James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual 1882

CRICKET ÎN 1881 . 9 arranged between Shawand Shrewsbury on the one hand and Emmetton the other , under the title of Nottinghamshire v. Yorkshire . Except for the natural objection to the enforcement as a right of what was considered to be the reward of good conduct , the question of the benefit was of compara- tive unimportance, but the other point was one that obviously presented great difficulties . The argument used on behalf of the professionals that Daft had been allowed to undertake the very matches to which the com- mittee took exception in the hands of Shawand Shrewsbury did not really in anywayestablish their case , and indeed only served to show on the one handthe under current of feeling betweensome of the parties at issue , in the other that the governing bodyhad acted very unwisely in Daft's case , in allowing the introduction of a system which was obviously opposed to every interest of county cricket . It was their misfortune to have established a precedent in the one instance which now proved very inconvenient in another, but the only indictment against themwas that of inconsistency , and there was no plea that their objection to the use of the county's namein fixtures arranged by private individuals was wrong in principle . It is quite possible that had a little timely mediation been offered by those whose old associations might well have urged them to act as arbitrators or peace- makers the dispute might never have come to a head . By whose advice it was that Shaw and Shrewsbury decided to issue the ultimatum they did, bywhat influence some of the others harmless inoffensive men, who prob- ably had no possible ground of complaint , and were utterly innocent themselves of any groundfor contention-whothrew in their lot with them were persuaded to join the league , is only known perhaps to them- selves . Whateverthe causes , it stands on record that the seven leading professional players of Notts-Shaw, Shrewsbury, Morley, Scotton , Selby , Flowers, and Barnes-refused through their spokesmento play unless each and all received an engagementfor the whole season . That such a combina- tion could only have one ending was evident from the outset . At first , particularly amongthe impulsive section which is eager to take up the cause of the weaker side , there was a kind of sentimental notion that the secessionists had been rather hardly treated , but the cooler and more sober- mindedportion of the cricket communitywere alive to the fact that this wasnot a protest of mensuffering under any newgrievance , but a deliberate combinationagainst a recognised administration . That it might have been checked before material damagehadbeen done, had the Marylebone Club madeuse of the immenseinfluence it wields and wielded in this particular case , was shownby subsequent events . That it lasted so long without active interference bythe authorities at Lord's seems strange whenit is considered that it wasnot merely a question of the welfare of one county, but that it in- volved a distinct and material alteration in the relations between paid cricket- ers andtheir employers which vitally affected the interests of every club of any importance . How, at last , through the interposition of the secretary of the Marylebone Club , five of the seven players implicated were , after due submis- sion had been made, restored into the eleven is well known. It is needless , too , to recall howShawand Shrewsbury, w h o mthe committee adjudged to be the prime movers in the conspiracy , were left out of the eleven , while Flowers, Scotton , Morley, Barnes, and Selby were reinstated , or to point to the pluck with which the County Club, in the face of manydifficulties , in spite of morethan one reverse that would probably have crushed a weakershire , fulfilled all its engagements , sending its best available eleven into the field ,