In the first place is the preoccupation, “What can we do about the poor?” It is an encouraging uneasiness even if it is only an uneasiness and not a profound unrest. And it certainly does produce its results; quite excellent results; young men become members of the S.V.P.

In the second place is the intellectual argument that commercial industrialism will not do. It rests on authority. It impresses. We applaud Father Drinkwater and Eric Gill.

Two surface responses. Our sympathy has been stirred, our intelligence convinced of wrong and of the possibility of right solution. We heartily wish someone would implement the right solution. We mention it in our prayers, rather shyly wondering what God thinks of our economic phraseology. After all it is very worrying, but we really have done what we could.

In the first place is the repeated plea of Eric Gill that commercial industrialism has reduced the working masses to a subhuman condition of intellectual irresponsibility. It is a strident plea. You cannot shut your ears to it. But if we are to think of a downright solution it means a downright change in the material structure of society. “Man is matter and spirit, soul and body, both real, both good.” Irresponsibility can only be remedied by responsibility; but to translate this into economics responsibility means ownership, or at least an effective share in the control of the material things which very really involve our destiny. We cannot consider with equanimity any large transference of ownership from one kind of people to another unless it takes place in the usual way through the usual commercial channels. We do not like to think of changes which may involve disturbances in the material order.