THE STORY OF ^lY LEGAL EXAMINATION. 213 



the same offence ; and being convicted, or unconvicted, it 

 mattered not, he could never, never," — "Rule Britannia" 

 again : I ought to have given my attention to maritime 

 law — "be again placed at the bar before twelve of his 

 fellow-countrymen, ready to take his stand for the offence 

 once committed, and " — here I felt I was getting weak, and 

 might lapse into unconscious verbiage, so pulled up with — 

 " in fact it was totally against the principler of English law, 

 and English common sense, on which all law was founded," 

 — this came in well, — "to try a man twice for only one 

 offence." After this effort I paused. What was the next 

 question ? The next was a pendant to the former, and ran 

 thus : — 



" Give the reason for your answer ^ 



This took me aback. It involved reading my answer over 

 again. I could see no reason for it. The more I thought 

 of it the less reason I could see. In fact the whole case 

 came gradually to assume a totally different complexion. 

 Why shouldn't a man be tried twice if he deserved it, or 

 could be caught again 1 " Caught again ! " That suggested 

 a new train of thought. Perhaps the question turned upon 

 this supposition. Yet, if so, it was absurdly like the receipt 

 attributed to Glasse in her cookery book, of " First catch 

 your hare," and I couldn't very well write that down, as it 

 might look like impertinence towards the examiner or 

 benchers, or whoever they were who had to read these 

 papers. " Give the reason for your ansiuerP No, I could not 

 see any. There was no reason for it, except that I " didn't 

 know any other." I'd leave it, and pretend I hadn't seen it. 



