So far good, and the delightful first Act was rich in promise. Then came the complexities. There was another girl, _Rose Effick_ (a rich relation of the socialist), to whom _Callender_ should have been engaged but for a misunderstanding. It is her business to divert him back to his old love. You would naturally say that, if it is _Callender's_ object to disgust _Doris_ with the life of the people, so that she may change her mind and take him for what he actually is, it will be _Rose's_ object, since her aim is the frustration of this design, to make Bethnal Green as attractive as possible, so that _Doris_ will refuse to sacrifice her ideals when she learns the truth about _Callender_. Yet it looks as if _Rose_ is playing _Callender's_ game and not her own. At first, it is true, she tries to make the attic more supportable; imparts a pleasant flavour to the meal; dismisses the hurdy-gurdies that _Callender_ has chartered from the Universal Provider. But subsequently she goes slumming with _Doris_ to such good purpose that the latter turns sick of the whole thing. Now, you will say, _Callender's_ way is clear; he will reveal his identity and _Doris_ will be prepared to tolerate his wealth. On the contrary, Mr. Sutko is not to be defeated by his own machinations; he means to bring _Callender_ and _Rose_ together; so he just takes and throws them into one another's arms and consigns _Doris_ to an old admirer whom we have never so much as set eyes on. [Illustration: A HAIR-AND-TIE ANARCHIST. _Wilfrid Callender_: Mr. Gerald du Maurier.] I hope I am more lucid than I seem to myself to be--more lucid, anyhow, than Mr. Sutro, who has threatened to damage an excellent scheme by defiance of the first law of drama, even of farce, namely, that the audience should be permitted to know what the author is after. Nor, again--though of course he was not asking to be taken seriously--was he very particular about the probability of some of his characters. _Doris_, for instance, was required to be too many things at once. A bluestocking and a _sansculotte_ (not a very usual combination), she was also a woman of the very latest cry in frocks. Miss Nina Sevening looked pretty and wore them well, but beyond this she gave us very little help. _Rose_, too (charmingly played by Miss Marie Loehr), who disguised herself as a dweller in Bethnal Green by the simple expedient of a duster pinned over her shoulders--how could Mr. Sutro expect her dainty skirt and smart white shoes to escape the eye of this "clever" female, her rival? All the same, he gave us much matter for mirth, though the Second Act, which promised so well, was dragged out by interminable trivialities over the preparations for tea. I wish that authors and actors would understand how depressing it often is when people on the stage will insist on keeping things bright and brisk with domestic details.