"The situation of William was very different. He could not, like those who had ruled before him, pass an Act in the spring and violate it in the summer. He had, by assenting to the Bill of Rights, solemnly renounced the dispensing power; and he was restrained, by prudence as well as by conscience and honour, from breaking the compact under which he held his crown. A law might be personally offensive to him: it might appear to him to be pernicious to his people: but, as soon as he had passed it, it was, in his eyes, a sacred thing. He had, therefore, a motive, which preceding kings had not, for pausing before he passed such a law. They gave their word readily, because they had no scruple about breaking it. He gave his word slowly, because he never failed to keep it." (Macaulay: History of England.) There is much danger that in some way the antecedent of a pronoun will be left uncertain. If the antecedent is shifted, if the pronoun stands without any antecedent, or with only a vague antecedent, or if the word to which it refers grammatically is not the word to which it refers in sense, ambiguity surely results. The following sentences are cases in point: "Either way will be difficult, for the President will want the Secretary of War to be inferior in rank to the commanding general, as he will be more of a personal appointee, and so he will have a better control over the army." _Corrected:_ "Either way will be difficult, for the President will want the Secretary of War to be inferior in rank to the commanding general, because then the former will be more of a personal appointee, and he himself will so gain a better control over the army." The first "he" refers to the Secretary of War, the second to the President; the shift in antecedent produces complete obscurity. No doubt Banquo was ambitious, but it did not master him as it did Macbeth. _Corrected:_ No doubt Banquo was ambitious, but ambition (or the craving for advancement) did not master him as it did Macbeth. In the original form, "it" is without an antecedent, because a pronoun may not refer grammatically to an adjective. The reader is left to supply the noun "ambition" from the use of the adjective "ambitious." We went to the Capitol determined to vote against him, but got there too late for our votes to count, which seemed to our adherents a most unwise policy. _Corrected:_ We went to the Capital determined to vote against him, though this determination seemed to our adherents a most unwise policy, but we got there too late for our votes to count. "Which" is here ambiguous, because its antecedent is vague. Speaking strictly, it has no antecedent, for "which" may not refer grammatically to a phrase or a clause, but, like all pronouns, must have one word as its antecedent. Disregarding, however, the grammatical fault, we may still condemn the sentence, because "which" may mean either the determination to cast a negative vote or the carelessness of coming late.