HC Deb 01 July 1935 vol 303 cc1558-69

As from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the provisions of the Import Duties Act, 1932, shall be deemed not to authorise the imposition of customs duties upon foodstuffs imported for human consumption, and the customs duties chargeable on such articles under that Act shall cease to be chargeable.—[Mr. Gardner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.35 p.m.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause arises out of the Labour party's dislike of food taxation and what we call yes or no legislation. Recommendations under the Import Duties Act of 1932 are literally showered on us at all times, and in all cases the supporters of the Government become an aggregation of votes equal to one rubber stamp, for there is no discussion. When the taxation of human food is proposed it should be subject to the freest discussion and should not depend only on a recommendation from the Import Duties Advisory Committee. There are many things we can do without, but we cannot do without food. The great objection to food taxation is that the burden falls on and hurts the poorest. Men on unemployment benefit and those who receive public assistance have to pay when food is taxed, and in their cases, unlike the case of Income Tax, there can be no evasion of payment. In every case of food taxation there should be the fullest and freest discussion on the Floor of the House.

4.37 p.m.


I beg to second the Motion.

Though this may appear to be an unimportant Clause and there are not many Members in the House, the underlying principle of the Clause is a very big one. On the Labour benches we are always arguing against the imposition of taxation on food. That is our chief complaint. If taxation has to be imposed according to the view of the Government we want the whole matter to be discussed on the Floor of the House. I trust that the House will give the fullest attention to the new Clause. We do not expect at this stage that the Government will accept it, but for all that we raise the point, and we shall raise it every time that we get an opportunity, in order to show that we do not believe in the imposition of taxes on foodstuffs, and that if taxes are to be put on the fullest inquiry ought to be made by the House before the imposition of the taxes.

4.39 p.m.


The hon. Member who moved this new Clause explained that he did so rather as a gesture than with the hope of acceptance of his proposal. He and his friends are opposed on general principle, to all import duties, and particularly to duties on food, and, therefore, they think it right on every occasion to emphasise their opinion in case the House should forget it. I have no objection. I apprehend that they will have no great disappointment if the Clause is not added to the Bill. If it were added, it would not produce exactly the effect that they desire. It would apply only to such duties as are recommended by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Those duties are never imposed without opportunities being given to the House to discuss them. Full discussion is available on every occasion when new duties are introduced.

The new Clause would not apply to many articles of food. For instance, tea, sugar, cocoa, coffee and alcoholic beverages are subject to revenue duties and have been subject to those duties as long as most of us can remember. They would not be affected by the change that is suggested. Other foods are dutiable under the Ottawa Agreements, and they equally would not be affected—wheat, butter, cheese, eggs in shell, milk, rice and many other forms of food. If the Clause were carried, the principal classes of food stuffs affected would be merely cereal products, poultry, eggs not in shell, most vegetables and certain fruits. These duties are imposed to protect British producers who are still in real need of that form of protection.

No one can live without food. Equally man cannot live by food alone, and so far as the standard of living of the poorer classes is concerned food is not one of the items that has increased or that now stands too high. The reverse is the case. At the end of March the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index showed a rise of 39 per cent. over July, 1914, and in comparison with that 39 per cent. the increase in the price of food was only 19 per cent. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the price of food to-day is too high, from the point of view of the standard of living in general, and I do not think that this new Clause would do anything materially to reduce it.

4.42 p.m.


If some of us do not keep the House long on this new Clause it must not be thought that there is any weakening in our support of the principle contained in it. On the contrary, most of us are quite unrepentant for in the interest of the State we think it is most inadvisable to tax food. It is the very last thing from which revenue should be sought, and the last thing on which any kind of experiment in protection should be initiated. But we know that the policy of the Government has been fixed and that a decision of the House has been taken, and it is no use going over and over the same ground seeing that we are not likely to affect the policy of the Government. But I am sure that the principle of the new Clause is right and that it expresses the feeling of the nation as a whole. One thing that people are very sensitive about, one thing which they resent, is any attempt either to get revenue or to give protection to essential foodstuffs. For these reasons I support the Clause, and if there are not more speeches on it it is because we feel that the policy has now been fixed, at any rate for this Parliament, though we hope that the new Parliament will change it.

4.44 p.m.


The last speaker has invited the Financial Secretary not to take it that because he is pleased to call my hon. Friend's speech a sort of gesture, therefore it is not an important gesture on our part. In fact it expresses the great resentment which is felt all over the country, not perhaps against the increase of the price of any particular item of food, but that the area of taxable commodities is extending under these Import Duties. While it is possible for the hon. Gentleman to argue that the percentage increase in the cost of food, compared with pre-War, is only 19 per cent., it is also true that were it not for the Import Duties food would be cheaper than it is now. That proposition is not arguable. It is in the interest of the nation at large that food should be as cheap as possible. The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that this Clause would not cover the whole area of food taxation and that a large number of commodities are covered by the Ottawa Agreement. But even taking those which, he says, are covered by this Clause we find that he has cited such articles as cereal products, vegetables and fruit. If we examine his list of commodities we notice that it covers an increasingly important element in the diet of the people of this country. In recent years fruit has become an increasingly substantial item in the dietary of the average working-class family. That is all to the good. Medical men tell us that there are vitamins in fruit which are not present to the same extent in other articles of diet.

Plainly, we ought not to continue to acquiesce in the imposition of duties on articles of diet which are becoming increasingly important in the working-class home. In regard to vegetables alone, there are, as we know, in this country people who regard with disfavour the consumption of meat, and who are vegetarians in their diet. They have as good a claim to be considered in connection with these matters as any other subjects of the King. The list of commodities which the hon. Gentleman has given to us, indicates by its very nature that vegetarians have to bear a proportionately heavier burden of taxation than other people who follow other courses of diet. I have tried in previous discussions on the Finance Bill to express the objection which we entertain to the increasing amount of indirect as compared with direct taxation. That objection we feel more strongly than ever. We feel that indirect taxation has become a favourite method of putting taxation burdens on people which they do not perhaps notice or which they do not regard as taxation in that sense. We consider that it is a method of securing a maladjustment of taxation as between one class of the community and another, and in order to emphasise our views on the subject we propose to carry the Motion to a Division.

4.47 p.m.


We make no apology for submitting a Clause of this kind, and I think the Financial Secretary expressed our views aright when he said that we intended to take every opportunity of protesting against the taxation of certain essential foodstuffs. I was interested to hear him say that these Import Duties Orders or recommendations were fully discussed before they became operative. Surely he does not expect us to agree that the present method of doing that kind of business is satisfactory. These Orders are usually taken after eleven o'clock at night. We are not allowed to amend the terms of an Order; we have to take it or leave it, and in a House composed as this House is, there is no earthly chance of a recommendation by the Committee being defeated.

With regard to the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman showing that, as far as food is concerned, the cost of living is only 19 per cent. above the 1914 level, I agree with him, to this extent, that those are the official figures. But for the life of me I have never been able to understand how the responsible Department arrives at those figures. I have examined the White Paper issued by the Ministry of Labour showing how the index figure is compiled, but I challenge the hon. Gentleman to convince the ordinary housewife in this country that food alone is at present only 19 per cent. above the pre-War figure. As to the cost of living in other respects, I would only mention the case of clothing. Will anybody tell me that the cost of a suit of clothes to-day is only 42 per cent. or 43 per cent. higher than the pre-War price? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman never had to buy the quality of clothing that we had to buy in pre-War days when we were earning, on the average, about £2 a week. Then, it was possible to get a decent suit for 37s. 6d. but it is impossible to get a suit of the same quality to-day for less than four guineas. In reference to what the hon. Gentleman said about food taxation, I would remind him that in 1931 certain candidates pleaded for votes for the National Government and said quite definitely—some of them in their election addresses—that under no consideration would they agree to taxation upon essential foodstuffs. They will probably hear about it later, when another Election occurs.

Apparently the Conservative party are interested in the political education of the people. If they want to educate the ordinary electors, let them issue posters showing exactly how each household commodity is taxed to-day. I have heard hon. Members opposite argue in favour of all kinds of devices to distinguish foreign from home-grown produce. I have heard them even suggest that the legs of foreign turkeys should be chopped off so that the purchaser should be able readily to distinguish the foreign turkey from the British turkey. We have also heard a great deal about the application of the Merchandise Marks Act. But would it not be good propaganda also to make it illegal to expose commodities for sale without cards or tabs showing what is being paid in taxation on each article? The brewers did that when they wanted a penny or 2d. taken off the pint of beer. They displayed cards in clubs and public-houses showing the amount of taxation on beer and whisky. Why should not the ordinary housewife be told, for instance, what she is paying in taxation on each pound of tea or on each packet of rice? What an outcry there would be? There would be disturbance, even at some of the garden parties which right hon. Gentlemen opposite attend at week-ends, but they would be doing something practical towards the political education of the people. We do not apologise for submitting this new Clause, and I sincerely hope that it will be pressed to a Division.

4.55 p.m.


Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will offer some observations in reply to the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friends. I know that the Financial Secretary has already made a reply, but I am informed that his reply was based on excuses and not upon reasons, though I cannot either justify or deny that statement. I am told that he informed the House that the Import Duties Advisory Committee had only power to deal with certain foodstuffs, including vegetables, fruit, and things of that kind. He may, possibly, remember that certain questions were put to the Minister of Agriculture to-day in regard to potatoes. Potatoes have been dealt with by the Advisory Committee on more than one occasion, and we were informed to-day that whereas Jersey potatoes were being sold in June, 1933, for about £13 a ton and in June, 1934, for slightly over £14 a ton, in June, 1935, they were being sold for £25 per ton. The right hon. Gentleman, if he replies, may tell us that the Advisory Committee are not responsible for such precipitate increases or decreases in commodity prices, but that committee has determined in the past the rate of duty to be imposed on potatoes for certain period of the year. The actual sum varies month by month, according to the date of imports and that sort of thing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) as to the manner in which these Orders are brought before the House. They usually come on after 11 o'clock, when no Member has much desire to debate a question of this kind, particularly when he knows that 550 Members out of 615 are willing to support duties upon anything.

As regards other articles which have been mentioned it may be argued that oats do not constitute a human foodstuff but oats are, I understand, very important in Scotland, and are regarded as important also in certain parts of England at certain periods of the year. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have dealt with oats, and whether we take potatoes or oats or vegetables we find that, leaving out of consideration for the moment luxury articles about which we are not greatly concerned, this Committee have power to deal with articles of every day household consumption. In such cases, it is the plain duty of the Government to come to the House of Commons in the ordinary Parliamentary fashion and ask that duties shall be placed on those commodities, if they can show that the facts justify such a demand.

During the past few years the Minister of Agriculture has from time to time appealed for subsidies for this commodity and that, in order to support agriculture. These subsidies now amount to a considerable sum. If any Socialist Government had dared to concede to one industry what has been conceded to agriculture, I wonder what support it would have received when it went to the electors to ask for a renewal of their confidence. It is bad enough that these constant appeals should be made to us for subsidies without any accompanying information as to the efficiency of the particular branches of the industry concerned, but it is infinitely worse and it is bad Parliamentary practice, that an Advisory Committee with no responsibility to this House, should be permitted to deal with foodstuffs for human consumption in this way without adequate discussion in the House. When these Orders are submitted we know in advance that the discussion must necessarily be inadequate. If they were submitted to the House at 3.45 instead of 11 o'clock; if the Government gave ample time for discussion, then, although in this Parliament the result would be a foregone conclusion there would be an opportunity of discussion. As it is the country and the housewife have no knowledge of what they are actually paying—


There has been no increase in prices.


If there has been no increase in price, it only goes to prove that the Government have failed in their efforts for the past four years. In 1932 when they returned from Ottawa I remember the Chancellor oo the Exchequer quoting the figures of the imports of meat and other commodities and the prices for different periods, and arguing, quite logically from his point of view, that it was the duty of the Government so to direct their measures that there would be an upward tendency in the prices of agricultural commodities.


Not to the housewife.


The hon. Gentleman must not behave like that. This is the House of Commons, not Hyde Park. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government set out, probably because they felt that that was the only way to restore industrial prosperity, not only in this country, but in the Dominions and in foreign countries as well, to increase the price of food and other commodities. How can the hon. Gentleman say there has not been any increase—I do not deny the statement—and that they have not failed in their policy? If the cost of living as expressed in terms of food prices is lower to-day than it was in 1932, it only goes to prove that it is not because of any virtue on the part of the Government or the hon. Member; it merely indicates that all their policies have failed. If prices have not increased, it is not because the Government have not tried to increase them.


I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it was the declared intention of the Government to try to increase the wholesale prices of commodities and to make up some of the gap between wholesale and retail prices thereby, and to-day he will find that wholesale prices have been raised but that retail prices remain the same. Therefore, the Government have succeeded in the very object with which they started out.


If the hon. Gentleman could explain to us what machinery they set up to see that the retailer never took advantage of any action on the part of the Government, and that the Government followed the price fixing from the producer, through the wholesaler, down to the retailer, and ultimately to the consumer, there would be something to be said for the hon. Gentleman's argument, but can be point to any machinery that was established to control retail prices?


Yes, I can, and—


If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to make his own speech, we shall gladly listen to him, just as the House is courteous enough from time to time to listen to those of us who venture to speak from this side of the House. If the hon. Gentleman has a really good point, I hope he will give the House the benefit of it, and I am sure the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will welcome pearls of wisdom even from their own back benches. It is so rare that they have them, that one here or there may help them. Our point is a very substantial one. If the Government can make out a case for imposing a duty upon any article of daily consumption in ordinary homes, particularly food-stuffs, then they ought to come to this House in the ordinary way and ask for power to impose a duty, not to leave the Import Duties Advisory Committee to recommend orders, which are always brought on in the most inconvenient part of the day, when they rarely get that consideration to which they are entitled.

It is not a question of arguing that either this commodity or that commodity has been abused in price or that duties have been wholly excessive. It may happen that as a result of the imposition of some of the duties recommended by the Advisory Committee, the producer will get 100 per cent. advantage of the efforts of the Government, but as is the case at this moment with potatoes, wholesalers or merchants exact the last farthing from the producer and concede nothing to the consumer. It is not so much a question of singling out a single commodity as it is a question of the principle of the thing. Food duties are peculiar. They ought to be regarded as such, and when the Government feel that they are entitled to ask, for power to impose a duty, either upon potatoes or upon other foodstuffs, I think it is their duty to come and seek that power in the ordinary way. They have the numbers, and they know they can always succeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to justify his opposition to this very reasonable Clause, which we think ought to form part of the Bill.

5.6 p.m.


I do not wish to be controversial, but I think I might be allowed to remove one or two misconceptions which have arisen. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is always complaining that these import duty orders come on at an inconvenient time. I have never found any time inconvenient. It is only inconvenient

to those who do not really believe a duty to be bad. If you believed it was bad you would fight it out sooner or later. That is the only point in the hon. Gentleman's speech I really wished to take up, except some side issues about prices and whether someone wanted them to rise or not. I would recommend him to read more thoroughly some of the bygone speeches of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), particularly those in connection with the crisis of 1929. With regard to the high price of a particular kind of potatoes, that is not a fair illustration of the effects of a duty. It is an accidental price, because of an entirely artificial season, due to the frost, for a very short time, a matter rather of days than of weeks, and to try to base a case on this one particular accident of the season is no argument against the position in which we find ourselves. I think the public as a whole should realise that the prices of Jersey potatoes for a certain time were entirely due to the accident of the season and had nothing whatever to do with the general basis of the tariff. It did not matter what the commodity was at that time; the price would have been up. It is only fair to the growers that that should be known, that they have not prospered by a high artificial tariff.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 192.

Division No. 253.] AYES. [5.8 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Banfield, John William Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Parkinson, John Allen
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Grundy, Thomas W. Rea, Sir Walter
Cleary, J. J. Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Thorne, William James
Cove, William G. Harris, Sir Percy Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Holdsworth, Herbert West, F. R.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawson, John James Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Dobbie, William Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, Sir Charles Lunn, William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter McEntee, Valentine L. Mr. T. Smith and Mr. Groves.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Bernays, Robert Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
Albery, Irving James Blindell, James Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Bossom, A. C. Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Aske, Sir Robert William Boulton, W. W. Burnett, John George
Assheton, Ralph Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart Butler, Richard Austen
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bracken, Brendan Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Brass, Captain Sir William Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Broadbent, Colonel John Castlereagh, Viscount
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Remer, John R.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Ker, J. Campbell Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Kerr, Hamilton W. Rickards, George William
Clayton, Sir Christopher Kirkpatrick, William M. Ropner, Colonel L.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ross, Ronald D.
Conant, R. J. E. Leech, Dr. J. W. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cook, Thomas A. Lees-Jones, John Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Cooke, Douglas Leighton, Major B. E. P. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Cooper, A. Duff Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Lewis, Oswald Salmon, Sir Isidore
Cranborne, Viscount Liddall, Walter S. Salt, Edward W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lloyd, Geoffrey Savery, Servington
Davison, Sir William Henry Locker, Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th) Selley, Harry R.
Dawson, Sir Philip Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Denman, Hon. R. D. MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Dickie, John P. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert McLean, Major Sir Alan Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)
Donner, P. W. McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Smithers, Sir Waldron
Drewe, Cedric Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Somervell, Sir Donald
Duckworth, George A. V. Marsden, Commander Arthur Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Mason, Col, Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Duggan, Hubert John Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Mellor, Sir Richard James (Mitcham) Storey, Samuel
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Mellor, Sir J. S. P. Stourton, Hon. John J.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Strauss, Edward A.
Elmley, Viscount Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mitcheson, G. G. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Fleldon, Edward Brocklehurst Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Sutcliffe, Harold
Fox, Sir Gilford Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace Moreing, Adrian C. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Goff, Sir Park Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Thorp, Linton Theodore
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Tree, Ronald
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Grimston, R. V. Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)
Gunston, Captain D. W. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hales, Harold K. Penny, Sir George Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Percy, Lord Eustace Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Hammersley, Samuel S. Perkins, Walter R. D. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hanbury, Sir Cecil Petherick, M. Wayland, Sir William A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Power, Sir John Cecil Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Pownall, Sir Assheton Wise, Alfred R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Radford, E. A. Withers, Sir John James
Horobin, Ian M. Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Womersley, Sir Walter
Howard, Tom Forrest Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel