COTTON, Sir Thomas, 2nd bt. (1594-1662), of Conington, Hunts. and Cotton House, Westminster; later of Eyworth, Beds.

Few families were as aware of their ancestry as the Cottons of Conington. Sir Thomas’s father, Sir Robert Cotton, was one of the most distinguished antiquaries of the early seventeenth century and so was able to deploy his extensive knowledge of the English past to celebrate the lustre of that lineage. Monuments erected by him in the parish church at Conington reminded their tenants and neighbours that the Cottons were direct descendants of David I, king of Scots, and were thus, through the Bruce line, very distant relatives of the Stuarts. The family had long been resident in Huntingdonshire. The importance of the collection of books and manuscripts which Sir Robert assembled can hardly be overstated. During the early seventeenth century it was the largest and most accessible library in England. From about 1622, it was kept in Cotton’s lodgings within the Palace of Westminster between St Stephen’s Chapel, where the Commons usually met, and the Painted Chamber. Its location could not have been more convenient for MPs. Those with an expertise in such matters regularly drew upon its resources as part of the everyday workings of the Parliaments of the 1620s. Anyone in this period with a serious interest in English history had, at some stage, to come into contact with Cotton, and his network of friends formed a significant segment of the intellectual elite of early seventeenth century England. Sir Thomas would never really escape from the shadow of this unique legacy.

The young Thomas received an education first at the Middle Temple (his father’s old inn) and then at Trinity College, Cambridge. He received his MA in March 1613 during the visit to Cambridge by Prince Charles and the elector palatine.27Al. Cant. His marriage in 1617 to one of the daughters of Lord William Howard was a calculated move to link the family into the Howard interest. His bride brought with her a dowry worth £3,000.28Hunts. RO, CON.2/4/3/1. As early as 1612 Thomas had been appointed as one of the trustees of lands at Steeple Gidding, which were then held by his uncle John Cotton, and which later passed to another uncle, Thomas Cotton.29Hunts. RO, CON.2/4/2/4. By the 1620s he had probably taken over from his father the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the family estates in Huntingdonshire.30R.B. Manning, ‘Antiquarianism and the seigneurial reaction: Sir Robert and Sir Thomas Cotton and their tenants’, HR lxiii. 284. It was also during this period that he began to play his part in local government, being appointed to the commission of the peace and to other local commissions. He sat in three of the Parliaments of the 1620s (1624, 1625 and 1628), although made no recorded contribution to any of them. He queried the attempt to levy a knighthood fine from him on the grounds that his father was still alive and that he had not yet inherited the family estates.31Bodl. Carte 74, ff. 191, 194v; Procs. of the Soc. of Antiquaries, 2nd ser. i. 297.

The final years of Sir Robert Cotton’s life were spent trying to regain control of his beloved library, following its confiscation by the government in November 1629.32CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 352. Sir Robert never did see the books again before his death in May 1631. According to Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, Thomas showed no signs of grief at his father’s death.33Autiobiog. and Corresp. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes (1845), 43. This may have been unfair, as might be D’Ewes’s comment that Sir Thomas was ‘wholly addicted to the tenacious increasing of his worldly wealth, and altogether unworthy to be the master of so inestimable a library as his father’, given that D’Ewes is known to have nursed a grudge against Sir Thomas.34Autiobiog. and Corresp. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, 43. For Sir Thomas, the immediate problem remained the fate of the library. The settlement Sir Robert had put in place in September 1630, to which Henry Elsyng and John Selden* were also parties, had no doubt been intended to secure Thomas’s claim to the library at a time when its future was uncertain. Sir Robert’s will was mainly concerned to confirm this arrangement.35PROB11/159/698. After further lobbying, in about 1633 Sir Thomas persuaded the government to return the library to him.36CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 224; 1633-4, p. 370.

Cotton was not an antiquarian collector in the way that his father had been, but he did his best to preserve and protect the collections his father had accumulated. Under his management the Cotton Library remained the most important centre of historical research in England. Borrowers of the manuscripts included the earl of Northampton (Sir Spencer Compton†), the 1st earl of Manchester (Henry Montagu†), Bishop Goodman of Gloucester, Sir Christopher Hatton*, Sir William Howard*, Robert Scawen*, Sir Sidney Montagu* and John Bernard*. William Dugdale, Sir William Le Neve and the archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, were particularly keen users of the collection. The most frequent user of all remained John Selden, who came to know Sir Thomas well.37BL, Cotton appendix XLV, art. 13. Cotton personally compiled parts of the catalogue which dates from 1638.38Add. 36682; C.G.C. Tite, The MS Lib. of Sir Robert Cotton (1994), 29-30, fig. 14.

Cotton also continued his father’s policy of asserting the family’s seigneurial rights at every opportunity, making full use of antiquarian expertise to do so. To this end, he pressed ahead during the 1630s with the draining and enclosing of the fenlands around Conington.39Manning, ‘Antiquarianism’, 286-8. This provoked rioting among his tenants at Holme Fen in 1637, and the claim made at that time that Oliver Cromwell* was collecting money to finance litigation against fen drainage may have been connected with this incident.40CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 501; Lindley, Fenland Riots, 94-6; Manning, ‘Antiquarianism’, 287-8. Cotton’s main land acquisition comprised the estates of his uncle, Thomas Cotton senior, at Steeple Gidding. Even before his uncle’s death in 1640, Sir Thomas had been heavily involved in the complex series of deals and court cases forced on Thomas Cotton senior by his indebtedness.41Hunts. RO, CON.2/4/2/9-12; CON.2/4/2/13-17; CON.2/4/6/11-15; CON.3/2/5/2-3; D. Masson, The Life of John Milton (rev. edn. 1881), i. 627-37. There may, from Cotton’s point of view, have been little short-term gain from this deal: quite apart from the debts to be paid off, the conditions attached to the inheritance gave rise to further litigation.42Hunts. RO, CON.2/4/3/6-10; Lansd. 921, f. 23v. In all this, his close friend, the Huntingdon lawyer Robert Bernard*, provided much assistance.

Sir Thomas’s inheritance had confirmed him as one of the leading figures of his county. Only the various Montagus and Cromwells counted for more. He was thus expected to play a full part in local administration.43Add. 34400, ff. 8, 9, 17, 45, 46, 47, 206, 212, 216; CSP Dom. 1634-5, pp. 128-9; Add. 34401, ff. 14-16, 25. In October 1636 he was named as sheriff of Huntingdonshire, an appointment which was something of an innovation: since at least the twelfth century the sherivalty of the county had always been combined with that of Cambridgeshire.44List of Sheriffs, 66; BL, Cotton appendix LVIII, ff. 4, 6; Coventry Docquets, 367. The decision to split the two offices was an acknowledgment of the difficulties the occupants would face now that they had to collect the Ship Money revenues. Cotton worked hard to fulfil this onerous task, successfully collecting the county’s allocation by August 1637.45CSP Dom. 1636-7, pp. 357, 395-6, 440-1, 468, 511; 1637, pp. 16, 221, 380, 383, 528. He then helped organise the collection for the repairs to St Paul’s Cathedral within his local hundred.46CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 284.

The Cottons had never exercised much electoral influence within Huntingdonshire itself. Sir Robert’s election as knight of the shire in 1604 had been the only time since 1558 when a member of the family had sat for either the county or the borough. Their elections had otherwise depended on nominations by relatives and friends elsewhere. On being elected as the senior knight of the shire for the Short Parliament in 1640, Sir Thomas maintained his record of obscurity during the Parliaments in which he sat – he neither spoke in debate nor was nominated to any committees.

Cotton’s response to the outbreak of the civil war seems to have been studied neutrality. John Aubrey’s comment that Cotton ‘was obnoxious to the Parliament, and skulked in the country’ is probably overemphatic.47Aubrey, Brief Lives, ii. 224. It was certainly true that Cotton avoided London, now preferring to spend most of his time at Eyworth in Bedfordshire. This was partly because he thought the fenlands at Conington were bad for his health. Moreover, Conington’s proximity to the Great North Road meant that it was often disturbed by troop movements and so confirmed him in his preference for Eyworth.48BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, ff. 39-46. He later claimed that his wife, who had remained at Conington to look after his affairs there, had been visited by Cromwell, who had warned her to leave because ‘that house standing near the road would be daily troubled with soldiers’.49BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, f. 71. The house was allegedly looted 26 times during the time Lady Cotton was staying there.50BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, f. 71.

Adding to these woes, Cotton also had to face a prolonged battle with the local sequestration committee. The root cause of this dispute was his failure to serve on any of the local commissions in Huntingdonshire to which he had been appointed by Parliament, including, as it happened, the sequestration commission.51A. and O. Although there was a simple explanation for this – Cotton’s absence from the county – some regarded this apparent reluctance to assist Parliament with suspicion. The final straw was Cotton’s failure to pay the latest assessment levy in August 1643.52BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, ff. 3, 4, 8. The Huntingdon sequestration commission proceeded to sequester Cotton’s estates.53BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, f. 5. The Cottons appealed to their neighbour and relative, the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†), who proved to be sympathetic, and by April 1644 a full investigation by him was underway.54BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, ff. 26, 29, 31. As a result, Manchester was able to advise the Sequestration Committee in London that Cotton’s absences had been innocent.55BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, ff. 39-46. The Sequestration Committee met to consider Cotton’s case on 2 June 1644.56BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, ff. 54-135. Their ruling was that the sequestration had been unjustified and ought to be lifted.57BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, f. 136. No sooner had they reached this decision than an appeal was lodged against it, alleging that Cotton had been to Oxford and that he had served in the king’s army.58BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, f. 138. Over the next three weeks Cotton and his friends did everything they could to built support against these claims. Cromwell was spoken to, Denzil Holles* made it known that he supported Cotton, Selden alerted Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland, Sir Thomas Wodehouse* persuaded Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, to attend, and Lord Montagu (Edward Montagu I*) rallied other possible supporters.59BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, ff. 142, 144v-145, 148, 149v-150, 151. The committee met again on 25 June and, with Northumberland and Pembroke giving a clear lead, the allegations were dismissed.60BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, ff. 151, 153. In the spring of the following year Cotton again clashed with the local commissioners. When required to provide three horses, he objected that he was not resident in the county and that he was already required to provide horses and arms for the trained bands. He seems eventually to have paid money in lieu of this levy.61BL, Cotton appendix XLIX, ff. 181, 185, 191, 194, 199.

All this had an adverse effect on Cotton’s income. The surviving rental book for the manor of Conington compiled by Cotton indicates that its annual rent never fell below £1,100 before 1643 and was usually much higher. By 1645 these rents had slumped and remained depressed for the next 13 years. During the late 1640s the estate produced less than £800 a year. Thereafter they struggled to exceed £900.62Hunts. RO, CON.4/2/1/3, unfol. The decision by Cotton to buy some of the estates in Durham confiscated from his Catholic brother-in-law, Sir Francis Howard, has the appearance of a ploy intended to protect Sir Francis’s interests.63CCC 2589. These lands were later leased by Cotton to John Bernard*.64BL, Cotton appendix LVIII, f. 54.

Just who was occupying Cotton House by the late 1640s is unclear. It is known that at some stage Cotton moved his father’s library from Cotton House to his house at Stratton in Bedfordshire. The tradition that this took place about 1650 seems plausible without being decisive.65W. Stukeley, Itinerarium Curiosum (1724), 74-5. While it remained at Westminster, the collection seems to have been supervised in Cotton’s absence by Selden.66Aubrey, Brief Lives, ii. 224. What is not at all clear is the assumption that the house was therefore normally occupied by anyone other than the Cottons. Cotton certainly spent the first part of the summer of 1653 there, moving out only when the date for the opening of the Nominated Parliament drew near.67BL, Cotton appendix LVIII, f. 50. In his absence, the council of state ordered that his house should be taken over for use as official lodgings.68CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 88. Significantly, Selden was able to argue that repeated assertions that the terms of the lease gave Parliament the right to requisition Cotton’s rooms whenever it was in session had been disproved on previous occasions.69BL, Cotton appendix LVIII, ff. 50, 95, 97. The council was unimpressed, ordering that Henry Barton* and Robert Bennet* should also be accommodated there.70CSP Dom. 1653-4, p. 92.

The fuss over Cotton House was a rare difficulty for Cotton during this period. He seems to have pursued an unremarkable and unremarked upon life at Stratton and Eyworth. Later in 1653 he was on sufficiently friendly terms with Bulstrode Whitelocke* as to allow the latter to borrow various manuscripts in preparation for his diplomatic mission to Sweden.71BL, Cotton appendix XLV, art. 13, ff. 13, 14; Whitelocke, Diary, 13, 293. In time, this worked to Cotton’s advantage, for in October 1656 Cotton was able to use Whitelocke’s influence to block an attempt to have him named as sheriff of Bedfordshire for the forthcoming year. Whitelocke saw this as a way of repaying favours to him by Selden and Cotton, ‘being obliged to him for the freedom of his excellent library’.72Whitelocke, Diary, 450, 478, 480. The removal of the library to Stratton did not prevent some scholars making use of it, although its new location was clearly far less convenient. Dugdale used it intensively from 1653 onwards, while Francis Junius and later Elias Ashmole were allowed to borrow items.73BL, Cotton appendix XLV, art. 13, ff. 12v-17.

The late 1650s were times of renewed prosperity for Cotton, with the income from his estates at Conington returning to their pre-war levels.74Hunts. RO, CON.4/2/1/3, unf. That the council of state in July 1659 agreed to return some pistols to Cotton suggests that they had been seized as a suspected royalist arms hoard.75CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 34. However, there is no firmer evidence to link him to any of the royalist conspiracies, but his reappointment as one of the Huntingdonshire deputy lieutenants after the Restoration does suggest that he supported the king’s return.76Bodl. Carte 223, f. 337. Cotton seems to have made no attempt to stand for Parliament in 1660, and in 1661 it was his son John who represented the family interest in the Huntingdon election (which he won).77HP Commons 1660-1690. The following day, when Nicholas Pedley* wrote to Sir Thomas to say that he was glad he had not himself been elected there, Pedley observed that he would therefore have more time to concentrate on assisting Cotton with his private affairs.78BL, Cotton appendix LVIII, f. 56.

Sir Thomas died on 13 May 1662, and was buried in the church at Conington.79Le Neve, Monumenta, iii. 93. No will or administration for him has been traced, no doubt because the prerogative court of Canterbury’s administration act book for 1662 does not survive. He had in any case made arrangements for his children shortly before his death.80BL, Cotton appendix LVIII, f. 56; Hunts. RO, M16/23: draft deed, 4 Dec. 1661. The Cotton Library passed to Sir Thomas’s eldest son, Sir John, in accordance with Sir Robert’s 1631 will.81PROB11/159/698. Sir John sat in Parliament for a second time in 1685 when he was MP for Huntingdonshire. The fourth baronet, Sir Thomas’s great-grandson, another Sir John Cotton, sat in 1705 and 1710 as a tory, and it was he who presented the Cotton Library to the nation.82HP Commons 1715-1754.