§ MR. JAMES (Gateshead)asked the Secretary to the Treasury if a letter had been addressed by the Solicitor of the Inland Revenue to the Secretary of the Travelling Tax Abolition Committee, in which he said—
The difference of opinion between the Government and the Travelling Tax Abolition Committee is as to the meaning of the word `railway,' as employed in 5 and 6 Vic. c. 79, and that it has never been asserted or even suggested that that meaning was limited by any subsequent Act or judicial decision;and if he would explain in what manner the word railway in the above mentioned Act is limited, so as to exclude street railways, called tramways, laid down on public land, while railways made on private property are taxed?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.I understand that a letter of the Solicitor of the Inland Revenue, written in January of last year, contained the sentence quoted by the hon. Member, but it also contains the following paragraph:—
I beg, however, to refer you to the opinion given in September, 1880, by Mr. Watkin Williams, Q.C., and Mr. William Wills upon a case submitted to them, as I believe, by the Travelling Tax Abolition Committee, in which they state that tramways in general, as described in the case, are not liable to the railway passenger duty imposed by the Act.I am advised that the grounds upon which the opinion is based are that the Act confines the charge to receipts for passengers on a railway which is the property of some company or person, and does not cover the case of a tramway 353 laid down on land which is the property, not of some company or person, but of the public.