In 1288 one Walter of Barton came before the king's justices in Dorset, charged with counterfeiting the king's seal. An exceptionally large jury convicted him, with a wealth of supporting evidence, whereupon Walter (who had already been charged with harbouring an outlawed killer) claimed benefit of clergy. However, there was nobody present to claim him in the name of his bishop, and in any case, notes the record, 'that felony of forging and counterfeiting touches the king . . .'. Consequently Walter was remanded to prison until the king or his council (Edward I was then in Gascony) could be consulted. He was later transferred to the Tower of London, from where he submitted a petition to parliament, claiming that he had been falsely indicted, and eventually he was handed over to the bishop of Salisbury. His ultimate fate is unrecorded. A small landowner in Somerset and Dorset, with chattels in the two counties valued at nearly £8 15s., and bailiff on the Isle of Purbeck of Robert of Littlebury, who was a leading clerk in the common bench, Walter had himself been formerly employed in the bench and chancery. With his evident literate skills and knowledge of the minutiae of government William of Barton was unusually well qualified for the practice of forgery. Yet the false seals he produced seem to have been very easily detected, and in any case it may well seem strange that he was prepared to run the risks inherent in making them, risks of which as an ex-servant of the courts he can hardly have been unaware. For although the plea roll in this case speaks only of felony, the forging of royal seals and of coins in England long minted under the king's sole authority was also treason, and carried the penalties associated with it.

To the authors of Bracton and of the lawbooks of the succeeding generations, influenced no doubt on this point by the teachings of Roman law, offences like that of Walter of Barton were lèse-majesté. His coins and seals were important manifestations of a king's regality, of the authority that constituted his kingship; to damage or tamper with them was indeed to 'touch the king'. However, such actions also 'touched' the king's subjects.