as in desir, liif. 4. That the letter y should be thrown entirely out of the alphabet, as useless, and its place supplied with i, as in mi, sai, awai. `5. That u long should be written with a stroke over it, as in præsum. 6. That the rest of the long vowels should be written with double letters, as weer, theer, (and sometimes thear) noo, noon, adoo, thoos, loov, in order to avoid an e at the end. 7. That letters without sound should be thrown out; as in the words, frutes, wold, faut, dout, again for against, hole, meen for mean. 8. And that the orthography of some words should be changed merely to improve the expressiveness of the sounds; as in gud, britil, praisabil, &c.-This scheme of orthographical innovation was found impracticable. It was too violent a change upon established habits in the language, to mect with a general reception. Nor, had it been practicable, would it have been at all desirable. The books formerly printed would have been rendered in a short time, alınost unintelligible, and thus the most perplexing confusion would have prevailed. Besides, the etymologist, if his labours deserve not to be regarded as wholly contemptible, would have often found himself entangled in

an inexplicable labyrinth in his search after the original meanings of words.

A more promising attempt to improve the English language was, his resolution to admit no terms into his diction, which had not an English, or rather a Saxon original. But in respect of this scheme, it might be observed, that the purity of our language had been too deeply corrupted by the admixture of exotic terms and phrases in his time, to admit its being carried into complete effect. Yet, from his disapprobation of the foreign terms employed in the existing translations of the scriptures, he resolved on the Herculean labour of a new version; and actually proceeded through St. Matthew's Gospel, and the beginning of St. Luke's. In the short specimen which I shall give from this version, it will be seen, however, with what inconsiderable success he reduced his principles to practice. In the course of three or four short verses, the learned reader will readily detect some half a dozen words derived from the Latin or Greek.

Matth. i. ver. 18.-After his mother Mari was, ensured to Joseph, before thei weer cupled together,

she was preived to be with child; and it was indeed by the Holi Ghoost. 19. But Joseph her husband, being a just man, and loth to use extremitie toward her, entended privili to divorse himself from her. 20. And being in this mind, lo the angel of the Lord appeired by dream, &c.

Chap. ii. ver. 16. Then Herod seeing that he was plaid withal by the wise-heards, &c.

In this translation he used such words as the following: desiirful, ungrevous, tollers, for publicans, &c. &c.

The points of view, in which perhaps we are most indebted to Sir John Cheke for the improvement of our language, are the following. He recommended and practised a more minute attention to the meaning of words and phrases, and adopted a more skilful arrangement of them in composition. Before him, the sentences were long, and too frequently involved. He recommended and used short sentences; and thus he has the merit of introducing greater precision of language, more perspicuity and force of stile.

In the arrangement and flow of words, there' is often a great similarity between the English language and the Greek. Sir John was accus

tomed to read off his Greek lectures from the original into English; and hence, he was very probably led to the adoption of those improvements of which we have been speaking.-It is not unworthy of remark, that the scholars of this age were particularly attentive to the writing of a fine hand. Thus Sir John Cheke, with Roger Ascham and others, were not only the first scholars, but also the finest mechanical penmen of their age.

I am probably right in saying, that the only English work extant of Sir John Cheke (except some letters published by Strype in his Life, and a few others in Harrington's Nuge Antique) is his tract entitled, "The Hurt of Sedition, how grievous it is to a Commonwealth;" and I should perhaps scarcely have thought it worth while to have ranked him in the present series of writers in English, were it not for his eminence as a scholar, and for the intimate connection of his character with the literary history of our country. The tract just mentioned was written and published in 1549. It is inserted in Holinshed's Chronicle, under the year 1549, and was reprinted in 1576. In 1641, it was printed a third time, by Dr. Gerard Langbaine, of Queen's College,

Oxford, with a brief life of the author prefixed; and was designed, on this occasion, as a check upon those who took arms against Charles I. in the time of the civil wars. The occasion which gave birth to it is the following; In the summer of 1549, a formidable rebellion broke out in many of the counties in England; particularly in Devonshire and Norfolk. The respective pleas of the rebels, in

hese distant parts of the kingdom, were different. Those in the West were desirous of restoring the popish religion, those of Norfolk and Suffolk rebelled from political motives and insisted on a reform in the government, Sir John, in his address, endeavoured to adapt himself to each of these classes of malcontents; the former of whom he addresses in the following manner:

Ye rise for religion. What religion taught you that? If ye were offered persecution for religion, ye ought to flee. So Christ teacheth you, and yet you intend to fight. If ye would stand in the truth, ye ought to suffer like martyrs; and ye would slay like tyrants. Thus for religion, ye keep no religion, and neither will follow the council of Christ, nor the constancy of martyrs. Why rise ye for religion?