or purchase pleasure for eight people, as at croquêt, for a trifling sum. Add to this the fact that there is always the chance of a budding archer shooting somebody or himself; and remember the vast disparity between the expense and danger of the two games. One can then easily account for the increasing popularity of the one, and the corresponding decrease in popular favour of the other.

It is naturally with a feeling of pleasure that we watch the rapidlyspreading knowledge and appreciation of croquêt; but at the same time it is evident that at present the game seems to stand a chance of being destroyed by its innumerable devotees. When the game was rechristened croquêt, the toymaker, whose speculative genius induced him to make the game and print a short set of concise rules furnished to him, quietly introduced it as a nice out-door amusement. It therefore soon became known among aristocratic circles, and as it was a novelty, and served as a pastime, it was at once taken up. Rapidly it then spread, until the demand for it became great enough to induce the lawmaker to manufacture croquet sets sufficiently cheap to bring it within the reach of most classes; and now rose other lawgivers whose knowledge of the game induced them to trample upon the authorized laws, and make fresh rules to suit their own convenience. Towards the end of 1863, Captain Mayne Reid raised the standard of revolt, and published a most extraordinary manual of croquêt, containing 129 rules and 60 notes. The number of these rules, however, was not the chief obstacle. The fundamental propositions of the author on this subject were so entirely opposed, in the main, to the modest card of rules issued by the toymaker, that it became impossible for a follower of Mayne Reid to play with a follower of Jaques; and hence bickerings and disputes was the result, and the game began to be considered as somewhat difficult and not quite so nice as when one code only of rules existed.

In Captain Reid's manual he se

dulously abused the croquêt sets issued by Mr. Jaques, and recommended those made by another manufacturer, who, encouraged by the success of the game, had copied the implements as closely as he could without infringing the copyright law. This naturally had some effect upon the sale of the games; and therefore in the following spring Mr. Jaques deemed it advisable to issue a handbook, which not only differed from the captain's rules, but also contradicted those on the card previously issued by himself. About this time, too, Mr. Routledge, the publisher, considered that a croquet manual would be a popular addition to his series of sixpenny handbooks, and also issued a set of croquêt rules, which differed in many important points from both the other two. And now in the kingdom of croquêt anarchy reigned supreme. Not content with three different codes of laws, other writers published books of laws, and players invented sets of rules to suit their own peculiar cliques. Thus in lawn parties last summer it was almost impossible for strangers to play together; and so far did this independent system of croquêt regulation extend, that it may safely be said that in no two places was the game played in exactly the same manner. Cheating, it has always been allowed, is the prerogative of ladies who play croquêt; but now any person can defend any position in the game obtained unfairly by quoting some rule of the printed authorities. Not only, however, were the rules tampered with, but innovations on the implements became the order of the day. One nobleman had leather buffers placed at the heads of the mallet; another altered the shape of the hoops; another the colour of the balls; and another, thinking it derogatory to his dignity to be fettered with rules, had an entirely new set drawn up for his own especial use, and intrusted the literary task to a lady, who evidently had carried cheating in actual play to such an extent that she was compelled to adopt the same mode of proceeding in her book, for she copied the best part

of Captain Reid's eccentric handbook, and then produced her Treatise as the rules of the Earl of Essex. The professional author, however, soon instructed the amateur in the mysteries of the art of copyright, in return for which lessons the noble pupil paid the small sum of 100l., with a few trifling costs. We merely mention this circumstance to show in what a dangerous state the kingdom of croquêt is in at the present time. Nobody at present seems satisfied with any rules at all. If A likes one of Jaques's rules, he thinks that on other points Routledge's are better; and if B does approve of Mayne Reid's rendering of the croquêt itself, he thinks that in all other respects that author is wrong. In fact, it is generally admitted that, according to the present state of people's minds on the subject, none of the handbooks are of any use at all, and consequently none of the rules need be adopted by any one anywhere.

Were we to quote the many instances in which the writers of the handbooks differ, we should require even more space than the indulgent Editor of London Society is willing to accord to us. There is, however, one point on which so much difference of opinion has been aroused, and about which so much has been said, that we take this opportunity of endeavouring to render it intelligible to those of our readers who indulge in the pursuit of croquêt. The point we allude to is one which has derived its name from the title of the game itself; to wit, The Croquêt. This is the head and front of the offending of each author, and has, perhaps, caused more contention than any other feature of the game.

The croquêt is, as most know, supposed to be theoretically an accessory to the game, whereas, in reality, it is the fundamental basis. It is instituted to impede or assist the progress of the players; but in reality it is the progress itself, as nothing can be done without its assistance. We need not tell our readers under what circumstances a player is privileged to practise the croquêt. The backbone of the

discussions is how the croquêt is to be practised. We will see what the lawgivers say upon this subject. Mr. Jaques has

In

The croquêt is done as follows: The player lays his own ball against the other, so that it touches it. He then places his foot on his own ball, which he strikes with the mallet. This will drive the ball with any strength, and in any direction he pleases. In croquetting a ball away, a player will hold his foot firmly on his own ball. making a splitting, or following stroke, the foot is usually held lightly on one's own fall; but it is not obligatory to put the foot on at all. This is entirely at the option of the player. He is said "to take a stroke off" when he places his own ball to touch the croquetted ball very lightly, so as to leave it when croquetted in nearly the same position; but in doing this the croquetted ball must be perceptibly moved.'

Captain Reid writes:

A ball having made roquet on another, is taken up and placed in contact with the ball in which it has roqued. The player sets foot on the former, presses firmly so as to hold it in place, and with a blow of the mallet drives the roqued ball in whatever direction may be desired. A ball having made roquet. is taken up, placed contiguous to the roqued ball, and without being held under the foot, is struck by the mallet, and driver, as also the roqued ball, in the direction desired.'

In reading the opinions of the two authors just quoted, one cannot avoid the reflection that their directions would have produced a better effect if they had been somewhat briefer and not quite so discursive. The third lawgiver, Mr. Edmund Routledge, cannot be accused of either of these faults in the following rule:

In croquing the ball, the player must keep his foot firmly upon his own ball, and if the stroke move it, the ball must afterwards be brought back to the position it occupied before it was struck.'

From these quotations it will be

seen that the first two writers are in favour of what is technically known as the loose or slipping croquêt, and that Mr. Routledge pins his faith upon the tight croquêt. Before our readers pass too severe an opinion upon the merits of this discussion-for it is the rules about the croquêt that have caused almost all the confusion that exists in the croquêt world-it is but fair to state that the rules originally issued by Mr. Jaques were in favour of the tight croquêt, and that on no account was the ball of the croqueur to be moved when he performed the croquêt. Captain Reid, the cause of the anarchy in the kingdom of croquêt, was the first to suggest the new mode of playing, which was half assented to by Mr. Jaques in his book at the request of some croquêt players. Since, however, the only way to render this game popular is to preserve its simplicity, and as the loose croquêt is the cause of endless complications and consequent disturbances, we cannot but agree with the plain dictum enforced by Mr. Routledge, which experience has proved to be the most practicable. We have merely quoted these different readings of one rule to show how entirely the opinions of the lawgivers differ on this subject, and consequently how impracticable a good game__ of croquêt is at the present time. Few of our readers who enjoy the pastime think in what a dangerous state their favourite now is, and how soon it may be in a moribund condition. If croquêt is to remain popular, vigorous steps must be taken at once to restore it to its pristine health and vigour.

To

this end we would suggest that some ardent croquêt player, who has plenty of spare time, should endeavour to raise a croquêt parliament, in which the writers on

croquêt, as well as the chief players from all parts of England, should have seats. The rules should be reconsidered, and their merits, as they now stand, firmly discussed. Each member must be at liberty to express his opinion, and the majority should decide the laws upon this subject. These rules could then be published, and if the matter were carried out properly the croquét parliament would occupy the same position in its own kingdom as the Marylebone Club does in the cricket world. Mr. Routledge has already stated in the 'Field' that he will publish in his handbook the laws of such a committee, and it is evident that Mr. Jaques will be glad enough to follow the same example. Then, with only one set of organized laws, the influence of croquêt would spread and find increasing popularity every day, until it would occupy the same hold on the affections of ladies as cricket now does on the minds of gentlemen. The consequent increased familiarity between men and women, while it invigorated the latter, would refine the former, and would enable the sterner sex to appreciate better the helpmates that are bestowed upon them. Croquêt clubs would soon spring up, and croquêt grounds would be as well tended and cared for as cricket grounds are, and from the palace to the cottage, all would participate in the game, and note its innumerable charms and scientific attractions. To produce this consummation, however, an active and willing croquêt player must at once come forward, cleanse these Augean stables, and restore to health and vigour that amiable young lady, Miss Croquêt, who is pining and wasting away before the oppressive attentions and frequent interference of her numerous physicians.

CHAPTER III.

Justice

was not an

MR. over-pleasant judge before

whom to appear, though he had deservedly the reputation of being a just man and a sound lawyer. Nature had given him a harsh rough voice, and education had cast his manners after the same model as that of Nature's gift. He had studied long and well; and though he owed his elevation to the Bench to the influence of powerful friends, rather than to his own brilliancy as a barrister, the Chancellor's vote had fallen upon a man thoroughly well qualified to discharge the duties of his station, at least so far as the technical and strictly professional part of it was concerned. As regarded that courtesy and good-breeding which are so essential to the well-being of the Judge with the Bar, and therefore to

VOL. VIII.-NO. XLIII.

had

the proper discharge of the duties of the Bench, Mr. Justice none of them. He was ever coming foul of some one or other of his compeers, and daily with those among whom he had lately ranked. These put it down to conceit and arrogance, those to superciliousness and overweening trust in the man's own powers. The former were wrong, and the latter only partly right. It was ill-breeding tricking up Nature's unkindness, which made Mr. Justice so uncomfortable

a person to deal with. He did not intentionally lord it over his late brethren; and though he certainly did rely very strongly upon his own spect which made him differ widely opinion, it was not designed disre

from his brothers of the Bench. He justified the travestie of Dryden's famous line on Shaftesbury:.

The statesman we abhor, but praise the judge." F

which was rendered by Mr. Sansbrief,

The Scotchman we abhor, but praise the judge.'

But perhaps, after all, the rhyme on Dr. Fell, which stated that the doctor was not loved, the reason why the rhymer could not tell, was still more applicable to the case of Mr. Justice

and the members of the Bar. The Bar did not love Mr. Justice

Το

-; and they could not say precisely why they did not, only they knew, as in the case of Dr. Fell's foes, that they did not love him. I do not know that he loved them, but then he had a reason why in the fact that they disliked him. say truth, little love was lost between them, and a necessary consequence of this was, that disputes and sharp sayings, more or less irritating, were frequently passing between judge and counsel. Mr. Justice was, as has been hinted, a Scotchman. He' possessed' the Scotch language, as the French say, or rather the Scotch language possessed him, and ever and anon, when he waxed angry, it manifested itself by a broad and unmistakeable brogue. He was a fine man, with an interminable forebead, looked every inch a judge, but spoke and acted like a very disagreeable man. He knew he was disliked, and though, as I believe, he strove with himself against the temptation to resent the dislike by a tu quoque course, sometimes he failed in the attempt, or lost his temper in trying. Oftener than not he carried the war into the enemy's country; but I remember an occasion when, being put out by one of his brother judges who interested himself to save a youthful counsel from Mr. Justice -'s judicial cross-examination, that Mr. Justice

lost

his temper, and foolishly said, 'That though his learned brother might love the counsel much, it was evident he hated him (Mr. Justice a great deal more.'

that

It was before Mr. Justice the great case of Tittle v. Tattle was appointed to be heard, by order of the full Court after motion made to it for a new trial. The action was an action for a libel published by

the defendant against the plaintiff. At the former trial the judge had ruled that certain evidence tendered was not admissible; he had not sufficiently explained to the jury the nature of their duties, 'and in consequence the jury had found that the damage suffered by the plaintiff might be estimated at the scandalously and ridiculously low rate of one farthing sterling. The Court had granted a new trial, not on account of the smallness of the damages, but because of the nonreception of the evidence offered, and the failure of his lordship to tell the jury what they had to do. Those who knew said that the damages were assessed too highly as it was. Neighbours of Messrs. Tittle and Tattle were of opinion that the libel of the latter against the former could not possibly have the effect of lowering Mr. Tittle in their estimation, for the simple reason that Mr. Tittle had never occupied any place therein, any more than it could possibly raise Mr. Tattle in their estimation, for the like reason. Arcades ambo, 'both are cads,' was the sentence of Drearyton on them. Mr. Tittle would not make much by the motion he had gained, Mr. Tattle would not be cleansed from original caddishness by the verdict of a jury in his favour, nor laden with any extra obloquy by reason of a verdict against him. Mr. Tittle, 'whose only object in bringing the action was to clear his character and his fame, which were dear to him'-so said his counsel at the first trial-pursued the second suit purely on principle; he despised the pelf, he scorned the imputation of seeking damages, his single motive in moving for a new trial was to Vindicate justice, set at naught by her professor; that-nothing more influenced Mr. Tittle. He had been 'advised and credibly informed' that he had a right to a new trial, and his right, for principle's sake, he determined to pursue. The lawyers could not possibly have any objection, they alone would gain by the exercise of Mr. Tittle's right; they had, at his request, gained permission for him to have right done, and they were now assembled be