there the explanation of the landlord and the
landlady came to an end.

An investigation was next made in the room.
Dear Mr. Godfrey's property was found scattered
in all directions. When the articles were
collected, however, nothing was missing; his watch,
chain, purse, keys, pocket-handkerchief, notebook,
and all his loose papers had been closely
examined, and had then been left unharmed to
be resumed by the owner. In the same way,
not the smallest morsel of property belonging
to the proprietors of the house had been
abstracted. The Oriental noblemen had removed
their own illuminated manuscript, and had
removed nothing else.

What did it mean? Taking the worldly
point of view, it appeared to mean that Mr.
Godfrey had been the victim of some
incomprehensible error, committed by certain
unknown men. A dark conspiracy was on foot in
the midst of us; and our beloved and innocent
friend had been entangled in its meshes. When
the Christian hero of a hundred charitable
victories plunges into a pitfall that has been dug
for him by mistake, oh, what a warning it is to
the rest of us to be unceasingly on our guard!
How soon may our own evil passions prove
to be Oriental noblemen who pounce on us
unawares!

I could write pages of affectionate warning
on this one theme, but (alas!) I am not
permitted to improve—I am condemned to narrate.
My wealthy relative's cheque—henceforth, the
incubus of my existence—warns me that I have
not done with this record of violence yet. We
must leave Mr. Godfrey to recover in
Northumberland-street, and must follow the proceedings
of Mr. Luker, at a later period of the day.

After leaving the bank, Mr. Luker had
visited various parts of London on business
errands. Returning to his own residence, he
found a letter waiting for him, which was
described as having been left a short time
previously by a boy. In this case, as in Mr.
Godfrey's case, the handwriting was strange;
but the name mentioned was the name of one
of Mr. Luker's customers. His correspondent
announced (writing in the third person—
apparently by the hand of a deputy) that he had
been unexpectedly summoned to London. He
had just established himself in lodgings in
Alfred-place, Tottenham Court-road; and he
desired to see Mr. Luker immediately, on the
subject of a purchase which he contemplated
making. The gentleman was an enthusiastic
collector of oriental antiquities, and had been
for many years a liberal patron of the establishment
in Lambeth. Oh, when shall we wean
ourselves from the worship of Mammon! Mr.
Luker called a cab, and drove off instantly to
his liberal patron.

Exactly what had happened to Mr. Godfrey
in Northumberland-street now happened to Mr.
Luker in Alfred-place. Once more the
respectable man answered the door, and showed
the visitor up-stairs into the back drawing-room.
There, again, lay the illuminated manuscript
on a table. Mr. Luker's attention was
absorbed, as Mr. Godfrey's attention had been
absorbed, by this beautiful work of Indian
art. He too was aroused from his studies by
a tawny naked arm round his throat, by a
bandage over his eyes, and by a gag in his
mouth. He too was thrown prostrate, and
searched to the skin. A longer interval had
then elapsed than had passed in the experience
of Mr. Godfrey; but it had ended, as before,
in the persons of the house suspecting
something wrong, and going up-stairs to see what
had happened. Precisely the same explanation
which the landlord in Northumberland-street
had given to Mr. Godfrey, the landlord in
Alfred-place now gave to Mr. Luker. Both
had been imposed on in the same way by the
plausible address and the well-filled purse of
the respectable stranger, who introduced
himself as acting for his foreign friends. The one
point of difference between the two cases
occurred when the scattered contents of Mr.
Luker's pockets were being collected from the
floor. His watch and purse were safe, but
(less fortunate than Mr. Godfrey) one of the
loose papers that he carried about him had been
taken away. The paper in question
acknowledged the receipt of a valuable of great price
which Mr. Luker had that day left in the care
of his bankers. This document would be
useless for purposes of fraud, inasmuch as it
provided that the valuable should only be given up on
the personal application of the owner. As soon
as he recovered himself, Mr. Luker hurried to
the bank, on the chance that the thieves who
had robbed him might ignorantly present
themselves with the receipt. Nothing had been seen
of them when he arrived at the establishment,
and nothing was seen of them afterwards. Their
respectable English friend had (in the opinion
of the bankers) looked the receipt over before
they attempted to make use of it, and had
given them their warning in good time.

Information of both outrages was communicated
to the police, and the needful investigations
were pursued, I believe, with great energy. The
authorities held that a robbery had been planned,
on insufficient information received by the
thieves. They had been plainly not sure whether
Mr. Luker had, or had not, trusted the
transmission of his precious gem to another person,
and poor polite Mr. Godfrey had paid the
penalty of having been seen accidentally speaking
to him. Add to this, that Mr. Godfrey's
absence from our Monday evening meeting had
been occasioned by a consultation of the
authorities, at which he was requested to assist
—and all the explanations required being now
given, I may proceed with the simpler story
of my own little personal experiences in
Montagu Square.

I was punctual to the luncheon-hour on Tuesday.
Reference to my diary shows this to have
been a chequered day—much in it to be
devoutly regretted, much in it to be devoutly
thankful for.