AALT images for the Fuller case:

[petitioner’s appearance]

England. Memorandum that on Thursday immediately after the third week of Holy Trinity in this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes Nicholas Fuller of Grays Inn in the county of Middlesex, esquire, in his proper person and gives the court of the said now lord king here to be understood that

[petitioner’s professional standing as lawyer]

whereas he the same Nicholas is and for the space of 43 years now last elapsed and more was one of the fellows of the inn of Grays Inn abovesaid, which certain inn is and from time whereof memory of man runs not to the contrary was an inn of men of the courts of the common law of this realm of England and of men who are councillors of the abovesaid common law, and whereas the same Nicholas is and for the space of the 32 years last past was a councillor and apprentice–in English, an utter barrister–of the abovesaid inn and learned in the law,

[custom of hiring lawyers]

and whereas also within this realm of England there is and from time wherof the memory of man runs not to the contrary has been an ancient and laudable custom used and approved that all and singular free men of this realm of England who prosecute or defend an action or suit whether real or personal between party and party or any other business or cause whatsoever (pleas concerning high treason and felony alone excepted) in the court of the lord king before the king himself retain and from time whereof the memory of man runs not to the contrary have been accustomed to retain councillors learned in the law and serjeants at law to speak in pleading and explication of their causes to the justices of the same court,

[custom of lawyers to argue vigorously for clients but also modestly and decently]

and whereas it is permitted and from time whereof memory of man runs not to the contrary it has been permissible for such manner councillors and serjeants at law in arguing and pleading for such manner their clients modestly and decently to object what they can as against letters patent, commissions, and grants of the lord king granted and made to whomsoever both ecclesiastics and lay and against all and singular private and particular liberties, jurisdictions, and privileges whatsoever if the causes of such manner their clients pending in the abovesaid court should require this, leaving the judgment and determination thereof to the abovesaid court, which certain custom is held and from time whereof the memory of man runs not to the contrary was held necessary and containing in itself equality and goodness,

[common law jurisdiction over trespasses, contempts and scandals and over the construction of statutes]

and whereas also all and singular pleas of whatsoever trespasses, contempts, and scandals both on the king and on the laws or governance of the realm of England, both in whatsoever ecclesiastical causes as well as in expositions and interpretations of all and singular statutes of this realm of England specially pertain to the said lord king now and his royal crown and in the court of the said lord king ought to be prosecuted, determined, and discussed and have been so accustomed always up to this time according to the course of the common law of this realm of England by actions or indictments of record and according to the ancient and legitimate custom of this realm of England no free man should be punished, vexed or disturbed except by the lawful verdict of his peers for any offence perpetrated against the law of England, and whereas also such manner pleas and the cognizances of the same pleas and crimes, inquisitions, examinations, or punishments or expositions or the interpretations of statutes of this realm of England do not pertain to the ecclesiastical forum before any spiritual judges or commissioners for ecclesiastical causes nor ought to be tried or discussed in any way by the ecclesiastical laws or censures according to the ecclesiastical law,

[imprisonment of Ladd by the High Commission]

and whereas a certain Thomas Ladd on March 29 in the fifth year of the reign of James now king of England for his certain pretended contumacies in refusing to take his oath for certain articles objected to him ex officio by the commissioners of the lord king for ecclesiastical causes was committed by the same commissioners to the prison of the lord king called the White Lion in Southwark, Surrey, under the custody of Thomas Hoskyns knight then sheriff of Surrey,

[Ladd’s habeas corpus]

and whereas afterwards, to wit, in Easter term in the fifth year abovesaid, to wit, on April 30 in the abovesaid fifth year by virtue of the lord king’s writ emanating out of the court of the said lord king for having the body [habeas corpus] of the abovesaid Thomas Ladd before the same lord king here, that Thomas Ladd was brought by the abovesaid sheriff of the abovesaid county to the bar of the court of the said lord king before the same king, the same court of the said lord king being then at Westminster in Middlesex,

[appointment of Fuller as Ladd’s counsel]

and whereas the abovesaid Thomas Ladd then and there before the justices of the said lord king assigned to hold pleas before the king himself, alleging that he was imprisoned by the aforementioned commissioners unjustly and against the laws and liberties of this realm of England, then and there sought from the same justices that the same justices would assign to the same Thomas Ladd counsel learned in law to declare and demonstrate before the same justices his cause concerning the abovesaid imprisonment of the same Thomas Ladd, and whereas thereon the same justices then and there, to wit, on the abovesaid April 30 in the fifth year abovesaid ordered and appointed that Nicholas Fuller among others counsel learned in law to declare before the same justices for the abovesaid Thomas Ladd his cause concerning the abovesaid imprisonment of the said Thomas Ladd and then and there assigned to the aforementioned Thomas Ladd May 6 then next following to hear his counsels in premises,

[Fuller’s argument for Ladd against the oath ex officio based on invalidity of the authority of High Commission]

and whereas by virtue of the premises afterwards, to wit, on the abovesaid May 6 he the abovesaid Nicholas (of counsel of the abovesaid Thomas Ladd assigned and appointed by the abovesaid justices as set out above) and retained by the abovesaid Thomas Ladd of his counsel said and declared divers arguments proving the imprisonment of the abovesaid Thomas Ladd by the abovesaid commissioners of the said lord king in ecclesiastical causes to have been against the laws and liberties of this realm of England then and there before the abovesaid justices, in which certain arguments he argued and demonstrated both the power of the abovesaid commissioners to minister the oath ex mero officio and also the validity of the letters patent of the said lord king granted to the same commissioners as to ministering the same oath and as to imprisoning the subjects of the said lord king for not accepting the abovesaid oath thus ministered as the cause of the said Thomas Ladd required,

[High Commission prosecution of Fuller for his arguments on behalf of Ladd; requirement for Fuller to take oath ex officio]

and whereas the abovesaid cause concerning the imprisonment of the abovesaid Thomas Ladd in the court of the said lord king before the king himself here still pends undecided and not at all determined, nonetheless the most reverend in Christ father and lord, lord Richard by divine permission archbishop of Canterbury primate of all England and metropolitan, Thomas by divine permission bishop of London, bishop William by divine permission bishop of Rochester, Lawrence by divine permission bishop of Chichester, and divers other commissioners of the lord king for ecclesiastical causes scheming to disinherit the now lord king and his royal crown and to vex and disquiet the abovesaid Nicholas less justly and to draw to other examination before the same commissioners for ecclesiastical causes the cognizance, inquisition, examination, and punishment of crimes that pertain to the said now lord king and his royal crown according to the laws and customs of the this realm of England and not to the court Christian or to the ecclesiastical forum nor to the same commissioners for ecclesiastical causes by pretending that the abovesaid Nicholas Fuller falsely and publicly affirmed in the court of the said lord king before the same king in arguing for the abovesaid Thomas Ladd that the proceedings of the abovesaid commissioners was papist–in English, popish–and that the authority (granted) by the now lord king to the aforementioned commissioners in ecclesiastical causes to imprison offenders in some cases–in English, in some cases–is used to suppress the faith of the sacrament and that the ordinaries (meaning the bishops and their officials) thus proceeded in these days by accepting an ell–in English, an ell–where an inch–in English, an inch–was granted to them, and in examining men on their oath then they were lamentable (in English, lamentable) and that the abovesaid commissioners imprisoned men not by showing to them any cause or matter for which they imprisoned them thus and they detained them in prison as long as it pleased the same commissioners not permitting them to be mainperned and that the administration of the oath ex officio works to condemn the souls of those who tender that oath (in English, tendeth to the dampninge of their soules that take it) and that the now lord king in granting the abovesaid commission to certain persons being native subjects or for exercising their authorities in ecclesiastical causes in the mode and form contained in the same commission did (in English, hath delte therin) against the law and that the abovesaid commissioners had no greater authority by the authority of the parliament in the first year of Elizabeth whereon the abovesaid commission was founded than they had before the making of the abovesaid act and that the abovesaid commission was erroneous in all parts and that the abovesaid commissioners by reason of their absolute authority most often committed absolute wrongs–in English, wronges–and that proceedings of the abovesaid commissioners by virtue of the commission of the lord king granted to them were totally against the law and that many things in the abovesaid commission were against the law and that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction mentioned in the act of parliament of the first year of Elizabeth and committed by the now lord king to the aforementioned commissioners by his letters patent under his great seal of England giving them the authority to inflict corporal punishments on delinquents was antichristian, and that such ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not from Christ but from Antichrist; the same commissioners procured that Nicholas Fuller to be cited and convened before the same commissioners to answer before the same commissioners to certain articles exhibited to him from the office of those commissioners, and before the same commissioners they drove him to tender his oath to declare the truth insofar as he recalled concerning his public words by him publicly pronounced in the court of the said lord king before the king himself in his arguments concerning the commissioners of the said lord king in ecclesiastical causes and thereon exhibited divers articles against the same Nicholas to be answered by the same Nicholas on his abovesaid oath in this form which follows, to wit in these English words following, to wit:

[High Commission articles, largely in English, on which Fuller was to testify under oath, including matter about the invalidity of High Commission authority and the oath ex officio]

We obiect & articulate against you that in May last, viz., the sixth day of that moneth or thereaboutes you did factiously & falsely affirme pulickely [sic] & in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effecte that the manner of proceeding by his majesties commissioners in causes ecclesiasticall was popishe in that somme tymes they did committ men to prison and such your wordes did tend to the great offence of many to the slaunder of the churche, to the hardening of papistes against the said commissioners and to the malicious impeachment of his majesties aucthoritie in causes ecclesiasticall, and we object jointly and diversly, and concerning each.

Item, we obiect & articulate against you that in the moneth & day aforesaid you did verie factiously and undutifully affirme publickely & in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effecte that you feare least the authoritie given by his majestie to commissioners for causes ecclesiasticall to committ offenders to prison in somme cases would be used to suppresse the faith of the sacrament casting thereby a malicious aspersion & false ymputacion uppon the said commissioners as yf you knewe them to be enemyes to the true doctrine of the sacrament in that you feared lest they would cast men in prison for their mayntenaunce of it that soe they might suppresse it and suspecting that in such your wordes touching the faith of the sacrament you purposed to broache some new error, we command you to sett downe what you ment by the faith of the sacrament, and we object as above,

Item we obiect & articulate against you that in the moneth & tyme above mencioned you did spitefully & falsely affirme publickely & in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effect that ordinaries (meaning bishopps and the officers under them) did soe proceede in these dayes by taking an ell where they had but an ynche graunted them and in examining men uppon their oathes at their discretion & indiscretion as such their dealings weare nowe lamentable and that you used theise or the like scandalous wordes of purpose to bring in contempt the calling of bishopps and their ecclesiasticall courtes as being suspected to be your self a scismaticke & a maintayner of sundry false & erroneous opinions both against their callings and aucthoritie, and we object as above,

Item, we obiect & articulate against you that in the moneth & tyme above mencioned you did falsely & lewdly affirme publickly & articulate in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effecte that his majesties commissioners for causes ecclesiasticall did comitt men to prison without shewing them any cause or matter why they did soe committ them and that they deteyned them in prison as long as they list not suffering them to be bayled and that you uttered these untruthes to make both them selves & their proceedings odious therby rather satisfieing your scismaticall and factious humor then haveing any regard of truthe or as yf you myght slaunder your superiors as you list without controlment, insumating directly that they kept men in prison rather to satisfie their owne willes then for any iust cause, and we object as above,

Item we obiect & articulate against you that in the moneth & tyme above mencioned you did falsely & lewdly affirme publickely & in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effect that the administring the oath ex officio doth tend to the dampning of their soules that take it therby not only insumating that it is an oath not lawfulle to be ministred but likewise in effecte publishing such a grosse & intollerable error as tendeth to the great overthrowe in many causes of justice as well in the temporall courte of this realme as in the ecclesiasticall, and we object as above,

Item, we object and articulate against you that in the moneth & tyme above mencioned you did falsely and lewdly affirme publickely & in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effect that his majestie in graunting a commission to certeyne persons his majesties native subiectes for the exercise of his aucthoritie in causes ecclesiasticall in manner & forme conteyned had dealt therin contrary to the lawe and that thus you presumed to slaunder his majestie, as well to bring his accions into contempte as to pynch at his lawfull aucthoritie in causes ecclesiasticall which factious persons & disobedient scismatickes cannot endure, and we object as above,

Item, we obiect & articulate against you that in the moneth & tyme above mencioned you did falsely & lewdly affirme publickly & in the hearing of many others in expresse wordes or in effect that his majesties commissioners for causes ecclesiasticall (nowithstanding you welle knowe the tenour of his majesties commission graunted unto them) had no more aucthoritie by the acte of the parliament in the first of Elizabeth whereuppon the said commission is grounded then they had before the making of that act whereby you utterly deny in effect the kings letters patentes graunted to his said commissioners to be of any validitude for it is apparant that before the said act there was neither any such commission nor commissioners & that then if such his majesties commissioners have nowe no more authoritie by such his highnes commission then they had before the making of the said act that they have nowe none att all which is to take from his majestie all lawfull meanes to execute his power & aucthoritie in causes ecclesiasticalle and consequently altogether to deprive him of it, a thing as well by the factious persons & scismatickes in these dayes as by the papistes our mortall enemyes much affected & desired, and we object as above,

Item, we obiect & articulate against you that in the moneth & tyme above mencioned you did falsely & lewdly affirme publickely & in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effect that his majesties commission for causes ecclesiasticall was in all partes erroneous, casting out these schornfull speaches grounded uppon your owne ignorance viz. (It wilbe erroneous in everything) and that this your sawsy ignorance did proceede from your malicious desire to discreditt as much as in you lay both his majesties commission & commissioners as fore seeinge that if that aucthoritie might be once overthrowne your scismaticall maisters might doe what they list, and we obiect as above,

Item, we obiect & articulate against you that in the moneth & tyme above mencioned you did falsely & lewdly affirme publickely & in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effect that his majesties commissioners for causes ecclesiasticall by reason of their absolute aucthoritie did therby oftentymes committ sundry absolute wronges and we commaund you to name the commissioners that have done such absolute wronges that they may be dealt with according to their desert or if you are able to name none you may receave such dewe punishment as your slaunderous wordes deserve, and we object as above,

Item, we obiect & articulate against you that in June last, viz., the 13^th day of that moneth or theraboutes you did falsely & lewdly affirme publickly & in the hearing of many either in expresse wordes or in effect that the proceedinges of his majesties commissioners by vertue of his highnes commission to them graunted were utterly against lawe and that many thinges in the said commission graunted by his majestie were contrarie to lawe and that in the pride of your hart you did presume in reading of his majesties said commission to make many scornfull glosses & observacions uppon it as that they had power to devise wayes for searching out of matters to proceede either by ecclesiasticall lawes or otherwise at their discrecion to commaund all justices, all subiectes, which you disdainfully pretended you k(n)ewe not howe farre it might extend & to appoint receavers of fynes whereunto you sawcely did add these wordes or the like in effecte, viz., “yf they had auditors toe, what an exchequer would this be,” which insolency of yours deserveth the greater reprofe because the said his majesties commission keepeth the same forme & expresse tearmes which it hath had since the begining of the late Queenes raigne and was first penned & stille reviewed by the cheife lawyers of this kingdome but especially for that your drifte was in such your scornfulle dirisions to bringe the aucthoritie of his majesties commissioners into contempt not to presse you heare with any further undutifullnes towards his majestie, and we object as above,

Item, we obiect & articulate against you that in the moneth & tyme above mencioned or thereaboutes you did falsely & lewdly affirme publickly and in the hearing of many other in expresse wordes or in effect that the ecclesiasticall jurisdiction mencioned in the act of 1 Elizabeth and committed by his majestie to his commissioners for causes ecclesiastical by his letters patentes under the greate seale of England giveing them aucthoritie to inflict somme corporalle punishments uppon delinquentes is antichristian and that such ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not of Christ but of antichrist and that therby you shewed your self to have embraced somme notable scisme or heresie fitt to be corrected & amended in you & besides that you have by such your speaches made manifest your rebellious & lewd hat towards his majestie in ascribing unto hym the maintenance of that ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which is not of Christ & in making him to be the auchter & graunter of that aucthoritie unto his commissioners which is antichristian, and we object as above,

[Fuller’s supposed actual argument that High Commission authority had to be tailored carefully to statute and assertion of right against self-incrimination]

where in truth that Nicholas in arguing, as is set forth, before the aforementioned justices in the court of the said now lord king here he said that such parts of the abovesaid commission for ecclesiastical causes as have warranted any proceedings against or varying from the course of the common law of this realm of England were void in law unless the abovesaid act of parliament in the first year of Elizabeth ratified the same parts and that the words in the abovesaid act, viz., “after the letters patentes to him or them made they should have power by vertue of that acte & of the letters patentes to execute the premises according to the tenour & effect of the said letters patentes” whereon the abovesaid commission has been founded did not give power to them to execute whatever would be contained in the same letters patent if the same varied in any manner from the course of the common law and that to minister to any person an oath with that intention to compel that person to accuse himself of any offence where there would not be otherwise any sufficient testimony to convict the same person of any offence was against the course of the common law of this realm of England, all which the same Nicholas then and there tried to prove by divers arguments and by divers cases out of divers books of the common law and where in truth that Nicholas did not say the abovesaid English words mencioned in the abovesaid articles as they objected against that Nicholas and where in truth if Nicholas had said any such words that Nicholas ought to have been punished for them by the justices of the court of the said now lord king here where and before whom that Nicholas, as is set forth above, argued and pleaded by assignment of the abovesaid justices

[petition for writ of prohibition to terminate High Commission prosecution against Fuller]

and the abovesaid commissioners constrained the same Nicholas to appear before the same commissioners by occasion of the premises to answer the aforementioned articles on his oath less justly and although that Nicholas pleaded and alleged the abovesaid premises contained above in this suggestion before the aforementioned commissioners in his exoneration often in the premises and offered to prove them in all appropriate ways, nevertheless the said commissioners completely refused to admit that plea, allegation, and proof and tried mightily and continually schemed to condemn that Nicholas in the premises and to inflict penalties on the same Nicholas for them, in contempt of the said now lord king and the damage, prejudice, and manifest impoverishment of that Nicholas, wherefore that Nicholas, humbly imploring the aid and munificence of the court of said now lord king here, seeks remedy and the said now lord king’s writ of prohibition to be directed to the aforementioned commissioners and to each of them in form of law to prohibit them and each of them lest they or any of them proceed further against that Nicholas on the abovesaid articles or hold further the plea before them or any of them concerning the abovesaid premises.

[security that Fuller would prosecute if High Commission seeks a writ of consultation]

And thereon before the lord king at Westminster comes Peter Peirson of the parish of Christchurch, London, gentleman, and Timothy Otes of the same, yeoman, in their proper persons and mainperned for the abovesaid Nicholas Fuller, and that Nicholas undertook for himself that if it happen at some future time that they proceed to approach the court of the lord king here before the king himself to purchase the said lord king’s writ of consultation or approach the justices here otherwise of and on the premises that that Nicholas will prosecute the said matter or suggestion with effect until the plea thereof is determined in a legitimate way, and each of the abovesaid mainpernors under a penalty of ten pounds and the abovesaid Nicholas under a penalty of twenty pounds; the abovesaid Nicholas for himself grants that it be made from his and their lands and chattels and be levied to the use of the lord king if it happen that the same Nicholas not prosecute the premises in the abovesaid form with effect etc.

[grant of prohibition maintaining common law jurisdiction over trespasses, contempts, scandal and construction of statutes and letters patent but grant of consultation for prosecutions for schism, heresy, religious opinions, piety, or the healthy stability of the realm]

Afterwards, to wit on Monday after the third week of Michaelmas then next following on mature deliberation had in this part by the court of the said lord king before the now lord king here, the same court of the said lord king before the king himself wanting to conserve undamaged and defend inviolably the common law, the statutes, and the customs of the realm of the now lord king of England and the rights of his crown as well as similarly to maintain the supreme royal ecclesiastical jurisdiction and authority of the said now lord king, therefore the now lord king’s writ of consultation is signified to the abovesaid commissioners of the king for ecclesiastical causes that as to schism, heresy or erroneous, impious, and pernicious opinion of faith, Christian doctrine or concerning religion, piety, or the healthy stability within the realm of the said now lord king of England (of which the cognizance looks to the ecclesiastical forum) put forward or maintained by the abovesaid Nicholas Fuller they can proceed against the abovesaid Nicholas Fuller with appropriate speed according to ecclesiastical laws licitly, the said lord king’s said writ of prohibition notwithstanding as long as it is not done concerning the authority and validity of the letters patent of the said now lord king for ecclesiastical causes directed to them or any of them or concerning the exposition or interpretation of the statute issued and provided in the first year of the reign of the most beloved sister of the said now lord king Elizabeth late queen of England concerning the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and as long as it is not done concerning any scandals, contempts or other matters which must be punished or determined by common law or the statutes of the now lord king’s realm of England.