England and Napoleon (1801-1815). Various

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of Contents

      There are many games played with the ball that require the assistance of a club or bat, and probably the most ancient among them is the pastime now distinguished by the name of golf. In the northern parts of the kingdom golf is much practised. It requires much room to perform this game with propriety, and therefore I presume it is rarely seen at present in the vicinity of the metropolis. It answers to a rustic pastime of the Romans which they played with a ball of leather stuffed with feathers, called paganica, because it was used by the common people: the golf-ball is composed of the same materials to this day; I have been told it is sometimes, though rarely, stuffed with cotton. In the reign of Edward III. the Latin name cambuca was applied to this pastime, and it derived the denomination, no doubt, from the crooked club or bat with which it was played; the bat was also called a bandy, from its being bent. Golf, according to the present modification of the game, is performed with a bat, not much unlike the bandy: the handle of this instrument is straight, and usually made of ash, about four feet and a half in length: the curvature is affixed to the bottom, faced with horn and backed with lead; the ball is a little one, but exceedingly hard; being made with leather, and, as before observed, stuffed with feathers. There are generally two players, who have each of them his bat and ball. The game consists in driving the ball into certain holes made in the ground; he who achieves it the soonest, or in the fewest number of strokes, obtains the victory.

      Football is so called because the ball is driven about with the feet instead of the hands. It was formerly much in vogue among the common people of England, though of late years it seems to have fallen into disrepute, and is but little practised. I cannot pretend to determine at what period the game of football originated: it does not, however, to the best of my recollection, appear among the popular exercises before the reign of Edward III., and then, in 1349, it was prohibited by a public edict; not, perhaps, from any particular objection to the sport in itself, but because it co-operated, with other favourite amusements, to impede the progress of archery. When a match at football is made, two parties, each containing an equal number of competitors, take the field, and stand between two goals, placed at the distance of 80 or 100 yards the one from the other. The goal is usually made with two sticks driven into the ground, about two or three feet apart. The ball, which is commonly made of a blown bladder, and cased with leather, is delivered in the midst of the ground, and the object of each party is to drive it through the goal of their antagonists, which being achieved the game is won. The abilities of the performers are best displayed in attacking and defending the goals; and hence the pastime was more frequently called a goal at football than a game at football. When the exercise becomes exceeding violent, the players kick each other’s shins without the least ceremony, and some of them are overthrown at the hazard of their limbs.

SHERIDAN FOR ADDINGTON, CANNING FOR PITT (1802).

       Source.—Stanhope’s Life of Pitt, 1862. Vol. iii., p. 415.

       Table of Contents

      The great speech of Sheridan was, however, reserved till the 8th of December, when the Army Estimates came forward. They were moved by Mr. Charles Yorke as Secretary at War. “I was much surprised,” said Mr. Yorke, “when, on another evening, I heard an Hon. gentleman (Mr. Fox) maintain that there was no reason why a larger establishment than usual in former periods of peace should be maintained in Great Britain; and that there were reasons why even a smaller force would suffice everywhere but in the West Indies.” It was no hard matter for Mr. Yorke to argue against this proposition, or to point out the dangers that impended from the Continent of Europe. He could reckon on the support of the House for the proposal which his speech contained—to provide for a regular force of nearly one hundred and thirty thousand men, counting officers, and including the regiments in India. This was an increase on the establishment voted on the first conclusion of the peace.

      Then and after some other speeches Sheridan rose. He referred to Fox as to the man whom of all men upon earth he most loved and respected. But these sentiments did not withhold him from some keen animadversions, although in covert terms, upon the course which Fox had latterly been seeking to promote. He approved of the King’s Speech. He approved of the large establishments. He approved of Addington as Minister. What (he asked) had other members really to allege against that Right Hon. gentleman? Theirs was a mere capricious dislike; for no better reason than is given in an epigram of Martial, or in an English parody upon that epigram:

      “I do not like thee, Dr. Fell,

       The reason why I cannot tell;

       But this I’m sure I know full well,

       I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.”

      Those who call to mind that Addington already bore the nickname of “the Doctor,” and who know the keen relish of the House of Commons for almost any jest, may easily imagine the roars of laughter with which Sheridan’s allusion was received.

      Sheridan proceeded in a strain of blended wit and argument. “What,” he said, “did these gentlemen expect from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer? We treated him when in the Chair of this House with the respect he merited. … But did they expect that when he was a Minister he was to stand up and call Europe to Order? Was he to send Mr. Colman, the Serjeant-at-Arms, to the Baltic and summon the Northern Powers to the Bar of this House? Was he to see the Powers of Germany scrambling like Members over the benches, and say—Gentlemen must take their places? Was he expected to cast his eye to the Tuscan gallery, and exclaim that strangers must withdraw? Was he to stand across the Rhine, and say—The Germans to the right, and the French to the left? If he could have done these things, I for one should always vote that the Speaker of the House should be appointed the Minister of the country. But the Right Hon. gentleman has done all that a reasonable man could expect him to do.”

      “Sir,”—so Sheridan continued—“I confess I wish to know what Mr. Pitt himself thinks. I should be glad to hear what his sentiments are of the call made for him; and loudly too, in another place by a vigorous statesman.[2] I well remember, Sir, and so do we all, the character Mr. Pitt gave of the present administration. Does he mean to retract that character? I cannot suppose he does. … Sir, when I see so many persons anxious about that gentleman, I am glad to hear that his health is re-established. But how, I would ask, can we with any consistency turn out the man who made the peace to bring in the man who avowed his approbation of it? … I suspect, therefore, that the political Philidor’s game has been misunderstood; that his friends have displaced a knight and a castle when they should only have taken two pawns; that they have made an attempt to checkmate the King when they had no instructions for doing it. I cannot forget the period when the august Person of the Sovereign was held up as the only man who was against extending privileges to the Catholics in Ireland; and I cannot, therefore, brook the idea of calling that Right Hon. gentleman back to power, and forcing him upon the Crown. … Mr. Pitt the only man to save the country! If a nation depends only upon one man, it cannot, and I will add, it does not deserve to be saved; it can be saved only by the Parliament and people.”

      Next after Sheridan rose Canning. In his great speech that evening he displayed not only a luminous eloquence, but the rarer gift (rarer, I mean, in him) of perfect discretion. He desired to express his sentiments, not of satisfaction merely, but of thankfulness, for the part which his Hon. Friend (Mr. Sheridan) had that day done.

      “It is by no means the first time,” he said, “that my Hon. Friend, throwing aside all petty distinctions of party feeling, has come forward, often under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, often discouraged, always alone, as the champion of his country’s rights and interests, and has rallied the hearts and spirits of the nation.[3] I trust we shall now hear no more of those miserable systems, the object of which is not to rouse us to ward off our ruin, but to reconcile us to submit to it. … ‘We СКАЧАТЬ