which has the title
of _A Treatise of Equivocation._ The first recognition of the work is
in the _Relation of the Proceedings in the Trial for the Powder Plot_,
1604. At signat. I. the Attourney-General, Sir E. Coke, appeals to it,
and affirms that it was allowed by the Archpriest Blackwel, and that
the title was altered to _A Treatise against Lying and Fraudulent
Dissimulation_. He proceeds to describe some of its contents, as
if he were himself acquainted with the book. Thomas Morton, Bishop
of Lichfield, and Coventry, afterwards of Durham, in his _Full
Satisfaction concerning a double Romish Iniquitie; Rebellion and
Equivocation_, 1606, refers to the work as familiarly acquainted
with it. (See Ep. Dedic. A. 3.; likewise pages 88 & 94.) He gives
the authorship to Creswell or Tresham. He refers likewise to a Latin
work entitled _Resolutio Casuum_, to the same effect, possibly a
translation, to which he subjoins the names of Parsons and Allen.
Robert Abbot, in his _Antilogia_, 1613, pp. 13, 14. emphatically and
at length produces the same book and facts; but they are merely copied
from the _Relation_ of the Powder-treason Trial. Henry Mason, in his
most satisfactory work, _The New Art of Lying, &c._, 1624, has spoken
of the {264} _Treatise_ with the same familiarity (see p. 51.), and
elsewhere, if my memory does not deceive me. Dodd, in his _Church
history_,--when will the new edition begin to move again? Can
Stonyhurst tell?--ascribes the work to Tresham. Hardly any of the
similar works in these times belong to _one_ author. It may just be
added, that Parson's _Mitigation_ contains, perhaps, all the substance
of the Roman equivocation, with not much reserve or disguise. It was
published in answer to Bishop Morton's work in 1607. Foulis has, of
course, substantially all the above, but nothing more.

Now, the questions which I want to have solved are these:--Was the
book ever extant in MS. Or print? Is it now extant, and where? Who
has seen a copy? What is its size, date, and extent? Has the Durham
Cathedral Library, in particular, a copy? Mr. Botfield might have
informed us. In fact, where is any effectual intelligence of the
fugitive to be found?

J.M.

Feb. 8. 1850.

* * * * *

REPLIES.

ETYMOLOGY OF "ARMAGH."

Some of your correspondents have taken up the not unnatural idea, that
the last syllable of the word "Armagh" is identical with the Celtic
word _magh_, a plain. But t