Cricket 1894

D e c . 28, 1894 CBICKET! A WEEKLY BECORB OF THE GAMEi 451 and about this a long delay has occurred.” Yes, I am indeed delighted; it is two years since I called attention in this column to the dilapidated condition of this monument—perhaps the handsomest ever raised in memory of a great cricketer. I purpose a visit to Highgate when next in town. -Cricketers may like to see i t ; and for those whose tastes run in the direction of boxing, it may be as well to state that close to Lillywhite’s grave stands the monument over the last rest­ ing place of one of our boyhood’s heroes— Tom Sayers. 2. Mr. G-aston, who had previously been thoughtful enough to send a cata­ logue, writes that the Bazaar in the interests of the Sussex County C.C. resulted in the handsome balance of ,£700. Probably no such collection of cricket trophies was ever got together. One may affirm that no town in the world holds so many curios as Brighton, though for this show various collectors in other towns had been requisitioned. The cata­ logue is too lengthy to reproduce. Pic­ tures, Balls, Bats, Early Score Cards, Relics in Earthenware, &c., &c., were there galore. The gem of the collection, in my judgment, was lent by the widow of the late Hon. Sec. of Sussex, Mr. G. W. King; it is thus described—“ Two valuable Quarto Books, containing 50 colored illustrations by 1Felix,’ and copious notes of the doings of the All England Eleven of 1851 and 1852.” Fifty pounds were refused for this item. It is a matter of great regret that I could not possibly run down. On W. L. Murdoch and A. J. Gaston devolved the chief responsibility. They have their reward. It is a pity that, as far as I can gather from the catalogue, none of the earlier books or pamphlets on cricket were on view. Boxall, Bentley, Lambert, Nyren, and others deserved notice, equally with a ball that did the hat-trick, or a bat that notched a century. 3. I beg to thank your correspondent, Mr. Lacy, for three corrections in my articles on “ Surrey cricket and cricketers,” although he has taken seven months either to make the discovery or announce it. Two of the errors I found out myself within a fortnight of being guilty of tuem. Like him, I am at a loss to understand how I came to bungle so seriously over Lockwood’s batting figures. May I, with becoming deference, suggest to this gentle­ man that, for his own guidance, he would do well to draw up an exact definition of the difference between Amateurism and Professionalism in Sport. When he has done so, it will be scarcely possible for him to write with the evident lack of knowledge and good sense so conspicuous in his last letter. A hearty message of good will to cricketers and cricket-lovers all over the world 1 Mu. J, G. Q. B e sc e , having resigned the Secretaryship of the Hampstead Cricket Clnb, has been succeeded in office by Mr. W. K. Marshall, of 13, Chapter Road, Willesden Park, N.W. THE PROGRAMME FOR 1895, On Tuesday, the 11th inst,, the annual meeting of county secretaries, to arrange the fixtures for next season,was held in the members’ dining-room at Lord’s Cricket Ground. Mr. H. Perkins (secretary of the Marylebone Club) presided, and the following were present:—Messrs. K. J, Key, W. W. Read, D. R. Onslow, and C. W. Alcock, Surrey; Lord Hawke, M. J. Ellison, and J. B. W ostinholm, Yorkshire ; J. M'Laren, S. H. Swire, and E. B. Rowley, Lancashire; A. J. Webbe and I. D. Walker, Middlesex ; A. J. Lancaster, F. Marchant, and W. H. Patterson, Kent; W. H. C. Oates, E. Browne, W . E. Deni­ son, and C. W. Wright, Notts; W. G. Grace, Gloucestershire; W. L. Murdoch and W. Newham, Sussex; S. M. J. Woods, H. Murray Anderdon, and T. Spencer, Somerset; W. Ansell and H. W. Bainbridge, Warwickshire; W. B. Delacombe and Arthur Wilson, Derby­ shire ; Sir Archibald Palmer, T. Burdett, and J. Perkins, Leicestershire ; R. Ben- craft and A. ,T. L. Hill, Hampshire ; C. E. Green, 0. R. Borradaile, H. Gowen, and C. M. Tebbut, Essex; J. Horner and H. Thornber, Cheshire; G. J. Mor- daunt and H. D. G. Leveson-Gower, Oxford University; F. Mitchell, Cam­ bridge University ; T. C. Slaney and G. T. Baggulley, Staffordshire; H. M. Turner, Oxfordshire; It. H. Mallett, Durham ; C. Pigg, Hertfordshire ; C. M. Thring, Bedfordshire; J. M. Brown, Glamorgan; F. Walters, Cambridgeshire ; E. G. Buxton, Norfolk ; F. Phillips, Mon­ mouthshire ; P. H. Foley, Worcester­ shire ; A. Wasley and T. J. Mycroft, North and East Riding of Yorkshire ; C. I. Thornton and H. T. Hewett. After luncheon the chairman asked whether all the first-class counties had arranged the requisite number of matches to qualify for the Championship, Mr. C. E. Gieen stated that Essex had not. Only six counties had made fixtures with them. After some discussion Middlesex and Somersetshire agreed to play Essex to make up the complement, Mr. P. H. Foley (Worcestershire) stated that eighteen counties outside the important shires had been approached with a view to the institution of a Championship between the second-class counties. Bedfordshire, Buckingham­ shire, Cambridgeshire, Devon, Durham, Glamorgan, Hertfordshire, Monmouth­ shire, Norfolk, Northants, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, Worcestershire, Lincolnshire, and Cheshire had approved of the following resolution passed that morning at a meeting at which nearly all the counties named were represented:— “ That a second class county cricket competition for the second class cricketing counties be instituted, and be open to all county cricket clubs arranging a pro­ gramme of not less than four liome-and- liome county matches. The method of scoring shall be the same as that adopted in the first class county championship competition.” Herefordshire and Shrop­ shire have not replied to the circular. It was stated that a meeting of the counties concerned would be held in Birmingham in three weeks’ time to consider the details of the scheme. Lord Hawke (Yorkshire), in introducing the subject of umpires and their appoint­ ment, remarked that a good deal of dissatis­ faction had been expressed during the last two or three seasons with regard to umpiring. He thought he could suggest a solution of that difficulty. He desired that each county should nominate as many umpires as they liked and forward the names to the M.C.C. by February 1. After that date and before the season com­ menced he hoped to call a meeting of the county captains, who with their elevens were the people most interested in the matter of good and bad decisions. At that meeting they could talk over the subject of umpiring, and they might arrive at some proposals to put before the com­ mittees. They might, for instance, ask that the fee of umpires should be raised from £5 to fc6. That was a small item when so much money was taken at the gates. He believed there were many good men who wou’dnot umpire, because they were not allowed to stand in matches in which their own county was engaged. He believed it was the wish of the captains that they should be allowed to do so. What he thought the captains might do would be to choose the best umpires they could, and at the end of the season strike out those who gave bad dec'sions. Some discussion ensued, and it was understood that the committees generally would send in their lists to M.C.C. by February 1. At the same time the feeling was strongly against the appointment of umpires to act in matches in which the counties for which they had played were engaged. The programme as arranged follows. APRIL. 29—Cambridge, Cambridge University Fresh­ men’s Match M VY. 1—Lord’s, M.C.C. Annual General Meeting and Dinner 1— Lord'd, M.C.C. and Ground v. Notts 2—Cambridge, Cambridge University Senior,’ Match 6—Lord’s M.C C. and Ground v. Leicestershire 6—Birmingham, Warwickshire v. Essex 6—Oxford, Oxford University Freshmen’s Match 9-L ord ’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Sussex 9—Oral, Surrey y. Leicestershire 9—Oxford, Oxford University Seniors’ Match 13—Oval. Surrey v. Essex 13—Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Somerset 13—Birmiogham, Warwickshire v. Derbyshire 13—Oxford, Oxford University : The XI. v. Sixtern Freshmen. 13—Lord’s, M.C.C. and Ground v. Yorkshire 13—Oval, Surrey v. Warwickshire 16—Lord’p, M.C.C. and Ground v. Lancashire 16—Bristol, Gloucestershire v. S smerset 16—Nottingham. Notts v. Sussex 16—Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Mr. C. J. Thornton’s England XI. 16—Oxford, Oxford Univ<rsity XT. v. Next Sixteen 16—Liverpool, Yorkshire v. Liverpool and District 20—Lord's, M.C.C. and Ground v. Derbyshire 20—Oxford, Oxford University v. Somerset 20—Manchester, Lancashire v. Sussex •iC— Bradford, Yorkshire v. Warwickshire 20—Sheffield, Yorkshire Colts v. Notts Colts 20—Leicester, Leicestershire v. Notts (provisional) 20-Cambridge, Cambridge University v. Gentle­ men of England (Mr. A. J. Webbe’s Xf.) 2J-Oval, Suirey v. Cambridge University 23—Oxford, Oxford University v. Gentlemen of England (Mr. A. J. Webbe’s X I ) 23—Gravesend, Kent v. Gloucestershire 21—Nottingham, Notts v. Yorkshire 27—Oval, Surrey v. England (Mr. W. W. Read’s Testimonial Match) 27—Oxford, Oxford University v. Yorkshire 27—Leyton, Essex v. Middlesex 30—Lora’s. Middlestx v. G oucester.bire 30—Birmicghun, Warwickshire v. Surrey NEXT ISSUE JANUARY 31