that became his portion were too much for his moderation." In neither of these examples could any other relative have been used.

3. The pronouns whichsoever, whosoever, and the like, are elegantly divided by the interposition of the corresponding substantives: thus, "On whichsoever side the king cast his eyes;" would have sounded better, if written, "On which side soever," &c.

4. Many persons are apt, in conversation, to put the objective case of the personal pronouns, in the place of these and those: as, "Give me them books;" instead of "those books." We may sometimes find this fault even in writing: as, "Observe them three there." We also frequently meet with those instead of they, at the beginning of a sentence, and where there is no particular reference to an antecedent; as, "Those that sow in tears, sometimes reap in joy." They that, or they who sow in tears.

It is not, however, always easy to say, whether a personal pronoun or a demonstrative is preferable, in certain constructions. "We are not unacquainted with the calumny of them [or those] who openly make use of the warmest professions."

5. In some dialects, the word what is improperly used for that, and sometimes we find it in this sense in writing: "They will never believe but what I have been entirely to blame." "I am not satisfied but what," &c. instead of "but that." The word somewhat, in the following sentence, seems to be used improperly. "These punishments seem to have been exercised in somewhat an arbitrary manner." Sometimes we read, "In somewhat of." The meaning is, “in a manner which is in some respects arbitrary."

6. The pronoun relative who is so much appropriated to persons, that there is generally harshness in the application of it, except to the proper names of persons, or the general terms, man, woman, &c. A term which only implies the idea of persons, and expresses them by some

وو

circumstance or epithet, will hardly authorize the use of it: as, "That faction in England who most powerfully opposed his arbitrary pretensions.' "That faction which," would have been better; and the same remark will serve for the following examples: "France, who was in alliance with Sweden." "The court, who," &c. "The cavalry who," &c. "The cities who aspired at liberty." "That party among us who," &c. "The family whom they consider as usurpers."

In some cases it may be doubtful, whether this pronoun is properly applied or not: as, "The number of substantial inhabitants with whom some cities abound." For when a term directly and necessarily implies persons, it may in many cases claim the personal relative. "None of the company whom he most affected, could cure him of the melancholy under which he laboured." The word acquaintance may have the same construction.

7. We hardly consider little children as persons, because that term gives us the idea of reason and reflection and therefore the application of the personal relative who, in this case, seems to be harsh: "A child who." It is still more improperly applied to animals : "A lake frequented by that fowl whom nature has taught to dip the wing in water."

8. When the name of a person is used merely as a name, and does not refer to the person, the pronoun which ought to be used, and not who: as, "It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court of queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence and economy." The word whose begins likewise to be restricted to persons; yet it is not done so generally, but that good writers, even in prose, use it when speaking of things. The construction is not, however, generally pleasing, as we may see in the following instances: "Pleasure, whose nature," &c. "Call every production, whose parts and whose nature," &c.

In one case, however, custom authorizes us to use which, with respect to persons; and that is when we want to distinguish one person of two, or a particular person among a number of others. We should then say, "Which of the two," or "Which of them, is he or she?"

9. As the pronoun relative has no distinction of number, we sometimes find an ambiguity in the use of it: as when we say, "The disciples of Christ, whom we imitate;" we may mean the imitation either of Christ, or of his disciples. The accuracy and clearness of the sentence, depend very much upon the proper and determinate use of the relative, so that it may readily present its antecedent to the mind of the hearer or reader, without any obscurity or ambiguity.

10. It is and it was, are often, after the manner of the French, used in a plural construction, and by some of our best writers: as, “It is either a few great men who decide for the whole, or it is the rabble that follow a seditious ringleader;" "It is they that are the real authors, though the soldiers are the actors of the revolutions;” “It was the heretics that first began to rail,” &c.; "'Tis these that early taint the female mind." This license in the construction of it is, (if it be proper to admit it at all,) has, however, been certainly abused in the following sentence, which is thereby made a very awkward one. "It is wonderful the very few accidents, which, in several years, happen from this practice.”

11. The interjections O! Oh! and Ah! require the objective case of a pronoun in the first person after them; as, "O me! Oh me! Ah me!" But the nominative case in the second person: as, "O thou persecu tor!" "Oh ye hypocrites!"

The neuter pronoun, by an idiom peculiar to the English language, is frequently joined in explanatory sentences, with a noun or pronoun of the masculine or fe

minine gender: as, "It was I;" "It was the man or woman that did it."

The neuter pronoun it is sometimes omitted and understood; thus we say, "As appears, as follows;" for "As it appears, as it follows ;" and "May be," for "it may be."

The neuter pronoun it is sometimes employed to express;

1st, The subject of any discourse or inquiry: as, “It happened on a summer's day;' ""Who is it that calls on me?"

2d, The state or condition of any person or thing: as, "How is it with you?"

3d, The thing, whatever it be, that is the cause of any effect or event, or any person considered merely as a cause: as, "We heard her say it was not he ;""The truth is, it was I that helped her."

RULE VI.

THE relative is the nominative cafe to the verb, when no nominative comes between it and the The mafter who taught us;"

verb: as,
trees which are planted."

"The

When a nominative comes between the relative and the verb, the relative is governed by fome word in its own member of the fentence: as, "He who preferves me, to whom I owe my being, whose I am, and whom I ferve, is eternal."

In the several members of the last sentence, the relative performs a different office. In the first member, it marks the agent; in the second, it submits to the government of the preposition; in the third, it represents the possessor; and in the fourth, the object of an action; and therefore it must be in the three different cases, correspondent to those offices.

When both the antecedent and relative become nomi

natives, each to different verbs, the relative is the nominative to the former, and the antecedent to the latter verb: as, "True philosophy, which is the ornament of our nature, consists more in the love of our duty, and the, practice of virtue, than in great talents and extensive knowledge."

A few instances of erroneous construction, will illustrate both the branches of the sixth rule. The three following refer to the first part. "How can we avoid being grateful to those whom, by repeated kind offices, have proved themselves our real friends?" "These are the men whom, you might suppose, were the authors of the work :" "If you were here, you would find three or four, whom you would say passed their time agreeably: in all these places it should be who instead of whom. The two latter sentences contain a nominative between the relative and the verb; and therefore, seem to contravene the rule: but the student will reflect, that it is not the nominative of the verb with which the relative is connected. The remaining examples refer to the second part of the rule. "Men of fine talents are not always the persons who we should esteem." "The persons who you dispute with, are precisely of your opinion." "Our tutors are our benefactors, who we owe obedience to, and who we ought to love." In these sentences, whom should be used instead of who.

1. When the relative pronoun is of the interrogative kind, the noun or pronoun containing the answer, must be in the same case as that which contains the question: as, "Whose books are these? They are John's." "Who gave them to him? We." "Of whom did you buy them? Of a bookseller; him who lives at the Bible and Crown." "Whom did you see there? Both him and the shopman." The learner will readily comprehend this rule, by supplying the words which are understood in the answers. Thus, to express the answers at large, we should say, "They are John's books." "We gave them to him." "We bought them of him who lives," &c.