Flower, Crane, Brace, and many others.”—­Ib. Yet, if I mistake not, the weight of authority is vastly against it. Such a rule as this, is not extensively approved; and even some of the names here given, are improperly cited.  Lindley Murray’s remark, “Some of our verbs appear to govern two words in the objective case,” is applied only to words in apposition, and wrong even there; Perley’s rule is only of “Some verbs of asking and teaching;” and Nutting’s note, “It sometimes happens that one transitive verb governs two objective cases,” is so very loose, that one can neither deny it, nor tell how much it means.

“REM. 5.—­Verbs of asking, giving, teaching, and some others, are often employed in the passive voice to govern a noun or pronoun; as, ’He was asked his opinion.’—­Johnson.  ’He had been refused shelter.’—­ Irving.”—­Ib., p. 155, Sec.215.  Passive governing is not far from absurdity.  Here, by way of illustration, we have examples of two sorts; the one elliptical, the other solecistical.  The former text appears to mean, “He was asked for, his opinion;”—­or, “He was asked to give his opinion:  the latter should have been, “Shelter had been refused him;”—­i.e., “to him.”  Of the seven instances cited by the author, five at least are of the latter kind, and therefore to be condemned; and it is to be observed, that when they are corrected, and the right word is made nominative, the passive government, by Wells’s own showing, becomes nothing but the ellipsis of a preposition.  Having just given a rule, by which all his various examples are assumed to be regular and right, he very inconsistently adds this not:  “This form of expression is anomalous, and might, in many cases, be improved.  Thus, instead of saying, ’He was offered a seat on the council,’ it would be preferable to say ’A seat in the council was offered [to] him.’”—­Ib., p. 155, Sec. 215.  By admitting here the ellipsis of the preposition to, he evidently refutes the doctrine of his own text, so far as it relates to passive government, and, by implication, the doctrine of his fourth remark also.  For the ellipsis of to, before “him,” is just as evident in the active expression, “I thrice presented him a kingly crown,” as in the passive, “A kingly crown was thrice presented him.”  It is absurd to deny it in either.  Having offset himself, Wells as ingeniously balances his authorities, pro and con; but, the elliptical examples being allowable, he should not have said that I and others “condemn this usage altogether.”