Produced by Susan Skinner, Emmy and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net THE LETTERS OF Charles Dickens [Illustration] THE LETTERS OF CHARLES DICKENS. EDITED BY HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND HIS ELDEST DAUGHTER VOL. III. 1836 TO 1870. London: CHAPMAN AND HALL, LIMITED, 11, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN. 1882. [_The Right of Translation is Reserved._] CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS, CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS. PREFACE. Since our publication of "The Letters of Charles Dickens" we have received the letters addressed to the late Lord Lytton, which we were unable to procure in time for our first two volumes in consequence of his son's absence in India. We thank the Earl of Lytton cordially for his kindness in sending them to us very soon after his return. We also offer our sincere thanks to Sir Austen H. Layard, and to the senders of many other letters, which we now publish for the first time. With a view to making our selection as complete as possible, we have collected together the letters from Charles Dickens which have already been published in various Biographies, and have chosen and placed in chronological order among our new letters those which we consider to be of the greatest interest. As our Narrative was finished in our second volume, this volume consists of Letters _only_, with occasional foot-notes wherever there are allusions requiring explanation. MAMIE DICKENS. GEORGINA HOGARTH. LONDON: _September, 1881._ ERRATA. VOL. III. Page 87, line 5. For "J. W. Leigh Murray," _read_ "Mr. Leigh Murray." " 111, line 8. For "annoying," _read_ "amazing." " 243, line 10. For "Tarass Boulla," _read_ "Tarass Boulba." " 259, line 6, and in footnote. For "Hazlett," _read_ "Hazlitt." " 261, line 2. For "procters," _read_ "proctors." THE LETTERS OF CHARLES DICKENS. 1836 to 1839. [Sidenote: Mr. John Hullah.] FURNIVAL'S INN, _Sunday Evening (1836)_ (?). MY DEAR HULLAH, Have you seen _The Examiner_? It is rather depreciatory of the opera; but, like all inveterate critiques against Braham, so well done that I cannot help laughing at it, for the life and soul of me. I have seen _The Sunday Times_, _The Dispatch_, and _The Satirist_, all of which blow their critic trumpets against unhappy me most lustily. Either I must have grievously awakened the ire of all the "adapters" and their friends, or the drama must be decidedly bad. I haven't made up my mind yet which of the two is the fact. I have not seen the _John Bull_ or any of the Sunday papers except _The Spectator_. If you have any of them, bring 'em with you on Tuesday. I am afraid that for "dirty Cummins'" allusion to Hogarth I shall be reduced to the necessity of being valorous the next time I meet him.