Lives in Cricket No 37 - William Clarke

97 me with a leetle colouring, I thought I had a duty to perform to myself and the public to expose the malicious fabrications of this impartial lover of cricket. The best armour against injustice is a proper degree of spirit to repel the wrongs that are done or designed against us; but if we divest ourselves of all resentment, we shall prove too irresolute both in resisting the attacks of injustice and inflicting punishment upon those who have committed it; we shall therefore sink into contempt, and by the tameness of our spirit invoke the malicious to abuse and affront us. When all the gentlemen and secretaries whom I have the honour to correspond and match with, and the committee I have the pleasure to act with, are perfectly satisfied with my arrangements, both as regards players, moneys paid and received – and it is by the management of the money that cricket is introduced into districts it never would have been – I say, when they are satisfied, what occasion have I to reply to the long rigmarole of fabrications and sheer nonsense that only shows the utter ignorance of the subject that he is writing about. I know his name to be not Sorrywether but something like it, portly barrister, noted for his old Dando qualifications and his expensive professionals, old Dean and old Lilly, who cost about two penny postage stamps. To his assertion of Pilch’s withdrawal – From Pilch – ‘Dear Clarke – In reply to yours, I am not aware of ever drawing my name from your committee, and I am very sure I never told anyone so. I had not read the long, sickly, childish prattle till after I received yours, &c &c.’ Wisden and I did not part on money matters, but quite a different subject. He is only right in three names of money given for playing. Suppose him to be right in those that are engaged at a fixed salary, they are paid according to agreement. They run no risk. I originated these matches, and my time is wholly devoted in the winter to making and arranging them. I had a 400 or 500 miles’ journey, a month since, to look at two new grounds where we are going to play, and where we have not been. I have been since last season in correspondence with sixty or seventy places and when I have settled as to places I have to begin again to fix the time &c, &c. Does this impartial lover suppose I or any other man would give his time, his trouble, his expense, his ingenuity, and risk and have no prospect of a return? Just like all the other childish prattle! Does the manager of a theatre, after he has paid the salary agreed upon, divide the receipts, of any? If such a doctrine as that is to be put forth there will be something ‘looming in the future’! A.Clarke did not receive the money for playing at Kelso, but the person he played for, who is ill. It was no benefit A.Marshall, Esq., going round Controversy