James Lillywhiite's Cricketers' Annual 1874

6 4 Smith again almost at the top of the tree with 44 (Lockwood , 55), totalled 182, andhad to follow on this time with 222 runs to the bad, instead of 167. Their second innings , though, almost madethe balance even with Sheffield , as, thanks to a fine innings of 104 by Emmett, their second effort was produc- tive of 287 runs. Sixty -nine for Gloucestershire to win, but the task was more difficult than it looked , for they lost E. M. Grace, W. G. Grace, T. G. Matthews, F. Townsend, and F. Taylor-five of the very best bats and they only wonb y five wickets , one more than at Sheffield . Another debût of a Yorkshire colt , one Betts , who made 12 and 44 (not out) as a first appearance . Gloucester- shire , 404 and 69 ; total , 473. Yorkshire , 182 and 287 ; total , 469. (5) Gloucestershirev. Surrey. Bristol , August 25, 26, 27 . A remarkable match in manyways. Surrey wonthe toss , and wentinto the field ; not a usual occurrence , but the wickets were dead, and there was Southerton to consider . The result was satisfactory , as Gloucestershire for once fell short of the second hundred, and they had to be content with the, for them, insignificant total of 172 ; W. G. Grace 48, F. Townsend36, G. F. Grace 20, and T. W. Lang 44, the only double figures . Street was three times hit out of the ground to square leg , twice by Mr. Townsend and once by " the Cham- pion," such hits as would have made Mr. Thornton even interested . Heavy rain during the interval , and Surrey sent in Freeman and Swann, for once forsaking the inevitable order of "Jupp and Humphrey " (R. ). Thomas Humphrey, the highest scorer with an innings of 27, quite in his old form, and Caffyn-a resurrection -an equally creditable score of 25. One hundred and thirty -four in all , and Surrey 38 runs to the bad with rain constantly inter- fering , sun-shining , disappearing , and other such depressing freaks of weather . In such accompaniments Gloucestershire went a second time to the wickets , and began unpromisingly enough, losing " the Doctor " and F. Townsend for only 27 runs . W. G. Grace and E. M. Knapp, however , revelled in dead wickets and occasional showers and Surrey had a nice outing to themselves . In fact , the two batsmeu might have been in now(Dec. ), hadthere been a chance of such an extraordinary feat . As it was, they put on 254 runs , and were then not out, either of them-W. G. Grace 160, his partner 90. Mention maybe made of the former's figures , four sixes , one five , twelve fours , seven threes , eleven twos, and forty singles . The match was drawn. Gloucestershire , 172 and 281 (two wickets ) ; total , 453. Surrey, 134. O v e r s. Southerton (1st innings of Gloucester ) 49 W . G. Grace (Surrey's only innings ) 1 6 M a i d e n s. R u n s. W i c k e t s. 8 1 4 0 6 6 1 9 4 (6) Gloucestershirev. S u s s e x. Cheltenham, August28, 29, 30. Amagnificent wicket , thanks to the care of old James Lillywhite and his attendant hirelings . Nothing wanting but fine weather , but that was wanting, for on the first day there was no play at all ; and on the second Gloucestershire wonthe toss andwentin. Theywent in, too, to their usual tune, despite every untoward circumstance , for they realised 424 in all, the first wicket having produced as many as 113 , and Mr. Townsend alone subscribing 136 without