of using the relative pronouns indiscriminately. This clearly appears from the following examples:

"I met the watchman who showed me the way." Does this mean, "I met the watchman and he showed me the way"? or does it mean that, of several watchmen I met, the one that on some previous occasion showed me the way? It should mean the former, and it would mean that and nothing else, if we discriminated in using who and that.

"And fools who came to scoff remained to pray." Does the familiar line from Goldsmith mean, And the fools that came, though they came to scoff, remained to pray? or does it mean that some of the fools that came, came to scoff, and these remained to pray? Probably the former is the meaning; but as the line stands, this, no matter how general the opinion, can be only conjectured, as every one must admit that the meaning intended may be the latter. If the latter is the meaning, it is clear that the proper relative to use is that. Had, however, Goldsmith never used who, except to introduce co-ordination, we should know positively just what he intended to convey.

"It is requested that all members of Council who are also members of the Lands Committee will assemble in the Council room." Does this mean that all the members of Council are also members of the Lands Committee, and that they shall assemble? or does it mean that such members of Council as are also members of the Lands Committee shall assemble?

"The volume is recommended to all geologists to whom the Secondary rocks of England are a subject of interest." Is the volume recommended to all geologists, or to such only as take an interest in Secondary rocks?

"He had commuted the sentence of the Circassian

officers who had conspired against Arabi Bey and his fellow-ministers-a proceeding which [that] naturally incensed the so-called Egyptian party." Did all the Circassian officers conspire, or only a part of them?

"On the ground floor of the hotel there are three parlors which are never used." Does this mean three of the parlors on the ground floor are not used? or does it mean the three parlors on the ground floor are not used? The latter is probably the meaning intended, but as there is no comma after parlors, the former, using the relatives indiscriminately as we do, is the meaning expressed.

"Emin Bey, the chief, who leaped the wall on horseback and landed safely on the débris below, was afterward taken into favor." Here the language and the punctuation convey the impression that Emin Bey was the sole chief, when in fact he was only one of the many chiefs that were present on the occasion referred to. The thought intended is expressed thus: "Emin Bey, the chief that leaped the wall, . . was afterward taken into favor."

...

"His conduct surprised his English friends who had not known him long." Does this mean all his English friends, or only those of them that had not known him long? If the former is the meaning, then who is the proper relative to use with a comma; if the latter, then that should be used, without a comma.

"Agents of the Turkish Government are trying to close the Protestant schools in Asia Minor, which are conducted by missionaries from the United States." Are the Turks trying to close all the Protestant schools in Asia Minor, or only a part of them? All, according to this statement; but that is probably not what is intended, as there are doubtless Protestant schools in Asia Minor that are not conducted by missionaries from the United States,

"The police captains who yesterday visited the central office to draw their pay, all expressed their sympathy," etc. Did all the police captains visit the central office, or only a part of them?

"The youngest boy who has learned to dance is James." As long as we use who for the purposes of both restriction and co-ordination, this means either, "The youngest boy is James, and he has learned to dance," or, "Of the boys, the youngest that has learned to dance is James." If the latter is the meaning, then that should have been used; if the former, then who is correctly used, but the co-ordinate clause should have been isolated with commas.

Who and which are the proper co-ordinating relativesi. e., the relatives to use when the antecedent is completely expressed without the help of the clause introduced with the relative. Thus: "The society now numbers nearly twenty members, who(=and they) have given up all family ties and devoted themselves entirely to religious work." "The choir consists of about sixty men and boys, who are surpliced." "But some of their friends, who (=persons that) are wealthy and influential members of the church, did not like to have them give up their work in Boston, which had been attended with great results, and urged them to return, which they have consented to do, and they will soon begin work anew at the old church, which is the property of the Society of St. John the Evangelist."

Here are some examples of the correct use of who, which, that, and whom: "The heirs, who are very numerous, will be present "-i. e., all the heirs. "The heirs, who have been notified, will be present "-i. e., all the heirs. "The heirs that have been notified will be present "-i. e., only those notified. "The heirs, whom I have seen, will be present"-i, e., all the heirs, "The heirs that I have

"

"I study

seen will be present"-i. e., only those seen. grammar, which I like very much." Give me the grammar that lies on the desk." "He struck the man who "i. e., a certain man-" had done him no harm." He struck the man that"-i. e., a man of several men-" insulted him." "He struck the wrong man-the one that had done him no harm." 'Our house, which is built of brick, is very warm." "The house that is built of brick is the warmest." "The cat"-i. e., the species-" which you so dislike is a useful animal." "The cat"-i. e., the individual-" that you so dislike is a very pretty one." "He jumped into the water, which greatly frightened his mother." "He attends to his "He

own affairs, which is the way to make them prosper." that attends to his own affairs is likely to see them prosper." 'The man that I saw is tall." "This man, whom I know, well, is a good plowman." "He that lets the sun go down on his wrath," etc.

In the following example the errors in the use of the relatives are corrected in brackets: "The rich despise those who [that] flatter too much, and hate those who [that] do not flatter at all." "An ambitious man whom [that] you can serve will often aid you to rise," etc. "He that feeds man serveth few; he serveth all who [that] dares be true." "The curious inquirer who [that] sets himself," etc. "This book has been made for those who [that] aim to have," etc. The people who [that] are expecting, under the new code. The people will not consent, under a Government which [that] depends upon their will, to adopt the Sabbatarian notions which [that] the old Puritans Yet there are some narrow minds in New York who [that] still think . . . They have no sympathy with those who [that] would force. . . Then there are

...

...

the Jews, who do not feel . . . and who claim the right to

...

work or play on Sunday . . . The population would be sunk in gloom, which would of course,'

etc.

It is necessary, for the proper understanding of which, to advert to its peculiar function of referring to a whole clause as the antecedent: “William ran along the top of the wall, which alarmed his mother very much." The antecedent is obviously not the noun "wall," but the fact expressed by the entire clause-" William ran," etc. "He by no means wants sense, which only serves to aggravate his former folly"; namely, (not "sense," but) the circumstance 'that he does not want sense.' "He is neither overexalted by prosperity nor too much depressed by misfortune, which you must allow marks a great mind." "We have done many things which we ought not to have done' might mean we ought not to have done many things”that is, we ought to have done few things." That would give the exact sense intended: "We have done many things that we ought not to have done." That is much more frequently used instead of who as a restrictive relative than will be at first supposed. As evidence of this I offer a sentence that I find in a London cablegram to a New York newspaper: "It was he that moved the adjournment until Tuesday." This, in my ́judgment, is better and more idiomatic English than it would have been had the writer used who instead of that.

Occasionally, but by no means often, we meet with a that that should be which. Here are two such whiches: "Across the Straits of Fuca there is the pretty English town of Victoria that [which] has as solid mansions," etc. "The Strait or Gulf of Georgia, that [which] separates Vancouver Island from the mainland, although," etc. There is not, as some of the unthinking seem to believe, any valid objection to using two thats in immediate