The nature of the subjunctive mood is dismissed in the same Letter without better success than has been obtained by former grammarians. An essay was published about thirty years ago in a periodical work, which brings the subject into a small compass; [p099] suggesting that the subjunctive mood ought always to be considered as a _conditional future_. The examples given are, “If the Elbe _is now_ open, we shall soon have the mails, and _then_, if there _be_ any news from the army, I will send it you immediately.” “If Catiline _was_ generous, it was in order to serve his ambition.” The subjunctive past, if I _were_, becomes present, by being the future of the past; going back to the time when the present was future, and therefore contingent; and this conditional sense involves no difficulty, except when a mistaken adherence to the fancied rules of grammar forces it in where it has no business: thus the rules of some grammarians would lead us to say, if Catiline _were_ ambitious; which is totally contrary to the true sense of the subjunctive. Mr. Cobbett seems to have some such distinctions in view when he says that “_if_ has nothing at all to do with the government of the verb. It is the sense which governs.” By this he means that _if_ does not require a subjunctive unless is relates to a _future contingency_. He is right in saying “Though her chastity _is_ becoming, it gives her no claim to praise”: but most decidedly wrong in adding “she would be criminal if she _was_ not chaste”; for _was_ is here used as relating to the present circumstances, which are the future of the past, and therefore require the subjunctive _were_ to denote the condition intended. He has, however, done signal justice to the cause of this injured verb, by introducing it for _was_, in his sixth lesson, where he says it should have been “Your Lordship _were_ apprized of every important circumstance.”