Chapter I: Introduction

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.

OLIVER TWIST,

Or, The Parish Boy’s Progress

By Charles Dickens

CONTENTS

I TREATS OF THE PLACE WHERE OLIVER TWIST WAS BORN AND OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING HIS BIRTH

II TREATS OF OLIVER TWIST’S GROWTH, EDUCATION, AND BOARD

III RELATES HOW OLIVER TWIST WAS VERY NEAR GETTING A PLACE WHICH
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SINECURE

IV OLIVER, BEING OFFERED ANOTHER PLACE, MAKES HIS FIRST ENTRY INTO
PUBLIC LIFE

V OLIVER MINGLES WITH NEW ASSOCIATES. GOING TO A FUNERAL FOR THE
FIRST TIME, HE FORMS AN UNFAVOURABLE NOTION OF HIS MASTER’S
BUSINESS

VI OLIVER, BEING GOADED BY THE TAUNTS OF NOAH, ROUSES INTO ACTION,
AND RATHER ASTONISHES HIM

VII OLIVER CONTINUES REFRACTORY

VIII OLIVER WALKS TO LONDON. HE ENCOUNTERS ON THE ROAD A STRANGE
SORT OF YOUNG GENTLEMAN

IX CONTAINING FURTHER PARTICULARS CONCERNING THE PLEASANT OLD
GENTLEMAN, AND HIS HOPEFUL PUPILS

X OLIVER BECOMES BETTER ACQUAINTED WITH THE CHARACTERS OF HIS NEW
ASSOCIATES; AND PURCHASES EXPERIENCE AT A HIGH PRICE. BEING A
SHORT, BUT VERY IMPORTANT CHAPTER, IN THIS HISTORY

XI TREATS OF MR. FANG THE POLICE MAGISTRATE; AND FURNISHES A
SLIGHT SPECIMEN OF HIS MODE OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE

XII IN WHICH OLIVER IS TAKEN BETTER CARE OF THAN HE EVER WAS
BEFORE. AND IN WHICH THE NARRATIVE REVERTS TO THE MERRY OLD
GENTLEMAN AND HIS YOUTHFUL FRIENDS.

XIII SOME NEW ACQUAINTANCES ARE INTRODUCED TO THE INTELLIGENT READER,
CONNECTED WITH WHOM VARIOUS PLEASANT MATTERS ARE RELATED,
APPERTAINING TO THIS HISTORY

XIV COMPRISING FURTHER PARTICULARS OF OLIVER’S STAY AT MR.
BROWNLOW’S, WITH THE REMARKABLE PREDICTION WHICH ONE MR. GRIMWIG
UTTERED CONCERNING HIM, WHEN HE WENT OUT ON AN ERRAND

XV SHOWING HOW VERY FOND OF OLIVER TWIST, THE MERRY OLD JEW AND
MISS NANCY WERE

XVI RELATES WHAT BECAME OF OLIVER TWIST, AFTER HE HAD BEEN CLAIMED
BY NANCY

XVII OLIVER’S DESTINY CONTINUING UNPROPITIOUS, BRINGS A GREAT MAN TO
LONDON TO INJURE HIS REPUTATION

XVIII HOW OLIVER PASSED HIS TIME IN THE IMPROVING SOCIETY OF HIS
REPUTABLE FRIENDS

XIX IN WHICH A NOTABLE PLAN IS DISCUSSED AND DETERMINED ON

XX WHEREIN OLIVER IS DELIVERED OVER TO MR. WILLIAM SIKES

XXI THE EXPEDITION

XXII THE BURGLARY

XXIII WHICH CONTAINS THE SUBSTANCE OF A PLEASANT CONVERSATION BETWEEN
MR. BUMBLE AND A LADY; AND SHOWS THAT EVEN A BEADLE MAY BE
SUSCEPTIBLE ON SOME POINTS

XXIV TREATS ON A VERY POOR SUBJECT. BUT IS A SHORT ONE, AND MAY BE
FOUND OF IMPORTANCE IN THIS HISTORY

XXV WHEREIN THIS HISTORY REVERTS TO MR. FAGIN AND COMPANY

XXVI IN WHICH A MYSTERIOUS CHARACTER APPEARS UPON THE SCENE; AND MANY
THINGS, INSEPARABLE FROM THIS HISTORY, ARE DONE AND PERFORMED

XXVII ATONES FOR THE UNPOLITENESS OF A FORMER CHAPTER; WHICH DESERTED
A LADY, MOST UNCEREMONIOUSLY

XXVIII LOOKS AFTER OLIVER, AND PROCEEDS WITH HIS ADVENTURES

XXIX HAS AN INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT OF THE INMATES OF THE HOUSE, TO
WHICH OLIVER RESORTED

XXX RELATES WHAT OLIVER’S NEW VISITORS THOUGHT OF HIM

XXXI INVOLVES A CRITICAL POSITION

XXXII OF THE HAPPY LIFE OLIVER BEGAN TO LEAD WITH HIS KIND FRIENDS

XXXIII WHEREIN THE HAPPINESS OF OLIVER AND HIS FRIENDS, EXPERIENCES A
SUDDEN CHECK

XXXIV CONTAINS SOME INTRODUCTORY PARTICULARS RELATIVE TO A YOUNG
GENTLEMAN WHO NOW ARRIVES UPON THE SCENE; AND A NEW ADVENTURE
WHICH HAPPENED TO OLIVER

XXXV CONTAINING THE UNSATISFACTORY RESULT OF OLIVER’S ADVENTURE; AND
A CONVERSATION OF SOME IMPORTANCE BETWEEN HARRY MAYLIE AND ROSE

XXXVI IS A VERY SHORT ONE, AND MAY APPEAR OF NO GREAT IMPORTANCE IN
ITS PLACE, BUT IT SHOULD BE READ NOTWITHSTANDING, AS A SEQUEL
TO THE LAST, AND A KEY TO ONE THAT WILL FOLLOW WHEN ITS TIME
ARRIVES

XXXVII IN WHICH THE READER MAY PERCEIVE A CONTRAST, NOT UNCOMMON IN
MATRIMONIAL CASES

XXXVIII CONTAINING AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT PASSED BETWEEN MR. AND MRS.
BUMBLE, AND MR. MONKS, AT THEIR NOCTURNAL INTERVIEW

XXXIX INTRODUCES SOME RESPECTABLE CHARACTERS WITH WHOM THE READER IS
ALREADY ACQUAINTED, AND SHOWS HOW MONKS AND THE JEW LAID THEIR
WORTHY HEADS TOGETHER

XL A STRANGE INTERVIEW, WHICH IS A SEQUEL TO THE LAST CHAMBER

XLI CONTAINING FRESH DISCOVERIES, AND SHOWING THAT SUPRISES, LIKE
MISFORTUNES, SELDOM COME ALONE

XLII AN OLD ACQUAINTANCE OF OLIVER’S, EXHIBITING DECIDED MARKS OF
GENIUS, BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARACTER IN THE METROPOLIS

XLIII WHEREIN IS SHOWN HOW THE ARTFUL DODGER GOT INTO TROUBLE

XLIV THE TIME ARRIVES FOR NANCY TO REDEEM HER PLEDGE TO ROSE MAYLIE.
SHE FAILS.

XLV NOAH CLAYPOLE IS EMPLOYED BY FAGIN ON A SECRET MISSION

XLVI THE APPOINTMENT KEPT

XLVII FATAL CONSEQUENCES

XLVIII THE FLIGHT OF SIKES

XLIX MONKS AND MR. BROWNLOW AT LENGTH MEET. THEIR CONVERSATION,
AND THE INTELLIGENCE THAT INTERRUPTS IT

L THE PURSUIT AND ESCAPE

LI AFFORDING AN EXPLANATION OF MORE MYSTERIES THAN ONE, AND
COMPREHENDING A PROPOSAL OF MARRIAGE WITH NO WORD OF SETTLEMENT
OR PIN-MONEY

LII FAGIN’S LAST NIGHT ALIVE

LIII AND LAST