rage came hastily to the barre, where his seruant stode as a prisoner, and commaunded hym to be ungyued and sette at

suppose it to have been a story which had been handed down to Fabyan's time by oral tradition, or that Fabyan himself copied from some chronicler whose writings have not come down to us, or which at present remain in the obscurity of unpublished MS. May not the same line of argument be applied to the story related for the first time (so far, that is to say, as modern historians have been able to discover) by Sir Thomas Elyot? The reader will by this time have been able to form his own opinion as to the character of the latter for accuracy, and to verify for himself the authorities quoted; he will have seen that it is the exception, rather than the rule, with the author to give the exact reference to the passage translated; but that fact notwithstanding, he will admit that in no single instance can the author of The Governour be charged with inventing an anecdote or forging an illustration, in order to suit the object he may have in view. It is true that in more than one instance the Editor has had occasion to point out an apparent exaggeration, or, at least, a variation from the original text; but these errors must be allowed to be comparatively unimportant-not amounting to gross misstatements, and may even be explained by the author's misapprehension of the original documents, or be charged to the original documents themselves, which, no doubt, in many instances were unprinted. Taking this view of the character of Sir Thomas Elyot, the reader will probably agree with the Editor in thinking it reasonable to suppose, that the story narrated in the text was transcribed from the MS. of some unknown chronicler. We know from Ascham that it was the author's habit to consult ' very old chronicles.' In this case of course the chronicle would not be very old, but the style of the narrative, and more particularly the conclusion, bears on the face of it all the appearance of being a transcript from some other document, and probably a translation from a Latin original. That Henry V., as a sovereign, was held in high estimation by the monks of St. Albans, whatever opinion they may have had of him previous to his accession, is evident from the language of panegyric which they themselves employed when speaking of him after his death. And the secret of this admiration is not far to seek; to quote Walsingham's own words, he was 'in eleemosynis largus, Deo devotus, et Ecclesiæ prælatos et ministros promovens et honorans.'-Hist. Ang. vol. ii. p. 344. One of his first acts after assuming the crown had already endeared him in their eyes. 'Edificari mandavit ædem binam super Thamisiam flumen, unam Cartusiensibus viris religiosis quam Bethleem nominavit, alteram sacris mulieribus beatæ Brigidæ quæ Syon nominata est. His et ambabus à summo pontifice Indulgentias impetravit, et hæc templa proventibus immunitatibusque pluribus ditavit.'-T. Livius, Vita Hen. V., p. 5. ed. 1716. It may be considered equally certain that Gascoigne was also high in favour with the clergy on account of his refusal to execute the commands of Henry IV., who had ordered him to pass sentence of death upon Scrope, the Archbishop of York, for his share in the insurrection of 1405. This appears from the language of the writer (Clement Maydestone) to whom we are indebted for a report of the Chief Justice's manly reply to

libertie, where at all men were abasshed, reserued the chiefe iustice, who humbly exhorted the prince to be contented that

Henry. In the history of the 'martydom' of Scrope, we read that Henricus quartus Rex Angliæ in camerâ Manerii dicti Archiepiscopi, quod vocatur Bishopsthorp juxta Eboracum, mandavit Willelmo Gascoyne Armigero, ad tunc Justiciario principali Angliæ, ut sententiam mortis de præfato Archiepiscopo proferret tanquam de proditore Regis ; qui hoc recusavit, et sic sibi respondit. "Nec vos, Domine mi Rex, nec aliquis nomine vestro vester ligeus, potestis licitè secundum jura Regni, aliquem Episcopum ad mortem judicare." Unde præfatum Archiepiscopum judicare omnino renuit. Quare idem Rex irâ vehementi exarsit versus eundem Judicem, cujus memoria sit in benedictionem in sæcula sæculi.'—Wharton, Anglia Sacra, pars ii. p. 369, ed. 1691. The Editor is disposed to think that in this pious ejaculation, coupled with a circumstance to be shortly mentioned, may possibly be found an explanation of the tradition which connects the name of Henry V. with the heroic Chief Justice. When Henry IV. assumed the crown, barely a century had elapsed since a Prince of Wales had been guilty of an act of contempt to one of the King's ministers, for which he had been expelled his father's court for the space of half a year, and of this fact there is undoubted evidence remaining on record at the present day, and which the reader, if he please, may see with his own eyes amongst the archives of the Public Record Office. In 1305 one William de Brewes was indicted 'coram ipso Domino Rege et ejus consilio' (i.e. in the King's Bench) for using contumelious and reproachful words to one of the King's Justices, Roger de Hegham, because he had given judgment against him; and it is stated that the said William 'post pronunciacionem judicii prædicti contemptabiliter barram ascendit et ab ipso Rogero peciit verbis grossis et contemptibilibus, si judicium illud advocare vellet.' Whereupon he was arraigned, tried, and sentenced; and on the face of the same record in which these proceedings may still be read, appears the following memorandum: Quæ quidem, viz. contemptus et inobediencia, tam ministris ipsius Domini Regis quàm sibi ipsi aut curiæ suæ facta, ipsi Regi valde sunt odiosa, et hoc expressè nuper apparuit idem Dominus Rex filium suum primogenitum et carissimum Edwardum principem Walliæ pro eo quod quædam verba grossa et acerba cuidam ministro suo dixerat, ab hospicio suo ferè per dimidium anni amovit, nec ipsum filium suum in conspectu suo venire permisit qucusque dicto ministro de prædictâ transgressione satisfecerat.'— 33 & 34 Ed. I. Rot. 75. Abbrev. Placit. p. 257. This record is quoted by Coke in his Third Institute at p. 142. Now, considering the veneration in which Gas coigne must have been held by the clergy for his conduct in the matter of the Archbishop of York, it does not seem at all improbable that they should have attributed to him (as we know the monastic chroniclers were accustomed to do) the credit of an act which was not really his due. The records in that illiterate age would be intelligible only to those who were either lawyers or ecclesiastics, and hence some enthusiastic admirer of Gascoigne, in searching the records, may have come upon the entry of the insult to Roger de Hegham, and, presuming upon the ignorance of laymen, may have concocted from the record itself a story which

his seruaunt mought be ordred accordyng to the auncient lawes of this realme, or if he wolde haue hym saued from the

should redound in after ages to the fame of one who had shown himself so staunch a supporter of the Church. Mr. Luders has already thrown considerable doubt upon Hall's statement that Henry was of his father put out of the preuy counsaill and banished the courte,' a statement which has been adopted by all subsequent historians, but for which there seemed no adequate authority. If, however, we suppose the record mentioned above to have supplied the materials for a story which should do honour to the Judge, we see at once that the story of Henry's removal from the Council may have had its origin in the account of the second Edward's expulsion from his father's Court, which the admirer of Gascoigne would find conveniently ready to be appropriated. It may be observed here that a MS. has lately been published, under the direction of the Master of the Rolls, which to some extent confirms the idea now suggested. This is Robert Redmayne's Historia Henrici V., which forms part of the Gale collection of MSS. in the Library of Trin. Coll., Cambridge, and which, in the opinion of the editor (Mr. C. A. Cole), wascomposed between 1536 and 1544. (See Preface, p. x.) If this view be correct it must have been written by a contemporary of Sir Thomas Elyot. Mr. Cole says that the author does not, from the absence by him of any allusion to the circumstance, seem to have been aware of a fact so honourable to his name, that there was a Redman present in Henry's expedition against France, and concerned in the military preparations for that enterprise.' But, considering the prominent position which Sir Richard Redman occupied under Henry IV. and Henry V., it is only reasonable to suppose that the writer of the Gale MS. was a relative and that he derived his information from family sources. Though, inasmuch as Mr. Cole himself admits that 'so far as positive certainty is concerned, nothing is known of the writer,' it is not impossible that he may even have been in personal communication with Sir Richard. Now it is a fact (not mentioned by Mr. Cole) that Richard Redman was joined in the same commission with Sir William Gascoigne and certain others who were appointed A.D. 1405 to receive the fines of those who were concerned in the Earl of Northumberland's insurrection. (Rymer's Fœdera, vol. iv. pt. 1, p. 80. Hague ed.) And we find the insult offered to the Chief Justice, which Mr. Cole calls the author's first historical fact,' alluded to by Robert Redman; though, as 'a sore point in Henry's early career,' it is but lightly touched upon.' The passage is as follows: 'Senatu movebatur, nec in curiam aditus ei patebat; et illius fama hæsit ad metas, quòd summum judicem, litibus dirimendis et causarum cognitionibus præpositum, manu percuteret, cum is unum in custodiam tradidisset ex cujus familiaritate voluptatem mirificam Henricus perciperet. Eam dignitatem, quam is amisit, Thomas illius frater, dux Clarensis, est consecutus.'-P. II. Upon this the following observations may be made: assuming the writer to have been a relative of Richard Redman, whom we know to have been associated on one occasion with the Chief Justice, it is, to say the least, curious that he should have omitted to mention the name of the Judge, and that he should have dismissed the subject so cursorily. On the other

rigour of the lawes, that he shuld optaine, if he moughte, of the kynge, his father, his gracious pardone; wherby no lawe

hand, the fact that the writer has not adopted Elyot's version of the story, but that which has been handed down by Hall and Holinshed, points to one of two things; either the writer composed his work after the publication of the former's chronicle, ¿.e. not earlier than 1548, or he followed some still earlier authority which supplied Hall with those details which were not mentioned by Elyot, and which up to the present time remains undiscovered. There is, however, still another alternative; Hall may himself have consulted the Gale MS., but this view would of course necessitate an earlier date for Redman's composition than that assigned to it by Mr. Cole. After what has been stated it will perhaps not surprise the reader to learn that there are only two law books in which reference is made to the Prince's committal. Sir Edward Coke, in his Third Institute, at p. 225, in commenting upon the Statute 11 Hen. IV., concerning attornies, says, 'This was that Prince Henry who, keeping ill company and led by ill counsell, about this time assaulted (some say) and stroke Gascoign, Chief Justice, sitting in the King's Bench, for that the Prince endeavouring with strong hand to rescue a prisoner, one of his unthrifty minions,' &c.; and for this statement he quotes as his authority, in the margin, Sir Thomas Elyot's Governour and Holinshed's Chronicle. It is evident, however, that Coke must have read not only these, but Hall's Chronicle, for it is the latter, and not Holinshed, who uses the expression, 'wanton mates and unthriftie plaisaiers,' for which, as the reader will see, there is no warrant in the original version. That Coke and, at a still later period, Lord Campbell were prepared to give credit to the story in all its details affords no ground for strengthening our belief in it, because both display a not unnatural desire to magnify the importance of the exalted seat which both occupied at different periods, and which was the same that had been undoubtedly filled by Gascoigne. Lord Campbell's 'anxiety to establish the fact which has been taken for true by so many chroniclers, historians, moralists, and poets' is easily explained, but when he tells us that 'everything conspires to enhance the self-devotion and elevation of sentiment which dic'ated this illustrious act of an English Judge,' and that the noble independence which has marked many of his successors may, in no small degree, be ascribed to it,' though we may sympathise with the writer's feeling of enthusiasm, we must not allow it to interfere with a critical analysis of the evidence, upon which alone we can form any opinion as to the existence of a state of facts which has so long passed for an historical incident, and has commended itself as such to the discriminating mind of one who was himself the first Criminal Judge.' It may be as well, however, to see whether Lord Campbell himself has contributed to elucidate, or obscure, the mystery which attaches to the career of his illustrious predecessor. To give weight to his argument in favour of the occurrence he calls as witnesses two lawyers, very dull, but very cautious, men, Sir Robert Catlyne, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and Sir John Whiddin, a Puisne Judge of that Court, who, sticking to the Year books, probably had never read either Elyot or Hall, and who knew nothing of Gascoigne except by the sure traditions of Westminster Hall. Cromp

or iustice shulde be derogate. With whiche answere the prince nothynge appeased, but rather more inflamed, en

ton, an accurate judicial writer, who then published a book, entitled Authoritie et Jurisdiction des Courts, in reporting a decision of the Court of King's Bench, says, "Whidden cites a case in the time of Gascoigne, Chief Justice of England, who committed the Prince to prison because he would have taken a prisoner from the bar of the King's Bench, and he, very submissively obeying him, went thither according to order: at which the King was highly rejoiced in that he had a Judge who dared to minister justice upon his son, the Prince, and that he had a son who obeyed him." Catlyne, C. F., is then represented as assenting and rejoicing in the praises of his predecessor.'-Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. i. pp. 128, 129. Let the reader mark well the concluding paragraph of the above quotation, for it affords an interesting illustration of the way in which even a Lord Chief Justice can manipulate facts and invest them with historical dignity. If the reader will turn to the book quoted by Lord Campbell he will find that the passage, of which the above words in italics are intended as an abridgement, runs as follows: Et Catlin dit in cel case, que ils ne usont de monstre in le breve pur que ils met pur home mes ceo nous reseruomus in nostre pectus, car poit estre pur treason ou grand conspiracie.' P. 79, ed. 1594. It should be premised that Crompton in discussing the authority of the Court of King's Bench mentions at some length a case, which the Editor finds, on reference to the Rolls, arose in the 6th Eliz., i.e. in 1564–5, in which the Court of Queen's Bench ordered a writ of attachment to go against Thomas Young, the Archbishop of York and President of the Council of the North, and also against the Sheriff of the county, for disobedience in not executing a writ of habeas corpus. The Judges before whom the rule was argued were Catlin, L C. J., and Justices Whidden, Corbet, and Southcote. And after the statement of Justice Whidden, the Lord Chief Justice Catlin, according to the report in Crompton's book, took occasion to explain the reason why in the case sub judice the grounds for the attachment were not to be set out in the writ which was then ordered to issue. Not a word, it will be seen, is said in the report to justify Lord Campbell's assertion that the Chief of the Court 'assented and rejoiced in the praises of his predecessor.' What then becomes of the two witnesses? And what opinion can we form of Lord Campbell's own 'caution' and 'accuracy' as an historical writer? So far from coinciding with the suggestion that these judges in the reign of Elizabeth had probably never read either Elyot or Hall,' the Editor ventures to think, with all due deference to the opinion of Lord Campbell, that they were much more likely to have done so than Coke, who we know by his own showing had read The Governour. For in the reign of Elizabeth there was probably no book which was so much read or which had passed through more editions than this popular work. Indeed there is no antecedent improbability in supposing that the story as narrated by Sir Thomas Elyot really suggested to Shakspeare the idea of exhibiting two of the principal characters in his play of Henry IV. under the conditions which Sir Thomas Elyot's work had already prescribed for them. Mr. Foss has taken the trouble to ascertain the exact date of Gascoigne's death,