OBS. 7.—­Concerning one of the forms of expression which Murray approves and prefers, among his corrections above, the learned doctors Lowth and Campbell appear to have formed very different opinions.  The latter, in the chapter which, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, he devotes to disputed points in syntax, says:  “There is only one other observation of Dr. Lowth, on which, before I conclude this article, I must beg leave to offer some remarks.  ’Phrases like the following, though very common, are improper:  Much depends upon the rule’s being observed; and error will be the consequence of its being neglected.  For here is a noun and a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, under the government of another noun, but without other noun to govern it:  for being observed, and being neglected, are not nouns:  nor can you supply the place of the possessive case by the preposition of before the noun or pronoun.’[346] For my part,” continues Campbell, “notwithstanding what is here very speciously urged, I am not satisfied that there is any fault in the phrases censured.  They appear to me to be perfectly in the idiom of our tongue, and such as on some occasions could not easily be avoided, unless by recurring to circumlocution, an expedient which invariably tends to enervate the expression.”—­Philosophy of Rhetoric, B. ii, Ch. iv, p. 234.

OBS. 8.—­Dr. Campbell, if I understand his argument, defends the foregoing expressions against the objections of Dr. Lowth, not on the ground that participles as such may govern the possessive case, but on the supposition that as the simple active participle may become a noun, and in that character govern the possessive case, so may the passive participle, and with equal propriety, notwithstanding it consists of two or more words, which must in this construction be considered as forming “one compound noun.”  I am not sure that he means to confine himself strictly to this latter ground, but if he does, his position cannot be said in any respect to contravene my rule for the possessive case.  I do not, however, agree with him, either in the opinion which he offers, or in the negative which he attempts to prove.  In view of the two examples, “Much depends upon the rule’s being observed,” and, “Much depends upon their observing of the rule,” he says:  “Now, although I allow both the modes of expression to be good, I think the first simpler and better than the second.”  Then, denying all faults, he proceeds:  “Let us consider whether the former be liable to any objections, which do not equally affect the latter.”  But in his argument, he considers only the objections offered by Lowth, which indeed he sufficiently refutes.  Now to me there appear to be other objections, which are better founded.  In the first place, the two sentences are not equivalent in meaning; hence the preference suggested by this critic and others, is