THE REBELLION OF '45.—UNPUBLISHED LETTER

Inverness, 16th Aprile, 1746.

Dear Sirs,

This day about twelve our army came up with the rebels, about a mile above Lord President's house, in a muir called Drumrossie. They began the engagement first, by firing from a battery of six guns they had erected upon their right; but our cannon played so hott upon them, that they were obliged soon to fly, by which means we gote possession of their artillery, and so drove them before us for three miles of way. The cavalry gave them closs chase to the town of Inverness: upon which the French ambassador (who is not well) sent out an officer, 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 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 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?"

"Old Fortunatus," Old English Plays, vol. iii. p. 140., by Dilke:

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."

John Bon and Mast Person.

"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 Martin said:

"Dost thou not know one Master Chamberlain?

Careless. No forsooth; I know him not.

Martin. No dost! and he hath written a book against thy faith also."—Id., vol. iii. p. 164.

"Lichfield and Coventry. We heard of no such order.

Lord Keeper. No did? Yes, and on the first question ye began willingly. How cometh it to pass that ye will not now do so?"—Id., p. 690.

"Then said Sir Thomas Moyle: 'Ah! Bland, thou art a stiff-hearted fellow. Thou wilt not obey the law, nor answer when thou art called.' 'Nor will,' quoth Sir John Baker. 'Master Sheriff, take him to your ward.'"—Id., vol. vii. p. 295.

Is it needful to state, that the original editions have, as they ought to have, a note of interrogation at "Baker?" I will not tax the reader's patience with more than two other examples, and they shall be fetched from the writings of that admirable papist—the gentle, the merry-hearted More:

"Well, quod Caius, thou wylt graunte me thys fyrste, that euery thynge that hath two erys is an asse.—Nay, mary mayster, wyll I not, quod the boy.—No wylt thou? quod Caius. Ah, wyly boy, there thou wentest beyond me."—The Thyrde Boke, the first chapter, fol. 84. of Sir Thomas More's Dialogues.

"Why, quod he, what coulde I answere ellys, but clerely graunt hym that I believe that thyng for none other cause but only bycause the Scripture so sheweth me?—No could ye? quod I. What yf neuer Scripture had ben wryten in thys world, should there neuer haue bene eny chyrch or congregacyon of faythfull and ryght beyleuyng people?—That wote I nere, quod he. No do ye? quod I."—Id., fol. 85.

In taking leave of this idiom, it would not perhaps be amiss to remark, that "ye can," in Duke Humphey's rejoinder to the "blyson begger of St. Albonys," is not, as usually understood, "you can?" but "yea can?"

To be at point = to be at a stay or stop, i.e. settled, determined, nothing farther being to be said or done: a very common phrase. Half a dozen examples shall suffice:

" · · · · · What I am truly
Is thine, and my poore countries to command:
Whither indeed before they (thy) heere-approach,
Old Seyward with ten thousand warlike men
Already at a point, was setting forth."

Macbeth, Act IV. Sc. 3. 1st Fol.

No profit to give the commentators' various guesses at the import of the phrase in the above passage, which will be best gathered from the following instances of its use elsewhere. But, before passing further, I beg permission to inform Mr. Knight that the original suggester of "sell" for "self," in an earlier part of this play, whose name he is at a loss for, was W. S. Landor, whose footnote to vol. ii. p. 273., Moxon's edit. of his works, is as follows:

"And here it may be permitted the editor to profit also by the manuscript, correcting in Shakespeare what is absolute nonsense as now printed:

'Vaulting ambition that o'erleaps itself,
And falls on the other side.'

Other side of what? It should be its sell. Sell is saddle in Spenser and elsewhere, from the Latin and Italian."

A correspondent of "N. & Q."., Vol. vii., p. 404., will be delighted to find his very ingenious discovery brought home, and corroborated by Landor's valuable manuscript: but it is an old said saw—"Great wits jump." Now to our examples:

"Pasquin. Saint Luke also affirmeth the same, saying flatly that he shall not be forgiuen. Beholde, therefore, how well they interprete the Scriptures.

Marforius. I am alreadie at a poynt with them, but thou shalt doo me great pleasure to expounde also vnto me certayne other places, vppon the which they ground this deceit."—Pasquine in a Traunce, turned but lately out of the Italian into this tongue by W. P.: London, 1584.

"But look, where malice reigneth in men, there reason can take no place: and, therefore, I see by it, that you are all at a point with me, that no reason or authority can persuade you to favour my name, who never meant evil to you, but both your commodity and profit."—Foxe's Acts and Monuments, vol. viii. p. 18.

"Not so, my lord," said I, "for I am at a full point with myself in that matter; and am right well able to prove both your transubstantiation with the real presence to be against the Scriptures and the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church."—Id., p. 587.

"Winchester. No, surely, I am fully determined, and fully at a point therein, howsoever my brethren do."—Id., p. 691.

"Brad. Sir, so that you will define me your church, that under it you bring not in a false church, you shall not see but that we shall soon be at a point."—Id., vol. vii. p. 190.

"Latimer. Truly, my lord, as for my part I require no respite, for I am at a point. You shall give me respite in vain; therefore, I pray you let me not trouble you to-morrow."—Id., p. 534.

"Unto whom he (Lord Cobham) gave this answer: 'Do as ye shall think best, for I am at a point.' Whatsoever he (Archbishop Arundel) or the other bishops did ask him after that, he bade them resort to his bill: for thereby would he stand to the very death."—Id., vol. iii. pp. 327-8.

"'Et illa et ista vera esse credantur et nulla inter nos contentio remanebit, quia nec illis veris ista, nec istis veris illa impediuntur.' Let bothe those truthes and these truthes be beleued, and we shall be at appoinct. For neither these truthes are impaired by the other, neither the other by these."—A Fortresse of the Faith, p. 50., by Thomas Stapleton: Antwerp, 1565.

"A poore man that shall haue liued at home in the countrie, and neuer tasted of honoure and pompe, is alwayes at a poynt with himselfe, when menne scorne and disdayne him, or shewe any token of contempt towardes his person."—John Calvin's CVIII. Sermon on the Thirtieth Chap. of Job, p. 554., translated by Golding: London, 1574.

"As for peace, I am at a point."—Leycester Correspondence, Camd. Soc., p. 261.

W. R. Arrowsmith.