better to say, The peasantry go barefoot, and the middle sort make use,' &c. because the idea in both these

cases, is that of a number. On the contrary, there is a

harshness in the following sentences, in which nouns of number have verbs plural; because the ideas they represent seem not to be sufficiently divided in the mind.The court of Rome were not without solicitude.' 'The house of commons were of small weight.' The house of lords were so much influenced by these reasons.' Stephen's party were entirely broken up by the captivity of their leader.' 'An army of twenty-four thousand were assembled.' 'What reason have the church of Rome for proceeding in this manner?' There is indeed no constitution so tame and careless of their own defence.' the virtues of mankind are to be counted upon a few fingers, but his follies and vices are innumerable.' Is not mankind in this place a noun of multitude, and such as requires the pronoun referring to it to be in the plural number, their ?

6

RULE V.

All

Pronouns must always agree with their antecedents, and the nouns for which they stand, in gender and number: as, 'This is the friend whom I love ;'That is the vice which I hate ;' "The king and the queen had put on their robes ;' The moon appears, and she shines, but the light is not her own.

The relative is of the same person as the antecedent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly:

as,

Thou who lovest wisdom;'I who speak from experience.'

Of this rule there are many violations to be met with; a few of which may be sufficient to put the learner on his guard. Each of the sexes should keep within its particular bounds, and content themselves with the advantages of their particular districts:' better thus: The sexes should keep within their particular bounds,' &c. Can any one, on their entrance into the world, be fully secure that they shall not be deceived?'' on his entrance,' and

that he shall." 'One should not think too favourably of ourselves of one's self. He had one acquaintance which poisoned his principles ;' who poisoned.'

Every relative must have an antecedent to which it refers, either expressed or implied: as, 'Who is fatal to others is so to himself;' that is, the man who is fatal to others.'

Who, which, what, and the relative that, though in the objective case, are always placed before the verb; as are also their compounds whoever, whosoever, &c. as, 'He whom ye seek;' This is what, or the thing which, or that, you want;' 'Whomsoever you please to appoint.'

What is sometimes applied, in a manner which appears to be exceptionable: as, All fevers, except what are called nervous,' &c. It would be better to say, 'except those which are called nervous."

1. Personal pronouns being used to supply the place of the noun, are not employed in the same part of a sentence as the noun which they represent; for it would be improper to say, The king he is just;' 'I saw her the queen;' 'The men they were there;' Many words they darken speech;My banks they are furnished with bees.' These personals are superfluous, as there is not the least occasion for a substitute in the same part where the principal word is present. The nominative case they, in the following sentence, is also superfluous; Who, instead of going about doing good, they are perpetually intent upon doing mischief.a

2. The pronoun that is frequently applied to persons as well as to things; but after an adjective in the superlative degree, and after the pronominal adjective same, it is generally used in preference to who or which: as, Charles XII. king of Sweden, was one of the greatest madmen that the world ever saw ;' 'Catiline's followers were the most profligate that could be found in any city.' 'He is the same man that we saw before." There are cases wherein we cannot conveniently dispense with this relative as applied to persons: as first, after who the interrogative; Who that has any sense of religion, would have argued thus? Secondly, when persons make but a part of the antecedent; The woman, and the estate, 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 punish

ments 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 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

'The cavalry

with Sweden.' The court, who,' &c. 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, de

pend 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 licence 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 persecutor!' 'Oh ye hypocrites! O thou who dwellest,' &c.

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 feminine 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?'

Sd. The thing, whatever it be, that is the cause of any effect or event, or any person considered merely as a