nd fruitless attempt to fix a rule for
the guidance of the learner in this matter. After dashing off a culpable
example, "Sidmouth, _with_ Oliver the _spye_, have brought Brandreth to the
block;" or, as his late editions have it, "The _Tyrant, with_ the _Spy,
have_ brought _Peter_ to the block." He adds: "We hesitate which to employ,
the singular or the plural verb; that is to say, _has_ or _have_. The
meaning must be our guide. If we mean, that the act has been done by the
Tyrant himself, and that the spy has been a mere involuntary agent, then we
ought to use the singular; but if we believe that the spy has been a
co-operator, an associate, an accomplice, then we must use the plural
verb." Ay, truly; but must we not also, in the latter case, use _and_, and
not _with_? After some further illustrations, he says: "When _with_ means
_along with, together with, in Company with_, and the like, it is nearly
the same as _and_; and then the plural verb must be used: [as,] 'He, with
his brothers, _are_ able to do much.' Not, '_is_ able to do much.' If the
pronoun be used instead of _brothers_, it will be in the objective case:
'He, _with_ them, _are_ able to do much.' But this is _no impediment_ to
the including of the noun (represented by _them_) in the nominative." I
wonder what would be an impediment to the absurdities of such a dogmatist!
The following is his last example: "'Zeal, with discretion, _do_ much;' and
not '_does_ much;' for we mean, on the contrary, that it _does nothing_. It
is the meaning that must determine which of the numbers we ought to
employ." This author's examples are all fictions of his own, and such of
them as here have a plural verb, are wrong. His rule is also wrong, and
contrary to the best authority. St. Paul says to Timothy, "Godliness _with_
contentment _is_ great gain:"--_1 Tim._, vi, 6. This text is right; but
Cobbett's principle would go to prove it erroneous. Is he the only man who
has ever had a right notion of its _meaning_? or is he not rather at fault
in his interpretations?

OBS. 21.--There is one other apparent exception to Rule 16th, (or perhaps a
real one,) in which there is either an ellipsis of the preposition _with_,
or else the verb is made singular because the first noun only is its true
subject, and the others are explanatory nominatives to which the same verb
must be understood in the plural number; as, "_A torch_, snuff and all,
_goes out_ in a moment, when dipped in the vapou