Cricket 1891

48 4 CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. DEC. 81, 1891 MEETING OF COUNTY SECRE­ TARIES. There was as usual a goodly assembly of those interested at Lord’s on Tuesday, December 7, on the occasion of the annual meeting of county secretaries. Mr. H. Perkins (secretary of the Marylebone Cricket Club) occupied the chair, and amongst those present w ere:—Messrs. C. W. Alcock and K. J. Key (Surrey), S. H, Swire, J. M’Laren, and E. B. Rowley (Lancashire), Lord Hawke and J. B. Wostinholm (Yorkshire), Hon. Ivo Bligh and F. Marchant (Kent), E. M. Grace (Gloucester­ shire), I. D. Walker and A. J. Webbe (Middle­ sex), W. H. C. Oates and E. Browne (Notts), H. T. Hewett, H. Murray Anderdon, and T. Spencer (Somerset), W . Newham and O. G. Goldsmith (Sussex), W . B. Delacombe (Derby­ shire), R. H. Mallett (Durham), W. Ansell and G. S. Cartland (Warwickshire), T. Burdett (Leicestershire), C. D. Buxton and O. R. Borrodaile (Essex), T. C. Slaney (Stafford­ shire), H. Thornber (Cheshire), T. Thompson (Northumberland), Russell Bencraft (Hamp­ shire) W. E. Hansell and E. G. Buxton (Norfolk), T. H. Vialls (Northamptonshire), F . Phillips (Monmouthshire), W. L. Yorath (Glamorganshire), II. M. Turner and H. Tubb (Oxfordshire), A. Worsley (North and East Riding of Yorkshire), J. G. Walker (Scotland), L. C. H. Palairet and W . H. Brain (Oxford University). The meeting commenced at twelve o ’clock, and the hour and a half prior to luncheon was devoted to the arrangement of fixtures. After lunch the chairman placed before the meeting a memorial from a number of umpires which had been handed to him. , In the memorial, which was signed by the umpires of Derby­ shire, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Middlesex, Notts, Surrey, Sussex, Warwickshire, and Yorkshire, application was made for an increase of payment to umpires for county matches from M5 to .£ 6 . The memorialists based their claim for an increase on the ground of the constant strain and long and arduous work which their duties involved, and pointed to the difference which existed between players and umpires. Most of the counties paid their professional players .£6 for each match, but, whereas the cricketers had the advantage of playing in home engagements, all the matches at which umpires officiated were played away from home. It constantly happened that umpires had to make long iourneys to reach the various towns which they had to visit. This very often entailed consi­ derable extra expense, and at the present rate of remuneration they, the umpires, were but little gainers by their engagements. The memorialists concluded by asking the county secretaries to pass the following resolution;— “ That county umpires for the future be paid i £6 per match in all county matches played henceforth. ” Dr. E. M. Grace said he had been asked by the umpires named to bring their memorial before a meeting of county secretaries, and he was entirely in favour of the increase asked for. The work of umpires was very arduous, and, as a matter of fact, they worked much harder than the players. The umpires had to stand out in the field all through the day, while the cricketers were able, at intervals, to take a rest. He (Dr. Grace) did not know whether any of the gentlemen present had officiated as umpires, but if they did so they would probably find it was extremely hard and tiring work. Speaking on behalf of Glou­ cestershire, he was entirely in favour of grant­ ing this extra pound per match. If umpires were properly paid for their duties, there was much less chance of having inferior men, and there would be no inducement for an umpire to give a man out leg-before-wicket when he was not out. He concluded by moving that in future umpires be paid £ 6 . Lord Hawke pointed out that in two-day matches the players only received £4, and he suggested that if the proposed increase was granted in the case of three-day matches, the umpires should bo content to receive .£4 for their two-day engagements. Mr. A. J. Webbe seconded Dr. Grace’s reso­ lution, without any reservation. Mr. W . H. C. Oates remarked that the meet­ ing could hardly come to a definite conclusion that day, as the various county committees would have to be consulted on the point. He personally would not be able to vote one way or the other. Mr. J. B. Wostinholm observed that in Yorkshire at least there was a feeling that there was a desire on the part of the umpires to finish matches in two days. Where only one umpire was nominated by a crunty he liad a pretty fair season, and as, as a rule, the umpire was a cricketer who had seen his best day, he could hardly expect to be paid as well as a professional,who was actively engaged in the game. ',In cases where only two-day matches were played, he was of opinion that £4 was sufficient. It would not be a bad plan to form a committee to receive the names of all umpires nominated, with a view of getting together a really good body of men. In the past they had had some very second-rate umpires in Yorkshire, and although they had not complained on the field—that would have been very unsportsmanlike—they had not felt altogether satisfied with the umpires that had been sent them, as some were men who were not quite up to the duties of their position. If umpires desired for a three- day match they ought to be satisfied with Jt4 for a two-day one. Mr. Hansell remarked tha£ his county (Norfolk) paid umpires £1 a day and expenses in the case of out matches, and 10 s. a day and expenses for home matches, and he did not think his committee would pay more. In reply to Lord Hawke, Mr. Hansell said his committee did not obtain their umpires from Lord’s. In reply to an observation that the meeting could not change the remuneration to umpires, the Chairman remarked that the present fee of J6 5 had been agreed to in that room. He suggested that the matter should be brought before the various county committees, who could send in their decisions on the point. Mr. Oates ultimately proposed, and Dr. Bencraft seconded, “ That all counties who nominate umpires for three-day matches send their answer to the memorial to the secretary of the M.C.C., and the majority to decide,” and this motion was carried. Mr. Alcock next introduced the question of the visit of an Australian team. He did not think it necessary to go back on what had passed, as all knew that, acting on certain advice, the Australians had postponed the visit which they intended to pay next year. W ith the telegram announcing that fact was a request that he should ask the good offices of the Marylebone Club and the counties in respect of a proposed tour in 1893. Letters had already been sent by him to M.C.C. and the leading Counties asking for their support for such a visit. As there was no other occasion when the collective voice of the counties could be heard, he thought it would be an advantage to the Australians and all concerned if the meeting gave an expression of opinion on the suggested visit. In reply to a question from Lord Hawke, Mr. Alcook said his object in bringing the aubject forward was to consult the convenience of the representatives of the chief Clubs while at the samo time fulfilling the request from Australia. Mr. Oates said he had consulted his county (Nottinghamshire) at a general meeting held the other day, and it was decided that the proposal on the part of the Australians to come here next year be objected to. There was also a general feeling that it would be a great deal better if the visit were postponed until 1894. If the Australians came in 1893 they would not have such a reception as a year later, and it would be better for county cricket that the visit should not take place until 1894. He proposed, “ That tho Australians be invited to visit England in 1894.” Lord Hawke seconded the proposal, and remarked that it would be better for Australians to wait, and see how they fared against Lord Sheffield’s team. At the present time he did not think the Australians could send a team strong enough to hold their own against our representative elevens. Mr.Webbe said that the Australians had done agreat deal of good to English cricket, but there was an objection to their visits being so frequent Counties were naturally desirous of placing their best elevens in the field for county matches, and they were frequently called upon, too, when Australians were here, to part with their players for the representative matches. If the Australians came here every four years the counties would more cheerfully give up their players. The proposal to invite the Australians to visit England in 1894 was then put to the meeting, and carried. The fixtures as made at the meeting will be found below. MAY. 5—Lord's, M.C.C. and Ground v. Sussex 9—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Lancashire 12—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Derbyshire 12—Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Mr. C. I. Thornton’s Eleven 16—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Yorkshire 16—Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Gentle­ men of England 16—In Lancashire, Lancashire v. Cheshire 16—Oval, Surrey v. Essex 19—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Notts 19—Oxford, Oxford University v. Gentlemen of England 19—Manchester, Lancashire v. Sussex 19—Oval, Surrey v. Leicestershire 19—In Yorkshire, Yorkshire v. Essex 23—Lord’s, Married v. Single (Clayton’s Benefit) 2 3 -Camt ridge, Cambridge University v. M.C.C. and Ground 23—Sheffield, Yorkshire v. Sussex 23—Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Durham 26—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Kent 26—Nottingham, Notts v. Sussex 26—Oxford, Oxford University v. Lancashire 26—Oval, Surrey v. Warwickshire 96—Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Yorkshire 30—Lord’s, Middlesex v. Sussex 30—Oxford, Oxford University v. Surrey 30—Leeds, Yorkshire v. Derbyshire JUNE. 2—Blackheath, Kent v. Middlesex 2—Oxford, Oxford University v. M.C.C. and Ground 2—Manchester, Lancashire v. Warwickshire 2—Oval, Surrey v. Somersetshire 3—Stoke, Staffordshire v. Yorkshire 6—(Whit-Monday), Lord’s, Middlesex v. Somer­ setshire 6—Nottingham, Notts v. Surrey 6—Hereford, Herefordshire v. Monmouthshire 6—Bristol, Gloucestershire v. Kent C—Manchester, Lancashire ('2nd XI.) v. Yorkshire (2nd XI.) 6—Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Leicestershire 6—Leyton, Essex v. Derbyshire 6—Brighton, Sussex v. Hampshire 6—Northampton, Northamptonshire v. Stafford­ shire 6—Sheffield, Yorkshire v. Lancashire 6—Norwich, Norfolk v. M.C.C. and Ground 6—Dorchester, Oxfordshire v. Devonshire 8—Sleaford, Lincolnshire v. Durham 9—Lord’s, Middlesex v. Gloucestershire 9—Oxford, Oxford University v. Somersetshire 9—Manchester, Lancashire v. Kent 9—Oval, Surrey v. Cambridge University 9—Leicester, Leicestershire v. Yorkshire 10—Newport, Monmouthshire v. Glamorganshire 13—Oval, Surrey v. Middlesex 13—Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Notts 13—Bradford, Yorkshire v. Kent 13—Brighton, Sussex v. Gloucestershire 13—Stoke, Staffordshire v. Cheshire 16—Lord’s, Middlesex v. Yorkshire 16—Nottingham, Notts v. Lancashire 16—Derby, Derby.hire v. Surrey 16—Brighton, Sussex v. Cambridge University 16 —Oxford, Oxfordshire v. Hampshire 17—Leyton, Essex v. M.C.C. and Ground 20—Lord’s, Middlesex v. Notts 20—Manchester, Lancashire v. Oxford University 20—Catford-bridge, Kent v. Somersetshire 20—Leeds, Yorkshire v. Surrey 20—Leicester. Leicestershire v. Derbyshire 20—Newport, Monmouthshire v. M.C.C. & G. 22—Cardiff, Glamorganshire v. M.C.C. &Ground 23—Lord’s, M.C.C. & G. v. Cambridge University 23—Nottingham, Notts v. Somersetshire NEXT ISSUE JANUARY 28