Cricket 1882

46 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. JUNE I, 1882. T H E C R I C K E T E R S OF MY T IM E . (B y J ohn N yren of th e Hambledon Club.) No. III. F r a m e -was the other principal with Lumpy, a fast bowler.and an unusually stout man for a cricketer. I recollect very little of him and nothing worthy of a formal record. Besides him there was Shockwhite, another bowler on the England side, a good change, and a very decent hitter, but take him altogether I never thought very highly of his playing ; he was a short rather stoutly made man and John Wood made the fourth and the other change bowler. He was tall, stout, and bony, and a very good general player, not, however, an extraordinary one, when compared with thosethat havebeenheretofore mentioned. There was high feasting held in Broad Halfpenny during the solemnity of one of oar grand matches. Oh 1 it was a heart-stirring sight to witness the multitude forming a complete and dense circle around the noble green. Half the county would be present, and all their hearts with us. Defeat was glory in such a straggle—victory, indeed, made us only “ a little lower than the angels.” How those fine brown faced farmers would drink to our success. And then what stufftheyhad to drink! Punch! not yournewPonche & la Bomaine, or Ponche a la Groseelle, or your modern cat-lap milkpunch—punch be devilled ; but good unsophisticated John Bull stuff, stark !—that would stand on end, punch that would make a cat speak. Sixpence a bottle! we had not sixty millions of interest to pay in those days. The ale, to o ! not the modern horror under the same name that drives as many men melancholy mad as the hypocrites d o ; not the beastliness of these days, that will make a fellow’s inside like a shaking bog and as rotten; but barleycorn, such as would put the souls of three butchers into one weaver. Ale that would flare like turpentine, genuine Boniface! This immortal viand (for it was more than liquor was vended at twopence perpint. The immeasurable viilany of our vintners would with their march of intellect (if ever they get such a brewing) drive a pint out of it into a gallon. Then the quantity the fellows would eat! Two or three of them would strike dismay into a round of beef. They could no more have pecked in that style than they could have flown had the infernal black stream (that type of Acheron) which sottens the carcase of a Londoner been the fertiliser of their day. There would this company, consisting most likely of some thousands, remain patiently and anxiously watching every turn of fate in the game, as if the event had been the meeting of two armies to decide their liberty. And whenever a Hambledon man made a good hit, worth four or five runs, youwould hear the deep mouths of the whole multitude baying away in pure Hampshire, “ Go hard ! Go hard! Tich and turn! Tich and tu rn !” To the honour of my countrymen let me bear testimony upon this occasion, as I have also done upon others. Although their provinciality in general and personal partialities individually were naturally interested on behalf of the Hambledon men, I cannot call to recollection an instance of their wilfully stopping a ball that had been hit out among them by one of our opponents. Like true Englishmen, they would give an enemy fair play. How strongly are allthose scenesoffifty years bygone painted in my memory ; and the smell of that ale comes upon me as freshly as the new May flowers. Having premised that these grand matches were always made for £500 a-side, I now proceed with a slight record of the principal men who were usually pitted against us. My description of them must be unavoidably less minuter because I had not so frequent an intercourse with them as with the men whose every action I was constantly in the habit of watching ; my report of them therefore may be more slight than their merits deserve, for there were really some fine players among them. For the same reason my chronicle will be less relieved by personal anecdote. My last account having closed with the four principal bowlers who were usually opposed to us—Lumpy, Frame, Shockwhite, and Wood—the next name that presents itself to me is that of Minshull, who was gardener to the Duke of Dorset. He was a batter, and a very fair one, probably their best, a capital hitter, and a sure guard of his wicket. Minshull, however, was not an elegant player; his position and general style were both awkward and uncouth, yet he was as conceited a3 a wagtail, and from his constantly aping what he had no pretensions to, was, on that account only, not esteemed according to the price at which he had rated his own merits. He was a thick-set man, standing about five feet nine, and not very active. Miller (gamekeeper either to Lord Tankerville or the Duke of Dorset, I forget which) was as amiable a hearted man as ever cut a ball at the point of the bat. He and Minshull were the only batters the Hambledon men were afraid of. Miller was indeed a beautiful player, and always to be depended on; there was no flash, no cock-a-whoop about him, but firm, he was assteady as the Pyramids. Although fully as stout aman as Minshull, he was considerably more active. I remember when upon one occasion those two men, being in together, had gained an uncommon number of runs, the backers of the Hambledon men, Dehaney and Paulet, began to quake and hedged off all their money, laying it pretty thickly on the England side. Of the Hambledon men, Small went in first, and continued until there were about five out, for very few runs, when Nyren went in to win, and then they began to show fight. The mettle of our true blood was roused into full action, and never did they exhibit to finer advantage. Myren got 98 and Small 110 runs before they were parted. After the former was out (for Small accord­ ing to his custom died a natural death) the backers came up to Nyren and sa'd, “ You will win the match, and we shall lose our money.” The proud old yeoman turned short upon them, and with that honest independence which gained him the esteem of all parties, told them to their heads that they were rightly served, and that he was glad of it. “ Another time,” said he, “ don’t bet against such men as we are.” I forget how many runs the Hambledon men got, but after this turn in affairs the others stood no chance, and were easily beaten. May, Booker, and Gruddington were players of the first rank, though not the first of that rank. They were excellent and steady batters, strong hitters, and sure fields. Gruddington was a long-stop, and an admirable one ; not, however, so implicitly to be depended on as Lear, whose equal in that depart­ ment of the game I never saw anywhere. My reason for assigning him this superiority has been already given. For the same cause I must place Sueter above Yalden, who was their best wicket­ keeper, and he would have been highly prized any­ where, but neither he nor Gruddington had ever to stand against such steam-engine bowling as Brett’s, and yet Lear and Sueter in their several depart­ ments were safer men than their opponents. Yalden too, was in other respects an inferior man to Sueter. His word was not always to be depended o n ; when he had put a man out, he would now and then shuffle, and resort to trick. In such estimation did the other stand with all parties, so high an opinion had they of his honour, that I firmly believe they would have trusted to his decision had he ever chosen to question that of the umpire. Yalden, was not a finer but a very useful and steady batter. He was a thin, dark-looking man. The Duke of Dorset or Lord Tankerville, sometimes both, would play to complete the elevens. Neither of these noble­ men were to be compared to Lord Frederick Beau- clerc. Whether in batting, bowling, or, indeed, any department of the game, he would have distanced them, yet they were pretty players. Each usually played in the slip when the other was not present. This station was the duke’s forte. He was in height about five feet nine, very well made, and had a pecilliar habit, when unemployed, of standing with his head on one side. (To be continued.) * I - C 0 I ^ E 3 P 0 P E N C E > T H E C R I C K E T S C A N D A L . TO THE EDITOR OF “ CRICKET.” S i r , — In answer to Lord Harris, and for the satisfaction of the cricket-loving public of this country, I, as Secretary and Manager, and knowing the opinions of Alfred Shaw and the rest of the team, beg on behalf of the whole of them to deny that anything detrimental to the honour of them took place in Australia. A rumour was spread in Melbourne that Ulyett and Selby had been offered one hundred pounds to sell the match—this par­ ticular match was the first against Victoria, in which the Victorians failed to get ninety-four runs required to win, and were beaten by eighteen runs. I,as umpire in this match, remember every particular, and never for a moment dreamt of such a thing, as all the men were very anxious and eager to win ; and this evil report must have been circulated by the party offering the bribe in a moment of chagrin at losing his money. In all the other first-class matches (I mean those against New South Wales, the returnwith Victoria, and the four matches against the Australian com­ bined Elevens) I also stood umpire, and conse­ quently could form a pretty good opinion of what was going on ; and I can confidently state that the whole of tbe side on every occasion appeared to strain every nerve for victory, and that nothing whatever took place to cause such a report as what is called “ The Cricket Scandal in Australia” to be circulated. I write this, as I said before, knowing the opinions of the whole Eleven, and trust it will be a satisfactory explanation of the matter to Lord Harris and the legion of other gentlemen who love and so liberally support our national game in this country, as well as the cricket-loving public, that nothing whatever took place in the cricket field in Australia to tarnish the honour of professional cricketers. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, JAMES LILLYWHITE. 10, Seymour-street, Euston-square, London, N.W., May 26. S ir , —My attention has been called to a letter in The Times of the 24th on the above subject, bear­ ing the well-known name of Lord Harris. In it the writer asks for a public refutation of the scandal and a statement by the men under oath that no member of the team “ did not do his best.” I, like his lordship, think that some “ authoritative ” con­ tradiction should be given, and not only to the accusation of bribery, but to the other items of the rumour, which, in my opinion, are equally dis­ graceful. Lord Harris’s requisition, if complied with, will certainly dispose of the simple question of bribery, but, I venture to suggest to his lordship, and the members of the team (who are all impli­ cated), that any statement they may make should embody answers to certain questions bearing on the whole scandal, and not only the bribery question. The purport of such questions will be better under­ stood when I mention that the rumour as it prevailed here and at Nottingham was as follows :— “ Ulyett and Selby were each to receive £500, and were authorized to offer Scotton £250, to be non-triers. The latter declined the offer, and told Shaw. Selby and Scotton afterwards fought and Scotton was victorious, but was then tackled, with a different result, by Ulyett.’’ The questions I would ask the members of the team (or any one else in a position to do so) to answer, are the following:— 1. Was there not a fight between Selby and Scotton at Cootamundra (or elsewhere), and were not the stakes £3 a-side ? 2. What was the cause of the fight ? 3. Did not Scotton write home to his father at