Page:Europe in China.djvu/449

taking it, they were deprived of their freedom of action in relation to both Ordinances. On 28th August, 1866, Sir Richard, in forwarding to the Earl of Carnarvon the draft of Ordinance 8 of 1866 (for the maintenance of order and cleanliness), proposed that the Governor in Council should be authorized 'to adopt a system hitherto discountenanced by H.M. Government and derive a large revenue from the alteration.' He added that the Members of Council all advocate such change of system both as a police and a revenue measure.' Instead of sending to the Governor the reply which had been given to Sir J. Bowring when he made the same proposal, the Earl of Carnarvon, admitting that the case of Hongkong was peculiar and justified exceptional measures, approved of Sir Richard's proposal of bringing a limited number of gaming houses under the control of the police, by licensing them, with a view to the eventual suppression of all gambling. He added, however, one all-important, and to Sir Richard disastrous, condition, viz. that the licence fees must not be farmed out but treated as matters of police and by no means as revenue. Sir Richard forthwith set to work to remove or circumvent this condition, not because revenue was his real object but because the Chinese farmers of the gaming licence would, if paying a heavy fee, be compelled by their own interests to form a detective police for the suppression of all unlicensed gambling, and these detectives would then co-operate with the Police Force for the arrest and detention of dangerous characters who flock to gambling houses as moths to the light. Accordingly he informed the Earl of Carnarvon (January 14, 1867) that it would be impossible to proceed by any other mode than farming the licence for establishing gaming houses, because in no other way could the Government secure Chinese co-operation, and he suggested to leave to the Governor in Council a discretion to exercise his powers under the Ordinance as circumstances might render expedient. As regards the financial aspects of the measure, which were so distasteful to H. M. Government, he further stated (May 9, 1867) that any pecuniary advantage, which the