What was this suit? Spedding cannot suggest any explanation. He says: "What the particular employment was for which he hoped I cannot say; something probably connected with the service of the Crown, to which the memory of his father, an old and valued servant prematurely lost, his near relationship to the Lord Treasurer, and the personal notice which he had himself received from the Queen, would naturally lead him to look.... The proposition, whatever it was, having been explained to Burghley in conversation, is only alluded to in these letters. It seems to have been so far out of the common way as to require an apology, and the terms of the apology imply that it was for some employment as a lawyer. And this is all the light I can throw upon it." Subsequently Spedding says the motion was one[24] "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." 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."