Arrived in England, he was set free, the Government here having decided
that he could not be criminally tried; and thus Hook, guilty or not, had
been ruined and disgraced for life for simple carelessness. True, the
custody of a nation's property makes negligence almost criminal; but
that does not excuse the punishment of a man before he is tried.

He was summoned, however, to the Colonial Audit Board, where he
underwent a trying examination; after which he was declared to be in the
debt of Government: a writ of extent was issued against him; nine months
were passed in that delightful place of residence--a Sponging-house,
which he then exchanged for the 'Rules of the Bench'--the only rules
which have no exception. From these he was at last liberated, in 1825,
on the understanding that he was to repay the money to Government if at
any time he should be in a position to do so.

His liberation was a tacit acknowledgment of his innocence of the charge
of robbery; his encumberment with a debt caused by another's
delinquencies was, we presume, a signification of his responsibility and
some kind of punishment for his carelessness. Certainly it was hard upon
Hook, that, if innocent, he should not have gone forth without a stain
on his character for honesty; and it was unjust, that, if guilty, he
should not have been punished. The judgment was one of those compromises
with stern justice which are seldom satisfactory to either party.

The fact was that, guilty or not guilty, Hook had been both incompetent
and inconsiderate. Doubtless he congratulated himself highly on
receiving, at the age of twenty-five, an appointment worth £2,000 a year
in the paradise of the world; but how short-sighted his satisfaction,
since this very appointment left him some ten years later a pauper to