Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/763

Nicholas Fuller 753 however Fuller brought to the fore precisely the question which he had argued in the objectionable speeches that had first embroiled him with the Commission — the right of that court to commit him to prison at all. He made no charge that the process used was irregu- lar, that he was committed for a crime for which others were not detained, nor that the Commission possessed no such authority in its letters patent. He virtually declared it illegal and asked confirmation of his opinions from the King's Bench. This movement brought him into collision with the state. Hith- erto, James and Salisbury had been interested observers of the case, concerned lest it should take a dangerous turn. They were now perfectly satisfied that the affair had gone far enough. It was high time they took a hand in the matter if they were to prevent the discrediting of the Commission by so " euill " a " uillaine " as Fuller. James considered his prerogative threatened and in fact there could be no question that he was right in so thinking. Stripped of its legal technicality. Fuller's argument said nothing less than that the letters patent gave the Commission a power which the stat- ute ©f I Elizabeth did not confer upon the king, and which therefore he could not delegate to a Commission. Both Elizabeth and James had issued such letters patent, and if they had done so, as Fuller claimed, without authority either from their prerogative or from statute, they had committed a grave illegality ; and what was worse, if the contention was true, the crown did not possess an im- portant ecclesiastical prerogative which it had long exercised. James was therefore literally right in asserting that his pre- rogative was at stake. While apparently arguing merely that the High Commission had illegally imprisoned one Nicholas Fuller, '.he lawyers would be in reality debating w'hether or not the king possessed the power to create such a High Commission as his letters patent of 1605 specifically sanctioned. It was James's unshakable opinion that " the absolute prerogative of the Crown " was " no subject for the tongue of a lawyer ", nor was " lawful to be dis- puted." ^ He therefore directed Salisbury to take charge of the ■ Works of James I. (London, 1616) p. 550. — The case was duly appreciated and followed outside the court. On November 22. William Walton met George Knight at Paul's : " Howe nowe Mr. Walton, said Knight, do you thinke to carry away the cause betweene you and Mr. Ponde in this manner from my Lorde of Canterburie round before the judges of the King's Bench. ... the Lorde Archbyshopp I warrant you will bring the same therethence againe in spight of their teethes. . . . His Grace had allready committed one Fuller to the Fleete and so would them (i'. e.. the judges of the King's Bench) if they would not grant a consultation." Walton's Deposition. State Papers, Domestic, James I., XXVIIL, no. 04.