THE HOLY SEPULCHRE.
[To THE EDITOR OF vax " SPECTATOR." J Sra,—As the writer of the pamphlet which is treated by Canon MacColl as anonymous (Spectator, February 8th), though bearing my signature in full, I am quite content to accept your fair and judicial summing-up on the main issue: "As to the Traditional Site, we see no ground at present for certainty." This cautious and impartial attitude is quite as much resented by a certain class of critics as the inflexible scep- ticism of which Canon MacColl complains. My paper contains, I submit, abundant grounds for keeping an open mind on the subject, and I am quite content to leave to the judgment of your readers the minor questions of "courtesy and good taste" which led to this correspondence. The many distin- guished persons referred to in my paper who (1) all agree in repudiating the Traditional Site; who (2) consider the Skull Hill to be the real scene of Calvary; and who (3) have sup- ported the acquisition of Gordon's Tomb on several distinct grounds,—these persons, I submit, may reasonably object to the amazing suggestion that they are engaged in promoting a fraud as gross as Lourdes, La Salette, or Loretto! vide Canon MacColl's article in the "Quarterly Statement" of July, 1901, p. 298. Amenities of this kind are, I submit, little calculated to throw light on a sacred subject, which is, as you say, one for quiet controversy, and not for fierce polemics.—I am, [We publish Mr. Crawley-Boevey's letter, but the corre- spondence is now closed.—En. Spectator.]