[Footnote 409: _Responsalis._ From some expressions made use of by Bracton and Fleta, it has been conjectured, that an Attorney, an Essoiner, and a _Responsalis_, differed in some respects. (Bracton 212. b. and Fleta L. 6. c. 11. s. 6. 7.) Of this opinion Lord Coke seems to be. (Co. Litt. 128. a.) Yet, we must be cautious, in applying these distinctions to Glanville; for they may, after all, be the result of a much more recent period. Nor is the reading of Bracton, in the passage alluded to, perfectly free from suspicion.] [Footnote 410: Sir Edward Coke ascribes this rule to “the policy of the Common Law, that suits might not increase and multiply.” (2 Inst. 249.) Whilst the Mirror lays it down generally, that it is an abuse to answer or appear by Attorney. (Mirror, c. 5. s. 1.)] It is usually done in the presence of the King’s Justices of the Common Pleas. But on no account, otherwise than as having been appointed by his Principal, when present in Court, ought any one to be received as an Attorney.[411] It is not requisite, that the adverse party should on that account be present in Court;[412] nor, indeed, the person who is so put in the place of the other, if he be known to the Court. One person alone may be put in the place of another; or two or more, either collectively or separately; so that, if one of them is unable to attend, the other or others may follow up the Plea. Through the medium of such an Attorney, a Plea may be commenced in Court, and determined, whether by Judgment, or final Concord; and that, as fully and effectually, as by the Principal himself. [Footnote 411: Mr. Madox, in treating of the _Exchequer_, informs us, that “in general, accomptants were obliged to come in person to render their accounts. If they made an Attorney to account for them, it was usual to have the King’s leave for it. Sometimes, the accomptant nominated his Attorney before the King: and thereupon the King by his Writ commanded the Treasurer and Barons to admit such person, as Attorney, accordingly. But sometimes, especially towards the latter part of the second period, the Accomptant’s Attorney was admitted by warrant or leave of the Treasurer, Chancellor of the Exchequer, or Barons, or one of them.” (Madox’s Excheq. c. 23. s. 5.) Supposing there was a certain uniformity of proceeding observed in the superior Courts, this extract may furnish us with an idea of the gradual deviations from the strict rule of our text.] [Footnote 412: The Norman Code lays down a contrary doctrine, asserting that it was not lawful to constitute any Attorney in the absence of the party, unless in the presence of the Prince, whose testimony alone sufficed to make a Record. (Grand. Cust. c. 65.)]