blame), I still maintain that it was improper for him to take payment repeatedly without rendering an account for it. Occupying himself (perfectly possible, I admit) with detecting by means of a room search, as he did, he worked under my occasional observation only, and even had I detected him in the act of receiving money, I might well have imagined that it was a private payment from some of the tenants of his houses.
With reference to my letter of 22nd March 1892, it might perhaps have been urged that, as the Treasurer has now only Treasury duties to attend to, he ought to have sufficient time at his disposal to check revenue, at any rate to a considerable extent, irrespective of whether the same work is being also performed by the Local Auditor or not.
I am unable to say with what expenditure of time former Treasurers were satisfied, but apart altogether from the question of the utility of performing the same work twice over, I can unhesitatingly assert that the requirements of Somerset House have to be complied with, and that, owing to the withdrawal of the Audit Office and subsequently the Reference Clerk from the Colonial Secretary's office, every document connected in any way with finance is now sent to the Treasurer for his consideration. I find, so far, that the work