66

this exception. What is to be understood by the expression very much?" How are we to provide for the case when the fault is on both sides? And in what acceptation are we to take "from any other cause?"

The strongest and most serious objections are as nothing when weighed in the scale against necessity. The removal of the Article will create a deficiency in the rules; if the expression be struck out, it will be the cause of endless discussions; if we were to specify every sort of mutual fault, we should fill volumes.

Art. 127. This is merely a corollary to the preceding Article. In the last, we pronounced a penalty upon extraneous or reciprocal faults, by declaring the necessity of a new deal; here we apply the same penalty to special faults, and fix the punishment upon the guilty party.

Art. 128.-If a player should have forgotten to declare honours till after the trump-card is turned, the honours cannot be marked. Suppose, however, that, in consequence of some fault, the deal be lost, or a fresh deal be necessary:

In this case he might assume that, as the round was annulled, he had a right to resume all his privileges of the preceding round.

In the case of a new deal, no objection could be raised to his pretensions, for a round which is annulled, can be productive of no effects.

But, in the case of a lost deal, it might be maintained that the round was not altogether without effect, since it produced a gain to one party, and a loss to the other.

Under these circumstances, the legislator considered himself authorised to decide the two cases differently, though, at the same time, he found it convenient to combine them in one article, and under the same law. The only effect produced by this arrangement, is a slight increase in the value of the Lonours. This rule, which regards honours, may be applied by analogy to other cases.

Art. 129.-On the principle of mutual responsibility, when a player has played or put down his card, the round is, to all intents, led off, as far as it may affect his own or his partner's rights.

A round is finished in the same way as the game (see Article 130).

To play to a trick, is to put down your card on those which have been played before your turn.

Art. 130.-If one party assert that they have won the game, and if their adversaries, without any dispute, assent to the assertion, the game is finished. The circumstance of the cards being again put together is no additional proof of the fact.

Art. 131-It is contrary to the rules, not to follow suit when you are able to do so. Thus, to put a heart upon a spade, when you have a spade in your hand, is an infringement of the law.

To deal, or to play out of turn, are also illegal acts; but they are not such serious offences against the law, because they produce no evil consequences, and do not act to the prejudice of either party. Indeed, though they interrupt, they do not perplex the game. If they escape the notice of the players, or if they be remarked, and suffer the consequent penalty, it is too late to rectify them, and the game must proceed.

SECTION XI.-THE BYSTANDERS*.

Art. 132.-If a dispute arise between two players, one positively affirming that an error has been committed, and the other as positively denying the fact; it is evident, that, in such a case, all continued discussion would be useless.

Under these circumstances, the dispute must be settled by arbitration or by lot. The umpires are the bystanders, or witnesses. They are the best judges of the fact, as they have seen it, and, consequently, there is no appeal from their decision. Every man of sense will think himself too fortunate to have such a tribunal to refer to; even if unjustly condemned, he will submit without murmuring; for where shall we look for him who has never discovered, after an argument, that he has been all the while in error, though he was positive, at the time, of being in the right?

The drawing by lot is a concession on both sides. Each party gives up the half of his rights; a proceeding which it is necessary to adopt in the absence of witnesses. By this concession, the interests of neither side are injured, consequently there can be no oppression exercised.

* This section has been greatly reduced; the author has indulged in details far too diffuse for a work of general reference.-ED.

Art. 133.-Whenever a player thinks that he perceives, in the course of the game, an act unauthorised by the law, he has a right to remark upon it, and consequently to refer to the bystanders for their opinion.

The bystanders are not allowed to express their opinion, except at the express request of the players. The only exception to this remark is the case of Article 135.

Art. 134. We have already declared that, with regard to the fact, the decision of the bystanders is paramount. They have the power of maintaining, specifying, and determining the fact; but players are privileged to refuse to submit to their opinion, though this is an extreme case, which we would advise all persons to avoid, because the power vested in the bystanders is of great advantage to players, even though they be not always very competent, or very impartial judges.

The following rules will serve as a supplement to, or correction of, the law as it now stands.

Firstly,-If an unforeseen case should occur in any whist club, it shall be submitted to the decision of players of acknowledged skill, and be made the subject of deliberate consideration.

Secondly,-It shall be reduced to writing, and posted for public inspection.

Thirdly, It shall be communicated to all neighbouring clubs.

Fourthly, It shall be submitted to foreign clubs in those countries where the game of Whist is well played.

Fifthly, and Lastly.--The decision shall be delivered to the club where the dispute originated, and be held binding.

Art. 135.-Customs which are purely the result of habit, should not be allowed to offer any obstacle to discussion: their foundations have been lorg since sapped by the gradual improvement of the game, and the day is at length arrived when they must give way to rational institutions. Article 135

creates a revolution in the former usages of the game, and restores to the bystanders the rights of which a long and inveterate habit had deprived them; it re-establishes equity in decisions, it animates the progress of the game, and raises those, who were before considered a hindrance, into powerful protectors of the player's interests.

Art. 139 -No engagement can be more binding than a

mutual contract: when a benefit is conferred, every one should acknowledge the obligation, and take the first opportunity of making a return. Thus the privileges with which we have invested the bystanders authorise us to impose upon them certain restrictions. These are laid down in Article 139.

Here we breathe from our labours. We have, at length, arrived at a point we have long wished to reach. We confess that this accumulation of articles has been very trying to our patience; indeed, we scarcely think we should have undertaken the work, had we been aware of the necessity of so many explanations. To show, however, how far we are influenced by a conscientious feeling, we shall not shrink from the task, but shall conclude with some general remarks, which are necessary to the completion of the work, and which our readers have a natural right to expect.

The study of games resembles that of languages; they both employ the more prominent faculties of the mind, memory, reflection, &c. In infancy, this occupation tends to the development of the mental powers, and the progress of reason; but in after-life, it interrupts the growth of ideas; thus it becomes a pleasing and useful study for young people, but disagreeable and unintellectual for those of a more advanced age.

The saying of a celebrated diplomatist is well known: "Vous ne savez pas le whiste, jeune homme? quelle triste vieillesse vous vous préparez!"

PART THE FOURTH.

WHIST BY THE EDITOR.

ACCORDING TO THE BEST MODERN AUTHORITIES.

IT has been said by one of our most popular poets that "Troy owes to Homer what Whist owes to Hoyle."

The magician of the Iliad, whose individual existence and identity are questions upon which the learned are at issue, from vague and vagrant traditions moulded the most entire and perfect epic that poetry has produced. So did Hoyle, from elements as indefinite and dispersed, model the most complete and peerless game that is played with cards: the most elaborate and finished of all the essays of science, skill, and memory, whereof they are the instruments. This talent for distinguishing and turning to account the beautiful and rare stands in the same relation to the embellishments of life as knowledge and energy to its more important offices. The sage discover and the diligent apply the mines of wisdom and wealth, which are the moral and material inheritance of civilization; the imaginative and the speculative weave their fancies and their schemes from the rich legacies of the ideal and the subtle contrivances of art.

The origin of playing cards is as unsettled, as it is obscure. There are several volumes on the subject extant, but they leave this vexed question where they found it. One antiquarian ascribes it to Arabia, another to Persia, a third to China. Were I writing a history, I should make bold to borrow from them, but I am not. The purpose of this treatise is to trace the game of whist from its seedtime to the ripe harvest of its present maturity. Any attempt to find out by whom the germ was first planted or whence it was derived, would be as difficult, if not as impossible, as to search out the source of its machinery. Whether descended from "Ruff and Honours,” from "Slam," or from "Whist and Swabbers," is an inquiry that may conveniently be bequeathed to posterity. We made