DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. (Hansard, 15 June 1921)

§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENN
I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the right of Parliament alone to decide the matter, manner, measure, and time in respect of which a tax shall be levied."
This is a very important subject and would merit a better occasion, but, unfortunately, private Members have to take advantage of those opportunities which the Standing Orders permit. This Bill relates to the struggle to maintain the control over taxation which this House has waged for 700 years, and it refers to a series of Declarations made by this House over that period, Declarations growing in force and precision. Obviously, there is not time to attempt, were I qualified to do it, a survey of the whole subject, but I will quote four Declarations of this House bearing on the matter. There was the famous Bill of Edward I., which declared that this House or Parliament alone could impose taxation. There was the Resolution of our House in the year 1671, declaring that Parliament alone had the right to fix the rate of a tax. There was the Declaration in 1689 that no one had any right to decide how a tax should be levied in any manner save the manner decided by the House. There was also the Resolution of 1860 relating to the Paper Duties, from which the terms of my Motion are selected, which declared that this House alone had the right to decide the matter, manner, measure and time in respect of which a tax should be imposed.
The importance of retaining in this House this right needs no support from any argument I could bring forward. 426 This House is, of course, elected by the taxpayers of the country. If any Members act wrongly, harshly or corruptly the taxpayers have the right to dismiss them at the next General Election. It is obvious, therefore, that this House alone can provide proper safeguards for taxpayers and subjects. It may be said that this is an issue which has long since been decided, and that no further definition of it is needed. It is perfectly true that the power of another place was limited by a recent Act of Parliament. It is perfectly true that the influence of the Monarchy has long ceased to be exercised personally in these matters. The legatee of the Monarchy to-day is the Cabinet, but the Cabinet is supported by a bureaucracy which is actually more swollen and more powerful than we have ever known in this country. A direct attack has already been made on the liberties to which I have referred in a Bill presently before Parliament, under which it is sought to give power to a Department to impose taxation by Departmental Order. At a time when this House was not sitting such an Order would be absolute, effective, and irrevocable by this House.
Let me give an instance of the powers it might confer in an ordinary Recess after this House had been dispersed for the holidays. The Board of Trade might impose a duty, for example, on imported timber, which would yield a needy Exchequer a very substantial amount of money, and when the House re-assembled it would be without the power to relieve those upon whom the duty had been imposed. Moreover, the precedent, if we permit it to be established, may be used in years to come by another Government having other ideas of taxation and of imposing it in a very different manner, and one which would be least relished by hon. Members of this House. It would be possible, if the precedent were established, for the Government to bestow, for example, on the Treasury power to levy a capital duty on wealth and on particular individuals who might be deemed to fall within the category described in the official Bill. It may be said that Parliament is the Sovereign Assembly and can confer what powers it likes on what Department it chooses. That is perfectly true. It cannot be denied. But I do suggest if such a prerogative is passed by this House we shall undo 427 the work of 250 years and confer powers not very different in essence from the prerogative under which the Sovereigns claimed the right to impose tonnage poundage and shipping money. The substance of the Bill is very brief and I may give it in a few words, namely:— That among the true, antient and indubitable rights of the people of this kingdom is the right not to have any money or tax levied for or to the use of the Crown save by the express decision of the Commons House of Parliament specifically defining the matter, manner, measure and time in which such money or tax should be levied and paid. I shall be interested to know what position the Government intend to take up in reference to this Bill. Of course, they are at liberty under the Standing Order under which I am bringing it forward, to oppose the Bill and to divide the House upon it, but I hope that they will not do so. I hope that they may assent to this Motion and thereby assent to the abandonment of the plan for endowing any Department with the power to decide the matter, manner, measure and time in respect of which a tax shall be levied, arid thus show that they are determined to maintain inviolate the ancient and indubitable rights of Parliament.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have some doubts as to whether I ought to allow this Bill to be brought in. It would appear, according to the Title of the Bill, that the other House may be given some rights in regard to deciding the matter, manner, measure and time of levying a tax. As a matter of fact, that is a thing upon which this House has always been very jealous, but I have not seen the Bill. I, therefore, only put in a demurrer as to the title of the Bill.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
I rise to oppose this Bill, for the reason that it is one which proposes to paint the lily and to gild refined gold. It proposes to enact something which is the law already. There is no power, no body, no authority which has a right to impose taxation in this country save Parliament in due constitutional form. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain W. Benn) has quoted Resolutions passed by this House during a period extending over 700 years in order to support his case. That is his trouble, and the trouble of those who are acting with him on that side of the House. 428 They are living 700 years ago. Their idea of present day politics is to fight over and over again the constitutional battles of the last 1,000 years and to pay no attention whatever to the real problems that have to be faced. They want to fight over and over again battles which have already been won and that is what they call Liberalism. They are the Rip van Winkles of politics. I think you, Mr. Speaker, might have had some ground for refusing to allow this Bill to be introduced, because it is really intended as an Amendment to another Bill which is now before the House instead of the Amendment being brought forward on that Bill. It is an endeavour by anticipation to bring it forward now. If there is anything in that other Bill which proposes that Parliament shall part with the right to impose taxation that is a question which ought to be raised on that Bill. No person, no authority at present has any right to impose taxation except Parliament. The Bill simply proposes to enact something which is already law.