Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 12.djvu/316

 controversy. In 1610 he showed a manuscript copy of it to Bacon, who regarded it as Cotton's compilation, and suggested some additional sentences respecting his father, Sir Nicholas Bacon. Early in 1612 a similar copy, forwarded by order of James I to De Thou, was described as the joint work of Camden and Cotton. When the first part, bringing the reign down to 1588, appeared in 1615, Camden did not acknowledge any assistance from Cotton beyond the loan of autograph letters, but it was still freely quoted as Cotton's compilation. Late in James I's reign, and after Camden's death, Conway (25 June 1624) ordered the Stationers' Company to abstain from reissuing the first part or publishing the second, which was then in the press, until the whole had been revised by Cotton with the king's assistance. Camden's first drafts of the book are now in the Cottonian Library, and show little signs of revision; but it is probable that the story of Mary queen of Scots, about which James was chiefly anxious, was largely inspired by Cotton, and that, although Cotton's share in the undertaking was exaggerated by his contemporaries, Camden worked immediately under his direction. Cotton, who, as Chamberlain wrote (13 July 1615), ‘hath ever some old precedents in store,’ often discussed antiquarian topics with the king, and a special order was issued to enable him to collect autographs in 1618. James I implored him to write a history of the church of England down to the reformation, but Cotton does not seem to have seriously begun it, and, when Archbishop Ussher took up the subject, freely lent him books and manuscripts. In 1622 Cotton was in treaty for the purchase of the Barocci Library at Venice, but it was unfortunately sold ultimately to a London bookseller and dispersed. After Raleigh was committed to the Tower in 1605 he applied to Cotton for a loan of manuscripts. Bacon worked up his materials for the ‘Life of Henry VII’ in Cotton's library, although admission was denied him by order of the government after his disgrace in 1621. In 1623 Camden died and bequeathed to Cotton a valuable collection of papers.

A feeling was taking shape in James I's reign that there was danger to the state in the absorption into private hands of so large a collection of official documents as Cotton was acquiring. In 1614 another intimate friend, Arthur Agard [q. v.], keeper of the public records, died, leaving his private collection of manuscripts to Cotton. Strong representations were made against allowing Cotton to exercise any influence in filling up the vacant post. The Record Office was injured, it was argued in many quarters, by Cotton's ‘having such things as he hath cunningly scraped together.’ In the following year damning proof was given of the evil uses to which Cotton's palæographical knowledge could be put. His intimacy with Somerset was disastrous to him. In 1615 he was induced by Somerset to seek a private interview with Sarmiento, the Spanish ambassador, for the purpose of informing the envoy that the favourite was resolved, contrary to the policy of other advisers of the king, on an alliance with Spain. On another occasion Cotton told Sarmiento that he was a catholic at heart, a phrase to which we are less ready than Mr. S. R. Gardiner to attach any serious importance. Meanwhile Somerset's enemies were closing round him, and in anticipation of the worst he prevailed on Cotton to draw up a general pardon that should be both prospective and retrospective. Cotton modelled the document on one that Henry VIII had given to Wolsey, but Ellesmere, the lord chancellor, positively declined to seal it (20 July 1615), an action which Somerset attributed to Cotton's want of tact. In September Somerset and his wife were in the Tower on the charge of murdering Overbury, and Cotton tried to protect his patron. He obtained a number of incriminating letters in Somerset's handwriting from the Earl of Northampton and handed them to Somerset, who promptly burned them. Other of Somerset's letters were forwarded to Cotton, who set to work to change the dates, so as to substantiate Somerset's plea of innocence. In October Cotton was himself arrested, and many of his books and papers were carried to Whitehall. When examined before the council he confessed all—his negotiation with Sarmiento as well as his manipulation of Somerset's correspondence. After nearly eight months' imprisonment he was freed from custody without trial (13 June 1616), and a pardon was granted him in July. James I showed no resentment, and employed him in 1621 to search Sir Edward Coke's papers; but signs were soon apparent that Cotton had lost his sympathy with the court.

His friendship with Gondomar, Sarmiento's successor, was notorious, but it is erroneous to ascribe his change of political attitude to that connection. A pamphleteer states that Gondomar obtained 10,000l. from Cotton and his friends (, Vox Populi, 1620), but it is not possible to attach much political significance to this rumour. Cotton had little liking or aptitude for diplomacy, but Gondomar had literary tastes, and, like Casaubon (Ephemerides, p. 1036) and other learned foreigners, was doubtless a welcome guest at Cotton House mainly on that account. Of Gondo-