Without William Paton the Peace Aims group still enjoyed eminence, substance and commitment. It had also found what it had lacked at the beginning: a creative context in which realistic people were beginning to discuss what kind of future might be wrung from the achievement of victory. Temple and Bell persevered, but the loss of Paton was plainly a disaster and now they also had far less with which to work in Catholic Westminster. When a new Peace Aims document was drafted and submitted to Hinsley’s successor, Archbishop Griffin, Temple found him to be a far colder prospect. ‘Whilst’, replied Griffin, ‘I am in sympathy with practically all the suggestions contained in the document, and as you so kindly left it to me as to whether I should feel inclined to sign, I prefer to withhold my name from signature.’1