unbelief and in their dogged resistance to reform, as undeniable facts, and unanswerable arguments." "But a reform of spelling is, sooner or later, inevitable." "Germany has appointed a Government Commission to consider what is to be done with German spelling. In America, too, some leading statesmen seem inclined to take up the reform of spelling upon national grounds. Is there no statesman in England sufficiently proof against ridicule to call the attention of Parliament to what is a growing national misfortune?"

That the reform is going to come some time, seems certain. This generation may not see it, or the next. But the present state of things will certainly not be allowed to continue indefinitely. The question now is-How is the reform to be accomplished? We must expect more or less of trouble in changing from the old to the new. No reform was ever carried without a generation or two of martyrs.

It is evident that no reform is possible until the community at largeor at least the educated part-shall see clearly that the advantage to be gained is worth the trouble it will cause. The great need now is, to shov that the general opposition to the reform is the result of blind prejudic alone, and to show that the reasons which are usually presented in support of this opposition are really without the least shadow of founda tion.

The public mind must be convinced that there is nothing sacred in the written word. It must be made to feel that language is speech, no spelling, and that the true test of a system of spelling is not its etymolog ical or historical value; is not its associations and distinctions so pleasin to the learned; but that its true test is practical convenience, and the alone. It is evident that no reform is practicable except a moderate an gradual one. I have already indicated that it seems settled that th reformed spelling, whatever it may be, will make use of our prese letters. The changes attempted at any one time must not be to numerous. The old spelling will struggle with the new, and for a tim both will appear side by side.

It is evident, that, in order to secure the most desirable results, the changes must take place in accordance with a well-matured and defini plan. In order that it may be adopted this plan must be endorsed high authority which shall command the respect of all the parties th are in favor of reform. It may be that this service will be performed i the Government Commission which it is to be hoped the English Parl ment will soon appoint. It may be that the Spelling-Reform Associati will answer the purpose. It has wisely declared that no changes orthography shall be recommended for general use, except such as sh be reported as final by the Committee on New Spellings. This commit consists of President March and Vice-Presidents Haldeman and Whitn But, before such a committee can be of any use the reform must be The rudder is useless until the vessel begins to move. Messrs. Mai Haldeman, and Whitney must not speak as dictators. When there is a g eral call for their advice it will be heeded. But before this demand become general, a good part of the community must begin to depart fi the present mode of spelling. We must cease to look upon a devia

from the established custom as an unpardonable sin. The reverence for our present spelling must be broken down. To accomplish this work the most efficient agent will be the teacher. And it is quite fitting that he should bestir himself to accomplish it. It was the schoolmasters who first lifted up the spelling-book as an idol, or rather as a graven image before the people. That they should worship it was but natural. It was the key that opened to them the temple of learning. Without the spellingbook knowledge was beyond their reach as it is beyond ours. But taking into view the conditions which make it necessary, there is no greater absurdity under the sun, than the spelling-book on the one hand and the pronouncing dictionary on the other. It is a mystery how the AngloSaxon race with its irresistible boldness and enterprise has been content to endure the drudgery put upon it by its absurd and chaotic language. But little in the way of reform can be done until the teacher ceases to be a defender of this idol-the spelling-book-and begins to win the people from their idolatry.

But this will throw us all into confusion you say. Suppose it does. We must expect it. It will be the harbinger of better things. Out of that confusion the fittest will survive. Let no one say that such irregularities will be of serious damage to contemporary literature. Read Shakespeare in the original text and tell me if the inconsistencies of his spelling has damaged his work. Read the scholarly painstaking Roger Ascham as he wrote the School-Master and see him spell the same word in two or three different ways in as many consecutive pages. Are we discommoded by these differences? Who is troubled by the different modes in which cigar is spelt? Are we not glad to find people who are not afraid to write program as well as diagram? You and I were taught to say c-z-a-r, but are we troubled by seeing it now t-s-a-r? Not long ago it was thought the name of a Slavonian must be written Slave. To-day we generally see it Slav, and would there in fact be anything horrible in leaving out the a in such words as head, health, wealth, etc? and the o from arduous, double, trouble, and such words? and the silent e from have, give, infinite, fertile, etc ? When ie and ei has the sound of long e would there be anything sinful in changing them to ee, as in achieve, receive, belief, etc? Would it be a capital crime if our pupils should combine in a conspiracy to omit ue in catalogue, colleague, harangue, etc., and the gh from such words as daughter, slaughter, through, and to write ƒ for ph in such words as alphabet, phantom and camphor? Although the pedagogue might esteem it a capital crime, it is certain that most boys and girls would look upon it as a capital idea. At least such changes as these must be allowed as the beginning of the reform. And when they are once tolerated other changes will follow. The truth is, it is hardly possible to restrain the tendencies which make for reform. They are irrepressible. You had evidence of this on the bill of fare at the Put-in-Bay House at dinner yesterday. I received double strength and encouragement in contemplating b-e-e-n-s instead of b-e-a-n-s. You know what effort is required to prevent the common-sense of your pupils from abolishing such anomalies as com-pete, but re-peat; con-ceit, but re-ceipt, con-crete, but dis-creet; pro-ceed, but re-cede; speak, but speech; fly, but flight, and many more. Why not in the name of common

sense and of etymology as well, let such differences disappear? They will sink of their own weight if we will but let them. Suppose we should forget the rebuke we are accustomed to give every day of our lives in connection with one or another of such words. What would come of it? Why the reform would begin and be half accomplished 'before we were aware of it. The great thing to be done is simply to allow the reverence for these monstrosities to die out; to permit a change to begin; to make it respectable for a person to try to spell as he speaks. When once it is clearly seen that such a thing can be done without disgrace, it will be like opening the flood-gates. The natural force of common sense will do the rest.

I do not mean to say that this confusion is desirable in itself. If a uniform mode of spelling for certain words can be agreed upon from the first and the reform thus proceed, it is greatly to be desired. But if in our escape, this Red Sea of confusion and irregluarity cannot be avoided, the sooner we enter it the better, that our children may come out upon the other side proclaiming themselves free from the bondage which enslaves us.

And now comes the question "Is reform practicable." Two very powerful forces can be relied upon for its support. In the first place there is the whole body of eminent philologists joined by many distinguished scholars. In the second place there is the large German and foreign population in our country daily vexing itself in attempts to acquire our language. The greatest obstacle in their way is our spelling, and this they feel. When once the matter comes to be agitated in Cincinnati and places like it, this whole foreign element will be found unanimous and energetic in support of the reform.

If to these two forces the influence of the great body of teachers could be added, there would be good cause for looking immediately for a change to begin in our spelling. And why can we not throw our influence in favor of some reform, and give our aid at least, in breaking the bonds of prejudice and reverence which now bind us to our present monstrous system? From the present outlook there seems to be no ground to fear that the advocates of a moderate reform may be committed to any foolish or impracticable steps by fanatical reformers. Why should we not agitate the matter in our own communities? Why cannot we ourselves take reasonable license in the way of reform? In our own writing, suppose we should omit a from the digraph, ea when pronounced as e short, and o from the digraph ou when pronounced as u short, and thus write hed, helth, serch, and truble, jurnal, yung? Suppose we should omit the final e after a short vowel, and omit gh wben silent and write ƒ where gh has the sound off? This would make motiv for motive, fertil for fertile, dauter for daughter, tho for though, ruf for rough, enuf for enough. If need be, we can teach our pupils to spell the "good old way," and wait for their com mon sense to revolt against the imposition and to follow our practice. Whatever scheme of reform may be finally approved, there is no doubt but that the particular changes to which I have alluded, and a few others, will be made. In making these changes we run no risk of being obliged to make a second change. By using these forms in our own correspond

ence and writing we shall begin the work of making the eye of the community familiar with new spellings, even though in our school-rooms we say nothing about them. And this work is the most important of all that remains to be done.

If teachers had the courage to commit themselves to steps even the most moderate, looking towards a phonetic system of spelling, we should be surprised to see what would be speedily accomplished. At all events, whether or not we heartily endorse this movement, it is our bounden duty to make it certain that the next generation shall not look with the same superstitious reverence as the present generation upon what Max Müller calls "our unhistorical, unsystematical, unintelligible and unteachable mode of spelling."

DISCUSSION.

MR. J. W. DOWD, of Troy, said:-The proposed reform is worthy of our most careful attention. If carried out it would be of inestimable advantage, but he feared the difficulties through which we must pass to reach the promised land.

A real system of phonetic spelling must have a separate character for each sound, and that is not considered practicable. Can we reach good spelling through the medium of the old letters? As the best that can be done with the old letters is an approach merely to a true system, would it not be better to let spelling take its regular course of evolution? The difficulties of the present system are exaggerated. Our literature has a steady and healthy growth.

He then showed by various examples that we should derive but little advantage, if any, in a very large number of words. He referred to the name of a P. O., in England, named Woburn (nearly phonetic) and yet in one year there came letters directed in two hundred and forty-six ways. The time spent in learning spelling is exaggerated. Words are remembered as pictures. By the new method we should have a Babel of spelling. Every one would spell to suit himself. There would be as many different ways as there are of pronouncing words in different localities. It would give us a variety of dialects. The difficulties in spelling come not so much from the anomalies as from these obscure sounds of the vowels, A phonetic system could not relieve us of the difficulty without a serious metamorphosis of many words.

Many small words, such as the and that, and many others are clipped in pronunciation. Would you split one word into two spellings? Silent letters are the target for a great deal of ridicule. And as they never speak for themselves, I feel like speaking for them. They are the silent partners, and you know the silent partners in a business concern often give it character. So with these silent letters in a word. They are often the most forcible. I am not quite in favor of letting the etymological argument go by default. We can trace the origin of a word better by form than by sound. Many carry their meaning on their face. They have the family traits. Reduce all these to a dull uniformity and much strength and beauty would be gone.

Perhaps, as was stated, the greatest obstacle in the way of a reform is

the conservatism of the people. They love the ancient landmarks. They have a reverence for the mother tongue. They would as soon think of tampering with the portraits of their ancestors as with the traditions of their language. I am glad that there is such a sentiment in the human heart. It is akin to that inculcated by the command "Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land."

MR. LUKENS, of Kent, hoped the paper and discussion would be printed in the two methods of spelling.

MR. HOLBROOK, of Vineland, N. J., thought that the reform was already inaugurated. The first steps had been taken in changing the method of teaching the alphabet from the old to the new phonetic. One difficulty was that many teachers did not understand and could not give the sounds represented by the characters in our language. A thorough knowledge of this subject should be required by the County Examiners. He urged the necessity of giving prominence to sounds rather than to the characters representing them. The habit of phonetic spelling and reading should be formed by the children.

MR. VAILE claimed that the reason why so many persons had blundered on the word Woburn (referred to by Mr. Dowd) was that they had not been taught to spell phonetically. He was in favor of having a committee of three to report upon the progress of this reform year by year.

On motion of E. O. Vaile, a committee of the following gentlemen, E. O. Vaile, of Cincinnati, W. D. Henkle, of Salem, and J. W. Dowd, of Troy, were appointed to keep the Spelling Reform before the Association from year to year.

The Hon. T. W. Harvey, of Painesville, presented a paper on

THE PAST AND THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION IN OHIO. One hundred years ago the territory now included within the boundaries of our commonwealth, was covered by an almost unbroken forest. Between Lake Erie and the Ohio there was not a single permanent white settlement. The Alleghanies marked the western boundary of civilization. A domain large enough for an empire, but without a fixed population, stretched westward from the eastern watershed of the continent. The war of the Revolution ended. The independence of the nation was secured. Hunter and trapper, scout and escaped captive, had brought back to their less adventurous or more fortunate fellow-countrymen on the Atlantic slope marvellous accounts of the richness of the soil and the salubrity of the climate of this western territory. Restless spirits, fresh from the excitement and the dangers of a prolonged contest for national existence, hopeful, ardent, eager for adventure, full of pluck and energy, turned their steps towards the setting sun, and with little else than strong arms and brave hearts, began the work of creating new homes and laying the foundation of a great state.

Most of these men entertained crude notions of education and the means to secure it. They were too busy in felling trees, fencing the