LONDON:
F. SHOBERL, JUN. 51, RUPERT STREET, HAYMARKET,
PRINTER TO H. R. H. PRINCE ALBERT.

PREFACE
TO THE
SECOND EDITION.

In publishing a second edition of the “Memoirs of Lady Hester Stanhope,” the Author does not feel himself called upon to reply to the many desultory criticisms on his work which have issued from the press. It was naturally to be expected that, among the numerous adherents of statesmen, noblemen, and princes, whose lives had been commented upon in these pages, there would be no lack of writers to vindicate their reputation, or, failing in this, to censure the narrator. But, to do so with vulgarity, as was the case in two or three reviews, is surely departing from the rules of literary courtesy, and must rather have weakened their arguments than otherwise.

We read in the number of the Quarterly Review for September last (p. 449) a paragraph, which the writer must have known was a misrepresentation of facts. It is there asserted that the Earl Stanhope had given a flat contradiction to a portion of Dr. M.’s Conversations. Now, the critic ought to have been aware that what his lordship denied was no part of the “Conversations,” but an extract from a letter written by Lady Hester herself to his Grace the Duke of Wellington; and yet, not acting with the fairness and impartiality which became him, and becomes every person sitting in judgment on another, he forgets to give at the same time the answer, and in this way hopes to cast odium on the Author of the Memoirs, at the expense of truth and justice. No apology therefore is needed for inserting the answer, thus, it is to be hoped, unintentionally omitted, and which was as follows:—

“The Author of the ‘Memoirs of Lady Hester Stanhope’ presents his compliments to the Editor of the Morning Post, and, in reference to that portion of a letter from the Earl Stanhope, which appeared in the Morning Post on the 10th inst., wherein his lordship complains of an assertion ‘that he went to dine in company with Mr. Fox when Mr. Pitt was on his death-bed,’ begs leave to inform him that it was not made by Lady Hester Stanhope in conversation with the Author (as might be inferred from his lordship’s words), but was contained in a letter written by her ladyship to the Duke of Wellington, and which was published in the newspapers of the day. Consequently, the Author of the Memoirs is in no wise responsible for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement.

“With regard to the concluding paragraph of his lordship’s letter, in which he says, ‘I may also express my concern that any physician should have considered it as consistent with his sense of propriety to publish the report of conversations between himself and one of his patients,’ the Author of the Memoirs takes the liberty of observing that the contents of his work are not confidential communications between a physician and his patient, but conversations upon domestic and public subjects, which had already been repeated to many other persons, and which, he was convinced, from her ladyship’s frequent recurrence to the same topics, she was but too anxious should be made known to the world. The Author, therefore, may be excused if he adds that he has been as desirous to observe the strict rules of propriety, and is as incapable of violating private confidence, as his lordship himself.”

In other respects, the Author of the Memoirs has no complaint to make. A reviewer promulgates his opinions, which clash with those of an author, and the public, if interested in the discussion, soon shows its leaning. When the reviewer has done honour to Lady Hester Stanhope’s noble qualities and her virtues, the Author can readily forgive what is said of himself, although, “peradventure,” not altogether said with fairness.

The Author.

United University Club,