This event occurred when Crockford was in his forties, comfortable with a large family, and it is said that the fear of going to prison sent him to bed for several weeks even after the the danger was over.

Steinmetz, in The Gambling Table provided a brief outline of the history of gambling laws in England:

In England some of the forms of gambling or gaming have been absolutely forbidden under heavy penalties, whilst others have been tolerated, but at the same time discouraged; and the reasons for the prohibition were not always directed against the impropriety or iniquity of the practice in itself; -- thus it was alleged in an Act passed in 1541, that for the sake of the games the people neglected to practise archery, through which England had become great -- `to the terrible dread and fear of all strange nations.'

The first of the strictly-called Gaming Acts is one of Charles II.'s reign, which was intended to check the habit of gambling so prevalent then, as before stated. By this Act it was ordered that, if any one shall play at any pastime or game, by gaming or betting with those who game, and shall lose more than one hundred pounds on credit, he shall not be bound to pay, and any contract to do so shall be void. In consequence of this Act losers of a less amount -- whether less wealthy or less profligate -- and the whole of the poorer classes, remained unprotected from the cheating of sharpers, for it must be presumed that nobody has a right to refuse to pay a fair gambling debt, since he would evidently be glad to receive his winnings. No doubt much misery followed through the contrivances of sharpers; still it was a salutary warning to gamesters of the poorer classes -- whilst in the higher ranks the `honour' of play was equally stringent, and, I may add, in many cases ruinous. By the recital of the Act it is evident that the object was to check and put down gaming as a business profession, `to gain a living;' and therefore it specially mulcted the class out of which `adventurers' in this line usually arise.

The Act of Queen Anne, by its sweeping character, shows that gaming had become very virulent, for by it not only were all securities for money lost at gaming void, but money actually paid, if more than £10, might be recovered in an action at law; not only might this be done, within three months, by the loser himself, but by any one else -- together with treble the value -- half for himself, and half for the poor of the parish. Persons winning, by fraudulent means, £10 and upwards at any game were condemned by this Act to pay five times the amount or value of the thing won, and, moreover, they were to `be deemed infamous, and suffer such corporal punishment as in cases of wilful perjury.' The Act went further: -- if persons were suspected of getting their living by gaming, they might be summoned before a magistrate, required to show that the greater portion of their income did not depend upon gaming, and to find sureties for their good behaviour during twelve months, or be committed to gaol.

There were, besides, two curious provisions; -- any one assaulting or challenging another to a duel on account of disputes over gaming, should forfeit all his goods and be imprisoned for two years; secondly, the royal palaces of St James's and Whitehall were exempted from the operation of this statute, so long as the sovereign was actually resident within them -- which last clause probably showed that the entire Draconian enactment was but a farce. It is quite certain that it was inoperative, and that it did no more than express the conscience of the legislature -- in deference to *principle, `which nobody could deny.'

After the lapse of many years -- the evil being on the increase -- the legislature stirred again during the reign of George II., and passed several Acts against gaming. The games of Faro, Basset, Hazard, &c., in fact, all games with dice, were proscribed under a penalty of £200 against the provider of the game, and £50 a time for the players. Roulette or Roly Poly, termed in the Act `a certain pernicious game,' was interdicted, under the penalty of five times the value of the thing or sum lost at it.

Thus stood the statute law against gaming down to the year 1845, when, in consequence of the report of the select committee which sat on the subject, a new enactment was promulgated, which is in force at the present time. -Steinmetz, The Gaming Table