ct, 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superseded.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 "flatt