This is precisely the idea I have ever had of the English _u_; except that I cannot allow the sound to be perfectly simple. If we attend to the manner in which we begin the sound of _u_ in _flute_, _abjure_, _truth_, we shall observe that the tongue is not pressed to the mouth so closely as in pronouncing _e_; the aperture of the organs is not so small; and I presume that good speakers, and am confident that most people, do not pronounce these words _fleute_, _abjeure_, _treuth_. Neither do they pronounce them _floote_, _abjoore_, _trooth_; but with a sound formed by an easy natural aperture of the mouth, between _iu_ and _oo_; which is the true English sound. This sound, however obscured by affectation in the metropolis of Great Britain and the capital towns in America, is still preserved by the body of the people in both countries. There are a million descendants of the Saxons in this country who retain the sound of _u_ in all cases, precisely according to Wallis's definition. Ask any plain countryman, whose pronunciation has not been exposed to corruption by mingling with foreigners, how he pronounces the letters, _t_, _r_, _u_, _th_, and he will not sound _u_ like _eu_, nor _oo_, but will express the real primitive English _u_. Nay, if people wish to make an accurate trial, let them direct any child of seven years old, who has had no previous instruction respecting the matter, to pronounce the words _suit_, _tumult_, _due_, &c. and they will thus ascertain the true sound of the letter. Children pronounce _u_ in the most natural manner; whereas the sound of _iu_ requires a considerable effort, and that of _oo_, a forced position of the lips. Illiterate persons therefore pronounce the genuin English _u_, much better than those who have attempted to shape their pronunciation according to the polite modern practice. As singular as this assertion may appear, it is literally true. This circumstance alone would be sufficient to prove that the Saxons never pronounced _u_ like _yu_; for the body of a nation, removed from the reach of conquest and free from a mixture of foreigners, are the safest repositories of ancient customs and general practice in speaking. But another strong argument against the modern practice is, that the pretended dipthong, _iu_ or _yu_, is heard in scarcely a single word of Saxon origin. Almost all the words in which _d_, _t_ and _s_ are converted into other letters, as _education_, _due_, _virtue_, _rapture_, _superior_, _supreme_, &c. are derived from the Latin or French; so that the practice itself is a proof that the principles on which it is built, are false. It is pretended that the English or Saxon sound of _u_ requires the pronunciation, _edzhucation_, _natshure_, and yet it is introduced almost solely into Latin and French words. Such an inconsistency refutes the reasoning and is a burlesque on its advocates.