750 R. G. Usher thority of the Commission was seriously impeached. Constitutionally timid, the discovery in succession of Watson's Plot, Cobham's Afifair, and the Gunpowder Treason, had led James to fear an outburst of anarchy from almost any source. " I praye yow," he wrote to Salis- bury with his own hand somewhat later, " forgette not Fullers mait- ter that the ecclesiasticall comision maye not be sufiferid to sinke besydes the euill desairtis of the uillaine, for this farre darre I propliecie unto you. that quhen soeuir the eclesiasticall dignitie together with the Kings gouuernemente thairof shall be turnid in contempte and beginne to euanishe in this kingdome, the kinges heirof shall not long prosper in thaire gouuerment and the mon- archie shall fall to ruine, quhiche I praye god I maye neuer hue to see and so fairwell."^ In due time the judges returned from the summer circuits, and toward the end of September resumed their duties on the bench at the opening of Michaelmas term. One of the very first matters brought up was the prohibition issued to Fuller. In view of the importance attached to his attack on the Commission, the judges of the King's Bench took counsel upon the prohibition with the judges of the Common Pleas and with the barons of the Exchequer. The practice of the King's Bench rendered such a writ valid to stay pro- ceedings in the Commission only until an argument could be had before the bar of the court upon the respective rights of the two jurisdictions to take cognizance of that particular matter. Only two courses were properly open to the judges : they could uphold the prohibition and thus declare their sole right to adjudicate the case, which was in fact what Fuller wanted ; or they could issue a consultation annulling the prohibition and giving the High Com- mission leave to proceed. The latter would practically be a con- fession that they had acted hastily in forbidding the Commis- sion to proceed against Fuller, that they recognized the Commission's right to hear the suit, and therefore licensed them to conclude the case as if no prohibition had ever issued. When opinions had been exchanged, it developed that the judges were divided: some wished to maintain the very letter of the prohibition, others wished to annul it altogether, but in the end, after much argument, and after prob- ably several propositions had been submitted in writing for settling the difficulty, they agreed to issue a consultation. It was a curious document, that writ of consultation, drawn up ' Hatfield MSS., 134, f. 126. Holograph. October 19, 1607. Dr. Gardiner gives this date {History of England. II. 39) as "November 7". But the letter is plainly endorsed on the back in Cecil's own hand : " The K. to me. October 19, 1607."
