Of these ornaments of the English tongue, some are found among the ignorant people in this country. A great part

In the next paragraph Mr. Pegge adds : —

"These, Sir, and a few other such vulgarities (to use the London word), such vitia sermonis, are to be heard daily throughout the bills of mortality I readily admit; but then every body understands their meaning, and their language is not like the unintelligible gabble of nine-tenths of the provincial inhabitants of the remote parts of England, which none but the natives can understand; though I doubt not, but on close investigation, such language (as I hinted before) might be radically justified. Bring together two clowns from Kent and Yorkshire, and I will wager a ducat that they will not be able to converse for want of a dialect common to them both."

must, I believe, be acknowledged to be exclusively the property of your metropolis. The former class will at least serve to keep our blunderers in countenance. The latter constitute a collection of improprieties, which far exceeds every thing known in New-England. I ought to add, that here mistakes of this nature belong only to individuals, and do not extend even over a single village; much less are they spread through a considerable tract of country. It will not be supposed, that uneducated men will be free from errors, either in the pronunciation or the use of language. But we have nonc, even among such men, so outrageous as these.

Among the reasons, which here contribute to a general propriety, both in the use and the pronunciation of language, the following are not without their influence.

A great multitude of the parochial schools are taught to a considerable extent by young men educated in colleges, and in this manner derive their pronunciation immediately from the common standard, in a good degree.

The great body of our people are regularly at church, and thus imbibe their pronunciation in a considerable degree from the clergy.

All those, who are liberally educated and polished, converse, as I have heretofore observed, more freely and universally with their plain neighbours than probably was ever done in any other country; and some persons of the former character are found in almost every village.

As there are here no distinct orders in society, all men endeavour to copy the manners of those who have acquired superior importance and reputation, and that in their pronunciation as well as in their dress and manners. To acquire this resemblance is an object of direct design and active ambition.

Our countrymen, as has been observed, read, and that in such numbers, that it may be justly said to be the general character. Hence they obtain the intelligence necessary to comprehend the importance of this object, and that attentive observation which secures the attainment.

Many of them, also, are, to a considerable extent, present at courts, and there acquire an additional conformity to the standard pronunciation. From these, and doubtless from other causes, some of which may have escaped my attention,

we have derived a pronunciation, probably more uniform than has ever prevailed in any other country in the world.

From an observation in the Eclectic Review, I am ready to believe, that the writer supposed the peculiarities of Mr. Webster's pronunciation to be generally adopted in this country. The opinion, if it exist, is erroneous. These peculiarities have spread very little. The friends of Mr. Webster, of whom I am one, regret that his learning and labours should be rendered less useful by his departure, in several instances, from the common standard.

I am, Sir, &c.

LETTER II.

The Inhabitants of this Country charged with retaining Obsolete Words; with introducing New Words; with annexing new Significations to Words. Alterations in Language less in this Country than in England, for the last two hundred Years. Vindication of this Conduct.

DEAR SIR;

WE are accused, also, of retaining ancient words, brought by our ancestors from their native country, and since that period left by the English out of their vocabulary. The charge, undoubtedly, is to some extent well-founded. That bodies of men, speaking originally the same language, should, when separated from each other to the distance of three thousand miles, retain, at the end of two centuries, precisely the same words, may, I think, be justly regarded as an absolute impossibility. Certainly no instance of this nature has been hitherto known: of course it ought not to have been expected here. Men always have such words as will express the ideas, which they have occasion to communicate to each other. Nothing is more natural than that we should retain some ideas, and have occasion to communicate them, which you have not retained. Both you and we unquestionably retain some part of the manners of our ancestors: but it is scarcely credible, that we should both retain exactly the same parts. About those, which we severally retain, we shall severally have occasion to converse; and each must have words, expressing the ideas out of which the conversation is made. These, so far as they were in the possession of our ancestors, we naturally retain. This you have done as well as we, and to as great an extent. Nay, I believe you have many more words,

VOL. IV.

T

which are not considered as classical by yourselves, than we have. The peculiarity in each case is natural and necessary; and he, who finds fault with it, must be either very thoughtless or very silly. An American, who reads such of your books as display the language and sentiments of humble life; such as plays, novels, and that excellent work, the Religious Repository; finds in them a great multitude of expressions, which certainly can plead nothing to justify them, except that they are idiomatic phraseology of ancient times. Many of them, at least, are absolutely without the classic pale; and are accordant with no existing grammatical rules. It is however sufficient for him, that they were the language of those who have gone before you. On what principles are you justified in retaining these words, which will not justify us in retaining ours?

But we are censured, also, for making new words. The charge is undoubtedly just. Wherever we find occasion for the use of words, and have them not, we, like you and all other nations, make them. In the state of Connecticut a number of men are chosen annually by each town, to receive from each inhabitant a list of the taxable property in his possession. This list is required by law, and is made up by the proprietor. The men, who receive it, are from their employment styled Listers. If the proprietor gives in a false list, he is punished by having the falsified article increased on the list four-fold. Englishmen on both sides of the Atlantic have no fondness for circumlocution. We therefore style this punishment Four-folding. These are terms, confined to this state: and, although sufficiently remote from elegance, yet serve to convey ideas of some importance in our state of society, which otherwise could not be conveyed without a periphrasis. A few others, local also, may be found in other parts of our country; and a small number have had a more extensive currency. Among these, immigrate, immigration, and immigrant, hold a conspicuous place. The stream of population flows out of Great Britain; but a part of it flows into the United States. You, therefore, have no use for these words; but we have at least as much as you have for emigrate, and its derivatives. Why then should we not use them, rather than be driven to a tedious periphrasis every time