159
the qualifications and duties laid forth in the letter of the Secretary of State therein mentioned.
In reply I beg to say that my protest is not so much directed against the statement of the qualifications and duties
laid forth (as I understand the meaning of
that statement) as against the mode
in which (as it seems to me that) it is proposed to carry out the scheme viz:- by
Mirroring a Skilled Accountant (Mr. Barff)
by an Officer (Mr. Morsop) and replacing him by one who has other and multifarious duties to perform, (among others that of the incompatible Office of Clerks to the Chief Justice) and who is not a sufficiently competent Accountant.
If I am to assume that His Excellency assents
to the fact, that the Chief Justice has forbidden me to give any orders to his Clerk, it will be seen that he is the officer removed from my Control, and although the duty of attending
Court as a Deputy Registrar which he now performs does not materially affect me,
yet when the duty of keeping the accounts (for the correctness of which my Sureties and self are responsible) is put upon him, the question of whether he is to be subject to my Control or not, becomes of vital importance,
and quite distinct from his capacity as
a Deputy Registrar.
I never undertook to keep accounts
nor is there anything in the memorandum
aforesaid...