A very good hit too.

* * * * *

From an Indian cinema advertisement:—­

“‘The Marble Heart’ from ‘King Baggot’:  A splendid drama dealing with the loves of a young sculptor whose daydreams partake of an astral separation from his own self, and carry him to the scenes of the times in which his 3 statues were living persons.  We are introduced to old Greece, and meet Diagones; Georges; Philideas and live over again the old times.”—­Civil and Military Gazette (Lahore).

But with a lot of nice new friends.

* * * * *

[Illustration:  AGAINST TYRANNY.

RUSSIA (drawing her sword again in the common cause).  “IF I CAN’T KEEP
FAITH WITH THE FRIENDS OF FREEDOM, HOW AM I FIT TO BE FREE?”]

* * * * *

[Illustration:  Short.  “WE MUST WAIT TILL THE BOYS COME MARCHING HOME, AND THEN THE PROFITS ’LL GO UP.”

Codlin.  “OH, WILL THEY?  MEBBE THAT BOMBIN’ ’LL HAVE MADE ’EM PRETTY TIDY SHOTS.”]

* * * * *

WHO SHALL DECIDE?

(An echo of the Romney cause celebre.)

In view of the attacks on their honourable calling by Sir THOMAS JACKSON and others, in The Times and elsewhere, the Art critics of London called a public meeting to consolidate their position.  The Chair was taken by Sir WILLIAM RICHMOND, who was supported by Mr. HUMPHRY WARD, Mr. A.S.  TEMPLE, and numerous other gentlemen who know a Romney when they see it, or who earn an honest livelihood by distributing adjectives, good or bad, among painters.

Sir WILLIAM RICHMOND, referring to a recent lawsuit, said that it was monstrous that careful conclusions based upon a long life of study should be upset by the production of a pencil sketch, and he called for the removal of Mr. Justice DARLING from the Bench.  Art criticism was not a mere matter of caprice, as people were now pretending, but an exact science.  If a qualified man, not only a theorist but a practical craftsman, after years of preparation, stated that a picture was by such and such a painter, it was by him.  The mere fact that someone named OZIAS HUMPHRY had made a small sketch resembling a large oil painting proved nothing. (Loud cheers.) The speaker said that he was glad to hear those sounds.  But he would go further.  The conclusion of the recent case was described as dramatic.  He had a far more dramatic possibility up his sleeve.  Suppose it should be discovered—­as it might be, nothing being impossible—­suppose it should be discovered that ROMNEY chose to paint some of his pictures under the pseudonym of OZIAS HUMPHRY.  What then?  (Terrific sensation.) They had all heard of the SHAKSPEARE-BACON controversy.  The ROMNEY-HUMPHRY controversy might be destined to eclipse that. (Profound excitement.) He, the speaker, personally was not prepared to let the matter rest where it did.  His honour as an Art critic was at stake.