OBS. 24.—­Some nouns, from the nature of the things meant, have no plural.  For, as there ought to be no word, or inflection of a word, for which we cannot conceive an appropriate meaning or use, it follows that whatever is of such a species that it cannot be taken in any plural sense, must naturally be named by a word which is singular only:  as, perry, cider, coffee, flax, hemp, fennel, tallow, pitch, gold, sloth, pride, meekness, eloquence.  But there are some things, which have in fact neither a comprehensible unity, nor any distinguishable plurality, and which may therefore be spoken of in either number; for the distinction of unity and plurality is, in such instances, merely verbal; and, whichever number we take, the word will be apt to want the other:  as, dregs, or sediment; riches, or wealth; pains, or toil; ethics, or moral philosophy; politics, or the science of government; belles-lettres, or polite literature.  So darkness, which in English appears to have no plural, is expressed in Latin by tenebrae, in French by tenebres, which have no singular.  It is necessary that every noun should be understood to be of one number or the other; for, in connecting it with a verb, or in supplying its place by a pronoun, we must assume it to be either singular or plural.  And it is desirable that singulars and plurals should always abide by their appropriate forms, so that they may be thereby distinguished with readiness.  But custom, which regulates this, as every thing else of the like nature, does not always adjust it well; or, at least, not always upon principles uniform in themselves and obvious to every intellect.

OBS. 25.—­Nouns of multitude, when taken collectively, generally admit the regular plural form; which of course is understood with reference to the individuality of the whole collection, considered as one thing:  but, when taken distributively, they have a plural signification without the form; and, in this case, their plurality refers to the individuals that compose the assemblage.  Thus, a council, a committee, a jury, a meeting, a society, a flock, or a herd, is singular; and the regular plurals are councils, committees, juries, meetings, societies, flocks, herds.  But these, and many similar words, may be taken plurally without the s, because a collective noun is the name of many individuals together.  Hence we may say, “The council were unanimous.”—­“The committee are in consultation.”—­“The jury were unable to agree.”—­“The meeting have shown their discretion.”—­“The society have settled their dispute.”—­“The flock are widely scattered.”—­“The whole herd were drowned in the sea.”  The propriety of the last example seems questionable; because whole implies unity, and were drowned is plural.  Where a purer concord can be effected, it may be well to avoid such a construction, though examples like it are not uncommon:  as, “Clodius was acquitted by a corrupt jury, that had palpably taken shares of money before they gave their verdict.”—­Bacon.  “And the whole multitude of the people were praying without, at the time of incense.”—­Luke, i, 10.