Cricket 1895

52 CR ICKET : A W EEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. A p r il 11, 1895. matter, to which I shall never again refer in print. So here goes for my final confession of faith. I regret exceedingly that any names have been introduced into this discussion, and blame myself for a breach of good taste in occasionally making a target of one or two great cricketers. But certain names are so freely mentioned in this connection. Moreover, “ Complimentary” matches are set aside for certain cricketers who make a profit by their services on the cricket field. If I have any animus at all, it is directed against county and other cricket tribunals, and not against men whom I regard as the victims of a thoroughty vicious state of things. There is no need for us to haggle over definitions. I thought everybody knew, or ought to know by this time—the thing having been rather frequently mentioned— that in sport the words amateur and gentleman are identical in meaning, and so inter­ changeable, and that they meant a person who takes part in a particular branch of sport out of genuing love for the same. A professional is one who plays at sport for a livelihood ; to him it is a business, and no longer a sport pure and simple. That is why a sharp, dividing line has always been drawn between the two classes. Once upon a time I thought this line of cleavage unnecessary. Why, I have said to myself, should a man lose caste by taking money in sport F Why, for instance, is it considered infra dig to earn a living by playing cricket, but not by writing on cricket ? And for a long time I could discover no essential difference. At last it dawned on me that the reason may lie here: A professional sportsman, to whom his particular line of sport has become a business, will naturally loan himself out to the highest bidder. If a livelihood be his motif in sport, and not sport for sport’s sake, it may just happen that he is open to monetary temptation to lose rather than win. It is generally supposed that a professional sportsman will sell a match, if you will make it worth his while to do so. Do not misunderstand me. I am speaking of sport generally, and not of cricket in particular just at present. There was a dark chapter in cricket history, as Mr. Pycroft has written for our warning. That is closed for ever, one earnestly hopes. It is a source of unfailing comfort to all of us that our professional cricketers are above sus­ picion. I can recall only one case during the past forty years in which a player deliberately gave away a match. I know of no sport so pure, so thorougly clean. And it is because I am jealous for the game, and because I dread the possibility of the cricket field falling to the level of the football, cycling, or horse-racing enclosure, that I urge the necessity for marking off the amateur from the professional by the clearest possible line. It is a pure evasion of the point at issue to say that we refuse to dub a man a gentleman because he is paid for playing cricket. He is not an amateur, and so is not a gentleman in the sporting use of the word. He may stil be a gentleman in the conventional sense; if he was a gentleman before he played cricket, there’s no reason why he should cease to be a gentleman whether he plays as an amateur or professional. I know numbers of professionals who are gentlemen, and I know some amateur cricketers who are not gentlemen. We must not confuse the issue by using words in two or more senses. Certain cricketers could be named both in the past and the present who started as amateurs, but could not afford to play long as amateurs. Some retired from active cricket, others most honourably went over to the ranks of the pro­ fessionals. They have not ceased to be gentlemen. This is my contention. So long as we have this distinction in sport, so long as there are in cricket separate dressing rooms, and in many instances, separate ways out of and into the pavilion, it is manifest that our cricket legislators intended and still intend to keep the two classes apart. And as long that is the case it is dishonest, both on the part of the authorities and of cricketers as well, for any man to rank as an amateur who is paid at all, or at a higher rate than the professionals. It is unfair to the pro­ fessionals, and, moreover, it violates a moral principle. Personally I would abolish the two gates and the different dressing rooms. They are never seen in Club Cricket. Are they known or recognised in Australia p Is there any distinction of classes among our English teams over there ? I have not heard of any for years. One remembers that in an earlier tour there were TWO tents for the visitors. No wonder there was friction in that team, especially when it is borne in mind that the so-called amateurs in it were making at least four times as large an income out of cricket as the professionals. Some­ times I wish we would adopt the method pursued in Australia. “ The idea of an amateur being paid at all for his services is highly amusing to us out here (Australia). Here cricketers are all paid alike, ten or twelve shillings a day for out-of-pocket expenses, besides having travelling and hotel bills paid for them. Is not this a better arrangement than the snobbish distinction that is made in England ? ” One of ourmodern amateurs has said that ‘ 1if professional cricketers had been as respectable a class when he first began County cricket as they are to-day, he would never have played as an amateur.” A pity he did not declare himself a professional in name, as he has ever been in fact. Gentlemen, this question touches the root of honor, and sport and morality are inseparable. Our professionals ought to be treated fairly. Either every man who makes money by sport is a professional, or no man is. Increase of pay can never transform a professional into an amateur. It is the snobbishness of the disguised professional I protest against. But I will close with quoting a resolu­ tion passed by the M.C.C. in 1878. It justifies all I have said. “ D e f in it io n a n d Q u a l if ic a t io n o f A m a t e u r C r ic k e t e r s . “ This subject having been brought before the committee, a sub-committee was appointed to consider the whole question; and the sub-committee reported as follows:— “ ‘ In the consideration of the question submitted by the committee we have, in the first instance, referred to the accounts of the last few years, in order to ascertain the amount which has been expended by the club under the long-established rule that a gentleman who is invited to play in an M.C.C. match, and would be de­ barred from playing by the expenses to which he would be put, may, on applica­ tion to the secretary, receive his reason­ able expenses. . . . We find that there has been no abuse of this rule so far as the M.C.C. are concerned . . . and that no gentleman has been retained by the club by extra payment. We see no reason for recommending the abolition of this old-established rule, but we think it advisable that the committee should lay down distinctly the principle on which they are prepared to act, especially as regards the match Gentlemen v. Players. We are of opinion that no gentleman ought to make a profit by his service in the cricket field, and that for the future any cricketer taking more than his ex­ penses in any match should not be quali­ fied to play for the Gentlemen v. the Players at Lord’s ; but that if any gentle­ man feel difficulty in joining in a match without such assistance he should not be debarred from playing as a gentleman by having his actual expenses defrayed. We feel that we must notice statements which have been made to us that sums much in excess of actual expenses have been frequently paid to gentlemen by other clubs or individuals. We have not thought it desirable to go into this ques­ tion at any length, because we hope that if the committee of the M.C.C. should adopt our suggestion as to the above minute, and should make such minute public, that course will have the effect of checking a system which might grow into a serious abuse, and which even as now alleged to be practised is open to grave objection.’ “ This report of the sub-committee was unanimously adopted by the general committee.” I simply ask that the same may be carried into practical effect to-day. P. S.—In case I shall be accused of being a hard taskmaster, my answer is, ‘ ‘ Granted ’’ ; but all of us mustbow before the fates. Time was when I always travelled first class; now, being a family man, I can no longer afford it, so I travel third. Hard, isn’t it ?—especially when as last week only my compartment filled up with colliers straight from the pit. What to do ? Not sneak into a superior compartment, but swallow your pride and keep your seat. Cricketers of England, one must travel, but we are not compelled to play county cricket. Whether, however, we travel, or cricket, or whatever else we do, we are bound by the eternal commandment, never to travel first class with a third-class ticket.