James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1878

53 this contest for many a year. Rumour had been busy for months with the prospects of the continuance of this engagement in London, and it was authoritatively stated that this was to be the last of the series, at least in July. 'Whether such is to be the case or not, however, it is certain that the match of 1877 was more eventful than any of its immediate predecessors, and the attendance of spectators, in spite of a heavy rainfall on the second day, served to show how universal is the interest centred in this special encounter. Harrow had the first stroke of luck in winning the toss, and, in spite of the good bowling and fielding of the Etonians, reached a respectable score of 157, though for this they were chiefly indebted to their captain, H. E. Meek, a hard hitter, and F. C. Rowe, a left-handed batsman. On the Eton side, too, the Captain, H. Whitfeld, was most conspicuous, with a very well played innings of 63, not out, and here also two of the side did all the scoring, as Whit­ feld and G. B. Studd contributed 93 out of 152 from the bat. A t the end of the first day, after an innings apiece liad.been played, with only an advantage of six runs to Eton, Harrow had made 95 runs for the loss of two wickets. With fine weather there would most probably have been a rare struggle, but heavy rain spoiled everything on the second day; and the match had finally to be abandoned at a very interesting phase. Rowe’s 82 in the second inn­ ings of Harrow was the chief feature, and his hitting all round was very clean, his driving in particular. His score was the more noteworthy as he had four interruptions during his progress. Eton went in on a wicket soaked with rain and in a bad light, with 188 runs to get in four hours less five minutes. Seventy-eight of these were got for the loss of one wicket, and then the game had to be given up owing to rain, a tantalising end to what might have pro­ duced a fine struggle. Perhaps it was as well that the match should have been left without any­ thing in hand for either side to claim the slightest advantage. C. Studd (who played very good cricket, with excellent defence and plenty of hit, whenever the ball was overtossed), andWhitfeld were both well-in, and in all probability would have scored fast, but the Harrow bowling was very true, and as the ground was not the most favourable for run getting, n o would not have been a score easy of attainment. The Eton batting was more careful and sound than that of Harrow, but otherwise there was little to choose between the two Elevens, as in fielding Harrovians were perhaps the better. The medium pace bowling of Harrow was as good as any on the Eton side, though the latter had more changes. On the first day 8,089 foot passengers paid for admis­ sion, on the second 5,127. HARROW . A . B. Giles b Portal ......................... 8 W . H. Patterson c Chitty b Portal .. 7 Lord E. Hamilton c and b Matthews. 17 F. C. C. Rowe b Ridley ................. 25 H. E. Meek b Ridley......................... 5 ^ P.. J. T. Henery b Portal ................. 11 J. H. Stirling b Portal ..................... 13 H. T. de Paravicini b Portal............. o C. J. E. Jarvis not out ..................... 6 T. G. H. Moncrieffe b Matthews. . . . 6 E. M. Lawson hit wkt., b Matthews, o B 3 , 1 b 3 .................................... 6 Total......................... .. 157 b C. Studd ............................. 9 c Portal b C. Studd . . . . . . . . 5 c Chitty b Ridley . .............. 28 c J. Studd b Smith................. 82 c Matthews b C. Studd.......... 27 c and b C. Studd..................... 4 1 b w, b Portal......................... o not o u t ..................................... 17 run o u t ..................................... o c and b Sm ith......................... 7 c Whitfeld b Portal .............. 2 B 5 ) 1 b 2, w 5 .................. 12 To ta l, , , , , , , , ........... 193