itself. You say, "Some languages are more ellip"tical than others; that is, the habits of thought "of some nations will bear the omission of certain "members of a sentence better than the habits of "thought of other nations" [will]. Do you not perceive that but for the little word "will", which I have added to your sentence, the statement would be, that "the habits of thought of some nations "will bear the omission of certain members of a "sentence better than [they will bear] the habits "of thought of other nations" ?—a truth which no one will be found to deny; but, at the same time, a truth which you did not mean to affirm.

What! Not yet over that "pons asinorum" of juvenile writers, the "construction louche"? You were there when I wrote to you my first letter; and you are there still. This ought not to be; for, the effect of this error is so ridiculous, and the error itself may be so easily avoided. You say, "Though some of the European rulers may be "females, when spoken of altogether, they may be "correctly classified under the denomination "kings"." In this sentence, the clause which I have put in italics has, what our Gallic neighbours designate, "a squinting construction", it looks two ways at once; that is, it may be

construed as relating either to the words which precede, or to those which follow. Your former error of this sort was in the omission of a comma; this time you have erred by the insertion of a comma, and in each case a like result is produced. Had there been no comma after the word “altogether”, the ambiguity would have been avoided, because the words in italics would then have formed part of the last clause of the sentence: but as the italicised clause is isolated by commas, the sentence is as perfect a specimen of this error as ever could have been given. Absurd as would be the sentence, its construction is such, that we may understand you to say, "Some of the European "rulers may be females, when spoken of alto"gether"; or we may understand you to say, "when spoken of altogether, they may be correctly "classified under the denomination 'kings'"; but, even in this last clause, it is evident that you say one thing and mean another. The context shows that what you meant, was, "they may correctly be "classified", not "they may be correctly classified". Slight as is the apparent difference here, the real difference is very great. If I say, "they may be correctly classified", my words mean that the classification may be made in a correct manner;

but if I say," they may correctly be classified", the meaning is, that it is correct to classify them. In the first example, the adverb qualifies the past participle "classified"; in the second, it qualifies the passive verb to "be classified"; or, in other words, the adverb in the former instance describes the thing as being properly done; and, in the latter instance, as being a thing proper to do.

One word more before we finish with this strange sentence of yours. On page 59 I had to ask you why, when speaking of a man, you used the slang expression, "an individual". I have here, to ask you a question which is still graver. Why, when speaking of women, and one of those the highest lady in the land, do you apply to them the most debasing of all slang expressions? You speak of "some of the European rulers", (there are but two to whom your words can refer ;—our own Sovereign Lady, and the Queen of Spain,) and you describe them by an epithet which cannot appropriately be used except concerning the sex of animals-they are, you tell us,-"females"! I am sure that all who desire your welfare will join me in hoping that Her Majesty will not see your book. It is but too evident that in condemning these slang phrases, as you do in your Queen's.

'English', page 246, you are echoing the sentiments of some other writer, rather than expressing your own abhorrence of slang. I shall be glad if you are able to inform me that I am in error respecting this; and that you have not been quoting, but have been giving us original matter.

Reverting to the error occasioned by a comma in the former part of your sentence, I may give, as an other example of the importance of correct punctuation, an extract from a letter in The 'Times' of June 19th, 1863. There, simply by the placing of the smallest point, a comma, before, instead of after, one of the smallest words in the language, the word "on", the whole meaning of the sentence is altered, and it is made to express something so horrible that the reader shudders at the mere suggestion of it.

The letter is on the American war, and the writer says, "The loss of life will hardly fall short "of a quarter of a million; and how many more 66 were better with the dead than doomed to crawl,

on the mutilated victims of this great national' "crime!" He meant to say,-" than doomed to "crawl on, the mutilated victims of this great "national crime."

While pointing out this solitary error, I emphati

cally protest against the injustice of your remarks concerning the general inaccuracy of the composition of The Times.' I hold that, to those persons who are desirous of perfecting themselves in the English language, there can be recommended no better course of study than the constant perusal of the leading articles in our principal daily paper. That faults are to be found even there, occasionally, must be admitted; but they are very few. The style, varying according to the subject under consideration, is familiar without being coarse, and dignified without being ostentatious. The language is powerful, yet is never marred by invectives; trenchant, yet never at the sacrifice of courtesy. Free alike from vulgarism and slovenliness on the one hand, and from formality and pedantry on the other, it may safely be taken by the student, as a model on which to form a style that will enable him to express his thoughts with grace, precision, and persuasiveness.

But I must hasten to the conclusion of my letter. You say, "The derivation of the word, as "well as the usage of the great majority of

English writers, fix the spelling the other way": i.e. This (as well as that) fix it! Excuse me, but I must ask why you write thus, even though