John and James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion 1882

8 the recalcitrants laid the case before the Secretary of the M akylebonr C lln , requesting him to advise them. Mr. P erkins pointed out to them that the course they had adopted had been subversive to discipline, that the Committee were bound to act as they might think best in managing the County Eleven, that they would not be coerced—in short, that the appellants were in the wrong, and therefore he counselled that they should at once submit to the authorities whom they had defied. And yet, in the face of this opinion, the tc N otts ring ” hardened their hearts and refused to adopt the advice tendered them. By so doing, A lfred S haw and his confreres alienated themselves still more from all right- minded cricketers, and still further widened the breach between them­ selves and their Committee. As the season wore on, however, the recalcitrants, one by one, gave in, S haw and S hrewsbury excepted, and were again included in the ranks of the County Eleven. Whether the two named will again play for N otts is, Ave believe, very doubtful. Sucli, as far as Ave knoAV, are the facts in connection Avith the dispute and its issue. The subject is a disagreeable one, but its importance is undeniable. Whether the N otts Professionals have ahvays been treated as they have a right to expect it is not in our province to discuss. We have only* to deal Avith the points forming the subject matter of the dispute, and upon this head it can hardly be contended that they acted otherwise than most unadvisedly, and in a manner utterly subversive to discipline and authority. Leaving out of the question the fact that these professionals had been fostered and trained and brought out by the Cluh against Avhose rightful authority they rebelled, it may well be asked what is to become of cricket if a small section of players, taking umbrage at some grievance, real or imaginary, forthAvith question the management and defy the authority of the Committee specially chosen by their Cluh to control its affairs. Granted, for the sake of argument, that the N otts Professionals had a real grievance, and that their Committee declined to look upon it in the same light as themselves, plain common-sense should have shown them that acts of defiance put them at once in the wrong. It Avas in their power to protest, and to refer the matter to an independent arbitrator, awaiting whose decision it was their duty to remain subservient to their Club's authority. They rebelled first, then look an independent opinion, and finally refused to abide by it. The result lias been most disastrous both to themselves and the N otts County Cloh The “ ring” have materially lowered themselves in public opinion,