Nicholas Fuller (lawyer)
His legal career there began prosperously—he was employed by the Privy Council to examine witnesses—but was hampered later by his representation of the Puritans, a religious tendency which did not conform with the established Church of England.
Returned to Parliament in 1604 for the City of London, Fuller became considered the "leader of the opposition" due to his conflict with the government over policy,[1] fighting the impositions on currants, the patent on blue starch, and opposing the proposed union with Scotland on legal and economic grounds.
Fuller was a Puritan, and much engaged in their legal and other activities, for example, he arranged a lecturer for St Christopher le Stocks, a church in London, in April 1577.
[6] In 1591, following the collapse of their case in front of the Court of High Commission, Thomas Cartwright and other Puritan ministers were tried by the Star Chamber; Fuller provided legal representation.
[6] Fuller was returned for St Mawes in 1593, apparently thanks to the influence of William Cecil, and immediately began campaigning against government attempts to extend recusancy laws to Protestant splitters from the Church of England.
The government introduced two such bills; the second, sent down from the House of Lords on 5 April 1593, was protested down by Fuller as "dangerous to good subjects", because it made "schisms to be equal with seditions and treasons, which is against the equity of the former law".
Coke argued that the Crown had the right to restrict "games of common good", while Croke said that the free trade principles of the City of London rendered the patent invalid.
During his first year, Fuller opposed the impositions on currants, the patent on blue starch, presented a petition on economic grievances (which delayed the passage of the subsidy bill),[13] supported the restoration of removed ministers and further attacked the powers of the Court of High Commission.
[14] Fuller argued that the Scottish merchants would undercut and impoverish English ones, and that the markets could not handle such an influx, saying that it was "fit that we seek room to place them in before we admit them".
Fuller argued that this right was only exercisable by Parliament, and believed that the extension of the Royal Prerogative would lead to future encroachment on the civil liberties of English citizens.
The High Commission tried people for heresy, based on their internal thoughts and private beliefs, in "a trap to catch unwary or ingenuous men – 'an unlawful process of poking about in the speculation of finding something chargeable'".
[25] By 1610, Fuller was considered an "elder statesman" within Parliament, "although his influence may have been somewhat weakened by the bruising encounters with high commission and star chamber".
[26] He introduced two bills to reform or remove ecclesiastical committees and courts, which passed in the House of Commons of England on 21 May and 20 June, though both were later rejected by the Lords.
[2] On 3 November he began campaigning to have customs duties put into a statutory framework, again against the Court of High Commission, which, he claimed, as an unelected and autonomous body could not be trusted, but rather Parliament should be given jurisdiction.
[26] Wright notes that this was apparently greeted with complete silence, possibly because, while the MPs agreed that civil liberties had been eroded, they felt it was too dangerous to reclaim them.
[26] On 23 February 1620, Fuller died at his home, Chamberhouse, at Crookham in Thatcham, Berkshire,[3] and was buried at the village's parish church[3] on 2 March.
