With the somewhat obscure history of the birth of the Eleventh Edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, or with the part played in that history by Cambridge University and the London _Times_, I am not concerned. Nor shall I review the unethical record of the two issues of the Encyclopædia. To those interested in this side of the question I suggest that they read the following contributions in Reedy’s _Mirror_: _The Same Old Slippery Trick_ (March 24, 1916). _The Encyclopædia Britannica Swindle_ (April 7, 1916). _The Encyclopædia Britannica Fake_ (April 14, 1916); and also the article in the March 18 (1916) _Bellman_, _Once More the Same Old Game_. Such matters might be within the range of forgiveness if the contents of the _Britannica_ were what were claimed for them. But that which does concern me is the palpable discrepancies between the statements contained in the advertising, and the truth as revealed by a perusal of the articles and biographies contained in the work itself. The statements insisted that the _Britannica_ was a _supreme_, _unbiased_, and _international_ reference library—an impartial and objective review of the world; and it was on these statements, repeated constantly, that Americans bought the work. The truth is that the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, in its main departments of culture, is characterized by misstatements, inexcusable omissions, rabid and patriotic prejudices, personal animosities, blatant errors of fact, scholastic ignorance, gross neglect of non-British culture, an astounding egotism, and an undisguised contempt for American progress. Rarely has this country witnessed such indefensible methods in advertising as those adopted by the _Britannica’s_ exploiters. The “copy” has fairly screamed with extravagant and fabulous exaggerations. The vocabulary of hyperbole has been practically exhausted in setting forth the dubious merits of this reference work. The ethics and decencies of ordinary honest commerce have been thrown to the wind. The statements made day after day were apparently concocted irrespective of any consideration save that of making a sale; for there is an abundance of evidence to show that the Encyclopædia was not what was claimed for it.