Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/769

 N'ic kolas Fuller- 759 certain it is that it was intentionally printed to give an entirely false view of Fuller and of his treatment by the High Commission. He was by no means innocent of reprehensible conduct, and the High Commission was not guilty of harsh or unusual measures toward him. Considered from the point of view of modern ideas on free speech and general leniency toward criminals, the punishment was both severe and unwarranted. But we give such a judgment be- cause we believe it wrong to fine or imprison anyone for his utter- ances and because most historians would say that Fuller told the truth when he said that the High Commission was illegal. At that time, however, literally no one advocated free speech, and very few indeed, and those mostly men of Fuller's stamp, had any doubts in regard to the legality of the High Commission in the year of grace 1607. In view of the provocation, the government treated Fuller with much leniency. Xone of the letter-writers of the time would have been surprised to have seen him " shrewdly handled ", but he was allowed to pay his fine about December 30,' and after some further trouble over the form of his submission, he was released on January 8, 1607/8.- Soon after, a new book appeared " on the discipline of the Church " which the government suspected emanated from Fuller, and therefore January 20 found him a close prisoner of the Privy Council in the custody of the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral.^ Late in February or early in March, he drew up another submis- sion* which was apparently satisfactory, for about April 10 he was released under bonds to secure his good behavior, and licenced to practise at the bar till his case had been heard in the Star Chamber.^ In July following the matter was not yet concluded and in August it was still dragging along." In the fall of the year 1608, Fuller was probably freed. Thus by the hand of chance, Nicholas Fuller became famous for a speech which he never delivered and which he perhaps did not write in the form in which posterity has read it. He has been called a martyr to the cause of liberty, when, in reality, judged by ' Chamberlain to Carleton, December 30, 1607, State Papers, Domestic. James I., XXVIII., f. 128. Remitted December 10. the fine seems to have been reimposed after the appearance of his books. - Chamberlain to Carleton, State Papers, Domestic, James I., XXXI.. f. 4. January 8. 1607/8. = Lodge, Illuslratioiis. III. 225. Hatfield MSB.. 124, f. 59. 'This is connected with the paper in Hatfield MSS., 124. f. 59. 'Additional MSS. ^British Museum) 11402. Abstract of Privy Council Register, under the date April 10. 1608. The original register is lost. "Notes by Bacon, July 25, 1608. James Spedding, Life and Letters of Francis Bacon, IV. 53: August 6. 1608, ibid.. IV. 95-