70 mill theirs were the only contributions of any value, extras ’’ again showing the extravagant proportion of 20 out. of 168. A novel occurrence marked the second innings of Kent: Lord Harris was splendidly caught at long-on by Walter Humphreys, who fell over the bounds with the ball, but the umpires ruled that the hall had been caught outside the boundaries, and the batsman was given not-out. It was a lucky escape, as subsequent events proved, for Lord Harris scored 84 not-out, and fairly won the match for Kent . When Henty, the last Kentish batsman wont in there were still 27 runs wanting to win, but Lord Harris was in such brilliant form for hitting that lie got 2.8 of the number, and Kent landed a thoroughly well-contested victory by one wicket. Kent, 156 and 218 (nine wickets); total, 869. Sussex, 2(H) and iC8 ; total, 868. (1) Kent v. Surrey. Maidstone, July 27, 28, and 29. At one period of the game it seemed as if a draw must be the result, and yet Kent won with ease by six wickets. The first ball of the match was a lucky one for Surrey, as with it Southerton clean bowled Mr. Absolom. There the successes of Surrey ceased though, as the bowling soon fell to pieces, as Messrs. Yardley (92), Foord-Kcleey (88), and Shaw (74), showed by their scores. The first innings of Surrey was noticeable for the fine batting of Mr. Bead (106) and Jupp (70), and the amateur’s score was the more noteworthy as it was his first appearance of the season. Surrey followed on, with 92 runs to the had, and this time Mr. Bead and Jupp, instead of making 176, had to he content with only 8 runs between them. Bichard Humphrey played a good not-out innings of 49, which was the more welcome as he had been recently altogether out of luck. Kent had little difficulty in making the 90 runs wanted to win, and their victory was gained with six wickets to spare. [Kent, 809 and 90 (four wickets), total, 453. Surrey, 271 and 181; total, 452. Mr. Absolom’s bowling in the second innings of Surrey was worthy of prominence. Overs. Runs Maidens. Wickets 31.3 7 5G 6 (o) Kent *• Lancashire. Gravesend, August 21, 22, and 23. It was not such a good wicket as might have been wished, and the scores were consequently lower than was expected. Kent had all its forces, but, on the other hand, Lancashire was most inefficiently represented, and the issue was to be foreseen. Kent at the outset lost seven wickets for 74, but a well-plaved score of 50 by Mr. Foord-Kelsey just doubled this sum, with a run also to the good. The Lancashire batting was not interesting, as Mr. Foord-Kelcey’8 bowling was dangerous, and out of a total of 128, Barlow (29) and Watson (25) made 54. Kent fared better the second time, but the only feature in its second effort was the excellent cricket shown by Mr. Mackinnon, who carried out his bat for 51, got in the best form. Lancashire were faced by tin* heavy sum of 214 runs to win, and ns Mr. Hornby again failed to get double figures, their chances were reduced con­ siderably. Indeed, Barlow’s steady innings of 36 was the only score above single figures, and Kent won easily enough by 129runs. Kent, 119 and 193 ; total, 342. Lancashire, 128 and 85 ; total, 213. Ovcvs. Mr. Foonl-Kolcey (KenN-----57 Hearne (2nd inn ings'.......... 25.3 Maidens. Runs. Wickets 29 67 11 11 4 0 7 f