1920 THE FORGERY OF FINES 411 although in the meantime they are committed to prison. What punishment was in the end awarded does not appear/ but it is not altogether surprising to find William de Hoton, chaplain, presented by the king in 1375 to the church of Closworth.^ All three cases illustrate too the relation of the council to the king's bench : the earlier case is of the period when the identity of the king's bench is not clearly separate from the council, and the council is sitting as a court to hear a cause removed from the common pleas ; ^ in the two later cases the council appears to be advising the king's bench in a matter of difficulty, but it is to be noted that in 1376 the council have in effect initiated the pro- ceedings.* One feature of this last case, the impanelling of a jury of clerks and officers of the exchequer, may have some connexion with exchequer privilege,^ and it is of some little interest to identify the jurymen. Ederyk and Pabenham were ushers. Innocent a clerk of the receipt, Branketre and Clisseby ^ Both cases are noted forward for several terms on the Controlment Roll, but neither there nor on the Coram Rege Roll is there any postea giving the sentence. For a postea recording the fine inflicted in a somewhat similar case of forgery, see n. 4, below. 2 Col. of Pat. Rolls, Edw. Ill, xvi. 131. It is perhaps impossible to identify this chaplain with the forger, since the name is not uncommon at the period. WiUiam de Hoton, chaplain, was presented to the church of Shipton under Wychwood on 28 June 1366 [Col. of Pat. Rolls, Edw. Ill, xiii. 291), two months before he, or another of the same name, was presented to the church of Awre (see p. 409, n. 3, above). These appear to be the only references to a chaplain of the name during the period.
- It has already been noted in this connexion by Pike, Constitutional History of the
House of Lords, p. 42.
- Cf. Hale, Jurisdiction of the Lords House, p. 52 ; Holdsworth, History of
English Law, i. 82-3. The case of Coppedale and Kemetby appears to be later than any hitherto noticed in this connexion, although Hale, p. 53, mentions a case (not of forgery) in the preceding Easter term. Reference may be made also to a case on the Coram Rege Roll, Trin., 46 Edw. Ill (no. 446, Rex, m. 7) : a writ and the Great Seal had been forged by a certain Robert, son of Thomas of Haldanby, but the fraud was discovered on the return of the writ by the sheriff. The postea shows the council (who had not been previously concerned in the case) advising the court and gives some measure of the penalty attaching to forgery even when aggravated by the forging of the king's seal : ' Per Recordum de Anno xlvij. Postea scilicet die veneris proxima ante festum Sancte Margarete virginis coram domino Rege apud Westmonasterium venit predictus Robertus filius Thome de Haldanby et petiit se adniitti ad finem cum domino Rege inhac parte faciendum, et per auisamentum consilii domini Regis admit - titur pro decern libris per plegium Henrici de Barton' clerici et Roberti de Haldanby iunioris de comitatu Eboracsire prout patet per rotulos finium de isto eodem termino. Ideo ipse eat inde sine die,' «&c. There is a case of forgery in the Michaelmas term 1345, which Mr. Pike has noted ( Year Book, 20 Edw. Ill (Rolls Series), p. 1) in another con- nexion, where no mention is made of the council. The case is adjourned for the appearance of one of the accused, a chancery clerk, the other being meantime let out on mainprise : in the end both fail to appear and there seems to be no further mention of the case. No question, therefore, arose on which the council's advice was required (Coram Rege Rolls, no. 342, m. 13 d, no. 343, Rex, m. 24). 5 Cf. Madox, Hist, of tlie Exchequer (2nd ed.), ii. 11 sq. ; Year Book, 14 Edw. Ill (Rolls Ser.), pp. xxv sq. ; Red Book, pp. ccciv sq. There is no indication that a jury was impanelled in the case of William de Houghton, although the circumstances were very similar, but presumably his confession amounted to a plea of guilty;
