has not hitherto attained an adequate measure of acceptance by the general community in this country. Whether that be reallly so or not, the practice of the art is at any rate confined to a comparatively small number of our fellow-subjects, which ought not to be the case, if we only consider its inherent utility, and the many benefits attendant on the proper cultivation of it."

Of course it may be alleged that it is to the want of application in the learner that such regrettable results are due, but that allegation receives an answer only too convincing when it is shown that young men who have surmounted some of the most difficult elements of a liberal schooling have failed in this-singularly failed—or, at least, have not derived any compensating advantage for the time and labour expended on this particular study. Why? Surely it will not be affirmed that to acquire, not expertness as a professional short-hand writer, but enough dexterity for everyday purposes, ought to be a more arduous task than is that of mastering Mathematics, Latin or Greek, French or German. As the case stands, however, it seems beyond dispute that, for a thousand pupils who set about learning one or other of the ordinary methods of short-writing, there are not, perhaps, four or five who arrive at anything like real proficiency. "A legible short-hand," says an observant journalist, "is the want of the age." (Church Review, May, 1881.)

This seems a startling assertion, but it is true, and the wonder is increased when we learn that the number of works on short-hand published, previous to June 23rd, 1883, was 3,422 923 of which are in the English language. (See American Bureau of Education, Circular No. 2 of 1884) Just think of that! Three thousand four hundred and twenty-two works on short-hand, and not one of them satisfactory!

Says Professor Everett, of Queen's College, Belfast (Short-hand for General Use, 1877): " Persons able to write short-hand form an extremely small portion of the community. This fact is surely an indication that existing systems have been found wanting in some of the qualities essential for general use."

It is only a few years since these words were written, but many other authorities, both before and since, of undoubted respectability, have expressed themselves to the same effect as for example

Mr. W. Mattiew Williams, F.C.S., author of "Through

Norway with a Knapsack," &c., says: "Few active-minded men have not at one time or another commenced learning short-hand. Yet how small a proportion of the beginners have done any more than make such a commencement."

Mr. Williams afterwards informs us how he came to construct his own system, entitled "Short-hand for Everybody' (1867). He says: "The system here expounded is devised specially to overcome the usual difficulty of reading shorthand arising from the complication and extreme contractions absolutely necessary for verbatim reporting, which are here unattempted. It was in 1841," he continues, "that I first took lessons in Harding's—a modification of Taylor's system; then a few years afterwards studied Pitman's beautiful and elaborate, but very complex, system of phonography; afterwards, I tried to amalgamate them, then started a system designed to supersede both-a system purely phonetic, with every sound represented, and all the vowels joined. With great reluctance, I threw this up on account of its complexity, and returned to a further modification of Harding's and Gurney's; then carefully studied all the systems that have been published, and picked out hints from each to supplement my own ideas, turning over and over my own and others' experience, and finally settled down upon the very simple system here expounded." "Notwithstanding," says Mr. John Thomson, P.H., President of the Scottish Phonographic Association; Teacher of Oriental Languages, Royal High School; and Lecturer on Phonography, School of Arts, Edinburgh; an advocate of Mr. Pitman's system of writing, "the extreme simplicity and beauty of this most useful art, a false and futile system of teaching it, which has everywhere obtained, has led tens of thousands after long and painful plodding in the dark, to lay it aside at last as a hopeless and useless phantom. It would scarcely," he says, "be fair to charge the great father of phonography directly as the author of the stupid method of teaching it, which has been so uniformly followed both in the Old and in the New World; and yet it may be said that the author of phonography has been the indirect cause of preventing his world enlightening discovery from becoming a popular study in his own country up to the present time. But a strong remedy in the teaching of short-hand has at length been loudly called for."

Again, Mr. J. B. Dimbleby, a practical man, author of a Short-hand Dictionary (Groombridge and Sons), says: "My answer to the question, Which is the best system?

is always, That which is most easy to acquire. Proficiency does not depend so much on the system used as on the ability for using it. Odell's or Taylor's improved, which are substantially the same, are, I believe, the most used by newspaper reporters. This is, I believe, owing to their being so easy to write and so ready to acquire. Great efforts have recently been made to bring Mr. Pitman's system of phonography into more general use, and when acquired it is probably an excellent system. Care should be taken that in aiming at making a system short it is not made long. I confess that some of the improved phonetics have a very wriggled appearance, and the multitude of details with which they are burdened must greatly militate against their general adoption for public use." (Anderson, page 93.) Again the same author says: “Scott de Martinville, whose work is perhaps the most interesting and worthy contribution to the history of stenography that has ever appeared, and in which an alphabet is given of the Tyronian method of short-hand, and reviews of some forty French systems-in fact, all that had appeared in that country from the year 1654 till the date of his writing, says:-'I am not able to deny the existence of stenographers, but I deny the existence of stenography. I say there has not yet been presented to the public a method resting on fixed and rational principles sufficient to constitute the art in such a manner as to fulfil its special, its unique destination, that of following exactly the word, and to be at the same time accessible to persons of average capacity. He goes on to say that all the professional short-hand writers whom he knew were men of very great intelligence, of quick apprehension, of retentive memories, and especially gifted with much dexterity and agility of hand; but, he adds, 'exceptional organisation can never be alleged as proofs for establishing an argument-that, namely, in favour of short-hand as it is.' And to illustrate this proposition, he adds, "If Paganini, for example, may execute a concert on the chanterelle of a violin, does it follow that this tour de force is an accident of the instrument?'"

Adolphe Pelletier says:-" These different systems (and Pitman's and Taylor's are well enough known to Frenchmen), in spite of the emendations they have undergone, are still burdened with pitiable drawbacks. In some, the signs, when united for the purpose of forming words, have only the value of one or two letters, not more; in others it has been found practicable, indeed, to invest the signs

with a larger alphabetical value, but that only by subjecting them to an infinitude of changes of direction, nay, even of outline-a something which renders the study extremely irksome, independently of the chances of errors which attend this multiplicity of changes." (Anderson, 104)

In spite of all that has yet been done in their behalf, the demerits of the current systems of short-hand afford a theme of general and repeated comment in the French press. In January, 1877, a paragraph went the rounds of the Paris newspapers, calling particular attention to this inconvenience, animadverting on the comparative prominence given to short-hand in Germany, and setting forth the great desirability of founding in France some system superior to existing French ones." (Anderson, 141.)

These quotations prove, I think, most conclusively, that every existing system of short-hand is extremely defective, and that every person connected with literature ought to do his best to introduce a more perfect system. The worthlessness of existing systems could not have been satisfactorily proved by the affirmation of one proposing a new system. Therefore these lengthy quotations have been adduced from no less an authority than Anderson, who has up to date apparently written by a very long way the best history of short-hand.

PITMAN'S SYSTEM UTTERLY CONDEMNED BY THE

BEST AUTHORITIES.

I come now to a consideration of Pitman's system. People will be astonished to hear that Pitman's system is utterly condemned by the best authorities. Their condemnation is, beyond a doubt, perfectly just. Mr. Matthias Levy, one of the most competent authorities, says :-"We now come to one of the most remarkable inventions of the present century-the Phonography of Mr. Isaac Pitman. To begin at the beginning, it is necessary to state that the fundamental principle of Phonography is that of sound.” He then quotes Mr. Pitman's dictum to the effect that "the organs of speech being the same all the world over, if he were able to represent the one hundred sounds emitted by a human being, he would have discovered the basis of that great desideratum, a universal language." Mr. Levy then proceeds: "Now this subject has been in men's mouths since 1540. To assimilate the sounds of speech, which are the same all over the world, has been the object and ambition of hundreds. But we are afraid that a universal

language, and perpetual motion and the philosopher's stone, must go together.

"Mr. Pitman objects to the Roman alphabet. He says further that all short-hand systems are defective, because they are based upon the Romanic alphabet. On examination, however, Pitman's alphabet proves to be the English alphabet transposed. A more confused method could not well be desired. It is full of difficulty, and must entail considerable trouble when it comes to be read. Compare it with the systems of Taylor, Mavor, or Byrom. Compare their rules with those of Pitman, in which he explains how to write the Scotch guttural, the Welsh LL, the nominal consonant, and the syllabic diphthong. The confusion, the multiplicity of characters, the variety of sounds, all lead to one conclusion, that this is one of the most ill-constructed and deficient systems ever invented. The author may well ask why Parliamentary reporters do not use it. Notwithstanding its defects, thousands, we are told, have learned it. But we cannot alter our opinion, and phronography, we think, with its ambitious object, is a failure.

"We wish to speak with every respect of this system-it is used at the present day, and that is the utmost that can possibly be said in its favour; but we contend that popularity is no test of merit. Jim Crow was popular, but few will venture to say it had any merit."

It may, perhaps, appear superfluous to quote Mr. Levy's opinions concerning Taylor's system, since that is the one which he uses with some trifling exceptions. Still, a sentence may be given from his observations upon the system.

He says:-"The alphabet of Taylor is undoubtedly the best. We believe we are correct in saying that Taylor's system is more extensively used at the present day than any other. Although nearly a century has elapsed since its invention, it has never been surpassed for simplicity and utility."

Professor Henri Krieg says that he has acquired the settled conviction that the invention of the Bavarian genius F. X. Gabelsberger is the only system of short-hand which is adequate to the requirements of those who are much engaged in writing. (Anderson, 99.)

Anderson further says:-" The repetition of an evil even remotely similar to Pitman's system of short-hand would