95} allegory of the
devil, this is really too indecorous, even for him. Out with the three last
words! and out it is.

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 kno