"hence we acquire the habit of throwing them in "loosely in the course of a period. But in writ"ing", [and I wish you to notice this, because it bears upon a remark in your letter to me,]" But "in writing, where a man speaks to the eye and not "to the ear, he ought to be more accurate, and so to "connect those adverbs with the words which they qualify as to put his meaning out of doubt upon "the first inspection."

In my private letter to you, I quoted as the basis of some remarks I had to make, the well-known rule that "those parts of a sentence which are "most closely connected in their meaning, should "be as closely as possible connected in position." In your reply you speak of my remarks as "the "fallacious application of a supposed rule." Whether my application of the rule is fallacious or not, let others judge from this letter; and as to whether the rule itself is only "a supposed rule", or whether it is not, on the contrary, a standard rule emanating from the highest authorities, let the following quotations decide.

I read in Kames's Elements of Criticism', "Words expressing things connected in the thought, ought to be placed as near together as possible." I read in Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric',

"In English and other modern languages, the speaker doth not enjoy that boundless latitude "which an orator of Athens or of Rome enjoyed "when haranguing in the language of his country. "With us, who admit very few inflections, the "construction, and consequently the sense, depends "almost entirely on the order."

I read in Blair's 'Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles "Lettres', "The relation which the words, or the "members of a period, bear to one another, cannot "be pointed out in English, as in Greek or in Latin, by means of terminations; it is ascertained only "by the position in which they stand. Hence a capital rule in the arrangement of sentences is, "that the words, or the members, most nearly related "should be placed in the sentence, as near to each other as possible; so as to make their mutual "relation clearly appear."

·

See also Murray's Grammar', part 2, in the Appendix; likewise, The Elements of English 'Composition', by David Irving, LL.D., chapter 7; and the Grammar of Rhetoric', by Alexander Jamieson, LL.D., chapter 3, book 3.

As an illustrative example of the violation of this rule, take the following sentences. "It con"tained", says Swift, "a warrant for conducting

me and my retinue to Traldragdubb or Trildrog"drib, for it is pronounced both ways, as nearly as "I can remember, by a party of ten horse." The words in italics must be construed with the participle "conducting", but they are placed so far from that word, and so near the word "pronounced", that at first they suggest a meaning perfectly ridiculous.

Again, in the course of a certain examination which took place in the House of Commons in the year 1809, Mr. Dennis Browne said, that the witness had been "ordered to withdraw from the bar in "consequence of being intoxicated, by the motion "of an honourable member." This remark, as might have been expected, produced loud and general laughter. The speaker intended to say, that, "in consequence of being intoxicated, the "witness, by the motion of an honourable member. "had been ordered to withdraw from the bar."

A similar error occurs in a work by Isaac D'Israeli. He meant to relate that, "The beaux of "that day, as well as the women, used the abomi"nable art of painting their faces"; but he writes, "The beaux of that day used the abominable art "of painting their faces, as well as the women"!

In your essay, you say, "I remember, when the

"French band of the 'Guides' were in this country, "reading in the Illustrated News'". Were the Frenchmen, when in this country, reading in 'The Illustrated News'? or did you mean that you remembered reading in The Illustrated News', when the band of the French Guides, &c ?

You say also, "It is not so much of the great 'highway itself of the Queen's English that I "would now speak, as of some of the laws of the "road; the by-rules, to compare small things "with great, which hang up framed at the various "stations". What are the great things which hang up framed at the various stations? If you mean that the by-rules hang up framed at the various stations, the sentence would have been better thus, "the laws of the road; or, to compare "small things with great, the by-rules which hang "up framed at the various stations".

So, too, in that sentence which introduces the body of your essay, you speak of "the reluctance "which we in modern Europe have to giving any "prominence to the personality of single individ"uals in social intercourse"; and yet it was evidently not of single individuals in social intercourse that you intended to speak, but of giving, in social intercourse, any prominence to the

personality of single individuals. Your language expresses a meaning different from that which was intended: just as does Goldsmith's language when, in the following tautological sentence, he says, "The Greeks, fearing to be surrounded on all

"

sides, wheeled about and halted, with the river "on their backs." Talk of Baron Munchausen ! Why, here was an army of Munchausens. They "wheeled about and halted, with the river on their "backs." They might well halt under such a load.

An accurate writer will always avoid the possibility of his sentences' having a double meaning; yet the following extract is from a certain journal which started with the avowed intention of setting the rest of the literary world an example of pure English:-"On Saturday morning a man, sup'posed to be a doctor of philosophy, threw a stick "at the window at which the King of Prussia "was witnessing the defiling of a detachment of " soldiers"! This is almost as rich as R. Blair's description of disappointed ambition :—

"

"Ambition, half convicted of her folly,

Hangs down the head, and reddens at the tale."

Blair's Grave.

Once more, you say, "When I hear a person

use a queer expression, or pronounce a name in