2nd §, No 7., Fen. 16. °56.] 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
125 
LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1856. 
Potes, 
MARTYR AND SIR JOHN HAR- 
INGTON. 
The writer of the Biographical Notice of John 
Bradford, prefixed to the martyr’s Letters, &c., in 
the Parker’s Society edition of The Writings of 
Bradford, referring to the well-known results of 
a sermon. which Latimer preached before Edward 
VI., on the subject of “ Restitution to be made of 
things falsely gotten,” says : 
* This ‘did so strike him (Bradford) to the heart,’ on 
account of a fraud, committ@d by his master, Sir John 
Harington, which ‘was to the deceiving of the king,’ and 
which, it would seem, Bradford had concealed, ‘that he 
could never be quiet, till, by the advice of the same Master 
Latimer, a restitution was made.’ ” 
And again : 
“Tt was through his firmness, in fact, that Sir John 
Harington was compelled to make restitution to the king 
of the sums falsely obtained, in the two successive years, 
1549 and 1550.” 
The former passage consists, as we shall pre- 
sently see, of partial extracts from Dean Sampson’s 
Memoir ; the latter is the writer’s own inference. 
The biographer, in defending the martyr, is rather 
unjust to the knight; and as a collateral descendant 
of Sir John Harington, I am unwilling that his 
honour should be thus unreservedly sacrificed at 
the shrine of “the good John Bradford.” The 
connexion of the latter name with the question at 
issue, may render the inquiry of general interest. 
Strype’s account of the transaction is this: 
“While Bradford followed the study of the law in the 
Temple, London, he was steward to Sir John Harington, 
Knight, Treasurer to the King’s Camps and Buildings, 
and kept his books and accounts; whom he therefore 
called his master, in whose service once he took up some 
money (and that, it seems, in his master’s name) which 
he was not able presently to repay. But interest and 
application were made by friends on his behalf, and at 
length, in May, 1548, his master was prevailed with to pay 
the debt for him, and he to become debtor to his master, 
and so Sir John bound himself under his hand to pay the 
sum before Candlemas next ensuing. He confessed his 
fault to his master, owned his debt, and offered all the 
satisfaction he could.” (Mem. vol. iii. pt. i. p. 366.) 
Dr. Hook also, following Soames, in his Life of 
Bradford, thus writes : 
« Bradford’s accomplishment (being distinguished as an 
accountant) procured for him the place of clerk or secre- 
tary to Sir John Harington, who was Treasurer of the 
Royal Camps and Buildings. Sir John Harington placed 
extra confidence in his integrity, as well as in his ability, 
but unfortunately overrated his superiority to temptation. 
Bradford appropriated to his own use one hundred and 
forty pounds belonging to the Crown. Some Protestant 
historians (adds Dr. Hook), blinded by party feeling, en- 
deavour to palliate the crime of one who became after- 
wards so distinguished. But the real defence of Bradford 
is this: that he did deeply and truly repent, that he 
BRADFORD THE 
deplored to the end of his life this ‘ great thing,’ as he 
sorrowfully termed his act of peculation, and that when 
his mind was enlightened as to the nature of his sin, and 
his conscience reproached him, he beeame his own accuser, 
and took measures to make restitution But Brad- 
ford found more substantial relief from Sir John Har- 
ington himself, who generously consented to satisfy the 
Crown, and to accept his dependant’s security for repay- 
ment to himself.” (£celes. Biog. vol. iii. p. 29, See also 
Soumes’s Hist. of the Reformation, vol. iy. p. 420.) 
Now, haying carefully read the letters, &c., 
referred to by Bradford’s more recent biographer, 
in corroboration of his position, I confess that the 
statements of Strype, Soames, Hook, &c., seem to 
me to be fully borne out by the confession and 
self-reproaches of Bradford himself, wherein he 
admits that he “justly deserved to be put to 
death for it,” and by the language adopted by his 
friends (were there no other direct evidence), I 
may add, that not one tittle of evidence appears 
which can support the assertion so unhesitatingly 
advanced, that “the fraud was committed by his 
master, Sir John Harington.” It would certainly 
seem, by Bradford’s letter to Traves, March 22, 
1548, that Sir John’s patience was well nigh ex- 
hausted by the importunity of the defaulter, and 
that he even considered him over “ scrupulous ” 
in so strongly urging an immediate “ restitution ; 
but so far from admitting his own participation in 
the act, or even his cognizance of the transaction, 
Sir John tells Bradford, “ That if the books would 
declare it, he would satisfy,” &c. ‘“ The books I 
showed (adds Bradford), whereupon he promised 
as much as I could ask.” I have read the Memoir 
by Archdeacon Hone, referred to by the bio- 
grapher, in which the archdeacon minutely ex- 
amines into “this obscure matter,” as he calls it, 
and the conclusion at which he arrives is this: 
“ That the act, though done without the know- 
ledge of Sir John, might yet have been for his 
agerandisement, and not an embezzlement of 
money, and the appropriation of it to Bradford's 
own use.” ‘This is a far different statement from 
that made by the biographer. The writer in 
question relies on Bradford’s reply to the Lord 
Chancellor Gardiner, at his last examination, 
wherein he denied that he had “ever deceived his 
master; but in order to know what he denied, 
we must learn of what he was accused, The 
whole passage runs thus: 
“ Here came forth Master Chamberlain, of Woodstocls, 
and said to the Lord Chancellor that Bradford had been a 
serving man, and was with Master Harington. —‘ True,’ 
quoth the Lord Chancellor, ‘and did deceive his master 
of twenty-seven pounds (‘seven score” in edit. L563). ” 
That is, I presume, robbed him of twenty-seven 
pounds. And what was Bradford's reply to this 
charge ? — 
“ My Lord,” quoth Bradford, “ I set my foot to his foot, 
whosoever he be, that can come forth and justly vouch to 
my face that ever I deceived my master.” ‘ 
which was perfectly true, as the “ great thing” 
