number of letter

milum, you're right...this is verbatim from the book, however....I didn't catch the discrepancy, sorry...

Or this one, for which I'm sure to get lynched (my turn for the rope, Faldage! )...after milum's astute observation I went back and looked at the other three that remain...also from the book verbatim. However, according to the solution offered for "O poison Pitt", #12..The Opposition...the "O" would require an "h" as in "Oh", wouldn't it? Which gets me to wondering, once again, if the folks who republished this historic text preserved the inaccuracies intentionally, or just did a sloppy production job with so many typos...I'm still leaning toward the former, though....why go through the painstaking process of preserving a text like this and not proofread for new errors?

The solution for #9: Charles James Stuart. Probably too obscure without the royal title to torture you any longer. Kin to James Stuart, of course.

But #19 is accurate and should be fairly evident if you add the extra syllable (suffix).