d one
that has long ceased to be
an open question in these settlements;
having been finally
finally closed in 1829.
An act of the Supreme Government was passed in 1852, enforcing stringent penalties against gambling.
So much then for the narrative
and dates:
To come to the Authorities and
arguments for and against.
Opposed to the system were the Grand Jury of Penang, Sir Stamford Raffles, Mr. Scott (apparently a private resident of Penang), Ralph Rice, the Recorder in 1818, and the Court of Directors on various occasions.
In favor of the Licensing we have Governors Crawford, Macalister,
Bannerman, and Fullerton—Messrs
Phillips, Erskine, and
268
Clubley, Wombwell
of the Council of Government, Mr. Caunter, Superintendent
of Police. Mr. Barnegy, seemingly a private resident of Penang, but one whose testimony
is remarkable, as he was
a member
of the Grand Jury who made the presentment in 1808, and in 1814
admitted that on that occasion the
Grand Jury had judged very erroneously. The principal arguments against the system I collect as follows.
1. The facility
and consequent
encouragement given to gambling.
2. The manner in which the houses
were rented.
3. The inducement to plunder and
to robbery that losses will incite.
4. The apparent sanction to give