DYCE.

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 archaeologists.

Yours faithfully,

FREDERICK PETHERTON.

I replied with light artillery:--

DEAR PETHERTON,--Yours _re_ the late Mrs. EDWARD PLANTAGENET to hand.

Though not a professed archaeologist I do know something of the ruin in
question, having several times examined it and having heard, perhaps,
most, if not all, the various theories concerning it. I have been here
a good deal longer than you have, I believe, and cannot think that you
know more of the subject than I.

Have you read Wycherley's treatise on the Eleanor Crosses? [I invented
this monograph for the purpose of inducing Petherton to reload.] If
not, why not? Perhaps you would like to dispute the existence of a
castle on the site where the Castle Farm now stands, and where such
shameless profiteering is carried on in eggs and butter?

By the way, how is your poultry? I notice that your _seizieme siecle_
rooster wants his tail remodelling. Perhaps you are not worrying about
new plumage for him till after the War, though it seems like carrying
patriotism to absurd lengths.

Yours sincerely,

HENRY J. FORDYCE.

I hope you will allow your letter to be published in _The Gazette_.

In reply to this Petherton discharged with:--

SIR,--I am not concerned with the castle, which may or may not have
existed in Surbury, nor am I interested in your friend's monograph on
Eleanor Crosses. Other people besides yourself have the impudence to
rush into print on matters of which they are sublimely ignorant.

Perhaps I had better inform you that EDWARD I. reigned at the end
of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth centuries
(1272-1307), not in the fifteenth, and a very slight knowledge of
architecture would convince you that the Surbury relics are not
earlier than the fifteenth century.

Trusting you wil