520 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 187. 



upon wliich the French ambassador (who is not 

 well) sent out an oflicer, and a drum with him, 

 offering to surrender at discretion ; to which the 

 duke made answer, that the French officers 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 officei's ; 

 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 Kilmar- 

 nock 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 in- 

 spired, riding up and down giveing orders himself. 

 1 am, Gentlemen, 



Your most obedt. servant, 



David Ebuce. 



After writing y^ above, y* lists of y'' killed and 

 wounded are as follows, so far as is yet known : — 



We have of y^ prisoners - - 700 

 Killed and wounded on, y^ field - 1800 



Of y* duke's army : — 



Killed, wounded, and amissing - 220 



Gentlemen, 

 I hope you'l pardon y^ confusedness of y* fore- 

 going line, as I have been in y^ utmost confusion 

 since I came here. 'Tis said, but not quite cer- 

 tain, y* y® 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 

 Jtu^tices, 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 ac- 

 cordingly 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 docu- 

 ment 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., concei-ning hit 

 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 hi& 

 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 ob- 

 jected to by him, and to which he gives his replies- 

 and explanations. My object in noticing ihi» 

 tract at present, is to prevent any future bio- 

 grapher of this Commonwealth worthy, whose- 

 life may well be an historical study, from neglect- 

 ing an important source of information. I observe 

 Lord Campbell (p. 473.) doubts whether he fa- 

 voured the measure of making Cromwell king. 

 But if we are to believe the title-page of Mon- 

 archy 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 men- 

 tioned, 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. CROSSLEr- 



NOTES ON SEVERAL MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS. 



(Continued from p. 402.) 

 iVb did, no will, no had, SfC. — 



" IT. John. . . .1 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 day- 

 would pleasantly observe, and all the world would 

 echo the opinion ; but here, as in most other in- 



