Cruikshank's Water Colours

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.