he much impede it, and therefore, it mattered little whether he was in my
confidence or not; if he had the power, the doubt was, whether it would
be better for me to benefit by it openly, or by stratagem; that is--
whether it were wiser to state the whole case to him, or continue to gain
whatever I was able by dint of a blind examination. Now, the disadvantage
of candour was, that if it were his wish to screen Dawson and his friend,
he would be prepared to do so, and even to put them on their guard
against my suspicions; but the indifference he had testified with regard
to Dawson seemed to render this probability very small. The benefits of
candour were more prominent: Job would then be fully aware that his own
safety was not at stake; and should I make it more his interest to serve
the innocent than the guilty, I should have the entire advantage, not
only of any actual information he might possess, but of his skill and
shrewdness in providing additional proof, or at least suggesting
advantageous hints. Moreover, in spite of my vanity and opinion of my own
penetration, I could not but confess, that it was unlikely that my cross-
examination should be very successful with so old and experienced a
sinner as Mr. Jonson. "Set a thief to catch a thief," is among the wisest
of wise sayings, and accordingly I resolved in favour of a disclosure.

Drawing my chair close to Jonson's, fixing my eye upon his countenance,
and throwing into my own the most open, yet earnest expression I could
summon, I briefly proceeded to sketch Glanville's situation (only
concealing his name), and Thornton's charges. I mentioned my own
suspicions of the accuser, and my desire of discovering Dawson, whom
Thornton appeared to me artfully to secrete. Lastly, I concluded, with a
solemn promise, that if my listener could, by any zeal, exertion,
knowledge, or contrivance of his own, procure the detection of the men,
whom I was convinced were the murderers, a pension of three hundred
pounds a-year should be immediately settled upon him.