Cricket 1883

6 8 CRICKET; A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. MAY 3, 1883. * CURIOSITIES OF CRICKET. P akt I. T h e following list of the most remarkable in­ cidents which have occurred in this game since its rise in the dark ages is compiled partly from F. Lillywhite’s “ Bookof Scores,” edited by Mr. Arthur Haygarth, and partly from old notes taken from Bentley’s “ Book of Scores,” and similar sources, together with a few notes of very early cricket found in the originals by the compiler. It makes no pretence whatever to fine descriptive writing, or to any other adornment, but it has been put together with care, and, it is hoped, with accuracy. 1300—Firstmention of cricket. (Very doubtful, of course). In the wardrobe accounts of 28 Edward I ., among the sums spent for Prince Edward, after­ wards Edward II., who was about 16, is the following entry:—1 ‘ Domino Johanni de Leek, capellano domini Edwardi fil’, ad creag et alios ludos per vices, per manus proprias apud Westm’, 10 die Aprilis, 100s.” (equal to about £100 of our money, or, perhaps, not quite so much, the date being taken into consideration). The game of “ creag ” may or may not have been cricket. I should be inclined to think that it was the game, or some early form of it, and that the first Prince of Wales of our Royal family was also the first cricketer on record. But this is purely conjectural. 1597—Anno Elizabeth® 40.—The first un­ questionable mention of cricket known to me. Russell’s "‘ History of Guildford,” 1801, quotes from the archives of the town an extract from some legal proceedings of the above date about disputed common land : “ John Derrick, gent.; one of the Queene’s Majestie’s coroners of the county of Surrey, aged 59, saith that he knew this land fifty years or more. It lay waste, and was used and occupyed by the inhabitants of Guildford, to saw timber in, and for sawpits, and for makynge of frames of timber for the said inhabitants. When he was a scholler in the freeschool of Guildford, he and several of his fellows did runne and play there at cricket.” I have tried more than once to get at the original document from which this extract is taken, and have had the town papers searched, but without success, as they are very incom­ plete. I have no sort of doubt as to its authen­ ticity, judging it, not without some knowledge of such matters, by the surrounding context, and consider it will prove that cricket, in some form or other, was a common game at Guildford at or before 1550. From this point we leap at once to 1746—Artillery Ground, London.—First match on record of which the score is preserved : Kent v. England. Won by Kent by a single wicket. This very celebrated match is accurately de­ scribed in a poem consisting of three books of 320 lines in all, by James Love, comedian, published at Edinburgh in 1754. As I desoribed this poem in these pages some four years ago, I need not go into details. It is enough to say that the game was in all substantial points what it is to-day, with the exception that omy two stumps were used, between which the ball could pass—a weak point in the game which was not remedied for many years. 1775—July 15th—Hambledon. Hambledon v. Surrey. J. Small, senior, scored 136 for Hambledon, the first three-figure score on record. The whole innings amounted to 357, and Hambledon won by 296. 1777—June 18-20.—Sevenoaks. Hambledon v. England. J, Aylward scored 167 for Ham­ bledon, who made 403 in all, and won in one innings by 168, so that they could just have deducted Aylward’s innings from their score without (joins in a<riin. This is the first m ate' * Th.se a.pettre n h a ... 2 ..: , atcr oome ago. which is known to have been played with three stumps. 1783—July 8, 9.—Hambledon. Kent v. Ham­ bledon. A tie match, the first on record. 1787—May 31st.—Lords. Middlesex v. Essex, won by Middlesex by 93 runs. The first match on the original Lord’s ground, situated where Dorset-square now is. The present ground was made in 1814, or perhaps in 1813. The first- known match was played there between Hert­ fordshire and the M.C.C., and easily won by the latter on June 22nd, 1814. 1790—May 10 —12.—Lords. Right v. Left- handed. First match between these two sides, won by the Left-handed by 39 runs. Everyone who either batted, bowled, or fielded with the left-hand was considered to be left-handed, it is believed. In this year T. Boxall’s crioket manual was published, which was the first vade mecum of the game, as far as I can tell, after a long search in the British Museum Library and elsewhere. W. Lambert’s, 1816, which was mainly borrowed from it, is the next that I have found. 1791—June 2, 3.—Lords. M.C.C. v. Kent, won by M.C.C. in one innings by 113. The first match in which the name of Lord Frederick Beauclerck, “ the greatest name in crioket,” according to Mr. Pyoroft, appears. 1792—June 12—14.—Lords. Surrey and Sussex v. England. Thomas Walker scored 138 for the two counties, who made 453 in all, and won by an innings and 299 runs. 1794—June 9—11.—Lords. Surrey v. Eng­ land. W. Beldham scored 102 and H. Walker 115, not out, for Surrey in the second innings. England was allowed to go in a second time, though only five Surrey wickets had fallen, and was accordingly beaten by five wickets and 197 runs. August 4th.—Kentish Town. Highgate and Hampstead v. Kentish Town. A match without a double figure. Highgate won in a single innings, scoring 37 against 22 and 10. A curious match from the smallness of tne winning score. It was very nearly equalled in 1827, as will be seen farther on. 1795—July, and June 1796.—Stoke Down, Hampshire. A match begun in one year and finished in another. The only case of the kind known. 1796—July 11, 12.—Lords. M.C.C. v. Bull- ingdon. The Hon. E. Bligh scored 132, and Lord Frederick Beauclerck 100, in the only innings of the M.C.C., who scored 341, and won by 137 runs. 1796—August 9,10.—Walworth. First one-leg and one-arm match, showing the antiquity of this painful piece of nonsense, the fun of whicn, if any, consists in the clumsiness and incompet­ ence of the performers. 1797—June 19—23.—Lords. A five-days’ match between England and Surrey, won by England, six of whose eleven were run out in their second innings. 1798—September 7.—Ware. WalthamAbbey v. Ware. A. tie match, one side scoring 35 and 12 and the other 18 and 29; 94 runs in all. Perhaps unexampled. 1800—June 11—13.—Lords. Surrey v. Eng­ land. Surrey gave Beldham, their best man, to England, and still wonby 3 wickets. The present state of things is certainly different. 1802—September 13—15.—Lords. Twenty- two of Surrey v. Twenty-two of Middlesex. First match at Lords of Mr, E. H. Budd, who is still flourishing like a green bay-tree at 86 years of age. This, and the return in June of the next year, both won by Middlesex, are said to have been the only matches of the kind ever played. This is open to some doubt. 1805—August 2.—Lords. Eton v. Harrow. Won by Eton by an innings and two runs. First recorded match betweed the two schools, though earlier ones ire supposed to have been placed. Tn .•xt u.i lecoiil was in i.818. Mr. HaygarUi says that there was a Harrow Eleven as early as 1782, but I do not know where he gets his facts from. 1806—July 7—9.—Lords. First Gentlemen and Players’ Match. Won by the Gentlemen in one innings by 14 runs. The Gentlemen had two Players given to them, who disposed of 7 wickets between them. The match wasnot played on even terms till 1819. 1810—July 6, 7.—Lords. Squire Osbaldeston and Lambert made a match to play at single wicket against Lord Frederick Beauclerck and T. Howard, two of the best in England. Mr. Osbaldeston was so ill that he only stood up to three balls, scoring one run, and retired, but Lambert beat his two opponents single-handed, a great feat, as he had no one to help him in the field. Lord Frederick, who was a sharp practi­ tioner in such matters, refused to postpone the match, saying that Mr. Osbaldeston must “ play or pay” the stake of £100, and got deservedly punished. Such matches for money are most undesirable, and are now quite out of date, though one or two of the kind have been played in the North of England within the last ten years. 1811-2—Only four matches recorded in these two years, it is hard to say why. No doubt times were very bad, with a great continental war going on, but they were no worse than they had been for some years back, or than they afterwards were up to 1815. 1815—August 24—5—Lords. Epsom v. Middle­ sex. F.Ladbrooke,Esq., scored 116, andF. Wood- bridge, Esq., 107 for Epsom, who scored 476, and won in a single innings by. 358 runs. This is perhaps as emphatic a beating as ever was known. The score of 476 was for many years the highest on record, but it has been repeatedly exceeded of late years. 1817—July 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.—Lords. A five-days’ match. Epsom v. Sussex, with Mr. Osbaldeston and Lambert given. The two given men scored in all 386 runs between them, Lambert getting 107, not out, and 157, and Mr. Osbaldeston 106 and 16. Mr. W. G. Grace scored two innings, each over 100, two or three years back, at Canterbury, and was not out in one case, but such a performance is likely always to remain very rare. Sussex won this curious match, in which 1,047 runs were scored, by 427, scoring 292 and 455. 1818—June 15.—Woolwich Common. Royal Artillery, with Mr. Budd, v. M.C.C. A tie match. Mr. Budd, who got 87 out of 166 scored by his side, made a forward hit from which he ran 9, unhelped by any overthrow or misfielding. June 29, 30, and July 1.—Lords. M.C.C- v. Gentlemen of England. Won by M.C.C. by 140. In this strange match a Mr. Holder, hardly known to fame, appears to have bowled, by agreement, against the M.C.C. at both wickets. He accordingly took 19 out of 20 M.C.C. wickets, one man being absent, but only bowled two. He also seems to have been helped in the field by some of the best professionals, such as Lambert, Howard, Sparks, and so on, though his side was the Gentlemen of England, from which it would appear that he chose his own field. All this is very odd, and utterly ex­ ceptional. August 22.—Woking. Shiere v. Woking. A double tie match, each side scoring 71 twice. I think this is without parallel. 1819—July 7, 8, 9.—Lords. Gentlemen v. Players. Now played for the first time on even terms. Players won by 6 wickets. 1820—July 24,—Lords. M.C.C. v. Norfolk with three given. Mr. Ward, for M.C.C., scored 278, the longest score, except Alfred Adam’s 279 in 1837, ever made in one day till within the last three years or so, and still the largest ever got in a match of any note. But the match was only a third-rate one after all, and the perform- anciisnot equal to several of Mr.W.G. Grace's,as, for instance, his 215 in Gentlemen v. Players at