Another expression in the letter makes it clear that the object of the suit was an experiment. The Queen could not have "experience of the thing," and Bacon solicited Burghley's recommendation, because she would not need the experience if he, so great and so good, vouched for it.
Burghley appears to have tendered the suit to the Queen, for there is a letter dated 18th October, 1580, addressed to him by Bacon, commencing:
"Your Lordship's comfortable relation to her Majesty's gracious opinion and meaning towards me, though at that time your leisure gave me not leave to show how I was affected therewith, yet upon every representation thereof it entereth and striketh so much more deeply into me, as both my nature and duty presseth me to return some speech of thankfulness."
Spedding remarks thereon: "It seems that he had spoken to Burghley on the subject and made some overture, which Burghley undertook to recommend to the Queen; and that the Queen, who though slow to bestow favours was careful always to encourage hopes, entertained the motion graciously and returned a favourable answer. The proposition, whatever it was, having been explained to Burghley in conversation, is only alluded to in these letters."
Spedding dismisses these three letters in 22 lines of comment, which contain the extracts before set out. He regards the matter as of slight consequence, and admits that he can throw no light upon it. But he points out that it was "so far out of the common way as to require an apology." Surely he has not well weighed the terms of the apology when he says they "imply that it was for some employment as a lawyer."
There had been a conversation between Bacon and Burghley during which Bacon had submitted a project to the accomplishment of which he was prepared to devote his life in the Queen's service. It necessitated his abandoning the profession of the law. Apparently Burghley had remonstrated with him, in the manner of experienced men of the world, against forsaking a certain road and avenue to preferment in favour of any course rare and unaccustomed. Referring in his letter to this, Bacon's parenthetical clause beginning "either being well left or friended," etc., is confession and avoidance. In effect he says:—Few study the common laws who have influence; few at their own free election; few desert studies of more delight and no less preferment; and few devote themselves to that study from their earliest years. Since there are few who, having my opportunities, devote themselves to the study of the common laws, my position in so doing would not be an ordinary one, no more than is my suit. Therefore, why should I, having your [Burleigh's] influence to help me, sacrifice my great intellectual capabilities fitting me to accomplish my great contemplative ends? Why should I sacrifice them to a study of the common laws?
The sentence may be otherwise construed, but in any case it involves an apology for the abandonment of the profession which had been chosen for him.
The next letter is addressed to the Right Honourable Sir Francis Walsingham, principal secretary to her Majesty, and is dated from Grays Inn, 25th of August, 1585. Spedding's comment on it is as follows:—
"For all this time, it seems, the suit (whatever it was) which he had made to her through Burghley in 1580 remained in suspense, neither granted nor denied, and the uncertainty prevented him from settling his course of life. From the following letter to Walsingham we may gather two things more concerning it: it was something which had been objected to as unfit for so young a man; and which would in some way have made it unnecessary for him to follow 'a course of practice'—meaning, I presume, ordinary practice at the Bar."
This is the letter:—