CO Opponents. Matches Lost t Hampshire ] L an ca sh ire f D e rby sh ire 2 S u s sex ----- t Hampshire 6 Surrey . . (r>). Where played. When ployed. • * • • ♦ • • • • * * • • • • Southamptn June 8-9-10 Rochdale . . June 15-16-17 Derby..........June 19-20 Brighton . . July 10-11-12 Faversham Aug 17-18-19 Oval ......... !Aug 24-25-26| f Have been treated in previous reviews. Club. Opponents. 1st 2nd 1st 2nd Inns. Inns. Inns. Inns. j Lost hxf 271I236 runs *27:10 wkts *no w d 171 32 runs 330 57 runs — Inns & 6 runs 155 J9o 215 56 149 181 131 113 105 203 250 180 129 142 277 66 258 268 *57 10 wkts *no w d (l) Kent r- Lancashire. Rochdale, June 15, 16, and 17. Rain prevented any play in this match on the first day, and the cricket was consequently somewhat unreliable. The three lirst batsmen of Lanca­ shire alone got double figures, and they, Mr. Hornby (65), Mr. Chadwick (3d), and Barlow (29), contributed, of the 165 got from the bat, as many as 127. Kent made a poor show of 56 in its first innings, and had Lord Harris been caught, as he ought to have been, before he scored in the second the latt< r would have been as insignificant. As it was, after this life the Kentish captain played a grand innings of 82, and four batsmen scored 132 ol 140 runs from the hat. The wicket suited the Lancastrian slow bowler, Watson, as he took three wickets in one over in the second innings of Kent, and, in .all, his analysis was— Overs. Maidens. Runs. W eketfi. 62.2 29 87 H Lancashire won by ten wickets. Lancashire, 181 and 25 (no wickets) ; total, *206. Kent, 56 and 149 ; total, 205. (2) Kent v. Sussex. Brighton, July 10, 11, and 12. Nine hundred and sixty-three runs for forty wickets, and a victory for Sussex by 57 runs. With little howling on either side high scoring was certainly not a matter for surprise. Oddly enough, every member of the Kentish eleven obtained double figures in one of the two innings, and yet in neither was there a score of 50 runs. Kent had an advantage of 23 runs at the end of an innings, but a lorg score of 123 by Charlwrood—one without a chance—in the second venture of Sussex, upset the Kentish calculations. Kent had 308 runs to win, and only two of the eleven, Mr. Byass (8) and Hearne (3), failed to reach double figures. Still they fell short of the required sum, and Sussex won by 57 runs. Croxford, on the Kentish side, was not out each innings, making in the first 24, and in tho second 32. Sussex 180 and 330 ; total, 510. Kent, 203 and *250 ; total, 453. (3) Kent v. Sussex. Tunbridge Wells, July 17, 18, and 19. Again the scoring was high, though not so heavy as in ilic previous week. Sussex made only a moderate commencement, as when 85 runs had been made five of the best wickets were down. Fillery stayed the tide with a freely hit score of 71, and 24 extras raised the total to 200. Kent made even a worse start than had their opponents, and with them, too, the tail did the execu­ tion. Six wickets were down for 61, but the last four added 105, to which Hearne (42) and Mr. Foord-Kelcey were the chief subscribers. Mr. Greenfield and Lilly white scored respectively 52 and 51 in the second innings of Sussex,