this occasion. Having copied the whole of the "private correspondence," it was suggested that this paper might possibly be laying itself open to penalties of the law for "breach of copyright." Whereupon haste was made to send the following telegram to Miss Corelli: "Have asked our correspondent to call upon you. We will print with pleasure any statement. Sorry our article did not please you. Would like to make amends.—Daily Express.
The desire, however, to "make amends" does not appear to have been very hearty, because soon afterwards a second article on the subject appeared in The Daily Express, stating that there was "no law to prevent the publication of a private and confidential letter," unless it bore a legal "confidential stamp." And at the same time Mr. Pearson wrote to Miss Corelli to say that he thought the editor who had published her "private and confidential" note was "perfectly justified" in his action! But there can be no possible justification for publishing a letter of confidence. Business would be impossible under such circumstances. The mistake Miss Corelli has made in the past has been to condemn the Press and pressmen for the shortcomings of individuals who represent only themselves and not a profession. She has been
