CORRESPONDENCE. NICETY, SAFETY, SURETY. From Prof. Skeat.-In the Phonetic Journal, 30th June, 1888, p. 302, I find “Does anyone know why these words are not pronounced neiseti, sefeti, fureti, or neisti, sefti, furti ?" The answer is familiar to all students of the older forms of the language. In the Middle-English period nicetee was trisyllabic, whilst sauftee and seurtee were properly dissyllabic; though Chaucer sometimes used the latter as a trisyllable, against etymology. To go back a step further, the adjective nice was dissyllabic, whilst sauf and seur or sur were monosyllables. In other words, the final e in nice is both etymological and phonetic; whilst in safe and sure it is purely a graphic device for indicating that the preceding vowel is long. The sounding of the e in nicety is an interesting instance of the survival of an old pronunciation. Chaucer has it, in his Second Nonnes Tale, 1. 495That I ne knew therwith thy nic-e-tee. Comparative philology tells the same tale. The forms nescius in Latin, nescio in Italian, necio in Spanish, and nic-è in old French, all have one more syllable than is found in the Latin salvus, Italian and Spanish salvo, and French sauf. In modern French poetry, nic-e can be treated as a dissyllable, whilst sauf and sûr cannot. GENERAL LESSONS ON THE TYPE-WRITER.(*) BY JOHN HARRISON. When but few copies are required, it is better to use the single carbon, as the reverse side of the paper is kept clean. When many copies are called for, the "double" should be used, and the paper on which the writing is to appear ought to be proportionately thin according to the number of copies needed. An impression is made on both sides of the sheet, and therefore what would otherwise be but a faint mark is increased in density so as to be plainly read. The plan to be adopted is very simple. The sheets of paper to be written on are placed alternately with carbon paper, and run into the machine, which is operated in the usual way. The first sheet receives the ink impression from the ribbon, and the others are marked by the carbon. It is advisable to strike the keys with greater force, and nothing but experience can teach exactly what this should be. It is not wise to attempt the highest rate of speed when manifolding. In using the single carbon, care must be taken that the carbonized surface is uppermost. A recent writer on this subject gives the following admirable hint : "A simple method has been discovered for producing perfect alignment in making a large number of manifold copies on the Type-writer. The reason that manifold does not show as good alignment as single copy work is, that when several sheets of paper are placed in the machine, the circumference of the cylinder is increased, thus lowering the point at which the types strike the paper, so that the types from the back of the basket strike higher, and the types from the front lower, than normally. If, therefore, the carriage be raised to the same extent as the striking point is lowered, perfect alignment will be obtained. To accomplish this, procure a rubber band about six inches long, and stretch it round the front of the top plate in such a way that the upper half will lie upon the part on which the front wheel of the carriage runs. If the band proves too thick, stretch it more on the top, and let it be slack below, and vice versa if you find it too thin. If you *The "Manual of the Remington Type-Writer "contains all these articles and some additional matter in book form. 135 pp. fc. 8vo., illustrated. Paper, Is., cloth, Is. 6d. London: Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1 Amen corner, Paternoster row. In this way still find it too thin, put on an extra band. thirty copies have been made (on tissue paper) in perfect alignment. If it is found that the rubber impedes the movement of the carriage, put a little oil on the surface of the band. The above does not apply to the No. 3 machine, as the carriage wheels run upon a rod which would not retain the rubber band. Straps of rubber of varying thickness have therefore been designed ending in caps of the same material, which serve to hold them in position. These must be accurately adjusted before beginning work, or they might slip to one side when the carriage had half run its course. When more than ten copies are needed, the ribbon should be removed, and the writing done wholly with carbon sheets. The first, that receiving the actual blow of the type, should be ordinary thin white paper, which does not take any impression on the right side, but serves to protect the others from injury. Where more than twenty or twenty-five copies are required, they can be obtained by using a ribbon specially prepared for transferring the writing to the ordinary Hektograph pad. The copies are not remarkable for vigor, but good results can be had after practice, if proper attention is paid. A stencil for reproductions by the Cyclostyle process can be prepared by placing a sheet of silk gauze behind specially prepared Cyclostyle paper, removing the ribbon and writing in the ordinary way. The force with which the types strike the paper against the gauze backing, is sufficient to produce a stencil, which will give results almost equal to lithography. Manufacturers of other duplicating processes claim that good reproductions can be had by their several means, but the writer has seen very few satisfactory specimens. For larger numbers a good plan is to use a ribbon coated with lithographic ink, and to write directly on lithographic transfer paper. It should be placed on the stone with as little delay as possible, for if permitted to remain long the ink may refuse to adhere to the surface of the stone. Very fine reproductions are now produced by the photozincographic process. THE NO. 3 MACHINE. This Type-writer was designed to meet the demand for a machine that would admit paper of extra width, such as is used by lawyers in making briefs, by insurance companies, and others. The increased length of the carriage, if constructed precisely upon the model of the No. 2 machine, would have added materially to its weight, and some modifications were therefore found to be necessary. After long and costly experiments, the manufacturers evolved this latest and in many respects best Type-writer. The radical points in which it differs from the popular No. 2 machine are the following: 1. The rack is reversed, so that its teeth point upward instead of downward. 2. The rack is made to rock, instead of the dogs. 3. The dogs are above the rack, and travel along it. 4. In consequence of the construction and action of the dogs, it is possible to push the carriage from left to right to any point with the hand, without injuring either the rack or the dogs. 5. The carriage is narrower and lighter in proportion. 6. The key-levers have an upper instead of a lower arrangement of springs. 7. The connecting-wires are straighter, are divided, and are joined by small nuts, thus rendering it easier to shorten or lengthen the wire when occasion demands it. A. Carriage-lever-The chief difference between this and the corresponding lever in the No. 2 machine is that it has no connection with the rack movement. This, however, is not called for, as the carriage moves easily from left to right, the loose dog running over the teeth of the rack with perfect readiness. M. Line-space-pawl.-When the gauge is adjusted the line-space-pawl pushes the cylinder a corresponding number of notches. If the cylinder is to be reversed, it is only necessary to raise the pawl and turn the cylinder with the left hand, as described in an earlier part of this work. 95. Line-space-gauge.-This is made in the form of three steps. When pushed as far as it will go to the right, the gauge is at its limit. In order to adjust it to a narrower width raise the carriage-lever and push the gauge toward the left just one notch; or, if the narrowest width is required, repeat the operation and push it close against the carriage-lever. F. Paper-shelf.-Similar in form and use to that in the No. 2 machine. N. Stop-collar-The shape of this varies considerably from that in the No. 2 machine. It is simply a small round collar with a thumb-screw underneath. On raising the carriage the back-way-rod will make a quarter revolution, and it will then be seen that the under side of it is indented with holes at even distances apart. The thumb-screw when properly adjusted rests firmly in one of these holes, and thus is prevented from being knocked out of place by a sudden return of the carriage. In adjusting the collar it is as well to raise the carriage, so that the operator may be enabled to see what he is doing. 37. The bell-ringer-thumb-screw.-The bell-ringer can be adjusted to ring before the end of the line is reached by loosening the screw, sliding the bell-ringer along the 149. Carriage-shifter.-The spring in front will be seen to be fastened to a hook, as in the No. 2 machine; which, when pushed backwards, will hold the carriage so that only the upper-case characters will print. THE RIBBON SUPPORTS.-These will be found to extend considerably beyond the type-bar circle, and therefore tend to keep the ribbon from curling. They can be easily shifted backward or forward with the hands. As they work independently, they must be attended to separately. The handle operating the ribbon movement is, in this machine, situated at the back of the mainspring on the left-hand side of the machine. A small catch holds it in place. (See No. 2 machine.) NARROW PAPER.-To use narrow paper on this machine, raise the carriage and slip the stop-collar to its last notch, directly over the type-bars. Loosen the lower screw of the envelope guide and move it along toward the right until it is over the yokes. Then fasten. The paper must be inserted at the extreme right-hand end of the cylinder, so that one edge of the paper is held by the rubber band and the other edge by the envelope guide. The bell-ringer is fastened at the right end of the groove in which it works. If any of the little nuts holding the connecting wires should work loose, they should at once be tightened. As the yokes in this machine are of necessity longer than those of the No. 2 machine, greater care must be paid to the rules laid down, namely, that the carriageshift-rod on either side of which they work must be oiled daily. In all other respects the instructions herein given for the No. 2 will apply equally to the No. 3 Remington. (Concluded.) SHORTHAND WRITERS' ASSOCIATIONS. BIRMINGHAM S.W.A., Queen's College (Door C), Paradise street. From Mr Benjamin Swain, hon. sec.-Our Association is steadily increasing in numbers, new members being enrolled every week. We now number about 90 active members. Our instruction classes also receive a fair share of support, and the attendance of the students has been quite up to the average. The present term of the classes will close about the middle of August, when an examination for Proficiency Certificates will be conducted by Mr E. W. Dodd, the instructor. Non-members of the classes are eligible to compete, and I shall be glad to furnish further information respecting this examination to any phonographer of the town or district who may desire to avail himself of this opportunity. The new quarter will commence in September; due notice of each of these events will be published in the Journal. In respect of the inclemency of the weather on the 9th of June, when our first excursion was made, it has been suggested by several present on that occasion that another gathering be held, and we are, in consideration of this general desire, making arrangements for an excursion on Saturday, August 25th. The place fixed upon for the outing is Hampton-in-Arden, situated in the heart of Warwickshire. The approach to this village is through some of the charming scenery for which our county is famous. The party will be conveyed in chars a bancs, which will leave our rooms at 3 o'clock. In order to facilitate matters, an early application for tickets is requested. The total cost of the excursion will be about 3s. each, which will include a "knife and NEW MEMBERS OF THE PHONETIC SOCIETY. The members of this Society (except honorary members, marked * or *) correct the lessons of learners, through the post, gratuitously. A blank form for admission to the Society will be supplied on application to the Secretary, Eizak Pitman, Bath. Anderson William, 2 South Elliot street, Leith walk, Edinburgh Balding B. T., 525 Upper Holloway road, London, N. Bateman John H., 1 Bridge road, Sutton bridge, Wisbech Bennett Fred., 45 Osmaston street, Derby Bond W. H., 4 North Parade buildings, Bath Bool Alfred, 115 Harwood road, Fulham, London Breeze W. V., Chebsey, Eccleshall, Staffs. Brett Percy J, 4 Wilton cottages, Chesnut road, Tottenham, London Buckingham F., 34 Meyrick road, Clapham Junction, London Burden H., 23 Garfield road, Lavender hill, Wandsworth road, London Cooke R., Ludlow villa, Branston road, Burton-on-Trent Dearling R., 30 High street, Ramsgate Davies Edward, 6 Villa street, Woodhouse hill, Hunslett carr, Leeds Devereux Thomas, 2 Brightwell crescent, Tooting Graveney, London Downes James W., 4 North Parade, Derby Earp T. M., 43 Sale street, Derby Evetts Chas., 29 Lees street, Middlesboro Gay Wm., c/o Union SS. Company, Dunedin, New Zealand Gibbs Henry, 3 Penarth road, Cardiff Gill J. E. H., The Poplars, Wakerley, Staneford, Wisbech Hargreaves J. T., Ruins, Harwood, near Bolton, Lanc. Herd Henry, 17 Lindsay place, Leith Higgins Edward, Norton bridge, Stone, Staffs. Hodson R., 54 All Saints' square, Manchester Hollins T., Chebsey, Eccleshall, Staffs. Honhold Thomas, 32 Augustus street, Regent's park, London Jelley H. G., 9 St Paul's road, Northampton Kilford H. J., 4 Craven hill, Hyde park, London, W. Lenton C. H., Norfolk County school, Elmham, Norfolk Macdonald G. P., Schoolhouse, Kirkmalcolm, Scotland Tomlinson William, Ousegate school, Selby Trewick R., 2 Double row, Seaton Delaval, Northumberland Watson Miss H. M., Newgrove house, Ugthorpe, Whitby Wild William H., 21 Fairfield road, Openshaw, Manchester Wood Bertie A., Mill lane, Carshalton, Surrey Wrench Ernest C., 44 Southwark park road, Bermondsey, London Young William, 25 Weedington road, Kentish Town, London, N.W. The Phonetic Journal. SATURDAY, 4th AUGUST, 1888. PRICE ONE PENNY. THE SHORTHAND SOCIETY. On Monday, 16th of July, a meeting of phonographic members of the Shorthand Society was held at Mr T. A. Reed's offices, 37 Cursitor street, for the purpose of taking into consideration the action taken by the Society at the last annual meeting, a report of which has already appeared in this Journal. The members attending at Mr Reed's invitation were :-Mr F. Carr, Mr A. J. Cook, Mr E. A. Cope, Mr T. Hill, Mr V. Humphreys, Mr H. James, Col. Keene, Mr A. W. Kitson, Mr E. J. Nankivell, Mr H. H. Pestell, Mr J. G. Petrie, Mr Isaac Pitman, Mr W. C. Preston, Mr A. W. Reed, Mr A. Sparkhall, and Mr J. Wellington. Mr T. A. REED in opening the proceedings, said :-Gentlemen, You are probably aware of the reason why I have asked you to be kind enough to meet me this evening. It is, in brief, the action taken by the Shorthand Society at its last meeting, when the Council, by a kind of coup d'état on the part of a few members of its own body, was practically dismissed, and a new, and, as I think, disastrous policy was inaugurated. The action in question has arisen chiefly out of some differences of opinion with reference to the conduct of Shorthand, the quarterly organ of the Society. A great deal of discontent has been manifested for some months on the part of the phonographic members of the Society with regard to the contents of the magazine, which has been made the vehicle for airing the personal grievances of its late editor, and of attacks of a more or less violent character on Phonography and its inventor. The recent paper by Mr Brown was especially regarded as an infringement of the principles on which the Society was founded, or at any rate as opposed to the object avowed by its promoters-that of free and friendly discussion of systems without the infusion of personal animus and party spite. The paper was not submitted to the president, Mr Gurney-Salter, before it was read, nor, I believe, to any other member of the Council; and its tone and general character certainly took many of us by surprise. We had no objection to the criticisms on Phonography as a system. Such criticisms must be expected, and there is no objection, certainly on my part, and I believe on the part of phonographers generally, to any reasonable discussion of the principles and details of the system, as of any other. But we do very strongly object to going beyond this, and discussing in minute detail the mode in which the system has been and is still propagated, and ridiculing the efforts made to bring it into public notice, and even imputing fraud and dishonesty to its author. However permissible controversies of that character might be in journals devoted to the advocacy of particular systems, we thought them altogether out of place in a Society where all systems were represented. We conceived that attacks of this character were not only unfair and ungenerous in the extreme, but were likely to injure the Society in the estimation of the public, and to convert it into an arena, not for the discussion of systems as such, but for the display of personal animosity and pique. Giving this matter my best consideration, as it was my duty to do as a member of the Council, I came to the conclusion that in filling up the vacancy which had occurred in the office of editor of the magazine, in order to avoid the soreness which had arisen in consequence of the repeated and unfair attacks on Phonography, chiefly by the authors of rival systems, it would be desirable to make the editorship a dual one, one editor being a phonographer and the other the writer of another system. I thought that this would give the phonographers of the Society (who form, I believe, the majority of its members) some confidence that the Society would not be allowed to degenerate into a distinctly anti-phonographic Association, and at the same time would secure perfect fair play for all other systems. I mentioned the matter to the president and one or two other members of the Council, who thought the suggestion a good one, and when the president drew up the report to be submitted to the annual meeting he included this proposal in it. It had been discussed at a previous Council meeting and was adopted, together with another suggestion, that the magazine should appear monthly instead of quarterly. With reference to the latter, the president proposed that in order to protect the Society from any loss arising from the more frequent appearance of the magazine, a guarantee fund should be started, 31 towards which he put down his name for £10, and Mr Pitman (who was present at the Council meeting), myself, and one or two other members, also expressed our willingness to join in the guarantee. Although there was some opposition offered to these proposals at the Council meeting, they were generally accepted, and I certainly understood that Mr Pocknell and his friends, who at first criticised them, afterwards acquiesced in their adoption. I may add, that it was distinctly understood that if two editors were appointed, they should be empowered to appeal to the President for the time being to settle any difference of opinion that might arise between them. When the annual meeting was held on Saturday, 30th June, neither the president nor myself nor I believe any other members of the Council except those who usually act and vote with Mr Pocknell, had the slightest idea that any serious opposition would be offered to the report. Accordingly, after it was read by the president, I formally moved its adoption, and Mr Kitson seconded it. We both thought that the report spoke for itself, and did not require any enforcement. The president, however, was asked by Mr Pocknell to say something in favor of the motion, and he did so, referring to the chief points in it, and stating some of the reasons for the proposals it contained. The tactics adopted by Mr Pocknell's party (for so I must call them) then began to reveal themselves. Mr Pocknell made a violent attack upon Mr Pitman and myself, and charged us with endeavoring to establish a phonographic directorship over the Society and its magazine, or to ruin it entirely. We had, it seems, been concocting a conspiracy to this end. The proposal to issue the magazine monthly was intended to run the Society into an expense which it could not bear, and thus to land it in pecuniary difficulties; and the proposal to have a phonographer for a joint editor was a direct design to give Phonography an undue prominence in the Society, and would only lead to garbled reports of the proceedings at the monthly meetings. In a jeering tone he asked the members to believe that a motion of this kind which was proposed by myself and seconded by Mr Pitman, must have a questionable motive; and ridiculed the notion that it could be other than an artfully concocted plot, into which (according to Mr Brown) Mr Salter, of all persons in the world, had been dragged, allowing himself to become a compliant tool in our hands! He declared, with a good deal of vehemence, that we and our friends in the Council were no longer worthy of confidence, and he moved that the report be not adopted. Further, in order to prove the inexpediency of allowing a phonographer to take part in the editorship of the magazine, he alluded to the part I had taken in regard to the contents of the last number. After the resignation of the late editor, Mr Salter, Mr Pocknell, and myself, were requested to act as joint editors. Mr Pocknell, who had prepared the report of the last meeting, had had it printed and had forwarded proofs to Mr Salter and myself for our approval. In revising my proof I ran my pen through that part of Mr Brown's paper which dealt with the question of the propagandism of Phonography and of the discussion which related to it, including some remarks of my own; and I expressed a strong opinion that such matters were not within the purview of the Society, and ought not to appear in its magazine. Mr Salter had not marked out the passages in question, but he had erased a few lines from the paper which he thought were actually libelous. Mr Pocknell at once, without giving us an opportunity of conferring personally on the subject, sent the magazine to press, retaining the passages to which I had objected, but omitting the passages erased by Mr Salter. I certainly thought that an opportunity should have been afforded of our jointly considering and discussing the objection I had advanced, but I made no observation on the subject, and being, as I then was, in a minority, I yielded to the action of my colleagues. This, however, as I have said, was adduced as a striking instance of the kind of garbled reports which would be likely to appear in the magazine if a phonographer were appointed as joint editor. Mr Pocknell did not go on to state, what was the fact, that in his report of the proceedings of the meeting he had entirely omitted the important remark of the president protesting altogether against the tone of Mr Brown's paper, and expressing his regret that it had been allowed to be read. Mr Pocknell was supported in his action by his friends Mr Guest, Mr Brown, Mr Janes, and others, mostly persons specially connected with other systems, some of whom exhibited an animus, I may say a violence, entirely unbecoming a scientific or literary Society. I did my best to explain how matters really stood. I stated what was the literal fact, that in the proposal I had made for a joint editorship, nothing was further from my thoughts than the notion of establishing a phonographic dictatorship, that I had not consulted Mr Pitman on the subject, that I had not even mentioned the matter to him before he came to the meeting, and that my only object was to promote what I believed to be the best interests of the Society. I protested against the notion that two fair-minded gentlemen, one a phonographer and the other not, would have any difficulty in jointly conducting the magazine; and I resented the imputation that in supporting Mr Salter's suggestion for the more frequent appearance of the magazine, I had the malevolent design of wrecking the Society, an imputation which I thought was clearly negatived by my offer to join in a personal guarantee to protect the Society from pecuniary loss. Mr Salter also, with natura! indignation, protested against the idea of his permitting himself to be made a tool of by the phonographic section of the Council. He asked what earthly object he could have in so acting. He was, he said, a writer and an admirer of the Gurney system, and it was highly improbable that he should assume the attitude imputed to him. Some others also spoke in terms strongly deprecating the course adopted by Mr Pocknell; and suggestions were made that the question of the joint editorship of the magazine should be discussed as a special subject on its own merits, without going to the extent of passing a motion declining to adopt the Council's report. But it was of no avail. The meeting had been evidently packed. There were many persons present (some of whom I believe were new members who had been elected on that very day) who had never before been seen at the Society's meetings. Usually the annual meeting is a small one, and the proceedings are of a most formal character, and, as I have said, we were absolutely unaware that any attempt would be made to oppose the action taken recommended by the Council. The tactics of Mr Pocknell and his friends prevailed, and his motion for the virtual rejection of the report and the censure of the Council was carried by a large majority. It was then generally felt that the Council ought to retire, and the president declined to submit the "house list" which had been agreed upon at the previous Council meeting without opposition by Mr Pocknell or anyone else. This list included the name of Mr Salter as president (he having been asked to continue in office another year) and the names of most of the members of the then existing Council who were willing to be re-elected. Thereupon Mr Pocknell produced a fresh list, which had been prepared and printed, omitting the name of Mr Salter as president, and substituting that of Mr Petrie, omitting also the name of Mr Pitman as one of the vice-presidents, and substituting the names of Mr Richter and Mr Tolcher. The new list was duly put to the meeting and adopted. It included the names of several gentlemen who had not been consulted or asked to allow themselves to be nominated, and who will probably decline to accept the office. 44 I think I have stated accurately, in substance, what occurred at the meeting; but it is almost impossible to describe the manner in which the opposing party acted. Mr Pocknell is an adept at the art of interruption when others are speaking, but he excelled himself on this occasion. Backed, as he was, by a number of his friends constituting a considerable majority of the meeting, he found it an easy task to prevent the full and free expression of opinion on the part of his opponents; and the general tenor of the proceedings was described to me by one of those who voted with Mr Pocknell as a rascally ramp." That is not my phrase, and I only cite it to show the view entertained even by some of their own supporters of the tactics adopted by the successful party in the Council. That they were personally insulting can hardly be doubted by any unbiassed person who was present and witnessed the scene that took place. That they were injurious to the Society itself is equally certain. The charge of conspiracy brought against Mr Pitman, Mr Salter, and myself, recoils upon the heads of those who make it. Without saying a word to us on the subject, and giving us the opportunity of meeting them on fair terms, they came to the annual meeting, supported by a considerable number of their friends who were in the secret, prepared to move an amendment to the usual motion for the adoption of the report, with a cut and dried list of members of the Council in opposition to the one agreed upon at the Council meeting; and by force of numbers thus obtained, they carried their point, and are now, in a sense, masters of the situation. The question then arises, What course ought the phonographic members of the Society to take under the circumstances? For myself, I frankly confess that after what we have recently witnessed, so long as the Society is under its present management I can have no confidence whatever in it. For an imaginary dictatorship they have substituted a real one. The chief actors in the recent scene are strong, I may almost say virulent, antagonists of Phonography, and do not care to conceal their antagonism. I cannot imagine that Phonography would have fair play in their hands, and for that, among other reasons, I for one have resolved to sever my connection with the Society. I decline to be a party to any more rascally ramps." I am no match for those gentlemen in contests of that description, and am willing to leave them in possession of the field. I do not think it necessary to enter into any lengthened justification of the course I have adopted. I may confidently appeal to the part I have taken in the proceedings of the Society from its commencement, especially during my own presidency, as a sufficient exoneration from the charge of seeking to make the Society a means of phonographic propagandism. I should decidedly object to making it a phonographic association; and I as strongly object to its being an anti-phonographic association. There has been from the first a strong suspicion on the part of many persons that Mr Pocknell in founding the Society had in view the striking a death-blow to Phonography and the introduction of his own system. I have never laid this to his charge, and do not wish to do so now. Even if that were his object--as to which I express no opinion-there were others in the Society who were actuated by far different motives, and I have all along thought that notwithstanding many differences of opinion, we ought to be able to make the Society a suitable and useful arena for the discussion of many shorthand questions. So believing, I have invited many persons to become members; I have done my best to combat objections and beat down what I thought unreasonable prejudices, and I think I may take the credit, if it be a credit, of having been the means of introducing to the Society more professional shorthand writers (in the ordinary acceptation of the term) than any other person. I simply mention this to show my loyalty to the Society and my desire to promote its welfare. I have not, of course, overlooked another possible alternative to withdrawing from the Society, namely, requesting the present president to summon a special meeting of members to consider the position into which the Society has been brought; and to adopt some means by which a good attendance of phonographic members should be secured. This, under certain circumstances, might be a prudent course to adopt; but under the existing circumstances I cannot recommend it. I should not like to ask the members to displace Mr Pocknell from office in a Society which he was mainly instrumental in establishing, and yet so long as he and his friends take a leading part in its management I am now reluctantly compelled to believe that we shall have no security against a repetition of the disgraceful scenes we have lately witnessed. Having expressed my own views on this subject, I invite the gentlemen who have done me the favor of accepting my invitation for this evening to express theirs, in the hope that some recommendation or conclusion may be arrived at among us which may help other phonographers who may be looking to us for counsel as to the course which they ought to pursue. Mr PETRIE (the present President of the Society) said, he thought no one could accuse him of being a partizan. He wrote Phonography professionally, and always spoke in favor of the system. When the recent dispute first arose, he knew nothing of what was going on in the Committee, but he certainly thought that the proposed additional expenditure, in connection with the Magazine, would be unwise. He was not able to be present at the annual meeting, and he had had no desire to serve as President during the present year, the understanding being that Mr. Salter was to be elected as President for a second year, and that his (Mr Petrie's) turn should come next year. While in Scotland, he received a letter from Mr Pocknell, telling him that he had been elected. It was done without his knowing anything about it. As he had been elected, he had decided on accepting the office. He did not agree with Mr Pocknell on many shorthand matters, and he had often told him what he had thought about his system. He should certainly do his best to secure fair play for Phonography, during his year of office. Mr T. A. REED said, he was quite sure that Mr Petrie would not be a party to any unfair course of action, and he quite exonerated him from any participation in the recent proceedings. Mr PETRIE regretted that his year of office should be marked by any disagreement, but he had the satisfaction of knowing that it had not been caused by himself. With regard to the new house list," brought forward by Mr Pocknell, Mr Reed's name was not included in it, because as a Past-President, he was ex officio, a member of the Council. He was very sorry that Mr Pitman's name had been removed from the list as one of the Vice-Presidents. It might be supposed, from his own name being upon the paper, that he was in collusion with those who were opposing the Council's report, but he distinctly denied that such was the case. Mr COPE pointed out, that the names of well-known phonographers like Mr Cook, Mr James, and Mr Kitson, who had regularly attended the meetings of the Council, and who had always taken an active part in the general work of the Society, had been excluded from the list; and that amongst the new names, the only phonographer in the habit of attending regularly, was Mr Sparkhall. There appeared to be no reason for the omission of the names of the gentlemen he had mentioned, except that they were phonographers. Mr Nankivell had been included in the new list, but he believed that the gentleman had declined to act. Mr PESTELL said, that Mr Nankivell had consented. 日 |