206; Fisk’s, 140; Smith’s, 165.  “By a noun, pronoun, or adjective, being prefixed to the substantive.”—­Murray’s Gram., p. 39; also Ingersoll’s, Fisk’s, Alger’s, Maltby’s, Merchant’s, Bacon’s, and others.  Here, if their own rule is good for any thing, these authors ought rather to have preferred the possessive case; but strike out the word being, which is not necessary to the sense, and all question about the construction vanishes.  Or if any body will justify these examples as they stand, let him observe that there are others, without number, to be justified on the same principle; as, “Much depends on the rule being observed.”—­“Much will depend on the pupil composing frequently.”  Again:  “Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians coming to attack him.”—­Rollin, ii, 86.  “Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians’ coming to attack him.”  That is—­“for their coming,” and not, “for them coming;” but much better than either:  “Cyrus did not wait for the Babylonians to come and attack him.”  Again:  “To prevent his army’s being enclosed and hemmed in.”—­Rollin, ii, 89.  “To prevent his army being enclosed and hemmed in.”  Both are wrong.  Say, “To prevent his army from being enclosed and hemmed in.”  Again:  “As a sign of God’s fulfilling the promise.”—­Rollin, ii, 23.  “As a sign of God fulfilling the promise.”  Both are objectionable.  Say, “As a sign that God would fulfill the promise.”  Again:  “There is affirmative evidence for Moses’s being the author of these books.”—­Bp.  Watson’s Apology, p. 28.  “The first argument you produce against Moses being the author of these books.”—­Ib., p. 29.  Both are bad.  Say,—­“for Moses as being the author,”—­“against Moses as being the author,” &c.

OBS. 14.—­Now, although thousands of sentences might easily be quoted, in which the possessive case is actually governed by a participle, and that participle not taken in every respect as a noun; yet I imagine, there are, of this kind, few examples, if any, the meaning of which might not be better expressed in some other way.  There are surely none among all the examples which are presented by Priestley, Murray, and others, under their rule above.  Nor would a thousand such as are there given, amount to any proof of the rule.  They are all of them unreal or feigned sentences, made up for the occasion, and, like most others that are produced in the same way, made up badly—­made up after some ungrammatical model.  If a gentleman could possibly demand a lady’s meaning in such an act as the holding-up of her train, he certainly would use none of Priestley’s three questions, which, with such ridiculous and uninstructive pedantry, are repeated and expounded by Latham, in his Hand-Book, Sec.481; but would probably say, “Madam,