Here ended the main portion of the police record. A subsequent note in red ink, however, directed farther on to a later entry in the volume, with the date of nearly six months after. “The Englishman Greefeeze reappeared at the bureau, with passports to be viséd for England. ‘Stated that he was in the service of M. Vilby, who had suddenly become, by the death of an elder brother, the possessor of a title and estates. Desired, in the indifferent manner of the English, to know the state of the woman Suzanne Deroux. Inquired for her residence, on the ground that his master would confer a pension on her for her injuries.’ An inspector was sent with him to the woman’s house, where she had at length returned from the hospital with her child. The emotion of her gratitude on perceiving Greefeeze was the more conspicuous from his impassibility. Yet on the following day, accompanied by the woman and her child, now recovered, Greefeeze presented himself at the bureau, to declare his adoption of the latter, under his own name. He was required to procure a notarial and ecclesiastical testification, as well as to engage against the future return of the child for subsistence from the police—also the approval of his master, Sir Vilby.—Sir Vilby indeed appeared at the bureau, when about to leave Paris in haste. His voice and features were scarcely recognisable from the effects of suffering. He disavowed consent to the act of Greefeeze, who followed him, and whom he contemptuously called a fool. Sir Vilby, however, intimated the right of Greefeeze to pursue his eccentric idea, if persevered in. The stubborn Greefeeze alluded to a wife whom he had left in his own country of Wales, and who was unhappy from the absence of children. His sentiments had apparently been touched in the act of rescuing this infant, which he was about to intrust, on the journey, to the female fellow-travellers who might accompany them. The act of adoption is consequently recorded as follows—— * * * Sir Vilby requested to correct his statement on the previous occasion, six months before, with regard to the body at La Morgue, since, on reflection, he was decidedly of opinion that it was that of the Swiss, John Adolphe, his servant. This had already, indeed, been perceived by the commissary—but the retractation appeared more eccentric than the denial. The pension, too, which Sir Vilby now conferred on the nurse, ought to have been given before, as the very material injuries were received at all events in his employment.”