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 ******.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 upstairs 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 upstairs 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 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 the necessary 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 ******r 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.