At present the number of words of which the orthography is not uniform in all writings which aspire at once to be correct and devoid of affectation, is exceedingly small. Take this sentence, and the whole of the paragraph which precedes it; is there any word, except this word precede, in which any variety will be found in the ordinary current writings of the day Or if we found a variety, should we not say that the deviation from the usual practice was a casual mistake, a slip of the press, an affectation, or that it was the result of some peculiar principle which some peculiar person had adopted ? And even this word precede, though it belongs to a cLass in which ortho graphy is not uniform, we should probably very rarely find written in any other way, for few persons would prefer the form preceed, if indeed such a form is ever used. So that practically a great and perhaps quite sufficient degree of uniformity and stability may be said to be secured under the regulating power which now exists.
Dictionaries and vocabularies, as affording an easy guide to the knowledge of what is the usage, may have their use in this respect to a few persons who write occasionally only; but as authorities, we repeat, they are of no avail.
It has been matter of complaint that the orthography of the English language is not more uniform ; that is, that words which are composed in whole or in part of the same elements, are not uniform in the manner in which those elements are exhibited. Thus all words derived of the Latin redo with prepositions prefixed, it may be said, should be in one form ; and it is a variety in defence of which nothing can well be pleaded that we should write proceed and yet write also concede. So with respect to such words as honour, favour, odour, labour, it may be said that there should be uniformity with other words like them, iu which the u is not found; and further, that we should keep to the orthography of the Latin words of which they are forms equally in meaning and orthography. This appears plausible, but when it is considered that these words do not come to us imme diately from the Latin, but have passed to us through the French, we recognise in the unnecessary letter u a part of the history of the word, which a person of true taste would scarcely be willing to relinquish for an advantage so trivial. Or take the rough word through : some may think that the three Last letters may well be dispensed with, but they remain a pleasing evidence of the origin of the word in the rough and strong speech of our Saxon ancestors.
These little irregularities in orthography, like irregularities in other parts of grammar, are not to be regarded as evils. Such irregularities give birth to what are called idioms, in which no small part of the beauty of a language lies.
Attempts have, however, been made by ingenious men to introduce a greater degree of uniformity into our orthography. There is a treatise on the management of bees, printed about two centuries ago, in which we have a peculiar orthography on a system of the author's own. Ritson, in the last century, in some of his works adopted an
orthography of his own. Professed writers on grammar have done the same ; some of them to such an extent that the language, as written by them, can scarcely be known to be English. A more moderate reform is attempted by an American writer, Dr. Noah Webster, the author of the English Dictionary, which has been reprinted in this country; and Mr. 13romby of Hull, a learned and ingenious clergyman, has printed for private circulation a translation of the treatise of Plutarch concerning music, in which the orthography is regulated by certain principles which he lays down in the preface. Again, some gentlemen, distinguished alike by intelligence and philanthropy, a few years ago brought forward a well-considered form of alphabet, and gave to the world an example of it in the periodical called the Eonetik Nuz.' It would be well, perhaps, if philological inquirers and mission erica availed themselves of this notation, when dealing with unwritten languages, or with those whose alphabets differ wholly or widely from all that is familiar to Europeans. Further, it may be conceded that the acquisition of the English language itself by young children would be greatly facilitated by the use of school-booka on the " Fonetik " system as stepping-stones to our ordinary form of printing. No doubt it is some slight evil that the strict reduction of our written signs to harmony with spoken language would involve a sacrifice of much that L valuable for etymological guidance. But any loss on this side would be more than compensated by the increased facilities for attaining the language. The valid objection to the proposal is, the utter impossi bility of effecting so extensive a revolution. It is most true, and it is also a serious evil, that our mode of spelling is so anomalous and incoristent; yet the words are in reality very few of which the orthography may not be said to be now established by the great Jus et Norma Loqiendi—custom. We take the following from a modern grammar, as being those which, in the opinion of the writer, are most frequently found with orthographical varieties :— Of course some of these represent classes. But what are these to the great body of such a lapguage as ours / And with respect to the first and to the last, each of which represents a large family of words, we would submit that very few persons indeed who were entitled to a voice in a question of this kind would be found writing honor; and that there is a general rule respecting words in ice or ize. The rule is this : when the word is a derivative of the French prendre, as is the case with surprise, enterprise, and one or two others, to write it with the ice; but when it comes to us from the Greek, as in agonize, and other words, to keep the Greek termination tCw--Anglied, ize.