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superseded.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