P. E. P.

(Political and Economic Planning)


Britons SHALL be Slaves!


Sovietism by Stealth




IF you are a PRODUCER, a MANUFACTURER, a MERCHANT, a RETAILER or a consumer of goods or materials, whatever their category may be, this exposure will interest you directly, since the plans and designs of P.E.P. if permitted to reach consummation, will place every one of you under a permanent enslavement to a close coterie whose interests lie as far from yours as could possibly be.

In this pamphlet, we are dealing with a manufactured opinion, seemingly spontaneously arising in a multitude of different quarters, yet actually forwarded by a group of individuals whose identities have hitherto been kept carefully hidden.

We put this matter before you, without fear or favour, in the hope that you, in your sphere, will lend your aid in fighting the menace of which "Planning" is now the spear-point.

P. E. P.


IN the summer of 1931, there came into being a small organisation,
sponsored by wealthy backers, now known to a few investigators as "P.E.P." or to give its full title, Political and Economic Planning, with the avowed aim of giving labour effective partnership in industry and "creating a new attitude of mind to replace sterile hostilities;" its implications may be summed up in a quotation from the first issue of its paper, "Planning," of which a complete file is before us:--

    "It is internationally-minded, but believes in beginning reconstruction at home;"

and at the outset all correspondents were enjoined to use the programme outlined but under the strictest condition of anonymity, to ensure that the group might be more effective as a non-partisan organization, making its contribution outside the field of personal polemics.

This cloak of secrecy, however, was rent by a brief mention in The Fascist, the organ of the Imperial Fascist League, with the result that the plea for anonymity was soon withdrawn. Nevertheless in articles which have since appeared in the Morning Post, under the names of Mr. Harold Macmillan, M.P., and of Mr. Israel Moses Sieff (both of whom will be referred to later) and also by unnamed correspondents, and similar articles in The Times and other newspapers, and in the course of Mr. Sieff's talk over the wireless, no mention of "P.E.P." has been made; as will readily be appreciated, the only hope that the scheme could become so deeply rooted that its eradication would become practically impossible, was that a fairly long period of intensive groundwork should go on unchallenged, until sufficient public opinion had been manufactured to see the plan through.

The Plan is our old friend "Rationalisation" of Jewish origin but carried to the stage of Sovietism (also Jewish).

We shall first show what the Plan intends to do, using as far as possible the words of the Jew, Sieff, its moving spirit. Then we shall show the agencies by which the Plan is already in being in this country, and shall identity some of the principal people who, knowingly or unknowingly, have been working for this system of Sovietism by Stealth.


"P. E. P."






ON March 29th, 1933, at a dinner given to the members of the P.E.P. Political Economic Plan, the Chairman of this group, the Jew, Israel Moses Sieff made a speech on "Planning." The speech in itself, already contained some leading lines as to the aims of the P.E.P., which can be summed up as the planned destruction of the existing order of our social, political and economic life and the erection of a structure based on centralisation, standardisation, expropriation and compulsion, leading to inevitable enslavement.

But in spite of having been somewhat rashly outspoken in his speech, Mr. Sieff did in reality, show a certain amount of caution for his verbal utterances were very mild, compared to his written exposé on the same subject, entitled, "Freedom and Planning," privately circulated soon after.

The perusal of this document leaves the reader no room for doubting the sinister outcome of the present world economic and financial crisis as viewed by the Jews and Fabians.

The Jewish plans for the attainment of world domination have been clearly stated in the documents known as "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion."* As to the Fabians' subversive ideas, they have been and are still being expressed by the Fabian Society's periodicals, pamphlets and meetings. The P.E.P. seems to be the central office, wherein the propaganda for the schemes of the advent of Jewish power is being prepared and sent forth by a group of Fabians headed by the Jew chairman, Israel Moses Sieff, director of the chain stores of Marks and Spencer.

{* Otherwise known as "The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion," a document published in Russia in 1905, setting out the whole plan of Jewish World Conquest. The authenticity of this document, which has often been denounced as a forgery, lies in the almost uncanny way in which its prophecies have been fulfilled.}

It is no wonder that as Fabianism is the power ruling England to-day, the members of the P.E.P. should be in close and constant contact with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and his son. In fact it is probable that the whole of the British government plans in the realm of economics issues from the offices of the P.E.P.

The document above referred to, "Freedom and Planning," starts by giving a dark picture of "Collapsing civilisation." It fails, however, to point out that this fearful description is about the most sweeping indictment of what has been the Jewish economic and democratic experiment of world government, for it would be a monstrous mistake for any intelligent citizen of whatever nation to close his or her eyes to the evident fact that, for close on sixty years, the Jews have surely and rapidly though almost invisibly, climbed to the heights of government wherefrom the masses are ruled. Politically, financially and economically, they have seized the reins of the governments of all nations and their invasion in the realm of social, educational and religious fields is not less important.

We are all able to realise into what unfathomable abyss all organisations of our western civilisation have been hurled to the great prejudice of all the populations of this earth and that is why the picture painted by the Chairman of the P.E.P. is, in itself, the condemnation of the Jewish methods of government.

It is, of course, necessary for the reader to bear in mind the fact that in describing the woeful state of the world, the Jew spokesman fails to ascribe it to the rule of the invisible Jewish government, which as Disraeli, a highly talkative Jew, has so clearly shown had already in his time penetrated all courts and parliaments. (Refer to "Coningsby," published in London in 1844).



Let us now quote excerpts from "Freedom and Planning:"

"This generation is faced with the threat of a world collapse of modern civilisation and the advent of a period comparable with the dark ages which followed on the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, A.D."

"Chaos will overtake us if we cannot show intelligence enough to extricate ourselves.

"For more than a year now, nothing has enabled civilisation to keep some sort of a course and to ride out the storm except the immense momentum of ordinary economic processes and the inertia of habit and custom; it is the resisting powers of these forces and not human intelligence which has thus far staved off collapse.

"They cannot bring us back prosperity, but they may suffice to carry the world through the immediate crisis. If so, we shall for a time be able to live on our capital, the material capital stored up from past generations, the intellectual and the moral capital of men and women trained for civilisation and citizenship. But what chance will the next generation have, if half of them find no employment for their youthful energies, and all of them are living under the oppression of hopelessness and decay?

"What form collapse will assume no one can foresee. It may not come suddenly. More probably there will be a gradual decline with fleeting periods of revival.

"World disorganisation, famine, pestilence, and the submergence of our civilisation are visible on the horizon.

"Economic nationalism is no solution. On the contrary, it is among the main causes of the world's troubles. Recovery depends on building up afresh and extending, even more widely than before, world-wide exchanges of goods and services which everywhere cross national and political boundaries.

"The United Kingdom is far too small in area to form to-day an economic unit commensurate with the vast scale of modern commercial and industrial operations.

"The aim must always be the widest possible international co-operation.

"Our political and economic machinery is breaking down. The great fund of individual and corporate goodwill, greater probably than at any previous period of our history, goes to waste and all our wills are frustrated for want of a large-scale plan on national re-organisation.

"Neither in politics nor in economics have we grasped that the first and urgent necessity is planning ahead.

"Particular projects often of great potential value are put forward in Parliament or elsewhere without any effort being made to relate them to each other or to a national plan, and they either break down or function imperfectly through needless friction engendered by the absence of ordered planning."

Then follows the trend of the subtle insinuating ideas meant to induce and reconcile the British people to the voluntary abandonment of their freedom, if thereby their country can be benefited. Thus are they meant to become the very victims of their genuine patriotism. The example they give of sacrifice and self-discipline has been but one more tool in the hands of their double-faced leaders. They have already sacrificed their gold to comply with the plea that in so doing, they would save their country.

This is referred to in the document in the following lines:--



"Great Britain and some parts of the British Empire have in some degree improved their own position since last autumn. Absolutely the improvement in Great Britain has been small, though relatively to other countries it is striking.

"This achievement is of real value to the world, even though some part of it has been made at the expense of added difficulties for others.

"It has been attained, thanks to a remarkable demonstration of the self-discipline and well-disposed spirit of public services and the sober imperturbability and reasonableness of the British citizen in the face of a crisis.

"It is in this evidence of British character, that the best hope for the future rests . . . ."

It is this high feeling that must be exploited and the next step is to show the people that their country's needs require of them the sacrifice of their individual freedom.

"Can we save our freedom?" asks Mr. Sieff, and he advances the following list of arguments:--



"Mr. Bernard Shaw's mordant words pose directly the poignant question. Is national reconstruction possible without sacrifice of the elements of personal and political freedom?"

Mr. Sieff warns his readers against Bolshevism and Fascism and proceeds:

"We know in our hearts, that we are in imminent danger of losing both our freedom, and our material well-being, if we go on drifting.

"But, if, indeed, national re-organisation has to be bought at the price of losing our freedom, many of us feel that it would be better for humanity to descend once again into the abyss of barbarism and struggle back painfully at some later epoch to a civilisation capable of satisfying both its material and its spiritual aspirations.

"Is the dilemma absolute? Can conscious forward planning of our economic life be reconciled with the essential and over-riding claims of freedom?

"Is it true that what we need is more government and a greater encroachment on liberty?

"Observe that it is in the sphere of our economic life, in the sphere of material things only, that conscious forward planning is demanded.

"May it not be that an un-prejudiced re-examination of what we call freedom may reveal unexpected possibilities?"

In the realm of industry, the subversive opinion of the P.E.P. is that in place of the doctrine of competitive initiative should be substituted standardisation, monopolies and trusts, all under the rule of what Mr. Sieff calls Planning Authority. Whoever is acquainted with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, knows that this "planning authority" can have its directing centre only in the councils of the supreme Jewish Kahal where all "conscious forward planning" has been done for centuries.

We quote further:--



"Conscious planning leaves the consumer free, but involves the substitution of some organised control over production and distribution on behalf of the community to take the place of that free play of supposedly automatic economic forces on which laissez-faire relied.

"Control implies a controlling machinery. To the average man and woman among us, there jumps to the mind at once the picture of a large number of new government departments and hordes of new officials attempting to take the place and do the work of the business man, the manufacturer, the farmer, the banker and the shopkeeper, or at least to tie them all up hand and foot, and dictate to them in the management of their daily affairs; we see further a glimpse of Parliament and Local Bodies finally overwhelmed by the task of fulfilling their new functions.

" . . . Is there not a middle way, or better still, a new way of meeting the need for organisation and co-ordination of those economic tasks which the breakdown of 'laissez-faire' is leaving unaccomplished?"

The "new way" found by the subtle P.E.P. is the organisation of 'Public Utility Bodies' fashioned somewhat on the pattern of the B.B.C., Central Electricity Board, etc., and we are told that:--

"It is possible to envisage a considerable extension of this form of organisation of the nation's business. A new picture begins to emerge in the outline of industry, agriculture, transport, etc., enjoying if not Dominion Status, at any rate wide powers of local self-government, with the Cabinet, Parliament, and the Local Authorities liberated from the duties to which they are not ideally suited and free to perform their essential functions on behalf of the community.



"The analogy of the Electric Grid System of the Central Electricity Board, not itself undertaking the production of power nor the final distribution of Electricity services to the consumer, but providing a co-ordinated system of carrying the electricity produced from the big generating stations to local distributing centres all over the country, can be suggestively applied to the other services.

"Imagine the Dairy Farmers of the country or of various regional divisions of the country as the milk generating stations, and the retailers of milk as the local distributing centres with a Central Milk Board conducting the business of bulk marketing of milk as the providers of the milk grid of Britain. Already under the Agricultural Marketing Act there are signs of the coining of such a Milk Grid as a natural development to meet the needs of the day. An extension of the system with suitable adaptations to other agricultural products easily suggests itself, and even more directly as a method of dealing with the needs of modern transport by rail, road, water and air."

In the above quotation, we see the P.E.P. sketching a programme of distribution. From the organised control of distribution to that of production, under any despotic rule, there is but one step and Mr. Sieff has inevitably taken it. Moreover, being one of many Jews who have of late years concentrated upon the multiple shop and chain stores systems and the organisation of various cartels and trusts, Mr. Sieff could not refrain from dealing a blow at the independent retail stores which for centuries have been the mainstay of trade. To paralyse and thus eliminate the individual retail shopkeeper from trade has been one of the chief aims of "Jewish planning."



Let us now quote what is written on the subject:--

"When we come to the organisation of producers, agricultural, industrial and extractive, the Central Electricity model becomes more difficult to follow.

"Methods of retailing cannot be left entirely unchanged in the face of the twentieth century needs. The multiple shop and the chain store are already bringing about notable modifications. The waste involved in the 500,000 or more retail shops, one shop for every twenty households, cannot be allowed to continue to block the flow of goods from producer to consumer. And re-organisation of retail methods is necessary to achieve adequate organisation of production . . . .

"The development of an organised grid system for the distribution of milk must, it is certain, lead to a profound modification of the traditional individualism of outlook of the Dairy-Farmer. And so it will be in other producing industries. Co-operative organisation of the business of distribution cannot fail to bring about conditions in which both the need and the will to organise themselves on a co-operative basis will arise among the producers whether they be agriculturalists, or producers of coal, or of iron from the mines, or manufacturer's of steel, or of cotton or of wool.

"Whether we like it or not-and many will dislike it intensely--the individualist manufacturer and the farmer will be forced by events to submit to far-reaching changes in outlook and methods. The danger is that in resisting them because he regards them as encroachments on what he calls his freedom, he will make things much worse for himself and for the community. Resistance is likely to play into the hands of those who say that tinkering is useless and that full-blooded socialism or communism is the only cure."

It would be difficult to imply threats in a more outspoken manner and Mr. Sieff goes on to state that:--

" . . . It is idle to deny that some at least of the changes required, when conscious forward planning extends into the field of production, are of a revolutionary character.

"It is all important, therefore, that we should appraise them soberly and without prejudice and distinguish clearly between unavoidable alterations of methods of economic organisations and fundamental attacks on our personal and political freedom . . . .

"Without entering more deeply into details than space here allows, the position of the farmer and manufacturer under a system of planned production can only be sketched in broad outlines.

"He may be conceived of as remaining in full control of all the operations of his farm or factory, but receiving from the duly constituted authority instructions as to the quantity and quality of his production, and as to the markets in which he will sell. He will himself have had a voice in setting his constituted authority and will have regular means of communicating with it and of influencing its policy. He will be less exposed than at present to interference from above, that is from Government Departments and Local Bodies and their Inspectors. He will be less free to make arbitrary decisions as to his own business outside the region of day -to-day operation of plant or farm.

"It must be presumed that the constituted authority will be armed by enabling Act of Parliament and by the majority decision of its own members, presumably elected by the vote's of those with whose affairs they deal, to exercise powers of compulsion over minorities in clearly specified cases.

"All this is not very different from what already occurs in particular organised industries, but must be conceived of as applying generally to most, if not all, of the major fields of production, and as part of a conscious and systematically planned agricultural and industrial organisation."

Mr. Sieff then goes on to describe how "National" Councils for Industry and Public Utility Bodies will be formed "with considerable powers to regulate the affairs of their particular industries." Superficially, these bodies resemble those of the Fascist Corporative State. Actually, it is clear that they are designed to control industry, not to assist in the co-operation of individuals; in a Jewish Britain, obviously the personnel of these Soviets will also be either Jewish or those degenerate whites who pimp for Jews.

Plans for the realisation of Mr. Sieff's weird ideas have already been made. They are summed up in two words: COMPULSION and EXPROPRIATION.



Reading the following quotations, one is forcibly reminded of the tenets preached in New York at the Rand School (supported by Mrs. Elmhurst whose husband is in P.E.P.) and meetings of the "Friends of Soviet Russia:"

"From the standpoint of encroachments upon freedom, apart from the denial of the tenets of individualism, the most obvious targets for attack are, perhaps, the proposed grant of powers to compel minorities and (point not yet mentioned) the probable necessity for drastic change in the ownership of land.

"Powers of compulsion of minorities are not unknown even under present conditions and will probably not arouse very violent antagonism on the ground of high principle.

"The question of private ownership of land, is one which never fails to encounter deep-rooted passions. It is also one which arises immediately in almost every aspect of consciously-planned reconstruction.

"The conclusion seems inescapable that whether in the field of Town and Country planning, or in that of Agricultural (or Rural) Planning, or in the organisation of Industry, it is not possible to make reasonable progress without drastic powers to buy out individual owners of land.

"This is not to say that land nationalism in the ordinary sense of the term, is either necessary or desirable. Far from it. Nothing would be gained by substituting the State as Landlord. What is required, if only with a view to equitable treatment of individuals, is transfer of ownership of large blocks of land, not necessarily of all the land of the country, but certainly of a large proportion of it (our italics) into the hands of the proposed Statutory Corporations and Public Utility Bodies and of the Land Trusts.

"In many cases, all that would be needed, would he the conversion of rights of ownership of land into rights of participation as shareholders or stockholders in the new corporations, or in Land Trusts. It would be possible further in a large number of cases, to leave management undisturbed, together with the enjoyment of the amenities which at present go with ownership, subject to the transfer of title to the Corporations or Trusts.

"Here again, limits of space preclude fuller treatment of the subject. All that is here relevant is the inevitable conclusion that the planned economy which the nation needs to meet the demands of the twentieth century must clearly involve drastic inroads upon the rights of individual ownership of land as at present understood."



As to Finance, and the right of citizens to deal freely with their money, Mr. Sieff's kind solicitude for the property of others has prompted him to formulate the following point of view so worthy of paternal Bolshevism.

" . . . Stable money cannot be secured without considerable extension of control on behalf of the community over free flow of investment and the uses which the individual makes of his capital.

"While as consumer he can retain full freedom of choice as to which of his competing wants he will satisfy, there are real difficulties in leaving him entirely free to invest his savings in any way he chooses.

"It is probable that many of these difficulties can be solved on the one hand by extension of the system of insurance, on lines to which the recent developments of motoring law supply suggestive analogies and, on the other hand, by means which while leaving the small capitalist untrammelled, will so canalise the flow of both long term and short term investments of the large sums which are at the disposal of banks and financial institutions, as well as funds in the hands of large insurance companies, as to ensure that adequate capital is available for the big industrial, agricultural and distributive corporations already envisaged."

Then comes the discussion of the problem of labour which points out the future uselessness of the present Trade Unions, who still labour under the delusion that they have achieved the ne plus ultra of good conditions for workmen. The P.E.P. will re-organise them.

A P.E.P. organisation will, among other things, "call for a big change in the organisation of the Medical Profession which has, at present, too often a vested interest in disease."

Needless to add that "Imperial Planning" and "International Planning" have also been the object of Mr. Sieff's careful attention. Suffice it to quote the conclusive words of the scheme: "The only rival world political and economic system which puts forward a comparable claim is that of the Union of Soviet Republics."

This conclusion is almost naive, but far from surprising when we know that the "plans" for the disruption of Russia and enslavement of the Russian people were made in the councils of the Jewish Kahal.



Let us now see what is involved in P.E.P. Planning as regards Government: 

" . . . Nevertheless, our first task is to replan Britain . . . . Effective planning on the economic side and even the introduction of desirable reforms in detail has become impossible without a drastic overhauling both of Parliament and the Central Government and of the machinery of Local Government. Political and economic planning are complementary and supplementary to each other and must be carefully inter-related. We need new economic and political institutions to match the new social adjustments which applied science has created and a new technique both in politics and in industry to enable us to find intelligent methods of surmounting new difficulties and complexities . . . .

"It has been suggested more than once in the course of this essay, that devolution of powers to statutory bodies will be an important feature of the new order and that, in the result, Parliament and the Cabinet will be relieved of some part of their present duties and set free to the great advantage of themselves and of the nation for their proper tasks of directing and guiding public policy.

"Big consequent changes will follow in the machinery of government."

And to anyone inclined to criticise Mr. Sieff's marvellous scheme of destruction of all the existing social, political and economic order, the following answer is given:--

"One possible answer is, of course, to refer our critic to what was said at the outset as to the imminence of catastrophe if we continue to drift . . . ."

"Though organised on public utility lines with MONOPOLISTIC privileges, the GREAT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS will find ample room for energy and initiative in performing their primary task of combining maximum output with minimum costs of production. The executive heads of particular factories will not lack the spur of competition . . . ."

Lastly we need to be told that:--

" . . . Experience alone can prove the justice of our claim that economic freedom will not be fatally shackled by the effect of conscious forward planning. Experience too, will be needed to make clear the boundaries of the province within which individualistic effort can best be relied upon to secure the highest national dividend . . . ."

One is forcibly reminded of the words of the apostles and disciples of Lenin and Trotzky-Bronstein who so loudly proclaimed that the imposition of Bolshevism in Russia was but a great experiment! Is the five year plan of enforced labour to be imposed also upon the British people?

Silence surrounds the results of the same experiments in Mexico, Spain, and the South American States because it is the policy of the destroyers of our Western Civilisation to muzzle the press that they own; but England, though ruled by the chosen of the Kahal, namely, the revolutionary Fabian Group, is given a warning in time, and therefore must frame a line of defence.

The justification of the "Conscious forward planning" scheme is given as the final part of Mr. Sieff's masterpiece.

The irony of calling destruction a "CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION" will not escape the reader.



"Indeed, the Socialist or the Communist will condemn our planning as mere tinkering with the outworn machine of capitalism. To him it will appear as a hopelessly conservative and anemic attempt to stave off the red-blooded revolution which alone would satisfy him.

"Our plan is, we claim, conservative in the truest and best sense. It is conservative, not destructive, and builds solidly upon the present and the past. It faces the issue boldly and is not afraid to challenge the vested interests and deeply cherished habits of thought and action."

Mr. Sieff's document exposes a policy calculated to kill human initiative and the spirit of competition which means progress; that is in accordance with the "Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion."

Will the British people allow themselves to be further bamboozled by those who have already got the best out of their fine spirit of patriotism and intend to exploit it still more?

The political economic and spiritual needs of England require as much scope for freedom to-day and in the future as they ever did in the past.

The foregoing quotations have given but a very succinct exposé of "conscious forward planning" as given out by Israel Moses Sieff.



The analogies between his utterances and the contents of the document known under the title of the "Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion*" {* See foot note on page 4.} are very striking indeed. We quote but a few taken from the edition of the protocols published by Small & Maynard of Boston, Mass. in 1920--p. 26, 5th pr.--"There is nothing more dangerous than individual initiative: if it has a touch of genius, it can accomplish more than a million people among whom we have sown dissensions. We must direct the education of the Goy (Gentile) societies, so that their arms will drop hopelessly when they face every task where initiative is required."

p. 27, 6th pr.: "We will soon begin to establish great monopolies, reservoirs of huge wealth, upon which even the large fortunes of the Goys will depend to such an extent, that they will be drowned, together with the governmental credits, on the day following the political catastrophe."

p. 27, 6th pr.: "The Aristocracy of the Goys as a political force is dead, we do not need to take it into consideration; but as landowners they are harmful to us, because they can be independent in their resources of life. For this reason we must deprive them of their land at any cost."

p. 34, 10th pr.: "For this reason our plans must be strongly and clearly conceived . . those plans will not immediately upset contemporary institutions. They will only alter their organisation, and consequently the entire combination of their development, which will thus be directed according to the plans laid down by us."

p. 44, 13th pr.: "To divert the over-restless people from discussing political problems, we now make it appear that we provide them with new problems, namely, those pertaining to industry. Let them become excited over this subject as much as they like . . . ."



The P.E.P. is already (1934) in action in the following organisations:--

Milk Marketing Board; 
Pig Marketing Board; 
Electricity Grid; 
British Broadcasting Corporation; 
Import Duties Advisory Board; 
London Transport Board; 
Town and Country Planning Board; 
United Steel Companies, Ltd.



Chairman and Financier:--Israel Moses Sieff, of Marks and Spencer's Chain Stores, which, by use of dumped Russian and other foreign goods, have driven many retailers out of business. This Jew is Vice-President of the "English" Zionist Society; according to a speech of Mr. Macfadden in U.S.A. Congress, 3rd May, 1934, when asked by his members to show more activity in P.E.P., Sieff's answer was, "Let us go slowly for a while until we see how our plan carries out in America." WHOSE PLAN ? ? ? ?

Secretary:--Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, M.P. A Fabian Socialist. Lately Secretary to the Victoria Colonisation Company, run by the Jew, A. J. Schwehm (formerly partner of Waggs' Bank), a scheme designed to attract white men to a South American "Eldorado" where the climate is suitable for growing bananas.

Other Members (Past or Present):--

Rt. Hon. W. Elliott, Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. L. Elmhirst, whose wife, nee Whitney assisted the Rand School of Social Science in the U.S.A., a Communist organisation. They now run Dartington Hall, a co-educationary agricultural college at Totnes and Mr. Elmhirst runs Youth Hostels in Plvmouth District.

Sir G. May, Chairman of the Tariff Advisory Board, and lately Secretary of Prudential Assurance Co.

Lord Eustace Percy.

Sir Basil Blackett (a Director of the Bank of England, Cables and Wireless and Diamond Companies).

Sir A. Salter, always ready to defend Jews.

C. Turnor, Agricultural expert.

D. Neal (Neal's Stores).

I. Nicholson, who edits P.E.P.'s broadsheets.

Lord Melchett.

Sir E. Iliffe (Daily Telegraph).

Working in Conjunction.

Mr. H. Macmillan, M.P., who has been visiting various Party Headquarters, and urging them to adopt "Planning." 

Sir Walter Layton (Liberal papers and National Mutual Life Assurance Co.) 

Mr. Wickham Steed. 

Lieut.-Col. Garsia. 

Professor (Guggenheim) Gregory (London School of Economics). 

Lord Allen of Hurtwood (Conscientious Objector).

These lists are, of course, quite incomplete. 

Sir Oswald Mosley was in the group but has now left it.