_The Earldom of Oxford._--The following is so remarkable a coincidence, that I am sure many of your readers will be obliged to me for bringing it under their notice, particularly those who are interested in heraldry. The same individual who has been for many years the nearest heir _male_ to Aubery de Vere, twentieth and last earl of Oxford of that family, who died in 1702, has become, by the recent death of Alfred, sixth Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, the nearest heir _male_ to that race also, which title is likewise extinct. AN M. D. _Literary Attainments of the Scottish Clergy in the Seventeenth Century._--In a deed granted by Andro Andersone, minister of Loth, in Sutherlandshire, anno 1618, wherein he is designated "Ministro veriti Dei apud Loithe," the instrument is signed with his mark, after which is added, "Cannot wreitt myself." KIRKWALLENSIS. * * * * * Queries. QUERIES AS TO MR. COLLIER'S "NOTES AND EMENDATIONS." Query 1. Does MR. COLLIER claim a copyright in the _Emendations on the Text of Shakspeare_ lately published by him, and derived from MS. corrections in his old copy of the folio of 1632? He seems to intimate as much in what he says at p. 13. of his Introduction, when he speaks of a certain phrase never being again seen in any edition of Shakspeare, "unless it be reproduced by some one who, _having no right to use the emendations of our folio 1632_, adheres _of necessity_ to the {154} antiquated blunder, and pertinaciously attempts to justify it." I doubt much whether he is entitled to any such privilege. If the words as restored were really those of Shakspeare, as is alleged, I do not see how the writer of the MS. corrections could _himself_ claim any property in them; and if _he_ had none, much less can MR. COLLIER have. It would be a pity were the public to be deprived of the benefit of the corrections by the use of them being exclusively confined to MR. COLLIER'S editions. Query 2. Does the writer of the MS. corrections occasionally give reasons in support of the changes proposed? At p. 306., MR. COLLIER says: "The manuscript corrector _assures us_ that although the intention of the dramatist is evident, a decided misprint has crept into the line." Again, at p. 305., MR. COLLIER says: "For 'senseless obstinate,' the corrector of the folio 1632 _states that we must substitute_ words," &c. Again, at p. 352.: "A _note_ in the folio 1632, induces us to believe that Shakspeare did not use the term," &c. The MS. corrector is also sometimes made to tell us, that a certain error is the printer's, and another that of the copyist. Perhaps these are only rhetorical forms of expression, to intimate that certain corrections appeared on the margin of the folio 1632, and MR. COLLIER'S own opinion of their propriety. SCOTUS. Edinburgh. * * * * * HONE'S "HISTORY OF PARODY."