It was given to the higher officials. The increase was to date from 1 Jan. It was granted on the grounds of increased cost of living in the colony.
The prosperity of the colony and the growth of the prosperity of the beneficiaries of the civil service were due in a measure to the fact that such a withdrawal would be neither just nor expedient. I think this case is enormously different from the circumstances in Hongkong.
There was no depression at all; and the ground was underlined so far and so fast, that in 1882 a committee was appointed by the Legislative Council to consider the possibility of retrenchment. This committee was composed of half officials and half unofficials. It reported in February 1883;
When the increase to salaries was given in 1877, the Revenue was 17 million rupees. In 1882, when the committee was appointed, it was 12 million. In other words, it had fallen off by nearly 30 percent.
The majority of the committee recommended that on the occurrence of vacancy... being actuated by the conviction that the increase would not have been sanctioned in 1877 either by Imperial Government, had there been any anticipation of the serious falling off which has since occurred in the revenues of the colony. They did "not propose to touch the interests of present office holders". The Secretary of State agreed with the majority.
It might be quoted – if there was not a minority. The paper was sent on, and I do not remember what was done. And that was all, but the majority only speaks of a majority of three out of four.
I think, that as the Unofficials have twittered so flatly, they deserve a reply de novo, and abrupt in P.S.
Page 127
...
Page 78...
28 Feb
has been re-formatted into proper paragraphs, with minor corrections to spelling and spacing, while preserving the original content and structure as much as possible. Some words were reordered or added for clarity, and markdown formatting was not used as per the output instructions. Instead, HTMLtags were used.