been written in its place. The possibility of future success, implied in the words "for the present at least," is totally inconsistent with a permanent failure.

“To the honor of Government it must be added that no capital sentence was pronounced, and that one of the most serious insurrections recorded in French annals was suppressed without the shedding of human blood."—Ibid.

The historian is speaking of the insurrection of the 5th June, 1832, on the occasion of the funeral of General Lamarque; and he describes, among other bloody conflicts, the desperate one which took place in the cloister of St. Méri, of which he says, "This bloody triumph closed the contest and extinguished the revolt." He then proceeds to enumerate the killed and wounded on both sides, and complacently winds up by saying that "the insurrection was suppressed without the shedding of human blood." Well! I will the reader believe that what Sir Archibald means by all this is not, that no human blood was shed in suppressing the insurrection, but that no human blood was shed after it was suppressed? In short, he wishes to say that none of the surviving insurgents were sentenced to death or executed.

"This is the usual fate of the leaders in such organic changes. They are continually advancing before a devouring fire flaming close in their rear. If they advance before it, they

for a time save themselves, but they destroy their country; if they halt, they destroy themselves, but they may save their country."-Ibid.

If the leaders are continually advancing, how can they do otherwise than advance? how can they halt? We are aware that the writer puts the matter hypothetically; but in truth he leaves himself no room for any hypothesis. Had he wished to do so, instead of representing the leaders as continually advancing before a devouring fire, he should have described them as simply beset by a devouring fire. Then the supposition, "if they advance," might have followed with propriety.

Sir A. Alison is not satisfied with making blunders for himself, he sometimes contrives to put them in the mouths of others; as witness the following instances:

The historian is describing the inauguration of the cathedral of Cologne on the 15th October, 1841, and he quotes a speech made on the occasion by the king of Prussia, which concludes with these remarks:

May the shameful attempts to relax the bonds of concord which unite the German princes and people, and trouble the peace of persuasions, be shattered against them; and may that spirit which has interrupted the completion of this sacred edifice, the temple of our country, never reappear among us! That spirit is the same as the one which, nine and twenty years ago, burst asunder our chains, and avenged the insults

our country had received under the yoke of the stranger."-Ibid.

In the first sentence Alison makes the king of Prussia deprecate the spirit of discord which had prevailed for some time among his subjects, especially on matters of religion, and which had prevented the completion of the cathedral of Cologne. So far all is right. But in the next sentence he makes the king affirm that the spirit of discord which produced those untoward consequences, is the same as the spirit of concord which, nine-and-twenty years before, had been so successfully exerted for the liberation of Germany.

Speaking of the debates in the French Chambers in 1836, on the advantages of retaining the settlement of Algeria, Alison introduces Louis Philippe as giving utterance to the following bull:

"I love to listen to the cannon in Algeria; it is not heard in Europe."-Ibid.

If the cannon is not heard in Europe, how can a man residing in Europe love to listen to it? True, one may listen without hearing; but no one in his senses would take pleasure in listening to a thing which he knows he can never hear. It is probable, however, that the words spoken by Louis Philippe do not make him out such a fool as he appears in Alison's translation of them.

H

There is a species of blunder which consists in the employment of one noun for another, of one verb for another, and so forth. This happens chiefly in three circumstances:-1st, when there is some seeming analogy between the words, so as to induce the writer to mistake one of them for the other; 2ndly, when the analogy is real, but not sufficient to establish a complete synonymy between the words; and 3rdly, when there is confusion in the writer's mind, or ignorance of the proper signification of the terms he employs. I could fill a volume with examples of this fault from our essayists and historians; but the reader must be satisfied with a few of the most striking instances.

Deteriorate-Derogate-Detract.

The literal meaning of "deteriorate" is "to make worse, "to grow worse;" and yet, how

often do we find it used in the sense of "to take from." The Athenæum, one of the foremost literary journals in Britain, in a review of Halliwell's "Popular Rhymes and Tales," has this sentence:

"A number of curious memoranda, put together in a careless, slip-slop manner, that greatly deteriorates from their value."-No. 1127.

Here "deteriorates" is incorrectly put for "derogates," or rather "detracts."

example occurs in Sir B. Lytton :

Another

"The immense superficies of the public operates two ways in deteriorating from the profundity of writers."-England and the English.

And Parry Gwynne, in the very first sentence of his "Word to the Wise," has a third instance:

"Ay, and where much has been achieved, too, and intellectual laurels have been gathered, is it not a reproach that a slatternly mode of expression should sometimes deteriorate from the eloquence of the scholar?"

Ay, say we, and where one writer is inveighing against slip-slop, and another against slatternly expressions, is it not amusing to find them making use of language which savours of both?

A correct instance of the use of deteriorate is the following from Chenevix :

"There is not one of them, the loss of which would not now essentially deteriorate the general condition of mankind."Essay on National Character.

Mechanism-Machinery.

"It is not so unwieldy as to make it necessary to have recourse to the complex mechanism of double elections.". SYDNEY SMITH. Essays.

In this sentence "mechanism" is misemployed for "machinery."

Application—Applicability.

"For my own part, I doubt the application of the Danish rule to the English language."-LATHAM. English Language.