Every Newspaper may contain misrepresentations and falsehoods; but those are generally confined to politics and artifices of trade: when any indifferent circumstance is to be related, there is no inducement to _wilful_ falsehood. Besides, our ingenuous Reviewer must have allowed me to have had sufficient discernment to reject articles of that description.--Were I to act with the same candour towards him as he has evinced towards "Newspapers, Intelligencers, and Magazines" (observe, _Reviews_ are omitted) in his rejection of them as authorities, I should charge him with declaring a deliberate falsehood in informing his readers that my excellent friend Mr. Nichols had lost his matchless collection of periodical publications in the late burning of his warehouse and printing-office. A statement of this nature need not rest upon "_we believe_:" London is extensive, but surely within the compass of a Reviewer's walk, who dogmatically substitutes _we believe_ for the simple question at Mr. Nichols's door, "Have you lost your collection?" I shall now follow this candid gentleman's example--he damns in the Theatrical term the whole of my book, by endeavouring to mislead the publick into a belief that it contains not a word of truth; and then a high-sounding apology in these words: "That Mr. M. would _intentionally_ pervert a single fact, or make one statement that he _believed_ to be erroneous, we certainly have not the most distant idea of intimating; he possesses too high a sense of honour, too great a feeling of manly integrity, even to permit the supposition." Pray, good Sir, who would willingly consider me rather as a fool than as a liar, apply your own words to yourself; and let me add, I am convinced you _believed_ Mr. Nichols's collection to have been consumed by fire, though it certainly was not.