126 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[2nd §, No7., Fen, 16. °56. 
which he confessed and so deeply deplored was, 
as he admits to Sampson, “ to the deceiving of the 
king.” The declaration of the martyr before Gar- 
diner, and the defaleation of which he is charged, 
are perfectly consistent. Now I would submit 
that, were the evidence to close here, there is 
nothing to justify the passages of which I com- 
plain, but direct testimony may be adduced 
which throws light on “this obscure matter ;” 
and, strange to say, this testimony is contained in 
the very passage of Sampson which the biographer 
has partially quoted. ‘The passage in the recent 
biographical notice is this : 
“This (sermon of Latimer) ‘did so strike Bradford to 
the heart,’ on account of a fraud committed 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.’ ” 
The words within single inverted commas are 
taken from a passage in Sampson’s Memoir, the 
other are the words of the biographer. Had the 
writer, however, omitted his own words and given 
Sampson's passage entire, though it might have 
destroyed his argument, it would have enabled 
him to do more justice to Sir John. The passage 
from Sampson is literally this: 
“Which (sermon of Latimer) did so strike Bradford to 
the heart for one dash with a pen, which he had made 
without the knowledge of his master (Sir John Harington), 
as full often I have heard him confess with plenty of tears, 
being Clerk to the Treasures of the King’s Camp beyond 
the seas, and was to the deceiving of the king, that he 
could never be quiet till, by the advice of the same 
Master Latimer, a restitution was made.” 
Sampson does not draw inferences, or speak of a 
casual or doubtful remark of Bradford, but tells 
us plainly that he “had full often heard him con- 
fess with plenty of tears the dash with his pen 
which he had made without the knowledge of his 
master.” And who was this Sampson? Brad- 
ford’s most intimate “ friend and fellow-student 
at the Temple,’ one who was the instrument, 
under God, of Bradford's conversion from Popery, 
and who speaks of his “ familiar knowledge” of 
Bradford’s inmost thoughts with reference to the 
“ doctrine of repentance.” Sampson was after- 
wards Dean of Christ Church, Prebendary of 
St. Paul’s, &c. Unless, therefore, the writer of 
the Biographical Notice of John Bradford is 
willing to admit that Sampson penned a deliberate 
falsehood, he will, I think, if not erase, at least 
modify the offending passages, should another 
edition be called for. Though a very minor 
matter, I observed several inaccuracies respecting 
the Harington family, in the notes which the 
Exton pedigree, now before me, would enable me 
to correct, should the editor hereafter desire it. 
I have spoken of the writer as the biographer, 
not being certain whether the editor, the Rev. 
Aubrey Townsend, of Bath, and the writer of 
the biographical notice, are one and the same 
person. E. C. Harineron. 
The Close, Exeter. 
WHITE PAPER INJURIOUS TO SIGHT. 
It has, no doubt, occurred to many of your 
readers, that the glaring white paper upon which 
our books are printed in the present day, is any- 
thing but agreeable to the sight; and I should 
say, judging by my own experience, it is often 
injurious. It is a great relief to me, when I have 
waded through the pages of a modern octavo, to 
take up some goodly volume of old, and rest the 
eyes upon its dun-coloured paper —its bold large 
type, fresh and black, us if just issued from the 
press—its ample margin, with the friendly side- 
notes to help the reader in his pilgrimage—and 
many other excellences, which are discarded in 
the present refined age of literature. In the 
Letters of Eminent Persons, published from the 
originals in the Bodleian Library and Ashmolean 
Museum, I find a communication from Dr. Lan- 
caster (Provost of Queen’s College) to Dr. Char- 
lett, in 1714; in which brown (tinted) paper is 
recommended as being less prejudicial to the eyes 
than white : 
« Pray, Sir, will you do so much as send to Sir Wilkin- 
son of Queen’s, and let your servant tell him Mr. Basket 
will send down his paper on Monday for Aristotle’s Lthics. 
Tho’ I can tell him that the brownish paper he returns 
is the better paper to print upon. All my Paris editions 
are on paper of the same dunny colour, and those editions 
(for that reason for one) excel all other. I never heard 
English printing blamed so much for anything as the 
paper’s being too white. But as for Mr. Wilkinson, I 
suppose he has promised his subscribers very white paper, 
and they must have it. Master, I have found by experi- 
ence, that eyes are very good things, and yet I will not 
say that I found it out first; for they say that old Friar 
Bacon knew it, and even some antediluvians lived long 
enough to have discovered it. Now brown paper preserves 
the eye better than white, and for that reason the wise 
Chinese write on brown. So the Egyptians. So Aldus 
and Stevens (Stephens) printed; and on such paper, or 
velom, are old MSS. written. Savile published his Chry- 
sostom, with a silver letter on brown paper. And when 
authors and readers agree to be wise, we shall avoid printing 
on a glaring white paper.” 
I am certain that many persons will coincide 
with the strong opinion expressed on this subject 
by the worthy Provost of Queen’s College, and 
that “eyes are good things” which it is well to 
preserve. W. J. 
Russell Institution. 
FALSE AND DANGEROUS PROPOSITIONS. 
The decision of the Roman Inquisition against the 
truth of the motion of the earth, which has justly 
been reputed one of the most impudent declara- 
