except, possibly, the _Times_ in its Literary Supplement. The _Guardian_
relies on mere, sheer intellectual power, and as a rule it does not
respect persons. Its theatrical critics, for example, take joy in speaking
the exact truth--never whispered in London--concerning the mandarins of
the stage. Now it is remarkable that the only strictly first-class morning
daily in these isles should have printed the _Guardian_'s review of "Diana
Mallory" (signed "B.S."); for the article respected persons. I do not
object to Mrs. Humphry Ward being reviewed with splendid prominence. I am
quite willing to concede that a new book from her constitutes the matter
of a piece of news, since it undoubtedly interests a large number of
respectable and correct persons. A novel by Miss Marie Corelli, however,
constitutes the matter of a greater piece of news; yet I have seen no
review of "Holy Orders," even in a corner, in the _Guardian_. Surely the
_Guardian_ was not prevented from dealing faithfully with "Holy Orders" by
the fact that it received no review copy, or by the fact that Miss Corelli
desired no review. Its news department in general is conducted without
reference to the desires of Miss Marie Corelli, and it does not usually
boggle at an expenditure of four-and-sixpence. Why, then, Mrs. Humphry
Ward being reviewed specially, is not Miss Marie Corelli reviewed
specially? If the answer be that Mrs. Humphry Ward's novels are better, as
literature, than Miss Corelli's, I submit that the answer is insufficient,
and lacking in Manchester sincerity.

* * * * *

Let me duly respect Mrs. Humphry Ward. She knows her business. She is an
expert in narrative. She can dress up even the silliest incidents of
sentimental fiction--such as that in which the virgin heroine, in company
with a young man, misses the last train home (see "Helbeck of
Bannisdale")--in a costume of plausibility. She is a conscientious worker.