It was a young girl in love.
He thought again of Juliet…
Chapter 9. This Little Pig Had None
‘May I ask why, M. Poirot?’
Hercule Poirot considered his answer to the question. He was aware of a pair of very shrewd grey eyes watching him out of the small wizened face.
He had climbed to the top floor of the bare building and knocked on the door of No. 584 Gillespie Buildings, which had come into existence to provide what were called ‘flatlets’ for working women.
Here, in a small cubic space, existed Miss Cecilia Williams, in a room that was bedroom, sitting-room, dining- room, and, by judicious use of the gas ring, kitchen-a kind of cubby hole attached to it contined a quarter-length bath and the usual offices.
Meagre though these surroundings might be, Miss Williams had contrived to impress upon them her stamp of personality.
The walls were distempered an ascetic pale grey, and various reproductions hung upon them. Dante meeting Beatrice on a bridge-and that picture once described by a child as a ‘blind girl sitting on an orange and called, I don’t know why, “Hope”.’ There were also two water colours of Venice and a sepia copy of Botticelli’s ‘Primavera’. On the top of the low chest of drawers were a large quantity of faded photographs, mostly, by their style of hairdressing, dating from twenty to thirty years ago.
The square of carpet was threadbare, the furniture battered and of poor quality. It was clear to Hercule Poirot that Cecilia Williams lived very near the bone. There was no roast beef here. This was the little pig that had none.
Clear, incisive and insistent, the voice of Miss Williams repeated its demand.
‘You want my recollections of the Crale case? May I ask why?’
It had been said of Hercule Poirot by some of his friends and associates, at moments when he has maddened them most, that he prefers lies to truth and will go out of his way to gain his ends by means of elaborate false statements, rather than trust to the simple truth.
But in this case his decision was quickly made. Hercule Poirot did not come of that class of Belgian or French children who have had an English governess, but he reacted as simply and inevitably as various small boys who had been asked in their time: ‘Did you brush your teeth this morning, Harold (or Richard or Anthony)?’ They considered fleetingly the possibility of a lie and instantly rejected it, replying miserably, ‘No, Miss Williams.’
For Miss Williams had what every successful child educator must have, that mysterious quality-authority! When Miss Williams said ‘Go up and wash your hands, Joan,’ or ‘I expect you to read this chapter on the Elizabethan poets and be able to answer my questions on it,’ she was invariably obeyed. It had never entered Miss Williams’ head that she would not be obeyed.
So in this case Hercule Poirot proffered no specious explanation of a book to be written on bygone crimes. Instead he narrated simply the circumstances in which Carla Lemarchant had sought him out.
The small, elderly lady in the neat shabby dress listened attentively.
She said:
‘It interests me very much to have news of that child-to know how she has turned out.’
‘She is a very charming and attractive young woman, with plenty of courage and a mind of her own.’
‘Good,’ said Miss Williams briefly.
‘And she is, I may say, a very persistent person. She is not a person whom it is easy to refuse or put off.’
The ex-governess nodded thoughtfully. She asked:
‘Is she artistic?’
‘I think not.’
Miss Williams said drily:
‘That’s one thing to be thankful for!’
The tone of the remark left Miss Williams’ views as to artists in no doubt whatever.
She added:
‘From your account of her I should imagine that she takes after her mother rather than after her father.’
‘Very possibly. That you can tell me when you have seen her. You would like to see her?’
‘I should like to see her very much indeed. It is always interesting to see how a child you have known has developed.’
‘She was, I suppose, very young when you last saw her?’
‘She was five and a half. A very charming child-a little over-quiet, perhaps. Thoughtful. Given to playing her own little games and not inviting outside co-operation. Natural and unspoilt.’
Poirot said:
‘It was fortunate she was so young.’
‘Yes, indeed. Had she been older the shock of the tragedy might have had a very bad effect.’
‘Nevertheless,’ said Poirot, ‘one feels that there was a handicap-however little the child understood or was allowed to know, there would have been an atmosphere of mystery and evasion and an abrupt uprooting. These things are not good for a child.’
Miss Williams replied thoughtfully:
‘They may have been less harmful than you think.’
Poirot said:
‘Before we leave the subject of Carla Lemarchant-little Carla Crale that was, there is something I would like to ask you. If any one can explain it, I think you can.’
‘Yes?’
Her voice was inquiring, non-commital.
Poirot waved his hands in an effort to express his meaning.
‘There is a something-a nuance I cannot define-but it seems to me always that the child, when I mention her, is not given her full representational value. When I mention her, the response comes always with a vague surprise, as though the person to whom I speak had forgotten altogether that there was a child. Now surely, Mademoiselle, that is not natural? A child, under these circumstances, is a person of importance, not in herself, but as a pivotal point. Amyas Crale may have had reasons for abandoning his wife-or for not abandoning her. But in the usual break-up of a marriage the child forms a very important point. But here the child seems to count for very little. That seems to me-strange.’
Miss Williams said quickly:
‘You have put your finger on a vital point, M. Poirot. You are quite right. And that is partly why I said what I did just now-that Carla’s transportation to different surroundings might have been in some respects a good thing for her. When she was older, you see, she might have suffered from a certain lack in her home life.’
She leaned forward and spoke slowly and carefully.
‘Naturally, in the course of my work, I have seen a good many aspects of the parent and child problem. Many children, most children, I should say, suffer from over-attention on the part of their parents. There is too much love, too much watching over the child. It is uneasily conscious of this brooding, and seeks to free itself, to get away and be unobserved. With an only child that is particularly the case, and of course mothers are the worst offenders. The result on the marriage is often unfortunate. The husband resents coming second, seeks
