[37] Times, March 13, 1828.
[38] 9 George IV. c. 92.
[39] The barrister appointed, under clause 92, was Mr. John Tidd Pratt, who still holds the office after a lapse of thirty-six years. Under a subsequent clause of the same Act there was power given to the Commissioners to appoint an umpire in cases of dispute, and Mr. Pratt was likewise appointed to decide in these cases on behalf of the Government. Mr. Pratt's name is now properly and deservedly connected with all questions relating to Savings Banks. From time to time this gentleman's intimate acquaintance with the legal history and working of these and kindred societies has gained him other appointments in connexion with them. By the Act of 7 & 8 Victoria, c. 83, he had additional powers conferred upon him, this Act setting forth that all cases of dispute should be referred to him in the first instance, without the necessity of each party appointing an arbitrator. In 1846, under the 9 & 10 Vict., he obtained the appointment of Registrar of Friendly Societies, an office which he still holds; and in 1861, on the establishment of Postal Banks, he was appointed Consulting Barrister. Mr. Pratt was born in 1798, and called in 1824 to the bar at the Inner Temple.
[40] Times, April 17, 1833.
[41] Hansard, vol. XVII. Third Series. 1833.
[42] 5 & 6 William IV. cap. 57.
[43] The Westminster Review of this period thus refers to Mr. Hume's motion for a reduction of interest rate for Savings Banks: “We are ignorant of any good reason why the public should receive these deposits on other terms than those which would be settled between individual and individual in a common mercantile transaction. Admitting to the full importance of giving encouragement to economical habits, we deny that the payment of bounties is necessary for such a purpose, or that more is requisite than to extend to the parties that superior accommodation and greater security for investment which it is in the power of Government to afford. This should form an inducement adequate to every salutary purpose. All that is given as interest beyond the market price of money is simply a premium upon fraud.” Vol. IX. Old Series.
[44] But it did not go far enough; the years 1826 and 1831 are the years which ought to have been taken.