Cricket 1894

“ Together 'joined in cricket's manly toil.”-— Byron • Registered for Transmission Abroad THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1894. PEICE 2d. CRICKET_NOTCHES. B y th e R ev. R . S. H o lm es . At the risk of being dubbed a nuisance, I must just for a moment hark back to the “ Revised Laws,” if only for the sake of good-naturedly rapping the knuckles of my honored friend, “ P. G.” He will have his joke ; so when he waxes elo­ quent about “ harassing legisla­ tion,” one is tempted to quote Charles Lamb’s estimate of Coleridge’s monologues and say, “ It’s only his fun.” I like the expression “ equitably by com­ mon sense ” in his letter of April ‘26th, but whose common sense, and whose “ honest adap­ tation of the laws ? ” Common sense and honesty are variable quantities. Very delightful is human inconsistency even in “ F. G.” himself. I wish he had stood umpire behind the bowler he mentions, who “ never bowled a ball in his life." Let’s say that he hails from the North, and is playing for his county. Let the ground be the Old Trafford, the match Lanca­ shire v. Kent, the year 1885 or thereabouts. There has been much discussion just about that time concerningcertainNorthern bowlers, and the M.C.C. have resolved to make an example of one or two offenders. Two specially qualified umpires are appointed for the above match, “ P. Q-.” is one, an old and trusty servant of the M.C.C. is the [other. Kent win the toss and go in. Luncheon hour ar­ rives. Players leave the field. A well-known noble cricketer thus speaks to the retreating umpires : “ Here, you fellows, why didn’t you no-ball all three of those bowlers ? You know as well as I do that they threw times without num­ ber. You ought to be ashamed of your­ selves. I shall report you up at Lords.” Umpires—F.G.: “ Quite right, old fellow, they did throw. But for the life of me I couldn't do so in the ca^e of one of them, because his medium throws are so exactly in effect the reproduction of old William Lillywhite. I saw him bowl, yon didn’t—a foolish sentiment on my part, but it got the better of my judgment and conscience. As I let him down so easily, I could not punish the others.” Other Umpire—an old professional: “ I am also very sorry, my lord. I cautioned them to be careful, but they said they could not bowl any other way. So I didn’t like to take the bread out of a brother cricketer's mouth." “ Stuff and nonsense ! ” Lancashire Captain : “ Who says they throw ? I have been playing with them ever since they first appeared, and I declare that I have never seen either cf them throw yet. No bowling could be more fair. Perhaps you will tell us wbat you mean by a throw ? ” “ I am not prepared with a definition, but everybody knows what a throw is. I appeal to our clerical friend here.” R. S. H . loq .:— “ Excuse me, gentlemen; I can express no opinion upon this important mattir. It is for our law­ makers to give us definitions, not for humble individuals like myself. They have not done so, and our friend ‘ P. G.’ says that ‘ the M.C.U. have very wisely refused to define a throw.’ I thought I did once know what a throw was, and one day was rash enough to insert my opinion in a draft of the Revised Laws ; but the week after I was told by an eminent authority who was too modest to give his name in full, that my definition was all wrong, and indeed the en­ tire draft, 1however interesting, could scarcely be taken very seriously.’ So I have been put out of court. You must settle the matter among yourselves.” It is perhaps only fair to my­ self to add that I have been honored by letters from three of our oldest living cricketers re­ specting the said draft, which I am not at liberty to make public. “ F.G.” has known all of them intimately for at least 30 or 40 years, admired their cricket, and still respects their judgment. No names stand higher in the cricket world. They don’t deal in broad general comments, as is his wont, but condescend to particulars,