usual signature was "Christopher Crayon." Once, as I had a paper under
that signature, I had written another with a different signature, which
appeared in the same issue, and immediately a correspondent wrote to
complain that the latter article was but a poor imitation of "Christopher
Crayon." Once a reviewer on a leading London morning newspaper referred
to me as a young lady. I refer to that soft impeachment simply as an
illustration of the carelessness with which London reviewers often write.
I can quite understand such blunders. A reviewer has so many books to
look at, and such little time allowed him for the right discharge of his
duty, that it is no wonder he often errs.

I have written several books. Perhaps here I ought to refer to Mr.
Burton, of Ipswich, who was the first to anticipate the growing demand
for good and cheap literature by the publication of the "Run and Read
Library," which deserved a better sale than it really secured. He
published my first book--a reprint of sketches of leading ministers of
all denominations, which had appeared in a London weekly paper, and paid
me for it in the most liberal manner. I fear Mr. Burton was a little in
advance of his age. At any rate, he soon disappeared from Ipswich and
the publishing trade. Surely such a spirited town as Ipswich might have
better supported such a thoroughly deserving man. Possibly my
experiences may be useful. One thing is clear, that a review may one day
praise you highly, and another day as strongly condemn. How is this?--a
matter of personal prejudice say the public. I don't believe it.
Personal prejudice is not so common in reviews as the ignorant public
thinks. Accident has a great deal to do with it. A newspaper proprietor
once told me he had two reviewers, one of whom always cut up all the
books sent for review, while the other praised them, and it depended upon
the chance into whose hands your book might fall, whether you were
praised or censured. Again, it is much easier to find fault than to
praise. A youthful reviewer is specially gratified when he can "slate"
an author, and besides how it flatters his own self-esteem! It is true
the reviewer in doing so often blunders, but no one finds it out. For
instance, many years ago no man was better known in certain circles than
Mr. John Morley, the brother, the philanthropic brother of that great
philanthropist, Mr. Samuel Morley. I had written in a book on City life
that