1921 WRITS OF ASSISTANCE, 1558-1700 363 judges became more and more remiss in their attendance during the latter half of the seventeenth century. On 14 January 1667 it was resolved ' That the Gentleman Usher attending this House do acquaint the Judges that they attend this House according to their Duty * This admonition was repeated on 17 May 1675, when it was ordered * That some of the Judges do attend this House every Day ', 2 but this did not produce any very permanent improvement, for on 14 November 1689 it was found necessary to order ■ That all the Judges be sent for into Westm'r Hall presently, and reprimanded for their not attendance daily in the House. Who being come ; the Speaker acquainted them, that the Lords expected their daily attendance.' 3 But still their duty to the Lords called with so small a voice that on 19 November 1690 the gentleman usher of the black rod had to be sent to command their immediate attendance. 4 This does not seem to have met with unqualified success, for three years later the Lords moderated their demands and suggested that it would be enough if, in term time, only one judge from each court in Westminster Hall attended. 5 This was the lull before the storm ; on 9 February 1694 the lord keeper pointed out to the judges the path of duty in language that admitted of no misunderstanding : I am commanded by the House, to tell you, you have the Honour to be the Assistants here ; and the House takes Notice of your great Negli- gence in your Attendance : you have had sometimes Warning given you, though not with so much Solemnity as I am directed now to do it. If this Fault be not amended for the future, the House will proceed with greater severity against you. 6 Yet so little real effect does this solemn warning seem to have had, that it had to be repeated less than a year later, 7 and during the eighteenth century the attendance of the judges became more and more spasmodic. For a seat in the commons the judges were not eligible because, as Coke quite definitely states, ' they be assistants in the Lords House s , 8 and though Foss declares that so highly did the commons esteem the integrity of Sir Thomas Fleming that thejr permitted him to retain his seat after his elevation to the bench in 1604, 9 the Commons' Journals, though not free from ambiguity, do not confirm this. 10 SO July 1689. And during the course of Strafford's trial Baron Henden was refused leave of absence to hold a court in the Cinque Ports (ibid. iv. 213). 1 Lords* Journals, xii. 74. a Ibid., p. 695. 3 Ibid. xiv. 342. « Ibid., p. 558. 8 25 November 1693, ibid. xv. 307. 6 Ibid., p. 364. ' 7 4 December 1694, ibid., p. 438. 8 Coke, Institutes, iv. 47-8' 9 Foss, Judges, in the life of Sir Thomas Fleming. 10 ' Q. Touching Lord Chief Baron, Burgess for South, and Baron Snigg for
