ROBERT Beaumont administered an almighty 'Arkwright' to me ('Flawed railway king', February 25) by suggesting my writing under a pseudonym destroyed my credibility as an historian.

I am grateful to Mr W King for pointing out that not only have I written under a pseudonym, but I have also been responsible for some unsigned work, and have also ghosted work for people not as erudite and accomplished as your erstwhile reporter (Letters, March 5).

This is a confession indeed, but I remain unbowed.

Whether Mr Beaumont is worthy of being called a historian we shall see. But discredited could not apply to him - could it?

I have not yet seen his work on George Hudson, but one of the greatest criticisms of writers on historical subjects is that they have not mastered/covered/used all the available sources.

Mr Beaumont's work will have covered everything though. Won't it? It seems to have been written in an unbelievably short time.

Has he consulted the work of Prof Arnold and S McCartney I wonder? We shall see, but if our Robert has not looked at the most recent work on his chosen subject, then might this not discredit him?

Dr AJ Peacock,

The York Settlement Trust,

Holgate Road,

York.

Updated: 10:43 Wednesday, March 20, 2002