Cricket 1888

474 CRICKET: A WEEKLY EE CORD OE THE GAME. DEC . 27, 1888. THE COUNTY CRICKET COUNCIL. The various proposals to be brought forward for alteration in the existing qualifications for County Cricket caused a goodly gathering of delegates at Lord’s on Dec. 10, on the occasion of the annual meeting of the County Cricket Council. Nineteen counties were represented, the following being present:— Surrey, Mr. J. Shuter, Mr. C. W. Alcock, and Mr. W. W. Read; Kent, Lord Harris; York­ shire, Mr. M. J. Ellison and Mr, J. B. Wostinholm ; Gloucestershire, Mr. W . G. Grace; Lancashire, Mr. S. H. Sw ire; Notts, Mr. W. H. C. Oates, Capt. W. E. Denison, and Mr. E. Browne; Mid­ dlesex, Mr. J. G. Walker and Mr. A. J. Webbe ; Sussex, Mr. Montague Turner; Derbyshire, Mr. J. Smith ; Essex, Mr. M. P. Betts; Leicestershire, Mr. J. Bonner; Cheshire, Mr. J. Horner ; Hampshire, Dr. Russell Bencraft; Nor­ folk, Mr. W. E. Hansell; Warwickshire, Mr. W. Ansell and Mr. H. W. Bainbridge; Northamptonshire, Mr. J. P. Kingston ; Somersetshire, Mr.H. Murray Anderdon; Hertfordshire, Mr. C. Pigg ; and Stafford­ shire, Mr. P. R. Toynbee. Lord Harris (the President) having taken the chair, the balance-sheet, which showed a balance in hand of t i l Is. was passed. The first motion was in the name of the President:—“ That for purposes of cricket, county boundaries are not affected by the Local Government Act, 1888.” Lord Harris pointed out that one or two counties were peculiarly affected by the Act, and in the case of Kent three parishes formerly belonging to that county were now part of the new county of London, while Surrey was still more materially affected. He had endeavoured to obtain good legal opinion as to whether in any way the residential or any qualification was affected by the Act, but he had been unable to obtain an opinion of any value. Mr. Alcock had been good enough to forward him a letter, signed by Mr. H. A. Smith, which had appeared in C r ic k e t , in which the opinion was ex­ pressed that it was impossible for the Act to affect the cricket status of any indivi­ dual. But, on the other hand, if a person ■was liable to be summoned on the jury for the County of London, and liable to be rated, it was arguable that he was not a resident of Kent, bnt of the county of London. He thought that in order to be safe from objections as to qualification, they should pass the resolution he had moved. Mr. M. Turner (Sussex) seconded the motion. Mr. Ansell (Warwickshire) rather de­ murred at the proposal. He believed that under the Municipal Act, Birming­ ham would be increased by nearly one- half, and they hoped to reap the benefit of the change. He had hoped that the question of boundaries throughout the country would have been taken into con­ sideration, and that there would have been a re-arrangement. The resolution was however carried without a dissentient. Mr. J. G. Walker (of Middlesex) stated that he had been instructed to move that the various proposals be referred to a committee representing five counties, and suggested Notts, Lancashire, Surrey, Yorkshire, and Kent. As it was arranged that he should bring this forward as an amendment to the first proposition, Mr. M. Turner (Sussex) moved the following resolution:— “ That any cricketer who shall have played for a county for a period of three years, under the residential qualification, shall be qualified to play for that county for any period or number of years he may choose (although he may have removed to, and be then residing in another county) unless he break his qualification by playing for another county (for instance, the county of his birth, or the county in which he may then reside).” Mr. Turner observed that the subject was mooted some two years ago, but, some formality not having been complied with, it was not brought forward. At that time it was suggested that it was a proposal to legislate for one county and for one indi­ vidual, the county being Sussex and the individual Mr. Newham. I f the present proposal had its origin in such a narrow-minded policy, Sussex would have had to have sent another representative to that meeting. He would not shrink from reference to Mr. Newham, but that gentleman’s case was a striking illustra­ tion of the present hardship. M r. New­ ham had lived in Sussex, he believed, for about fifteen years, and if he lost his qualification, which he had not yet done, he would be out of County cricket for two years. He (Mr. Turner) was a strong advocate of a restriction to prevent a man playing unless fully qualified, but when a man had once obtained a qualification it should not be too hastily taken away from him. Such a course he did not think was in the interest of either county cricket or cricket generally. The counties were the nursery of cricket, and from their elevens the ranks of our representative sides were made up. I f a man who had gained his position in his county eleven iost his residential qualification, he (Mr. Turner) thought it hard that he should be relegated to obscurity for two years— an obscurity from which a cricketer seldom emerged. He did not believe that a cricketer who had simply resided in a county for two years, and played for one season, should have the benefit of his proposal, but only if he had become a recognised player for several years. If the proposal was not carried he would move the alternative motion of which notice had been given :— “ That during the two years a cricketer may be qualify­ ing to play for another county, under the residential qualification, he shall be allowed to play for the county for which he has previously been playing under that rule.” The first resolution was seconded by the chairman pro forma. Mr. J. G. Walker then moved the fol­ lowing amendment:—“ That before tak­ ing action with regard to any of these pro­ posals a committee, representing five dif­ ferent counties, be appointed to discuss and report to this Council what, if any, alterations are in their opinion required in the rules of County Cricket at present existing,” but it was lost by a large majority, Mr. Smith (Derbyshire) an the President both pointing out that the Council had been convened to discuss these proposals, and that it would be absurd, when all the counties were repre­ sented for the purpose, to refer them to a small Committee. Mr. W. E. Denison (Notts) said the Committee of the Notts County Club did not think that a man should be considered as belonging to a county unless he was born in it, or had a proper residential qualification. The rule at present was very clear and distinct, and his Committee objected to any such colourable qualifica­ tions as were proposed. It would be a great pity to complicate the qualification rule, and he could see no reason why it should be interfered with. A man played for a county because he lived there, and when he severed his connection with that county, it was in the interests of county cricket that he should cease to play for that county. Dr. Bencraft (Hampshire) thought it (the motion) was in the interest of county cricket. A man who once dropped out of first-class cricket rarely got back into it again; On the motion six votes were given for, and nine against. Mr. W. G. Grace (Gloucestershire) seconded the alternative motion proposed by Mr. M. Turner on behalf of Sussex. Mr. Denison opposed the motion on behalf of Notts. It was open to the same objection as the former one, but in a lesser degree. After Mr. A. J. Webbe (Middlesex) had spoken in opposition, the motion was put and carried by ten votes to five. It was stated that the resolution ■would have to go before the Committee for confirmation. The following resolution proposed by Mr. J. Homer (Cheshire), did not find a seconder.—“ A cricketer shall be qualified to play for any county in which he is re­ siding and has resided for the two previous seasons. In the event of his having once played for the county of his birth, or other county, he must either have the sanction of such county, or have had no request for his services from such county for two consecutive seasons before becom­ ing eligible to play for another county.” Mr. J. Smith (Derbyshire) proposed the following resolution :— “ If a cricketer born out of the United Kingdom comes to England, and makes his permanent home in any county, he shall be allowed to play for that county on his giving a written declaration that his permanent residence is in such county, and that he will not identify himself with or play for any other. The county in which his home is situated shall be considered, for the purposes of county cricket, as equiva­ lent to the county of his birth.” Mr. Smith said the idea embodied in the motion was brought before the Derbyshire Committee by Mr. Spofforth, and that committee being convinced of its justness and reasonableness, decided to place it before the Council. A man coming to England adopted a county, and (he Mr. Smith) thought he should be able to play for that county at once, instead of having to wait for two years. NEXT ISSUE, JANUARY 24.