And now let us enter a little into detail. The Reviewer finds great
fault with my introduction, as being wholly irrevelant to the Diary
which follows it. I admit, that if it were an introduction to the Diary
alone, there then would be some justice in his remark. But such is not
the case: an introduction is, I believe, generally understood to refer
to the _whole_ of the work, not a portion of it; and now that the work
is complete, I leave it to the public to decide whether the introduction
is suitable or not, as bearing upon the whole. I believe, also, it is
the general custom to place an introduction at the commencement of a
work; I never heard of one being introduced into the middle or at the
end of it. The fault, therefore, of its imputed irrelevancy is not
mine: it is the Reviewer's, who has thought proper to review the work
before it was complete. He quotes me, as saying, "_Captain Marryat's
object was to examine and ascertain what were the effects of a
democratic form of government upon a people which, with all its foreign
admixture, may still be considered as English_;" and then, without
waiting till I have completed my task, he says, that the present work
"has nothing, or next to nothing, to do with such an avowal." Whether
such an assertion has any thing to do with the work now that it is
completed, I leave the public to decide. The Reviewer has no excuse for
this illiberal conduct, for I have said, in my Introduction, "In the
arrangement of this work, I have considered it advisable to present to
the reader first, those portions of my Diary which may be interesting,
and in which are recorded _traits_ and _incidents_ which will _bear
strongly upon the commentaries I shall subsequently make_;"
notwithstanding which the reviewer has the mendacity to assert that,
"not until the last paragraph of the last volume, does he learn for the
first time that the work is not complete." I will be content with
quoting his own words against him--"_An habitual story teller_ prefers
_invention_ to description."

The next instance of the Reviewer's dishonesty is, his quoting a portion
of a paragraph and rejecting the context. He quotes, "I had not been
three weeks in the country before I decided upon accepting no more
invitations, charily as they were made," and upon this quotation he
founds an argument that, as I did not enter into society, I could of
course have no means of gaining any knowledge of American character or