§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, with reference to the frauds in the General Register House, Edinburgh, which have recently formed the subject of criminal trials (on the 9th November last and on the 8th instant), measures have been taken to thoroughly investigate the extent of the frauds, the length of time during which 776 they were practised, and the circumstances of their committal; whether means have been adopted to secure in future the proper supervision in the Register House, the want of which was remarked upon by the jury in their verdict, on the 9th November last, as having given facility for the commission of the crime; and, whether his attention has been called to a letter in the "Scotsman" newspaper, of the 9th instant, by Mr. James Drummond, Writer to the Signet, in which there is an allegation of great carelessness in the custody of volumes of the General Register of Sasines, in the practice of the officials of the Register House; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)Sir, measures have been taken to thoroughly investigate the matters referred to in the first part of this Question. It appeared that the assistant cashier had conspired with certain of the engrossing clerks to credit them with more work than they had actually executed, and consequently with more money than they truly earned, and that the principal cashier had omitted to perform the duty of checking the returns of the work of the clerks. I am informed that the comment of the jury on 9th November regarding want of proper supervision could have reference only to the insufficiency of the checking of these returns, as no other matter affecting the conduct of the Register Office was in evidence before them. Means have been adopted to secure efficient checking of the returns for the future, and to prevent the recurrence of such frauds. My attention has been called to the letter referred to in the last part of the Question, and I have made inquiry in regard to the matters stated in it. I am informed that while there was no direct evidence on the subject, there was reason to suspect that a clerk had taken home a volume for the purpose of engrossing deeds in it at home, and that measures have been adopted to prevent the like occurring again. The inquiry has not resulted in evidence being obtained of carelessness of the custody of the volume.
§ MR. FRASER MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the recent trial in Edinburgh of John Rose, clerk in 777 the Sasine Office, Register House, Edinburgh, for embezzlement, when he was acquitted of the charge; whether the evidence disclosed great looseness in the administration of the business of the office, the Counsel for the accused being reported as having stated "that the whole place, so far as one could see, was rotten from top to bottom;" whether the Keeper of the Register is the senior leading and active partner of a firm of Writers to the Signet, commonly reported to be in large practice; and, whether, having reference to the twentieth section of the Act 31 and 32 Vic. c. 64 (passed in 1868), whereby, on a vacancy occurring in the office of Keeper of the Register of Sasines, it is provided—
That the person to be then appointed to the said office, and his successors, shall hold no other office, and shall not, directly or indirectly, by himself or any partner, transact any business for profit, other than the business devolving upon him as Keeper of the said Register,the time has not come for steps being taken to bring about the immediate operation of the above provision?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)Sir, I am well acquainted with the circumstances of the trial, which resulted in a verdict of "Not proven," by a majority. In regard to it, as well as with respect to the trial of 9th November, the report I have received is that the evidence showed the defect of proper checking of the clerk's returns of work; but that, except in this particular, it did not establish looseness in the administration of the business of the office. It is the fact that the Keeper of the Register is the senior partner of a firm of Writers to the Signet in large practice. With regard to the last part of the Question, I have to say that there is no power to accelerate the operation of the statutory provision there quoted, but that even if such power existed there would not, in my judgment, be any ground for exercising it. Several most important improvements in the system of registration and searching the registers have been introduced by the present Keeper, which are in course of being perfected under his supervision.