about him. He never forgot himself in his work, though he loved his work because it was a part of himself. There was an intellectual selfishness in him from which the larger and stronger nature of Thackeray was free. It is not my intention, however, to draw comparisons between the two men ; and, if it were, this is not the place to do it. It is to be regretted that the Life of Thackeray has not been written. It is also to be regretted that the Life of Dickens has been written, at least by Mr. Forster. Mr. Forster has long been credited with qualities which go to the making of a good biographer. His Life of Goldsmith was a good one, of its kind. His Life of Landor, whatever its kind, was not good. It was not so much a Life of Landor, as a series of long and rather dull criticisms upon his writings; altogether it was a tedious book. His Life

of Dickens is not tedious - it could not well be that— but it is constructed, I venture to think, upon an erroneous plan, and it is narrow, in that it presents Dickens only as he was seen by Mr. Forster. A voluminous letter-writer all his life, Dickens must have written letters to other persons than Mr. Forster, letters that are as worthy of preservation as those that he has preserved, and are as worthy of a place in his Memoir as those that were written to him. He had, he could have, no exclusive right to knowledge of Dickens, despite his life-long intimacy with him and his friendship for him. Dickens was known to many besides Mr. Forster, and known differently to them than to him. He does not appear to think so, and the result is his narrow and unsatisfactory Life of Dickens. It is an interesting, an instructive, and a painful book.

It has been completed so recently, and has been so widely read, that any extracts from it would be out of place here. I have indicated what seems to me some of

h

its defects: I have not named one which is prominent the absence of anecdotes. Mr. Forster's ideal of Biography is graver than suits most readers. He does not unbend, nor let his hero unbend enough. The gossip concerning Dickens which was called forth by his death, the recollections of those who were acquainted with him at the beginning of his literary career, these are naught to Mr. Foster. They possess they could not but possess—interest, springing as they did spontaneously from the memories of their writers, to whom the sudden taking off Dickens was like the loss of a personal friend. They possess, at any rate, a freshness which is not imparted by Mr. Forster to any of the facts, or incidents, to which they refer, or which they embody.

The greater portion of the anecdotes about Dickens in this volume are derived from " Charles Dickens, the Story of his Life." It was published in London not long after his death, and is the work of Mr. Theodore Taylor, whom I have already mentioned, and who was a diligent collector of Dickens ana. I have not a very high idea of the class of writers to which he belongs, but they are not without their uses, as Mr. John Timbs, the head of the class, has shown. They preserve many things which would perish but for them; occasionally a jewel may be found among their paste. Mr. Blanchard Jerrold's paper is taken from his "Best of all Good Company;" the paper by Sir Arthur Helps from "Macmillan's Magazine," and "Reminiscences of Dickens" from the "Englishwoman's Magazine." The first of the obituary poems, "Charles Dickens," appeared in "Punch." "Dickens at Gad's Hill" was written by Mr. Charles Kent, and published, I believe, in the "Athenæum." "Dickens in Camp" was written by Mr. Bret Harte; "At Gad's Hill" was written by myself.

The anecdote in relation to "Oliver Twist," on page 211, has been the subject of a controversy, which was begun with bitterness by Mr. Forster, and continued with pertinacity by Mr. Cruikshank. Mr. Forster reprints it in his "Life of Dickens" (vol i. page 155), and stigmatizes it as “a wonderful story originally promulgated in America with a minute conscientiousness and particularity of detail that might have raised the reputation of Sir Benjamin Backbite himself. Whether all Sir Benjamin's laurels, however, should fall to the original teller of the tale, or whether any part of them is the property of the alleged authority from which he says that he received it, is unfortunately not quite clear. There would hardly have been a doubt, if the fable had been confined to the other side of the Atlantic; but it has been reproduced and widely circulated on this side also; and the distinguished artist whom it calumniates by fathering its invention upon him, either not conscious of it or not caring to defend himself, has been left undefended from the slander.” That the distinguished artist did care to defend himself, and could do so, Mr. Forster discovered when he read the following letter in the column, of the "London Times."

"To the Editor of The Times.'

"SIR,—As my name is mentioned in the second notice of Mr. John Forster's Life of Charles Dickens,' in your paper of the 26th inst., in connection with a statement made by an American gentleman (Dr. Shelton Mackenzie) respecting the origin of 'Oliver Twist,' I shall be obliged if you will allow me to give some explanation upon this subject. For some time past I have been preparing a work for publication, in which I intend to give an account of the origin of 'Oliver Twist,' and I now not only deeply regret the sudden and unexpected decease of Mr. Charles Dickens, but regret also that

my proposed work was not published during his life-time. I should not now have brought this matter forward, but as Dr. Mackenzie states that he got the information from me, and as Mr. Forster declares his statement to be a falsehood, to which, in fact, he could apply a word of three letters, I feel called upon, not only to defend the doctor, but myself also from such a gross imputation. Dr. Mackenzie has confused some circumstances with respect to Mr. Dickens looking over some drawings and sketches in my studio, but there is no doubt whatever that I did tell this gentleman that I was the originator of the story of 'Oliver Twist,' as I have told very many others who may have spoken to me on the subject, and which facts I now beg permission to repeat in the columns of 'The Times' for the information of Mr. Forster and the public generally.

"When 'Bentley's Miscellany' was first started, it was arranged that Mr. Charles Dickens should write a serial in it, and which was to be illustrated by me; and in a conversation with him as to what the subject should be for the first serial, I suggested to Mr. Dickens that he should write the life of a London boy, and strongly advised him to do this, assuring him that I would furnish him with the subject and supply him with all the characters, which my large experience of London life would enable me to do. My idea was to raise a boy from a most humble position up to a high and respectable one — in fact, to illustrate one of those cases of common occurrence, where men of humble origin by natural ability, industry, honest and honorable conduct, raise themselves to first-class positions in society. And as I wished particularly to bring the habits and manners of the thieves of London before the public (and this for a most important purpose, which I shall explain one of these days), I suggested that the poor boy should fall among thieves, but that his honesty and natural good disposition should enable him to pass through this ordeal without contamination, and after I had fully described the full-grown thieves (the 'Bill Sykes') and their female companions, also the young thieves (the 'Artful Dodgers ') and the receivers of

stolen goods, Mr. Dickens agreed to act upon my suggestion and the work was commenced, but we differed as to what sort of boy the hero should be. Mr. Dickens wanted rather a queer kind of chap, and although this was contrary to my original idea, I complied with his request, feeling that it would not be right to dictate too much to the writer of the story, and then appeared'Oliver asking for more;' but it so happened, just about this time, that an inquiry was being made in the parish of St. James, Westminster, as to the cause of the death of some of the work-house children who had been ‘farmed out,' and in which inquiry my late friend Joseph Pettigrew (surgeon to the Dukes of Kent and Sussex) came forward on the part of the poor children, and by his interference was mainly the cause of saving the lives of many of these poor little creatures. I called the attention of Mr. Dickens to this inquiry, and said if he took up this matter his doing so might help to save many a poor child from injury and death, and I earnestly begged of him to let me make Oliver a nice pretty little boy, and if we so represented him, the public — and particularly the ladies — would be sure to take a greater interest in him, and the work would then be a certain success. Mr. Dickens agreed to that request, and I need not add here that my prophecy was fulfilled; and if any one will take the trouble to look at my representations of 'Oliver' they will see that the appearance of the boy is altered after the two first illustrations, and by a reference to the records of St. James's parish, and to the date of the publication of the 'Miscellany,' they will see that both the dates tally, and therefore support my statement. I had a long time previously to this directed Mr. Dickens's attention to 'Field Lane,' Holborn Hill, wherein resided many thieves and receivers of stolen goods, and it was suggested that one of these receivers, a Jew, should be introduced into the story; and upon one occasion Mr. Dickens and Mr. Harrison Ainsworth called upon me at my house in Myddleton Terrace, Pentonville, and in course of conversation I then and there described and performed the character of one of these Jew receivers, who I had long had my eye upon; and