Custom is usually regarded as determinate, in the matter of spelling, pronunciation, idiom, purity, etc. But, in respect to spelling, custom is not long the same. If one will examine our literature from the time of Henry VIII., he will find a constant succession of changes in spelling, both for good and for bad. _I_ has been generally substituted for _Y_, as in _Lykwyse_, _accordynge_, _beyng_, _certayne_. Sir Thomas More wrote _hym_, _thynges_, _desyer_, _myndes_. Skelton, the Poet Laureat, has _centencyously_, _dyd_, _advysynge_, _hyll_, etc., etc.
There has, too, and wisely, been a constant tendency to drop all _unsounded_ letters. What earthly use is there of lugging along letters which are entirely mute? In old but classic authors we have God_de_ dyd_de_, now_e_, which_e_, pull_e_, best_e_, such_e_, cou_e_rt_e_ (court) be_e_twen_e_, begun_ne_, etc.
Within our own memory the final _k_ is lopped of from words where it had a perfect sinecure, as in music_k_, etc. “_Kan’t kum it_,” does not look any more odd to our eyes than our spelling would have looked to those who wrote one hundred years ago.
If it be asked why we do not spell every word by the same rule that we do some; we reply, that violent, and sudden changes in languages are _impracticable_; and as in everything else, are not desirable. We are glad to see spelling simplified, and shall move along just as fast as we can do it with a reasonable prospect of carrying the public.
It is not a matter of conscience; we have no necessity laid upon us to reform the language; no call to be _literal_ martyrs; it is a matter of _convenience_ and _taste_, to be done or omitted as one pleases. It would be more inconvenient to stand alone with all writers against us, for the sake of spelling consistently, than to spell foolishly and superfluously in conformity to inveterate practice. Therefore, for the sake of company, we still spell quite absurdly.
It is called _inconsistent_; and by men, too, who spell trough, cough, enough, though; through, bought, six dissimilar sounds (_ou_, _ow_, _oo_, _o_, _uf_, _off_), by the same combination of letters! If consistency be the question, every English writer that ever lived, is a mere bundle of inconsistencies. Every continental living language, and the dead classic languages, have thrown in their contributions, and our tongue comprises the scraps, odds and ends, of all lands, with all the diverse peculiarities of each language more or less retained. Under such circumstances, when no man writes a sentence without spelling inconsistently, it is quite ridiculous to oppose a simplification of spelling, because we cannot do, at once, what it is only practicable to do gradually. As fast as the public is able to bear it, we shall be glad to reduce all cumbrous spelling to a consistent simplicity.