Crockford was originally a FISHMONGER, keeping a shop near Temple

Bar. By embarking in this speculation he laid the foundation of
the most colossal fortune that was ever made by play.

It was said there were persons of rank and station, who had never
paid their debts to Crockford, up to 1844, and that some of his

creditors compounded with him for their gambling debts. His
proprietorship had lasted 15 or 16 years.

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 equivalentamount 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" target="_blank" title="ad.预先；以前">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.

He made them play for money instead of with counters, in
consequence of the large sums that were owing to him upon those

counters.
8. THE TRAVELLERS' CLUB,

next the Athenseum in Pall Mall, originated soon after the peace
of 1814, in a suggestion of the late Lord Londonderry, then Lord

Castlereagh, for the resort of gentlemen who had resided or
travelled abroad, as well as with a view to the accommodation of

foreigners, who, when properly recommended, receive an invitation
for the period of their stay.[41] Here Prince Talleyrand was

fond of a game at Whist. With all the advantage of his great
imperturbability of face, he is said to have been an indifferent

player.
[41] Quarterly Review, No. cx. p. 481.

Rule 10 of the club directs, 'that no dice and no game of hazard
be allowed in the rooms of the club, nor any higher stake than

guinea points, and that no cards be introduced before dinner.'
CHAPTER VII.

DOINGS IN GAMING HOUSES.
Besides the aristocratic establishments just described, there

were numerous houses or places of resort for gambling, genteel
and ungenteel. In vain did the officers of the law seem to exert

their utmostvigilance; if they drove the serpent out of one hole
it soon glided into another; never was the proverb--'Where

there's a will there's a way'--more strikingly fulfilled.
COFFEE-HOUSE SHARPERS.

Sir John Fielding thus describes the men in the year 1776. 'The
deceivers of this denomination are generally descended from

families of some repute, have had the groundwork of a genteel
education, and are capable of making a tolerable appearance.

Having been equally profuse of their own substance and character,
and learnt, by having been undone, the ways of undoing, they lie

in wait for those who have more wealth and less knowledge of the
town. By joining you in discourse, by admiring what you say, by

an officiousness to wait upon you, and to assist you in anything
you want to have or know, they insinuate themselves into the

company and acquaintance of strangers, whom they watch every
opportunity of fleecing. And if one finds in you the least

inclination to cards, dice, the billiard table, bowling-green, or
any other sort of Gaming, you are morally sure of being taken in.

For this set of gentry are adepts in all the arts of knavery and
tricking. If, therefore, you should observe a person, without

any previousacquaintance, paying you extraordinary marks of
civility; if he puts in for a share of your conversation with a

pretended air of deference; if he tenders his assistance, courts
your acquaintance, and would be suddenly thought your friend,

avoid him as a pest; for these are the usual baits by which the
unwary are caught.'[42]

[42] The Magistrate: Description of London and Westminster.
In 1792, Mr Br--gh--n, the son of a baronet, one day at a

billiard-table in St James's Street, won L7000 from a Mr B--, but
the latter, at the close of the day, recovered the loss, and won

L15,000 more. Payment was thus arranged--L5000 on the death of
the father of the former, and L10,000 secured by a reversionary

annuity, to commence on the father's decease, on the life of the
Duc de Pienne, between whom and B-- a previous gaming account

existed.
In 1794, Mr ---- was a billiard player of the first class,

ranking with Brenton, Phillips, Orrel, and Captain Wallis, who
were the leaders of the day in this noble game of skill, tact,

and discretion.[43] Having accidentally sported his abilities
with two other players, he was marked as a 'pigeon' whom every

preparation was made for 'plucking.' Captain Cates, of Covent
Garden celebrity, was pitted against him at the coffee-room

billiard-table, during Epsom races, to play 21 games, for two
guineas each game, and five guineas the odds. Mr ---- won 13

games to eight from his veteranopponent, who was invariably
backed by the leading sportingmen of the day, whilst the company

at large were casually the adherents of Mr ----.
[43] The game of Chess may be played in application of the

principles of Strategy; the game of Billiards in application of
Tactics; indeed, all man's favourite diversions and pastimes most