[260] ‘William Copingar, Thomas Johnson, Sherifes. These Sherifes being on the morrow after Michaelmas day by the Maior and Aldermen presented before the Barons of the Exchequer, only William Copingar was admitted and sworne, but Thomas Johnson they woulde not admitte till they knew farther of the Kings pleasure. The x of October a commandment was brought from the King to the Lord Maior that he should cause an election to bee made for a new Sheriffe, at which day, came into the Guild Hall Mayster Edmond Dudley the Kings President, and there shewed the King’s letters, that his commons shoulde name for the Kings pleasure, William Fitz William, to bee Sheriffe for the peace ensuing, which with much difficulty at length was granted, which William Fitz William kept his feast the Sixteenth day of October.’ Stow’s Chronicle, p. 879.
[261] Cal. x. 852.
[262] The letter of Cromwell to the Mayor and Burgesses of Canterbury (Letters, 148) is now in the British Museum; it was put into my hands by the kindness of Mr. Brodie of the Public Record Office. It was overlooked at the time of the compilation of the tenth volume of the Calendar, and escaped the search of Froude and Friedmann, both of whom discuss the details of this election at some length. Its discovery throws much fresh light on the history of one of the most famous cases of arbitrary interference in the choice of members to Parliament that has come down to us from Tudor times. The reply of the Mayor (Cal. x. 929) is comparatively well known. Froude has printed it in full (vol. iii. p. 347), but has misread the name of one of the burgesses, which is ‘Darkenall’ or ‘Derknall,’ not ‘Sacknell.’
[263] Cal. vi. 1510.
[264] Cal. x. 351, 601, 1069, and footnote to page 232. Cf. also Froude, The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, pp. 413–415.
[265] Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 817.
[266] Letters, 159, 266, 273.
[267] Cal. vii. 1555.
[268] ‘High Dutch’ not ‘Low Dutch.’
[269] Cal. x. 352, 698; xiv. (i) 186 (v).