Cricket 1900

A p r i l 2 6 , 1 9 0 0 . CRICKET ; A WEEKLY RECORD Of THE GAME. 93 was aide-de-camp and private secretary to Sir William Stevenson. He was on special service in Madagascar in 1861, and several years later he filled the posi­ tion of adjutant at the Chatham Sc'iool of Military Engineering, holding it until 1868 ; in the ensuing five or six years he was was brigade major. He received an appointment as inspector of railways under the Bjard of Trade iu 1877, and rose to the senior inspectorship iu 1896. In 1887, the year of the juWilee, he was made C.M.G. for the work he did in con­ nection with the Egyptian ‘■Hate railways, and in 1897, the ye ir of the diamond jubilee, he was made K.C.M G. THE M ETROPOL ITAN CLUBS IN 1300. Continued from page 78. Most of the chief clubj of Kent, and Surrey figure in B r o m l e y ’ s card, arranged by the hou. sec., A. E E irn- shaw (Teigumouth, South Hill Park) The Kent County Club and Ground, as well as M.C.C. and Ground, are also in the list. The latter form the attraction for the fifth day (Friday, July 6 th ) of the Bromley week. The other five matches are against Eltham, Kichinond, Becken­ ham, Granville and Rochester, in the order named. APRIL. ‘28. Br.imley, v. Bromley Town MAY. Abbey W ood, v. Lessness Park Bromley, v. Lessness Park (2) Lee, v. Granville Bromley, v. W hitgifc Wanderers Bromley, v. Nonde cripts Quernmore, v. Quernmore Masters Dulwich, v. Ibis Bromley, v. Ibis (2) JUNE. Bromley, v. Lessness Park Lee, v. Granville (2) Bickley, v. Bickley Park Bromley, v. Barnes West Wickham, v. West Wi?kham Bromley, v. Bickley Park Tooting, v. Upper Tooting Sidcup, v. Sidcup Bromley, v. Chislehurwt Bromley, v. Blackheath Lee, v. N orthb'o »k (2) JU LY . Bromley, v. Eltham ' Bromley, v. Richmond J Bromley, v. Beckenham f Hromley, v. Granville / Bromley, v. M.C C. 1 Bromley, v. Rochester / Bromley, v. Ibis Dulwich, v. Ibis (2) Eltham, v. Eltham Bromley, v. Granville (2) Bromley, v, Wimbledon Chi*lehurst, v. Chislehurst Cricket Week 2. 2. 4. 9. 9. 16. 16. 23. 23. 30. 3\ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 14. 14. 21. 21. 28. 2S. AUGUST. 1. Bromley, v. Kent County Club and Ground 4. Bromley, v. W est Wickham 6. Bromley, v. Bickley Park 11. Bromley, v. Dulwich 18. Beckenham, v. Beckenham 25. Bromley, v. Sidcup SEPTEMBER. 1. Bromley, v. Northbrook If C hiswick P ark (W. H. L. Horton, Sunnyside, The Mall, Cniswick, S.W., hon. sec.) has not a lengthy card, its programme of eighteen matches is one of high quality. The Week, which com­ mences on July 23, closes the season. The six matches are against Kensington Park, The Erratics, Peripatetics, Wimble­ don, B. F. Cirdale’s X I., and Iucogniti. MAY. 5. Chiswick Park, v. Ealing 12. Richmond, v. Richmond 19. Chiswick Park, v. St. Thomas’ Hospital 26. Chiswick House, v. Lhiswick House JUNE. Chis *ick Park, v. Turnh im Green Uxbridge, v. Uxbridge Chiswick Park. v. 8t. Thomas’ Hospital Chiswick Park, v. Emeriti Surbiton, v. Surbiton JU LY. Chiswick Park, v. Richm nd ( hiswick Park, v. Barnes Chiswick Park, v. Surbiton v Kensiugton Park \ v Erratics J v. Peiipttetics v. Wimbledou v. R. F. Cardale’sX I. v. Incogniti Cricke; Week H ampstkad is fortunate in having T. W. Mackintosh (2, LiihosRoad, Fiuchley Roa I, N.W.) once again in the offi ;e of hon. sec. With H. B. H ainan, G. MacGregor, and A. E. Stoddart on the committee, first-class cricket is well represented on the executive. The Hamp­ stead Week commences on July 23 w igq a match against Rochester. Therein lin­ ing fixtures are against Plaistow, Rich­ mond, Old Westminsters, Hornsey, M.C.C. and Ground. Tue three pro­ fessionals, Boot, Gregory, and Cirlin, all hail frjm Nottiugham. MAY. fi. Mitcham, v. Mitcham 9. St Quintin Park, v. Kensiugton Park 12. Surbiton, v. Surbiton 12 Hampstead, v. London Sco'tish 16 . Hampstead, v. Stoics 19. Hornsey, v. Hornsey 19. Hampstead, v. Hornsey 23. Uxbridge, v. Uxbridge 26 Hampstead, v. Ealing 2K. Lee, v. Granville 29. Teddiugton, v. leddington JUNE. 2. W atford, v. West Herts Club an I Gr mud 2. Hampstead, v. Finchley 4. Hampste id, Married v. Unm irried 6. Hampstead, v. Charlton Park 9. Hampstead, v. Marlborough Blues 13. Hampstead, v. Pallingswick 16. Malden, v. Maldea Wandeivrs 16. Hampstead, v. St. Mary’s Hospital 2 >. Arkley, v. Arkley 23. Hampstead, v. Uxbridge 21 Finchley, v. Christ’s College 27. Hampstead, v. London County 30 Hampstead, v. Arkley 30. W oodfor*, v. Woodford Wells JULY. 4. Acton, v. Pallingsvuck 7. nampstea'l, v. ISt. Bartholomew’s Hospital 7. Highgate, v. Highgate Scho *1 11. r.ampstead, v. Wanderers 14. Hampstead, v. Surbiton 1 . Eltham. v. Elihain 18 Richmond, v. Kichmonl • 21 . tilling, v. Ealiog 21. Hampstead, v. uranville 23. Hampstead, v. Kochester * \ 24. Hampstead, v. Plaistow I 25. liampstead, v. Richmond I Cricket 26. Hampstead, v. Old Westminsters | Week 27. Hampstead, v. Hornsby 28. Hampstead, v. M.C.C. J AUGUS r. 1 Hampst«ad, v. Hampton Wick 4. Hmnp>tead, v. Woodford Wells 4. Biondesbury, v. London Scottish 6. Hampstead, v. South Hampstead 8. Hampstrad, v. Teddington 1'. Hampstead, v. U.C.S. Old Boys 11. Norbury, London and Westminster Bank 15. Hampstead, v. West Herts Club and Giound 18. Hampstead, v. Eltham 18. Southgate, v. Southgate 22. Hampton Wick, v. Hampton W ick 25. Hampstead, v. Kensington Park 25. Finchley, v. Finchley 29. Charlton, v. Charlton Park SEPTEMBER. 1. Hampstead, v. Mitcham 4. Crystal Palace, v. London County 8. Hampstead, v. Malden Wanderers The H o r n s b y club has P. B. Dent (Lingdale, Muswell Hill, N.) for its non. sec. The card, as usual, is fine and large, comprising nearly sixty engage­ ments between May 5 and September 8, inclusive. Prominent among them may be mentioned home and home matches with Essex Club and Ground, and one at Horusey with M.C.C. and Ground. Ia addition to these, Northbrook, P. J. Nicholls’ X I., W. P. Harrison’s X I., and the Nondescripts figure during the Hornsey week, commencing on June 25. A PRIL. 28. Hornsey, y. Club Match M AY. Horn?ey, v. Finchley Broxbourne, v. Broxbourne Honor Oak Park, v. Guy’s Hospital Horusey, v. Clapton Clapton, v. Clipton Finchley, v. Christ’s College, Finchley Winchmore Hill, v. St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Hornsey, v. Hampstead Hampstead, v. Hampstead Mill Hill, v. M id Hill School Chelmsford, v. Chelmsford Upper Clapt n v. Upper Clapton Hornsey, v. Eofield Hornsey, v. Christ’s College, Finchley JUNE. Hornsey, v. Upper Tooting Upper Tooting, v. Upper Tooting Mill Hill, v. Mill Hill School Hornsey, v. Barnet Richmond, v. Richmond Wanstead, v. Wanstead Lee, v. Northbrook Hornsey, v. Wanstead Horusey, v. Guy’s Hospital Hornsey, v. W oodford Brentwood, v. Brentwood W oodford, v. W oodford Hornsey, v. South Hampstead Arkley, v. Ark'ey Finchley, v. Finchley v. Northbrook \ v. F. J. Nicholls’ Eleven I v. Essex Club and Ground v. M.C.C. and Ground v. W. P. Harrison’s Eleven v. Nondescripts Dulwich, v. Dulwich - Cricket W ee’c JU LY . Hornsey, v. Winstead Brondesk>ury, v. Loudon Scottish Wanstead, v. Waustead Hornsey, v. Twe.ity-two Tennis Members Entield, v. Eutteid Leyton, v. E -s;x Club and Ground Woodford, v. Woodford Hornsey, v. Woodford Hampstead, v. Hampstead Hornsey, v. Old Cholm lians Finchley, v. Finchley AUGUSr. Hornsey, v. Old Citizens Barnet, v. Barnet Hornsey, v. Dulwich Uxbridge, v. Uxbridge Hornsey, v. Arkley Sjuthgate, v. Southgate Clapton, v. Clapton Horusey, v Cia ton Hornsey, v. University College Old Boys SEPTEMBER. Hornsey, v. Upper Clapton Hornsey, v. Finchley Hockey Club Hornsey, v. Club Match As every cricketer who knows anything about Kent cricket is well aware, the ground of the M ote C.C., at Maidstone is “ one of the best.” The Kent eleven have generally of late years in particular done well there, so that it is not a surprise to find the Essex team down to appear at the Mote this season. In addition to the inter-county match, the programme