The Daily Express acted somewhat curiously on 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 misunderstood on the matter, but her hearty good-will to journalists is well-known to many of the craft who are proud to be within the pleasant circle of her intimate friends.
* * * * * *
A section of the Press finds pleasure in accusing Miss Corelli of “self-advertisement.” If it were at all true that she has any proclivities that way, she would surely accept the frequent and urgent offers made to her to lecture in the United States, on almost fabulous terms.
Again, a chance for “self-advertisement” offered itself to Miss Corelli in the invitation of Edinburgh, last year, to open the Home Industries Exhibition, in Waverley Market. People hoped for her coming, and urgent letters were sent to her assuring her that she would receive a splendid welcome. Miss Corelli, however, declined the tempting proposal, which, if the “advertising” accusations were in any way well-founded, seems a short-sighted waste of opportunity on her part. As a matter of fact, she seldom takes the chances of notoriety that are so frequently offered to her; but it would be easy to name a dozen or more periodicals which are glad to make advertisements for themselves out of some specially contrived attack upon her. The public, however, sees through this, and, understanding the motives of action, are all the more loyal to Marie Corelli and her work. Britishers are famed for their love of “fair play,” and the spectacle of several able-bodied men engaged in steadily “hounding” a woman who has made her way without their assistance by the fuel of her own brain and energy, does not appeal to the majority. They see no fun in it, but only an exhibition of cowardice.
While on this subject, it may be mentioned that as soon as certain sections of the Press discovered that Marie Corelli was among the favored few who had received an invitation from the King to be present in the Abbey at the Coronation on August 9th, she was bombarded with letters and telegrams from several newspapers entreating her to write for them her “impressions” of the great ceremony. To all these applications she gave no answer. Her silence on such an occasion rather discounts her supposed “love of notoriety”! Truth to tell, her presence at the Abbey, as a guest of the King, created in some quarters quite a riot of fury.
“We hear,” said one paper, “that Miss Marie Corelli was among the King’s guests in the Abbey! Marvelous! No doubt she wore a gown as gorgeous as her love of self-advertisement could make it!” Poor Miss Corelli! In the very simplest attire of white chiffon and lace, she was one of the most unobtrusively dressed ladies present, as she wore no jewels, and had nothing indeed about her costume that could attract the slightest attention, though she was the “observed of all observers” at the luncheon held in the House of Peers after the Abbey ceremonial, not for her dress, but for her fame.
Another incident may be aptly quoted here. When the King was attacked by his serious illness, the enterprising manager of a newspaper press agency made haste to write to Miss Corelli saying that it was necessary to “prepare for the worst,” and would she therefore write her “impressions” of the King,—which meant, of course, an obituary notice! To which the novelist replied with considerable warmth that she had too much immediate concern for the dangerous condition of her Sovereign, as well as too much honor for him, to “make trade” for the newspapers by writing “obituary notices” of his life before he was dead! By the grace of God, she said, he would be spared to the Throne for many good and happy years to come. Such is the real spirit of the woman whom her more than malicious enemies accuse of “disloyalty” and “desire for advertisement.” It is a satisfaction to give a few truths of her real disposition as opposed to the unfounded falsehoods that are circulated about her. As a single example of her womanliness and womanly sympathies, it may be mentioned that no one has yet written a tenderer tribute to the virtues of the Queen than Marie Corelli in “The Soul of Queen Alexandra,” published last year in her “Christmas Greeting.”
* * * * * *
Two letters which were addressed to Miss Corelli by eminent preachers who have since passed away are of interest. In explanation of their inclusion it should be mentioned that Dr. Campbell, the successor of Dr. Parker at the City Temple, was exceedingly anxious to persuade Miss Corelli to open a great Nonconformist bazaar in the Dome during the early part of last November. She would have been perfectly willing to do so had there not been a great agitation just then in the press concerning the Education Bill, for she judged that had she performed any special ceremony in any prominent way for the Nonconformist cause, she would again have been singled out for unfair attack.