In the Contemporary Review for December, 1905, I brought very plain accusations of historical misrepresentation against a number of the best-known Roman Catholic controversialists in England, laying special stress on Cardinal Gasquet's treatment of the monastic question. I offered to print replies from these gentlemen at my own expense: while the columns of the Contemporary stood open, of course, to any counter-article: but they have all declined these opportunities. I have indeed received uncomplimentary halfpenny postcards from two of the gentlemen named; and a third person, writing from Gibraltar and omitting to pay the postage, has sent me an anonymous letter beginning “Who the d—1 are you?” and continuing in the same strain. In addition to this, Mgr Vaughan and Canon Courtenay have attacked me in the columns of the Romanist Tablet, but with gross mis-statements which I had no difficulty in exposing: Father Gerard has again attacked me semi-officially in the same paper, showing again an ignorance of German, and a readiness to make any assertion which suited his momentary controversial purpose, beyond what I had before suspected in him. Indeed, it is not so much their original inaccuracy which marks off certain Romanist controversialists from most other men of equal education and social standing, as their attitude in the face of unwelcome evidence.