xii PREFACE. 
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 
Regine Anglia 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 patriot- 
_ism, which cost him a long and bitter remorse, and which he 
never ventured torepeat.’ 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 com- 
mittee 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 com- 
mittees 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 
