20 Avmng the onnntioa Gloucestershire was easily champion with eight i I'Uilir , and nothing like a dofeat. Yorkshire and Notts were fairly on a par, with, if anything, a slight preponderance in favour of the latter. Lancashire began the season well, and finished as badly; while Sussex was very insecure at times, and two out of the four victories of Kent were close enough to be hardly regarded as successes. Surrey fared very badly, Derbyshire little better, and Middlesex, though it mado long scores in many instances, only absolutely won one match out of six. The most sensational match of the year was that between Middlesex and Oxford University at Prince’s on Juno 19th, 20tli, 21st, when 1,217 runs wero mado for 34 wickets, and in the Middlesex score of G12 no batsman got loss than doublo tignres. Gloucestershire enjoyed the distinction of making the highest total (628) of the Counties, and Surrey again occupied the lowest position, with an innings of 20 in its closing engagement of the year against Notts at Nottingham. During the season somo extraordinary bowling performances were recorded in first-class matches. For Surrey against Kent, at the Oval, Jones, in the first innings of Kent, delivered 18 overs for 10 runs and 6 wickets, all of which were bowled. For the Marylebone Club against Yorkshire, at Scarborough Mr. C. K. Francis bowled 11 overs for 12 runs and 7 wickets, of which 0 were bowled, and for Yorkshire i\ Surrey, at Sheffield, Armitagc’s lobs secured 13 wickets at a cost of only 49 runs. Other equally noteworthy exploits will no doubt be found in the chapter usually devoted to the curiosities of the year ; but before parting with the Counties it would be only fitting to record that Daft and Oscroft, in the match between Notts and Gloucestershire, at Clifton, in the first innings of the former county, together scored 151 runs before a wicket fell, and that a week later, on the same ground, Messrs. F. J. Greenfield and J. M. Cotterill, in the first innings of Sussex against Gloucestershire, added 148 ruus between the second and third wickets. Taken generally, as was stated at the commencement of this article, the cricket of the year was a success. It is true that there were very few young cricketers brought to light, either among the amateurs or professionals; but still there w*as no lack of incident throughout, and Mr. W. G. Grace’s exploits alone made the season remarkable beyond the best of its predecessors. There was an evident disposition to encourage county cricket on the part of the principal amateurs, and it is not exaggeration to say that county cricket has nover had a moro promising year. Towards the end of the season there was the usual attempt to agitate for reform, and sundry propositions were made with the avowed object of helping the bowlers. It maybe that bowling lias not improved of late years, and that in the South at least it has fallen into almost total disuso among young players; but much of the evil is duo to the unfair preponderance that has been given to batsmen in comparison with bowlers and fieldsmen. Columns of exceptional batting scores, talent money for an innings of fifty runs, and every encouragement to the batsman, but little to the bowler, and none to the fieldsmen. A professional may have ;i good eye and fluke an innings or two to secure a place in a comity eleven, .nd ho is safe. It matters not that he cannot bowl a ball capable of taking a wicket, that he misses every catch that comes within his reach, and that ‘ practically loses infinitely more runs than he makes for his side. Batting is everything and fielding nothing, so that no wonder is to be felt at the common complaint that young professionals, especially in the South, do not c : hibit the slightest inclination to improve their fielding, that when a ball is