SECOND CLASS, HARD-PASTE (OPAQUE). _5th Order._ Fine faience, uncolored paste with plumbiferous glaze. _6th Order._ Stone-ware without glaze, or with salt or plumbiferous glaze. THIRD CLASS, HARD-PASTE (TRANSLUCENT). _7th Order._ Hard porcelain, paste and glaze both felspathic. _8th Order._ English natural soft-paste porcelain--paste, argillaceous kaolin, pegmatite, phosphate of lime, etc.; glaze, boracic. _9th Order._ French artificial soft-paste porcelain--paste, a frit, marly alkaline; glaze, alkaline containing lead, alkali, and silica. If these tables be studied carefully, it will be found that in arranging the nine orders, a gradual ascent is made from the humblest ware--baked clay left unglazed--to the finest of artificial compounds. Its only objection--and it is one very likely to confuse an inexperienced student of the art--is, that, under the head of hard-paste pottery, are classed the soft-paste porcelains of England and France. The question is, also, very likely to suggest itself, why the distinction should be drawn between the soft-pastes of England and France, and the one called natural, the other artificial. The reason is that the paste of England is naturally soft, while that of France is made soft by the chemical action of certain of its ingredients. The classification has, on the other hand, the advantage of being in general use. Terms are employed in its construction which have a peculiar but well understood significance; and even in its errors there is a modicum of truth. Thus, although the artificial porcelain of France is invariably called _pate tendre_, or soft porcelain, it is not improperly classed under translucent hard-pastes. The error is in the distinctive name rather than in the classification. There is, in reality, very little difference in hardness between the hard-paste and the soft-paste; and although the glaze of the latter is not so hard as the body, the appellation soft-paste has been adjudged a misnomer. The question then came to be whether it might not be better to retain the old terms, with an explanation of their technical meaning, than to supplant them with something new. The latter course has been adopted, upon the ground of obviating meaningless and misleading distinctions. Both simplicity and a clear understanding of one of the most important practical divisions of our subject point toward a revision of the old system of grouping. Pottery and porcelain differ in one essential respect, and their varieties can also be classed according to the leading features of their composition, manufacture, or appearance. These differences have been taken as the basis of the following classification, against which, at least, none of the objections to that of M. Brongniart can be brought. It has been prepared by a distinguished French artist of the present time, and is offered in the hope that it may be intelligible, although it is not claimed to be