1920 THE FORGERY OF FINES 407 Marshalsea. Coppedale was committed, by order of the council, to the Fleet. The forgery was (and remains) sewn to the membrane of the Coram Rege Roll containing the entry of the case. The hand- writing is as unlike that of a fine of the period for which it is intended as any hand well could be, and the only point in its favour is that it is unlike the hand used in writing fines in 1376 ; but it bears a close resemblance to a hand commonly used at that date in the exchequer (and elsewhere), as, for example, in the Memor^da Rolls. Here we may remark that Coppedale 's story has one quite obvious weakness : he appears anxious to disavow the actual deed of forging, which he ascribes to a public scrivener ^ whom he employed because of his own inability to write sufficiently well but of whom he did not know even the name, notwithstanding the fact that the success of the plot turned upon the absolute fidelity and secrecy of all the parties to it. Another point to which attention may be directed is the facility with which Coppedale was able to abstract a carefully kept file ^ from the treasury. Now in the Lent of 1376 there had been a great rearrangement and repair of all the rolls and records in the treasuries in West- minster Abbey and the Tower, and a number of clerks and other officers of the receipt of the exchequer had been engaged upon the business, for which they had received special payments, the sums being graduated apparently according to the status of the officer and the amount of work performed.^ Among those mentioned by name is Henry Coppandale, a clerk, who received 26s. 8d., and there can be no reasonable doubt that this is the same person as the defendant before the king's bench.* How much of Coppedale 's story must be rejected is a little difficult to determine. If his dates are correct the plot marched very quickly : the swift acquaintance with Kernetby, the swiftly arranged scheme, the unknown scrivener, are all hard to accept. It is at least as probable that the scheme originated with the Lent rearrangement of the records, which was doubtless
- It is probable that at this date the scriveners of London did not enjoy a high
repute, and that Coppedale and every one else in court believed a scrivener quite likely to undertake forgery as a matter of business. A case of fraud by a scrivener of London is recorded in this year, and another case of forgery of title-deeds a few years later (Riley, Memorials of London, pp. 372, 397, 527).
- As to the care exercised in the custody of these records, see below, p. 408, n. L
- See document no. iii b here printed.
- The nature of the jury impanelled is perhaps a point not to be overlooked in this
connexion, but no question as to Coppedale's guilt seems to have been put to them ; see below, p. 411, n. 5. As regards the spelling of the name it maybe remarked that the surnames of other exchequer clerks are variously spelled even on the Issue Rolls of the exchequer. John de Harsham, who serves on the jury (p. 417), is John Haveres- ham on roll 459, m. 25, and John Haresham on roll 460, m. 21.
