er 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 {521} 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 th