should be allowed to go about on their parole, and nothing taken from them. Brigadier Stapleton is among them, and God knows how many more officers; for we have not gote home to count them yet. Its thought the rebels have between four and five hundred killed, and as many taken prisoners already: many more we expect this night, parties having been sent out after them. Lord Kilmarnock I saw prisoner, and Major Stewart, with many more. Secretary Murray is very bad: a party is just now sent for him, intelligence being brought where he is. I don't think we have lost thirty men, and not above five officers killed, amongst which are Lord Robert Ker, Captain Grosset: the rest their names I have forgote. We are now in full possession of this place. Some say the Pretender was in the battle, and wounded; but others say he was not. Such of them as are left are gone to Fort Augustus. The duke, God be praised, is in good health, and all the generalls. His Royal Highness behaved as if he had been inspired, riding up and down giveing orders himself.
After writing ye above, ye lists of ye killed and wounded are as follows, so far as is yet known:—
We have of ye prisoners 700
Killed and wounded on ye field 1800
Of ye duke's army:—
Killed, wounded, and amissing 220
Gentlemen,
I hope you'l pardon ye confusedness of ye foregoing line, as I have been in ye utmost confusion since I came here. 'Tis said, but not quite certain, yt ye following rebells are killed, viz.:—Lochiel, Capuch (Keppach), Lord Nairn, Lord Lewis Drummond, D. of Perth, Glengarry, &c. The French have all surrendered prisoners of war.
Addressed to
The Governors of
The Town of Aberdeen.
OLIVER ST. JOHN
In giving the lives of the Commonwealth chief justices, Lord Campbell observes (Lives of Chief Justices, vol. i. p. 447.), "in completing the list with the name of Oliver St. John, I am well pleased with an opportunity of tracing his career and pourtraying his character." Then follows a biography of thirty pages. The subject seems to be a favourite one with his lordship, and he accordingly produces a striking picture, laying on his colours in the approved historical style of the day, so as to make the painting an effective one, whether the resemblance be faithful or not. But how is it that the noble biographer appears to be quite unaware of what really is the only document we have relating to Oliver St. John of his own composition, which does give us much light as to his career or character? I refer to The Case of Oliver St. John, Esq, concerning his Actions during the late Troubles, pp. 14., 4to., n.d. It is a privately printed tract, emanating from St. John himself, and was no doubt circulated amongst persons in power at the Restoration, with a view to obtaining indemnity and pardon. My copy is signed by himself, and has some corrections in his autograph. His Defence is full of interesting particulars, some of which are very inconsistent with Lord Campbell's speculations and statements. It would, however, occupy too much of your space were I to go through the various articles objected to by him, and to which he gives his replies and explanations. My object in noticing this tract at present, is to prevent any future biographer of this Commonwealth worthy, whose life may well be an historical study, from neglecting an important source of information. I observe Lord Campbell (p. 473.) doubts whether he favoured the measure of making Cromwell king. But if we are to believe the title-page of Monarchy asserted, 1660, 12mo., he was one of the speakers at the conference with Cromwell on the 11th April, 1657, in favour of his assuming the title of king. On the list of the committee which follows, the "Lord Chief Justice" only is mentioned, but in the speeches a difference seems to be made between "Lord Chief Justice" (pp. 6. 7. 15.) and "Lord Chief Justice Glynne" (p. 44.), and they would seem to be two different speakers. The title-page states distinctly, "the arguments of Oliver St. John, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Chief Justice Glyn, &c., members of that committee."
NOTES ON SEVERAL MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS
No did, no will, no had, &c.—
"K. John. · · · I had a mighty cause
To wish him dead, but thou hadst none to kill him.
Hubert. No had (my Lord), why, did you not provoke me?"
So the first folio edition of Shakspeare. A palpable error, as the commentators of the present would pleasantly observe, and all the world would echo the opinion; but here, as in most other instances, commentators and all the world may be wrong, and the folios right. The passage has accordingly been corrupted by the editors of Shakspeare into what was more familiar to their modern ears: "Had none, my Lord!" Though the mode of speech be very common, yet, to deprive future editors of all excuse for ever again depraving the genuine text of our national Bible, I shall make no apology for accumulating a string of examples:
"Fort. Oh, had I such a hat, then were I brave!
Where's he that made it?
Sol. Dead: and the whole world
Yields not a workman that can frame the like.
Fort. No does?"
who alters "No does?" into None does? thinking, I presume, that he had thereby simplified the sentence:
"John. I am an elde fellowe of fifty wynter and more,
And yet in all my lyfe I knewe not this before.
Parson. No dyd, why sayest thou so, upon thyselfe thou lyest,
Thou haste euer knowen the sacramente to be the body of Christ."
"Chedsey. Christ said 'Take, eat, this is my body;' and not 'Take ye, eat ye.'
Philpot. No did, master doctor? Be not these the words of Christ, 'Accipite, manducate?' And do not these words, in the plural number, signify 'Take ye, eat ye;' and not 'Take thou, eat thou,' as you would suppose?"—Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. vii. p. 637., Cattley's edition.
"Philpot. Master Cosins, I have told my lord already, that I will answer to none of these articles he hath objected against me: but if you will with learning answer to that which is in question between my lord and me, I will gladly hear and commune with you.
Cosins. No will you? Why what is that then, that is in question between my lord and you?"—Id., p. 651.
"Philpot. And as I remember, it is even the saying of St. Bernard [viz. The Holy Ghost is Christ's vicar on earth (vic-arius), and a saying that I need not to be ashamed of, neither you to be offended at; as my Lord of Durham and my Lord of Chichester by their learning can discern, and will not reckon it evil said.
London. No will? Why, take away the first syllable, and it soundeth Arius."—Id. p. 658.
"Philpot. These words of Cyprian do nothing prove your pretensed assertion; which is, that to the Church of Rome there could come no misbelief.
Christopherson. Good lord, no doth? What can be said more plainly?"—Id., p. 661.
Again, at p. 663. there occur no less than three more instances and at p. 665. another.
"Careless. No, forsooth: I do not know any such, nor have I heard of him that I wot of.
Martin. No have, forsooth: and it is even he that hath written against thy faith."
Then