Page:Notes and Queries - Series 7 - Volume 9.djvu/112

104 to Sigismund, and demanded an explanation openly accusing him of treachery. The prince denied everything, and empowered them to resis Basta if they suspected him of any hostile intention. Székely acted as he was told, and, though the old soldier had but little time left for preparing his mere handful of followers for the battle, he gallantly barred the way of the imperial troops as they approached the bridge over the river Maros at Tövis, near Alba Julia, but was defeated by Basta's overwhelming force on July 2, 1602, and obliged to seek shelter with his friend and protector the Pasha of Temesvár. In the mean time the envoys whom Sigismund had sent to the emperor returned from Prague. Their avowed mission had been to offer Rudolf a few fortified towns on the Hungarian frontier, and thereby induce him to conclude peace in order to put an end to all the miseries, the wholesale bloodshed, pillage, and destruction in Transylvania, and also to settle the claims of the prince's wife, Maria Christierna. But his confidential man, Father Marietti, had secret instructions to present to the emperor his master's complete submission, and on certain conditions to hand over the principality to the house of Austria. Rudolf, of course, accepted the proposal, and granted to Sigismund the ownership of the Libochowitz estates in Bohemia, besides a substantial pension.

The prince, with an escort furnished by Basta, left his country amidst the execrations of his unfortunate people on July 26, 1602. He did not return again to Transylvania, but died abroad, and was buried at Prague.

LEWIS L. KROPF.

P.S.—I am very much obliged to the for kindly supplying the reference to the source of the motto, and to  for the extract from Ashton's book. The Pocahontas story has been fully dealt with, both by English and American writers, and does not come within the scope of our present inquiry. C. C. B. will find a reply to his communication in the next article.

(To be continued.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE 'NORTH BRITON.'

The acquisition of the third and suppressed volume of Wilkes's reprint of the North Briton has enabled me to complete the subjoined memoranda, which I hope will prove acceptable, as an attempt to compile a bibliography of that publication. They will, at all events, serve to correct the imperfect and misleading notices by Lowndes and Allibone, which, sometimes copied and sometimes conjecturally corrected by booksellers, have led to almost inextricable confusion. I should be particularly glad to know of any other edition. Those given below— with the exception of the two Dublin editions and the London edition of 1772—are in my own possession.

A.—The Original Issue.

The North Briton. Nos. I. to XLVI. Polio. 1762-63.

This is the original issue of the North Briton, the first number of which appeared on Saturday, June 5, 1762, and which was continued weekly until April 2, 1763 the date of No. 44. No. 45 was published April 23, and No. 46 Nov. 12, 1763. The first forty-five numbers were "printed for G. Kearsley, in Ludgate St." My copy of No. 46 was "printed for J. Williams, near the Mitre Tavern, Fleet Street"; the copy in the King's Library, British Museum, has a different imprint, and is apparently an authorized reprint: "Printed (now) by especial appointment for E. Sumpter, bookseller, in Fleet Street, where letters to the North Briton (post paid) will be received." No. 45 contains an advertisement:—

B.—First Collected Edition (Nos. I. to XLV.).

This, which is the first collected edition as advertised, was printed by Wilkes in his own house. For thus reprinting No. 45 Wilkes was fined and imprisoned; Williams, the publisher, was fined, imprisoned, and pilloried. In the notes to these volumes, which must have been published July, 1763, there are several references to vol. iii., which was not printed until the end of the year and was never published.

C.—The Suppressed Volume.

The contents of this volume were given in 'N. & Q.,' Aug. 10, 1889. It is only necessary to repeat lere that, according to Almon and other authorities, it was never published. Almon says that all but a few copies distributed to friends were burned. There is a copy in the Guildhall Library.