COTTON, Henry (c.1545-1615)

Compared with most Jacobean bishops, Cotton possessed a privileged background. His father, Sir Richard, served as cofferer to princesses Mary and Elizabeth in the 1530s, and under Edward VI rose to be comptroller of the household and a privy councillor. Consequently, when Cotton was born, a 12-year-old Elizabeth became his godmother. Nevertheless, as a younger son his patrimony was merely a one-fifth share of a Cheshire manor.22 HP Commons, 1509-58, i. 711; Fuller, ii. 11; PROB 11/38, f. 156v. Probably destined for the Church from an early age, he was appointed rector of Havant in 1567, one year after he began his Oxford studies, and seven years before he was actually ordained. As the patron at Havant was his own mother, this unusual arrangement was doubtless intended in the short term to provide him with a steady income. In 1577 he became a prebend at Winchester Cathedral, where he based himself for the next two decades despite also securing three other benefices in order to supplement his income.23 PROB 11/125, ff. 387v, 389; CCEd. Although his brother was a prominent Hampshire recusant, Cotton became a royal chaplain as early as 1580, and thereafter preached regularly at court. In 1589 he was briefly considered for the deanery of Winchester, but the post went instead to Martin Heton^* (later bishop of Ely). Temporarily, Cotton’s career seemed to stall. In 1596 the queen unsuccessfully tried to foist him on Winchester College as its warden, in breach of the school’s statutes which decreed that he must already be a fellow.24 APC, 1577-8, p. 87; 1586-7, p. 87; CSP Dom. 1591-4, pp. 300-1; 1595-7, p. 227-9; P.E. McCullough, Sermons at Court (suppl. cal. 35 et seq.); B. Usher, Lord Burghley and Episcopacy, 170; HMC Hatfield, vi. 236, 280. Finally, two years later, she instead made him bishop of Salisbury, reputedly observing ‘that she had blessed many of her godsons, but now this godson should bless her’. However, in return he was obliged to surrender to the crown several valuable episcopal properties, including Sherborne Castle, Dorset. Indeed, so harsh were the financial penalties that the diocese may have been offered to as many as eight other men before Cotton accepted.25 J. Harington, Brief View of the State of the Church of Eng. (1653), 93; HMC Hatfield, viii. 402-3; CPR, 1598-9, pp. 136-7; B. Usher, 172.

As a bishop, Cotton acquired a reputation for harshness towards both recusants and nonconformists, procuring a diocesan commission for ecclesiastical causes in 1599 to strengthen his hand.26 F.O. White, Lives of the Elizabethan Bishops of the Anglican Church, 397; HMC Hatfield, xii. 429. He also sought to improve the quality of his parish clergy, taking a close personal interest in the licensing and appointment of incumbents and curates.27 HMC Hatfield, x. 160-1; Fincham, 156. Cotton is not known to have ever exercised electoral patronage, his influence in Salisbury itself being weakened by frequent jurisdictional disputes with the mayor and aldermen, who were seeking a charter of incorporation to limit the bishop’s authority. In 1601 he appealed to the secretary of state, Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury) after his right to nominate the city’s magistrates was challenged.28 HMC Var. iv. 229; Hoare, Wilts. iv. 298-304; HMC Hatfield, xi. 234-5. While entertaining James I at his episcopal palace for three days in October 1603 he presumably also sought to obtain royal support for the maintenance of his traditional privileges.29 Hoare, iv. 309.

Cotton attended over four-fifths of the 1604 parliamentary session, with no extended absences until its final fortnight, but received just six appointments. Of these, the first was to the committee for a bill concerning the city boundaries of Exeter, Devon, a measure promoted by the cathedral clergy there. Two other legislative committees dealt with the regulation of labourers and the tanning of leather. He was also nominated to help scrutinize a replacement bill to tighten existing sanctions against recusants. Cotton was twice selected to confer with the Commons, the matters under discussion being this recusancy bill, the bill for the repeal or continuance of expiring statutes, Bishop John Thornborough^* of Bristol’s controversial book on the Union, and Convocation’s decision to ban all bishops from discussing religious affairs with the lower House.30 LJ, ii. 287a, 298b, 312b, 324b, 329a, 332b.

Cotton’s stern reputation as a bishop continued into the new reign, and in 1604-5 he deprived four incumbents for non-residence or nonconformity.31 Fincham, 326; Wilts. and Swindon Hist. Centre, D1/39/1/33a, ff. 146v, 157v; D1/39/1/34, ff. 12v-13v; D1/2/19, f. 20. In May 1605 he was briefly drawn into a famous witchcraft case. Anne Gunter of North Moreton, Berkshire, claimed that she had been possessed by two neighbours. They were duly put on trial but acquitted, whereupon the bishop took Anne into custody for questioning and observation. Hearing that she vomited pins, he had some scored with a file to test this allegation, which naturally proved to be a fabrication. She was subsequently tried in Star Chamber for making false accusations, with the Salisbury diocesan chancellor supplying evidence against her.32 J. Sharpe, Bewitching of Anne Gunter, 4, 169-71.

When Parliament reassembled in November 1605, Cotton missed the drama of the opening day, but again attended four-fifths of the session. Somewhat more active this time, he attracted 14 appointments. The bishop evidently displayed some skill in legal matters, for half of his recorded business lay in this sphere, including legislative committees concerned with delays in the execution of legal judgements, the confirmation of letters patent, the administration of justice in the Welsh Marches and reform of the Marshalsea Court in London.33 LJ, ii. 364a, 393b, 406b, 436b. Similarly, he was named to three private bills relating to the estates of Sir Thomas Lake^‡, Sir Jonathan Trelawny^‡ and Thomas Pelham.34 Ibid. 376a, 379a, 380b. The fact that the Thames marked the northern border of his diocese probably explains his nomination to scrutinize a bill to improve navigation on the river. Similarly, he may well have been appointed to the committee for a bill on cloth manufacture because of the importance of this industry in Wiltshire.35 Ibid. 388a, 404b. Cotton was again named to two conferences. The first was called to discuss various religious grievances raised by the Commons, including the growing use of local commissions for ecclesiastical causes. At the second the Lords raised objections to bills from the lower House on purveyance and free trade.36 Ibid. 411a, 413a; Bowyer Diary, 116-17.

Cotton was present for 16 out of 23 sitting days in the pre-Christmas phase of the 1606-7 session, but apparently contributed little to the work of the upper House. In all he received just three appointments, to a conference on the Instrument of Union, and to the committees for two private bills. After the New Year, he did not attend at all, presumably due to illness, though he never obtained leave of absence.37 LJ, ii. 453a, 461a, 463b.

During 1606 the citizens of Salisbury sought a compromise with the bishop, offering to drop their demand for full incorporation providing that Cotton granted additional privileges to the local trading guilds. Cotton was initially ‘well inclined thereunto’, but his attitude changed after detailed proposals were submitted. By early 1607 the mayor and aldermen were once again preparing to seek a new civic charter, but they lacked influential allies in London, and did not finally petition the king until the summer of 1609. Cotton promptly approached the earl of Salisbury who, besides being lord treasurer, was also clerk of the courts in Salisbury, an office then in the gift of the bishop. Warning him that the proposed charter threatened all the local powers vested in the Church, Cotton requested that the matter be put on hold, and the lord treasurer evidently obliged.38 Hoare, iv. 312-13; HMC Var. iv. 235; SP14/47/27; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 330. However, the bishop proved less successful when, in October 1607, he began lobbying the government to become the new chancellor of the Order of the Garter, an office which he claimed had traditionally been held by the bishop of Salisbury. In 1608 the king referred the matter to a panel of judges, who dismissed Cotton’s evidence out of hand.39 HMC Hatfield, xix. 289; P.J. Begent and H. Chesshyre, Most Noble Order of the Garter, 110.

The first Jacobean Parliament resumed in February 1610, but Cotton was in poor health, and missed three-fifths of this fourth session. His absence was formally excused on 28 Feb. and 20 Apr., and he did not appear on a regular basis until mid-May.40 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 181; LJ, ii. 580b. In total Cotton received just seven committee appointments. He presumably took an interest in the bills to split the Hampshire parishes of Ashe and Deane, and to restrain the execution of ecclesiastical Canons not approved by Parliament.41 LJ, ii. 595b, 611a. However, the fact that he was named to consider three bills relating to either Devon or Cornwall (on local agriculture, the River Exe, and the Cornish estates of the Arundell family) suggests some confusion between himself and William Cotton^*, then bishop of Exeter.42 Ibid. 593b, 619a, 623b. On 2 June he was nominated to the committee for a bill obliging all people seeking naturalization or restoration in blood to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. Six days later he took the oath of allegiance himself, as all Members of the Lords were obliged to do by a royal proclamation issued in the wake of Henri IV’s assassination. In between, on 4 June, he attended the creation of Prince Henry as prince of Wales. Cotton was again absent from 17 July, this time without explanation. He also missed the whole of the fifth session, which met between October and December 1610, but is not known to have sent a proxy.43 Ibid. 606b, 609b; T. Rymer, Foedera, vii. pt. 2, p. 169.

In early 1611 the citizens of Salisbury revived their bid for a new charter, this time petitioning the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley). Cotton maintained that he was still willing to augment the privileges of the local guilds, but refused to give ground over other aspects of civic government. He again appealed to Lord Treasurer Salisbury, insisting that the proposed charter would be ‘prejudicial and hurtful’ to the privileges currently enjoyed by the cathedral, and requesting his continued favour. As an added incentive, Cotton renewed the earl’s grant of the city clerkship a few months later.44 SP14/61/61; HMC Hatfield, xxiv. 285. However, the government now opted instead for a compromise settlement. In 1612 the king confirmed the privileges of the bishop, dean and chapter over the cathedral close, but simultaneously granted a charter of incorporation to the city, with some safeguards to cover those areas where the two jurisdictions overlapped. In a face-saving gesture, the mayors were to continue to be sworn in by the bishop, but in effect Cotton had lost on almost every front. As if to underline that fact, the charter’s preamble stated that the charter had been granted at the request of the lord treasurer, the bishop’s erstwhile ally.45 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 330-1; Hoare, iv. 321-2.

Cotton failed to attend the 1614 Parliament, giving his proxy instead to George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, and John King^*, bishop of London. Around the same time, Cotton’s son Henry became one of Abbot’s chaplains. After this session concluded without a grant of supply, he contributed £50 to the Benevolence.46 LJ, ii. 686; CCEd; E351/1950. Despite his evident health problems, he compiled a set of visitation articles that same year, based on those issued in 1605 by Archbishop Richard Bancroft^* for Canterbury province, but with some additions such as a question about witches.47 Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church ed. K. Fincham (Church of Eng. Rec. Soc. i), 14-18.

Bemoaning his ‘sundry infirmities’ and meagre financial resources, Cotton drew up his will on 29 Apr. 1615. At least seven of his 19 children were still living, of whom two sons had proved to be spendthrifts: John, ‘who hath always run an evil course to his own overthrow’, including marrying without parental approval; and William, ‘who hath always been a wasteful and evil-disposed boy’. Cotton did not disinherit them, but left bequests carefully ring-fenced to prevent them being squandered. Another son, the cleric Henry, had already been presented to the precentorship and several prebends of Salisbury Cathedral. Cotton’s second wife, Elizabeth, also had some money of her own, which was now supplemented by £100, the share of a Dorset farm, and a mass of domestic equipment. However, other family members were assigned just £340 in total, with a little plate and more household goods, while he gave only £25 to charity. Cotton died eight days later. He was buried in the cathedral, but no monument to him survives.48 PROB 11/125, ff. 387-9v; Fasti, vi. 9, 31, 40, 49; J. Britton, Hist. and Antiqs. of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury, 48.