And here we pause a moment to consider the temper in which this question
has been discussed among the British critics and editors. From the very
beginning, eight years ago, there have been manifestations of personal
animosity, indications of an eagerness to seize the opportunity of
venting long secreted venom. This has appeared as well in books as in
more ephemeral publications, and upon both sides, and even between
writers on the same side. On every hand there has been a most deplorable
impeachment of motive, accompanied by a detraction of character by
imputation which is quite shocking. Petty personal slights have been
insinuated as the ultimate cause of an expression of opinion upon an
important literary question, and testimony has been impeached and
judgment disparaged by covert allegations of disgraceful antecedent
conduct on the part of witnesses or critics. Indeed, at times there has
seemed reason to believe the London "Literary Gazette" (we quote from
memory) right in attributing this whole controversy to a quarrel which
has long existed in London, and which, having its origin in the alleged
abstraction of manuscripts from a Cambridge library by a Shakespearian
scholar, has made most of the British students of this department
of English letters more or less partisans on one side or the other.
Certainly the "Saturday Review" is correct, (in all but its English,)
when it says that in this controversy "a mere literary question and a
grave question of personal character are being awkwardly mixed together,
and neither question is being conducted in a style at all satisfactory
or creditable to literary men."

Mr. Collier is told by Mr. Duffus Hardy that "he has no one to blame but
himself" for "the tone which has been adopted by those who differ from
him upon this matter," because he, (Mr. Collier,) by his answer in the
"Times" to Mr. Hamilton, made it "a personal, rather than a literary