If singular pronouns, or a noun and pronoun of different persons, be disjunctively connected, the verb must agree with the person which stands nearest to it: as “I or thou art.” “Thou or I am.” “I, thou, or he is,” &c. But as this way of writing or speaking is very inelegant, and as saying, “Either I am, or thou art,” and so on, will always render having recourse to it unnecessary, the rule just laid down is almost useless, except inasmuch as it suggests a moral maxim, namely, “Always be on good terms with your next door neighbour.”

It also forcibly reminds us of some beautiful lines by Moore, in which the heart, like a tendril, is said to twine round the “nearest and loveliest thing.” Now the person which is placed nearest the verb is the object of choice; ergo, the most agreeable person—ergo, the loveliest person or thing.

Should a conjunction disjunctive occur between a singular noun or pronoun, and a plural one, the verb agrees with the plural noun or pronoun: as, “Neither a king nor his courtiers are averse to butter:” (particularly when thickly spread). “Darius or the Persians were hostile to Greece.”

RULE IV.

A noun of multitude, that is, one which signifies many, can have a verb or pronoun to agree with it either in the singular or plural number; according to the import of such noun, as conveying unity or plurality of idea: as, “The Parliament is—” we do not choose to say what. “The nation is humbugged.” “The ministry are exceedingly well pensioned.” “The multitude have to pay many taxes.” “The Council are at a loss to know what to do.” “The people is a many-headed monster.”

We do not mean to call the people names. We only quote what all parties say of it when out of office. When they are in, it is—why, we may exhaust the alphabet about it, as Sterne tried to do about Love; but he couldn’t get farther than R.; and therefore, if we break down, it is no matter. So we will e’en try a leap; and as the maxim “audi alteram partem” is a favourite one with all rightly constituted minds, our own inclusive, we will see what can be said on both sides. The people, then, is termed,

By the Ins. By the Outs.
An apprehensive people, An addle-headed people.
A blessed people, A burdened people.
A chivalrous people, A currish people.
A delightful people, A disgusting people.
An enlightened people, An embruted people.
A free people, A fettered people.
A glorious people, A grovelling people.
A high-minded people, A hoggish people.
An intelligent people, An impenetrable people.
A judicious people, A jolter-headed people.
A knowing people, A knotty-pated people.
A lively people, A lubberly people.
A magnanimous people, A miserable people.
A noble people, A niggardly people.
An obliging people, An odious people.
A pious people, A profane people.
A quiet people, A quarrelsome people.
A righteous people, A rascally people.
A sensible people, A stupid people.
A Tory people, A truculent people.
An upright people, An unprincipled people.
A virtuous people, A vicious people.
A Whig people, A wicked people.
An X-cellent people, An X-ecrable people.
A yielding people, A yelping people.
A zetetic people, A zany people.

And now for a little more Syntax.

RULE V.

Pronouns agree with their antecedents, and with the nouns to which they belong, in gender and number: as, “This is the blow which killed Ned.” “England was once governed by a celebrated King, who was called Rufus the Red, but whose name was by no means so illustrious as that of Alfred.” “His Grace and the Baronet had put on their boots.” “The Countess appeared, and she smiled, but the smile belied her feelings.”