COTTON'S COUNSELS: THE CONTEXTS OFCOTTONI POSTHUMA

GRAHAM PARRY

C O T T O N ' S name is constantly alluded to in books on antiquarianism, history,genealogy, topography and law published in the first three decades of the seventeenthcentury. Invariably these references to 'my worthy friend', the honoured, the learned,the worshipful Sir Robert Cotton, are accompanied by expressions of gratitude for hisgenerosity in granting access to his library, his cabinet of coins and medals, or for hisadvice on procedure. The sense we have of Cotton as a universal facilitator among menof learning is overwhelming. Yet, although he was always willing to contribute to othermen's works, and though books were his life and authors his friends, he made but aslender appearance in print himself. In fact, he published only one short tract under hisown name.^ It was not until 1651 that a volume of his writings appeared, with the titleCottoni Posthuma. Then, twenty years after his death, the world could form someestimate of his political judgement, and understand why Cotton's incomparableknowledge of the parliamentary records was so valued by his contemporaries. Cotton'sown reluctance to publish meant that he left his literary character to be formed by othermen, by selective editing of his writings, and his first editor presented him almostexclusively as a patriotic political adviser who had anatomized the ills of the Stuart kings,and had done his best to offer remedies. In retrospect, his writings could be seen asdescribing the inward decay of Stuart kingship, and explain why the monarchy hadcollapsed within two generations of Queen Elizabeth's death. It is my intention in thisarticle to provide some context for the various items in Cottoni Posthuma., and to readthem as a critical commentary on the political developments of the second and thirddecades of the century.

The brief discourses that make up Cottoni Posthuma were put together by JamesHowell, a minor litterateur and quondam royalist. Howell had probably come intocontact with Cotton when they were both part of Ben Jonson's circle in the 1620s. Hehad been a notable traveller, and was especially well acquainted with Venice and Madrid.Whilst in Spain in 1623, trying to obtain the release of an impounded English merchantvessel, he had met up with Prince Charles and his party on their ill-starred visit toarrange a marriage with the Infanta. Thereafter he had tried, and failed, to get a post onthe Duke of Buckingham's staff. He spent some years as secretary to the President of theCouncil of the North, before returning to London, where he developed into one of those

29

self-conscious ^gentlemen of parts' who hung around the fringes of the Caroline court.Well-travelled, urbane, ever ready with opinion and advice, he attempted to make aliving by writing. Perhaps his most inventive and successful production was the prolixallegory on the international political scene entitled Dendrologia, or The Vocall Forrest(1641), in which all the characters are trees. A vociferous supporter of King Charles, hewas imprisoned by order of Parliament in 1643, ostensibly for debt. He remained in jailuntil 1651, conducting an active literary life from a secure if unwelcome base. Duringthese years he published Familiar Letters, which profess to be his correspondence withhis numerous well-connected friends up and down the country, though, since none of hisletters has been found, they were probably sent only in the imagination. After the King'sdeath, he found it possible to revise his loyalties, and in 1651 he dedicated his Surveyoj the Signorie of Venice to the Long Parliament. He appears to have compiled CottoniPosthuma just after his release from prison. He must have had access to some of Cotton'spapers, and recognized that they cast an intermittent light on early Stuart politics.Collected together, they demonstrated how the crisis of the monarchy had unfolded.They also put before the public a man whom Howell obviously admired, and who hadfilled a role dose to the centre of events in the i6ios and 20s, as an informal adviser tothe King and major political figures. Cotton had tried to maintain a balance betweenKing and Parliament, and his moderation and judgement made him a man who couldreadily be respected in the confused beginnings of the Commonwealth. Howell evidentlylearned from his subject, for during the 1650s he too tried to offer politic advice toCromwell on state affairs by means of pamphlets. The publication of his volume ofCotton's writings formed part of a larger upsurge of interest in Jacobean politics in theearly 1650s, caused, one imagines, by the desire to trace the origins of the recentconflicts."

The last item that Howell included in his collection was Cotton's most sustained pieceof writing. The Life and Reign of Henry the Third. Since this was a thinly disguisedparallel with the reign of James I, full of Cotton's shrewd judgements on politicalconduct, judgements that by 1651 had been fulfilled more terribly than he could haveimagined, it provides a useful starting-point to study Cotton's method as a historicalcommentator and to identify the values he held most desirable for the maintenance ofgood government. This history of Henry III had been first published in 1627,anonymously and apparently without Cotton's permission. It was immediately held to becritical of King Charles; Cotton was suspected as the author, and examined by theauthorities, but released when he persuaded them that he had not approved publication,and that he had written the work in 1614.^ Certainly, the manuscript of the history inCambridge University Library carries the note 'Written by Sir Robert Cotton KnightBaronett in anno 1614 and by him presented to his Majestie the same year.' Given thatthe Ltfe and Reign contains much about the pernicious influence of favourites, whichseems to bear specifically upon Buckingham, whose rise began in 1616, it is possible thatCotton either wrote it later than he claimed, or revised it to take account of Buckingham'scareer. I assume that Cotton did present a manuscript copy to King James, for almost

30

everything he wrote had a specific audience in mind, and he would have regarded it asa piece of wise counsel that applied the lessons of history to contemporary problems. Oneneeded to be hardy to offer even veiled criticism to the King, but Cotton no doubt tookcourage from his distant kinship to James, which both men acknowledged, for bothtraced their descent from Robert the Bruce.

The history is an outline of events in Henry Ill 's reign, interspersed with reflectionson the art of government and precepts concerning effective rule. It is written in thesparse economical style that Cotton usually employed, and reads like a precis of anElizabethan play of the 1590s in which the action is historic but the relevancecontemporary. (No playwright chose the reign of Henry III for dramatization, in fact.)It is a cautionary tale. The King ascends the throne when there are few distempers inthe state, only the familiar tension between the Commons greedy of liberty and theNobility of rule. The King's principal adviser is the well-established Earl of Kent, butthe young nobles of the realm come to resent him, chafing to get their hands on power,a situation not dissimilar to that around the Earl of Salisbury in James's reign. Thesovereign after some years reveals the great weakness of his rule, a penchant for afavourite, the Frenchman Simon de Montfort. De Montfort is rapidly made Earl ofLeicester, the King lavishes money on him, and the business of state begins to runthrough his hands. The English nobility 'began to grieve' at this defiection of powerfrom them, and Cotton intervenes to comment on the risks of adopting a favourite:'Great is the Sovereign's error when the hope of subjects must recognise itself beholdento the servant.' The favourite's position is unstable, dependent on the whim of theKing's fancy. As the favourite begins to restrict access to the sovereign, and drawsbishops to his support, his unpopularity grows, yet he controls more business than ever.'Thus is the incapacity of government in a King, when it falls to be prey to such lawlessministers, the ground of infinite corruption in all the members of the State.' Alienatedpeers begin to form a party against the favourite, and hope to persuade the King to abetter judgement of state affairs.

The circumstances would fit 1614, when Cotton claimed to have written it, for Jameshad then begun to turn away from the advice of his Privy Councillors and Parliamenttowards a dependence on his favourite Robert Carr, a foreigner in that he was a Scot.At the end of 1613 he was created Earl of Somerset, to the outrage of the older nobility.The King was heavily in debt, and paying little attention to business.* The Howardfaction supported the favourite, the Pembroke faction was deeply critical; the Howardswere resisting calling a Parliament to resolve the King's financial difficulties, theiropponents pressed for one. Parliament was summoned in April 1614.

At a corresponding time in Henry Ill 's reign, a Parliament was called, reluctantly, bythe sovereign. Cotton observes that kings who have alienated their subjects never likeParliaments, for their critics then can confront them. So they did: they denounced Henryfor choosing his principal officers privately, without the aid of Common Council, forfavouring foreigners above Englishmen, and for delegating power to the favourite. Usinglanguage that would be familiar to Stuart readers. Cotton records how Henry's

31

Parliament complained about the granting to favourites of monopolies which alienatedthe merchants of the realm and depressed trade. Significantly too there were complaintsthat great lords were exacting money from subjects by activating little used laws relatingto forests. The upshot was that a disgruntled Parliament voted only a pittance by wayof supply to the King, and its members departed full of resentment. Cotton's choric voiceintervenes: 'Thus Parliaments that before were ever a medicine to heal up any rupturein Princes' fortunes, were now grown worse than the malady, sith from thence moremalignant humours began to reign in them, than well composed tempers. '̂

The Parliament of 1614 refused to vote supply to James. Instead, the membersinvestigated the corruption of offices, and attacked the King's way of raising money byarbitrary impositions. The King defended this right to exact impositions as 'one of theflowers of his prerogative'. Parliament was rapidly dissolved, not to meet again until1621.

In Henry Il l 's case, when deprived of parliamentary support, he started to sell royallands and some of his possessions. He even pawned the jewels from Edward theConfessor's shrine to alleviate his poverty. James in 1615 began to sell titles of nobility,a move even more desperate than the sale of knighthoods earlier in his reign, and he alsosold the Cautionary Towns in Holland to the Dutch. Thereafter, easy parallels betweenKing Henry and King James were more difficult to make. A date then of 1614-15 wouldbe quite apt for this history, but since the vices and the problems of the Stuarts were ofa recurring nature, the history of Henry III, which is so full of warnings of the disastrousconsequences that follow from wasteful spending, from surrender of power to favourites,and from reluctance to work with parliaments, also had an uncomfortable relevance toJames's position in 1621, on the eve of a new Parliament, when Buckingham was fullyin the ascendant and debts were worse than ever. It was equally applicable to thecircumstances of 1627, when it was published at the height of the Commons' hostilityto Buckingham, and when King Charles was already well enmeshed in the familiar Stuartproblems.

Cotton narrates the remainder of Henry's long reign, past the crises of debt,favouritism and parliamentary opposition that make such a telling parallehsm withStuart politics. It is a tale of disaster followed by reform and recovery. What this historylesson teaches above all is the near-fatal damage done to the Crown by favouritism:' Favours past are not accompted, we love no bounty but what is merely future. The morethat a Prince weakeneth himself in giving, the poorer he is of friends. For suchprodigality in a Sovereign, ever ends in the rapine and spoil of his subjects. '̂ WhenHenry is finally forced to call another parliament, he is so necessitous and so friendlessthat he is obliged to render up his royal power to a committee of government, and isreduced to a cypher. England slides into confusion as De Montfort and his allies try towrest power from the governors, and then their opponents 'invited her ancient enemyto the funeral of her liberty' by calling in the French for assistance. After a militarydenouement in which De Montfort is killed and the King restored, Henry attempts tounderstand why his reign has been so disastrous, 'why that virtue and fortune that had

32

so long settled and maintained under his ancestors the glory of his Empire' had desertedhim. Here is history teaching by example in characteristic Renaissance fashion. Henryrealises that 'his wasteful hand' has impoverished him and alienated his people, that byhis 'neglect of grace', 'by making merchandize of peace...by giving himself over to asensual security and referring all to base, greedy and unworthy ministers whose counselswere ever more subtle than substantial ...he had thrown down those pillars ofsovereignty and safety: Reputation abroad and Reverence at home. '̂ For Cotton, historyis a mirror for princes, and King James would have no difficulty in recognizing himself.

Henry Il l 's response was reform. ' In himself he reformed his natural errors, [for]Princes' manners through a mute law have more of life and vigour than those of letters,and though he did sometimes touch upon the verge of vice, he forebore ever after toenter the circle.' He reformed his court so that it might again be a theatre of honour:where previously 'the faults of great men did not only by approbation but by imitationreceive true comfort and authority, now he purged them, for from the Court proceedseither the regular or irregular condition of the State. '̂ He curbed his immoderateliberality, recognizing that 'this bounty bestowed without respect, was taken withoutgrace, discredited the receiver and detracteth from the judgement of the giver, andblunteth the appetites of such as carried their hopes out of virtue and service. Thus atlast he learned that reward and reprehension justly laid do balance government.' Hebegins for the first time to live within his means: 'expense of house he measureth by thejust rule of his proper revenue.' Equally important is the change of his manner ofgoverning. He dismisses tainted and unworthy ministers, and fills 'the seats ofJudgement and Council with men nobly born, (for such attract less offense).' He sits inCouncil daily, 'and disposeth of affairs of most weight in his own person.' As Cottonfrequently emphasized, the Prince must rule: his counsellors ' must have ability to advise,not authority to resolve.'

The mood of the nation changed as the people felt the benefits of Henry's reform, andCotton notes that a Prince should 'lay the foundations of Greatness upon popular Love'and that the people 'measure the bond of their obedience by the good they alwaysreceive.' Nor did Henry neglect the future of the kingdom, for he attended to thepolitical education of his successor, Edward, 'to make him partner of his own experienceand authority. He (the first of his name since the Conquest) became capable to commandnot the realm but the whole world. '̂

It is not difficult to read these signals. The need for the Crown to be free of debt, thePrince to be the source of honour sustaining and sustained by an authentic nobility, andprotected by the love of his people, the duty of the King to rule and not be ruled, all theseobservations point up Cotton's dismay at the course and character of King James's reign.This dismay is coupled with a belief that the kingdom can be saved by the applicationof known remedies culled from history. Whether the time was 1614, or later in the reign,whether the favourite was Somerset or Buckingham, the pattern of pohtics remains thesame. Such was the fundamental conviction of Cotton, always a conservative thinker.The detail of the education of the heir to the throne is a pointed admonition to the King.

33

Prince Charles was the first of his name since the Conquest, as Edward had been in thetime of Henry III. King James had taken an idealistic view of the education of his heirin his younger days when still King of Scotland, for he had written Basilikon Doron toinstruct Prince Henry in the art and mystery of kingship; (one should not forget thatJames himself had aspired to the role of philosopher-king in the first years of his reignin England). Prince Henry had realized his father's dream of an educated, judicious,pious prince, apt for the studies of peace as for the camps of war, and had been allowedto establish his own independent court at an early age, a court which stood in notablecontrast to the increasingly louche court of King James. Once Henry was dead, however,the King took little care for the education of Prince Charles, and after the rise ofBuckingham, the favourite effectively moulded the political development of the heir.Cotton surely disapproved the King's negligence in securing the future of England.

The directness of the analogies makes it highly unlikely that The Life and Reign ofHenry HI was intended for publication. Offered to the Sovereign privately as a respectfuladmonition, it could be understood as timely counsel, with the authority of the historicalrecord giving it a power beyond the personal concerns of a subject. Published in 1627,it must have seemed quite derogatory to King James, and unpleasantly critical of KingCharles and the current political situation, with the King dominated by the Duke ofBuckingham, who was no wise adviser with the well-being of England in mind, but aninitiator of reckless and wasteful policies of war against Spain and attacks on France. Nowonder Cotton was taken in for questioning. The history was reprinted in 1642,evidently to discredit the Stuart regime. Howell's inclusion of it in Cottoni Posthumawould seem to have been in the spirit of a post-mortem, and to vindicate Cotton'shistorical judgement.

Many of the other tracts in Cottoni Posthuma bear on issues raised in the history ofHenry III. They show an author who was deeply patriotic, and devoted to the monarchy,but also a man 'whose main endeavours', as Howell wrote in his Preface to the Reader,' were to assert the publick Liberty, and that Prerogative and Priviledge might run intheir due Channels.' That is to say, he desired that the royal prerogative and theprivileges of Parliament should co-exist in mutual respect so that there was neitherundue oppression from above nor excessive power assumed by the Commons. ForCotton, the reign of Elizabeth was always the model of good government.

The tracts, in fact, offer a short view of Cotton's own political career and values. Theearliest piece with a definite political bearing is the discourse concerning the legality ofduels, a piece he wrote about 1608 for his patron Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton,who, as one of the Commissioners for the Earl Marshalship, was anxious to ban duellingin England in accordance with the wishes of the King. The rapid growth of this practicefrom the 1590s has been documented by Laurence Stone, who pointed out that theintroduction of the rapier brought with it a great increase in fatalities, and, of course,these fatalities tended to occur in the higher echelons of society, and were detrimentalnot only to good order but to aristocratic succession.^ Cotton supplies details of thehistory of combats fought in the presence of the King or the Earl Marshal or Constable,

34

with the rules governing them, and he outlines the measures taken by these figures tosuppress duels in England, noting the punishments imposed over the centuries since thetime of Edward I. He believes there are occasions when combat is lawful, in cases oftreason for example, but in cases touching personal honour, the cause of almost allJacobean quarrels, he finds these have long been banned by the Sovereign. The tractprovides a brisk legal brief for suppression in the national interest. Presumably it wasintended to help the Earl of Northampton's plans to gain the office of the Earl Marshal,which had been hereditary in the Howard family for generations. (In this, Northamptondid not succeed, but the King re-established the office and conferred it on ThomasHoward, Earl of Arundel, in 1621.)

Cotton undertook a far more important task for Northampton, and by extension forthe King, when he compiled, 'The Manner and Means how the Kings of England havefrom time to time supported and repaired their Estates' in 1610 or 11. These suggestionswere put forward after the failure of the Great Contract, which the Earl of Salisbury hadtried to broker between Parliament and the King in order to resolve the perennialproblem of the royal finances. Salisbury proposed that Parliament should pay off theKing's debt and grant him a regular income raised from taxation, in return for the King'srestraining his expenditure and relinquishing certain rights of imposition and some of themuch-disliked feudal dues, especially those relating to tenure and wardship. When bothparties were dose to agreement in July 161 o, the Contract broke down becauseParliament was dissatisfied with James's response to several of their grievances presentedto him in conjunction with the financial bargain. Salisbury died in May 1612 with thecrisis of the King's finances still unresolved. He had held the position of Treasurer aswell as Secretary, but James did not appoint an individual to succeed him as Treasurer,but a commission, of which Northampton was First Lord. Cotton applied his antiquarianskills to the business of providing his patron with serviceable ways for the King to raisemoney, based on ancient practice. He emphasizes equally the possibility of the King'simproving his income with the help and advice of Parliament or the Privy Council, andby the exercise of his prerogative. He recommends, too, better management of royalestates, and above all, retrenchment of household expenses. The state archives revealvarious kinds of loans and benevolences that Parliament might make and had made tothe Sovereign, special payments to relaunch him after a shipwreck. Invariably, however,a quid pro quo is required, and the King must reform his household, cut back on pensions,get rid of'strangers' and shake off favourites. He should 'reduce the household to thebest, first and most magnificent order...so all things being spent in public will be to theKing's honour.' 'The secret waste by Chamber, diet and purloining [must be] preventedto the King's benefit. For there is never a back-door in Court that costs not the King2000 I. yearly, and few mean houses in Westminster that are not maintained with foodand firing, by the stealth of their Court-Instruments. "^^ The tightly regulated court thatPrince Henry maintained at St James's Palace was a standing reproach to Whitehall inthe matter of discipline, decorousness and economy.^^

Many of Cotton's ideas foresee the monarchy transformed from an inert state to an

35

active economic empire. As the greatest landowner in Britain, James should take a morepurposeful view of his possessions. Cotton recommends that the Crown should rentmuch more of its land and raise existing rents. More importantly, the Crown mustmodernize its affairs; it should improve the management and productivity of its estates,and enter the market by selling commodities raised on its lands. It could even rent ships,and thus enjoy the profits of trade.

Although a Member of Parliament himself. Cotton was not one of the majority whowanted to restrict the King's prerogative. In 'The Manner and Means' he surveys themany options the King possesses to improve his revenue, by the familiar ways of raisingcustoms dues, farming out the customs more lucratively, and also by more tendentiousmeans. Cotton searches the records for precedents that might justify the King's use ofprerogative rights that have long been in abeyance. He suggests reviving the practice ofcalling in the charters and liberties of corporations and other bodies for renewal at aprice. Intervention could be made in legal suits 'for mitigation or despatch of justice' bytransferring cases to the King's Council, with the parties concerned paying a fee. Officesof state, with the exception of the Judicature, might be sold. (King John provides anunseemly precedent here with his sale of the Chancellorship for 5000 marks.) Then thereis the great profit to be made from the sale of honours. Far from being shocked by thesale of knighthoods at the beginning of James's reign. Cotton proposes the institution ofa new title of honour, the Baronet; recipients would rank next under Barons, and wouldpay /]iooo for the privilege of joining the order. By 'judicious election', this title would'be a means to content those worthy persons in the Common-Wealth' who werediscontented with the indiscriminate recruitment to the class of Knights that occurredat the beginning of the reign. King James adopted this suggestion, and the new rank wasestablished; Cotton himself became a Baronet. Cotton also recommends that the Kingshould continue to fine men who have the qualifications to be made a Knight and declinethe honour. Bishoprics might also be sold, and the bishops be moved around regularlyto ensure a steady profit from entrance fees into a See.

Whilst willing to approve honours sold for money. Cotton was not willing to damagethe honour of money itself. He warned against any debasement of the coinage (a projectwhich was in the air), showing by example that such a move always marked the beginningof economic decline. He also disapproved of the King's issuing monopolies, as a restraintof trade with damaging consequences to the nation.

Cotton's loyalty to King James was unwavering. Though James had many imprudenthabits, he had to be supported because he was the indispensable centre of power. Atworst, his reign had to be endured because God in His wisdom sends good and bad kingsto rule over men. 'Religion bindeth a good subject to desire a good Sovereign and to bearwith a bad,' Cotton noted in a list of political maxims he drew up round about 1613.̂ ^Throughout his career there was a tendency for his historical research to result in readilyapplicable precepts. Foremost among them was the duty of experienced men to offergood counsel to the monarch. Parliament, as the supreme body of experienced men, hadas its primary duty to advise the sovereign, but not to contest power. Such a view would

36

always keep Cotton among the moderates, even among the conservatives in Parliament,and makes all the more ironic his eventual arrest in 1629 on the orders of King Charles'sministers.

A fine example of Cotton's direct advice to the King is his tract of 1613 on policytowards Jesuit priests who were entering England in some numbers and who appearedto be attempting to subvert the allegiance of Catholics to the King. Should they beexecuted, or imprisoned for life? He offers twelve arguments on either side, leaving nodoubt that imprisonment is the better course. Partly this is because history has taughthim the danger of making martyrs, partly because he believes that the wiser course liesthrough mercy rather than justice. However, he recognizes the strength of Catholicism'sattraction, and is reluctant to be severe against recusants and their ministers, because headmires the tenacity of their faith. Most recusants are in any case patriotic Englishmen,he believes: there was no rising when the Armada came. Such reflections cause Cottonto break into a plea more heartfelt than anything I have encountered elsewhere in hiswritings. Catholicism retains its hold because the Church of England does not bring thetrue faith to the people with sufficient zeal. There is not enough instruction given toparishioners; children are not adequately catechized; prayer and preaching are lukewarmin the Church. Clergy and bishops should share the blame for this failure to bring thegospel to life in every parish. If the faith is not actively maintained at all levels of society,men and women will understandably revert to the old religion, which has generations of"belief behind it. The Reformation began with such conviction, and now it slackens.'Many times I have stood amazed to behold the Magnificence of our Ancestors'buildings, which their Successors at this day are not able to keep up; but when I castmine eyes upon this excellent Foundation laid by the Fathers of the Church, andperceive their Children neglect to build thereupon, with exceeding marvel, I rest almostbeside myself, for never was there better ground-plot laid, which hath been secondedwith less success.'̂ -^ As so often for Cotton, the best times were those of Elizabeth: ' Inthose days there was an emulation between the Clergy and the Laity: and a strife arosewhether of them should show themselves most affectionate to the Gospel. Ministershaunted the Houses of the worthiest men, where Jesuits now build their Tabernacles,and poor country Churches were frequented with the best of the Shire. The Word ofGod was precious. Prayer and Preaching went hand in hand together. '̂ ^ King James, ashead of the Church, was given plenty to think over in Cotton's submission.

Several of the pieces in Cottoni Posthuma preserve the counsels that Cotton gave onstate affairs in the latter years of James's reign. Two items relate to the Parliament of1621, in which he was exceptionally active as an ally of Arundel. In the earlier part ofthe year, Parliament had begun the impeachment of Francis Bacon, the Lord Chancellor.The Privy Council sent to Cotton to know what Parliament might do by itself withoutthe presence of the King, and what were the powers of the House of Lords as a court. ̂ ^The King himself seems to have asked Cotton to define his role. Cotton's answer wasmost helpful in darifying Parliament's scope as a judicial body on the basis of ancientpractice. His paper 'That the Sovereign's Person is required in the Great Councils, or

37

Assemblies of the State, as well at the Consultations as at the Conclusions' gave theCommons the right to hear evidence and the Lords to pronounce judgement, but theKing's presence was required at all stages, and he must approve the verdict. About thesame time. Cotton also prepared his 'Brief Discourse Concerning the Power of Peers andCommons of Parliament in Point of Judicature', in which he justifies the right of theCommons to sit in judgement over a person who is not a member of the House. The casein question concerned a Catholic barrister who had slandered the Elector Palatine andthe Princess Elizabeth. Cotton's opinions, as Kevin Sharpe has remarked, lacked weightfor once, and the assertion of the Commons' position may perhaps be taken as a sign ofhis growing concern to strengthen the powers of the Commons against the Lords andagainst the malignant influence of Buckingham which dominated the Privy Council andwas beginning to infiltrate the Lords. ̂ ^

The 1621 Parliament was also complicated by foreign issues. The Palatinate had beenlost, and the Spanish match for Prince Charles was being refioated, now with the thoughtthat the Palatinate might be retrieved for Frederick and Elizabeth as part of the deal. TheCommons wished to discuss these developments, but convention decreed that foreignpolicy and marriage schemes were the business of the King, part of the arcana imperii.,which should not be open to debate. Parliament launched a challenge to this convention,and Cotton was asked for an opinion by one of the Lords, probably Arundel orBuckingham. ^̂ 'That the Kings of England have been pleased, usually, to consult withtheir Peers in the Great Council and Commons in Parliament of Marriage, Peaceand War' argued that precedent did not justify the convention by tracing the growthof a process of consultation throughout the Middle Ages over both state marriagesand the making of war. He doses his presentation with a detailed account of a periodof Henry VIII's reign when the King was entangled by both Spain and the Empire,who used the bait of marriage to lure Henry into conflict with France in order toserve their own territorial ambitions. Cotton sees a clear parallel here to contemporarycircumstances and, whilst asserting the right of Parliament to discuss the King'sbusiness, warns against the designs of Spain and doubts 'the princely sincerity of theCatholique'.

Increasingly, Cotton's writings emphasized the need for the full participation ofParliament in government, in conjunction with the King. The King was becomingexcessively dominated by Buckingham, and the Privy Council was also falling under hiscontrol. The national interest was best served by the debates of Parliament, though theiraim in deliberation should always be to advise the King. James did finally seek the adviceof Parliament about the wisdom of proceeding with the Spanish match in February 1624,the occasion of Cotton's thoughts on 'The Treaties of Amity and Marriage' with Austriaand Spain, which he delivered to the King on behalf of both Houses. Once again he wentover the misfortunes endured by Henry VIII through his marriage with Catherine ofAragon, and the international misadventures contrived by Spain and the Empire. ThenQueen Mary's marriage to Philip II had brought a succession of dangers to Englishsovereignty, throughout Elizabeth's reign, and Spain still harboured ill will against

38

England, as could be seen by the enemies of the state that she pensioned. By no meansshould Parliament recommend a further engagement with Spain.

Relations with Spain also provoked the 'Relation against Ambassadors who havemiscarried themselves', which was written as advice to Buckingham in 1624 on theoccasion when the Spanish ambassadors in London, who were treating for the marriageof the Prince of Wales, denounced Buckingham, the main opponent, to King James,accusing him of plotting to overthrow the King. This extraordinary move, in whichforeign representatives interfered in domestic politics and made accusations directly tothe King, left Buckingham in a very awkward position. Buckingham had persuadedJames to break off negotiations with Spain after the failure of the escapade in Madrid inwhich Prince Charles and the Duke had been duped, as they felt, and humiliated. TheDuke's next move was to persuade the King and Parliament to declare war on Spain. Atthis point, in April 1624, the Spanish ambassadors, in desperation, approached Jamesand warned him that Buckingham was plotting a coup, and was engaged in a design tomarry his daughter to Princess Elizabeth's son, thus putting his family in the line ofsuccession. James was perturbed. Buckingham turned to Cotton for advice on how tooutmanoeuvre the Spaniards. His request was unexpected, since Cotton was a client ofArundel, and Arundel was hostile to Buckingham, but the urgency of the threat musthave sent Buckingham to the best source of advice on procedure, and that was Cotton.Since Cotton at this stage was strongly anti-Spanish, and believed that national interestswere not served by any alliance with Spain, his patriotic instincts must have overcomehis dislike of the favourite and caused him to offer Buckingham help. Prefacing hisresponse with a brief history of ambassadors who have gone beyond the limits ofdiplomatic privilege. Cotton advised the Duke to complain against their behaviour inParliament, 'and leaving it so to their advice and justice, to depart the House' whilethe Lords conferred with the Commons. Parliament would demand proof, and wouldsend a delegation to the ambassadors' lodgings to show how seriously Parliamentviewed the incident. If no proofs were given, then Parliament would complain to theKing of Spain about their conduct, and if the King did not apologize, war would bedeclared.

In fact, Buckingham got out of his predicament by an emotional confession of loyaltyand love to the King, followed by a breakdown in health that aroused all the King's oldaffections for him.^^ James also interrogated under oath all his Privy Councillors to findout if there was any substance to the ambassadors' charges. Buckingham revived.Cotton's counsel, however, showed once again how much faith he placed in the Lords andCommons acting together, ' the great Council of the Kingdom, to the which, by thefundamental Law of the State, the chief care of the King's safety and public quiet iscommitted. '̂ ^ Parliament can act as a judicial body, and is increasingly looked to as theguide and guardian of the nation in times when Kings and favourites veer intoirresponsible actions.

With King Charles's accession in 1625, Cotton found himself in a chillier climate. Thekinship he enjoyed with James, which cemented his loyalty to the Crown and ensured

39

that his advice was always offered with the best interests of the King in mind, was notreadily acknowledged by Charles. Buckingham, now dominant as the royal policy-maker,soon forgot whatever gratitude he had felt towards Cotton over the affair of the Spanishambassadors. When the first Parliament of the reign met in August 1625 in ChristChurch hall in Oxford (escaping from the plague in London), Cotton sat as M.P. forThetford, a seat in the Earl of Arundel's control. Buckingham gave an account of thepreparations to send a fieet against Spain under his command, and relayed the King'srequest for subsidy. The Commons were recalcitrant, doubtful of Buckingham'scompetence, alarmed at his lack of consultation in the planning of the expedition, andsuspicious of his agreement with France, then actively persecuting Protestants, for helpagainst Spain. Cottoni Posthuma includes a speech that Sir Robert was supposed to havemade on this occasion, although there is no mention of it in the Parliamentary record.Gardiner believed that Cotton wrote the speech for Sir John Eliot; Sharpe believes thatit was for Sir Robert Phelips who led the attack on Buckingham. ̂ *̂ It certainly reads likeCotton's work, with its laying out of precedents and its several glances at the problemsof Henry Ill 's reign.

In its preliminaries, the speech brings up, non-specifically, the question ofimpeachment, and then proceeds to analyse the frail condition of the Crown and thedisorders that have crept into government. By 1625, the early years of James's reignseemed assured and competent in contrast to the present. As long as Elizabeth's officershad continued to serve James, things went well: debt was kept in check, pensions wererestrained, trade flourished. 'All things of moment were carried by public debate at theCouncil-table; no Honour set to sale...Laws against Priests and Recusants wereexecuted.' The King wrote vigorously against Catholicism. In government, there was'no transcendant power in any one Minister. For matters of state, the Council-table heldup the fit and ancient dignity. '̂ ^ Cotton then passes to the praise of Somerset as a manof integrity, whose main care was the well-being of the state. All this is a very rosyretrospect, and quite at odds with the view of the state assumed in The Life and Reignof Henry HI. For once, political opportunism seems to have made Cotton change hisrecollection of recent history quite markedly. Now he dates the troubles of James's reignfrom his inclination to arrange a Spanish match for Prince Charles. The King wasthereafter indulgent towards England's chief enemy, and reluctant to enforce the lawsagainst Catholics. Once Gondomar had come to London as Spanish ambassador, Jameswas never again his own master. The King allowed favourites (unnamed) to exercise andabuse his power; (the unsavoury name of Piers Gaveston, Edward II's homosexualfavourite, is invoked). The King's honour was tarnished by the sale of titles; hisreputation abroad declined; his role as Protestant champion no longer convinced. ThePrivy Council was no longer a source of advice, for free debate had ceased there. Thespeech ends with a plea to the King to develop his policy with advice from a broadlybased Privy Council, if he wishes to prevent 'disasters in State', and to avoid 'young andsingle Counsel'. Buckingham's name is never mentioned, but the target of the speech isclear. Cotton creates a mood and exploits it, maintaining all the while the air of giving

40

an objective, historical account of the nation's difficulties. He is preparing the ground forimpeachment.

Even though the speech appears not to have been delivered, Buckingham was wellaware of Cotton's antagonism. He gained revenge of a sort the next year when heprevented King Charles from landing at Cotton's garden at Westminster, as appointed,on his way to his coronation. So public a snub must have galled Cotton exceedingly. Theunexplained circumstances of the publication of Henry HI in 1627 may haveinconvenienced Cotton, but the event cannot altogether have displeased him, for thehistory expressed very plainly his views about favourites who usurp power.

The last item, chronologically, in Cottoni Posthuma was also provoked by Buckinghamand the national and international mess he had contrived. 'The Danger wherein theKingdom now standeth and the Remedy' was a pamphlet Cotton actually publishedunder his own name in 1628, an exceptional move and a measure of his alarm. Thegravity of events was pushing him to a more direct expression of his beliefs than wasnatural to him. By this time, Buckingham had incurred the enmity of France byattempting to relieve the Protestants of La Rochelle, and was also trying to fight a waragainst Spain. Cotton spells out the historical lessons of England's disadvantage when thealliance with France breaks down and Spain is also hostile. England risks precipitatinganother invasion attempt from Spain, yet has neither men nor money to defend herselfadequately. Even worse, popular affection for the monarch is so lov.' that the nation willnot rally in a crisis, as it did so remarkably in Elizabethan times. Rumour growls thatBuckingham inclines to Catholicism, and English Protestants feel their religion is notsafe while Buckingham dominates the national scene. His abilities as a leader are gravelysuspect. A parliament must be called to vote subsidy for the King, and take order for thedefence of the nation. Surprisingly, Cotton does not call for Buckingham to be strippedof power or publicly disavowed by the King. The Duke should take his place among theother leading peers in the Privy Council, and he should communicate in some fashionthe King's patriotic and Protestant intentions to the nation. Cotton wishes 'to removeaway a personal distaste of my Lord of Buckingham amongst the People', and to changethe image of the King to that of 'a zealous Patriot'.

Cotton was swayed by no love of Buckingham but by the enduring principle of hiscareer: loyalty to the monarch as the legitimate centre of power and ultimate guarantorof the nation's stability. History instructs him that if there arises a popular passion tosacrifice any of his Majesty's servants, ' I have ever found it... no less fatal to the Master,than the Minister in the end. '̂ ^ He reminds his readers of the fate of Edward II, RichardII and Henry VI. Moderate policies should prevail, in Cotton's view. But though Charlesreluctantly agreed to the calling of a new parliament, and though Buckingham wasremoved by assassination later in 1628, moderation and mutual assistance did not prevail.Parliament grew more angry with the King as it fought to assert its rights and liberties.In 1629 Charles ordered Cotton's library to be closed, for it was the arsenal from whichso many parliamentary arguments drew their strength. It was a bitter punishment to visiton a man who had always wished to maintain the primacy of the King, whilst ensuring

41

that he enjoyed honest advice from the Privy Council and Parliament. All his precedentshad not prepared him for a monarch as fractious and hostile to parliamentary opinion asCharles.

The publication of these tracts in 1651 was an attempt to revive the memory ofCotton's service to the state. The volume showed him as a royalist who believed that thebest support for the monarch was a strong Parliament. The individual tracts illustrate acareer as an active politician, firm Protestant and shrewd adviser across nearly thirtyyears. As a bonus, the editor, James Howell, included two extraneous pieces which hehad presumably found among Cotton's papers: 'Valour anatomized in a Fancy',attributed here to Sir Philip Sidney, and Sir Francis Walsingham's essays on Honesty,Ambition and Fortitude." These serve to remind us of the forthright Elizabethan valuesthat Cotton admired all his life. Their presence here, with their clear and witty praise ofvirtue, leads one to feel that Cotton lived on into a period when politics and behaviourwere becoming too complex and devious for a man who 'lived by old Ethicks and theclassical rules of Honesty'. Cotton's love of precedent and his fondness for reducingpolitical experience to a maxim revealed him as one who loved ordered and principledprocedure. He would have been utterly bewildered by the Civil War. But his pohticalmethods had strength and clearmindedness, and they retained their power to winadmiration. Cottoni Posthuma was republished in 1674 and again in 1679, whenParliament and the King were once more falling into conflict, over the Exclusion crisis.Cotton liked to say that he had little personal stake in the issues he addressed, and thathe lived for his country and his friends; he continued to gather friends after his death,and his concern for his country's well-being has kept his reputation fresh, and stillhonoured today.

1 This was The Danger wherein the Kingdom now 7 Ibid., pp. 43—4.standeth and the Remedy {1628). 8 Ibid., p. 49. *

2 Kevin Sharpe notes this revival of interest in the 9 Laurence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracyreigns of Elizabeth and James at this time, citing (Oxford, 1965), pp. 242-50.two works about Raleigh, Fulke Greville's Life 10 Cottoni Posthuma, p. 169.of Sidney, and Anthony Weldon's Court and 11 The household regulations laid down for PrinceCharacter of King James. To this list one should Henry's court are a model of fiscal prudence.zdd Arthur Wilson's The History of Great Britain They are printed as an appendix to Thomas{1653), the first history of the reign of King Birch, The Life of Henry, Prince of WalesJames. See Kevin Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, {i-j6o).1586-1631 (Oxford, 1979), p. 246. Sharpens book 12 See Sharpe, pp. 235-7. These maxims distilledis indispensable to the study of Cotton, and I Cotton's experience of politics. Sharpe wondershave found its account of his political career if they were put together for the benefit of themost valuable in preparing this paper. King. They are preserved in Bodleian Library,

3 See Sharpe, p. 142. MS. Tanner 103, ff. 196-198.4 The King's debts were estimated at £680,000 13 'Twenty-four Arguments concerning Popish

early in 1614. See D. H. Willson, King James I & Practices', in Cottoni Posthuma, p. 147.K/(i956), p. 344- H Ibid., p. 148.

5 'The Life and Reign of Henry the Third', in 15 See Sharpe, p. 166.Cottom Posthuma (1651), p. 25. 16 Ibid., pp. 167-9.

6 Ibid., p. 26. 17 Sharpe prefers to think that Buckingham was the

42

most likely begetter, being most anxious to break ed., vol. v, pp. 425-7, notes; Sharpe, Cotton, pp.off relations with Spain. 177-80.

18 Roger Lockyer, Buckingham (1981), pp. 192- 21 Cottoni Posthuma, pp. 274-5.7- 22 Ibid., p. 322.

19 Cottoni Posthuma, p. 7. 23 The piece attributed to Sidney is, in fact, a20 S. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-42, 1891 reworking of one of Donne's Paradoxes.

43