Although you and I no doubt unite in the admiration, which all our
fellow-countrymen profess, and some of them feel, for our immortal bard,
yet I do not think that our zeal as Shakspearians will extend so far as
to receive him as an unquestionable authority for the facts introduced
into his historical plays. The utmost, I apprehend, that we should admit
is, that they represent the tradition of the time in which he wrote, and
even that admission we should modify by the allowance, to which every
poet is entitled, of certain changes adopted for dramatic effect, and
with the object of enhancing our interest in the character he is
delineating.
Two facts in his Second Part of _Henry IV_, always referred to in
connection with each other, notwithstanding the ingenious remarks on
them made by Mr. Tyler in his _History of Henry V._, are still accepted,
and principally by general readers, on Shakspeare's authority, as
undoubtedly true. The one is the incident of Prince Henry's committal to
prison by Chief Justice Gascoigne; and the other is the magnanimous
conduct of the Prince on his accession to the throne, in continuing the
Chief Justice in the office, which he had shown himself so well able to
support.
The first I have no desire to controvert, especially as it has been
selected as one of the illustrations of our history in the House of
Lords. Frequent allusion is made to it in the play. Falstaff's page says
to his master, on seeing the Chief Justice:
"Sir, here comes the nobleman that committed the prince for
striking him about Bardolph."
And Falstaff in the same scene thus addresses Gascoigne:
"For the box of the ear that the prince gave you,--he gave it
like a rude prince, and you took it like a sensible lord. I have
checked him for it, and the young lion repents."
And Gascoigne, when Henry refers to the incident in these words:
"How might a prince of my great hopes forget
So great indignities you laid upon me?
What! rate, rebuke, and roughly send to prison
The immediate heir of England! Was this easy?
May this be wash'd in Lethe, and forgotten?"
thus justifies himself to the king:
"I then did use the person of your father;
The image of his power lay then in me:
And in the administration of his law,
Whiles I was busy for the commonwealth,
Your highness pleased to forget my place,--
The majesty and power of law and justice,
The image of the king whom I presented,--
And, struck me in my very seat of judgment;
Whereon, as an offender to your father,
I 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
to countervail the impression created by his early removal.
With these facts before us, King Henry's supposed generosity in
renominating Gascoigne can no longer be credited. But, even presuming
that none of these facts 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
containing 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 Gascoigne's salary and pension, in which he is
called "_late_ Chief Justice of the Bench of _Lord Henry, father of the
present King_."
The second is the inscription on his monument in Harwood Church in
Yorkshire, where he is described as "_nuper_ capit. justio. de banco
Hen. _nuper_ regis angliæ _quarti_."
I think I may fairly ask whether it is possible to suppose that in
either of these records, particularly {163} the latter, he would have
been docked his title, had he ever been Chief Justice of the reigning
king?
Allow me to take this opportunity of thanking L.B.L. for his extracts
from the Hospitaller's Survey (Vol. ii., p. 123.), which are most
interesting, and, to use a modern word, very _suggestive_.
Edward Foss.
Street-End House, near Canterbury.
* * * * *