements are monitored and that members are held accountable for their actions. For example, members are required to publish their trade practices and policies and notify new or amended regulations to WTO committees. Regular trade policy reviews of each member's trade policies and practices provide a deeper dive into an economy's implementation of its commitments—see \" Trade Policy Review Mechanism (Annex 3) .\" In addition, the WTO's annual trade monitoring report takes stock of trade-restrictive and trade-facilitating measures of the collective body of WTO members. While opening markets can encourage competition, innovation, and growth, it can also entail adjustments for workers and firms. Trade liberalization can also be more difficult for the least-developed countries (LDCs) and countries transitioning to market economies. WTO agreements thus allow countries to lower trade barriers gradually. Developing countries and sensitive sectors in particular are usually given longer transition periods to fulfill their obligations; developing countries make up about two-thirds of the WTO membership—WTO members self-designate developing country status. The WTO also supplements this so-called \"special and differential\" treatment (SDT) for developing countries with trade capacity-building measures to provide technical assistance and help implement WTO obligations, and with permissions for countries to extend nonreciprocal, trade preference programs. In WTO parlance, when countries agree to open their markets further to foreign goods and services, they \"bind\" their commitments or agree not to raise them. For goods, these bindings amount to ceilings on tariff rates. A country can change its bindings, but only after negotiating with its trading partners, which could entail compensating them for loss of trade. As shown in Figure 2 , one of the achievements of the Uruguay Round was to increase the amount of trade under binding commitments. Bound tariff rates are not necessarily the rates WTO members apply in practice to imports from trading partners; so-called applied MFN rates can be lower than bound rates, as reflected in tariff reductions under the GATT. Figure 3 shows average applied MFN tariffs worldwide. In 2017, the United States simple average MFN tariff was 3.4%. A key issue in the Doha Round for the United States was lowering major developing countries' relatively high bound tariffs to below their applied rates in practice to achieve commercially meaningful new market access. Promising not to raise a trade barrier can have a significant economic effect because the promise provides traders and investors certainty and predictability in the commercial environment. A growing body of economic literature suggests certainty in the stability of tariff rates may be just as important for increasing global trade as reduction in trade barriers. This proved particularly important during the 2009 global economic downturn. Unlike in the 1930s, when countries reacted to slumping world demand by raising tariffs and other trade barriers, the WTO reported that its 153 members (at the time), accounting for 90% of world trade, by and large did not resort to protectionist measures in response to the crisis. The promotion of fair and undistorted competition is another important principle of the WTO. While the WTO is often described as a \"free trade\" organization, numerous rules are concerned with ensuring transparent and nondistorted competition. In addition to nondiscrimination, MFN treatment and national treatment concepts aim to promote \"fair\" conditions of trade. WTO rules on subsidies and antidumping in particular aim to promote fair competition in trade through recourse to trade remedies, or temporary restriction of imports, in response to alleged unfair trade practices—see \" Trade Remedies .\" For example, when a foreign company receives a prohibited subsidy for exporting as defined in WTO agreements, WTO rules allow governments to impose duties to offset any unfair advantage found to cause injury to their domestic industries. The scope of the WTO is broader than the GATT because, in addition to goods, it administers multilateral agreements on agriculture, services, intellectual property, and certain trade-related investment measures. These newer rules in particular are forcing the WTO and its dispute settlement system to deal with complex issues that go beyond tariff border measures. As the GATT did for 47 years, the WTO provides a negotiating forum where members reduce barriers and try to sort out their trade problems. Negotiations can involve a few countries, many countries, or all members. As part of the post-Uruguay Round agenda, negotiations covering basic telecommunications and financial services were completed under the auspices of the WTO in 1997. Selected WTO members also negotiated deals to eliminate tariffs on certain information technology products and improve rules and procedures for government procurement. A recent significant accomplishment was the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement in 2017, addressing customs and logistics barriers. The latest round of multilateral negotiations, the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), or Doha Round, launched in 2001, has achieved limited progress to date, as the agenda proved difficult and contentious. Despite a lack of consensus on its future, many view the round as effectively over. The negotiations stalled over issues such as reducing domestic subsidies and opening markets further in agriculture, industrial tariffs, nontariff barriers, services, intellectual property rights, and SDT for developing countries. The negotiations exposed fissures between developed countries, led by the United States and the EU, on the one hand, and developing countries, led by China, Brazil, and India, on the other hand, who have come to play a more prominent role in global trade. The inability of countries to achieve the objectives of the Doha Round prompted many to question the utility of the WTO as a negotiating forum, as well as the practicality of conducting a large-scale negotiation involving 164 participants with consensus and the single undertaking as guiding principles. At the same time, many proposals have been advanced for moving forward from Doha and making the WTO a stronger forum for negotiations in the future. (See \" Policy Issues and Future Direction .\") The WTO arguably has been more successful in the negotiation of discrete items to which not all parties must agree or be bound (see \" Plurilateral Agreements (Annex 4) \"). Some view these plurilaterals as a more promising negotiating approach for the WTO moving forward given their flexibility, as they can involve subsets of more \"like-minded\" partners and advance parts of the global trade agenda. Some experts have raised concerns, however, that this approach could lead to \"free riders\"—those who benefit from the agreement but do not make commitments—for agreements on an MFN basis, or otherwise, could isolate some countries who do not participate and may face new trade restrictions or disadvantages as a result. Others argue that only though the single undertaking approach to negotiations can there be trade-offs that are sufficient to bring all members on board. The third function of the WTO is to provide a mechanism to enforce its rules and settle trade disputes. A central goal of the United States during the Uruguay Round negotiations was to strengthen the dispute settlement mechanism that existed under the GATT. While the GATT's process for settling disputes between member countries was informal, ad hoc, and voluntary, the WTO dispute settlement process is more formalized and enforceable. Under the GATT, panel proceedings could take years to complete; any defending party could block an unfavorable ruling; failure to implement a ruling carried no consequence; and the process did not cover all the agreements. Under the WTO, there are strict timetables—though not always followed—for panel proceedings; the defending party cannot block rulings; there is one comprehensive dispute settlement process covering all the agreements; and the rulings are enforceable. WTO adjudicative bodies can authorize retaliation if a member fails to implement a ruling or provide compensation. Yet, under both systems, considerable emphasis is placed on having the member countries attempt to resolve disputes through consultations and negotiations, rather than relying on formal panel rulings. See \" Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) \" for more detail on WTO procedures and dispute trends. The statutory basis for U.S. membership in the WTO is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA, P.L. 103-465 ), which approved the trade agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round. The legislation contained general provisions on approval and entry into force of the Uruguay Round Agreements, and the relationship of the agreements to U.S. laws (Section 101 of the act); authorities to implement the results of current and future tariff negotiations (Section 111 of the act); oversight of activities of the WTO (Sections 121-130 of the act); procedures regarding implementation of dispute settlement proceedings affecting the United States (Section 123 of the act); objectives regarding extended Uruguay Round negotiations; statutory modifications to implement specific agreements, including the following: Antidumping Agreement; Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM); Safeguards Agreement; Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA); Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) (product standards); Agreement on Agriculture; and Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). U.S. priorities and objectives for the GATT/WTO have been reflected in various trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation since 1974. For example, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 specifically contained provisions directing U.S. negotiators to negotiate disciplines on agriculture, dispute settlement, intellectual property, trade in services, and safeguards, among others, that resulted in WTO agreements in the Uruguay Round (see text box above). The Trade Act of 2002 provided U.S. objectives for the Doha Round, including seeking to expand commitments on e-commerce and clarifications to the WTO dispute settlement system. The 2015 TPA, perhaps reflecting the impasse of the Doha Round, was more muted, seeking full implementation of existing agreements, enhanced compliance by members with their WTO obligations, and new negotiations to extend commitments to new areas. Section 125(b) of the URAA sets procedures for congressional disapproval of WTO participation. It specifies that Congress's approval of the WTO agreement shall cease to be effective \"if and only if\" Congress enacts a joint resolution calling for withdrawal. Congress may vote every five years on withdrawal; resolutions were introduced in 2000 and 2005, however neither passed. The WTO member-led body negotiates, administers, and settles disputes for agreements that cover goods, agriculture, services, certain trade-related investment measures, and intellectual property rights, among other issues. The WTO core principles are enshrined in a series of trade agreements that include rules and commitments specific to each agreement, subject to various exceptions. The GATT/WTO system of agreements has expanded rulemaking to several areas of international trade, but does not extensively cover some key areas, including multilateral investment rules, trade-related labor or environment issues, and emerging issues like digital trade or the commercial role of state-owned enterprises. The Marrakesh Agreement is the umbrella agreement under which the various agreements, annexes, commitment schedules, and understandings reside. The Marrakesh Agreement itself created the WTO as a legal international organization and sets forth its functions, structure, secretariat, budget procedures, decisionmaking, accession, entry-into-force, withdrawal, and other provisions. The Agreement contains four annexes. The three major substantive areas of commitments undertaken by the members are contained in Annex 1. The Multilateral Agreement on Trade in Goods establishes the rules for trade in goods through a series of sectoral or issue-specific agreements (see Table 2 ). Its core is the GATT 1994, which includes GATT 1947, the amendments, understanding, protocols, and decisions of the GATT from 1947 to 1994, cumulatively known as the GATT- acquis , as well as six Understandings on Articles of the GATT 1947 negotiated in the Uruguay Round. In addition to clarifying the core WTO principles, each agreement contains sector- or issue-specific rules and principles. The schedule of commitments identifies each member's specific binding commitments on tariffs for goods in general, and combinations of tariffs and quotas for some agricultural goods. Through a series of negotiating rounds, members agreed to the current level of trade liberalization (see Figure 2 above). In the last four rounds of negotiations, WTO members aimed to expand international trade rules beyond tariff reductions to tackle barriers in other areas. For example, agreements on technical barriers to trade (TBT) and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures aim to protect a country's rights to implement domestic regulations and standards, while ensuring they do not discriminate against trading partners or unnecessarily restrict trade. The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) includes rules and commitments on market access and disciplines on certain domestic agricultural support programs and export subsidies. Its objective was to provide a framework for WTO members to reform certain aspects of agricultural trade and domestic farm policies to facilitate more market-oriented and open trade. Regarding market access, members agreed not to restrict agricultural imports by quotas or other nontariff measures, converting them to tariff-equivalent levels of protection, such as tariff-rate quotas—a process called \"tariffication.\" Developed countries committed to cut tariffs (or out-of-quota tariffs, those tariffs applied to any imports above the agreed quota threshold) by an average of 36% in equal increments over six years; developed countries committed to 24% tariff cuts over 10 years. Special safeguards to temporarily restrict imports were permitted in certain events, such as falling prices or surges of imports. The AoA also categorizes and restricts agricultural domestic support programs according to their potential to distort trade. Members agreed to limit and reduce the most distortive forms of domestic subsidies over 6 to 10 years, referred to as \"amber box\" subsidies and measured by the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) index. Subsidies considered to cause minimal distortion on production and trade were not subject to spending limits and exempted from obligations as \"green box\" and \"blue box\" subsidies or under de minimis (below a certain threshold) or SDT provisions. In addition, export subsidies were to be capped and subject to incremental reductions, both by value and quantity of exports covered. A so-called \"peace\" clause protected members using subsidies that comply with the agreement from being challenged under other WTO agreements, such as through use of countervailing duties; the clause expired after nine years in 2003. Members are required to regularly submit notifications on the implementation of AoA commitments—though some countries, including the United States, have raised concerns that these requirements are not abided by in a consistent fashion. Further agricultural trade reform was a major priority under the Doha Round, but negotiations have seen limited progress to date (see \" Ongoing WTO Negotiations \"). However, in 2015, members reached an agreement to fully eliminate export subsidies for agriculture. The framework of the GATT did not address the growing linkages between trade and investment. During the Uruguay Round, the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) was drafted to address certain investment measures that may restrict and distort trade. The agreement did not address the regulation or protection of foreign investment, but focused on investment measures that may violate basic GATT disciplines on trade in goods, such as nondiscrimination. Specifically, members committed not to apply any TRIM that is inconsistent with provisions on national treatment or a prohibition of quantitative restrictions on imports or exports. TRIMS includes an annex with an illustrative list of prohibited measures, such as local content requirements—requirements to purchase or use products of domestic origin. The agreement also includes a safeguard measure for balance of payment difficulties, which permits developing countries to temporarily suspend TRIMS obligations. While TRIMS and other WTO agreements, such as the GATS (see below), include some provisions pertaining to investment, the lack of comprehensive multilateral rules on investment led to several efforts under the Doha Round to consider proposals, which to date have been unfruitful (see \" Future Negotiations \"). In December 2017, 70 WTO members announced plans to begin new discussions on developing a multilateral framework on investment facilitation, in part to complement the successful negotiation of rules on trade facilitation. The GATT agreements focused solely on trade in goods, excluding services. Services were eventually covered in the GATS as a result of the Uruguay Round agreements. The GATS provides the first and only multilateral framework of principles and rules for government policies and regulations affecting trade in services. It has served as the foundation on which rules in other trade agreements on services are based. The services trade agenda is complex due to the characteristics of the sector. \"Services\" refers to a growing range of economic activities, such as audiovisual, construction, computer and related services, express delivery, e-commerce, financial, professional (e.g., accounting and legal services), retail and wholesaling, transportation, tourism, and telecommunications. Advances in information technology and the growth of global supply chains have reduced barriers to trade in services, expanding the services tradable across national borders. But liberalizing trade in services can be more complex than for goods, since the impediments faced by service providers occur largely within the importing country, as so-called \"behind the border\" barriers, some in the form of government regulations. While the right of governments to regulate service industries is widely recognized as prudent and necessary to protect consumers from harmful or unqualified providers, a main focus of WTO members is whether these regulations are applied to foreign service providers in a discriminatory and unnecessarily trade restrictive manner that limits market access. The GATS contains multiple parts, including definition of scope (excluding government-provided services); principles and obligations, including MFN treatment and transparency; market access and national treatment obligations; annexes listing exceptions that members take to MFN treatment; as well as various technical elements. Members negotiated GATS on a positive list basis, which means that the commitments only apply to those services and modes of delivery listed in each member's schedule of commitments. WTO members adopted a system of classifying four modes of delivery for services to measure trade in services and classify government measures that affect trade in services, including cross-border supply, consumption abroad, commercial presence, and temporary presence of natural persons ( Figure 4 ). Under GATS, unless a member country has specifically committed to open its market to suppliers in a particular service, the national treatment and market access obligations do not apply. In addition to the GATS, some members made specific sectoral commitments in financial services and telecommunications. Negotiations to expand these commitments were later folded into the broader services negotiations. WTO members aimed to update GATS provisions and market access commitments as part of the Doha Round. Several WTO members have since submitted revised offers of services liberalization, but in the view of the United States and others the talks have not yielded adequate offers of improved market access (see \" Future Negotiations \"). Given the lack of progress, in 2013, 23 WTO members, including the United States, representing approximately 70% of global services trade, launched negotiations of a services-specific plurilateral agreement. Although outside of the WTO structure, participants designed the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) negotiations in a way that would not preclude a concluded agreement from someday being brought into the WTO. TiSA talks were initially led by Australia and the United States, but have since stalled; the Trump Administration has not stated a formal position on TiSA. The TRIPS Agreement marked the first time multilateral trade rules incorporated intellectual property rights (IPR)—legal, private, enforceable rights that governments grant to inventors and artists to encourage innovation and creative output. Like the GATS, TRIPS was negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round and was a major U.S. objective for the round. The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards of protection and enforcement for IPR. Much of the agreement sets out the extent of coverage of the various types of intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and geographical indications. TRIPS includes provisions on nondiscrimination and on enforcement measures, such as civil and administrative procedures and remedies. IPR disputes under the agreement are also subject to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. The TRIPS Agreement's newly placed requirements on many developing countries elevated the debate over the relationship between IPR and development. At issue is the balance of rights and obligations between protecting private right holders and securing broader public benefits, such as access to medicines and the free flow of data, especially in developing countries. TRIPS includes flexibilities for developing countries allowing longer phase-in periods for implementing obligations and, separately, for pharmaceutical patent obligations—these were subsequently extended for LDCs until January 2033 or until they no longer qualify as LDCs, whichever is earlier. The 2001 WTO \"Doha Declaration\" committed members to interpret and implement TRIPS obligations in a way that supports public health and access to medicines. In 2005, members agreed to amend TRIPS to allow developing and LDC members that lack production capacity to import generic medicines from third country producers under \"compulsory licensing\" arrangements. The amendment entered into force in January 2017. While WTO agreements uphold MFN principles, they also allow exceptions to binding tariffs in certain circumstances. The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), Agreement on Safeguards, and articles in the GATT, commonly known as the Antidumping Agreement, allow for trade remedies in the form of temporary measures (e.g., primarily duties or quotas) to mitigate the adverse impact of various trade practices on domestic industries and workers. These include actions taken against dumping (selling at an unfairly low price) or to counter certain government subsidies, and emergency measures to limit \"fairly\"-traded imports temporarily, designed to \"safeguard\" domestic industries. Supporters of trade remedies view them as necessary to shield domestic industries and workers from unfair competition and to level the playing field. Other domestic constituents, including some importers and downstream consuming industries, voice concern that antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) actions can serve as disguised protectionism and create inefficiencies in the world trading system by raising prices on imported goods. How trade remedies are applied to imports has become a major source of disputes under the WTO (see below). The United States has enacted trade remedy laws that conform to the WTO rules: U.S. antidumping laws (19 U.S.C. §1673 et seq.) provide relief to domestic industries that have been, or are threatened with, the adverse impact of imports sold in the U.S. market at prices that are shown to be less than fair market value. The relief provided is an additional import duty placed on the dumped imports. U.S. countervailing duty laws (19 U.S.C. §1671 et seq.) give similar relief to domestic industries that have been, or are threatened with, the adverse impact of imported goods that have been subsidized by a foreign government or public entity, and can therefore be sold at lower prices than U.S.-produced goods. The relief provided is a duty placed on the subsidized imports. U.S. safeguard laws give domestic industries relief from import surges of goods; no allegation of \"unfair\" practices is needed to launch a safeguard investigation. Although used less frequently than AD/CVD laws, Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §2251 et seq.), is designed to give domestic industry the opportunity to adjust to import competition and remain competitive. The relief provided is generally a temporary import duty and/or quota. Unlike AD/CVD, safeguard laws require presidential action for relief to be put into effect. The dispute settlement system, often called the \"crown jewel\" of the WTO, has been considered by some observers to be one of the most important successes of the multilateral trading system. WTO agreements contain provisions that are either binding or nonbinding. The WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes—Dispute Settlement Understanding or DSU—provides an enforceable means for WTO members to resolve disputes arising under the binding provisions. The DSU commits members not to determine violations of WTO obligations or impose penalties unilaterally, but to settle complaints about alleged violations under DSU rules and procedures. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is a plenary committee of the WTO, which oversees the panels and adopts the recommendation of a dispute settlement panel or Appellate Body (AB) panel. Panels are composed of three (or five in complex cases) panelists—not citizens of the members involved—chosen through a roster of \"well qualified governmental and/or non-governmental individuals\" maintained by the Secretariat. WTO members must first attempt to settle a dispute through consultations, but if these fail, a member seeking to initiate a dispute may request that a panel examine and report on its complaint. A respondent party is able to block the establishment of a panel at the DSB once, but if the complainant requests its establishment again at a subsequent meeting of the DSB, a panel is established. At its conclusion, the panel recommends a decision to the DSB that it will adopt unless all parties agree to block the recommendation. The DSU sets out a timeline of one year for the initial resolution of disputes (see Figure 5 ); however, cases are rarely resolved in this timeframe. The DSU also provides for AB review of panel reports in the event a panel decision is appealed. The AB is composed of seven rotating panelists serving four-year terms, with the possibility of a one-term reappointment. According to the DSU, appeals are to be limited to questions of law or legal interpretation developed by the panel in the case (Article 17.6). The AB is to make a recommendation and the DSB is to ratify that recommendation within 120 days of the ratification of the initial panel report, but again, such timely resolution rarely occurs. The United States has raised several issues regarding the practices of the AB and has blocked the appointments of several judges—for more on the current debate, see \" Proposed Institutional Reforms .\" Following the adoption of a panel or appellate report, the DSB oversees the implementation of the findings. The losing party is then to propose how it is to bring itself into compliance \"within a reasonable period of time\" with the DSB-adopted findings. A reasonable period of time is determined by mutual agreement with the DSB, among the parties, or through arbitration. If a dispute arises over the manner of implementation, the DSB may form a panel to judge compliance. If a party declines to comply, the parties negotiate over compensation pending full implementation. If there is still no agreement, the DSB may authorize retaliation in the amount of the determined cost of the offending party's measure to the aggrieved party's economy. There have been some calls for reform of the dispute settlement system to deal with the procedural delays and new strains on the system, including the growing volume and complexity of cases. Filing a dispute settlement case provides a way for countries to resolve disputes through a legal process and to do so publicly, signaling to domestic and international constituents the need to address outstanding issues. Dispute settlement procedures can serve as a deterrent for countries considering not abiding by WTO agreements, and rulings can help build a body of case law to inform countries when they implement new regulatory regimes or interpret WTO agreements. That said, WTO agreements and decisions of panels are not self-executing and cannot directly modify U.S. law. If a case is brought against the United States and the panel renders an adverse decision, the United States would be expected to remove the offending measure within a reasonable period of time or face the possibility of either paying compensation to the complaining member or becoming subject to sanctions, often in the form of higher tariffs on imports of certain U.S. products. As of the beginning of 2019, the WTO has initiated nearly 580 disputes on behalf of its members and issued more than 350 rulings, with 2018 marking its most active year to date. Nearly two-thirds of WTO members have participated in the dispute settlement system. Not all complaints result in formal panel proceedings; about half were resolved during consultations. The complainants usually win their cases, in large part because they initiate disputes that they have a high chance of winning. In the words of WTO Director-General (DG) Roberto Azevêdo, the widespread use of the DS system is evidence it \"enjoys tremendous confidence among the membership, who value it as a fair, effective, efficient mechanism to solve trade problems.\" The United States is an active user of the DS system. Among WTO members, the United States has been a complainant in the most dispute cases since the system was established in 1995, initiating 123 disputes, followed by the EU with 100 disputes. The two largest targets of complaints initiated by the United States are China and the EU, which, combined, account for more than one-third ( Figure 6 ). The latest summary by USTR reports that among WTO disputes through 2015 the United States largely prevailed on \"core issues\" in 46 of its complaints and lost in 4. Since the report was released, additional cases have been ruled in favor of the United States, including disputes over India's solar energy policies and Indonesia's import licensing requirements. The majority of disputes initiated by the United States between 2016 and early 2019 remain in the consultation or panel stages and have not been decided. As a respondent in 153 dispute cases since 1995, the United States has also had the most disputes filed against it by other WTO members, followed by the EU (85 disputes) and China (43 disputes). The EU is the largest source of disputes filed against the United States, followed by Canada, China, South Korea, Brazil, and India. A large number of complaints concern U.S. trade remedies, in particular the methodologies used for calculating and imposing antidumping duties on U.S. imports. The latest summary by USTR reports that as a respondent, the United States won on \"core issues\" in 17 cases and lost in 57 cases through 2015. Since then, the WTO has ruled against the United States on certain aspects of complaints related to U.S. trade remedies, including in cases initiated by South Korea, China, Canada, and Turkey. The United States has prevailed in other cases, for example in December 2017, a panel ruled in U.S. favor in a case brought by Indonesia over U.S. duties on coated paper imports. The DSB has authorized retaliation against the United States for maintaining a measure in violation of WTO rules in just a handful of cases. Most recently, in February 2019, a panel authorized South Korea to retaliate in a complaint over U.S. methodology for calculating antidumping duties on South Korean imports of large residential washers. Several pending WTO disputes are of significance to the United States. One involves China's complaints over U.S. and EU failure to grant China market economy status (see \" China's Accession and Membership \" ) . Other cases involve challenges to the tariff measures imposed by the Trump Administration under U.S. trade laws, including Section 201 (safeguards), Section 232 (national security), and Section 301 (\"unfair\" trading practices) ( Table 3 ). Nine WTO members, including China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico, initiated separate complaints at the WTO, based on allegations that U.S. Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are inconsistent with WTO rules. Consultations were unsuccessful in resolving the disputes, and panels have been established in all nine cases. Most countries notified their consultation requests pursuant to the Agreement on Safeguards, though some countries also allege that U.S. tariff measures and related exemptions are contrary to U.S. obligations under several provisions of the GATT. Several other WTO members have requested to join the disputes as third parties. On July 16, 2018, the United States filed its own WTO complaints over retaliatory tariffs imposed by five countries (Canada, China, EU, Mexico, and Turkey) in response to U.S. actions, and in late August, it filed a similar case against Russia. The United States has invoked the so-called national security exception (GATT Article XXI) in defense of the tariffs (see \" Key Exceptions under GATT/WTO \"), and states that the tariffs are not safeguards as claimed by other countries. By the end of January 2019, all of the disputes had entered the panel phase. Annex 3 sets out the procedures for the regular trade policy reviews that are conducted by the Secretariat to report on the trade policies of the membership. These reviews are carried out by the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) and are conducted periodically with the largest economies (United States, EU, Japan, and China) evaluated every three years, the next 16 largest economies every five years, and remaining economies every seven years. These reviews are meant to increase transparency of a country's trade policy and enable a multilateral assessment of the effect of policies on the trading system. These reviews also allow each member country to question specific practices of other members, and may serve as a forum to flag, and possibly avoid, future disputes. The most recent trade policy review of China occurred in July 2018. During the review members noted and commended some recent initiatives of China to open market access and liberalize its foreign investment regime. Several concerns were also raised, including \"the preponderant role of the State in general, and of state-owned enterprises in particular,\" and \"China's support and subsidy policies and local content requirements, including those that may be part of the 2025 [Made in China] plan.\" Most WTO agreements in force have been negotiated on a multilateral basis, meaning the entire body of WTO members subscribes to them. By contrast, plurilateral agreements are negotiated by a subset of WTO members and often focus on a specific sector. A handful of such agreements supplement the main WTO agreements discussed previously. Within the WTO, members have two ways to negotiate on a plurilateral basis, also known as \"variable geometry.\" A group of countries can negotiate with one another provided that the group extends the benefits to all other WTO members on an MFN basis—the foundational nondiscrimination principle of the GATT/WTO. Because the benefits of the agreement are to be shared among all WTO members and not just the participants, the negotiating group likely would include those members forming a critical mass of world trade in the product or sector covered by the negotiation in order to avoid the problem of free riders—those countries that receive trade benefits without committing to liberalization. An example of this type of plurilateral agreement granting unconditional MFN is the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), in which tariffs on selected information technology goods were lowered to zero, as negotiated by WTO members comprising more than 90% of world trade in these goods (see below). A second type of WTO plurilateral is the non-MFN agreement, often referred to as \"conditional-MFN.\" In this type, participants undertake additional obligations among themselves, but do not extend the benefits to other WTO members, unless they directly participate in the agreement. Also known as the \"club\" approach, non-MFN plurilaterals allow for willing members to address policy issues not covered by WTO disciplines. However, these types of agreements require a waiver from the entire WTO membership to commence negotiations. Some countries are reluctant even to allow other countries to negotiate for fear of being left out, even while not being ready to commit themselves to new disciplines. Yet, according to one commentator, these members are \"simply outsmarting themselves\" by encouraging more ambitious members to take negotiations out of the WTO altogether, such as the proposed expansion of the GATS through the plurilateral (and outside the WTO) TiSA. The Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) is an early example of a plurilateral agreement with limited WTO membership—first developed as a code in the 1979 Tokyo Round. As of the end of 2018, 47 WTO members (including the 28 EU member countries and United States) participate in the GPA; non-GPA signatories do not enjoy rights under the GPA. The GPA provides market access for various nondefense government projects to contractors of its signatories. Each member specifies government entities and goods and services (with thresholds and limitations) that are open to procurement bids by foreign firms of the other GPA members. For example, the U.S. GPA market access schedules of commitments cover 85 federal-level entities and voluntary commitments by 37 states. Negotiations to expand the GPA were concluded in March 2012, and a revised GPA entered into force on April 6, 2014. Several countries, including China—which committed to pursuing GPA participation in its 2001 WTO accession process—are in long-pending negotiations to accede to the GPA. South Korea, Moldova, and Ukraine were the latest WTO members to join the GPA in 2016. According to estimates by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), from 2008 to 2012, 8% of total global government expenditures, and approximately one-third of U.S. federal government procurement, was covered by the GPA or similar commitments in U.S. FTAs. Unlike the GPA, the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) is a plurilateral agreement that is applied on an unconditional MFN basis. In other words, all WTO members benefit from the tariff reductions enacted by parties to the ITA regardless of their own participation. Originally concluded in 1996 by a subset of WTO members, the ITA provides tariff-free treatment for covered IT products; however, the agreement does not cover services or digital products like software. In December 2015, a group of 51 WTO members, including the United States, negotiated an expanded agreement to cover an additional 201 products and technologies, valued at over $1 trillion in annual global exports. Members committed to reduce the majority of tariffs by 2019. In June 2016, the United States initiated the ITA tariff cuts. China began its cuts in mid-September 2016 with plans to reduce tariffs over five to seven years. ITA members are expected to review the agreement's scope in 2018 to determine if additional product coverage is needed. The Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) is the newest WTO multilateral trade agreement, entering into force on February 22, 2017, and perhaps the lasting legacy of the Doha Round, since it is the only major concluded component of the negotiations. The TFA aims to address multiple trade barriers confronted by exporters and importers and reduce trade costs by streamlining, modernizing, and speeding up the customs processes for cross-border trade, as well as making it more transparent. Some analysts view the TFA as evidence that achieving new multilateral agreements is possible and that the design, including special and differential treatment provisions, could serve as a template for future agreements. The TFA has three sections. The first is the heart of the agreement, containing the main provisions, of which many, but not all, are binding and enforceable. Mandatory articles include requiring members to publish information, including publishing certain items online; issue advance rulings in a reasonable amount of time; and provide for appeals or reviews, if requested. The second section provides for SDT for developing country and LDC members, allowing them more time and assistance to implement the agreement. The TFA is the first WTO agreement in which members determine their own implementation schedules and in which progress in implementation is explicitly linked to technical and financial capacity. The TFA requires that \"donor members,\" including the United States, provide the needed capacity building and support. Finally, the third section sets institutional arrangements for administering the TFA. Under WTO agreements, members generally cannot discriminate among trading partners, though specific market access commitments can vary significantly by agreement and by member. WTO rules permit some broad exceptions, which allow members to adopt trade policies and practices that may be inconsistent with WTO disciplines and principles such as MFN treatment, granting special preferences to certain countries, and restricting trade in certain sectors, provided certain conditions are met. Some of the key exceptions follow. General e xceptions . GATT Article XX grants WTO members the right to take certain measures necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, or to conserve exhaustible natural resources, among other aims. The measures, however, must not entail \"arbitrary\" or \"unjustifiable\" discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or serve as \"disguised restriction on international trade.\" GATS Article XIV provides for similar exceptions for trade in services. National security exception. GATT Article XXI protects the right of members to take any action they consider \"necessary for the protection of essential national security interests\" as related to (i) fissionable materials; (ii) traffic in arms, ammunition, and implements of war, and such traffic in other goods and materials carried out to supply a military establishment; and (iii) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations. Similar exceptions relate to trade in services (GATS Article XIV bis) and intellectual property rights (TRIPS Article 73). More f avorable t reatment to d eveloping c ountries . The so-called \"enabling clause\" of the GATT—called the \"Decision on Differential and More Favorable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries\" of 1979—enables developed country members to grant differential and more favorable treatment to developing countries that is not extended to other members. For example, this permits granting unilateral and nonreciprocal trade preferences to developing countries under special programs, such as the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), and also relates to regional trade agreements outside the WTO (see below). Exceptions for r egi onal tr ade agreements (RTAs ) . WTO countries are permitted to depart from the MFN principle and grant each other more favorable treatment in trade agreements outside the WTO, provided certain conditions are met. Three sets of rules generally apply. GATT Article XXIV applies to goods trade, and allows the formation of free trade areas and customs unions (areas with common external tariffs). These provisions require that RTAs be notified to the other WTO members, cover \"substantially all trade,\" and do not effectively raise barriers on imports from third parties. GATS Article V allows for economic integration agreements related to services trade, provided they entail \"substantial sectoral coverage,\" eliminate \"substantially all discrimination,\" and do not \"raise the overall level of barriers to trade in services\" on members outside the agreement. Paragraph 2(c) of the \"enabling clause,\" which deals with special and differential treatment, allows for RTAs among developing countries in goods trade, based on the \"mutual reduction or elimination of tariffs.\" RTA provisions in the GATS also allow greater flexibility in sectoral coverage within services agreements that include developing countries. There are currently 164 members of the WTO. Another 22 countries are seeking to become members. Joining the WTO means taking on the commitments and obligations of all the multilateral agreements. Governments are motivated to join not just to expand access to foreign markets but also to spur domestic economic reforms, help transition to market economies, and promote the rule of law. While any state or customs territory fully in control of its trade policy may become a WTO member, a lengthy process of accession involves a series of documentation of a country's trade regime and market access negotiation requirements (see Figure 7 ). For example, Kazakhstan joined the WTO on November 30, 2015, after a 20-year process. Afghanistan became the 164th WTO member on July 29, 2016, after nearly 12 years of negotiating its accession terms. Other countries have initiated the process but face delays. Iran first applied for membership in 1996 and, while it submitted its Memorandum on the Foreign Trade Regime in 2009 (a prerequisite for negotiating an accession package), Iran has not begun the bilateral negotiation process, and the United States is unlikely to support its accession. As the WTO generally operates by member consensus, any single member could block the accession of a prospective new member. As part of the process, a prospective member must satisfy specific market access conditions of other WTO members by negotiating on a bilateral basis. The United States has been a central arbiter of the accession process for countries like China (joined in 2001, see below), Vietnam (2007), and Russia (2012), with which permanent normal trade relations had to be established concurrently under U.S. law for the United States to receive the full benefits of their membership. China formally joined the WTO in December 2001. China has emerged as a major player in the global economy, as the fastest-growing economy, largest merchandise exporter, and second-largest merchandise importer worldwide. China's accession into the WTO on commercially meaningful terms was a major U.S. trade objective during the late 1990s. Entry into the WTO was viewed as an important catalyst for spurring additional economic and trade reforms and the opening of China's economy in a market, rules-based direction. These reforms have made China an increasingly significant market for U.S. exporters , a central factor in global supply chains, and a major source of low -cost goods for U.S. consumers. At the same time, China has yet to fully transit ion to a market economy and the government continue s to intervene in many parts of the econom y, which has created a growing debate over the role of the WTO in both respects . Negotiations for China's accession to the GATT and then the WTO began in 1986 and took more than 15 years to complete. During WTO negotiations, China sought to enter the WTO as a developing country, while U.S. trade officials insisted that China's entry into the WTO had to be based on \"commercially meaningful terms\" that would require China to significantly reduce trade and investment barriers within a relatively short time. In the end, a compromise was reached that required China to make immediate and extensive reductions in various trade and investment barriers, while allowing it to maintain some level of protection (or a transitional period of protection) for certain sensitive sectors (see text box ). According to USTR, after joining the WTO, China began to implement economic reforms that facilitated its transition toward a market economy and increased its openness to trade and foreign direct investment (FDI). China also generally implemented its tariff cuts on schedule. However, by 2006, U.S. officials and companies noted evidence of some trends toward a more restrictive trade regime and more state intervention in the economy. In particular, observers voiced concern about various Chinese industrial policies, such as those that foster indigenous innovation based on forced technology transfer, domestic subsidies, and IP theft. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns over China's mixed record of implementing certain WTO obligations and asserted that, in some cases, China appeared to be abiding by the letter but not the \"spirit\" of the WTO. The United States and other WTO members have used dispute settlement procedures on a number of occasions to address China's alleged noncompliance with certain WTO commitments. As a respondent, China accounts for about 12% of total WTO disputes since 2001. The United States has brought 23 dispute cases against China at the WTO on issues, including IPR protection, subsidies, and discriminatory industrial policies, and has largely prevailed in most cases. Though some issues remain contested, China has largely complied with most WTO rulings. China has also increasingly used dispute settlement to confront what it views as discriminatory measures; to date, it has brought 15 cases against the United States (as of February 2019). More broadly, the Trump Administration has questioned whether WTO rules are sufficient to address the challenges that China's economy presents. USTR Robert Lighthizer expressed this view in remarks in September 2017: \"The sheer scale of their coordinated efforts to develop their economy, to subsidize, to create national champions, to force technology transfer, and to distort markets in China and throughout the world is a threat to the world trading system that is unprecedented. Unfortunately, the World Trade Organization is not equipped to deal with this problem.\" USTR views efforts to resolve concerns over Chinese trade practices to date as limited in effectiveness, including through WTO dispute settlement, as well as recent proposals by WTO members to craft new rules and WTO reforms. In its latest report to Congress on China's WTO compliance, USTR stated the following: [The WTO dispute settlement] mechanism is not designed to address a trade regime that broadly conflicts with the fundamental underpinnings of the WTO system. No amount of WTO dispute settlement by other WTO members would be sufficient to remedy this systemic problem. Indeed, many of the most harmful policies and practices being pursued by China are not even directly disciplined by WTO rules. Another related concern some have is whether China claims it is a \"developing country\" under the WTO. Through developing country status, which countries self-designate, countries are entitled to certain rights under special and differential treatment (SDT), among other provisions in WTO agreements (see \" Treatment of Developing Countries \" and text box ). USTR has claimed that \"China persists in claiming to be a 'developing Member'\" in future negotiations at the WTO. While it is unclear what SDT provisions China has sought in ongoing negotiations, China is a part of the coalition group of Asian developing members at the WTO and has claimed to be a developing country in various fora. Chinese officials have asserted that despite being the world's second-largest economy, China remains a developing country, due to its relatively low GDP per capita and other economic challenges. Concerns over China's trade actions have led the Trump Administration to increase the use of unilateral mechanisms outside the WTO that in its view more effectively address Chinese \"unfair trade practices;\" the recent Section 301 investigation of Chinese IPR and technology transfer practices and resulting imposition of tariffs is evidence of this strategy. Prior to the establishment of the WTO, the United States resorted to Section 301 relatively frequently, in particular due to concerns that the GATT lacked an effective dispute settlement system. When the United States joined the WTO in 1995, it agreed to use the dispute settlement mechanism rather than act unilaterally; many analysts contend that the United States has violated its WTO obligations by imposing tariffs against China under Section 301. The United States also initiated a WTO dispute settlement case against China's \"discriminatory technology licensing\" in March 2018. Subsequently, China filed its own complaints at the WTO over U.S. tariff actions. The United States has pursued cooperation to some extent with other countries with similar concerns over certain Chinese trade practices and the need to clarify and improve WTO rules on industrial subsidies and SOEs in particular. At the WTO Ministerial meeting in December 2017, USTR Lighthizer, the European Commissioner for Trade Cecelia Malmström, and Japan's Minister of the Economy, Trade and Industry Hiroshige Seko announced new trilateral efforts to cooperate on issues related to government-supported excess capacity, unfair competition caused by market-distorting subsidies and SOEs, forced technology transfer, and local content requirements. Observers believe that China, while not specifically named, is the intended target of the coordinated action. The three officials continued talks in 2018 and 2019, issuing a scoping paper on stronger rules on industrial subsidies, as well as joint statements on technology transfer and \"market-oriented conditions.\" They indicated plans to propose a draft text on subsidies rules by spring 2019. Some experts have questioned whether recent U.S. tariff actions might undermine efforts to coordinate further action to address these challenges (see \" Selected Challenges and Issues for Congress \"). Another pending dispute involving China could have significant implications for the treatment of China's economy under WTO rules, in particular debate over the terms of China's \"nonmarket economy\" (NME) status under its WTO accession protocol. Under its accession, China agreed to allow other WTO members to continue to use alternative methodologies, such as surrogate countries, for assessing prices and costs on products subject to antidumping measures. This concession was a result of WTO members' concerns that distortions in the Chinese economy caused by government intervention result in Chinese prices that do not reflect market forces, making them poorly suited to determining dumping margins. China contends that language in its WTO accession protocol requires all WTO members to terminate their use of the alternative methodology by December 11, 2016, including the United States, which has classified China as a NME for trade remedy cases since 1981. The NME distinction is important to China because it has often resulted in higher antidumping margins on Chinese exports; moreover, a significant share of Chinese exports is subject to trade remedies, namely AD duties. The United States and the EU have argued that the WTO language is vague and did not automatically obligate them to extend market economy status (MES) to China because it is still not a market economy. On December 12, 2016, China requested consultations under WTO dispute settlement with the United States and EU over the failure to grant China MES, and the cases are now pending. In April 2017, a panel was established in the EU case, and in November 2017, the United States formally submitted arguments as a third party in support of the EU. The panel said it expected to issue its final report during the second quarter of 2019. The 11 th WTO Ministerial Conference took place December 10-13, 2017, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Ministerial generally convenes every two years to make decisions and announce progress on multilateral trade agreements. After countries were unable to complete the Doha Round (see text box ), many questioned what could effectively be achieved in 2017. Members have made some progress in recent years, reaching the Trade Facilitation Agreement in 2013, followed by a small package of deals in 2015 concerning agriculture and rules for LDCs. Still, they remain sharply divided over how to prioritize both unresolved and new issues on the agenda, and, more fundamentally, how to conduct negotiations to better facilitate successful outcomes. WTO Director-General Azevêdo had tempered expectations for major negotiated outcomes or announcements at the 11 th Ministerial, acknowledging that \"members' positions continue to diverge significantly on the substantial issues.\" These differences were perhaps most apparent by the inability of WTO members to reach consensus over a draft Ministerial Declaration, largely due to staunch disagreements over including references to the mandate of the Doha Round (see text box ). Instead the Ministerial became primarily an opportunity for members to take stock of ongoing talks and further define priority work areas. WTO members had worked intensively to build consensus over proposals in several areas, including reducing fisheries subsidies, a permanent solution to public stockholding for food security, domestic services regulations, and e-commerce. Some members pushed for new initiatives in areas such as investment facilitation; others like India advocated for a greater focus on trade facilitation in services. The U.S. proposal to improve overall transparency at the WTO, with penalties for countries that fail to comply with notification requirements, did not garner enough support to be discussed extensively at the Ministerial. The 11 th Ministerial did not result in major breakthroughs. WTO members committed to intensify fisheries subsidies negotiations, \"with a view to adopting\" an agreement by the next Ministerial; the United States has supported these efforts. A joint statement was issued by 60 members in support of advancing multilateral negotiations on domestic regulations in services. Subsets of WTO members also issued statements committing to new work programs or open-ended talks for interested parties to potentially conclude plurilateral agreements in areas, including the following: E-commerce : among 71 WTO members (covering 77% of global trade); Investment facilitation : among 70 WTO members (covering 73% of global trade and 66% of inward FDI); and Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) : among 87 WTO members (covering 78% of global trade). Of these, the United States signed on to the declaration in support of e-commerce. The lack of concrete multilateral outcomes at the 11 th Ministerial was a reminder of the continued resistance of some countries to a new agenda outside of the original 2001 Doha mandate. In the view of EU Trade Commissioner Malmström, the Ministerial \"laid bare the deficiencies of the negotiating function at the WTO\" and that \"members are systematically being blocked from addressing the pressing realities of global trade.\" Malmström blamed the lack of progress on \"procedural excuses and vetoes\" and \"cynical hostage taking.\" Some developing country members, including India, attempted to block progress in a range of areas—including the renewal of the decades-old moratorium on e-commerce customs duties—absent more progress on Doha issues such as agricultural stockholding for food security. Such \"hostage-taking\" tactics, widely acknowledged to have hindered progress in the Doha Round, further highlight the difficulty of achieving future consensus among all 164 members. While the United States provided input and signaled support for select proposals, the overall perception of many was a lack of U.S. leadership in the Ministerial discussions. Consistent with the Trump Administration's \"America First\" trade policy, the U.S. stated objective for the Ministerial was broadly to \"advocate for U.S. economic and trade interests, including WTO institutional reform and market-based, fair trade policies.\" Several observers were relieved when USTR Lighthizer acknowledged in Ministerial remarks that the WTO plays an important role, even as he outlined key criticisms. The United States viewed the Ministerial outcome positively—that it signaled \"the impasse at the WTO was broken,\" paving the way for like-minded countries to pursue new work in other areas. USTR expressed U.S. support in particular for forthcoming work on e-commerce, scientific standards for agriculture, and disciplines on fisheries subsidies. While WTO members did not announce any negotiated outcomes at the 11 th Ministerial meeting, several countries committed to make progress on ongoing talks, including fisheries subsidies and e-commerce. In other areas, such as agriculture and environmental goods, talks remain stalled with no clear path forward. For some issues multilateral solutions arguably remain ideal, for example, disciplines on agricultural subsidies, which are widely used by developed and advanced developing countries alike. One concern is that such important, unresolved issues may founder for want of a negotiating venue. While the Doha Round largely did not achieve its comprehensive negotiating mandate to lower agricultural tariffs and subsidies, negotiations more limited in scope have continued. The 2015 Nairobi Ministerial agreed to eliminate export subsidies for agriculture, but the issue of public stockholding remains seemingly intractable. Public stockholding, also known as food security programs, is used by governments, especially in developing countries, to purchase and stockpile food to release to the public during periods of market volatility or shortage. These programs become problematic when governments purchase food at a price and quantity that effectively become trade-distorting domestic support. While no agreement was reached at Buenos Aires, some developing countries, such as India, have demanded that the issue be resolved before new issues are considered in the WTO work program. The United States has also flagged the broader issue of notification and transparency. Under WTO agreements, members are required to notify subsidies and trade-distorting support to ensure transparency and consistency with a member's obligation. Compliance with notifications has been notoriously lax, with some countries years behind on their reporting. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture trade counsel Jason Hafemeister, these practices have consequences: In the absence of transparency, how are we to determine whether Members are complying with existing obligations? Moreover, only with comprehensive and current information can negotiators understand, discuss, and address the problems that face farmers today: high tariffs, trade distorting support, and non-tariff barriers. The United States with other countries recently issued new proposals to address these concerns—see \" Transparency/Notification .\" As noted above, WTO members committed to negotiate disciplines related to fisheries subsidies at the 11 th Ministerial with a view toward reaching an agreement by 2020. The proposals aim to meet the goals outlined in United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 targeting illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing. Though multiple areas of disagreement remain, members have been negotiating on the scope of exemptions, such as for fuel subsidies. The United States reportedly seeks to minimize the level and scope of such exclusions. Members are expected to move from discussions of proposals into negotiations on a consolidated draft text by early 2019. The Trump Administration has voiced support for the talks, stating that it continues \"to support stronger disciplines and greater transparency in the WTO with respect to fisheries subsidies.\" Digital trade has emerged as a major force in world trade since the Uruguay Round, creating end products (e.g., email or social media), enabling trade in services (e.g., consulting), and facilitating goods trade through services, such as logistics and supply chain management that depend on digital data flows. While the GATS contains explicit commitments for telecommunications and financial services that underlie e-commerce, trade barriers related to digital trade, information flows, and other related issues are not specifically included. The WTO Work Program on Electronic Commerce was established in 1998 to examine trade-related issues for e-commerce under existing agreements. Under the work program, members agreed to continue a temporary moratorium on e-commerce customs duties, and have renewed the moratorium at each ministerial meeting. Some developing countries, however, have begun to question the moratorium, seeing it as blocking a potential government revenue stream. Progress under the work program has largely stalled as multiple members have put forward competing views on possible paths forward. In advance of the 2017 Ministerial, various members had submitted proposals for specific work agendas in e-commerce. The U.S. submission, dated July 4, 2016, reflected many of the ideas included in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an FTA with 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific from which the United States withdrew in January 2017. The proposal may gain the support of other TPP members as several have already ratified a slightly modified agreement—the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for TPP (CPTPP or TPP-11)—which maintained the digital trade provisions as negotiated by the United States. The Chinese WTO submission, on the other hand, more narrowly focuses on facilitating e-commerce. India has said it would not agree to any new obligations in the WTO related to e-commerce or digital trade, preferring to focus on issues identified under the original Doha mandate, including agriculture. As a result, the 2017 Ministerial ended with an agreement to \"endeavor to reinvigorate our work.\" The plurilateral effort announced at the ministerial agreeing to \"initiate exploratory work on negotiations on electronic commerce issues in the WTO\" may provide the best avenue to pursue an agreement within the WTO framework. A U.S. discussion paper on the initiative outlined potential provisions, including protecting cross-border data flows, source code, and encryption technology; prohibiting discrimination, customs duties, technology transfer or localization requirements; and promoting cybersecurity and open government data. The United States also included the WTO Telecommunications Reference Paper, seeking all WTO members to adopt its principles on telecommunications competition. Notably, the U.S. submission did not list privacy or consumer protection among its provisions. The group of 49 WTO members formally launched the e-commerce initiative in January 2019, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum annual meetings. Their joint statement lists not only the United States and EU as participants, but also several developing countries, including China and Brazil. In the statement, the group agreed to seek a \"high standard outcome that builds on existing WTO agreements and frameworks with the participation of as many WTO Members as possible,\" but did not specify which trade barriers and issues are to be addressed. USTR's statement after the meeting emphasized the need for an enforceable agreement with the \"same obligations for all participants.\" The negotiation process is expected to begin in March 2019. It is unclear how, or if, the plurilateral effort will overlap or be incorporated into the existing multilateral work program. Some countries viewed the 11 th Ministerial meeting as a missed opportunity to reinvigorate the stalled EGA plurilateral negotiations. The EGA negotiations, initiated in mid-2014 by 14 WTO members including the United States and China, seek to liberalize trade in environmental goods through tariff liberalization. Current EGA members represent 86% of global trade in covered environmental goods. Like the ITA, the EGA would be an open plurilateral agreement so that the benefits achieved through negotiations would be extended on an MFN basis to all WTO members. Despite 18 rounds of negotiations, members were unable to conclude the agreement at the December 2016 General Council   meeting, and talks have since stalled. Most parties blamed China for the lack of progress, as it rejected the list of products to be included and requested several lengthy tariff phaseout periods which other countries refused to accept. The EGA's future now remains uncertain—while several countries have expressed support for resuming the talks, the Trump Administration has not put forward a public position on the agreement. The inability of WTO members to conclude a comprehensive agreement during the Doha Round raised new questions about the WTO's future direction. Many intractable issues from Doha remain unresolved, and members have yet to reach consensus on a way forward. Persistent differences about the extent and balance of trade liberalization continue to stymie progress, as evidenced by the outcomes of recent ministerial meetings. Further, members remain divided over adopting new issues on the agenda, amid concerns that the WTO could lose relevance if its rules are not updated to reflect the modern global economy. Some WTO members seek to incorporate new issues that pose challenges to the trading system, such as digital trade, competition with SOEs, global supply chains, and the relationship between trade and environment issues. These divisions have called into question the viability of the \"single undertaking,\" or one-package approach in future multilateral negotiations and suggest broader need for institutional reform if the WTO is to remain a relevant negotiating body. Moreover, the consistent practice of some countries like India to block discussion of new issues serves as a reminder of the power of a single member to halt progress in the WTO's consensus-based system. As a result of slow progress at the WTO, countries have increasingly turned to other venues to advance trade liberalization and rules, namely plurilateral agreements and preferential FTAs outside the WTO. Plurilaterals have been seen as having the potential to resurrect the WTO's relevance as a negotiating body, but have also been seen as possibly undermining multilateralism if the agreements are not extended to all WTO members on an MFN basis. Regional trade agreements have also been seen as potential laboratories for new rules. How these negotiations and agreements will ultimately affect the WTO's status as the preeminent global trade institution is widely debated. In addition, an open question is whether U.S. leadership within these initiatives will continue under the Trump Administration. More recently, concerns for some have been mounting about further strains on the multilateral system, due to the growing use of trade protectionist policies by both developed and developing countries, the recent U.S. tariff actions and counterretaliation by other countries, and the escalating trade disputes between major economies. Many countries are questioning whether the WTO is equipped to effectively handle the challenges of emerging markets, as well as the deepening trade tensions. Some experts view the system as facing a potential crisis, while o thers remain optimistic that the current state of affairs could spur renewed focus on reforms of the system. Certain WTO members, like the EU and Canada, have begun to explore some areas for reform (see below). In contrast to the consensus-based agreements of the WTO, some members, including the United States, point to the progress made in sectoral or plurilateral settings as the way forward for the institution. By assembling coalitions of interested parties, negotiators may more easily and quickly achieve trade liberalizing objectives, as shown by the ITA. Sectoral agreements are viewed as one way to pursue new agreements and extend WTO disciplines and commitments in new areas, including, for example, U.S. trade priorities in digital trade and SOEs. The commitments by some WTO members to pursue talks in e-commerce, investment facilitation, and SMEs could plant the seeds for future plurilaterals. Plurilateral negotiations, however, still involve resolving divisions among developed and advanced developing countries. Members were able ultimately to overcome their differences in the ITA negotiation, but thus far have been unable to reach consensus in the EGA. At the same time, the participation of developing and emerging market economies, such as China and India, is critical to achieving agreements that cover a meaningful share of global trade. There is also a concern that plurilateral agreements not applied on an MFN basis could lead nonparticipating countries to become marginalized from the trading system and face new trade restrictions. To attract a critical mass of participants and lower barriers for developing countries and LDCs who may be hesitant to agree to ambitious commitments, agreements could allow flexibility in implementation timeframes and provide additional assistance, as in the TFA. Some experts question whether potential waning U.S. leadership in plurilateral and multilateral trade negotiations might slow momentum toward concluding new agreements (see \" Value of the Multilateral System and U.S. Leadership and Membership \"). The Trump Administration has yet to clarify its position on plurilaterals pursued under the Obama Administration, such as EGA and TiSA, which have stalled, but is supporting new efforts on e-commerce/digital trade. Given that the WTO allows its members to establish preferential FTAs outside the WTO that are consistent with WTO rules, many countries have formed bilateral or regional FTAs and customs areas; since 1990, the number of RTAs in force has increased seven-fold, with 290 trade agreements notified to the WTO and in force, as of the end of 2018. FTAs have often provided more negotiating flexibility for countries to advance new trade liberalization and rulemaking that builds on WTO agreements; however, the agreements vary widely in terms of scope and depth. Like plurilaterals, many view comprehensive FTAs as having potential for advancing the global trade agenda. Also like plurilaterals, however FTAs can also have downsides compared to multilateral deals. The United States currently has 14 FTAs in force with 20 countries. The Trump Administration has stated a preference for negotiating bilateral FTAs, rather than multiparty agreements. In September 2018, the United States, Mexico, and Canada completed negotiations of the proposed USMCA, which revamps the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The United States and South Korea also agreed to some modifications of their bilateral FTA. In addition, USTR notified Congress of its intent to begin trade negotiations with the EU, Japan, and the UK. In general, U.S. FTAs are considered to be \"WTO-plus\" in that they reaffirm the WTO agreements, but also eliminate most tariff and nontariff barriers and contain rules and obligations in areas not covered by the WTO. For example, most U.S. FTAs include access to services markets beyond what is contained in the GATS or, more recently, digital trade obligations. While U.S. FTAs cover some major trading partners, the majority of U.S. trade, including with significant trade partners such as China, the EU, and Japan, continues to rely solely on the terms of market access and rulemaking in WTO agreements. In 2017, the United States traded $3.4 trillion with non-FTA partners, compared to $1.8 trillion with its FTA partners ( Figure 8 ). More recently, groups of countries have also been pursuing so-called \"mega-regional\" trade agreements that cover significant shares of global trade. These include the CPTPP signed in March 2018 between 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific to replace the TPP, ongoing negotiations over the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and six of its FTA partners including China, and the Pacific Alliance signed in June 2012 among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. Negotiations on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) between the United States and EU stalled, and though new U.S.-EU trade talks are to resume, their scope remains unclear. Such agreements could potentially consolidate trade rules across regions and to a varying extent address new issues not covered by the WTO. There has been wide debate regarding the relationship of preferential FTAs to the WTO and multilateral trading system. Some argue that crafting new rules through mega-regionals could undermine the trading system, create competing regional trade blocs, lead to trade diversion, and marginalize countries not participating in the initiatives. On the other hand, some view such agreements as potentially spurring new momentum at the global level. WTO DG Azevêdo has supported the latter sentiment, expressing that \"RTAs [regional trade agreements] are blocks which can help build the edifice of global rules and liberalization.\" Many analysts have viewed the CPTPP specifically through this lens. Some experts view plurilateral agreements in particular as potential vehicles for bringing new rulemaking from RTAs into the multilateral trading system. While RTAs may propagate precisely what the multilateral system—with MFN and national treatment at its underpinnings—was designed to prevent, namely trade diversion and fragmented trading blocs, some observers believe it may be the only way trade may be liberalized in the future as additional interested parties could join the agreements over time. Since the founding of the WTO, the landscape of global trade has changed dramatically. The commercial internet, the growth of supply chains, and increasing trade in services have all contributed to the tremendous expansion of trade. However, WTO disciplines have not been modernized or expanded since 1995, aside from the TFA and the renegotiation of the ITA and the GPA. In addition to ongoing WTO efforts to negotiate new trade liberalization and rules in areas like e-commerce and digital trade, the following are selected areas of trade policy that could be subjects for future negotiations multilaterally within the WTO, or as plurilaterals. Meaningful progress in areas such as services, competition with SOEs, investment, and labor and environment issues could help increase the relevance of the WTO as a negotiating body. Since the GATS, the scope of global trade in services has increased tremendously, spurred by advances in IT and the growth of global supply chains. Yet, these advances are largely not reflected in the GATS. WTO members committed to further services negotiations (GATS Article XIX), which began in 2000 and were incorporated into the Doha Round. Further talks were spurred by the recognition among many observers that the GATS, while it extended the principles of nondiscrimination and transparency to services trade, was not thought to provide much actual liberalization, as many countries simply bound existing practices. However, services negotiations during Doha also succumbed to the resistance of developing countries to open their markets in response to developed country demands, as well as dissatisfaction with other aspects of the single undertaking. Whether the stalled plurilateral TiSA talks will ultimately lead to services reform in the WTO is an open question. Aside from increased market access, several issues are ripe for future negotiations at the WTO, such as transition from the current positive list schedule of commitments to a negative list. Instead of a member declaring which services are open for competition, it would need to declare which sectors are exempted. This exercise in itself could force members to reexamine their approximately 25-year-old commitments and decide whether current market access barriers will be maintained. New services sectors, such as online education and telemedicine, that were not envisioned at the founding of GATS could also be the subject of future negotiations, at least on a plurilateral basis. The issue of \"servicification\" of traditional goods industries—for example, services that are sold with a good, such as insurance or maintenance services, or enabling services, such as distribution, transportation, marketing, or retail—has also attracted attention as the subject of possible WTO negotiations. Other issues of interest to members include services facilitation (transparency, streamlining administrative procedures, simplifying domestic regulations), and emergency safeguards, envisioned in the GATS (Article X) as an issue for future negotiation. The United States and other members of the WTO see an increased need to discipline state-owned or state-dominated enterprises engaged in international commerce, and designated monopolies, whether through the WTO or through regional or bilateral FTAs. However, WTO rules on competition with state-owned or state-dominated enterprises are limited to state trading enterprises (STE)—enterprises, such as agricultural marketing boards, that influence the import or export of a good. GATT Article XVII requires them to act consistently with GATT commitments on nondiscrimination, to operate in accordance with commercial considerations, and to abide by other GATT disciplines, such as disciplines on import and export restrictions. The transparency obligations consist of reporting requirements describing the reason and purpose of the STE, the products covered by STE, a description of its functions, and pertinent statistical information. Meanwhile, countries desiring disciplines on SOEs have turned to FTAs. The TPP and the proposed USMCA have dedicated chapters on SOEs. The USMCA includes commitments that SOEs of a party act in accordance with commercial considerations; requires parties to provide nondiscriminatory treatment to like goods or services to those provided by SOEs; and prohibits most noncommercial assistance to its SOE, among other issues. The SOE chapter in USMCA likely is aimed at countries other than the three USMCA parties, such as China, to signal their negotiating intentions going forward. While there could be a desire to multilateralize these disciplines, they likely would face objections from those members engaged in such practices. State support provided to SOEs, including subsidies, is a closely related issue, as it can play a major role in market-distorting behavior under current rules. The WTO ASCM covers the provision of specified subsidies granted to SOEs, including by the government or any \"public body.\" Some members, including the United States and EU, have contested past interpretations by the WTO Appellate Body of what qualifies as a public body as too narrow, and remain concerned that a large share of Chinese and other SOEs in effect have avoided being subject to disciplines. As discussed, the United States, EU, and Japan are engaged in ongoing discussions on strengthening rules on industrial subsidies and SOEs, including \"how to develop effective rules to address market-distorting behavior of state enterprises and confront particularly harmful subsidy practices.\"  They commit to both \"maintain effectiveness of existing WTO disciplines\" and also initiate negotiations on \"more effective subsidy rules\" in the near future. At the latest meetings in January 2019, the three partners indicated plans to finalize a proposed text on industrial subsidies by spring 2019. With limited provisions under TRIMS and GATS, rules and disciplines covering international investment are not part of WTO. More extensive protection for investors was one of the \"Singapore issues\" proposed at the 1996 WTO Ministerial as a topic for future negotiations, but then dropped under opposition from developing countries at the 2003 Cancun Ministerial. The OECD also attempted to liberalize investment practices and provide investor protections through a Multilateral Agreement on Investment, however, that effort was abandoned in 1998 in the face of widespread campaigns by nongovernment organizations in developed countries. While multilateral attempts to negotiate investment disciplines have not borne fruit, countries have agreed to investment protections within bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and chapters in bilateral and regional FTAs. The U.S. \"model BIT\" serves as the basis for most recent U.S. FTAs. These provisions are often negotiated between developed countries and developing countries—often viewed as having less robust legal systems—that want to provide assurance that incoming FDI will be protected in the country. Developed countries themselves have begun to diverge on the use and inclusion of provisions on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Incorporating investment issues more fully in the WTO would recognize that trade and investment issues are increasingly interlinked. Moreover, bringing coherence to the nearly 3,000 BITs or trade agreements with investment provisions could be a role for the WTO. In addition, agreement on investment disciplines could help to resolve the thorny issue of investment adjudication between the competing models of ISDS and an investment court, as proposed by the EU in its recent FTAs, given that disputes likely would remit to WTO dispute settlement. While it remains unclear whether developing countries would be more amenable to negotiating investment disciplines multilaterally than they were in 2003, this area could be ripe for plurilateral activity. In the meantime, since the Ministerial some WTO members are pursuing the development of a multilateral framework on investment facilitation. The group is comprised of a mix of developed and developing economies, including the EU, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, and Russia, but not the United States. Labor and environmental provisions were not included in the Uruguay Round agreements, largely at the insistence of developing countries. Some observers maintain that this has created major gaps in global trade rules and call for the WTO to address these issues. Related provisions have developed and evolved within U.S. FTAs outside the WTO. Recent U.S. FTAs require partner countries to adhere to internationally recognized labor principles of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and applicable multilateral environmental agreements, and to enforce their labor or environmental laws and not to derogate from these laws to attract trade and investment. The CPTPP and proposed USMCA also contain provisions, though not identical, prohibiting the most harmful fisheries subsidies, and relating to illegal trafficking, marine species, air quality, marine litter, and sustainable forestry. More broadly, while inclusion of labor and environmental provisions within FTAs has expanded in the past decade, in general the commitments can vary widely in their scope and depth, with only some subject to dispute settlement mechanisms. While general provisions on labor and environment may be a heavy lift at this time given these differences, the WTO has undertaken an effort to discipline fisheries subsidies, which could have a beneficial environmental effect (see above). However, fisheries subsidies may be a special case, as it directly pertains to an existing trade-related agreement, the ASCM. Many observers believe the WTO needs to adopt reforms to continue its role as the foundation of the world trading system. In particular, its negotiating function has atrophied following the collapse of the Doha Round. Its dispute settlement mechanism, while functioning, is viewed by some as cumbersome and time consuming. And some observers, including U.S. officials, contend it has exceeded its mandate when deciding cases. Potential changes described below address institutional and negotiation reform, as well as reforms to the dispute settlement system. Reforms concern the administration of the organization, including its procedures and practices, and attempts to address the inability of WTO members to conclude new agreements. Dispute settlement reforms attempt to improve the working of the dispute settlement system, particularly the Appellate Body (AB). Addressing concerns related to the dispute settlement system may take priority in the near term, as the WTO faces a pending crisis should the AB fall below its three-member quorum in late 2019. Certain WTO members have begun to explore some aspects of reform. In July 2018, the European Commission produced a discussion paper on WTO reform proposals, and in September published a revised paper on its comprehensive approach \"to modernise the WTO and to make international trade rules fit for the challenges of the global economy.\" As noted, the United States, EU, and Japan have issued scoping papers and joint statements on strengthening WTO disciplines on industrial subsidies and SOEs and cooperating on forced technology transfer. In addition, Canada organized a ministerial among a small group of \"like-minded\" countries interested in WTO reform, including Australia, Brazil, Chile, the EU, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, and Switzerland, held in Ottawa on October 24-25, based on a discussion draft of its proposals. Canadian trade officials have said that \"starting small has allowed us to address problems head-on and quickly develop proposals,\" while acknowledging that a larger effort must include the United States and China. In a joint communiqué, the group of 13 countries emphasized that \"the current situation at the WTO is no longer sustainable,\" and identified three areas requiring \"urgent consideration\": safeguarding and strengthening the dispute settlement system; reinvigorating the WTO's negotiating function; including how the development dimension can be best pursued in rulemaking; and strengthening the monitoring and transparency of WTO members' trade policies. The group met again in January 2019 on the sidelines of the annual World Economic Forum meetings, committing to make \"significant progress\" toward WTO reform before the G20 meetings convene in June 2019. Some Members of Congress have expressed support for these new efforts to address long-standing concerns of the United States. While consensus in decisionmaking is a long-standing core practice at the GATT/WTO, voting on a nonconsensus basis is authorized for certain activities on a one member-one vote basis. For example, interpretations of the WTO agreements and country waivers from certain provisions require a three-fourths affirmative vote for some matters, while a two-thirds affirmative vote is required for an amendment to an agreement. However, even when voting is possible, the practice of consensus decisionmaking remains the norm. As an organization of sovereign entities, some observers believe the practice of consensus decisionmaking gives legitimacy to WTO actions. Consensus assures that actions taken are in the self-interest of all its members. Consensus also reassures small countries that their concerns must be addressed. However, the practice of consensus has often led to deadlock, especially in the Doha Round negotiations. The ability to block consensus also has perpetuated so-called \"hostage taking,\" in which a country can block consensus over an unrelated matter. In order to attempt to expedite institutional decisionmaking, some expert observers have proposed alternatives to the current system, such as the following: Use the voting procedures currently prescribed in the WTO agreements. Adopt a weighted voting system based on a formula that includes criteria relating to a member's gross domestic product, trade flows, population, or a combination thereof. Establish an executive committee composed of a combination of permanent and rotating members, or composed based on a formula as above or representatives of differing groups of countries. Maintain current consensus voting but require a member stating an objection to explain why it is doing so, or why it is a matter of vital national interest. The \"single undertaking\" method by which WTO members negotiate agreements means that during a negotiating round, all issues are up for negotiation until everything is agreed. On one hand, this method, in which nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, is suited for large, complex rounds in which rules and disciplines in many areas of trade (goods, services, agriculture, IPR, etc.) are discussed. It permits negotiation on a cross-sectoral basis, so countries can make a concession in one area of negotiation and receive a concession elsewhere. The method is intended to prevent smaller countries from being \"steamrolled\" by the demands of larger economies, and helps ensure that each country sees a net benefit in the resulting agreement. On the other hand, arguably, the single undertaking has contributed to the breakdown of the negotiating function under the WTO, exemplified by the never-completed Doha Round, as issues of importance to one country or another served to block consensus at numerous points during the round. Some members, including the EU, have called for \"flexible multilateralism,\" based on continued support for full multilateral negotiations where possible, but pursuit of plurilateral agreements on an MFN basis where multilateral consensus is not possible. An important task of the WTO is to monitor each member's compliance with various agreements. A WTO member is required to notify the Secretariat of certain relevant domestic laws or practices so that other members can assess the consistency of WTO members' domestic laws, regulations, and actions with WTO agreements. Required notifications include measures concerning subsidies, agricultural support, quantitative restrictions, technical barriers to trade, and sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Compliance with the WTO agreement's notification requirements, especially regarding government subsidy programs, has become a serious concern among certain members, including the United States. Many WTO members are late in submitting their required notifications or do not submit them at all. This effectively prevents other members from fully examining the policies of their trading partners. In response, some members—notably the United States and the EU—have proposed incentives for compliance or sanctions for noncompliance with notification reporting requirements. These include the following: A U.S. proposal to impose a series of sanctions including steps to \"name and shame\" an offending member, limiting the member from using certain WTO resources, and designating a member \"inactive.\" An EU proposal to create a rebuttable presumption that a non-notified subsidy measure is an actionable subsidy or a subsidy causing serious prejudice, thereby allowing a member to challenge the subsidy under WTO dispute settlement. An EU proposal to encourage counternotifications—a challenge to the accuracy or existence of another member's notification—against members that do not voluntarily notify on their own. In May and November 2018, for example, the United States launched counternotifications of India's farm subsidy notifications regarding wheat, rice, and cotton. In November 2018, the United States, EU, Japan, Argentina, and Costa Rica put forward a joint proposal that reflects several of these elements, including penalties for noncompliance. It also specifies exemptions for developing countries that lack capacity and have requested assistance to help fulfill notification obligations. A country's development status can affect the pace at which a country undertakes its WTO obligations. Given that WTO members self-designate their status, some members hold on to developing-country status even after their economies begin more to resemble their developed-country peers. In addition, some of the world's largest economies, including China, India, and Brazil, may justify developing country status because their per capita incomes more closely resemble those of a developing country than those of developed countries. Developing country status enables a country to claim special and differential treatment (SDT) both in the context of existing obligations and in negotiations for new disciplines (see text box ). The WTO specifies, however, that while the designated status is on the basis of self-selection, it is \"not necessarily automatically accepted in all WTO bodies.\" Developed countries, including the EU and United States, have expressed frustration at this state of affairs. In January 2019, the United States circulated a paper warning that the WTO is at risk of becoming irrelevant due to the practice of allowing members to self-designate their development status to obtain special and differential treatment. The paper noted that some of the world's richest nations, including Singapore, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as some of the world's major trading economies, such as China and India, consider themselves developing countries at the WTO. The paper maintained that self-designation has damaged the negotiating function of the WTO, and contributed to the failure of the Doha Round and possibly ongoing negotiations, if countries can avoid making meaningful offers by claiming exemptions from the rules. Several suggestions have been made to address the situation, including encouraging countries to graduate from developing country status; setting quantifiable criteria for development status; targeting SDT in future agreements on a needs-driven, differential basis; and requiring full eventual implementation of all new agreements. Some of these steps were implemented in the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. Supporters of the multilateral trading system consider the dispute settlement mechanism (DSM) not only a success of the system, but essential to maintain the relevance of the institution, especially while the WTO has struggled as a negotiating body. However, the DSM is facing increased pressure for reform, in part due to long-standing U.S. objections over certain rules and procedures. USTR Lighthizer contends that the WTO has become a \"litigation-centered organization,\" which has lost its focus on negotiations. While WTO members have actively used the DSM since its creation, some have also voiced concerns about various aspects, including procedural delays and compliance, and believe the current system could be reformed to be fairer and more efficient. The Doha Round included negotiations to reform the dispute settlement system through \"improvements and clarifications\" to DSU rules. A framework of 50 proposals was circulated in 2003 but countries were unable to reach consensus. Discussions have continued beyond Doha with a primary focus on 12 issues, including third-party rights, panel composition, and remand authority of the Appellate Body. Under prior Administrations, the United States proposed greater control for WTO members over the process, guidelines for the adjudicative bodies, and greater transparency, such as public access to proceedings. However, these negotiations have yet to achieve results. Some experts suggest that enhancing the capabilities and legitimacy of the dispute settlement system will likely require several changes, including improving mechanisms for oversight, narrowing the scope of and diverting sensitive issues from adjudication, improving institutional support, and providing WTO members more input over certain procedures. The immediate flashpoint to the system is the refusal of the United States to consent to the appointment of new AB jurists. The United States has long-standing objections to decisions involving the AB's interpretation of certain U.S. trade remedy laws in particular—the subject of the majority of complaints brought by other WTO members against the United States. The AB consists of seven jurists appointed to four-year terms on a rolling basis, with the possibility of a one-term reappointment. Each dispute case is heard by three jurists. Like the previous Administration, the Trump Administration blocked the process to appoint new jurists in 2017 and 2018, leaving only three AB jurists remaining to hear all cases. Concerns are rising that the AB, already facing a backlog of cases, could come to a halt in 2019 if additional appointments are not made. Deputy DG of the WTO Alan Wolff summarized the stakes in recent remarks, noting that if the Appellate Body were to cease to function, member countries would be unable to appeal an adverse panel decision against one of their policies, and without that option, \"there is a risk of every trade dispute devolving into small and not so small trade wars, consisting of retaliation and counter-retaliation.\" The United States expounded on some of the perceived shortcomings of the dispute settlement system in its most recent trade policy agenda. Arguably the main U.S. complaint is that the system, particularly the AB, is \"adding to or diminishing U.S. rights by not applying the WTO agreements as written\" in the areas of subsidies, antidumping and countervailing duties, standards, and safeguards. At its crux, the current controversy is over the autonomy of the AB, its deference to the DSB, and its obligations to implement the provisions of the DSU. The United States has been the most vocal in its criticisms, yet other WTO members have expressed similar concerns. While the United States has not tabled specific reforms for these complaints to the WTO membership, other members have. Two groups (G-12, G-3) submitted specific proposals for the December 2018 General Council meeting to attempt to break the impasse. The G-12 submission reflects proposals of all 12 members; the G-3 submission contains supplementary proposals put forward by a subset of the 12. The United States criticized the proposals as seeking to change WTO DS rules to fit the practices objectionable to the United States, rather than adhering to the rules as originally negotiated. Instead of seeking to accommodate current practices, U.S. Ambassador to the WTO Dennis Shea proposed that WTO members \"engage in a deeper discussion of the concerns raised, to consider why the Appellate Body has felt free to depart from what WTO Members agreed to, and to discuss how best to ensure that the system adheres to WTO rules as written.\" Ambassador Shea also criticized the G-3 proposals as lessening the accountability of the Appellate Body, rather than increasing it. Under each of the following issues, these proposals are raised along with other reform proposals that members or observers have put forward to address current concerns. Disregard for the 90-day, DSU-mandated deadline for AB appeals. USTR claims that the AB does not have the authority to fail to meet the deadline without consulting the DSB, maintaining that the deadline \"helps ensure that the AB focuses its report on the issue on appeal.\" The G-12 submission proposes to amend the DSU to allow parties, based on a proposal by the AB, to extend the length of time to conclude an appeal. If the parties do not agree on an extension, the AB would propose work procedures or arrangements to allow it to conclude the appeal within 90 days. In addition, the G-3 submission proposes to amend the DSU to increase the number of AB jurists from seven to nine to allow for greater efficiency and geographical diversity. Extension of service by former AB jurists on cases continuing after their four-year terms have expired. The United States maintains that the AB does not have the authority unilaterally to extend the terms of jurists, rather that authority lies with the DSB and that it is a matter of adherence to the DSU. In actual practice, however, it may be the case that having former jurists stay on to finish an appeal may be more efficient than having a new jurist join the case. The G-12 submission proposes to amend the DSU to allow outgoing AB jurists to complete the disposition of a pending appeal, provided that the hearing stage has taken place. In addition, the G-3 submission proposes that outgoing AB members continue to serve until replaced, but not more than two years following expiration of their term. Alternatively, some trade experts have suggested that the AB could refrain from assigning cases to jurists less than 90 days before their exits. During the Obama Administration, the United States blocked the reappointment of a South Korean jurist to the AB in May 2016. The United States cited what it considered \"abstract discussions\" in prior decisions by the jurist that went beyond the legal scope of the WTO. This action has led to the concern that the prospect of non-reappointment could affect the independence of the AB system. However, one former AB jurist opines that, \"reappointment is an option, not a right,\" and calls for the WTO members to determine if a more formal process similar to initial appointment of AB jurists is needed for reappointment. The G-3 submission proposes to amend the DSU to permit AB members to serve one term of longer length (6-8 years) and not allow for reappointment. Other criticisms of the AB involve the extent to which it can interpret WTO agreements. The United States, in arguing for a more restrictive view of the power of the DSB, points to Article 3.2 that \"recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements\" (see text box above). However, those supporting a more expansive view of the DSU's role can point to the same article, which highlights the role \"to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law.\" The scope and reach of the AB's activities is an enduring controversy for the organization, not limited to the Trump Administration. USTR has flagged several specific practices relating to these issues, such as the following: Issuing advisory opinions on issues not relevant to the issue on appeal. This point is related to the U.S. concern that the AB is engaged in \"judicial overreach\" by going beyond deciding the case at hand. USTR contends that the ability to issue advisory opinions or interpretations of text rests with the Ministerial Conference or General Council. The G-12 proposes to amend the DSU to stipulate that the AB address each issue raised in a dispute \"to the extent necessary for the resolution of the dispute.\" Rather than issue advisory opinions, some observers have suggested that the AB also could \"remand\" issues of uncertainty to the standing committees of the WTO for further negotiation. In addition, members could also use a provision of the WTO Agreement (Article IX.2) to seek an \"authoritative interpretation\" of a WTO text at the General Council or Ministerial Conference, which could be adopted by a three-fourths vote. De novo review of facts or domestic law in cases on appeal. The United States alleges that the AB is not giving the initial panel due deference on matters of fact, including regarding the panel's interpretation of domestic law. This point derives from USTR's view that a country's domestic law should be considered as fact, and that the panel's interpretation of the domestic law is thus not reviewable by the AB. The G-12 submission proposes to amend the DSU to clarify that the meaning of a party's domestic laws is a matter of fact, and not reviewable by the AB. Treatment of AB decisions as precedent. Like the previous two concerns, this complaint speaks to the alleged overreach of the AB. USTR asserts that while AB reports can provide \"valuable clarification\" of covered agreements, they cannot be considered or substituted for the WTO agreements and obligations negotiated by members. However, according to a former DG of the WTO, \"the precedent concept used in the WTO jurisprudence is ... centrally important to the effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement procedure goals of security and predictability.\" A related concern some WTO members have is \"gap-filling\" by the DS system, where the legal precedent is unclear or ambiguous or there are no or incomplete WTO rules regarding a contested issue. Here there are diametrically opposite beliefs: a U.S. trade practitioner asks, \"Is filling gaps and construing silences really not the creation of rights and obligations through disputes vs. leaving such function to negotiations by the members?\" The former DG, however, contends that \"every juridical institution has at least some measure of gap-filling responsibility as part of its efforts to resolve ambiguity.\" The issue of the legitimacy of precedence or gap-filling may be one of the thorniest issues of all with few solutions proposed that would potentially satisfy differences among members. The G-12 submission proposes to amend the DSU to establish a yearly meeting between the AB and the DSB. This session would allow for WTO members to comment on rulings made during the year. According to the submission, it could be a venue \"where concerns with regard to some Appellate Body approaches, systemic issues or trends in the jurisprudence could be voiced.\" It is likely that many of the issues that could arise from proposed reforms to the WTO system would require clarification of or amendment to the language of the Marrakesh Agreement or the DSU. Clarification could take the form of interpretation of the agreements. As noted above, interpretation can be undertaken by the Ministerial Conference (held every two years), General Council, or Dispute Settlement Body, with a three-fourths vote of the WTO membership. Amending the decisionmaking provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement (Article IX) or the DSU would require consensus of the membership at the Ministerial Conference (Marrakesh Agreement, Article X.8). Amendments to the Marrakesh Agreement would require a two-thirds vote of the membership. As noted above, negotiations related to reforms of the DSM occurred during the Doha Round, and despite the criticism of the DSM by the United States and others, the General Council or the DSB has not undertaken serious consideration of these reforms. The United States has served as a leader in the WTO and the GATT since their creation. The United States played a major role in shaping GATT/WTO negotiations and rulemaking, many of which reflect U.S. laws and norms. It was a leading advocate in the Uruguay Round for expanding negotiations to include services and IPR, key sources of U.S. competitiveness, as well as binding dispute settlement to ensure new rules were enforceable. Today, many stakeholders across the United States rely on WTO rules to open markets for importing and exporting goods and services, and to defend and advance U.S. economic interests. The Trump Administration has expressed doubt over the value of the WTO and multilateral trade negotiations to the U.S. economy. As a candidate, President Trump asserted that WTO trade deals are a \"disaster\" and that the United States should \"renegotiate\" or \"pull out.\"  In late June 2018, media reports suggested that President Trump was considering withdrawing the United States from the WTO. While U.S. officials have downplayed talks of withdrawal as \"premature\" and an \"exaggeration,\" the President has since reportedly repeated these threats in July and August 2018. The Administration has continued to express skepticism toward the value of multilateral agreements, preferring bilateral negotiations to address \"unfair trading practices.\" In addition, \"reform of the multilateral trading system\" is a stated Administration trade policy objective. While some U.S. frustrations with the WTO are not new and are shared by other trading partners, the Administration's overall approach has spurred new questions regarding the future of U.S. leadership of and participation in the WTO. Most observers would maintain that the possibility of U.S. withdrawal from the WTO remains unlikely for procedural and substantive reasons. Procedurally, a withdrawal resolution would have to pass the House and Senate; it has also been debated what legal effect the resolution would have if adopted. Moreover, if the United States were to consider such a step, withdrawal would have a number of practical consequences. The United States could face economic costs, since absent WTO membership, remaining members would no longer be obligated to grant the United States MFN status under WTO agreements. WTO rules also restrict members' ability to use quotas, regulations, trade-related investment measures, or subsidies in ways that discriminate or disadvantage U.S. goods and services. They also require members to respect U.S. IPR. Consequently, U.S. businesses could face significant disadvantages in other markets, as members without FTAs with the United States could raise tariffs or other trade barriers at will. Nondiscrimination, a key bedrock principle of the multilateral trading system, could be eroded, particularly given the added impetus U.S. withdrawal could give to the proliferation of FTAs. Withdrawal could also lead to a U.S. loss of influence over how important international trade matters are decided and who writes global trade rules. In the process, economic inefficiencies and political tensions could increase. Exiting the WTO and the international trading relationships it creates and governs could have broader policy implications, including for cooperation between the United States and allies on foreign policy issues. Another question is whether the WTO would flounder without U.S. leadership, or whether other WTO members like the EU and China would increase their roles. As some in the United States question the value of WTO participation and leadership, other countries have begun to assert themselves as leaders and advocates for the global trading system. As noted, cooperation on WTO reform has become elevated as a major topic of discussion at recent high-level meetings, including the latest EU-China Summit held in July 2018 and at the October summit held in Canada among trade ministers from 13 WTO members. Congressional oversight could examine the value, both economic and political, of U.S. membership and leadership in the WTO. As part of its oversight, Congress could consider, or could ask the U.S. International Trade Commission to investigate, the value of the WTO or potential impact of withdrawal from the WTO on U.S. businesses, consumers, federal agencies, laws and regulations, and foreign policy. Congress could vote on a resolution expressing support of the WTO, instructing USTR to prioritize WTO engagement, or, conversely, a resolution for disapproval of U.S. membership under the URAA in 2020. The founding of the GATT and creation of the WTO were premised on the notion that an open and rules-based multilateral trading system was necessary to avoid a return to the nationalistic interwar trade policies of the 1930s. There are real costs and benefits to the United States and other countries to uphold the rules and enforce their commitments and those of other WTO members. A liberalized, rules-based global trading system increases international competition for companies domestically, but also helps to ensure that companies and their workers have access and opportunity to compete in foreign markets with the certainty of a stable, rules-based system. A framework for resolving disputes that inevitably arise from repeated commercial interactions may also help ensure such trade frictions do not spill over into broader international relations. However, certain actions by the Trump Administration and other countries have raised questions about respect for the rules-based trading system, and could weaken the credibility of the WTO. In particular, recent U.S. actions to raise tariffs against major trading partners under Section 232 and Section 301, and to potentially obstruct the functioning of the dispute settlement system by withholding approval for appointments to the AB, have prompted concerns that the United States and other countries who have retaliated to the U.S. actions may undermine the effectiveness and credibility of the institution that it helped to create. Moreover, the outcomes of controversial ongoing dispute cases at the WTO, initiated by several countries over U.S. tariffs, could set precedents and have serious implications for the future credibility of the global trading system. In particular, several U.S. trading partners view U.S. action as blatant protection of domestic industry and not a legitimate use of the national security exception. Some are concerned that U.S. actions may embolden other countries to protect their own industries under claims of protecting their own national security interests. Furthermore, U.S. tariff actions outside of the multilateral system's dispute settlement process may open the United States to criticism and could impede U.S. efforts to use the WTO for its own enforcement purposes. Respect for the rules is also weakened when any country imposes new trade restrictions and takes actions that are not in line with WTO agreements. In particular, China's industrial state policies, including IPR violations and forced technology transfer practices, arguably damage the credibility of the multilateral trading system that is based on respect for the consensus-based rules. In part, the WTO's perceived inability to address certain Chinese policies led to the United States resorting to Section 301 actions. Other countries' pursuit of industrial policy or imposition of discriminatory measures broadly in the name of national or economic security further call into question the viability of the WTO rules-based system. Under the Trump Administration, USTR has put new emphasis on \"preserving national sovereignty\" within the U.S. trade policy agenda, emphasizing that any multinational system to resolve trade disputes \"must not force Americans to live under new obligations to which the United States and its elected officials never agreed.\" The question of sovereignty is not a new one. The withdrawal procedures in the URAA responded to concerns that the WTO would infringe on U.S. sovereignty. During the congressional debate over the Uruguay Round agreements, there were some proposals to create extra review mechanisms of WTO dispute settlement, and many Members stressed that only Congress can change U.S. laws as a result of dispute findings. While U.S. concerns regarding alleged \"judicial overreach\" in WTO dispute findings are long-standing, the Trump Administration has also emphasized unilateral action outside the WTO as a means of defending U.S. interests, including national security. Some observers fear that disagreements at the WTO on issues related to national security (e.g., Section 232 tariffs) may be difficult to resolve through the existing dispute settlement procedures, given current disagreements related to the WTO AB and concerns over national sovereignty that would likely be raised if a dispute settlement panel issued a ruling relating to national security. As noted previously, Article XXI of the GATT allows WTO members to take measures to protect \"essential security interests.\" WTO members and parties to the GATT have invoked Article XXI in other trade disputes. These parties, including the United States, have often argued that each country is the sole judge of questions relating to its own security interests. However, neither the WTO members nor a WTO panel have formally interpreted the Article XXI exception to define its scope. Accordingly, there is little guidance as to (1) whether a WTO panel would decide, as a threshold matter, that it had the authority to evaluate whether U.S. invocation of the exception was proper; and (2) how a panel might apply the national security exception, if invoked, in any dispute before the WTO involving the steel and aluminum tariffs. The broadened membership of the WTO over the past two decades has promoted greater integration of emerging markets such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China in the global economy, and helped ensure that developing country interests are represented on the global trade agenda. At the same time, many observers have attributed the inability of WTO members to collectively reach compromise over new rules and trade liberalization to differing priorities for reforms and market opening among developed countries and emerging markets. One question is to what extent emerging countries like China, with significant economic clout, will take on greater leadership; will such countries play a constructive role, advance the global trade agenda, and facilitate compromise among competing interests? China has voiced support for globalization and the multilateral trading system under which it has thrived. The Chinese government's recent white paper on the WTO stated the following: \"The multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core, is the cornerstone of international trade and underpins the sound and orderly development of global trade. China firmly observes and upholds the WTO rules, and supports the multilateral trading system that is open, transparent, inclusive and nondiscriminatory.\" At the same time, China has blocked further progress in certain initiatives, including the WTO plurilateral Environmental Goods Agreement, and has not put forward a sufficiently robust offer on government procurement to join that WTO agreement, a long-standing promise. With its industrial policies that advantage domestic industries, some analysts contend that China often abides by the letter but not the \"spirit\" of WTO rules, raising questions about the country's willingness in practice to take on more leadership responsibility in the WTO context. Another related concern voiced by the United States and other WTO members is the role of large emerging markets and the use of developing country status by those and other countries to ensure flexibility in implementing future liberalization commitments. The United States could work with other WTO members to set specific criteria to clarify the \"developing\" country qualification, such as using a combination of metrics including GDP, per capita income, and trade volume. Members could be given incentives to graduate from developing status; different WTO agreements could offer different incentives. The Administration included \"reform of the multilateral trading system\" in its 2018 trade policy objectives. Congress may also hold oversight hearings to ask the USTR about specific plans or objectives regarding WTO reforms for the institution, dispute settlement, or in regards to updating or amending existing agreements to address trade barriers and market-distorting behaviors not sufficiently covered by current rules. Congress could also consider directing the executive branch to increase U.S. engagement in reform negotiations, by, for example, endorsing the current trilateral negotiations announced by USTR, the EU, and Japan to address nonmarket practices, mostly aimed at China. Congress may also want to review the recent report by economists from the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank that identifies potential areas for greater trade integration, and determine which are in the U.S. national economic interest. Congress could further consider establishing specific or enhanced new negotiating objectives for multilateral trade agreement negotiations, possibly through amendment to TPA. Congress may request that USTR provide an update of ongoing plurilateral negotiations to address new issues, including digital trade—specified by Congress as a principal trade negotiating objective of TPA. Some experts argue however, that recent U.S. unilateral tariff actions may limit other countries' interest in engaging in future WTO or other negotiations to reduce international trade barriers and craft new rules. Such concerns are amplified given the proliferation of preferential FTAs outside the context of the WTO, which have the potential for discriminatory effects on countries not participating, including the United States. Congress may consider the long-term implications of the U.S. actions on current and future trade negotiations. The future outlook of the multilateral trading system is the subject of growing debate, as it faces serious challenges, some long-standing and some emerging more recently. Some experts view the system as long stagnant and facing a potential crisis; others remain optimistic that the current state of affairs could spur new momentum toward reforms and alternative negotiating approaches moving forward. Despite differing views, there is a growing consensus that the status quo is no longer sustainable, and that there is urgent need to improve the system and find ground for new compromises if the WTO is to remain the cornerstone of the trading system. Debate about the path forward continues. Recent proposals for WTO reforms and for new rules have provided the seeds for new ideas, though concrete solutions and next steps have yet to be agreed among countries involved in discussions. In the near term, several events on the horizon could provide added impetus for resolving differences and assessing progress. The dispute settlement system could cease to function by late 2019 if the terms of the three remaining AB members continue to expire without the approval of new appointments. WTO members will also face their biennial Ministerial Conference in June 2020, which could provide an opportunity for countries to announce completion of ongoing negotiations, such as on fisheries subsidies, and concrete progress in other areas of long-standing priority, including the plurilateral efforts launched during the 2017 Ministerial. Meanwhile, other ambitious trade initiatives outside the WTO are proceeding, including the CPTPP, which entered into force in December 2018 for several members and which many analysts view as providing a possible template for future trade liberalization and rulemaking in several areas. \n\nNow, write a one-page summary of the report.\n\nSummary:"}
{"question_id": 118, "category": "longbench_qmsum", "reference": ["The Prime Minister was adamant that fraud was unacceptable and reiterated that fraudsters would have to return the money. Nonetheless, the government's priority remained the speedy disbursement of funds to those that were in need."], "prompt": "You are given a meeting transcript and a query containing a question or instruction. Answer the query in one or more sentences.\n\nTranscript:\nThe Chair (Hon. Anthony Rota (NipissingTimiskaming, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. Welcome to the seventh meeting of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. Please note that today's proceedings will be televised in the same way as a typical sitting of the House. We will proceed to ministerial announcements. I understand that there are no ministerial announcements. That's confirmed. We will now proceed to presenting petitions for a period not exceeding 15minutes. I would like to remind members that any petition presented during a meeting of the special committee must have already been certified by the clerk of petitions. Once the petition is presented, the member is asked to bring it here to the Table. Mr.Manly is the first one to be allowed to present a petition.\nMr. Paul Manly (NanaimoLadysmith, GP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today to present a petition that has many signatures from constituents in NanaimoLadysmith. They're calling for a ban on cosmetic testing using animals. They want us to follow the European Union model, under which the use of animals in cosmetic testing has been banned. Moving forward, they're calling for a ban on the sale and manufacture of animal-tested cosmetics and their ingredients in Canada.\nThe Chair: Mr. Poilievre is next.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I rise today to table e-petition 2466, initiated by a constituent of mine in Stittsville, a beautiful west Ottawa community. The petition has collected 827 signatures from every province and territory. It was collected by Cara, a mother from my riding who suffered an unthinkable tragedy. Her 11-year-old son Joshua drowned in a boating accident on the St. Lawrence River at Rockport, Ontario. Joshua was not wearing a life jacket. Worse, Cara's family had to wait 48 days to recover Joshua's body. Cara is now working tirelessly to amend the small vessel regulations to make it mandatory for children under the age of 14 to wear a life jacket or PFD while they are passengers in or drivers of small vessels covered under parts 2, 3, and 4 of the regulations. I support Cara's efforts, and I'm honoured to table this petition on her behalf.\nThe Chair: Seeing no further petitions to be presented, we'll continue, and we will now proceed to the questioning of ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes to allow employees who provide support for the sitting to replace each other safely. Go ahead, Mr. Scheer.\nHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition): It was revealed yesterday that this government's policy was to ignore fraud. The Prime Minister's reaction was to act as if everything was normal. In fact, we've learned that over 200,000cases of suspected fraud have been identified in the benefit applications. The Prime Minister is failing our future generations. Our children and grandchildren are going to pay back billions of dollars that he's borrowing to pay tax cheats. Will the Prime Minister protect taxpayers and immediately begin a review of these 200,000cases of suspected fraud?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister): Our priority was to get money out quickly to all Canadians who needed it, and that's exactly what we've done. Millions of Canadians have received the money they so desperately needed. Having said that, I want to make it very clear, Mr.Chair: Fraud is unacceptable. We have measures in place to detect fraud. All fraudsters will be required to pay back the money they fraudulently received from the government. We're going to make sure that this is done in the coming months.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, Conservatives agree that those who need help should get it, and no one is arguing that they shouldn't, but reports indicate that the Liberals have ordered public servants to turn a blind eye to 200,000 cases of suspected fraud. It's a simple question: Yes or no, did the government instruct any government department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the priority in this situation was getting money out to the millions of Canadians who needed it as quickly as possible, but of course fraud is unacceptable. That's why we have put safeguards in place to ensure that anyone who received that money fraudulently will have to repay it.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: It's a yes-or-no question, Mr. Chair. Did the government give any kind of instruction to public servants in any department to ignore red flags or warnings of fraudulent cases, yes or no?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: The instruction to government officials was to get money out to those who needed it as quickly as possible. We have put measures in place to detect fraud. People who got this money fraudulently will have to repay.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, it is clear that he can't answer a yes-or-no question, so we can all assume what the answer must be. In other situations, the government is saying no to people. It's letting so many Canadians down. Small business owners who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number or a business account are ineligible for the government supports. Individuals, owner-operators, and those who are earning $1 more than $1,000 are being told that they don't qualify for the emergency response benefits. Meanwhile, fraudsters are getting them. Does the Prime Minister think it's fair to tell people who are following all the rules no, while telling government officials to allow fraudulent cases to be processed?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, Canadians well know that this is an unprecedented situation, one in which we had to get help to as many Canadians as possible as quickly as possible. That is exactly what we did. We continue to work very hard to fill gaps for people who should get money but haven't been able to, and, as I said, we have strong measures to counter fraud. Anyone who got this money fraudulently will have to repay it.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, when these programs were first designed, the Prime Minister said that he acknowledged that there were problems and that they would be fixed later. Well, here we are in May, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are being told no for purely technical and bureaucratic reasons. Will the Prime Minister make the simple changes to allow business owners who don't happen to have a business bank account, who don't happen to have a CRA payroll number and individuals who are ineligible for the emergency response benefit because they've been paid by family members through dividends to qualify, or is he going to continue to let hundreds of thousands of Canadians down during this pandemic?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, we moved extremely rapidly to get help and support to millions of Canadians. That was the priority, and that's what we've been doing for the past two months. As we've said, we will continue to tweak and improve the programs to make sure that more people who need help will get it. We are working the best we can, as fast as we can, to help those millions of Canadians who need support.\nThe Chair: You have time for about a 15-second question, Mr. Scheer.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister indicated that he would support Taiwan's inclusion in the WHO only as a non-state observer. Of course, that designation does not exist. Participants of the WHO are either states or NGOs. Will the Prime Minister support Taiwan's participation as a state observer?\nThe Chair: The Right Honourable Prime Minister has 15 seconds or less, please.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, we will continue with our one China policy, but we have always advocated Taiwan's meaningful inclusion in international bodies where it makes sense to do so, and that includes at the WHO.\nThe Chair: Mr.Blanchet now has the floor.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet (BeloeilChambly, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr.Chair. On Friday, students in Quebec and Canada will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit, which is a good thing. This program was necessary, particularly because the number of students who won't be able to get back their jobs from last year is much higher than the number of jobs that might be available to these young people. There are also issues of duration. We don't know how long these jobs will remain unavailable. People talked about a risk to being in the labour market and meeting the needs of the labour market. On April29, the Deputy Prime Minister made a formal commitment to ensure that these programs are accompanied by work incentives for youth and all CESB recipients. So that everyone knows what they're getting into, I'd like to know whether the employment incentives that will accompany the Canada emergency response benefit will be known by Friday.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for understanding the importance of supporting students who, for the most part, won't be able to get the summer jobs they were counting on. Young people don't just want to earn money; they also want to gain work experience. That's why we're setting up programs, including Canada summer jobs, but also another program with 76,000new jobs for young people in important sectors, so that young people can also get jobs. We will continue to work with youth and employers to ensure that gaps in the labour market are addressed, while ensuring that youth are well-supported.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: That's very interesting, but it doesn't answer my question at all. People in the fishing, tourism and agricultural sectors, as well as municipalities and, from the very beginning, of course, the Government of Quebec, more generally, have expressed fears that job gains will cause people to lose their benefits and discourage them from going to work. The only way to avoid that is to ensure that people keep more money as they work more. That is the principle. In fact, we propose that over the $1,000no-penalty limit, half of the earnings be exempt from penalty. Is this something that could be considered? Since it's been two weeks since the commitment was made and it's urgent, can we act now? The emergency shouldn't last eight months.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, young people need money, but they also need work experience. This is an unprecedented situation, which is why we're working with seasonal industries and the different regions to make sure they have a sufficient workforce in their situation. Students can be part of it, but at the same time we must provide the necessary support for those who can't find a job. That's why we continue to work with the industries involved to ensure that they have a sufficient workforce while we support students.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Unfortunately, the spirit of it doesn't seem to have been understood. I doubt that, even in the best-case scenario, the government will be able to get all the jobs needed in a timely manner for all these young people to decide to go ahead. So, first of all, there will be a shortage of jobs. Second, people aren't crazy. If they earn less by working than they earn by not working, all the good faith in the world won't solve the problem. Can we make sure that people keep more money in their pockets as they work more? I think we can have a clear answer, given the timeframe. People are going to start registering for the program on Friday. The principles are good, but a clear answer would be good too.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Beginning Friday, students will be able to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit. When they apply, they'll all be directed to a job bank that we've set up to make sure they know what jobs are available to get not only the money they need, but also the experience they need for their future, while helping our society in this crisis. I know we're going to be able to count on young people.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Singh.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, one of the most devastating outcomes of this COVID-19 crisis has been the impact on seniors. Eighty per cent or more of the deaths during COVID-19 have been seniors living in long-term care homes. The military had to be called in. Out of 14 countries, Canada has been deemed the worst in its care of seniors. Despite all this, the Prime Minister has said recently that he doesn't feel it's the federal government's responsibility to find a solution. How can he say to families reeling with loss that it's not the federal government's responsibility to play a role in solving this problem?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, perhaps the fact that the NDP no longer has many seats in Quebec has caused it to forget the importance of respecting the Constitution and the areas of jurisdiction of provincial versus federal governments. We will be there to work with the provinces as they deal with challenges in their long-term care facilities. We are there as a partner, but we, on this side of the House, will always respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and be there to support them in fulfilling those responsibilities.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Everyone across Canada has just heard this Prime Minister double down on the idea that he doesn't feel it's his responsibility, despite the fact that the Canadian military had to go into long-term care homes. There is a role that the federal government can play. Both Liberal and Conservative federal governments have been consistently, for decades, cutting transfers to health care. They can increase those transfers to ensure long-term care is adequately funded. We could also ensure that there's a national care guarantee, working with provinces to ensure that we are meeting the best standards. We could increase workers' pay. We could ensure that there's no more profiting off the backs of seniors when it comes to long-term care. Will the Prime Minister commit to some of these care guarantees?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: It will come as exactly no surprise to the vast majority of Canadians that the Liberal Party will always stand up for the Constitution of Canada. We respect the Constitution. We respect areas of provincial jurisdiction. As I have said from the very beginning of this crisis, we will be there to help the provinces as they manage the challenges they're facing. The federal government does have a role to play, and it is a role to support the provinces in doing the things they need to do during this unprecedented time. We will continue to be there.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: I am glad to hear the Prime Minister is no longer trying to hide behind jurisdiction. We know that in long-term care homes, the for-profit long-term care homes have been the site of the worst conditions, where the greatest number of seniors have died. Will the Prime Minister join us in committing to remove profit from the long-term care system? Vulnerable seniors should not be subject to the profits of a company willing to cut services, staffing and quality of care instead of ensuring that seniors get the best care possible.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: I think it has become clear for all Canadians that we need to improve the care offered to our seniors right across the country. We cannot look at these numbers we are seeing and these tragedies hitting so many families and not want to see us as a country do better. That is why we of course recognize that we will work with other orders of government, particularly the provinces in whose jurisdiction this area rests primarily, to support answering these questions for the long term on how we improve the way Canada supports our elders. This is something really important that we will be there for.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: At the CHSLD Herron in Dorval, 31seniors died in one month. The residents were left without food, dehydrated and without care, and those with COVID-19 symptoms were not isolated from the others. Families pay between $3,000 and $10,000 a month for their loved ones to be at the centre. How can the Prime Minister think that he doesn't have a role to play in finding a solution to this devastating problem?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, all Quebeckers and even all Canadians were stunned to learn of the tragedy at the Dorval CHSLD. We were very happy, as citizens, when the Government of Quebec reacted firmly and asked many questions in connection with this situation. We will support the Government of Quebec in its efforts to find answers and, most importantly, to ensure that, in the long term, the country will better support seniors in all regions.\nThe Chair: We'll continue with Mr.Poilievre.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Chair, how many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos (President of the Treasury Board): Thank you, Mr.Chair. I'd like to start by quickly saying that a total of 7.7million Canadians have received the Canada emergency response benefit, which is absolutely essential for\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: How many emergency response benefits have been sent out to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr.Chair, I see that the pace will allow me to give a little bit of information for each question. As we said at the outset, there will be mechanisms\nThe Chair: Mr.Poilievre has the floor.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: How many?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: We're working very hard.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: How many?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: We're working very hard to ensure the integrity of the mechanism while at the same time taking important steps to help Canadians.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: How many emergency response benefit cheques have been sent to people whose applications have been flagged as fraudulent?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: A total of 7.7million Canadians have received the Canada emergency response benefit, and the agency is ensuring the integrity of the system.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: He's now claiming that it's all 7.7 million? That's crazy. The department is reported to have given out 200,000. Is 200,000 the correct number of cheques that have been sent out to people whose applications have been red-flagged as fraudulent, yes or no?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr.Chair, I'm pleased to use the opportunity given to me by the hon. member to make the following clarifications. I thank him for it. First, approximately 7.7million Canadians have received at least one payment. Second, almost 11million payments have been made.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: How many prisoners have received a Canada emergency response benefit cheque?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: This allows me to go even further and thank the hon. member again. Some 7.7million Canadians have received emergency assistance in an emergency situation\nThe Chair: Mr.Poilievre has the floor.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: So now he's claiming that 7 million Canadians are in jail? The question was this: How many prisoners have received a benefit cheque?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr.Chair, jokes can be made about the plight of Canadians who are suffering tremendously in this crisis, but I'm not here to make\nThe Chair: Mr.Poilievre has the floor.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: Even the CBC is saying that prisoners are receiving the cheque. They can't have lost their jobs. They were already in prison. It's a simple question: How many prisoners have received the cheques?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: I'd like to remind hon. members that we're talking about an extremely serious situation, a situation that has called into question people's ability to make ends meet, a situation that required emergency measures. We're going to continue to do the job that Canadians expect.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: The question was, how many prisoners have received the cheques?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: I've already explained to the hon. memberand I'm pleased to remind himthat this benefit is an emergency measure.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: The Auditor General says that he's dropping half of his audits because the government refuses to provide him with funding. If the government has enough money to send 200,000 fraudulent applicants emergency cheques, why won't the government give the Auditor General the funding he requested?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: I thank the hon. member. It gives me the opportunity, in this emergency situation, to talk about the role of institutions, including that of the Auditor General, which we will continue to support because it helps us do things right.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: Then what does the Auditor General have to do to get the money to do his audits? Does he have to file a bunch of fraudulent applications for an emergency response benefit?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr.Chair, because I know the hon. member well enough, I'm sure that he isn't givingand doesn't want to givethe impression that the Auditor General wants to commit fraud to do his job properly.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: I agree, and that's why he should get the money he needs to do his job. He did twice as many audits under the previous government as he is doing now, but he doesn't have the money to do the audits he needs to do to keep an eye on this government's extraordinary spending. Yes or no, will the government give the Auditor General the funding he has requested so he can get back to doing the same number of audits he did under the much more robust funding of the previous Harper government?\nThe Chair: The hon. Prime Minister.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the previous government cut funding to the Auditor General and caused the office to lay off dozens of employees. We increased the funding for the Auditor General. We recognize the important work the Auditor General needs to do, and that's why we increased the funding for the Auditor General. The party of the member opposite cut this funding.\nThe Chair: I appreciate the help from some of the members in keeping time. I do have my own chronograph here, so I'll take care of it from this end, but I appreciate the help. Thank you. I now give the floor to Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr.Chair, I fully agree with the Treasury Board President that we aren't here to make jokes, but to set the record straight for Canadians. Yesterday, the National Post reported on the front page that 200,000people had fraudulently used emergency assistance. Is that statement accurate, yes or no?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr.Chair, I thank the hon. member from my region. A few minutes ago, I was reminding people in my region that, in the greater Quebec City area, about 200,000people had received this emergency benefit and that it was not for fraudulent reasons, but because they really needed it.\nMr. Grard Deltell: The question is about fraudsters, and I know that there aren't many of them in Quebec City. That said, my question is very simple. I want to know whether or not 200,000people fraudulently used emergency assistance.\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: I know my colleague already knows this, but we announced at the outset that strong and rigorous mechanisms would be put in place quickly to ensure that this delivery would respect the importance of integrity in government.\nMr. Grard Deltell: The integrity of the government must be upheld, and this must be done by telling the truth. Yesterday, the National Post reported on the front page about 200,000fraudsters. Is that correct, yes or no?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: To set the record straight, the Minister of National Revenue, Ms.Lebouthillier, made it very clear that there was no tolerance for fraud in this system, that all mechanisms would be put in place to ensure that integrity would be respected.\nMr. Grard Deltell: The Treasury Board President is one of the few Canadians to find that Ms.Lebouthillier was very clear yesterday. With respect to the Minister of National Revenue, I would point out that the member for RichmondArthabaska asked her a very clear question yesterday, which she was unable to answer. What does a person who has received the full CERB, $2,000, and returns to work this week have to do? Do they have to pay back the amount they aren't entitled to? Do they keep the$2,000? Do they have to wait and include it on their next year's tax return? Which of these three options should the person choose?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: I thank the hon. member for his question, which is very relevant. In fact, that person must contact Service Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency, depending on the system under which he or she received this benefit, and ensure that, in the circumstances that apply to him or her, the decisions and actions taken are appropriate.\nMr. Grard Deltell: It's too bad, Mr.Chair, because it's the boss who is in front of me, here in committee. It's good that the citizen calls the public servant, but the public servant's boss is the Treasury Board President. Can he give a clear indication to citizens? What should they do now with the emergency assistance they received with this month's benefit? Should they keep it in full or pay it back now? I'd like a clear answer, please.\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Again, I recognize the importance of insisting on clarity. What's clear here is that each person must make decisions based on his or her own circumstances, and the responsible way to act is to interact with public servants at Service Canada or the Canada Revenue Agency.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Service Canada employees must have clear instructions from their boss. The boss is here. This is the President of the Treasury Board. Could the President of the Treasury Board, in very clear terms, tell the employees answering questions from Canadians what they have to say to those currently receiving the Canada emergency response benefit, but who are actually at work? These are honest people. They are not fraudsters. They want to comply with the law. Can the President of the Treasury Board give them clear instructions?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: That is extraordinary, because my colleague focused on two key terms: honesty and hard work. In terms of the honesty of Canadians, in all cases, I am convinced that they will contact the appropriate officials. As for the hard work of those officials, they know what they have to do and they have been doing it in an exemplary way since the crisis began.\nMr. Grard Deltell: And yet those good officials, whom I frequently commend on social media for their excellent work, have no clear instructions from their boss. Mr.President, let me go back to the basic question. The National Post said that 200,000Canadians have used the emergency assistance fraudulently, to the tune of $1.6billion. Is that the case, yes or no?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: I am sure that the honourable member is not questioning the ability of Canada Revenue Agency officers to follow the very clear directive of ensuring that the mechanisms reflect the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Government of Canada during the exceptional circumstances we are experiencing.\nThe Chair: We'll now go on to Ms. Gray.\nMrs. Tracy Gray (KelownaLake Country, CPC): Mr. Chair, last week British Columbia unveiled its plan to begin reopening its economy. I've been speaking with many business owners and business associations in my riding, and I'm hearing that they're not getting their orders for cleaning supplies. Some businesses have said their back orders go back to March. They do not know how they can possibly reopen if they are not meeting health cleaning standards or accessing PPE for their employees and customers. They are well aware of the issues arising from this government's reliance on Chinese manufacturing rather than building capacity here. What is the government doing to address these issues and ensure wholesale supply companies get products now so that they can distribute them to the businesses that need them?\nHon. Anita Anand (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, our government is rapidly and aggressively buying life-saving equipment that Canada needs from a diverse range of suppliers. We are building up domestic capacity as well as procuring internationally. Our priority is to make sure front-line health care workers have the support they need. In terms of other areas of the economy, we are working with our federal and provincial counterparts to make sure that we can do so in collaboration with them.\nMrs. Tracy Gray: Mr. Chair, an ongoing concern I've heard from small business owners is that they are ineligible for CEBA because they don't have a business account. When I brought up this point to small business minister Ng at committee, she said it was the first time that she had heard of this issue and that she would follow up. I asked this question on April 23, and it's now been almost three weeks. Small business has been let down. Can the government confirm that they're going to fix this issue?\nHon. Navdeep Bains (MississaugaMalton, Lib.): Chair, I'd like to thank the honourable member for her question. It is really important that this program that we've established help small businesses. We have shown in the past that we're very flexible and nimble in accommodating the needs of businesses. I assure the member opposite that we are looking into this matter and will come forward with a resolution in a timely manner.\nMrs. Tracy Gray: Mr. Chair, I just read another email from a small business owner this morning who has been let down by the government. He chose to pay off debts instead of paying himself a wage; therefore, he's ineligible for CEBA, for that loan. Owner-operators have been eliminated from participating in government programs because they did not put themselves on the payroll. This shows a true lack of understanding of small businesses and especially of owner-operators. Will the government commit to fixing this issue?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Thank you very much. Again, I want to thank the honourable member for her question. We have focused particularly on small businesses to make sure they have the appropriate support they need. With regard to the program that she highlighted, we have shown flexibility in the eligibility criteria by decreasing the payroll threshold for individual companies that want to apply for this loan to $20,000 versus $50,000, and the upper limit has gone to $1.5 million versus $1 million. We will continue to bring forward the changes necessary to have more businesses\nMrs. Tracy Gray: This government has left Canadian craft breweries out to dry, like the hops in their beer. On April 24, the Canadian Craft Brewers Association released a report on the effects of COVID-19 on the Canadian craft brewing industry. The report states that 38% of craft brewers did not qualify for the Canadian emergency wage subsidy in March, and 53% were either not sure or predicted that they would not qualify in April. Many a brew pub, like BNA in my riding, due to higher payrolls are also not eligible for the CEBA loan. They have been left out and let down. Five per cent of these breweries have already closed permanently, and others are on the verge of doing so. A portion have stepped up and are making PPE. Will this government take the initiative to support this industry by amending program requirements?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: When it comes to the Canada emergency wage subsidy, we have demonstrated flexibility and nimbleness. The program requirement changed in terms of revenue threshold. We originally had 30% for the month of March. We changed that to 15%. The eligibility criteria to compare to the first two months of this year now also compare to the previous year as well. We're going to continue to make changes to make sure more businesses can access this program.\nThe Chair: Ms. Gray, you have 33 seconds.\nMrs. Tracy Gray: In my constituency, Okanagan fruit production is a huge industry, and many apple orchardists have brought concerns to me regarding high costs, apples from last season selling below cost, the CUSMA agreement not helping the industy, and low-priced Washington apples flooding our market. COVID-19 has exacerbated their dire financial situation. The BC Fruit Growers' Association has called the government announcements of measures for agriculture underwhelming. I questioned Minister Bibeau in the House a couple of months ago, and at the time she did not have an answer. What is the plan to help our orchardists?\nThe Chair: The honourable minister.\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (ComptonStanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr.Chair. Since this crisis began, we have been helping entrepreneurs in all sectors. We began with measures to assist small, medium and large companies, and we are now going progressively sector by sector. Last week, we announced additional funding for agriculture\nThe Chair: We'll now go on to Mr. Barlow.\nMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): Mr. Chair, in my riding of Foothills, we've established a Foothills business recovery task force. We surveyed hundreds of small business owners about the effectiveness of the emergency programs put forward by the government. The results of that survey were quite alarming. More than half of the respondents have not qualified for any of the programs, and the vast majority of them have said their businesses will not last more than another month. Will the government expand the eligibility for some of these programs to include sole proprietorships, or is the government still looking at refunding the GST paid by some of the businesses over the last year?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, I want to highlight the fact that we have issued 590,000 loans through the CEBA account. This demonstrates that this particular program is working and that businesses are taking advantage of it. We recognize that we want to be more generous and more thoughtful about these programs. We've demonstrated flexibility in the past and we will continue to be nimble going forward.\nMr. John Barlow: Mr. Chair, to the Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Charlebois said that we are on the precipice of losing 15% of our farms and that 30,000 farm families are at risk of bankruptcy. This will have a devastating effect on our rural economies. Does the minister know the impact that losing 30,000 family farms will have on our food security and the price of groceries on the store shelves?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Mr.Chair, the agriculture and agri-food sector is extremely important. We have clearly stated that it is an essential service. That is why we have risk management programs that are already well established. I understand that producers would like the programs to be more generous, and we are ready to do more, but they first need to use those programs. They have $1.6billion available\nMr. John Barlow: Mr. Chair, business risk management programs don't apply to every single stakeholder and the programs are not working for the producers. There is a bottleneck right now in our processing capacity. When the minister renounced the AgriRecovery program, funds were set aside for cattle and pork producers. When is that money going to be available, and how long will it last?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: We are talking about two different programs here. We added $77.5million to the program helping the processing sector and $50million on two occasions for our pork and beef producers under the AgriRecovery program. Once again, that is additional money. In recent years, an average of $15million have gone out of this program, whereas this year\nThe Chair: Mr. Barlow.\nMr. John Barlow: Mr. Chair, it is not new money; it has been budgeted year after year and it's budgeted again for next year. The cattlemen said that the set-aside funds that the minister is talking about are already gone and did not last even two weeks. If this government isn't assisting Canadian farmers, is the government's food policy to rely on food imported from foreign countries to feed Canadian families ?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Mr.Chair, the fund to assist our beef producers cannot have already disappeared because the criteria will be unveiled in the coming days. I can assure you that we are working as efficiently as possible so that the program can be rolled out and the money can be channelled to our beef and pork producers.\nMr. John Barlow: Mr. Chair, producers across this country have said that an exemption from the carbon tax would help them greatly during this pandemic. When I asked the minister about any data that was available for the impact the carbon tax had on agriculture, the answer I got was that this information was secret. Yesterday at committee, the minister said that this was a mistake and that this information has been public. My staff and I looked everywhere last night, as did journalists, and that information could not be found. Is that information actually available?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Yes, Mr.Chair, that information is available and public. I will happily pass the information on to my colleague.\nMr. John Barlow: If that data is available, then the minister must know the financial impacts that the carbon tax has on Canadian farmers. With the information that the minister apparently has, does she agree with the Prime Minister that Canadian farmers are much better off financially by paying the carbon tax?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Each organization analyzes different assumptions, methodologies and geographic areas, so the results give a broad range of estimated impacts. According to the organization that has provided information, in 2019, the estimated impacts of a $20-per-tonne price on pollution due to grain drying ranged\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Barlow. You have 30 seconds, please.\nMr. John Barlow: Does the minister agree with the Prime Minister that farmers are financially better off paying the carbon tax?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Mr.Chair, the price on pollution is an extremely important measure for our economy in general and for our transition to a greener economy. We have already provided various exemptions to the agriculture sector: for gasoline, for the access card and for the greenhouse sector.\nThe Chair: The next question goes to Mr. Kelly.\nMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): Will the government fully fund the Office of the Auditor General?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The answer is that we have done that in 2018 and 2019, and the Prime Minister\nMr. Pat Kelly: Mr. Chair, I hope the minister would not want to mislead the House. The office is certainly not fully funded, as per the testimony we heard yesterday at the finance committee. This government has expanded the Auditor General's responsibilities without adequate resources. When will the government fully fund the Auditor General?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: To continue my answer, and as the Prime Minister said just a moment ago, that has led to the hiring of 38 new staff members. That's great to hear, because they are doing even better than they used to before we came into power.\nMr. Pat Kelly: No previous auditor general in Canadian history has ever had to tell a parliamentary committee that they had insufficient funds to do their job. That is what in fact this Auditor General has done. When will the government fully fund the Office of the Auditor General?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: I'm glad again to be given the ability to say how important the work of the Auditor General is. We believe very much in that role. That's why we increased the funding that is necessary for that office to do its important job. We will keep working hard with the Auditor General.\nMr. Pat Kelly: Sadly, Michael Ferguson passed away in 2019, yet the government has refused to name a permanent replacement. Why?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr. Chair, this is another wonderful opportunity to remind all members of this House of the importance of these institutions. When we face these tragic deaths, we of course are very sad of the passing of the people, and we work\nThe Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.\nMr. Pat Kelly: Yesterday the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that Canada's debt could reach $1 trillion this year. What will it cost to service a $1-trillion debt?\nHon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to doing, as we've said, whatever it takes to support Canadians through this challenging time. We think this is extremely important, and we will continue to focus on the well-being of all Canadians.\nMr. Pat Kelly: What is the estimated annual debt servicing cost of the aid measures announced so far?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, there will be an opportunity for us to give a full outline of the costs and benefits of our measures, and we will do that when we have the ability to have\nThe Chair: Mr. Kelly.\nMr. Pat Kelly:  is Canada's AAA credit rating.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, Canada came into this crisis with a very strong fiscal position, and of course we will experience challenges as we move forward, but we believe that we should experience those challenges as we support Canadians.\nMr. Pat Kelly: What would the effect of a downgrade be on Canada's debt servicing costs?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, we will continue to focus on how we can support Canadians and Canadian businesses as we get through this challenge.\nMr. Pat Kelly: How many private sector bank loans have been funded for small and medium-sized businesses under the business credit availability program?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, as the information on the business credit availability program becomes available, we are being fully transparent with the finance committee and with this House.\nMr. Pat Kelly: Does the minister know how many loans have been funded under that program?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I'm not in the habit of memorizing every single number available to us, but what I can confirm is that we will be transparent with this House on the numbers as they become available.\nMr. Pat Kelly: Does the minister know the dollar amount or the approximate dollar amount so far lent and guaranteed by Export Development Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, one number that would probably be helpful for people to understand is that we've now had over 550,000 approved loans under the CEBA program, representing over 20 billion dollars' worth of money that's actually\nThe Chair: Mr. Kelly.\nMr. Pat Kelly: Will the government fix the CEBA program to include businesses that pay owner-operators through dividends?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I think the language fix is incorrect, for more than 500,000 businesses have received this loan. Of course, we are always endeavouring to make sure it works for as many businesses as possible.\nMr. Pat Kelly: Will the government fix CEBA to cover small businesses that hire day labourers or subcontractors?\nThe Chair: The honourable minister.\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, again we've demonstrated flexibility and nimbleness when it comes to this program. We changed the eligibility criteria to make sure that more businesses can apply and be eligible for this program. We will endeavour to make sure that more Canadians have access to this program, particularly small businesses in rural and remote communities.\nMr. Pat Kelly: Will the government fix CEBA to cover business owners who use personal instead of business chequing accounts to operate their business?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Again, Mr. Chair, I want to highlight the fact that this has been a very positive program and well received by many small businesses. Over 590,000 small business loans have been issued, and that's a testament to the design of the program. We're going to make sure we continue to engage with small businesses.\nThe Chair: The next question goes to Mr. Chong.\nHon. Michael Chong (WellingtonHalton Hills, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last week, on Friday, Statistics Canada was to release labour force survey data at 8:30 a.m. eastern time, one of the most important and market-moving indicators of the month, but someone in the government leaked that information ahead of time, almost 45 minutes ahead of time, and exclusively to Bloomberg terminal users on Wall Street and on Bay Street, who pay thousands of dollars a month for those terminals. Moving markets, the Canadian dollar moved eight basis points in that short period of time and billions were made or lost on the market. Section 34 of the Statistics Act makes it a criminal offence for someone to leak information that might influence stock, bond or currency markets. Has the government notified the RCMP about what appears to be a criminal breach of the Statistics Act?\nThe Chair: The honourable minister.\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question. I, too, share the same concerns that he's highlighted with regard to this leak. This is completely unacceptable. That is why we're going to make sure that a proper and thorough examination is done, and going forward we want to make sure that no such breach or leak occurs.\nHon. Michael Chong: Mr. Chair, Statistics Canada said that staffers and ministers' offices, including the Prime Minister's office, the finance minister's office, the employment minister's office and the industry minister's office, would have received this secret information no earlier than 2 p.m. the previous day. Statistics Canada has also indicated that it has begun an internal investigation. Will the minister commit to fully co-operating with this investigation?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: I'd like to remind the honourable colleague that our government has supported Statistics Canada. We're the ones who reintroduced the mandatory long-form census. We're the ones who funded more money for Statistics Canada. The member opposite knows that we'll be fully co-operative in any such investigation into any leak.\nHon. Michael Chong: Will the minister commit to making the results of this investigation public?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, the member opposite knows full well that there are proper processes and protocols in place when it comes to such sensitive matters, and we will ensure that those processes and protocols\nThe Chair: Mr. Chong.\nHon. Michael Chong: Mr. Chair, I hope there is no double standard for ministers' offices and the public service, because it was only about 13 years ago that a public servant was criminally charged and convicted for using top secret information in the markets. I hope that in this investigation, and in the release of the information concerning this investigation, ministers' staffers aren't held to a different standard than the public service has been held to. This leak speaks to the integrity of the government. Intelligence at the Five Eyes.... Our four allies have been telling us for years that one of the top two or three threats that democracies are facing is declining public confidence in our key institutions. Democracies have been blindsided by misinformation, disinformation and cyber-attacks, and now we are being blindsided by the misuse of information by this very government. That doesn't even.... The government's own national statistics-gathering agency doesn't trust this cabinet or this government, and that's why they announced several days ago that they would suspend the pre-release of information to the cabinet. What is the government going to do to restore public confidence in our institutions?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, our government has remained steadfast in its support for Statistics Canada. I'd like to remind my honourable colleague that we are the government that brought forward legislation to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. We're the government that brought forward measures to make sure they have additional monies for conducting the proper mandatory long-form census as well. When it comes to the leak that the member opposite is talking about, we're not going to prejudge the outcome. We have been very clear that the proper processes and protocols that are in place will be followed.\nThe Chair: You have time for a very brief question, Mr. Chong.\nHon. Michael Chong: Mr. Chair, I hope the government will call the RCMP and notify them about what appears to be a criminal breach of the Statistics Act, because it was a previous Liberal minister who himself was subject to a lot of misinformation and was a target of improper allegations about his office's use of information that leaked about the income trust changes that the previous Liberal government had brought in. The RCMP began an investigation and, in the course of the investigation, they charged a public servant who was ultimately convicted of breaching that secret information. I hope the minister holds his office and the offices of his cabinet colleagues to the same standard, calls in the RCMP and makes them aware of what appears to be a criminal breach of the Statistics Act.\nThe Chair: The honourable minister, in 30 seconds or less, please.\nHon. Navdeep Bains: I'm sorry. How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?\nThe Chair: We're over the time, but I'm allowing 30 seconds so we can get a full\nHon. Navdeep Bains: I appreciate that very much. Again, I want to take this opportunity to say that leaks of this nature are completely unacceptable. We've been very clear that we are going to take the appropriate steps. Statistics Canada is taking the appropriate steps. I want to remind the member opposite that we're not going to prejudge any outcome at this stage. Again, it is our government that has been consistently supporting Statistics Canada in its work through the previous years.\nThe Chair: Thank you. We'll take a short break to allow our console operators to switch in a healthy way. While we're doing that, I'm going to mention something. It happens at the end of a question. When there's less than a minute left and the question goes over half the time left over, I'll just indicate to the person asking the question that we've reached the limit so that the other side can answer with the same amount of time and we have a fair playing field. We're ready to go again. The Honourable Member for BeloeilChambly has the floor.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Thank you, Mr.Chair. We are making progress, but unfortunately, I'd like to hear it in French as well. I will address my question to the Prime Minister. First, let me remind you that, on March12, the government announced a first series of measures of about $1billion to adapt to what was at the time the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, including $500million in transfers to the provinces, with about $100million going to Quebec. Since that time, the commitments from the government have reached very probably around $300billion, making those first $500 million pale by comparison. Of course, the crisis became longer and it is not over yet. In that context, and given what I heard the Prime Minister say a little earlier about respecting the areas of jurisdiction of the provinces, and of Quebec, can we expect a speedy increase in health transfers to Quebec and the provinces, an increase that would be permanent, and, of course, without conditions?\nThe Chair: The honourable minister has the floor.\nHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr.Chair. We've increased health transfers to provinces and territories significantly since we first came into government in 2015. We continue to work with provinces and territories on a regular basis to make sure they're supported not just in the outbreak of this pandemic, but in the increased cost overall to health care across the country. Our investments have included investments for mental health, for home care and for the additional expenses that provinces and territories face as a result of an aging population. We'll continue to work with provinces and territories to ensure those health care needs are met.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: With all respect, Mr.Chair, that is a little disappointing. While the leader of the NDP wants the federal government to interfere massively in provincial jurisdiction over health, the Prime Minister replies in English. That is perfectly legitimate in this Parliament, but his reply in English is, no, the government absolutely respects provincial jurisdiction. That made me happy for a brief moment, and I am asking the Prime Minister, without wanting to interrupt his precious reading, to please repeat in French was he said just now in English, that he absolutely respects provincial jurisdiction over health, which is exclusive. So could you please provide that music to my ears?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, just as I respect the member opposite's right to speak in his first language, I hope that he understands that I am trying to learn our second official language in a high-pressure situation, and it often creates anxiety. I will tell him, though, that we fully respect the jurisdiction of provinces and territories to address the needs of their constituents and their members, and we work very closely with Quebec and with all provinces and territories to make sure that the funds we transfer from the federal government can be utilized in a way that best meets the needs of their constituents.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Let's not get into that. It says to me that French is the second official language. Well, it's my first official language and it's the first one in Quebec. I would like to have heard that in French. I would like to have heard it from the Prime Minister, because it's a constitutional issue. Basically, you could say that it's our heritage. So that is what I would like to have heard. Let me proceed with a short and simple question: is health in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in the current crisis management situation?\nHon. Pablo Rodriguez (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr.Chair, I would like to tell my colleague that we have no first or second official language. We have two official languages. They have the same value and the same importance. They deserve the same respect in the House and in the institutions of the government. We are always happy to collaborate with the provinces and to respect their jurisdictions.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Hearing that we have no first or second official language is better already. Between friends, let's say that they are equal. Let us take it one step further: is health in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, we live in a federation where we work closely together with provinces and territories so that we can reach our mutually important goals, one of which is that all citizens of Canada, all members of Canada, have access to a public health care system that meets their needs. We continue to work within the constitutional framework\nThe Chair: Excuse me, but I have to interrupt you. Mr.Blanchet, you have 21seconds left.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: The answer could be even shorter than the question. Is health in provincial jurisdiction? Will there be an increase in the health transfers and will they come without conditions?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I am sure the member would argue that it is important to work together. The federal government transfers money to the provinces, as he is well aware, to deliver health care, which is within each province's and territory's jurisdiction.\nThe Chair: We now move to Mrs.Gill.\nMrs. Marilne Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): Thank you, Mr.Chair. As the member for Manicouagan, I would like to address the House today on a matter that is very important in my constituency. At 350,000square kilometres, it borders the Gulf of St.Lawrence. Regionally, I am also in eastern Quebec, which includes the Gasp, the Magdalen Islands, and the Lower St.Lawrence. These are regions whose economy rests basically on two very important seasonal industries: tourism and fishing. Make no mistake, it is not the workers who are seasonal, it is the industry itself, as our former leader Gilles Duceppe so rightly used to say. Those industries are very important for that region of Quebec, but I see no measures to support them that accommodate all their uniqueness. These are cyclical industries, meaning that they operate at a very specific period during the year. A few minutes ago, I heard the Prime Minister say that he had intervened to help the companies and the workers in those seasonal industries. I would like to know what the specific assistance is and how it is tailored to the companies and the workers in the seasonal industries he mentions.\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr.Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. We know that the current situation is causing upheaval in the lives of Canadians from one end of the country to the other and that it is having a major impact on our small and medium businesses. Since this crisis began, we have not hesitated to implement strong and speedy measures to support more Canadians. That is what we will continue to do. We know that the tourism sector is key to a number of communities in the country. We must help them to get through this crisis as best we can. We are continuing to have discussions and to tailor our measures so that as many Canadians as possible can take advantage of them.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, with all respect, I am hearing that nothing has been done. Measures have been proposed, but, as I understand it, they are not specific to the seasonal sectors. Let us take the seasonal fishing industry. The fishers are currently going out, but right in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis. One fishing season has been pushed back. The same thing applies to tourism. The season will be pushed back, and it is possible that there may even not be one. The people and the companies in this sector have no second chances. They cannot start again in the fall. It's a bit like agriculture. They can't start a fishing season or a tourist season in the fall. So they need assistance. We have some proposals. For example, would the government be prepared to let the Canada emergency response benefit provide workers with eligibility to employment insurance benefits? They could then get through the coming year and make it to next season.\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr.Chair, I want to thank the member for speaking about the situation in all regions of Canada, particularly in Quebec. From the start, we've been implementing significant measures to support the millions of workers who are currently struggling. We've taken significant measures with respect to tourism, agriculture and regional development. We're providing broader investments, such as the wage subsidy and emergency loans for small businesses, of which there are many in my colleague's constituency. We'll continue to work very hard so that the workers and businesses in her constituency can get through this crisis and emerge stronger and more united.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, that's strike two. This is the second time that I've asked a question about targeted assistance for the seasonal industry. My honourable colleague's response doesn't make me feel any better. The workers in the industry also don't feel any better when they see that, at the end of the summer, they'll have no job and no money to put food on the table. Will these workers receive assistance adapted to their needs? It's the same thing for businesses. We're currently talking about the businesses in my constituency, but there are also businesses in the East. Quebec and Canada as a whole, both in terms of fishing and tourism\nThe Chair: The honourable President of the Treasury Board has the floor.\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Thank you, Mr.Chair. My colleague probably knows the information that I'll be giving. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit is available to all individuals who haven't been receiving employment insurance benefits since December2019. A number of stakeholders in Canada and Quebec called for this, particularly in the places\nThe Chair: The next question goes to Mr. Singh.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Prime Minister announced the business bailout, and in that proposal, he said that there would be limits on CEO bonuses and share buybacks. By saying limits, the Prime Minister is suggesting that there would be some amount of bonuses or share buybacks that could be paid for with public dollars. If that's the case, how much?\nThe Chair: The honourable minister.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, we believe that it's very important that we support jobs. In that regard, we're trying to make sure that businesses can get through this time. As we provide that support, we've been very clear for large enterprises that share buybacks will not be allowed, period, and that there will, of course, be limitations on total compensation for senior executives in order to give Canadians confidence that we're doing the things we need to do to support them, but that we're not supporting executives.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, Germany has actually taken the lead and said that if a company wants public money, then its executives must commit to reducing their pay. Will Canada follow Germany to ensure that public dollars go to workers and not to enrich the executive suite, and commit that no public money will go to bonuses or increasing salaries for executives?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, we are looking forward to releasing the complete details of the large employer emergency financing facility, and I think the member opposite will be quite pleased to see that we will be leading on behalf of Canada in advance of what Germany is doing.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, we know the PBO has said that $25 billion, at least, is being lost to our revenues because corporations are avoiding paying their fair share. Will the Prime Minister commit today very clearly that if a company is hiding its money by putting it in an offshore tax haven, that company will not receive public help, yes or no?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, again with regard to this program, we want to be very clear that the support that goes to large businesses actually supports their Canadian enterprises and their Canadian employees. In that regard, we will not allow any company that has been convicted of tax evasion to have access to these funds, and we will carefully evaluate on an ongoing basis to make sure that companies remain eligible for this support based on their continuing investment in Canada.\nThe Chair: Mr. Singh.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, how many companies can the Minister of Finance name that have been convicted of tax evasion that would be denied help under this program?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I think what's most important is that we focus on Canadians. We're trying to support Canadians, whether they're working for small or large businesses, so they can get through this, can support their families during this time, and come out with a job at the end of it. That is exactly where our focus lies in this regard.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, not a single company. We are four years past the Panama papers and there hasn't been a single conviction. Those are simply fancy Liberal words saying that a company that has been convicted of tax evasion.... There are simply no companies that this government can give as an example. Why don't we follow what France has done and commit very clearly, not in Liberal fancy words but straight up, if a company is hiding its money by using offshore tax havens, it will not get public help. Will the minister commit to that right now?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, we've been working with France and other countries to make these rules stricter for businesses. The process around the common reporting standard and the base erosion profit shifting has made it more difficult for firms to move money into tax havens, and it has ensured that we have transparency in seeing when they do so. We'll continue to do that hard work to make sure that businesses abide by the rules and pay their appropriate part of taxes in our country.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, let's talk about hard work. If a company is not convicted of tax evasion, but is putting its money in Barbados or Bermuda, for example, specifically to avoid paying taxesand we have a similar example of Loblaws doing something like thiswill that company, despite not having a conviction, but clearly having avoided paying their fair share by putting their money in an offshore tax haven, receive help, yes or no?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I'd suggest that the member be very careful in accusing companies of wrongdoing. We have a country that respects international rules. We allow our companies to trade and do business around the world. That continues to be important, and that supports Canadian jobs. At the same time, we're trying to make sure those international rules work and get tighter. That's what we've been working on. We'll continue to do that because we know it's important that we can work internationally. It's important that companies pay their fair share here in Canada.\nThe Chair: The next question goes to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Liberals hand-picked ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, stated that China's conduct during the pandemic is damaging to its own soft power. However, when asked if there should be an investigation into China's behaviour during the crisis, the health minister stated that's not for her to say because she doesn't have all the evidence about what China did or didn't do. Why is Canada's ambassador to China criticizing China's actions during the pandemic while this Liberal government is defending it?\nThe Chair: The honourable Deputy Prime Minister.\nHon. Chrystia Freeland (UniversityRosedale, Lib.): Mr. Chair, Ambassador Barton is an excellent representative of Canada in China, and he is a member of our government and very much shares and helps to formulate our government's policy when it comes to China. Ambassador Barton, of course, shares our government's view that a post-crisis review is absolutely necessary.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the government's March 27 duty deferral announcement has caused tension within the trade community. Customs brokers are being asked to shoulder tremendous liability as importers are not required to make duty payments until the end of June, when there is a real possibility that some of them may find themselves insolvent. Will the government commit to a liability exemption for customs brokers whose clients are unable to pay the duties at the end of June?\nThe Chair: The honourable minister.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, we have worked hard to determine programs that we think can be supportive of individuals and businesses, including allowing for deferral of taxes through this period. That we believe is important with respect to the GST, which we've allowed to be deferred until July 1, and in terms of taxes for businesses, until the end of August. We think this helps businesses to get through this challenging time, and we'll continue to support businesses and individuals so we can have a strong economy when we get through this crisis.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the following three questions are from constituents in my riding, so hopefully, I'll get some good answers for them. The first one I'll talk about is Rick. He owns a small business, a local bowling alley, in Melfort. It's a family-owned operation, so he doesn't meet the payroll threshold for the wage subsidy benefit, nor does he qualify for any other announced loans or grants. There are businesses right across Canada that are in similar situations. Is the minister suggesting that they lie to get the funds, or will they make some changes so they qualify?\nThe Chair: The honourable minister.\nHon. Navdeep Bains: I want to highlight some of the initiatives we have put forward to assist small businesses. The Canada emergency wage subsidy covers 75% of the wages of employees, and that way they can maintain their jobs. We've also put forward the enhanced work-sharing program. It's an option for businesses to pay their employees. On top of that, I want to highlight the Canada emergency business account, which has issued 590,000 loans. As the Minister of Finance recently mentioned, we've deferred GST and HST and customs duty payments for businesses for the next three months.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, Robert owns a cleaning products company in Prince Albert. He tells me that Canadian custodians and building service contractors are not purchasing Canadian-made disinfectants because very few are included in the federal approval list for COVID-19, even though Canada produces many products that Health Canada has certified as disinfectants. Why is the Liberal government not prioritizing the approval of Canadian-made products?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, that assertion is not correct. In fact, we have been working very closely with producers of Canadian products as well as with our colleagues at Innovation, Science and Economic Development to make sure that Canadian companies have what they need to very quickly move through the approval process. Health Canada has accelerated this process, and most companies can get approved in one to seven days. Of course, there is an iterative process that requires companies to ensure that a product is safe for use in Canada.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, last week the government announced $252 million in assistance for Canadian farmers, which was largely seen as an insult, especially given that a good amount of this money was already budgeted. A constituent of mine, Tracy, from Melfort, wrote to me asking me to advocate for farmers and ranchers so they can get the support they need to continue to produce our food. When will the government start to prioritize farmers and ranchers? Will they continue to reform the business risk management program?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Absolutely, Mr.Chair. We're working very hard with our provincial colleagues to improve the risk management programs. We did announce programs last week, and some of these new programs are designed specifically for the meat sector. A total of $77.5million is earmarked for processors and $50million for beef producers.\nThe Chair: The next question goes to Mr. Calkins.\nMr. Blaine Calkins (Red DeerLacombe, CPC): Mr. Chair, provinces are reopening at different speeds, and that includes opening their provincial parks before the May long weekend. It no longer makes sense for fully staffed national parks across the country to be uniformly closed. Will the Minister of Environment commit to opening national parks in harmony with provincial and territorial parks across Canada?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland: Mr. Chair, we are working very closely with our provincial partners on the reopening. I am pleased that we were able to publish, on Tuesday, April 28, shared guidelines on the reopening, which were supported by the Prime Minister and all of the premiers of the provinces and territories\nThe Chair: Mr. Calkins.\nMr. Blaine Calkins: Mr. Chair, boating is a safe way to enjoy the outdoors while maintaining physical distancing. Why is Parks Canada postponing the opening of lock operations and similar functions along our heritage waterways?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland: Mr. Chair, as I was saying in my answer to the first question, the question of coordinating national and provincial parks is a very good one. That is something we are definitely working on.\nMr. Blaine Calkins: Mr. Chair, since the beginning of this pandemic, the minority Liberal government has been actively trying to push our democracy aside. It severely limited parliamentary sittings, attempted to take executive control of tax rates and used an order in council to ban lawfully acquired and responsibly owned firearms. When will the government stop using this pandemic as an excuse to run roughshod over our cherished democratic values?\nHon. Pablo Rodriguez: I don't understand this question at all, since we're meeting here to ask questions for twohours and 15minutes. That's the equivalent of three question periods. Yesterday, there was the equivalent of two question periods, and tomorrow there will be the equivalent of two more question periods. We're talking about seven question periods. That's more than normal.\nMr. Blaine Calkins: Mr. Chair, the inconsistency in support for various sectors in our economy is baffling. There is more money made available to forcibly confiscate lawfully owned property than in emergency support for our hard-working farmers or our prosperity-creating oil and gas sector. The only consistent theme appears to be that sectors that do not traditionally vote Liberal are finding themselves left out in the cold. If that is not the case, why is there such an obvious discrepancy?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Mr.Chair, those comments are completely unjustified. We're fully committed to our sectors, including the energy sector and the agriculture and agrifood sector. This is particularly important. These sectors are critical. That's why we're working to improve our risk management programs. We want to ensure that the criteria are broader and that more producers can benefit from these programs.\nMr. Blaine Calkins: Mr. Chair, during the misinformation briefing, the public safety minister used Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom as examples for firearms policy. Does the public safety minister realize that these countries are islands and none share a border with anyone, least of which with the United States of America? Is my bringing this new-found evidence to the minister's attention going to change his focus to smugglers, gangs and criminals, instead of wrongfully blaming lawful gun owners?\nHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): Mr. Chair, I would like to assure the member that I have actually seen an atlas. I want to be very clear that those countries have recognized, like Canada has, that these weapons have no place in a civil society. They were designed for soldiers to engage in combat with other soldiers. They were not designed for hunting and sporting purposes, which are the lawful uses of a firearm in Canada, but rather for individuals to kill other individuals. Tragically, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, that is precisely what they have been used for, and we have prohibited\nThe Chair: Mr. Calkins.\nMr. Blaine Calkins: Mr. Chair, the nine o'clock gun is an iconic 12-pound cannon that has been fired daily in Vancouver in Stanley Park since the 1800s. It's now a prohibited firearm as of May 1, 2020. Can the minister advise the public of the safety risks that this cannon, which was manufactured in 1816, poses to the public?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, I assume the member opposite is referring to the prohibition of grenade launchers. There are about 34 in Canada and we have brought in regulations that now prohibit grenade launchers. It does not apply to some of the other things that have been suggested by the member opposite.\nMr. Blaine Calkins: Mr. Chair, I was referring to the iconic, heritage 12-pound cannon that is mounted on a pedestal in Stanley Park. It was manufactured in 1816. Any cannon that can be fired can be loaded with a projectile, so it meets the definition of a firearm, which means that every cannon in Canada, every heritage piece that might be in a museum, every heritage piece that might be in a collection, is now a prohibited firearm. Was the minister not aware of this when he announced this policy?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, just to help the member opposite, let us be very clear. We have prohibited weapons that were unfortunately widely available in Canada and were being used for purposes other than sporting activities, which is the only use of a firearm in Canada, for either hunting or target shooting sporting activities. Rather, they were being used to harm individual Canadians and, in some tragic cases, many individual Canadians. We've done the right thing, Mr. Chair, and we\nThe Chair: We'll go to Mr. Nater next.\nMr. John Nater (PerthWellington, CPC): Mr. Chair, agricultural societies across rural Ontario are making the difficult decision to cancel their fall fairs this year. Some of these fall fairs have been around since before Confederation. Not only is this a terrible loss for these communities of important community events, but it's also putting a significant financial strain on these agricultural societies. What action is the government taking to support agricultural societies in Canada?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, what we've done is we've put forward monies to support our regional development agencies. These agencies have the mandate and the ability to support local initiatives, including the events the member has highlighted. This is more than doubling the budget that currently exists, so that we have sufficient resources to support communities and these very important local events.\nMr. John Nater: Mr. Chair, the arts and culture industry has a massive impact on local economies. In my riding alone we have the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, the Stratford Festival, Drayton Entertainment and Stratford Summer Music. The postponement and cancellation of the seasons of these important cultural institutions is having a massive impact on the hospitality industry, including local restaurants, hotels and bed and breakfasts. Many of these businesses are small businesses and owner-operated businesses that are falling through the cracks in the government's programs that have been introduced. How will the government address the blind spot in their programs for small businesses in communities like this, which rely on the tourism and the arts and culture industries?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, clearly, we understand how important these organizations are to these communities. That is why we allocated $500 million to respond to the specific financial needs of arts, heritage and sports organizations, to help them be more resilient through this difficult time. Last week we rolled out the funding of this announcement, and we look forward to engaging with communities across the country.\nMr. John Nater: Mr. Chair, 1.8 million jobs are attributed to the tourism industry in Canada. Among these, 740,000 are related to international travelling. No one wants to see the borders reopen until it's safe to do so, but can the government provide clarity on what criteria will be used to provide some information to these tourism operators of how, when and under what criteria international borders will be reopened?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland: Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the member opposite for his view that we need to be cautious and prudent and put the health and safety of Canadians first. That is very much the view of our government as well. When it comes to international borders, the health and safety of Canadians is absolutely the first criterion we are going to look at. Of course, we will be looking at the situation with coronavirus\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Nater.\nMr. John Nater: Mr. Chair, many Canadians continue to fall through the cracks of programs announced by this government. One of my constituents only recently returned to the workforce after spending many years out of the workforce raising her children. As such, she doesn't qualify under the $5,000 minimum requirement for income over the past 12 months. How will the government address these people who are falling through the cracks?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr. Chair, we are mindful of the very difficult circumstances in which many Canadians who have a foot in two places find themselves. We have a number of different measures to help them and we're going to continue to do so.\nMr. John Nater: Mr. Chair, it has been reported that as many as 15% of farmers and farm families in Canada could face going out of business and bankruptcy because of the massive impact that COVID-19 is having on agriculture in Canada. Business risk management programs are not working for these farm families, and the processing capacity is simply not there for farmers and for farm families, especially in the beef and pork industries. How will the government immediately address the short-term processing capacity issues found in the beef and pork sectors? When will they finally live up to the commitment of a complete review of the business risk management programs?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Mr.Chair, I've been holding discussions with my provincial counterparts to review the risk management programs. With respect to the AgriStability program, we've offered producers some accommodations and pushed back the enrolment date to July3. We've also increased, from 50% to 75%, the advance payment that they can obtain quickly, in provinces where this is possible. We've also posted a calculator online. So before they say that the program isn't working, I encourage them to use this calculator to find out how much they can receive.\nMr. John Nater: Mr. Chair, this government continues to show a blind spot for small businesses in Canada. Many don't qualify for the CEBA because they don't have a high enough payroll or because they don't have a business account. So many small businesses are falling through the cracks. Will the government expand the criteria so that small businesses in my community and across Canada can qualify for the important assistance they need at this time?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, I would like to remind my honourable colleague that we did expand the eligibility criteria threshold from $50,000 down to $20,000 so that more businesses could be eligible, and on the top end, for salaries, from $1 million to $1.5 million. That is why we have seen 590,000 small business loans issued. That's a testament to the program.\nThe Chair: The next question will go to Mr. Maguire.\nMr. Larry Maguire (BrandonSouris, CPC): Mr. Chair, hog and beef producers have seen drastic price drops. Producers are telling me that they would use the western livestock price insurance program if the premiums were affordable, which they are not. Will the Minister of Agriculture work with the industry to make the premiums affordable so that producers can have price protection against these market fluctuations?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Mr. Chair, we're working closely with the industry and my provincial counterparts to identify the best programs to help producers in this difficult time. Last week, we announced specific programs for the meat sector: $77.5million for processors, $50million for beef producers and $50million for pork producers.\nMr. Larry Maguire: Mr. Chair, Chez Angela Bakery in Brandon has seen tremendous success since it opened two years ago. Due to this growth and the eligibility criteria for the wage subsidy program, their revenues would have to decline much further than 30% in order for them to receive help. Will the Minister of Finance amend the eligibility for the wage subsidy program so that Chez Angela and similar businesses can apply?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC)): The honourable Minister of Industry.\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question. I want to highlight the fact that we did make an amendment. When we originally proposed this initiative, the threshold was 30% for the month of March. Now businesses will only need to show a 15% decline in revenue, and businesses will have the option of using January and February as a reference period to show revenue losses, or of using the same time last year. This reflects, again, our ability to understand the needs of businesses, to act quickly and to make sure that they benefit from this very important initiative.\nMr. Larry Maguire: They still don't qualify, Mr. Chair. The Blarney Stone restaurant in Killarney has repeatedly asked the Minister of Finance if they could refinance their loans through the Canada small business financing program. Will the Minister of Finance give small business owners the ability to refinance their existing loans through the program, yes or no?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, again, we've demonstrated flexibility and nimbleness when it comes to these financing options. I'd also like to highlight another very important initiative that was mentioned earlier, the deferring of GST/HST and customs duty payments for businesses for the next three months. This will help 3.2 million business owners and entrepreneurs across the country. Again, it's another initiative to put more money in the pockets of businesses as they deal with this unprecedented health care crisis.\nMr. Larry Maguire: Mr. Chair, the Liberals still haven't fixed the payroll eligibility problems for many small business owners who need to access the zero-interest loans available in CEBA. Can the minister provide any rationale for why countless small businesses are not being allowed to access these loans?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, as of today, 590,000 small business loans have been issued. I think that's contrary to the point the member opposite is making. Clearly we recognize that we need to be agile and that we need to understand the needs of businesses. That's why we made changes to this particular program. We'll continue to listen to businesses. I can assure the member opposite that 590,000 small business loans is no small feat.\nMr. Larry Maguire: Mr. Chair, Canada has some of the best competitive sport shooters in the world. The Liberals' order in council on firearms will put an end to many Canadians being able to represent our country. Can the Minister of Public Safety list even one of these sport shooting competitions, which will now be illegal due to his order in council?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The honourable Minister of Public Safety.\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, it's an important question because sport shooting is a very important tradition for many Canadian sport shooters. I want to assure the member opposite that the weapons we have prohibited by this order in council were not designed for sport shooting and are not used in the Olympics or Paralympic Games. They are not included in this and therefore have no impact on that activity of legitimate sport shooting.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have time for one more short question, Mr. Maguire.\nMr. Larry Maguire: Mr. Chair, statistics show that women are more likely to live paycheque to paycheque, so women continue to be disproportionately impacted by this pandemic in a negative way. Many are worried they won't have a job to go back to. Will the government commit to helping women who are bearing this financial burden return to the workforce?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr. Chair, this is a very good question. I would love to have a lot of time to answer it. The answer is yes, of course. We are making sure that many of our measures do not disproportionately impact women, because when women succeed, all Canadians succeed.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll now continue with Mr.Blanchette-Joncas.\nMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-NeigetteTmiscouataLes Basques, BQ): Thank you, Mr.Chair. It's a privilege to be here in the House today to represent the people of Rimouski-NeigetteTmiscouataLesBasques, but also to serve as the BlocQubcois tourism critic. Tourism in Quebec is a significant economic engine and wealth creator. This industry is vital to the regions of Quebec, as I'll demonstrate. The tourism industry in Quebec generates over $15billion in economic spinoffs and employs more than 400,000workers. In Quebec, one in tenjobs is connected to the tourism industry. Every dollar spent on tourism generates about 70cents in the Quebec economy. The tourism industry consists of over 30,000businesses, and two-thirds of these businesses are outside the major centres in the Quebec City and Montreal regions. In the tourism industry, 82% of businesses have fewer than 20employees. This shows once again the need to support this industry. I heard my honourable colleague on the other side of the House say that a plan was in place for the tourism industry. I want to hear what he has to say about this plan. To date, what specific measures has the government taken to support the tourism industry?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr.Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his question. He's right. The situation is very difficult for all regions of our country and for Quebec. That's why we've invested in regional development. These investments will improve the situation in the tourism sector. These investments will provide assistance for festivals, programs and other initiatives. We'll continue to work with my colleague and the other members to find solutions that will improve the situation.\nMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas: Mr.Chair, I'm not sure that I fully understood the plan. However, I can say that the people in the tourism industry don't understand the plan, because they're still waiting for it. One issue in the tourism industry involves fixed costs. Initially, we asked that part of the wage subsidy be set aside to cover fixed costs. The government implemented the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance. The assistance covers 75% of commercial rental payments under $50,000, and property owners pay the remaining 25%. To date, how many applications have been submitted under this program?\nHon. Bill Morneau: The wage subsidy is very significant. However, we know that there are other fixed costs. That's why we've taken other measures, such as the measures related to credit and rent. We've combined several measures that will help companies bridge the gap until the end of the crisis.\nMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas: We expect to hear a figure and not necessarily words. We could see that the program was ineffective, particularly for seasonal businesses, including businesses in the tourism industry. Businesses need to have suspended operations or to show a decline of at least 70% in operations since the start of the public health crisis. How can a tourism business that hasn't yet launched operations show a decline of 70%? It doesn't make sense. A recent survey conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business shows that only one in ten businesses can benefit from this assistance. Yet these businesses need the assistance. Does the government believe that commercial rent assistance is effective even though only one in ten businesses can benefit from it?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr.Chair, I know that the situation is very difficult. That's why we've introduced another option. Through the community futures development corporations and business development centres, we're providing $71million to businesses and organizations in rural communities by giving them much-needed access to capital. This investment will help many businesses in Quebec, particularly in the tourism sector.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Blanchette-Joncas, you have one minute left.\nMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas: Mr.Chair, in my humble opinion, one out of ten businesses amounts to 10%. This figure isn't very high and is far from a passing grade. What does the government plan to do? Does it plan to implement an expanded program to support businesses in the tourism and seasonal industries to ensure that fixed costs are more fully covered?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr.Chair, we have a strategy. We've invested in regional development and in small and medium-sized businesses. We've helped the workers and we'll continue to work with the provincial governments to find solutions. We must work together, particularly in the tourism sector, because the situation in the sector is very serious. I'm sure that we can find solutions to help improve the situation for people in the tourism sector.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now continue with Mr. Van Bynen.\nMr. Tony Van Bynen (NewmarketAurora, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. Mr. Chair, last week was Mental Health Week. We know that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a great deal of stress and uncertainty for all Canadians and that during this uncertain time, it is normal for many people to feel increased anxiety, depression and mental health issues. In fact, a poll by the Canadian Mental Health Association's Ontario branch showed that 61% of respondents were worried about the mental health of a loved one and more than half of the respondents were worried about their own mental health. In the Standing Committee on Health, we've also heard from many witnesses that our front-line heroes, working around the clock to protect us from the virus and to help others recover, are at great risk of physical and mental burnout. This shows how seriously Canadians need supports for their mental health and well-being during this most trying time. Can the Minister of Health tell my constituents what the government is doing to support Canadians during this uncertain time?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I thank the member for NewmarketAurora for that very insightful question. In fact, we've been very worried about Canadians' mental health as resulting from the pandemic, but even prior to that we knew that we needed to create rapidly more tools for Canadians across the country, no matter where they lived. We've worked very closely with our provincial and territorial partners, for example, to amplify the work that they're doing through increased supports, financial supports. We also launched Wellness Together Canada, which is a digital portal, where all Canadians can get access to tools they can use to help with the circumstances they find themselves in and to get the information they need during COVID-19. It also allows Canadians to connect to paid professionals who can provide support in a variety of different ways, whether it's over the telephone, through email or by text, understanding that Canadians have different ways of connecting that work for them. We've also partnered with a number of organizations that provide supports to Canadians, many of the crisis hotlines, for example, that are working double-time or triple-time to try to keep up with the volume of demand. This is a difficult time for all Canadians and we will continue to work to ensure Canadians have the supports they need.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go to Mr. Gerretsen, from Kingston and the Islands.\nMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Chair, students from across the country have been significantly impacted by the effects of COVID-19. As we know, thousands of post-secondary students depend on employment throughout the summer in order to pay for expenses throughout their academic year. Unfortunately the pandemic has resulted in the closure of many businesses and organizations that would normally employ students who work during the summer. Thousands of students are now left without the financial means they were depending on to pay for their post-secondary educational expenses. In response to the concerns raised by students, the government announced the creation of the Canada emergency student benefit, which will provide students with the assistance they need to make it through these uncertain financial times. I represent a riding that has multiple post-secondary institutions, and my constituents have been asking when they should expect to apply for the Canada emergency student benefit. Can the President of the Treasury Board please give us an update on the status of the Canada emergency student benefit, and in particular, when students will be able to start accessing this benefit, and also confirm if and how it may be retroactive?\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr. Chair, I would first like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his strong advocacy in favour of young Canadians in his riding and across Canada. Mr. Chair, our government is committed to ensuring that young Canadians have the support that they need during this very difficult time. That's why we are investing $9 billion to support students and recent graduates affected by COVID-19. The measures include doubling the Canada student grants, raising the cap on student loans, creating new employment opportunities for students and launching the Canada emergency student benefit. I'm pleased to share with the House that the application period for the Canada emergency student benefit will commence on May 15. That is this Friday. This benefit will provide $1,250 a month to eligible students or $2,000 for students who have disabilities or dependants. Mr. Chair, when Canada emerges from this pandemic, we want to make sure that students are in a financial position to continue their studies so that they can pursue fruitful careers and help build a strong Canada.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll wait a few seconds before moving on to the next five-minute period to allow the console operator to switch with someone else. We'll next go to the honourable member for Calgary Skyview, Ms. Sahota.\nMs. Jag Sahota (Calgary Skyview, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Victims of human trafficking continue to suffer during this crisis. Many are facing worse conditions and additional barriers to escaping human trafficking than before the pandemic. The government has been completely silent on this issue, and now funding to fight human trafficking is being taken away from front-line organizations. Why would the government choose to do this at this vulnerable time?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, human trafficking is, as we all know, one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Our government is working to eliminate all instances of it. To combat human trafficking, we've launched a comprehensive national strategy that brings together federal efforts under one strategic framework. We have backed that new move with $75 million in additional investments, and the new strategy now strengthens Canada's ability to fight this abhorrent attack on human rights and human dignity.\nMs. Jag Sahota: Mr. Chair, this simply isn't good enough. The government is letting down our most vulnerable Canadians. We know that human trafficking hasn't stopped during this pandemic, and these front-line organizations have received the message that supporting them in fighting these heinous crimes is not a priority. What is the minister going to do to rectify this situation?\nHon. Bill Blair: As I said, we have developed a national strategy to combat human trafficking. We've made $75 million in additional investments, and this new strategy takes a whole-of-government approach. It empowers victims and survivors to regain their self-confidence and control over their lives, and it will prevent more of these crimes from taking place. It provides better protection and support for those most vulnerable to human trafficking, and it will ensure that police and prosecutors have the resources to prosecute these traffickers for their heinous crimes. Mr. Chair, we'll continue to work collaboratively with victims groups and to provide the supports that are required.\nMs. Jag Sahota: Mr. Chair, more vulnerable Canadians continue to be let down. There are effective medications that have been developed for those living with cystic fibrosis, yet this medication is not available here. We know that the pharmaceutical company has not been able to apply to market this drug in Canada because of the changes to the PMPRB, which have been heavily criticized by stakeholders and patients. Will the minister delay the July 1 implementation date and review the regulations so that drugs like Trikafta are made available in Canada?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, there are two separate issues in that question, so I will talk about the PMPRB. As a government, we are committed, as you know, to increasing affordability of and accessibility to Canadian medications, to medications across Canada, and the PMPRB regulatory amendments will help Canadians to be able to afford their prescriptions. Canada will continue to be an important market for new medicines. In fact, many countries with much lower prices for medicine gain access to new medicines in the same time frame as Canada, or even faster.\nMs. Jag Sahota: Mr. Chair, for those living with a rare disease, every single day can be a struggle. We know the importance of lowering drug costs, but not at the cost of life-saving drugs not being available here in Canada. Waiting years for the government to reduce regulations is not an option. We also know that the nature of the disease makes those people more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, and they are at a higher risk of its being lethal. Why is this government continuing to let those with CF struggle and suffer needlessly?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: I believe the member opposite is talking about the drug Trikafta, and many cystic fibrosis patient groups have been advocating having access to it in Canada. In fact, the manufacturer of Trikafta has not submitted an application to market this product in Canada. However, that said, we do have a special access program for drugs that are not marketed in Canada. As of May 6, Health Canada approved 95 applications for 98 patients to access Trikafta through the special access program. I would encourage all patients with cystic fibrosis to speak to their doctor to ensure that they too can apply through the special access program.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have time for one short question of 45 seconds.\nMs. Jag Sahota: We know the importance of lowering drug costs. As you know, 4,300 people suffer from this rare genetic disease. Most of them are children and young adults. One young woman from Calgary is a CF champion, fighting for her passion to be a famous opera singer. She's very talented. Her reality of living with CF has meant that she has had many visits to the hospital and had many health crises that have made singing impossible for a time. CF patients are waiting for this drug, which was fast-tracked in other countries. Now it seems that the changes to the PMPRB will cause further delays or complications. Will the minister delay the implementation and review the PMPRB?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Honourable Minister, please provide a short response.\nHon. Patty Hajdu: I will just repeat that the manufacturer has not applied to sell this drug in Canada.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Now we will go to Mr. Lobb of HuronBruce.\nMr. Ben Lobb (HuronBruce, CPC): Thank you very much. On July 25, 2019, after the federal-provincial-territorial agriculture meeting, the agriculture minister promised big changes in 2020 for programs like AgriStability and AgriRecovery. Besides a pilot program in a couple of provinces and an application deadline, is there anything else you would like to report?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: Yes, Mr.Chair. Since the July meeting in QuebecCity with the provincial and territorial ministers of agriculture, we've been working to improve the AgriStability program. This issue remains a priority, and it's included in my mandate letter. However, at this time, we're responding to emergencies that go beyond what the various risk management programs can provide to our producers.\nMr. Ben Lobb: You can appreciate, Minister, the issue we're dealing with here. The United States Department of Agriculture has allocated $19 billion to farmers, $16 billion of that in direct support. The program that was offered last week, $252 million, was a mere fraction of what the United States is getting. If the minister is telling farmers to bank on the existing business risk management program, it's not going to work. Countless numbers of pork farmers, just in my riding alone, have one thousand, two thousand, three thousand head of hogs ready to be shipped within the near future. They will lose $70 a head. AgriStability isn't going to cut it. We need an immediate program to help out these hard-working pork farmers.\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: I fully understand my colleague's comments. That's why we announced specific programs for the meat sector: $77.5million for processors, $50million for beef producers and $50million for pork producers. We've also increased, improved and facilitated access to AgriStability. One pork producer tried the calculator and told me that he could quickly receive $11 per head of hog. Alberta's agriculture minister even publicly stated that some producers could obtain the desired amount of $20 per head using the AgriStability program.\nMr. Ben Lobb: Mr. Chair, you can see the problem right there with the math. The minister just said that one of her pork producers is going to get $11. They are losing $70. There's a $59-per-head gap, times likely several thousand head of hogs in their barns. Let's go to another trying issue with agriculture. It's the carbon tax. I know that the government has their position on the carbon tax, and I know that I'm not going to change it, but I want to give the members of Parliament across the way, the government, an idea of what a pork farmer might go through. A pork farmer sent me their bill for February 26 to March 24. Their natural gas bill was about $2,400. In there was close to $500 in federal carbon tax. Farmers manage their woodlots ethically. They have environmental farm plans. They have nutrient management plans. They get no credit for any of the carbon sequestration and ethical environmental management on their farm, yet every month they are asked to pay a carbon tax. It just doesn't seem fair. I want the minister's opinion on that.\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: As you know, our pollution pricing policy is designed to build a clean economy. We've introduced exemptions for agriculture. On one hand, emissions from animal and vegetable production are not subject to carbon pricing, and on the other hand, farm fuels and other fuels delivered to off-farm points-of-sale are exempt. We've also provided partial reimbursements for propane and natural gas used in commercial greenhouses. We have already done a lot. We encourage producers to take advantage of the business risk management programs, and we are ready to do more. We've already shown that, and we will continue to do so.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There is time for one short question and response. Go ahead, Mr. Lobb.\nMr. Ben Lobb: Mr. Chair, I know the Minister of Agriculture has toured my riding. She knows very well what the lay of the land is here. What about pork farmers? What about chicken farmers? What about hens? What about drying in the fall? All those farmers pay a carbon tax, and there is no program for them. They pay and they pay and they pay, and what makes it worse is that they are given no credit for the environmental work they do on their farms.\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: It's true that our producers work incredibly hard to protect the environment and ensure the well-being of their animals. That's important, to be sure, but I'd like to put the impact of pollution pricing into perspective. To put these estimates into context, AAFC used data from agricultural tax data programs to show the impact on a per-farm basis as a percentage of total operating costs. The estimates ranged from $210 to $819 per farm and 0.05% to 0.42% of total farm operating expenses.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We now move on to Mr.Lehoux.\nMr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. Being from a rural area, myself, I can assure you that people who live in rural communities are resourceful and resilient. Instead of staying cooped up in their homes, they are doing their best to retool and save the companies they work for. One of the only options they have is to work from home. Unfortunately, though, they don't have access to the tools they need. Cellular and Internet networks are inadequate, even non-existent in some cases. I want to know, not whether the government is going to help these Canadians join the 21st century, but when. Can you give us any assurances and, above all, a timetable for a real plan?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: I agree with the member. The situation is very serious. High-speed Internet is not a luxury; it's a necessity. That's why we launched the connect to innovate program. My fellow minister Ms. Monsef will be introducing the next strategy to improve the situation in all regions, especially rural areas. Finding a solution is absolutely imperative.\nMr. Richard Lehoux: I don't think the minister understood my question. In the 2019 budget, the government promised to connect all Canadians to the Internet by 2030. This is 2020. That's 10years away. People don't need reliable Internet service 10years down the road. The pandemic has made the need even more acute right now. When, then, will people have Internet access? I'm simply asking you for a date now.\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr.Chair, under the last budget, we launched a $1.7-billion program to support broadband infrastructure. That's a lot of money for high-speed Internet. My fellow minister Ms.Monsef is in charge of the program. We also introduced the connect to innovate program, which has helped 900communities all over the country. We will keep working to make the lives of people who live in rural areas better, and we will find solutions to provide high-speed Internet access.\nMr. Richard Lehoux: Mr.Chair, you no doubt know that Beauce is the cradle of small and medium-sized businesses. On March27, the Prime Minister introduced the emergency wage subsidy to help businesses cope with the pandemic. Unfortunately, general partnerships were overlooked. Of the many constituents in my riding who have reached out to me on the subject, one, in particular, has contacted me three times since mid-April. I still don't have anything to tell him because the government is dragging its feet. We'd like to get a clear and specific answer. The same goes for sole proprietors, who were also overlooked. When is the government going to include these businesses in the current programs?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr.Chair, we announced in financial support for vulnerable small and medium-sized businesses that are not eligible for the measures already in place and that are struggling with cash flow issues. We've also invested $71million to support businesses and organizations by giving them access to capital in rural communities. As well, we've invested in programs for rural areas, and we will continue to make investments to help small and medium-sized businesses.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Lehoux, please keep it brief.\nMr. Richard Lehoux: All right, Mr.Chair. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked the federal government for an agriculture and agri-food emergency fund of $2.6billion to help maintain food security in Canada in response to COVID-19. Will the minister address the federation's request? Minister, I'd like you to give us a date.\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau: We already have a host of business risk management programs, through which, $1.6billion is available to producers annually. More support is actually available, even through those programs, since they meet the demand. We are prepared to do more, and we will. I urge producers to apply for the AgriStability program and to use the funds in their AgriInvest accounts. Some $2.3billion is available through that program.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll now go to the honourable member for LangleyAldergrove, Mr. Van Popta.\nMr. Tako Van Popta (LangleyAldergrove, CPC): Mr. Chair, the government's wage subsidy program is designed to help traditional companies, not high-growth companies. For example, I was talking to Ron, who operates an engineering firm in my riding that specializes in designing and building very expensive machines for their ever-expanding overseas markets. Business is down, but not by the requisite 30%. Of course not, since they're in high-growth mode, but just recently they had to lay off some very talented staff. Can the minister confirm that the wage subsidy program can be expanded or adapted to deal with high-growth companies that will play such a key role in Canada's economic relaunch?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, my honourable colleague is absolutely correct. We, the government, take enormous pride in our small businesses, particularly the start-ups and the high-growth firms. They're going to be absolutely essential for our economic recovery, and we know that some of them are ineligible for the wage subsidy. That is why we introduced a $250-million program in the industrial research assistance program through the National Research Council, strictly targeting and focusing on those high-growth firms that were ineligible for the wage subsidy, so that they can provide the wage support to keep those highly skilled individuals in Canada.\nMr. Tako Van Popta: Mr. Chair, there is another category of businesses that are falling through the cracks and feel they are being left behind by the wage subsidy program. Those are recently merged companies. For example, there is a trucking company in my riding that is significantly bigger this year than it was last year as a result of some key acquisitions and mergers late last year. All of the legacy companies by themselves would qualify individually for the wage subsidy, but the merged company does not. Can the minister confirm that the wage subsidy program is sufficiently flexible to accommodate recently merged companies?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Chair, again I want to thank my honourable colleague for his question. He is identifying unique pain points that exist within the overall economy with specific examples of companies that are not able to access some of the programming we have provided. I do want to highlight, when it comes to the wage subsidy, that we have made changes to the revenue thresholds to make more companies eligible. The specific example that the member opposite raises is something that is under consideration.\nMr. Tako Van Popta: Mr. Chair, the government's commercial rent assistance program discriminates against certain tenants based solely on whether their landlord has a mortgage on the subject building. I was talking to Leslie the other day. She manages a number of commercial office buildings in my riding. Some of these buildings have mortgages and some don't, and it all depends on what they were able to negotiate with their banker. Leslie is having a very hard time explaining to her tenants why some will qualify for the rental subsidy and some won't, depending on which building they are in. Can the government confirm that the nonsensical mortgage requirement in the rent subsidy program is gone?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, the approach that was taken on trying to assist small businesses with rent is very much based on the fact that this is a provincial jurisdiction, so we have used the mortgage system as a way to do it. It is, in fact, not nonsensical. That said, we are looking at this particular issue. It's something that is under consideration. We expect that we will find a way to ensure that those landlords who don't have mortgages can work with the CMHC to have the appropriate approach to be eligible for this program.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have about one minute left, Mr. Van Popta. Go ahead with a short question.\nMr. Tako Van Popta: Many people in my riding have reached out to me to say they are quite disturbed that their favourite hunting and sport shooting firearms are now on the banned list. Can the minister inform Canadians how many Canadian taxpayer dollars are going to go to the buyback program for legal gun owners and how far that money would go if it were to be diverted to something useful, such as more border controls to stop the illegal importation of firearms?\nHon. Bill Blair: Our first priority is the protection and safety of Canadians. We've seen an unacceptable rise in gun violence right across our community. All weapons are being regulated in our country. Some, such as handguns, represent such a significant risk that we strongly restrict them. Some weapons, quite frankly, are completely unsuitable for any sporting or hunting activity, such as weapons designed for soldiers to engage in combat with other soldiers. We have now prohibited those weapons. The saving of lives is worth an investment in public safety. I want to assure the member we will bring forward legislation that will facilitate an appropriate buyback program. I look forward to a discussion in this House with the member opposite on how that can be done to ensure public safety and to ensure that we do it in as effective a way as possible.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll now go to Mr. Manly.\nMr. Paul Manly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the government and ministers present for the rapid relief that they've provided to Canadians. I know the constituents in my riding really appreciate that. I'd like to thank them also for being responsive to the MPs who have brought forward gaps in the program. The CERB requirements recognize dividend income for eligibility for the Canada emergency business account, CEBA, but the Canada emergency business account does not recognize dividends or contract payments. I've been contacted by many small business owners who have been legally paying themselves with dividends for years, but these companies cannot apply for the CEBA even though this might save them from bankruptcy during this crisis. Will the government make the necessary changes to allow dividend income to be admissible for CEBA eligibility?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: I'd like to thank the honourable colleague for his very thoughtful question and his advocacy in looking for different solutions and in working with us to help small businesses, not only in his riding but across the country as well. He's absolutely correct that the Canada emergency business account has been successful, as 590,000 loans have been issued. That's a reflection of some of the changes that we introduced, which made the criteria more generous so that more businesses could obtain assistance. He has raised the issue of dividends. As I said before, we continue to work with Canadians and Canadian businesses and colleagues in this House to see how we can assist more Canadians, not less of them, and we'll continue to endeavour to do that.\nMr. Paul Manly: Mr. Chair, there are still many Canadians stranded overseas who are trying to return to Canada. Some have no assurance that their non-Canadian spouse will be allowed into Canada with them. Many are being forced to make an impossible choice between sheltering in place overseas or separating from their spouse in order to return home. Will the government remove unnecessary barriers and allow these Canadians to return to Canada immediately with their spouses?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, in an effort to flatten the curve and to protect Canadians, we've taken a number of extraordinary measures at the border and we have restricted non-essential travel of people coming into Canada. While Canadian citizens and permanent residents will always be admissiblesubject, of course, to a 14-day quarantine upon entry foreign nationals are subject to travel restrictions. For individuals to be eligible to travel to Canada, their travel must be considered essential travel, consistent with the emergency order put in place. I recognize and very much respect the spirit of the member's question. We recognize these are difficult situations. It is not our desire to keep families apart. I want to assure that each situation will be decided on a case-by-case basis based on the information made available to border service officers. I welcome any inquiries he may have. If he reaches out to my office, we'll help in any way we can.\nMr. Paul Manly: Mr. Chair, the Alberta energy regulator has suspended a wide range of environmental monitoring requirements for oil sands companies during this pandemic. This includes environmental reporting. It includes wetland wildlife and bird monitoring, even though Canada is a signatory to the international migratory bird treaty. Water that escapes from storm ponds doesn't need to be tested. Air quality programs, including for first nations communities, have been reduced. Testing for leaks of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, has been suspended. This is after the federal government has provided $750 million in funding for methane emission reductions. The federal government has also just committed $1.7 billion to clean up orphaned oil wells. That message, clearly, is about the negligence of the Alberta government. It is something corporations should be paying for. Will the federal government hold the Alberta government to account and withhold energy sector relief funding until these environmental regulations are reinstated?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland: Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the member for his question and for his very collaborative approach with our government on a number of issues. I would like to thank him for this particular question and his particular reference to methane, because it gives me an opportunity to highlight some very important progress that the federal government made this week in working with the Province of Alberta. Just yesterday Alberta joined B.C. and Saskatchewan and published its own draft regulations on methane. This will allow us, in working with Alberta, to work on equivalency on methane, which will allow us to work towards standing down the federal system in those jurisdictions. This is tremendously important, because it will allow us to cut methane emissions by 45% by 2025. It's hugely important for fighting climate change together.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Now we'll go to the honourable member for Hamilton Mountain, Mr. Duvall.\nMr. Scott Duvall (Hamilton Mountain, NDP): Mr. Chair, I was pleased to hear about extending the tax deadline to October 1 in yesterday's announcement for seniors. After many discussions with the Minister of Seniors, I was glad to hear that she was listening to the NDP and many others on making this happen. It stops a lot of interruptions for people who couldn't get their taxes done. Mr. Chair, COVID-19 has been showing us in stark terms that Canadian seniors are struggling to make ends meet in Canada. Before enduring the crisis, it was clear that OAS and GIS benefits levels were just not enough for seniors to keep up with the cost of living, so we need to fix this now. Why is the government refusing to increase OAS and GIS benefits to lift seniors out of poverty on a permanent basis?\nHon. Deb Schulte (Minister of Seniors): Mr. Chair, I want to thank my honourable colleague for giving me this opportunity to rise today and talk about how we are supporting Canadian seniors during this pandemic. Many Canadian seniors are facing significant health, economic and social challenges as a result of the pandemic. They built this country and now they need our help. Our government is taking significant action to provide Canadian seniors with greater financial security and give them the help they need during this crisis. We're building on past measures by introducing a one-time tax-free payment of $300 for those who receive OAS and of $200 for those receiving GIS, totalling $500 to seniors who receive both. We are also supporting community-based projects to improve the quality of life for seniors through the New Horizons for Seniors program, and investing in other charities. Seniors need our help, and we are delivering for them.\nMr. Scott Duvall: Mr. Chair, I was glad to hear that the Minister of Seniors is acknowledging the financial burden that our seniors are taking on. She mentioned the prescription dispensing fees, the added costs of their groceries and the delivery charges. I was glad that the Prime Minister acknowledged the heavy toll seniors are facing, and that they helped to shape this country and now they need our help. A surprising statement that I heard yesterday was the Treasury Board and the seniors minister's admission in their press briefing that the level of assistance being provided to Canadian seniors is quite low. Why is the seniors minister acknowledging all the burdens they're trying to help the seniors with, but the response they're giving is just a very low way of handling it?\nHon. Deb Schulte: I really do want to acknowledge my honourable colleague for his advocacy. I just want to assure him that while the government remains committed to implementing policies in our platform, we are focused on this health crisis right now. We have provided financial support to seniors sooner through the GST credit top-up, and now with additional payments to OAS and GIS recipients. This year we are investing over twice as much on financial assistance for seniors as we committed to in our platform, which is $3.8 billion compared to $1.56 billion in the platform. Seniors need our help and we're delivering. These payments have provided greater support for the most vulnerable seniors. Just to give some details, for those on OAS and GIS, they will get, in conjunction with the GST credit top-up, $875 per adult, and over $1,500 per couple. This is not an insignificant amount. This is a significant amount to support our seniors during this pandemic.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have about one minute left for both a question and a response. Go ahead, Mr. Duvall.\nMr. Scott Duvall: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The minister was talking about there being a maximum payment, if it's possible. What I've heard from seniors is this is a one-shot deal and it's an insult to them. They want some stability on an ongoing basis. We did make an agreement about two weeks ago that help would be implemented without delay on the seniors issue and for people with disabilities. Why did yesterday's announcement include only the people who are seniors, but not people with disabilities? Why have they been omitted? When can they expect help to come?\nHon. Deb Schulte: I just want to touch on the two points raised. On the one-time payment, we know that seniors need help now, and that's why it's important to get that money into seniors' accounts as soon as possible. That is why we're providing the one payment right away, instead of small amounts spread over months. In the coming weeks we will look at additional supports for other vulnerable Canadians. I just want to let him know we are working on additional measures.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now\nMr. Scott Duvall: I didn't hear anything about the disability\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The five minutes are finished.  It is now over to Mrs.Gill, the member for Manicouagan.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Thank you, Mr.Chair. I'll be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-NeigetteTmiscouataLesBasques. I have just one question. It's for the government, and this will be the fourth time I've asked today. When I go back home, what am I going to tell the people of Chandler, Amqui, Bic, Saint-Simon, Tadoussac and Harrington Harbour? Am I going to tell them that the government supports the Bloc Qubcois's proposal? We propose giving seasonal workers access to employment insurance benefits until next season, regardless of whether they received the CERB, how many hours they worked or how many they accumulated. Should I instead tell them that the Liberal government has nothing in store for them as they suffer through the crisis? The government hasn't managed to bridge the employment insurance gap, and is even planning to bring it to six, if not eight, months. That means they'll have nothing to put on the dinner table for the next year. I'd like an answer, Mr.Chair.\nHon. Jean-Yves Duclos: Mr.Chair, I have three things to say in response to the member's important question. First, we obviously understand what she's saying. The work is seasonal, not the workers. The work they do is fundamental so they can support their families and their communities in eastern Quebec and other regions. Second, the CERB delivers significant assistance to those often vulnerable workers, the majority of whom would be able or certainly eager to find another job. Third, and finally, before any longer-term investments are made, it's important to keep in mind that those who may have received employment insurance benefits but who lost them in recent weeks or who do seasonal work are eligible for the CERB. That said, we are also looking ahead. We've already announced some very important measuresand we'll continue to do soin support of tourism, culture, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and many other key contributors to regional development in Quebec and elsewhere.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The member for Rimouski-NeigetteTmiscouataLesBasques, Mr.Blanchette-Joncas, has the floor.\nMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas: Mr.Chair, the situation my fellow member just described is of little comfort to those in Quebec's regions. To be frank, the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program is a flop. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, one in three businesses doesn't qualify for rent relief because it doesn't meet the 70% drop in revenues requirement. Half of businesses have indicated that their landlords won't be applying for the program because it's optional. Commercial landlords can choose to participate in the program or not. How is that going to help businesses, Mr.Chair? We are still trying to figure that out. Businesses, especially seasonal ones, need more support to cover their fixed costs. Will the government commit to reviewing the program, which is too restrictive for businesses and optional for landlords? The program must do more to help businesses, particularly seasonal ones, cover their fixed costs.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we know that businesses are, of course, very concerned about fixed costs. Our rent relief program is very significant. We haven't yet announced all the details, so it's much too soon to say that it's flawed. More information will be available in the next few days. At that point, we hope to be on the right track when it comes to fixed costs and rent.\nMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas: I hope you're making adjustments. It's totally unacceptable that only 10% of businesses who need the relief can get it. What's more, the public health crisis has brought its share of change for businesses, particularly with the new health measures. They have to plan, implement preventative measures, have response plans, train staff and acquire the necessary equipment. In order to do those things, protect the public and reopen their doors, businesses have to assume the costs. Will the government commit to providing financial assistance to businesses, especially those in the tourism industry, so they can cover the costs of putting the new health measures in place?\nHon. Navdeep Bains: I know the situation is very serious in rural communities. That's why we've invested $71million in community futures development corporations, or CFDCs, and business development centres. Both of those will go a long way towards helping businesses in rural communities, and I have no doubt that we will continue working together to find other solutions.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Now we'll move on to the honourable member for Calgary Centre, Mr. McLean.\nMr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the terms for accessing the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance, CECRA, is that you must have a mortgage on the property. One of the key terms of eligibility for this support is that the landlord owes money to a bank. Will the Minister of Finance tell us if this program was designed for the benefit of landlords and tenants or for the benefit of banks?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I think that it's important to know that commercial rent and landlord-tenant relationships are provincial jurisdictions. Therefore, as we embarked on an approach that could enable landlords and tenants to get to an agreement that would help both, we used the CMHC as a vehicle from which we could do that. We think that we've come up with a program that provides advantages for the landlords and advantages for the tenants, and we will be announcing details that will include how mortgages can be put in place for those landlords who don't currently have them.\nMr. Greg McLean: Brookfield Properties, a large Canadian firm, announced that its rent collections on commercial properties for April were 15% of the lease terms. Luckily, Brookfield has another company, Brookfield Business Partners, poised to help by buying up the distressed equity of the firms that owe them money. Did the Minister of Finance design CECRA with this outcome in mind, washing out individual investors and small companies and transferring that value into the hands of vulture financiers who hold all the cards?\nHon. Bill Morneau: In fact, Mr. Chair, we designed this program exactly with the idea in mind of the challenge that we're seeing. We're seeing that in many cases commercial tenants are not actually able to pay their rent, so landlords are not getting the rent that's due. Therefore, there's a mutual interest from tenants and from landlords in coming to an agreement. By providing funding through the mortgage system to those landlords, we recognize that we'll enable both of those two parts of the equation to come to an agreement that we think will be advantageous for the sector over the long term.\nMr. Greg McLean: In the past two months, the Bank of Canada has tripled the size of its balance sheet to almost $400 billion, with more to come, Mr. Chair. In the 2008 recession, the world's major economies endured quantitative easing on a previously unknown scale, most of which has not since been unwound. Canada endured a then-record $50-billion deficit, but we did not need to enter the uncertain world of QE, quantitative easing, as a result of the strength of Canada's oil and gas industry. Will the minister acknowledge that this government's oil and gas policy mismanagement has led to economic decline, necessitating hundreds of billions of dollars of quantitative easing?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland: Mr. Chair, let me challenge one assumption implicit in the honourable member's question, the assumption that our government fails to understand the importance of the oil and gas sector to our economy. Let me quote some leaders from Alberta and their response to the lease program. Tim McMillan, CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said, I think this is essential. Not all companies are going to need to tap into this sort of liquidity...but some that are normally high-quality, stable companies likely will be looking for this program to provide a certain amount of liquidity for them. CAPP understands that we are supporting Canadian companies, including in the oil and gas sector, and I would urge the members opposite to understand that as well.\nMr. Greg McLean: BlackRock is one of the world's largest investment companies, managing trillions of dollars of bonds. It has lobbied regulators around the world to not be named a systemically important financial institution. The Bank of Canada unexpectedly engaged BlackRock as an adviser on its bond-buying plans. Is the Minister of Finance mindful of the conflict of interest that exists between the world's largest bond manager, BlackRock, and the advice it's giving the Bank of Canada on buying bonds?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, the member opposite might know that the Bank of Canada is independent from the government, and as such we are not privy to those decisions and support the continuing independence of the Bank of Canada from the government.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. McLean, you may have just a short question.\nMr. Greg McLean: The finance sector seems to be getting well served during this economic crisis. Will the minister endeavour to provide a more balanced program of benefits going forward for the sake of the entire Canadian economy, and not just the Brookfields, the BlackRocks and the big banks?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I think the notion that one sector is being advantaged versus another actually defies the facts. More than 550,000 loans have gone out to small businesses in the form of $40,000 loans per business over a very short time period. Canada is a leader in this regard, and we'll continue to support businesses all across Canada with loans and support as they need it to get ourselves through this difficult time.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go to the last five-minute round. We'll begin with the honourable member for Carleton, Mr. Poilievre.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: Thank you, Mr. Chair. What is the dollar value of the total assets of the Government of Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, earlier today we were given incorrect information on the Auditor General. I would like to be able to provide more information at my next response.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What is the total dollar value of the assets of the Government of Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, the member for Carleton said that the previous government spent more on the Auditor General than the current government, and that is actually incorrect.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What is the total dollar value of the assets of the Government of Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, in fact, in the last full year of the Harper government, in 2014-15, the total spending on the Auditor General was $85.8 million.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What is the dollar value of the assets of the Government of Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, in the most recent year, 2018-19, the total spend was $92.4 million for the Auditor General, showing a 7.7% increase.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What are the total liabilities of the Government of Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I would just say it's shocking when people bring forward incorrect information to the House to try to make a point.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What are the total liabilities of the Government of Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, we will continue to support Canadians through this time, with support not only for businesses but for individuals to get through and get a bridge to a better time.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What is just the dollar value?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, that's a continuing commitment.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: I know we shouldn't ask the minister about numbers. He's just the finance minister, after all, but what is the equity on the Government of Canada's balance sheet?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I would advise the member for Carleton to memorize those Auditor General figures for his next foray into the House of Commons.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: The minister has claimed that our balance sheet is strong. There are three components to a balance sheet: the assets, the liabilities, and the equity. The minister doesn't know any of the three, so clearly he doesn't actually know anything about our balance sheet. That's reassuring. According to the Auditor General, the negative net worth of our Government of Canada will be as much as $1 trillion by the end of this fiscal year. Can the minister, if he is familiar with any of these numbers, tell us if it is possible that his government will hit $1 trillion of debt this year?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I want to assure Canadians that our approach will be to continue to make investments on their behalf. That is available to us because of our strong fiscal position, but we will continue to take that approach, which we think is the appropriate one.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: Will it be $1 trillion, yes or no?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, as I said, we will continue to focus on the importance of supporting Canadians.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What is the size of our current national debt?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I think what will happen as we do that is that we will allow ourselves to have a stronger economy at the end because of these investments.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What is the size of the national debt?\nHon. Bill Morneau: We have always seen, Mr. Chair, that these investments are not only supporting Canadians; they are supporting businesses so that we do have a strong economy and a strong fiscal position coming out of this.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: Does the finance minister know the size of our national debt?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I will continue to focus our efforts, as we believe we should, on supporting Canadians through this time.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: Does the finance minister know what $1 trillion is?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, we are continuing to make investments that we believe are prudent in the face of this economic challenge, supporting Canadians as we know we need to.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What is the total dollar value of all the public and private debt in Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, we know that by supporting Canadians, by continuing to make investments, we will enable Canadiens to have less debt themselves because that\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. Poilievre.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: What is the total debt, public and private, as a share of GDP in Canada?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, the important consideration here is that the federal government is taking a position that we should support Canadians so that they don't take on the debt themselves.\nHon. Pierre Poilievre: Yet they have. They have record household debt, record corporate debt and growing government debt. The finance minister doesn't seem to know any of the basic numbers that would be required to govern the finances of the Government of Canada, so I will give him one last chance. Based on his latest briefings, what is the total size of Canada's national debt? If he doesn't know, can he have the humility and honesty just to say so?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for slightly more time in this response to say that we think the best thing to do during this time period is to invest in Canadians. We know that in that way they will not be supporting as much debt themselves. The government is in a fiscal position that enables us to take on debt at this time, which we think is appropriate to get our economy to a better position at the end of this crisis. We think that's appropriate. We will continue to take that approach.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.\nHon. Pablo Rodriguez: I have a point of order, Mr.Chair. I think we need to keep the interpreters in mind and the work they are doing, particularly when it comes to the flow and speed of questions. As the interpreters have already mentioned, they've suffered more injuries during this short time than during all of last year. Mr.Chair, I kindly ask that you make sure members take that into account. Thank you.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I'm not sure whether that constitutes a point of order, but it's certainly an important reminder for members of the House to respect interpreters' working conditions. Please note that this is the end of our questions to ministers for this afternoon. Honourable members, please note too that pursuant to an order made on April 20, the House has been recalled. As such, the committee will now adjourn and the House sitting will begin shortly thereafter. The bells will be rung to call in members, and a parade will begin the sitting. This committee is now adjourned.\n\nNow, answer the query based on the above meeting transcript in one or more sentences.\n\nQuery: What did the Prime Minister say about fraud in distribution of funds?\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 119, "category": "longbench_qmsum", "reference": ["The opposition party claimed that the Minister of Digital Government has been promoting a fundraising campaign to sue Global News for their story criticizing the Chinese Communist Party, and the opposition party thought the minister was supporting the Communist Party of China and threatening our media and freedom of expression. The Minister explained that community outreach was a very important part of the work of a member of Parliament and WeChat was one of many social media sites regularly used by members, and the minister did not share any personal views on Wechat."], "prompt": "You are given a meeting transcript and a query containing a question or instruction. Answer the query in one or more sentences.\n\nTranscript:\nThe Chair (Hon. Anthony Rota (NipissingTimiskaming, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the 12th meeting of the House of Commons Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic. This will be the first hybrid meeting of the committee. Some members will be participating via videoconference and some will be participating in person. This follows the order made by the House on May26,2020. Members who have already participated in a virtual meeting of the special committee may actually not notice any change, except for the fact that some members are also participating from the floor of the House. An additional rubric, that of statements by members, was also added to the proceedings of the committee. In order to ensure that those joining the meeting via video conference can be seen and heard by those in the chamber, two screens have been set up in the chamber on either side of the Speakers chair. Sound amplification for virtual interventions will be available, and members in the chamber can listen to the floor sound or interpretation using the earpieces on their desks. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. Please also direct your remarks through the Chair. Thank you. For those of you joining via video conference, I would like to remind you to leave your mike on mute when you are not speaking. Also, please note that if you want to speak in English, you should be on the English channel. If you want to speak French, you should be on the French channel. Should you wish to alternate between the two languages, you should change the channel to the language that you are speaking each time you switch languages. Should members participating by videoconference need to request the floor outside their designated speaking times, they should activate their microphone and state that they have a point of order. Those in the chamber can simply rise in the usual way. Please note that today's proceedings will be televised in the same way as a typical sitting of the House. Next we'll move on to ministerial announcements. I understand that there are no ministerial announcements today, so we'll move on to petitions. We'll be presenting petitions for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. I would like to remind members that any petition presented during a meeting of the special committee must have already been certified by the clerk of petitions. For members participating in person, we ask that they please come and drop the signed certificates off at the table once the petitions are presented. First on our list for presenting petitions is Ms. May, who is joining us virtually.\nMs. Elizabeth May (SaanichGulf Islands, GP): Mr. Chair, what an honour to be the first voice coming to you from the screens on either side of the Speaker of the House. I speak to you from SaanichGulf Islands on the traditional territory of the WSNEC people. Hych'ka Siem. I'm presenting a petition, number 431-00215, and it has been certified. The petitioners call on this House to take note of the fact that Canada is the only country with a universal health care system that does not include the provision of necessary prescription medications. They note that the system across Canada is a patchwork that leaves three million Canadians unprepared and uninsured to be able to purchase necessary medications. They call on the House assembled to put in place a system of universal national pharmacare, bringing down the cost of drugs through bulk purchasing. I think I'll call that a summary, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: The next petition will be presented by Mr. Genuis.\nMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood ParkFort Saskatchewan, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be presenting two petitions before the committee today. The first petition is in support of Bill S-204. This Senate public bill, been put forward by Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the Senate, would make it a criminal offence for someone to go abroad to receive an organ for which there has not been consent. It also has a mechanism by which somebody could be deemed inadmissible to Canada for being involved in the horrible practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill has been before various Parliaments for over 10 years, and petitioners are hopeful that this Parliament will be the one that finally takes action to address forced organ harvesting and trafficking. The second petition is put forward by folks who are concerned about Bill C-7, particularly the efforts by the government through Bill C-7 to remove vital safeguards that are currently associated with Canada's euthanasia regime. Petitioners are not happy about the fact that the government is trying to eliminate the 10-day reflection period and remove other safeguards that only four short years ago the government thought were essential for the euthanasia and assisted suicide system that they were putting in place. The petitioners call on the government to address that, and they are not supportive of these particular efforts to remove vital safeguards from that regime. Thank you very much.\nThe Chair: Is anyone else presenting petitions? Seeing none, we'll move on to statements by members. We will now proceed to Statements by Members for a period not exceeding 15minutes. Each statement will be for one minute. The first will be from Mr.Samson. Mr.Samson, you have the floor.\nMr. Darrell Samson (SackvillePrestonChezzetcook, Lib.): Good afternoon, everyone. It's an honour to be presenting an S. O. 31. This spring has been a difficult one for Nova Scotia and the communities of SackvillePrestonChezzetcook. While residents have banded together to tackle the challenges presented by COVID-19, we have also had to mourn the passing of three remarkable local women: RCMP Constable Heidi Stevenson, well known by many in Cole Harbour and the surrounding areas; our own Sub-Lieutenant Abbigail Cowbrough, who was based out of 12 Wing Shearwater; and Captain Jenn Casey of the Canadian Forces Snowbirds. All three women died in the line of duty in separate tragic events while serving our country. These three brave women, who served with honour on land, at sea and in the air, represent the absolute best of us. Heidi, Abbigail and Jenn were inspirational and will not be forgotten. Thank you.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan (SelkirkInterlakeEastman, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canada needs a prime minister who will create jobs and opportunity, but instead we have a prime minister who is piling up crippling national debt. Yesterday the PBO predicted the federal deficit this year will hit over $252 billion. That is almost equivalent to an average year of government spending before the Liberal government. After five years with this debt, Prime Minister, Canada's national debt is set to hit $1 trillion, with almost nothing to show for it. Industries from coast to coast are either closed or are struggling. Canadian workers need and deserve a prime minister who supports our energy sector and gets our natural resources and agriculture products to market, who supports small business and will make our tax system encourage job creation and growth, and who will bring advanced manufacturing jobs to Canada and keep the automotive industry growing. Most importantly, we need a Conservative prime minister who will get the government finances under control after the massive debt left by this prime minister.\nThe Chair: Next we'll go to Mr. Anandasangaree.\nMr. Gary Anandasangaree (ScarboroughRouge Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I speak today with a very heavy heart. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, we've seen a disproportionate number of deaths in long-term care homes. I'm thankful for the Canadian Armed Forces who were deployed to the Altamont care home in my riding and four other facilities across the GTA. The CAF have brought forward horrifying allegations in the operation of these homes. They include residents being given expired or improper doses of medication; not being cleaned or changed for a prolonged period of time; being forcibly fed, causing choking; being bed-bound for weeks; receiving inadequate nutrition, and much more. Mr. Chair, I call upon Premier Ford to place these five homes under a mandatory management order and to appoint a third party manager to address and rectify these violations. I also call upon the Premier to undertake an independent public inquiry into the tragedy we face in long-term care facilities across Ontario. Finally, Mr. Chair, we need to work with the provinces and territories to set national standards of care for the most vulnerable in our society. We can and must do better. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We have a point of order. Go ahead, Ms. May.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hesitate to interrupt colleagues, but I'm concerned about the petition practice, which, as I understand it, is to summarize a petition but not make a speech. I felt one of our colleagues was trespassing on our usual rules.\nThe Chair: I will remind honourable members that when a petition is presented, we're expected to give a prcis and make it as concise as possible. Thank you. Mr.Champoux, you have the floor.\nMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): Mr.Chair, I would like to recognize the resilience of Quebeckers concerned for their jobs or their businesses during the COVID-19 crisis. They need us to plan for after the crisis, and we must do so now. To do so, we need the proper information. We need to know the status of the public finances. That is why the Bloc Qubcois is demanding that the government present an economic update, and that it do so before June17. This is not about making a spectacle. Everyone knows that the deficit will be huge. We had to provide the people with support and we all agree on that. But we have to know to what extent. We also have to know where we are starting from so that we can plan where we are going. This is about respecting the public, because they are the ones who will be paying the bill. In closing, I would like to remind the government that one group is not really contributing to the public purse at the moment. I am talking about the tech giants, the GAFAM group, that have never before been used to the extent that they are now, and that are still not paying a cent in tax in Canada. The Liberals promised to correct this injustice. Now is a great time for them to do so.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Sidhu.\nMs. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Chair, this week is National Paramedic Services Week. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Peel region police, paramedic and firefighting services for keeping Bramptonians safe. In my riding, organizations have stepped up to help our community. Organizations such as the Khalsa Aid Society, the Interfaith Council of Peel, the Brampton YMCA, the Prayer Stone Peoples Church, Unity in the Community, Ste. Louise Outreach Centre, Knights Table, the Yogi Divine Society, Vraj Community Service, Regeneration Brampton and many more have made our community stronger during this difficult time. I also have to address the report that came out yesterday from our brave Canadian Armed Forces. Like many Canadians, I was shocked by this report from the long-term care centres, including one in my riding. The examples of abuse described in the report are unacceptable. Our seniors deserve dignity and respect. We must find a solution. We need to fix this.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mrs. Stubbs.\nMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): Mr. Chair, Canada's oil and gas sector is in crisis, made worse by five years of bad policies, red tape and barriers to pipelines. Just in the last two months, we saw the largest production cut in Canadian history. Active rigs dropped by 92% and tens of thousands of oil and gas workers lost their jobs, adding to the 200,000 since 2015. Energy is Canada's biggest investor, and exporting could lead the recovery if there are actions, not just words. On March 25, the finance minister promised help in hours or days, not weeks, but he's letting Canadians down. Sixty-three days later, small oil and gas companies still can't apply for BDC loans, and last week's large employer loan terms are predatory, with interest rates escalating to 14% by year five. Those are payday loan rates. The required stock options being at record lows could make the government the largest shareholder. That's not emergency assistance; it's pandemic profiteering. Programs can't help workers if businesses can't or won't actually get the support. The Liberals' death-by-delay tactics are doing exactly what foreign activists in other countries want: to shut down Canada's oil.\nThe Chair: Ms.Bessette, the floor is yours.\nMrs. Lyne Bessette (BromeMissisquoi, Lib.): Mr.Chair, in times of crisis, we stick together. I can state that this is certainly the case in BromeMissisquoi. In the last weeks, I have been calling volunteer action centres in my constituency so that they can tell me their news. I would like to take the time that I have to highlight the work that community organizations are doing tirelessly in my constituency. The crisis has made us realize the extent to which food banks and meals-on-wheels can not only relieve hunger, but also relieve thousands of shut-in seniors of their loneliness. Let me also highlight the devotion of the volunteers giving generously of their time, particularly the initiative of Mabel Hastings in the volunteer aid centre in Mansonville. Like me, she sends out a daily newsletter to keep the public informed about the many resources available for their support. COVID-19 is bringing out the best in our community and I am certain that, together, we will get through it.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Virani.\nMr. Arif Virani (ParkdaleHigh Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, during the COVID-19 pandemic I have been inspired by the courageous work of so many essential workers. I want to thank everyone on the front lines for keeping us safe, keeping us fed and keeping our communities functioning. I want to make special note of one particular essential health care worker, a woman who is a quarantine manager with the Public Health Agency of Canada. I have personally seen her working tirelessly over the past three months to keep all of us safe. That woman is my wife, Suchita Jain. Suchi, I love you, I am very proud of you and I thank you for all of the sacrifices you are making. I want to highlight another woman from my riding of ParkdaleHigh Park, Rachelle LeBlanc. She is a local designer. When the pandemic broke, she saw the need for protective barriers for small shops in Parkdale, so she set about collecting donations. She then put her design talents to work and started designing free-standing protective shields. Rachelle's team has now delivered 25 free COVID protective shields to small shopkeepers in Parkdale, and the team is on track to building 100 more. It's the compassion of Canadians like Rachelle that gives meaning to the phrase we are all in this together.\nThe Chair: Mr.Godin, you have the floor.\nMr. Jol Godin (PortneufJacques-Cartier, CPC): Mr.Chair, the school year has been shattered and our graduating classes must be proud of what they have achieved amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Young men, young women, be proud of your accomplishments! You can believe in the future. Keep learning. It will give you tools that will serve you all your lives. What you have achieved in this extraordinary year will set you apart from the others. I invite you to be inspired by that and turn it to your advantage. The current government has the obligation to promote the values that will lead you to become involved in your communities. Your willingness to learn or to work makes you into better citizens. Knowledge and experience are irreplaceable and invaluable. I implore this government, which is unaware of the damage it is causing, to immediately announce all the positions that have already been approved under the Canada summer jobs program. Urgent action is needed. Let us have confidence in our organizations, our companies, and let us support our youth, a rich resource that we must equip and motivate. I congratulate all the young graduates in the beautiful constituency of PortneufJacques-Cartier.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Fergus.\nMr. Greg Fergus (HullAylmer, Lib.): Mr.Chair, this pandemic lets us see what Canadians are made of. This coming Saturday, May30, more than 2,000Christians of all denominations are coming together virtually for prayer and for action. When the going gets tough, Canadians get going. This could not be more true than with respect to what will be happening on May 30. This Saturday, in more than 2,000 churches and homes, thousands of faith-filled Canadians are gathering to pray and act on those prayers as part of Stand United Canada. They will gather through television, Facebook Live and Instagram Live. Then they are going to deliver much-needed support to at-risk Canadians who live in disadvantaged areas. This is faith in action. I'm sure I speak for all parliamentarians when I wish success to Stand United Canada. I hope it inspires more Canadians to follow in its footsteps. Thank you, Mr. Chair.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Harder.\nMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): The best way to safeguard the truth is to allow people to speak freely, but from the very beginning of this pandemic, the Liberals have silenced dissent. Sadly, their short-sightedness has been to the detriment of Canadians. Early on, they propagated the notion that human-to-human transmission wasn't possible. They said that closing the borders wasn't necessary. They told us that wearing face masks wouldn't help. It is undeniable that the Liberal government has put Canadians in danger by silencing alternative points of view and has spread misinformation. Ironically, however, they have now gone ahead and crowned themselves the arbiters of truth. They are spending millions of dollars to censor what Canadians can and cannot say. They are determining what is true and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, what is in and what is out. When freedom of speech is repressed, it is safe to say that democracy is under siege. I call upon the government to restore the personal liberties that are granted under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is Canada. We are not an autocracy; we are a democracy.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Nater.\nMr. John Nater (PerthWellington, CPC): Mr. Chair, small businesses have always been the cornerstone of communities across this country. They provide employment and economic stability and are always the first to support community functions and activities, but small businesses have been particularly hard hit due to COVID-19. They have shut their doors temporarily, and now many worry they'll never be able to open their doors again. With the season cancellations at the Stratford Festival, Drayton Entertainment and Stratford Summer Music, businesses in the tourism, hospitality, accommodation and retail sectors in PerthWellington are struggling. Every day, I talk to small business owners who can't access the Canada emergency business account, and others who find the convoluted commercial rent assistance program to be out of reach. The program is needlessly complicated, frustratingly slow and excessively restrictive. Mr. Chair, the government needs to go back, fix these programs and ensure that support goes to the small businesses that need it.\nThe Chair: We will now go to Ms. Collins.\nMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Chair, Canadians have been shaken by this pandemic. It has exposed the gaps in our health care system and our social safety net. It has shown how vulnerable we all are when disaster hits. It has brought us to a crossroads. We can go backwards to so-called business as usual, with horrific conditions in long-term care homes, widespread inequality and no real action on climate change, or we can build for better. In Victoria, people in the community, organizations and municipal leaders have been calling for a new way forward. The City of Victoria has a plan for reinvention, resilience and recovery. Organizations like Greater Victoria Acting Together; Common Vision, Common Action; and Kairos Victoria are exploring ideas for a sustainable and just recovery. We can build for better. We can invest in the infrastructure. We need to fight climate change, homelessness and inequality. We can build a Canada where we take better care of the planet and each other.\nThe Chair: We now move to Ms.DeBellefeuille.\nMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (SalaberrySurot, BQ): Mr.Chair, in this time of pandemic, it is with heartfelt emotion that I want to highlight the excellent work of all the guardian angels at the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest. From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the entire staff, as well as the retirees who have come back to provide their assistance. I admire the managers, at all levels and in all services, working tirelessly so that their teams can answer the call in this difficult situation. My fellow managers and the management teams of the Support Program for the Autonomy of Seniors, both in home support and in residential care, you have my heartfelt congratulations for the herculean work you have done. My thoughts go particularly to Lyne Ricard and Vronique Proulx, managers working diligently with their teams of professionals to support the seniors living in intermediate resources, as we call them. I also warmly recognize the director of nursing services, Chantal Careau, who is facing the current challenge with passion and humanity. Once again, my congratulations go to the entire organization of the CISSS de la Montrgie-Ouest for their remarkable work in this difficult and very demanding time.\nThe Chair: We will go to Mr. Barlow.\nMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): During the worst of times, we see the best in people. Heroes are born, characters revealed, resiliency is sowed. I cannot say enough about my constituents in Foothillsfront-line health care workers, grocery store clerks, restaurateurs, farmersfor all they are doing to keep our community safe and healthy. I want to shine a light on some of our hidden heroes, such as Owen Plumb, a grade 9 student in Okotoks who is using his 3D printer to build PPE for front-line health care workers. He partnered with the Rotary Club and Evergreen Solutions in Okotoks to help with the manufacturing and assembly. There is also Sam Schofield, the volunteer president of the Pincher Creek Chamber of Commerce, overnight built a resiliency website for COVID-19 by building training tools for businesses throughout his area. He also helped develop the Foothills Business Recovery Taskforce, which is a resource for businesses throughout southern Alberta in my riding. Finally, to the employees of Cargill Foods in High River, I know this has been a very difficult time and that many of you have lost loved ones. I want to say thank you for tirelessly doing all you can to protect our food supply and keep food on our table. Each and every one of you is a hero. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: We will now go to Mr. Simms.\nMr. Scott Simms (Coast of BaysCentralNotre Dame, Lib.): Thank you, Chair. I would like to take this time to salute those who go above and beyond the call of duty to provide care and comfort to others. In my 16 years in the House of Commons I have never experienced anything like this, when we find our lives are at a standstill and there is so much sorrow felt by families who suffer from the effects of COVID-19. However, here are two examples of kindness right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Shanna and Fred Patey of Bishop's Falls, along with a few of their friends, spend hours next to the Trans-Canada Highway with just a barbeque and a cooler. They serve free meals for truckers crossing our province each and every day. So far they have provided over 1,500 meals. There is also Mitch Strickland of Grand Falls-Windsor, who owns Appy's Diner. He has continually provided food for the local hospital and other front-line workers through his donations. To all our front-line workers in grocery stores and delivery trucks, and to doctors, nurses, LPNs, paramedics, first responders and, of course, our brave women and men in the military, we will be forever grateful and blessed because of you. Thank you.  Some hon. members: Hear, hear!\nThe Chair: That's all the time we have today for Statements by Members. Before going on, I just want to remind all the members that it is a one-minute statement, so if you don't mind, please time it before coming in because we do have limited time. The other thing that has come up is that some of you just naturally speak very quickly. I'm not here to judge anybody's way of speaking, but try to consider the translators and interpreters to make sure that everyone understands what is said, because they are working diligently to try to get both languages out. In sum, there are two things: please slow down and please make sure the statement is confined to one minute. We now move to Questions to Ministers. Please note that we will suspend the proceedings every 45minutes in order to allow the employees who are providing support for the sitting to substitute for each other safely.  Our first question goes to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Scheer.\nHon. Andrew Scheer (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In the early days of the pandemic and the lockdown that followed, Canadians were told by this government that programs would be rolled out very quickly and that gaps and shortcomings would be changed as time went on. While many Canadians are being let down by this government's response and its unnecessarily rigid programs, Conservatives identified solutions weeks ago, yet here we are, two and a half months later, and many of these programs still have not been improved. I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. On April 26 the Conservatives asked the Prime Minister to change the criteria for the Canada emergency business account so that small businesses that don't happen to have a business bank account could qualify for those types of programs. It's now May 27. Is the Prime Minister going to make that change?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Chair, we knew from the beginning of this pandemic that we did need to move extremely quickly, and that's what we did. We rolled out the Canada emergency response benefit extremely quickly. Eight million Canadians have had that as a replacement for paycheques lost because of COVID-19. We also moved forward on the wage subsidy and a range of other programs to support workers and small businesses. What we've done in terms of helping small businesses with the Canada emergency business account has had a massive impact on small businesses across the country, but we understand that certain companies and businesses have particularities that mean it's a little more difficult for them to qualify. We are working with them through their regional development agencies, and we encourage them to approach their local RDAs, which will be able to help them get the money they deserve.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, these are very simple technical fixes that can be made by this government. There's no excuse for the delay. It's May 27. They've known about these problems for weeks. They're trying to get patted on the back for actions they took back in March, and yet they are letting so many Canadians down by not making these very simple changes. For example, companies that have acquired another company in the last year have employees whose jobs are threatened. The businesses are not allowed to qualify for the wage subsidy because their revenue is now counted together. We have identified this gap. Again, it's a simple question. Will companies that have acquired another company still be allowed to use the wage subsidy to keep workers on the job, yes or no?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I know that there are many different types of businesses across this country that need support. We have moved forward on supporting as many of them as we possibly can, and we continue to work on filling gaps. I know the member opposite has talked to me a number of times about a tractor company in his riding. I can assure you that finance officials are engaged with that company to see if there's a way to make sure we're getting them the support they need.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: It's actually a very simple fix. I can save him and his officials a lot of time. The government used the word amalgamation when it announced the changes to that program. He can make this very clear, and save a lot of work, just by including the word acquisition. Will he do that?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, I can assure you that finance officials are working closely with Brandt Tractor. They're continuing to work with a range of businesses across the country that, for various reasons, are not able to apply for the help we have now. We will continue to work to make sure people who need the help get it.\nHon. Andrew Scheer: Mr. Chair, it's literally one word. We can email him the text. We can send him the page in the dictionary where that word is defined, if that would help. Another gap that is letting people down is in the rent relief program. The government has set the parameters to qualify for the rent relief program for companies that have experienced a 70% revenue loss. There are untold thousands of businesses that have experienced a 50%, 55%, 60% or 65% loss that are ineligible but have no capacity to pay the rent. We called on the government weeks ago to have a more flexible sliding scale to allow more companies to access this program to keep more people on the job and more businesses open. Will the government introduce some flexibility to this program to help more businesses survive?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this pandemic, our public servants and policy-makers have been moving creatively and quickly to try to get help to as many people as we possibly can, with our focus being on the people who need it the most. Obviously, this pandemic is affecting everyone and every business across the country in different ways, but our focus has been on ensuring that those who most need it are getting the help they can. We will, of course, continue to work with the parties opposite and all Canadians to ensure that we're getting help to everyone who needs it, but our focus has always been on the most vulnerable, first and foremost.\nThe Chair: The floor now goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet (BeloeilChambly, BQ): Thank you, Mr.Chair. My question is for the Prime Minister. If the Liberal Party of Canada had not taken advantage of the emergency programs, would it have laid off all its staff?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we recognized that a number of organizations and companies were facing difficulties because of COVID-19. People work for those organizations, as accountants, receptionists, assistants or labourers, and those people need to be supported. We are supporting people all over the country through that program.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party one of those organizations in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Any company or organization that can demonstrate a significant drop in its income, whether that be in donations, receipts, profits\nThe Chair: The floor goes to Mr.Blanchet.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we created specific criteria to help organizations in difficulty. Any organization experiencing those difficulties can apply.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: In the Magdalen Islands, fishing companies in difficulty and in need of assistance will not have the money that the Liberals are going to take. Is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we have invested in assistance for fishers all across the country. We recognize that it is a difficult situation because of COVID-19. We will be here for our fishers and for industries in difficulty.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: I am not catching many answers, it seems to me. A company in Drummondville that manufactures isolation membranes is in difficulty because a federal program is inadequate. Compared to that company, is the Liberal Party of Canada in difficulty, as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, there are clear criteria for submitting applications under these programs. Companies and organizations that receive money qualify for those programs.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the program criteria establish that the Liberal Party is an organization in difficulty, does that mean that the criteria to determine whether an organization is in difficulty are poorly designed?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, all through this pandemic, our priority has been to be here for workers in difficulty so that they do not lose their jobs. This applies to all organizations and companies in the country to the extent possible. That is what we are in the process of doing.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Given the answers from the Prime Minister, let me ask this question: is the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: No, Mr.Chair. We are doing important work for all Canadians, every day.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Restaurant owners on rue Ontario in Montreal feel that they will not make it through the crisis and that they will never open their doors again. They are in difficulty. By comparison, is the Liberal Party of Canada an organization in difficulty that will not open its doors again after the crisis? We can but hope.\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established criteria for that program in order to help those working for various organizations. Any organization that receives the subsidy has qualified for it.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Is there a consensus in the Liberal Party caucus that the Liberal Party is in difficulty as an organization?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we are working every day to help Canadians and workers in difficulty. We are going to continue to do that work.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: Does answering a question put the Prime Minister in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, it is a pleasure to be here in the House and to answer questions from Canadians and from members of the opposition.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: You are going to answer a question from a Quebecker, I hope. Companies are struggling in Saguenay, in the Gasp, in Beloeil. Would those companies not deserve to be saved by the money that the supposedly struggling Liberal Party has taken?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: I am always very happy to answer questions from all Canadians currently sitting in the House. We will be here to help workers in difficulty all across the country, including in Quebec.\nMr. Yves-Franois Blanchet: If the Prime Minister is so happy to answer questions, I hope he will be delirious with joy to answer this one. Is the Liberal Party in difficulty?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, we established a program to help those working in organizations and who could lose their jobs because of COVID-19. We are here to help workers in organizations and companies all over the country.\nThe Chair: We'll now go on to Mr. Singh.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The conditions of seniors as outlined by the military were appalling, but seniors need more than just compassionate words. They need action. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind excuses and actually show leadership to fix long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the Constitution of Canada is not an excuse. It lays out the divisions of powers and responsibilities, and we respect the provinces' jurisdiction over long-term care facilities. However, from the very beginning, we have indicated our willingness to support the provinces on this very important issue. We need to make sure our seniors right across the country are properly cared for, which is why we sent in the military and why we are there to help the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The former federal health minister, Dr. Philpott, said, We need to stop using jurisdiction as an excuse to not have federal leadership. That is a former federal health minister. Now, we know from the military report that staff were afraid to use vital equipment because of the cost. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in long-term care?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, over the past couple of days I've had very good conversations with the premiers of both Quebec and Ontario on this important issue. I look forward to discussing issues around long-term care with all the premiers of the provinces and territories tomorrow evening as well. This is something that Canadians have seen needs concerted action. We will be there to support the provinces.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Needles were reused and expired medication was used, according to military reports. Will the Prime Minister call for an end to profit in the care of our seniors?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, the contents of that report were deeply disturbing and troubling for all Canadians. That is why we are committed to working with the provinces to fix this situation. Ontarians and indeed people right across the country are deeply preoccupied by what they've seen going on. We need to fix this, and we will do that together.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that cockroaches and flies were present and that food was rotten. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards so that long-term care is governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, our priority right now is ensuring that we are supporting the provinces in their need to make sure that all seniors are protected right across the country in all those institutions. Going forward, we absolutely will need to have more conversations about how we can ensure that every senior across the country is properly supported.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: The military report found that respecting the dignity of patients was not a priority. Will the Prime Minister call for national standards and for long-term care to be governed by the same principles as the Canada Health Act?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, all Canadians know we need to do better by our seniors. This is something we all take very seriously, and all orders of government will work together to make sure that right now, and going forward, we improve our systems. The federal government will be there to work with the provinces on making that happen.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister has said that he's willing to work with the provinces. I'm saying that we need to see federal leadership. We need a commitment at the federal level that the Prime Minister will push for things that people need, which is to remove profit from long-term care and to establish national standards. Will the Prime Minister go beyond working with provinces and show some leadership?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr.Chair, I will always be here to stand up for Canadians in all different situations. We are going to work with the provinces, fully respecting jurisdictions, to make sure that, all across the country, Canadians in long-term care are supported as required and receive the services and the care they deserve.\nThe Chair: Mr. Singh, we have 30 seconds. Ask a brief question, please.\nMr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you very much. The COVID-19 crisis should not be used as an excuse to avoid presenting solutions to the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls committee, in particular by delaying action on the calls for justice. This is the same government that would not recognize it as a genocide, the same government that delayed the United Nations declaration legislation and the same government that is still taking indigenous kids to court. Will this government commit to core funding for indigenous services to help women and girls and ensure that the calls for justice are implemented without delay?\nRight Hon. Justin Trudeau: Mr. Chair, we continue to work very closely with partners on the calls for justice even as we act in many areas, including better funding for shelters and for victims of domestic violence. We will continue to work with those partners, but people will understand that many of those partners are very focused right now on helping front-line workers, not on establishing the report. We will continue to work with them on the report, but the COVID-19 situation has made that more difficult.\nThe Chair: I want to thank the honourable members who are shouting time, but I do have a timer here, and I am taking care of it. I appreciate the help, but I do want to remind them that I have the proper machinery here. We will now go to Mr. Bezan.\nMr. James Bezan: Thank you, Chair. My question is to the Prime Minister. He was just talking about the tragic conditions in long-term care facilities in Ontario, and there was a report out from Quebec today. I want to commend the Canadian Armed Forces for witnessing these appalling conditions, putting it in the context of a report, and providing care to our loved ones in these long-term care facilities. The government is saying they didn't receive the report from the department until May 22, but this report came out on May 14. What happened to that report for eight days?\nThe Chair: We will go to the honourable minister. We seem to have a technical issue, Mr. Sajjan. We can't hear you. You might want to put down your bar and keep it down while you're speaking.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Chair, I want to thank our Canadian Armed Forces members for the tremendous work they are doing. They did their duty, noted down their observations and reported them. While those observations were being reported directly to the managers, a report was being compiled. This report was given to me on the 21st. I then forwarded it to the Minister of Public Safety on the 22nd, and that report was then given to the provincial authorities very quickly afterwards.\nMr. James Bezan: I trust that you got the report on the 21st, but the report was written on the 14th, so what happened with that report for seven days? Why wasn't it acted upon? Could you just explain that? Our loved ones were at risk during that entire time.\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as we stated, this report was done and given up through the chain of command, and the appropriate leadership did their due diligence. Once we received this report, it was forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Again, I want to commend our Canadian Armed Forces members for not only the tremendous work they are doing but also for doing their duty.\nMr. James Bezan: That report from Ontario documented appalling conditions, horrific care that was being given to the clients, and also the way that the staff conducted themselves. We know that there are 39 members of the Canadian Armed Forces currently infected with COVID-19. Minister, do you believe that the infection could have been transmitted from staff to our soldiers serving in long-term care facilities because proper protocols were not being followed?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to any type of activities that we send our Canadian Armed Forces on, we do our due diligence to make sure that we have the right protocols in place and the appropriate training. This is why we have taken the time to make sure our folks not only did the appropriate training but had the appropriate equipment. We have the right protocols in place, and we will make sure that our members who are infected by COVID will get the appropriate treatment as well.\nMr. James Bezan: Does the Minister of National Defence believe that our soldiers serving in Operation Laser, who have put themselves in harm's way in battling the COVID virus as a war, deserve to have hazard pay benefits?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, when it comes to looking after Canadian Armed Forces personnel, yes, we are actually in the process as we speak of making sure that our members have the appropriate hazard pay. This is currently being drafted, and we will have more to say on this shortly.\nMr. James Bezan: I hope that means it's a yes. I do encourage the government to provide that compensation to our soldiers and troops serving in Operation Laser. I would finally like to come back to the issue of the timeline from May 14 to May 21, when that report was in the department for one week. Under our parliamentary system, ministers are accountable for the conduct of their departments. Will the minister take responsibility for that report sitting on someone's desk for seven days and not being turned over to the proper authorities?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear: When it comes to the observations that were made, those were immediately reported to the appropriate management of the care facilities and to the appropriate links within the province. At the same time, this report was being compiled and pushed up to the chain of command, and they did their due diligence. As I stated, it was given to us, and on the same day it was forwarded to the Minister of Public Safety, who immediately then sent it to the provincial authorities.\nMr. James Bezan: Was one of those authorities that this was sent to the RCMP?\nHon. Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Chair, as stated, this will not only be given to the proper authorities but the appropriate steps will be taken now.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk (BattlefordsLloydminster, CPC): Thank you, Chair. Yesterday it was revealed that the Minister of Digital Government has been promoting a fundraising campaign to sue Global News for their story criticizing the Chinese Communist Party. Why is the minister using her authority to support the Communist Party of China and threatening our media and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray (Minister of Digital Government): Mr. Chair, we value the important work of media right across the country. Attacking the integrity of hard-working journalists is simply not acceptable. Like many members on all sides of the House.... WeChat is a social media platform used to engage and share information with\nThe Chair: Now we'll go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister aware of the efforts that the United Front carries out on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party to influence how Canadians view the People's Republic of China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Thank you for that question. Mr. Chair, I want to just be clear. The participation in the WeChat group, much like Facebook, is guided by posted\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is the minister an active participant in the efforts by the Communists to muzzle a Canadian journalist and deprive Canadians of the facts about China?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Muzzling journalists is never acceptable, and our government is very clear on that. I will say that the individual in question posted something outside of the guidelines of my WeChat group and is no longer\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk. Ms. Falk, I just want to point out that we do have interpreters listening and trying to interpret. They'd appreciate it....\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: My questions are short. That's probably what it is.\nThe Chair: Take a deep breath.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, the Liberals can't shrug this off. The minister admitted to theBreaker that her own political staff manages this WeChat. This is someone who is paid by Canadian taxpayers. Why is the minister using tax dollars to help China attack Global News and freedom of expression?\nHon. Joyce Murray: I think the member knows very well that the people who post on WeChat are free to post what they choose within certain guidelines. Those guidelines were ignored. That person is no longer part of my WeChat group. The post was completely unacceptable, and I do not share the views of the individual.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, Sam Cooper is an investigative Canadian journalist who has uncovered many different criminal rackets that can be linked back to Beijing. Has the minister apologized to Sam Cooper for attempting to shut down his work?\nHon. Joyce Murray: As we all know, community outreach is a very important part of the work of a member of Parliament. WeChat is one of many social media sites regularly used by members\nThe Chair: We go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, when will the minister apologize to Sam Cooper and Global News?\nHon. Joyce Murray: Mr. Chair, I have been very clear that I do not share the views of the person who posted on my WeChat site, who operated outside of my\nThe Chair: We'll now go back to Ms. Falk.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in December 2018 the Liberals passed Bill C-76. This included provisions to prevent foreign interference in Canadian society. Does the government believe that Joyce Murray's actions have violated this portion of the act?\nHon. Bill Blair (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that we are always vigilant in any foreign interference in our national security or issues of political interference in our society. It's monitored carefully by the national security establishment, according to the law as it exists in this country, and we will remain vigilant.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, in May 2019, the Liberals launched their digital charter. One of the principles was strong democracy, a commitment to defend freedom of expression. Will the Liberals hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated this part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, we are absolutely committed to the rule of law and will always uphold it. I think, as the minister has made very clear, she was not involved in this process and has no control over the individual who posted that matter.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Chair, unfortunately I don't believe that was a sufficient answer. This is really a yes or no. Will the government hold Joyce Murray's WeChat accountable if it has violated their part of the charter?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, Mr. Chair, I want to assure the member that our government remains committed to the rule of law and we will always work tirelessly to uphold the laws of this country.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Is that a yes or a no?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I think it was very clear. We will always uphold the laws of Canada.\nMrs. Rosemarie Falk: Still, was that a yes or a no? I'm not hearing a yes or a no.\nHon. Bill Blair: I am doing my very best, Mr. Chair, to answer the question for the House and to assure the member opposite that our government will always remain committed to the rule of law. That is unequivocal.\nThe Chair: We will now move on to the honourable member. The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. I am very happy and proud to be participating in this discussion in the House of Commons today. My question is very simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance): Mr.Chair, we continue to be transparent with our measures. Of course, we want to make sure that our investments, our economy\nThe Chair: The floor is yours, Mr.Deltell.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Let me ask my question to the honourable Minister of Finance once more, since he is talking about transparency. My question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, our economic situation is very fluid. We have made major investments and we are making sure that our economy is working.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the minister's answer is not fluid at all. But the question is really simple: how much is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, it is important to be transparent with our investments. We look at the investments and the figures every day.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, the Minister of Finance may not know what the deficit is, but one great Canadian does know. And he knows that he knows. Could the Minister of Finance be very clear, very fluid and, above all, very transparent with Canadians? What is Canada's deficit?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I want to be very clear with Canadians: our economic situation is very difficult. The situation is fluid. We are making investments to ensure that our economy will be strong in the future.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, with all due respect to the Minister of Finance, let me point out that, though he is not very clear, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear yesterday. The deficit is $260billion. That is the real number. Why does the government not have the courage to state it clearly, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer did yesterday?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we always want to be clear and transparent. It is very important for the situation to be stable in order to ensure our future. That is our economic approach. We are making investments now so that the situation becomes more stable.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, I know that the Minister of Finance is very good with figures. But he is not able to give us one. Perhaps he could comment on the statement that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made yesterday, that the emergency assistance must have an end date, and if it does not, we are heading to levels of taxation that have not been seen in this country for generations. What is the government going to do to make sure that Canadians will not be overtaxed after this crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to make investments. That way, we will have a resilient economy in the future. That's very important. That way, we know that we'll have a good economy in the future. When we have more information, we will\nThe Chair: Mr.Deltell, you have the floor.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, will the minister commit not to raise taxes after the crisis?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I have said several times that we do not have a plan to raise taxes. That's very important.\nMr. Grard Deltell: Finally a clear answer! However, I'm not convinced that he will apply it. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself has said that there isn't much ammunition left without shifting into a large structural deficit, which can lead directly to tax increases. If the Minister of Finance can't even say today what the deficit is today, how can he be credible when he says that he won't raise taxes?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I think what's most important is that during this pandemic, Canadians and companies across the country need the Government of Canada's help. That is our approach. That way, we will have an economy that will function in the future. Of course, this is important for future generations.\nMr. Grard Deltell: When will there be an economic update?\nHon. Bill Morneau: \nMr. Grard Deltell: Mr.Chair, all observers are expecting an economic update to know where we're going. When will that happen?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we want our economic update to be accurate. That's why we are looking at information that allow us to make good forecasts.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Chair, the United States, Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam have created an economic prosperity group to diversify some of their key supply chains away from China. Canada has a free trade agreement with six of these seven countries. Why are we not part of this group?\nHon. Mary Ng (Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade): Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for that question. Indeed, we have been working diligently with all of these countries to make sure that we are keeping global supply chains open during this critical time. I think everyone agrees that keeping supply chains open for medical goods, critical agriculture and essential goods is absolutely essential and\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, this government is refusing to come to terms with what COVID-19 will mean for the future of international trade. Why is Canada not at the table with our largest trading partner protecting the viability of our international supply chains and capitalizing on the opportunities of others doing the same?\nThe Chair: Before we go to the minister, one of the members has his mike still on, and I would ask that he turn it off. I am hearing background noise. The hon. minister.\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, Canada has unprecedented access to a number of markets around the world because of the extraordinary agreements that we have made to provide access to customers in those international markets. During COVID-19, we have been working with our G20 partners. I have had two meetings with G20 trade ministers on the importance of keeping supply chains\nThe Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, is this payback for the Prime Minister snubbing these countries at the original TPP signing?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we have a CPTPP arrangement with these countries, and we are looking forward to making sure that we get Canadian businesses growing into those markets.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the U.K. will begin applying tariffs at the beginning of next year on Canadian exports such as seafood, beef and cars. These are the items that have had tariffs removed under CETA. Will the government commit to having a new trade agreement with the U.K. in place by January 1?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we are monitoring the situation very carefully. The U.K., of course, is a very important trading partner for Canada. They are in discussions right now. I want to assure Canadian businesses that CETA continues to apply to our trade with the U.K. during this period while they go through Brexit.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, after CUSMA, this government guaranteed to the trade committee that they would publish the objectives of any new trade agreement. When will we see these objectives published and actually have a chance to view them?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we look forward to working to ensure that those objectives are published as we get into future trade discussions.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, the resignation of the WTO director-general at this unprecedented time is concerning for the international trade community. Is the government committed to supporting a DG candidate who is dedicated to the massive reforms needed to get the WTO functioning again?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for that good question. The Ottawa group, led by Canada, is working with like-minded countries on the reform of the WTO. We've been doing this work and we continue to do this work. I look forward to making sure that we are leading the way on those discussions with like-minded\nThe Chair: Mr. Hoback.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, last week the President of the United States considered blocking cattle imports. Our beef producers don't need this. They need stability. Three-quarters of Canada's beef cattle exports go to the U.S. Has the government sought out and received assurances from the United States that no such action will apply to Canadian cattle?\nHon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chair, we have an excellent assurance of our trade with the United States, which is our new NAFTA trade agreement that we have negotiated, thanks to the unprecedented co-operation across this country. It is very important to the Canadian economy and Canadian producers.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, going forward post-COVID, there are a lot things that will be changing in supply chains. What is this government doing proactively to look at opportunities in these supply chains that Canadian businesses can take advantage of?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, we continue to work with countries around the globe to ensure that Canada's supply chains and those global supply chains, particularly for essential goods, for agricultural products, for medical supplies, continue to remain open. We will keep doing this work.\nMr. Randy Hoback: Mr. Chair, on the agriculture side, canola farmers would like to know the status of canola going into China. Can she update the House on that status?\nHon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food): Mr.Chair, I want to assure my colleague that we are continuing to work with our industry representatives, our allies and our trading partners in China.\nThe Chair: We'll now go to Ms. McLeod.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod (KamloopsThompsonCariboo, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senior Canadian bureaucrats received very credible reports in early January that China was procuring and hoarding PPE. As a member of cabinet, was the health minister aware?\nHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Health): Mr. Chair, from the very beginning of the outbreak in early January we were aware of the challenges our health sector would face, and we immediately began to work with the provinces and territories to understand what the need would be and how we could best prepare.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: In April, the minister stated there were not enough supplies in the national emergency stockpile. Can she explain why she approved a donation of 16 tonnes of PPE for China on January 31, claiming it would not compromise our supply? She can't have it both ways. We don't have enough; we have enough and it won't compromise it.\nHon. Anita Anand (Minister of Public Services and Procurement): Mr. Chair, we are operating in a highly competitive global environment, and the reality is that we need to make sure we have multiple complementary supply chains operating at the same time, which we have been doing in the past weeks and months, to ensure our front-line health care workers have the supplies they need to keep Canadians safe. That's our priority. That's what we're working on.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Unfortunately, this question was directed to the health minister, referencing things she actually stated in terms of the availability of our supplies. Before the she signed off on the donationand it was the health minister who signed off on the donationdid she consult with the health ministers in the provinces and territories?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, provinces and territories have their own stockpiles, which of course they use to prepare for incidences of outbreak and other illnesses across their jurisdictions. We've worked very closely with the provinces and territories since the beginning of the outbreak to make sure we can provide any particular additional support. In fact, of all the requests made so far, we have been able to complete them.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Health care workers are now having to look at modified full-face snorkels as an alternative to N95 masks. Did it not occur to the minister that our hospitals and care homes could have used that PPE she shipped out, providing a longer opportunity for them to also get procurement done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as the member opposite knows, the equipment that was donated when China was in its outbreak was an important donation of nearly expired or expired goods that it was in desperate need of in its effort to try to contain the virus. As the member opposite knows, we've been able to work successfully with provinces and territories to ensure they have what they need.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Mr. Chair, I would suggest that during February and March our hospitals would have consumed that almost-expired product very efficiently, but I want to move on to another topic. When defending the sale of 22 seniors' homes to the Chinese government, the Prime Minister stated that we have a strong regulatory regime that imposes rigorous standards. He said that this regime ensures the care our seniors get is top quality. That was in 2017. Now he states he is saddened, shocked, disappointed and angered. Was the Prime Minister completely oblivious to the risks, or was he just too anxious to please the Chinese government when he sold those 22 homes?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the homes the member opposite is referring to are in the province of B.C., and I have to commend the province for the early work it did to protect seniors in those long-term care homes. The member opposite is trying to confuse the issue. As she knows, the review we did was entirely separate from the standards to which the province holds the care homes.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: The Prime Minister does not have authority over seniors' homes, which he has clearly stated, but he does have authority over the act in which he approved the sale. At 18 months, government had an obligation to make sure there was compliance. Was that done?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the long-term care homes in each province fall within the jurisdiction of their own particular act, and those provinces and territories are responsible for fulfilling the inspections required under that act.\nMrs. Cathy McLeod: Under the Investment Canada Act, the government is obligated to review the sale for compliance. Four homes had to close. Since the government approved the sale, it is complicit in the care of our seniors in this country\nHon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry): Mr. Chair, I want to make it very clear that we understand how difficult this is for seniors. That is why we follow the appropriate steps, outlined under the Investment Canada Act, to make sure that any measures we take keep seniors and their well-being first and foremost.\nThe Chair: Mr.Therrien, you now have the floor.\nMr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ): Mr.Chair, during the pandemic, the government has given money to companies that don't pay a cent in tax because they use tax havens. We told the government that it didn't make sense. The government's response was that it is no big deal. During the pandemic, the government gave money to Air Canada, but Air Canada never reimbursed customers who did not get the services they paid for. We told the government that it did not make sense. The government's response was that it was no big deal. During the pandemic, the Liberal Party used the emergency wage subsidy to fund partisan activities. We told them that it did not make sense. The government responded that it was no big deal. Is the moral of the story that the government thinks that dipping into the pockets of taxpayers to spend money carelessly is no big deal?\nHon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.Chair, the fight against tax evasion is a priority for our government. We will continue to target companies that use tax evasion schemes. Let me be clear: in everything we do, we will target companies and not innocent workers. Employees are employees, no matter who they work for.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, when I see that it's the Minister of National Revenue answering me, I don't feel like buying a lottery ticket. The Liberal Party used two airplanes in its last election campaign, which seems to indicate that it isn't short of money. However, the Liberals used the emergency wage subsidy. Why? Is it because they want taxpayers to fund a third airplane?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we think it's very important to protect employees across the country and in every economic sector that's experiencing a significant drop in income. That's the approach we've taken to protect people and to ensure that there will be jobs in the future. We will continue this approach.\nMr. Alain Therrien: It's especially important to protect the employees who work for the Liberals to ensure their re-election, yet the Liberal Party has raised more than $7million since the last election. Is the party in jeopardy? Can it go bankrupt?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, as I said, our approach is to protect employees. We think that this principle is very important and that this approach must be maintained in order to have a better job market in the future.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, we still don't know exactly how much money the Liberals took from the cookie jar. We think they may have taken as much as $1million. How many SMEs could have been saved with the $1million that the Liberals took out of the jar and took away from SMEs?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we appreciate the question. We are protecting hundreds of thousands of SMEs through the emergency wage subsidy, the Canada emergency response benefit and all our programs. We will continue this approach to help SMEs and their employees.\nMr. Alain Therrien: Mr.Chair, I will propose a choice of answers, or I won't get any. When did the government decide to use the emergency wage subsidy? Now here are three possible answers. The first possible answer is that when the Liberals brought in the emergency wage subsidy, they set parameters allowing them to use it. The second is that when the Liberals saw the Conservative Partywhich is as rich as they are, but also sanctimonious and self-righteoustake advantage of the subsidy, they thought they could do it too. The third possible answer is that the Liberals hadn't planned to use the subsidy, but they pounced on the cookie jar when they saw it, because that's what they do.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we continue to think it is very important to protect employees in every sector of the economy and across Canada. That's our approach, and I believe it's the right one to protect and preserve jobs across the country during a pandemic.\nThe Chair: We are now going to suspend the proceedings for a few seconds to allow the employees who provide support for the meeting to replace each other safely.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC)): We will now resume the discussion.  We'll continue with Ms. Khalid, the honourable member for MississaugaErin Mills.\nMs. Iqra Khalid (MississaugaErin Mills, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with the member for PickeringUxbridge. Mr. Chair, when the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces stepped in to provide support to five long-term care homes in Ontario at the request of the premier, they released a report that outlined their findings in detail. Military members witnessed residents' cries for help going unanswered. They saw force-feeding. They saw bug infestations, a lack of personal protective equipment and neglect. Canadians are shaken. They are appalled by the horrific conditions outlined in the military report. Almost 1,000 seniors so far have lost their lives in long-term care homes in Ontario alone, over 25 of them in my riding of MississaugaErin Mills. These deaths could have been prevented. Can the Minister of Health please update the House on how our federal government is working with the provinces and territories to prevent further tragic occurrences from happening at long-term care homes and to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors are properly looked after and cared for?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, it's such an important question. I believe all Canadians were deeply horrified to read the details from the Canadian Armed Forces on the conditions in long-term care homes in Ontario. What's happening to seniors in Ontario is completely unacceptable. The report is very troubling. Seniors deserve to live with dignity, with respect and with safety. While long-term care is provincially regulated, we know that we need to work together. The Government of Canada stands ready to support provinces and territories as they continue to respond to this crisis. I had a very good conversation with my provincial and territorial counterparts last night about the work we can do at a national level to support their important work. We also know that seniors want to stay at home longer. That's why our historic investment of $6 billion in home care was so important. We'll continue to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that they get the care and dignity they deserve.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Ms. O'Connell.\nMs. Jennifer O'Connell (PickeringUxbridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will sadly report that my community of Pickering has experienced the largest number of deaths at a single COVID-19 outbreak location anywhere in this country. Seventy residents at Orchard Villa long-term care home died during this pandemic. It was a devastating blow to our community. Yesterday, we received the horrific report from the Canadian Armed Forces detailing what they witnessed at Orchard Villa in Pickering, Altamont Care Community in Scarborough, Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke, Hawthorne Place in North York, and Holland Christian Homes' Grace Manor in Brampton. The loved ones of those who have passed away, as well as the homes' workers, have asked for a full public inquiry from the Ontario government. I know that the responsibility for these facilities falls within provincial jurisdiction, but on behalf of our communities, can the Minister of Health update us on the work she is doing to ensure that the Ontario government takes action immediately and initiates a full, independent, non-partisan public inquiry and reverses its decision to create a government-led commission that won't even start until September?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I would say that all Canadians were shocked and horrified to hear about the conditions that existed in these particular care homes. We're so grateful to the members of the armed forces who not only improved conditions but also reported them quickly and appropriately to ensure amelioration of those conditions for those particular individuals. We also know that there are seniors all across the country who are struggling with care and with the appropriate level of care. We have to do better as a country. These are our loved ones. These are our parents and our grandparents. These are the people in our lives who have given so much to us. I stand committed to working with my provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that we do better as a society. We know that there's a role we can play at the federal level with advice, with guidance, with support and, yes, with investments. We look forward to having those conversations about how best we can improve the care for all seniors amongst us.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go now to Mr. Davies from Vancouver Kingsway.\nMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canadians were horrified to hear the report yesterday from our armed forces about the appalling conditions experienced by seniors in our long-term care homes. Page after page detailed the filth, neglect, abuse and danger our seniors in care are exposed to on a daily basis. Shockingly they face injury and death through missed medications, expired medications, unsterile devices and violations of basic contagion rules to stop the spread of COVID-19. Given that evidence of possible criminal conduct was contained in the military's report, will the minister refer this matter to the RCMP for investigation immediately?\nHon. Bill Blair: Mr. Chair, thanks very much to the member for those expressions of concern, which we share. We understand in long-term care facilities both seniors and persons living with a disability face unique challenges, and the findings of this report are in fact deeply concerning and completely unacceptable. Considering the severity of this report, we promptly shared it with the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Ontario has initiated an investigation based on the report's findings. Their investigation includes alerting the province's chief coroner who has the authority to alert the police of jurisdiction. We will continue to work with the province to protect those living in long-term care facilities, and we continue to support them through the deployment of our outstanding Canadian Armed Forces and in our partnership with the Red Cross.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, that's a shocking answer considering there's clear evidence of criminal conduct and negligence in this. That this federal government is not taking immediate steps to refer this to the nation's RCMP is unacceptable. The seniors care crisis is a national problem. COVID-19 has exposed critical vulnerabilities across Canada's entire network of long-term care facilities. Not a single province or territory currently meets the benchmark of 4.1 hours of hands-on care per day. As a result Canada has the worst record of COVID-19 deaths in long-term care among 14 comparable countries, with over 80% of Canadian fatalities occurring in these facilities. Will this government move swiftly to establish binding national standards for long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member opposite is exactly correct when he says that those who are hardest hit in terms of losing their lives and the negative effects of COVID are those who are living in long-term care homes. He's also correct when he indicates that COVID-19 has shown us what many of us have known for a long time, that we need to do better in long-term care and supports for seniors. As the member knows, we started those steps some four years ago or so when we began to make incredible investments in aging at home. We know that is one part of the solution, but we have to do better for those seniors who need a higher level of care. That's the work I'm doing now. I'm working with my colleagues at the provinces and territories to make sure that we come up with a solution that will truly result in better standards for all.\nMr. Don Davies: Mr. Chair, what we need is binding national standards, just like we set through the Canada Health Act in the health care sector generally. Gross fecal contamination, filthy medical equipment, insect infestations, ignoring patient cries for hourswe would never tolerate these conditions in Canada's hospitals. There's no reason to accept them in Canada's long-term care facilities. Will the minister move to bring long-term care facilities under the Canada Health Act, or similar legislation, with formal funds tied to acceptable standards of care for our seniors, just like we do for hospitals?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, the member shares the disgust and concern of so many Canadians across the country, not only those who have read the report but many of those who have struggled to provide care to elders in those long-term care homes, regardless of the province in which they live. We know we need to do better. We know that collectively, at all levels of government, we must do better for those people who cared for us and nurtured us all of those years. The member has my commitment that I will work with provinces and territories to find a solution forward to ensure that every person has the right to age with dignity and safety.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. Davies, you have 15 seconds for another question, a short one, and leave time for a response.\nMr. Don Davies: Thank you, Mr. Chair. These failures are the product of systemic neglect often motivated by prioritizing profit over the provision of adequate care. Does the minister agree that we should not be putting profits above the health care needs of Canada's seniors?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I believe that, when we commit to taking care of people, we must do so with the utmost care that is required. I know that provinces and territories have a lot of work to do. So do we, at the federal level, and obviously at the local level. We must all work together to protect those people in our lives who are most vulnerable, whether they be seniors, children or others.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now move on to Mr. Schmale, HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock. Mr. Schmale, go ahead.\nMr. Jamie Schmale (HaliburtonKawartha LakesBrock, CPC): Thank you, Chair. According to Vaughn Palmer in an editorial in the Vancouver Sun regarding the secret Wet'suwet'en deal, Palmer writes:     The hereditary chiefs calculated the two governments would sign despite the objections from the elected chiefs. They likewise got the terms they wanted in the MOU while giving up absolutely nothing. Just as they figured governments would keep the contents secret from the public.   Can the minister describe another situation in which the federal government negotiated a secret deal of this magnitude with unelected people?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations): I thank the member for his ongoing concern and I want to remind him that actually it is in keeping with the Supreme Court decision of 1997 that we were to now begin those conversations with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who took the case to the Supreme Court. As we've said many times, this is not an agreement; this is an MOU that establishes the path forward for the substantive discussions towards a final agreement, which would describe the future governance and the implementation of Wet'suwet'en rights and title. It is about a shared commitment.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, if it is a shared commitment, why on the eve of the signing ceremony did the four elected chiefs denounce the hereditary chiefs for keeping them in the dark?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it's really important that the member understand that there was a process for the hereditary chiefs to go back to their communities and discuss with them. Any agreement after the good work that will happen now would have to go back and seek the approval of all of the communities.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Mr. Chair, the Burns Lake Band members are openly wondering if they're still a band or if the few unelected hereditary chiefs will control everything now. Minister, can you assure them that going forward you will honour their concerns and take the time to listen?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I ask honourable members to still direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Actually, the honourable member knows that the next steps include the further and ongoing engagement by the Wet'suwet'en in their house groups and that will include the six elected chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en nation, their community members and many others. This is about going forward and making sure that any\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Cynthia Joseph, a chief councillor with the Hagwilget First Nation says the MOU between Ottawa, the province and the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs was only shared with her community members on May 9, two days after it was published in the media. Is this part of the open and transparent government all Canadians can expect of the Prime Minister?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Walking the path of reconciliation means that we work with our partners and there is a way that they do the work within their communities. It is going to be an agreement to begin the work, but any final agreement is going to have to be approved by all members of the nation in terms of developing a consensus for the agreement\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. Does the minister have any concerns regarding claims by several former female hereditary chiefs that they were stripped of their hereditary status because they didn't agree with the men?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: Again, it is going to be really important that the work take place within the Wet'suwet'en nation to determine their future governance, to determine their way of working with Canada and to make sure\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Schmale.\nMr. Jamie Schmale: Thank you, Chair. For some reason it seems to be a problem to stand up for these hereditary female chiefs who had their titles taken away. Does the minister plan on recognizing band council resolutions denying the authority of hereditary chiefs to sign any future agreements without consent of the elected chiefs and the 3,000 members within the Wet'suwet'en they represent?\nHon. Carolyn Bennett: I think the member must understand that, as we begin the work, the nation will do its work and then we will come to the table to determine what the governance would be. Will it be a hybrid model like at Heiltsuk, like Ktunaxa, like some of the communities developing their constitutions, developing their laws and deciding how they will determine their own governance and that partnership with Canada?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (CharlesbourgHaute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Thank you, Mr.Chair. The current restrictions on non-essential travel at the border do not prevent people from claiming refugee protection if they have family in Canada. Why is the minister refusing to allow married people to cross the border?\nHon. Bill Blair: I want to thank the honourable member for a very important question. We have heard from many constituents and members of Parliament from right across the country who are expressing concern about non-status spouses being denied entry into the country because their travel is deemed to be non-essential. I've recently been in touch with all of the provinces and territories because I think it's very important that we have their support for any changes\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: If I understand correctly, Mr.Minister, you are talking to provincial representatives, but a case like that of ChantalTremblay, for instance, is unacceptable. For two months now, she has been trying to bring her spouse to Canada, but it isn't working. Is there a way to issue a directive to border services officers that married spousesit's often marriages with Americanscan cross the border to join their spouses in Canada?\nHon. Bill Blair: Just to be very clearagain, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify thisit is never our intention to separate families, but at the same time, we have imposed appropriate and necessary restrictions on non-essential travel. Our border services officers inquire of everyone coming to that border about the nature of their travel, and for non-citizens who come to that border seeking entry into Canada, if their entry is deemed non-essential, then they exercise their discretion not to allow\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have the floor.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Thank you, Mr.Chair. Information from the Canada Border Services Agency has just come out. Since March21, 425,000people have flown into Canada. Among them were 295,000Canadians, which isn't a problem. However, 100,000foreigners have entered Canada, even though the border is supposedly closed. How does the minister explain the fact that 100,000people arrived in Canada by plane?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify. We have imposed very significant restrictions on non-essential travel, but of course there are circumstances where individuals come to this country and their entry into Canada is deemed essential. For example, someone who is providing medical services and coming into Canada to provide those services would be deemed essential, because there is a great need among Canadians for those services. It's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As you can see by the numbers, we have had a very significant reduction in the travel of all non-Canadians to Canada over the past two months.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: So the minister confirms that the 100,000people who arrived by air were providing a service considered essential to Canada. I'm not talking about the people who crossed the land border, but the people who came to Canada by air.\nHon. Bill Blair: What I can tell you is that at all points of entry, including our air borders, we apply the standard that the travel must be deemed essential, and that determination is utilized to see if a person is eligible to enter into the country.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: We're now learning that the Correctional Service of Canada's investigation into the murder of MarylneLevesque is suspended due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Canadians aren't fooled; they know full well that it is a political decision. All the technological means are available to allow the investigation to continue. I'm proof of that today. Can the minister direct the Correctional Service of Canada to resume the investigation into the death of MarylneLevesque?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, I thank the member for the question, because we know the concern of the people of Quebec, and the family of Ms. Levesque needs answers and deserves answers. That's why we asked the Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada to convene a board of investigation. Clearly, during COVID transmission, the ability to conduct that investigation and to interview all of the witnesses became extremely difficult and has been temporarily suspended, but at the very earliest opportunity we remain resolute to resume that investigation and get to the bottom of it to provide the answers that the family deserves.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr.Paul-Hus, you have only 20seconds remaining.\nMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Mr.Chair, victims of crime are one of the segments of the population most affected by the crisis. As we know, the government refuses to allow victims of crime to participate in parole hearings. For the first time in its history, and to add insult to injury, the government has cancelled all activities related to Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, which was to take place next week. Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on victims?\nHon. Bill Blair: Again, at the earliest days of COVID, until arrangements could be put in place, there were restrictions on victims participating. We have put the systems in place to allow victims to present their evidence virtually, either by video or by phone, to ensure that their voices are heard in these important things. We very much respect and support the role of victims in these determinations, and we're making every effort to ensure that they can participate.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll now to Mr. Cumming, Edmonton Centre.\nMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Mr. Chair, yesterday I asked the Minister of Small Business how many business credit availability guarantees were issued by EDC, and I didn't get a number. Does she have an exact, finite, number of the guarantees today?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, thank you to the honourable member for that question. Our government has taken swift and immediate action to support Canadian businesses through this time. Money from this program is flowing, and businesses across the country are receiving the important support that they need.\nMr. James Cumming: How many BCAP applications have been received so far?\nHon. Mary Ng: Mr. Chair, these are large loans, and they require important due diligence and adjudication by the financial institutions. We will continue to be open and transparent as the accurate information becomes available.\nMr. James Cumming: How long does it take to be approved for a BCAP guarantee?\nHon. Mary Ng: I want to assure the member that we're going to do everything possible to support businesses and workers during this very important time.\nMr. James Cumming: How many businesses have received funding under the BCAP co-lending program since March?\nHon. Mary Ng: The lending programs, particularly the program to help small businesses, have really helped lots of businesses. Over 630,000 loans have been issued, and this is really helping those\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Unfortunately, lots is not an answer for the businesses that I'm trying to talk to. Can you tell me, for the CEBA changes that were recently announced, when will we be able to see people who have income through a dividend able to apply?\nHon. Mary Ng: That's a very important question, Mr. Chair. There's nothing more important to me and to our government than getting these supports out to businesses. Those small businesses that will meet the expanded CEBA criteria are working very diligently with the financial institutions to make sure that they can get access to those loans as quickly as possible.\nMr. James Cumming: Can the minister give me a day when that will happen?\nHon. Mary Ng: The financial institutions are working very hard to make sure that they can make this available to businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: When will a sole proprietor be able to go for those loans?\nHon. Mary Ng: We will work very hard and very diligently to make sure that these businesses and those sole proprietors are supported.\nMr. James Cumming: Could they go on Monday?\nHon. Mary Ng: There is nothing more important than making sure these businesses weather the difficult time of COVID-19, and our measures are\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How about Tuesday?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think we will all agree that getting support to these businesses is absolutely crucial. Our commitment is always going to be to get support to these businesses.\nMr. James Cumming: I can't get a distinct answer on any of those questions. Can you tell me how much headroom is left on the CEBA program?\nHon. Mary Ng: Today, over 630,000 businesses have received the support to do things like pay for salaries, the 25% top-up for the wage subsidy, pay for rent and pay for insurance and utilities. This is what these loans are helping our small\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars are left in the program so businesses can have some certainty that the program will be available for some time?\nHon. Mary Ng: I think you will see that the businesses across the country that I have talked to really appreciate that the government has stepped up to help them during this difficult time. These include women with businesses, indigenous-owned businesses and those small businesses all across our communities, all across the country, that are getting the necessary help. We are going to keep\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: How many dollars? It can't be that complicated. How many dollars?\nHon. Mary Ng: There are 630,000 businesses that are getting help, and thousands more businesses will be getting help with the expanded criteria. We're going to keep doing the work that we need to help our businesses across this country through this difficult time.\nMr. James Cumming: I heard from a constituent in my riding that they waited for over four hours on the portal for CECRA. Is there an issue with the portal, and if so, when will it be fixed?\nHon. Mary Ng: Making sure that businesses get the help for commercial rent support is absolutely crucial right now. We are going to endeavour to make sure that this help gets out to those small businesses. Applications have opened in a staggered way and\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): You have time for one last short question, Mr. Cumming.\nMr. James Cumming: Finally, the Prime Minister yesterday said that a list of all organizations that have been receiving CEWS will be made public. When will that be done?\nHon. Mary Ng: We have committed to making sure that those companies taking the wage subsidy program will be listed publicly. We have committed to doing that and we will do so.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We now go to Mr. d'Entremont from West Nova. Mr. d'Entremont, go ahead.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, but I thought I would say this first. The Canadian Coast Guard is doing a search at this moment following the loss of a vessel off the coast of Newfoundland. From my community, which is a seafaring, fishing community, I just want to put my thoughts out there to the folks of Newfoundland. We are definitely thinking of them during this difficult time. My first question revolves around the lobster fishery. It's been open in Cape Breton since May 15, I believe. The weather has been good. The harvesters have been going at it every day. The price has dropped to $4.25 already. Unstable markets will probably cause it to drop even more. What is the minister doing to make sure the lobster industry survives?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleague for his comments with regard to the tragic accident off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we saw the loss of life in a fishing accident. Of course, as coastal people, we are all in solidarity with the people of Newfoundland right now. We know that the fish and seafood sector has taken extreme hits because of COVID-19. We're working diligently to make sure we support the industry as best we can. We have made available over half a billion dollars to processors and harvesters to make sure they can weather this storm. We have made sure that the harvesters are able to access the harvester benefit as well as the grant, recognizing the unique nature of their business and how they are not able to access some of our other programs. We are continuing to monitor what is happening in the industry. We will continue to make sure we do everything we can to support the fish and seafood sector.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, to continue along this vein for a moment, we are still looking at unstable markets for a longer period of time. At this point, processors are being selective in what they're buying. They're not buying culls and other kinds of lobsters. The plants are filling up, and harvesters are worried that they might stop buying product before the season is complete. What can the fishermen expect, or what kinds of programs can they expect, if the season goes bust?\nHon. Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Chair, we know that this is a very challenging season for our harvesters. We also know that because of the decline in markets, we've had to make accommodations for the processing sector in order to help them be better able to support the harvesters. We have put in $62.5 million, which is allowing the processors to increase capacity in their refrigeration and freezers so that they will continue to be able to purchase product. As I said earlier, we will continue to monitor the situation and make sure we do everything possible to support our harvesters. This is a very difficult\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We'll go back to Mr. d'Entremont.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr. Chair, I don't know whether this next question will go to the Minister of DFO or the Minister of Transport. Oakley Ryerson is a resident of West Nova. He is planning a career on the sea and wants to get his master class four. The problem is that he can't pass the eye exam. He needs full-colour vision. For those who are far-sighted or nearsighted, you just have to put on your glasses to correct it. You can actually fly airplanes. I don't know about space shuttles, but who knows? You can now wear colour-corrected lenses, but Transport Canada still does not recognize these for use. Can the Minister of Transport help Ryerson in attaining his chosen profession?\nHon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport): Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern of my colleague for one of the residents in his riding. I would ask him to write to me and lay out the situation. We have medical standards with respect to a number of different kinds of transportation-related jobs for pilots, mariners and those kinds of occupations, which have to be respected. However, if he sends me the details, I will look into it personally.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Mr. d'Entremont, you have another 20 to 25 seconds left.\nMr. Chris d'Entremont: Mr.Chair, the eligibility criteria for financial support include the need to demonstrate a significant loss of income during the months of March and April, yet several SMEs in the tourism industry can't qualify because their operations start with the tourist season, in late May or early June. What will the government do to help them?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, before accessing the emergency wage subsidy, applicants must meet important criteria. However, as we explained last week, we will be adjusting the wage subsidy until the end of August, and we will be reviewing the criteria.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're going to go to the west coast and the member for SaanichGulf Islands. Ms. May, go ahead.\nMs. Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is with regard to the urgent problem of mental health crises across Canada. My colleague, Jenica Atwin from Fredericton, held a press conference this morning in which she used the term echo pandemic. We will face an echo pandemic. We're already seeing increases in suicides on southern Vancouver Island. My question to the minister is this: Will we see direct funding to community mental health services as urgently requested by the Canadian Mental Health Association?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I read the honourable member's colleague's letter just today, and I want to reassure all members that we have invested in mental health supports for Canadians, obviously before the pandemic hit but certainly since we've been living with the pandemic. I'd like to remind all members to direct their constituents to the wellnesstogether.ca website and portal. There Canadians can find online resources, as well as connections to real and alive counsellors and other professionals who can help them with their various concerns.\nMs. Elizabeth May: This question relates to another current emergency: the climate emergency. This week it was reported that the concentration of greenhouse gases reached 417 parts per million. That's not just unprecedented over thousands of years; that's unprecedented over the last one million years. The temperatures in the Arctic broke 86F, 30C in the Arctic circle. The recognized parties in the House have established standing committees to work, but not the committee on the environment. We've asked for this in negotiations. When will the recognized parties remember the June 2019 emergency resolution that we are in a climate emergency, and start making sure that we hit 2020 commitments under the Paris Agreement to improve our targets?\nHon. Marc Garneau: Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's questions. I will remind her that we have committed to net-zero emissions by 2050. We've also committed to surpassing the targets that we had originally set for 2030. We realize that along with the COVID pandemic, which is the major problem that exists in the world today, there is another problem as well that affects the entire planet, and that is the problem associated with climate change. We remain committed to achieving those targets.\nMs. Elizabeth May: My next question will be for Minister Blair, but as an aside, I will say that last answer completely fails to meet the legal requirements of the Paris Agreement to file a new target this year. To save some time, Minister Blair, let's pretend to go back to the questions from my colleague MP Paul-Hus and to your last answer. This is dealt with on a case-by-case basis by CBSA agents. There are thousands of them. They are exercising personal, subjective judgment. This is not acceptable. I'm begging the minister. Could the minister please put out a directive, advice to every CBSA agent on the ground, that when a non-status entry point sees a non-status direct relativehusband, wife, child of a Canadian citizenthat relative be deemed to be entering Canada for an essential purpose?\nHon. Bill Blair: I'd like to thank the member for bringing this issue forward again. It's an important one. We have been working very hard to ensure that we do everything possible to keep families together. At the same time, we've been working with the provinces and territories, listening to the concerns of Canadians about ensuring that travel across our international border, particularly with the United States, is limited to essential travel. As I've indicated, I've had a number of important conversations and necessary conversations with our provincial and territorial partners. I believe there is a consensus on the right way forward on this, and we're working very diligently to put it in place. I want to assure the member opposite that we have given very clear direction to our CBSA officers. I believe our border services officers have been doing an extraordinary job for us in the exercise of their discretion. At the same time, they have been doing the important work of ensuring the health and safety of Canadians at our border.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We're now going to Ms. Kwan for Vancouver East. Ms. Kwan, go ahead.\nMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Four out of the five homes listed in the armed forces report were for-profit. It is painfully clear that corporate profits are being put ahead of the well-being of seniors. Will the minister admit that the for-profit model is failing our loved ones and commit to getting profits out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member opposite notes, nobody can read that report or hear those stories without feeling absolute horror and disgust and without demanding better for the elders in our lives. As I have mentioned many times in the House, our government remains committed to working with provinces and territories to ensure that every elder person in our community can age with dignity and in safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Minister, if that's the case, I will ask again. Will the minister make sure that the focus of long-term care homes is taking care of seniors and not taking care of owners' bank accounts?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: As the member will obviously know, long-term care remains in the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, and there is legislation that rules them as such. As the member also knows, we have stood by Ontario and all of the other provinces and territories throughout this outbreak. The Prime Minister has been very clear\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: Is the minister refusing to answer the question because she agrees that profit should come before care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: I think it's unfortunate that the member is trying to place words in my mouth. What I do agree with, though, is that long-term care needs to be reformed, and I think all provinces and territories know, and all Canadians know, that we have to do a better job.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: It's simple for the minister. She can just answer the question. Is she willing to defend for-profit care for our seniors? Is she in favour of for-profit private health care too?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: What I am willing to defend is the right for all Canadians to age with safety and dignity.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: To the minister, what is the difference? Why sell out the care of our seniors? Will she commit that she will take profit out of long-term care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, I think the member opposite knows that the only way to actually reform long-term care is to work with provinces and territories, in fact, all levels of government, to ensure that the people who spent their lives caring for and nurturing us can end their lives with caring and nurturing\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I think the minister knows that what we need is national standards for seniors' care. The Revera long-term care homes are owned by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board. Since the government owns these homes, has the military been sent in there to see what's happening to seniors under their care?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, we know that it is important to work with all of the provinces and territories under whose jurisdiction it falls to protect the seniors within those care homes. That's what we've been doing since the beginning of the outbreak of the coronavirus, and that's what we'll continue to do to protect the lives of seniors and strengthen their protection. We will, as I said, Mr. Chair, work with the provinces and territories to have a longer-term plan so that all seniors can age with dignity and safety.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: The government has a clear responsibility here. What is the government doing to ensure the standards of care in these Revera homes that they own?\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Mr. Chair, as I have repeatedly said, the jurisdiction for care of long-term care homes falls within the provincial and territorial realm. However, that being said, Mr. Chair, we have been there for provinces and territories since the outbreak of the coronavirus, and as the member opposite has clearly or likely heard the Prime Minister say, we will stand with provinces and territories as all elders have the right to age with dignity\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Kwan.\nMs. Jenny Kwan: I didn't hear an answer, Mr. Chair, so the answer is nothing, then. Do you think that the families of the seniors in these homes want to hear those excuses about jurisdictional issues? Does the minister not think that the families want to hear that the federal government is doing all it can to care for their parents?\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I would remind the members to direct their questions through the chair. The honourable minister.\nHon. Patty Hajdu: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quite frankly, I don't think that families care which level of government is responsible for caring for their elders. I think what they care about is that their elders are cared for. That's in fact what the Prime Minister believes. That's in fact what our government believes, and that's why we have willingly stepped up to say to provinces and territories that we will be there with you to make sure that all seniors in our lives have the right to age with dignity and care.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We will now give the floor to Mrs.Gill, from the riding of Manicouagan. Go ahead, Mrs.Gill.\nMrs. Marilne Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr.Chair, my question is for the Prime Minister who, earlier, clearly told us that the government's assistance is intended for those who are most in need and most vulnerable. I come from a riding where a lot of people make their living from the tourism industry. I don't know if the PrimeMinister read the newspapers yesterday, but in Quebec, losses to the tune of $4billion are expected until March2021 in the tourism accommodation sector alone. The service sector will lose 93,000jobs. How can I justify to my constituents the fact that a political party, which does not need it, has already seen money from the emergency wage subsidy, when people in my riding don't yet have access to it because of the seasonal nature of their work? These people haven't seen the money that is available through these programs.\nHon. Bill Morneau: We think it is very important to protect the country's employees in all sectors of the economy. Through this approach, there will be more jobs after the pandemic, and the economic situation will be better. We will continue this approach.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, this is the wrong approach. They are saying that they are protecting the jobs of the Liberal Party of Canada, which does not need the money. I'll ask a question similar to the previous one. Fishers in my riding did not qualify for the emergency wage subsidy. Another program was created for them, which isn't quite the same and doesn't really meet their needs. A government whose political wingnot the parliamentary wingdoesn't really need money takes money from the fund, but leaves fishers to make do with less generous programs that don't meet their needs. What do I tell the fishers in my riding?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we know that many sectors of the economy across the country are facing challenges. That's why we have adopted an approach with consistent criteria for all employees in all sectors. We have also introduced specific measures to help certain sectors, such as the fishing industry. We will continue our approach because we believe it's the best way to protect employees and our economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I'm still not satisfied. The government is saying that the best way to proceed is to give money to the political wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, when there are people who are getting nothing. What am I supposed to tell seasonal workers, who have absolutely no assurances for their future? I can't go back to my riding and say I'm proud of the work the government is doing or our efforts in the House. It's true, the House is closed right now. I forgot. I have a very hard time accepting that the government is helping employees of the Liberal Party in preparation for the next election campaign, when communities in my region are dying because their economies revolve around a single industry. I can't tell them I'm not ashamed of what's going on as we speak.\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, we felt it was necessary to put emergency programs in place in response to the crisis during the pandemic. That is our approach. The emergency wage subsidy is a program that is clearly meant to ensure employees are protected and maintain their relationship with their employer. As for the Canada emergency response benefit, it means a lot to people who don't have a job. We are going to stick to our approach, which is to use consistent criteria to help all employees and all Canadians around the country struggling in any sector of the economy.\nMrs. Marilne Gill: Mr.Chair, I think the honourable Minister of Finance lives in an ivory tower. No, he is not protecting all jobs. No, he is not protecting all sectors of the economy. Once again, I will say that a party that doesn't need money has already received subsidies. However, people who need that money, people who are actually losing money or who don't know if they'll even be working this summer are getting zilch. There is absolutely no justifying that. I'd at least like to know whether the government is ashamed of what it's doing. When people have a conscience, eventually, they want to make up for their mistakes. Are the Liberals going to return that money? Is the finance minister going to help all sectors of the economy, including tourism, fisheries and seasonal industries?\nHon. Bill Morneau: Mr.Chair, I'd like to thank the member for her question. Our approach is based on consistent criteria. The emergency wage subsidy is meant for any sector of the economy where revenues have dropped by 30% or more. The measure is hugely important for organizations that are really struggling, because we can protect their workers. We are also providing the Canada emergency response benefit to other employees, meaning, those who have lost their income because of COVID-19. Consequently, we will keep up our approach to ensure we continue to fare as well as possible and the economy works well after the pandemic.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Now we'll go to our last group of interventions, and that will be from Ms. Jansen in CloverdaleLangley City. Ms. Jansen, go ahead.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen (CloverdaleLangley City, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin with a shout-out to the brave waiters and waitresses at our local Earls restaurant and Browns Socialhouse, who have been opened again for on-site dining this week. Here in B.C. we're beginning to find our new normal, and it was great to see how small businesses have so quickly adapted their establishments to keep their workers and patrons safe while allowing people to get back to the business of living. You guys rock. Thanks for taking the lead. Mr. Chair, here in my riding I recently had contact with the mayor of Langley City who was wondering if I had any way of accessing personal protective gear, because our local firefighters were running out of stock. Then again yesterday, I spoke with one of our local homeless shelters that is also looking for PPE. Dr. Tam is telling all Canadians to wear masks in public, but I'm wondering if the Minister of Public Service and Procurement could tell us where exactly we're going to get all those masks with the current shortage.\nHon. Anita Anand: I want to be clear that our priority as a federal government has been to respond to provincial and territorial requests for PPE that goes to front-line health care workers. That is our priority, and we've been procuring goods aggressively in domestic and international markets. We are now actively also exploring ways in which we can assist broader organizations across the country with PPE needs, and that is something that I'll continue to update the House on as we go forward.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: A Globe and Mail article revealed that government orders for N95 masks have steadily been dropping. We've gone from over 200 million ordered to 100 million, according to a federal source. Mr. Chair, the number of N95 masks ordered, as reported on the department's website, does continue to fall. Will the minister tell us why we seem to continue to struggle to supply PPE to Canadians?\nHon. Anita Anand: It is no secret that we are in a global competition for N95 masks and other supplies, so the Government of Canada's approach is to diversify supply chains internationally and build up and retool domestic industry so that we can have these supplies going forward. In terms of the numbers on our web page, we have short-term and long-term contracts in place\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): We go back to Ms. Jansen.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: Yes, I understand that a number of Chinese mask manufacturers have been nationalized, and products for Canadians have been confiscated by the CCP government. Is the drop in N95 orders due to, in actual fact, contracts being cancelled?\nHon. Anita Anand: On N95 masks, I would like to assure the member and the House that we have multiple contracts in place for the procurement of N95 masks, including with 3M in the United States, whose masks are crossing our border weekly over the next month.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: That didn't quite answer my question. Have any of our orders been cancelled by the nationalization of these manufacturers in China?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have an aide in place in China. We have our embassy and other firms actively ensuring that our supplies from the manufacturing source make their way to the warehouse. Over 40 flights have come to Canada with those masks and other supplies. Our supply chains are operating despite the global environment being highly competitive.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: We know many millions of N95 masks have arrived in Canada from China and have been substandard. What is the total number of substandard masks that have arrived?\nHon. Anita Anand: Mr. Chair, as previously explained to the House, about eight million masks did not meet spec by the Public Health Agency of Canada and have been repurposed to some extent in other areas of the system.\nMrs. Tamara Jansen: In a previous committee, the deputy minister advised us that Medicom was shoulder-tapped by the government to consider producing PPE. How many other companies did the government approach for this contract?\nHon. Anita Anand: We have operated in a very urgent way in order to procure supplies for front-line health care workers. We are now also moving to ensure that we have competitions run for the procurement of personal protective equipment. It's a multi-pronged approach, and our priority is to get supplies out to front-line health care workers in this time of crisis as quickly as possible. Thank you so much.\nThe Acting Chair (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Just before we adjourn, I think this another mark of accomplishment on behalf of the great team here at the House of Commons. There have been some great efforts, even since yesterday evening, to get this turned around for today. My compliments to all members joining us here in the House and to all members who have joined by virtual conference. The committee is now adjourned until noon tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned.\n\nNow, answer the query based on the above meeting transcript in one or more sentences.\n\nQuery: What was the debate about a particular fundraising campaign?\nAnswer:"}
{"question_id": 120, "category": "longbench_narrativeqa", "reference": ["Keep the money."], "prompt": "You are given a story, which can be either a novel or a movie script, and a question. Answer the question asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nStory: Transcribed from the 1915 Martin Secker edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                          [Picture: Book cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   THE\n                                COXON FUND\n\n\n                              BY HENRY JAMES\n\n                      [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                          LONDON: MARTIN SECKER\n                     NUMBER FIVE JOHN STREET ADELPHI\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                    This edition first published 1915\n\n                       The text follows that of the\n                            Definitive Edition\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nI\n\n\n“THEY’VE got him for life!” I said to myself that evening on my way back\nto the station; but later on, alone in the compartment (from Wimbledon to\nWaterloo, before the glory of the District Railway) I amended this\ndeclaration in the light of the sense that my friends would probably\nafter all not enjoy a monopoly of Mr. Saltram.  I won’t pretend to have\ntaken his vast measure on that first occasion, but I think I had achieved\na glimpse of what the privilege of his acquaintance might mean for many\npersons in the way of charges accepted.  He had been a great experience,\nand it was this perhaps that had put me into the frame of foreseeing how\nwe should all, sooner or later, have the honour of dealing with him as a\nwhole.  Whatever impression I then received of the amount of this total,\nI had a full enough vision of the patience of the Mulvilles.  He was to\nstay all the winter: Adelaide dropped it in a tone that drew the sting\nfrom the inevitable emphasis.  These excellent people might indeed have\nbeen content to give the circle of hospitality a diameter of six months;\nbut if they didn’t say he was to stay all summer as well it was only\nbecause this was more than they ventured to hope.  I remember that at\ndinner that evening he wore slippers, new and predominantly purple, of\nsome queer carpet-stuff; but the Mulvilles were still in the stage of\nsupposing that he might be snatched from them by higher bidders.  At a\nlater time they grew, poor dears, to fear no snatching; but theirs was a\nfidelity which needed no help from competition to make them proud.\nWonderful indeed as, when all was said, you inevitably pronounced Frank\nSaltram, it was not to be overlooked that the Kent Mulvilles were in\ntheir way still more extraordinary: as striking an instance as could\neasily be encountered of the familiar truth that remarkable men find\nremarkable conveniences.\n\nThey had sent for me from Wimbledon to come out and dine, and there had\nbeen an implication in Adelaide’s note—judged by her notes alone she\nmight have been thought silly—that it was a case in which something\nmomentous was to be determined or done.  I had never known them not be in\na “state” about somebody, and I dare say I tried to be droll on this\npoint in accepting their invitation.  On finding myself in the presence\nof their latest discovery I had not at first felt irreverence droop—and,\nthank heaven, I have never been absolutely deprived of that alternative\nin Mr. Saltram’s company.  I saw, however—I hasten to declare it—that\ncompared to this specimen their other phoenixes had been birds of\ninconsiderable feather, and I afterwards took credit to myself for not\nhaving even in primal bewilderments made a mistake about the essence of\nthe man.  He had an incomparable gift; I never was blind to it—it dazzles\nme still.  It dazzles me perhaps even more in remembrance than in fact,\nfor I’m not unaware that for so rare a subject the imagination goes to\nsome expense, inserting a jewel here and there or giving a twist to a\nplume.  How the art of portraiture would rejoice in this figure if the\nart of portraiture had only the canvas!  Nature, in truth, had largely\nrounded it, and if memory, hovering about it, sometimes holds her breath,\nthis is because the voice that comes back was really golden.\n\nThough the great man was an inmate and didn’t dress, he kept dinner on\nthis occasion waiting, and the first words he uttered on coming into the\nroom were an elated announcement to Mulville that he had found out\nsomething.  Not catching the allusion and gaping doubtless a little at\nhis face, I privately asked Adelaide what he had found out.  I shall\nnever forget the look she gave me as she replied: “Everything!”  She\nreally believed it.  At that moment, at any rate, he had found out that\nthe mercy of the Mulvilles was infinite.  He had previously of course\ndiscovered, as I had myself for that matter, that their dinners were\nsoignés.  Let me not indeed, in saying this, neglect to declare that I\nshall falsify my counterfeit if I seem to hint that there was in his\nnature any ounce of calculation.  He took whatever came, but he never\nplotted for it, and no man who was so much of an absorbent can ever have\nbeen so little of a parasite.  He had a system of the universe, but he\nhad no system of sponging—that was quite hand-to-mouth.  He had fine\ngross easy senses, but it was not his good-natured appetite that wrought\nconfusion.  If he had loved us for our dinners we could have paid with\nour dinners, and it would have been a great economy of finer matter.  I\nmake free in these connexions with the plural possessive because if I was\nnever able to do what the Mulvilles did, and people with still bigger\nhouses and simpler charities, I met, first and last, every demand of\nreflexion, of emotion—particularly perhaps those of gratitude and of\nresentment.  No one, I think, paid the tribute of giving him up so often,\nand if it’s rendering honour to borrow wisdom I’ve a right to talk of my\nsacrifices.  He yielded lessons as the sea yields fish—I lived for a\nwhile on this diet.  Sometimes it almost appeared to me that his massive\nmonstrous failure—if failure after all it was—had been designed for my\nprivate recreation.  He fairly pampered my curiosity; but the history of\nthat experience would take me too far.  This is not the large canvas I\njust now spoke of, and I wouldn’t have approached him with my present\nhand had it been a question of all the features.  Frank Saltram’s\nfeatures, for artistic purposes, are verily the anecdotes that are to be\ngathered.  Their name is legion, and this is only one, of which the\ninterest is that it concerns even more closely several other persons.\nSuch episodes, as one looks back, are the little dramas that made up the\ninnumerable facets of the big drama—which is yet to be reported.\n\n\n\n\nII\n\n\nIT is furthermore remarkable that though the two stories are distinct—my\nown, as it were, and this other—they equally began, in a manner, the\nfirst night of my acquaintance with Frank Saltram, the night I came back\nfrom Wimbledon so agitated with a new sense of life that, in London, for\nthe very thrill of it, I could only walk home.  Walking and swinging my\nstick, I overtook, at Buckingham Gate, George Gravener, and George\nGravener’s story may be said to have begun with my making him, as our\npaths lay together, come home with me for a talk.  I duly remember, let\nme parenthesise, that it was still more that of another person, and also\nthat several years were to elapse before it was to extend to a second\nchapter.  I had much to say to him, none the less, about my visit to the\nMulvilles, whom he more indifferently knew, and I was at any rate so\namusing that for long afterwards he never encountered me without asking\nfor news of the old man of the sea.  I hadn’t said Mr. Saltram was old,\nand it was to be seen that he was of an age to outweather George\nGravener.  I had at that time a lodging in Ebury Street, and Gravener was\nstaying at his brother’s empty house in Eaton Square.  At Cambridge, five\nyears before, even in our devastating set, his intellectual power had\nseemed to me almost awful.  Some one had once asked me privately, with\nblanched cheeks, what it was then that after all such a mind as that left\nstanding.  “It leaves itself!” I could recollect devoutly replying.  I\ncould smile at present for this remembrance, since before we got to Ebury\nStreet I was struck with the fact that, save in the sense of being well\nset up on his legs, George Gravener had actually ceased to tower.  The\nuniverse he laid low had somehow bloomed again—the usual eminences were\nvisible.  I wondered whether he had lost his humour, or only, dreadful\nthought, had never had any—not even when I had fancied him most\nAristophanesque.  What was the need of appealing to laughter, however, I\ncould enviously enquire, where you might appeal so confidently to\nmeasurement?  Mr. Saltram’s queer figure, his thick nose and hanging lip,\nwere fresh to me: in the light of my old friend’s fine cold symmetry they\npresented mere success in amusing as the refuge of conscious ugliness.\nAlready, at hungry twenty-six, Gravener looked as blank and parliamentary\nas if he were fifty and popular.  In my scrap of a residence—he had a\nworldling’s eye for its futile conveniences, but never a comrade’s joke—I\nsounded Frank Saltram in his ears; a circumstance I mention in order to\nnote that even then I was surprised at his impatience of my enlivenment.\nAs he had never before heard of the personage it took indeed the form of\nimpatience of the preposterous Mulvilles, his relation to whom, like\nmine, had had its origin in an early, a childish intimacy with the young\nAdelaide, the fruit of multiplied ties in the previous generation.  When\nshe married Kent Mulville, who was older than Gravener and I and much\nmore amiable, I gained a friend, but Gravener practically lost one.  We\nreacted in different ways from the form taken by what he called their\ndeplorable social action—the form (the term was also his) of nasty\nsecond-rate gush.  I may have held in my ‘for intérieur’ that the good\npeople at Wimbledon were beautiful fools, but when he sniffed at them I\ncouldn’t help taking the opposite line, for I already felt that even\nshould we happen to agree it would always be for reasons that differed.\nIt came home to me that he was admirably British as, without so much as a\nsociable sneer at my bookbinder, he turned away from the serried rows of\nmy little French library.\n\n“Of course I’ve never seen the fellow, but it’s clear enough he’s a\nhumbug.”\n\n“Clear ‘enough’ is just what it isn’t,” I replied; “if it only were!”\nThat ejaculation on my part must have been the beginning of what was to\nbe later a long ache for final frivolous rest.  Gravener was profound\nenough to remark after a moment that in the first place he couldn’t be\nanything but a Dissenter, and when I answered that the very note of his\nfascination was his extraordinary speculative breadth my friend retorted\nthat there was no cad like your cultivated cad, and that I might depend\nupon discovering—since I had had the levity not already to have\nenquired—that my shining light proceeded, a generation back, from a\nMethodist cheesemonger.  I confess I was struck with his insistence, and\nI said, after reflexion: “It may be—I admit it may be; but why on earth\nare you so sure?”—asking the question mainly to lay him the trap of\nsaying that it was because the poor man didn’t dress for dinner.  He took\nan instant to circumvent my trap and come blandly out the other side.\n\n“Because the Kent Mulvilles have invented him.  They’ve an infallible\nhand for frauds.  All their geese are swans.  They were born to be duped,\nthey like it, they cry for it, they don’t know anything from anything,\nand they disgust one—luckily perhaps!—with Christian charity.”  His\nvehemence was doubtless an accident, but it might have been a strange\nforeknowledge.  I forget what protest I dropped; it was at any rate\nsomething that led him to go on after a moment: “I only ask one\nthing—it’s perfectly simple.  Is a man, in a given case, a real\ngentleman?”\n\n“A real gentleman, my dear fellow—that’s so soon said!”\n\n“Not so soon when he isn’t!  If they’ve got hold of one this time he must\nbe a great rascal!”\n\n“I might feel injured,” I answered, “if I didn’t reflect that they don’t\nrave about me.”\n\n“Don’t be too sure!  I’ll grant that he’s a gentleman,” Gravener\npresently added, “if you’ll admit that he’s a scamp.”\n\n“I don’t know which to admire most, your logic or your benevolence.”\n\nMy friend coloured at this, but he didn’t change the subject.  “Where did\nthey pick him up?”\n\n“I think they were struck with something he had published.”\n\n“I can fancy the dreary thing!”\n\n“I believe they found out he had all sorts of worries and difficulties.”\n\n“That of course wasn’t to be endured, so they jumped at the privilege of\npaying his debts!”  I professed that I knew nothing about his debts, and\nI reminded my visitor that though the dear Mulvilles were angels they\nwere neither idiots nor millionaires.  What they mainly aimed at was\nreuniting Mr. Saltram to his wife.  “I was expecting to hear he has\nbasely abandoned her,” Gravener went on, at this, “and I’m too glad you\ndon’t disappoint me.”\n\nI tried to recall exactly what Mrs. Mulville had told me.  “He didn’t\nleave her—no.  It’s she who has left him.”\n\n“Left him to us?” Gravener asked.  “The monster—many thanks!  I decline\nto take him.”\n\n“You’ll hear more about him in spite of yourself.  I can’t, no, I really\ncan’t resist the impression that he’s a big man.”  I was already\nmastering—to my shame perhaps be it said—just the tone my old friend\nleast liked.\n\n“It’s doubtless only a trifle,” he returned, “but you haven’t happened to\nmention what his reputation’s to rest on.”\n\n“Why on what I began by boring you with—his extraordinary mind.”\n\n“As exhibited in his writings?”\n\n“Possibly in his writings, but certainly in his talk, which is far and\naway the richest I ever listened to.”\n\n“And what’s it all about?”\n\n“My dear fellow, don’t ask me!  About everything!” I pursued, reminding\nmyself of poor Adelaide.  “About his ideas of things,” I then more\ncharitably added.  “You must have heard him to know what I mean—it’s\nunlike anything that ever was heard.”  I coloured, I admit, I overcharged\na little, for such a picture was an anticipation of Saltram’s later\ndevelopment and still more of my fuller acquaintance with him.  However,\nI really expressed, a little lyrically perhaps, my actual imagination of\nhim when I proceeded to declare that, in a cloud of tradition, of legend,\nhe might very well go down to posterity as the greatest of all great\ntalkers.  Before we parted George Gravener had wondered why such a row\nshould be made about a chatterbox the more and why he should be pampered\nand pensioned.  The greater the wind-bag the greater the calamity.  Out\nof proportion to everything else on earth had come to be this wagging of\nthe tongue.  We were drenched with talk—our wretched age was dying of it.\nI differed from him here sincerely, only going so far as to concede, and\ngladly, that we were drenched with sound.  It was not however the mere\nspeakers who were killing us—it was the mere stammerers.  Fine talk was\nas rare as it was refreshing—the gift of the gods themselves, the one\nstarry spangle on the ragged cloak of humanity.  How many men were there\nwho rose to this privilege, of how many masters of conversation could he\nboast the acquaintance?  Dying of talk?—why we were dying of the lack of\nit!  Bad writing wasn’t talk, as many people seemed to think, and even\ngood wasn’t always to be compared to it.  From the best talk indeed the\nbest writing had something to learn.  I fancifully added that we too\nshould peradventure be gilded by the legend, should be pointed at for\nhaving listened, for having actually heard.  Gravener, who had glanced at\nhis watch and discovered it was midnight, found to all this a retort\nbeautifully characteristic of him.\n\n“There’s one little fact to be borne in mind in the presence equally of\nthe best talk and of the worst.”  He looked, in saying this, as if he\nmeant great things, and I was sure he could only mean once more that\nneither of them mattered if a man wasn’t a real gentleman.  Perhaps it\nwas what he did mean; he deprived me however of the exultation of being\nright by putting the truth in a slightly different way.  “The only thing\nthat really counts for one’s estimate of a person is his conduct.”  He\nhad his watch still in his palm, and I reproached him with unfair play in\nhaving ascertained beforehand that it was now the hour at which I always\ngave in.  My pleasantry so far failed to mollify him that he promptly\nadded that to the rule he had just enunciated there was absolutely no\nexception.\n\n“None whatever?”\n\n“None whatever.”\n\n“Trust me then to try to be good at any price!” I laughed as I went with\nhim to the door.  “I declare I will be, if I have to be horrible!”\n\n\n\n\nIII\n\n\nIF that first night was one of the liveliest, or at any rate was the\nfreshest, of my exaltations, there was another, four years later, that\nwas one of my great discomposures.  Repetition, I well knew by this time,\nwas the secret of Saltram’s power to alienate, and of course one would\nnever have seen him at his finest if one hadn’t seen him in his remorses.\nThey set in mainly at this season and were magnificent, elemental,\norchestral.  I was quite aware that one of these atmospheric disturbances\nwas now due; but none the less, in our arduous attempt to set him on his\nfeet as a lecturer, it was impossible not to feel that two failures were\na large order, as we said, for a short course of five.  This was the\nsecond time, and it was past nine o’clock; the audience, a muster\nunprecedented and really encouraging, had fortunately the attitude of\nblandness that might have been looked for in persons whom the promise of\n(if I’m not mistaken) An Analysis of Primary Ideas had drawn to the\nneighbourhood of Upper Baker Street.  There was in those days in that\nregion a petty lecture-hall to be secured on terms as moderate as the\nfunds left at our disposal by the irrepressible question of the\nmaintenance of five small Saltrams—I include the mother—and one large\none.  By the time the Saltrams, of different sizes, were all maintained\nwe had pretty well poured out the oil that might have lubricated the\nmachinery for enabling the most original of men to appear to maintain\nthem.\n\nIt was I, the other time, who had been forced into the breach, standing\nup there for an odious lamplit moment to explain to half a dozen thin\nbenches, where earnest brows were virtuously void of anything so cynical\nas a suspicion, that we couldn’t so much as put a finger on Mr. Saltram.\nThere was nothing to plead but that our scouts had been out from the\nearly hours and that we were afraid that on one of his walks abroad—he\ntook one, for meditation, whenever he was to address such a company—some\naccident had disabled or delayed him.  The meditative walks were a\nfiction, for he never, that any one could discover, prepared anything but\na magnificent prospectus; hence his circulars and programmes, of which I\npossess an almost complete collection, are the solemn ghosts of\ngenerations never born.  I put the case, as it seemed to me, at the best;\nbut I admit I had been angry, and Kent Mulville was shocked at my want of\npublic optimism.  This time therefore I left the excuses to his more\npractised patience, only relieving myself in response to a direct appeal\nfrom a young lady next whom, in the hall, I found myself sitting.  My\nposition was an accident, but if it had been calculated the reason would\nscarce have eluded an observer of the fact that no one else in the room\nhad an approach to an appearance.  Our philosopher’s “tail” was\ndeplorably limp.  This visitor was the only person who looked at her\nease, who had come a little in the spirit of adventure.  She seemed to\ncarry amusement in her handsome young head, and her presence spoke, a\nlittle mystifyingly, of a sudden extension of Saltram’s sphere of\ninfluence.  He was doing better than we hoped, and he had chosen such an\noccasion, of all occasions, to succumb to heaven knew which of his fond\ninfirmities.  The young lady produced an impression of auburn hair and\nblack velvet, and had on her other hand a companion of obscurer type,\npresumably a waiting-maid.  She herself might perhaps have been a foreign\ncountess, and before she addressed me I had beguiled our sorry interval\nby finding in her a vague recall of the opening of some novel of Madame\nSand.  It didn’t make her more fathomable to pass in a few minutes from\nthis to the certitude that she was American; it simply engendered\ndepressing reflexions as to the possible check to contributions from\nBoston.  She asked me if, as a person apparently more initiated, I would\nrecommend further waiting, and I answered that if she considered I was on\nmy honour I would privately deprecate it.  Perhaps she didn’t; at any\nrate our talk took a turn that prolonged it till she became aware we were\nleft almost alone.  I presently ascertained she knew Mrs. Saltram, and\nthis explained in a manner the miracle.  The brotherhood of the friends\nof the husband was as nothing to the brotherhood, or perhaps I should say\nthe sisterhood, of the friends of the wife.  Like the Kent Mulvilles I\nbelonged to both fraternities, and even better than they I think I had\nsounded the abyss of Mrs. Saltram’s wrongs.  She bored me to extinction,\nand I knew but too well how she had bored her husband; but there were\nthose who stood by her, the most efficient of whom were indeed the\nhandful of poor Saltram’s backers.  They did her liberal justice, whereas\nher mere patrons and partisans had nothing but hatred for our\nphilosopher.  I’m bound to say it was we, however—we of both camps, as it\nwere—who had always done most for her.\n\nI thought my young lady looked rich—I scarcely knew why; and I hoped she\nhad put her hand in her pocket.  I soon made her out, however, not at all\na fine fanatic—she was but a generous, irresponsible enquirer.  She had\ncome to England to see her aunt, and it was at her aunt’s she had met the\ndreary lady we had all so much on our mind.  I saw she’d help to pass the\ntime when she observed that it was a pity this lady wasn’t intrinsically\nmore interesting.  That was refreshing, for it was an article of faith in\nMrs. Saltram’s circle—at least among those who scorned to know her horrid\nhusband—that she was attractive on her merits.  She was in truth a most\nordinary person, as Saltram himself would have been if he hadn’t been a\nprodigy.  The question of vulgarity had no application to him, but it was\na measure his wife kept challenging you to apply.  I hasten to add that\nthe consequences of your doing so were no sufficient reason for his\nhaving left her to starve.  “He doesn’t seem to have much force of\ncharacter,” said my young lady; at which I laughed out so loud that my\ndeparting friends looked back at me over their shoulders as if I were\nmaking a joke of their discomfiture.  My joke probably cost Saltram a\nsubscription or two, but it helped me on with my interlocutress.  “She\nsays he drinks like a fish,” she sociably continued, “and yet she allows\nthat his mind’s wonderfully clear.”  It was amusing to converse with a\npretty girl who could talk of the clearness of Saltram’s mind.  I\nexpected next to hear she had been assured he was awfully clever.  I\ntried to tell her—I had it almost on my conscience—what was the proper\nway to regard him; an effort attended perhaps more than ever on this\noccasion with the usual effect of my feeling that I wasn’t after all very\nsure of it.  She had come to-night out of high curiosity—she had wanted\nto learn this proper way for herself.  She had read some of his papers\nand hadn’t understood them; but it was at home, at her aunt’s, that her\ncuriosity had been kindled—kindled mainly by his wife’s remarkable\nstories of his want of virtue.  “I suppose they ought to have kept me\naway,” my companion dropped, “and I suppose they’d have done so if I\nhadn’t somehow got an idea that he’s fascinating.  In fact Mrs. Saltram\nherself says he is.”\n\n“So you came to see where the fascination resides?  Well, you’ve seen!”\n\nMy young lady raised fine eyebrows.  “Do you mean in his bad faith?”\n\n“In the extraordinary effects of it; his possession, that is, of some\nquality or other that condemns us in advance to forgive him the\nhumiliation, as I may call it, to which he has subjected us.”\n\n“The humiliation?”\n\n“Why mine, for instance, as one of his guarantors, before you as the\npurchaser of a ticket.”\n\nShe let her charming gay eyes rest on me.  “You don’t look humiliated a\nbit, and if you did I should let you off, disappointed as I am; for the\nmysterious quality you speak of is just the quality I came to see.”\n\n“Oh, you can’t ‘see’ it!” I cried.\n\n“How then do you get at it?”\n\n“You don’t!  You mustn’t suppose he’s good-looking,” I added.\n\n“Why his wife says he’s lovely!”\n\nMy hilarity may have struck her as excessive, but I confess it broke out\nafresh.  Had she acted only in obedience to this singular plea, so\ncharacteristic, on Mrs. Saltram’s part, of what was irritating in the\nnarrowness of that lady’s point of view?  “Mrs. Saltram,” I explained,\n“undervalues him where he’s strongest, so that, to make up for it\nperhaps, she overpraises him where he’s weak.  He’s not, assuredly,\nsuperficially attractive; he’s middle-aged, fat, featureless save for his\ngreat eyes.”\n\n“Yes, his great eyes,” said my young lady attentively.  She had evidently\nheard all about his great eyes—the beaux yeux for which alone we had\nreally done it all.\n\n“They’re tragic and splendid—lights on a dangerous coast.  But he moves\nbadly and dresses worse, and altogether he’s anything but smart.”\n\nMy companion, who appeared to reflect on this, after a moment appealed.\n“Do you call him a real gentleman?”\n\nI started slightly at the question, for I had a sense of recognising it:\nGeorge Gravener, years before, that first flushed night, had put me face\nto face with it.  It had embarrassed me then, but it didn’t embarrass me\nnow, for I had lived with it and overcome it and disposed of it.  “A real\ngentleman?  Emphatically not!”\n\nMy promptitude surprised her a little, but I quickly felt how little it\nwas to Gravener I was now talking.  “Do you say that because he’s—what do\nyou call it in England?—of humble extraction?”\n\n“Not a bit.  His father was a country school-master and his mother the\nwidow of a sexton, but that has nothing to do with it.  I say it simply\nbecause I know him well.”\n\n“But isn’t it an awful drawback?”\n\n“Awful—quite awful.”\n\n“I mean isn’t it positively fatal?”\n\n“Fatal to what?  Not to his magnificent vitality.”\n\nAgain she had a meditative moment.  “And is his magnificent vitality the\ncause of his vices?”\n\n“Your questions are formidable, but I’m glad you put them.  I was\nthinking of his noble intellect.  His vices, as you say, have been much\nexaggerated: they consist mainly after all in one comprehensive defect.”\n\n“A want of will?”\n\n“A want of dignity.”\n\n“He doesn’t recognise his obligations?”\n\n“On the contrary, he recognises them with effusion, especially in public:\nhe smiles and bows and beckons across the street to them.  But when they\npass over he turns away, and he speedily loses them in the crowd.  The\nrecognition’s purely spiritual—it isn’t in the least social.  So he\nleaves all his belongings to other people to take care of.  He accepts\nfavours, loans, sacrifices—all with nothing more deterrent than an agony\nof shame.  Fortunately we’re a little faithful band, and we do what we\ncan.”  I held my tongue about the natural children, engendered, to the\nnumber of three, in the wantonness of his youth.  I only remarked that he\ndid make efforts—often tremendous ones.  “But the efforts,” I said,\n“never come to much: the only things that come to much are the\nabandonments, the surrenders.”\n\n“And how much do they come to?”\n\n“You’re right to put it as if we had a big bill to pay, but, as I’ve told\nyou before, your questions are rather terrible.  They come, these mere\nexercises of genius, to a great sum total of poetry, of philosophy, a\nmighty mass of speculation, notation, quotation.  The genius is there,\nyou see, to meet the surrender; but there’s no genius to support the\ndefence.”\n\n“But what is there, after all, at his age, to show?”\n\n“In the way of achievement recognised and reputation established?” I\nasked.  “To ‘show’ if you will, there isn’t much, since his writing,\nmostly, isn’t as fine, isn’t certainly as showy, as his talk.  Moreover\ntwo-thirds of his work are merely colossal projects and announcements.\n‘Showing’ Frank Saltram is often a poor business,” I went on: “we\nendeavoured, you’ll have observed, to show him to-night!  However, if he\nhad lectured he’d have lectured divinely.  It would just have been his\ntalk.”\n\n“And what would his talk just have been?”\n\nI was conscious of some ineffectiveness, as well perhaps as of a little\nimpatience, as I replied: “The exhibition of a splendid intellect.”  My\nyoung lady looked not quite satisfied at this, but as I wasn’t prepared\nfor another question I hastily pursued: “The sight of a great suspended\nswinging crystal—huge lucid lustrous, a block of light—flashing back\nevery impression of life and every possibility of thought!”\n\nThis gave her something to turn over till we had passed out to the dusky\nporch of the hall, in front of which the lamps of a quiet brougham were\nalmost the only thing Saltram’s treachery hadn’t extinguished.  I went\nwith her to the door of her carriage, out of which she leaned a moment\nafter she had thanked me and taken her seat.  Her smile even in the\ndarkness was pretty.  “I do want to see that crystal!”\n\n“You’ve only to come to the next lecture.”\n\n“I go abroad in a day or two with my aunt.”\n\n“Wait over till next week,” I suggested.  “It’s quite worth it.”\n\nShe became grave.  “Not unless he really comes!”  At which the brougham\nstarted off, carrying her away too fast, fortunately for my manners, to\nallow me to exclaim “Ingratitude!”\n\n\n\n\nIV\n\n\nMRS. SALTRAM made a great affair of her right to be informed where her\nhusband had been the second evening he failed to meet his audience.  She\ncame to me to ascertain, but I couldn’t satisfy her, for in spite of my\ningenuity I remained in ignorance.  It wasn’t till much later that I\nfound this had not been the case with Kent Mulville, whose hope for the\nbest never twirled the thumbs of him more placidly than when he happened\nto know the worst.  He had known it on the occasion I speak of—that is\nimmediately after.  He was impenetrable then, but ultimately confessed.\nWhat he confessed was more than I shall now venture to make public.  It\nwas of course familiar to me that Saltram was incapable of keeping the\nengagements which, after their separation, he had entered into with\nregard to his wife, a deeply wronged, justly resentful, quite\nirreproachable and insufferable person.  She often appeared at my\nchambers to talk over his lapses; for if, as she declared, she had washed\nher hands of him, she had carefully preserved the water of this ablution,\nwhich she handed about for analysis.  She had arts of her own of exciting\none’s impatience, the most infallible of which was perhaps her assumption\nthat we were kind to her because we liked her.  In reality her personal\nfall had been a sort of social rise—since I had seen the moment when, in\nour little conscientious circle, her desolation almost made her the\nfashion.  Her voice was grating and her children ugly; moreover she hated\nthe good Mulvilles, whom I more and more loved.  They were the people who\nby doing most for her husband had in the long run done most for herself;\nand the warm confidence with which he had laid his length upon them was a\npressure gentle compared with her stiffer persuadability.  I’m bound to\nsay he didn’t criticise his benefactors, though practically he got tired\nof them; she, however, had the highest standards about eleemosynary\nforms.  She offered the odd spectacle of a spirit puffed up by\ndependence, and indeed it had introduced her to some excellent society.\nShe pitied me for not knowing certain people who aided her and whom she\ndoubtless patronised in turn for their luck in not knowing me.  I dare\nsay I should have got on with her better if she had had a ray of\nimagination—if it had occasionally seemed to occur to her to regard\nSaltram’s expressions of his nature in any other manner than as separate\nsubjects of woe.  They were all flowers of his character, pearls strung\non an endless thread; but she had a stubborn little way of challenging\nthem one after the other, as if she never suspected that he had a\ncharacter, such as it was, or that deficiencies might be organic; the\nirritating effect of a mind incapable of a generalisation.  One might\ndoubtless have overdone the idea that there was a general licence for\nsuch a man; but if this had happened it would have been through one’s\nfeeling that there could be none for such a woman.\n\nI recognised her superiority when I asked her about the aunt of the\ndisappointed young lady: it sounded like a sentence from an\nEnglish-French or other phrase-book.  She triumphed in what she told me\nand she may have triumphed still more in what she withheld.  My friend of\nthe other evening, Miss Anvoy, had but lately come to England; Lady\nCoxon, the aunt, had been established here for years in consequence of\nher marriage with the late Sir Gregory of that name.  She had a house in\nthe Regent’s Park, a Bath-chair and a fernery; and above all she had\nsympathy.  Mrs. Saltram had made her acquaintance through mutual friends.\nThis vagueness caused me to feel how much I was out of it and how large\nan independent circle Mrs. Saltram had at her command.  I should have\nbeen glad to know more about the disappointed young lady, but I felt I\nshould know most by not depriving her of her advantage, as she might have\nmysterious means of depriving me of my knowledge.  For the present,\nmoreover, this experience was stayed, Lady Coxon having in fact gone\nabroad accompanied by her niece.  The niece, besides being immensely\nclever, was an heiress, Mrs. Saltram said; the only daughter and the\nlight of the eyes of some great American merchant, a man, over there, of\nendless indulgences and dollars.  She had pretty clothes and pretty\nmanners, and she had, what was prettier still, the great thing of all.\nThe great thing of all for Mrs. Saltram was always sympathy, and she\nspoke as if during the absence of these ladies she mightn’t know where to\nturn for it.  A few months later indeed, when they had come back, her\ntone perceptibly changed: she alluded to them, on my leading her up to\nit, rather as to persons in her debt for favours received.  What had\nhappened I didn’t know, but I saw it would take only a little more or a\nlittle less to make her speak of them as thankless subjects of social\ncountenance—people for whom she had vainly tried to do something.  I\nconfess I saw how it wouldn’t be in a mere week or two that I should rid\nmyself of the image of Ruth Anvoy, in whose very name, when I learnt it,\nI found something secretly to like.  I should probably neither see her\nnor hear of her again: the knight’s widow (he had been mayor of\nClockborough) would pass away and the heiress would return to her\ninheritance.  I gathered with surprise that she had not communicated to\nhis wife the story of her attempt to hear Mr..Saltram, and I founded this\nreticence on the easy supposition that Mrs. Saltram had fatigued by\noverpressure the spring of the sympathy of which she boasted.  The girl\nat any rate would forget the small adventure, be distracted, take a\nhusband; besides which she would lack occasion to repeat her experiment.\n\nWe clung to the idea of the brilliant course, delivered without an\naccident, that, as a lecturer, would still make the paying public aware\nof our great man, but the fact remained that in the case of an\ninspiration so unequal there was treachery, there was fallacy at least,\nin the very conception of a series.  In our scrutiny of ways and means we\nwere inevitably subject to the old convention of the synopsis, the\nsyllabus, partly of course not to lose the advantage of his grand free\nhand in drawing up such things; but for myself I laughed at our playbills\neven while I stickled for them.  It was indeed amusing work to be\nscrupulous for Frank Saltram, who also at moments laughed about it, so\nfar as the comfort of a sigh so unstudied as to be cheerful might pass\nfor such a sound.  He admitted with a candour all his own that he was in\ntruth only to be depended on in the Mulvilles’ drawing-room.  “Yes,” he\nsuggestively allowed, “it’s there, I think, that I’m at my best; quite\nlate, when it gets toward eleven—and if I’ve not been too much worried.”\nWe all knew what too much worry meant; it meant too enslaved for the hour\nto the superstition of sobriety.  On the Saturdays I used to bring my\nportmanteau, so as not to have to think of eleven o’clock trains.  I had\na bold theory that as regards this temple of talk and its altars of\ncushioned chintz, its pictures and its flowers, its large fireside and\nclear lamplight, we might really arrive at something if the Mulvilles\nwould but charge for admission.  Here it was, however, that they\nshamelessly broke down; as there’s a flaw in every perfection this was\nthe inexpugnable refuge of their egotism.  They declined to make their\nsaloon a market, so that Saltram’s golden words continued the sole coin\nthat rang there.  It can have happened to no man, however, to be paid a\ngreater price than such an enchanted hush as surrounded him on his\ngreatest nights.  The most profane, on these occasions, felt a presence;\nall minor eloquence grew dumb.  Adelaide Mulville, for the pride of her\nhospitality, anxiously watched the door or stealthily poked the fire.  I\nused to call it the music-room, for we had anticipated Bayreuth.  The\nvery gates of the kingdom of light seemed to open and the horizon of\nthought to flash with the beauty of a sunrise at sea.\n\nIn the consideration of ways and means, the sittings of our little board,\nwe were always conscious of the creak of Mrs. Saltram’s shoes.  She\nhovered, she interrupted, she almost presided, the state of affairs being\nmostly such as to supply her with every incentive for enquiring what was\nto be done next.  It was the pressing pursuit of this knowledge that, in\nconcatenations of omnibuses and usually in very wet weather, led her so\noften to my door.  She thought us spiritless creatures with editors and\npublishers; but she carried matters to no great effect when she\npersonally pushed into back-shops.  She wanted all moneys to be paid to\nherself: they were otherwise liable to such strange adventures.  They\ntrickled away into the desert—they were mainly at best, alas, a slender\nstream.  The editors and the publishers were the last people to take this\nremarkable thinker at the valuation that has now pretty well come to be\nestablished.  The former were half-distraught between the desire to “cut”\nhim and the difficulty of finding a crevice for their shears; and when a\nvolume on this or that portentous subject was proposed to the latter they\nsuggested alternative titles which, as reported to our friend, brought\ninto his face the noble blank melancholy that sometimes made it handsome.\nThe title of an unwritten book didn’t after all much matter, but some\nmasterpiece of Saltram’s may have died in his bosom of the shudder with\nwhich it was then convulsed.  The ideal solution, failing the fee at Kent\nMulville’s door, would have been some system of subscription to projected\ntreatises with their non-appearance provided for—provided for, I mean, by\nthe indulgence of subscribers.  The author’s real misfortune was that\nsubscribers were so wretchedly literal.  When they tastelessly enquired\nwhy publication hadn’t ensued I was tempted to ask who in the world had\never been so published.  Nature herself had brought him out in voluminous\nform, and the money was simply a deposit on borrowing the work.\n\n\n\n\nV\n\n\nI WAS doubtless often a nuisance to my friends in those years; but there\nwere sacrifices I declined to make, and I never passed the hat to George\nGravener.  I never forgot our little discussion in Ebury Street, and I\nthink it stuck in my throat to have to treat him to the avowal I had\nfound so easy to Mss Anvoy.  It had cost me nothing to confide to this\ncharming girl, but it would have cost me much to confide to the friend of\nmy youth, that the character of the “real gentleman” wasn’t an attribute\nof the man I took such pains for.  Was this because I had already\ngeneralised to the point of perceiving that women are really the\nunfastidious sex?  I knew at any rate that Gravener, already quite in\nview but still hungry and frugal, had naturally enough more ambition than\ncharity.  He had sharp aims for stray sovereigns, being in view most from\nthe tall steeple of Clockborough.  His immediate ambition was to occupy à\nlui seul the field of vision of that smokily-seeing city, and all his\nmovements and postures were calculated for the favouring angle.  The\nmovement of the hand as to the pocket had thus to alternate gracefully\nwith the posture of the hand on the heart.  He talked to Clockborough in\nshort only less beguilingly than Frank Saltram talked to his electors;\nwith the difference to our credit, however, that we had already voted and\nthat our candidate had no antagonist but himself.  He had more than once\nbeen at Wimbledon—it was Mrs. Mulville’s work not mine—and by the time\nthe claret was served had seen the god descend.  He took more pains to\nswing his censer than I had expected, but on our way back to town he\nforestalled any little triumph I might have been so artless as to express\nby the observation that such a man was—a hundred times!—a man to use and\nnever a man to be used by.  I remember that this neat remark humiliated\nme almost as much as if virtually, in the fever of broken slumbers, I\nhadn’t often made it myself.  The difference was that on Gravener’s part\na force attached to it that could never attach to it on mine.  He was\nable to use people—he had the machinery; and the irony of Saltram’s being\nmade showy at Clockborough came out to me when he said, as if he had no\nmemory of our original talk and the idea were quite fresh to him: “I hate\nhis type, you know, but I’ll be hanged if I don’t put some of those\nthings in.  I can find a place for them: we might even find a place for\nthe fellow himself.”  I myself should have had some fear—not, I need\nscarcely say, for the “things” themselves, but for some other things very\nnear them; in fine for the rest of my eloquence.\n\nLater on I could see that the oracle of Wimbledon was not in this case so\nappropriate as he would have been had the polities of the gods only\ncoincided more exactly with those of the party.  There was a distinct\nmoment when, without saying anything more definite to me, Gravener\nentertained the idea of annexing Mr. Saltram.  Such a project was\ndelusive, for the discovery of analogies between his body of doctrine and\nthat pressed from headquarters upon Clockborough—the bottling, in a word,\nof the air of those lungs for convenient public uncorking in\ncorn-exchanges—was an experiment for which no one had the leisure.  The\nonly thing would have been to carry him massively about, paid, caged,\nclipped; to turn him on for a particular occasion in a particular\nchannel.  Frank Saltram’s channel, however, was essentially not\ncalculable, and there was no knowing what disastrous floods might have\nensued.  For what there would have been to do The Empire, the great\nnewspaper, was there to look to; but it was no new misfortune that there\nwere delicate situations in which The Empire broke down.  In fine there\nwas an instinctive apprehension that a clever young journalist\ncommissioned to report on Mr. Saltram might never come back from the\nerrand.  No one knew better than George Gravener that that was a time\nwhen prompt returns counted double.  If he therefore found our friend an\nexasperating waste of orthodoxy it was because of his being, as he said,\npoor Gravener, up in the clouds, not because he was down in the dust.\nThe man would have been, just as he was, a real enough gentleman if he\ncould have helped to put in a real gentleman.  Gravener’s great objection\nto the actual member was that he was not one.\n\nLady Coxon had a fine old house, a house with “grounds,” at Clockborough,\nwhich she had let; but after she returned from abroad I learned from Mrs.\nSaltram that the lease had fallen in and that she had gone down to resume\npossession.  I could see the faded red livery, the big square shoulders,\nthe high-walled garden of this decent abode.  As the rumble of\ndissolution grew louder the suitor would have pressed his suit, and I\nfound myself hoping the politics of the late Mayor’s widow wouldn’t be\nsuch as to admonish her to ask him to dinner; perhaps indeed I went so\nfar as to pray, they would naturally form a bar to any contact.  I tried\nto focus the many-buttoned page, in the daily airing, as he perhaps even\npushed the Bath-chair over somebody’s toes.  I was destined to hear, none\nthe less, through Mrs. Saltram—who, I afterwards learned, was in\ncorrespondence with Lady Coxon’s housekeeper—that Gravener was known to\nhave spoken of the habitation I had in my eye as the pleasantest thing at\nClockborough.  On his part, I was sure, this was the voice not of envy\nbut of experience.  The vivid scene was now peopled, and I could see him\nin the old-time garden with Miss Anvoy, who would be certain, and very\njustly, to think him good-looking.  It would be too much to describe\nmyself as troubled by this play of surmise; but I occur to remember the\nrelief, singular enough, of feeling it suddenly brushed away by an\nannoyance really much greater; an annoyance the result of its happening\nto come over me about that time with a rush that I was simply ashamed of\nFrank Saltram.  There were limits after all, and my mark at last had been\nreached.\n\nI had had my disgusts, if I may allow myself to-day such an expression;\nbut this was a supreme revolt.  Certain things cleared up in my mind,\ncertain values stood out.  It was all very well to have an unfortunate\ntemperament; there was nothing so unfortunate as to have, for practical\npurposes, nothing else.  I avoided George Gravener at this moment and\nreflected that at such a time I should do so most effectually by leaving\nEngland.  I wanted to forget Frank Saltram—that was all.  I didn’t want\nto do anything in the world to him but that.  Indignation had withered on\nthe stalk, and I felt that one could pity him as much as one ought only\nby never thinking of him again.  It wasn’t for anything he had done to\nme; it was for what he had done to the Mulvilles.  Adelaide cried about\nit for a week, and her husband, profiting by the example so signally\ngiven him of the fatal effect of a want of character, left the letter,\nthe drop too much, unanswered.  The letter, an incredible one, addressed\nby Saltram to Wimbledon during a stay with the Pudneys at Ramsgate, was\nthe central feature of the incident, which, however, had many features,\neach more painful than whichever other we compared it with.  The Pudneys\nhad behaved shockingly, but that was no excuse.  Base ingratitude, gross\nindecency—one had one’s choice only of such formulas as that the more\nthey fitted the less they gave one rest.  These are dead aches now, and I\nam under no obligation, thank heaven, to be definite about the business.\nThere are things which if I had had to tell them—well, would have stopped\nme off here altogether.\n\nI went abroad for the general election, and if I don’t know how much, on\nthe Continent, I forgot, I at least know how much I missed, him.  At a\ndistance, in a foreign land, ignoring, abjuring, unlearning him, I\ndiscovered what he had done for me.  I owed him, oh unmistakeably,\ncertain noble conceptions; I had lighted my little taper at his smoky\nlamp, and lo it continued to twinkle.  But the light it gave me just\nshowed me how much more I wanted.  I was pursued of course by letters\nfrom Mrs. Saltram which I didn’t scruple not to read, though quite aware\nher embarrassments couldn’t but be now of the gravest.  I sacrificed to\npropriety by simply putting them away, and this is how, one day as my\nabsence drew to an end, my eye, while I rummaged in my desk for another\npaper, was caught by a name on a leaf that had detached itself from the\npacket.  The allusion was to Miss Anvoy, who, it appeared, was engaged to\nbe married to Mr. George Gravener; and the news was two months old.  A\ndirect question of Mrs. Saltram’s had thus remained unanswered—she had\nenquired of me in a postscript what sort of man this aspirant to such a\nhand might be.  The great other fact about him just then was that he had\nbeen triumphantly returned for Clockborough in the interest of the party\nthat had swept the country—so that I might easily have referred Mrs.\nSaltram to the journals of the day.  Yet when I at last wrote her that I\nwas coming home and would discharge my accumulated burden by seeing her,\nI but remarked in regard to her question that she must really put it to\nMiss Anvoy.\n\n\n\n\nVI\n\n\nI HAD almost avoided the general election, but some of its consequences,\non my return, had smartly to be faced.  The season, in London, began to\nbreathe again and to flap its folded wings.  Confidence, under the new\nMinistry, was understood to be reviving, and one of the symptoms, in a\nsocial body, was a recovery of appetite.  People once more fed together,\nand it happened that, one Saturday night, at somebody’s house, I fed with\nGeorge Gravener.  When the ladies left the room I moved up to where he\nsat and begged to congratulate him.  “On my election?” he asked after a\nmoment; so that I could feign, jocosely, not to have heard of that\ntriumph and to be alluding to the rumour of a victory still more\npersonal.  I dare say I coloured however, for his political success had\nmomentarily passed out of my mind.  What was present to it was that he\nwas to marry that beautiful girl; and yet his question made me conscious\nof some discomposure—I hadn’t intended to put this before everything.  He\nhimself indeed ought gracefully to have done so, and I remember thinking\nthe whole man was in this assumption that in expressing my sense of what\nhe had won I had fixed my thoughts on his “seat.”  We straightened the\nmatter out, and he was so much lighter in hand than I had lately seen him\nthat his spirits might well have been fed from a twofold source.  He was\nso good as to say that he hoped I should soon make the acquaintance of\nMiss Anvoy, who, with her aunt, was presently coming up to town.  Lady\nCoxon, in the country, had been seriously unwell, and this had delayed\ntheir arrival.  I told him I had heard the marriage would be a splendid\none; on which, brightened and humanised by his luck, he laughed and said\n“Do you mean for her?”  When I had again explained what I meant he went\non: “Oh she’s an American, but you’d scarcely know it; unless, perhaps,”\nhe added, “by her being used to more money than most girls in England,\neven the daughters of rich men.  That wouldn’t in the least do for a\nfellow like me, you know, if it wasn’t for the great liberality of her\nfather.  He really has been most kind, and everything’s quite\nsatisfactory.”  He added that his eldest brother had taken a tremendous\nfancy to her and that during a recent visit at Coldfield she had nearly\nwon over Lady Maddock.  I gathered from something he dropped later on\nthat the free-handed gentleman beyond the seas had not made a settlement,\nbut had given a handsome present and was apparently to be looked to,\nacross the water, for other favours.  People are simplified alike by\ngreat contentments and great yearnings, and, whether or no it was\nGravener’s directness that begot my own, I seem to recall that in some\nturn taken by our talk he almost imposed it on me as an act of decorum to\nask if Miss Anvoy had also by chance expectations from her aunt.  My\nenquiry drew out that Lady Coxon, who was the oddest of women, would have\nin any contingency to act under her late husband’s will, which was odder\nstill, saddling her with a mass of queer obligations complicated with\nqueer loopholes.  There were several dreary people, Coxon cousins, old\nmaids, to whom she would have more or less to minister.  Gravener\nlaughed, without saying no, when I suggested that the young lady might\ncome in through a loophole; then suddenly, as if he suspected my turning\na lantern on him, he declared quite dryly: “That’s all rot—one’s moved by\nother springs!”\n\nA fortnight later, at Lady Coxon’s own house, I understood well enough\nthe springs one was moved by.  Gravener had spoken of me there as an old\nfriend, and I received a gracious invitation to dine.  The Knight’s widow\nwas again indisposed—she had succumbed at the eleventh hour; so that I\nfound Miss Anvoy bravely playing hostess without even Gravener’s help,\nsince, to make matters worse, he had just sent up word that the House,\nthe insatiable House, with which he supposed he had contracted for easier\nterms, positively declined to release him.  I was struck with the\ncourage, the grace and gaiety of the young lady left thus to handle the\nfauna and flora of the Regent’s Park.  I did what I could to help her to\nclassify them, after I had recovered from the confusion of seeing her\nslightly disconcerted at perceiving in the guest introduced by her\nintended the gentleman with whom she had had that talk about Frank\nSaltram.  I had at this moment my first glimpse of the fact that she was\na person who could carry a responsibility; but I leave the reader to\njudge of my sense of the aggravation, for either of us, of such a burden,\nwhen I heard the servant announce Mrs. Saltram.  From what immediately\npassed between the two ladies I gathered that the latter had been sent\nfor post-haste to fill the gap created by the absence of the mistress of\nthe house.  “Good!” I remember crying, “she’ll be put by me;” and my\napprehension was promptly justified.  Mrs. Saltram taken in to dinner,\nand taken in as a consequence of an appeal to her amiability, was Mrs.\nSaltram with a vengeance.  I asked myself what Miss Anvoy meant by doing\nsuch things, but the only answer I arrived at was that Gravener was\nverily fortunate.  She hadn’t happened to tell him of her visit to Upper\nBaker Street, but she’d certainly tell him to-morrow; not indeed that\nthis would make him like any better her having had the innocence to\ninvite such a person as Mrs. Saltram on such an occasion.  It could only\nstrike me that I had never seen a young woman put such ignorance into her\ncleverness, such freedom into her modesty; this, I think, was when, after\ndinner, she said to me frankly, with almost jubilant mirth: “Oh you don’t\nadmire Mrs. Saltram?”  Why should I?  This was truly a young person\nwithout guile.  I had briefly to consider before I could reply that my\nobjection to the lady named was the objection often uttered about people\nmet at the social board—I knew all her stories.  Then as Miss Anvoy\nremained momentarily vague I added: “Those about her husband.”\n\n“Oh yes, but there are some new ones.”\n\n“None for me.  Ah novelty would be pleasant!”\n\n“Doesn’t it appear that of late he has been particularly horrid?”\n\n“His fluctuations don’t matter”, I returned, “for at night all cats are\ngrey.  You saw the shade of this one the night we waited for him\ntogether.  What will you have?  He has no dignity.”\n\nMiss Anvoy, who had been introducing with her American distinctness,\nlooked encouragingly round at some of the combinations she had risked.\n“It’s too bad I can’t see him.”\n\n“You mean Gravener won’t let you?”\n\n“I haven’t asked him.  He lets me do everything.”\n\n“But you know he knows him and wonders what some of us see in him.”\n\n“We haven’t happened to talk of him,” the girl said.\n\n“Get him to take you some day out to see the Mulvilles.”\n\n“I thought Mr. Saltram had thrown the Mulvilles over.”\n\n“Utterly.  But that won’t prevent his being planted there again, to bloom\nlike a rose, within a month or two.”\n\nMiss Anvoy thought a moment.  Then, “I should like to see them,” she said\nwith her fostering smile.\n\n“They’re tremendously worth it.  You mustn’t miss them.”\n\n“I’ll make George take me,” she went on as Mrs. Saltram came up to\ninterrupt us.  She sniffed at this unfortunate as kindly as she had\nsmiled at me and, addressing the question to her, continued: “But the\nchance of a lecture—one of the wonderful lectures?  Isn’t there another\ncourse announced?”\n\n“Another?  There are about thirty!” I exclaimed, turning away and feeling\nMrs. Saltram’s little eyes in my back.  A few days after this I heard\nthat Gravener’s marriage was near at hand—was settled for Whitsuntide;\nbut as no invitation had reached me I had my doubts, and there presently\ncame to me in fact the report of a postponement.  Something was the\nmatter; what was the matter was supposed to be that Lady Coxon was now\ncritically ill.  I had called on her after my dinner in the Regent’s\nPark, but I had neither seen her nor seen Miss Anvoy.  I forget to-day\nthe exact order in which, at this period, sundry incidents occurred and\nthe particular stage at which it suddenly struck me, making me catch my\nbreath a little, that the progression, the acceleration, was for all the\nworld that of fine drama.  This was probably rather late in the day, and\nthe exact order doesn’t signify.  What had already occurred was some\naccident determining a more patient wait.  George Gravener, whom I met\nagain, in fact told me as much, but without signs of perturbation.  Lady\nCoxon had to be constantly attended to, and there were other good reasons\nas well.  Lady Coxon had to be so constantly attended to that on the\noccasion of a second attempt in the Regent’s Park I equally failed to\nobtain a sight of her niece.  I judged it discreet in all the conditions\nnot to make a third; but this didn’t matter, for it was through Adelaide\nMulville that the side-wind of the comedy, though I was at first\nunwitting, began to reach me.  I went to Wimbledon at times because\nSaltram was there, and I went at others because he wasn’t.  The Pudneys,\nwho had taken him to Birmingham, had already got rid of him, and we had a\nhorrible consciousness of his wandering roofless, in dishonour, about the\nsmoky Midlands, almost as the injured Lear wandered on the storm-lashed\nheath.  His room, upstairs, had been lately done up (I could hear the\ncrackle of the new chintz) and the difference only made his smirches and\nbruises, his splendid tainted genius, the more tragic.  If he wasn’t\nbarefoot in the mire he was sure to be unconventionally shod.  These were\nthe things Adelaide and I, who were old enough friends to stare at each\nother in silence, talked about when we didn’t speak.  When we spoke it\nwas only about the brilliant girl George Gravener was to marry and whom\nhe had brought out the other Sunday.  I could see that this presentation\nhad been happy, for Mrs. Mulville commemorated it after her sole fashion\nof showing confidence in a new relation.  “She likes me—she likes me”:\nher native humility exulted in that measure of success.  We all knew for\nourselves how she liked those who liked her, and as regards Ruth Anvoy\nshe was more easily won over than Lady Maddock.\n\n\n\n\nVII\n\n\nONE of the consequences, for the Mulvilles, of the sacrifices they made\nfor Frank Saltram was that they had to give up their carriage.  Adelaide\ndrove gently into London in a one-horse greenish thing, an early\nVictorian landau, hired, near at hand, imaginatively, from a broken-down\njobmaster whose wife was in consumption—a vehicle that made people turn\nround all the more when her pensioner sat beside her in a soft white hat\nand a shawl, one of the dear woman’s own.  This was his position and I\ndare say his costume when on an afternoon in July she went to return Miss\nAnvoy’s visit.  The wheel of fate had now revolved, and amid silences\ndeep and exhaustive, compunctions and condonations alike unutterable,\nSaltram was reinstated.  Was it in pride or in penance that Mrs. Mulville\nhad begun immediately to drive him about?  If he was ashamed of his\ningratitude she might have been ashamed of her forgiveness; but she was\nincorrigibly capable of liking him to be conspicuous in the landau while\nshe was in shops or with her acquaintance.  However, if he was in the\npillory for twenty minutes in the Regent’s Park—I mean at Lady Coxon’s\ndoor while his companion paid her call—it wasn’t to the further\nhumiliation of any one concerned that she presently came out for him in\nperson, not even to show either of them what a fool she was that she drew\nhim in to be introduced to the bright young American.  Her account of the\nintroduction I had in its order, but before that, very late in the\nseason, under Gravener’s auspices, I met Miss Anvoy at tea at the House\nof Commons.  The member for Clockborough had gathered a group of pretty\nladies, and the Mulvilles were not of the party.  On the great terrace,\nas I strolled off with her a little, the guest of honour immediately\nexclaimed to me: “I’ve seen him, you know—I’ve seen him!”  She told me\nabout Saltram’s call.\n\n“And how did you find him?”\n\n“Oh so strange!”\n\n“You didn’t like him?”\n\n“I can’t tell till I see him again.”\n\n“You want to do that?”\n\nShe had a pause.  “Immensely.”\n\nWe went no further; I fancied she had become aware Gravener was looking\nat us.  She turned back toward the knot of the others, and I said:\n“Dislike him as much as you will—I see you’re bitten.”\n\n“Bitten?”  I thought she coloured a little.\n\n“Oh it doesn’t matter!” I laughed; “one doesn’t die of it.”\n\n“I hope I shan’t die of anything before I’ve seen more of Mrs. Mulville.”\nI rejoiced with her over plain Adelaide, whom she pronounced the\nloveliest woman she had met in England; but before we separated I\nremarked to her that it was an act of mere humanity to warn her that if\nshe should see more of Frank Saltram—which would be likely to follow on\nany increase of acquaintance with Mrs. Mulville—she might find herself\nflattening her nose against the clear hard pane of an eternal\nquestion—that of the relative, that of the opposed, importances of virtue\nand brains.  She replied that this was surely a subject on which one took\neverything for granted; whereupon I admitted that I had perhaps expressed\nmyself ill.  What I referred to was what I had referred to the night we\nmet in Upper Baker Street—the relative importance (relative to virtue) of\nother gifts.  She asked me if I called virtue a gift—a thing handed to us\nin a parcel on our first birthday; and I declared that this very enquiry\nproved to me the problem had already caught her by the skirt.  She would\nhave help however, the same help I myself had once had, in resisting its\ntendency to make one cross.\n\n“What help do you mean?”\n\n“That of the member for Clockborough.”\n\nShe stared, smiled, then returned: “Why my idea has been to help him!”\n\nShe had helped him—I had his own word for it that at Clockborough her\nbedevilment of the voters had really put him in.  She would do so\ndoubtless again and again, though I heard the very next month that this\nfine faculty had undergone a temporary eclipse.  News of the catastrophe\nfirst came to me from Mrs. Saltram, and it was afterwards confirmed at\nWimbledon: poor Miss Anvoy was in trouble—great disasters in America had\nsuddenly summoned her home.  Her father, in New York, had suffered\nreverses, lost so much money that it was really vexatious as showing how\nmuch he had had.  It was Adelaide who told me she had gone off alone at\nless than a week’s notice.\n\n“Alone?  Gravener has permitted that?”\n\n“What will you have?  The House of Commons!”\n\nI’m afraid I cursed the House of Commons: I was so much interested.  Of\ncourse he’d follow her as soon as he was free to make her his wife; only\nshe mightn’t now be able to bring him anything like the marriage-portion\nof which he had begun by having the virtual promise.  Mrs. Mulville let\nme know what was already said: she was charming, this American girl, but\nreally these American fathers—!  What was a man to do?  Mr. Saltram,\naccording to Mrs. Mulville, was of opinion that a man was never to suffer\nhis relation to money to become a spiritual relation—he was to keep it\nexclusively material.  “Moi pas comprendre!” I commented on this; in\nrejoinder to which Adelaide, with her beautiful sympathy, explained that\nshe supposed he simply meant that the thing was to use it, don’t you\nknow? but not to think too much about it.  “To take it, but not to thank\nyou for it?” I still more profanely enquired.  For a quarter of an hour\nafterwards she wouldn’t look at me, but this didn’t prevent my asking her\nwhat had been the result, that afternoon—in the Regent’s Park, of her\ntaking our friend to see Miss Anvoy.\n\n“Oh so charming!” she answered, brightening.  “He said he recognised in\nher a nature he could absolutely trust.”\n\n“Yes, but I’m speaking of the effect on herself.”\n\nMrs. Mulville had to remount the stream.  “It was everything one could\nwish.”\n\nSomething in her tone made me laugh.  “Do you mean she gave him—a dole?”\n\n“Well, since you ask me!”\n\n“Right there on the spot?”\n\nAgain poor Adelaide faltered.  “It was to me of course she gave it.”\n\nI stared; somehow I couldn’t see the scene.  “Do you mean a sum of\nmoney?”\n\n“It was very handsome.”  Now at last she met my eyes, though I could see\nit was with an effort.  “Thirty pounds.”\n\n“Straight out of her pocket?”\n\n“Out of the drawer of a table at which she had been writing.  She just\nslipped the folded notes into my hand.  He wasn’t looking; it was while\nhe was going back to the carriage.”  “Oh,” said Adelaide reassuringly, “I\ntake care of it for him!”  The dear practical soul thought my agitation,\nfor I confess I was agitated, referred to the employment of the money.\nHer disclosure made me for a moment muse violently, and I dare say that\nduring that moment I wondered if anything else in the world makes people\nso gross as unselfishness.  I uttered, I suppose, some vague synthetic\ncry, for she went on as if she had had a glimpse of my inward amaze at\nsuch passages.  “I assure you, my dear friend, he was in one of his happy\nhours.”\n\nBut I wasn’t thinking of that.  “Truly indeed these Americans!” I said.\n“With her father in the very act, as it were, of swindling her\nbetrothed!”\n\nMrs. Mulville stared.  “Oh I suppose Mr. Anvoy has scarcely gone\nbankrupt—or whatever he has done—on purpose.  Very likely they won’t be\nable to keep it up, but there it was, and it was a very beautiful\nimpulse.”\n\n“You say Saltram was very fine?”\n\n“Beyond everything.  He surprised even me.”\n\n“And I know what you’ve enjoyed.”  After a moment I added: “Had he\nperadventure caught a glimpse of the money in the table-drawer?”\n\nAt this my companion honestly flushed.  “How can you be so cruel when you\nknow how little he calculates?”\n\n“Forgive me, I do know it.  But you tell me things that act on my nerves.\nI’m sure he hadn’t caught a glimpse of anything but some splendid idea.”\n\nMrs. Mulville brightly concurred.  “And perhaps even of her beautiful\nlistening face.”\n\n“Perhaps even!  And what was it all about?”\n\n“His talk?  It was apropos of her engagement, which I had told him about:\nthe idea of marriage, the philosophy, the poetry, the sublimity of it.”\nIt was impossible wholly to restrain one’s mirth at this, and some rude\nripple that I emitted again caused my companion to admonish me.  “It\nsounds a little stale, but you know his freshness.”\n\n“Of illustration?  Indeed I do!”\n\n“And how he has always been right on that great question.”\n\n“On what great question, dear lady, hasn’t he been right?”\n\n“Of what other great men can you equally say it?—and that he has never,\nbut never, had a deflexion?” Mrs. Mulville exultantly demanded.\n\nI tried to think of some other great man, but I had to give it up.\n“Didn’t Miss Anvoy express her satisfaction in any less diffident way\nthan by her charming present?” I was reduced to asking instead.\n\n“Oh yes, she overflowed to me on the steps while he was getting into the\ncarriage.”  These words somehow brushed up a picture of Saltram’s big\nshawled back as he hoisted himself into the green landau.  “She said she\nwasn’t disappointed,” Adelaide pursued.\n\nI turned it over.  “Did he wear his shawl?”\n\n“His shawl?”  She hadn’t even noticed.\n\n“I mean yours.”\n\n“He looked very nice, and you know he’s really clean.  Miss Anvoy used\nsuch a remarkable expression—she said his mind’s like a crystal!”\n\nI pricked up my ears.  “A crystal?”\n\n“Suspended in the moral world—swinging and shining and flashing there.\nShe’s monstrously clever, you know.”\n\nI thought again.  “Monstrously!”\n\n\n\n\nVIII\n\n\nGEORGE GRAVENER didn’t follow her, for late in September, after the House\nhad risen, I met him in a railway-carriage.  He was coming up from\nScotland and I had just quitted some relations who lived near Durham.\nThe current of travel back to London wasn’t yet strong; at any rate on\nentering the compartment I found he had had it for some time to himself.\nWe fared in company, and though he had a blue-book in his lap and the\nopen jaws of his bag threatened me with the white teeth of confused\npapers, we inevitably, we even at last sociably conversed.  I saw things\nweren’t well with him, but I asked no question till something dropped by\nhimself made, as it had made on another occasion, an absence of curiosity\ninvidious.  He mentioned that he was worried about his good old friend\nLady Coxon, who, with her niece likely to be detained some time in\nAmerica, lay seriously ill at Clockborough, much on his mind and on his\nhands.\n\n“Ah Miss Anvoy’s in America?”\n\n“Her father has got into horrid straits—has lost no end of money.”\n\nI waited, after expressing due concern, but I eventually said: “I hope\nthat raises no objection to your marriage.”\n\n“None whatever; moreover it’s my trade to meet objections.  But it may\ncreate tiresome delays, of which there have been too many, from various\ncauses, already.  Lady Coxon got very bad, then she got much better.\nThen Mr. Anvoy suddenly began to totter, and now he seems quite on his\nback.  I’m afraid he’s really in for some big reverse.  Lady Coxon’s\nworse again, awfully upset by the news from America, and she sends me\nword that she _must_ have Ruth.  How can I supply her with Ruth?  I\nhaven’t got Ruth myself!”\n\n“Surely you haven’t lost her?” I returned.\n\n“She’s everything to her wretched father.  She writes me every\npost—telling me to smooth her aunt’s pillow.  I’ve other things to\nsmooth; but the old lady, save for her servants, is really alone.  She\nwon’t receive her Coxon relations—she’s angry at so much of her money\ngoing to them.  Besides, she’s hopelessly mad,” said Gravener very\nfrankly.\n\nI don’t remember whether it was this, or what it was, that made me ask if\nshe hadn’t such an appreciation of Mrs. Saltram as might render that\nactive person of some use.\n\nHe gave me a cold glance, wanting to know what had put Mrs. Saltram into\nmy head, and I replied that she was unfortunately never out of it.  I\nhappened to remember the wonderful accounts she had given me of the\nkindness Lady Coxon had shown her.  Gravener declared this to be false;\nLady Coxon, who didn’t care for her, hadn’t seen her three times.  The\nonly foundation for it was that Miss Anvoy, who used, poor girl, to chuck\nmoney about in a manner she must now regret, had for an hour seen in the\nmiserable woman—you could never know what she’d see in people—an\ninteresting pretext for the liberality with which her nature overflowed.\nBut even Miss Anvoy was now quite tired of her.  Gravener told me more\nabout the crash in New York and the annoyance it had been to him, and we\nalso glanced here and there in other directions; but by the time we got\nto Doncaster the principal thing he had let me see was that he was\nkeeping something back.  We stopped at that station, and, at the\ncarriage-door, some one made a movement to get in.  Gravener uttered a\nsound of impatience, and I felt sure that but for this I should have had\nthe secret.  Then the intruder, for some reason, spared us his company;\nwe started afresh, and my hope of a disclosure returned.  My companion\nheld his tongue, however, and I pretended to go to sleep; in fact I\nreally dozed for discouragement.  When I reopened my eyes he was looking\nat me with an injured air.  He tossed away with some vivacity the remnant\nof a cigarette and then said: “If you’re not too sleepy I want to put you\na case.”  I answered that I’d make every effort to attend, and welcomed\nthe note of interest when he went on: “As I told you a while ago, Lady\nCoxon, poor dear, is demented.”  His tone had much behind it—was full of\npromise.  I asked if her ladyship’s misfortune were a trait of her malady\nor only of her character, and he pronounced it a product of both.  The\ncase he wanted to put to me was a matter on which it concerned him to\nhave the impression—the judgement, he might also say—of another person.\n“I mean of the average intelligent man, but you see I take what I can\nget.” There would be the technical, the strictly legal view; then there\nwould be the way the question would strike a man of the world.  He had\nlighted another cigarette while he talked, and I saw he was glad to have\nit to handle when he brought out at last, with a laugh slightly\nartificial: “In fact it’s a subject on which Miss Anvoy and I are pulling\ndifferent ways.”\n\n“And you want me to decide between you?  I decide in advance for Miss\nAnvoy.”\n\n“In advance—that’s quite right.  That’s how I decided when I proposed to\nher.  But my story will interest you only so far as your mind isn’t made\nup.”  Gravener puffed his cigarette a minute and then continued: “Are you\nfamiliar with the idea of the Endowment of Research?”\n\n“Of Research?” I was at sea a moment.\n\n“I give you Lady Coxon’s phrase.  She has it on the brain.”\n\n“She wishes to endow—?”\n\n“Some earnest and ‘loyal’ seeker,” Gravener said.  “It was a sketchy\ndesign of her late husband’s, and he handed it on to her; setting apart\nin his will a sum of money of which she was to enjoy the interest for\nlife, but of which, should she eventually see her opportunity—the matter\nwas left largely to her discretion—she would best honour his memory by\ndetermining the exemplary public use.  This sum of money, no less than\nthirteen thousand pounds, was to be called The Coxon Fund; and poor Sir\nGregory evidently proposed to himself that The Coxon Fund should cover\nhis name with glory—be universally desired and admired.  He left his wife\na full declaration of his views, so far at least as that term may be\napplied to views vitiated by a vagueness really infantine.  A little\nlearning’s a dangerous thing, and a good citizen who happens to have been\nan ass is worse for a community than bad sewerage.  He’s worst of all\nwhen he’s dead, because then he can’t be stopped.  However, such as they\nwere, the poor man’s aspirations are now in his wife’s bosom, or\nfermenting rather in her foolish brain: it lies with her to carry them\nout.  But of course she must first catch her hare.”\n\n“Her earnest loyal seeker?”\n\n“The flower that blushes unseen for want of such a pecuniary independence\nas may aid the light that’s in it to shine upon the human race.  The\nindividual, in a word, who, having the rest of the machinery, the\nspiritual, the intellectual, is most hampered in his search.”\n\n“His search for what?”\n\n“For Moral Truth.  That’s what Sir Gregory calls it.”\n\nI burst out laughing.  “Delightful munificent Sir Gregory!  It’s a\ncharming idea.”\n\n“So Miss Anvoy thinks.”\n\n“Has she a candidate for the Fund?”\n\n“Not that I know of—and she’s perfectly reasonable about it.  But Lady\nCoxon has put the matter before her, and we’ve naturally had a lot of\ntalk.”\n\n“Talk that, as you’ve so interestingly intimated, has landed you in a\ndisagreement.”\n\n“She considers there’s something in it,” Gravener said.\n\n“And you consider there’s nothing?”\n\n“It seems to me a piece of solemn twaddle—which can’t fail to be attended\nwith consequences certainly grotesque and possibly immoral.  To begin\nwith, fancy constituting an endowment without establishing a tribunal—a\nbench of competent people, of judges.”\n\n“The sole tribunal is Lady Coxon?”\n\n“And any one she chooses to invite.”\n\n“But she has invited you,” I noted.\n\n“I’m not competent—I hate the thing.  Besides, she hasn’t,” my friend\nwent on.  “The real history of the matter, I take it, is that the\ninspiration was originally Lady Coxon’s own, that she infected him with\nit, and that the flattering option left her is simply his tribute to her\nbeautiful, her aboriginal enthusiasm.  She came to England forty years\nago, a thin transcendental Bostonian, and even her odd happy frumpy\nClockborough marriage never really materialised her.  She feels indeed\nthat she has become very British—as if that, as a process, as a ‘Werden,’\nas anything but an original sign of grace, were conceivable; but it’s\nprecisely what makes her cling to the notion of the ‘Fund’—cling to it as\nto a link with the ideal.”\n\n“How can she cling if she’s dying?”\n\n“Do you mean how can she act in the matter?” Gravener asked.  “That’s\nprecisely the question.  She can’t!  As she has never yet caught her\nhare, never spied out her lucky impostor—how should she, with the life\nshe has led?—her husband’s intention has come very near lapsing.  His\nidea, to do him justice, was that it _should_ lapse if exactly the right\nperson, the perfect mixture of genius and chill penury, should fail to\nturn up.  Ah the poor dear woman’s very particular—she says there must be\nno mistake.”\n\nI found all this quite thrilling—I took it in with avidity.  “And if she\ndies without doing anything, what becomes of the money?” I demanded.\n\n“It goes back to his family, if she hasn’t made some other disposition of\nit.”\n\n“She may do that then—she may divert it?”\n\n“Her hands are not tied.  She has a grand discretion.  The proof is that\nthree months ago she offered to make the proceeds over to her niece.”\n\n“For Miss Anvoy’s own use?”\n\n“For Miss Anvoy’s own use—on the occasion of her prospective marriage.\nShe was discouraged—the earnest seeker required so earnest a search.  She\nwas afraid of making a mistake; every one she could think of seemed\neither not earnest enough or not poor enough.  On the receipt of the\nfirst bad news about Mr. Anvoy’s affairs she proposed to Ruth to make the\nsacrifice for her.  As the situation in New York got worse she repeated\nher proposal.”\n\n“Which Miss Anvoy declined?”\n\n“Except as a formal trust.”\n\n“You mean except as committing herself legally to place the money?”\n\n“On the head of the deserving object, the great man frustrated,” said\nGravener.  “She only consents to act in the spirit of Sir Gregory’s\nscheme.”\n\n“And you blame her for that?” I asked with some intensity.\n\nMy tone couldn’t have been harsh, but he coloured a little and there was\na queer light in his eye.  “My dear fellow, if I ‘blamed’ the young lady\nI’m engaged to I shouldn’t immediately say it even to so old a friend as\nyou.”  I saw that some deep discomfort, some restless desire to be sided\nwith, reassuringly, approvingly mirrored, had been at the bottom of his\ndrifting so far, and I was genuinely touched by his confidence.  It was\ninconsistent with his habits; but being troubled about a woman was not,\nfor him, a habit: that itself was an inconsistency.  George Gravener\ncould stand straight enough before any other combination of forces.  It\namused me to think that the combination he had succumbed to had an\nAmerican accent, a transcendental aunt and an insolvent father; but all\nmy old loyalty to him mustered to meet this unexpected hint that I could\nhelp him.  I saw that I could from the insincere tone in which he\npursued: “I’ve criticised her of course, I’ve contended with her, and it\nhas been great fun.”  Yet it clearly couldn’t have been such great fun as\nto make it improper for me presently to ask if Miss Anvoy had nothing at\nall settled on herself.  To this he replied that she had only a trifle\nfrom her mother—a mere four hundred a year, which was exactly why it\nwould be convenient to him that she shouldn’t decline, in the face of\nthis total change in her prospects, an accession of income which would\ndistinctly help them to marry.  When I enquired if there were no other\nway in which so rich and so affectionate an aunt could cause the weight\nof her benevolence to be felt, he answered that Lady Coxon was\naffectionate indeed, but was scarcely to be called rich.  She could let\nher project of the Fund lapse for her niece’s benefit, but she couldn’t\ndo anything else.  She had been accustomed to regard her as tremendously\nprovided for, and she was up to her eyes in promises to anxious Coxons.\nShe was a woman of an inordinate conscience, and her conscience was now a\ndistress to her, hovering round her bed in irreconcilable forms of\nresentful husbands, portionless nieces and undiscoverable philosophers.\n\nWe were by this time getting into the whirr of fleeting platforms, the\nmultiplication of lights.  “I think you’ll find,” I said with a laugh,\n“that your predicament will disappear in the very fact that the\nphilosopher _is_ undiscoverable.”\n\nHe began to gather up his papers.  “Who can set a limit to the ingenuity\nof an extravagant woman?”\n\n“Yes, after all, who indeed?” I echoed as I recalled the extravagance\ncommemorated in Adelaide’s anecdote of Miss Anvoy and the thirty pounds.\n\n\n\n\nIX\n\n\nTHE thing I had been most sensible of in that talk with George Gravener\nwas the way Saltram’s name kept out of it.  It seemed to me at the time\nthat we were quite pointedly silent about him; but afterwards it appeared\nmore probable there had been on my companion’s part no conscious\navoidance.  Later on I was sure of this, and for the best of reasons—the\nsimple reason of my perceiving more completely that, for evil as well as\nfor good, he said nothing to Gravener’s imagination.  That honest man\ndidn’t fear him—he was too much disgusted with him.  No more did I,\ndoubtless, and for very much the same reason.  I treated my friend’s\nstory as an absolute confidence; but when before Christmas, by Mrs.\nSaltram, I was informed of Lady Coxon’s death without having had news of\nMiss Anvoy’s return, I found myself taking for granted we should hear no\nmore of these nuptials, in which, as obscurely unnatural, I now saw I had\nnever _too_ disconcertedly believed.  I began to ask myself how people\nwho suited each other so little could please each other so much.  The\ncharm was some material charm, some afffinity, exquisite doubtless, yet\nsuperficial some surrender to youth and beauty and passion, to force and\ngrace and fortune, happy accidents and easy contacts.  They might dote on\neach other’s persons, but how could they know each other’s souls?  How\ncould they have the same prejudices, how could they have the same\nhorizon?  Such questions, I confess, seemed quenched but not answered\nwhen, one day in February, going out to Wimbledon, I found our young lady\nin the house.  A passion that had brought her back across the wintry\nocean was as much of a passion as was needed.  No impulse equally strong\nindeed had drawn George Gravener to America; a circumstance on which,\nhowever, I reflected only long enough to remind myself that it was none\nof my business.  Ruth Anvoy was distinctly different, and I felt that the\ndifference was not simply that of her marks of mourning.  Mrs. Mulville\ntold me soon enough what it was: it was the difference between a handsome\ngirl with large expectations and a handsome girl with only four hundred a\nyear.  This explanation indeed didn’t wholly content me, not even when I\nlearned that her mourning had a double cause—learned that poor Mr. Anvoy,\ngiving way altogether, buried under the ruins of his fortune and leaving\nnext to nothing, had died a few weeks before.\n\n“So she has come out to marry George Gravener?” I commented.  “Wouldn’t\nit have been prettier of him to have saved her the trouble?”\n\n“Hasn’t the House just met?” Adelaide replied.  “And for Mr. Gravener the\nHouse—!”  Then she added: “I gather that her having come is exactly a\nsign that the marriage is a little shaky.  If it were quite all right a\nself-respecting girl like Ruth would have waited for him over there.”\n\nI noted that they were already Ruth and Adelaide, but what I said was:\n“Do you mean she’ll have had to return to _make_ it so?”\n\n“No, I mean that she must have come out for some reason independent of\nit.”  Adelaide could only surmise, however, as yet, and there was more,\nas we found, to be revealed.  Mrs. Mulville, on hearing of her arrival,\nhad brought the young lady out in the green landau for the Sunday.  The\nCoxons were in possession of the house in Regent’s Park, and Miss Anvoy\nwas in dreary lodgings.  George Gravener had been with her when Adelaide\ncalled, but had assented graciously enough to the little visit at\nWimbledon.  The carriage, with Mr. Saltram in it but not mentioned, had\nbeen sent off on some errand from which it was to return and pick the\nladies up.  Gravener had left them together, and at the end of an hour,\non the Saturday afternoon, the party of three had driven out to\nWimbledon.  This was the girl’s second glimpse of our great man, and I\nwas interested in asking Mrs. Mulville if the impression made by the\nfirst appeared to have been confirmed.  On her replying after\nconsideration, that of course with time and opportunity it couldn’t fail\nto be, but that she was disappointed, I was sufficiently struck with her\nuse of this last word to question her further.\n\n“Do you mean you’re disappointed because you judge Miss Anvoy to be?”\n\n“Yes; I hoped for a greater effect last evening.  We had two or three\npeople, but he scarcely opened his mouth.”\n\n“He’ll be all the better to-night,” I opined after a moment.  Then I\npursued: “What particular importance do you attach to the idea of her\nbeing impressed?”\n\nAdelaide turned her mild pale eyes on me as for rebuke of my levity.\n“Why the importance of her being as happy as _we_ are!”\n\nI’m afraid that at this my levity grew.  “Oh that’s a happiness almost\ntoo great to wish a person!”  I saw she hadn’t yet in her mind what I had\nin mine, and at any rate the visitor’s actual bliss was limited to a walk\nin the garden with Kent Mulville.  Later in the afternoon I also took\none, and I saw nothing of Miss Anvoy till dinner, at which we failed of\nthe company of Saltram, who had caused it to be reported that he was\nindisposed and lying down.  This made us, most of us—for there were other\nfriends present—convey to each other in silence some of the unutterable\nthings that in those years our eyes had inevitably acquired the art of\nexpressing.  If a fine little American enquirer hadn’t been there we\nwould have expressed them otherwise, and Adelaide would have pretended\nnot to hear.  I had seen her, before the very fact, abstract herself\nnobly; and I knew that more than once, to keep it from the servants,\nmanaging, dissimulating cleverly, she had helped her husband to carry him\nbodily to his room.  Just recently he had been so wise and so deep and so\nhigh that I had begun to get nervous—to wonder if by chance there were\nsomething behind it, if he were kept straight for instance by the\nknowledge that the hated Pudneys would have more to tell us if they\nchose.  He was lying low, but unfortunately it was common wisdom with us\nin this connexion that the biggest splashes took place in the quietest\npools.  We should have had a merry life indeed if all the splashes had\nsprinkled us as refreshingly as the waters we were even then to feel\nabout our ears.  Kent Mulville had been up to his room, but had come back\nwith a face that told as few tales as I had seen it succeed in telling on\nthe evening I waited in the lecture-room with Miss Anvoy.  I said to\nmyself that our friend had gone out, but it was a comfort that the\npresence of a comparative stranger deprived us of the dreary duty of\nsuggesting to each other, in respect of his errand, edifying\npossibilities in which we didn’t ourselves believe.  At ten o’clock he\ncame into the drawing-room with his waistcoat much awry but his eyes\nsending out great signals.  It was precisely with his entrance that I\nceased to be vividly conscious of him.  I saw that the crystal, as I had\ncalled it, had begun to swing, and I had need of my immediate attention\nfor Miss Anvoy.\n\nEven when I was told afterwards that he had, as we might have said\nto-day, broken the record, the manner in which that attention had been\nrewarded relieved me of a sense of loss.  I had of course a perfect\ngeneral consciousness that something great was going on: it was a little\nlike having been etherised to hear Herr Joachim play.  The old music was\nin the air; I felt the strong pulse of thought, the sink and swell, the\nflight, the poise, the plunge; but I knew something about one of the\nlisteners that nobody else knew, and Saltram’s monologue could reach me\nonly through that medium.  To this hour I’m of no use when, as a witness,\nI’m appealed to—for they still absurdly contend about it—as to whether or\nno on that historic night he was drunk; and my position is slightly\nridiculous, for I’ve never cared to tell them what it really was I was\ntaken up with.  What I got out of it is the only morsel of the total\nexperience that is quite my own.  The others were shared, but this is\nincommunicable.  I feel that now, I’m bound to say, even in thus roughly\nevoking the occasion, and it takes something from my pride of clearness.\nHowever, I shall perhaps be as clear as is absolutely needful if I remark\nthat our young lady was too much given up to her own intensity of\nobservation to be sensible of mine.  It was plainly not the question of\nher marriage that had brought her back.  I greatly enjoyed this discovery\nand was sure that had that question alone been involved she would have\nstirred no step.  In this case doubtless Gravener would, in spite of the\nHouse of Commons, have found means to rejoin her.  It afterwards made me\nuncomfortable for her that, alone in the lodging Mrs. Mulville had put\nbefore me as dreary, she should have in any degree the air of waiting for\nher fate; so that I was presently relieved at hearing of her having gone\nto stay at Coldfield.  If she was in England at all while the engagement\nstood the only proper place for her was under Lady Maddock’s wing.  Now\nthat she was unfortunate and relatively poor, perhaps her prospective\nsister-in-law would be wholly won over.\n\nThere would be much to say, if I had space, about the way her behaviour,\nas I caught gleams of it, ministered to the image that had taken birth in\nmy mind, to my private amusement, while that other night I listened to\nGeorge Gravener in the railway-carriage.  I watched her in the light of\nthis queer possibility—a formidable thing certainly to meet—and I was\naware that it coloured, extravagantly perhaps, my interpretation of her\nvery looks and tones.  At Wimbledon for instance it had appeared to me\nshe was literally afraid of Saltram, in dread of a coercion that she had\nbegun already to feel.  I had come up to town with her the next day and\nhad been convinced that, though deeply interested, she was immensely on\nher guard.  She would show as little as possible before she should be\nready to show everything.  What this final exhibition might be on the\npart of a girl perceptibly so able to think things out I found it great\nsport to forecast.  It would have been exciting to be approached by her,\nappealed to by her for advice; but I prayed to heaven I mightn’t find\nmyself in such a predicament.  If there was really a present rigour in\nthe situation of which Gravener had sketched for me the elements, she\nwould have to get out of her difficulty by herself.  It wasn’t I who had\nlaunched her and it wasn’t I who could help her.  I didn’t fail to ask\nmyself why, since I couldn’t help her, I should think so much about her.\nIt was in part my suspense that was responsible for this; I waited\nimpatiently to see whether she wouldn’t have told Mrs. Mulville a portion\nat least of what I had learned from Gravener.  But I saw Mrs. Mulville\nwas still reduced to wonder what she had come out again for if she hadn’t\ncome as a conciliatory bride.  That she had come in some other character\nwas the only thing that fitted all the appearances.  Having for family\nreasons to spend some time that spring in the west of England, I was in a\nmanner out of earshot of the great oceanic rumble—I mean of the\ncontinuous hum of Saltram’s thought—and my uneasiness tended to keep me\nquiet.  There was something I wanted so little to have to say that my\nprudence surmounted my curiosity.  I only wondered if Ruth Anvoy talked\nover the idea of The Coxon Fund with Lady Maddock, and also somewhat why\nI didn’t hear from Wimbledon.  I had a reproachful note about something\nor other from Mrs. Saltram, but it contained no mention of Lady Coxon’s\nniece, on whom her eyes had been much less fixed since the recent\nuntoward events.\n\n\n\n\nX\n\n\nPOOR Adelaide’s silence was fully explained later—practically explained\nwhen in June, returning to London, I was honoured by this admirable woman\nwith an early visit.  As soon as she arrived I guessed everything, and as\nsoon as she told me that darling Ruth had been in her house nearly a\nmonth I had my question ready.  “What in the name of maidenly modesty is\nshe staying in England for?”\n\n“Because she loves me so!” cried Adelaide gaily.  But she hadn’t come to\nsee me only to tell me Miss Anvoy loved her: that was quite sufficiently\nestablished, and what was much more to the point was that Mr. Gravener\nhad now raised an objection to it.  He had protested at least against her\nbeing at Wimbledon, where in the innocence of his heart he had originally\nbrought her himself; he called on her to put an end to their engagement\nin the only proper, the only happy manner.\n\n“And why in the world doesn’t she do do?” I asked.\n\nAdelaide had a pause.  “She says you know.”\n\nThen on my also hesitating she added: “A condition he makes.”\n\n“The Coxon Fund?” I panted.\n\n“He has mentioned to her his having told you about it.”\n\n“Ah but so little!  Do you mean she has accepted the trust?”\n\n“In the most splendid spirit—as a duty about which there can be no two\nopinions.”  To which my friend added: “Of course she’s thinking of Mr.\nSaltram.”\n\nI gave a quick cry at this, which, in its violence, made my visitor turn\npale.  “How very awful!”\n\n“Awful?”\n\n“Why, to have anything to do with such an idea one’s self.”\n\n“I’m sure _you_ needn’t!” and Mrs. Mulville tossed her head.\n\n“He isn’t good enough!” I went on; to which she opposed a sound almost as\ncontentious as my own had been.  This made me, with genuine immediate\nhorror, exclaim: “You haven’t influenced her, I hope!” and my emphasis\nbrought back the blood with a rush to poor Adelaide’s face.  She declared\nwhile she blushed—for I had frightened her again—that she had never\ninfluenced anybody and that the girl had only seen and heard and judged\nfor herself.  _He_ had influenced her, if I would, as he did every one\nwho had a soul: that word, as we knew, even expressed feebly the power of\nthe things he said to haunt the mind.  How could she, Adelaide, help it\nif Miss Anvoy’s mind was haunted?  I demanded with a groan what right a\npretty girl engaged to a rising M.P. had to _have_ a mind; but the only\nexplanation my bewildered friend could give me was that she was so\nclever.  She regarded Mr. Saltram naturally as a tremendous force for\ngood.  She was intelligent enough to understand him and generous enough\nto admire.\n\n“She’s many things enough, but is she, among them, rich enough?” I\ndemanded.  “Rich enough, I mean, to sacrifice such a lot of good money?”\n\n“That’s for herself to judge.  Besides, it’s not her own money; she\ndoesn’t in the least consider it so.”\n\n“And Gravener does, if not _his_ own; and that’s the whole difficulty?”\n\n“The difficulty that brought her back, yes: she had absolutely to see her\npoor aunt’s solicitor.  It’s clear that by Lady Coxon’s will she may have\nthe money, but it’s still clearer to her conscience that the original\ncondition, definite, intensely implied on her uncle’s part, is attached\nto the use of it.  She can only take one view of it.  It’s for the\nEndowment or it’s for nothing.”\n\n“The Endowment,” I permitted myself to observe, “is a conception\nsuperficially sublime, but fundamentally ridiculous.”\n\n“Are you repeating Mr. Gravener’s words?” Adelaide asked.\n\n“Possibly, though I’ve not seen him for months.  It’s simply the way it\nstrikes me too.  It’s an old wife’s tale.  Gravener made some reference\nto the legal aspect, but such an absurdly loose arrangement has _no_\nlegal aspect.”\n\n“Ruth doesn’t insist on that,” said Mrs. Mulville; “and it’s, for her,\nexactly this technical weakness that constitutes the force of the moral\nobligation.”\n\n“Are you repeating _her_ words?” I enquired.  I forget what else Adelaide\nsaid, but she said she was magnificent.  I thought of George Gravener\nconfronted with such magnificence as that, and I asked what could have\nmade two such persons ever suppose they understood each other.  Mrs.\nMulville assured me the girl loved him as such a woman could love and\nthat she suffered as such a woman could suffer.  Nevertheless she wanted\nto see _me_.  At this I sprang up with a groan.  “Oh I’m so sorry!—when?”\nSmall though her sense of humour, I think Adelaide laughed at my\nsequence.  We discussed the day, the nearest it would be convenient I\nshould come out; but before she went I asked my visitor how long she had\nbeen acquainted with these prodigies.\n\n“For several weeks, but I was pledged to secrecy.”\n\n“And that’s why you didn’t write?”\n\n“I couldn’t very well tell you she was with me without telling you that\nno time had even yet been fixed for her marriage.  And I couldn’t very\nwell tell you as much as that without telling you what I knew of the\nreason of it.  It was not till a day or two ago,” Mrs. Mulville went on,\n“that she asked me to ask you if you wouldn’t come and see her.  Then at\nlast she spoke of your knowing about the idea of the Endowment.”\n\nI turned this over.  “Why on earth does she want to see me?”\n\n“To talk with you, naturally, about Mr. Saltram.”\n\n“As a subject for the prize?”  This was hugely obvious, and I presently\nreturned: “I think I’ll sail to-morrow for Australia.”\n\n“Well then—sail!” said Mrs. Mulville, getting up.\n\nBut I frivolously, continued.  “On Thursday at five, we said?”  The\nappointment was made definite and I enquired how, all this time, the\nunconscious candidate had carried himself.\n\n“In perfection, really, by the happiest of chances: he has positively\nbeen a dear.  And then, as to what we revere him for, in the most\nwonderful form.  His very highest—pure celestial light.  You _won’t_ do\nhim an ill turn?” Adelaide pleaded at the door.\n\n“What danger can equal for him the danger to which he’s exposed from\nhimself?” I asked.  “Look out sharp, if he has lately been too prim.\nHe’ll presently take a day off, treat us to some exhibition that will\nmake an Endowment a scandal.”\n\n“A scandal?” Mrs. Mulville dolorously echoed.\n\n“Is Miss Anvoy prepared for that?”\n\nMy visitor, for a moment, screwed her parasol into my carpet.  “He grows\nbigger every day.”\n\n“So do you!” I laughed as she went off.\n\nThat girl at Wimbledon, on the Thursday afternoon, more than justified my\napprehensions.  I recognised fully now the cause of the agitation she had\nproduced in me from the first—the faint foreknowledge that there was\nsomething very stiff I should have to do for her.  I felt more than ever\ncommitted to my fate as, standing before her in the big drawing-room\nwhere they had tactfully left us to ourselves, I tried with a smile to\nstring together the pearls of lucidity which, from her chair, she\nsuccessively tossed me.  Pale and bright, in her monotonous mourning, she\nwas an image of intelligent purpose, of the passion of duty; but I asked\nmyself whether any girl had ever had so charming an instinct as that\nwhich permitted her to laugh out, as for the joy of her difficulty, into\nthe priggish old room.  This remarkable young woman could be earnest\nwithout being solemn, and at moments when I ought doubtless to have\ncursed her obstinacy I found myself watching the unstudied play of her\neyebrows or the recurrence of a singularly intense whiteness produced by\nthe parting of her lips.  These aberrations, I hasten to add, didn’t\nprevent my learning soon enough why she had wished to see me.  Her reason\nfor this was as distinct as her beauty: it was to make me explain what I\nhad meant, on the occasion of our first meeting, by Mr. Saltram’s want of\ndignity.  It wasn’t that she couldn’t imagine, but she desired it there\nfrom my lips.  What she really desired of course was to know whether\nthere was worse about him than what she had found out for herself.  She\nhadn’t been a month so much in the house with him without discovering\nthat he wasn’t a man of monumental bronze.  He was like a jelly minus its\nmould, he had to be embanked; and that was precisely the source of her\ninterest in him and the ground of her project.  She put her project\nboldly before me: there it stood in its preposterous beauty.  She was as\nwilling to take the humorous view of it as I could be: the only\ndifference was that for her the humorous view of a thing wasn’t\nnecessarily prohibitive, wasn’t paralysing.\n\nMoreover she professed that she couldn’t discuss with me the primary\nquestion—the moral obligation: that was in her own breast.  There were\nthings she couldn’t go into—injunctions, impressions she had received.\nThey were a part of the closest intimacy of her intercourse with her\naunt, they were absolutely clear to her; and on questions of delicacy,\nthe interpretation of a fidelity, of a promise, one had always in the\nlast resort to make up one’s mind for one’s self.  It was the idea of the\napplication to the particular case, such a splendid one at last, that\ntroubled her, and she admitted that it stirred very deep things.  She\ndidn’t pretend that such a responsibility was a simple matter; if it\n_had_ been she wouldn’t have attempted to saddle me with any portion of\nit.  The Mulvilles were sympathy itself, but were they absolutely candid?\nCould they indeed be, in their position—would it even have been to be\ndesired?  Yes, she had sent for me to ask no less than that of me—whether\nthere was anything dreadful kept back.  She made no allusion whatever to\nGeorge Gravener—I thought her silence the only good taste and her gaiety\nperhaps a part of the very anxiety of that discretion, the effect of a\ndetermination that people shouldn’t know from herself that her relations\nwith the man she was to marry were strained.  All the weight, however,\nthat she left me to throw was a sufficient implication of the weight _he_\nhad thrown in vain.  Oh she knew the question of character was immense,\nand that one couldn’t entertain any plan for making merit comfortable\nwithout running the gauntlet of that terrible procession of\ninterrogation-points which, like a young ladies’ school out for a walk,\nhooked their uniform noses at the tail of governess Conduct.  But were we\nabsolutely to hold that there was never, never, never an exception,\nnever, never, never an occasion for liberal acceptance, for clever\ncharity, for suspended pedantry—for letting one side, in short,\noutbalance another?  When Miss Anvoy threw off this appeal I could have\nembraced her for so delightfully emphasising her unlikeness to Mrs.\nSaltram.  “Why not have the courage of one’s forgiveness,” she asked, “as\nwell as the enthusiasm of one’s adhesion?”\n\n“Seeing how wonderfully you’ve threshed the whole thing out,” I evasively\nreplied, “gives me an extraordinary notion of the point your enthusiasm\nhas reached.”\n\nShe considered this remark an instant with her eyes on mine, and I\ndivined that it struck her I might possibly intend it as a reference to\nsome personal subjection to our fat philosopher, to some aberration of\nsensibility, some perversion of taste.  At least I couldn’t interpret\notherwise the sudden flash that came into her face.  Such a\nmanifestation, as the result of any word of mine, embarrassed me; but\nwhile I was thinking how to reassure her the flush passed away in a smile\nof exquisite good nature.  “Oh you see one forgets so wonderfully how one\ndislikes him!” she said; and if her tone simply extinguished his strange\nfigure with the brush of its compassion, it also rings in my ear to-day\nas the purest of all our praises.  But with what quick response of fine\npity such a relegation of the man himself made me privately sigh “Ah poor\nSaltram!”  She instantly, with this, took the measure of all I didn’t\nbelieve, and it enabled her to go on: “What can one do when a person has\ngiven such a lift to one’s interest in life?”\n\n“Yes, what can one do?”  If I struck her as a little vague it was because\nI was thinking of another person.  I indulged in another inarticulate\nmurmur—“Poor George Gravener!”  What had become of the lift _he_ had\ngiven that interest?  Later on I made up my mind that she was sore and\nstricken at the appearance he presented of wanting the miserable money.\nThis was the hidden reason of her alienation.  The probable sincerity, in\nspite of the illiberality, of his scruples about the particular use of it\nunder discussion didn’t efface the ugliness of his demand that they\nshould buy a good house with it.  Then, as for _his_ alienation, he\ndidn’t, pardonably enough, grasp the lift Frank Saltram had given her\ninterest in life.  If a mere spectator could ask that last question, with\nwhat rage in his heart the man himself might!  He wasn’t, like her, I was\nto see, too proud to show me why he was disappointed.\n\n\n\n\nXI\n\n\nI WAS unable this time to stay to dinner: such at any rate was the plea\non which I took leave.  I desired in truth to get away from my young\nlady, for that obviously helped me not to pretend to satisfy her.  How\n_could_ I satisfy her?  I asked myself—how could I tell her how much had\nbeen kept back?  I didn’t even know and I certainly didn’t desire to\nknow.  My own policy had ever been to learn the least about poor\nSaltram’s weaknesses—not to learn the most.  A great deal that I had in\nfact learned had been forced upon me by his wife.  There was something\neven irritating in Miss Anvoy’s crude conscientiousness, and I wondered\nwhy, after all, she couldn’t have let him alone and been content to\nentrust George Gravener with the purchase of the good house.  I was sure\nhe would have driven a bargain, got something excellent and cheap.  I\nlaughed louder even than she, I temporised, I failed her; I told her I\nmust think over her case.  I professed a horror of responsibilities and\ntwitted her with her own extravagant passion for them.  It wasn’t really\nthat I was afraid of the scandal, the moral discredit for the Fund; what\ntroubled me most was a feeling of a different order.  Of course, as the\nbeneficiary of the Fund was to enjoy a simple life-interest, as it was\nhoped that new beneficiaries would arise and come up to new standards, it\nwouldn’t be a trifle that the first of these worthies shouldn’t have been\na striking example of the domestic virtues.  The Fund would start badly,\nas it were, and the laurel would, in some respects at least, scarcely be\ngreener from the brows of the original wearer.  That idea, however, was\nat that hour, as I have hinted, not the source of solicitude it ought\nperhaps to have been, for I felt less the irregularity of Saltram’s\ngetting the money than that of this exalted young woman’s giving it up.\nI wanted her to have it for herself, and I told her so before I went\naway.  She looked graver at this than she had looked at all, saying she\nhoped such a preference wouldn’t make me dishonest.\n\nIt made me, to begin with, very restless—made me, instead of going\nstraight to the station, fidget a little about that many-coloured Common\nwhich gives Wimbledon horizons.  There was a worry for me to work off, or\nrather keep at a distance, for I declined even to admit to myself that I\nhad, in Miss Anvoy’s phrase, been saddled with it.  What could have been\nclearer indeed than the attitude of recognising perfectly what a world of\ntrouble The Coxon Fund would in future save us, and of yet liking better\nto face a continuance of that trouble than see, and in fact contribute\nto, a deviation from attainable bliss in the life of two other persons in\nwhom I was deeply interested?  Suddenly, at the end of twenty minutes,\nthere was projected across this clearness the image of a massive\nmiddle-aged man seated on a bench under a tree, with sad far-wandering\neyes and plump white hands folded on the head of a stick—a stick I\nrecognised, a stout gold-headed staff that I had given him in devoted\ndays.  I stopped short as he turned his face to me, and it happened that\nfor some reason or other I took in as I had perhaps never done before the\nbeauty of his rich blank gaze.  It was charged with experience as the sky\nis charged with light, and I felt on the instant as if we had been\noverspanned and conjoined by the great arch of a bridge or the great dome\nof a temple.  Doubtless I was rendered peculiarly sensitive to it by\nsomething in the way I had been giving him up and sinking him.  While I\nmet it I stood there smitten, and I felt myself responding to it with a\nsort of guilty grimace.  This brought back his attention in a smile which\nexpressed for me a cheerful weary patience, a bruised noble gentleness.\nI had told Miss Anvoy that he had no dignity, but what did he seem to me,\nall unbuttoned and fatigued as he waited for me to come up, if he didn’t\nseem unconcerned with small things, didn’t seem in short majestic?  There\nwas majesty in his mere unconsciousness of our little conferences and\npuzzlements over his maintenance and his reward.\n\nAfter I had sat by him a few minutes I passed my arm over his big soft\nshoulder—wherever you touched him you found equally little firmness—and\nsaid in a tone of which the suppliance fell oddly on my own ear: “Come\nback to town with me, old friend—come back and spend the evening.”  I\nwanted to hold him, I wanted to keep him, and at Waterloo, an hour later,\nI telegraphed possessively to the Mulvilles.  When he objected, as\nregards staying all night, that he had no things, I asked him if he\nhadn’t everything of mine.  I had abstained from ordering dinner, and it\nwas too late for preliminaries at a club; so we were reduced to tea and\nfried fish at my rooms—reduced also to the transcendent.  Something had\ncome up which made me want him to feel at peace with me—and which,\nprecisely, was all the dear man himself wanted on any occasion.  I had\ntoo often had to press upon him considerations irrelevant, but it gives\nme pleasure now to think that on that particular evening I didn’t even\nmention Mrs. Saltram and the children.  Late into the night we smoked and\ntalked; old shames and old rigours fell away from us; I only let him see\nthat I was conscious of what I owed him.  He was as mild as contrition\nand as copious as faith; he was never so fine as on a shy return, and\neven better at forgiving than at being forgiven.  I dare say it was a\nsmaller matter than that famous night at Wimbledon, the night of the\nproblematical sobriety and of Miss Anvoy’s initiation; but I was as much\nin it on this occasion as I had been out of it then.  At about 1.30 he\nwas sublime.\n\nHe never, in whatever situation, rose till all other risings were over,\nand his breakfasts, at Wimbledon, had always been the principal reason\nmentioned by departing cooks.  The coast was therefore clear for me to\nreceive her when, early the next morning, to my surprise, it was\nannounced to me his wife had called.  I hesitated, after she had come up,\nabout telling her Saltram was in the house, but she herself settled the\nquestion, kept me reticent by drawing forth a sealed letter which,\nlooking at me very hard in the eyes, she placed, with a pregnant absence\nof comment, in my hand.  For a single moment there glimmered before me\nthe fond hope that Mrs. Saltram had tendered me, as it were, her\nresignation and desired to embody the act in an unsparing form.  To bring\nthis about I would have feigned any humiliation; but after my eyes had\ncaught the superscription I heard myself say with a flatness that\nbetrayed a sense of something very different from relief: “Oh the\nPudneys!”  I knew their envelopes though they didn’t know mine.  They\nalways used the kind sold at post-offices with the stamp affixed, and as\nthis letter hadn’t been posted they had wasted a penny on me.  I had seen\ntheir horrid missives to the Mulvilles, but hadn’t been in direct\ncorrespondence with them.\n\n“They enclosed it to me, to be delivered.  They doubtless explain to you\nthat they hadn’t your address.”\n\nI turned the thing over without opening it.  “Why in the world should\nthey write to me?”\n\n“Because they’ve something to tell you.  The worst,” Mrs. Saltram dryly\nadded.\n\nIt was another chapter, I felt, of the history of their lamentable\nquarrel with her husband, the episode in which, vindictively,\ndisingenuously as they themselves had behaved, one had to admit that he\nhad put himself more grossly in the wrong than at any moment of his life.\nHe had begun by insulting the matchless Mulvilles for these more specious\nprotectors, and then, according to his wont at the end of a few months,\nhad dug a still deeper ditch for his aberration than the chasm left\nyawning behind.  The chasm at Wimbledon was now blessedly closed; but the\nPudneys, across their persistent gulf, kept up the nastiest fire.  I\nnever doubted they had a strong case, and I had been from the first for\nnot defending him—reasoning that if they weren’t contradicted they’d\nperhaps subside.  This was above all what I wanted, and I so far\nprevailed that I did arrest the correspondence in time to save our little\ncircle an infliction heavier than it perhaps would have borne.  I knew,\nthat is I divined, that their allegations had gone as yet only as far as\ntheir courage, conscious as they were in their own virtue of an exposed\nplace in which Saltram could have planted a blow.  It was a question with\nthem whether a man who had himself so much to cover up would dare his\nblow; so that these vessels of rancour were in a manner afraid of each\nother.  I judged that on the day the Pudneys should cease for some reason\nor other to be afraid they would treat us to some revelation more\ndisconcerting than any of its predecessors.  As I held Mrs. Saltram’s\nletter in my hand it was distinctly communicated to me that the day had\ncome—they had ceased to be afraid.  “I don’t want to know the worst,” I\npresently declared.\n\n“You’ll have to open the letter.  It also contains an enclosure.”\n\nI felt it—it was fat and uncanny.  “Wheels within wheels!” I exclaimed.\n“There’s something for me too to deliver.”\n\n“So they tell me—to Miss Anvoy.”\n\nI stared; I felt a certain thrill.  “Why don’t they send it to her\ndirectly?”\n\nMrs. Saltram hung fire.  “Because she’s staying with Mr. and Mrs.\nMulville.”\n\n“And why should that prevent?”\n\nAgain my visitor faltered, and I began to reflect on the grotesque, the\nunconscious perversity of her action.  I was the only person save George\nGravener and the Mulvilles who was aware of Sir Gregory Coxon’s and of\nMiss Anvoy’s strange bounty.  Where could there have been a more signal\nillustration of the clumsiness of human affairs than her having\ncomplacently selected this moment to fly in the face of it?  “There’s the\nchance of their seeing her letters.  They know Mr. Pudney’s hand.”\n\nStill I didn’t understand; then it flashed upon me.  “You mean they might\nintercept it?  How can you imply anything so base?” I indignantly\ndemanded.\n\n“It’s not I—it’s Mr. Pudney!” cried Mrs. Saltram with a flush.  “It’s his\nown idea.”\n\n“Then why couldn’t he send the letter to you to be delivered?”\n\nMrs. Saltram’s embarrassment increased; she gave me another hard look.\n“You must make that out for yourself.”\n\nI made it out quickly enough.  “It’s a denunciation?”\n\n“A real lady doesn’t betray her husband!” this virtuous woman exclaimed.\n\nI burst out laughing, and I fear my laugh may have had an effect of\nimpertinence.  “Especially to Miss Anvoy, who’s so easily shocked? Why do\nsuch things concern _her_?” I asked, much at a loss.\n\n“Because she’s there, exposed to all his craft.  Mr. and Mrs. Pudney have\nbeen watching this: they feel she may be taken in.”\n\n“Thank you for all the rest of us!  What difference can it make when she\nhas lost her power to contribute?”\n\nAgain Mrs. Saltram considered; then very nobly: “There are other things\nin the world than money.”  This hadn’t occurred to her so long as the\nyoung lady had any; but she now added, with a glance at my letter, that\nMr. and Mrs. Pudney doubtless explained their motives.  “It’s all in\nkindness,” she continued as she got up.\n\n“Kindness to Miss Anvoy?  You took, on the whole, another view of\nkindness before her reverses.”\n\nMy companion smiled with some acidity “Perhaps you’re no safer than the\nMulvilles!”\n\nI didn’t want her to think that, nor that she should report to the\nPudneys that they had not been happy in their agent; and I well remember\nthat this was the moment at which I began, with considerable emotion, to\npromise myself to enjoin upon Miss Anvoy never to open any letter that\nshould come to her in one of those penny envelopes.  My emotion, and I\nfear I must add my confusion, quickly deepened; I presently should have\nbeen as glad to frighten Mrs. Saltram as to think I might by some\ndiplomacy restore the Pudneys to a quieter vigilance.\n\n“It’s best you should take _my_ view of my safety,” I at any rate soon\nresponded.  When I saw she didn’t know what I meant by this I added: “You\nmay turn out to have done, in bringing me this letter, a thing you’ll\nprofoundly regret.”  My tone had a significance which, I could see, did\nmake her uneasy, and there was a moment, after I had made two or three\nmore remarks of studiously bewildering effect, at which her eyes followed\nso hungrily the little flourish of the letter with which I emphasised\nthem that I instinctively slipped Mr. Pudney’s communication into my\npocket.  She looked, in her embarrassed annoyance, capable of grabbing it\nto send it back to him.  I felt, after she had gone, as if I had almost\ngiven her my word I wouldn’t deliver the enclosure.  The passionate\nmovement, at any rate, with which, in solitude, I transferred the whole\nthing, unopened, from my pocket to a drawer which I double-locked would\nhave amounted, for an initiated observer, to some such pledge.\n\n\n\n\nXII\n\n\nMRS. SALTRAM left me drawing my breath more quickly and indeed almost in\npain—as if I had just perilously grazed the loss of something precious.\nI didn’t quite know what it was—it had a shocking resemblance to my\nhonour.  The emotion was the livelier surely in that my pulses even yet\nvibrated to the pleasure with which, the night before, I had rallied to\nthe rare analyst, the great intellectual adventurer and pathfinder.  What\nhad dropped from me like a cumbersome garment as Saltram appeared before\nme in the afternoon on the heath was the disposition to haggle over his\nvalue.  Hang it, one had to choose, one had to put that value somewhere;\nso I would put it really high and have done with it.  Mrs. Mulville drove\nin for him at a discreet hour—the earliest she could suppose him to have\ngot up; and I learned that Miss Anvoy would also have come had she not\nbeen expecting a visit from Mr. Gravener.  I was perfectly mindful that I\nwas under bonds to see this young lady, and also that I had a letter to\nhand to her; but I took my time, I waited from day to day.  I left Mrs.\nSaltram to deal as her apprehensions should prompt with the Pudneys.  I\nknew at last what I meant—I had ceased to wince at my responsibility.  I\ngave this supreme impression of Saltram time to fade if it would; but it\ndidn’t fade, and, individually, it hasn’t faded even now.  During the\nmonth that I thus invited myself to stiffen again, Adelaide Mulville,\nperplexed by my absence, wrote to me to ask why I _was_ so stiff.  At\nthat season of the year I was usually oftener “with” them.  She also\nwrote that she feared a real estrangement had set in between Mr. Gravener\nand her sweet young friend—a state of things but half satisfactory to her\nso long as the advantage resulting to Mr. Saltram failed to disengage\nitself from the merely nebulous state.  She intimated that her sweet\nyoung friend was, if anything, a trifle too reserved; she also intimated\nthat there might now be an opening for another clever young man.  There\nnever was the slightest opening, I may here parenthesise, and of course\nthe question can’t come up to-day.  These are old frustrations now.  Ruth\nAnvoy hasn’t married, I hear, and neither have I.  During the month,\ntoward the end, I wrote to George Gravener to ask if, on a special\nerrand, I might come to see him, and his answer was to knock the very\nnext day at my door.  I saw he had immediately connected my enquiry with\nthe talk we had had in the railway-carriage, and his promptitude showed\nthat the ashes of his eagerness weren’t yet cold.  I told him there was\nsomething I felt I ought in candour to let him know—I recognised the\nobligation his friendly confidence had laid on me.\n\n“You mean Miss Anvoy has talked to you?  She has told me so herself,” he\nsaid.\n\n“It wasn’t to tell you so that I wanted to see you,” I replied; “for it\nseemed to me that such a communication would rest wholly with herself.\nIf however she did speak to you of our conversation she probably told you\nI was discouraging.”\n\n“Discouraging?”\n\n“On the subject of a present application of The Coxon Fund.”\n\n“To the case of Mr. Saltram?  My dear fellow, I don’t know what you call\ndiscouraging!” Gravener cried.\n\n“Well I thought I was, and I thought she thought I was.”\n\n“I believe she did, but such a thing’s measured by the effect.  She’s not\n‘discouraged,’” he said.\n\n“That’s her own affair.  The reason I asked you to see me was that it\nappeared to me I ought to tell you frankly that—decidedly!—I can’t\nundertake to produce that effect.  In fact I don’t want to!”\n\n“It’s very good of you, damn you!” my visitor laughed, red and really\ngrave.  Then he said: “You’d like to see that scoundrel publicly\nglorified—perched on the pedestal of a great complimentary pension?”\n\nI braced myself.  “Taking one form of public recognition with another it\nseems to me on the whole I should be able to bear it.  When I see the\ncompliments that _are_ paid right and left I ask myself why this one\nshouldn’t take its course.  This therefore is what you’re entitled to\nhave looked to me to mention to you.  I’ve some evidence that perhaps\nwould be really dissuasive, but I propose to invite Mss Anvoy to remain\nin ignorance of it.”\n\n“And to invite me to do the same?”\n\n“Oh you don’t require it—you’ve evidence enough.  I speak of a sealed\nletter that I’ve been requested to deliver to her.”\n\n“And you don’t mean to?”\n\n“There’s only one consideration that would make me,” I said.\n\nGravener’s clear handsome eyes plunged into mine a minute, but evidently\nwithout fishing up a clue to this motive—a failure by which I was almost\nwounded.  “What does the letter contain?”\n\n“It’s sealed, as I tell you, and I don’t know what it contains.”\n\n“Why is it sent through you?”\n\n“Rather than you?” I wondered how to put the thing.  “The only\nexplanation I can think of is that the person sending it may have\nimagined your relations with Miss Anvoy to be at an end—may have been\ntold this is the case by Mrs. Saltram.”\n\n“My relations with Miss Anvoy are not at an end,” poor Gravener\nstammered.\n\nAgain for an instant I thought.  “The offer I propose to make you gives\nme the right to address you a question remarkably direct.  Are you still\nengaged to Miss Anvoy?”\n\n“No, I’m not,” he slowly brought out.  “But we’re perfectly good\nfriends.”\n\n“Such good friends that you’ll again become prospective husband and wife\nif the obstacle in your path be removed?”\n\n“Removed?” he anxiously repeated.\n\n“If I send Miss Anvoy the letter I speak of she may give up her idea.”\n\n“Then for God’s sake send it!”\n\n“I’ll do so if you’re ready to assure me that her sacrifice would now\npresumably bring about your marriage.”\n\n“I’d marry her the next day!” my visitor cried.\n\n“Yes, but would she marry _you_?  What I ask of you of course is nothing\nless than your word of honour as to your conviction of this.  If you give\nit me,” I said, “I’ll engage to hand her the letter before night.”\n\nGravener took up his hat; turning it mechanically round he stood looking\na moment hard at its unruffled perfection.  Then very angrily honestly\nand gallantly, “Hand it to the devil!” he broke out; with which he\nclapped the hat on his head and left me.\n\n“Will you read it or not?” I said to Ruth Anvoy, at Wimbledon, when I had\ntold her the story of Mrs. Saltram’s visit.\n\nShe debated for a time probably of the briefest, but long enough to make\nme nervous.  “Have you brought it with you?”\n\n“No indeed.  It’s at home, locked up.”\n\nThere was another great silence, and then she said “Go back and destroy\nit.”\n\nI went back, but I didn’t destroy it till after Saltram’s death, when I\nburnt it unread.  The Pudneys approached her again pressingly, but,\nprompt as they were, The Coxon Fund had already become an operative\nbenefit and a general amaze: Mr. Saltram, while we gathered about, as it\nwere, to watch the manna descend, had begun to draw the magnificent\nincome.  He drew it as he had always drawn everything, with a grand\nabstracted gesture.  Its magnificence, alas, as all the world now knows,\nquite quenched him; it was the beginning of his decline.  It was also\nnaturally a new grievance for his wife, who began to believe in him as\nsoon as he was blighted, and who at this hour accuses us of having bribed\nhim, on the whim of a meddlesome American, to renounce his glorious\noffice, to become, as she says, like everybody else.  The very day he\nfound himself able to publish he wholly ceased to produce.  This deprived\nus, as may easily be imagined, of much of our occupation, and especially\ndeprived the Mulvilles, whose want of self-support I never measured till\nthey lost their great inmate.  They’ve no one to live on now.  Adelaide’s\nmost frequent reference to their destitution is embodied in the remark\nthat dear far-away Ruth’s intentions were doubtless good.  She and Kent\nare even yet looking for another prop, but no one presents a true sphere\nof usefulness.  They complain that people are self-sufficing.  With\nSaltram the fine type of the child of adoption was scattered, the\ngrander, the elder style.  They’ve got their carriage back, but what’s an\nempty carriage?  In short I think we were all happier as well as poorer\nbefore; even including George Gravener, who by the deaths of his brother\nand his nephew has lately become Lord Maddock.  His wife, whose fortune\nclears the property, is criminally dull; he hates being in the Upper\nHouse, and hasn’t yet had high office.  But what are these accidents,\nwhich I should perhaps apologise for mentioning, in the light of the\ngreat eventual boon promised the patient by the rate at which The Coxon\nFund must be rolling up?\n\nNow, answer the question based on the story asconcisely as you can, using a single phrase if possible. Do not provide any explanation.\n\nQuestion: What was Gravener urging Anvoy to do?\n\nAnswer:"}