§ MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, When the Dunkeld Bridge accounts were last laid before the Commissioners of Supply for the county of Perth, as required by the Act; whether the debt on said Bridge is not yet extinguished; whether it be not the fact that the Dukes of Athole, in their capacity of trustees, borrowed money for said Bridge, and charged the Bridge accounts at a higher rate of interest than they borrowed at, and thereby increased the debt and delayed its extinction; and, whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the whole dealings of the Dukes of Athole with that Bridge trust?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATESince the Question of the hon. Member was placed on the Paper, I have made inquiries into the matter in question. The Dunkeld Bridge Act provides that the accounts shall be laid before the Commissioners of Supply of Perthshire at their annual meeting in the month of April. The accounts for the year 1875 were accordingly laid before the meeting on 8th April last. The debt on the bridge is not extinguished. The last accounts show a balance due to the Duke of £11,838. The whole question of the bridge accounts was thoroughly investigated by the Court of Session, who found that the Duke of Athole was entitled to interest at the rate of 5 per cent upon the sum of £18,000, being the capital expended upon the bridge as from 7th November, 1808. Such being the finding of the Court, I do not consider that the Government have any right to address inquiries to the Duke as to what private arrangements he may have made with the persons who advanced the money for building the bridge. The whole dealings of the Duke 697 of Athole with the Bridge Trust having been thoroughly and quite recently investigated by the Courts of Law, I am not prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission on the subject. The hon. Member can ascertain the facts more fully by referring to the proceedings in the litigation before the Court of Session.