less the slaves of authority-the disciples of custom-the literary bigots are not worth reasoning with. I do not pretend to legislate but to point out the true principles of legislation. True etymology ought to regulate orthography; and the intention of my reasonings is to unfold the nature and establish the authority of true etymology.

Perhaps no one has studied the pronunciation and spelling of the English language so much as Mr. Walker; and that author has justly remarked: “Our orthography is not only an insuperable difficulty to foreigners, but an eternal source of dispute and perplexity to ourselves; and though it would be in vain to think of removing every intricacy [why vain ?] that is constantly arising from indolence and caprice, yet that a considerable number may be remedied by a view of the general laws of formation will be readily conceived by those who enquire into the origin of the difficulties complained of. By an affectation of approximating to the orthography of the learned languages we have rooted out many useful letters that sprung up naturally with exotic words, and have been led to exclude all letters in our compounds which are not actually pronounced, though their existence in these words is often no less necessary to prevent ambiguity than in the simples themselves. Thus the useful servile e. is hardly ever suffered to have a place in composition, though from a feeling of its importance we are almost intuitively tempted to let it remain in the branches whenever we recol

lect it in the root. The omission or insertion of this occasions a numerous catalogue of rules and exceptions. The other serviles 7, s, &c. are no less absurdly omitted in composition, though their power remains, and by this means both orthography and pronunciation are confounded. The duplication of consonants when an additional termination is 'assumed forms another difficulty in our terminational orthography, as it may be called, which has embar rassed the most correct and accurate writers."

This is the language of sense and reflection. It is surprising (if indeed any kind of human folly can surprise one who has looked long and much around him in the world) how absurdly men persevere in perplexing methods without ever stopping to enquire wherein the evil consists, or how it may be rectified. Boys are actually several years in learning to spell the English language (what with a simple, uniform, rational orthography might be learned in a few weeks, or at most, a few months); nor are they then, or indeed to the end of life, certain about the proper spelling of some words. As if it were of no importance to prevent useless learning, and render language simple and easy; we seem to think it cannot be rendered too perplexing and difficult. The evil complained of indeed is like all the other evils connected with mistakes concerning language-wholly attributable to the neglect of rational etymology.

"To detect (says Mr. Walker) the orthographical irregularities of our language it will be necessary first

to lay down such general maxims in spelling as have almost universally taken place. By these we may judge of the impropriety of those deviations which are owing perhaps to a want of seeing the laws of formation as here exhibited, and knowing how far the irregularity extends." The aphorisms laid down by the above sensible and meritorious author I shall examine; for though he thought the evil he complained of too deep to be remedied, and therefore endeavoured to bring the absurdity into a fixed and regular shape, I cannot perceive why it may not be cut up by the roots at once instead of being established for ever.

66

Monosyllables (says Mr. Walker) ending with f, 1, or s, preceded by a single vowel, double the final consonant; as staff, mill, pass, &c."

This is according to general practice; but there is no reasonableness or utility in the practice: double f. and double l, &c. used to be pronounced differently (as they still are in some dialects) from single f. and single l, &c. ; but as there is now no difference whatever in the power of the double and single form of the same letter, why double it uselessly? If it were for no other purpose than to save time, labour, trouble and expense, it would be of importance to drop the superfluous letter; and as the omission of it would greatly simplify the orthography of our language, it ought manifestly to be omitted.

There is something like a reason indeed for retaining the double ss. as it is usually pronounced differ

ently from the single form of the same letter; as his, hiss; as, ass. It should be observed, however, that either z. or single s. is superfluous, as they have both one sound; thus is has the same sound as if it were spelt iz, &c. The z. is rather an alien than a native in the English language, and might be very easily expelled as a nuisance or cumberer: and I would move (hoping the practice of every good writer will second the motion) that the following be adopted as the principles of English orthography.

FIRST PRINCIPLE OF ENGLISH ORTHOGRAPHY. THAT NO SUPERFLUOUS LETTER IN ANY SYLLABLE OF ANY WORD BE RETAINED.

Thus instead of staff spell staf; and for mill put mil, &c.

SECOND PRINCIPLE OF ENGLISH ORTHOGRAPHY. THAT THE SPELLING OF THE SAME WORD BE NOT CHANGED IN ANY CONNEXION.

Why should y. be changed into i. in so many words; as spy into spies, instead of spys; carry into carrier, instead of carryer, or rather caryer; pay into paid, instead of payed, &c.? Mr. Walker justly calls this an unaccountable caprice. It is a caprice that

S

serves no one purpose whatever but to render or. thography difficult and perplexing.

THIRD PRINCIPLE OF ORTHOGRAPHY.

LETTERS

OUGHT NOT TO BE DROPPED OR SUPPRESSED WHEN THE WORD TO WHICH THEY BELONG IS COMPOUNDED WITH OTHER WORDS OR PAR

TICLES.

The following instances are all at variance with the above principle: duly, truly, instead of truely duely; wholly instead of wholely; chastly, chastness, for chastely, chasteness; blamable, curable, sensible, for blameable, cureable, &c. &c.

The reason of the above principle is obvious: such capricious and irregular omissions of letters, as in duly, truly, wholly, &c. can serve no purpose whatever but to render spelling difficult and perplexing.

FOURTH PRINCIPLE.-Letters OUGHT NOT TO BE NEEDLESSLY ASSUMED.

The general practice of spelling on which the following APHORISM of Mr. Walker is founded, is at variance with the foregoing principle:-" Words ending with a single consonant, preceded by a single vowel and with the accent on the last syllable, upon assuming an additional syllable beginning with a