2* S. N 7., FEB. 16. '56.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 18S6.
BHADFOBD THE 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, 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.' "
And again :
"It was through his firmness, in fact, that Sir John Harington was compelled to make restitution to the king of the sums falselv 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 repa)'. 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 m in his ability, but unfortunately overrated his superiority to temptation. Bradford appropriated to his own use one hundred and forty poTinds 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
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 became 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." (Eccles. Siog. vol. iii. p. 29. See also
Soames's Hist, of the Reformation, vol. iv. p. 420.)
Now, having carefully read the letters, &e. r 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 net, 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 aggrandisement, 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 Woodstock, 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. I5fi3). " 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 "
