These passages are the same, excepting that, in the latter, the repetition of Brougham and Brougham's is avoided by the pronouns, or fornames, he, him, and his. I am much surprised to see these two paragraphs succeeding each other in a work, one portion of which is, professedly, devoted to teaching punctuation, and I could blush for the man who could suffer the inconsistencies, in punctuation, subsisting between them to escape his notice. But need I wonder, that he who wrote, "Let every man, woman, and child, who loves God and hates the devil, contribute THEIR mite to the poor-box, or the begging-box, (or whatever HE pleases to call it)," in 1838, should grovel in 1832 or 1833! Read, carefully, again, the pronoun, which you will find amongst the parts of speech, to which I, a few pages since, referred you.

30. You must have gathered, from what I have already brought before you, that it is of the utmost importance that, whenever you speak or punctuate, you should let your judgment take precedence. Whenever you avail yourself of the parenthesis, ellipsis, or transposition, you must be mindful that your language be not rendered obscure, or otherwise faulty, by careless pointing. Strict attention is essentially necessary in each case. You scarcely can be over fastidious: they are the three grand points in punctuation, to which all other matters are secondary, both in use and importance. More uncertainty and nonsense arises from neglect in these matters than from all the other principles of punctuation, and when a determinate knowledge is possessed of them, all things else become

comparatively easy. The following information, on the method of taking the shark, cannot fail of being both edifying and instructive:-

"The method of taking them, when they are seen to hanker about a ship, is to bait a large iron hook, made fast to a thick rope with a piece of salt beef, which he will swallow very greedily, and then they drag him on board."

I will not comment upon them, they, he, and him. But it is a grammatical error to begin with thems and theys, and end with hes and hims. The most astounding query is, using a piece of salt beef for the purpose of fastening the hook to the rope, which is the precise idea conveyed by the present punctuation. Absurd as it is, if you indulge too much in your favourite style, be it the parenthetical, elliptical, or transpositional, it is only careful punctuation that will save you from becoming a shark catcher yourself. A comma after rope would have been an improvement. We will try a somewhat more intelligible version:

"The method of taking him, when he is seen to hanker about a ship, is to bait a large iron hook (made fast to a thick rope), with a piece of salt beef, which he will swallow very greedily, and then to drag him on board."

I have put in the () that you may see the more clearly why a comma is indispensably necessary after rope. What decision we, here, discover in the simple comma!

31. In your punctuation, you will follow the rules which your earnest attention has, I trust, indelibly impressed upon your mind. If you have realized that

improvement I could wish, to correct the following

will scarcely be a task to you:

-

“He is a man whom we admit to be

very learned." "He is a man whom we admit is very learned."

These are two sentences which I once submitted to a young man, to whom I had previously given some hints on punctuation, requesting him to make the necessary corrections. On the first examination, he offered me no other satisfaction than his astonishment at my proposal. On the second reading, the discovery he made was, that they were very nearly the same. He placed a mark under to be, and was about to place another under is, when he was struck with the thought of leaving out, or that there might be something parenthetical. He tried the experiment with we admit. The former he found susceptible of no alteration, but, on reading, "He is a man whom is very learned," the the veil was removed and the error manifest. If we admit had been enclosed within commas, as it should be, in the latter example, the error would have been still more obvious. He gave me the latter sentence in the following forms, aiding himself by the transposition:

"He is a man who, we admit, is very learned.”

"He is, we admit, a man who is very learned."

Whom is proper in "Whom we admit to be," but it should be, "Who, we admit, is." My motive in giving him the two was, on account of their resemblance, thinking that the idea could not remain, that whom, generally, is improper. If you practice, or wish to practice, strict propriety, you must follow, without deviation, the

rules which I have given for the management of the comma, and you will find, that you will exempt your self from an improper use of who and whom, and many other errors not less egregious.

32. When you bear in mind, that, when the comma is inserted, and the sense remains imperfect, there must be a corresponding comma, from which the sense can be completed, you will see further than as it concerns who and whom, for you will learn, likewise, how ridiculous it is to produce such foolishness as this :

"T. Heaps, being about to retire from business, as an ironmonger, and embark in the tea trade, turning over his present stock to his son, R. Heaps, and being consequently desirious to call in all debts owing to him, an early payment would be esteemed a favor."

There are many tradesmen who cannot write even a hand-bill without a profligate use of ing. But whenever you witness it in such profusion, in a short piece like this, you will be, almost invariably, justified in suspecting that, at the most, all that is said amounts to nothing. T. Heaps stands at the head, but, in the present construction of the passage, there is not another word, throughout, that will unite with it. As you now see it, the punctuation is quite consistent. To take and test it, by divesting it of the parenthetical phrases, we are compelled to unite T. Heaps with and being, which becomes as plain an error as "whom is," thus :

"T. Heaps and being consequently desirous to call in all debts

I would have you to be very frugal in consequentlies :

they are not at all to be admired. The preceding should be rendered:

"T. Heaps is desirous to call in all debts owing to him, an early payment would be esteemed a favour."

And, even when we have done this, we are necessitated to halt after him, a defect equally as nonsensical, and are, at last, obliged to accompany him by a period, or say, an early payment of which would be esteemed a favor.

33. Another thing to be guarded against is, repetition, as :

"The king, though so noble and great, and possesses so many palaces of grandeur and magnificence, he is but a servant."

All this, to an inexperienced punctuator, might pass off very smoothly. I believe there are many poor victims, who have, for years, prattled over grammar rules to their half-awake task masters, that would be put to no little trouble in pointing out the egregious repetition in this instance. But can you hold your pen any longer without an attempt at improvement. Don't be afraid it is only the parenthetical part which stands in competition with your judgment. You know how to handle it. Reject the words between king and he, and you will find no room for the pronoun, or forname:

"The king he is but a servant."

He is to avoid repeating king, and is correspondent to this::

"The king king is but a servant."

You now clearly perceive what is amiss.