[Footnote A: The improvement was never made.--ED.]

"The confounded licking we received for our first attempts in the
critical notices is probably well known to the reader--at all events
we have not forgotten it. Now, with some, this severe castigation of
their first offence would have had the effect of their never offending
again; but we felt that our punishment was rather too severe; it
produced indignation instead of contrition, and we determined to write
again in spite of all the critics in the universe; and in the due
course of nine months we produced _The King's Own_. In _The Naval
Officer_ we had sowed all our wild oats; we had _paid off_ those who
had ill-treated us, and we had no further personality to indulge in.
_The King's Own_, therefore, was wholly fictitious in characters, in
plot, and in events, as have been its successors. _The King's Own_ was
followed by _Newton Forster, Newton Forster_ by _Peter Simple_. These
are _all_ our productions. Reader, we have told our tale."

This significant document was published by Captain Marryat in the
_Metropolitan Magazine_ 1833, of which he was at that time the editor,
on the first appearance of _Peter Simple_, in order, among other
things, to disclaim the authorship of a work entitled the _Port
Admiral_, which contained "an infamous libel upon one of our most
distinguished officers deceased, and upon the service in general." It
repudiates, without explaining away, certain unpleasant impressions
that even the careful reader of to-day cannot entirely avoid. Marryat
made Frank Mildmay a scamp, I am afraid, in order to prove that
he himself had not stood for the portrait; but he clearly did not
recognise the full enormities of his hero, to which he was partially
blinded by a certain share thereof. The adventures were admittedly his