in good society; probably he was one of the taken from the thirteenth edition, is a facparty that met at the Crown. It appears that he had studied whist for many years: and he saw, not only that it had great capabilities, but that it was much debased by the use made of it by sharpers for cheating inexperienced players out of their money. He believed that it was in his power to guard the public against these unprincipled practices, as well as to excite a more legitimate interest in the game, by spreading a better knowledge of the principles on which it should be played; and to attain these objects he resolved to teach it professionally. His spirited attempt excited much attention, as we find several notices of it on record. In the 'Rambler' of May 8, 1750, a lady writes: 'As for play, I do think I may, indeed, indulge in that, now I am my own mistress. Papa made me drudge at whist till I was tired of it; and, far from wanting a head, Mr. Hoyle, when he had not given me above forty lessons, said I was one of his best scholars.' In the 'Gentleman's Magazine' of February, 1755, a writer professing to give the autobiography of a fashionable physician, says: 'Hoyle tutored me in several games at cards, and under the name of guarding me from being cheated insensibly gave me a taste for sharping.' In the course of this instruction he sold to his pupils a set of notes which he had drawn up, containing rules and directions for their guidance. These were in manuscript, and he charged a guinea for each copy. The novelty and great value of the rules were soon discovered, and surreptitious copies began to get into circulation, when Mr. Hoyle, to secure his copyright, had them published, and thus originated the work which stands first on the list at the head of this article. At this time the final changes had been made by increasing the score to ten, and by using the whole pack, thus giving thirteen cards to each player. This latter improvement introduced the odd trick, an element of such great interest in the present game. Whether it was Hoyle, or some one previously, who made these changes, is not clear; but at any rate the game, as he presents it, is precisely the form of long whist ever since played. His book had a great and rapid success; it went through several editions in one year, and it seems to have been again pirated, as the author found it necessary to certify every genuine copy by attaching his autograph signature, of which the following, simile. tomond Hoyle In the fifteenth edition the signature was, for the first time, impressed from a woodblock, and in the seventeenth it was announced that Mr. Hoyle was dead.' The great man departed this life, full of years and of honours, on the 29th of August, 1769. Byron's oft-quoted parallel— 'Troy owes to Homer what whist owes to Hoyle,' hardly does justice to our author, for he was far more than the historian of whist; he may, essentially, be considered its founder. The effect of Hoyle's promulgation of the game in its improved form was very prompt, as we learn from a witty and amusing brochure that appeared in the same year, 1743, called The Humours of Whist, a dramatic Satire, as acted every day at White's and other coffee-houses and assemblies.' It is a short comedy, the principal characters being Professor Whiston (Hoyle), who gives lessons in the game; Sir Calculation Puzzle, an enthusiastic player, who muddles his head with Hoyle's calculations and always loses; pupils, sharpers, and their dupes. The object is chiefly to ridicule the pretensions of Hoyle and the enthusiasm of his fol lowers, and to show that skill and calculation are of no avail against bad luck or premeditated fraud. The work was reprinted ten years later, but it is scarce, and we may give a few extracts that throw light on the circumstances attending the first introduction of the new rules of the game. Hoyle had given out that he had spent forty years in its study, and the prologue says 'Who will believe that man could e'er exist, 'That certainly was the most out-of-the-way game, when he must infallibly have lost it, the bite ever was heard of. Upon the pinch of the dog ate the losing card, by which means we dealt again, and faith he won the game.' Again, in reference to Hoyle's calculations | polite games used east of Temple Bar. of chances: Whist was included in the latter category up to the seventh edition; but in the next, dated 1754, it was transferred to the court division. In 1758 it had become a fit recreation for University dons, as in No. 33 of the Idler,' the senior fellow of a college at Cambridge represents himself and his party as sitting late at whist in the evening.' When whist became fashionable, it was We were nine all. The adversary had three and we four tricks. All the trumps were out. I had queen and two small clubs, with the lead. Let me see: it was about 222 and 3 halves to 'gad, I forgot how many-that my partner had the ace and king; ay, that he had not both of them, 17 to 2; and that he had not one, or both, or neither, some 25 to 32. So I, according to the judgment of the game, led a club; my part-naturally taken up by polite literature, dry ner takes it with the king. Then it was exactly 481 for us to 222 for them. He returns the same suit, I win it with my queen, and return it again; but the devil take that Lurchum, by passing his ace twice, he took the trick, and, having two more clubs and a thirteenth card, egad, all was over.' The praise of Hoyle's book by its porters is unbounded. They say : 6 rules and laws being made subservient to poetry and imagination. We have already seen how it had been dramatised; it was now to be raised to a higher grade in Parnassus, by becoming the subject of an Epic. In 1791 appeared Whist, a Poem, in 12 Cantos,' by Alexander Thomson, Esq. The sup-book went through two editions, and made great pretensions to learning, by quotations from or references to authors in almost every language, from French to Persian, and of almost every age, from the Patriarchs to the eighteenth century; but the poetry was feeble, the history incorrect, and the whist not over sound. One quotation, of the concluding lines, will suffice : 'There never was so excellent a book printed. I'm quite in raptures with it; I will eat with it, sleep with it, go to Parliament with it, go to Church with it. I pronounce it the gospel of whist-players. I want words to express the author, and can look on him in no other light than as a second Newton. I have joined twelve companies in the Mall, and eleven of them were talking of it. It's the subject of all conversation, and has had the honour to be introduced into the Cabinet.' 'Nor do I yet despair to see the day When hostile armies ranged in neat array, Instead of fighting, shall engage in play; The wits, however, did not neglect to poke And Christian blood be spilt on neither side. When peaceful whist the quarrel shall decide, fun at the Professor: Beau. Ha! ha! ha! I shall dye! Yonder is Lord Finess and Sir George Tenace, two firstrate players; they have been most lavishly beat by a couple of 'prentices. Ha! ha! ha! They came slap four by honours upon them almost every deal. Lord Rally. I find, Professor, your book do's not teach how to beat four by honours. Ha ha! ha! Professor [aside]. Curse them! I'd rather have given a thousand pounds than this should have happen'd. It strikes at the reputation of my Treatise. Lord Rally. In my opinion there is still something wanting to compleat the system of whist: and that is A Dissertation on the Lucky Chair. [Company laugh.] ་ Professor. Ha! ha! ha! your Lordship's hint is excellent. I'm obliged to you for it.' Whist advanced rapidly in public favour, and evidence is on, record of the time when it was received at court and formally acknowledged as one of the royal amusements. In 1720 a little book, called the Court Gamester,' was, as its title-page informs us, written for the use of the young princesses,' the daughters of the Prince of Wales, afterwards George II. It was frequently reprinted, and in later editions a second part was added, called the City Gamester,' containing less Then pleas no more should wait the tardy laws, (Tho' some will say that this is nothing new, One of the chief seats of whist playing' during the eighteenth century was the city of Bath, where Nash and other celebrities had much encouraged card-games generally. About 1800, a little book appeared there, entitled Advice to the Young Whist Player," by Thomas Matthews, Esq. This was a sound and useful work, containing many improvements, resulting from the experience of half a century, and it is, even now, worthy of attentive study. About the same date an important change took place, namely, the introduction of Short Whist,' by altering the winning score from ten to five, and abolishing the call' for honours when wanting two of game. The change is said to have originated in an accident: Lord Peterborough having one night lost a large sum of money, the friends with whom he was playing proposed to give him the revanche at five points instead of ten, in order to afford him a quicker chance. of recovering his loss. The new plan was found so lively that it soon became popular, and has long since superseded long whist in the best circles. The reason of the preference is not difficult to discover. All good players must have found out how the interest increased towards the close of the long game, when the parties were pretty even, and when it became necessary to pay stricter attention to the score, in order to regulate the play. Now to cause this state of things to recur more frequently, it would be sufficient to play, as it were, the latter half of the game without the former, i.e., to commence with both parties at the score of five; for this is the true sense of the alteration. This mode of viewing it accounts for no change being made in the value of the honours. Some authorities think the scoring for these should have been halved, and, no doubt, this would have given more effect to skill in play; but such a change would have rendered the game less generally interesting. It must never be forgotten that the element of chance is one of the attractive features of whist, to good players as well as to mediocre ones, and to tamper with the present arrangement would probably endanger the popularity of the game. Whist was known in France at an early period by translations of Hoyle. It was played by Louis XV., and under the Empire was a favourite game of Josephine and Marie Louise. After the Restoration it was taken up more enthusiastically. The nobles,' says a French writer, had gone to England to learn to think, and they brought back the thinking game with them.' Talleyrand was the great player of the day, and his mot'You do not know whist, young man? What a sad old age you are preparing for yourself is a standing quotation in all whist books. Charles X. was playing whist at St. Cloud on the 29th July, 1830, when the tricolour was waving on the Tuileries, and he had lost his throne. His successor, Louis Philippe, when similarly engaged, had to submit to an elegant insolence. He had dropped a louis, and stopped the game to look for it, when a foreign ambassador, one of the party, set fire to a billet of 1000 francs to give light to the King under the table. In 1839 appeared a Traité du Whiste,' by M. Deschapelles, whom Mr. Clay calls the finest whist player, beyond any comparison, the world has ever seen. Much was to be expected from such a quarter, but the publication was but a fragment of a larger work that never appeared. The author treats of whist in a manner highly spirituel. He reasons on immensity and eternity, on metaphysical necessity and trial by jury; he in vokes the sun of Joshua and the star of the Magi; he investigates the electric affinities of the players, and illustrates a hand by analytical geometry. He died some fifteen or twenty years ago. The latest stage in the history of whist comprises the more modern determination and consolidation of its scientific constitution, both theoretical and practical, as exhibited in the three works conjoined with that of Hoyle in the heading to the present article. This important step was brought about by a circumstance somewhat similar to that which gave rise to the first development of the game by Hoyle, a century and a quarter before. Between 1850 and 1860, a knot of young men at Cambridge, of considerable ability, who had at first taken up whist for amusement, found it offer such a field for intellectual study, that they continued its practice more systematically, with a view to its complete scientific investigation. Since the general adoption of short whist, the constant practice of adepts had led to the introduc tion of many improvements in detail, but nothing had been done to reduce the modern play into a systematic form, or to lay it clearly before the public; its secrets, so far as they differed from the precepts of Hoyle and Matthews, were confined to small coteries of club players. The little whist school held together afterwards in London, and added to its numbers; and in 1862 one of its members brought out the work published under the name of 'Cavendish,' the principal object of which was to illustrate the modern play by a set of model games, after the manner of those so much used at chess. Two years afterwards appeared the Essay of Mr. Clay, and a little later that of Dr. Pole. Each of these publications is distinct in its object. The work of Dr. Pole expounds the fundamental theory on which the modern game is based; that of Cavendish gives detailed rules for, and examples of, its application in practice; and that of Mr. Clay is an able dissertation on the more refined points of the best modern play, by the best modern player. Taken together, these books (which ought to be combined in one volume) furnish a complete epitome of the game, presenting it both theoretically and practically in the perfect state at which it has now arrived, by continued study and practice during the two centuries that have elapsed since it first assumed a definite shape and took its present name. We may now endeavour to give a general idea of what the game is in its most improved form. 1871. The great feature of modern whist is the more perfect cultivation than formerly of the relations existing between the two players who are in partnership with each other. As these players have a community of interests, it is evidently desirable that they should act in conjunction. If the two hands could be put together and played as one, great advantage would clearly result; for not only would the strong points of each still preserve their full value, but special benefits would arise from the combination; just as the junction and co-operation of two divisions of an army would give more powerful results than could be obtained by their divided action. The modern play aims at carrying out this principle to the farthest extent possible. It forbids the player to consider his own hand apart from that of his partner, commanding him to treat both in strict union, and to make every step conducive to the joint interest of the pair. Simple and obvious as this principle appears, it is only very lately, after a century and a quarter of tentative approximations, that it has become fully recognised. The fact of the community of interests was, of course, always patent, but many of the earlier rules were either antagonistic to, or at least imperfectly fitted for, efficient combined play; and the tendency of the latest improvements has been either to abolish or to modify these, so as to make the combination of the hands the ruling principle, the great basis from which the whole play springs. Now, in order that this combination may be properly effected, it is requisite that each partner should adopt the same general system of treating his hand; for there are several different modes of trick-making, according to either of which a player may regulate the general design of his play. These are fully investigated by Dr. Pole, and the discussion forms one of the best parts of his essay. He shows clearly that the only system which adapts itself favourably to the combination of the hands, is that of endeavouring to make tricks, by establishing' and bringing in' a long suit. Suppose, for example, you hold six spades; after a few leads of the suit you will probably be left with the full command of it, and every card, however small, will then make a trick, if led, and not trumped by the adversary. So essential is the adoption of this system to the interests of the combined hands, that Dr. Pole incorporates it in what he terms the fundamental theory of the modern which isscientific game, And 'That the hands of the two partners shall not be played singly and independently, but shall be combined and treated as one. that in order to carry out most effectually this principle of combination, 'each partner shall adopt the long-suit system as the general basis of his play.' It is easy to trace how all the more important rules of modern play arise out of this theory. Take, for instance, the management of trumps, which is a great stumblingIt is obvious block to ill-educated players. that the chief obstacle to making long suits is their being ruffed, and that the advantage will be with that party who, having predominant numerical strength in trumps, can succeed in drawing those of the adversaries. Five trumps are generally sufficient for this purpose; and hence the rule, that if you hold this number, or more, you should lead them. Three or four leads will generally disarm both opponents, and you will still have one or more left to bring in your own or your partner's long suit, and to stop those of the enemy. So important is the trump-lead under these circumstances, that, in the modern game, a conventional signal, or call for trumps, has been introduced, by which, if the holder of a strong trump-hand cannot get the lead early, he may intimate his strength to his partner, and so call on him to lead them as soon as he can. We shall have occasion to speak of this more fully hereafter. The oldfashioned objection to lead up to an honour,' as well as the direction to lead through an honour,' both vanish under the modern system. Either is right, if you are strong in trumps; neither, if otherwise. It is imperative that your trump-lead be returned by your partner the first opportunity. Hesitation in this is inexcusable, as endangering the great benefit your strength would confer on the combined hands. If you hold only four trumps, much discretion is required as to leading them; and with three or less, which is numerical weakness, a trump-lead at the commencement of the hand is seldom justifiable. The proper application of trumps, when weak, is to use them for ruffing, if they escape being drawn by the adversary. Several minor rules in regard to trumps. are deducible from the same principles. The greatest mischief you can do to a strong trump-hand is to force it to ruff, thus depriving it of its preponderating strength. Hence you must carefully avoid forcing your partner, if you know him to be strong, or if, being weak yourself, you he reason to suspect may be so. But, on the have The modern theory further defines the duty of your partner in helping you in regard to your long suit. After showing you his own, it is his duty to return yours; but much depends on what card he plays. In the first place, he must get rid of the command by playing out the master cards, if he holds them; for it is essential that you retain the superiority in your own hand. Then, secondly, he must adopt what is called strengthening play, by sacrificing his high cards in the suit to strengthen you. Suppose, for example, he had originally ace, knave, and four, and has won your first lead with the ace, he must return the knave, and not the four. The effect of this is to raise the rank of any lower cards you hold in the suit, and to aid in getting higher ones out of the way, so as to hasten your obtaining the complete command. other hand, force a strong adverse trump-termined by special rules, which, will be hand whenever you can. Again, if you are found in the books. second player to a trick which it is possible your partner may win, and have none of the suit yourself (a position always puzzling to ill-taught players,) the principles tell you to ruff fearlessly, if weak in trumps, but to pass the trick, if strong. In the former case your trumps are useless; in the latter they are too valuable to risk losing unnecessarily. In the management of plain suits, the theory furnishes ample guidance. It bears materially on the first lead, which, though the most important step a player has to take, has generally to be taken in the dark. This lead must therefore be guided by careful considerations, and it should have two objects in view; in the first place it should be a lead which, even in ignorance of the partner's cards, may be reasonably expected to benefit the combined hands, and not to favour the adversaries; and, secondly, it should serve to give the most direct and useful information to the partner as to the cards held by the leader. The lead from the long suit fulfils all these conditions; for even though the player may not succeed in ultimately bringing the suit in, the lead will be the safest he can made, and it will permit of his realizing any other possible advantages from the cards in his hand. The question, which card of your long suit you should first lead, is answered by considerations founded on careful reasoning and long experience. As a general principle, it is expedient to begin with the lowest, which gives your partner the chance of making the first trick, and enables you to keep the complete command at a later period. But when you hold several high cards, this principle is subject to modification by the chance of the suit being trumped, and by some other contingencies, and therefore certain definite leads have been determined for particular combinations, of which the following are the most use The modern system is chiefly useful in directing the lead, which is the active and aggressive part a player has to perform; but it is not without influence also on the more passive operations of the other hands, inasmuch as it prescribes greater care and strictness in what were thought, under the old system, unimportant things. The second player, for example, in the old game, would often feel at liberty to put on a high card to a small one led; but by the new doctrine he is bound, except in well-defined and recognised cases, to play his lowest, or he may give his lynx-eyed partner false information, and so ruin their joint plans. The third hand now is forbidden to do what he might often legitimately have done before, namely, to finesse (except with ace and queen) to his partner's original lead, as the high cards are wanted out of the way. Even the fourth player, easy as his part is, may do vast mischief if he is careless with his sequences or small cards. Another application of the theory is in discarding, which should, if possible, be done from short or weak suits, not from long ones. The cards of the former are of little use; those of the latter may be very valuable, even to the smallest you have. We have made several allusions to the communication of information between the partners, as to the contents of each other's hands. It is clear that if the hands are to be combined and played as one, such information must be ample and perfect, and the provisions for this are peculiarly characteristic of the modern game. It is prescribed that the whole play shall be so regulated as to convey the greatest possible amount of intelligence, and thus to aid, to the utmost, |