uspicious degree of familiarity in his treatment of me and my house. I
can only observe, that over his conduct I had no controul. But he knew,
it seems, of my change of abode, which had occurred within a few days. I
trust it will be recollected, that he is proved to have left town three
days after such change, and that though not intimate with me, he had the
means of knowing where I resided, even if he should not have enquired at
my former lodgings, where my address was left. Indeed, if taking refuge
in my ship, in order to facilitate his escape, was part of his scheme,
it was very likely that he would have ascertained the precise place of
my abode, previous to his quitting London. Again, I am said to have left
the tinman's, (where I think I should hardly have gone had I expected
such a messenger) as soon as I heard of the officer's arrival. I was in
apprehensions of fatal news respecting my brother then in France, from
whom I had received a letter but three days before, with the
intelligence of his being dangerously ill; and I now tender you his
affidavit, with the surgeon's certificate, dated the 12th of February,
which he brought home with him. And therefore, on receiving the note
from De Berenger, whose name I was unable to decypher, and as that note
announced that the writer, whom I learnt from my servant had the
appearance of an officer in the army, who was desirous of seeing me, I
hastened to learn intelligence so anxiously expected; nor had I the
least doubt that it related to my brother. When, however, I found that
the person was De Berenger, and that he had only to speak of his own
private affairs, the apparent distress he was in, and the relief it gave
my mind to know that he was not the bearer of the news I dreaded,
prevented me from feeling that displeasure which I might otherwise have
felt at the liberty he had taken or the interruption it had occasioned.
Comments have been made on my saying so little to the servant who
brought that note; but the fact is, I did ask him several questions, as
appears by his affidavit. That I did not learn the name of the writer
from the note itself, I have truly accounted for, by its being written
so close to the bottom of the paper that I could not read it. This
assertion is said to be contradicted by the circumstance of the writer
having found room to add a postscript, as if there was only one side to
the paper. Of the postscript I have no recollection, but it might have
bee