ir own rule is good
for any thing, these authors ought rather to have preferred the possessive
case; but strike out the word _being_, which is not necessary to the sense,
and all question about the construction vanishes. Or if any body will
justify these examples as they stand, let him observe that there are
others, without number, to be justified on the same principle; as, "Much
depends _on the rule being observed_."--"Much will depend _on the pupil
composing frequently_." Again: "Cyrus did not wait for the _Babylonians
coming_ to attack him."--_Rollin_, ii, 86. "Cyrus did not wait for the
_Babylonians' coming_ to attack him." That is--"for _their_ coming," and
not, "for _them_ coming;" but much better than either: "Cyrus did not wait
for the Babylonians _to come and_ attack him." Again: "To prevent his
_army's being_ enclosed and hemmed in."--_Rollin_, ii, 89. "To prevent his
_army being_ enclosed and hemmed in." Both are wrong. Say, "To prevent his
_army from being_ enclosed and hemmed in." Again: "As a sign of _God's
fulfilling_ the promise."--_Rollin_, ii, 23. "As a sign of _God
fulfilling_ the promise." Both are objectionable. Say, "As a sign _that God
would fulfill_ the promise." Again: "There is affirmative evidence for
_Moses's being_ the author of these books."--_Bp. Watson's Apology_, p. 28.
"The first argument you produce against _Moses being_ the author of these
books."--_Ib._, p. 29. Both are bad. Say,--"for _Moses as being_ the
author,"--"against _Moses as being_ the author," &c.

OBS. 14.--Now, although thousands of sentences might easily be quoted, in
which the possessive case is _actually_ governed by a participle, and that
participle not taken in every respect as a noun; yet I imagine, there are,
of this kind, few examples, if any, the meaning of which might not be
_better expressed_ in some other way. There are surely none among all the
examples which are presented by Priestley, Murray, and others, under their
rule above. Nor would a thousand such as are there given, amount to any
proof of the rule. They are all of them _unreal_ or _feigned_ sentences,
made up for the occasion, and, like most others that are produced in the
same way, made up badly--made up after some ungrammatical model. If a
gentleman could possibly demand a _lady's meaning_ in such an act as _the
holding-up of her train_, he certainly would use none of Priestley's three
questions, which, with such ridiculous and uninstructive pedantr