Colonial Despatches

Mr Holland

Sir F. Rogers
Send out copy of Mr Tidd Pratt's report. I do not attach much importance to his comment on sec 9. The Commissioners need not I apprehend receive a deposit from a child of 3, but if they do there is no harm in their repaying the child—Sec 30 of the Imperial Act (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87) is much to the same effect. See also No 314 Barbados Act sect. 20.

But I incline to think upon further consideration that his comment upon sect. 10 is just. I thought when I read the Ordinance that this was rather a matter for the Colonists to decide for themselves than for us to decide for them, & that if they chose to give the Commissrs the power—in the case for example where the husband is a dissolute idle scoundrel—to hand over the deposit to the woman who had made it, it was not unreasonable that the Cers should have that power.

But perhaps the Cers should not have power to upset pro tanto the law of Husband & Wife, which, if defective, should be remedied by express legislation.

Desire that the amendments suggested should be made.

I think I wd send it out with sanction of the Act witht remark for the consn of the Legislature.

John Tidd Pratt, Barrister at Law, Friendly Societies Office, to Treasury, 1 June 1869, reporting on the provisions of the ordinance as per despatch.

Draft reply, Granville to Officer Administering the Government, No. 61, 19 June 1869.