40 1837. Players -won by an inn ing and i 10 runs (") , 1837. This was a second match, the Gentlemen, who played 10, bein'' defeated by an innings and OS runs IS38. Players won by 40 runs 1830. Drawn 1810. Players won by 9 wickets 1841. Players won by 2 wickets 1842. Gentlemen won by 95 runs 1843. Gentlemen won by an innings and 40 runs ( b ) 1844. Players won by 38 runs 1845. Players won by G7 runs 1846. Gentlemen won by 1 wicket 1847. Playei*s won by 147 runs 1848. Gentlemen won by 33 runs 1849. Gentlemen won by an innings and 40 runs 1850. Players won by an innings and 48 runs 1851. Players won by an innings and 14 runs 1851. This was designated as a return match, the Players winning by an innings and 52 runs 1852. Players won by 5 wickets 1853. Gentlemen won by GOruns w 1851. Players won by 9 wickets. v V 1855. Players won by 7 wickets 1850. Players won by 2 wickets 1857. Players won by 13 runs 1858. Players won by 285 runs 1859. Players won by 109 runs 1860. Players won by an innings and 181 runs 60 runs 1861. Players won by an innings and 1862. Players won by 157 runs (r) 1863. Players won by 8 wickets 1864. Players won by an innings and 68 runs 1865. Gentlemen won by 8 wickets 1866. Players won by 38 runs 1867. Gentlemen won by 8 wickets 1868. Gentlemen won by 8 wickets 1869. Gentlemen won by 3 wickets 1870. Gentlemen won by 4 run9. 1871. Drawn 1872. Gentlemen won by 7 wickets 1873. Gentlemen won by an innings and 55 runs 1874. Players won by two wickets 1875. Gentlemen won by 262 runs. 1876. Gentlemen won by an innings and 98 runs la) This was called the Barn-door match, or “ Ward’s Folly,” the Gentlemen using wickets 27in. by 8in., the Players 36in. by 12in. (£) The Gentlemen in this match received the assistance of Pilch, Cobbett, and Wenman. (c) In this match both teams were under thirty years of age. (6) E ton v. Harrow. July 14 and 15. What is termed one of the great matches of the year proved to be a miserable failure, at least in its primary object, the display of good cricket. As a spectacle it was a greater success than ever, and there are some who regret that of late the match has been allowed to degenerate into a show rather than keep its place as a vehicle for the promotion of amateur cricket. On public form the Etonians were a good eleven, and little was known of the Harrovians except from common rumour. Eton won the toss, and after the first hour the match was virtually over. Forbes, the Eton captain, hammered what little bowling there was on the side of Harrow away into all parts of the ground ; and as a proof of the vigour of his hitting it need only be said that lie made 113 out of 171 runs in an hour and three-quarters, or an average of more than a run a minute. Goodhart, at first all abroad with the lobs of L. K. Jarvis, hit well wrhen he got set, and Bury hit even harder than Forbes. Great things were expected of Meek and L. K. Jarvis when Harrow took the b a t ; but the latter failed signally, and the former was never dangerous. In all, the Harrow batting w*as very far below the ordinary standard, and the match w’as as hollow' an affair as we have had for years, Eton winning at 3.45 p.m. on the second day by an innings and 2 4m ns. Forbes, Bury, and Goodhart were all good h itters , and Forbes unm is­ takably show’ed batting above the average standard, though the bowling of Harrow was too weak to constitute it a very brilliant performance. In the