20.  He who makes a new grammar, does nothing for the advancement of learning, unless his performance excel all earlier ones designed for the same purpose; and nothing for his own honour, unless such excellence result from the exercise of his own ingenuity and taste.  A good style naturally commends itself to every reader—­even to him who cannot tell why it is worthy of preference.  Hence there is reason to believe, that the true principles of practical grammar, deduced from custom and sanctioned by time, will never be generally superseded by any thing which individual caprice may substitute.  In the republic of letters, there will always be some who can distinguish merit; and it is impossible that these should ever be converted to any whimsical theory of language, which goes to make void the learning of past ages.  There will always be some who can discern the difference between originality of style, and innovation in doctrine,—­between a due regard to the opinions of others, and an actual usurpation of their text; and it is incredible that these should ever be satisfied with any mere compilation of grammar, or with any such authorship as either confesses or betrays the writer’s own incompetence.  For it is not true, that, “an English grammar must necessarily be,” in any considerable degree, if at all, “a compilation;” nay, on such a theme, and in “the grammatical part” of the work, all compilation beyond a fair use of authorities regularly quoted, or of materials either voluntarily furnished or free to all, most unavoidably implies—­not conscious “ability,” generously doing honour to rival merit—­nor “exemplary diffidence,” modestly veiling its own—­but inadequate skill and inferior talents, bribing the public by the spoils of genius, and seeking precedence by such means as not even the purest desire of doing good can justify.

21.  Among the professed copiers of Murray, there is not one to whom the foregoing remarks do not apply, as forcibly as to him.  For no one of them all has attempted any thing more honourable to himself, or more beneficial to the public, than what their master had before achieved; nor is there any one, who, with the same disinterestedness, has guarded his design from the imputation of a pecuniary motive.  It is comical to observe what they say in their prefaces.  Between praise to sustain their choice of a model, and blame to make room for their pretended amendments, they are often placed in as awkward a dilemma, as that which was contrived when grammar was identified with compilation.  I should have much to say, were I to show them all in their true light.[9] Few of them have had such success as to be worthy of notice here; but the names of many will find frequent place in my code of false grammar.  The one who seems to be now taking the lead in fame and revenue, filled with glad wonder at his own popularity, is SAMUEL KIRKHAM.  Upon this gentleman’s performance, I shall therefore bestow a few brief observations.  If I do not overrate this author’s literary importance, a fair exhibition of the character of his grammar, may be made an instructive lesson to some of our modern literati.  The book is a striking sample of a numerous species.