Reverting to the subject of agencies for education in naval architecture, a few remarks are due relative to Government institutions as having hitherto failed in being of immediate service to the mercantile marine. The training given to naval architects and marine engineers at the Admiralty Schools is admirably adapted for creating a staff of war-ship designers and expert mathematicians, such as are employed in the various departments of the Admiralty service. The course of instruction has been framed expressly with a view to this, and a very high standard of mathematical knowledge is necessary before students can enter upon it. The principle of requiring one to become a first-class mathematician before attempting to teach him much of the science of naval architecture and its application in practice, is of questionable merit: at any rate it cannot be carried out in the mercantile marine. Again; economy of time and of cost of production are conditions which largely govern the methods followed in mercantile practice. Short methods of calculation, or of tentative approximation, for the purpose of enabling tenders to be made for proposed vessels, and of quickly proceeding with the work when secured, form no inconsiderable feature in the training required by mercantile naval architects. These, however, do not as a rule enter to any extent into Admiralty modes of procedure. The want of satisfactory means for obtaining a sound scientific and practical training in mercantile naval architecture has for some time been felt to be very pressing. The evening classes conducted in most of the shipbuilding centres under the auspices of the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, are fitted to supply a part of this want so far as elementary teaching is concerned. Until recently the antiquated character of the questions set for examination was subject of general complaint, both on the part of students and teachers. In August, 1881, Mr William Denny read a paper on “Local Education in Naval Architecture” before the Institution of Naval Architects, in which adequate expression was given to these complaints, and at the same time proposed amendments offered. As a consequence of this paper, and of the steps taken by the Institution in appointing a deputation to wait upon the Government, the questions have been considerably improved, and are now so framed as to form a fairly crucial test of a young student’s knowledge of the science and practice of modern shipbuilding.