Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 12.djvu/317

 mar's knowledge of the contents of Cotton's library the same pamphleteer has much to say, and represents Gondomar as suggesting that ‘an especial eye should be had upon the library of Sir R. C. (an ingrosser of antiquities), that whensoever it came to be broken up (eyther before his death or after), the most choice and singular pieces might be gleaned and gathered up by a catholique hand.’ That no real sympathy with the Roman catholics inspired Cotton's political action is proved by a paper which he compiled about 1616, regarding the treatment which popish priests ought to receive. Although he argues for and against the punishment of death, he adopts most of the current calumnies. As a matter of fact, Cotton was interesting himself solely in domestic politics, and was studying the records of the past in order to arrive at definite conclusions respecting those powers of parliament which the king was already disputing. His studies inclined him towards the parliamentary opposition. About 1620 he became friendly with Sir John Eliot, and he soon found that their political opinions coincided at nearly all points. In 1621 he wrote a tract to show that kings must consult their council and parliament ‘of marriage, peace, and warre’ (Cott. Posth.)

Cotton appeared in the House of Commons for the third time as member for Old Sarum in James I's last parliament (2 March 1623–1624), and he was returned to the first parliament of Charles I's reign as M.P. for Thetford (May 1625). Here he first made open profession of his new political faith. On 10 Aug. the discussion on supply was proceeding, and Eliot's friends made a determined stand against the government, then practically in the hands of Buckingham. Neither Eliot nor Cotton spoke in the debate, but the latter handed to Eliot an elaborate series of notes on the working of the constitution. The paper was circulated in the house in manuscript, and was worked up by Eliot into an eloquent essay. Mr. Forster believed that this was delivered as a speech (Life of Eliot, i. 244–6), but Mr. Gardiner shows conclusively that Eliot never intervened in the debate (Hist. of England, v. 425–6). Cotton's notes came to Buckingham's knowledge, and he took a curious revenge. In the following February it was arranged that the king, on proceeding by water from Whitehall to Westminster for coronation, should land at the steps leading to Cotton's garden. The garden was for a long period before and after these events a favourite promenade for members of parliament (cf., Hist. i. 477). The Earl of Arundel, earl marshal, Cotton's intimate friend, helped him to make elaborate preparations for the king's reception, and early in the morning Cotton and a few friends awaited the arrival of the royal barge. He held in his hand ‘a book of Athelstan's, being the fower Evangelists in Latin, that king's Saxon epistle prefix'd [now MS. Cott. tit. A. II.], upon which for divers hundred years together the kinges of England had solemnlie taken their coronation oath.’ (It is not apparent by what right Cotton had obtained possession of the volume, and he was summoned to deliver it shortly afterwards to a king's messenger, but it subsequently returned to his library.) The royal barge, however, to Cotton's dismay, ‘bawked’ his garden; the king landed elsewhere, and the insult was rightly ascribed to the circulation of the obnoxious notes (Symond D'Ewes to Sir Martin Stuteville, in, Orig. Lett., 1st ser. iii. 215; , Autob. i. 291–2). To the second parliament of the reign Cotton was not returned. In September 1626 he protested, in behalf of the London merchants, against the proposed debasement of the coinage, and his arguments, which he wrote out in ‘A Discourse touching Alteration of Coyne,’ chiefly led to the abandonment of the vicious scheme. In December he was appointed anew a commissioner to inquire into abuses in the navy. But the court was not reconciled to him, and when it was reported that he was printing his ‘History of Henry III,’ in which he freely criticised the policy of one of Charles I's predecessors, a prosecution of the printers was threatened. The book, however, duly appeared (13 Feb. 1626–7). In May 1627 he drew up an elaborate account of the law offices existing in Elizabeth's reign. Early next year the council invited his opinion on the question of summoning a new parliament, and he strongly recommended that course. In 1628 he published a review of the political situation under the title of ‘The Dangers wherein the Kingdom now standeth, and the Remedye,’ where he drew attention to the dangers threatened by the growing power of the emperor, and to the sacred obligation of the king to put his trust in parliaments. He was returned to Charles I's third parliament as M.P. for Castle Rising, Norfolk. Before the house met (March 1627–8), the opposition leaders, Eliot, Wentworth, Pym, Selden, and Sir E. Coke, met at Cotton's house to formulate their policy. In parliament Cotton was appointed chairman of the committee on disputed elections, and throughout the two sessions was in repeated correspondence with Eliot.

After the dissolution Cotton was treated by the court as an avowed enemy, and an