views of one who, I am sure, adds a wide knowledge of archæology
to the long list of his accomplishments, would be both interesting
and instructive to myself and (if you would allow your views to be
published) to our little community in general.

If therefore you will write and let me know your opinion on the
matter I shall take it as a friendly and cousinly (_vide_ certain
eighteenth-century documents in the Record Office) act.

Yours sincerely,

HENRY J. FORDYCE.

Petherton replied with a whizz-bang as thus:--

SIR,--I have read the idiotic correspondence to which you refer, and
am informed that you are the author of the screed which appeared in
last Saturday's issue of the paper. If my informant is correct as to
the authorship of the letter I can only say it is a pity that, with
apparently no knowledge of the subject, you should venture into print.
Anyone enjoying the least acquaintance with the rudiments of English
history would be perfectly aware that the remains have no connection
with QUEEN ELEANOR whatever. The whereabouts of all the crosses put
up to her memory are quite well known to archæologists.

Yours faithfully,

FREDERICK PETHERTON.

I replied with light artillery:--