Being asked, 'Do you think that a person is just as honourably
bound to pay a debt which he loses upon a game of Hazard, as he
would be to pay a bet which he loses on a horse-race?' Crockford
replied--'I think most certainly he would honourably be bound to
pay it.'--'Do you think that if the loser of a bet on a game at
Hazard had no charge to make of any kind of unfairness, and he
were to commence an action to recover that money back again, he
would lay himself open to a charge in the world of having acted
dishonourably?' The old gambler's reply was most emphatic,
overwhelming, indignant--'I should take all the pains I could to
avoid such a man.'
If this evidence was not satisfactory, it was, at any rate, very
A few interesting facts came out before the parliamentary
committee on Gaming, in 1844, respecting Crockford's.
It was said that Crockford gave up the business in 1840, because
there were no more very high players visiting his house.
'A number of persons,' according to the admission of the
Honourable Frederick Byng, 'who were born to very large
properties, were very nearly ruined at Crockford's.'
The sums won on the turf were certainly larger than those won by
players at Crockford's; a man might lose L20,000 in one or more
bets, to one or more persons; but against this he might have won
an equivalent amount in small sums from 200 or more persons.
 This is not very clearly put, but the meaning is that much
more money was lost at Crockford's than on the turf.