Cricket 1890

DEC. 27, J1890. CRICKETs A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 475 9—Brighton, Sussex v. Notting a 9 —Taunton, Somersetshire v/Lancashire 10 —Lord’s, Eton v. Harrow 13—Lord’s, Middlesex v. America 13 —Bedford, Bedfordshire v. Northants 12—Sheffield, Yorkshire v. Notts 13—Bristol, Gloucestershire v. Lancashire 13 -Birmingham, Cheshire v. Warwickshire 13—Leicester, Leicestershire v. Hants 13—Sleaford, Hertfordshire v. Lincolnshire 13—Maidstone, Kent v. Somersetshire 13—Brighton, Sussex v. Surrey 16—Oval, Surrey v. Yorkshire 16—Manchester, Lancashire v. Middlesex 16 —Leyton, Essex v. Hants 36—Stoke, Staffordshire v. America 16—Nottingham, Notts v. Sueaex 17—Exeter, Devonshire v. Northumberland 20—Oval, Surrey v. Derbyshire 20—Brighton, Sussex v. Middlesex 20— 3radford, Yorkshire v America 2)—Taunton, Somersetshire v. Gloucestershire 20—Stoke, Staffordshire v. Leicestershire 23—Taunton, Somersetshire v. Yorkshire 23 —Manchester, Lancashire v. Gloucestershire 23-Leyton, Essex v. Warwickshire 23—Tunbridge, Kent v. Nottinghamshire 23—Stockport, Cheshire v. America 24—Lincoln j Lincolnshire v. Darham 21— Sheffield, Yorkshire v. Gloucestershire 27—Leicester, Leicestershire v. America 27 —Ova), Surreyv. Sussex 27 —Watford, Northants v. Hertfordshire 29—Lord’s, Rugby v. Marlborough 29—Watford, M.C.C. &G. v. Herts 29 —Taunton, Somersetshire v. Kent 30—Mancaester, Yorkshire v. Lancashire 30—Leyton, Essex v. Surrey 33—Nottingham, Nottinghamshire v. Gloucester­ shire 80—Southampton, Hants v. Leicestershire AUGUST. *3—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Notts Castle 3—Southampton, Hants v. Sussex 3 —Canterbury, Kent v. Gloucestershire 3—Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Yorkshire 3—Manchester, Lancashire v. Essex 3—Leicester, Leicestershire v. Derbyshire 3—Stoke, Staffordshire v. Durham 3 -Oval, Surrey v. Nottinghamshire 5—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Herts 5—Northampton, Northants v. Staffordshire 5—Norwich, Norfolk v. Lincolnshire 6—Canterbury, Kent v. Surrey 6—Bradford, Yorkshire v. Somersetshire 6—Clifton, Gloucestershire v. Sussex 6—Leicester, Leicestershire v. Essex 6—Nottingham, Nottinghamshire v. Ameiica 7—Norwich, Norfolk v. Hants 10—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Devonshire 10—Sheffield, Yorkshire v. Middlesex 10—Brighton, Sussex v. Kent 10—Manchester, Lancashire v. Somersetshire 10—Clifton, Gloucestershire v. Surrey 30—Portsmouth, United Services v. America 12—Nottingham, M.C.C. & G. v. Notts Amateurs 12—Lincoln, Lincolnshire v. Northumberland 13—Lord’s, Middlesex v. Sussex 13—Maidstone, Kent v. Yorkshire 13 —Manchester, Lancashire v. Nottinghamshire 13—Taunton, Somersetshire v. Surrey 13 —Portsmouth, Universities v. America 14—Bishop Stortford, Herts v. Norfolk 17—Lord’s, Middlesex v. Surrey 17 —stoke, Staffordshire v. M.C.C. & G. 17 —Swansea, Glamorganshire v. Devonshire 17 —Northampton, Northants v. Herts 17—Southampton, Bampshire v. America 17—Brighton, Sussex v. Yorkshire 17 —Cheltenham, Gloucestershire v. Somerset shire 17—Derby, Essex v. Derbyshire 17 —Gravesend, Kent v. Lancashire 19—Cardiff, 'Glamorganshire v. Northumberland 19 —Hitchin, Herts v. Lincolnshire 20—Oval, Surrey v. Lancashire 20—Cheltenham, Gloucestershire v. Middlesex 23—Birmingham, Essex v. Warwickshire 20—Nottingham, Nottinghamshire v. Kent 20—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. America 21—Northampton, Northants v. Lincolnshire 24—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Cheshire 24—Lfeds, Yorkshire v. Kent 24—Scarborough, Lord Londesborough’s Eleven v. America 24—Clifton, Gloucestershire v. Nottinghamshire 24—Leicester, Leicestershire v. Warwickshire 24—Northampton, Hants v. Staffordshire 24—Brighton, Sussex v. Lancashire 24—Exeter, Devonshire v. Glamorganshire 24—Taunton, Somersetshire v. Middlesex 27—Scarborough, M.C C. & G. v. Yorkshire 27—Leyton, Essex v. Lancashire 27—Nottingham, Notts v. Middlesex 27—Oval, Surrey v. Kent 28—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Staffordshire 31—Scarborough, I Zingari v. Gentlemen cf England SEPTEMBER. 3—Scarborough, North v. South 10—Hastings, North v. South (Hastings Festival) 14—Hastings, Gentlemen v. Players (Hastings Festival) THE MARYLEBONE CLUB AND UNIVERSITY CRICKET. The followinginteresting sketch of the Marylebone Club and University Cricket is reproduced by permission, from Mr. W. G. Grace’s “ Forty Years of Cricket,” which is very shortly to be published in book form. M y connection with the Marylebone Club dates from the 13th and 14th of May. 1869, when I was not quite twenty-one years of age. I have said elsewhere that 1 considered it a very high com plim ent to be thought worthy of a place in the club which has done more than any other in the Wide world to develop the game, and I have nothiDg but the very pleasantest recollections of the twenty-one years in which I have played for it. The M.C.C.Ihad been inexistence 82 years when I joined it ; its members numbered 1 , 200 , and the number of matches played during the season was something under 50. To-day it is 103 years o ld ; the list of members has swelled to 3,500, and as many as 152 matches were played last year, of which 99 wore won, 24 drawn, and 29 lost. It will be of interest to touch briefly upon the growth of the old club, which is now acknowledged to be the authority on cricket, not only in England, but everywhere where the game is played. A bout the year 1780 the W hite Conduit Club was the most important in L ondon; and Thom as Lord, a kind of half-attendant, half­ ground bowler, was in the habit of bowling to the members. The W hite Conduit Club, like most cricket clubs, had internal dissensions to contend against, and some of the members decided to go elsewhere. But the difficulty in the way was a suitable spot for a ground, for there were at most only two of any importance in London at the time. Lord was asked to look about in the neighbourhood of Maryle­ bone, and was promised influential support if he succeeded. The E arl of W inchelsea and the H on. Colonel Lennox were the principal m overs in the matter ; and Lord, being a bit of an enthusiast, and realising that the speculation was likely to turn out well, at once proceeded to carry out the suggestion. B y 1787 a suitable spot, now known as Dorset Square, was acquired, and Lord’s Ground and the Marylebone Club became accomplished facts. The club must have had an influential m embership even then, for the year after we find it revising the laws of the game. A t once it began to play matches with the White Conduit and other clu b s; but the oldest recorded is M.C.C. v. White Conduit Club, on the 27th of June, 1788, which the M.C.C. won b y 83 runs. Everything went smoothly for a period of 22 years; then Lord, owing to a dispute with his landlord about an increase of rent, had to leave Dorset Square. North Bank, Regent’s Park, was next chosen, in 1810; but that was to be a very short abiding place, for in 1812 the making of the Regent’s canal was the cause of the ground being cut up. Neither the d u b nor Lord was disheartened; for in 1814 the present site in St. John’s W ood was secured,and there the club has played since. A year or two previously the Horaerton Club, the next in importance, amalgamated with the M .C.C., and the playing eleven became a very strong one. But it should be remembered that some of the members of the old Hamble- don Club, which broke up in 1791, had played for the M.C.C. before that,, and consequently strengthened it. Matches against Kent, Middlesex, Hampshire, London, England, and other clubs had been of frequent occurrence before the end of the eighteenth century, and the fame of the M.C.C. had gone over the land. Lord and the club comm ittee must have thought highly of the turf on which they played at Dorset Square. It was cut ana relaid on the North Bank Ground, and afterwards transferred to St. John’s W ood. The oldest recorded match of the M.C.C. on its present ground was played against Hertfordshire on the 22nd June, 1814, the M.C.C. winning by an innings and 27 runs. In tho eleven representing the winning sido wero four players who were well-known all over the cricket world, and who maintained their reputation for many years afterwards—L ord Frederick Beauclerck, Messrs. E . H. Budd, G. Osbalde- stone, and W . Ward. H arrow and W inchester played against each other for the first time at L ord’s on the 27th and 28th July, 1825, and the match will always be remembered for the disastrous fire which took place in the pavilion during the night of the last day. Valuable records of the game which could not be replaced were destroyed, while Lord suffered rather heavily also. Something like £2,600 were due to him for subscriptions ; but as tho books had been burnt, it was difficult for him to remember who had paid and who had not. It is just possible that Lord got discouraged by that. Anyhow , we find he desired to retire that year ; and for the m om ent it looked as if the ground would fall into the hands of th 6 builders, who had coveted it for many years. Mr. W ard very generously stepped in and purchased the remainder of the lease at a very high price, and the club continued its prosperous career. The pavilion was quickly rebuilt, and two years later Oxford and Cam ­ bridge began their annual contests. Mr. W ard unfortunately could not see his way to hold the lease after 1835, and so we find Mr. J. H . Dark taking it off his hands and becom ing gthe proprietor in 1836. The club, however, seems to have got on pretty smoothly under the proprietorship of Mr. Dark until 1863, when he proposed to part with the remainder of his lease of 29| years for the sum of £16,000. The year after he ac­ cepted £11,000; and Mr. Moses, the ground landlord, offered a renewal of the ground-rent for 99 years at the rate of £550 per annum. Considering that the old rent had only been £150, the club had now to face a considerable increase in its yearly expenses. Nothing daunted, the comm ittee accepted; but Mr. Moses came forward in 1865 with a new offer, viz., to sell the fee outright for a sura of £21,000. Eventually he accepted £f8,150; and Mr. W . N icholson, a member of the com ­ mittee, in a very laudable spirit advanced the m oney on a mortgage of tho premises at the rate of £.5 per cent., which he afterwards re­ duced to £4 per cent., and conceded to the club the right to pay him off by annual instal­ ments. A t last the club could call tbe ground its own, and the strides it made in the next twenty years were really remarkable. By 1878 the whole amount had been paid off, and the finances of the club established on a firm footing, which it has since maintained. In 1866,when Mr.Nicholson bought up the free­ hold, the club numbered 980 members,and had an incom e slightly over £ 6,000 ; to-day, as I have already said, it has 8,500 members, with a total income of £30,000. It is no secret that the comm ittee, if they desired, could double the membership in a m onth’s tim e; for applications for election com e from all arts of the globe. However, they have no esire to do so, for it is their aim that the club should nof< exceed the lim it which would affect the com fort and enjoym ent of the present m em bers; and a rule has been passed which admits only of 156 members being elected yearly, active cricketers preferred, and Footballs This <-CCB-<£ Brand l U U l U U U O i IS A B S O L U T E L Y T H E B E S T NEXT ISSUE, .JANUARY 27.