Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/377

1921 WRITS OF ASSISTANCE, 1558-1700 369 Judges and such of his Majesty's Privy Council as are called by writ to attend x The cases when such summonses were issued are, in fact, so interesting in themselves that it is worth while quoting them in full. In 1624 writs of assistance were sent to Oliver Viscount Grandison (late lord deputy of Ireland), Robert Chichester of Belfast (late lord deputy of Ireland), Sir John Suckling (controller of the household), Sir Thomas Edmonds (treasurer of the household), and Sir Richard Weston (chancellor of the exchequer). 2 In 1625 writs were sent to four of the five privy councillors who had been summoned in 1624, 3 and, in addition, to Sir Robert Naunton (master of the court of wards), and to Sir Humphrey May (chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster). 4 In 1640 Charles Viscount Wilmot and Lord New- burgh (chancellor of the duchy) were summoned ; 5 and finally, in 1685, Alexander Earl Murray and John Viscount Melfort (the Scottish secretaries of state) received writs of assistance dated two days after the opening of parliament. 6 There is at once a temptation to say that these are privy councillors who had no seats in the house of commons and are therefore summoned to the lords, as Clarendon suggested had always been the custom ; 7 but this is not the case. Indeed, every one of those privy councillors who were summoned in this way in 1624 and 1625, with the exception of Grandison and Chichester, sat in the house of commons also. And not only are these not instances that can be used to illustrate Clarendon's so-called ' custom ', but there seems no good evidence that such a custom ever existed. In the first place, we have examined the careers of all the privy councillors between the years 1558 and 1660, and, with very few exceptions, each one of them sat in every house of commons that met between the date of his appointment to the council board and his death or promotion to the upper house, either as a peer or as a legal assistant ; and even some of those few exceptions are explicable when the individual circum- stances of the case are considered. Indeed, it may be said that it was looked on as part of the privy councillor's duty to sit in the commons on every possible occasion, so that Sir Henry Vane the elder was not exaggerating when he wrote of ' that burges 1 Standing Order vi. 2 Parliament Pawns, bundle i, no. 18. Robert Chichester should, of course, be Arthur Chichester ; he had been made Lord Chichester of Belfast in February 1613. We are much indebted to Mr. Jenkinson of the Record Office for assistance in decipher- ing Chichester's name, for the Pawn is so stained in places as to be almost illegible. 3 Chichester had died on 19 February 1625 (Diet, of Nat. Biog.). 4 Parliament Pawns, bundle i, no. 19. 5 Ibid., no. 20. The second name is almost certainly Newburgh, but the Pawn is much discoloured. 6 Ibid., no. 25. 7 See above, p. 356. VOL. XXXVI. — NO. CXLIII. Bb