he was ill, and knew that there remained but a few days of the halfyear, readily assented to his request, and removed him home.

Joyce and Dalison went to the college at Addiscombe, Trevor to Haileybury, so that the schoolfellows did not meet again. Frank was greatly moved by the disappearance of the little boy who had been the victim of such unprovoked unkindness, and who had evinced for himself, in his strange and uncouth fashion, a sentiment of gratitude and affection. He resolved that he would always wear the gold chain and ornament; which Arthur must have placed round his neck when he parted from him, and which might have been, for all he could tell, one of the last acts of his unhappy life. This resolution he persisted in, all his life afterwards.

And now I think I hear my readers complaining that this is not only a very lame, but a very objectionable conclusion to the story. Here is a poor little boy hunted and tortured, until he is driven to desperation ; and yet no redress is given him, and no punishment overtakes his persecutors. And worse than this, here is a boy who manfully stood up and suffered in his behalf, who not only fails to obtain the credit he justly deserved, but even quits the scene under the imputation of having committed the very offence, which he had exerted himself so manfully to prevent others from committing.

Well, good reader, and even if this were so, would it be very unlike what we often see passing in this world around us?

Would Frank Trevor have any great reason to complain, or Dalison and Joyce to exult? Would the one have missed his reward, or the others escaped their punishment, supposing that our tale ended here? No thoughtful-minded man would say so. Frank's true recompence consisted in the mastery he had gained over himself; in the successful discipline of his spirit in this his first passage of arms with evil, which had made him stronger to meet the future trials of life. What was the prize he had missed, or the praise of his masters, compared with this? And his two schoolfellows-had they really escaped punishment? No, far from it. Better for them a hundred times to have been exposed and subject to the severest penalties, than to have done the wrong they did, and escaped with seeming impunity. Justice is ever done, and punishment exacted to the utmost, though they who see the wrong are not always permitted to witness the retribution. But if you will bestow your patience on me for one chapter more, I will digress from the regular order of my narrative, in order to show you that, even regarding the question from your point of view, your strictures are misapplied.

(To be continued.)

THE DEAN'S ENGLISH.*

IN

N the March number for 1863 of "Good Words," the Dean of Canterbury wrote a lengthy paper, entitled "A Plea for the Queen's English," reviewing some of the mistakes into which half-educated people are likely, in conversation, to fall, and winding up in the ,usual valedictory manner.

Many people, however, who studied this article, found it full of careless expressions, as well as violations of some of the commonest tenets of criticism. The advice it contained was admitted on the whole to be good, but yet the precious grain was surrounded by so much chaff, that it became a difficult matter to estimate its value in proportion to its merits.

Inspired by this idea, Mr. G. Washington Moon, a Fellow of the Society of Literature, wrote a pamphlet, pointing out some of the errors into which the Dean had fallen, and published it in April, under the title of "A Defence of the Queen's English." It was naturally to be expected that Dean Alford would retort as well as he could, and consequently in the June number of "Good Words," a second "Plea for the Queen's English" appeared, consisting principally of a defence against the powerful attack to which he had been subjected, and more remarkable for abuse than sound argument. In fact, so discourteous was the style of this Essay, which was first delivered in the form of a lecture at St. George's Hall, Canterbury, that the "South Eastern Gazette" spoke of it in the following terms:

"Opinions differ as to the success of the reverend gentleman, many of his positions being called in question; while the epithets which he did not hesitate to use in speaking of an antagonist possessing some acquaintance with the English language, were generally condemned. These might and ought to have been avoided, especially by one whose precepts and example have their influence, for good or for harm, upon the society in which he moves. Get wisdom, get understanding, and forget it not,' is a text that even the Dean of Canterbury might ponder over with advantage."

* "The Dean's English: a Criticism on the Dean of Canterbury's Essays on the Queen's English.' By Washington Moon. Hatchard & Co.

Nor could it reasonably be expected that Mr. Moon would submit to his rebuke in silence. In the month of July he published a second pamphlet, charging the Dean with a want of courtesy, as well as with falsifying arguments produced against him, and winding up by suggesting that he was not such an ass as the Dean himself.

After this violent outbreak the two opponents exonerated themselves (as best they could) from the charge of discourtesy, and agreed to continue the controversy in an amicable spirit.

The Dean shortly afterwards published in "Good Words" his third and last paper on the subject of "The Queen's English," and in the month of May, 1864, Mr. Moon wrote his criticism upon it. To his three pamphlets he added two letters, which he had published in "The Reader,” on the expression, "It is me," and then produced the whole as a neat little volume, bearing the happy title of "The Dean's English." We purpose now to review this book, both with regard to its criticism on Dean Alford's labours, as well as upon its own merits.

The most important points of argument the book contains is upon the expression, "It is me." Now Dean Alford, in his book, states that this expression is correct, and declares that everyone uses it. We need scarcely say that this is not the case. Most ladies use it, we admit; so also do people who have not studied their language diligently; but the expression is never found in books. No good authors introduce it in any conversation they describe, unless it be to satirize the speaker as uneducated. Besides, the old rule in our Latin Grammars tells us that substantive or neuter verbs, and verbs of existence, such as "Sum, I am," &c., may have a nominative case after them; and Lindley Murray distinctly says, that the verb "to be" has the same case after it as that which next precedes: "I am he whom they invited," &c.

The Dean, however, cites Dr. Latham as an authority, who considers "it is me" correct, because the French use the expression, "c'est moi." Now, although most of us consider the opinion of Dr. Latham deserving of respect, yet in this instance we must decline to agree with him, for really there is no analogy between the French and English languages.

Mr. Moon suggests that if a speaker or a writer is in any doubt as to which he should use, he has simply to ask himself, "Does the sense require the pronoun to be in the nominative case or in the accusative ?” If in the former, "It is I" is correct; if in the latter, he must say, "It is me." Thus Dean Alford wrote to Mr. Moon, inviting him to Canterbury. In his letter he made use of the following expression :-" If you see on the platform an old party in a shovel, that will be me."

The composition of this sentence seems to have given Dean Alford a

great deal of trouble, for he says, "I was going to write that will be I.' But my pen refused to sanction (to endorse, I believe I ought to say, but I cannot) the construction. That will be me,' came from it,

in spite of my resolve of the best possible behaviour."

"Of course it ought in such a case," replies Mr. Moon, who says that it is evident from this extract that Dean Alford believed that as he (Mr. Moon) objected to his saying, "He is wiser than me," he should also object to his saying, "That will be me." For what is the sentence, "If you see on the platform an old party in a

will see).

shovel, that will be me" (you

"You will see me." The sentence is perfectly correct.

Had the Dean written, "There will be to meet you on the platform an old party in a shovel," he must have finished the sentence, "that will be I.”

The reader will notice that in the extract we have just quoted from Dean Alford's book, he declines to make use of the term endorse for sanction. His antagonist, however, who has evidently got him in his grip, laughs at him (as it were) for being dainty about employing the word. And well he may; "for no less notable a personage than the present Archbishop of Dublin (infinitely the Dean's superior in philology)," says Mr. Moon, uses it in his book on 'English, Past and Present.'

A moment's consideration will show any person in what instances “I” or me" in reference to the auxiliary verb should be used. The very head and front of the offending is to be found, we think, in the fact that the accusative and nominative of the personal pronoun "you" are identical. This is the origin of the mistake into which many people, besides Dean Alford, fall. Let them all, however, recollect the simple rule which we have quoted from Murray, and we may yet be able to convince the Dean that he is wrong in saying that " Englishmen, women, and children, go on saying it, and will go on saying it as long as the English language is spoken."

The following piece of criticism upon an expression used by Dean Alford, is very trite and apposite. The Dean had asserted that in the sentence, "The cat jumped on to the chair," the word to was unneeded, Mr. Moon thus replies :

"I venture to assert that, what we say figuratively of some not overwise people, we may say literally of you, You do not know how the cat jumps.' For what do you tell us? You tell us that it is wrong to say, 'The cat jumped on to the chair,' the 'to' being wholly unneeded and never used by any careful writer or speaker. With all due deference to such a high authority on such a very important matter, I beg to observe that when we say, 'The cat jumped on to the chair,' we mean

that the cat jumped from somewhere else to the chair, and alighted on it. But when we say, "The cat jumped on the chair,' we mean that the cat was on the chair already, and that, while there, she jumped. The circumstances are entirely different; and according to the difference in the circumstances, so should there be a difference in the language used to describe them respectively. It is evident that in watching the antics of puss, you received an impulse from her movements, and you yourself jumped to a wrong conclusion."

We

The same author enumerates in a happy manner some of the most striking errors in syntax of which the Dean is guilty. "You speak," he says, "of a possibility being precluded in the mind. You tell us of a more neat way of expressing what would be Mr. Moon's sentence.' express à meaning, or we write a sentence; but we do not express a sentence. Then we have in respect of,' for 'with respect to;' and, an exception, which I cannot well treat,' instead of, ' of which I cannot well treat; for it is evident, from the context, that you were not speaking of treating an exception, but of treating of an exception." With regard to the expression in respect of, we find some very interesting remarks in George P. Marsh's "Lectures on the English Language."

66

'Coleridge was the first eminent writer of this century who returned to the practice of using in respect of' exclusively; but his writings never had sufficient currency to produce much influence on the language. Since his time, however, some deservedly popular writers have employed this phrase; and with Trench it is a pet construction, and often introduced when a very different phrase would much better express its meaning. It rests, of course, on the theory that in this phrase respect or regard is an independent noun, and therefore should be followed by the preposition of. But this, I think, is a mistaken view of the subject. The word respect in this combination has none of the meanings known to it as an independent noun in the English vocabulary. The expression in or with respect' is an idiotism, a phraseological construction of an adverbial character, and in its ordinary modern use it is the equivalent of relatively. Old writers sometimes say 'respectively to.' This is now disused; but 'relatively to' is by no means unfrequent, and in respect of, used in this sense, is just as gross a violation of English grammar as to write relatively of," or "in reference of."

It must be admitted that in many instances Mr. Moon hits the Dean some hard blows, which the latter finds himself quite unable to parry. Thus with regard to the rule expounded in the Dean's book, that neuter verbs should not be qualified by adverbs, but by adjectives, Mr. Moon writes: