tainly not a very happy arrangement of words in which to remark upon the "absurd mistakes" of other persons; for we ought to be as careful what our sentences suggest, as what they affirm; and we are so accustomed to speak of persons falling from a state or position, that your words naturally suggest the absurd idea of editors falling from their ignorance.

I submit it to the reviewers whether your sentence is not altogether faulty. The words, "from "their ignorance" should not come after " fall", they should precede it. But, for the reason just given, the word "from" is objectionable in any part of the sentence, which would have been better written thus, Sometimes our editors, in consequence of their ignorance, fall into absurd mistakes. If you say that the defect in perspicuity is removed by the punctuation, I answer, in the language of Lord Kames, Punctuation may remove an ambiguity, but will never produce that peculiar beauty "which is perceived when the sense comes out "clearly and distinctly by means of a happy arrangement". The same high authority tells us that a circumstance ought never to be placed between two capital members of a sentence; or if it be so placed, the first word in the consequent

member should be one that cannot connect it with that which precedes. In your sentence, unfortunately, the connection is perfect, and the suggestion of a ridiculous idea is the result.

Nor is the foregoing the only instance of this kind of faulty arrangement. You say, "The great "enemies to understanding anything printed in our language are the commas. And these are "inserted by the compositors without the slightest compunction". I should say that the great enemy to our understanding these sentences of yours is the want of commas; for though the defective position of words can never be compensated for by commas, they do frequently help to make the sense clearer, and would do so in this instance. How can we certainly know that the words" without the slightest compunction" refer to "inserted"? They seem, by their order in the sentence, to describe the character of the compositors; they are "compositors without the slightest "compunction". And then that word "compunc"tion"; what an ill-chosen word of which to make use when speaking of punctuation. But this is in keeping with that which occurs in the first paragraph of your essay, where you speak of persons "mending their ways"; and in the very

next paragraph you speak of the "Queen's high"way”, and of “by-roads" and "private roads”.

But to return. Not only do you describe the poor compositors as beings" without any compunc"tion"; but also as beings "without any mercy" The sentence runs thus: "These 'shrieks', as they "have been called, are scattered up and down the "page by compositors without any mercy". I have often heard of "printers' devils", and I imagined them to be the boys who assist in the press-room; but if your description of compositors is true, these are beings of an order very little superior.

By-the-way, while noticing these ghostly existences, I may just remark that immediately after your speaking of " things without life", you startle us with that strange sentence of yours-"I "will introduce the body of my essay". Introduce the body! We are prepared for much in these days of "sensation" writing; and the very prevalence of the fashion for that style of composition pre-disposes any one of a quick imagination to believe, for the instant, that your essay on the 'Queen's English' is about to turn into a 'Strange Story'.

"But to be more serious", as you say in your

essay and then immediately give us a sentence in which the grave and the grotesque are most incongruously blended. I read, "A man does not lose "his mother now in the papers". I have read figurative language which spoke of lawyers being lost in their papers, and of students being buried in their books; but I never read of a man losing his mother in the papers; therefore I do not quite see what the adverb "now" has to do in the sentence. Ah! stop a moment. You did not mean to speak of a man losing his mother in the papers. I perceive by the context that what you intended to say was something of this sort:-According to the papers, a man does not now lose his mother;-but that is a very different thing. How those little prepositions "from" and "in" do perplex you; or rather, how greatly your misuse of them perplexes your readers.

With the adverbs also you are equally at fault. You say, "In all abstract cases where we merely

speak of numbers the verb is better singular." Here the placing of the adverb "merely" makes it a limitation of the following word "speak "; and the question might naturally enough be asked, But what if we write of numbers? The adverb, being intended to qualify the word "numbers", should

have been placed immediately after it. The sentence would then have read, "In all abstract cases "where we speak of numbers merely, the verb is "better singular." So also in the sentence, "I only "bring forward some things ", the adverb "only" is similarly misplaced; for, in the following sentence, the words "Plenty more might be said”, show that the "only" refers to the "some things", and not. to the fact of your bringing them forward. The sentence should therefore have been, "I bring "forward some things only. Plenty more might "be said." Again, you say, "Still, though too tr many commas are bad, too few are not without "inconvenience also." Here the adverb " also ", in consequence of its position, applies to "incon"venience"; and the sentence signifies that too few commas are not without inconvenience besides being bad. Doubtless, what you intended was, Still, though too many commas are bad, too few "also are not without inconvenience."

Blair, in speaking of adverbs, says, "The fact is, "with respect to such adverbs as only, wholly, at least, and the rest of that tribe, that, in common "discourse, the tone and emphasis we use in pro

nouncing them, generally serve to show their "reference, and to make the meaning clear; and