81 •once for 40, would hardly have been regarded as possible, result was in doubt. Notts had 74 runs to get to win, a Till the last the nd on a very bad wicket, and against Yorkshire bowling, the odds were not in its favoui. One false step turned the scale, though against Yorkshire. Daft put the tirst ball of the innings easily into Clayton’s hands at short slip, but it was dropped, and Daft did not give another chance. Indeed, he carried out bis bat for 3(1 out of 75, and Notts bad an easy victory by eight wickets. Notts, 16 and 75 (two wickets) ; total, 121 . Yorkshire, 87 and 32 ; total, 110 . Morley’s analysis for Notts was wonderful, and Lockwood’s is noteworthy on account of the proportion of maiden overs. Overs. Maidens. Runs. Wickets. Morley ........................ 64 39 45 13 Clayton ........................ 33 20 40 6 Lockwood .................... 53 43 14 2 (4) Notts v. Surrey. Nottingham, Aug. 31, Sept. 1 and 2. It was the last county match, but still there was time for Surrey to make the sensation of the year. The Southern county was badly repre­ sented, and it was able to record an achievement in the lowest score of the county season, as the innings only came to 26, and in this four batsmen, Jnpp, Mr. Killick (a colt), Mr. Head, and Barratt, all failed to score. Arthur Shrewsbury went in first wicket down for Notts, and carried out his bat for 65 out of 150, but it was not a faultless performance, as he had been badly missed to a chance of stumping from Barratt. Surrey had 124 runs to save the innings, and Mr. Read (25), Rooley (23), and Humphrey »20) nil played good cricket. It was impossible, though, to score in the face oi the remarkable bowling of Notts, and as a proof it may be stated that Elliott was in on the third day an hour and twenty-five minutes for four runs. Notts won by an innings and 21- runs. Notts, 150. Surrey, 20 and 100; total, 126. The bowling of Shaw and Morley for Notts, and of Sontherton for Surrey, was exceptional, Shaw’s analysis being extraordinary. Overr. Runs. Maidens. Wickets* Shaw . . . . 06.2 68 56 11 Morley. . . . 86.2 67 15 9 Souther ton 01.2 43 10 «> B attixcj ■A verages . Most in Most in T me* Innings. Runs. an Inns. a Match. not out. Average. D a f t ...................... 17 642 99 105 1 40*2 A. Shrewsbury . . 19 462 118 131 3 28*14 Oscroft.................. 18 382 84 1(M 1 22*8 Barnes........ . . . . . . 18 228 53a 56 ** 17*7 R. Tolley.............. •> 81 33 42 0 1G*1 Selby...................... 17 227 36 40 l 14*3 W ild ...................... ** 4 87 40 40 1 14*3 A. Shaw .............. 15 178 21 a 46 2 13*9 Tve ...................... 12 112 48 59 2 11*2 W. Clark .............. 4 65 17 21 0 9*2 W. Shrewsbury . . 6 40 34 38 1 9*1 Kesteven.............. 4 24 12 12 0 6 Morley.................. 14 19 17 17 A •a A*9 Sherwin .............. 6 11 6 a 6 00 3*2 The following played in one match Butler, 1 ; G. E. Power, 3; Taylor, A. T. Ashwell, 0. only :—W. Clarke, 1 , 0 ; A. Anthony, 0 , 3 ; 2 , 0 ; Padley, 5a, 1 0 ; A. YV\ Cursham, 3 ; 7