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