we saw them off."

"And how came it that I was never called?"

"I believe, sir, but I'm not sure, the landlord tried to awake you. At
all events, he has a note for you now, for I saw the old lady place it
in his hand."

"Fetch it at once," said I; and when he left the room, I threw some
water over my face, and tried to rally all my faculties to meet the
occasion.

When the waiter reappeared with the note, I bade him leave it on the
table; I could not venture to read it while he was in the room. At
length he went away, and I opened it. These were the contents:--

"Sir,--When a person of your rank abuses the privilege of his station,
it is supposed that he means to rebuke. Although innocent of any cause
for your displeasure, I have preferred to withdraw myself from your
notice than incur the chance of so severe a reprimand a second time.

"I am, sir, with unfeigned sorrow and humility, your most devoted
follower and servant,

"Martha Keats.

"To the--de----"

This was the whole of it; not a great deal as correspondence, but matter
enough for much thought and much misery. After a long and painful review
of my conduct, one startling fact stood prominently forward, which was,
that I had done something which, had it been the act of a royal prince,
would yet have been unpardonable, but which, if known to emanate from
one such as myself, would have been a downright outrage.

I went into the whole case, as a man who detests figures might have gone
into a long and complicated account; and just as he would skip small
sums, and pay little heed to fractions, I aimed at arriving at some
grand solid balance for or against myself.

I felt, that if asked to produce my books, they might run this wise:
Potts, on the credit side, a philanthropist, self-denying, generous,
and trustful; one eager to do good, thinking no evil of his neighbor,
hopeful of everybody, anxious to establish that brotherhood amongst men
which, however varied the station, could and ought to subsist, and which
needs but the connecting link of one sympathetic existence to establish.
On the other side, Potts, I grieve to say, appeared that which Ferdinand
Mendez Pinto was said to be.

When I had rallied a bit from the stunning effect of this disagreeable
"total," I began to wish that I had somebody to argue the matter out
with me. The way I would put my case would be thus: "Has not--from
the time of Martius Curtius down to the late Mr. Sadlier, of banking