been introduced into English grammar, but from a servile and unwarrantable imitation of the grammars of languages widely differing from the English in their genius and structure." We tell him, that case could never have been introduced into English grammar, but by a "servile and unwarrantable imitation of the grammars of other languages, widely differing from the English in their genius and structure."

We now return to the subject of the moods, after the foregoing retrospective digression, into which we have been driven by the manner in which Messrs. Crombie and Grant blended mood and case together.

Ere we proceed to examine the concord of English grammarians, respecting the number and names of the moods, we must first give a few extracts from the last named authors.

We find the following in Mr. Crombie's Grammar, page 94. "The English verb has but one voice, namely, the active. Dr. Lowth, and most other grammarians, have assigned it two voices, active and passive. Lowth has, in this instance, not only violated the simplicity of our language, but has also advanced an opinion inconsistent with his own principles. For, if he has justly excluded from the number of cases in nouns, and moods in verbs, those which are not formed by inflexion, but by the addition of prepositions and auxiliary verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a passive voice, if it be not formed by variety of termination. Were I to ask him why he denies from a king to be an ablative case, or, I may love, to be the potential mood, he would answer, and very truly, that those only can justly be regarded as cases or moods which, by a different form of the verb, express a different relation, or a different mode of existence. If this answer be satisfactory, there can be no good reason for assigning to our language a passive voice, when that voice is formed not by inflection, but by an auxiliary verb.

"Doceor is truly a passive voice; but I am taught, cannot, without impropriety, be considered as such. Besides, as it is justly observed by Dr. Ash, our author, when he parses the clause, I am well pleased,' tells us, that am is the indicative mood, present tense, of the verb to be; and pleased, the pas

sive participle of the verb to please. Now in parsing, every word should be considered as a distinct part of speech: whether, therefore, we admit pleased to be a passive participle or not (for this point I shall afterwards examine), it is obvious on the principles now laid down, and acknowledged by Dr. Lowth, am pleased, is not a present passive, nor has the author himself parsed it in this manner. Into such inconsistencies do our grammarians run, from a propensity to force the grammar of our language into a conformity with the structure of Greek and Latin.

"The same reason will also account for my assigning to English verbs no more than two tenses and one mood. For, if we consider the matter, not metaphysically, but grammatically, and regard those only as moods which are diversified by inflexion (and, as Lowth himself observes, as far as grammar is concerned, there can be no others), we find that our language has only one mood and two tenses.

Page 96"This doctrine, in respect to the cases, is generally admitted. For, though the Greeks and Romans expressed their different relations by variety of inflexion, which they termed cases, it does not follow that we are to acknowledge the same number of cases as they had, when these relations are expressed in English, not by inflexions, but by prepositions, or words significant of these relations. The Latins would not have acknowledged absque fructu, without fruit, as forming a seventh case, though they acknowledged fructu, by fruit, as making an ablative, or sixth case. And why? because the latter only was formed by inflexion. For this reason, I consider giving the name of dative case to the combination of words to a king, or of ablative case, to the expression from a king, to be a palpable impropriety. Our language knows no such cases; nor would an Englishman, unacquainted with Greek or Latin, ever dream of these cases, though perfectly master of his own language.

Page 97. In truth, we may as reasonably contend that our language has all the tenses that are to be found in the Greek and Latin, because, by the aid of auxiliaries and definitives, we contrive to express what they denote by one word,

as to contend that we have a potential, an optative, or imperative mood, or a passive voice: because by auxiliaries, or variety of arrangement, we can express the circumstances of power, liberty, duty, passion, etc. No grammarian has, as yet, gone so far as to affirm that we have in English a paulo post future, because our language by definitives, or auxiliaries, is capable of expressing that time. Or, what should we think of that person's discernment, who should contend that the Latins had an optative mood, because utinam legeres signifies 'I wish you would read.' It is equally absurd to say, that we have an imperfect, preterpluperfect, or future tense; or, that we have all the Greek varieties of mood, and two voices, because, by the aid of auxiliary words and definitive terms, we can contrive to express these accidents, times, or states of being. I consider, therefore, that we have no more cases, moods, tenses, or voices in our language, as far as its grammar, not its capacity of expression, is concerned, than we have a variety of terminations, to denote these different accessary ideas.

If, as Doctor Crombie informs us, in the first extract, Doctor Lowth violated the simplicity of our language, by assign ing two voices to it, namely, active and passive, that is a sufficient reason for not receiving his grammatical opinions, without first strictly examining their truth, and next their applicability to the English language. We cannot disguise our opinion, that Doctor Crombie and Lindley Murray made similar use of Lowth's grammar, that is, when either found himself embarrassed by a diversity of opinions on any grammatical point, instead of investigating the origin of that diversity, and industriously endeavouring to write something less objectionable, or incontrovertible on that subject; lo! he yields to a most unaccountable and affectionate veneration for Lowth, which suddenly takes possession of his soul, and makes the mere name of Lowth a sufficient authority! By this means, they escaped the danger, and avoided the disagreeable necessity, of writing on a subject of which they themselves had neither clear nor consistent ideas. Of the truth and justice of this impeachment, we can cite innumerable proofs, but

our limits will not permit us to notice more than the two following.

See our 2nd extract from Lindley Murray's grammar, in which you shall find a great diversity of opinion concerning what Mr. L. Murray calls the extent of the subjunctive termination. He, without the shadow of either reason or argument, conceives he is fully warranted in adopting the opinion of Lowth, and concludes his sentence, by excluding Johnson, Priestley, and all who differ with Lowth from the class of correct and elegant writers! How glorious to be always supported on right and left by the most correct and elegant writers! Poor Lowth, whose authority is a sufficient warrant, in page 103, to exclude all who dissented from his grammatical views, from the class of correct and elegant writers, is himself excluded, in page 18, of the same work, from the best grammarians, because he differs with Lindley Murray, in not making initial w, a vowel. Doctor Crombie seemed to vie with L. Murray in inconsistency, and was wonderfully successful in his endeavours. See our first extract from Doctor Crombie's Grammar, in which he says, that "the English verb has only one voice, namely, the active. Doctor Lowth, and most other grammarians, have assigned it two voices, active and passive. Lowth has in this instance, not only violated the simplicity of our language, but has also advanced an opinion, inconsistent with his own principles. For if he has justly excluded from the number of cases in nouns, and moods in verbs, those which are not formed by inflexion, but by the addition of prepositions and auxiliary verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a passive voice, if it be not formed by variety of termination. Were I to ask him why he denies from a king to be an ablative, or 1 may love, to be the potential mood, he would answer, and very truly, that those only can be justly regarded as cases, or moods, which by a different form of the noun or verb, express a different relation, or a different mode of existence."

Truth, uniformity, and a retentive memory, are the best friends of consistency. Does Doctor Crombie's Grammar show, that he was assisted by a retentive memory? does it declare

that he adhered to truth, and observed uniformity? We apprehend the following observations will sufficiently prove the contrary. If, as Doctor Crombie informs us, Doctor Lowth violated the simplicity of our language, by assigning two voices to it, what proof have we, that he did not also violate it, by excluding cases, and moods formed by the addition of auxiliary verbs? Any thing said by Lowth that seemed to prop up Crombie's views, was justly and truly said, and every difference in opinion violated the simplicity of our language. What reason did Lowth or Crombie give us, that cases and moods can only be formed by inflexion? Lowth gave us three cases and four moods, and of the cases, one only is formed by inflexion, and of the four moods, not one of them is formed by inflexion! What inconsistency! For Crombie's consistency with respect to the cases, see our observations on the cases, in page 77, 78, and 79; and compare the following, with the foregoing doctrine. In page 35, he says, "that in substantives, the nominative case and the objective, have, like neuter nouns in Greek and Latin, the same form, being distinguishable from each other by nothing but their place; thus,

Where the meaning is reversed, by the interchange of the nouns, the nominative, or agent, being known by its being placed before the verb, and the subject of the action, by its following it." Here is a proof of the great inconsistency of Doctor Crombie's views, and that he was not assisted by a retentive memory.

He at one time de lares, that the cases of nouns and moods of verbs, can only be formed by inflexion; and at another, as if with a design to be inconsistent, he tells us, that the nominative or objective case of nouns is not formed by inflexion, that nouns have no inflexions to distinguish these two cases, and that they have the same form for both cases; that the one can only be known from the other by its place in the sentence. In page 210, note 2, we find that substantives have no objective case! These are his words:-"As substantives have