come for purposes connected with her business; but this was absurd.  A cook under a bed is not there for professional purposes.  A relation of mine had a box containing diamonds under her bed, which diamonds she told me were to be mine.  Mine!  One day, at dinner-time, between the entrees and the roast, a cab drove away from my relative’s house containing the box wherein lay the diamonds.  John laid the dessert, brought the coffee, waited all the evening—­and oh, how frightened he was when he came to learn that his mistress’s box had been conveyed out of her own room, and it contained diamonds—­“Law bless us, did it now?” I wonder whether John’s subsequent career has been prosperous?  Perhaps the gentlemen from Bow Street were all in the wrong when they agreed in suspecting John as the author of the robbery.  His noble nature was hurt at the suspicion.  You conceive he would not like to remain in a family where they were mean enough to suspect him of stealing a jewel-box out of a bedroom—­and the injured man and my relatives soon parted.  But, inclining (with my usual cynicism) to think that he did steal the valuables, think of his life for the month or two whilst he still remains in the service!  He shows the officers over the house, agrees with them that the coup must have been made by persons familiar with it; gives them every assistance; pities his master and mistress with a manly compassion; points out what a cruel misfortune it is to himself as an honest man, with his living to get and his family to provide for, that this suspicion should fall on him.  Finally he takes leave of his place, with a deep, though natural melancholy that ever he had accepted it.  What’s a thousand pounds to gentle-folks!  A loss, certainly, but they will live as well without the diamonds as with them.  But to John his Hhhonor was worth more than diamonds, his Hhonor was.  Whohever is to give him back his character?  Who is to prevent hany one from saying, “Ho yes.  This is the footman which was in the family where the diamonds was stole?” &c.

I wonder has John prospered in life subsequently?  If he is innocent he does not interest me in the least.  The interest of the case lies in John’s behavior supposing him to be guilty.  Imagine the smiling face, the daily service, the orderly performance of duty, whilst within John is suffering pangs lest discovery should overtake him.  Every bell of the door which he is obliged to open may bring a police officer.  The accomplices may peach.  What an exciting life John’s must have been for a while.  And now, years and years after, when pursuit has long ceased, and detection is impossible, does he ever revert to the little transaction?  Is it possible those diamonds cost a thousand pounds?  What a rogue the fence must have been who only gave him so and so!  And I pleasingly picture to myself an old ex-footman and an ancient receiver of stolen goods meeting and talking over this matter, which dates from times so early that her present Majesty’s fair image could only just have begun to be coined or forged.