Page:Europe in China.djvu/454

436 instructive as to the importance which the Colonial Office generally attaches to Memorials. He told Sir Richard (December 8, 1868) that, though he might properly defend himself and his Government from accusations made in Parliament, or which have been officially made, it was hardly necessary for him to do so in the case of a private Society.

As to the parliamentary debates on the subject of the Hongkong gambling houses, they did not contribute any real help towards a better solution of the important social problem involved. For a general understanding of Sir Richard's disinterested effort to seek a solution of it, even at the risk of the bitterest obloquy, it was rather helpful that the official documents, bearing on the whole question, from the time of Sir J. Bowring down to Sir Richard's latest dispatch, were printed and published (June 15, 1868 and August 9, 1869) at the request of Parliament.

The only serious difficulties which Sir Richard encountered arose out of his relations with the successive Secretaries of State. Shortly after Sir Richard had opened licensed gaming houses, the Duke of Buckingham expressed his surprise (October 14, 1867) that reports were reaching him from several quarters to the effect that the licence fees were being made a source of revenue. That the Duke had imperfectly understood Sir Richard's policy appeared clearly from a statement which he made in the House of Lords when he said (December 3, 1867) that 'Sir Richard did not propose to put gambling houses down but to obtain a large revenue from them and to extirpate the evil in a very short time.' Sir Richard had to explain his aims more fully, but when the Duke, who was about to vacate his office, at last grasped the real drift of Sir Richard's policy, he used rather strong language (December 2, 1868), expressed his 'entire disapproval of the proceedings' and threatened 'to stop the licensing altogether.' Sir Richard naturally considered himself unfairly treated and. in writing to the Duke's successor (Earl Granville), referred (March 6, 1869) to the Duke's dispatch as containing 'sweeping comments which implied a general censure on the Hongkong Government.' But this made matters worse. Earl Granville