Tract Society, the lineal successor of the _Repository_
association, though knowing nothing about its predecessor. I think it right
to add that Rowland Hill here mentioned is not the regenerator of the Post
Office.[438] Some do not distinguish accurately; I have heard of more than
one who took me to have had a logical controversy with a diplomatist who
died some years before I was born.

THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY.

A few years ago, an attempt was made by myself and others to collect some
information about the _Cheap Repository_ (see _Notes and Queries_, 3d
Series, vi. 241, 290, 353; _Christian Observer_, Dec. 1864, pp. 944-49). It
appeared that after the Religious Tract Society had existed more than fifty
years, a friend presented it with a copy of the original prospectus of the
_Repository_, a thing the existence of which was not known. In this
prospectus it is announced that from the plan "will be carefully excluded
whatever is enthusiastic, absurd, or superstitious." The "evangelical"
{193} party had, from the foundation of the Religious Tract Society,
regretted that the _Repository Tracts_ "did not contain a fuller statement
of the great evangelical principles"; while in the prospectus it is also
stated that "no cause of any particular party is intended to be served by
it, but general Christianity will be promoted upon practical principles."
This explains what has often been noticed, that the tracts contain a mild
form of "evangelical" doctrine, free from that more fervid dogmatism which
appears in the _Village Dialogues_; and such as H. More's friend, Bishop
Porteus[439]--a great promoter of the scheme--might approve. The Religious
Tract Society (in 1863) republished some of H. More's tracts, with
alterations, additions, and omissions _ad libitum_. This is an improper way
of dealing with the works of the dead; especially when the reprints are of
popular works. A small type addition to the preface contains: "Some
alterations and abridgements have been made to adapt them to the present
times and the aim of the Religious Tract Society." I think every publicity
ought to be given to the existence of such a practice; and I reprint what I
said on the subject in _Notes and Queries_.

Alterations in works which the Society republishes are a necessary part of
their plan, though such notes as they should judge to be corrective would
be the best way of proceeding. But the fact of alteration should be very
distinctly ann