remark is applicable to everybody, and yet it points to no one in particular.

This pronoun continually lands writers in difficulties. English idiom requires that, when the pronoun has to be again referred to, it should be used itself a second time. The correct usage is shown by Pope: One may be ashamed to consume half one's day's in bringing sense and rhyme together.' It would be against idiom to say 'half his days'.

Still the repetition of the pronoun is often felt to be heavy, and writers have recourse to various substitutions. Even an ear accustomed to the idiom can scarcely accept with unmixed pleasure this instance from Browning :

Alack! one lies oneself

Even in the stating that one's end was truth,
Truth only, if one states so much in words'.

The representative 'I' or 'we', as already mentioned (p. 38), occasionally acts the part of one'. The following sentence presents a curious alternation of 'we' with

one'-possibly not accidental (George Eliot): 'It's a desperately vexatious thing, that after all one's reflections and quiet determinations, we should be ruled by moods that one can't calculate on beforehand'. By the use of 'we' here, a more pointed reference is suggested, while the vagueness actually remains.

Fenimore Cooper, like Scott, is not very particular; an example may be quoted: 'Modesty is a poor man's wealth; but as we grow substantial in the world, patroon, one can afford to begin to speak truth of himself as well as of his neighbour'. Were Cooper a careful writer, we might persuade ourselves that he chose 'we' and 'one' with a purpose: 'we' might indicate that the speaker had himself and the patroon directly in his eye, although at the same time he wanted to put it generally; and 'one' might hint that modesty succeeded in getting the better of him. But 'himself' and 'his' would alone show that such speculations are too refined for the occasion.

་

The form a man', which was at one time common, seems

to be reviving. In Adam Bede' we have: 'A man can never do anything at variance with his own nature'. We might substitute 'one'.

'Men' was more frequent in good writing formerly than now. 'Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel'. 'Do men gather grapes of thorns?' Hume is fond of expressing a general subject by 'men'.

The occasional use of 'you' in familiar composition, to express the general statement with some vividness, has been already noticed. (p. 40.)

'Small birds are much more exposed to the cold than large ones'. This usage is hardly 'indefinite': and it needs no further exemplification.

RELATIVE PRONOUNS.

I here append additional examples of the distinctive uses of the relative pronouns; employing 'that' for restriction, and who', 'which', for co-ordination.

Various substitutes that may on occasion be desirable for one purpose or another, will be noticed incidentally, These are of the utmost importance; seeing that compositions of all kinds are exceedingly apt to be overburdened with relative constructions, and especially with the proper relatives.

The co-ordinating use of 'who' and 'which' is seen when the antecedent is completely expressed and known without the help of the clause introduced by the relative. This relative clause simply adds in a convenient form farther information concerning an individual already definitely pointed out. The relative itself points to the individual in question, and has also a varying connective power: it may, accordingly, be replaced by a personal or a demonstrative pronoun and a conjunction.

The typical cases of the co-ordinating use are when the conjunction that may be substituted is of the co-ordinating class. The other man, whose business was to communicate with Charnock, was a ruffian named Chambers, who had

served in the Irish army'. The relative clauses are here co-ordinate: they add further knowledge of the individuals referred to, these being held as previously described in full. 'And his', 'and he' might be substituted for whose' and 'who'. Again: The Royal power was in conflict with two enemies the feudal independence of the nobles, which it wished to destroy; and the growing municipal freedom of the great cities, which it wished to curb'. 'Which' is the same as 'and it (this, that) '—a co-ordinating conjunction and a demonstrative pronoun.

The same explanations apply in the following examples: 'This curious design I bought of a nun in France, who passed years in toil upon the conceit, which is of more value than the material'. 'We had the satisfaction not only of preserving the poor fellow's leg, but likewise of rendering the doctor contemptible among the ship's company, who had all their eyes on us during the course of this cure, which was completed in six weeks'.

The conjunction to substitute is sometimes of the Subordinating class. The relative clause is then adverbial in nature; and the classing of such instances under the Co-ordinating head may seem to involve a contradiction. But coordination is here contrasted, not with subordination, but with restriction. And the examples in question are for the most part clauses expressing reason or cause, explanation, concession; which, though logically subordinate, are often held important enough to be entitled to a separate statement in apparent co-ordination. The cases thus sufficiently resemble typical co-ordinating cases to be classed along with these in contrast with the cases of restriction. These latter, as we shall see, may be occasionally resolved in a curiously similar manner: the conjunction being of the Conditional class.

'It is strange that he should have been ungrateful to you, who did so much for him'. The kind of connection established by 'who' might be given, in the resolved form, thus: 'after you-since you-seeing (considering) that you-did so much for him'. The substitution is a subordinating con

junction and a personal pronoun. Similarly with 'which': He insisted on building another house, which he had no use for'. That is--' although he had no use for it'.

Murray's enemies in Scotland, who were both numerous and powerful, comprised two parties: the friends of the old Church, who were anxious for the restoration of Mary; and the House of Hamilton, who were jealous of Murray's great power'. In none of these cases does the relative clause limit more strictly an antecedent that is but partially defined; the antecedents are fully described already. The first 'who' is a typical case of co-ordination; in the two other cases, a cause is assigned, or, to say the least, an explanation suggested.

Thus far 'who' and 'which' are similarly used: 'who' referring to persons, like 'I', 'thou', 'he', 'she'; ' which making the other references, like 'it', 'this', that'. We have now to notice a peculiar use of 'which', common to it with the corresponding demonstratives just enumerated-the reference to a preceding infinitive phrase or noun clause, expressed or implied: 'We shall have the governess in a day or two, which will be a great satisfaction'. 'Which is the same as 'and it (this, that)', namely, that we shall have the governess' (noun clause), or having the governess' (infinitive phrase). Many of the examples under the demonstratives could be cited for illustrating this usage.

When the relative clause is needed to point out definitely the otherwise unknown, or vaguely suggested, antecedent, it is said to be restrictive; and the introducing relative pronoun is then said to be restrictive. For this purpose, the satisfactory pronoun is 'that'. A few simple examples will bring home the usage clearly: 'I have something that will suit you'; 'this is the house that Jack built'; 'blessings on the man that invented sleep'; 'cats that wear gloves catch no mice'.

We

We cannot here, as in the co-ordinating use, strike out the relative clause and yet leave a satisfying sense. hear the statement, and are then ready to demand further what sort of thing?' what house?' what man ?'

'which cats ?' And the sense is entirely in abeyance, uselessly incomplete, or different from what is intended, until the introduction of the modifying clause.

Here it may be remarked, in passing, that the restrictive relative may sometimes be resolved, after the manner of the co-ordinating relatives, into a conjunction and a demonstrative pronoun. The conjunction is mostly, if not always, of the strictly conditional class (subordinating). 'Cats that wear gloves catch no mice' may be resolved thus: Cats, if they wear gloves, catch no mice'; 'Cats, when they wear gloves, &c. ''when' being practically conditional. But these resolutions are never quite satisfactory equivalents, the extent of the subject not remaining precisely the same.

Many good writers use 'who' and 'which', as well as 'that', for the restrictive meaning. But this mixture of usages should be discouraged; and 'that' should be put forward as the sole proper representative of restriction. We might urge the variety attainable by this distinction; but the great argument for the separation of functions is the avoidance of ambiguity.

The following examples will shew that the danger is not imaginary or slight :

'It is requested that all members of Council, who are also members of the Lands Committee, will assemble in the Council-room.' This might mean that all the members of the Council are members of the Lands Committee; the real meaning is expressed beyond a doubt by 'that'; it might also be expressed by 'such members as '.

'The volume may be cordially and confidently recommended to all geologists to whom the Secondary rocks of England are a subject of interest.' The author probably intends to restrict all geologists', but he signifies that they are all interested in the Secondary rocks. There would be no mistake if the relative were 'that', or 'such as'; 'all geologists that take an interest in the Secondary rocks of England'.

'The Fellows who, in conformity with their oaths, had refused to submit to this usurper, had been driven forth