Notes and Queries, Number 187, May 28, 1853 | Page 4

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.
I am, Gentlemen, Your most obedt. servant, DAVID BRUCE.
After writing y^e above, y^e lists of y^e killed and wounded are as follows, so far as is yet known:--
We have of y^e prisoners 700 Killed and wounded on y^e field 1800
Of y^e duke's army:--
Killed, wounded, and amissing 220
* * * * *
Gentlemen,
I hope you'l pardon y^e confusedness of y^e foregoing line, as I have been in y^e utmost confusion since I came here. 'Tis said, but not quite certain, y^t y^e 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.
DAVID BRUCE.
Addressed to The Governors of The Town of Aberdeen.
X. Y. Z.
* * * * *
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."
JAS. CROSSLEY.
* * * * *
NOTES ON SEVERAL MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS.
(Continued from p. 402.)
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?" King John, Act IV. Sc. 2.
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