gather that he went so far as to concur in the further recommendation that, when married men declined to be Engaged, passages should not be given to their wives & children. The first par. of 19381/880 agreed to give passages to M. Bidgood's family who wanted to be sent out after him, but Sam convinced that if he had applied to this Office at the time of appt. he would have been allowed passages for her family in accordance with usual officer rules as he has also been granted a free passage for himself.
It is a bad rule that where an officer is engaged, a free passage is granted for his family (if any); it is thought this rule has been applied to officers on temporary Engagement in numbers (if not universally) been a bad thing to do so.
Approve of M. Bidgood having been granted free passage for his family as well as himself, & outsiders should understand that the rule laid down in 19381/88 is not to be understood to preclude passage being granted for the families when a married man is engaged; & so inform Govemar vide Eud23/2.
If we pay for their passages out, we must pay for their return passage at the end of 2 years as well. It is quite expensive and he hardly seems to expect it from the tone of his letter. I should refuse to give it, but allow the Agents to advance all or part of the passages to be repaid in the Colony "to the government" and in instalments.
I should give him the option, if he thinks this treatment is harsh, of not letting the government bear some of the cost; but do not tell M. Bidgood what has been done in this regard.
C.Pd 23. Feb
Page 642
The policy of sending an officer's family out to him hardly applies to a case of temporary engagement. Jeppe concurred with my view vide Lucas 257/94.
247.94