Prece dents. new tax or duty-or, for the increase of particular taxes, excepting when the consideration of Parliament has been directed to the subject by the crown,—should emanate from the government.' But there is a distinction in this respect between imperial and local taxes. 'No private member is permitted to propose an imperial tax upon the people; it must proceed from a minister of the crown, or be in some other form declared to be necessary for the public service. But any member may bring in a Bill to impose heavy local burdens.'" It should be observed, however, that the rule confining the initiation of all taxation to ministers of the crown is one of constitutional practice merely, and is not enforced by any standing order. Accordingly it has not been invariably insisted upon." But if not positively forbidden, it is nevertheless highly inexpedient for a private member to introduce a measure affecting the public revenue. It is only when such measures are in the hands of ministers that legislation upon them can be successful. On March 25, 1830, Mr. Poulett Thomson moved for the appointment of a committee to consider of revising and re-arranging the general system of taxation. The motion was strenuously and successfully opposed by Mr. Secretary Peel, as being an unprecedented attempt to deprive the ministers of the crown of one of their most important and peculiar functions. He remarked that proposals for the imposition of taxes belonged peculiarly to the crown; custom and sound policy having long ago devolved upon ministers the duty of submitting such questions to the consideration of Parliament.P So, also, a motion on March 14, 1844, by a private member for a committee to consider of imposing a certain probate duty on real estate, was objected to by the Speaker and by Sir Robert Peel (the prime minister), on the ground that it ought not to be offered, except Hans. D. v. 182, p. 592; v. 228, " Sir T. E. May's evidence before " Hans D. v. 115, pp. 660-668. • Ib. v. 186, pp. 160, 1849. P Mir. of Parl. 1830, p. 1032. See also similar motions, proposed and negatived, on March 26, 1833; on Aug. 7, 1848; on May 10, 1849; and on May 10, 1864. passed in the previous session of Parliament imposing an assessed duty on male servants. Failing to obtain a remedy for his grievance, next session he brought in a Bill to amend the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1869, in this particular. This Bill was opposed by ministers, on the ground that it would set a most inconvenient precedent, inasmuch as all enactments of this kind should be embodied in the same measure. Upon the introduction of the annual Bill to amend the customs and inland revenue law, a clause to the effect of this Bill might be moved in committee. Whereupon the second reading of the Bill was deferred.m On April 23, 1874, in committee of ways and means, on a formal motion, 'that it is expedient to amend the laws relating to the inland revenue,' a private member moved, that it is expedient to repeal the Gun Licence Act, 1870, which was negatived on division. Hans. D. v. 203, p. 349. m Ib. v. 205, pp. 403, 1689. 3 A VOL. I. supplies by Par CHAPTER XVII. THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT, AND ESPE CIALLY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, IN THE GRANT OF Grant of FROM a very early period in the history of England the principle has been established, that the right of taxation, and the granting supplies for the public service, belong exclusively to Parliament. liament. The old prerogative claim of the sovereign to levy taxes on the subject at his own will and pleasure, was first expressly restrained by the declaration, in Magna Charta, that no scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom unless by the general council of our kingdom; ' with certain exceptions peculiar to the person and family of the king himself. This concession lies at the foundation of our parliamentary institutions, and especially of the House of Commons as a distinct branch of the legislature. The growth of the Commons in power and influence was strikingly exemplified by the statute De tallagio non concedendo, in the 25th Edward I., by which it was declared, That no tallage or aid shall be taken or levied without the good will and assent of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and other freemen of the land.'a 6 Concurrently, however, with parliamentary taxation, other imposts used to be levied by royal prerogative, a Stubbs, Const. Hist. v. 2, pp. 142, 564. See ante, p. 457; Cox, Inst. pp. 600-603. independently of the action of Parliament; but none of these survived the Revolution of 1688. It was guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that henceforth no man be compelled to make any gift, loan, or benevolence, or tax, without common consent by Act of Parliament.' And it was finally established by the Act of Settlement, That levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretence and prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.' 6 plies to be less Since that memorable period the crown has been No supentirely dependent upon Parliament for its revenues, used unwhich are derived either from annual grants for specific granted public services, or from payments already secured and by Parappropriated by Acts of Parliament, and which are commonly known as charges upon the Consolidated Fund.c liament. On this principle-while prize-money, obtained Prize through the valour of the army and navy, is distributed money. by the crown itself, by virtue of its prerogative to the captors; any surplus remaining over after such distribution should be paid over to the Consolidated Fund, and could not be appropriated to public uses, without the authority of Parliament.R Any question as to the right of persons to participate in prize money should be determined by the lords of the Treasury under the guidance of the law officers of the crown. But in 1863, in the case of the Banda and Kirwee prize-money, the government undertook to make no final arrangement in regard thereto until papers on the subject had been communicated to the House of Commons, 'so as to give that House the opportunity of intercepting the proposed distribution, if it thought proper to do so.' f This case having excited much controversy, a royal commission enquiry into the whole subject of Army Prize was appointed in 1864, upon whose recommendation a royal warrant was afterwards issued, under which с Broom, Const. Law, pp. 398–402. Clode, Mil. Forces, v. 2, p. 292; Hans. D. v. 71, p. 352; v. 82, p. 682. Ib. v. 61, p. 484; Com. Pap. 1842, v. 1475. Prece dents. Income tax. bution of taxation, or the imposition of new duties; or the reduction of particular branches of taxation, have been not infrequently submitted to the House of Commons by private members, but they have been generally resisted by the government as being inexpedient and impolitic. The following precedents of motions for the reduction or repeal of particular taxes may be cited, as illustrating the practice of Parliament, and, moreover, as showing that, sooner or later, ministers always defer to the recorded judgment of the House of Commons upon matters of taxation. First, in regard to the question of the income tax. The attention of the House has been frequently invited to the consideration of this question, by private members, who from time to time have propounded various schemes to relieve certain classes of the community from the unequal operation of this impost. On May 2, 1851, Mr. Hume induced the House to agree to an amendment to a government Bill for continuing the property tax for three years, whereby its operation was limited to one year, with an express view to an enquiry into the mode of assessing and collecting the income tax. Such a committee was formally appointed on May 8, with authority to consider whether a more equitable mode of levying this tax could be devised. Both the premier (Lord John Russell) and Mr. Disraeli expressed their disapprobation of this committee as an unwise interference with the functions of government; but, nevertheless, consented to its appointment, in order to carry out the previous determination of the House. The committee encountered great difficulties in the investigation of this question, and, after devoting two years to the subject, confined themselves to reporting the evidence they had taken to the House, without expressing any opinion thereupon. On February 19, 1861, on the motion of Mr. Hubbard, a select committee was again appointed, to consider of some more equitable mode of levying the income and property taxes. The motion was opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), and by Sir Stafford Northcote, an eminent leader of the Opposition, but was carried by a majority of four. After full enquiry, the committee reported to the effect, that the objections to J Com. Jour. v. 88, p. 336; v. 94, p. 510; v. 102, p. 580; v. 103, p. 886. Hans. D. v. 229, p. 778. * Hans. D. v. 116, pp. 726-732. Com. Pap. 1851, v. 10, p. 399; 1852, v. 9, pp. 1, 463. See also Peto on Taxation, p. 90. |