Cricket 1903

THB FINEST BAT THB WORLD PRODUCES. A pril 23, 1903. CRICKET: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME. 83 BUSSEY’S BUSSEY’S AT TH E SIGN OF THE W ICK E T . B y F. S . A s h le y -O o o p h b . An interesting article (unsigned), a portion of which was reproduced in the last issue of Cricket, appears in Baily's Magazine for April, entitled “ Hamble­ don, the Cradle of Cricket.” To an antiquary the article is somewhat dis­ appointing, inasmuch as no further light is thrown on the matter concerning the date of formation, or the early years, of the Hambledon Club. In the course of his remarks the writer observes, “ It can hardly be disputed that cricket as a serious game, and in anything approach­ ing its modern shape, did have its origin at Hambledon.” This statement is one with which but few historians will be found to agree, for during the past decade sufficient details of the early history of cricket have been unearthed in order to prove that Hambledon has little, if any, claim to be regarded as “ The Cradle of Cricket.’’ William Beldham, who could speak “ as one having authority,” stated that the club was founded in or about 1750, by which time not only had inter-county matches became of almost frequent occurrence, but the London Club had been established about half a century, if not longer. One would like to be ab’.e to regard the old-world and picturesque village of Hambledon as the birthplace of the game, or even the locality in which cricket first reached any degree of perfection, but, as by the middle of the eighteenth century —when the Hambledon Club was founded —the game is known to have been not only popular on almost every village green in Surrey, Kent, and Sussex, but even to have been indulged in in Ger­ many, India, and the United States, it is difficult to see what claims tbeTjampshire village can seriously put forth in order to be recognised as the “ Cradle of Cricket.” William Beldham, who stated that the the club was founded in or about 1750, probably placed the inauguration at an earlier, rather than at a later, date than it really was, for John Small, who was born in 1737, was one of the original members of the club, and would have been only thirteen years of age in the year named by Beldbam. In passing, it I),ay be observed that not any of the chief commentators on the game have attached any importance to the letter in Pycroft’s Cricket Field from Thomas Smith, Esq., of Fir Hill, Droxford, Bishop’s Waltham, Hants, which endeav­ oured to prove that the club originated at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The old books of the club, to which the writer referred, possibly ex­ isted only in his imagination. Although many inquiries were made for the books, a sight of them was never obtained, neither could any satisfactory proof of their existence ever be discovered. Again, had th e' club been established about the year 1700, how could John Small, who was not born until 1737, have been one of the original members ? The first recorded Hambledon match was played against Chertsey, at Laleham Burway, in September, 1764, and in an account of the same the former side was referred to as “ Hambledon, in Hants, called Squire Lamb’s Club,” which may be taken as evidence that the Hambledon Club resulted from the efforts and enthu­ siasm of a Hampshire squire, and that before the side attained world - wide fame it was named after its founder. Before the M.C.C. was in existence the Hambledon Club was undoubtedly the chief club in the country, but long ere the latter was heard of the London Club, whose chief players were Surrey men, and whose venue of play was the Artillery Ground, London, occupied the foremost place in the cricketing world. Details are in existence of matches played by the London Club for about half a century, and it was the decline of the club in 1751, owing to the unfortunate death that year of Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, from a blow received in the side from a cricket ball, which caused there to be no recognised head to the game for some years—until, in fact, Hambledon asserted itself, and occupied as pre-eminent a place in the world of cricket as any club has ever done, either before or since. “ But Hambledon,” it may be argued, “ were the law givers, and boasted the support of the Hampshire gentry.” “ The London Club,” it may be replied, “ in 1744 drew up the laws of the game —which are still extant—and was pre­ sided over by Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, and supported by such high dignitaries as H.R.H. the Duke of Cumberland (‘ Butcher ’), Lord Mont- ford, the Earl of Sandwich, etc.” The Artillery Ground, although situate in Middlesex, was really a Surrey ground. Many great inter-county matches, and games in which both Kent and Surrey contended against England, were played there, including the historic contest of 1744 (described in verse by James Love), iu which Kent beat England by a wicket. During the first few years, at least, of its existence, the Hambledon Club played under the laws drawn up by the London Club in 1744. Tom Faulkner, Stephen Dingate, the Bennets, and the Bryans, of London, were probably not the equals of John Small, William Beldham, David Harris, and the other leading Hamble- donian heroes, but they were very great in their own generation, and there can be no doubt that had the London Club possessed such a chronicler as Hambledon had in John Nyren, the latter place would never have been regarded as “ The Cradle of Cricket.” It is difficult, if not impossible, to say what village should be so designated (although Mitcham could put forward very strong claims), but, seeing that between 1730 and 1750 Surrey played thirty-six recorded great matches, and that the chief players of the London Club were Surrey men, it would perhaps be the wisest thing to regard that county as the nursery of the game. Whatever decision is come to, however, the faot remains that Hambledon can no longer be con­ sidered the “ Cradle of Cricket.” From New York comes a request for a list of batsmen who have succeeded in