§ Clause 68 (Payment of interest under the provisions of this Act); Clause 69 (Trustees and burgh local authority to resolve to pay off debt); Clause 70 (Payment and discharge of debts); Clause 71 (Assessment for payment of debt); Clause 72 (Trustees and burgh local authority may borrow on security of assessments); Clause 73 (Loans to be repaid out of assessments imposed under authority of Act); Clause 74 (Provision for protection of lenders on security of assessments); Clause 75 (Trustees and burgh local authority may pay off loans, and borrow money for that purpose); Clause 76 (Unclaimed instalments to be consigned); and Clause 77 (Sums payable to persons under disability may be consigned), severally agreed to.
§ Clause 78 (Saving as to loan to Mull district of Argyllshire).
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had no wish to object to the clause, nor to any of the provisions which it contained; but as it had reference to a district of a county in which he had an interest, he thought its application should be made universal. He therefore moved, after the word "trustees," to insert the words—
nor to any debt due by the district road trustees of any of the several districts into which the county of Argyll is divided for the purposes and under the powers and provisions of the Argyllshire Roads Act, 1864.He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would accept the Amendment in this particular place; but he could not think otherwise than that he would approve of it, seeing that the several districts might incur debts which were not county debts, or debts which could be dealt with under the provisions of any general Act, such as the one now under consideration. He did not think his Amendment would in any respect invalidate or affect the rights of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and he therefore hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept his proposal.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that on the first blush of the thing, he saw no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member; but as he had only just received Notice of it, he could not, offhand, 1892 say whether this was or was not the proper point for its introduction. He would look into the matter, and it could be dealt with on the Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ General Provisions as to Assessments.
§ Clause 79 (Terms at which assessments shall be payable).
THE LORD ADVOCATE,in moving, in page 40, line 15, after the word "shall," to insert "subject to the provisions hereinafter contained," said, his object was to provide that the assessments should be imposed for the year subject to the provisions of the Act, according to the valuation of the lands and heritages on the valuation roll in force for the year.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. RAMSAYsuggested that in line 20 the words "1st of February" should be substituted for "1st of January." The hon. Member said, the valuation roll was not made up, or, at all events, was not completed and accessible to the local authorities until the end of October; and, therefore, he felt that it would be desirable to give a little longer time than was contemplated by the Bill for the making out of the assessments and the collection of the rates.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought the suggestion a very reasonable one, and he would, therefore, accept it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 80 (Collection of assessments); Clause 81 (Board to hear appeals); and Clause 82 (Power to recover assessments imposed by trustees), severally agreed to.
§ Clause 83 (Assessments in burghs, how to be levied and recovered).
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in page 41, line 31, after the word "or," to insert the words "if there be no police assessment any."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. W. HOLMS moved, on the same page, line 33, after the word "act," to 1893 leave out to the word "and," in line 34, inclusive, and to insert the words ''shall be."
§ MR. GRANT moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert, in line 33, after the word "collected," the words "either as a separate assessment to be called The Roads and Bridges assessment,' or."
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the Committee had already practically adopted the Amendment, but saw no reason why, in line 35, after the word "rate," there should not be inserted the words "and may be collected either separately or along therewith."
§ Amendment (Mr. W. Holms) agreed to.
§ MR. RAMSAY moved to substitute the word "five," for "four," in line 3, page 42, in order to produce uniformity of practice.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 84 (Burgh may apply certain funds to maintenance of roads in lieu of assessments), agreed to.
§ Special Provisions as to certain Bridges.
§ Clause 85 (As to cost of maintaining, &c. certain bridges).
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in page 42, line 18, after the word "county," to insert "or counties."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in the same line, after the word "burgh," to insert the words "or burghs."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, in line 19, after the word "adjoining," to insert the words "county or."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, after line 25, page 42, to insert these words—
The trustees of counties and burgh authorities may agree that any such bridge accommodates other traffic than that of the county or burgh in which it is situate, and may agree as
1894
to the proportions in which the debt (if any) and the cost of maintenance, and, if need be, of rebuilding such bridge, shall be borne and defrayed by the county or counties and burgh or burghs to which it is common, and such agreement, when confirmed by a resolution of the trustees in general meeting and of the burgh authorities, shall have the same force and effect as an order by the Secretary of State, as provided hereinafter.
The hon. Member said, the object of his proposal was to save the parties and the Secretary of State from a great deal of unnecessary trouble. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be grateful to him for that provision.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. C. S. PARKER moved, in page 43, line 14, to leave out the word "and," and insert the words "or part or parts, or district or districts, of the said county or counties, and by the." The hon. Member said, he wished to provide that where only one district of a county made use of a bridge, that part of it, and not the whole county, should bear a proportion of the cost of such bridge. This would be a more equitable mode of assessment, and he did not see that any reasonable objection could be made to it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHproposed to add these words at the end of the clause—
And with respect to the suspension bridge across the River Ness, erected with public money under the Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 66, for the accommodation of the Northern counties by the Parliamentary Commissioners, the burden of maintaining the said bridge shall in future rest upon the county and burgh of Inverness in proportion to their respective real rents as established by the valuation roll thereof.His Amendment aimed to remedy a statutory injustice under which the burgh of Inverness suffered.
MR. CAMERONopposed the Amendment, inasmuch as the whole of the bridge was situate within the burgh of Inverness, the boundaries of which had been greatly extended since the bridge was built. It must be remembered that the Bill was one for the abolition of tolls and pontages, and to improve the general administration of the roads, and not intended to shift the burden of maintaining the bridges 1895 from the shoulders of those who had hitherto borne them to those who had not. The Amendment referred to the county of Inverness alone, while the terms clearly intimated that the cost of maintenance should be shared by the whole Northern counties. To some such arrangement the county of Inverness would probably offer no objection; but he could not consent to the Amendment as it stood. It should also be remembered that since the introduction of railways the value of the bridge, as a means of communication between the burgh and the Northern counties, had greatly diminished. Another objection to the proposal was, that it prejudiced the very question which it was intended by the clause should be settled by a scheme of arbitration.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHwas glad that though the case of the county of Inverness was in such able hands, so little could be made of it. In 1851 the suspension bridge was built by Government, not for the accommodation of the burgh of Inverness alone, but for the benefit also of the four Northern counties. The expense of maintenance fell upon all alike, but in 1862, when the Commissioners for Highland roads and bridges were abolished, the maintenance was taken off the three Northern expressly, and the bridge was vested in, and became the property of, the Commissioners of Supply of the county of Inverness. The town, if it had to build a bridge for its own traffic, would not have built a bridge which cost between £20,000 and £30,000, and the annual maintenance of which averaged nearly £100 a-year. It was owing to a strained interpretation put by the Commissioners of Supply upon the Interpretation Clause of the Act of 1862, that the town was saddled with the whole cost of maintenance, and he was certain Parliament never intended this. His hon. Friend the Member for the county of Inverness (Mr. Donald Cameron) complained that by this Amendment direct Parliamentary interference was sought in this matter; but this was done because Parliament, however unintentionally, by statute committed the injustice, and the remedy provided under this section was circuitous and expensive. He had no objection to a modification of his Amendment to this extent—that the expense of the maintenance 1896 should be borne, half by the county and half by the burgh. He hoped the Committee would help the burgh of Inverness, which was in the position of being obliged to pay for a thing from which they derived no exclusive benefit. He would ask the Committee, whether it was ever heard of that the expense of maintaining the property of one person should be cast on another? He would divide on the point.
MR. CAMERONdid not dispute what his hon. Friend said as to the history of the bridge. The old bridge was swept away by a flood in 1849, and the new bridge was built of stone, and the town levied pontage upon it.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the present Bill was not introduced for the purpose of remedying any injustice that might or might not have been done by a previous Act of Parliament, or for the purpose of settling any point in dispute between the county and the burgh of Inverness. He thought the Amendment rather out of place, because he was calling upon this House to decide upon a question which fell within the scope of this clause, and to decide it, he thought, without sufficient information as to the nature of the case between what he might term the litigant parties. The very purpose of this clause was to deal with a bridge wholly in one county or burgh, which served as a general means of communication with the adjoining burghs and counties. It might be very proper, under these circumstances, that those who derived benefit from the existence of the bridge should contribute their share. Although the bridge was situated in a burgh, it afforded accommodation to two counties, and, therefore, accommodated traffic much larger than that carried on in the burgh. But there were no materials laid before the Committee which could enable them to judge as to what proportion should be borne by the one party and what proportion by the other. Therefore, he thought the matter should be left under the clause which was expressly made to meet such cases, and, amongst the others, the case of the bridge of Inverness.
§ COLONEL MUREsaid, that what he understood the hon. Member to mean was, that the county should pay for the bridge at Inverness. He saw no reason why, if the county of Inverness was to 1897 maintain this bridge, the counties of Lanark and Renfrew should not pay the cost of maintaining all the bridges across the Clyde at Glasgow, because those bridges afforded accommodation to the county.
§ MR. RAMSAYremarked, that the hon. Member simply desired that this bridge should be placed in the same position as if it was in any other part of the county. He proposed that the burgh should pay their share of maintaining the bridge corresponding to the benefit they derived from it. If the hon. and gallant Member who had last spoken wished that the county of Renfrew should take part in the expense of maintaining bridges over the Clyde, the local authority would be glad to accept the suggestion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to forget that in the case of the bridge across the Ness it was not the property of those who were called upon to maintain it, but that the property in the bridge was vested in the county of Inverness. It was not un natural, therefore, that the hon. Member for the burgh should ask that relief should be afforded to his constituents.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought the hon. Member had made out a very strong case indeed. If Parliament actually had in view to put the burden of this bridge entirely on Inverness, it would have been a very different matter; but the burden of maintaining the bridge had been imposed upon the inhabitants of this burgh simply and solely in consequence of an error on the part of the draftsman of the former Bill, by which it was intended that a part, at any rate, of the cost of maintenance of the bridge should fall upon the county, because the bridge was much larger than was necessary to meet the wants of the burgh. In the Act of Parliament the word "road" was taken to include the word "bridge," whereas there should have been a separate interpretation. It seemed to him that if any bridge came within the scope and intention of this Clause 85, it was this bridge at Inverness. The bridge was the only one which connected the North of Scotland with the South, along a very considerable part of the line of the Caledonian Canal. It was, therefore, very proper to propose that the cost should be divided between the burgh and the county; but, at the same time, it might be very true that 1898 the Committee was hardly in a position to deal with the matter in the manner suggested by his hon. Friend. He did not think his hon. Friend would put the Committee to the trouble of a division, if the Lord Advocate would assure him that the bridge came within the clause which provided the means of apportioning the cost of bridges between the different localities and authorities who derived advantage from them.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could give no such assurance, for the reason that the question turned upon a disputed question of fact, which he had no means of determining. If, as the hon. Member for Inverness stated, the bridge accommodated both the county and the burgh, it seemed unfair that the burgh should be called upon to pay all the expense, as the bridge would come within the meaning of the clause.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, it would be perfectly competent at any time to make an application to the Secretary of State under the provisions of the clause to which reference had been made, and then the facts would be investigated.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that was the case, and added that the clause was introduced in the Bill in consequence of representations made by persons interested in the Inverness bridge, and other bridges which were similarly circumstanced.
§ MR. ELLICEobserved, that this was an exceptional case. The bridge was constructed entirely out of public money, partly granted by that House, and prospectively from a grant made every year for the maintenance of the Highland roads. The maintenance of this bridge was provided for by making it incumbent on all the Northern counties, as being alike interested in this means of communication, to maintain it. It was never looked upon as a bridge belonging to the town of Inverness. Inverness had a bridge of its own, kept up by the town, lower down the river. The new bridge was undertaken, not at all as a burgh bridge, but as a county undertaking. The burgh had no voice in its construction, and had been originally expressly exempted from the liability to maintain the structure. Unfortunately, from a neglect in attending to the Act, consequent on the withdrawal of the annual grant to the Highland roads, 1899 words were used in the Interpretation Clause that had been construed adversely to the burgh. He did not approve of the Amendment of the hon. Member, because the expense ought to be borne not by Inverness-shire alone, but by all the Northern counties, as was stipulated when the bridge was built. He therefore thought it best not to press the Amendment as it stood, but to leave the matter in the hands of the Lord Advocate till bringing up the Report.
§ MR. HERMONsaid, the hon. Member seemed to forget that there were bridges in other parts of Inverness, and that those bridges were exceedingly expensive. If Inverness had contributed one-half to the maintenance of the roads in other parts of the county, he could have understood this application, but he understood Inverness did no such thing. It would be a very unfair thing if, while those living in other parts of Inverness were taxed to keep their own bridges, this should be thrown upon them also.
§ LORD ELCHOdeprecated any division on this Amendment. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had now seen the feeling of the House, and it would probably be better to leave the clause as it was, and not to prejudice it by this Amendment.
§ MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, that as several hon. Members had asked him to withdraw his Amendment, he should not ask the Committee to trouble to divide. He was satisfied with the discussion so far. Hon. Members had seen that this bridge was not the property of the town of Inverness, and all he wanted was that the town should not be liable for the expense of keeping up a bridge for the whole of the Northern counties of Scotland.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to know, if the Lord Advocate would amend the clause in order to meet the case where a bridge was partly in one county and partly in another? There might be exceptional cases, which must be provided for in some way or other.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLunderstood that referred to bridges wholly in a county or wholly in a burgh. The case he desired to meet was where the bridge was partly in one county or burgh and partly in another.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.