arrange monthly or annual obituaries of the common magazines since 1830
to make a good and useful supplemental volume.

II. I would suggest to skilful authors and booksellers publishing
Biographical Dictionaries to follow the French and American custom of
including in them the more eminent _contemporary_ living characters.
That would add greatly to the use of the book; and the matter could
easily be collected from the current Books of Peerage and Parliamentary
Companions, with aid from the numerous magazines as to distinguished
literary men.

III. The supplements for Gazetteers could be easily compiled from the
_parliamentary papers_ and magazines of the day. I would refer
particularly to the supplements published by Mr. McCulloch to his
_Commercial Dictionary_ as an example to be followed; while the conduct
lately adopted in the new edition of Maunder's _Biographical Treasury_
should be avoided. The old edition of that collection consisted of 839
pages, and it is believed it was _stereotyped_. A new edition, or a new
issue, of the old 839 pages was lately published, the same as the
original dictionary, with a supplement of 72 pages. That is not sold
separately; so that the holders of the old edition must purchase the
whole work a _second_ time in 1850, at 10s., to procure the supplement.
The public should not encourage such a style of publication. Any one
might publish a supplemental dictionary since 1836, which would equally
serve with the old edition. This hint is particularly addressed to Mr.
Charles Knight.

These hints are offered to the publishers and encouragers of _popular_
works for general readers, at economical prices; and they might be
extended. For example, dictionaries of medicine for family use have