HC Deb 19 April 1883 vol 278 cc606-7
DR. CAMERON

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to a detached analysis of Extracts contained in the first, second, and last volumes of the "Register of Acts and Decreets, 1880," which has been sent to certain Members of this House, and which purports to show that an excess charge, beyond what the Law allows, has been made, on the extracts referred to in the first volume, to the extent of 304 pages, in the second volume of 269 pages, and, in the last volume, of 327 pages; whether he has taken steps to ascertain whether the overcharge alleged was made in all or a large proportion of the 314 instances specified; and, if so, whether he proposes to exercise the powers conferred on him by the Act 1 and 2 Vic. c. 118, s. 30, to put an end to the system, and punish the persons who have practised it?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

The Extractor's Office has very recently been made the subject of an inquiry, and I understand that the Treasury, who have had these extracts before them, have drawn up regulations for the guidance of the Extractor, which have been communicated to the Lord President of the Court of Session, and, if approved of by him, will immediately come into force, and will, I think, place the Office on a satisfactory footing for the future. I cannot speak to the precise accuracy of the extracts referred to; but there appears to have been some laxity of practice. For this the excuse is made that the number of words in a page, and the copying fees, are fixed by statute, at rates much more unfavourable to the clerks than those which now prevail in similar offices. It is right also to say that these copying fees are paid in cash by the public, who have the means of checking and complaining of any overcharge. No complaint, so far as I know, has ever been made by the public or any of the legal bodies; and the preparation and circulation of these extracts is part of a series of attacks upon the Extractor by a person who was formerly an official, but who, having been found to be guilty of dishonesty, was afterwards dismissed, and who has since been making unsuccessful applications to be re-instated.