160 
THE SUBSTITUTE. 
nion, such a statement is not jus- 
tified or warranted by facts. This 
is the interpretation I put upon 
those words ; hut, if wrong, I shall 
he happy to he corrected hy “ Suf- 
ferer.” Had I said that he used 
this language knowing that he was 
not justified hy facts, he might 
reasonably have taken ofience. 
But I did no such thing. I sim- 
ply gave it as my opinion (to 
which I still adhere) that he was 
not justified or warranted in using 
the language of which I complain 
against the collective body of 
British entomologists, simply and 
solely because certain parlies had 
treated him in a manner which he 
thought disgraceful, and I cannot 
but hope that my entomological 
hrethren will, for the most part, 
coincide in this opinion. If “ Sul- 
lerer” sees in the expression of 
this opinion an intimation that he 
is “ no gentleman,” he certainly 
has an unenviably sensitive tem- 
perament, and must, I fear, “suf- 
fer” from many things besides the 
disgraceful conduct of British 
entomologists. But, perhaps I 
am wrong in supposing that it was 
this portion of my observations 
which has wounded his feelings, 
and that the true cause of offence 
is to be found in the remark, “ I 
am always ready to assist (if in 
my power), without stipulating 
any return, hona fide beginners, 
when gentlemen, i.e. gentlemen in 
their dealings and conduct.” Now 
can it he possible that he supposes 
1 here allude to him, one whose 
very name I do not know, and 
whom, to my knowledge, I have 
never either seen or heard of! If 
this be his idea I cannot hut 
think that a little calm reflection 
will show him how utterly ground- 
less it must he. Next it is a^ 
serted that I appear “ to think it 
wrong to request those who give 
notice of duplicates to state what 
return they expect,” and then I 
am charged with doing it myself. 
Surely “Sufferer’’ must have 
perused my remarks very hastily. 
If my readers will kindly turn to 
page 101 they will find that, after 
giving Mr. Norcombe’s reasons for 
thinking such a course right, I 
immediately add, “ In the main I 
concur in this view.’’ At page 102 
I say, “ But lest I should appear 
to claim more credit than I de- 
serve, I freely confess that gene- 
rally when I send good insects I 
expect, and think I am entitled to 
expect, a return.” These quota- 
tions satisfactorily dispose of the 
above charge. Next it is said, 
“ An indirect intimation is no use 
at all!” Why not? I should 
have thought that with so sensi- 
tive a “ Sufi’erer” an indirect inti- 
mation would have been quite 
sufficient. I suppose, however, 
that 1 must yield to your corres- 
pondent’s superior judgment, but 
still I would venture to ask his 
reasons for making such a strange 
(as it seems to me) assertion. 
With regard to notices in the ‘ In- 
telligencer,’ I know nothing. No 
refarence was made to that publi- 
cation by either party. One word 
with regard to “a case in point” 
and I have done. It is too long 
to quote, and I must therefore re- 
fer uiy readers to page 138. Let 
us carry out the theory enunciated 
in this “case in point.” Let 
“ Sufferer” suppose himself, after 
years of intense application, to 
have obtained a distinguished 
rank among the Mathematicians 
of the day. Well, a young man 
