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: