THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S 
WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
No. 194.] SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1860. [Price Id 
THE TESTIMONIAL, 
We have received so many enquiries 
from provincial correspondents as to 
the real state of facts respecting the 
testimonial to Mr. Newman that it 
will probably be a convenience for 
all parties if we answer these questions 
here, pro bono ■publico. 
The first we beard of the testimonial 
was on the appearance of the March 
‘ Zoologist,’ when a friend enquired if 
we “ had seen the slap administered 
by Newman to the Reverend Joseph.” 
We had not then looked at the wrapper 
of the ‘ Zoologist,’ but on referring to 
it we noticed the following: — 
“ Having invited these communica- 
tions, I have felt myself bound in 
courtesy to insert them verbatim et 
literatim. It must, however, be under- 
stood that I take exception to the 
Rev. Mr. Greene’s proposition, as con- 
veyed in the second paragraph of his 
communication. I am scarcely con- 
ceited enough to suppose that the 
motion will find a seconder; but, in 
the remote possibility of such a case, 
I beg to say that the ‘ Zoologist ’ is 
not at his service for such a purpose.” 
— Edward Newman. 
On the following Tuesday, the 6th 
of March, we saw Mr. Newman, and 
heard him speak on the subject; he 
repudiated and ridiculed the idea of 
receiving a testimonial originating in 
such a way, and whether the proposi- 
tion had really been made in good or 
bad faith, he seemed to think that 
he individually would at any rate be 
placed in a ridiculous position. That 
very afternoon, on our return home, 
we received the following commtinica- ' 
tion from the Rev. Joseph Greene; — 
“ Will you kindly open the pages 
of the ‘ Intelligencer’ for occasional 
lists of the subscribers to the proposed 
testimonial to Newman, should the 
matter be taken up ? A few remarks 
from you on the subject would much 
oblige.” 
The editor of the ‘Zoologist’ having 
refused the use of his pages for the 
purpose of making him ridiculous, the 
editor of the ‘Intelligencer’ is applied 
to ; surely this was unwise — it was 
persisting in a course declined semi- 
courteously as unpalatable. We replied 
as follows : — 
“ J. G. — We understand the proposi- 
tion of the testimonial is unpalatable 
to E. N. himself ; better drop it. As 
your own Vvas dropped for want of sup- 
port, that now proposed might meet 
with a similar fate.” 
Having thus closed our pages to the 
