both died in the same year, and that immediately upon the death of Richard II., the son of John O. Gaunt ascended the throne by the title of Henry IV. It is therefore indisputable, that although John O. Gaunt was the son of Edward III., the uncle of Richard II., and the father of Henry 1V. he himself never ascended the throne. How then, I ask, could he perform regal acts? How could he alienate the possessions of the Crown without a kingly prerogative, or the authority of Parliament? And how therefore could he make the grant of the rights, liberties and privileges in question? No Act of Parliament appears to have been ever passed or is stated to have been passed making or authorising such a grant ; and although tradition attributes it to a Charter, yet we have seen that the Duke had no right or power to grant one. If therefore tradition be just in the attribute of the person, it is erroneous in the nature of the instrument; but if on the other hand it be correct with respect to the instrument, it follows that it is wrong as regards the person. It is moreover extremely probable that the Charter was granted about the time the Duke was first possessed of the Dutchy of Lancaster (which was presented to him by his father), and that he assuming that kingly jurisdiction with which he was invested therein-a power greater than that of any other subject, might in later times be not perhaps unreasonably-supposed to have been the only person who could grant the bounty in question. The only way therefore to reconcile this inconsistency appears to me to be this; to assume that the father who had the power, and not the son who lacked the power, was the real donor; and this conclusion will perfectly agree with what will be hereafter stated. Secondly, with respect to the nature of the grant to the Duke himself, attention to which will enable us to see more clearly that the conclusion last suggested is the true one. John O. Gaunt who was early trained to arms, and as Froissart informs us "acted valiantly in many hard-fought battles," became the favorite of his spirited and war-like father, who in reward for his son's services in the French war, conferred upon him the county of Lancaster with jura regalia; i.e. the privilege of having a chancery and writs issuing therefrom, and the appointment of Justices both civil and criminal, with officers for the due execution of justice therein. He, as we are told by Lord Coke, "did upon this occasion gird his son John with a sword, and set on his head a cap of fur, and upon the same a circle of gold and pearls, and named him Duke of Lancaster, and thereof gave to him and his heirs male of his body, and delivered to him a Charter,"-a Charter similar to that which had been granted to Henry II., Duke of England, which by the way shows that by the very grant itself, the Duke is treated as a subject. And this grant his father in the 36th year of his reign, caused to be confirmed in full Parliament, and again in the 50th year of the same reign, in another full Parliament, the county of Lancaster was erected into a county Palatine, and granted to the said Duke for his natural life. The Palatinate honors and privileges which were so granted were afterwards confirmed to him for his "whole life," by his nephew Richard II., and made perpetual by an Act of Parliament made and passed in the first year of the reign. of the Duke's son, Henry IV., by which the Dutchy of Lancaster was settled upon that King (who was the lineal and right heirmale of the Duke) and his heirs collateral as well as lineal; by virtue of which settlement they were united with the Dutchy, and are now vested in the person of her present Majesty. Now, you will observe that all these grants expressly refer to the county of Lancaster and Palatinate honors and privileges only, so that the lands which form part of the Dutchy and not the county-take those of the Borough of Hungerford for example-are not of course affected by them. How then could the Duke of Lancaster grant that which he never possessed? But admitting for one moment that the Duke had the same title to the whole Dutchy as to the county Palatine, yet it is manifest that he took nothing more than an estate for his life in it, and that he could not therefore alienate it for a longer time. And even admitting that his title was absolutely free, yet it did not invest him with the power of incorporation -a power which has never been vested in any subject. It appears too, by an entry in the oldest Hock-tide Court Book extant, which commences in 24 Eliz., 1571, which you see before you, that Edw. III., the father of John O. Gaunt was the true donor. The entry which is undoubtedly loose, is as follows: "Edward the iijrd "Father of J. O. Gaunt whome the "Towne had his Franchises and Liberties from by a Indeed when we call to mind the munificence of Edward, and the popularity he acquired by means of the numerous Charters granted by him, the inference is I think greatly supported. And if this entry be allowed as evidence, a similar entry will serve to confirm it; for in the same book the following is also found, which appears to have been written by the same person, and at the very same time as the last. It runs thus: "Henry the iiijth. "Duke called Henry Bullingbroke "Duke of Lancaster gave a confirmacon Now if Henry IV. confirmed the Charter, it is reasonable to suppose that he did not grant it; and that it must have been granted by some prior King; and if it emanated from some prior King, may we not fairly presume that Edw. III. was that King? Another fact in connection with this branch of the subject deserves to be noted; and with that I will conclude an argument which I fear has been somewhat tedious. The impression of the Hungerford Corporation silver seal, though apparently from the character of the letters of more modern date, is precisely similar to that belonging to the Corporation of Portsmouth, whose Charter was granted by Edw. III. From the preceding statement then, I think we may reasonably infer that Edward III. and not his son John O. Gaunt, was the true donor of the right, liberties and privileges in question, more particularly as no grant, no authentic record, or even mention of a grant by the latter is to be found throughout the whole evidence applicable to the subject. The subsequent history of the Borough of Hungerford is exceedingly imperfect. Early in the 15th century it was granted by the Duke of Lancaster to Sir Walter Hungerford, who died possessed of it in 1448. It afterwards lapsed to the Crown, and was given by Edward the Sixth to the Duke of Somerset, after whose attain der it was presented to the townsmen of Hungerford, in whose hands it has since remained. I have enumerated the respective rights of the Borough and Manor of Hungerford. Conjointly they include a fishery in the Kennet, grievously curtailed in its proportions, since it was first granted, but even now 3 miles in extent, 226 acres of pasturage on Hungerford port downs and Freeman's Marsh, 39 acres of arable land, a public house, called the Duke of Lancaster's Arms, and the right of electing a Constable, Portrevee, Bailiff, Hayward and Overseers of Common once a year. Perhaps there are some in this assemblage whose mirth may be excited by the exertions which have been made to discover the true donor of a gift of such moderate dimensions. To such I would say, that the inhabitants of Hungerford prize the lands and waters they have so long inherited, not so much for their intrinsic value, as for the evidence they afford of the generosity of our early Kings, the enviable exception they form to the privileges of neighbouring towns, and the tie which thus connects them with the traditions of a venerable past. The common rights pertain to 95 houses in the town; the head of the household can alone enjoy them. The number of animals that a commoner is allowed to pasture at one time is limited to four horses or eight cows. Commoners residing in the Borough, may graze cattle on the downs or marsh; those living in the tithing of Sandon Fee, fifteen in number, are confined to the marsh. The greatest number of animals permitted to feed on the downs is 219 horses or 438 cows; on the marsh 21 horses or 42 cows. It is the duty of the hayward to tend the animals that graze on the common. This instrument, his wand of office, is left in rotation at the houses of those whose cattle feed on the down pasturage, for as many days as each house-holder possesses heads of cattle, at the rate of 14d. a day. The money thus raised forms the stipend of the hayward. The privileges belonging to the common being under consideration, I may mention that prior to the year 1812, the northern portion of the Hungerford downs was divided into linchets, the remains of which are still visible, rising one above the other in regular gradation. Each linchet was cultivated for two years in succession, and on the third was thrown open to pasture cattle. In 1812 the common was enclosed, and this long standing custom was abolished. Traversing the downs from west to east, is a bank surmounted by a hedge, and flanked on each side by a ditch, which originally marked the boundary of the Hungerford property, and is therefore of considerable antiquity, Let me now draw your attention to the annual ceremonies connected with Hock-tide. The election of the various officers of the Borough for the year ensuing, is held on Hock-Tuesday, (which is the second Tuesday after Easter), when the commoners are assembled at 8 o'clock in the morning at the sound of this horn, which is a substitute for the older one, and bears this inscription, "John O. Gaunt did give and grant the Riall Fishing to Hungerford Towne, from Eldred Stub to Irish Stil, excepting som several mil-pound." Jehoshaphat Lucas was Constable. If the summons is neglected, or the sum of 1d. is not paid to acknowledge it, the offender is deprived of his right of common and fishing for that year. In ancient times Hock-Tuesday was a day of general rejoicing, in commemoration of the victories gained by the Saxons over the Danes, and in the account of Magdalene College, Oxford, it is related that on that day, the females who reside in the College Manors in Hampshire used in merriment to stop the way with ropes, and pull passengers towards them, desiring something to be laid out in pious uses. A custom akin to this is retained in Hungerford. In the good old times before the days of policemen, two tithingmen were appointed annually to keep a watch over the inhabitants and property of Hungerford; and on Hock-Tuesday were entitled to demand a penny a-head from the towns-people for services rendered during the past year. Their duties have long ceased, but their emolument still exists. Perhaps its vitality is nourished by a popular tradition that if the penny is refused, all the females of the house must submit to be kissed by the tithingmen. The origin of this tradition opens a wide field for speculation to archæologists. But I would caution any gentleman against trying to dispute |