162 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[No. 41. 



Now this is a relation tliat we are well content, 

 although unsupported by contemporaneous a\i- 

 thority, to receive on tradition : because in the 

 nature of the circumstances we cannot expect to 

 find any authentic evidence of the occurrence. 

 But we should never think of citing these passages 

 as fixing the fact of the blow, as chronicled by 

 Hall, in opposition to the milder representation of 

 the story as told by Sir Thomas Elliott in " The 

 Governour." The iDard makes that selection be- 

 tween the two versions which best suits the scene 

 he is depicting. 



We cannot, however, be so easily satisfied with 

 the second fact, — the reappointment of Gascoigne, 

 — thus asserted by Shakspeare when making Henry 

 say : 



" You did commit me; 



For which, I do commit into your hand 



The unstain'd sword tliat you have us'd to bear; 



With this remembrance, — that you use the same 



With the like bold, just, and impartial spirit, 



As you liave done 'gainst me." 



We require better evidence for this than tradition, 

 because, if true, better evidence can be adduced. 

 A noble writer has very recently declared that he 

 can " prove to demonstration that Sir William 

 Gascoigne survived Henry IV. several years, and 

 actually filled the office of Chief Justice of the King's 

 Bench undei- Henry V. As to the first of these 

 points he implicitly follows Mr. Tyler's history, 

 who proves that Gascoigne died in December 1419, 

 in the seventh year of the fitlh Henry's reign ; but 

 as to the second point, deserting his authority 

 and omitting the dates introduced in it, he entirely 

 fails in supporting his assertion. The assertion, 

 however, having been made in so recent a work, it 

 becomes important to investigate its truth. 



The only fact that gives an apparent authenticity 

 to the story is that Gascoigne was summoned to 

 the first parliament of Henry V. as " Chief Justice 

 of our Lord the King." When we recollect, how- 

 ever, that this summons was dated on Marcli 22, 

 1413, the day following the king's accession, we 

 mustseethat hismnjestycoidd have had little more 

 time than to command a parliament to be sum- 

 moned ; that the officer wlio made out the writs 

 would naturally direct them to those peers, judges, 

 and others who were summoned to the ])receding 

 parliament ; and that the proper title of Gascoigne 

 was Chief Justice until he was actually superseded. 

 This evidence, therefore, is anything but conclusive, 

 and in fact gives very little assistance in deciding 

 the point at issue. 



It is well known that Sir William Ilankford 

 was Gascoigne's successor as Chief Justice of the 

 King's Bench, and the real rpiestion is, when he 

 became so. Dugdale states that the date of his 

 patent was .January 29, 1414, ten months after 

 King Henry's accession ; and if this were so, the 

 presumption would follow that Gascoigne continued 



Chief Justice till that time. Let us see whether 

 facts support this presumption. 



Now, Hankford was a Judge of the Common 

 Pleas at the end of the previous reign ; but he was 

 omitted when his brethren of that court received 

 their new patents from Henry V., which were not 

 issued till May 2, a day or two before Easter Term. 

 And yet we find the name of ILankford in the 

 Year-book reports of both that and Trinity Term ; 

 and we find it, not as acting in the Common Pleas, 

 but as ruling in the King's Bench. 



Further, although Gascoigne was summoned to 

 the first parliament on March 22, yet on its meet- 

 ing on May 15, he was not present ; — added to 

 which, his usual position, as first named legal trier 

 of petitions, was filled by Sir William Ilankford, 

 placed too in precedence of Sir Williani Thirning, 

 the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. 



These facts, so contradictory to Dugdale's date, 

 rendered it necessary to refer to the roll. This, 

 by the kindness of Mr. DulTus Hardy (who certainly 

 can never be called the "streict-laced" gaoler of 

 the records, alluded to in your Ibiu'th number, 

 Vol. i., p. GO), has been inspected ; and the result 

 is that the date of Ilanktbrd's appointment, instead 

 of being Jamiari/ 29, 1414, as stated by Dugdale, 

 turns out to be Marcli 29, 1413; just eight days 

 after King Henry's accession, and ten days pre- 

 vious to his coronation. 



The pecidiar period chosen for this act, and its 

 precipitancy in contrast with the delay in issuing 

 the new patents to the other judges, tend strongly, 

 I am afraid, to deprive us of the " flattering unc- 

 tion" of supposing that it resulted from Gascoigne's 

 choice, rather than Henry's mandate. Nor is the 

 royal warrant of November 1414, 2 Henry V. 

 (twenty months afterwards), granting him four 

 bucks and four does yearly, during his life, out of 

 the forest of Pontefract, a sufficient proof of favour 

 to countervail the impression created by his early 

 removal. 



"With these facts before us. King Henry's sup- 

 posed generosity in renominating Gascoigne can 

 no longer be credited. But, even presuming that 

 none of these fiicts had been discovered, I must 

 own myself surprised that any one could maintain 

 that Gascoigne was ever Chief Justice to Hen. V., 

 with two existing records before him, both con- 

 taining conclusive proof to the contrary. 



The first is the entry on the Issue Roll of July, 

 1413, of a payment made of an arrear of Gas- 

 coigne's salary and pension, in which he is called 

 " late Chief Justice of the Bench of Lord Henry, 

 father of the present KingT 



The second is the inscription on his monument 

 in Ilarwood Church in Yorkshire, where he is de- 

 scribed as "???(y9(?rcapit. justic. de banco Hen. nuper 

 regis angliffi quarii''' 



I think I may fliirly ask whether it is possible to 

 suppose that in either of these records, particularly 



