Page:The Advancement of Learning (Wright, 5th ed).pdf/18

In February, 1591-2, his brother Anthony came to live in Gray’s Inn, and from the motherly solicitude of Lady Bacon for her eldest son’s religious welfare, we learn that Francis was negligent in the use of family prayers, and was not to be held up as a pattern to his brother, or resorted to for counsel in such matters.

To the autumn of 1592 Mr. Spedding with great probability assigns the speeches in praise of Knowledge and of the Queen, which were apparently written for some Court device, perhaps that contrived by the Earl of Essex for the Queen’s day. In close connexion with the latter of these is the treatise entitled ‘Certain observations upon a libel published this present year, 1592,’ which Bacon wrote in reply to the Responsio ad edictum Reginæ Angliæ of Father Parsons.

In the Parliament which met on February 19, 1592-3, Bacon, who had hitherto been returned only by boroughs, now sat as member for Middlesex. It was in the course of this session that, according to Macaulay, ‘he indulged in a burst of patriotism, which cost him a long and bitter remorse, and which he never ventured to repeat.’ In this sounding sentence there is hardly a word of truth. What really happened may be briefly told. On the 26th of February Bacon, with Sir Robert Cecil and other leading members of the House, moved that a committee of supply be appointed to provide against the dangers with which the country was threatened both by Rome and Spain, and other confederates of the Holy League. A few fragments of his speech in support of the motion have been preserved, and he himself was one of the committee appointed, Another committee was formed by the Lords, the two committees consulted together, and the result of their conference was communicated to the House of Commons by Sir Robert Cecil. The Lords demanded at least a treble subsidy, payable in three years by two instalments each year; Bacon spoke next, ‘and yielded to the subsidy, but misliked that this House should join with the Upper House in the granting of it.’ (D’Ewes, Journal of the House of Commons, p. 483.) His opposition was solely in defence of the privilege of the House