"fonetic."

We should never accustoin oureelves to sayiug tbat au article was "mad iu Jerinani" or "mad in ï'rans. " Nor is it necessary tbat we should. I bave always thought the spelling reformera mistook the conditions oí the problem. Our spelling may be erratic, bnt the printed word is a kind of visual counter. We learn to recognize it and to spell it by the eye. How often do we feel that a word looks wrongly spelled? Words bave to be taken en bloc, and it would be exaotly the same with the "fonetic" monstrosities proposed as their substitutes. In reading we never get at the sense of a word by spelling it, and "cough" and"plough, " although theoretically anomalous aud incongruous, present no practical difficnlty. Stilt, spelling migbt in certain cases be simplified with advautage. "Program" and "jewelry" are better than the accepted forms "programme, " "jewellery. " At present English is likealuxuriant garden running wild. It needs niiug aud