Indirectly, this same petition has also its bearing on a curious passage relating to Sir Robert COTTON which occurs among the Minute-books of the Corporation of London, and which has recently been printed by Mr. RILEY, in his preface to _Liber Custumarum_. On the 10th of November, 1607, the Court of Aldermen of London recorded the following minute: [Sidenote: COTTON AND THE CITY RECORDS OF LONDON.] ‘It is this day ordered, that Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Town Clerk, Mr. EDMONDS, and Mr. Robert SMITH, or any three of them, shall repair to Sir Robert COTTON, from this Court, and require him to deliver to the City’s use three of the City’s books _which have been long time missing_—the first book called _Liber Custumarum_; the second, called _Liber Legum Antiquorum_; and the thirde, called _Fletewode_, which are affirmed to be in his custody.’ Of the results of the interview of Master Chamberlain and his fellow-ambassadors with COTTON no precise account has been preserved. It is plain, however, from the sequel, that they found the matter to be one for which such extremely curt ‘requisition’ was scarcely the appropriate mode of setting to work. The Corporation appealed in vain to the Lord Privy Seal NORTHAMPTON; and they had afterwards to solicit the mediation with COTTON of two of their own members—Sir John JOLLES and another—who were personally known to him. Their interposition was alike ineffectual. Of the interview we have no report; but Sir Robert, it is clear, asserted his right to retain the City books (or rather portions of books) which were then in his hands, and he did retain them. They now form part of the well-known and very valuable Cottonian MS., ‘Claudius D. XI.’ That these London records had once belonged to the citizens is now unquestioned. That Cotton—both in 1607 and again in the following year—asserted a title, of some sort, to those of them which were then in his hands, seems also to be established. Is the fair inference this: ‘Their then holder, in 1607, had obtained them wrongfully, and he persisted, despite all remonstrance, in his wrongful possession’? Is it not rather to be inferred that, whosoever may have been the original wrongdoer, Sir Robert COTTON had acquired them by a lawful purchase? [Sidenote: THE DISPUTE ABOUT CITY RECORDS.] If that should have been the fact, he may possibly have had a valid reason for declining to give what he had, ineffectually and rudely, been commanded to restore. On the other hand, it is impossible to defend Sir Robert’s occasional mode of dealing with MSS.,—some of which, it is plain, were but lent to him,—when, by misplacement of leaves, or by insertions, and sometimes by both together, he confused their true sequence and aspect. Of this unjustifiable manipulation I shall have to speak hereafter.