Lives in Cricket No 50 - Tom Emmett

59 to the Australian authorities, and it was suggested that, of 10,000 people present in the ground, around 2,000 took part in the disorder. Ulyett later blamed Gregory and Spofforth, who met Murdoch on the field and told him to go back after losing his wicket. He said, ‘Soon a lot of noisy spectators came round and jostled the Englishmen, one striking Lord Harris on the breast with a stick.’ Seeing this, Hornby collared the offender and took him off the ground even though ‘the mob tore his shirt nearly off his back.’ Then apparently, ‘Ulyett had his sleeves rolled up, and was about to have a “cut in”, when Lord Harris prevented him.’ According to a version attributed to Ulyett, ‘if he had carried out his purpose it is pretty certain that there would have been a regular mêlée, as he says there were present a number of Sheffielders with whom he used to work, and they would have stuck to him through thick and thin.’ According to another report, during this incident, Emmett made his way back to the pavilion and packed, ready to leave the ground, assuming that the match would be abandoned. He then could not be found when the ground was cleared. An hour and a half was lost as play ended for the day despite an attempt to restart, but when they returned on the Monday, England won by an innings and 41 runs in front of a small crowd and a large detachment of police. In other reports, it was suggested that ‘either before or after’ Harris was struck, one of the English professionals had described the crowd as ‘the sons of convicts’. The comments – with ‘a strong adjective’ – unsurprisingly ‘considerably riled those who heard the remark.’ It was also suggested that a similar slur had been made by one of the amateurs. Ulyett later strongly denied the accusation and he and Emmett went to the office of the paper in which the statement first appeared to lodge an ‘authoritative denial’. The two professionals had a letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald the next morning, which stated, ‘In your report of the cricket match, in this morning’s paper, it says that one of the professionals made use of a very insulting remark. Both Ulyett and myself deny ever using such words as your reporter says one of us did use; and this being our second visit here, or rather I should say in the colonies, we have made a good many friends; and as such a false report will cause a very bad impression among our many friends, I hope you will see that it is corrected at once.’ Two days later, however, another letter was published from the reporter stating that he had a letter from ‘a well-known citizen’ confirming that he had heard the remark, and that it had spread ‘like wild fire round the ground’. Years afterwards, Emmett suggested that the riot – ‘the crowd’s interference’ – lost the home side the match. He argued that had they carried on batting they might have scored sufficient runs to set a target on a wicket affected by rain then bright sunshine. ‘Wasn’t it a glorious wicket!’ he commented, ‘Talk about the ball being a linguist – it talked all sorts of languages.’ Having been one down at close on the Saturday, New South Wales were 49 all out on the Monday, and Emmett added that he and Ulyett had been persuaded into a bet (at 2 to 1 on the Australians) by mocking suggestions the Englishmen could not play cricket. Ulyett put up £20, asking Emmett to go halves. Emmett agreed, saying he would not Yorkshire Captain 1878-1883