Orwell’s review drew protests from both authors. On 4 December General O’Duffy wrote to the editor of New English Weekly, asking that his letter not be published, but describing Orwell’s review as scurrilous. The word ‘review’ is underlined and placed in single quotation marks, evidently to indicate an anomalous, to him, use of the word. His book had, he said, received twenty four favourable reviews and only one other (in a ‘Communist organ) that was critical. He enclosed copies of typical reviews and claimed that his book had ‘a record circulation here & abroad’, strange if as Orwell claimed, the book was ‘an ignorant representation and badly written. The letter is marked ‘Came while you were in Africa and was evidently not sent to Orwell at the time, but it was answered. O’Duffy replied to the effect that the editor’s letter merely added insult to injury, and he asked that his name be removed from New English Weekly’s circulation list.

Professor Peers’s letter was published on 8 December 1938. He made thee points: he was not a Roman Catholic; he was not a ‘Franco partisan, but had maintained that the Spanish conflict could be resolved permanently only by agreement; his conclusions as to ‘why these things happen were not the product of a visit of a few months but of twenty years’ study of many aspects of Spanish life. Orwell’s response, headed ‘Spanish Clericalism, was published in the New English Weekly on 22 December 1938:

Sir, – I am very sorry to see that I have hurt Professor Peers’ feelings. I did not mean to do so. But perhaps I had better answer the three points he raises:

1. I only said that I ‘gathered’ that Professor Peers was a Catholic. My reason was simply that he is much more friendly in his attitude to the Catholic Church than is usual in non-Catholics, even including Anglicans. But I freely admit that his not being a Catholic makes his testimony in favour of the Spanish Church stronger.