SPELLING REFORM.

TO THE EDirOK, Siß,—l see that spelling reform is being discussed in your journal. While sympathising with the writer of "Obstacles to Education," I would endeavour to show that he is on the wrong track. He advocates the addition of eeveral new letters to the alphabet. I can aseure him that new letters are unnecessary, and are the greatest stumbling-block of spelling reform. . I have a pronouncing dictionary where all the words of the English language are spelt phonetically with the old alphabet, the only innovation being that seven of the long and peculiar vowels are marked by dots or dashes. I have seen some paragraphs printed in Isaac Pitman's phonetic alphabet. They are simply unreadable to ordinary people. It looks too much like Greek or some other foreign language. Whereas by adopting phonetic spelling without new letters anyone can read it who can read common spelling. Spelling reform must be introduced gradually.. It was commenced in America some years ago, when the silent " u " in honour and labour and other words were dropped; and I see that lately the same spelling has been adopted by some English publishers. Not long ago we easr by the European cablegrams that there was to be a conference of English and American spelling reformers, when it would be proposed to drop all the silent latter in the spelling of each word. This might be done, if not at once, at any rate by degrees; and if once the old system of spelling were well shaken, there would be no stopping till the reform was complete. Theoretically, Isaac Pitman's system is the best: but we have to consider what is the easiest, the least inconvenient ; in short, the moat practical method of reforming oar spelling.—l am, &c. t Kaipara, Sept. 14, ISBO. Harry H.