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_.