Lives in Cricket No 37 - William Clarke

95 things’. His lowest sum, as I have above stated, for a match is in almost every case, £66. He pays as follows, as near as possible: Felix, I will say, about £6, Parr £5, Martingell £5, Box £5, Caffyn £4 10s, Caesar £4 10s, Guy £5 (doubtful if so much), Anderson £4, Bickley £5, Mynn £5, the umpire £4, the scorer £1 10s – total £54 10s. Clarke, therefore, to account for the £66, pockets for himself £11 10s every match!! and if he gets £70, the additional sum is added. If a gentleman or his son played (which they often did), still extra money fell to him. Hence A.Marshall, Esq., and A.Clarke playing so often. This is a cause of such an eleven travelling under the title of ‘The Eleven of England’. Wisden, one of the finest bowlers we have, left him, owing to unfair treatment. Martingell and Fuller Pilch have done the same. I am informed he has extra money for a long distance, such as going into Scotland; the players, however, receive no extra pay whatever. The committee, I think, Mr Editor, should have the power of using the balance money, and pay the secretary and treasurer what they think proper for their services. They should also have the power of selecting the players , and we then would see less drawn matches and much more good cricket. Clarke, it appears to me, has secured more power than he possessed previous to the formation of the committee; he not only plays whom he pleases, but prevents whom he pleases from playing against him. This has caused a party of cricketers to act in the same way towards him, as was done about five years ago at Brighton; only, I believe, in this case, they have signed not to play against him anywhere, as well as with him. I have been favoured with the names; they are as follows: Dean, Wisden, Chatterton, Grundy, John Lillywhite, Adams, Hunt, Wright, Nixon, George Brown, Picknell, Sherman, Lockyer, and others have signified their intentions in a similar manner. I, myself, cannot see but that they are justly right in so acting, especially after the most Insulting letter, sent to Newmarket in connection with the ‘United Eleven’, which is formed of the above players. The letter was shown to me while there, by a gentleman connected with the club, which accuses them of using his name, &c, in the placards, and doubts whether the party (meaning the ‘United Eleven’) will make their appearance on the day named. If I had been in the place of Dean and Wisden, Mr Editor, I should have kindly asked you to have inserted it, leaving the public to judge therefrom. I have frequently met the ‘Eleven of Eleven’ and have no doubt that their matches (as far as they can do so) are played honourably, and they win if they can. A friend of mine, however, while at Newcastle, informed me shortly after the match had taken place, that England might have won the match easily. This has just come to my recollection; he said there was an hour and a half lost one day because the proprietor wished it, as the game was proceeding too fast. This was allowed, and when the stumps were drawn six runs were wanted to win. My friend also informed me that he had heard one of the players (who had been at the wicket) say, ‘If he had known the game was so close, he and his partner could have won it.’ So that, Mr Editor, there must be a Controversy