The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-07-13
(contlnued.l

Reasoning on these assumptions, and al
ways bearing in mind the one certain
fact 10 guide me, that Mrs Catherick
was in possession OF the secret. easily
understood that II was Sir Percival's In
terest to keep her at welmingham be-
cause her character in that place was
certain 10 isolate her from all communi-
ton with female neighbors. and TO allow
her no opportunities OF talking incau-
tiously, in moments OF free intercourse
with inauisitive bosom friends. But what
was the mysctery TO be concealed? Not
Sir Percivars Infamous connection with
Mrs Catherick's disgrace--for the neigh
bors were the very people who knew or
IT, Not the suspicion that he was Anne
father-for Welmingham was the place
in which that suspicion must inevitably
exist II / accepted the guilty appear
ances described TO me as unreservediy
as others had accepted them; II drew
from theff-ti4- se+r4-- superficial conclu-
sion which Mr.. Catherick and all ms
neighbors had drawn--where was the
suggestion, in all that had heard. OF a
dangerous secret between Sir Percival
and Mrs. Catherick. which had been kept
hidden from that time 10 this?
And yet, I'm those stolen meetings. In
those familiar whisperings between the
clerks wife and 1.-The gentleman IN
beyond a doubt.
Was IL possible that appearances, In
this case. had pointed one way while the
truth lay all the while unsuspected, In
another direction? Could Mrs. Cdther.
ick's assertion that she as the victim OF
a dreadful mistake by any possibility pe
true? or. assuming II 10 be false. could
the conclusion which associated Sir Fer
cival with her guilt have been founded in
some inconceivable error? HAD Sir fer-
cival, by any chance courted the suspi-
cion that was wrong. for the sake
of diverting from himself some 9th,
er suspicion that was right Here, II |
could find there was the approach 10
the secret. hidden deep under the surface
OF the apparently unpfu-nising story
which ! had just heard.
My next questions were now directed 20
the one object OF ascertaining whether Mr..
Catherick had. or had not, arrived truly
at the conviction OF his wife's misconduct
Clements left me in no doubt whatever
or that point Mrs. Catherick had, on the
clearest evidence, compromised her repu-
tation. while single woman, with some
person unknown and had married 10 save
her character. II had been positively as.
certained. by calculations OF time ana
Place into which need no, hn enter 6ope pare bsr
husbands name was not her husband
child.
The next object of inquiry. whether It
must have been the father OF Anne. was
beset by far greater difficulties. I was I'm
no position 10 try the probabl on one
side or on the other. in this instance, uy
any better test than the test OF personal
resemblance.
II suppose you often saw Sir Percival.
when he was I'm your village?" I said.
Yes, sir-very often" replied Mrs.
Clements.
"Did you ever observe that Anne was
like him."
was she like her mother. then7'
''She was not a all like him, SIR"
Not like her mother either. sir. Mrs.
Catherick was dark, and fun in the face
Not like her mother, and not like her
(supposed) father. I knew that the test
by personal resemblance was not TO be
implicitly trusted-but. on the other hand.
II was not to be altogether rejected on
that account. Was It possible TO
strengthen the evidence. by discovering
any conclusive fact In relation Of the
lives OF Mrs. Catherick and Sir Percival
before they either of them appeared at
Old welmingham? When I asked my
next questions put them with this view
When -peretFai first arrived I'm
your neighborhood, said. did you
hear where he had come from last?"
mo. sir. Some said from Blackwater