grammars, which he ridicules.  Surely, such expressions as, “Harris’s Hermes, Philips’s Poems, Prince’s Bay, Prince’s Island, Fox’s Journal, King James’s edict, a justice’s warrant, Sphinx’s riddle, the lynx’s beam, the lass’s beauty,” have authority enough to refute the cavil of this writer; who, being himself wrong, falsely charges the older grammarians, that,” their theories vary from the principles of the language correctly spoken or written.”—­Ib., p. 60.  A much more judicious author treats this point of grammar as follows:  “When the possessive noun is singular, and terminates with an s, another s is requisite after it, and the apostrophe must be placed between the two; as, ’Dickens’s works,’—­’Harris’s wit.’”—­Day’s Punctuation, Third London Edition, p. 136.  The following example, too, is right:  “I would not yield to be your house’s guest.”—­Shakespeare.

OBS. 18.—­All plural nouns that differ from the singular without ending in s, form the possessive case in the same manner as the singular:  as, man’s, men’s; woman’s, women’s j child’s, children’s; brother’s, brothers’ or brethren’s; ox’s, oxen’s; goose, geese’s.  In two or three words which are otherwise alike in both numbers, the apostrophe ought to follow the s in the plural, to distinguish it from the singular:  as, the sheep’s fleece, the sheeps’ fleeces; a neat’s tongue, neats’ tongues; a deer’s horns, a load of deers’ horns.

OBS. 19.—­Dr. Ash says, “Nouns of the plural number that end in s, will not very properly admit of the genitive case.”—­Ash’s Gram., p. 54.  And Dr. Priestley appears to have been of the same opinion.  See his Gram., p. 69.  Lowth too avers, that the sign of the possessive case is “never added to the plural number ending in s.”—­Gram., p. 18.  Perhaps he thought the plural sign must involve an other s, like the singular.  This however is not true, neither is Dr. Ash’s assertion true; for the New Testament speaks as properly of “the soldiers’ counsel,” as of the “centurion’s servant;” of “the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part,” as of “Paul’s sister’s son.”  It would appear, however, that the possessive plural is less frequently used than the possessive singular; its place being much oftener supplied by the preposition of and the objective.  We cannot say that either of them is absolutely necessary to the language; but they are both worthy to be commended, as furnishing an agreeable variety of expression.

   “Then shall man’s pride and dulness comprehend
    His actions’, passions’, being’s use and end.”—­Pope.