OBS. 4.—­The foregoing explanation has many faults; and whoever trusts to it, or to any thing like it, will certainly be very much misled.  In the first place, it is remarkable that an author who could suspect in others “the want of a clear idea of the nature of a collective noun,” should have hoped to supply the defect by a definition so ambiguous and ill-written as is the one above.  Secondly, his subdivision of this class of nouns into two sorts, is both baseless and nugatory; for that plurality which has reference to the individuals of an assemblage, has no manner of connexion or affinity with that which refers to more than one such aggregate; nor is there any interference of the one with the other, or any ground at all for supposing that the absence of the latter is, has been, or ought to be, the occasion for adopting the former.  Hence, thirdly, his two rules, (though, so far as they go, they seem not untrue in themselves,) by their limitation under this false division, exclude and deny the true construction of the verb with the greater part of our collective nouns.  For, fourthly, the first of these rules rashly presumes that any collective noun which in the singular number implies a plurality of individuals, is consequently destitute of any other plural; and the second accordingly supposes that no such nouns as, council, committee, jury, meeting, society, assembly, court, college, company, army, host, band, retinue, train, multitude, number, part, half, portion, majority, minority, remainder, set, sort, kind, class, nation, tribe, family, race, and a hundred more, can ever be properly used with a plural verb, except when they assume the plural form.  To prove the falsity of this supposition, is needless.  And, finally, the objection which this author advances against the common rules, is very far from proving them useless, or not greatly preferable to his own.  If they do not in every instance enable the student to ascertain with certainty which form of concord he ought to prefer, it is only because no rules can possibly tell a man precisely when he ought to entertain the idea of unity, and when that of plurality.  In some instances, these ideas are unavoidably mixed or associated, so that it is of little or no consequence which form of the verb we prefer; as, “Behold, the people IS one, and they have all one language.”—­Gen., xi, 6.

   “Well, if a king’s a lion, at the least
    The people ARE a many-headed beast.”—­Pope, Epist. i, l. 120.

OBS. 5.—­Lindley Murray says, “On many occasions, where a noun of multitude is used, it is very difficult to decide, whether the verb should be in the singular, or in the plural number; and this difficulty has induced some grammarians to cut the knot at once, and to assert that every noun of multitude must always be considered as conveying the idea of unity.”—­Octavo Gram., p. 153.  What these occasions, or who these grammarians,