It is fair to characterise the three suites of original water-colour drawings, as executed by our artist, as unique examples of the great George Cruikshank’s special individual proficiency as an exponent of this branch of technical dexterity. Moreover, it may be regarded as a fortunate circumstance that the three works, here reproduced with amazing fidelity in facsimile, represent happily the very chefs d’oeuvre of his wonderful productions; in their respective categories, preserving the best examples of his remarkable genius as an imaginative creator of vivid pictures, alike stirring and animated, and representing at one glance his vast dramatic powers, his mastery of the humorous side of life, and the intensity he was consistently able to infuse into terrible and tragic scenes.

It is noteworthy that the inimitable artist George Cruikshank but rarely produced finished water-colour drawings; the bulk of his prolific and familiarly recognised designs for book illustrations were mostly dainty pencil sketches, occasionally finished in pen and ink. It is a problem difficult to solve satisfactorily whether, beyond the three memorable instances of the works here reproduced in facsimile, there are in existence any other complete suites of original illustrations by George Cruikshank—that is to say, fully executed by his master hand as finished water-colour drawings. Tinted sketches may be found in the prized possessions of Cruikshank collectors, and spirited studies for many of his favourite and most successful subjects have been cleverly touched in with watercolours; for instance, such as certain of his original drawings as designed for the illustrations of Harrison Ainsworth’s Tower of London, and the clever historical and picturesque series of Windsor Castle designs; these are, however, to be regarded as exceptional cases, for the bulk of these most successful and popular designs were carefully executed in pencil, or occasionally outlined with the pen, and highly finished with washes of warm sepia. It is worthy of recollection that Cruikshank was a most dexterous artist in this monochrome branch, his earlier artistic experiences having been almost exclusively in the walk of aqua-tinted etchings; all his early book illustrations, his caricatures, and satirical plates—social or political—were uniformly etched by his hand in the most spirited fashion, after his ready sketches and rough studies, and when the outline etching was bitten in, Cruikshank elaborately worked out his colour suggestions, for light and shade, with a brush over the first-etched outline, in tones of sepia or Indian ink, for the guidance of the professional ‘aquatinters‘—the school of artists to whose trained skill was entrusted the task of completing these plates to produce the effect of highly finished washed drawings in monochrome. By this, his youthful practice, George Cruikshank had acquired remarkable dexterity, his original pen-and-ink designs, and the outline etchings, after his earlier book illustrations, being worked up in monochrome to the dainty finish of delicate miniatures, in which art both his father Isaac and his brother Isaac Robert were first-class proficients, as he himself has recorded with pride in describing the special gifts and qualifications which distinguished the Cruikshank family.

The present series includes the inimitable suite of designs, pictorially unfolding the progress and subsequent dramatic experiences of a parish boy, as graphically related by the great literary genius of CHARLES DICKENS in the realistic romance, universally appreciated as—‘THE ADVENTURES OF OLIVER TWIST,’ with the truly interesting series of characteristic pictures, so vividly delineating ‘Life in London’ in the Hogarthian time, at the date of the abortive Jacobite rising in 1745. A realistic panoramic suite, introducing marvellously faithful pictures of antique localities of the old City of Westminster, with life-like studies, reproducing the contemporary aspects of the past, both topographically and socially, of the time-renowned pleasure resorts of the era, when these amusements were at the height of their vogue, and the entertainments which then attracted the crowd. The Mall, St. James’s Park, with the world of fashion which formed its attraction; ‘The Folly,’ a floating place of entertainment, opposite Somerset House; Marylebone Gardens and Vauxhall Gardens at their palmiest date; the gayest souvenirs of Ranelagh Gardens, with crowds of fashionable frequenters, and rounds of enjoyable amusements. Spirited materials, crowded with literary suggestions, which the artist, from his vast experiences of the past, rejoiced to thus graphically and realistically furnish to the author to further the creation of the sympathetic and brilliant romance, subsequently written, embodying the diversified phases of life in antique London, as suggested by George Cruikshank’s suite of graphic and life-like pictures of a brilliant past, which lent their special attractions and interest to the most successful and popular novel by HARRISON AINSWORTH, ‘THE MISER’S DAUGHTER,’ illustrated with Twenty of George Cruikshank’s happiest pictures.

To the two foregoing and most noteworthy productions are added the third suite of original water-colour drawings, the most tragically terrible of all George Cruikshank’s graphic productions, illustrating in the unmistakably realistic manner characteristic of the artist’s genius for delineating terrifying episodes, exhibiting with all tragic intensity and the vigorous force of his imagination the lurid horrors of revolution, as disclosed in the horrifying revelations of the sanguinary atrocities which ensanguined with floods of gore the chronicles of ‘THE IRISH REBELLION OF 1798,’ as disclosed in the actually terrific and terrifying narrative—MAXWELL’S ‘HISTORY.’

George Cruikshank was too candidly honest an artist to conceal his appreciative sense of the popular success which these xiii generally familiar works had happily secured. The artist himself scorned to disguise his pride in ‘these creatures of his brain,’ as he esteemed them, with paternal admiration! On the strength of these famous dramatic suites, with the designs so well known as constituting the pictorial skeleton or framework of Oliver Twist, the designer extended his claim for fuller recognition, to the point of feeling it a deep personal grievance that the respective ‘gifted authors’ had wilfully adopted all his best ideas, without the formality of acknowledging their literary obligations and indebtedness to the artist himself. To do him full justice, it must be acknowledged that from the date of their first appearance in monthly parts, Cruikshank made these claims persistently amongst friends and in the presence of mutual acquaintances.

The story of the injury, fanciful or real, was lengthy and vexatious, and for the most part rather filled the minds of the artist’s best-wishers with dismay; but as there had never been offered during Dickens’s lifetime any sort of disproof that the ‘Parish Boy’s Progress,’ as a pictorial suite, was one of George Cruikshank’s numerous fruitful original suggestions, and The Miser’s Daughter scheme was obviously completely his own as regards the main idea of representing fashionable ‘Life in London’ in the days of Hogarth, just as ‘Life in London’ of his jaunty youth had been by his hand portrayed in the ‘Corinthian epoch’ of the sportive ‘Tom and Jerry’ doings under the Regency era, the question in some degree resolved itself into the distinctions between inspiration and clever hack-work, the art of making the best possible use of suggested materials, wherein the faculty of imagination makes the workman. The artist demonstrated that his genius invented both series graphically, that the drawings, in the first instance designed to simply tell the story on his own lines, later suggested the development of their ideas to his literary collaborateurs, at least as concerns the projection of Oliver Twist and The Miser’s Daughter alike, both series strongly characteristic of Cruikshank’s own peculiar genius; and confessedly the evidences of the drawings completely justify his not unreasonable contention.

These original designs, executed as water-colour drawings, are all in existence, and are here reproduced in facsimile.

Dickens never denied that the artist had in the first instance designed the suite of illustrations portraying a parish boy’s progress, in advance of Boz’s undertaking to write Oliver Twist. Nor could Ainsworth for an instant assume to claim the first idea of the scheme of eighteenth century fashionable ‘Life in London,’ as it might have unfolded itself panoramically to the observation of William Hogarth himself—the effective scenario of The Miser’s Daughter, in a word.

Moreover, subsequent suites—of correspondingly graphic and melodramatic character—also similarly dramatised on their publication, confirm the bona fides of the artist’s somewhat startling theory, which proved so disconcerting to the minds of George Cruikshank’s actual literary collaborateurs.

In his monograph—‘A Critico-Biographical Essay upon George Cruikshank’—Professor William Bates, B.A., has elucidated the controversial aspects of these trying questions from his personal impressions: ‘In viewing the representation of The Bottle, as produced on the stage, an adaptation from Cruikshank’s famous series, one was much more struck with the artist’s talent for seizing upon the most dramatic situations of the story for the exercise of the pencil.’

Moncrieff, so the tale goes (Every Night Booky or Life after Dark, 1827), when he dramatised for the Adelphi ‘Tom and Jerry’ (Life in London), ‘wrote his piece from Cruikshank’s plates,’ and ‘boiled his kettle with Pierce Egan’s letterpress.’

Half a century later, Andrew Halliday, adapting The Miser’s Daughter for the same theatre, made up his most effective scenes from the designs of the artist.

It was on witnessing the performance of this latter, and finding his part in its production was totally ignored—always a sensitive subject with the combative veteran—that George Cruikshank was incited to make that public vindication of his claim to a share in the authorship of this and other works—notably Oliver Twist—illustrated by his hand, and involving the candour and sense of justice of Ainsworth, Dickens, and himself.

The aggrieved humorist, who had a fairly founded opinion of his own gifts and reputation, and whose imaginative faculties were always abnormally fervid, was still full of fight. Dickens had been at rest for two years, but his biographer, John Forster, was in the flesh; as was W. Harrison Ainsworth, Cruikshank’s colleague and partner of the ‘thirties’ and ‘forties,’ so that it is not surprising to find the artist in 1872—then an octogenarian veteran—entering fiercely upon a seemingly Quixotic campaign against the before-time literary colleagues of his prime era of artistic production, the period when his picturesquely dramatic fancy evolved The Parish Boys Progress, The Miser’s Daughter, and similarly popularly endorsed emanations of his hand and brain.

It was ever the ‘great George’s’ grievance that in his later years the public assumed him to be his own descendant of the first or even second generation. It was avowedly as a protest against this fairly natural assumption that G. Cruikshank had carried out his famous and successful ‘Exeter Hall Exhibition’ in 1863. Under the circumstances related, finding his well-recognised name and strongly-marked personality steadily ignored or obscured, and smarting under intolerable injustices and accumulated grievances—alike real and imaginary—the vigorous genius of the opening of the eighteenth century, fighting hero as he was constitutionally, re-entered the lists to vindicate his name and fame; and, as he might well have foreseen, had not the burning sense of unmerited wrongs obscured his perceptions, quickly had ‘a pretty quarrel’ on his hands, his powers of onslaught hampered from the circumstance that his present weapon was the pen, whereas his accustomed arm for offence and defence was the etching-point, the weapon he had been accustomed to wield with fine incisive spirit in earlier conflicts. In the present tourney G. C. was confessedly under the manifest disqualification of being ‘out of his element.’

Open as daylight, ‘a knight sans peur et sans reproche’—he gallantly sought to unhorse his wily antagonist. The quarrel has left its record in print, in pamphlet form, now reckoned rarissime:—

THE ARTIST AND THE AUTHOR

A statement of facts by the Artist, George Cruikshank, proving that the Distinguished Author, Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth, is labouring under a singular delusion with respect to the origin of The Miser’s Daughter, The Tower of London, etc.

In the following letter, which appeared in The Times of the 8th of April 1872, it will be seen that I therein claimed to be the Originator of a tale or romance entitled ‘The Miser’s Daughter,’ which was written by Mr. Ainsworth and illustrated by me. G. C.

To the Editor of ‘The Times’’

Sir—Under the heading of ‘Easter Amusements’ in The Times of the 2nd inst. it is stated that Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth’s novel of The Miser’s Daughter had been dramatized by Mr. Andrew Halliday, and produced at the Adelphi Theatre, and as my name is not mentioned in any way in connection with the novel—not even as the illustrator—I shall feel greatly obliged if you will allow me to inform the public through the medium of your columns of the fact (which all my private friends are aware of) that this tale of The Miser’s Daughter originated from me, and not from Mr. Ainsworth.

My idea suggested to that gentleman was to write a story in which the principal character should be a miser, who had a daughter, and that the struggles of feelings between the love for his child and his love of money should produce certain effects and results; and as all my ancestors were mixed up in the Rebellion of ‘45, I suggested that the story should be of that date, in order that I might introduce some scenes and circumstances connected with that great party struggle; and also wishing to let the public of the present day have a peep at the places of amusement of that period, I took considerable pains to give correct views and descriptions of those places, which are now copied and produced upon the stage; and I take this opportunity of complimenting my friend Halliday for the very excellent and effective manner in which he has dramatized the story.

I do not mean to say that Mr. Ainsworth when writing this novel did not introduce some of his own ideas; but as the first idea and all the principal points and characters emanated from me, I think it will be allowed that the title of originator of The Miser’s Daughter should be conferred upon, Sir, your obedient servant,

George Cruikshank.

263 Hampstead Road,

6th April 1872.

This letter brought forth the following reply from the writer of this romance:—

To the Editor of ‘The Times’’

Sir—In a letter from Mr. George Cruikshank which appeared in The Times of to-day, that distinguished artist claims to be the originator of The Miser’s Daughter. I content myself with giving the statement a positive contradiction.

Mr. Cruikshank appears to labour under a singular delusion in regard to novels he has illustrated; it is not long since he claimed to be the originator of Mr. Dickens’s Oliver Twist.—Your faithful servant,

W. Harrison Ainsworth.

8th April 1872.

Upon seeing this ‘positive contradiction,’ I wrote a second letter to The Times, which the Editor kindly inserted:—

‘THE MISER’S DAUGHTER’

To the Editor of ‘The Times’

Sir—I am fully aware that you will not allow any controversy to be carried on in The Times upon such a trifling matter as this; but as Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth gives a positive contradiction to my statement which appeared in The Times on the 8th inst., I have to beg that you will permit me to express my very great surprise at this denial, and also to express my regret that his memory should be in such a defective state, that he should have forgotten the circumstances and facts as to the origin of Oliver Twist and of The Miser’s Daughter; and I regret also that this contradiction of his will compel me, in justice to myself, to give, in a work I am preparing for the press, a full, true, and particular account of all the professional transactions between Mr. Ainsworth and myself, in which I shall prove, beyond all fear of contradiction, that I am the sole originator of what is called Ainsworth’s Tower of London, as well as another work bearing his name, but the ideas and suggestions of which were given to him by, Sir, your obedient servant, George Cruikshank.

10th April 1872.

P.S.—Allow me to add that it ought to be understood that it is one thing for an artist to illustrate an author’s own ideas, and quite a different matter when a literary man adopts and writes out the ideas of another person.

This second letter brought forth another contradiction (a flat one) from Mr. W. H. A.:—

To the Editor of ‘The Times’

Sir—I disdain to reply to Mr. Cruikshank’s preposterous assertions, except to give them, as before, a flat contradiction.—Your faithful servant, W. Harrison Ainsworth.

11th April 1872.

To this the Editor added:—‘We can publish no more letters on this subject.’

It will be seen in my second letter that I intended to give an explanation of this affair in a work I am preparing for the press, but, as ‘delays are dangerous,’ it occurred to me that I had better bring forward my statement without delay.

As Mr. Ainsworth’s positive and flat contradictions and his contemptible insinuation as to my labouring under a singular delusion have led some persons to form erroneous ideas and to draw false conclusions upon this question, I feel placed in a very serious position as regards my character for truthfulness and the condition of my intellect; and I am therefore compelled in self-defence to place certain facts before the public to prove beyond the fear of contradiction that what I have asserted is the truth, and that it is Mr. Ainsworth who is labouring under a delusion, or has unfortunately lost his memory.

And in order that this question may be clearly understood, I now proceed to give a full and particular account of all the professional transactions between myself and Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth when we were both on the most friendly terms and both working together to amuse the public; and also to show how it was that this friendship and joint labour ceased, now some twenty-eight years ago; and although I feel it a positive duty to myself to make these statements, it is, nevertheless, to me rather a painful task, well knowing that it will place Mr. Ainsworth in a very awkward position as regards his conduct towards me, the explanation of which he will feel bitterly, but which he has brought upon himself, for had he, in common justice, acknowledged that I was the originator of certain ideas and characters up to which he had written, the facts which I am now about to state would never have been placed before the public.

A question has been asked publicly, and which I grant is rather an important one in this case, and that is, Why have I not until lately claimed to be the originator of ‘Oliver Twist’? To this I reply that ever since these works were published, and even when they were in progress, I have in private society, when conversing upon such matters, always explained that the original ideas and characters of these works emanated from me, and the reason why I publicly claimed to be the originator of Oliver Twist was to defend Dr. K. Shelton Mackenzie, who was charged by Mr. John Forster, in his Life of Mr. Charles Dickens, with publishing a falsehood (or a word of three letters as he describes it; Mr. Forster in a marginal note puts it thus: ‘Falsehood ascribed to a distinguished artist’), whereas the Doctor was only repeating what I had told him at the time Oliver Twist was in progress. Mr. Forster designates Dr. Mackenzie’s statement as ‘a wonderful story,’ or ‘a marvellous fable,’ and in a letter from the Doctor to the Philadelphia Press, December 19, 1871, he says: ‘My wonderful story was printed in an American periodical years before Mr. Dickens died.’ And then asks, ‘Why did not Mr. Forster inquire into this matter, for surely he must have known it?’ And I presume Mr. Dickens must also have heard of this ‘wonderful story,’ the truth of which he did not deny, for this reason—because he could not! And with respect to Mr. Ainsworth’s insinuation as to my ‘labouring under a delusion’ upon this point, all my literary friends at that time knew that I was the originator of Oliver Twist, and as Mr. A. and I were at that time upon such intimate terms, and both working together on Bentley’s Miscellany, is it at all likely that I should have concealed such a fact from him? No! no! he knew this as well as I did, and, therefore, in this matter at any rate, it is he who is ‘labouring under a delusion.’

And I will here refer to a part of my letter, which was published in The Times, December 30, 1871, upon the origin of Oliver Twist, wherein I state that Mr. Ainsworth and Mr. Dickens came together one day to my house, upon which occasion it so happened that I then and there described and performed the character of ‘Fagin’ for Mr. Dickens to introduce into the work as a ‘receiver of stolen goods,’ and that some time after this, upon seeing Mr. Ainsworth again, he said to me, ‘I was so much struck with your description of that Jew to Mr. Dickens that I think you and I could do something together.’ Now I do not know whether Mr. Ainsworth has ever made any allusion to this; perhaps he disdains to do so; but perhaps he may give this also a ‘positive contradiction’; and, if he does, then all I have to say is that his memory is gone!

I will now explain the reason why I have publicly asserted my right as the originator of The Miser’s Daughter.

On the 1st of December 1871 there appeared in No. 28 of The Illustrated Review a short Biographical Sketch of Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth, with a portrait of that gentleman; and in the list of the many and various works written by him the following are placed in chronological order: No. 1, Rookwood; 2, Jack Shepherd; 3, Guy Fawkes; 4, The Tower of London; 5, Old St. Pau’s; 6, The Miser s Daughter; 7, Windsor Castle; 8, St. James’s; or, The Court of Queen Anne.

Now, six of these works were illustrated entirely by me, and one—Windsor Castle—partly so, numbering altogether One Hundred and Forty-Four of the very best designs and etchings which I have ever produced; and yet in this Biographical Sketch my name is not mentioned in any way as connected with these works, which omission, I thought, was not only very ungenerous but also very unjust. For, if Mr. W. H. Ainsworth did not himself sketch out this ‘Biographical Sketch’ of himself, he must have known full well what the writer was stating; and he might as well have said to that gentleman, ‘Just mention that Mr. George Cruikshank illustrated several of the novels written by me,’ and have given the titles, and also have acknowledged that I had given him the original ideas of three of the tales, and assisted him with suggestions when these works were being produced; and, had he done this, I should have been satisfied. But to be thus ignored altogether not only created a feeling of surprise but also of dissatisfaction. And when it was announced that Mr. Andrew Halliday had dramatised Ainsworth’s Miser’s Daughter, I went to see the performance; and when I saw represented on the stage scenes and characters which had emanated from me and my name not mentioned, I then publicly claimed to to be the originator of that romance, and to have suggested the original idea and the characters to Mr. Ainsworth.

No. 2, Jack Shepherd, illustrated by me, and published in monthly parts in Bentley’s Miscellany. This story originated from Mr. Ainsworth, and, when preparing it for publication, he showed me about two or three pages of manuscript on ‘post paper’; and I beg that it may be observed that this was the only bit of manuscript written by this author that I ever saw in the whole course of my life!

No. 4, The Tower of London, the Original Idea of which was suggested by me to Mr. Ainsworth, and also illustrated by me and published in monthly numbers. In this work Mr. Ainsworth and I were partners holding equal shares.

And now comes the question of how it should so happen, as Mr. W. H. Ainsworth and I were such friends and fellow-workers and partners in the work of The Tower of London, that he should have got another artist to illustrate Old St. Paul’s (‘one of my pet subjects, which I had nursed in my brains for years, and which I had long intended to have placed before the public with my own hands,’ as G. C. relates in another charge)? And, after that was finished, to have employed a French artist to illustrate Windsor Castle. Ay, that is the question! And now comes the answer and the reason for this most extraordinary proceeding. I must here first state that as large sums of money had been realised from my ideas and suggestions for the work of Oliver Twist, it occurred to me one day that I would try and get a little of the same material from the same source; and as Mr. Ainsworth and I were at that time upon the most friendly—I may say brotherly—terms, I suggested to him that we should jointly produce a work on our own account and publish it in monthly numbers, and get Mr. Bentley to join us as the publisher. Mr. Ainsworth was delighted with the idea of such a partnership, and at once acceded to the proposition; and when I told him that I had a capital subject for the first work he inquired what it was, and upon my telling him it was The Tower of London, with some incidents in the life of Lady Jane Grey, he was still more delighted; and I then told him that I had long since seen the room in ‘the Tower’ where that beautiful and accomplished dear lady was imprisoned, and other parts of that fortress to which the public were not admitted, and if he would go with me to the Tower I would show these places to him. He at once accepted my offer, and off we went to ‘Hungerford Stairs,’ now the site of the Charing Cross Railway Station, and whilst waiting on the beach for a boat to go to London Bridge, we there met my dear friend the late W. Jordan, the well-known editor and part-proprietor of The Literary Gazette, who inquired where we were going to. My reply was that I was taking Mr. Ainsworth a prisoner to the Tower! With this joke we parted. I then took Mr. Ainsworth to the royal prison, and when we arrived there I introduced him to my friend Mr. Stacey, the storekeeper, in whose department were these ‘Chambers of Horrors’; and then and there did Mr. Ainsworth, for the first time, see the apartment in which the dear Lady Jane was placed until the day she was beheaded, or, in other words, the day on which she was murdered, and which place I had long before made sketches of for the purpose of introducing them in a Life of Lady Jane Grey, and which for many years I had intended to place before the public.

I have now most distinctly to state that Mr. Ainsworth wrote up to most of my suggestions and designs, although some of the subjects we jointly arranged to introduce into the work; and I used every month to send him the tracings or outlines of the sketches or drawings from which I was making the etchings to illustrate the work, in order that he might write up to them, and that they should be accurately described. And I beg the reader to understand that all these etchings or plates were printed and ready for publication before the letterpress was printed, and sometimes even before the Author had written his manuscript; and I assert that I never saw a page of this work until after it was published, and then hardly ever read a line of it. It is a curious coincidence, but clearly proves what I have just stated with respect to these outlines or tracings—that Mr. Ainsworth in January last was applied to for these and other tracings or outlines, and his reply was, that ‘he would be very happy to send the tracings mentioned, but he had no idea what had become of them, as he had not seen them since ‘The Tower of London’ was published. This letter I have in my possession.

This Tower of London became so very popular, that before it was finished, a bookseller came to me and said if we brought out another work similar in style and interest, that he would take 20,000 a month to begin with, and pay ready money for them; and another bookseller offered to take 25,000 or 30,000 a month upon the same terms.

When this work was completed, I told Mr. Ainsworth that I had another capital subject for our next work. ‘Ah! what is it?’ said he; to which I replied, ‘The Plague and the Fire of London.’

‘Oh!’ he exclaimed, ‘that is first-rate!’

[The aggrieved Artist proceeded to state at length his sense of injury at the hands of the Author, who, on the facts set forth, had not considered Cruikshank’s rights in several instances, notably Old Saint Paul’s and Windsor Castle. This first break between the partners was bridged over, owing to the peace-making overtures of a mutual friend, and Cruikshank’s publication of The Omnibus was suspended and finally abandoned in favour of that artist consenting to collaborate (as in Bentley’s Miscellany) in a new venture, namely Ainsworth’s Magazine.]

The Artist’s statement is thus continued:—

Before Ainsworth’s Magazine was published, advertisements were put forth that I, George Cruikshank, was to be the illustrator thereof; and the Artist and the Author then held a consultation as to what tale or romance we were to commence with, and which I was to illustrate; and, well knowing the importance of having an attractive subject for the first number of a work, I then suggested to Mr. Ainsworth my idea of ‘The Miser’s Daughter’’ (the plot of which will be seen in my first letter to The Times upon this subject, and which I had originally intended to have had written by some literary friend, and published it in my ‘Omnibus’). This romance (as I expected), with my illustrations, did attract the public attention, and did to some extent make this magazine a success.

There was published in Ainsworth’s Magazine, No. 2, March 1842, a woodcut of a drawing made by me, at Mr. Ainsworth’s suggestion, of the Author and the Artist, seated ‘in council,’ or conversing together in his library. And surely this looks as if he then considered me something more than a mere illustrator of his magazine.

[Then follows a statement of the final break up of the friendly collaboration of these old colleagues, explaining the Artist’s grievances in connection with Windsor Castle—also contributed to Ainsworth’s Magazine—and the fatal ending of these long associations, when the Author, unaccountably disregarding Cruikshank’s joint interests, elected to sell his magazine to the publishers; this seems to have fairly disgusted the Artist.] Here is his indignant protest:—

So it really appears as if all this gentleman’s promises, like pie-crust, were made to be broken; and as, in this instance, also, there was not any written agreement, the arrangements which he had made, and the engagements he had entered into with me, when I agreed to work with him in his magazine, all broke down, and I, as it were, again ‘thrown overboard’ or ‘left in the lurch.’ And thus ended the second edition of this Author’s extraordinary conduct towards the Artist.

I will not go into the details of how I assisted this Author with head and hand work in these novels, but I did my best to design and suggest.

The foregoing statements will, I think, clearly explain why I have never, since that time (written 1872)—now some twenty-eight years back—given any more original ideas, suggestions, and characters for any other tales or romances for Mr. Ainsworth to write up to; and also why I have never, from that time, illustrated any of this Author’s writings.

I now feel it necessary to inform the public that the usual or ordinary way of producing illustrated novels or romances is, for an Author either to write out, from his own ideas, the whole of the tale, or in parts; the manuscript or letterpress of which is then handed to an Artist to read and select subjects from for his illustrations, or sometimes for the Author to suggest to the Artist such subjects, scenes, or parts as he might wish to be illustrated. And I, being known generally only as an Artist, or illustrator, it would therefore very naturally be supposed that, in all cases, I have merely worked out other men’s ideas. But, if I have the opportunity, I shall be able to show that other men have sometimes worked out my ideas—but this will be for another occasion. And I will now explain that Oliver Twist, The Tower of London, The Miser’s Daughter, etc., were produced in an entirely different manner from what would be considered the usual course; for I, the Artist, suggested to the Authors of these works the original idea or subject—for them to write out—furnishing, at the same time, the principal characters and the scenes; and then, as the tale had to be produced in monthly parts, the Writer or Author, and the Artist had every month to arrange and settle what scenes or subjects and characters were to be introduced; and the Author had to weave in such scenes as I wished to represent, and sometimes I had to work out his suggestions.

And as to Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth’s ‘singular delusion’ of an artist claiming to be the originator of works which he had merely illustrated, no more absurd or contemptible and rubbishing nonsense could ever be conceived; for no artist could possibly be in his right mind who would make such a claim, and it becomes a serious question as to whether any one who brings forth such nonsense can be in his right mind, and if this Author has really lost his memory, and, as an invalid, is suffering under ‘singular delusions,’ he has my pity and commiseration.

I lay no claim to anything that has originated from the mind of Mr. Ainsworth, or any other man, but where the original idea has emanated from my own mind, that I feel I have a right to claim, and by that right I will stand firm, and I trust that at no distant date I may be able to publish what I have already stated, to show the world how these ideas originated in my mind, and why I wished to place them before the public.

Amongst the many friends who were acquainted with the facts of this case, I may mention the names of T. J. Pettigrew (the eminent surgeon), the Rev. Canon Barham (author of the Ingoldsby Legends), Laman Blanchard, Douglas Jerrold, Albert Smith, Mark Lemon, Gilbert A’Becket, John Leech, Messrs. Bradbury and Evans, Richard Bentley, the publisher of the Miscellany, and many other dear friends, now, to my sorrow, passed away; but there are a few still living who are ready to substantiate my statements one a clergyman of the City of London, an old member of the Society of Antiquaries; another who is a literary man, a member of the Conservative Club; and also a dear and valued friend, who is a member of the AthenÆum Club and Deputy Lord Lieutenant of one of our counties. This friend sent a letter to several of the newspapers—one of which was forwarded to me—a copy of which I here insert:—

Origin of the Work entitled ‘The Tower of London’

To the Editor of the ‘Liverpool Post’’

Sir—I hope you will allow me to say that it is half a century since George Cruikshank has been my intimate and valued friend.

I have a vivid recollection of his drawings of the Tower, and of having been frequently in company with the artist while these sketches were in progress; the strong impression on my mind was, and is, that the interesting tale called The Tower of London was mainly written up to George Cruikshank’s drawings, and that they, in a great measure, suggested the story to Mr. Ainsworth.

I think it therefore only right that justice should be done in this matter to the veteran artist who for so many years has amused the world, and striven to raise its moral tone. I enclose my card, and have the honour to be, yours, etc., A. B.

AthenÆum Club, London,

22nd April 1872. I

I must add a postscript to say that respecting The Miser’s Daughter I know nothing, as I was living on the Continent at the time it was written; but this I do know, that George Cruikshank is a man of honour, and would not assert anything he did not believe to be true.