COTTINGTON, Sir Francis, 1st Bt. (c.1579-1652), of Charing Cross, Westminster and Hanworth, Mdx.; later of Fonthill Gifford, Wilts.

‘A master of temper, and of the most profound dissimulation’, Cottington built his political career in England on the foundation of his early experience as a diplomat in Spain. His family were prosperous but obscure clothiers of east Somerset, who improved their social standing during the sixteenth century by investing in land around Bruton and Frome. Cottington’s father Philip, who acquired the manor of Godminster in 1569, married a kinswoman of Sir Edward Stafford, an Elizabethan ambassador to France. According to Clarendon (Sir Edward Hyde†), who knew him well, Cottington was brought up in Stafford’s household, probably in London, though no firm details survive of his early education. Havran, 1-3; Clarendon, i. 132; v. 156.

In 1605, at about the age of 26, Cottington joined the embassy of the 1st earl of Nottingham (Charles Howard†) to Spain. Clarendon states that Stafford, who died shortly beforehand, had recommended Cottington to the secretary of state, Viscount Cranborne (Robert Cecil†), who in turn found him a place in the entourage of Sir Charles Cornwallis, the newly appointed ambassador to Spain. However, the credit for this act of preferment was claimed in 1607 by George, Lord Carew (Sir George Carew I*), whose connection with Cottington is unclear. Clarendon, v. 156; Add. 39853, f. 81v. Based initially at Valladolid, and then at Madrid, the young man rapidly justified his employment, mastering the local tongue so quickly that by early 1606 Cornwallis was using him to deliver messages to the Spanish government. When the embassy secretary died later that year, Cottington was the obvious replacement, and his talent for diplomatic dissimulation soon became evident. For several months during 1607, in pursuit of information on the English Catholic community in Spain, Cottington encouraged a Jesuit in Madrid, Joseph Creswell, to believe that he might be converted to Rome. Although Cottington’s brother Edward had actually become a Jesuit, he himself was not open to persuasion. As Cornwallis recorded, ‘the man [Cottington] I know to be so fast and faithful, and to have resisted so many and strong assaults as I dare adventure him’. Winwood’s Memorials, ii. 185-6, 261, 278, 321, 366; Havran, 3. When the ambassador was recalled in 1609, he left Cottington behind to act as agent until a new envoy was dispatched, though this new phase proved to be an unhappy one. Cottington found himself openly at odds with Creswell over the latter’s efforts to start a seminary in Madrid, while the Spanish government was slow to address the grievances of English merchants in Spain, a perpetual area of dispute in which the agent was expected to mediate. Frequently short of money, by October 1610 Cottington was impatiently waiting to be recalled: ‘I do more desire to leave this miserable and unfortunate country, than ever any man did to be freed of an unwholesome poison’. Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 69, 209, 229; HMC Downshire, ii. 192, 320, 362, 393-4; iii. 67; SP94/17, f. 17v. The arrival of a new ambassador, Sir John Digby*, in the spring of 1611, finally allowed Cottington to go back to England, but any hopes which he nursed of alternative employment by the government were soon dashed. The only post offered to him was a consulship in Seville, designed to provide greater support for English merchants in the region, and although Cottington was reluctant to return so quickly to Spain, he needed a salary and found himself back in Madrid in January 1612. There he remained, as the Spanish government declined to ratify his appointment unless he was prepared to become a Catholic, and this impasse was broken only by his eventual recall in May 1613. HMC Downshire, iii. 96, 139, 164, 212, 225, 261, 265, 400; iv. 112; Winwood’s Memorials, iii. 346.

This time the English government had a new role in mind for Cottington, as a clerk of the Privy Council. Digby’s mission to Spain had been prompted by renewed proposals for a marriage between Prince Charles and a Spanish Infanta, and although discussions in Madrid had foundered, a new ambassador, Sarmiento, had just been dispatched from there to continue the talks. While the precise circumstances of Cottington’s new appointment are unclear, it is likely that his ability to advise the Council on recent Spanish business was the critical factor. Cottington seized the opportunity thus presented to him, and although initially sworn only as an extraordinary clerk, he rapidly raised the £400 needed to buy out the recently disgraced Sir William Waad* from his ordinary clerkship. Havran, 42, 47; APC, 1613-14, p. 147; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 198; HMC Downshire, iv. 240. Having secured his position, Cottington was soon drawn into the machinations of the pro-Spanish faction on the Council, which opposed closer ties between England and France. In late 1613 he began to convey messages between the royal favourite, the earl of Somerset, and Sarmiento, and within months he was accepting money in return for supplying confidential information to the ambassador. Cottington’s actions were substantially dictated by the wishes of his superiors, and there is some evidence that he attempted to double-cross Sarmiento. Nevertheless, these political manoeuvrings helped to establish the perception that Cottington was an advocate of Spain and its policies, contrary to his own feelings about the country. Add. 31,111, ff. 39, 45; Narrative of the Spanish Marriage Treaty ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. ci), 111, n. b; Havran, 48-9.

Somerset’s fall from grace in October 1615 stalled Cottington’s career in central government, albeit indirectly. Sir John Digby, who was back in Spain for the latest round of marriage negotiations, was unexpectedly summoned home at the end of that year to give evidence on Somerset’s relations with the Spanish government, and Cottington was sent out as agent in January 1616 to replace him. HMC Downshire, v. 398, 404-5. Initially his relations with Madrid officialdom were no more cordial than before. James I was attempting to arbitrate in a conflict between Spain and Savoy, and Cottington’s brief on this issue created the impression that he favoured the latter side. He was also personally sceptical about the prospects for a marriage treaty, recognizing that the religious differences between England and Spain represented an almost insuperable obstacle. Although he talked up the project during the summer of 1617, primarily in a bid to counter a proposed marriage between Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs, his principal hope at this juncture was that Madrid’s continuing dogmatism would finally convince James that the scheme was doomed to failure.CSP Ven. 1615-17, pp. 194, 261, 545, 564; 1617-19, p. 29; HMC Buccleuch, i. 183-4, 192. Digby arrived for further talks in the autumn, only to leave empty-handed in early 1618, while in the meantime the Spanish used the exploits of (Sir) Walter Ralegh† in South America as a pretext for victimizing the English merchants represented by Cottington. HMC Downshire, v. 168, 320, 357; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 547. The diplomatic climate was transformed, however, by the onset of the Thirty Years War. With James I hopeful that Philip III might intercede with his Austrian cousins to resolve the crisis in Bohemia, and Spain keen to encourage English neutrality, relations between the two countries warmed significantly, and Cottington was obliged to adopt a much more positive stance. In February 1619 he formally requested Spanish intervention over Bohemia, and in the same month issued a declaration in Philip’s name reassuring England that a fleet then being prepared in Spain was aimed only at Barbary corsairs. The impact of this statement was such that Archbishop Abbot warned Cottington in March about appearing too pro-Spanish. CSP Ven. 1617-19, p. 466; Ct. of Jas. I ed. G. Goodman, ii. 177; BL, HMC Trumbull transcript I.33. Sir Walter Aston arrived in Madrid in the spring of 1620 to revive the old marriage treaty, and Cottington again nursed hopes of his own recall, not least because his pay was now over two years in arrears. However, he had to wait until the following year for the first signs that he was not forgotten in London. In March, the king’s favourite, the marquess of Buckingham, unexpectedly arranged for the arrears to be settled, and in October there were reports that Cottington would shortly replace Prince Charles’s secretary, Thomas Murray, who had fallen from favour due to his opposition to the Spanish marriage proposals. HMC 3rd Rep. 284; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 86, 296; Havran, 65; BL, HMC Trumbull transcript VIII.30, XVI.109.

In the event, it was almost another year before Cottington actually returned to take up this post. He arrived back in London in October 1622, bringing gifts bestowed on him at his departure from Spain by the new king, Philip IV. More significantly he also produced evidence of progress in the marriage negotiations, and held out the prospect of active Spanish assistance in the recovery of the Palatinate, from which James’s son-in-law, the Elector Frederick, had been driven in the previous year. Chamberlain Letters, ii. 455, 457; BL, HMC Trumbull transcript XIX.129; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 140. Whether Cottington appreciated that Philip had no intention of honouring such commitments is unclear. In the prevailing diplomatic climate he was the man of the moment, much in demand with James, though he was viewed less warmly by those opposed to a Spanish marriage. According to one of William Trumbull’s* correspondents in December 1622, Cottington was widely regarded as ‘a Spanish cabinet, filled with pretty boxes and nothing besides’. At Court, however, such sentiments could be ignored, and this English interlude proved profitable for the new Secretary. In the same month Cottington sold his Council clerkship for more than it had originally cost him, while in early February 1623 he married a wealthy widow, Lady Anne Brett, whose assets included a house at Charing Cross and property in Kent.CCSP, i. 25; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 468; BL, HMC Trumbull transcript XVIII.88; VIII.90; Havran, 69-70.

The honeymoon period was short-lived. During the winter, the Spanish marriage negotiations had again become bogged down, and Prince Charles and Buckingham, impatient for the fulfilment of this project, hit on the idea of going to Spain in person to conclude the discussions. As they proposed to travel incognito and post haste, Cottington’s knowledge of the route between London and Madrid was vital for planning the journey, and he was therefore the first person other than James to hear of the scheme. Buckingham, who had secured Cottington’s appointment as secretary, was confident of his support, and was therefore outraged when he hesitantly warned that it would encourage Spain to press for more unreasonable terms, particularly where religion was concerned. He may have feared that Charles would inevitably come under considerable pressure to convert to Rome, but his objections were overruled, as was his plea to be excused from the trip. Rewarded in advance with a baronetcy, for which the normal fee was waived, he set out ahead of the prince and the favourite on around 17 Feb., then escorted them from Dover to Madrid, where they arrived three weeks later. Chamberlain Letters, ii. 475; Clarendon, i. 20-1; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 113; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 584; SCL, EM 1284(b); CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 502; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. from Accession of Jas. I, v. 10.

Once there, Cottington’s worst fears were realized. The Spanish government, taken by surprise, initially assumed that Charles had decided to resolve the religious obstacles to the marriage by becoming a Catholic. However, it soon became apparent that this was not the case, and that the English visitors had brought no fresh offers at all. The Spanish therefore sought to curtail this novel diplomatic exercise by pushing forward ever more unreasonable religious terms, only to discover that Charles, infatuated with his prospective bride, was prepared to accept almost any deal. Digby, now earl of Bristol, who had once again been managing the discussions in Madrid, was opposed to the introduction of any new conditions, and accordingly found himself sidelined. Instead, Charles relied increasingly on Cottington as a negotiator and interpreter, and he, perhaps wary of causing further offence, now co-operated fully with his master’s wishes. Gardiner, v. 11, 14, 18, 20-1, 39, 45-6, 52; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 166-7. By late May, English ratification of Charles’s latest concessions was required, and as the Spanish government was reluctant to let the prince himself leave, Cottington was sent home to obtain James’s approval. The king, fearful of his heir being held hostage in Madrid, agreed to a sweeping toleration of English Catholics which he probably could not have implemented, and in August Cottington returned to Spain carrying his consent to the marriage treaty. The Spanish, becoming desperate to ditch the deal without causing a complete diplomatic breach, insisted that they needed confirmation of the introduction of toleration in England before they would allow the Infanta to travel there. Gardiner, v. 46, 48-9, 53, 57-8, 68, 101. At this juncture Cottington inadvertently provided evidence that James’s promises might not be sincere. Having fallen ill on his return to Spain, he became convinced that he was dying, and converted to Rome, only to return to the Anglican fold once he had recovered. Cottington himself seems not to have taken this incident too seriously. According to Clarendon, he showed little interest in religious niceties, and he was probably simply acting to ensure that the Spanish would afford him a Christian burial; from his previous experience as the ambassador’s secretary, he would have known that Protestant corpses were liable to be thrown onto dunghills. Nevertheless, from an English perspective, his behaviour was politically inopportune, providing a further excuse for the Spanish to detain the Infanta, and tarring him with the brush of crypto-Catholicism. Ibid. 102; Clarendon, v. 152. Charles left Spain in September, finally experiencing doubts about the marriage treaty. Cottington had again fallen ill, and did not return to England until October, by which time the story of his temporary conversion had broken there. Moreover, rumours were now spreading that he had lost the prince’s favour.Gardiner, v. 117; BL, HMC Trumbull transcript VIII.132; XLVIII.106; Chamberlain Letters ed. McClure, ii. 516-7. It is difficult to judge whether this was due to Cottington’s behaviour during the Spanish adventure, or simply to his intimate association with a strategy which Charles began to repudiate at the end of that month. For the time being, Cottington kept his head down and concentrated on his secretarial duties. By contrast, Digby was recalled in disgrace for continuing to advocate a Spanish alliance, and for daring to criticize Buckingham’s role in the Madrid discussions. R.E. Ruigh, Parl. of 1624, pp. 24-6, 354-5; HMC 4th Rep. 276-7;

The 1624 Parliament provided Cottington with an opportunity to redeem himself. Like many of Charles’s servants he was nominated for a Commons seat by the Prince’s Council, of which he was himself a member. However, because of widespread resistance to such nominations, and perhaps also on account of his weakened standing at Court, Cottington failed to win election at Chester, Warwick or Bury St. Edmunds, before being found a place at Camelford. DCO, ‘Prince Charles in Spain’, ff. 34v, 35v; Ruigh, 58-9, 63; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 543. Once safely in the Commons, his active participation was required almost immediately. The first major set-piece of the Parliament was Buckingham’s Relation, when, before a joint conference of both Houses the duke recounted the history of the negotiations in Spain in such a way as to justify the abandonment of the marriage treaty. On 23 Feb. Cottington was instructed by the Commons to help report back from this conference, which he did four days later. Buckingham’s account, while broadly faithful to the sequence of events, created the impression of an upright and decisive prince, uncompromising on religion, and perfectly prepared to reject the marriage deal if it would not lead to the restitution of the Palatinate. Correspondingly, it was Digby, in this version, who urged the acceptance of new conditions. Cottington had no choice but to repeat as accurately as he could what Buckingham had said, but he must have been conscious both that he was perpetuating a fallacy, and that, as a witness to the negotiations, he was implicitly adding credibility to the duke’s story. In a final act of complicity with his masters, he included an extra detail, omitted by Buckingham at the conference, which showed Digby actively encouraging Charles to remain in Spain long after useful discussion had ceased. CJ, i. 716b, 720a-721b; Holles 1624, p. 9. Having successfully demonstrated his loyalty in presenting this report, Cottington was provided with several more opportunities to confirm this stance during the following weeks. On the same day he was named to a committee to consider the insults levelled at the duke by Spain’s ambassadors following the Relation. He was also appointed to conferences to prepare Parliament’s advice to James on breaking off the Spanish Match (3 Mar.) and to consider whether the country was ready for war with Spain (11 March). On 12 Mar. he was nominated to a committee to draft a message of thanks to Charles for his reassurances during the conference about England’s financial readiness. CJ, i. 676b, 683a, 684a, 722a. Cottington’s role as the prince’s secretary brought him additional nominations to several committees which addressed measures linked to Charles’s estates (9 and 15 Mar., 9 Apr., 19 May). He is known to have attended a meeting to consider one of these, the Goathland manor bill. He was also included on the committee to discuss the York House bill, which concerned Buckingham’s London residence (19 May), though it is unclear why he was named on 22 Mar. to the legislative committee which discussed the New River. Ibid. 680a, 686a, 705b, 745a, 758b; HLRO, Lords main pprs., 20 Mar. 1624-8 Apr. 1624.

For the time being, Cottington had proved compliant enough to retain his post. In the following months he carried out various routine secretarial tasks, besides handling jewels brought back from Spain, and, with some of his colleagues on the Prince’s council, arranging loans on Charles’s behalf as part of the preparations for war. He also received several letters from Digby, who was now anxious to defend himself, but there is no evidence that Cottington did anything to assist his former colleague. CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 246, 320, 370, 489; Rymer, viii. pt. 1, p. 112; Ruigh, 357, 361; HMC 8th Rep. i. 216. When Charles became king in March 1625, the position of prince’s secretary naturally ceased to exist, but at first Cottington’s prospects appeared hopeful. A rumour circulated in April that he was to be promoted to secretary of state, and though this came to nothing he received in the following month a generous grant of lands worth £400 a year as compensation for his loss of office. When the Prince’s council was remodelled shortly afterwards as a land management agency for the duchy of Cornwall, Cottington retained his place on it, and he was elected to the 1625 Parliament by the duchy borough of Bossiney as a government nominee. CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 2, 30; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 13; Haslam, 284. His performance in the Commons was rather less striking this time. Although he was named on 21 June to the committee for privileges, a clear mark of recognition, he made no recorded speeches, and he received only three legislative committee nominations (25 and 29 June). The bills in question were concerned with concealments, alienations, and corruption in the judiciary, and were of no obvious interest to him. Procs. 1625, pp. 206, 245-6, 269.

As it turned out, this interlude was the lull before the storm. As war with Spain approached, Cottington’s presence at Court became undesirable, and at some stage in 1625 he unexpectedly found himself barred from the king’s privy lodgings, a clear sign of royal disfavour. According to Clarendon, who evidently heard this story from Cottington himself, a showdown with Buckingham ensued, in which the duke swore undying enmity, while the diplomat pointedly demanded back gifts which he had presented to the favourite. Clarendon, i. 40-1. Dramatic as this episode doubtless was, the breach which followed was briefer and less absolute than one might have assumed. Certainly Cottington was seen as being in disgrace for over a year, but as early as August 1626 he was appointed keeper of Freemantle Park, a Crown property, and he was back at Court in early 1627. Later that year, he received a grant of Hanworth manor, Middlesex, which he was already leasing, and by the following January the dispute with Buckingham had been resolved. As war with France dragged on, and peace with Spain returned to the political agenda, a man of Cottington’s experience and ability was simply too useful to be ignored. CSP Ven. 1626-8, pp. 85, 100, 545; VCH Mdx. ii. 393.

In March 1628 Buckingham’s West Country agent, (Sir) James Bagg II*, found Cottington a Commons seat at Saltash. CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 24, 65. In the Parliament’s first session, he made little impression. On 20 Mar. he once more secured membership of the committee for privileges, while on the next day he was appointed to attend a conference with the Lords to prepare a petition requesting the king to grant a fast. More intriguingly, he was named on 28 Apr. to the committee for framing a bill about the liberties of the subject. His only bill committee nomination concerned an estate of the earl of Bristol, who was just beginning his own political rehabilitation. CD 1628, ii. 29, 42; iii. 123, 558.

Cottington’s star remained in the ascendant during the rest of that year. In July the king visited him at Hanworth, and stood as godfather to his son. By now, Buckingham was planning that when his next fleet sailed to La Rochelle, Cottington would simultaneously be escorted to Spain to open discussions. Although this scheme was aborted by the duke’s assassination, the idea of Cottington returning to Madrid survived, and his appointment as a privy councillor in November was interpreted as evidence that Charles was serious about peace talks. Meanwhile, on the domestic front, Cottington benefited from the patronage of the new, pro-Spanish lord treasurer, Sir Richard Weston*, who took steps to have him made the chancellor of the Exchequer. T. Birch, i. 382, 425, 452; Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell, ii. 202; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 365.

The 1629 session of Parliament saw Cottington marginally more to the fore. On 26 Jan. he was appointed to request the king to stay the passage of certain ships which were believed to be bound for Spain, carrying prohibited goods. Three days later it emerged that Cottington had himself helped to issue a licence for such exports, though the committee which investigated the matter was satisfied that he had not approved the implementation of the licence. CJ, i. 922b, 924a; CD 1629, p. 151. He was named on 27 Jan. to a committee of both Houses which presented Charles with a petition for a fast. Four days later he was again dispatched to the king, as part of a joint committee composed largely of peers and courtiers, this time to deliver a formal response to the Crown’s request for the Tunnage and Poundage bill to be given priority. Cottington mostly sidestepped the dispute over the unparliamentary collection of Tunnage and Poundage, but on 12 Feb. he was nominated to help convey a message from the Commons to the Exchequer about the latter’s treatment of merchants whose goods had been confiscated in connection with this issue. CJ, i. 923a, 925b, 929b. He was named to only two bill committees, one concerned with grants of forfeited lands, the other with recusancy (23 and 28 January). There was an element of irony in both of these legislative appointments, conscious or otherwise. Cottington’s alleged sympathy towards Catholics was by now widely known, though the Commons were probably unaware that he had obtained a grant of attainted goods while a clerk of the Privy Council. Ibid. 922a, 923b; CSP Ven. 1628-9, p. 417; C66/2063/10.

Cottington became chancellor of the Exchequer in April 1629, and ambassador to Spain three months later. Protracted negotiations resulted in the Treaty of Madrid in November 1630, which essentially restored the status quo of 1605. Cottington could make no progress on the Palatinate issue, beyond a parallel secret treaty which was never ratified. Nevertheless, on his return to England in 1631 he was rewarded with a peerage. Letters to and from Sir Dudley Carleton ed. P. Yorke, pp. xxviii-xxxii. Prevented from succeeding Weston as lord treasurer in 1635 by Archbishop Laud’s animosity, he received the mastership of the Court of Wards as compensation. During the later 1630s, with Laud and Viscount Wentworth (Sir Thomas Wentworth*) he was one of the Crown’s principal policy-makers, and became correspondingly unpopular. However, the timely resignation of his principal offices in 1641 spared him the fate suffered by his two colleagues, and he presided over the king’s Civil War administration as lord treasurer. Havran, 130-1; Clarendon, i. 195-6, 198-9, 280-1, 345. Forced eventually into exile by Parliament, he spent several years travelling on the Continent, before returning once more to Spain in 1649 in a bid to raise funds for Charles II. Though the mission was broadly unsuccessful, Cottington persuaded the Spanish government to let him retire there. Re-embracing Catholicism, he died at Valladolid, where his diplomatic career had first begun, on 19 July 1652.CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 304; CCC, 139; CCSP, i. 387, 434; ii. 9, 70; Clarendon, iv. 330; v. 151-5.