Crockford himself was examined by the committee of the House of Commons on the Gaming Houses; but in spite of his assurance by the members that were indemnified witnesses in respect of pending actions, he resolutely declined to 'tell the secrets of his prison-house.' When asked whether a good deal of play was carried on at his club, he said:--'There may have been so; but I do not feel myself at liberty to answer that question--to DIVULGE THE PURSUITS OF PRIVATE GENTLEMEN. Situated as I was, I do not feel myself at liberty to do so. I do not feel myself at liberty to answer that question.' When asked to whom he had given up the house, he fenced in like manner, saying that he had given it up to a 'committee' of about 200 gentlemen,--concerning which committee he professed to 'know absolutely nothing'--he could not even say to whom he had given up the house--he gave it up to the gentlemen of the club four years before--he could not even say (upon his word) whether he signed any paper in giving it up--he believed he did not--adding--'I said I grew too old, and I could not continue in the club any longer, and I wished to give up the club to the gentlemen, who made their own arrangement.' 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 characteristic. 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.(40) (40) This is not very clearly put, but the meaning is that much more money was lost at Crockford's than on the turf. Some years previously to Crockford's retirement, it is said that he found the debts so bad that he was obliged to leave off his custom of paying cheques; and said he would cancel all previous debts, but that in future gentlemen would have to pay with money.