The Society cuts a poor figure before a literary tribunal. Nothing was wanted except an admission that the remarks made by me were unanswerable, and this was immediately furnished by the Secretary (_N. and Q._, 3d S., vi. 290). In a reply of which six parts out of seven are a very amplified statement that the Society did not intend to reprint _all_ Hannah More's tracts, the remaining seventh is as follows: "I am not careful [perhaps this should be _careful not_] to notice Professor De Morgan's objections to the changes in 'Mary Wood' or 'Parley the Porter,' but would merely reiterate that the tracts were neither designed nor announced to be 'reprints' of the originals [design is only known to the designers; as to announcement, the title is ''Tis all for the best, The Shepherd of Salisbury Plain, and other narratives by Hannah More']; and much less [this must be _careful not_; further removed from answer than _not careful_] can I occupy your space by a treatise on the Professor's question: 'May any one alter the works of the dead at his own discretion?'" To which I say: Thanks for help! I predict that Hannah More's _Cheap Repository Tracts_ will somewhat resemble the _Pilgrim's Progress_ in their fate. Written for the cottage, and long remaining in their original position, they will become classical works of their kind. Most assuredly this will happen if my assertion cannot be upset, namely, that they contain the first specimens of fiction addressed to the world at large, and widely circulated, in which dramatic--as distinguished from puppet--power is shown, and without indecorum. {196} According to some statements I have seen, but which I have not verified, other publishing bodies, such as the Christian Knowledge Society, have taken the same liberty with the names of the dead as the Religious Tract Society. If it be so, the impropriety is the work of the smaller spirits who have not been sufficiently overlooked. There must be an overwhelming majority in the higher councils to feel that, whenever _altered_ works are published, _the fact of alteration should be made as prominent as the name of the author_. Everything short of this is suppression of truth, and will ultimately destroy the credit of the Society. Equally necessary is it that the alterations should be noted. When it comes to be known that the author before him is altered, he knows not where nor how nor by whom, the lowest reader will lose his interest. A TRIBUTE TO WILLIAM FREND. The principles of Algebra. By William Frend.[441] London, 1796, 8vo. Second Part, 1799. This Algebra, says Dr. Peacock,[442] shows "great distrust {197} of the results of algebraical science which were in existence at the time when it was written." Truly it does; for, as Dr. Peacock had shown by full citation, it makes war of extermination upon all that distinguishes algebra from arithmetic. Robert Simson[443] and Baron Maseres[444] were Mr. Frend's predecessors in this opinion.