17 December 1937

at Manor Field,
GAX Grantchester,
Cambridge.

Dear Pound,

Forgive me for not replying at once to your p. c. of 5th. It came just as we were moving to Grantchester and were up to the neck.

There is of course only one family meant, which I thought you would understand from the newspaper report. Certainly I did not wish to leave any nebulous impression on your mind, but as letters may miscarry I avoid in general mentioning names. Persecution is the more inexcusable in that it follows on a great deal of generosity on the part of our friend. I wanted to tell you that, in mere justice, but I naturally hesitate to write about another man's affairs. I had a letter from R. yesterday. He says it was very nice of you to bother about him, and that he must write and thank you.

It will be jolly to see you when at last we get to Rapallo. I want you to give me a really practical account of Social Credit. No sane man (I take it) will take exception to the reasons for some scheme, call it X, which will bring about the ends desired. But is the Douglas Scheme X? I cannot find any statement which comes down to plain brass tacks. I have read some of the literature, and put pointed questions to many Douglasites, but cannot get the answers I want. I should like to have the history, for example, of a pair of boots under the Douglas plan (whatever it is) worked out in detail - not in "economic" jargon, but in the language of the street. At present A cannot get the boots he wants (I mean enough of 'em ₮) and the seller cannot sell all the producer could produce. That is the problem, how to bridge this gulf. Can you direct me to the solution? I am the Plain Man, the Man in the Street. I am convinced of the need of whatever it is, but I want to know WHAT it is that is proposed - in terms of the pair of boots. I have invariably been answered in - well, nebulosities, to take the word from above. No more now, but I may follow up my difficulties in detail, some time.

With every good wish,