As to the objection of the Attorney General to the alteration
made by sec. 3 it appears to me that the Court would still
retain power over the fund. The monies are to be paid into Court,
& to be transferred under the orders of the Court (sec. 2)
and under these circumstances I can hardly doubt but that the
order of the Court must be obeyed in whatever name the monies stand.
But as the Attorney General objects, and as no reason has
been assigned for departing from what appears to me to be the
more correct mode of keeping the account, viz paying the monies
to the credit of the Accountant General of the Court; and as
another point is raised as to the section about fees, I would
suggest that the
Gov should be informed that looking to the
objections raised by the Attorney General, and to the statement
that had the
Gov been aware of those objections he would have
returned the Bill to the Council for amendment, His Grace
though approving of the main object of the Ordinance, desires
before advising HM upon the Ordinance to be informed for what
reason the alteration was made in requiring the payment in to
the credit of the General Revenue instead of to the credit of
the Accountant General; & further to be informed whether the
question of the payment of fees was duly considered or simply
adopted from the former Act 29
Vict N 8, as it appears to
His Grace that fees upon a low scale might very properly be taken.