OBS. 10.—­That singular notion, so common in our grammars, that a participle and its adjuncts may form “one name” or “substantive phrase,” and so govern the possessive case, where it is presumed the participle itself could not, is an invention worthy to have been always ascribed to its true author.  For this doctrine, as I suppose, our grammarians are indebted to Dr. Priestley.  In his grammar it stands thus:  “When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea, or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case.  Thus, instead of saying, What is the meaning of this lady holding up her train, i. e. what is the meaning of the lady in holding up her train, we may say, What is the meaning of this lady’s holding up her train; just as we say, What is the meaning of this lady’s dress, &c.  So we may either say, I remember it being reckoned a great exploit; or, perhaps more elegantly, I remember its being reckoned, &c.”—­Priestley’s Gram., p. 69.  Now, to say nothing of errors in punctuation, capitals, &c., there is scarcely any thing in all this passage, that is either conceived or worded properly.  Yet, coining from a Doctor of Laws, and Fellow of the Royal Society, it is readily adopted by Murray, and for his sake by others; and so, with all its blunders, the vain gloss passes uncensured into the schools, as a rule and model for elegant composition.  Dr. Priestley pretends to appreciate the difference between participles and participial nouns, but he rather contrives a fanciful distinction in the sense, than a real one in the construction.  His only note on this point,—­a note about the “horse running to-day,” and the “horse’s running to-day,”—­I shall leave till we come to the syntax of participles.

OBS. 11.—­Having prepared the reader to understand the origin of what is to follow, I now cite from L. Murray’s code a paragraph which appears to be contradictory to his own doctrine, as suggested in the fifth observation above; and not only so, it is irreconcilable with any proper distinction between the participle and the participial noun.  “When an entire clause of a sentence, beginning with a participle of the present tense, is used as one name, or to express one idea or circumstance, the noun on which it depends may be put in the genitive case; thus, instead of saying, ‘What is the reason of this person dismissing his servant so hastily?’ that is, ’What is the reason of this person, in dismissing his servant so hastily?’ we may say, and perhaps ought to say, ’What is the reason of this person’s dismissing of his servant so hastily?’ Just as we say, ‘What is the reason of this person’s hasty dismission of his servant?’ So also, we say, ‘I remember it being reckoned a