respecting the work bearing this name. He inquires, "Was the book
ever extant in MS. or print? What is its size, date, and extent?" These
questions may in part be answered by the following extracts from
Parsons's _Treatise tending to Mitigation_, 1607, to {137} which J.M.
refers as containing, "perhaps, all the substance of the Roman
equivocation," &c. It appears from these extracts that the treatise was
circulated in MS.; that it consisted of ten chapters, and was on eight
or nine sheets of paper. If Parsons' statements are true, he, who was
then at Douay, or elsewhere out of England, had not seen it till three
years after it was referred to publicly by Sir E. Coke, in 1604. Should
the description aid in discovering the tract in any library, it may in
answering J.M.'s second Query, "Is it now extant, and where?"

(Cap. i. Sec. iii. p. 440.):--

"To hasten then to the matter, I am first to admonish the
reader, that whereas this minister doth take upon him to confute
a certain Catholicke manuscript Treatise, made in defence of
Equivocation, and intercepted (as it seemeth) by them, I could
never yet come to the sight therof, and therfore must admit,"
&c.

And (p 44):--

"This Catholicke Treatise, which I have hope to see ere it be
long, and if it come in time, I may chance by some appendix, to
give you more notice of the particulars."

In the conclusion (cap. xiii. Sec.ix. p. 553.):--

"And now at this very instant having written hitherto, cometh to
my handes the Catholicke Treatise itselfe of _Equivocation_
before meneyoned," &c.... "Albeit the whole Treatise itselfe be
not large, nor conteyneth above 8 or 9 sheetes of written
paper."

And (Sec. xi. p. 554.):--

"Of ten chapters he omitteth three without mention."

I.B.

* * * * *

FURTHER NOTES ON THE DERIVATION OF THE WORD "NEWS."

I have too much respect for the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES" to
consider it necessary to point out _seriatim_ the false conclusions
arrived at by MR. HICKSON, at page 81.

The origin of "news" may now be safely left to itself, one thing at
least being certain--that the original purpose of introducing the
subject, that of disproving its alleged derivation from the points of
the compass, is fully attained. No person has come forward to defend
_that_ derivation, and therefore I hope that the credit of expunging
such a fallacy from book