one_, which transferred it to the house of Hanover!

When politicians cannot rely upon each other's interpretation of _one of
the commonest words_ in our language, how can they possibly act
together? The Bishop of Winchester has proved this observation, by the
remarkable anecdote of the Duke of Portland and Mr. Pitt, who, with a
view to unite parties, were to hold a conference _on_ FAIR _and_ EQUAL
_terms_. His grace did not object to the word FAIR, but the word EQUAL
was more specific and limited; and for a necessary preliminary, he
requested Mr. Pitt to inform him what he _understood_ by the word EQUAL?
Whether Pitt was puzzled by the question, or would not deliver up an
_arriere-pensee_, he put off the explanation to the conference. But the
duke would not meet Mr. Pitt till the _word_ was explained; and this
important negotiation was broken off by not explaining a simple word
which appeared to require no explanation.

There is nothing more fatal in language than to wander from the popular
acceptation of words; and yet this popular sense cannot always accord
with precision of ideas, for it is itself subject to great changes.

Another source, therefore, of the abuse of words, is that mutability to
which, in the course of time, the verbal edifice, as well as more
substantial ones, is doomed. A familiar instance presents itself in the
titles of _tyrant_, _parasite_, and _sophist_, originally honourable
distinctions. The abuses of dominion made the appropriate title of kings
odious; the title of a magistrate, who had the care of the public
granaries of corn, at length was applied to a wretched flatterer for a
dinner; and absurd philosophers occasioned a mere denomination to become
a by-name. To employ such terms in their primitive sense would now
confuse all ideas; yet there is an affectation of erudition which has
frequently revived terms sanctioned by antiquity. Bishop Watson entitled
his vindication of the Bible "an _apology_:" this word, in its primitive
sense, had long been lost for the multitude, whom he particularly
addressed in this work, and who could only understand it in the sense
they are accustomed to. Unquestionably, many of its readers have
imagined that the bishop was offering an _excuse_ for a belief in the
Bible, instead of a _vindication_ of its truth. The word _impertinent_,
by the ancient jurisconsults, or law-counsellors, who gave their opinion
on cases, was used merely in opposition to _pertinent_