July 27. 1850.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



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 INI S. ; that it consisted of ten chapters, 

 and was on eight or nine sheets of paper. If Par- 

 sons' statements are true, he, who was then at 

 Douay, or elsewhere out of England, had not seen 

 it till thi-ee yeais 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. § iii. p. 440.): — 



" To hasten then to tlie matter, I am first to ad- 

 monish the reader, that wheras this minister doth take 

 upon him to confute a certain CathoHcke manuscript 

 Treatise, made in defence of Equivocation, and inter- 

 cepted (as it seemeth) by them, I could never yet come 

 to the sight therof, and thei'fore 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 par- 

 ticulars." 



In the conclusion (cap. xiii. § ix. p. 553.) : — 

 " And now at this very instant having written 

 hitherto, cometh to my haudes the Catholicke Treatise 



itselfe of Equivocation before mencyoned," &c 



" Albeit the whole Treatise itselfe be not large, nor con- 

 teyneth above 8 or 9 sheetes of written paper." 



And (§ xi. p. 554.) : — 



'' Of ten chapters he oraitteth three without men- 

 tion." 



LB. 



FURTHER NOTES ON THE DERIVATION OF THE 

 WORD " NEWS." 



I have too much respect for the readei"s 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 thinji at least beins 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 per- 

 son has come fiirward to defend that derivation, 

 anil therefore 1 hope that tlie credit of expunging 



; such a fallacy i'roni books of reference will here- 

 after be due to " Notes and Queries." 



I cannot avoid, however, calling Mr. Hickson's 

 attention to one or two of the most glaring of his 

 jU)n-xfijuitn7:t. 



1 quoted the Cardinal of York to show that in 

 his day the word "newes" was considered plural. 

 Mr. lllcKSON quotes me to show liiat in the present 

 day it is used in the singular ; therefore, he thinks 

 that the Cardinal of York was wroii'' : but he 



must pardon me if I still consider the Cardinal an 

 unexceptional authority as to the usage of his own 

 time. 



Mr. Hickson asserts that " odds" is not an En- 

 glish word; he classifies it as belonging to a 

 language known by the term " slang," of° which 

 he declares his utter disuse. And he thinks that 

 when used at dl, the word is but an ellipsis for 

 " odd chances." This was not the opinion of the 

 great English lexicographer, who describes the 

 word as — 



" Odds; a noun substantive, from the adjective odd." 

 and he defines its meaning as "inequality," or 

 inconimensurateness. He cites many examples 

 of its use in its various significations, with any 

 of which Mr. Hicklson's sub.stitution would play 

 strange pranks ; here is one from Milton : — 



" I chiefly who enjoy 

 So far the happier lot, enjoying tiiee 

 Pre-eminent by so much odds." 



Then with respect to "noise," Mr. Hickson 

 scouts the idea of its being the same word with 

 tlie PVench " noise." Here again he is at odds 

 with Doctor Johnson, although I doubt very much 

 that he has the odds of him. Mr. Hickson rejects 

 altogether the quasi mode of derivation, nor will 

 he allow that the same word may (even in differ- 

 ent languages) deviate from its original meaning. 

 Eut, most unfortunately for Mr. Hickson, the ob- 

 solete French signification of "noise" was pre- 

 cisely the present English one! A French writer 

 thus refers to it : — 



" A une epoque plus reculee ce mot avait un sens 

 diflr^rent : il signifiait bruit, cries de joie, &c. Join- 

 yiliedit dans son Histoire dc Louis IX.,—' La noise que 

 ils (les Sarrazins) menoient de leurs ;• rs sarrazinnuiz 

 estoit espouvantable a escouter.' Les Anglais nous ont 

 emprunte cette expression et femploient dans sa pre- 

 miere acception." 



Mr. Hickson also lays great stress upon the 

 absence, in English, of "the new" as a sinjjular 

 of " the news." In the French, however, " lanou- 

 velle" is common enough in the exact sense of 

 news. Will he allow nothing for the caprice of 

 i<^'io'n ^ A. E. B, 



Leeds, July 8. 1850. 



Neivs, Noi-ie (Vol. ii., p. 82.).— I think it will be 

 found that Mr. Hickson is misinformed as to the 

 fact of the employment of the Norman French word 

 noise, in the French sense, in England. 



Noj/se, noixe, 7inas, or noase, (for I have met with 

 each form), meant then quarrel, dispute, or, as a 

 school-boy would say, a row. It was derived from 

 itoxia. Several authorities agree in these points. 

 In the Histoire de Foult/ves Jutz-icarin, Fouque 

 asks " Quel fust fn noi/.se (je fust devaunt le roi en 

 la sale?" which with regard to the context can 

 only be fairly translated by " What is going on in 



