Work in Parliament

Topic: Work in Parliament

Quoted Source Passages

1. Spedding Identifies Neville's Party but Admits the Source Gap

• Source: James Spedding, ed., The Letters and the Life of Francis Bacon, vol. V (1869), checked through local/Archive OCR and PDF routes cited below.
• Quotation:

"Sir Henry Neville and his party"

"afterwards known as the 'Undertakers'"

"I have not ... been able to discover"

• What it proves: Spedding places Neville inside the later Undertaker controversy while also admitting that he did not find the private communications.
• Limits: Spedding should be used as a route and interpretation, not as proof of a completed bargain with James.

2. The Advice Itself Makes Parliament the Remedy

• Source: Neville, Advice Touching the Holding of a Parliament, working transcription Neville Advice Review, lines 1-5.
• Quotation:

"by a parliament, or by some projects and devices"

"none so fit, so honorable, and so necessary as by a parliament"

• What it proves: Neville's parliamentary work was framed as counsel to restore crown-commons concord and supply, not only as factional maneuvering.
• Limits: The transcription remains below manuscript-image tier.

3. Jansson Snippets Locate the Commons Proceedings Targets

• Source: Maija Jansson, ed., Proceedings in Parliament, 1614 (House of Commons), p. 246 and related Google Books search-within-volume snippets.
• Quotation:

"a private man might go and move the King"

"proposed betimes and followed close afterwards"

"Neville of Billingbar his opinion"

• What it proves: The Commons-proceedings lane is specific enough to target pages and claims: Digges's defense, Neville's procedural formula, and the paper's identification.
• Limits: Current access is snippet-level; do not use as final quotation apparatus until full pages are captured.

4. Chamberlain Gives a Contemporary Outside Report of the Commons Outcome

• Source: John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 19 May 1614, in McClure, Letters of John Chamberlain, vol. 1, pp. 531-532; document witnesses uc1-32106005854481-1782657835.pdf.
• Quotation:

"great clamor against undertakers"

"owne and advow a paper"

"wan himself much credit and commendation"

• What it proves: Chamberlain confirms that Neville's explanation was publicly reported as calming the Undertaker controversy.
• Limits: This is news correspondence, not the official Commons record.

5. The Official Commons Journal Verifies the Hunting and Hawking Committees

• Source: Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 1, BHO pages for 22 March 1609/10 and 17 April 1610, cited below.
• Quotation:

"Preservation of Game"; "Sir H. Nevill"

"Untimely hawking"; "Sir H. Nevill"

• What it proves: The formerly unverified claim that Neville served on game-preservation and hawking committees is now directly supported by the official journal.
• Limits: These are committee appointments in 1610; they do not prove that hunting vocabulary in a literary text came from Neville.

Official History of Parliament and BHO Pass, 2026-07-09

The official Andrew Thrush biography was successfully opened in a browser after its JavaScript verification screen. It changes this packet from an Undertaker-only source map into a broader parliamentary-career dossier.

Parliamentary service and working style

• Constituencies in the official Billingbear biography: New Windsor (1584, bracketed [1589], 1593), Sussex (1589), Liskeard (1597), and Berkshire (1604, 1614). The bracketed Windsor return and separate Sussex return should be preserved exactly as History of Parliament presents them until the original election records explain the 1589 sequence.
• 1589 sequence explained at HoP level (2026-07-12). The Hasler-volume member biography ("NEVILLE, Henry (1562-1615), of Billingbear, Berks. and Mayfield, Suss.", author Alan Harding, read in-browser 2026-07-12) states that Neville was "next chosen, on 10 Oct. 1588, as burgess for New Windsor, but the town book records that on 24 Oct. his cousin Edward Neville I was chosen burgess 'because Henry Neville is chosen knight of Sussex'". The Hasler Sussex constituency article dates the county return 3 Oct. 1588, pairing (SIR) THOMAS PALMER I with HENRY NEVILLE, and notes Neville "had married Lord Burghley's niece and he was resident on his father's estates in Sussex" (the Gresham inheritance at Mayfield). So the bracketed [1589] Windsor return marks a borough election Neville vacated for the county seat, with his cousin substituted. The underlying town book (cited by HoP to Bodl. Ashmole 1126, f. 50) and the original county indenture remain uninspected; this is a two-witness HoP-level resolution, not yet an original-records one. URLs: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/neville-henry-1562-1615 and https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/constituencies/sussex. See also HENSLOWE SHERLEY ALLEYN DEEP RESEARCH PASS 2026 07 12 for the Sussex-service context (deputy lieutenancy from c.1591, APC xxv. 424, shared county-elite rotation with Sir Thomas Shirley I).
• The 1593 Windsor colleague was Henry's brother Edward II, not the 1588/89 cousin Edward I. Alan Harding's separate History of Parliament biography identifies Edward II as born in 1567, second son of the elder Sir Henry and Elizabeth Gresham, and bro. of Henry; it concludes that the younger brother was in all probability the Edward returned beside Henry for New Windsor in 1593. Owen Lowe Duncan summarizes the same result: “young Henry Neville, and his younger brother Edward, took both the seats for New Windsor.” Foster independently records the brother at Merton in 1581, aged fifteen, as “brother of Francis 1581, and of Henry 1577.” The brother later witnessed Henry's will in 1615. Full family and identity control: edward neville ii brother windsor mp will witness and culham family; History of Parliament; Foster p. 1057.
• In the first 1604 session Neville made one recorded speech, on 26 March, moving for a committee on treason. Thrush counts 26 committee appointments in that session.
• In the 1605/6 session the surviving record gives 42 committee appointments and no known speech. Thrush therefore warns that apparent silence in the chamber need not mean political inactivity.
• Neville's only recorded 1610 speech, on 16 July, proposed with Sir Maurice Berkeley that all members might attend the committee on the king's paper concerning defects in the commonwealth. BHO's journal confirms the entry: "Sir H. Nevill, Sir Maurice Berkley: - All that will come."
• In 1614 Thrush counts 22 committee appointments. Subjects included privileges, attendance and elections, Sabbath observance, apparel, impositions, Bishop Neile's criticism of the Commons, building around London, and a bill to curb the export of iron ordnance.
• Ordnance-bill context added 2026-07-12: the WIRG database's Sir Henry Neville person record quotes TNA C 66/1382 (Patent Roll, 34 Eliz. I, Part 4, 1591/2): a twenty-year patent to Henry Neville esq, Ludolph Ingelsteadt and Giles Vischer, merchants and strangers to export minions and falcons of cast iron ordnance from five named ports. If the membrane inspection confirms it, Neville sat on the 1614 committee for restraining the very trade he had been licensed to conduct from 1591 — direct personal expertise behind a committee assignment that otherwise looks routine. Witness and staging: mayfield manor and ironworks (WIRG person-record section) and NEW RESEARCH AVENUES WIRG PATENT WILLS PASS 2026 07 12. WIRG-mediated until C 66/1382 is inspected; do not state the arc as fact in book prose yet.

Trelawny, Liskeard, and a will naming Neville (lead, 2026-07-12)

The Hasler biography (read in-browser 2026-07-12) explains the 1597 Liskeard seat through Neville's brother-in-law Jonathan Trelawny, "in that year knight for Cornwall," who "was the steward" of the borough, and adds: "the two men were friendly, Trelawny appointing Neville a trustee of his lands in his will," cited in the entry's notes to PCC 101 Harte. Source: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/neville-henry-1562-1615.

Reference resolved 2026-07-13 (BURGON NEVILLES TRELAWNY WILL DEEP RESEARCH PASS 2026 07 13): the TNA Discovery API identifies the will as PROB 11/104/382, "Will of Sir Jonathan Trelawney or Trelany of Poole, Cornwall," proved 27 August 1604 (Discovery record D940484; catalogue spells the surname Trelawney, which a Trelawny search misses). Nina Green's transcript corpus was checked and has no Trelawney transcript, so the next step is the probate-register image (TNA order or Ancestry/FMP). Until that image is read, the trustee clause naming Neville rests on HoP's citation; the document's identity is now catalogue-verified.

Direct local executorship control added 2026-07-14: Royal Berkshire Archives D/EN/F7 is catalogued as the Trelawney executorship and wardship file. In a 12 November 1606 letter, Laurence Chaderton addresses Neville as “one of the executors” of Sir Jonathan Trelawny's last will. The same file follows Neville's co-wardship responsibility, the ward's school and Oxford placement, Court of Wards business, trust property, and Lower's 1608 reports. This independently establishes Neville's active executorial role without pretending that the still-uninspected probate register has been read. Full reconstruction: sir jonathan john trelawny neville executorship wardship 1604 1610.

Namesake correction: Kent and Lewes are not Billingbear

The 1601 Kent election and the 1604 Lewes seat belong to a different Sir Henry Neville: the man of Birling, Kent, later associated with the Abergavenny title, whom History of Parliament explicitly calls the Billingbear ambassador's cousin and namesake. The official Birling biography gives him Kent in 1601, Lewes in 1604, and Wilton in 1621, and describes the contested Kent election against Francis Fane.

British Library Add MS 34218, f. 15, independently catalogues "Names of voters for Francis Fane and Sir Henry Neville in Kent, 1601." In the context of the official Birling biography, this item belongs to the Kent cousin, not the Berkshire diplomat. It should not be used to enlarge the Billingbear parliamentary career.

This also exposes a durable reference-work error. The old Dictionary of National Biography life of the Billingbear Neville assigns him Kent in 1601 and Lewes in 1604; those seats are a conflation with the Birling namesake. The DNB can still be used for its cited source trail, but its constituency list must be corrected against the two official History of Parliament biographies. The identity correction is substantive: it removes two elections from the ambassador's record while preserving the Kent materials as evidence about a collateral Neville.

Direct 1610 subject controls

BHO labels the March entry 1609 because the journal uses Old Style dating; in modern-year prose it is 22 March 1610. BHO's volume table jumps from the 1610 Parliament to 1621, so it does not supply the missing daily 1614 debates. Jansson remains necessary for the Addled Parliament proceedings.

Interpretive result

The official biography supports a more expansive picture than "Neville the Undertaker." His work ranged across treason and attainder, wardship, Union, religious reform, foreign military service, Thames navigation, the Great Contract, impositions, game and hawking, naturalization of ambassadors' children, New River legislation, elections and privileges, and iron-ordnance export. The repeated committee work is the durable fact; claims about covert management must still be separately proved.

MPESE / Some Graces Notes

• MPESE now supplies a strong public transcript route for Sir Henry Neville, A Collection of Some Graces (1614): https://mpese.ac.uk/t/NevilleColletionSomeGraces1614.html
• MPESE identifies the manuscript as Surrey History Centre, LM/1778, ff. [1r]-[2r], creation date 1614, author Sir Henry Neville, with 6 witnesses.
• The transcript opens as a collection of things desired from the king for the good of the people and includes parliamentary/legal reform points: treasons, pleading to informations of intrusion, notices before offices/inquisitions, construction/confirmation of royal grants, Exchequer fees, pardons, alienations, concealed wards, fines/amerciaments, forest/park/chase trespasses concerning vert and venison, impositions on exported/imported commodities, Welsh-law alteration, obsolete laws, and penal-law forfeitures.
• Other MPESE witnesses listed for the text include Bodleian MS Carte 77, British Library Cotton MS Titus C VII, British Library Cotton MS Titus F IV, British Library Harley MS 4289, and Kent Archives U269/Oo214.
• Treat this as a direct manuscript-pamphlet witness for Neville's 1614 reform program. It belongs beside the Advice/Undertakers material, but it is not a Shakespeare source by itself.

1. Verified Sourced Facts

• The local wiki page correctly points to two main source lanes for Neville's late parliamentary work: James Spedding's edition of Bacon's letters/life and Proceedings in Parliament, 1614 (House of Commons).
• The directly checked Spedding witness is The Letters and the Life of Francis Bacon, vol. V, edited by James Spedding, London, Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1869.
• In Spedding's chapter on 1613-14, the question of calling a new Parliament is already active by early January 1613/14; Spedding says the King had been in communication with "those gentlemen" whom Spedding identifies as "Sir Henry Neville and his party," later called the Undertakers.
• Spedding explicitly cautions that the particular communications between the King and the Undertakers had not been discovered by him. This is an important limit: Spedding supports Neville's place in the Undertaker episode, but not a complete reconstruction of the private negotiation.
• Spedding states that a proposition concerning the coming Parliament was referred to the King's learned counsel before 17 February 1613/14; he infers that this likely came from the Undertakers, but labels the precise chain of communication as uncertain.
• Spedding's account of the 1614 Commons shows the Undertaker controversy becoming a major point of alarm: on 13 April 1614, the Commons appointed a committee to consider a message to the King protesting against Undertakers.
• Spedding reports that the Commons' committee made no specific case against an individual; the available ground was "general fame," which was treated as sufficient reason for a message clearing the House.
• Spedding later says that after Neville came forward with a frank explanation of his own share in the Undertaking, the House dropped further dispute on that subject and returned to other business.
• Parent integration source position: parliamentary undertakers is now the controlling demotion packet for this issue. Roberts and Duncan's Parliamentary Undertaking of 1614 argues that James rejected Neville's offer, that the proposed undertaking was "never attempted," and that "undertakers" should not be collapsed into the court "packers." The book-safe formulation is therefore: Neville's Advice belongs to a serious 1612-1614 parliamentary-management controversy, but the checked evidence supports a proposed or attempted program, not a proven successful compact to control the Commons.
• Source integration source position: Owen Duncan's 1974 dissertation is now locally searchable through the Antigravity transcription. Chapter 7, "The Abortive Undertaking," gives a fuller narrative version of the same interpretive line later narrowed in Roberts and Duncan 1978: Neville believed misunderstanding, not irreconcilable principle, had divided James and the Commons; he sought access to the king, policy concessions, and the secretaryship; and the Addled Parliament failure should not be treated as proof that Neville's program had actually been tried.
• Google Books search-within-volume snippets for Jansson's Proceedings in Parliament, 1614 (House of Commons) identify the direct Commons source for this dispute:
• p. 238: Neville's paper, "An Advice Touching the Holding of a Parliament," was read as part of Sir Roger Owen's report.
• p. 244: Neville avowed the paper as his own and said the King had sent for him at Windsor about two years earlier.
• p. 245: Sir Richard Weston blamed Sir Henry Neville for allowing the matter to be pursued so long.
• p. 246: Sir Dudley Digges defended the principle that a private man might move the King for the good of the country.
• p. 246: John Hoskins/Hoskyns defended the King's ability to call subjects to him and use their understandings.
• p. 251: the text includes the "proposed betimes and followed close" formula associated with Neville's parliamentary advice.
• p. 253: the text identifies "Neville of Billingbar his opinion" as presented to the King between the end of the previous Parliament and the calling of the next.
• The current source pass verifies both the Undertaker / Advice controversy and the separate 1610 game-preservation and untimely-hawking committee appointments. The first still depends on Jansson for full 1614 proceedings; the latter are directly available in BHO's official journal.
• McClure vol. 1, printed pp. 531-532, adds a contemporary Chamberlain-to-Carleton outside-news witness for the same controversy. Chamberlain reports that the "great clamor against undertakers" was quieted when Sir Henry Nevill owned and avowed the disputed paper, justified the business, and won credit for the explanation.

2. Evidence Lanes

3. Ken Feinstein Twitter and Blog Information

• Ken's local Twitter/blog layer preserves the claim that Neville's 1614 parliamentary controversy involved defenders Dudley Digges and John Hoskins/Hoskyns.
• Ken's Dudley Digges blog post quotes the 1614 Digges defense from Proceedings in Parliament, 1614 (House of Commons).
• Ken's Twitter layer separately claims that Neville served on hunting committees in Parliament. That claim remains unsupported by the checked source trail in this pass.

4. Quoted Source Text

Spedding

• "Sir Henry Neville and his party"
• "afterwards known as the 'Undertakers'"
• "particular communications passed between the King and the 'Undertakers'"
• "I have not ... been able to discover"
• "general fame"
• "clear and frank explanation"

Jansson, snippet-level only

• "An Advice Touching the Holding of a Parliament"
• "being at Windsor, sent for him"
• "Sir Richard Weston blamed Sir Henry Neville"
• "a private man might go and move the King"
• "no reason to bar the King"
• "proposed betimes and followed close afterwards"
• "Neville of Billingbar his opinion"

Duncan dissertation

• "misunderstanding between King and Commons"
• "his intent was to breed a love between the King and subject"
• "he was no undertaker to lead the parliament"

Chamberlain / McClure

• "great clamor against undertakers"
• "owne and advow a paper"
• "for the goode of the realm and the King"
• "wan himself much credit and commendation"

5. Citations

• Spedding, James, ed. The Letters and the Life of Francis Bacon. Vol. V. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1869. Internet Archive item: https://archive.org/details/worksoffrancisba12bacoiala. OCR/PDF pages checked via worksoffrancisba12bacoiala djvu and worksoffrancisba12bacoiala.pdf.
• England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons, and Maija Jansson, ed. Proceedings in Parliament, 1614 (House of Commons). Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1988. Google Books metadata and search-within-volume snippets: https://books.google.com/books/about/Proceedings_in_Parliament_1614_House_of.html?id=L9GqTX0uoT8C.
• wiki parliament, local preservation of the original Neville Research Wiki source trail.
• norths plutarch and henry nevilles advice to king james, related packet for the Advice text and North's Plutarch passage.
• dudley digges, related Digges packet.
• john hoskins, related Hoskyns packet.
• parliamentary undertakers, controlling demotion packet for the Undertaker problem.
• Roberts, Clayton, and Owen Duncan. "The Parliamentary Undertaking of 1614." The English Historical Review 93, no. 368 (July 1978): 481-498. document witnesses: Roberts-ParliamentaryUndertaking1614-1978.pdf.
• Chamberlain, John. The Letters of John Chamberlain. Edited by Norman Egbert McClure, vol. 1, American Philosophical Society, 1939, pp. 531-532, letter to Sir Dudley Carleton, London, 19 May 1614. document witnesses: uc1-32106005854481-1782657835.pdf.
• Duncan, Owen Lowe, Jr. The Political Career of Sir Henry Neville: An Elizabethan Gentleman at the Court of James I. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1974. Original PDF: DUNCAN OL 1974 7424317.pdf. Full Antigravity transcription: DUNCAN OL 1974 7424317 combined. Dedicated packet: owen duncan dissertation henry neville political career 1974.
• Feinstein, Ken. "New Discovery: Dudley Digges, Henry Neville, and Shakespeare." Ken Feinstein (blog), 7 Jan. 2020, https://kenfeinstein.blogspot.com/2020/01/new-discovery-dudley-digges-henry.html.
• Thrush, Andrew. "NEVILLE, Sir Henry I (1564-1615), of Billingbear, Waltham St. Lawrence, Berks. and Tothill Street, Westminster; formerly of Mayfield, Suss." History of Parliament Online, https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/neville-sir-henry-i-1564-1615. Official biography and notes checked in-browser 9 July 2026.
• Hasler, P. W. "NEVILLE, Sir Henry II (c.1575-1641), of Birling, Kent." History of Parliament Online, https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/neville-sir-henry-ii-1575-1641. Official control for the Billingbear ambassador's Kent cousin and namesake, including Kent 1601, Lewes 1604, and Wilton 1621.
• British Library, Add MS 34218, f. 15, names of those asked for their votes when Francis Fane was chosen knight of the shire with Sir Henry Neville at Pickenden Heath, 21 Sept. 1601: https://searcharchives.bl.uk/catalog/040-002025206.
• Lee, Sidney. "Neville, Henry (1564?-1615)." Dictionary of National Biography. Wikisource text_(DNB00)). Use with the explicit correction that its Kent 1601 and Lewes 1604 seats belong to the Birling namesake.
• Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 1, "22 March 1609," printed pp. 413-414, BHO: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol1/pp413-414. The date is 22 March 1609/10, modern-year 1610.
• Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 1, "17 April 1610," printed p. 418, BHO: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol1/p418.
• Journal of the House of Commons, vol. 1, "16 July 1610," printed p. 450, BHO: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol1/p450.

6. Notes on Access

• This packet has been upgraded from a wiki-stub source map to a checked source map for the Undertaker / Advice controversy.
• Do not use this packet to say James accepted Neville's undertaking, that Neville successfully managed the House of Commons for the Crown, or that the alleged "undertakers" were identical with the court "packers." Those points are explicitly demoted in the dedicated Undertakers packet.
• The Jansson evidence is still not full-page extraction. The snippets are strong enough to keep the claim in mixed status, but not enough for a final quotation apparatus.
• The older wiki citation to Spedding should be treated as a source trail, not a clean bibliographic form. The checked volume for the 1613-14 discussion is the 1869 vol. V of The Letters and the Life of Francis Bacon.
• The game-preservation and untimely-hawking committee claims are now directly verified in BHO's official Commons Journal. Do not inflate committee membership into authorship evidence or into proof that Neville drafted the bills.
• Duncan's dissertation is now a strong secondary guide for this packet, but it should not replace the direct Advice, Commons proceedings, or State Paper witnesses.
• The official History of Parliament page is now checked. Its breadth corrects the packet's earlier Undertaker-heavy emphasis, but its interpretations remain modern secondary analysis and should be paired with the journal/proceedings sources for book-facing quotations.

2026-07-13 Bacon's Unnamed “Gentlemen” and Neville's Impositions Paper

Spedding's edition creates two evidence layers that should not be collapsed.

First, Bacon's undated letter to James asks that a parliamentary case be put to those gentlemen which profess to do you service in Parliament. Bacon says that if they require profitable concessions before Parliament will cooperate, I shall little esteem their service if they confess themselves to be but brokers for bargains. Bacon does not name Neville or use the word Undertakers in the letter.

Second, Spedding identifies the unnamed group as Sir Henry Neville and his party; afterwards known as the “Undertakers.” This is editorial inference from the 1613/14 political context. It should be attributed to Spedding, not silently rewritten as Bacon's statement.

The same volume supplies a concrete Neville manuscript target: Cotton MS Titus F IV, fol. 344, a paper Spedding describes as in Sir H. Neville's hand and titles:

Reasons to prove that the course propounded doth no way prejudice his Majesty's right or claim of imposing, nor abridge his profit.

This paper appears to concern Neville's proposed parliamentary treatment of existing impositions. It could materially deepen the Undertakers packet if the folio is imaged and its hand, full text, endorsements, and relationship to adjacent Cotton papers are checked. Until then, use Spedding's printed description and keep the manuscript status explicit.

Direct printed controls: bacon_brokers-020.png and bacon_neville_hand-037.png.

2026-07-13 Career-Wide Parliamentary Work Pattern

The parliamentary evidence is more coherent when arranged by surviving work type rather than by speeches alone.

This pattern makes two features of Neville’s parliamentary career visible. First, much of his surviving work was committee, conference, drafting, or procedural work, so a count of set speeches seriously understates activity. Second, expertise recurred. The Union used his diplomatic experience; the 1614 ordnance bill returned him to a trade in which he had earlier professional involvement; the impositions and supply questions joined his fiscal and merchant-law interests to parliamentary reform.

The table also corrects the available-time chronology. Much of 1605 may have been relatively open, but it is bordered by 26 committee appointments in 1604 and 42 in 1606, followed by Union work into July 1607.

Source discipline

The counts and broad career narrative come from Andrew Thrush’s official History of Parliament biography, whose notes route individual appointments to the Commons Journal, Proceedings, Bowyer diary, and other named sources. The exact 1610 game, hawking, and defects-in-the-commonwealth entries remain directly controlled by the BHO Commons Journal pages already cited above. Full 1614 Proceedings images are still required for a final line-by-line committee ledger.

No early-life or authorship statement in the History of Parliament biography whose note depends on James and Rubinstein is used in this update.

Complete cross-topic chronology and action record: TEN TOPIC PUBLIC LIFE DOCUMENTARY CHRONOLOGY PASS 2026 07 13.

Manuscript claim audit

• New manuscript image inspected for this section: none.
• Non-AI controls: Commons Journal printed entries, History of Parliament’s source-linked parliamentary synthesis, and the already inspected Spedding printed pages.
• Unresolved manuscript matter: Cotton Titus F IV, fol. 344; no exact quotation from that uninspected folio is added here.
• Prior conflict retained: Spedding’s identification of Bacon’s unnamed “gentlemen” is editorial identification, not wording in Bacon’s letter.