long enough under fire to have become a well-baked one.
I should dispute entirely the accusation that at the most earnest and impressive moments of life men resort to “don't” and “isn't.”
When, as the bugle sounded for General Humphreys
' charge at Fredericksburg
, that accomplished soldier turned to his staff and remarked, with uncovered head, as if inviting them to be seated round his table, “Gentlemen, I shall head this charge; I presume, of course, you will wish to ride with me,” would the efficacy of the call have been enhanced by his saying “I'll” and “you'll” ? Colonel McClellan
, in his Life of Humphreys
, tells the story, and reminds us that of the seven who thus rode with their chief, one of them being his own son, five were dismounted and four wounded before the charge was ended.
The appeal, therefore, whatever its form, seems to have answered its purpose.
These matters may, however, be left to natural instinct, which will lead us correctly enough.
As to the movement now going on in various quarters for the simplification of English spelling, it is one in which, if guided by competent scholars, all who wish well to their race may join.
Why should English spelling alone remain unchanged in its chaos, when