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.
t
was
given
to the higher officials. The increase was to date from
from 1. Jan.
Was
magranted
and Growth
17
78. and
?
on the grounds of
grounds of increased cost of livin.
the colony.
Growth of hesperity of the efficiary of the civil service.
due in a measure to
The prosperity, which was made the ground of
• that such a withdrawal
127
Govanos in
would be neither
thinking
thy incr
Just
Nor expedient
I think this case
as the circumstances
bee enormonely
than are the circumstances
t
I Hongkong.
depression at all; and
ground
derlined so far and so fast, that in 1882 a committe was appointed by the Legislative founcil to consider:
possibility
of
might be quoted pressing "Where there is no de
moe
retrenchment. This committer was compute the increase had been definitely given not of infpicials alone, but half of officials half of
of unofficials. It reported in Velduary 1883;
221877
the Revenue
When the increase to salaries was given
12upees.
was 17 million rupees
the committer was
In 1882 when
ted it was 12 million.
appointed
In other code it had fallen off by rearly 30 percent
ajority of the committee recommended the within
The majority the 20
Leut
on
Mormation or vacancy... being
actuated by the conviction that the increase would not,
the Local r
have been sanctioned in 1877 either by Imperial forcemment, had there been any anticipatin
the serions
at the time of occurred in the revenues
falling off
J
which has sinc
the colony. They dil " to touch the interests of frerent office holders! The foretary of State agreed with the
not propose
If growth of mosperity C.Pd.
28 Feb
m
It might a quoted – if there and not a
which dinˆadoriali a
nuiority
The paper ac
st
sunt on, and I do not remeanten And that wood, but
;
the arm muncity only sheaks of a Majinity of ther four-
Ked
mitter and
an Economical p
minosity, it med be better to mich reference to the
precedent.
I Kink, that as the Unofficials bon twitter
So Ratnately, they devirch a reply de nov0,
nodrupt in
Pili!! Dis Vaux sodrush lettered a luciron
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.