points as are necessary for the purpose of drawing; whatever is involved in these is attended to; but observation is a large word, meaning many things besides.

Reading.

The extent and complicacy of this accomplishment make it the work of years, even when not commenced very early. The power of speaking is presupposed, although it is in connection with reading that perfection in speech is ultimately attained. The eye and the intellectual processes bear the brunt of the acquisition.

The art of Reading should be viewed, in the first instance as distinct, both from spoken language and from the knowledge attained through speech; it is also distinct from the acquisition of farther knowledge through books, although intended to compass that object. It is the art of pronouncing words at sight of their visible characters.

ter.

If our language, like the Chinese, had a character for each word, the eye would have to be taught first to discriminate the characters; next an association would have to be formed between each spoken word and its characThe teacher shows the character and pronounces the word; the pupil attends with the ear and with the eye, mostly with the eye, because the form is what is strange to him. We are not informed, so far as I am aware, of the methods of the Chinese schoolmasters for getting through the herculean task of forming several thousands of distinct associations between sounds and symbols. The experience of ages must have suggested the most economical mode, and it would be interesting

to compare the approved method with what we should deduce from the laws of the Retentive faculty.

As an Alphabetical language, English is learned on the principle of analyzing words into their constituent sounds, and connecting these with the elementary or alphabetical letters. As an irregularly spelt language, there is still something of the Chinese necessity for taking each word by itself; we have to learn to pronounce 'rough' and 'through,' 'faculties' and 'facilities,' by looking at the words as wholes, and not by infer ring from one to the other, or from the powers of the separate letters.

The first act of reading is to distinguish the letters by the eye, and especially those that are nearly alike. Here we fall back upon one main condition of the discriminative power-concentrated attention upon the difference; to secure which, we may magnify the difference artificially.

With the visible alphabetic characters or letters we must connect their names or vocal representatives, in order to speak about them, and with a view to the future stage of spelling.

The fixing of the visible impressions of the alphabet is hastened if the pupil is sufficiently advanced in the power of the hand to draw the letters with chalk, or with slate pencil. It need not take long to distinguish and name the characters.

Now commences the difficulty-how to deal with words. As these are made up of letters, it seems natural to jump from the sounds of the letters to the sounds of their combinations; after knowing p, u, t, the child may be expected, on seeing 'put,' to pronounce it accordingly.

This might be the case, if the letters separately could be sounded exactly as they are in combination; which is true of the vowels (allowance being made for our irregular spelling) but not of the consonants, as we cannot pronounce a consonant without a vowel, more especially the abrupter consonants, p, t, k, b, d, &c. The liquids, l, m, n, r, and the sibilants, are pronouncable without consonants; but in giving them names, we still use a particular vowel, em, ar, ess. The pupil must be made aware as early as possible of this circumstance, by being initiated and practised in the effect of the consonants as they occur in words; a thing that inevitably happens sooner or later, so that learners cease to be misled by the sounds used for merely naming the consonants. A little practice upon easy words, pat, put, pop, tap, gives a mastery of the value of in composition.

Much stress is now laid by teachers on the point of beginning to pronounce short words at sight, without spelling them; and a strong condemnation is uttered against the old spelling method. The difference between the methods is not very apparent to me; after a few preliminary steps, the two must come to the same thing. Of far more serious import is the mode of grappling with irregularity of spelling. When among the earliest lessons, a child is made to pronounce 'do I go—is it set on,' it is on the Chinese principle of learning each word seriatim, without inferring from one to another; the o is sounded in three ways, the i in two, the s in two. After a time, no doubt, the letters are found to have recurring meanings, and inferences from ore to another may be made, with a certain allowance

for two or three possible modes, the particular choice being decided by the word; so that the Chinese principle is limited but not abandoned.

The preferable plan seems to be to carry the pupils forward a certain way on perfectly uniform spellings, so that they may get the idea of regularity, and also the most prevalent sounds of the letters. This is not so difficult upon a, e, i, u, whose short sounds, at, bet, it, nut, are almost uniformly spelt with a single consonant to follow. Moreover, the irregularities of the consonants could be kept out of sight for some time. Some notion of law and uniformity would be thus imparted at the outset.

For the long sounds of the four vowels, there are usually employed some additional letters, unfortunately not in a regular way, but still serving as a contrast to the short sounds; as came, meet, sign, full. These different devices should be classified, giving the most frequent first, and then the less frequent.

The refractory vowel is o. If when our language became possessed of the sound awe, all, a vowel character had been invented for it, we should have been saved a large number of our worst spelling anomalies; if that could be done yet, it would be our greatest phonetic improvement.

The modes of spelling for this sound may still be classified, but they are numerous and contradictory—all, fall, call (cf. mall, shall), cause (cf. aunt), awe, talk. With the short sound of this vowel, got, not, rot, the system of the other vowels prevails, but with exceptions-as God, Fob, both, loth. Still, uniformity should first be taught, and the exceptions enumerated.

The real difficulties of our spelling are nearly exhausted upon our monosyllables; if these were fully mastered, the anomalies in words of more than one syllable would not seem formidable.

Notwithstanding the zeal that has been displayed in the work of phonetic reform, no one seems to have gone through the labour (not small) of classifying the existing spellings under uniformities and exceptions; proceeding upon such classings as give the most agreements and the fewest exceptions. Until this is done, learning to read is not made so easy as it might be made. The principle of minimizing exceptions, and of placing them all together at the end of the rule, is the only known principle of economizing the learner's strength, or of reducing the Chinese operation to the narrowest limits.

After the very best classification, the attainment of English spelling is a work of long time and detail, the result of combined reading, writing to dictation, and extensive practice under correction.

Pronunciation follows in the same course, and is usually connected with reading. It can be taught only by teachers that themselves pronounce well. It is conducted on the plan of attacking the prevailing errors and faults of the children, which are for the most part local or provincial. A phonetic spelling would be a valuable help to pronunciation.

Good elocution is a still higher aim, and must come later, as it supposes that the pupils are alive to the meaning of what is read or pronounced.

Division of labour requires that the attention should be concentrated on the act of learning to read, without endeavouring to extend the bounds of the pupil's know