In the first place it is obvious that the date 15th May 1399 cannot be correct, as John of Gaunt died in January or February 1398; further the deed states that the duke visited Highe Frith on the 10th May 1399, which was impossible; and it is perhaps equally surprising to find that a deed, dated in the reign of Richard II, should refer to the first year of Henry IV, whose reign had not then begun and might never have occurred.
These impossible dates require explanation, but our difficulties do not end with dates; the writing in the John of Gaunt deed is not characteristic of the period, it is not uniform throughout, the body of the deed being written in characters of the rugged native script, the names of the witnesses being added in a flowing Italian hand of the Elizabethan period. Attention should also be called to the fact, that of the five witnesses in whose presence the duke is said to have affixed his seal, not one of them was above the rank of gentleman. The seal is impressed with a hunting horn, suggestive of forest heraldry, but the royal arms of the son of Edward III do not appear on this seal; and, if the hunting horn is in its proper heraldic position, the point of the shield is at the top.
As above stated, the form of the deed is unusual and follows no precedent; many words are more suggestive of the classics than the customary usage of diplomatics in the 14th century. Equitem takes the place of the more conventional militem; nuncupatur is used instead of vocat and coram instead of testibus. Each of the first four witnesses is described as gent and the last as attorney, while Derby is written once in English; further, the exact legal effect of the deed seems to be intentionally vague; it is headed conventum, meaning a covenant, but in the subsequent deed of 1568 it is referred to as a grant. The full description of the land in the later deed, with all its boundaries and appurtenant rights, suggests that the Elizabethan draftsman had some doubt as to the true facts; these details being apparently exploited with some ulterior intent.
In comparing the size make-up and general appearance of the two deeds, it is impossible not to see in them a strong resemblance; they are both typical of the time of Elizabeth, the deed of 1399 is too large and too coarse for a charter of that date. The fact that one is in Latin and the other in English makes the comparison less easy; but in both we find similar parchment ink and seals; the script is much the same in both deeds, each having the dates written in the same bold Arabic numerals; and the later recites the earlier deed.
It would not be difficult to find other points of resemblance between these deeds; and it is impossible to compare them without coming to the conclusion that they were prepared at the same time by the same person, with the definite object of making a good title to the Hawksyard property, on the sale to John Weston.
This forces us to the conclusion that the John of Gaunt deed is not altogether trustworthy; and we have to consider whether or not the information it contains, with regard to the origin of the place-name Hawksyard, can be relied on; or if we must treat its whole contents as pure fiction and entirely discredit all it tells us of the hawking party in Highe Frith.
Seal of 15th May 1399.
There must be some explanation of this extraordinary deed; and it may yet be possible to find a solution of the problem. Here is the deed! How can we account for it? How much of what it tells us may we accept as truth? To what extent is its story supported by extraneous evidence?
The points as to which we require information are; whether John of Gaunt was in a position to give and grant lands in the Highe Frith to Sir Edward Mundy or had he only the rights of an overlord? Why did he hesitate before complying with Sir Edward’s request? Was he in doubt as to whether the land were his to give or whether he held as tenant in capite? Did he execute a deed of gift or did the gift rest on a verbal promise, Sir Edward taking possession of the lands and converting them to his own use? Did the lawyer of 1568, who carried through the sale to Weston, act ex fide bona and endeavour, according to his lights and the practice of his time, to put the title to Hawksyard in order, for the mutual benefit of both vendor and purchaser?