In assisting my memory, I have been led to compare the writer's extracts from Robertson with the pages of the historian himself, and I have found him, not only occasionally disfiguring the style on points of little moment, by turning the words, but giving to the author's words a sense which they were not intended to bear, by means of Italic types and additions. For instance: the historian says, "As it was the professed intention of the order of Jesuits to labour with {17} unwearied zeal in promoting the salvation of men, this engaged them, of course, in many active functions." On reading Robertson's work, would any one imagine, that the author meant to insinuate, that the intention was insincere, and a mere cloak to political vices? Is it not clear from all he writes, as well as from this passage taken singly, that he gave the Jesuits credit for their sincerity in devoting themselves to the salvation of men? Yet has the writer of the pamphlet, by causing the word _professed_ to be printed in Italics, called upon his reader to take his sense of Robertson's words, and to believe, that the word _professed_ implies deceit, instead of the _open_ and _declared_ intention of the Jesuits. Not content with this low falsifying of Robertson's ideas by Italic implication, he practises the same trick by an Italic addition of some lines of his own to the text of the historian, as follows: "_their great and leading maxim having uniformly been, to do evil that good might come_." Can any thing be more reprehensible? {18}