lar process
usual with the council; secret examination of witnesses, torture,
neglect of technical formality in specifying charges, punishments not
according to the course of law, and other violations of fair and free
trial, which constituted the greatest grievance in the proceedings of
the council.

[360] The judgment against Mortimer was reversed at the suit of his son,
28 E. III., because he had not been put on his trial. The peers had
adjudged him to death in his absence, upon common notoriety of his
guilt. 4 E. III. p. 53. In the same session of 28 E. III. the earl of
Arundel's attainder was also reversed, which had passed in 1 E. III.,
when Mortimer was at the height of his power. These precedents taken
together seem to have resulted from no partiality, but a true sense of
justice in respect of treasons, animated by the recent statute. Rot.
Parl. vol. ii. p. 256.

[361] Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 427.

[362] Blackstone's Comment. from Finch, vol. i. c. 7.

[363] Letters are directed to all the sheriffs, 2 E. I., enjoining them
to send up a certain number of beeves, sheep, capons, &c., for the
king's coronation. Rymer, vol. ii. p. 21. By the statute 21 E. III. c.
12, goods taken by the purveyors were to be paid for on the spot if
under twenty shillings' value, or within three months' time if above
that value. But it is not to be imagined that this law was or could be
observed.

Edward III., impelled by the exigencies of his French war, went still
greater lengths, and seized larger quantities of wool, which he sold
beyond sea, as well as provisions for the supply of his army. In both
cases the proprietors had tallies, or other securities; but their
despair of obtaining payment gave rise, in 1338, to an insurrection.
There is a singular apologetical letter of Edward to the archbishops on
this occasion. Rymer, t. v. p. 10; see also p. 73, and Knyghton, col.
2570.

[364] Rymer, t. vi. p. 417.

[365] Idem, t. xi. p. 852.

[366] Matthew Paris asserts that John granted a separate forest-charter,
and supports his position by asserting that of Henry III. at full
length. In fact, the clauses relating to the forest were incorporated
with the great charter of John. Such an error as this shows the
precariousness of historical testimony, even where it seems to be best
grounded.

[367] Coke, fourth Inst. p. 294. The forest domain of the king, says the
author of the Dialogue on the Exchequer under Henry II., is governed