disprove his assertion, it is time to have a new one that will; for, to expect the perfection of grammar from him who cannot treat the subject in a style at once original and pure, is absurd.  He says, “The greater part of an English grammar must necessarily be a compilation ;” and adds, with reference to his own, “originality belongs to but a small portion of it.  This I have acknowledged; and I trust this acknowledgement will protect me from all attacks, grounded on any supposed unjust and irregular assumptions.”  This quotation is from a letter addressed by Murray to his American publishers, in 1811, after they had informed him of certain complaints respecting the liberties which he had taken in his work.  See “The Friend,” Vol. iii, p. 34.

9.  The acknowledgement on which he thus relies, does not appear to have been made, till his grammar had gone through several editions.  It was, however, at some period, introduced into his short preface, or “Introduction,” in the following well-meant but singularly sophistical terms:  “In a work which professes itself to be a compilation, and which, from the nature and design of it, must consist chiefly of materials selected from the writings of others, it is scarcely necessary to apologise for the use which the Compiler has made of his predecessors’ labours, or for omitting to insert their names. From the alterations which have been frequently made in the sentiments and the language, to suit the connexion, and to adapt them to the particular purposes for which they are introduced; and, in many instances, from the uncertainty to whom the passages originally belonged, the insertion of names could seldom be made with propriety.  But if this could have been generally done, a work of this nature would derive no advantage from it, equal to the inconvenience of crowding the pages with a repetition of names and references.  It is. however, proper to acknowledge, in general terms, that the authors to whom the grammatical part of this compilation is principally indebted for its materials, are Harris, Johnson, Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Sheridan, Walker, and Coote.”—­Introd.; Duodecimo Gram., p. 4; Octavo, p. 7.

10.  The fallacy, or absurdity, of this language sprung from necessity.  An impossible case was to be made out.  For compilation, though ever so fair, is not grammatical authorship.  But some of the commenders of Murray have not only professed themselves satisfied with this general acknowledgement, but have found in it a candour and a liberality, a modesty and a diffidence, which, as they allege, ought to protect him from all animadversion.  Are they friends to learning?  Let them calmly consider what I reluctantly offer for its defence and promotion.  In one of the recommendations appended to Murray’s grammars, it is said, “They have nearly superseded every thing else of the kind, by concentrating