PUNISHMENT OF EDWARD PRINCE OF WALES, BY KING EDWARD I., FOR DISRESPECT
TO A JUDGE.
MR. FOSS has lately shown, in his valuable lives of _The Judges of
England_, that historical accuracy has been sacrificed in representing
Henry V., on his accession, to have re-invested Sir William Gascoigne
with "the balance and the sword." Lord Campbell, warned that
chroniclers, historians, moralists, and poets had, without historical
warrant, taken for true the story which Shakspeare has made so familiar
to us, has, in his _Lives of the Chief Justices_, examined the evidence
for attributing to the young king the act of magnanimity, and has
affirmed (vol. i. p. 131.) not only that Sir William committed the
prince, but that he actually filled the office of Chief Justice under
him when he became Henry V. The noble and learned lord has been at some
pains to authenticate the story of the commital of the prince, and has
shown that there is no sufficient reason for disbelieving that the
dauntless judge did make "princely power submit" to justice; and he has
brought forward also the probable sources of Shakspeare's information.
But these are silent as to the reinstatement of the illustrious judge;
and MR. FOSS has established that the young king lost no time in
dispensing with the "well-practised wise directions" of Sir William
Gascoigne. One is really sorry to be obliged to relinquish belief in the
historical foundation of the scene to which Shakspeare has given such
fine dramatic effect in his noble lines. My object, however, in now
writing is to point out a circumstance in some respects parallel, which
occurred in the reign of Edward I. In looking thorough the _Abbreviatio
Placitorum_ to-day, I find the record of a judgment in Michaelmas Term,
33 Edw. I. (1305), in which a curious illustration is given of the
character of that sovereign; for it appears that Edward Prince of Wales
having spoken words insulting to one of the king's ministers (when and
to whom I wish I could ascertain), the monarch himself firmly vindicated
the respect due to the royal dignity in the person of its servants, by
banishing the prince from his house and presence for a considerable
time. This anecdote occurs in the record of a complaint made to the king
in council, by Roger de Hecham (in Madox the name occurs as Hegham or
Heigham), a Baron of the Exchequer, of gross and upbraiding language
having been contemptuously addressed to him by William de Brewes,
because of his judgment in favour of the delinquent's adversary. The
record recites that such contempt and disrespect towards as well the
king's ministers as himself or his courts are very odious to the king,
and proceeds---- but I will give the original:
"Que quidem (videlicet) contemptus et inobediencia tam ministris
ipsius Domini Regi quam sibi ipsi aut cur' suae facta ipsi Regi
valde sunt odiosa, et hoc expresse nuper apparuit idem [Dns] Rex
filium suum primogenitum et carissimum Edwardum Principem Walliae
[p=] eo quod quedam verba grossa et acerba cuidam ministro suo
dixerat ab hospicio suo fere [p=] dimi[d=] ann' amovit, nec ipsum
filium suum in conspectu suo venire [p=]misit quous[q=] dicto
ministro de [=p]dicta transgress' satisfecerat. Et quia sicut
honor et reverencia qui ministris ipsius [Dni] Regi ratione officii
sui fiunt ipsi Regi attribuuntur sic dedecus et contemptus
ministris suis facta eidem [Dno] Regi inferuntur."
And accordingly the said Edward was adjudged to go in full court in
Westminster Hall, and ask pardon of the judge whom he had insulted; and
for the contempt done to the king and his court was then to stand
committed to the Tower, there to remain during the king's pleasure.
(_Abb. Plac._ lib. impres. p. 257.)
Roger de Hegham occurs as a Baron of the Exchequer in 26 Edw. I., and
died 2 Edw. II. (Madox, ii. 58.)