111. "The fear of shame, and the desire of approbation, prevent many bad actions."

Shame, and love of approbation, prevent many bad actions. R. 12,

112. "They slew Varus-him that was mentioned before." K. p. 51.

They slew the said Varus. R. 13.

113. "They slew Varus, who was he that I mentioned before."

They slew Varus, whom I mentioned before. R. 13.

114. "It was the men, women, and children's lot to suffer great calamities."

The men, women, and children, suffered great calamities. R. 12 and 13.

115. "Peter, John, and Andrew's occupation was that of fishermen." K. p. 52.

Peter, John, and Andrew were fishermen. R. 12 and 13. 116. "This measure gained the king's, as well as the people's approbation."

The king and people approved of this measure. R. 12 and 13. 117. "This palace had been the Grand Sultan Mahomet's.' This was the Grand Sultan Mahomet's palace. -See Dt. 118. “I will not, for David, thy father's sake."

I will not for thy father David's sake.

119. "It was necessary to have the advice both of the physician and surgeon."

The physician's and the surgeon's advice were necessary. R. 13.

120. "What can be the cause of the parliament's neglecting so important a business." K. p. 53.

Why does the parliament neglect so important a business.R.13. 121. "Much depends on this rule being observed.”

Lowth's Grammar, Lindley Murray's, and almost all the English Grammars published since Lowth's time, teach this unmeaning circumlocution, which ought to be:

“Much depends on observing the rule." R. 13.

122. "The time of William's making the experiment, at length arrived."

William's time for making the experiment at length arrived. R. 13.

123. "If we alter the situation of any of the words, we shall presently be sensible of the melody's suffering. K. p. 54. The melody's suffering is too bad.

If we change the arrangement, we injure the melody.

124. "Such will ever be the effect of youth's associating with vicious companions."

The association of youth with vicious companions will ever produce similar effects. R. 13.

125. "Though he now takes pleasure in them, he will one day repent of indulgences so unwarrantable. K. p. 55.

He will yet regret the unwarrantable indulgences in which he now delights. R. 13.

126. "It will be very difficult to make his conduct agree with the principles he professes."

To reconcile his conduct and avowed principles, is very difficult. R. 13.

127. "To ingratiate themselves with some, by traducing others, marks a base and despicable mind."

His mind is base, who ingratiates himself by traducing others. R. 13.

If we ask what mind is base and despicable, we must answer, the mind of the persons who ingratiate themselves, which is a palpable inconsistency, because we cannot say the mind of persons; we must say the minds of persons.

128. "If such maxims and such practices prevail, what is become of decency and virtue?"

Decency and virtue cannot be cherished if these maxims and practices prevail. R. 13.

129. "The mighty rivals have now at length agreed."

The mighty rivals, now at length, agree.

Now is the passing transit, consequently we must use the form of the assertive corresponding to it, and not that corresponding to the attached past time. See Rule 2.

130. “I am come according to the time proposed; but I am fallen upon an evil hour."

I am here at the appointed time, which is an evil hour. R. 13.

131. "He had entered into the connexion before the con

sequences were considered."

Is not the time before the consequences were considered, a detached passed time? consequently, by Rule 2nd, we must say, he entered, and not he had entered.

132. "I cannot tell who has befriended me, unless it is he from whom I have received many benefits." K. p. 56.

I cannot tell who has befriended me, unless he, from whom I have received many benefits. R. 12.

133. "He so much resembles my brother that, at first sight I took it to be him."

He resembles my brother so much, that, at first sight, I took him for my brother.

There are two errors in the preceding sentence, as it is given in Lindley Murray's Grammar, and in many others.

First, it is improperly substituted for a person.

Second, the assertive to be, is improperly used insteadof the word for. This careless application of the assertive to be, has led to that absurd rule, or remark, in so many English Grammars, namely: "The verb to be, through all its variations, has the same case after it as that which next precedes it." To illustrate which Lindley Murray gave the following examples :"I understood it to be him. I believe it to be them. We, at first, took it to be her, but were afterwards convinced that it was not she. She is not now the woman whom they represented her to have been. Whom do you fancy him to be?" By these examples, (says Lindley Murray)" it appears that this substantive verb has no government of case, but serves, in all its forms, as a conductor to the case, so that the two cases which, in the construction of the sentence, are the next before and after it, must always be alike. Perhaps this subject will be more intelligible to the learner by observing that the words in the cases preceding, and following, the verb to be, may be said to be in apposition to each other. Thus, in the sentence, 'I understood it to be him,' the words it and him are in apposition, that is, they refer to the same thing, and are in the

common case.

From this rule, its examples, and the observations on it, we

can infer, first, that both the nouns and pronouns coupled by the assertive to be, must be subjects, or objects; secondly, that the assertive to be, has no government; thirdly, that the nouns, or pronouns, coupled by to be, always relate to the same person, or thing; and, fourthly, that both the nouns, or pronouns, coupled by the assertive to be, are of the same gender and number; and, lastly, that it can be used for a person's name.

We insist, first, that the assertive to be, when correctly used, can never couple two objects, or (as Lindley Murray says, two nouns or pronouns, in the objective case;) secondly, that the nouns, or pronouns, coupled by the assertive to be, in some of the examples which he gives, do not relate to the same person, or thing; thirdly, that the word it can in no case be substituted for the name of a person; fourthly, that he contradicts himself by saying the verb to be, has no government; fifthly, that some of the examples given are bad English; and, lastly, that the verb to be, is misapplied in some of the examples given.

If in the sentence, "I understood it to him," the word it and him are in apposition, that is, if they relate to the same person, or thing, consequently, by his fifth Rule in Syntax, namely, "Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents and the nouns for which they stand, in gender and number;" it and him are pronouns of the same gender, which Lindley Murray himself contradicts in page 61, where he tells us, "Gender has respect only to the third person singular of the pronouns, he, she, it." He is masculine, she is feminine, and it is neuter. Can it be of the same gender as him? If they relate to the same person, or thing, by rule fifth they must be of the same gender, that is, it must be masculine, or him must be neuter, which is absurd by the quotation from page 61, namely he is masculine, she is feminine, and it is neuter. How ridiculous must the grammarian appear who, in parsing the sentence, "I understood it to be him," makes it a personal pronoun, third person singular, masculine gender, or who would make him a personal pronoun, third person singular, neuter gender. If it and him, in the sentence, "I understood it to be him," relate to the same person, or thing.

it and them must also relate to the same person, or thing, in the sentence, I believe it to have been them; consequently, by Lindley Murray's fifth rule of Syntax, it and them must be of the same number, that is, it must be plural, or them must be singular, which is as absurd as to make it masculine, and him neuter; hence it and him do not relate to the same person or thing, nor do it and them. Lindley Murray's Grammar here informs us that the verb to be has no government, but the first remark under rule the tenth, in the same Grammar, declares, that the verb to be, does govern. Which are we to believe? in the sentence, Pompey contended with Cæsar, who was the greatest general of his time, he observes, that the word general, is in the nominative case, governed, by note fourth under rule the 11th. According to this remark, the verb to be governs, and, according to the observations on the fourth remark, under Rule 11th, it does not govern, which is as absurd as any of the inferences we have already correctly drawn from the combined inconsistencies of remark the fourth, under Rule the 11th, and the observations attached to it. Could any man who perfectly understood his subject write such nonsense as we have here exposed? What ought the public to think of the Rev. Father Mathew, at the same time he was preaching temperance, if he made so free with the bottle as to render himself unable to stand steadily? This is similar to what Lindley Murray did, when he wrote his Grammar to teach others to write correctly, he, in many parts of that Grammar, and the Key, wrote nonsense, of which, I took it to be him, and I understood it to have been them, are striking examples See our 13th and 14th Rule.

To use the verb to be, invariably without a subject, in all the examples given to show that it connects two objects, is very strange. Why should a verb in its primitive form admit an object after it, if the same verb, when used assertively or interrogatively, can never admit it? Let the advocates of remark the 4th, under Rule the 11th, answer this question. Let them show what name the word it is substituted for in the first three examples we have given. Let them eject the word it, from each of the examples, and substitute the name in