Notes and Queries, Number 41, August 10, 1850 | Page 2

gave bold way to my authority, And did

commit you." {162}
Now this is a relation that we are well content, although unsupported
by contemporaneous authority, 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 bard makes that selection
between 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 that you have us'd to bear; With this
remembrance,--that you use the same With the like bold, just, and
impartial spirit, As you have 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 under 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 fifth 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, however, that this
summons was dated on March 22, 1413, the day following the king's
accession, we must see that his Majesty could have had little more time
than to command a parliament to be summoned; that the officer who
made out the writs would naturally direct them to those peers, judges,
and others who were summoned to the preceding 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superseded.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 Hankford was Gascoigne's successor
as Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and the real question 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
Hankford 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 meeting 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 Hankford, placed too in precedence of Sir
William 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. Duffus Hardy (who
certainly can never be called the "streict-laced" gaoler of the records,
alluded to in your fourth number, Vol. i., p. 60.), has been inspected;
and the result is that the date of Hankford's appointment, instead of
being January 29, 1414, as stated by Dugdale, turns out to be March 29,
1413; just eight days after King Henry's accession, and ten days
previous to his coronation.
The peculiar 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 unction" 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