4 Remarks on the Flora Britannica,—Grammatical Remarks. (Feb. 1, 
Pree | tothe Englifh Botany, in which 
will be ftated both the omiffions* and 
piagiarifms+} in thofe works. I am not, 
however, deterred from the profecuticn 
of a plan which was both fuggefted and 
undertaken previcus to their appearance, 
by Dr. S—’s Striétures on my remarks 
on his Flora. From the candor .which 
has ufually marked the produétions of 
this diftinguifsed naturalift, I fhowld have 
been led to expect a reply, tempered with 
very different {pirit trom that which 
deforms his letter. In juftice however to 
the iueeairae who is the unmerited ob- 
jet of his larcaftic feverity, I. mult io- 
form Dr. §. that Mr. Caley (a perfon 
with whom I am as unacquainted, but 
hy the reference to his name in the Bri- 
tifh Flora, as himfclf) is not the author 
of the Remaiks which he reprobates. 
Mr. C. will perhaps feel as furprized as 
nyfelf, that aman of Dr. S—’s unquef- 
tionable diicernment fhould think himfelf 
fan&tioned to attach to any particular in- 
dividual, the authori:y of a production, 
on fo vague a foundation, as the correction 
of an error which fpeaks for itfelf.[ Dr. 
Ss is obliging enough to allude to my 
*< aoparent urbanity,”—a favor however 
which has not ferved to fherer me <from 
an afperity of cenfure, which J fhould 
have expected from any man, fooner than 
the mild and candid author -of the Flora 
Britannica. Whatever mifcon! ai 
‘Dr. S. may put on the motives whic 
have dictated my remarks, I fhall conti- 
nue to feel the fame high opinion of his 
eminent abilities, and meas equally dif- 
pofed to admit in moft cafes the folidity 
of his judgment, {till referving for my- 
felf the privilege which he has claimed in 
@ motto to the title page of his Fiora,§ a 
work which, with..many diftinguifhing 
excellencies, has yet many errors and im- 
perfeétions. Your's, &. R. Hic, 
* There are feveral plants decifive/y afcer- 
tained to be imdigenous which are purpofely 
omitted in the Fiora Britannica, 
 f Wf Dr. S. thinks he would be jutti- 
fied, were he to ‘* copy any fpecific charac- 
ters without quotations,’? or acknowledge- 
_ ment, I am af a Icfs to conceive what pla-~ 
giarifm means. His fuppofitions that, under 
“« a different arrangement of words,’? a quo- 
tation ceafes to be a plagiarilm, appears miore 
like fineffe than the candor of a icientific na- \ 
tural. 
} The habitat of Caley’ s Hieracium ovatum, 
is that of the willofum, which latter only has 
been found in the place referred to, 
§ &“ Nullii us in verba,” 
yas in this inflance applied te 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Sik 
T is matter of juft regret, that, while 
months and yearsare expended at fchool 
on the ftudy of the learned languages, our 
mother-tongue. which to every Englith- 
man is of much higher importance, is 
almoft wholly neglected. It pleafes me, 
therefore, to perceive the pages of your 
‘Mifcellany, which has, as it juftly merits, 
a very extenfive circulation, occafionally 
devoted to critical remarks on the ftruc- 
ture and idioms of our native language. 
Your Correfpondent J. W. has very 
properly corrected the two inftances of 
falle grammar in Murray's Key to the 
Exerciles ; ; but while he claims this praife, 
he is himfelf chargeable with a grofs in- 
accuracy. The firlt paflage, as correéted 
by Murray, runs thus :— Time and 
chance happen to all men ; but every per- 
fon does not perceive whom it is that go- 
verns thefe powerful] caufes.°? The error 
here invelved is fo palpable, that one is 
tempted to fufpe& it to be merely typo- 
graph: ical. Your Correfpondent cbferves, 
that ‘the relative whom fhould be inthe 
nominative cafe, becaufe it is governed 
by the fubftantive verb zs, which always 
requires its object to be in the nominative 
cafe.” 
It is not my intention to difpute the 
propriety of the terms govern and objed?, 
the verb of 
exiftence, though I deem them objection- 
able ;- burl remark, that your Correfpon- 
dent egregioufly errs, when he aflferts, 
that this verb is always followed by a 
nominative. The rule retpecting the 
verb fo be is fimply this, that the cafe 
which precedes it fhall likewife follow it. 
The reaion is evident : the verb of exift- 
ence ferves'as a copula, predicating the 
agreement of two ideas ; and this agree- 
ment is mott aptly expreffed by grammia- 
tical concord, or an identity of cafe— 
Thus we fay, ‘s It is fhe, ** I know it 
to be ber.’ 
His obfervations on the phrafe, 6s The- 
rules are as follows,”’ are pertinent and 
correét. Murray feems in this, as in 
many other inftances, to have implicitly 
bowed to the authority of Dr. Campbell ; 
but the arguments in favour of as follow 
adduced by Dr. Crombie, in his Treatife 
on Enghth Etymology and Syntax, are fo 
clear and Forcible, that the phrafe~** as 
follows,” in reference to a plural fubje@, 
muft, in my apprehenfion, be deemed fo~ 
leciftical. 
I will add, what ye acute writer laf. 
mentioned — 
xa 
