Singularly enough, this is the second case in which my paper on reckoning has been both misquoted and misapprehended in "N. & Q." My knowledge of the existence of this periodical began with a copy of No. 7. (containing p. 107., Vol. i.), forwarded to me by the courtesy of the Editor, on {251} account of a Query signed (not A. E. B. but) B., affirming that I had "discovered a flaw in the great Johnson!" Now it happened that the flaw was described, even in B.'s own quotation from me, as "certainly not Johnson's mistake, for he was a clear-headed arithmetician." B. gave me half a year to answer; and then, no answer appearing, privately forwarded the printed Query, with a request to know whether the readers of "N. & Q." were not of a class sufficiently intelligent to appreciate a defence from me. The fact was, that I thought them too intelligent to need it, after the correction (by B. himself, in p. 127.) of the misquotation. It is not in letters as in law, that Judgment must be signed for the plaintiff if the defendant do not appear. There is also an anonymous octavo tract, mostly directed, or at least (so far as I have read) much directed, against the arguments of the same article, and containing, misapprehensions of a similar kind. That my unfortunate article should be so misunderstood in three distinct quarters, is, I am afraid, sufficient presumption against its clearness; and shows me that _obscures fio_ is, as much as ever, the attendant of _brevis esse laboro_: but I am still fully persuaded of the truth of the conclusions. A. DE MORGAN. * * * * * LADY PERCY, WIFE OF HOTSPUR (DAUGHTER OF EDMUND MORTIMER, EARL OF MARCH), AND JANE SEYMOUR'S ROYAL DESCENT. (Vol. vii., p. 42. Vol. viii., pp. 104. 184)