Wikipedia:Sandbox

amogus

The Inaugural Test Match Preface

On March’s Ides, AD 1877, for the very first time, a colonial eleven tried conclusions with eleven from the metropole, in what has since been christened the inaugural Test Match. The issue was momentous, the consequences illimitable, the literature vast. What follows is the minutest chronicle ever committed to print. By an analysis of all 1,761 deliveries, I have been able to modernise and expatiate the scorecard, in places to correct it, and finally to augment it with such modern apparatus as the balls-faced column and the wagon wheel. The scorebook, which would have been my primary source, was no sooner settled than lost, so I have reckoned on the coverage of Victorian newspapers—or better say, the newspapers of the colony of Victoria—which rendered an over-by-over notation of each day’s play. Their peers in England may have been “beyond praise—the labour is very great, and reading the newspaper reports is the next best thing to seeing a match” —but the Australians were better still: more elaborate and lovelier to read. That in The Argus must have been written under pressure of a divine afflatus. Although each is partial, and the parts diverge in their details and emphases, together they generate a picture of the whole. I quote from them direct, save where the wordage is awkward, or where the proliferation of inverted commas would be unsightly: and then I substitute a gloss. I trust that the splashes of colour—the anecdotes and apostrophes, and my own bewildering insights—will help to vivify the bland numerics. In moments of weakness, I could almost persuade myself that it reads like a radio broadcast. My thanks to Adrian Gault, Andy Collier, Annette Pringle, Barbara Coe, Bernard Whimpress, Bob Birtles, Brad Argent, Yvonne Barber, Brenda Bayliss, Brian Sanderson, Carolyn Morse, Chris Brown, Christopher Jones, Clare Stapleton, Colin Clowes, Daph Shead, David Frith, David Rogers Tillstone, David Somerville, Dean Allen, Debbie Dunne, Eric Midwinter, Geoff Sando, Gideon Haigh, Gil Langford, Giles Wilcox Graeme Reilly, Graham Brodie, Greg DeMoore, Ian Ponton, Isobel Andrewartha, James Merchant, Jan Hearn, Janet Hawkins, Jeremy Lonsdale, Jill Mozina, John Archer, Jordan Doyle, Kylie Giffen, Len Smith, Lisa Donnelly, Lynda Cazeaux, Maddie Mederson, Maggie Fox, Mariko Inagaki, Marjory Ponton, Martin Chandler, Max Bonnell, Noel Almeida, Patrick Ferriday, Peter Lloyd, Peter MacIver, Peter Wynne-Thomas, Phillip Kristensen, Raymond Webster, Ric Sissons, Richard Stobo, Richard Tomlinson, Rick Smith, Robyn Dennison, Roger Mann, Roger Page, Sean Ehlers, Stephen Flemming, Steve Cullen, Steve LeMottee, Sue Fisher-Pascall, Vera Stutchbury, Vivienne Kiely and Yvonne Barber, for entertaining my queries. Everything I attempt in these pages has been attempted before—albeit on a smaller scale, and with mixed results: Charles Davis’s work is pathfinding, but Stanley Brogden’s tallies so much with the reportage of The Australasian, facsimileing even its errors, that it is difficult to tell “t’other from which.” My excuse for plagiarising his title is that he plagiarised everything else. Howsoever be the rest, well or ill, it is mine own, and an advance on its predecessor.

Rationale for departing from pure stats:

In this effusion about an old cricketing comrade, as in the note on Small's father who charmed a bull with his music, Nyren is illustrating a vital precept about cricket writing which very few of his successors have digested, or apparently even noticed. It is that statistics, score sheets, averages and analyses can never be sufficient in themselves to convey the nature and spirit of the game. Cricketers, whatever the modesty of their arena, do not spring full-grown on to the grass like Venus from her cockleshell, nor do they cease to be the men they are the moment they leave the field. For all the thousands of books and billions of words which have been written about cricket, we know precious little about any of its masters except that they scored so many runs and took so many wickets. It is as though our knowledge of Disraeli were to consist in its entirety of parliamentary speeches, or Astaire of details of his dancing pumps. Too much writing about cricket has been merely mathematical. John Nyren understood from the first that either he must attempt a quintessential portrait across a wider range of sensibilities than may be perceived on the field of play, or not bother with the attempt at all. It is this exercise, not in reportage but in rounded portraiture, which lends to "The Cricketers of My Time" that warmth and penetrative insight which has proved so durable a preservative for two hundred years. So rare was this style of writing to become that generations later Lucas was to bemoan his own certitude that after Nyren there would be no great cricket literature. This was in 1907, with Neville Cardus already into his teens and looking back to the lost age of his childhood with the Trump and Maclaren of 1902. Introduction Little imagined It had been little imagined, at the start of the Australian cricket season, that a colonial eleven could be found to measure blades and hold its own with the cream of England’s professional talent. Such a thing might happen when the sky rained potatoes, or upon the settlement of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, but it could not happen in 1876/77. James Lillywhite’s was the finest combation, excepting one or two men of mark, “which probably could be got together in the old country.” Certainly it was “the greatest team of English cricketers, in point of professional skill, both as batsmen and bowlers, which has ever left the shores of England.” If its batsmen were not in the first flight—for Lillywhite had “left behind him the best [...], who at present (and since WG Grace [still a “Mr” then, not a “Dr”] rose to eminence) are to be met with in the ranks of the gentlemen” [also Lockwood, originally reported as a member of the team]—he had “the ablest bowlers to be found at home,” all of them professionals. Previous tours, by weaker teams, had been triumphal marches, in which proletarian bowling had done the bulk of the marching and enjoyed the bulk of the triumph. To have expected otherwise this time would have been stupid in the extreme. Third Man in Weekly Times, March 10: “The English team, although it could have been materially strengthened by the presence of some of the well-known gentlemen players of England, is fairly a representative one.” “Lillywhite, who had been involved in that unhappy trip [of 1873/74, with Grace], learnt from his experiences and relied entirely on professionals, leaving all the amateurs at home. While he had a strong bowling attack, the best batsmen were by and large the absent amateurs—the previous summer only four of the top 26 in the averages were professionals. And with every penny spent eating into the venture's profits, the squad was made up of only 12 players, meaning very little rest for those involved.” Some background is, I fear, necessary. The briefest way to supply it is this: “Australia wasn't taken very seriously in those days. The Englishmen—or the All England Eleven, as they were more commonly known—used to play teams of 15 and 18 and even 22 Colonials, and usually beat them. The idea of the Colonials having the audacity to imagine they could meet All England on even terms was never entertained seriously.” “By March 15, 1877, there had already been a host of matches” between the Englishmen and various colonial constellations. “The visitors invariably accepted a massive handicap, taking on local sides of 22, 18, or (if the opposition were exceptional) 15.” Only two tours ago, “George Parr, a famous Nottinghamshire batsman, brought out a team containing all the leading professionals of the day, as well as EM Grace, an elder brother of the champion, WG. This team never played fewer than 22 opponents and had an undefeated record, most of the games being won by an innings. As with Stephenson's team, the English bowlers reaped a rich harvest.” "That little opposition was expected was shown by the fact that the programme again comprised only matches against odds, ranging from 15's of Victoria and New South Wales, to 22's in the other engagements.” Fielders as plentiful as blackberries—or let us say wild strawberry leaves. Proof that it was little imagined in the itinerary: “It had not been expected that the standard of play in 'the colonies' would have risen to the extent that an eleven could provide a competitive game.” A drastic improvement from the first-ever visit of English cricketers, who had planned a game at Geelong against no fewer than 44 locals (later reduced to 22). The season just past will be memorable in time to come as that which first witnessed the defeat of an England Eleven playing on even terms away from home. Grace's team were defeated here, and Parr's team also suffered a reverse, whilst, years ago, HH Stephenson came to grief at Castlemaine, but in each case they were playing against odds. Victoria has been the first to witness the defeat of an eleven of England playing level handed against eleven of Australia, and that eleven by no means the strongest that could have been obtained, as it comprised neither Allan or Evans, the two best bowlers undoubtedly that Australia has ever produced. There can be no question as to colonial cricket having made great progress of late years, but few persons at the beginning of the season imagined a team could have been got together able to play an eleven of England on equal terms. We say few; there were some good judges who pretty accurately gauged the strength of the AE Eleven after they had been seen once or twice at practice, and prophesied they would not find matters quite so easy as Lillywhite anticipated after his first match and victory at Adelaide. The style of cricket in Adelaide and New Zealand is no guide to that of Victoria and New South Wales. Lillywhite ought to have known that, and not been quite so confident as he is reported to have been soon after his arrival in South Australia; and, probably, in future England elevens will not be so ready to prophesy they are going to win every match they play in the colonies. (Australasian “Some Remarks” 12 May 1877.)

The real Test matches — that is, eleven against eleven — were instituted when Lillywhite's team came out in 1876. James Lillywhite had been a member of W. G. Grace's team three years earlier, but even he was hardly prepared for the improvement shown by the Australians. Fifteen of New South Wales twice

rose superior to

his team on the Albert Ground. Thus stimu-lated, New South Wales met the visitors on equal terms—the first eleven-aside match played between English and Australian teams. It was drawn, so that Lillywhite's combination made three unsuccessful attempts to conquer New South Wales. The matches aroused far greater interest than those of Grace's team, and the crowds that witnessed them were much larger. The Englishmen, returning from New Zealand fwo months later, met Combined Australia on the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The first of the series now known as Test matches, it ended in the downfall of the English team by 45 runs. It was a great moment in the cricketing life of Australia. Charles Bannerman's batting, for 165, retired hurt by a blow on the hand from one of Ulyett's fast ones, made an impression that can never be obliterated from the minds of those present. The English bowlers were Alfred Shaw, Ulyett, Lillywhite, Emmett, Southerton, Armitage, and Hill, a combination probably unequalled in the best England or Australian team of to-day. The success of: the match led to a return match being arranged, which the Englishmen won by four wickets. Lillywhite's team were unfortunately deprived of the services of their wicket-keeper, E. Pooley, in both matches. While playine at Christchurch, Pooley was ar-rested on a charge of assaulting a man who had refused to pay a wager lost on an English match. He was detained and put on trial after the other members of the team had left for Melbourne, but the case broke down, and he was acquitted. A number of Christchurch resi-dents expressed their sympathy by presenting Pooley with a watch and chain and 50 guineas. In his absence J. Selby kept wickets, but was an inefficient substitute for the Surrey man. Presentiments Such, at any rate, is the standard story. Like most such, it streamlines a compound narrative. Australian cricket perceptibly on the rise; clearly much improved from the first visit of English tourists: HH Stephenson in 1861/62. Improvement owed much to the very class of English professional it was now challenging. Jack Worrall: “In reviewing Australian cricket one finds it so inextricably interwoven with the visits of English teams that the rise and development of the game in this country is due to those early visitations.” “William Caffyn, the England international, was hired by the [Melbourne] Club to bowl to members at the impressive fee of £300 a year. Later he wrote of the 'sixties: ‘I never saw such painstaking cricketers as the Australians were in those days, and it was most interesting work teaching them when one would see the way they improved. I did a good deal of bowling at club members and soon succeeded in improving the play of many of them.” Australasian, March 10: “We have made great strides in cricket since the days when HH Stephenson's first All England Eleven visited the colonies and vanquished our twenty-twos. Our advance was not so marked between the first and second visits of English teams as it was when Grace's Eleven arrived here, the band of cricketers under the champion's command having to succumb to the Australian players in each colony of New South Wales and Victoria.” In fact, there had been any number of predictions and presentiments. Grace’s 1873/74 itinerary may have sported against-the-odds matches exclusively, and of these fifteen his team may have lost just three, but at its conclusion Sam Cosstick, one of the founding fathers of the Victorian game, had volunteered a striking forecast: “Bar WG, we’re as good as they are, and someday we’ll lick ‘em with eleven.” Even Cosstick’s one qualification, WG Grace, had proven himself mortal in his very first innings of the tour, when Harry Boyle bowled him: “The fact that it was possible for a mere Australian, and country player at that, to bowl the mighty WG—a feat that was considered to be impossible by the Englishmen then in our midst, and even by Australians, such was the man's mighty powers and reputation—gave Australians confidence in their ability.” Even when a combined XV of New South Wales and Victoria went down to Grace’s men by a margin of 218 runs, “many were found to prophesy that an Australian team could be picked to meet an eleven of All England on equal terms.”

For their part, England were missing a raft of leading amateurs including star batsman W. G. Grace, with the tourists made up solely of professionals. Organisation of the match That the promise which fit them to say this had not been squandered—that it had been, in fact, compounded and consolidated—was showcased on December 11, 1876, when the visitors were put to the blush by a XV of New South Wales. Upon this sensation the experts hastily revised their vocabulary, and so “the idea which was only hinted at before began to take form and shape.” There is a suggestion that the idea originated in Sydney: “After the first match of the eleven at Sydney, the principal players in the sister colony were communicated with, with the view of procuring their co-operation. It was agreed that the combined Eleven a-side match should take place in Melbourne, and the six best men in Sydney promised to take part in the contest.” “These successes sent a wave of enthusiasm throughout the land, as it was evident to Australians generally, as well as to the visitors, that the wonderful English game, with the musical name, had found congenial soil in the new country country [sic], so many thousands of miles away.” A process only intensified a fortnight later, when the Englishmen lost again, this time at the hands of a Victorian XV: These victories having “created a desire in the public mind to see how our Australian cricketers would fare in an even-handed contest at the hands of the Eleven,” the Melbournians had decided to substitute their return fixture for a “Grand Combination Cricket Match.” “The combination was as unprecedented as the match, bringing Victorians and a grudging NSW together against the common enemy.” The Ballarat Star reported on January 3 that “arrangements are being made to play an Australian Eleven against the All England Eleven, at Melbourne, on the return of the Englishmen from New Zealand. The Australian Eleven will probably include five from Melbourne, five from Sydney, and one from Tasmania.” Talks were already underway with “the leading players of both colonies.” “This match had been looked forward to with a great deal of interest for it was argued that by picking the best men from the New South Wales and Victorian teams, the Englishmen could be met on something like an equality, and a victory for Australia might be pulled off.”

A meeting of the Victorian Cricketers’ Association was held at Oliver's Café last evening, Mr Peryman in the chair. The Secretary read a letter from Mr Conway, who submitted the names of the six New South Wales cricketers chosen to play in the combined eleven against Lillywhite's English team. Some question was raised as to whether this association could proceed in the matter since the New South Wales association had not been consulted, but the secretary stated that the Victorian association had already promised its patronage. The selection of players to represent Victoria was then delegated to the selection committee. Mr Budd brought forward a proposal to increase the number of this committee from three to five. The proposal was negatived, but the rules were so altered as to provide that the members of the committee need not necessarily be members of the association.

Australasian, March 10: “The victories gained upon those occasions have evidently infused confidence into our cricketers, for, with the small handicap of four extra men, they have defeated Lillywhite's team of professional players on no less than three occasions—first at Sydney, then at Melbourne, and then again at Sydney, 15 men in each instance being the number pitted against the Englishmen. These victories created a desire in the public mind to see how our Australian cricketers would fare in an even-handed contest at the hands of the eleven, and after the first match of the eleven at Sydney, the principal players in the sister colony were communicated with, with the view of procuring their co-operation. It was agreed that the combined eleven-a-side match should take place in Melbourne, and the six best men in Sydney promised to take part in the contest, Evans being the only one about whose coming there appeared to be any question. Every effort was made to remove the difficulties which stood in the way of his getting leave, and Mr. R Driver, MP, president of the New South Wales Cricketers' Association, and others in the sister colony moved in the matter without avail. From the start the idea of playing the combined match at Melbourne did not seem to meet with the favour of a certain section of the Sydney press, which did its best to prevent the Sydney contingent from coming to Victoria. The selection of the Sydney six was left to the hands of Evans, Nat Thompson, Bannerman, and D. Gregory.” “Prior to [the Englishmen] leaving for the New Zealand leg of the tour, Conway had been asked to make arrangements, contacting leading players direct,” to feel pulses, and to sound the depths, “rather than through the associations. Thus did players from Victoria and New South Wales form a Combined Australian Eleven to play England.” “With their good performance against the NSW eleven, Lillywhite’s team were confident enough to agree the game.” Greeted at first with some scepticism. After the first NSW XV defeat, “the cynical Colonials refused to believe this was a real guide to form. England obviously hadn't been trying. The match had been a ‘slanter’ in order to get a bigger gate for the return match.” Scepticism seems to have died away in January, when fifteen New South Welshmen again brought the Englishmen to bay, being rolled over in their first innings for just 35; immediately followed by a challenge—whether to the Englishmen, or from them, we do not know, for there are conflicting accounts—to a rematch on even terms. “The result was that New South Wales, ever to the fore in testing her strength against invaders, threw out a challenge to meet the visitors on level terms. The challenge was eagerly accepted, there being money in it, and the first eleven-a-side match between an Australian and an English team took place at Sydney on January 16 and 17, 1877.” “Our men accepted the challenge as freely as it was made, although the most sanguine among them could scarcely have expected to secure a victory against such undoubted cricketers as the present English eleven are when they are in anything like good form. The results of the previous matches between our visitors and the representatives of New South Wales fully justified the latter in trying conclusions on equal terms.” “The result was scarcely satisfactory from an Australian point of view, as when time was up the Welshmen required 48 runs to save an innings defeat, with four wickets in hand.” It finished in a draw, of which the visitors had much the best: hitting in their first innings their highest total of the tour, and then knocking over the locals for just 82, they were set fair for an innings victory, and would likely have obtained it but for the necessity of catching their boat for New Zealand. On the face it, however, an encouraging result. Illustrated Sydney News: The game, as far as it went with equal elevens, must have proved conclusively to onlookers that cricket has made wonderful progress in this colony since the last English team, captained by Grace, visited us, and that the time may come when an Australian eleven will be fully warranted in going to England to play against an equal number of men in the home of cricket itself. Meredith: “It was a significant match in the discussions which it now provoked. Already, since December, there had been plans for the England XI on their return from New Zealand, to meet a combined XIII of Victoria and New South Wales. But in the light of recent Australian successes it was now decided that the combined team should be an XI.” This account appears to based on this, from The Argus, dated March 21, and therefore retrospective [are there any contemporary reports about a XIII?]: “when the first arrangements were made for the match the number of the colonial men was fixed at 13,” but that “separate fifteens defeated them with such decided success, both in Sydney and Melbourne, that 11 were eventually deemed a sufficient number for the colonies combined to bring” afield. Meredith: “Accordingly, as Lillywhite embarked on the Tararua for the 1,100 miles by sea to New Zealand, his Victorian friend Jack Conway was left behind to begin negotiations with individual players of Victoria and New South Wales. The fate of the first Test match was in his hands.” The Australasian, under the headline “Combination Match,” reported on February 24 that the date and venue had been fixed for 15-19 March on the Melbourne Cricket Ground. [Dates confirm not timeless.] “Third Man,” in that week’s Weekly Times also reported “the arrangements for the match between a combined eleven of the colonies and the English Eleven are proceeding satisfactorily, and have been so far made that the date of the match has been fixed.” Seems, too, that NSW were keen on eleven a side even before their fifteen distinguished themselves in the first game. Southerton recalls “everyone telling us we shall have a tough job to beat the Sydney fifteen. I believe they would prefer to play with only eleven. Perhaps they will wish that they had one or two more before they have done with us” (The Sportsman, 15 January 1877). It would require a great deal of writing on my part, and a great deal of reading on yours, to follow the arrangement of the First Test from inception to consummation, and to illustrate the deficiency of the popular understanding. As this is beyond my remit, and well beyond my powers, I will make short work of a long job, relating only the chief events. After one of the early defeats, Melbourne Punch “became so cocky that it described the likely tour of England ten years hence when an Australia XI would be asked to compete against an All England XV.” Keith Dunstan, in his sprightly history of the Melbourne Club, gives the standard story, which assumes that it was after the third defeat at the hands of a colonial fifteen, and despite the subsequent eleven-a-side victory over New South Wales, that “the Victorian Cricketers' Association decided that the two colonies at last were ready for a match on even terms—a combined NSW—Victoria XI against the All England XI. This came to be recognised as the first Test match.” Australasian: After sending out feelers to the best players in Sydney, after the first NSW XV victory, “The selection of the Sydney six was left in the hands of Evans, Nat Thompson, Bannerman, and D. Gregory.” “Round-Arm” made much of this, concluding from it “that the whole matter was arranged from beginning to end in Melbourne, without the slightest consultation with our Association; for we are distinctly told that the selection of the Sydney six was left in the hands of Evans, Nat Thompson, Bannerman, and D. Gregory, i.e., that they were appointed in Melbourne, not here; and yet we are supposed to consider that the players gone down represent New South Wales.” Williamson would have been on firmer ground had he interrogated its right to be styled a “combination” match, but he accepts this styling, telling his readers that the Australian team was “raised between the Victoria and New South Wales authorities.” Australasian: “From the start the idea of playing the combined match at Melbourne did not seem to meet with the favour of a certain section of the Sydney Press, which did its best to prevent the Sydney contingent from coming to Victoria.” Round Arm, 17 March: “It's useless here to go into the reasons that induced a certain section of the Sydney Press to discourage the journey of our cricketers to Melbourne this time. The Australasian, I take it, shows cause, at any rate, and the treatment the Sydney folks received from a certain section of the Melbourne Press, after the first of the matches in Sydney, may also be taken into account; but I may be allowed to have an opinion that if the Association had been consulted, something like the following half-dozen might have been got together, or if Evans couldn't have gone, the other five would have represented the rest of the cricketers very fairly: C. Bannerman, Evans, D. Gregory, Murdoch, Spofforth, Thompson.” Keith Dunstan, in his history of the Melbourne Cricket Cricket, asserts that since the MCG was the chosen venue, “as an intercolonial compromise it was agreed that the XI would include six from NSW and five from Victoria.” In fact there was no such compromise, as the NSWCA was not involved at all. “Bitter interstate rivalries, personal jealousies, and shocking organisation marked the first Test Match ever played between England and Australia.” “There was no Australian Board of Control then, no official selection committee, very little efficient organistaion [sic] for the handling of players or the public.” Whatever the minutiae of its inception, it is safe to say, and important, too, that this was entirely and exclusively a Victorian enterprise. The New South Wales Cricket Association “was not formally asked to assist in the arrangements, and this seems to have occasioned a little unpleasant feeling with some of the Sydney cricketers.” The NSWCA was thrown into a very angry state of mind at its snubbing, and fumed exceedingly. A week before the match the NSWCA declared its opposition: “Five of our best cricketers … have gone against the wishes of our association, which has never been consulted in the matter.” Although the Melburnian press freely designated the match “England v. Australia,” there was as yet no “Australia”—no united political entity, no “imagined community”—to speak of. The attitude of NSW illustrated by the fact that its newspapers sent not a single reporter to cover the match. The Sydney Morning Herald reprinted The Argus’s coverage, with only short, spare accounts of its own. The only non-Victorian journalist was from The South Australian Register. “The game did not arouse much interest in the Sydney papers at first, possibly because it was being played in Melbourne, probably because New South Wales felt it had been severely snubbed. On March 15, in fact—the day on which the game began—the Sydney Morning Herald had only a six-line paragraph, tucked away in the middle of a column, announcing that the All England team had practised in Melbourne the previous day, and adding, ‘The Englishmen are a long way the favorites at odds.’” Raises a question that’s never been asked, at least not in this form. To what extent could a team chosen by one state, with no input from any other, and indeed disavowed by one of them, by regarded as representative? To what extent is it valid to call it a national team, and the match a Test? At Moody’s mercy. [See if it was even worse in the Second Test, by virtue of most of the NSW players having gone home.] All the energy was in Melbourne. “Square Leg” in the Sydney Mail a month earlier decried the thin numbers at its meetings: “Is the New South Wales Cricket Association moribund, or do the majority of its members look upon the advertisements of meetings called by the hon. secretary as a mild piece of pleasantry on that gentleman's part? Some people complain that since the association was overrun with delegates, especially young ones, it has lost a good deal of its former effectiveness. There is too much reason to believe that such is the case, and that, with the exception of a few who have been in the association for years, members and delegates don't think it worthwhile to attend the meetings unless there is something on which is likely to affect the interests of their respective clubs. When a meeting is secured, too much talk is wasted by inexperienced members over paltry matters; and, in several instances within my own knowledge, the real business for which the meeting was convened has been brought forward almost at the last moment as an afterthought. Surely the invitation of the Brisbane cricketers in reference to the visit of a New South Wales team was sufficiently important to demand prompt consideration, to say nothing of the requirements of ordinary courtesy; and yet two meetings, called within the last fortnight, have lapsed for want of a quorum. Those who remember how hospitably our team was treated by the Queensland cricketers a season or two ago cannot but feel vexed at the want of common politeness exhibited by our association. Last Monday evening those who responded to the advertisement were the president of the association (who frequently attends at considerable inconvenience to himself), two members of the Albert Club, one representative of East Sydney, and another of South Sydney—making, with the hon. secretary, six in all. One more gentleman was wanted to constitute a quorum: but as he was still wanting at a quarter to 9, the meeting lapsed, and Mr Gibson, with a letter in his hand which should have been answered three weeks ago, was again left without instructions or authority to reply. Fortunately, the Brisbane cricketers (as we learn by telegram) are aware that owing to prior engagements we are unable to comply with their request to send a team north at Easter; but it would have been more satisfactory had the news reached them through official channels.” Perhaps it was this which inspired Lillywhite, in that year’s Lillywhite’s Companion: “It is well known that business, in connection with pleasure, is not generally appreciated. Nineteen cricketers out of twenty will fight shy of a general meeting of their club, unless a candidate of theirs, for whom they want to vote, or of ‘that brute Jones,’ whom they mean to blackball, is up for membership. They will, perhaps, pay a double subscription, without troubling the treasurer with a question as to its necessity, but they will not attend and sit round a table to hear how the club has been worked, and to discuss the faults and failings of its administration. Under these circumstances, it is, in most cases, found advisable to make these general business meetings as few and as important as possible.” Upon the change of ministry in NSW, Sydney Morning Herald published a list of the sixteen administrations in that colony since the innovation of self-government 21 years ago: average duration one year, four months, and nineteen days; longest two years and three-quarters. About 400 acts of Parliament placed upon the Statute-book; of these, according to Sydney Morning Herald, not more than four embodied any important principles of public policy. “Under such circumstances,” remarked The Argus, “the wonder is, not that the affairs of the community should be badly conducted, but that any sort of progress should be made with them.” That paper, to be fair, had its colony in mind, in which on paper the situation was even worse: the average lifespan of a Victorian Ministry just fifteen months. But the present one, in the public debate over protectionism v. free trade—The Argus was very much in the latter camp—could hardly be accused of shirking matters of public interest.

In Sydney much interest is evinced in the forthcoming rowing match between Trickett and Rush for the championship of the world. The match is to take place in about nine weeks time.

SYDNEY, THURSDAY. The Ministry were sworn in to-day, and assumed their offices. They are generally considered weak. The names of the Ministry were announced in Parliament to-day, and the seats of the new occupants of office having been declared vacant, Parliament was adjourned to 24th April.

Our political agony is over at last, to the inexpressible thankfulness of nearly every-body but the Ministry itself. Mr. Robertson has his good qualities, or he could not have been a Minister so often and so long. But he has two faults, which singularly unfit him to assist the graceful retirement of a Minister from office. He is tenacious of place and powers to the last degree, and when hard pressed does not scruple to use any artifice not strictly illegal to prolong his reign. He is a bluff, robust, industrious, jolly man, but he has by no means a delicate sensitiveness of conscience, and owns no allegiance to the code of honour, except, perhaps, in the one matter of fidelity to friendship. For at least a month past the Ministry has not only been moribund, but dying visibly by inches every day. It was clear to everybody that no fresh legislative results could be worked out by such a Cabinet. The public time was only wasted in a futile attempt, yet Mr. Robert-non spun out the closing scenes of a career that had now lost all its reputation. On Fri-day last Mr. Robertson treated the House to a long minute explaining why, in the judg-ment of the Cabinet, it was entitled to a dis-solution. Nominally this was prepared for the behoof of the Governor, but as His Excel-ency had already promised a conditional dis-solution, he did not want the roll of argu-ments, and they wore never read to him. But Mr. Robertson thought the document too good to be lost, and so he read it to the House, hon. members not knowing till he had finished but what it had been bona fide prepared for His Excellency. They were very angry when they discovered the fact, and roundly accused the Premier of having made them meekly go through the farce of listening to a document which they supposed the Governor had studied, but which was nothing more nor less than a political manifesto addressed to the consti-tuencies. They were the more angry as they could not immediately reply to its allegations, for Mr. Robertson so ingeniously mumbled it that nobody could distinctly hear. He followed up this minute by reading another from the Governor, and this produced a double explosion of wrath. For in the first place, hon. members then discovered, for the first time, that the promise of a dissolution was conditional on getting supplies, of which essential fact Mr. Robertson had given no hint previously. This was not all. The minute contained a statement that the House of Commons would not hesitate to grant supply, and that only party spirit would prevent the Assembly from doing the same. Of course this was immediately resented as being an interference with the light of the Assembly to determine the question of supply, and a far worse interfer-ence than Mr. Parkes was guilty of in the celebrated Gardiner minute. A debate en-sued which led to no definite result, and the House was adjourned till Tuesday. During the interval the Ministers of course did their utmost to beat up their supporters, but during the same interval their conduct came in for a great deal of slashing and damag-ing criticism. Mr. Robertson did not intend to do any business on Tuesday, and the Opposition did not intend that he should, but Mr. Piddington gave notice of an amendment on the following day on the motion for going into supply, and the inevit-able motion for adjournment having been put, the floodgates of talk were opened, and Ministers had to listen for hours to some ex-ceedingly unpleasant speeches. Sir William Gregory was present, and must carry away with him some very vivid ideas of what Sydney Parliamentary oratory is like when it is at the boiling point. Mr. S. C. Brown went seriatim through the Ministerial minute, denouncing what he called its misrepresentations. Mr. Jacob explained the reasons why he had been obliged to desert the Ministerial camp. Mr. Parkes made some telling hits at the per-sonnel of the Ministry, and Mr. Buchanan let fly his catapult with his utmost energy. The amendment of which notice had been given was left to the care of Mr. Piddington, but there is no mistaking the Roman hand that drew the lines. It said nothing about the introduction of the Governor's minute, which was of course delicate ground for Mr Parkes to tread on, but it embodied, for the information of the Governor, the assertions that the resources of the Assembly were not exhausted, inasmuch as the supporters of the resolution were prepared to carry on the business under an Administration approved by the House. On Wednesday evening Mr Stuart moved for two months' supply, and as he had not before spoken on the subject he entered at length into the situation. He claimed as a precedent for Government action the action of Mr. Pitt in 1784, and he asserted that the Governor's decision to dissolve was unconditional. The same view on this point was taken by Mr. Docker and Mr. Dalley in the Upper House. This disclosed the fact that Ministers secretly hoped that they might play on the Governor's sense of honour, and wring from him a dissolution even without supply. Of course this inter-pretation was ridiculed by the Opposition in both Houses, whose labours would all have been in vain, and whose hopes would have been blasted at the last moment if this ver-sion bad been tenable. Neither Mr. Parkes nor Mr. Robertson spoke in the debate on Mr Piddington's motion. They were waiting for each other, but their reserve fire never came off. After two vain attempts on the part of Government to secure an ad-journment, the amendment was put and carried by a majority of six. Mr. Robertson again wanted to adjourn till Friday, but in obedience to uncomplimentary ejaculations, he allowed the adjournment to stand for the next day. Everyone felt reasonably sure that the Governor would never grant a disso-lution without supply, a course which on pre-vious occasions had been distinctly con-demned by resolutions of Parliament. The quid nuncs waited for Mr. Robertson to pay an early visit to His Excellency and tender his resignation, or what would amount to the same thing--ask again for a dissolution, and be refused. But he seemed in no hurry to satisfy the public impatience, and though Parliament nominally meets at 4, he had shown no sign up to half-past 3, and though it is said that he paid a visit to His Excellency in the course of the morning, nothing is known to have come of it, if it really took place. If Ministers were unwilling to move, His Excellency was not. If the Cabinet clang so to life that it could not bear to take the final step, the potentate at Government house, who had it in his power to take the initiative, thought well to bring the painful suspense to a close. At 20 minutes to 4 the Colonial Secretary, much musing on his difficulties, received a letter which was clear, concise, and conclusive. The Governor stated that he had re-con-sidered his decision, as he said he would, and he was now of opinion that he was not jus-fied in granting a dissolution. It was no use kicking against this; the guillotine had descended, and the House was informed half an hour afterwards that Ministers only held office till their successors were appointed. So ends the Robertson Ministry, after two years of office, and it has brought things to that pass that it ends amid no national wail of regret.

THAT Colonial politicians are peculiarly gifted with a desire for office, and are reluctant to leave until they get " kicked out," to use Mr. MEREDITH'S plain, though not very elegant language, is a self-evident fact to anyone who has watched political events in these Colonies for any length of time. This leech-like tenacity is not only contemptible, but it evolves some curious proceedings sometimes. A Government that fully appreciates the honour and emolu-ments attached, to its position, and that is determined not to surrender them except under almost absolute compulsion, is very often com-pelled, when the support it at first had has become considerably weakened, to resort to unique devices--sometimes paltry and mean, sometimes wholly unjustifiable--to retain the much-coveted prizes; and it is at such times that we are treated to some tactics and some lessons in Parliamentary warfare that rather shock any person who has been under the impression that he had studied MAY and TODD to advantage, and fancied that he was not altogether ignorant of how constitutional government ought to be administered. A notable instance of this has just occurred in Sydney, where for some time the ROBERTSON Government has been endeavouring to stand against a majority in the Assembly, only, of course, to fall at last. Some of the proceedings in connection with this crisis are by no moans creditable, and at this time the late PREMIER, though he is not the sort of man that is likely to be hurried into admitting a mistake, probably feels a little ashamed at his late manouvres. It may not be uninteresting just to glance for a moment or two at some of the circumstances. For nearly a month the Government sustained repeated shocks, each successive one weakening their position, though not, in the opinion of the PREMIER, warranting them in resigning. We admit there may be some reason in this, inas-much as none of the motions can be said to have been actually brought forward as expressions of want of confidence in the Government, though, as it turned out, they really were so; but from the 13th to the 27th March, the Ministry met with four decisive defeats, and they must have been perfectly well aware, therefore, that they had lost the power they previously possessed of command-ing a majority. But it is convenient sometimes to affect blindness; and when Mr. ROBERTSON urged, as a reason why the Government still retained office, that they had not been defeated on any matter of great principle sufficient to call for their resignation, it was clear that he had deter-mined in his own mind not to retire unless he were dealt with in the manner already described by the COLONIAL TREASURER of Tasmania. Motions granting only one month's supplies in-stead of three, as asked for; and insisting upon the production of papers when Mr. ROBERTSON, /a la/ Dr. CROWTHER, declined to give them to the House, were treated very lightly by the Govern-ment, until at last the patience of the Opposition became exhausted. Virtually the business of the House was at a standstill, and if the Government had then resigned, instead of retaining their seats when they knew they were not rightly entitled to them, they would have retired with credit to themselves, and without leaving any loopholes for their opponents to fire all manner of charges, some of which are sure to be remembered in time to come, and applied unpleasantly often. Mr. PARKES was, there-fore, perfectly justified--in fact, it was his bounden duty--to submit such a motion as would settle matters in one way or other. If the Government had not the confidence of the Houee, then they were acting unconstitutionally in keeping their position; if, on the other hand they could claim a majority, they were entitled to be permitted to proceed with the public business, and not be harassed by all sorts of difficulties being placed in their path. This was the view which every dispassionate observer must have taken; and there must have been a sigh of relief when it was found that Mr. PARKES intended to apply the test by moving that the retention of office by the Government, after having met with four defeats within nine sitting days, was subversive of the principles of the Constitution. On the 6th March this motion was carried by a majority of three, and no other course was left to the Government but to "consider their position." It was useless to affect any blindness as to the object of this motion, and though it was very galling to have to decide whether they should surrender place and pay or not, yet the task had been forced upon them, and they must do it. We may pardon the Government for trying to get a dissolution if they were really of opinion that the voice of the Country was in their favour. Cabinets are at liberty to tender such advice to the GOVERNOR as they think proper, and the GOVERNOR may take what course he thinks fit; but in this case there are one or two features of rather a singular character. When the Assembly met after the vote of want of confidence, Mr. ROBERTSON made the customary statement, explaining that the Government had advised His EXCELLENCY to dissolve Parliament, and that His EXCELLENCY had complied. So far, so good; there was nothing to object to yet; and if the PREMIER had had the good sense to sit down then, he might have stood a better chance of obtaining the supplies he subsequently asked for; but he was not content with that. He wanted to let the electors know the precise position of affairs from a Ministerial point of view, and so with a brief introduction to the effect that as the GOVERNOR had not asked him for any statement of reasons for the course he had recommended, he thought it right to lay before the House the Cabinet Minute which they arrived at on deter-mining upon advising His EXCELLENCY--he began to read a long document, in such a low tone that nobody could hear a word. This was a dodge. The House, of course, thought the paper was admissible, and allowed the PREMIER to get to the end of it; but there was a great deal of grumbling, because the usual practice is for the CLERK to read documents. That, how-ever, would not have suited the wily ROBERT-SON, who has become /facile princeps/ in political manoeuvring. After he had finished the docu-ment, he astonished the House by saying that the Minute had never been submitted to the GOVERNOR; "it is what the Cabinet would have submitted to the GOVERNOR, if necessary; but finding it unnecessary, it was never submitted. It was merely a Minute exhibiting the opinions that the Ministry, as a body, arrived at in this matter." No wonder that the Opposi-tion were furious, and that they not only condemned the reading of the paper as illegal, but styled it as nothing but an electioneering speech. There is no doubt that Mr. ROBERTSON committed a grave error, and one which we can hardly suppose he did unintention-ally. His lengthy experience must have told him that the Minute, not having been presented to the GOVERNOR, was a private document, and as such ought not to have been read to the House. But the PREMIER even went further than that. Having received a memorandum from the GOVERNOR, he thought it right to let the House hear it, although there is every reason to be-lieve that it was a purely confidential communi-cation. As the /S. M. Herald/ remarks:--"It was in no respect whatever necessary as a history of facts, or as an explanation of that Ministerial conduct for which Ministers are responsible to the House. It had all the appearance of being introduced for the direct purpose of in-fluencing hon. members in the vote they were to be asked to come to with respect to supply, and a more unwarrantable use of the GOVERNOR'S opinions has never been made. ... A grosser breach of privilege has never yet hap-pened in our Parliamentary history. If it is unconstitutional for the Monarch to be present at discussions, and especially so with a view to overawe the Parliament into the granting of supply, it is as improper in a Colony like this for the representative of sovereignty to be brought into Parliament, in effigy as it were, to influence hon. Members to vote supply." This minute, however, clearly showed that the dissolution was not granted unconditionally, as was at first understood, but subject to the Government obtaining supplies. It is, perhaps, a matter for some regret that Sir HERCULES ROBINSON should have taken this course, for he was subsequently obliged to refuse to accept the advice of his Ministers. By making the granting of supplies necessary to a dissolution, he virtually threw upon the Assembly the responsibility of saying whether there should be a dissolution or not. Now, we know that there is no precedent for such a peculiar proceeding, and, even if there were, it would not be wise to follow it. The GOVERNOR, and the GOVERNOR alone, has the right of deciding whether Parliament shall be dissolved; his decision on that point is final. The House may, if it likes, protest against anything that the Ministry does--any advice, for instance, that they may offer the GOVERNOR--but if the GOVERNOR chooses to grant a dissolution he may do so without assigning any reason, or without being afraid of having his decision upset. In this instance, it was not likely that the Opposition would grant supplies. Had they done so, they would have stultified their previous action as representatives of the Country. They had said that the Country had no confidence in the Government; but had they given supplies it would have been equivalent to affirming that the Government were entitled to a dissolution because, even if they had not the support of the Assembly, at all events they could command the support of a majority of the electors. Had the Government not exhibited such gross ignorance of the first prin-ciples of constitutional government, all this bother might have been spared, for they must have known that it was impossible for the Opposition to grant supplies. The Government should have refused to accept a dissolution on that condition; instead of which, they displayed a too great willingness to accept any terms that left a chance for them to retain office, and required a still stronger intimation from the House that they ought to retire before they felt warranted in doing so. Altogether the proceedings are unprecedented in their character, and such as, it is to be hoped, will rarely be repeated. The people of New South Wales are to be congratulated upon having got rid of a set of men who, whatever their policy might have been, are fit subjects for some of that political teaching which Mr. FORSTER has lately been advocating in England.

The Robertson Ministry, after sustaining several defeats, has at length been compelled to resign. For more than a month back the tottering condition of the Government caused a complete stoppage in the transaction of any business of importance in the Legislative Assembly, and night after night was taken up in discussing motions which were tanta-mount to votes of censure, and several of which were carried against the Ministry, or only negatived by very narrow majorities. The already precarious position of the Ministry was still further damaged by some discreditable disclosures with regard to the release of a bushranger on the recommenda-tion of a member of the Government. At length Mr Parkes (who ostensibly resigned the position of leader of the Opposition about six weeks ago, but now practically reassumed it on the chance of obtaining office becoming apparent) moved a resolution to the effect that, after the four defeats sustained by the Go-vernment in nine sitting days, their retaining office further was opposed to constitutional principles. After a stormy debate, in which there was a free exchange of personalities, the resolution was carried by a majority of 31 to 28. The Government then applied to Sir Hercules Robinson for a dissolution, which the Governor agreed to grant on condition that the Ministry could obtain supplies before going to the country. In the event, how-ever, of supplies being refused, His Excel-lency reserved the right to reconsider his de-cision. Mr Robertson accordingly asked for supplies, but was met by a motion moved by Mr Piddington the nominal leader of the Opposition, to the effect that the House de-clined to grant supplies under circumstances which would, in all probability lead to two general elections within a short time. This resolution was carried, and consequently Mr Robertson was left no alternative but to tender his own resignation and that of his colleagues, which were accepted. Mr Parkes was then sent for (on the 15th inst.), and is now engaged in forming a Ministry.

Most colonies on the brink of governmental changeover:

The Argus Summary for Europe. “Queensland.” 21 March 1877: 2. A Ministerial crisis has taken place, the result of which has been the reconstruction of the Ministry. Mr Thorn tendered his re-signation as Premier, which was accepted, and the Ministry was reconstructed under Mr Douglas, the same members continuing to hold office, with the exception of Mr Stewart, who retired from the position of Colonial Secretary for private reasons. He was succeeded by Mr. W. Miles. The crisis somewhat delayed the departure of Governor Cairns for Adelaide, but he left on the 14th inst., and Sir Maurice O'Connell was sworn in as Acting Governor until the arrival of Sir Arthur Kennedy.

Parliament is expected to re-assemble about the end of May next.

Parliament meets on the 21th April. Considerable, interest has been excited by the publication of some correspondence between the judges of the Supreme Court and His Excellency the Governor, in which their Honours protested against a doctrine laid down by the Attorney General in reference to a recent case of remission of the sentence of a prisoner, that the Governor in Council sat as a Court of Appeal in criminal cases. They also expressed their opinion that the remis-sion of sentence particularly referred to was a dangerous one, and highly detrimental to the administration of justice. The Ministry contributed several memoranda to this cor-respondence, all of which were written in very coarse, insulting language. Additional correspondence between the judges and the Governor afterwards published proved that the memoranda from Ministers in reply to the Governor's and judges' observations, purporting to have been forwarded to the Governor in order of date, were never seen by him or the judges until printed with the Governor's and judges' letters, and that an important memo from the Governor exposing this has been suppressed.

SYDNEY, Wednesday […] The Cricket Association has resolved to give assistance to the match England v Thirteen NSW. The dates are left open.

The political crisis at Sydney continues [as of Thursday, March 8], and it is believed the Governor will dissolve Parliament.

The Cricket Association tonight consented to give assistance to the match, All-England v. New South Wales Thirteen, but the dates are left open for a conference between Lillywhite and the secretary of the association.

In the Legislative Assembly, yesterday, the Colonial Treasurer moved that the Chairman leave the chair, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply. Upon this Mr Piddington moved as an amendment: "1. That whilst this House is anxious to proceed with the public business on the formation of an Administration entitled to the confidence of Parliament, it declines to grant supplies to a defeated Government under circumstances which would in all probability result in two general elections within a short period of time. 2. That the foregoing resolution be embodied in an address to his Excellency the Governor." A debate ensued which lasted until half-past 2 o'clock this morning. Two unsuccessful attempts were made to adjourn the debate, but at length the question was put that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. This was negatived against the Government by a division of ayes 27, noes 33. The next question was that the words proposed to be added be so added, upon which another division was taken, in which the numbers were exactly the same—33 hon. members voting against the Government, and only 27 for them. The resolution was next put as amended, and, a division being again demanded, the result was found to be precisely the same. Vociferous cheering from the Opposition greeted the announcement of the result, and there were cries of "Dissolve," "Resign," and “The Government cannot dissolve now." The House adjourned until this day at the usual hour.

SYDNEY, Tuesday. On the meeting of the Assembly tonight, Mr. Robertson stated that he would ask for two months' supplies tomorrow. Mr Piddington thereupon gave notice of motion contingent upon going into committee of supply—“That whilst this House is anxious to proceed to public business on the formation of a Ministry having the confidence of the House, it declines to grant supply under circumstances which would, in all probability, result in two general elections within a short time." Mr Robertson moved the adjournment of the House, upon which a debate took place, which was continued until late. The fate of Mr Piddington's contingent resolution tomorrow is uncertain, as several members who voted for Mr Parkes's resolutions may decline to support the attempt to refuse supply.

A political crisis and change of Ministry have taken place in New South Wales. After several weeks had been wasted by the absolute incapacity of the Government to effect any step whatever, Mr Parkes (who ostensibly resigned the position of leader of the Opposition about six weeks ago, but now practically reassumed it on the chance of obtaining office becoming apparent) moved a resolution to the effect that, after the four defeats sustained, by the Government in nine sitting days, their retaining office further was opposed to constitutional principles. After a stormy debate, in which there was a free exchange of personalities, the resolution was carried by a majority 31 to 28. The Government then applied to Sir Hercules Robinson for a dissolution, which the Governor agreed to grant on condition that the Ministry could obtain supplies before going to the country. In the event, however, of supplies being refused, His Excellency reserved the right to reconsider his decision. Mr Robertson, accordingly, asked for supplies, but was met by a motion—moved by Mr Piddington, the nominal leader of the Opposition—to the effect that the House declined to grant supplies under circumstances which would, in all probability, lead to two general elections within a short time. This resolution was carried, and consequently Mr. Robertson was left no alternative but to tender his own resignation and that of his colleagues, which were accepted. Mr Parker was then sent for, and has formed a Ministry, composed as follows: Fremier and Colonial Secretary, Mr. Parkes; Colonial treasurer, Mr. Piddington; Secretary for Lands, Mr. Driver; Secretary for Public Works, Mr. Hoskins; Postmaster General and Representative of the Government in the Legislative Council, Mr. Samuel; Minister of Justice and Public Instruction, Mr. Francis Suttor; Secretary for Mines, Mr. G. A. Lloyd; Attorney-General, Mr Windeyer. Supply was then obtained, and Parliament adjourned for the Ministerial elections.

SYDNEY, MARCH 9. Things have worked up to a crisis at last. When the Assembly met on Tuesday Mr Parkes brought forward his resolution. He dwelt upon the four successive defeats which the Ministry have recently suffered, and tried to show that they were all very important, and that they proved that Ministers had lost the confidence of Parliament; and that that being the case, they were to be supposed to have lost the confidence of the country, of the opinion of which Parliament was the exponent. He also discussed at some length "the question of a dissolution, and argued that one was not justifiable under the circumstances, as a new Ministry might be formed that would be capable of carrying on the business of Parliament for the remainder of the session. Mr Robertson replied by laying down the doctrine that the essence of the Constitution was government by the majority. He depreciated the importance of the defeats the Government had suffered, and pointed to the fact that on every test vote he had been supported by a majority. He reminded Mr Parkes that the Martin Government, of which he had been Colonial Secretary, suffered heavy defeats without resigning, and he quoted from a speech of Mr Parkes's at the time, in which he argued that defeats did not render a resignation necessary if Parliament still had confidence in the Administration. The Government wanted to adjourn the debate until the following evening, but this was successfully resisted, and the division on this point was the premonition of the coming disaster. The vote was taken shortly afterwards, and left the Government in a minority of three. It was a tolerably full House, but if every member had been in his place the Government would still have been beaten. The two Messrs Suttor, Mr Dangar, and Mr Rouse, all voted against the Government. It is they, in fact, who have kept it in power for some time past, partly because they were not over friendly to Mr Parkes, and partly because they did not wish to stop the voting of supplies. But they came to the conclusion that the situation was no longer bearable, and that as a change was inevitable the sooner it was brought about the better. It is usual after a defeat to move for an adjournment to the following day, but Mr. Robertson moved for an adjournment till Friday, and the House consented. On Wednesday the Cabinet was busy in session, but would reveal nothing as to the nature of its decision. It was not till Thursday, at noon, that Mr Robertson waited on His Excellency, and as nobody was then sent for, it was presumed that they had not resigned. No one, however, who knows Mr Robertson would for a moment imagine that he would resign except nnder a last necessity. It was assumed as a matter of course that he would ask for a dissolution; the only doubt was whether he would get it. The second questim is whether, if it is promised him contingent on supply, the House will grant that supply. Ministers have declined to communicate the Governor's decision to the press, and have reserved the announcement for the Assembly this afternoon. To catch the post I must close this letter before the House meets, but you will know the decision by telegraph as well as the view the House takes of it before this letter reaches you. At any rate, whether we have a dissolution or a change of Government, there most in any case be a great delay in the progress of the Government business.

Yesterday morning, after passing a very restless night, his Grace Buffered from increased debility. He suffered much pain during the day, and took no nourishment, and was only conscious at intervals. At a late hour last night he continued very low. His Excellency the Governor sent a special message to express his extreme regret at his Grace's illness. Among the very many who have called are Sir E. Deas-Thomson, Sir James Martin, Mr W. Macleay, Mr Justice Faucett, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Hon. George Allen; the Hon. John Robertson, Premier; the Hon. A. Stuart, Colonial Treasurer; the Hon. J. Lackey, Minister for works; the Rev. Rabbi Davis; Mr. PA Jennings, Mr. EG Ellis, Mr. E. Butler, Q.C.; Mr. WA Duncan, WC Browne, M.L.A., and many other Roman Catholic citizens; the Revs. Canon Vidal, T. Kemmis, Horton, Garnsey, Dr Lang, Dr Steel, Mr. District Judge Dowling, the Hon. J. Fairfax, M.L.C., the Hon. Thomas Holt, MLC, Mr. GA Lloyd, M.L.A., Mr HH Halloran. On Sunday the hon. and learned Attorney-General took a last interview with his Grace, but continues his daily call. Among the clergy who have called have been Arch-priest Sheehy, Consignor Lynch, Deans Therry, Forde, Flanigan, Sheridan, Prior, Dwyer, and Slattery! The infirmarian arrangements have been entirely under the directions of his Grace's chaplain (Dr. Collett), who, like, his Grace Dr Vaughan, have, both night and day, hardly left the beside.

Regarding the Ministerial crisis in New South Wales, the Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday writes: "The public anxiety to obtain information as to what was to be done in regard to the present political crisis appeared to culminate yesterday evening as the time drew near for the meeting of the Legislative Assembly, and long before 4 o'clock there was a large concourse of people outside the Chamber waiting for admission. The galleries were almost literally rashed, and were densely packed in every part before Mr Speaker took the chair. There was also an unusually large attendance of members, no less than 52 hon. gentlemen being in their places when the proceedings commenced. There were 18 questions on the paper, most of which were put to Ministers, and answered with some expedition, there being an evident desire on partof the House to come to the expected statement from the Ministers. Some papers were laid upon the table by Mr Robertson, after which that gentleman rose and made the anxiously looked-for explanation. He stated that his colleagues had met him on Wednesday, but had not on that day arrived at any definite conclusion. He waited on the Governor, however, that day, and had a conversation with him. On Thursday the Cabinet met again, and came to the conclusion to ask the Governor for a dissolution, and they drew up a minute containing the reasons upon which they based this request. This minute—a very lengthy document—Mr Robnrtaon read to the House. He further stated that he again waited upon his Excellenoy, and at once obtained his promise to dissolve the House in a written minute, which Mr Robertson also read. He concluded by moving the adjournment of the House. A debate ensued, in which the conduct of the Government and the present state of affairs was fully discussed, and the House did not adjourn until 20 minutes to 12 o'clock. The following is the minute of Sir Hercules Robinson: “There are undoubtedly great objections in the way of granting the present Government a dissolution, which objections I have stated to the hon. the Colonial Secretary. But, after the fullest consideration of the subject and of the grounds urged by him in support of his view, I have come to the conclusion that I should be justified in granting a dissolution, in compliance with the advice which has been this day tendered to me. Much as there is to be said on both sides, for and against this determination, I am influenced in the course which I now indicate by a desire to act with the utmost loyalty to whatever Ministry may be in power, and to give them every fair opportunity of carrying out their policy, if by doing so I am not acting prejudicially to the general interests of the colony. In arriving at this decision, I assume that Mr. Robertson advises such a course under the full belief that he will bi able to obtain the necessary supplies for carrying on the public service during the period pending an appeal to the country—a point about which in England there would not be the slightest doubt. If, however, it should turn out that party spirit runs so high that he should have overrated his ability in this particular, it must, of course, be understood that I should be at liberty, in view of the grave crisis which will then arise, to reconsider my present decision before finally sanctioning a course which would have the effect of putting the whole machinery of Government out of gear, and of inflicting an incalculable amount of misery upon a large portion of the community who have nothing but their earnings to to rely upon."

And yet Sydney, be it noted, is about the “sportingest” town in all the world (although with only half the population of a London parish, say Marylebone), for has it not sent forth a Trickett to row everybody, a rifle team and a Slade to shoot against everybody, and a Bannerman to bat against everybody; to say nothing of Applett, the runner, and others who hail from the same colony? Sydney is a very hotbed of sport in every line of “talent.” (Venison “Turf” Queenslander, 7 April 1877.) The defeat of the Government, which was adverted to in our last summary, culminated in the resignation of the Ministry, and the accession to power of Mr. Parkes Mr. Robertson advised his Excellency to dissolve Parliament, and it was stated that the advice was accepted by the Governor on the condition that the Ministry were able to obtain supplies necessary to carry on the various departments of the public service pending an appeal being made to the constituencies. Accordingly, on the 14th of March, the Colonial Treasurer moved the House into Committee of Supply; but upon doing so, was met by an amendment moved by Mr. Piddington, to the effect that while the House was anxious to proceed with the public business on the formation of a Ministry entitled to the confidence of Parliament, it declined to grant supplies, to a defeated Government under circumstances which would, in all probability, result in two general elections within a short period of time. The Government were out-voted in the division by 33 to 27, after a debate which lasted through one sitting. Upon the reassembling of the House, on the 15th of March, the Premier read the following note from his Excellency the Governor: “In view of the crisis which has now arisen, I have reconsidered the position in all its bearings, as I intimated to you I should do in my minute of the 8th instant, and I have arrived at the decision that I should not now be justified in accepting the advice to dissolve which you verbally tendered to me on Thursday last." Upon the receipt of that communication Mr. Robertson and his colleagues lost no time in tendering the resignation of their offices to the Governor, and Mr. Parkes was entrusted by his Excellency on the following day with the task of forming a new Administration. Mr. Parkes's conferences with his Parliamentary friends resulted in the formation of the following Cabinet, the names of the new Ministers being announced in both Houses of Parliament on the 22nd—Premier and Colonial Secretary, Mr. Parkes; Colonial Treasurer, Mr. Piddington; Secretary for Lands, Mr. Driver; Secretary for Public Works, Mr. Hoskins; Postmaster-General and Representative of the Government in the Legislative Council, Mr. Samuel; Minister of Justice and Public Instruction, Mr FB Suttor; Secretary for Mines, Mr GA Lloyd; Attorney-General, Mr. Windeyer. The seats of the new Ministers, with the exception of Mr Samuel, who is a member of the Legislative Council, were declared vacant, on the motion of Mr SC Brown, and the House adjourned until the 24th of April, to allow time for the re-election of the Government. All the Ministers, with the exception of the Colonial Treasurer, have been elected without opposition; and Mr. Piddington has been returned to the Assembly by a large majority of votes over his opponent. (Sydney Morning Herald “Summary of News” 13 April 1877.) It will be seen from our New South Wales and Queensland telegrams that a Ministerial crisis has occurred in both these colonies. In the New South Wales Assembly Mr Parkes last night moved: “That the retention of office by Ministers after having suffered within nine sitting days four several defeats on motions expressive of condemnation and want of confidence, is subversive of the principles of the constitution." The motion was carried on a division by 31 votes to 28. In Queensland, Mr G. Thorn, the Premier, has resigned office, and the Governor has in consequence been requested to postpone his departure for South Australia. The third Robertson ministry would finally dissolve on March 21, “with an exceedingly bad grace,” and only “after exhausting every imaginable expedient for retaining office.” When Governor wrote to the Premier informing him that the opposition was forming a Ministry, John Robertson refused to ask the House for supply to cover the period of re-election “until he was definitely assured that Mr [Henry] Parkes had succeeded in his task. Such a course is unprecedented, and indicates an intention on the part of the late Government and their supporters to offer the most dogged opposition to the new Government to revenge the refusal of their demand for a dissolution.” The second Parkes ministry would not survive five months before Robertson was back in power. Had already part of eight previous administrations: “His opponents have taken the opportunity afforded by his clinging to office in this instance, after successive defeats, to remind him that politics must have been a paying profession for him, since he has received from the public purse during the last nineteen years an average of nearly a thousand a year. It is a pity that accusations of this kind should be so often bandied from side to side in the Assembly, and a still greater pity that the action of some of its leaders gives them so much show of justification.” NSW only seemed able to organise themselves to express indication at the overzealous energies of others . “A special meeting of the above-named association was held on Monday [March 5] at Tattersall's Hotel, to consider the question of the forthcoming match—‘All England Eleven v. a combined eleven of New South Wales and Victoria.’ Mr Richard Driver, MLA, occupied the chair, and there was an unusally [sic] large attendance of members.” “After the minutes of the previous meeting had been read and confirmed, the secretary, Mr Gibson, said that the principal reason he called the meeting to-night for was to consider the so-called combined match which is shortly to come off in Melbourne. He heard on very good authority that these men were selected by one or two gentlemen in Melbourne, and the association had really nothing to do with the matter, and no proper person had been appointed for the correspondence to pass through. They selected who they liked, and he did not consider it a proper proceeding for the Melbourne people to do. He was asked to inform the meeting who these people were, but he did not know who the selection committee were. He said, as Mr Conway had everything to do with the matter, he might have selected them. Mr R Teece had heard that Mr Dave Gregory selected the team. Mr Gibson could not say in reply to Mr Cohen, whether the Melbourne Association had been consulted or not. The Chairman said all he knew about it was this. During the first of the All-England Eleven matches Mr Conway spoke to him about a combination match, and said he hoped one would be played in Melbourne, and would like our best men to go down there. Mr Conway named a team, in which he included Murdoch as being a good one to send down. He, at the time, told Mr Conway that he had some doubts as to whether Evans would go. He said” that if Evans were fain “to go, he (the Chairman) would get him the necessary leave of absence. He soon after received a telegram and a letter from Mr Conway, but had to inform him that Evans declined to go. He thought that they ought to enter a protest against the cricketing honour of the country being shuffled in this way. He thought” that Murdoch was one of the first six men in the country, and that “the association ought to set their faces against it. Mr Gibson said that when the last combined match was played up here [when?] a nice lot of men were sent up from Victoria. He knew that as far as the association was concerned it could not interfere with the privileges of any man, but he must say that if he were in the position of one of the players without anything being stated to the Association, he certainly would not go. The Association had not been consulted in the matter, and he was certain that if Murdoch had been asked to go he would have been willing. He would now move the following resolution: ‘It having been publicly notified that a match is about to be played, between the All-England Eleven and a Combined Eleven of New South Wales and Victoria, this Association desire to place it on record that the same has been arranged without the intervention of or reference to this Association, and that the same cannot be regarded as a match in which the chosen representatives of New South Wales take part.’ This being put to the meeting, was carried unanimously. A letter was read from Mr TC Hinchcliffe, hon. secretary of the Carlton Cricket Club, asking the Association for their patronage at a concert to be given by the club in aid of their funds on Monday, March 26. On the motion of Mr R. Teeoe, seconded by Mr LJ Park, it was unanimously agreed that the Association grant its patronage. The remaining business had reference to the internal affairs of the Association.” “The following resolution was moved by Mr Gibson and agreed to unanimously: ‘It having been publicly notified that a match is about to be played betwen [sic] the All England Eleven and a combined eleven of New South Wales and Victoria, this Association desires to place it on record that the same has been arranged without the intervention of or any reference to the association or in any way under its auspices; and that the same cannot be regarded as a match in which the chosen representatives of New South Wales take part.’” Were even able to get some other business done: “After transacting some additional business of a formal character the meeting terminated. A letter was received from the secretary of the Carlton Cricket Club, asking the patronage of the association to a concert, to be given in the School of Arts, on Monday, 26th March, in aid of the club funds. On the motion of Mr A. Teece, seconded by Mr. L. J. Park, it was unanimously agreed that the patronage be given.” “Etiquette was scorned when the NSW Cricket Association was bypassed and the NSW players were approached directly. But the main gripe was, of course, the oldest in colonial history: if only we'd thought of it first. Blasted Melburnians.” A quiet time, in contrast, in Victoria. “Besides the great cricket match,” asked the Melbourne correspondent to the Brisbane Courier, despairing of matter to write about, “what was there stirring?” But the newspapers did all they could to foul the air and keep their presses screaming, usually at one another. Quoted some examples of its battle with a protectionist professor “as curiosities of journalism at this present time in Victoria, and also to show how terribly demoralised in intellect nous autres journalists become whenever a famine of incidents occurs in the world's history.... But all this is dignified and gentlemanly when set beside the epithets thrown at each other, day after day, by the other two morning Melbourne journals. I really dare not quote a sentence from the Age or Telegraph leaders for the past week.... 'Tis scandalous! Never again, I declare, shall either Age or Telegraph lie on my breakfast table for my children to read. I would as soon think of giving them Rabelais and Petrouius Arbiter as choice books to study. And, speaking as an experienced pressman, I should, had I been editor of either of those journals, have turned the contributor clean out of my office forever who would have dared to hand me an article of the stamp in which both Age and Telegraph have been revelling for some days past. Decency before all things for a public journal, ‘for want of decency is want of sense.’” The Argus was pretty bitchy, too:

Professor PEARSON, a man whom we wish to respect, if possible, has come out in a new character. Judging by the report which appears in another column, he would like to be considered what the American writers call a "jokist." In the address which he delivered last night at Kew to the electors of Boroondara, he had the exquisite taste to allude to our comments on his former deliverances in a way which, we submit, is simply characteristic of what in the vernacular is known as a "cad." Ever since the hon. gentleman announced his intention of entering political life, we have treated him with the most studied courtesy. We have had occasion to take exception to his facts, and to doubt the soundness of his reasoning. But we defy anyone to point out a single instance in which we have treated him otherwise than as a gentleman whole statements and opinions are worthy of consideration. We regret to find that the courtesy we have extended to him is not appreciated. We certainly cannot agree with his views, and we are driven by the force of circumstances to question the sincerity with which they are held. But we think that anyone who will take the trouble to examine our criticisms will admit that we have met the learned gentleman in a fairly argumentative way. We have, me tenderly w we could, exposed his ignorance of the subjects on which he has thought proper to discourse, and “wondered" how a man of his culture could possibly entertain the opinions he has expressed. Instead, however, of meeting our objections to his views by counter-statements and fair replies, he has thought proper to adopt that style of language towards us which is generally taken up by a low lived disputant who is worsted in an on counter. We regret this, as we expected a gentleman not only to recognise the consideration with which he is treated, but also to set an example to others of how a political disputation may be properly carried on. We submit that it would have been far better for Professor PEARSON to have met our arguments than to have attempted to cast ridicule on them by a sorry effort at jocularity. No doubt it is convenient for the learned professor to shelve our arguments by such a lame device, but he must be a very green politician indeed if he imagines that any evasion of the sort will satisfy the electors. The learned gentleman seems to complain that we have made his speeches the subjects of many leading articles. It appeared to us that in so doing we were paying him the highest compliment which a public man could desire. We are compelled to allow the absurdities of “small fry” to pass without notice. However, we shall know how to treat Professor PEARSON in future. It is evident that he is a gentleman who is not only prepared to swallow his opinions, but also his manners along with them. There is a mode of dealing with such persons of which the professor may yet find out the efficacy.

These the remarks objected to by The Argus:

Professor Pearson addressed a crowded meeting last night in the Kew Town Hall. He commenced by saying that he had thought he had said all he need say for some time to come when he had last addressed them, but the Argus, and more recently Mr Smith, had reviewed his opinions, and he felt it incumbent on him to reply to Mr. Smith, though he was sure the meeting would excuse him if he left "the old lady of Collins-street to her own devices."

Notwithstanding the excessive modesty which Professor PEARSON apparently claims as one of his distinctive characteristics, we are afraid we cannot just at present spare his blushes. He appears unwilling to do himself justice, and desirous of hiding his light under a bushel; but being “in the place where we are demanded of conscience to speak the truth," we cannot consent to such complete abnegation. The learned gentleman tells us that when he addressed a meeting at Hawthorn a short time ago, he “concluded with the feeling that he had said all he had to say on public subjects, and that no further explanation could be demanded of him." Good easy gentleman! Could anything be more refreshingly innocent than the idea? Let us examine the circumstances of the case in which such a very curious impression arose. A gentleman who had made a name for himself as a limited historian of more than average merit, came out to South Australia some years ago, we believe for the benefit of his health. We feel happy to think that the object he had in view was attained. It appears to us that we are justified in assuming that the learned gentleman is perfectly robust now, after noticing the combativeness of his tone. While in the neighbouring province, Professor PEARSON devoted himself, we believe, to agricultural or pastoral pursuits. Some humourist has asserted that he regarded a number of wethers as a breeding flock, and was disappointed when he found no increase. His denial of the charge is perfectly straightforward and satisfactory. However, despite his ideas on sheep-breeding, a general feeling was entertained to the effect that a man of his standing would be a desirable addition to our University staff. An invitation, we believe, was given him to join it as a lecturer. After a time, he accepted the post of head master of the Presbyterian Ladies' College, and in both positions, we think we may safely say that he commanded general respect. He was regarded as a man of broad views and general culture—in fact, as an educated gentleman. That he might have continued to hold a high position in popular estimation is indubitable, had not “vaulting ambition” induced him to quit the “ways of pleasantness” amongst the charming young ladies under his charge for the thorny paths of politics. When the promise of his first appearance in public was made, people naturally thought that there was a rich intellectual treat in store for them. It was considered that we might reasonably expect to find the philosophy of history applied to the elucidation of many difficult problems which are at present vexing the public mind. But it soon became apparent that the gentleman to whom we looked to be our guide, philosopher, and friend, was, after all, but a sorry leader—a "Brummagem" article, which could only discredit its possessors. Before coming forward as a candidate for Parliament, Professor PEARSON delivered a lecture at Emerald-hill, ostensibly on the land question, but he took the opportunity of showing that, for reasons which we find it difficult to understand, he was a thorough partisan, and capable of insulting a society of gentlemen, many of whom are his equals in respect to knowledge, and certainly his superiors as regards decency and feeling. Without the shadow of a justification, he stated that those forming the Free-trade League had deliberately commenced an agitation in favour of tariff reform, in order to divert public attention from the question of a land tax. It must be remembered that this assertion was not made under the influence of that heat which is sometimes generated in political meetings, but deliberately put forward in the course of an ordinary lecture. We thought that the tone adopted was very improper, and at once took exception, not only to the learned gentleman's views, but also to his taste in expressing them. Surely it was not the duty of a public lecturer, holding a high position in popular estimation, to impute dishonesty to his equals. It was thought at the time, however, and subsequent events have shown the reasonableness of the forecast, that the learned gentleman had made up his mind to enter political life, and was bidding very high for popular support. Professor PEARSON after a time announced himself as a candidate for the honour of representing Boroondara in the next Parliament, and proceeded in the ordinary way to address the electors. We think that we are not outstepping the bounds of truth when we say that his utterances thoroughly disgusted all who were able to criticise them. We have not space now to go over them again, but we may briefly say that they were disfigured by statements as ridiculously at variance with truth as those to which we are perpetually treated by the orators of the stump.

[22 March, summing up recent events in Victoria:] Weather, high summer, but delightful. Nothing new, excepting Lytton Sotheron's Lord Dundreary at the Opera House, in the line of popular entertainments.

The past month has been unusually barren of political interest. The further prorogation of Parliament to the 26th Inst. produced a lull in the election campaign, which will not, however, be of long duration. The Government policy, of which as yet there has been no Indication will be unfolded by the Premier at Warrnambool on the 25th inst, the day fixed for the dissolution of Parliament, and the writs for the now elections are to be issued five days later. All the elections take place on the 11th of May, and Parliament will be called together on the 29th of May. There are at pre sent 223 candidates in the field, to claim the 80 seats, and there will be some hard fought contests.

The past month has been a singularly uneventful one. The community has occupied itself a good deal in holiday making, and the weather having been unusually fine for this season of the year, the Easter festivities were enjoyed in the thorough manner which is characteristic of Australia at holiday time. The announcement contained in a London paper that there is a probability of the Prince of Wales visiting the Australian colonies has naturally excited interest, but the statement is not sufficiently authoritative to create any real expectation.

By 10 March, “the only topic which has been agitating cricket circles during the past week, and that only to a very moderate extent, is the action taken by the New South Wales Cricket Association in reference to the choice of our representatives for the combined match, and the question is asked, ‘Was it necessary for the New South Wales Cricket Association to take up the position indicated by the resolution passed last Monday?’ I think,” said “Square Leg,” apparently relieved that they were doing something, “the association was perfectly justified in the course it adopted. It is the representative cricket body of this colony; and if it was thought desirable to have New South Wales represented at the coming match in Melbourne, the association was the legitimate body to deal with the question.... [The team] having been selected by somebody in Melbourne who apparently has an interest in the speculation, and without the slightest reference to the association, the members were quite right in ignoring the match as far as they were concerned, and declining to look upon it from a national point of view. The members of the team whose names I gave last week, with the exception of Spofforth, started for Melbourne on Tuesday last, and until their return the Challenge Cup matches will be discontinued”—they recognised it that much at least. “Square Leg’s” assessment ramified in the Australian Town and Country Journal, March 10, in a column by “Round-Arm”: “The action of the Cricket Association re the combined match to be played in Melbourne has been the chief topic of conversation since the meeting of that body on Monday evening, and there's no doubt that cricketers generally, if not universally, approve it. The ruling of the association once put on record, and five players having gone down to join in the match, little or nothing more has to be said or done; because as it's very clear that the New South Wales players are not, in the proper sense, representatives of the colony, but have taken part in the match in accordance with some private arrangement, the affair cannot be considered a combination of the two colonies. I was pretty certain that not more than three of the best six men would go, and I was about right; and I think it a great pity that our strength was not got together for another trial of conclusions with the Englishmen on our own account, and on our own ground. Then we should have had the pick of our players, bar an accident, for Evans, Murdoch, and Spofforth would have been to the fore [possible suggestion here that the reasons they gave were cover stories: Spofforth, as he proved in later disputes with cricket administrations, even to the point of strike-breaking, was very much of the establishment, a company man of loyal and conservative instiincts], along with the five now gone to Melbourne, Powell and others; and there would have been a good deal more satisfaction than under existing circumstances.” “The Australians are confident of rendering a good account of themselves if they can get their best team together. So far all the best have promised to co-operate” (Australasian “Combination Match” 24 February 1877). “No difficulty is anticipated in getting the best men of the two colonies together to do battle for the honour of Australian cricket; one of the finest contests therefore yet seen in this part of the world may be anticipated” (Third Man “Cricket Notes” Weekly Times, 24 February 1877: 16). Selection, then as now, a highly fraught and political matter. “In Melbourne,” wrote “Grubber” in Week on March 10, “merit is not always recognised, and to get placed in a representative team requires wire-pulling or influence at Court. In the matches against the Englishmen, Terry the Melbourne professional [and umpire in the inaugural Test?] has been studiously left out, although his batting and bowling performances this season place him in the first three.” Australian Associated Press, March 1: “The following players go to Melbourne to play in the combined match against the Englishmen: D. and E. Gregory, C. Bannerman, Garrett, Spofforth, and Thompson. Evans declines to go.” Sydney Morning Herald “All-England v. Combined Eleven,” March 2: “We understand that the following players will represent this colony in the match which is to take place this month at Melbourne, between the All-England Eleven and eleven of New South Wales and Victoria: D. and E. Gregory, Spofforth, Garrett, N. Thompson, and C. Bannerman. Evans was requested to proceed to Melbourne, but in view of another All-England match in Sydney he declined. It will be seen on reference to our telegraphic intelligence that Victoria will be represented by Allan, Cooper, Horan, Kelly, Midwinter, and Blackham.” Censor in The Australasian’s “Pavilion Gossip” column for March 3 reported that “efforts are being made to remove the difficulty about Evans, the crack Sydney cricketer, procuring the necessary leave to take part in the Combination Match. It seems a pity that so bright a star as Evans should be absent on so grand an occasion when Australia will require every one of her champions to meet the All-England Eleven even-handed in the field.” Australasian “Combination Match” 3 March 1877: “In connexion with the forthcoming match everyone will regret to hear that Evans, the great Sydney bowler, cannot take part in the match, owing to the pressure of business engagements. Some alteration will therefore be necessary. It has been suggested to play twelve Australians against the English Eleven, as without Evans it is thought our men would have no chance with the Eleven evenhanded. This is a matter, however, which can be decided further on. The six Sydney representatives, then, are Bannerman, Garrett, D. Gregory, E. Gregory, Spofforth, and Thompson. Our visitors [from NSW] will arrive here about March 9, so as to afford at least five days' practice on our fast turf. Our men will most probably be selected from Horan, Midwinter, Allan, Kelly, Blackham, and Cooper.” “Point” in the Melbourne Leader on March 3: “without consulting any one in authority here [in Victoria], or ascertaining whether the time will suit. In a like arbitrary manner it has been determined, although the match is to be played in Melbourne, that the eleven shall be composed of six Sydneyites and five Victorians. Whether our players will submit to this high-handed mode of doing business remains to be seen. Surely the Victorian Cricket Association, which was specially asked prior to the arrival of the Englishmen to arrange the matches played in Victoria, ought to have something to say in regard to the selection of our Victorian players, so that there should be some guarantee that the fittest men are selected, and take into consideration the question of the number to be played by each colony. I think our men should refuse to play unless everything was done in a proper manner, through the association. Six Sydney players were decided upon on Wednesday, and they are N. Thompson, D. Gregory, E. Gregory, C. Bannerman, Garrett and Spofforth. Evans declines to come, which is greatly to be regretted, as, after his performances against the Eleven in Sydney, everyone would have liked to see him on the Melbourne ground” (Point “Cricket Gossip” Leader, 3 March 1877.) Melbourne Herald, March 6: “The interest in the great combined Intercolonial Cricket Match with the All-England Eeleven [sic] is growing. Today the Sydney men left that city in the afternoon. It was found at the last moment that Spofforth could not come, and consequently the Sydney contingent will consist of Garrett, Nat Thompson, Bannerman, and also the two Gregorys. Victoria will therefore have six players.” Argus, March 8: “For the first time in the annals of cricket, [...] an Australian eleven of cricketers will meet, even handed, a like number of England's champion wielders of the willow, a combined eleven of the colonies of Victoria and New South Wales having thrown the gauntlet to Lillywhite's All England Eleven. Though it is to be regretted that Evans, of New South Wales, cannot take part in the match, yet the quintette, viz.—Bannerman, Thompson, Garrett, and the two Gregorys, furnished by that colony, could not be improved upon, save by the presence of Evans himself. [No mention of Spofforth.] The Sydney men, who will arrive on Thursday night or Friday morning, will have ample time to accustom themselves to our fast turf on the Melbourne Cricket-ground, and with a few days' practice together the Australians will render a very good account of themselves. At any rate, whatever may be the result of the contest, a fine display of cricket in all its branches may safely be anticipated. The following players were yesterday chosen by the Victorian Match Committee to practise on the Melbourne ground every evening during the week: Allan, Alexander, Blackham, Cooper, Elliott, Horan, Hastings, Kendall, Kelly, and Midwinter. The final selection of the six names required to complete the colonial eleven will be made next Saturday, so as to afford three days' clear practice before they meet the Englishmen on the 15th inst.” Seems eleven plyers not settled upon till late in the day, or rather that Evans’s withdrawal forced a rethink. Hobart Mercury reported on March 8 that “The Argus [get orig] understands that in the combined cricket matnh against the All England Eleven, which is to take place on the Melbourne-ground in the middle of the present month, the combined team will consist of 12 players—six from each of the colonies of New South Wales and Victoria. The New South Wales men will be D. Gregory, E. Gregory, C. Bannerman, Spofforth, N. Thompson, and Garrett. Evans declines to come, as he wishes to play against the Englishmen in the match in Sydney. His absence from the team is very greatly to be regretted as it takes from it its completeness. The Victorian contingent has not yet been selected, but a meeting for that purpose is to be held on Friday. The following will probably be chosen: Allan, Cooper, Kelly, Midwinter, Horan, and Blackham” (Mercury “Victoria” 8 March 1877.) Australasian: “When it was positively known that the first-named player [Evans] could not take part in the contest, the following six were chosen: Bannerman, Spofforth, Garrett, Nat Thompson, and the two Gregorys. Spofforth, at the eleventh hour, stated he could not go unless Murdoch were selected as the wicketkeeper for his bowling, urging that Murdoch was the only one who knew how to take him properly. As the arrangements were all made for the Sydney men to start for Melbourne, Spofforth's vanity was not gratified, and the Sydney cricketers left without him. Victoria thus will have six players, and Kendall, or one other of our bowlers, will have to be chosen. However, that is a matter which can safely be left to the hands of the Match Committee. It may be stated that the services of Allan and all our best players will be available for the occasion.”

The New South Wales cricketers practice this morning [March 9], and the full practise of the combined team will commence on Monday. The Englishmen are expected to arrive on Tuesday.

By March 10, “the following players have been selected to represent the Combined Eleven who are to play the Englishmen at Melbourne, on the 15th instant: New South Wales: D, and E. Gregory, C. Bannerman, Spofforth, Garrett, and Thompson; Evans was unable to go. Victoria: Allan, Cooper, Horan, Kelly, Midwinter, and Blackham. The proprietors of the Australasian have given a very handsome cup for the best bowling in the Combined Team.” Ballarat Star on March 13 reported substitution of Kelly for Kendall: “The Victorian representatives were chosen today, and are—Allan, Blackham, Kendall, Cooper, Horan, Midwinter.”

The prize given by the proprietors of The Australasian for the winner of the Chal- lenge Sculls is now on view at Messrs Brush and Drummond's, the manufactures. The prize will be contested for by the well known scullers viz:--Christie (holder), Jas. Cazaly Steele, Stout, and Jno. Cazaly. The latter is going very slow. Of the other three chal- lengers, Jas. Cazaly should be the best, but is hardly likely to give Christie much trouble, he having got his measure on two previous occasions.

The cricketers display good form and practice regularly. Allan was present. They practised Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The Victorian players will be selected tomorrow. Probably Allan, Blackham, Cooper, Horan, Kelly and Midwinter or Kendall. The English cricketers are expected. Tuesday evening the game is to be played out. [sic: clearly the full stops in this paragraph need to be rearranged.]

GRAND COMBINATION MATCH, ALL-ENGLAND ELEVEN v. COMBINED ELEVEN OF NEW SOUTH WALES and VICTORIA, Will take place on the MELBOURNE GROUND MARCH 15th, 10th, 17th, and 19th. Admission to ground each day, 2s.; grand stand, 2s.; tickets for the four days—for ground, 5s., for ground and stand, 10s. They can be obtained at Nicholson and Aesherberg's, Collins street, on and after Monday. R. JOHNSON, Hon. Sec Melbourne Cricket Club.

[insert image of these ads: Johnson, R. “Cricket.” Argus, 10 March 1877: 12, and .]

THE BOOTH SITES in connexion with the forthcoming COMBINATION MATCH will be SUBMITTED to public auction on Monday next, at Kirk's Bazaar. Plans, &c, can be seen at the Melbourne Cricket ground. R. JOHNSON, Hon. Sec.

GRAND COMBINATION MATCH, ALL-ENGLAND ELEVEN v. Combined Eleven of NEW SOUTH WALES and VICTORIA, Will take place on the MELBOURNE GROUND 15th, 16th, 17th and 19th MARCH. Admission to ground each day, 2s; grand stand, 2s.; tickets for the four days—for ground, 5s.; for ground and stand, 10s. They can be obtained it Nicholson and Aesherberg's, Collins-street, and at of Melbourne Omnibus Company, 100 Bourke-street east, on and after Monday. R. JOHNSON Hon. Sec. Melbourne Cricket Club

ALL ENGLAND ELEVEN V. AUSTRALIAN PLAYERS, March 16th, 18th, 17th and 19th. Arrangements have been made with the Melbourne Omnibus Company to run a special line of omnibuses to cricket ground, Fare, 3d. Tickets for the grand stand and ground will be sold at the omnibus office, and by the drivers of the omnibuses. Grounds and return omnibus fare each day, 2s. 6d. Stand and do. do., each day, 4s. 6d. Tickets of admission for every day of the match will be sold at the Omnibus Company's office, on and after Tuesday. For around, 5s.; for stand and ground, 10s. RICHARD JOHNSON, Hon. Sec. MCC

From Grubber’s “Cricket Notes” in Week, March 10: “The Australian eleven comprises Allan, Blackham, C. Bannerman, Cooper, Garrett, D. and E. Gregory, Horan, Kelly, Midwinter, Spofforth, and N. Thompson. Cooper will probably be twelfth man. Evans could not go to Melbourne.” Australasian, March 10: “On next Thursday, Friday, and Saturday the Melbourne Cricket-ground will be the scene of one of the most interesting displays of cricket ever witnessed in Australia.... When it was positively known that the first named player [Evans] could not take part in the contest the following six were chosen: Bannerman, Spofforth, Garrett, Nat Thompson, and the two Gregory's [sic], Spofforth at the eleventh hour stated he could not go unless Murdock were selected as the wicketkeeper for his bowling, urging that Murdock [sic] was the only one who knew bow to take him properly. As the arrangements were all made for the Sydney men to start for Melbourne, Spofforth's vanity was not gratified, and the Sydney cricketers left without him. Victoria thus will have six players, and Kendall, or one other of our bowlers, will have to be chosen. However, that is a matter which can safely be left to the bands of the Match Committee. It may be stated that the services of Allan and all our best players will be available for the occasion. The All-England Eleven will arrive at Melbourne by the 13th inst., which will give them ample time to recover from the effects of their trip up from New Zealand.” Hamilton Spectator, March 10: “With respect to the combined match—All-England Eleven v. Australia—it is now definitely known that neither Evans [n]or Spofforth will take part in it, and it is doubtful if Allan or Blackham will secure the necessary leave of absence. No team with anyone of these men absent can be called the best in Australia, therefore much less interest will be taken in the match. The following will represent New South Wales, viz: Thomson, D. Gregory, E. Gregory, Garrett, and Bannerman; whilst the Victorian six will be selected from the following, viz: Allan, Horan, Midwinter, Kelly, Cooper, Blackham, Elliott, Hastings, and Kendall.” March 10: “The New South Wales cricketers practised this morning. The full practice of the combined team commences on Monday.” Also on March 10, Melbourne Advocate reported that “the cricketers selected to represent News South Wales in the forthcoming combined match with the English Eleven have arrived by the s. City of Melbourne. The team comprises N. Thompson, C. Bannerman, J. Garrett [sic], E. Gregory and D. Gregory. They have taken up their quarters at the Duke of Rothsay Hotel, in Elizabeth-street, and were out for practice on the MCC 'ground' yesterday. Neither Spofforth nor Evan's were able to come on this occasion.” “Traffic problems of another kind did nothing to help the delicate relations between the two rival colonies. At the same time as Conway and other members of the Victorian reception committee drove down to Sandridge Pier to meet the Sydney steamer, the five Sydney players were being brought up from the pier by special train! Nor did it help the cohesion of the team that these five—the Gregory brothers, Charlie Bannerman, Nat Thompson and Tom Garrett—were staying in their usual hotel in Elizabeth Street, splendidly isolated from their Melboume team-mates.” Third Man in Weekly Times, March 10: “Since the visit of the All-England [to Melbourne on Boxing Day] this contest has been spoken of, and hopes expressed that the necessary arrangements for it would be satisfactorily made.” Third Man in Weekly Times, March 10: “The arrangements for such a match require considerable delicacy in making, seeing the existing jealousy between the two colonies, and many feared that the match could not be arranged. This is evidenced by the fact that the New South Wales Association have at the last moment refused to countenance the match. Their reason for adopting this course of action is not known here, but it is satisfactory to find that five good men and true have been found in that colony to do battle in conjunction with Victorians, and endeavour to give to Australian cricket a name and fame second to none in the world.” “Point” in the Leader, March 10: “The combination match, or rather the arrangements for it, appear to have been so mismanaged that it is doubtful whether it will be the success expected. I stated last week that our association had not to that time been consulted in any shape or form as to the arrangements for the match, nor had the match committee been convened for the purpose of choosing the Victorian contingent. Since then, on Monday night last, the New South Wales Association met, and passed a resolution in which they take up the very ground I did in my remarks. It runs thus: ‘It having been publicly notified that a match is about to be played between the All-England Eleven and a combined team of New South Wales and Victoria, this association desires to place it on record that the same has been arranged without the intervention of or any reference to the association, or in any way under their auspices, and that the same cannot be regarded as a match in which the chosen representatives of New South Wales will take part.’ Of course if the best men on public form, those recognised as such, were to take part in the match, the mere fact that the Association had not been consulted would not affect their merit. But the forthcoming match has been eagerly looked forward to since the arrival of the Englishmen, in the colonies, as being the one in which the position to which Victoria and New South Wales have attained in cricket will be tested by a contest on even terms, with the representative band of English players now amongst us. To ensure the thoroughness of the trial, in justice both to ourselves and to the Englishmen, it is essential that the best men of the respective colonies, and they only, should confront our visitors. The best means to obtain these players, and the proper course to have pursued, was to have applied to the respective associations. This has not been done, at any rate so far as the New South Wales players are concerned, and probably it is as much owing to this neglect, or whatever it may be, as anything else that we are deprived of the pleasure of seeing Evans—and Spofforth also, it is now stated—among the New South Wales portion of the players. That it will not be a fairly representative Australian team with these two out of it nobody can deny, and it is greatly to be hoped that they may yet reconsider their decision. With Bannerman, D. Gregory and Thompson added, a five would be got together whose like could not probably be matched in these colonies. Our match committee met on Wednesday last, and chose ten players, from whom the final selection will be made to-day. They are Allan, Alexander, Blackham, Cooper, Elliott, Horan, Hastings, Kendall, Kelly and Midwinter. Two names are omitted from this list which in my opinion ought to be there, those of Boyle and J. Slight. My choice from those would be Allan, Midwinter, Horan and Blackham to start with. Considerable difficulty would then be experienced in deciding upon the other two players. I have grave doubts as to whether Cooper should be included, for he does not appear to be in any sort of form, but it is difficult to disregard his claims, and he may astonish us with such another innings as that in the first match against the Grace eleven, when he made eighty-four, so that I would include him. And for a sixth I would give the preference to Boyle, whose bowling might be wanted, who is in first-rate batting form just now, and who cannot be surpassed in the field. A team composed as I have indicated could fairly be regarded as representing the strength of Australia, and would give us the desired opportunity of measuring our capacity. Since the above was written the Sydney contingent have arrived in Melbourne, and consist of D. and E. Gregory, Thompson, Bannerman and Garrett. There is therefore now no likelihood that we shall have either Evans or Spofforth here, and the match will in consequence be robbed of a great portion of its interest. Garrett has performed very well against the Englishmen in Sydney, both in batting and bowling, so that he may be accepted as a fair substitute for Spofforth, but the loss of Evans is irreparable. Probably in his absence the match committee will see fit to put Kendall in the team, as the sixth Victorian, so as to strengthen the bowling department. As to the result of the match, my opinion is that the Englishmen will win, and with a good deal in hand.” Third Man in Weekly Times, March 10: “In nearly all athletic games Great Britain has, until recently, held the pride of place, when New South Wales challenged and beat her in the matter of rowing, and her prowess in the cricket-field is now challenged.” Third Man in Weekly Times, March 10: “The colonial team that will be pitted against them probably will not be the strongest that could be found in Australia. Indeed, we, know now that two of the best men in New South Wales—namely, Evans and Spofforth—will not be able to take part in the match, so that the two teams will meet on pretty even terms. The New South Wales players will be D. and E. Gregory, Garrett, Thompson, and Bannerman. They are good men, and they will probably be associated with the following Victorians: Blackham, Midwinter, Cooper, Allan, Horan, and Kelly, I fancy, will be the choice of the Match Committee, although, in the event of some of the above-named being unable to play, Elliott, Hastings, and Kendall, according to the choice of the Match Committee, will be available for selection. [Hodges not mentioned.] The eleven, as placed above, will be a remarkably good one, and should make a good fight, if they do not win. Every man in the team is worth runs, except Allan. In Horan and Bannerman have two better batsmen than I think can be found on the other side, while the New South Wales contingent, together with Kelly, Cooper, Blackham, and Midwinter, have all performed well with the willow in big matches. A large score, if the wicket is in good order, may be expected from our men, despite the splendid bowling to be expected of Shaw, Hill, and Emmett. It will be in bowling that the Australians will be at a disadvantage, and if the Englishmen score a win it will be attributable to their superior bowling and fielding.” “Square Leg” in the Sydney Mail, March 10: “The team already nominated could not be greatly improved, although opinion upon that point differs.” Herald, March 12: “The Sydney cricketers have been assiduously practising this morning, and their play has given much satisfaction to these who witnessed it. The Victorian six having now been selected, there will be a full practice tomorrow morning. The match committee have selected Allan, Blackham, Cooper, Horan, Kendall and Midwinter, who will play with the two Gregorys, Bannerman, N. Thompson, and Garrett. As we hinted on Friday, the inclusion of Kendall was considered necessary in order to strengthen the bowling power of the team. It was thus a question as to Cooper or Kelly being left out, and the committee selected Cooper in preference to Kelly. This decision will be sure to be questioned in many quarters, and not without some show of reason, for from some cause or other, Cooper has not for a length of time played up to such form as to entitle him to the preference. However, the team as it stands is a tolerably strong one consisting of Allan, Garrett, Kendall and Midwinter as bowlers,” with Allan its only weak reed in batting, “and not a bad field in the lot.” “A special meeting of the members of the above association was held at Tattersall's Hotel on Wednesday evening [March 14], Mr MH Stephen in the chair. The object of the meeting was to consider a Proposal to play a match during Easter week against the All England Eleven. Mr Gibson, the hon. secretary, read a telegram from Mr Lillywhite asking for the patronage and assistance of the Association in a match to be played about Easter. He had received one three days previous from Mr Conway with reference to the same thing. After some remarks by Mr Teece on the conduct of one of the All-England Eleven, Mr PC Curtis moved that a special committee be appointed to confer with Mr Lillywhite as to the dates and number of players in our next match. Mr Teece moved as an amendment on Mr Curtis's resolution, that ‘this Association declines to record its patronage to the proposed match.’ The amendment was then put and negatived, and the original motion agreed to. Mr Gibson read a letter that he had received from Mr Conway, relative to the combined match in Melbourne. Mr R. Teece knew that some person in Sydney was already engaged in selecting players for the proposed match. Mr Gibson proposed that the selection committee be appointed on Monday night. Mr Curtis was of opinion that the days proposed by Mr Lillywhite would not suit. He thought it was a matter that ought to be left until after the forthcoming match in Melbourne. He did not think we should play thirteen men, and was in favour of appointing a sub-committee. After a great deal of discussion, the question as to dates and fixing the number of players was left to Mr Gibson for settlement, who will communicate with Mr Lilywhite” (Australian Town and Country Journal “Cricket Association” 17 March 1877). “The Association meeting on Wednesday night [March 14] was of rather a stormy character.” And yet, according to Round Arm, “it appears that in the end nothing, or, at any rate, very little, was done towards playing the match with the Englishmen. Easter week would certainly not be a good week for the match, Randwick Races occupying four days out of the six, while Tuesday is devoted to the yearling sales; but the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th would do admirably, as the race visitors would be kept employed till the Hunt Club Races, on the 14th, and there would certainly be a large attendance on the Albert Ground. There would be the inside show at the Exhibition till noon, and the Cricket Match afterwards. “Them's my sentiments.” Perhaps Round Arm, whose main obsessions at this point were the languor of the NSWCA and the failure of the Victorians to consult with them, would have done well to connect the two. “Australia, too, had their problems, with a simmering row between the Victoria and New South Wales associations undermining preparations.” Intercolonial tensions especially weird to modern eyes when we observe that they had only been separate colonies for a quarter-century. From the start, however: “So the first Victoria v. N.S.W. match ended with a victory for N.S.W. At the dinner after the match William Tunks said in his speech that there was a probability that the good fellowship arising through the matches would lead to a better understanding between the colonies. After all, it had not been good to date. He could remember when the Victorians refused to give more than 19 /- for a Sydney sovereign.” Melbourne CC first to organise a Test, as it had been the first to organise a first-class or intercolonial contest, and the first to host an England touring side. Melbourne Cricket Club “founded only three years after the first beginnings of Melbourne,” and “dominated cricket in Australia until 1912. It set the stage for the early English touring sides, and itself brought out a number of them. It was not until 1903 that the Marylebone Cricket Club brought out its first team. Before that the initiative had come from Australia, and mainly from this Club.” “Must lay claim to being the oldest of all clubs in Victoria. It started in 1838. Its influence on sport has been extraordinary. It was an MCC member who first launched the idea of Australian Rules football ... looking for some way of keeping his cricketers fit during the winter. The MCC fostered the first tennis matches, and the club actually sponsored the first intercolonial tennis matches against New South Wales. The club was a prime mover, too, in establishing baseball in Australia.” “The M.C.C. was interested in all the new inventions. In August 1879 there was an experiment with electricity-the first night football match. It is true that some city buildings were lit for the Duke of Edinburgh's visit in 1867. Yet little progress was made with the invention, and almost certainly the night football at the M.C.G. was Melbourne's first commercial use of electricity.” Dave Gregory the selector. His eye for talent: “Afterwards CB Turner came along. DW Gregory saw him bowl at Bathurst, and at once ‘spotted’ him. He attained worldwide success, and many there were who considered him worthy to be bracketed with the ‘demon’ himself.” The selection and invitation of players was a fraught and painful process. Edwin Evans, “the premier bowler of New South Wales,” who had last month won himself a full-page portrait and profile in The Australian Town and Country Journal, was unable to play for what The Australasian called “private reasons.” Other papers saw no reason not to publicise them: “Mr Evans, who would have had to travel over 100 miles from an inland district to Sydney, and then 600 miles further to Melbourne, no doubt had good reasons for the refusal that he sent.” Evans “has been principally answerable for winning two matches against the English visitors, and it is worthy of note that in those two he took 17 wickets for 143 runs; and made a splendid stand for 38, against faultless bowling.” “I commenced by saying that Mr. Evans's speciality is his bowling; but in truth he is so good at all points that it is hard to say where he shines most. His skill with the ball is owing to the good use he makes of his head as well as his hand; and who stands before him long and makes a score, must indeed have a stubborn defence. With a dangerous break both ways, his medium pace trundling is irresistible, except by the very best wielders of the willow; and though we saw Ulyett go out and slog at him the other day, it wasn't until the bowler and field were almost in extremis from fatigue. Possibly, as he himself says, he may never again bowl as well as we have seen him, as he is not likely to have a regular season's practice; but, as perhaps one of the most remarkable of his attributes is his ability to play without practice, I'm by no means doubtful of finding him come again next season like a giant refreshed. If, however, the batting and bowling of this fine cricketer are supernacular, what shall we say of his fielding? Why, simply that he can cover as much ground as almost any other two men—that he is nigh perfection wherever you put him, and that he never makes mistakes. Such is the pen-and-ink sketch I draw of Mr E. Evans as a cricketer; and for the rest he may be summed up as a thorough sportsman, and a genial companion, a straight-forward man; and (following in the same groove as the great cricketer of whom it was written—"Lightly lie the turf upon thee, kind and gentle Alfred Mynn") he is one of Nature's gentlemen. After the first match against the Englishmen, the idea of a testimonial to Mr Evans was started—and I know that if it were carried into practice, every district in the colony would liberally bear its part. However, should such an arrangement be commenced it should be of the most public kind; for where there is so much excellence, and have been so many services rendered, the recognition cannot be too general. It is not alone to the excellence of his cricket that the colony is indebted, but equally as much to an absence of self in every transaction, which causes him to go in with a determination to win for his side, whether the honours of the day fall upon himself or some other player. To him it matters not one jot who gets the wickets or the runs so long as his side wins; and here is a trait of character which the cricketers of the colony cannot do too much to show their appreciation of. Such willingness to do his part under any circumstances, such determination and indomitable pluck, must commend their possessor to all good and true sportsmen; and I feel convinced that a call upon the colony at large would be responded to with a liberality worthy of the object.” Evans’s New South Wales colleague Frederick Spofforth, a young fast bowler, did not decline his invitation, but gave his acceptance on conditions the match committee could not entertain: Apparently considering his success was due to his wicketkeeper and not to his own merit, and fearing he would be shorn of his lustre if another who ‘knew not Joseph’ were behind the sticks, [he] declined to play unless his own special wicketkeeper was selected. As this could not be arranged, this modest gentleman had to be left behind. Bannerman: “We had a good side, but it was popularly thought that the venture was rather too bold, and our chances were not improved when Spofforth declined to play if Murdoch were not chosen as wicketkeeper. He told Dave Gregory, who was sole selector for New South Wales, that Murdoch was the only keeper who could take his bowling. Blackham was picked in his place. Seems funny, doesn't it, that he should have objected to the man who was to leave his mark as the prince of wicketkeepers?” Spofforth not alone in thinking the world of Murdoch at this time: The Australian Town and Country Journal: ““Murdoch," who will be one of these days the best wicket-keep in the colonies, and is just working up into one of the best bats. All this I predicate of him on what I consider good and sufficient premises. In the first place, he has lots of pluck; in the second, he will take lots of practice, as well as of hints. And as he doesn't think himself perfection nor indulge in plentiful blow, with loud talk of what he's going to do there's no fear but what he'll make one of the toppers by and bye.” He would labour under the influence of this delusion until the tour of 1878, on which Blackham made a very revolution of the wicketkeeper’s arts. From the early 1860s Fred may have attended Balmain Public School, along with William Murdoch, before joining Eglinton College at Glebe Point, which was run by Anglican Rev. JohnPendrill, in which case they would have known one another from boyhood's hour, which would explain a lot. Spofforth’s reputation was not then what it would become. His withdrawal was easily dismissed—“not of any great consequence.” But he had bowled effectively against the tourists that season, while Evans was thought to be “only second to [Frank] Allan so far as colonial talent is concerned.” His “inability or unwillingness” to play “was a source of much disappointment to everyone,” and of anxiety that in his absence “the Australian Eleven would cut a sorry figure.” Spofforth in great rejectionist form just then: “The great performance of the Alberts is the more worthy of notice from being made without the trundling of the re doubtable Spofforth, or the at-one-time expected assistance of the rising 'Varsity" all rounder Garrett, the former of whom, for some reason not understood, declined to take part in the match, and the latter very properly changed his mind and decided on pinning his fortune for the season to his Alma Mater.” Thus deprived of the services of Sydney’s best bowlers, the match committee took precautions. Allan, of South Melbourne, “was early communicated with,” and having signified his willingness, the needful furlough was secured for him. He was “admitted on all hands to be the best bowler in the colonies; indeed, his title of ‘The Bowler of the Century’ shows that by many of his admirers he is regarded as superior even to [Alfred] Shaw, the great Nottingham trundler, who rejoices in the title which he has so well deserved of ‘The Bowler of the Age.’” Also a great angler, and possibly also “The Whist Player of the Century”: The doctor has decided to play no more cricket, and his spare time now will be devoted to angling, of which he is as fond as the veteran Mr Trumble and Mr Spence, who are never weary of talking about "bream" and "blackfish, "and Frank Allan's skill in getting decent hauls in the Hopkins when no one else can get a bite…. "Hallo, Jack! I took for the Duke of Plaza Toro in that tall hat and long-tailer," says someone to Jack Pennefather, who has been away in the Golden West for a holiday, and was fortunate enough to recover from an illness just in time to return in the same boat with the Englishmen. He liked them all very much, especially Druce and Mason. Frank Laver is standing near Jack, and Frank says "It is a treat to watch Ranji playing whist; he is so good." I think I know one old cricketer who could hold his own with him, to wit, Frank Allan. Salsbury, of the old Troubadour Troupe, in which were Nelly M'Henry and Johnny Gourlay, said that he never met a better card player than Frank Allan, even in the States, and an old English gentleman who had Frank as partner in a whist party on board ship came up to Dave Gregory, and said, I congratulate you on having in your ream one of the finest whist players I have ever met." Take off your hat, Frank. (Horan “Round the Ground” Australasian, 15 January 1898: 132.) And so, on the Monday before the match [March 12], the selectors [wasn’t it only Dave Gregory?] settled on their final selection of the men who were to meet the culled and choice-drawn professionals of England on the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The Victorians were Allan, Billy Midwinter, Tom Horan, BB Cooper, Thomas Kendall, and Jack Blackham. The New South Wales contingent, comprising Dave and Ned Gregory, Nat Thomson, Charles Bannerman and Tom Garrett, left Sydney on the City of Melbourne on Tuesday, March 6. The team looked a strong one: “Though the absence of Evans considerably marred the interest taken in the match, still it was felt that with Allan, Midwinter, Kendall, and Garrett for bowlers, and Bannerman, Horan, Midwinter, Cooper, and the two Gregorys as batsmen, a very good display of cricket would be shown.” “The match committee met on Monday [March 12], and decided upon the six Victorian players for the combination match. They are those designated last week as the ones proper to be chosen out of the selected ten, namely—F. Alan, J. Blackham, BB Cooper, T. Horan, T. Kendall and Midwinter.” Ballarat Star, March 13: “Our Melbourne correspondent writes: ‘The Combination Cricket Match between the representatives of the colonies of New South Wales and Victoria and the All England—which is announced to commence on the Melbourne Cricket-ground on Thursday next—is now beginning to form the topic of conversation. The Victorian representatives were chosen today, and are—Allan, Blackham, Kendall, Cooper, Horan, Midwinter. Those who have arrired to represent the sister colony, and who are already in full practice, are—D. Gregory; E., Gregory, C. Bannerman, N. Thompson, E. Garrett [sic]. Should the weather prove at all favorable, the contest will be, closely watched by all lovers of the now national game [emphasis added]. The experience the Eleven has gained in New South Wales and New Zealand will enable them to face with vigor and skill, the abilities of the eleven chosen Australians.’” When, however, “at the eleventh hour”—that is to say, only three days before the match—Allan telegraphed to say that he, too, had withdrawn, Melburnian hopes were crushed in their bosoms, and “regret was mingled with a strong feeling of disgust,” unto which the local press gave vent. “Great as is this player’s value in the field,” editorialised The Australasian, “his capriciousness is still greater, and we trust that for the future he will be studiously left in that retirement which he always professes to be so loth to leave.” His explanation, “altogether insufficient,” was regarded in the light of a “breach of faith.” He wrote from Warrnambool, 150 miles from Melbourne, to say that he could not quit his district in the carnival week on account of the number of friends he expected to meet there. Not only cricketers but the public were astonished to find that at “such a justling time” any needed player should have leisure to think of friends. Spofforth’s “was a defection which might well damp the ardour of the combined team, but the greatest disappointment did not take place till almost on the eve of the match. Although Evans and Spofforth, could not come yet we had Allen [sic], and from his success when last he played and his previous reputation great hopes were entertained of him. Being in the Government service as Crown Lands Bailiff of Warrnambool, application was made on his behalf to the head of the department” to accommodate his working hours to the demands of the moment, and a leave of absence “was readily granted. It remained, however, for Mr Allan himself to do whatever he could to make the match a failure as far as the colonials were concerned. He wrote to say that it being a carnival week at Warrnambool, and as he expected to meet a number of friends he had decided not to come down. This pusillanimous conduct of an Australian when the reputation of Australian cricketers was at stake cannot be too highly reprehended, and it is to be hoped that the cricket association will show their sense of the slight which Mr Allan has cast upon his brother cricketers by ostracising him from this time, henceforth.”—Kyneton Observer. Point “Cricket Gossip” Leader, March 17: “On Wednesday [March 14, on the very eve of the match, when the Englishmen had arrived, which explains why they were approached for their views of his withdrawal], however, a letter was received from Allan stating that he would not come to Melbourne, although he had all along allowed the impression to prevail that he would take part in the match. It is not the first time that this player has thus left the colony in the lurch, but his backing out on this occasion shows such an utter want of patriotic feeling that it is hoped some marked notice of it will be taken by the association, and that he will never be chosen to play in an important match again. One would have thought that a bowler like Allan would have hailed with delight the prospect of measuring himself against batsmen like those in the English team with eleven only in the field. But no; our premier bowler prefers to rest on the laurels obtained in intercolonial and or ordinary club matches, and when playing against English teams at odds, to venturing his reputation against such players as Ulyett, Charlwood, Greenwood, Jupp and Selby, when backed only by the ordinary field. From his point of view no doubt he is perfectly right; and if he chooses to act in such a manner as to forfeit public esteem, and to be fairly chargeable with showing the white feather, he has only himself to blame.” Allan popular in Warrnambool before the first-ever Test. Censor in Australasian, February 24: “The removal of F. Allan, the ‘bowler of a century,’ to the Western district seems to have given quite a stimulus to the game there. At Warmambool the other day there was a novelty in the way of cricket in the shape of a costume match, between an eleven from the Lynch family of Bellringers and company and an eleven from the Warrnambool Cricket Club. The project was for the benefit of the hospital, and close upon £10 was realised for that institution. The showmen made a good fight for it, and were defeated only by 1 run. F. Allan played on the victorious side, but he was not allowed to bowl. The affair created considerable amusement, the spectators entering into the fun equally with the actors within the arena.” Retrospective consensus: “The biggest loss came when the great fast bowler Fred Spofforth refused to play.” Williamson goes so far as to assert, having blandly assumed, that “the selectors brought in Frank Allen [sic] as Spofforth's replacement.” Williamson’s account rivals Brogden in its sloppiness, which is a shame, since his is now the authoritative account; indeed, Wisden’s website has adopted it as its official account. Allan more experienced than Spofforth, with a concomitantly bigger reputation, having long since “struck terror into the hearts of the New South Wales players.” Questions about his willingness perhaps a little unfair: “There were some doubts about the wisdom of taking him to England with the first team [in 1878], because of his apparent want of physique; in fact, the late Dr Fortescue said that it he did go he would not come back alive. Not only did he come back, but as late as last Christmas in the members' pavilion at the Melbourne Cricket Ground I had the pleasure of having a long chat with him. He then looked more robust than in 1878—he might easily do that—and as though he still had a good grasp of life.” Struggled with the heat. Against WG Grace’s team three seasons ago at Ballarat: “Frank Allan suffered from sunstroke and the team put his head under a tap.” Still concerned with this issue even in his retirement from the game: “The weather became hotter and hotter and it was 107 in the shade. Frank Allan (remember ‘the bowler of the century’) brought a bundle of vine leaves for the Australians to wear inside their hats.” But there is somewhat contradictory evidence on this point: “I notice that the ‘bowler of a century,’ Frank Allan, seems to feel the heat on one of the really hot days. He has his hat off, and is so far ahead of me that I do not catch up to him. Some of his bowling records are simply splendid, yet he was not a great success in England. The fact is he loves the sunshine, and he got next to none there. The lack of warmth took all the go out of him” (Horan “Round the Ground” Australasian, 17 January 1914: 130) Lillywhite himself was heard to say that “Allan is by far the best bowler in Australia—and also the greatest duffer.” Lillywhite: “Allan is perhaps the best bowler in the Southern hemisphere, left-handed, good pace, and very straight; a poor bat.” The Argus advised that in future he be regarded as retired: Some players as they grow in fame seem to develope [sic] numerous uncricketerlike qualities. As they mount to the top of their ambition they need to be humoured, coaxed, and petted, like girls at the age when they don’t know their minds, and can’t be helped to a decision. The defection of Allan was a topic universally commented on, and not one word was anywhere heard in his favour. It has long been known to his friends that a team of oxen won’t fetch him on to the ground when he has resolved—no matter how inadequate the reasons—not to play, and that to his philosophic mind the honours to be gained in grand cricket matches are mere “fudge.” Now, however, that the public know what has hitherto only been talked of in the inner circle, all associations may consider themselves authorised henceforth to leave the bowler of the century out of account, since defeats suffered from the want of his assistance will be preferred to victories won by the agency of his wondrously skilful arm. News of Allan’s withdrawal seems not to have reached everyone. Rockhampton Bulletin reported halfway through the match that “a good deal of interest is manifested in the event, the very best team Australia possesses—bar Evans—being opposed to the Britishers. It is a pity Evans could not have joined the Australians, as he would have greatly strengthened the team, and made their chance of success much greater.” JR Hodges, a medium-pacer from the Richmond Cricket Club, was recruited in his place. He was very young—not more than twenty-one then, if quite so much—and although he had enjoyed a good season, was no substitute for Allan. With the withdrawal of the Combined Eleven’s three best bowlers, much of the popular enthusiasm evaporated, until only a very few were optimistic enough to believe that the Australian Eleven would bring Lillywhite’s to subjection. The Herald’s preview represented the prevailing sentiment: Unfortunately … the eleven whch [sic] plays today is by no means the best that could be selected to represent Australian cricket. With Allan, Evans and Spofforth out of it, the team must in fact be regarded as weak. Indeed, a second eleven, including the three bowlers, might very easily be picked and backed to beat those who play today. This state of affairs is much to be regretted, for had the team been what it was expected to be, the interest would have been intense, and probably the game would have resulted in one of the most interesting and exciting matches ever played. Now, however, the chances appear to be all in favour of the Englishmen, and if they cannot beat those opposed to them in this match, the colonies may claim to have made even greater progress in cricket than is supposed. However, it cannot be helped now, and we can only hope that the colonial eleven will be able to make a respectable fight for the supremacy. Not everyone despaired. “There were so many players of proved ability in the ranks of the Australians,” observed The Bendigo Advertiser, “that if a close contest could not be expected, some fine play might confidently be looked for.” The Weekly Times remained bullish: “The Australian eleven, as it now stands, is a very formidable one, and, excepting England, there can be little doubt that it could successfully uphold Australian cricket against any other country in the world.” Their deck of cards missing the jack and the ace. In Melbourne, at least, there was “a very lively interest.” The match was the town-talk of all but the most quarantined persons, and “looked forward to as the piece de resistance of the programme of the season,” and the population’s thoughts, as the fateful occasion neared, ran astray on all possible and impossible results. They anticipated “a grand display of cricket, something that would live to be talked of for the next 10 or 20 years,” and in this, since I am writing of it 144 years after the fact, they would not be disappointed. “Even those who do not take an active interest in cricket cannot help but take a deep interest.” The Herald’s account of popular feeling is especially instructive: The Englishmen, of course, had many supporters, for there is still a very large class of persons even in the colonies themselves who hold that anything from the old country must for that simple reason be superior to a colonial production. These were principally people who know little or nothing of cricket, but formed an opinion on the one ground stated, and refused to see any merit in the beatings given to the eleven already in the matches with fifteens. These persons were ready with all manner of excuses to account for those defeats, and tenaciously held to the view that English cricketers were, like everything else from England, simply the best of their kind. On the other hand, there was a strong party of people who were thoroughly conversant with the game, and who considered that if the best eleven from amongst the cricketers of Victoria and New South Wales could be got together, they would have a little the best of the encounter. By March 13, “those who have arrived to represent the sister colony, and who are already in full practice, are—D. Gregory, E. Gregory, C. Bannerman, N. Thompson, E. Garrett [sic].” Third Man in Weekly Times, March 10: “I took a stroll on to the Melbourne ground on Thursday, and had an opportunity of seeing some of our cracks at work. Elliott had a long bat to the bowling of Midwinter and Horan, the wretched stuff trundled by Cooper and Gibson at the same time not being worthy of the name. The wicket was a very bad one [!], and Midwinter was able to make the ball cut up sorts peculiar capers, but, notwithstanding, Elliott played very nicely. Gibson batted in his usual style, while Horan, not liking the wicket, hit rather carelessly, and Cooper, who finished up, was more proppy in his style than ever. Midwinter bowled remarkably well all the afternoon. Kendall was bowling at another wicket to Blackham and others, but he seems to have fallen off in his trundling since the beginning of the season. […] The Sydney cricketers arrived by the City of Adelaide on Thursday night, and yesterday morning they made their appearance on the Melbourne ground, when, with Cooper and Midwinter, they did some good practice, and the play all round was splendid. Bannerman played with great freedom, and although the bowling was good, he apparently had but little difficulty in putting it away, very often over the chains. They all batted well, and Garrett's easy style of bowling pleased those who saw him. They again practised in the afternoon, when their play was witnessed by about 600 or 700 people [more than the crowd at the actual match at times].”

The match committee met yesterday [March 12] and chose the following six players to represent Victoria in the Combination Match, to commence on the Melbourne ground on Thursday: Messrs Allan, Blackham, Cooper, Horan, Kendall and Midwinter.

Between 300 and 400 persons were present on the MCC ground yesterday to see the members of the Australian team at practice. The Sydney men were all present, but several Victorians were absent, and Allan, as he had not left Warrnambool yesterday, cannot be on the ground before the first day of the match. From the delay in the arrival of the Englishmen from New Zealand, they will have a very brief preparation, but should now be in good form.

Bannerman took practice v. seriously. Ahead of the Second Test: “Spofforth, who (with Thompson and D. Gregory) arrived from Sydney on Thursday night, was in fine form as a bowler, and had the gratification of taking Bannerman’s wicket—a feat which that batsman seldom allows anyone to perform, even when only for exercise.” Allowed to practice on the ground in those days, including match strip. Pakistan 1997. Day-before preview in Ballarat Star and other small papers: “The coming sensation is to be the England v. Australian Cricket Match. Already betting that undesirable addendum to cricket is being freely indulged in, Horan and C. Bannerman being the favourites, as the most likely to secure the top score on the Australian side. A splendid wicket has been prepared, but as yet the Australians have not had any proper practice together, contenting themselves mostly with desultory work before the nets.” Meredith praises what the Sydneyites condemned: “In Lillywhite's and Bennett's absence, Jack Conway had organized the match well, ignoring hostility towards it from Sydney and solving the problem of achieving agreement between the two rival cricket associations by simply ignoring them and contacting the players direct.”

A Special MEETING of the Committee will be held, at Tattersall's, on WEDNESDAY EVENING next, the 14th instant, at 8 o'clock. Business: To consider a proposal to play a MATCH, during Easter week, against the ALL-ENGLAND ELEVEN.

A special meeting of the New South Wales Cricket Association was held last evening at Tattersall's Hotel, Pitt-street, to consider a telegram from Mr Lillywhite, soliciting the assistance of the Association in arranging a match between the All-England Elevon and thirteen of the New South Wales, on the 28th, 29th, and 31st instant. Mr MH Stephen occupied the chair; and there was a large attendance of members. Mr Curtis moved—“That this Association cooperate with Mr Lillywhite, as requested, by telegram, in the promotion of the match with the All-England Eleven." Upon which Mr R. Teece moved as an amendment—“That this Association declines to accord its patronage to the proposed match." After a brief discussion, the amendment was put and negatived, and the original resolution agreed to; the question of fixing the dates of the match being left for settlement by the Secretary of the Association and Mr Lillywhite, subject to the approval of the Association.

For the first time in the annals of cricket, on Thursday next and the two following days an Australian eleven of cricketers will meet, even handed, a like number of England's champion wielders of the willow, a combined eleven of the colonies of Victoria and New South Wales having thrown the gauntlet to Lillywhite's All-England Eleven. Though it is to be regretted that Evans, of New South Wales, cannot take part in the match, yet the quintette, viz. Bannerman, Thompson, Garrett, and the two Gregorys, furnished by that colony, could not be improved upon, save by the presence of Evans himself. The Sydney men, who will arrive on Thursday night or Friday morning, will have ample time to accustom themselves to our fast turf on the Melbourne Cricket-ground, and with a few days’ practice together the Australians will render a very good account of themselves. At any rate, whatever may be the result of the contest, a fine display of cricket in all its branches may safely be anticipated. The following players were yesterday chosen by the Victorian Match Committee to practise on the Melbourne ground every evening during the week: Allan, Alexander, Blackburn, Cooper, Elliott, Horan, Hastings, Kendall, Kelly, and Midwinter. The final selection of the six names required to complete the colonial eleven will be made next Saturday, so as to afford three days' clear practice before they meet the Englishmen on the 15th inst.

Cricket has been a nation-defining game in Australia, and honourably so. There was a cricket team called Australia before there was a country of that name. Cricket had a federal governance model almost a decade ahead of federation. Almost all the leading figures of the federal struggle had an involvement in cricket administration, because being a popular pursuit it was also a locus of establishment power. Our first prime minister was a vice-president of the NSW Cricket Association and had a long umpiring career, including standing in a Test match—although don’t tell Morrison this, because he’ll probably want to be nominated to the ICC panel. Cricket has historically also been very versatile, serving as an expression of imperial fealty and an outlet for our irreverence and independence. It could throw together a rock-ribbed conservative in Sir Donald Bradman and a feisty Irish republican in Bill O’Reilly. It could enthral Sir Robert Menzies and John Howard, and Doc Evatt and Bob Hawke. Where it has struggled has been to keep pace with Australia’s growing plurality. This year, the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame inducted its first Indigenous player — the remarkable Jardwadjali man Unaarimin, aka Johnny Mullagh, whose feats predate Test cricket. Other than that, our annals of cricket greatness are a succession of Anglo names and pale faces. It has awaited a breakthrough figure, a Jackie Robinson or a Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; it has not even had an Evonne Goolagong, Lionel Rose or Cathy Freeman.

Yesterday afternoon a meeting was held at the Mitre Tavern to arrange for the Insurance Companies' annual gathering. It was agreed that, if a picnic could not be arranged for Saturday, 17th inst., the usual banquet should take place on that evening. It was considered that the All-England cricket match would prevent the usual cricket matches being held, and that it might interfere with arrangements for a picnic.

The “Grand Combination Match” was not fully representative of Australia or England, with neither side at maximum strength.

The ensuing business proceedings were brief but curious, and rather in the nature of a conspiracy.

Evans “The troubles began at once. Evans, the great Sydney bowler, could not play because of ‘pressure of business.’” A great miss, and not only for his bowling. His determined batting in the tour’s only previous eleven-a-side game, for New South Wales, spared them indignity of a sub-fifty total: “Still that veritable ‘stonewaller,’ Evans, whose mission almost appears to be to fill the breach when things wear the aspect of a forlorn hope, went in and made the high score of 30, by that fine and patient batting for which he is noted.” When, after the first NSW victory, six players from that colony were communicated with to secure their cooperaton, Evans was “the only one about whose coming there appeared to be any question. Every effort was made to remove the difficulties which stood in the way of his getting leave, and Mr R. Driver, MP, president of the New South Wales Cricketers' Association, and others in the sister colony, moved in the matter without avail.” If Driver was involved, he could hardly avoid being involved in his presidential capacity, which is to say that the involvement of the NSWCA president almost necessarily entails the involvement of the NSWCA. “Edwin Evans decided against the journey for family reasons.” Often, indeed, in later years, it was family rather than business reasons that kept him away. Point “Cricket Gossip” Leader, March 17: “The refusal of Evans to play deprived the match of a great portion of its interest.” Begbie: “Another New South Welshman was Edwin Evans, probably Australia's finest all-rounder at the time. He said he couldn't leave Sydney for business reasons. The Argus critic crowed at this display of northern petulance. ‘Some players as they grow in fame need to be humoured, coaxed and petted like girls at the age when they don't know their minds…’” [Check that Begbie hasn’t confused their condemnation of Allan for their condemnation of Evans.] Leave important, as illustrated by the fate of a South Australian the following month:

I regret to learn that Bevan was unfortunate enough to lose his situation on account of taking part in the match on the Oval on Monday last. As on the day named he was in the service of the Association it behoves that body to take some notice of the matter, and I confidently leave the case in their hands. At any rate the Committee should do something for him, and he must not be forgotten in the return match with the All-England Eleven. (White Rose “Cricket Notes” South Australian Register, 7 April 1877.)

Spofforth “But the parties to the arrangement were Lillywhite and the Victorian Cricket Association. The New South Wales Cricket Association was completely ignored, Victoria inviting four New South Wales experts to select six players from this State to join five Victorians against England..... The NSW six were Dave Gregory, Charlie Bannerman, TW Garrett. E. Gregory, N. Thompson, and F. Spofforth. Spofforth, however, claimed that WL Murdoch was the only man in Australia capable of keeping wickets to his fast bowling, and that if Murdoch wasn't picked he, Spofforth, wouldn't play.” “Then Spofforth announced that Murdoch was the one wicketkeeper who understood his type of bowling. Unless Murdoch were included in the XI he would not play.... Whatever happened, Victoria would not give up John Blackham. He was the first man to stand up to the wicket for fast bowling. He visited England eight times with Australian Elevens and he was acknowledged alike by English and Australian cricketers as the greatest wicket-keeper in the world. So the great Spofforth had to go and the representation from Sydney dropped to five.” “Round-Arm”: “The Australasian is pleased to be a little didactic in its remarks touching the line taken by ‘a certain section of the Sydney Press’—meaning, of course ‘Round-Arm,’ and rather pooh-poohs the idea of Spofforth refusing to bowl to any wicket keep but Murdoch; but I imagine that Spofforth was not bound to consult the Australasian, and there's very little doubt that if the six best players in New South Wales were chosen to morrow Murdoch must be one of them.” “Sydney's FR Spofforth, piqued because Victoria's Blackham had been preferred as wicket-keeper to his own friend Billy Murdoch ('the only one who knows how to take me properly'), declined to play (and was much criticized in Melbourne for his vanity).” “Spofforth was also absent, apparently because he could not bring his ‘private wicket-keeper’ with him.” “Spofforth demurred at the inclusion of Blackham instead of WL Murdock, and because the selectors insisted upon Blackham playing, Spofforth declined to take part in the match, and he wrote to Dave Gregory to that effect, a document which is still in existence, and is in the possession of Mr Albert Gregory, of Sydney”—this according to Arthur Gregory [any relation?], writing in 1924. “He agreed to bowl only if his favourite NSW wicketkeeper came along too. (This keeper was William Murdoch, who was to captain Australia to its first Ashes win in England.)”

If Australia’s leading fast bowler of the 19th century had got his way, the man who broke Charles Bannerman’s record would have played in the inaugural Test. Fred “The Demon” Spofforth had wanted his New South Wales team-mate Billy Murdoch to keep wicket instead of Victoria’s Jack Blackham, prompting Spofforth’s withdrawal. In a letter to Dave Gregory, the Australian captain and New South Wales selector, Spofforth fumed: “I notice that in the selection of the team you have left Murdoch out; so you might just as well draw a pen through my name, as it would be no use my playing without I had someone that could take my bowling behind the wicket, which I am sure Blackham cannot… If you think that it is the best team that can be got, all right; but I don’t think it is… So I beg to withdraw my name from the number, as I cannot stand Melbourne doing all the work. Yours, etc. Fred R. Spofforth.” Spofforth’s stance was heavily criticised, the Melbourne papers perceiving it as arrogance. The Australasian said that the Sydney man refused to play unless “his own special wicketkeeper” was chosen, sarcastically adding that “as this could not be arranged, this modest gentleman had to be left behind”. Ironically, Blackham would go on to become one of the greatest cricketers of the day, earning the nickname “The Prince of Wicketkeepers”. Spofforth’s loyalty stemmed not only from the fact that he and Murdoch were team-mates, but also that they were close friends who’d grown up together. Like Charles Bannerman’s family, Murdoch’s had moved to Sydney when he was a boy; in their case, some 550 miles from Sandhurst (later Bendigo) in Victoria. Murdoch and Spofforth played cricket in the Balmain suburb of Sydney along with Murdoch’s older brother, Gilbert, practising on a rough dirt pitch from dawn until dusk. Murdoch and Spofforth remained as thick as thieves through the Albert Cricket Club in Sydney and into the New South Wales first team, where they formed a prodigious partnership.

Within a few months, Blackham’s talents would be too habitually developed to admit of any question.

"Where may he be at present?" Mrs. Sparsit asked in a light conversational manner, after mentally devoting the whelp to the Furies for being so uncommunicative.

“Now, in the names of all the gods at once, Upon what meat doth this our Cæsar feed That he is grown so great?”

Allan “Things were becoming desperate, but there was still Frank Allan of Victoria, ‘the bowler of the century.’ Allan, who worked for the Lands Department at Warrnambool, consented to play, the department gave him leave; all was well. The match was to start on Thursday. On Tuesday he sent a telegram to advise that he was not available. This was the last straw. For the first time Australia was to meet England on even terms and the team had lost players the equivalent of say, Davidson, Miller and Lindwall.... Allan excused himself by saying the Warrnambool Fair was taking place that weekend. Many of his friends would be in town, whom he would have no other chance to see. This not very strong excuse brought down the fury of the press. Several newspapers suggested that he should be retired at once and never again be called upon to play for his country. Said the Argus: ‘It may interest Mr Allan to know that his withdrawal has been attributed to fear.’ Melbourne Punch was merciless and this was one example”: 1. Once upon a time a great match was to be played. And the greatest bowler for one side hid himself in the woods. A deputation waited on him and said, "O, great bowler, bowl for our side," and the great bowler said, "I will bowl." 2. And when the deputation had departed, the great bowler was sorry, for he said to himself, "What is the honour of bowling to me? I will not go, but will stop in the woods and play with the little boys, even Tommy, Jimmy and Billy, for I can bowl them easily." And he did so. 3. And when the day came, and everybody was expecting the great bowler to come and bowl like winking, behold, he never came. And all that could be heard of that great bowler on that great day was a telegram and a beautiful white feather. “The Richmond bowler Hodges replaced Allan. ‘A very poor substitute,’ snarled the Argus. Indeed Hodges' elevation was astonishing. At the beginning of the season he was playing for a minor club in the Junior Collingwood group.” “Then, at the last moment, Frank Allen [sic], of Victoria, ‘the bowler of the century,’ who was by way of being a bit of a prima donna, also withdrew from the Australian team. As the Melbourne Argus commented caustically on the first day: ‘Some players as they grow in fame seem to develop numerous uncricketer-like qualities. As they mount to the top of their ambition they need to be humored, coaxed, and petted like girls at the age when they don't know their own minds.’” “Frank Allen, Victoria's leading bowler, preferred to patronize his local carnival (which caused him much unpopularity and a round of hissing at the Warrnambool races).” “Frank Allan announced late on that he did not want to come up from Warrnambool, where he was an officer of the Crown Lands department. It was carnival time and his only chance to see many friends who would come in for the festivities.” Point “Cricket Gossip” Leader, March 17: “Now that Allan also will not meet the Englishmen, it is sadly shorn from what it was expected it would be. With the admittedly best bowlers of Australia not playing, the contest cannot be considered what it was intended it should be—a trial of strength between the strongest Australian team and the All-England Eleven. It is unfair to the public, who support the game so liberally, and it is unfair to the Englishmen themselves, who, if they win the match, will be met by the remark that they had beaten a weak team. Hodges, who has been bowling very well lately, has been chosen to supply the vacancy caused by Allan's defection, and this will give as bowlers—Midwinter, Kendall, Garrett, Hodges, Thompson and Horan.” “The Sydney Mail presented the popular expectation of what was going to happen when it wrote, after the game: ‘The Combined (Australian) Eleven went to the Melbourne Ground very much in the position of a forlorn hope despatched to accomplish a task which involved almost certain defeat as against the bare possibility of success.’” In his day known as “The Bowler of a Century.” His delicate constitution: Once, in late December 1880, “dragged a match out of the fire, in conjunction with Elliott, for Victoria. It was an exciting finish, and 40 runs were required and only two wickets to fall. It was not anticipated that these two men would give any trouble, but they were still going strong when the match was won. The crowd changed from despondency to elation in the course of a short while, and when the winning hit was made the ground was rushed and the batsmen carried to the pavilion. I have a vivid recollection of the struggle we had to make our way to the dressing room, and indeed Frank Allan fainted. Some years later, in commenting upon the visit of the first Australian Eleven to England, I mentioned the fact that Allan had not a robust constitution, and that the late Dr Fortescue gave warning that if Allan went to England it was doubtful whether he would return. I then went on to refer to the fainting of Allan as mentioned above. A couple of weeks later I received a letter from him in which he explained how the fainting occurred. He wrote: ‘They grabbed me anyhow and carried me along like a corpse; indeed, I almost became one, for one man had his arm around my neck, and another had me by the feet. Others were pulling at my arms, and they were all working at cross purposes, and so I was being strangled. No wonder I fainted. "Well, continued my correspondent, "the next day I was dining at Parer's Mafe in Bourke-street, and a man sitting at the next table, in speaking about the match, asked me how I liked being in the pavilion. I replied that I did not like it at all, for one man had me by the throat and another by the heels, and if the pavilion had been much farther away I would have had a neck like a giraffe, and would have been a fit subject for a shroud. A huge smile overspread the features of the man, and he exclaimed with pride and heedless of grammar, ‘That was me.' I told him that his act nearly cost me my life, and that the next time he wished to carry a batsman in to beware how he applied his grip. Otherwise he might have to answer a charge of manslaughter.’” Begbie: “The Victorians insisted on their own keeper, one John McCarthy Blackham, and turned to their best strike bowler (Frank Allan) to stand in [sic] for Spofforth. He agreed to play, then pulled out at the last so he could meet some mates at the Warrnambool Show. The Argus took this quisling's betrayal personally. ‘We trust that for the future he will be studiously left in that retirement which he professes to be so loth to leave.’ He wasn't.” “But absent stars made room for the huge all-rounder William Midwinter [check].” Southerton: “Allan, whom I still think the best bowler in the colonies.” Still reported as part of the team on day of match:

The combination cricket match between the All-England Eleven and selected men from the New South Wales and Victorian cricketers will be commenced on the MCC ground today at one o'clock. The Englishmen, with the exception of Pooley, arrived from New Zealand in the Alhambra at seven o'clock yesterday morning. Selby is to take Pooley's place as wicket-keeper; Terry the professional bowler who recently arrived from England under engagement to the MCC will be umpire for the All-England Eleven and Mr Curtis Reid for the Australians. The wickets will be drawn each day at five o'clock. The names of the Victorian players are Allan, Blackham, Cooper, Horan, Kendall, and Midwinter. The New South Wales players are Bannerman, Garrett, D. Gregory, E. Gregory, and Thomson.

For the convenience of visitors to the Warrnambool Races, the Warrnambool Steampacket Company have arranged to despatch the steamer Julia Percy from Melbourne on Saturday afternoon, and the steamer Otway on Tuesday next. The latter steamer will return from Warrnambool on Friday afternoon, the 16th inst., arriving in Melbourne on the following morning in ample time for passengers to catch the trains for the Kyneton Races.

The Amateur Races took place today [14 March]. The weather was pleasant, but the attendance was small and the racing indifferent. Mr Robert Chirnside, jun., rode the winner of the first race, and Mr Andrew Chirnside rode the other four winners. […] Allan, the cricketer, was on the course, and the Warrnambool and Melbourne people publicly expressed their dissatisfaction at his not going to Melbourne to play against the English eleven. [No mention of him on subsequent days.]

Essentially replacing this guy:

The Warrnambool Cricket Club (says the Examiner of Wednesday) has sustained a great loss by the departure of Mr. C. H. Fair-fox, who left by the steamer on Tuesday for Melbourne, having been promoted from the Survey-office to the head office at the metro-polis. As a steady bat, an active fielder, a strong bowler, and an all-round cricketer, his absence will be felt here, and he was also a great favourite with his brother players.

Mullagh Those three omissions—Evans, Spofforth and Allan—are famous, and in Spofforth’s case legendary. Before this book, however, the most important had never been mentioned. During 2nd Test of the Austrailan 2020/21 summer, I happened upon a small and hitherto undocumented press campaign to get Johnny Mullagh, the great Aboriginal cricketer, into the Australian team. His local newspaper appears to suggest -- I'm reading between the lines -- that he was excluded on racial grounds. So it's possible that Hendricks wasn't "the first athlete in the world to be discriminated against on the basis of his colour"! Mullagh's name appears repeatedly in the build-up to the Test, so a Trove filter for the months of February and March 1877 should do the trick. The local paper I referred to is the Hamilton Spectator for March 10, under the headline "Cricket": It is to be regretted that Mullagh should have been overlooked, as he is in as great form as ever he was, which, as the International Committee know, means that there is not a better batsman in Victoria. Perhaps I see more there than there is, but reading it in this of all years, I can't unsee it. Were doubts, according to Hamilton Spectator, that he would appear for Hamilton against Casterton on March 10 for the Murray Challenge Cup. Not told on what these doubts were founded, but it is possible that he was expected to be training at the MCG with the Combined team: “There was a report that Mullagh would not be able to play, but this is not correct, as he arrived with the others last evening [March 9].” Further clue later in the same column: “It is to be regretted that Mullagh should have been overlooked, as he is in as great form as ever he was, which, as the International Committee know, means that there is not a better batsman in Victoria.” Perhaps because the Hamilton Spectator was his local paper, and a minor one, no-one since has taken up this cry. Was Mullagh the first cricketer to be rejected out of racial prejudice? “The great all-rounder from the Jardwadjali people.” “Mullagh was an Indigenous man, and all but one of the other members of that first touring team were Indigenous too. They worked on station properties around Harrow's rich grazing district, south of Horsham in western Victoria. And at weekends they played cricket, having been taught by a couple of squatters' sons.” “The poorly-named Board for the Protection of Aborigines refused permission for Mullagh and his teammates to travel overseas in the first place, and they had to be smuggled out.” “Captained by the only white man on the team, a former Surrey all-rounder named Charles Lawrence, these first Australians - once they were sneaked out of their own country - gave the Poms quite a shakeup. Over 47 matches on 40 grounds, Australia won 14 and lost the same number. Mullagh batted, bowled, kept wicket and caused a sensation from Lord's to the counties.” “Mullagh and his mates lived and died as outsiders, whatever their achievements. Mullagh himself ended in obscurity in his rabbiter's hut on a station property not far from Harrow. And yet he was the standout star of the very first Australian sporting team to travel abroad. Of any sport.” “Mullagh’s feats on the subsequent Indigenous tour of England beggar belief even today: 71 innings for 1698 runs at 23.65, 245 wickets at 10 from 7508 deliveries, in a strange, cold, faraway land. He earned praise from W.G. Grace for an elegant 75 at Lord’s when the XI led Marylebone on first innings, and from the country’s leading fast bowler, George ‘Tear ’em’ Tarrant, who was sufficiently intrigued by Mullagh to request permission to bowl to him in the nets at lunch one day. The story was recounted by the team’s captain, Charles Lawrence, to the former Test cricketer turned cricket correspondent of The Australasian, Tom Horan: ‘Directly Mullagh was asked, he said, “I’ll bat against him,” and he kept Tarrant hard at it all through the luncheon-hour. Johnnie, in the excitement of practising against the great bowler, forgot all about his luncheon, and played him for the full time without being bowled. Tarrant, after the practice was over, told Lawrence that Mullagh was undoubtedly one of the finest batsmen he had ever bowled against.’” “Means of pursuing the game were elusive. He played as a professional for Melbourne CC in 1869-70, finishing second in the batting averages (34.5); he played a single game for Victoria against Lord Harris’s English team in February 1879, top scoring with 36, winning praise from The Argus for his ‘cool artistic style’ and ‘judicious treatment of dubious balls.’ After the latter innings, Mullagh was presented with a bat by the English amateur AN Hornby, and a purse of £50 was collected for him by the former Victorian premier JG Francis — staggering munificence in the context of the times.” “Yet it’s possible the most remarkable cricket Mullagh played is the least documented. He continued, until just a few months before his death in 1891, to represent Harrow, in a team consisting otherwise of white settlers — so successfully that the club, having won three consecutive premierships, was expelled from the local competition.” Only one FC match, and at this point only one match at the MCG, in that fateful match for Tom Wills’s side on Boxing Day 1866: “Johnny Mullagh was the aboriginal star. He made 16 and 39. The Argus said the spectators showed their sympathy for the blackfellows by cheering everything they did, but the occasion obviously was overwhelming for them. It was the first time they had appeared before such a crowd. The Herald wrote: ;That they have been made thoroughly acquainted with the various points of the game was made manifestly evident by the manner in which they conducted themselves in the field. Mullagh and Bullocky showed themselves to be no mean batsmen. They not only stopped balls but hit them, showing good discretion and strong defence....’ After the match there was a sports meeting. Johnny Mullagh threw a cricket ball 111 yards. Then he jumped 5 ft. 4 in., an incredible leap for 1866 and it remained a record for many years.” “He was buried with a bat and stumps by clubmates; he was furnished with a fine grave, which vaunts him as a ‘World Famed Cricketer,’ and an impressive memorial, a pink granite obelisk enumerating his statistics. He was saluted in the Hamilton Spectator with an unsigned epic poem, according him the status of hero for his deeds at Lord’s. A stanza reads”: ‘Of his powers in the cricket field Victoria knows, and shall surely say How he strove for her [only once had that opportunity], nor did he yield, Until his score on one famous day Stood highest of all, when England’s might Knew Mullagh’s strength in that well fought fight. “Part of this, no doubt, was the sense of a whole world passing, to which the newspaper also attended in its well-meant tribute”: We may have another Grace, but never will Mullagh’s reputation be surpassed by any of his race, for none, in a few years, will remain to show that once this great land of ours had a people of its own who, but a short half-century ago, were monarchs of all they surveyed. Belated recognition in December 2020, against the backdrop of Black Lives Matter, with his induction into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame. “There is so much about the first Indigenous cricketer inducted in the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame that’s lost to time: his biographical history is scant; his inmost thoughts were never recorded. But what’s recoverable provides a reasonable case for his recognition, also as the hall’s earliest cricketer and first non-Test player.” “Monday’s announcement complements the earlier decision by the Melbourne Cricket Club to mint the Mullagh Medal for the player of the match in the Boxing Day Test, which commemorates what must be one of cricket’s most astonishing matches: when the MCC welcomed ‘Ten Aboriginals with TW Wills’ on December 26 and 27, 1866, drawing 12,000 curious spectators.” Following upon the naming of the Johnny Mullagh Oval in Harrow, and the Johnny Mullagh Park next door, and the Johnny Mullagh Cricket Centre hard by. Harrow has hosted the Johnny Mullagh Championship Cricket Match for over a quarter-century. “The 300 residents of Harrow and district - there are only around 90 in the village itself - are planning to put that to rights. They want to cast two bronze statues of Mullagh: one for the village and the other to be offered to the Melbourne Cricket Club. Problem is, they're short $130,000 or so. Funds from government or sponsorship by Australian companies hasn't been forthcoming.” In all cases that recognition attaches his attributed rather than traditional name. He was born Unaarrimin. Re-named Johnny Mullagh, after the property where he was raised and later worked for white bosses. “This insult was further compounded by his being referred to as Black Johnny. Moreover, despite being the team's captain, he had to suffer the indignity of eating separately from his fellow players.” “As a tribute to his contribution to the game of cricket, he was presented with a memorial medallion bearing the name of Johnny Mullagh, as though the erasure of Unaarrimin had been perpetuated in silver,” wrote Robin Teese to The Age. “The men of Australia's first XI all had Indigenous names, but were denied them and given whitefella names that tied them to the properties on which they worked, or were simply throwaway nicknames that stuck. Johnny Mullagh came from Mullagh Station.” Except when he is being vicious about Noam Chomsky, one is not apt to take issue with Gideon Haigh. But he may be wrong to instruct us that Krom Hendricks was “the first athlete in the world to be discriminated against on the basis of his colour.” That Mullagh played only one first-class match in all his long career is eyebrow-raising, to say the least of it. His only first-class match: Victoria v. Lord Harris’s XI, March 7-10: “Mullagh, the well-known aboriginal cricketer, will be ‘induced’ to play if possible” (Week “Cricket” 8 March 1879). What does “induced” mean, and what are the implications? A month before the Test, in another match, in which Curtis Reid played: Unfortunately a slight contretemps occurred which greatly marred the pleasantness of the game. The aboriginal Rose—one of the twelve who went to England—was put on to bowl, and was no-balled by the Wangaratta umpire for throwing, whereupon a scene ensued, and some untimely and intemperate language was indulged in; whilst afterwards several unseemly interruptions took place, causing an unpleasant feeling. Rose was transferred to the other end, when Mr Crone also no-balled him, and he was consequently very wisely taken off. […] It is a pity that any ill-feeling was engendered as it spoils sport.

HAMILTON, 10th March. Casterton beat Hamilton, Coleraine beat Casterton and Hamilton beat Coleraine for possession of the Murray Cricket Challenge Cup, and on Saturday Casterton played Hamilton again and beat them in one innings with 11 runs to spare, the scores being Hamilton 30 and 45, Casterton 86, the two Donaldsons and Mullagh, who also scored 13 in pretty style, bowled well for Casterton, as did Learmonth and Rippon for Hamilton. Bloomfield, the Hamilton bowler, was not in his best form, and when Hamilton went in for their first innings the wicket bumped in an unpleasant fashion. The top scorer for Casterton was Craven, with 22.

It can be stupid. It can be snobby. It can be sexist. And as recently as 2013, our national cricket census clocked fewer than 10,000 Indigenous participants at any level, young, old, male or female—a shaming failure, quite frankly, for what presents itself as a national game. This is changing, albeit slowly, and growth at club level remains poor. So in the past few years some low-key gestures have been made to recognise Indigenous culture and aspirations. None of them are militant or mandatory. They might well be regarded as the bare minimum. The barefoot circle, Indigenous kits, and now the quiet downplaying of a national day about which many feel ambivalent: none of these do any harm; none of them prevent or cancel anything, much as they might miff a right-wing offenderati every bit as brittle as their left-wing counterpart.

Young, gifted and black.

The town of Harrow was established on the banks of the Glenelg River around the time of Johnny Mullagh's birth in the early 1840s and grew in response to the needs of major grazing properties. The first squatter in the area was Thomas Norris who took up Kout Narin in 1840. When this station was subdivided in 1849 several well known properties such as Longlands, Clunie, Pine Hills, Mullagh, Miga Lake, Mount Talbot and Chetwynd were formed. The first police district in western Victoria (then south-west New South Wales) had its headquarters in Harrow and covered an area from Hamilton to the Murray River. By 1890 the town contained two hotels, three general stores, a drapery business, a blacksmith, a saddlery shop, a bakery, a shoe maker, a flour mill, Chinese market gardens and a brickworks.1 Today Harrow is marked by a sign, 'Historic Harrow', pointing to a sleepy little town 150 metres off the Edenhope-Hamilton road. It has one hotel, a general store and a service station/garage. Before reaching that sign from the west, however, there is another much larger one advertising the Johnny Mullagh Caravan and Camping Reserve. Johnny Mullagh's story as the dominant cricketer of the 1868 Aboriginal tour of England has been told elsewhere by John Mulvaney.2 My concern here is to concentrate on the years from 1868 until his death. Johnny Mullagh died seven miles from Harrow in 1891. His body was discovered by James Edgar of Pine Hills station, where he spent much of his working life. His obituary in the Hamilton Spectator on 15 August, headed 'Death of Mullagh, the Cricketer', contains a number of revealing comments. It proclaimed him the 'Grace' of Aboriginal cricketers3 and lauded him as a finished, graceful, scientific batsman, a clean hitter who was most adept at playing pace bowling. It praised his long and loyal service to Harrow, adding that any club in Victoria would have readily availed themselves of his services. But it also noted some weaknesses which it generalised in racial terms. As a bowler he was criticised for falling under the influence of Tom Wills and developing a tendency to throw; and as a batsman it was said that like many of his 'sable compeers' he had a 'wholesome horror' of delusive slow bowling. Thus, he was respected but with reservations, the latter comments perhaps implying that he was a 'natural' who did not think enough about his game. It is plain, however, why Mullagh was already a folk hero. According to his obituarist: We may have another Grace, but never will Mullagh's reputation be surpassed by any of his race, for none in a few years will remain to show that... once they were monarchs of all they surveyed.4 Bernard Whimpress is a sports historian working on a Ph.D on Aboriginal cricket at Flinders University. 1 Harrow Historical Society records. 2 Mulvaney and Harcourt 1988, Mulvaney 1989. 3 W.G. Grace and Don Bradman are generally recognised as the greatest figures in cricket history. 4 Hamilton Spectator (hereafter HS), 15 August 1891, p. 3. 95 ABORIGINAL HISTORY 1994 18:2 His deeds on the cricket fields of western Victoria made him a regional hero and had Mullagh had the advantages of Grace it seems certain his own career would have been outstanding. Writing in support of a Mullagh monument Mr A.A. Cowell described Mullagh as an object lesson in maximising limited opportunities.5 Johnny Mullagh. Courtesy Harrow Historical Society. After his death, praise flowed richly both in prose and in one poem, 'Mullagh', penned by a Harrow resident. In this poem the following verse appeared: And Mullagh's dead! Let us lay him down With honours due to his true right hand, Remember lads, he deserves the crown For the smartest eye, and the bravest stand He made when the fight was fierce, an th' cry Was 'Mullagh's' strength is our victory. The poet suggests that Mullagh's cricket entitled him to be placed on a pedestal. However, ideas of 'ancient pedigree', 'ancestral fame' and 'nobility' which appear in the first stanza of the same poem are fanciful. What the poem demonstrates perhaps even more succinctly than other tributes is that heroism can work on several planes. Western Victorians took vicarious pleasure in his success in England in 1868 ('Ten thousand voices in Kensington/ Acknowledged his power with their loud "Well done"') and against Lord Harris's English team in 1879: 5 HS, 27 August 1891, p. 3. 96 JOHNNY MULLAGH Of his powers in the cricket field, Victoria knows, and shall surely say How he strove for her, nor did he yield, Until his score on one famous day Stood highest of all, when England's might Knew Mullagh's strength in that well fought fight. But the poet stresses that western Victorians were also favoured to witness Mullagh's deeds in local matches.6 No doubt the poem was well intentioned but the romanticised view it offers is o f a noble but modest conquering hero rather than a poor rabbiter who lived alone in the scrub with a pack of dogs and had to be rooted out when there was a cricket match to be played.7 It was not only his cricketing skills which led people in the western district to romanticise Mullagh. He excelled not only at cricket but on horseback and in other 'manly' sports, and was said to have surpassed all these accomplishments by his gentlemanly c o n d u c t.8 It was remarked that he was a credit to his race: that he was the most 'unassuming and retiring of men'; that he liked the simple life of fishing and shooting;9 that he was 'humble, upright, quiet, retiring and civil';10 that, as the Reverend J. Kirkland said at his funeral, he was 'a noble type of an almost extinct race' and thus he received a respectable interment.11 Respectability was an important consideration in colonial Victoria. The Harrow Cricket Club paid for his funeral and his team-mates placed the favourite bat he used so successfully and a set of stumps on his coffin, and interred them with him. In addition to several wreaths, each member of the club also put a sprig of black berries and yellow flowers on it as emblems of the Harrow colours which he had so often carried to victory.12 But honours could not be complete. Although the service was performed by an Anglican clergyman he could not be buried in a consecrated area of the cemetery. On his death certificate his name appears as 'John Mullah' and both his denomination and rank are recorded as 'Aboriginal'. This may explain why his grave was set fifty metres away from his contemporaries.1-7 As Reverend Kirkland suggested, it was in large part because Johnny Mullagh was one o f the few remaining Aboriginal people in his district that his death was seen as so significant. Fourteen years before, according to the 1877 census, there were only 340 Aborigines in the western district and 227 lived on reserves. This means that 113 lived off stations in a vast area of 28 000 square miles. In the substantial area where Mullagh played most o f his cricket there were 46 Aborigines and he was probably the only one in the immediate Harrow district.14 Thus, his comrades probably felt that they were burying not 6 HS, 3 September 1891, p. 3. 7 Written reminiscence of J.C. Fitzgerald, Portland, 5 August 1945, letter kept by Mr David Edgar, Nerrinyerie. 8 'E.G.' of Harrow, letter to the editor, HS, 27 August 1891. 9 HS, 15 August 1891, p. 3. 10 A.A. Cowell, letter to HS, 27 August 1891. 11 HS, 20 August 1891, p. 3. 12 HS, 20 August 1891, p. 3. 13 1 measured this distance by stepping it out. Only in recent years have other graves appeared nearby. 14 The population figures for the western district are quoted in Cole 1984, p. 21. The area takes 143 degrees east as the eastern boundary in accordance with the proposal for separation of the western district as a separate colony in the 1860s. The further breakdown of population figures are taken from the Census Return of Aboriginal Natives taken in 1877. The total of 97 ABORIGINAL HISTORY 1994 18:2 just a man but a symbol, and it is not surprising that they proposed a tribute to his memory. A committee of management and trust was formed to raise money for a monumental memorial with collectors in the major western district centres where he had played plus Mount Gambier, Adelaide and Melbourne.15 Mullagh's fame was also due to the fact that his position in society was unusual for an Aboriginal person of the time. The Government of Victoria remained inactive in Aboriginal affairs until 1859 when a select committee of the Victorian Legislative Council recommended that reserved land be set aside for Aborigines in their tribal areas. Increasingly Aborigines on reserves became segregated from the white communities but were taught self-sufficiency especially in agriculture. Aborigines' lives became more restricted after the Aborigines Protection Act was passed in 1869 and they were told where they could live and work, how to dress and take care of their children, and how to spend the money they earned.16 Mullagh, however, did not live on a reserve but was likely helped by settlers such as A.A. Cowell who, as a local guardian under the Act, may have been instrumental in helping him to obtain work certificates on pastoral properties. It seems possible, then, that where other Aborigines found an identity on the mission,17 Mullagh found his on the cricket field. In the years after 1868 regular club cricket in the western district of Victoria had not been established. The fixtures that were arranged between neighbouring towns were chiefly scratch matches with the exception of one competition, the Murray Challenge Cup. Matches were rare. They seldom occurred before Christmas and, owing to the shearing season, were most often held in March and April.18 The clubs which took part in the Murray Cup were those in the largest towns and settled areas such as Hamilton, Coleraine, Casterton and Harrow although at other times teams from major centres further away such as Ararat and Portland also competed. Most games were arranged in conjunction with race meetings, the races taking place the day after the cricket. After his return from England Johnny Mullagh, then aged around 28, played part of the 1869-70 season with the Melbourne Cricket Club as a professional living with the lodgekeeper and caretaker at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. This arrangement was terminated (it was said) because of a severe illness in his lungs when he was on the verge of intercolonial selection.19 The first report of Mullagh playing in a match in the western district after the 1868 English tour came in April 1870 when he appeared for Apsley against Harrow and made 59 not out, out of Apsley’s 141. Harrow suffered an ignominious defeat,20 but in the second game Harrow won by five wickets. Mullagh was again the outstanding performer with 68 out of his side's 134 as well as taking four of the five wickets to fall. Perhaps what was even more remarkable was the fact that he captained the 46 Aborigines is made up as follows (the population of a town district is given first, followed by the distance from Harrow in kilometres in brackets): Hamilton 1 (86); Coleraine 5 (54); Casterton 15 (64); Dergholm 2 (50); Merino 5 (75); Edenhope 12 (32); Apsley 1 (53); Balmoral 5 (29). 15 HS, 3 September 1891, p. 3. 16 Christie 1979, Appendix A. 17 Rowley 1972, p. 63. 18 Murray Cup matches usually began on the third Saturday of December and then were held at fortnightly intervals until the third Saturday of April. Rules of Murray Challenge Cup 1877-78 held in possession of David Edgar, Nerrinyerie. 19 Rex Harcourt, personal correspondence, 15 January 1993; Argus, 25 February 1870, p. 6; Australasian, 4 December 1875, p. 714. 20 HS, 2 April 1870, p. 2. 98 JOHNNY MULLAGH Apsley team thus showing that prejudice regarding Aboriginal intelligence was put aside in this case. For nearly all of the remainder of his career Mullagh appeared for the Harrow club. Over the next few years it is difficult to follow Mullagh's career. In November 1873 the Australasian Sketcher reported that he might be chosen for Victoria against W.G. Grace's touring party,21 but six weeks later the Warrnambool Examiner reported that he was presumed dead.22 It is remarkable that such a prominent Aboriginal sporting figure should have disappeared from public view to such an extent that reports of his death could seem credible. In 1878 Mullagh made a chanceless 121 for Harrow against Edenhope prompting calls for his selection for Victoria. At the time he was said to be securing a living by selling kangaroo hides.23 In a return match shortly afterwards he top-scored and took 13 wickets for 60 runs24 but colonial selection did not come for another year. In the western district there appear to have been frequent calls for Mullagh's selection in intercolonial matches25 but reservations were expressed in Melbourne about the quality of his opponents. This led to a good deal of acrimonious debate about the relative strength of cricket in each region.26 The western district view was that they would not promote Mullagh's cause if he could not prove himself worthy of the recommendation. A couple of scores of sixty against Edenhope and Hamilton in March 1879, however, finally brought him his sole first-class reward against Lord Harris’s English team. It is often presumed that the reason why he was not selected earlier was Mullagh's preference for remaining in his own district but the evidence for this, though persuasive, is not conclusive.27 Perhaps he retained a strong link to the land and his traditional roots but he was also different from many other Aborigines: a transitional figure working (albeit in a subsidiary role) in the white world. At the time his selection was not universally applauded and the Age commented that the selection committee had ventured on a 'bold experiment' which was 'hardly justified' when there were so many known capable players in Melbourne fit for a place in the team.28 Mullagh proved his critics wrong, though, and his performance against the English is remembered as a triumph. Batting at number nine in the first innings he made only 4 but elevated to number six in the second innings he top-scored with 36. The Argus commented on his style of play: The principal stand of the innings was by Mullagh and Alexander. Mullagh's play was an exhibition in itself. His long reach his cool artistic style, his judicious treatment of dubious balls, and his vigorous drives, called forth demonstrative applause.29 Mullagh was rewarded with more than applause. The Lancashire amateur A.N. Hornby presented him with a bat, and a purse of 50 sovereigns was collected for him on the ground 21 Australasian Sketcher, 29 November 1873, p. 155. 22 Warrnambool Examiner, quoted in the South Australian Register, 15 January 1874, p. 5. 23 Australasian, reported in the Adelaide Observer, 2 March 1878, p. 10. 24 HS, 19 February 1878, p. 4. 25 HS, 6 March 1879, p. 2. 26 The bad feeling one notes in the press from time to time may have been a vestige of the western district's attempt to secede from Victoria under the name of Princeland in 1862. For further details see O'Donoghue 1984. 27 Rex Harcourt, personal correspondence, 15 January 1993; Webster 1991, p. 45. 28 Age, 7 March 1879. 29 Argus quoted directly by Ray Webster in letter to author, 2 February 1993. 99 ABORIGINAL HISTORY 1994 18:2 by the Hon. J.G. Francis, a former Premier of Victoria. The sum of money was equivalent to 50 pounds or about the same as the minimum male adult wage for six months.30 It would have been sufficient for him to have been able to build a small cottage.31 Why, having had this success, did Mullagh not reappear for the colony? Harry Boyle was Victorian selector and captain during this season, and at the start of the following one when Mullagh opened the batting in November for a Victorian Eleven against the Next Fifteen. Presumably, then, he was again available and under strong consideration for selection. However, when he was dismissed for 5 and 4, falling on each occasion to the slow left arm Test bowler Tom Kendall,32 he may have decided that he would remain satisfied with his moment of glory and return to the bush. It is also conceivable that the 'capable players in Melbourne' began to assert themselves more strongly and he was not asked again. Mullagh's skill did not diminish, however. In the western district he topped Harrow's batting three years out of four from 1878-9 to 1881-2 with averages of 39, 47, 43 and 44.33 Mullagh was 38 years old when chosen for Victoria but he retained his batting powers even though opportunities to exercise them seemed to dwindle in the 1880s. Part of the reason for his lack of opportunities to play seems to have been Harrow's claiming the Murray Challenge Cup after winning it for the third year in succession in 1883, and their exclusion from the mainstream local competition for several years thereafter. In the last of those years (1881-82) there is evidence of a strong rivalry and perhaps bitterness between Hamilton and Harrow. Mullagh made 110 in the match against Hamilton in good style before being stumped. Again the point was made locally that he should have the opportunity to display his mettle on metropolitan wickets in a big match.34 There is certainly little doubt that he played a major role in Harrow's ultimate success that season as he also scored 61,97 and 47 in two matches against Casterton.33 Harrow was subsequently only able to arrange occasional games against Apsley and Mullagh's appearances were even more spasmodic. Details of matches were scarcely reported. Around 1884 he was said to be working on a sheep station at Penola and not playing regular cricket although at the end of that year he toured Adelaide with a south-east fifteen which played several first-grade clubs. Although not scoring heavily he averaged 26 runs for four completed innings and is said to have played splendid cricket. He had one triumphant performance in carrying his bat for 43 not out against the premier club side Norwood in a match on the Adelaide Oval, where he faced the bowling of renowned Australian Test allrounder George Giffen.36 Mullagh's last chance of a major representative game seems likely to have been for a western district team against the Melbourne Cricket Club at Easter 1885 but negotiations fell through when the MCC chose an unrepresentative side which the Hamilton secretary considered insulted western district cricket.37 By the mid-1880s the Hamilton Spectator 30 MCC Archives, MCC Letter Book 17/4/1878-11/12/1879, Letter No. 253. 31 According to a report in the HS, 24 January 1882, p. 3, such cottages constructed of limestone or bluestone were erected on the Lake Condah Mission. 32 VCA Annual Report 1879-80, pp. 12-13. 33 Harrow Cricket Club scorebook 1878-9 to 1882-3. 34 HS, 1 December 1881, p. 3. 35 HS, 3 January 1882, p. 2. 30 Whitridge's South Australian Cricketer's Guide 1884-85, p. 39. 37 The secretary, Mr H.J. Bloomfield, seemed to be on strong ground since his club would have had to take the financial risk and foot the bill for several players coming at least sixty miles by coach. These details are reported in the HS, 23 April 1885, p. 3. 100 JOHNNY MULLAGH usually only reported matches by Hamilton teams, while Harrow continued to struggle to find opponents, so records of Mullagh's achievements are sparse in this period. We do know that he top-scored in Harrow's 1887 loss to Coleraine, against Tarrakouyan and Apsley in 1888, and against Apsley in 1889.38 According to a couple of accounts the 1890 season was Mullagh's last39 but new evidence has revealed that he played until several months before his death. Indeed he was able to take advantage of the Harrow club's installation of a concrete and cement pitch on which it was suggested batsmen should be able to score great numbers of runs.40 It was a luxury Mullagh was able to enjoy only briefly after years of battling on treacherous wickets. Perhaps appropriately Mullagh's last innings of 59 against Apsley and 54 not out against Chetwynd were scored despite strong opposition. Unfortunately for Mullagh his final game ended sourly and with a display of poor sportsmanship which might have deprived him of a century. After Chetwynd had been dismissed for 87 Harrow had reached 4 for 116 when some of the opposing team walked off the ground declaring they had had enough of it, and in spite of the persuasion of the remainder of the team would not come back. The Harrow correspondent reported, 'This was not very manly conduct and we hope we will not see any more of it in the future.'41 Mullagh was a hero in 1891, and he is still remembered in Harrow a century later. His memorial overlooks an oval and the river and is adjacent to the reserve named after him. It is not hard to strike up a conversation about him in the Hermitage Hotel and in town one can obtain postcards of both the memorial and his grave. Johnny Mullagh's legendary status must be understood in terms of his local importance in Harrow and in the western district more generally. Mullagh emerged not long after the western district's battle to secede from Victoria under the name of Princeland, and even when that battle was lost claiming a cricketer as the best batsman in the existing colony could be a way of asserting regional pride. Mullagh remained when Harrow's importance as a regional centre dwindled as rail links were extended elsewhere. At such a time the former victories of the town's cricket team and its black star would have become something to savour. Johnny Mullagh's legend transcends sport. His respectability brought him lasting esteem from the white community and in 1991 on the centenary of his death a pilgrimage to his grave attracted about sixty non-Aborigines. Interestingly, no Aborigines attended the ceremony.42 One can only speculate about the effect of the 1868 tour on Mullagh but his limited contact with English society may have turned his head forever. There is something of the tragic romantic about Mullagh: of his keeping pictures of English ladies, and his admission that while he was unwilling to marry a white woman, he was also unwilling to marry a black one 43 As an Aboriginal cricketer Mullagh showed what could be achieved in what white Australians of the time regarded as the most civilised of games. But in honouring a man who succeeded in at least one area of the white world the pastoral community was also glossing over its history of dispersal and dispossession. 3S Mullagh's scores in these games were 25, 67 and 61. HS, 29 March 1887, p. 3; 18 February 1888, p. 3; 28 February 1889, p. 3. 30 HS, 10 April 1890, p. 3; Mulvaney and Harcourt 1988, p. 162. 4(3 HS, 22 November 1890, p. 4. 41 HS, 7 March 1891, p. 12. 42 Rex Harcourt, personal communication, October 1993. 43 Mulvaney and Harcourt 1988, p. 163. 101 ABORIGINAL HISTORY 1994 18:2 LIST OF REFERENCES Christie, M.F. 1979, Aborigines in Colonial Victoria 1836-86, Sydney. Cole, Keith 1984, The Lake Condah Aboriginal Mission, Bendigo. Mulvaney, John 1989, Encounters in Place, Brisbane. Mulvaney, John & Harcourt, Rex 1988, Cricket Walkabout, 2nd edn, Melbourne. O'Donoghue, K.K. (ed.) 1984, West Victoria Separation Movement, Warrnambool. Rowley, Charles 1972, Outcasts in White Australia, Sydney. Webster, Ray 1991, First-Class Cricket in Australia, vol. 1, 1850-51 to 1941-42, Melbourne. 102 (Whimpress “Johnny Mullagh” Aboriginal History XVIII: 95-102.)

Time for a Mullagh biography. There is more to be said on this subject. I shall say it 258 pages from now.

Was there a genuine 'crusade' to get Unaarrimin selected? I'm also not sure that what we now regard as the inaugural Test was viewed as all that significant in advance, given the selection cases of Spofforth, Allan, Evans etc. (Haigh, Gideon, correspondence with the author, 23 January 2022.) [I don't have my notes before me, but Mullagh had just wellied 200 not out in a total of 244 for Harrow against Edenhope. His inclusion was urged, among others, by "Point" in the Leader. And his exclusion was deplored by the Hamilton Spectator, which described him as the best batsman in Victoria -- and so must have felt that some other factor than merit was at play. Interestingly, it came as a surprise to the same newspaper (reports having circulated that he was away) when Mullagh appeared on March 10 for Hamilton against Casterton in the Murray Challenge Cup. Conway himself had entreated Victoria's selectors to include him in their XV for the Boxing Day fixture. "Crusade"? Yeah, probably not. But these weren't minor voices. As to your other point, there's plenty in the build-up to the match which stresses it as a matter of the very deepest moment. It was talked of before and behind, as well as in the middle, and heralded with all the trumpets of the advertiser's art. The withdrawals of Spofforth, Allan and Evans were not a token of finite public interest; they only dampened an existing enthusiasm. Spofforth's reasons are infamous. Allan and Evans, ensconced in their homesteads (Allansford and Evansdale respectively), were always finding excuses not to play, and in this instance may have had pretty good ones: Evans's wife was gravid with child -- their third son arrived within a week of the Test's conclusion -- while the health of Allan was so fragile that a doctor warned of the likely fatal consequences of his tour of England the following year. Certainly a better explanation than the one he gave.] Australians practice The googly would rank among the mighty secrets of the world until the apotheosis of Bosanquet. Status of the match Has been a tendency to suggest that the match was not thought of then in the more thoughtful terms of today. Cricinfo’s historian-in-residence Martin Williamson, for example: “not advertised as an international.” Certainly no-one then called it a Test Match, but it was, in fact, widely styled as “England v. Australia” in the press. Colonists by no means shy about this sort of thing. Another international match of sorts, billed “Australia v. World,” a couple of weeks before, between homegrown Queenslanders and immigrants to that colony: Club matches have played a subsidiary part to the Association one—Natives v. the World—the success of which is entirely due to the energy and hard work of the secretary, Mr. Thorne, who has proved himself a willing horse…. The play was, on the whole, of a rather mixed quality. There was not half the interest in it, either on the part of players or spectators, that is evinced at the leading club matches. Some of the players showed good and careful play. The veterans were over-confident, and often played à la scratch match; while the colts on the first day showed funk…. All's well that ends well—but still it is necessary to allude to the bungling amongst the Natives' selection committee. The committee had three times to be altered, and the latest appointed men reversed in some cases the selections of their predecessors. Some novel bargains were struck, and an unpardonable error was perpetrated in selecting a player out of town—bringing him twenty or thirty miles to play—and then allowing him to be sent back on the plea that he was not a member of the association. The gentleman being a stranger here renders the blunder the more unfortunate. (Grubber “Cricket Notes” Week, 10 March 1877.) “The Cricketing Association are making a great stir over the forthcoming game, “Australia v. The World," and seem determined to make the same popular, and we may look forward to two very enjoyable afternoons in the Queen's Park, on Saturday, February 24th and March 3rd. By the programme announced, a large attendance may be expected, as, in addition to a very attractive match, the proceedings will be enlivened by the presence of the Artillery Band, and arrangements will be made to have a marquee for the comfort of the fair sex, so we feel sure that fine weather is all that will now be required to make the occasion a complete success. The selection committee, consisting of Messrs. E. Banbury, W. Hobbs, and Sheehan, for the Australian, and Messrs Egan, Millar, and Thorne, for The World, will meet on Saturday evening next to choose the teams, so that an opportunity may be afforded for each eleven practising together during next week. It is the intention of the association to give a bat, with a suitable inscription on a silver plate, to the player who makes the highest score in the match.” Likewise first first-class match in Australia: Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851, which comes down to us, dubiously, as Tasmania v. Victoria. “The MCG always has had a dominating part in the life of Melbourne. Few great events have passed it by. There was Queen Elizabeth's visit in 1954, the Olympic Games in 1956, and March 15, 1959, when 130,000 came to hear Billy Graham.” “The Combination Match, as it is now generally styled”—Third Man, Weekly Times, March 10. The one topic of conversation through the length and breadth of Melbourne. These sentiments seem to hold a strange fascination. When Dean Hayes read the opening lines of Martin Tyler’s Test Cricket (1974)— [quote] —he liked them so much that he copied and pasted them into his The Ashes (2006), and hoped and trusted that no-one would notice: [quote] I hope, but cannot trust, that his book was swiftly remaindered. Duration of match “Point” in the Melbourne Leader on March 3: “The 15th, 16th and 17th March have been fixed upon by the Englishmen or their agents as the days upon which they will play the match against the Combined Eleven of Victoria and New South 'Wales.” “The match will be played on the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 19th March” (Herald “News of the Day” 6 March 1877). Argus on March 8 had the match down for “Thursday next and the two following days.” “The 15th, 16th, 17th, and 19th of March have been fixed as the days upon which the most important match that has taken place in an Australian cricket-field will be played” (Third Man, Weekly Times, March 10). Had they had but known Melburnians would have taken further heart had they but known what their opponents were going through. After eight matches in 38 days, all against the odds and badly remunerated, and “many exciting incidents and hairbreadth escapes by flood and field,” “England came into the game in a poor state,” burned out from exhaustion. “Having completed the Invercargill game, the team took a train for the Bluff at 4.15, where they joined their boat, the Alhambra, for Australia.” They had departed New Zealand for Melbourne in the steamship Alhambra, exactly a week before the big match: “We had arranged the match for a date that should have given us plenty of time for rest.” But the following day “a breakdown delayed us about five hours.” When finally they resumed, their passage was “very rough.” It blew a gale of wind, “and a great many of the men were poorly.” Shaw deposed that “the accommodation on shipboard was so bad that some of us had to sleep on deck.” In this plight, and with a strong consciousness of it (which they very readily conveyed to the Melbourne press), they achieved their journey on the morning of March 14—barely 24 hours before the start of play. “Not one of us was fit to play cricket,” wrote Shaw, who was “simply spun out myself. Others of our bowlers were also completely knocked up.” They were tired and low, and sore distressed, and sensible of acute pains in their limbs. Voyage from NZ, in Southerton’s telling, “started smoothly, but our ship was uncomfortably full. We turned in early, being tired, but the ‘roll’ during the night prevented sound sleep, and most of us were up early. During the morning we had to pull up, as there was something wrong with the machinery, but we soon started again, and about one o’clock stopped again, the packing of the cylinder having become loose. We had to lay to till put to rights, but we were alongside the wharf next morning—14th—at five o’clock, and hastened to our comfortable quarters, the Old White Hart, and soon turned in for a few hours’ sleep in a good clean bed, which was a luxury we had missed for a long time, though sadly needing it in our hard work through New Zealand. Our hotel accommodation here, and the kindness of our host, make it feel, to a degree, like returning home each time we come back to Melbourne.” Meredith rather unfairly blames “Bennett's travel arrangements” for the fact that after “a terribly rough six days' passage,” the Englishmen arrived only at 05:00 the morning before the Test. “By contrast, the five Sydney players had arrived at Melbourne by sea a week earlier.” Nor was that the sum of it. They had also lost their wicketkeeper, Ted Pooley, “a near indispensable man in the team,” recognised at the time as “the wicketkeeper of the world,” who had gotten himself into a most precious line in New Zealand, “and had to stay there to answer a charge brought by the police.” They left him languishing in a Christchurch jail “after a betting scandal, and so they returned to Australia with the core 11 players.” They would not see him again until they were back in England. No mention in Lillywhite’s account of what happened to him, merely that “in the absence of Pooley, Selby kept wicket.” The background is this: “Despite the financial setback, the victory at Christchurch was a great triumph for the Englishmen, showing them at their resolute best. Sadly a betting incident was to mar this victory and, indeed, to overshadow the rest of the tour. It began simply enough. On the final night at Christchurch, with the home team still to bat, the England players as usual were looking for bets. A trick of long standing was to offer the unwary a pound to a shilling that one could name the individual score of every member of the local team. This Ted Pooley now offered, at £6 to 6 shillings, to a [p. 55] Christchurch surveyor called Ralph Donkin, who was living at Warner's Hotel. Donkin accepted carelessly, whereupon Pooley forecast that every single member of the Canterbury XVIII would score 0. He knew that it only needed one of the locals to be out for 0 for him to make money on this bet. As it happened, six of the home team did not score and that night Alf Bramhall duly gave Ralph Donkin £3 12s 0d and asked him for £36. The aggrieved Donkin refused. There was, meanwhile, other betting interest. John Selby had arranged to run three races, after the match, against a member of the Canterbury XVIII, over 100, 250 and 300 yards, each for £5 a side. Selby duly won the first race by several yards but he lost the second race and was so distressed after it that he forfeited the last race. His backers in the England team would have lost heavily, and, having paid up themselves, were in no mood for tolerating Ralph Donkin's non-payment of Pooley's bet. In the bar of Warner's hotel later that evening, around 8.30, Donkin found himself” environed “by a number of English players. Pooley threatened Donkin and swung a punch at him, knocking him back. When a friend of Donkin's came forward, Selby intervened. 'Hooold on, ol' chap. Two can plaay that gaame.' The towering Ulyett moved in, shaking off a burly local who tried to restrain him. Selby shouted to Donkin, 'We'll haave it out o' you before mornin" and he and Ulyett began pummelling the unfortunate surveyor, until Charlwood, fearing that the brawl was getting out of hand, persuaded Donkin to leave the bar with him and go across the road to the theatre. A further scuffle, however, took place at the hotel entrance in Cathedral Square. Donkin was struck hard several times and tried to ward off his attacker by flourishing his stick. He was, however, thrown down to the ground and punched in the face by Ulyett, before someone else rushed in to break up the fight. Donkin went upstairs to his room to wash his bloody face and an English player tried to force his way in, but was persuaded by the hotel-keeper from breaking down the door. 'I'll have your xxxxing money before morning!' cried the Englishman as he departed downstairs. Donkin by this time was thoroughly frightened and crept out of the hotel at around 9.00 p.m., having decided that he would [p. 56] stay away all night. The England players, hardly able to think straight after the fatigue and strain of the last few days and the worse for drink after a farewell dinner, broke into Donkin's room later that night and ransacked the room. Drawers were pulled out and clothes strewn around. Two of Donkin's felt hats were put in a basin full of water. Coats, waistcoats and trousers were ripped up, a black top hat was crushed. Some of Donkin's surveying plans were burnt in a chamber pot. Those responsible left no clue, apart from a hat, which bore marks of having been burnt by a fire …. The next morning, at 7.00 o'clock, the team set out for Dunedin on a 24-hour journey by train and steamer. The match against a XXII of Otago started as soon as they arrived. In a remarkable display of resilience the weary Englishmen got to within 20 runs of victory when the match ended in a draw. Lillywhite himself, who had badly bruised a hand at Christchurch, took 12 wickets and the indefatigable Southerton took 8. It had been a most successful match from every angle. Cricket was prospering at Dunedin, with three new clubs formed that year. The All-England XI's arrival had inspired yet another new grandstand, a scorecard printing press, and the usual luncheon booths, fruit stalls and fancy bazaars. Scottish influence was evident in the appearance in the luncheon intervals of a drum and fife band. Enthusiasm was enormous. The local hero, Dixon, scored 13 slow runs, yet was granted a triumphal return to the pavilion on the shoulders of his admirers and was later presented with a silver inkstand. Crowds of up to 5,000 attended and were more conscientious in their payment than those at Christchurch, so that proceeds added up to £460 and the Dunedin cricket club, which had prior assets of only £5 13s 9d, must have been well pleased. As at Christchurch a genteel, upper-class atmosphere prevailed. This gay, if slightly prim, cricketing garden party came to a shocked conclusion, however, when news began to circulate at the end of the match of the arrest of Pooley and Alf Bramhall, charged with maliciously injuring property at Christchurch. The arrest seems to have been completely unexpected. Pooley had been in his usual good humour behind the stumps. He seems too [p. 57] to have taken the first news of Donkin's complaints with some levity, for Conway wrote: 'A warrant was issued for Pooley's arrest and an opportunity was offered him to compromise the matter. Pooley treated the matter with indifference; the majesty of the law was upheld.' There was little that Jim Lillywhite could do but travel onwards without him. The arrest had been made between the end of the match at 5.40 p.m. and the team's departure by special train for Invercargill at 7 o'clock. There were no pauses in the schedule. The day the team arrived at Invercargill they started their 3-day match, and, on the third evening, having won, they were sailing back to Melbourne. Ted Pooley and Albert Bramhall did not appear before the Christchurch Supreme Court until 14 April, over a month later. There were various legal delays, one being the need to wait for witnesses for the defence to arrive from Australia. Donkin brought as his witnesses two waiters and a chambermaid from Warner's Commercial Hotel. Witnesses for the defence included the Christchurch fast bowler and treasurer, T. S. Sweet, plus a bookmaker, a billiard-marker from Warner's Hotel, a bridgekeeper and Hugh Cassidy, the proprietor of a Greymouth coaching firm, who had himself driven one of the coaches on that epic journey across the mountains. It was quickly established that Bramhall had been wrongly identified and was not with Pooley that evening. He had, in fact, been settling accounts over scorecards and photographs with several New Zealanders. There was also doubt about Pooley's identification. The burnt hat suggested Greenwood's involvement. Witnesses agreed that Pooley was of the same build as both Greenwood and Selby. Pooley and Bramhall were therefore both acquitted; but poor Pooley had lost much. Even though the Christchurch players presented him with £50 and a gold ring, by the terms of the agreement with Jim Lillywhite 'every member of the team forfeited £10 for every day he did not play through his own fault'. By this reckoning Pooley would have been fined £220. 'The worst loss of all was that All-England did not have a proper wicket-keeper when they came to play the combined XI of New South Wales and Victoria in the first Test match. It was [p. 58] also a setback for the punters,. who; quite reasonably, had put early money on All-England. Indeed, with this in mind, the arrest of Pooley takes on sinister connotations. It is possible, for example, that an influential betting ring in Australia manipulated events in New Zealand to its advantage. Was it just coincidence that the arrest of Pooley took place in the eighty minutes between the end of a match and departure for another town? Was it just bad luck that damage in a bedroom of £5 resulted in a month and a half's detention? Why, moreover, should the trial have been delayed, allegedly whilst important• witnesses were summoned from Melbourne, when, in the event, no such witnesses appeared? Was this simply a delaying tactic, to ensure that the All-England XI played their vital match in Melbourne with a weakened team? If, indeed, Ralph Donkin and his friends were 'planted' at Warner's Hotel to get the English team into trouble with the law, then the outcome of cricket's first Test match was seriously affected by organized crime.” Meredith speculates that “Melbourne betting syndicates were attempting to subvert the first Test match.” If this was the idea, more likely a syndicate based in NZ. Hard enough to coordinate that sort of conspiracy today; in 1877, near impossible: The matter entirely of Pooley’s own making; the inciting events could hardly have been manufactured by Melburnian conspirators.

The Argus mentions that the circumstances which have compelled Lillywhite's eleven to return from New Zealand without Pooley arose out of a row at Christchurch. Pooley, it seems, made what is called a “catch bet” with another man, who when he found he had lost it refused to pay. This led to a strong remonstrance on the part of Pooley. His opponent retorted with a stick, which is said to have laid open the wicketkeeper's head and cut his face. Pooley at once fell upon the assailant with his fists' and thrashed him severely. For this assault he was fined at the police court. On the evening of the same day, subsequently to the consumption of a good deal of liquor, the portmanteau of some gentleman (Mr Ralph Donkin) in the hotel where all parties stayed was found to have been cut to pieces and papers in it partly destroyed. Suspicion fell upon Pooley and Bramhall, the moneytaker of the eleven, who were apprehended. They were remanded until the 12th instant, and admitted to bail. Before the Eleven left Dunedin, Pooley had gone back to Christchurch.

New Zealand papers brought by the Ara-wata contain particulars of the prosecution of Pooley for assault and damaging property. The following telegram from Christchurch, dated March 12, appears in the Otago Daily Times:--"At the resident magistrate's court to-day, Edward Pooley, one of the English cricketers, was charged with assaulting Ralph Donkm. Prior to the cricket match here, Donkin made a bet with Pooley, but afterwards, considering it a catch bet, sent a message to Pooley that he cried off. After the match Pooley claimed the amount of the bet--£36. Donkin refused to pay. Pooley then as-saulted him. The parties being separated, Donkin went away, and Pooley followed. An altercation ensued, which was followed up by another assault. Evidence was con-tradictory as to who was the aggressor in the second assault, but the RM considered it proved that Pooley struck the first blow in both assaults. He imposed a fine of £5. Edward Pooley and Albert Bramhatl (the latter a money-taker for the English cricketers) were then charged with wilfully and maliciously destroying clothes and plans, the property of Ralph Donkin. At half-past 10 on the night of the assault Donkin's bedroom at Warner's Hotel was seen to be in the usual order. Shortly after, Pooley was seen to come out of Donkin's bedroom, and Bramhall was standing close to the door. At 11 o'clock, the waiter, whose suspicions were aroused, went into the bedroom, and found Donkin's clothes and a lot of plans torn up. The damage to the clothes was valued at £35; the damage to the plans at £60. The Bench committed both men for trial. Bail was accepted--each man in his personal surety of £200, and two sureties of £100 each."

Our Wellington correspondent gives the following account of the origin of the difficulty into which Pooley, the English cricketer, got in New Zealand: “In one or two places members of the team found pigeons to pluck in various ways. One was by offering to take certain odds that they would name the individual score of every member of the team playing against them. When they got this on they wrote down a duck's-egg to each name, the odds rendering it a certainty that if only two or three duck's-eggs were made—as they were sure to be—they would win. Pooley, in Christchurch, got a bet of this kind on with an engineer named Donkin, and then boasted of how he had him. Donkin, seeing he was caught, declared he would cry off. After the match Pooley demanded the £36 due to him if the bet stood. Donkin refused to pay, and a row ensued, in which blows were exchanged. Later on Pooley overtook Donkin in the street, and again assaulted him in a savage manner. Donkin, Pooley, and others were staying at the same hotel, but in consequence of Pooley's threats, Donkin did not go home that night. In the morning it was discovered the door of the room he occupied usually had been forced in; all his clothes, &c., to the value of some £36 [LOL!—exactly the same as the bet], cut up into ribbons, and a large number of valuable engineering plans also destroyed." The proceedings, which were subsequently against Pooley have already been reported.

The English cricketers have been playing with some success in New Zealand. At Christchurch, where 12,000 persons witnessed the sport, they beat the local twenty-two by 23 runs. The Otago match, played at Dunedin, resulted in a draw. At the conclusion of this match, Pooley was arrested upon a warrant from Christchurch for wilfully damaging property above the value of L5, was brought before the local bench, and remanded to Christchurch. Bail was allowed, himself in L100, and two sureties of L50 each. At the forthcoming even match in Melbourne, between the English team and eleven Australians, Victoria will be represented by six, and New South Wales by five, players. A match with eleven united metropolitan players of Melbourne resulted in a victory for the colonials.

“Edward Pooley, a good wicketkeeper and moderate wit, had bet a local that he could predict each man's score when a Canterbury 18 batted against the tourists on the morrow. The Kiwi agreed that he would pay a pound for every one Pooley got right, and receive a shilling for each wrong guess. Pooley then forecast a duck for each player. With the wickets of 1877 he was on to a sure thing. He should have understood colonial sensibility better. The ensuing fracas saw him detained, charged with damage and causing a disturbance, and unable to continue the tour. But things worked out all right for Edward, as sympathisers presented him with 50 quid and a gold watch before he sailed home later via America.” By the time of his team-mates arrived in Melbourne, he had already been fined £5 for assaulting Donkin; “in the second case Pooley and Bramhall were committed for trial for wilfully damaging Donkin's property, bail being allowed.” Pooley, now aged 38, though declaring himself only 33, was the outstanding English wicket-keeper. He had turned down an opportunity to join the very first tour to Australia of 1861-62, because, as he candidly admitted, 'Lor bless yer, guv'nor, I was doin' a bit of sweetheartin' at the time.’ Later, as a wicket-keeper, he set new standards of liveliness and bravery, standing up to all manner of bowling, in the custom of the day, and, not surprisingly, sustaining many injuries. He lost three teeth, broke his nose and by the end of his career possessed 'two fists that are mere lumps of deformity'. Controversy and Pooley seemed inseparable and he was frequently out of favour over allegations for throwing matches for money and other crises related to betting and alcohol.” “Although Edward Pooley was stated to have been born at Richmond (Surrey) on February 13th, 1843, more recent research shows that he was actually born in 1838 so he is now 30 years of age. During his short career he has become recognised as one of the finest wicket-keepers ever to have played and a worthy successor to the far-famed Tom Lockyer. Only small and lightly built, he is a free-scoring batsman and earned his place in the Surrey side on his brilliant if showy batting before establishing himself as Lockyer's successor in 1866. In the following year he became the first wicket-keeper ever to capture 50 victims in a season and last season took his grand total to 81 for the season. Admittedly much of his cricket was at the Oval where the pitch made his particular art easy but his figures are incredible and there is no doubt that he will remain at the top of the tree for many years to come. He first played with the East Surrey Club at the Rosemary branch ground in Peckham, close to where he lived and he first appeared for his native county in 1861, also playing a few times for Middlesex in 1864-65.” “In 1864 he opened a cricket and cigar store in Islington being engaged as a ground-bowler at the Middlesex headquarters. Three years later he scored 1148 runs and took 120 victims in all cricket and a benefit match was played for him on his home ground at Richmond Green. Last season he created a record by stumping 4 and catching 8 against Sussex at the Oval - a record that will take some beating - and he performed excellently throughout the year.” Little conception of their struggles in Australia, whose press gathered from their results that all had gone swimmingly. Report circulated in some of the minor papers: “The Englishmen have been winning back their lost laurels in New Zealand, and in fact have licked their opponents into a ‘cocked hat.’” Undefeated in their eight matches, winning five of them by an innings.

By a telegram published in another column it will be seen that Pooley, “the wicket-keeper of the world,” has been arrested on a charge of damaging property at Christchurch, New Zealand, and that he is to return to that town for trial on March 12.

Pooley, of the All-England Eleven, who got into trouble at Christchurch, New Zealand, will probably be detained there some time. On Monday last he was fined £5 and costs for assaulting Ralph Donkin; and in the second case Pooley and Bramhall were committed for trial for wilfully destroying Donkin's property. Bail was allowed.

The Englishmen, then, without their first-choice wicketkeeper. This much is famous. What is less widely known is that they were also without their reserve wicketkeeper: “Harry Jupp was suffering from an inflammation of the eyes.... Jupp was not trusted to keep wicket but the lack of any reserve meant that he had to play.” Begbie: “John Selby was no keeper, and neither was the diminutive Surrey batsman Harold Jupp, who took a turn with the gloves [sic] as the Australian innings unfolded.” Pooley perhaps was no longer in the very flush and prime of his powers, but he was still very near them. In that year’s Lillywhite’s Companion was run an old piece by John Lillywhite recommending to young wicketkeepers that “above all things you imitate the style of Pooley or Biddulph.” “In those days my father [Southerton] used to tell me travelling was a difficult business. The team had to get around in what are known as Cobb's coaches. Often they had a 200-mile journey to do, sitting on bare boards all night, and when they arrived at their destination they had breakfast, and then went out to prepare the pitch on which they were to play a few hours later.” Pooley “native of Richmond”—Richmond-upon-Thames, not Richmond in Victoria. “Eventually he was acquitted and his friends gave him a watch and a purse of sovereigns, but Pooley played no more with the team.” “A particularly dangerous batsman to any bowler sensitive of trundling honors, especially if the bowling be at all loose.... It is said of him that he can score off any bowling.” “Pooley this season is batting better than ever. He played a merry and remarkably fine innings with Surrey v. Gloucestershire a few months since, scoring 63 out of 97 obtained, and 22 in his second innings—the 63 consisting of two 5's, five 4's, six 3's, two 2's, and singles. Batting average for last season 12.6.” “As a wicketkeeper he stands unrivalled. Not second to even Lockyer, Hammond, Chatterton, Wellman, Jenner, or Box, of former renown. His great command over all styles of bowling and the facility with which he takes the ball from either side of the wicket, must be seen to be appreciated. In a late match between Gloucestershire and Surrey, with WG Grace at the wickets, and three more to follow, 32 runs were required to secure a victory, but this was not obtained within 26 runs, Pooley having most magnificently caught five out in the final innings, a performance which justly earned for him great honors, stamped him as the undoubted best wicketkeeper of the day, and unquestionably gained for Surrey a victory.” From Grubber’s “Cricket Notes” in Week, March 10: “A little flutter of excitement has been caused by a newspaper telegram from New Zealand to the effect that Pooley of All England fame is under arrest for wilful damage to property. I suppose it is something worse than stumping New Zealanders, or hitting the ball through a plate glass window, or the prosecutor would not take such extreme measures. I expect to hear that the affair is arranged in time to enable Pooley to take his share in the match against the combined team at Melbourne this month.” “Pooley was found guilty of assaulting a man, and fined £5 and costs, as well as committed for trial for wilfully destroying his property over a betting transaction.” “Local reporters [after the team’s second loss to NSW XV in January] suggested that the travelling was probably the cause of their wretched batting, ‘for it is impossible for men to play cricket with only one day’s rest after the passage up from Melbourne.’” Melburnian reporters ahead of this match (and indeed after) were rather less sympathetic. Third Man “Cricket Notes” Weekly Times, February 24: “The Eleven are expected from New Zealand on the 12th.” The Australasian [date?] had expected them to arrive back from New Zealand “about the 12th March, or probably a day earlier.” Weekly Times [same date as Australasian] agrees on March 12. By March 10 Melbourne Advocate and Hamilton Spectator expecting them on March 13. Herald, March 12: “The Englishmen may be expected to arrive tomorrow evening, and the match will commence on Thursday.” “Lillywhite expects [in a letter published in The Australasian on February 24] to conclude his New Zealand tour by March 7, arriving at Melbourne about March 12. The Eleven are quite enraptured with the grand scenery of Maori Land.” Ahead of first-ever match by a team of English tourists in Australia, on New Year’s Day 1862, HH Stephenson “trained in secret with his eleven, seven miles out in the bush,” “so that he wouldn't be mobbed by enthusiasts.” Even then objected to the idea of playing against 22 Melburnians, on the basis that after sixty days at sea, this would be taxing to their fitness; insisted on eighteen, and had his way over the vocal objections of the press. After Grace’s team, in opening match of their 1873/74 tour, slipped up against eighteen Victorians by an innings and 21 runs, Grace in a war of words with the Australasian newspaper, which impugned the quality of his team: “WG replied that the colonial cricket writers knew little about their task, and he said that he would like to see a Victorian team perform at its best in England after 40 days at sea. The Australasian's reply to this was that the All England XI had a fortnight to practice before the first match.” Had a point: Six years before, ahead of the most famous single-wicket match ever played in Australia, the Victorian contingent, represented by those famous names Wills, Cosstick, and Conway, “started per steamer You Yangs from the Australian Wharf, on Tuesday, the 4th April, and after a long though not boisterous passage of seventy hours, landed in Sydney on the following Friday, at two o'clock in the afternoon, and took up their quarters at Garmon's Oxford Hotel. The Victorians, thinking that the match would be commenced on Easter Monday, were well contented with two and a half clear days prior to the match being left open to their disposal for practice, and recovering from the effects of the rather long sea voyage, but when they heard that the match would be commenced on the Saturday, according to arrangement, their consternation may be better imagined than described. There was no help for it. Wills had agreed, on behalf of the Victorians, to begin the match on the above-named day, and for reasons best known to himself, he either declined or forgot to acquaint his confreres with this arrangement. However, our men made good use of the short time they had, and commenced practice on the Albert ground at three o'clock on the Friday. The Gregories had been practising incessantly for several weeks prior to the appointed day, and they showed wonderful improvement both in bowling and batting; they also paid particular attention when hitting to keep one foot behind the crease.” Third Man in Weekly Times, March 10: “They should be in rare form by this time, and, considering the success they have met with in New Zealand, where they have won every match, they should enter into the contest against the combined Australians with confidence that will in itself help them on to victory. The game, however, will be a keenly-contented one if the colonial bowling does not entirely break down.” Point “Cricket Gossip” Leader, March 17: “The Australians are strong in batting and in fielding capacity, so that I feel assured they will make a creditable slow, and perhaps run the Englishmen very close on the first innings, as the latter only arrived from New Zealand on Wednesday morning, and cannot possibly recover their land legs in time to be in their best form during the first part of the match.” “That tour of Lillywhite's team will live forever in cricketing annals, not only because it was the first time Australia ever met England on equal terms and gave the visitors a hiding, but because of the appalling sequence of incidents that marked England's four months' tour. There are those, of course, who will argue that Lillywhite's team did not represent England, that it was merely a collection of English professionals who weren't even the best professionals available. However, the fact is the Test series does start with Lillywhite's team of un-lily white professionals, and that during that tour Eleven Australians made history by beating Eleven Englishmen on the Melbourne Cricket Ground.” Tired. Every muscle seemed to be talking. “During a brief tour of New Zealand in early February, their wicketkeeper, Pooley, was arrested and detained on a charge of having wilfully damaged private property. When the Englishman had returned—without Pooley—and were in Melbourne, the Test was arranged.” That last bit untrue. Day-before preview in Ballarat Star and other small papers: “The fact that Pooley, who remains in New Zealand to arrange his little difficulty with the authorities there who have unkindly committed him for trial for damaging property, will not play, has put heart into our men, and although our team is not the best that might have been selected if circumstances were favourable, great hope is entertained that we shall prove strong enough to make a good fight. With fine weather, if the match does not from the first prove too one sided an one we may expect to see a vast attendance on the greenly turfed Melbourne Cricket Ground on the four days of the match.” Point “Cricket Gossip” Leader, March 17: “The Englishmen will be even more [?]ed in this match than when here be[?] [?]d were deprived of Jupp's services, [?]y they are without Pooley, their crack wicket-keeper, who has got into serious trouble in New Zealand, and, according to the telegram, appeared before the magistrates at Christchurch on Monday last, and after being fined £5 for an assault, was committed for [?]r maliciously damaging property. In his absence Selby will don the pads and gloves, and it is stated that he makes a creditable show behind the wickets.” Same thing, but to a lesser degree, on their first visit to Melbourne almost four months ago: “arriving there at midnight on Monday, after a very rough passage, all being sea sick. Although so late, a great many cricketers met us, and welcomed us to our quarters, the Old White Hart; and the next morning the Mayor invited us to the Town Hall, formally welcoming us to Melbourne. The weather had been very wet all over Victoria for nearly a fortnight, and, heavy rains continuing, practice was almost out of the question, so swampy were the grounds.” Fortunately had no fixture there on that occasion.

INVERCARGILL, Thursday. The English Eleven have finished their New Zealand tour, and leave the Bluff for Melbourne per Alhambra tonight. The Eleven in their first innings against Invercargill scored 168, including 19 extras. Greenwood made 66, Selby 27, Armitage 16, Shaw 6, Jupp 4. The Invercargill team in their first innings scored 47, and in their second innings 46. Hill, Lillywhite, Southerton, and Emmett divided the bowling honours.

Pooley, the cricketer, was fined £5 and costs for assaulting Ralph Donkin; and in the second case Pooley and Bramhall wore committed for trial for wilfully destroying Donkin's property. Bail was allowed.

Their preparation for the Test was somewhat different to the modern routine of pre-match practice days and careful planning. They arrived in Melbourne less than 24 hours before the start of the match after a fraught, six-week sojourn in New Zealand where they had frequent brushes with death in some of the most primitive travelling conditions imaginable. Several players almost drowned while crossing Otira Gorge on South Island, while hair-raising stagecoach journeys threatened life and limb. The side that lined up against Bannerman and co on Thursday, March 15, 1877, for the first Test was shattered and still suffering the after-effects of seasickness (Tom Armitage, a tall and strapping Yorkshire all-rounder, was reportedly so ill that he was barely able to stand up). Nor was it simply a case of leaving him out or any of his colleagues. With every penny eating into profits, the squad consisted of just 12 players, meaning little rest whether fit or not.

By the time that England got to Melbourne, they were down to the bare bones of 11 after wicketkeeper Ted Pooley had been thrown in jail. Pooley bet a man named Ralph Donkin that he could predict the score of each member of the local 18 in a match against the tourists in Christchurch, nominating nought as each man’s figure. Sure enough, a generous number of ducks ensued, leading to a handsome profit. However, Donkin refused to pay and a scuffle took place, resulting in Pooley’s arrest and that of Alf Bramall, the touring team’s baggage man. Pooley and Bramall were charged with damaging Donkin’s property and kept in New Zealand pending trial. Their case was not heard until over a fortnight after the Test, whereupon both were acquitted. Considering them hard done to, the locals raised £50 and presented a gold watch to Pooley, who returned to England alone.

The circumstances which have compelled Lillywhite's eleven to return from New Zealand without Pooley arose out of a row at Christchurch. Pooley, it seems, made what is called a "catch bet" with another man, who when he found he had lost it refused to pay. This led to a strong remonstrance on the part of Pooley. His opponent retorted with a stick, which is said to have laid open the wicketkeeper's head and cut his face. Pooley at once fell upon the assailant with his fists, and thrashed him severely. For this assault he was fined at the police court. On the evening of the same day, subsequently to the consumption of a good deal of liquor, the portmanteau of some gentleman (Mr Ralph Donkin) in the hotel where all parties stayed was found to have been cut to pieces and papers in it partly destroyed. Suspicion fell upon Pooley and Bramhall, the money-taker of the eleven, who were apprehended. They were remanded until the 12th inst., and admitted to bail. Before the Eleven left Dunedin, Pooley had gone back to Christchurch.

WELLINGTON, WEDNESDAY. […] At Christchurch the action against Pooley, the English cricketer, was postponed, to enable witnesses to arrive from Melbourne, who, it is said, can prove that Pooley was not implicated in the affair.

The first time Edward ‘Ted’ Pooley died, it was liver cancer that killed him. That was in Brighton in 1899, when he was 57. “Surrey Cricketer Dead,” the papers said. Problem being, Pooley was still alive and living at that point in Lambeth Infirmary, where he was receiving treatment for his rheumatic gout. So Pooley enjoyed the unusual privilege of reading his own obituaries, which described the “free and resolute batting” of this “once-famous cricketer”. Eight years later, Pooley was 12 years older, having since admitted that he’d been lying about his age ever since he started playing cricket professionally. He was still in Lambeth Infirmary, next door to the poorhouse, when he died for the second time, of “paralysis and complications”. This, then, was one of those rare occasions when newspapers were able to take a second go at that “rough first draft of history” which is their daily business. Again, they mentioned Pooley’s attacking batting and his deft ‘keeping, especially to the slow bowlers. They told the story of how he got his start, how he had started as a slow bowler but had persuaded his skipper to give him a try behind the stumps though he had never done it before. And how he once dismissed 12 batsmen in the match against Sussex, eight caught and four stumped, still a record in English first class cricket. And the 93 he made in Canterbury week while batting with a broken finger. In Wisden, his obituarist reckoned “two or three pages” of the Almanack “could easily be filled with details of his doings”. Odd thing was, most of the write-ups omitted the one detail Pooley would come to be remembered for, even now, a century after his death. Ted Pooley was at the centre of one of international cricket’s very first betting scandals. If Pooley is known at all now, it is because he should have been in England’s team for the very first Test, against Australia at Melbourne in 1877. But he missed it, because he was in a prison cell in Christchurch. Pooley was a gambling man, though he often tried to deny it. He was once involved in what one of his obituaries described as “a certain unpleasantness” in a match against Yorkshire at Bramall Lane, when he was accused of trying to lose. “I never was a gambler on cricket,” Pooley said. But Surrey suspended him when it was proven that he had won a bottle of champagne in a wager with a colleague. Pooley had it with his breakfast and so had to be replaced as ‘keeper just after lunch. Despite that, Pooley was picked by James Lillywhite for England’s tour of Australia and New Zealand in 1876-77. In Christchurch, England were due to play 18 men of Canterbury, in what they called an “odds match”, the bookmakers’ prices published in the local papers. Pooley struck a wager with a man named Ralph Donkin. He bet Donkin a shilling apiece that each of Canterbury’s 18 batsmen would be out for a duck. A fair bet, but for the fact that Pooley was injured and unable to play, so stood as umpire instead. In the end 11 men were out for nought, and Pooley won a healthy sum. Donkin refused to pay. He said that he had declared the bet off before the game. So Pooley punched him three times in the face. Donkin later accused Pooley of breaking into his hotel room and trashing his belongings. Pooley was arrested, along with England’s kit man, Alfred Bramhall, and a trial scheduled. The team travelled on to Melbourne without them, and John Selby took over as wicketkeeper for the first Test. Pooley was eventually found not guilty of destroying Donkin’s property. He travelled back to England with Bramhall, arriving home a month after the rest of the team. The scandal hardly seemed to make the British papers. The Times later mentioned that Lillywhite’s team has “laboured under the tremendous handicap of having to take the field without their wicket-keeper”, because he was “mixed up in a fracas”. His obituaries didn’t mention it, either time he died, just as they glossed over the circumstances that caused him to fetch up in the poorhouse. “The faults of private character that marred Pooley’s career and were the cause of the poverty in which he spent the later years of his life there is no need now to speak,” noted Wisden. “He was in many ways his own enemy, but even to the last he had a geniality and sense of humour that to a certain extent condoned his weaknesses.” Pooley’s story is always worth returning to, a reminder that cricket has always been a game for gamblers. And so long as that’s the case, you can no more eradicate fixing than you can avarice. Sri Lanka have just suspended their fast bowling coach, Anusha Samaranayake, because he has been accused of trying to help fix the first Test against West Indies at Galle last October. Samaranayake is alleged to have brought a new net bowler, Gayan Vishwajith into the team set-up, though he had no serious experience at top-level cricket. Vishwajith has been accused of trying to bribe two players to throw the game. Galle’s groundsman, Jayananda Warnaweera, also has been suspended for three years by the ICC because he failed to co-operate with an investigation into fixing. In South Africa Gulam Bodi has been banned for 20 years after he admitted to attempting to fix matches in the Ram Slam T20. In New Zealand, Mohammad Amir has just taken three for 28 in his first ODI since he came back into cricket. And in Pakistan, Salman Butt has been in fine form for the Water and Power Development Authority, with successive scores of 135, 99*, 6, 30, 81*, 95 and 90. Mohammad Asif, playing for the same side, has been a little less impressive while opening the bowling. The authorities felt unable to impose a lifetime ban on any of them, partly because the prospect of a comeback served as an inducement to secure their co-operation in their investigations. All exist, then, in this uneasy twilight, neither entirely condemned or entirely condoned, guilty, but playing again. Like Pooley. Only you wonder whether their obituary writers will be so forgiving.

In First-Class cricket, the first man to be suspended for selling a match was the old Surrey wicketkeeper Ted Pooley. In the wake of the betting scandals that have rocked the cricket world, and laments about the modern day corruption bringing the ‘gentleman’s game’ to disrepute, Arunabha Sengupta recalls the first incident of a cricketer being suspended for throwing matches — in 1873. The great gentleman’s game has been brought into disrepute by the evils of the modern day, the snares of blatant commercialisation and untold greed. Cricket, played with the loftiest ideals from the pristine days of the past, has had its spotless image grotesquely tarnished by the huge ugly smudges of money grabbing palms. Spot-fixing and betting scandals have taken the game to an unprecedented low. And so on and so forth … all the incredible nonsense we all like to indulge in, basking in the afterglow of a manufactured past of rosy retrospection, denigrating the present with caustic criticism. Well, if one casts aside romantic bed-time stories about incorruptible cricketers of ye olde village greens, and looks at the pages of history, one finds that match fixing is as old as the game itself. As mentioned in earlier articles, cricket has been played for great stakes ever since its inception in the eighteenth century. And throwing matches was extremely rampant among the cricketers of that era — a period often assumed to be the age of innocence. Nor is this the first time the game has been defiled by filthy lucre. As early as 1832 John Nyren lamented the way cricket was increasingly being played for money. And in the 1860s, novelist Anthony Trollope was disgusted with cricket because of the increasing amount of commercialisation. In fact, the earliest predecessors of S Sreesanth and his cronies — banned for tampering with the match for money — stem from far back across the hoary past, way, way before Mohammad Asif, Mohammad Aamer and Mohammad Azharuddin and Hansie Cronje. The trend setter In First-Class cricket, the first man to be suspended for “selling a match” was the old Surrey wicketkeeper Ted Pooley. And it happened in June 1873. Yorkshire won the match at Bramall Lane, Sheffield, by eight wickets, and Pooley, who had scored 10 and a duck and taken one catch in the match, was found guilty of betting on the game and was not allowed to play for the rest of the season. Pooley was not amused. According to his version, he did gamble on the match, but the bets had been minor. “I took one bet of five shillings to half a crown (two to one) that five Yorkshire players did not get 70 runs.” He did win the bet, and used the proceeds to gulp down a large quantity of champagne during breakfast, finally unleashing an inebriated tirade on the players and the officials. He had to be replaced as wicketkeeper after lunch. Even Wisden, notorious for avoiding references to the many shades of grey touching the game, was forced to write about some “appalling occurrence” during the game. Surrey’s minutes record Pooley’s suspension due to ‘insubordination and misconduct’, but it is no secret that a lot of money had changed hands. Pooley proceeded to enjoy the break from the remainder of the season, raking in a good amount of money by playing minor cricket. It was not the last time that Pooley was involved in cricket linked gambling. He went on to become Test cricket’s first betting casualty. Pooley had travelled to Australia with the English cricketers in 1876-77, and was all set to be the wicketkeeper in what later became the first ever Test match. However, as the England team took on the Australians at Melbourne, he spent his time in a Christchurch prison cell after being arrested for betting. Yes, Pooley was also sent to prison for being involved in cricket linked gambling — more than a century and a quarter before modern players slinked along his dubious footsteps. Pooley, sidelined by a leg injury, had stood umpire in a match against a Canterbury XVIII team during the New Zealand leg of the tour. During this game, Pooley had taken on the wager of Ralph Donkin, a railway engineer who was staying in town. The odds had been 20-1 that Pooley would not be able to predict the individual score of each batsman. Given the enormous difference between the standards of the Englishmen and the local players, Pooley bet a shilling on each batsman registering a duck. Eleven of them did, and we cannot be entirely sure that Pooley did not help them along with his canny umpiring. So, Pooley set the precedent of an umpire being involved in a betting scandal 136 years before the likes of Asad Rauf. In those days, it was actually not uncommon for cricketers to bet on matches. Odds were published in the papers. Match reports often recorded the wagers and purses on offer. However, even by the standards of that murky era, Pooley was one heavy gambler. Finally, the Surrey wicketkeeper stood to gain £36 — a good amount of money in 1877. Donkin, however, refused to pay. In the smoking room of the hotel the cricketers were staying in, Pooley confronted Donkin and threw punches at him, reportedly hitting him three times on the face. And after Donkin spent an evening in the town, he returned to his room to find all his clothes torn to shreds. Pooley moved to Dunedin with the team, but was arrested and brought back to Christchurch. He was fined for assault and subsequently found not guilty on charges of wilful damage of property. But, by the time he was released, the Test match had been over for a fortnight. Nottinghamshire batsman John Selby had put on the gloves for England during the match. A whip-round was arranged by the sympathetic locals of Christchrurch and Pooley got £50 for all his troubles along with a gold ring. He returned to England in the early days of July, a month after his teammates, and never played a Test match. The trendsetter of gambling and match-fixing in cricket passed away bankrupt in a Lambeth workhouse in 1907. (Sengupta “140 years before” CricketCountry.com, 24 May 2013.)

Ted Pooley was a top class wicketkeeper, and would have been a superb batsman had his hands not been constantly damaged due to his duties behind the stumps. Unfortunately he was also the first man to be suspended for “selling a match”. It happened in June 1873. Yorkshire won the match at Bramall Lane, Sheffield, by eight wickets, and Pooley, who had scored 10 and a duck and taken one catch in the match, was found guilty of betting on the game and was not allowed to play for the rest of the season. Pooley was not amused. According to his version, he did gamble on the match, but the bets had been minor. “I took one bet of five shillings to half a crown (two to one) that five Yorkshire players did not get 70 runs.” He did win the bet, and used the proceeds to gulp down a large quantity of champagne during breakfast, finally unleashing an inebriated tirade on the players and the officials. He had to be replaced as wicketkeeper after lunch. Even Wisden, notorious for avoiding references to the many shades of grey touching the game, was forced to write about some “appalling occurrence” during the game. Surrey’s minutes record Pooley’s suspension due to ‘insubordination and misconduct’, but it is no secret that a lot of money had changed hands. Pooley proceeded to enjoy the break from the remainder of the season, raking in a good amount of money by playing minor cricket. It was not the last time that Pooley was involved in cricket linked gambling. He went on to become Test cricket’s first betting casualty. He had travelled to Australia with the English cricketers in 1876-77, and was all set to be the wicketkeeper in what later became the first ever Test match. However, as the England team took on the Australians at Melbourne, he spent his time in a Christchurch prison cell after being arrested for betting. Yes, Pooley was also sent to prison for being involved in cricket linked gambling — more than a century and a quarter before modern players slinked along his dubious footsteps. Pooley, sidelined by a leg injury, had stood umpire in a match against a Canterbury XVIII team during the New Zealand leg of the tour. During this game, Pooley had taken on the wager of Ralph Donkin, a railway engineer who was staying in town. The odds had been 20-1 that Pooley would not be able to predict the individual score of each batsman. Given the enormous difference between the standards of the Englishmen and the local players, Pooley bet a shilling on each batsman registering a duck. Eleven of them did, and we cannot be entirely sure that Pooley did not help them along with his canny umpiring. So, Pooley set the precedent of an umpire being involved in a betting scandal 136 years before the likes of Asad Rauf. In those days, it was actually not uncommon for cricketers to bet on matches. Odds were published in the papers. Match reports often recorded the wagers and purses on offer. However, even by the standards of that murky era, Pooley was one heavy gambler. Finally, the Surrey wicketkeeper stood to gain £36 — a good amount of money in 1877. Donkin, however, refused to pay. In the smoking room of the hotel the cricketers were staying in, Pooley confronted Donkin and threw punches at him, reportedly hitting him three times on the face. And after Donkin spent an evening in the town, he returned to his room to find all his clothes torn to shreds. Pooley moved to Dunedin with the team, but was arrested and brought back to Christchurch. He was fined for assault and subsequently found not guilty on charges of wilful damage of property. But, by the time he was released, the Test match had been over for a fortnight. Nottinghamshire batsman John Selby had put on the gloves for England during the match. A whip-round was arranged by the sympathetic locals of Christchrurch and Pooley got £50 for all his troubles along with a gold ring. He returned to England in the early days of July, a month after his teammates, and never played a Test match. The trendsetter of gambling and match-fixing in cricket passed away bankrupt in a Lambeth workhouse in 1907. Ted Pooley was born on February 13, 1842. NSW men arrive The ss City of Melbourne cleared Sydney Heads at 20 minutes past 6pm on Tuesday, passed Cape St George at 2am on Wednesday, passed Cape Howe at five minutes past 8pm, rounded Wilson’s Promontory at 8am yesterday, and entered Port Phillip Heads at a quarter to 5pm. Moderate and light head winds with hazy weather were experienced to Montague Island, thence to Cape Howe light variable winds and fine, from thence to Wilson's Promontory moderate NE winds and calm with hazy and foggy weather, and the remainder of the passage light moderate SW winds and fine. Passed ss You Yangs five miles NE off the Promontory.

March 8-9 am: Wind NNW, moderate; weather cloudy, fine. Barometer, 30.20; thermometer, 70. 1 pm: Wind W., light; weather cloudy, fine. Barometer, 30.22; thermometer, 71. 4 pm: Wind S., fresh, fine. Barometer, 30.19; thermometer, 62.

ARRIVED: MARCH 8. City of Melbourne, 615 tons, JW Brown, from Sydney. Passengers—saloon: Mrs Roper, Mrs Mackay and three children, Mrs JM South and child, Mrs Howard, Mrs George, Mrs Devere, Mrs G. Palmer, Mrs F. Beaumont, Mrs Amning, Mrs Thompson, Miss Chrichton, Miss Sidgwick, Miss Graham, Miss Killey, Miss Anderson, Rev. JH Morton, Dr JM Peebles, Captain Torrance, Messrs Clonslie, T. Oliver, Inghams, JH Davedson, Killey, WC Speeding, Devere, JO White, L. Roper, HA McDermoth, Canon, JW Belhatt, RN Newby, Toohey, Dillon, Thompson, Bannerman, Crump, R. Amning, Diamond, Thompson, Gregory, Garrett, D. Gregory, Elder, Williams, Anderson, Robertson; and 68 in the steerage. W. Siddeley and Co., agents.

IMPORTS: MARCH 8. (A special charge is made on consignees' announcements inserted in this column.) City of Melbourne, ss, from Sydney: 207 bags maize, 92 bags seeds, 157 bags oysters, 500 cases salmon, 81 cases telegraph pins, 1,160 ingots tin, 491 ingots copper, 1,909 cakes capper, 6 baskets prawns, and 832 packages sundries.

March 8, 9 am Barometer At Sea Level: 30 226 Attached Therm.: 65.2 Temp. of Air: 72.7 March 8, 3 pm Barometer At Sea Level: 30 160 Attached Therm.: 68.8 Temp. of Air: 69.5

The Intercolonial handball-players arrived from Sydney last evening by the City of Melbourne, and were met by Mr Curtain, MLA, chairman of the Victorian Handball Committee, and drives to Carlton, to Mr Leahy's Loughrea Hotel, were they intend staying during their sojourn in the colony. The players consist of Messrs Toohey (captain), Dillon, Thompson, and Crump. The series of games to decide the contest will commence in about a fortnight, and will be played at Mr Leahy's Handball Court, where ample accommodation for spectators will be provided.

The five New South Wales cricketers who are to take part next week with Victoria in the match against the All England Eleven arrived from Sydney last evening. This will be the first occasion on which the representatives of the two colonies—who have often met as foes—will enter the field as colleagues. The ss City of Melbourne landed her passengers at such an unexpectedly early hour—this is about the best explanation that can be offered—that hardly any of the Melbourne cricketers were present to welcome them either at Sandridge or at the Duke of Rothsay Hotel, Elizabeth street, where quarters had been provided for the visitors. But so easy is it to name the hour at which a steamer will reach the bay, now that we know when she passes Wilson's Promontory, that the poorness of the welcome cannot be readily excused. Even the arrangements of the association, who were represented by Mr Conway and Mr Peryman, miscarried, but this was due to an accident. They drove down to Sandridge and the steamers passengers were brought up to town by special train. The New South Wales men had a fine passage round from Sydney, and landed in excellent health. They are all in what is called good form. Nat Thompson, whose name has not been absent from an intercolonial match for many years was in better practice when he left Sydney than he perhaps ever was in his life before. Both the Gregory's have come well prepared, and Bannerman's recent performances can be spoken of as satisfactorily as those of any of the rest. Mr Garrett is a young gentleman who has lately come to the front. He batted with great nerve in the opening match against the Englishmen at Sydney, and may be expected to render valuable service in all departments of the game and particularly as an expert fieldsman. The Sydney men will commence practice on the MCC ground this forenoon. The 10 Victorians from whom the selection committee has to make its choice of six, have already begun their exercises and may be seen at work in the afternoon. The six will be chosen tomorrow. Allan, Kendall, Midwinter, Blackham, Kelly and Horan are regarded as the probable men. Though Sydney has not been able to send her prize bowler Evans, an eleven made up of the names given above must be regarded as the strongest that could be brought together on an occasion like the present to represent Australia. A more powerful team might be put down on paper but it is to be remembered that neither Victoria nor New South Wales—though each can always muster a strong eleven for a home match—has ever been able to send all her first class players out of the colony. Two difficulties to be overcome are the choice of a captain and the choice of an umpire and the confidence which the public are likely to repose in the representatives of Australia will be proportionate to the good sense and large mindedness which they bring to the settlement of the first difficulty. The All England Eleven are expected to reach Melbourne next Tuesday.

March 8, 9 pm Barometer at Sea Level: 30 250 Attached Therm.: 67.0 Temp. of Air: 60.5 March 9, 9am Barometer at Sea Level: 30 256 Attached Therm.: 67.1 Temp. of Air: 70.0 March 9, 3 pm Barometer at Sea Level: 30 172 Attached Therm.: 70.4 Temp. of Air: 80.7.

From Observations taken at 9 am Yesterday […] Melbourne. Bar.: 30.15. Ther.: 70. Wind Point: E. Wind Force: Light. General Remarks: Fine, clear.

The Sydney division of the Combined Australian Eleven practised on the MCC ground yesterday forenoon. They ware all in remarkably good form, and no allowance needed to be made for the effects of the voyage from which they landed on the previous evening. Bannerman batted extremely well, and hit with great vigour. Garrett made a fair impression as a medium-paced bowler, and as a free bitter. Midwinter and Cooper played with the Sydney men, and the former gave them some good practice as a bowler. Several of the Victorian team were present during the afternoon. The Selection Committee will choose the six representatives of Victoria today, and the eleven will play together on Monday, when Allan is expected to be in town. The Sydney cricketers will practise in the forenoon today, but the ground will be taken up with a Cup match in the afternoon.

March 9, 9pm Barometer At Sea Level: 30 238 Attached Therm.: 72.0 Temp. of Air: 69.8 March 10, am Barometer At Sea Level: 30 213 Attached Therm.: 72.6 Temp. of Air: 74.5 March 10, 8 pm Barometer At Sea Level: 30 118 Attached Therm.: 72.2 Temp. of Air: 75.3.

Bar.: 30.10 Ther.: 75 Wind Point: NNE Wind Force: Mod. General Remarks: Ocst, sultry; r. .03.

The selection of the six cricketers to represent Victoria in the combined elevon in the match against Lillywhite's English team was not made on Saturday. The storm which interrupted the cricket matches prevented the Selection Committee from meeting, and the six players will be chosen today. The Sydney five practised for several hours on Saturday morning. They will be on the MCC ground in the forenoon today, and again in the afternoon, by which time the names of the complete eleven should be known.

The attentisn [sic] of publicans, caterers, and others is drawn to the fact that the booth sites in connexion with the forthcoming combination cricket match on Thursday next, on the MCC ground, will be submitted to public auction at 12 o'clock tomorrow, at Kirk's Bazaar.

The somewhat oppressive heat experienced on Friday was followed on Saturday afternoon by a storm of thunder and lightning and a deluge of rain. By the conflicting atmospheric currents which seemed to prevail from every point of the compass in succession, the storm was driven several times over the city. At times the lightning was remarkably vivid, and its close proximity was immediately announced by crashes of thunder. The rain fell with more than tropical violence, and the street channels soon became flooded to an extraordinary degree. In the lower portions of Elizabeth-street the current occupied the whole of the roadway and footpaths, rendering the street utterly impassable. Between 20 and 30 footbridges were wrenched from their fixings by the force of the water, and carried far down the atreet. At the Post-office, and for some distance up Bourke-street east, the water rose until the Royal Arcade and the floors of adjoining shops were flooded. In Elizabeth-street some of the shop floors were covered with water to a depth of 18in. In Swanston-atreet, and at the intersection of Little Bourke and Russell streets, the flooding was also considerable. The underground drainage at the intersections of the streets proved quite inadequate to carry off the water, and the pipe at the intersection of Bourke and Russell streets became choked, and still remains in that condition. The thunderstorm appears to have been felt far more forcibly in some localities than in others. It was very severe in the Dandenong and Plenty ranges. A horse and cart belonging to a resident of Glenborough, named Foster, were being brought home from Melbourne, after having discharged a load of wood. The driver of the cart was walking behind, holding on to one of the stays. On the bottom of the cart, as is usual, lay his tools—an axe and a saw. When near Bundoora a flash of lightning struck the cart, and running along the saw, killed the horse, which was a valuable one, on the spot. The marvel is that, standing as he was, with his hand leaning against an iron stay, the man was not struck as well.

A very heavy thunderstorm broke over the town at about a quarter to 5 o'clook yesterday evening. The flood which was thus caused has been very disastrous in places to property, both public and private, though partial in its extent, no rain having fallen at Clunes or Maryborough. The rain seems to have fallen much more heavily here over the town than over the city area. Just as the storm was beginning to clear off the fire bells sounded the alarm, and people rushed to see where the fire was, believing the lightning had ignited some property, but it turned out to be an unconquerable enemy the firemen wore called to face. It was a flood in Ballarat East, where all they could do was to help those in danger and distress. On reaching the scene of the flood it was found that the whole of the lower lying portion of the town, from Barkly-street nearly to the edge of the Canadian Range and from near the foot of Clayton's-hill down beyond Eyre-street continuation, was a turbid sheet of water, in most places up to or over the floors of the different bridges that spanned the water channela, and in one or two cases nearly up to the handrails. In many of the houses near the banks of these channels the water had risen from 2ft to 4ft, causing great consternation to the in-mates, many of whom were women and children. Some of the people, expecting a farther rise, had taken to the roofs of their houses and were screaming and crying for assistance fearing that night would set in before relief could reach them. Theflood this time came from a direction different to that of any that preceded it, and shows that the fall of rain must have been heaviest about the Canadian. All previous floods have come down the Yarrowee. This came down the Caledonian Creek with such sudden impetuosity that all the stores and shops in the Main-road near the creek were flooded to a depth of several feet before anything on the floors could be removed oat of reach of the water. Rodier's Creek next contributed its qnota of water, and gradually the whole of the Mainroad from Barkley-street to the base of the Canadian-hill became a sheet of water. In almost all the lower houses east of Humrfray-street, and along the lower portion of Grenville-street, the water rose from 2ft to 4ft. Great destruction of perishable commodities, such as tea, sugar, flour, rice, salt, hay, chaff, and corn has occurred among the stores and shops on the Main-road. The publicans' cellars are all full, and the damage at the Charlie Napier Brewery from this cause is estimated at £600 or £700. The rush of water has washed away most of the crown of the street, torn up the planking on the footpaths and the footbridges, swept away three houses completely, all of which were occupied; washed away fences and fruit trees and numbers of dogs, pigs, and poultry. Fortunately no persons are missing, and it ia believed no lives are lost, but there were many narrow escapes, the narrowest of all being that of Mr Miller's family. The house in which they lived was a long, low wooden one close to the Caledonian Channel in the Main-road, The water had risen about 21ft when Mr Miller persuaded his wife and daughter, and a Mrs Myers, who had only been confined five days, to get on the top of the table in the parlour. They had scarcely been there two minutes when the house began to move bodily, and the current carried it fairly off the props, and was taking it right into about 12ft, of roaring water, when a young blue gum tree at the back of the building arrested its progress, and saved the inmates from certain destruction. In another case a Chinaman had taken refuge on the top of his hut, but finding it to be giving way to the current, he stripped and trusted to swimming, and saved himself. Before he got across the stream the hut had gone. Mrs Myers' infant died laat night, and she is now delirious. It is a pitiable sight to witness the flooded part of the town, and the state of many of the buildings which seem to have been undermined. A great snake was washed up against a footbridge in Lydiard-street. I learn that the Maryborough train to Ballarat, when crossing the low ground at the Rose hill, had to run through 12in. to 18in. of water for some distance. The police and firemen rendered every assistancein their power, and today many of the latter attended on the sufferers, and helped them to get their places cleaned, and to remove their goods out of the débris.

The violent thunderstorm which happened on Saturday afternoon stopped play at an early hour, and therefore very little progress was made with this match.

The Selection Committee of the Cricketer's Association yesterday chose the six players who are to represent Victoria in the Combined Eleven. The names are—Allan, Blackham, Cooper, Horan, Kendall, and Midwinter. From this it will be seen that Mr BB Cooper has been put in the place which Mr Kelly was expected to occupy, and as Mr Kelly was one of the Selection Committee, the choice may be taken to indicate that the former is in better form than the latter. The MCC practice pitches were somewhat dead yesterday from the effects of Saturday's rain; but Rowley has an excellent strip in preparation for the match. The Eleven is pretty strong in bowlers, and sufficiently well provided with effective batsmen to entitle the public to look forward to an interesting struggle. Nobody can say that the English cricketers have a certainty before them.

The most serions damage caused in the city by the deluge of rain which fell on Saturday afternoon appears to have been the flooding of the wine cellars of Messrs L. Kitz and Co., which form the underground flat of the Globe Hotel, corner of Swanston and Little Bourke streets. Little Bourke street, between Russell and Swanston streets, having become completely inundated, the water poured therefrom into the cellars referred to until they were flooded to within a few feet of the ceiling. Casks of wine were floated off their stands and thrown amongst the other contents of the cellars in great confusion. On Saturday evening and during yesterday men were employed pumping out the water, and late last night they were still engaged at that work. Messrs Kitz and Co. anticipate that their loss will amount to several hundred pounds, but its precise amount will not be known for a few days. A good deal of inconvenience was caused to occupants of shops in the lower part of Elizabeth-street, by their premises being invaded by the water, which on subsiding left a quantity of mud behind; but none of them suffered any material loss by their goods being damaged by the flood. Englishmen arrive “The English players – without Pooley – did not arrive until early on the day before the match and went straight to practise on the ground the same afternoon. Despite this, they appeared to be in ‘first-rate form, Shaw and Emmett particularly being in rare bowling trim.’” “Arriving in Melbourne, Southerton was happy to return to ‘comfortable quarters’ in the Old White Hart, which he described as almost like returning home—‘a shower bath, a change of linen.” Then they bespoke breakfast, which was “good,” and “made us feel once more happy,” and proceeded to the ground in a state of great freshness. Point “Cricket Gossip” Leader, March 17: The Englishmen “practised all Wednesday afternoon, and Shaw, who got a severe wrench during the second day's play at Christchurch, was in first-rate form, and appeared to be very difficult.” During the past month, owing to the departure of the All England Eleven for New Zealand—where, according to the information received, they have been playing with victory on their side throughout—cricketing matters have been very dull in this colony, at least as regards the public internst taken in the various local contests. There is hardly any diminution in the number of matches played each Saturday—every ground indeed in the metropolis and suburbs at least proving the scene of an hebdomadal engagement but since the last international match no contest has been able to draw a large attendance of the public. Some of the leading matches, however have nevertheless proved very exciting and interesting to the clubs concerned, the great gauge of victory being, as usual, the Challenge Cup. When our last summary was despatched a match was in progress for the possession of this trophy between an eleven of the MCC and fifteen of Richmond (the holders). The contest proved a very close and exciting one, and was lost by Richmond by only one run, owing to the bungling of their last two batsmen. Already the South Melbourne club are endeavouring to wrest the prize from its new holders and notwithstanding that the Southerners are playing against some of their former comrades and best cricketers who deserted to the senior club and are under the further disadvantage of being opposed to three professionals, the contest at present wears a very even aspect, the state of the game being—Melbourne first innings 144, South Melbourne first innings 179, Melbourne second innings, with four wickets to fall, 124.

On the return of the Englishmen to Victoria they will play a match at Melbourne against a combined team from the best cricketers in the leading Australian colonies and this contest is looked forward to with great interest. The AEE will, there is no doubt, do their utmost to avenge their former defeats, and with the constant practice they will have had owing to their New Zealand tour the colonials will have all their work to do to retain their honours, even with a considerable handicap. The Englishmen will have the advantage of the presence in their eleven of Jupp, who was prevented by illness from taking part in their previous matches in Sydney and Melbourne, but has now recovered.

On the 5th and 6th inst, New Zealand was visited by disastrous floods. The agricultural districts of Otago suffered greatly, and the railways were broken up in one or two places, but no lives were lost. The Otago Daily Times of the 8th inst. Writes: “The fact that no lives have been lost is the one only bright spot in the terrible disaster that has befallen the province. Until the harvest is fully gathered in we shall be hardly able to compute the magnitude of the disaster. It is hardly too much to say that the yield of agricultural produce throughout Otago is almost halved, and that the destruction of other property, independent of this, will be such as to rival the destruction of cereals in worth. In so far as the farmers are concerned it is almost impossible to overrate the injury they have suffered. It was the very worst time in all the year for them, and their crops are fairly buried in water just when they ought to have been harvested.

The match between the representatives of Australia and Lillywhite's English Eleven will be begun on the M.C.C. ground at 10 o'clock this morning. Play will be stopped at 2 o'clock for lunch, which is to last only half-an-hour, and the stumps finally drawn for the day at 5 o'clock. It has been deemed necessary to begin early and leave off early each day, on account of the bad light which prevails late in the afternoon. The public will be greatly disappointed to hear that Mr Frank Allan cannot play for the colonies. A telegram to that effect was received from him on Tuesday, but there still seemed time to reason him out of his decision, and the fact was withheld from publication. The letter sent in explanation of the telegram, and received yesterday, sets the matter finally at rest. Mr. Allan has refused to come up from Warrnambool, where he is stationed as an officer of the Crown Lands department, on the ground that the present is the carnival week of the district, and he expects to meet many friends in the town whom he may have no other chance to see. He cannot plead on this occasion inability to obtain or disinclination to ask for leave from the department, for, principally at his own suggestion, leave was applied for and obtained on Saturday last. No one is at liberty, of course, to complain because Mr Allan prefers the pleasures of the carnival at Warrnambool to the labour and honour which would fall to his share in the important match to be commenced today in Melbourne, but he might have found out before Tuesday that he two events clashed, and not have led the promoters of the match to believe up to the eleventh hour that his services could be counted on with certainty, for we have been assured that he definitely promised several weeks ago to play. What caused the retirement of Mr Allan to be no much regretted is the probability that many years may elapse before eleven Australians will again meet eleven Englishmen in the field. This is not the first time that it has been found difficult or impossible to bring Mr Allan on to the ground when his services were wanted for the colony. He has always been a doubtful person. Henceforward it will be well for the association to regard him as practically retired, and then no further disappointments can be caused to cricketers or the public. It may interest Mr Allan to learn that his withdrawal was generally attributed yesterday to fear—that with only ten fieldsmen he would not be sufficiently supported. This, of course, is an unfair imputation upon his known and much admired prowess. Several accidents—perhaps the term is somewhat mild—have prevented the appearance of a team which truthfully represents the strength of Australian cricket. To the refusal of Mr Evans no very strong exception can be taken, for a man may have many satisfactory objections to travelling 600 miles from home. The services of Mr Spofforth of Sydney, who stands next in rank to Evans as a New South Wales bowler, were withheld simply because he was not allowed to bring his private wicketkeeper with him. But even though Evans and Spofforth stood out, an eleven which contained Allan wee strong, and the prospects of victory for the colonies by no means bad. As matters stand now, however, we have an eleven minus the best two bowlers in Australia. The selection committee of the association met last evening, to name someone in place of Allan and the choice almost of necessity fell on Hodges, of the Richmond club, whose sole recommendation is that he may prove useful as a change bowler. The team now appears considerably weakened. Lillywhite’s Eleven landed from New Zealand early yesterday morning. For reasons given elsewhere, Pooley, the wicketkeeper, has not come with them. Thus, in an important department, the English team has also been weakened. Selby will take the vacant place, and possibly he able to fill it with credit, but Pooley's absence must be regarded as almost as great a disappointment on the one side as Allan’s is on the other. The Englishmen had a rough passage across, and so have not arrived m the best condition They practised for several hours in the afternoon, and shaped pretty satisfactorily. Jupp, who was not able to bat in the first match, is now in good form, and will largely make up for the loss of Pooley. The umpires will be Mr Curtis Reid for Australia, and Mr Terry, of the MCC, for England; and the scorers, Mr WK Plummer and Mr H. Kennon. Subjoined is a list of the players: AUSTRALIA Bannerman (NSW) Blackham (Vic.) Cooper (Vic.) Garrett (NSW) Gregory, D (NSW) Gregory, E (NSW) Hodges (Vic.) Horan (Vic.) Kendall (Vic.) Midwinter (Vic.) Thompson (NSW) ENGLAND Amitage Charlwood Emmett Greenwood Hill Jupp Lillywhite Shaw Selby Southerton Ulyett The following arrangements have been made by the police for the regulation of the traffic of licensed vehicles attending the match: Disengaged cabs to stand on south side of Wellington parade, to have their horses heads towards the west, and to extend from 60ft east of entrance to Yarra park, the two first cabs to stand within 20ft of entrance. Engaged cabs to stand along south side of the three-rail fence, to have their horses' heads facing eastward, and to extend westward from 17ft. from corner post. Omnibuses to stand on south side of parade, along the fence, to have horses’ heads towards the east, and to extend westward from 20ft west of entrance to Yarra park. Traffic to the ground through Jolimont will not be allowed.

In Pooley’s absence, and with reserve wicketkeeper Harry Jupp suffering “inflammation of the eyes”, the short and thickset Nottinghamshire batsman John Selby was pressed into service behind the stumps. Jupp, a broad-shouldered Surrey batsman nicknamed “Young Stonewaller”, still had to play because there was nobody else.

The rest of the side was made up of five Yorkshiremen in the form of the seasick Armitage; the tall pace bowler and hard-hitting batsman George Ulyett; the wiry left-arm quick and attacking batsman Tom Emmett; the diminutive strokeplayer Andrew Greenwood, and the strong right-arm fast bowler Allen Hill. Sussex had two representatives – pint-sized Harry Charlwood, a hard-hitting, free-scoring batsman and James Lillywhite himself, a slow and steady left-arm bowler.

This match, which has been looked forward to with such great interest, will be commenced on the Melbourne ground today. The Englishmen arrived from New Zealand early yesterday morning, so that they will hardly have recovered their land legs—but they were practising on the Melbourne ground in the afternoon, in the presence of a large number of people, and appeared to be in first-rate form, Shaw and Emmett particularly being in rare bowling trim. They will be greatly weakened by the absence of Pooley, their renowned wicketkeeper; and Selby, who is no mean proficient, will take his place, but they will have Jupp's services as a batsman, which can be accepted as some compensation. The Australian team, in addition to the loss of Evans, is now deprived of the assistance of Allen, who at the last moment wrote to say he would not come. A meeting of the match committee was held upon receipt of this communication, and Hodges was chosen to complete the team. With the best two bowlers of Australia absent the match is shorn of much of its interest; but for all that a splendid game may be anticipated. The respective teams are as follow: ENGLISH Armitage Charlwood Emmett Greenwood Hill Jupp Lillywhite Selby Shaw Southerton Ulyett AUSTRALIA Bannerman (N.S.W.) Blackham (V.) Cooper (V.) Garrett (N.S.W.) Gregory, E., (N.S.W.) Gregory. D., (N.S.W.) Horan (V.) Hodges (V.) Kendall (V.) Midwinter (V.) Thompson (N.S.W.) Umpire, Mr. C. Reid. Play will commence at ten o'clock, and the stumps will be drawn at five o'clock each day, so that neither side will be affected by the bad light. The police regulations for the traffic of licensed vehicles attending the match are as follows: Disengaged cabs to stand on south side of Wellington-parade, to have their horses' heads towards the west, and to extend from sixty feet east of entrance to the Yarra Park, the two first cabs to stand within twenty feet of the entrance. Engaged cabs to stand along south side of the three-rail fence, and to have their horses' heads facing eastward, and to extend westward from 17 feet from corner post. Omnibuses to stand on south side of parade along the fence, to have their horses' heads towards the east, and to extend westward from twenty feet west of entrance to Yarra Park. Traffic to the ground through Jolimont will not be allowed.

The final selection of the eleven colonial players who are to meet the the [sic] All England Eleven having now been made, the interest in the result is daily becoming more intense As stated yesterday the colonial team will consist of Allan, Bannerman, Blackham, Cooper, Garrett, the two Gregorys, Horan, Kendall, Midwinter, and Thompson. It is not submitted that this is the best team that could be selected from among the cricketers of the two leading colonies, but still there are not a few who hold that they are good enough to give the Englishmen a fair battle. To make the team all that could be desired, Spofforth and Evans should find places in the Sydney contingent instead of one of the Gregorys and Thompson, and then we could include Kelly instead of Kendall. This would strengthen the eleven in bowling, in batting, and even in fielding. However, Evans could not come, and Spofforth would not unless Murdoch, the New South Wales wicketkeeper, was one of the Sydney five, alleging that he was only wicketkeeper who knew how to take his (Spofforth's) bowling properly. This was a piece of vanity which was just well met by a refusal. It consequently became necessary to include Kendall as a fourth bowler, the team without him only having Allan, Midwinter and Garrett. In order to make room for Kendall either Kelly or Cooper must be left out, and the selection committee decided to keep Cooper on the list, a decision which does not commend itself in many quarters, albeit, the committee may have reasonable grounds to support them in what they have done. Probably the question of the captainship may have had something to do with the selection, for there was no one in the Victorian contingent who could be entrusted with the leadership if Cooper were left out and Kelly put in his place. If so, the committee have, we think, acted unwisely, for there are one or two amongst the visitors from over the border who could very safely have been entrusted with that important post. However, the selection is now made, and the eleven, no doubt, will do their best to sustain the credit of the colonies in the cricket field. Come what may, it may be safely anticipated that they will not be shamefully beaten, more particularly as from the New Zealand telegram it appears that Pooley will not be amongst the English Eleven, as he has been committed for trial in New Zealand on a charge of wilfully damaging property of over the value of £5. His absence from the wickets will seriously affect the bowlers, and our batsmen will be enabled to play with considerably more freedom than if he were behind them. The English Eleven will consequently consist of Lillywhite, Shaw, Jupp, Greenwood, Hill, Emmett, Armitage, Ulyett Southerton, Selby, and Charlwood, and they will have to select someone in Melbourne to stand umpire for them. It will be seen that the bowling strength of the Englishmen is great, there being Lillywhite, Shaw, Hill, Emmett, Ulyett, Southerton, and Armitage, who may all be put on as trundlers; but the absence of Pooley will undoubtedly affect the bowling of Shaw, Lillywhite, Southerton and Armitage. The most likely man to be put on at the wickets is Greenwood, but at the best he can be but a poor substitute for Pooley. In the batting department there is a decided tail in Lillywhite, Southerton, Hill and Shaw, none of whom can be expected to do much against the bowling and fielding they will meet with in this match. On the other hand there are Jupp, Greenwood, Emmett, Selby, Charlwood, Armitage, and Ulyett, who are all fair bats, while the first three at least may be classed very high. Having regard to the batting talent of the colonial eleven, however, a high average may be expected, even against the bowling of the Englishmen. In their two innings the Australians may be credited with from 220 to 280 runs, or say 120 per innings. This will give their opponents all they can do, and although they most probably will top the total, yet it will not be by a great number, or with many wickets to spare. On the other hand there is a fair possibility of the colonials making even more than we have set down; but, in any case, they ought not to make less, and that score should be sufficient to render the match a close and exciting one. On the whole, therefore, the Englishmen may be expected to win, but they have no certainty before them, and in any event will fail to beat the colonials shamefully. So much for anticipations as to the result. Everything on the ground promises well. Rowley is getting a splendid turf ready, and the wickets will be good enough to please the most fastidious cricketer. The weather also at present appears to hold out hopes of being all that could be desired, but an Australian climate is never to be relied on for a couple of days, and there is no knowing what Thursday may bring forth in this respect. Should it be fine, however, a large attendance may be expected, for this is the first time that the colonies have essayed to meet some of England's best cricketers on even terms, and the result cannot but be anxiously looked forward to. It was understood that the Australian representatives were to have a full practice this morning, but it did not come off. All the Sydney men were on the ground, and went in for net practice, in which they were joined by Midwinter and Terry, the two professional bowlers of the Melbourne Club, the former of whom is engaged in the match. The batting of C. Bannerman was the feature of the day. He hit freely all round the field, but still kept up a good defence. He and Horan are the favorites in the betting as the top scorers on the Australian side. The principal bowlers today were Midwinter, Terry, both Gregorys and Thompson. Kendall was also on the ground, but did not take part in the practice. It is to be regretted that the Victorian players did not all turn up, for it is essential that the team should have some good practice together in the field, and there are plenty of batsman available outside the eleven who could give them some leather hunting, and enable them to get into each others' play in the field. There were a good many visitors on the ground this morning, in expectation of the full practice, but they were disappointed. It is possible that there may be some better play this afternoon, when most if not all the Victorians are expected to be present. The English eleven ought to arrive sometime tonight, or early in the morning, in the Alhambra, from the Bluff.

Ottawa, schooner, 51 tons, W. Mitford, from Brisbane 1st inst. No passengers. Alfred Shaw and Co., agents.

March 10, 9pm Barometer at Sea Level: 30 154 Attached Therm.: 70.0 Temp. of Air: 62.0 March 11, 9am Barometer at Sea Level: 30 160 Attached Therm.: 69.0 Temp. of Air: 66.0 March 11, 3pm Barometer at Sea Level: 30 130 Attached Therm.: 69.0 Temp. of Air: 67.6 March 11, 9pm Barometer at Sea Level: 30 236 Attached Therm.: 68.0 Temp. of Air: 60.4 March 12, 9am Barometer at Sea Level: 30 304 Attached Therm.: 66.3 Temp. of Air: 64.2 March 12, 3pm Barometer at Sea Level: 30 296 Attached Therm.: 66.7 Temp. of Air: 63.4.

The schooner Ottawa arrived in Hobson's Bay yesterday from Brisbane, from which place she sailed on the 1st inst. She encountered a severe gale off Port Stevens, and then had easterly winds to abroast of Janis Bay, and northerly to tho Ninety-mile Beach, along which NE breezes were had, followed by variable winds to Wilson's Promontory, from whence southerly winds prevailed. The Ottawa brings a cargo of gunpowder, and will unload at the outer anchorage.

March 12, 9pm Barometer At Sea Level: 30 348 Attached Therm.: 64.8 Temp. of Air: 58.0 March 13, 9am Barometer At Sea Level: 30 332 Attached Therm.: 64.8 Temp. of Air: 66.7 March 13, 3pm Barometer At Sea Level: 30 286 Attached Therm.: 66.0 Temp. of Air: 65.0.

Bar.: 30.23 Ther.: 67 Wind Point: NE Wind Force: Light General Remarks: Cloudy, fine, hazy.

March 14: 9am: Wind calm; weather hazy, fine. Barometer, 30.22; thermometer, 70. 1pm: Wind SSE, light; weather clear, fine. Barometer, 30.20; thermometer, 71. 4pm: Wind S., light; weather fine. Baromoter, 30.18; thermomoler, 71.

Alhambra, ss, 766 tons, Malcolm Muir, from New Zealand, Bluff Harbour, 8th inst. Passengers—saloon: Mr and Mrs King, Mrs and Miss Bell, Mrs Le Cren, Mrs Weatherspoon, Mr and Mrs Martin and family (four), Miss Clarkson, Miss Toole, Miss Tonkins, Messrs Clarkson, Rankin, D. Crawford, B. Pollock, Ellis, Duxburry, G. Cox, JS Archer, Mirams, G. Morrison, G. Telford, Anderson, Lillywhite, Charlwood, Jupp, Southerton, Shaw, Selby, Armitage, Hill, Ulyett, Emmett, Greenwood, Bennett, Collins, Captain Snewin, Rev. Mr Bailhache; and 77 in the steerage. McMeckan, Blackwood, and Co., agents.

The steamer Alhambra left Sandridge on her usual trip round the New Zealand ports at a quartor past 2pm on the 22nd ult., cleared the Heads at half past 6pm, passed "The Sisters" at noon on the 23rd ult., arrived off Hokitika at midnight on the 23th ult.; was tendered at Hokitika and Greymouth on the one tide, and moved on for Nelson at half past 1pm same day; arrived at Nelson at half-past 11am on the 1st inst.; left at a quarter to 11pm same night; arrived at Wellington at a quarter-past 11am on the 2nd inst., and left at half-past 1pm on the 3rd inst.; arrived at Lyttelton at a quarter to 10am on the 4th inst.; and left at half past 3pm on the 5th inst.; arrived at Port Chalmers at 4pm on the 6th inst.; left at twenty minutes to 5pm on the 7th inst.; arrived at the Bluff at 10am on the 7th inst., and left at 6pm same night; passed the Solanders at ten minutes past 1am on the 9th inst. She experienced light NW and westerly winds on the passage back until making the Tasmanian coast. Passed Swan Island at a quarter-past 3am on the 13th inst., Capo Schanck at 10pm same night, and came through the Heads at midnight on the 14th inst., arriving off Williamstown at 3am same morning.

Date and Hour Baromoter At Sea Level Attached Therm. Temp of Air March 13, 9pm 30 266 65.2 61.0 March 14, 9am 30 200 65.9 67.0 March 14, 8pm 30 130 68.7 75.0

Name of Place Bar. Ther. Wind Point Wind Force General Remarks Melbourne 30 10 67 NW Light Fine, clear, hazy.

Alhambra, ss, from New Zealand Porla.-B13 sacks grass eeod, 224 bags oats, 43 bales fltx, 6 sacks oat meal, 21 cases 42 bags hldos, 6 balos polls, S bales wool, 26 pieces Btono, 60 casos choüso, 17 casos 1 case .1 box plants, 1 box 1 parcel Bundilee, 6 boxes gold.

12 March – Britain annexes Walvis Bay in South Africa. 14 March – former Argentine dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas dies in exile in Southampton. March 10 Pascual Ortiz Rubio, Mexican politician and substitute President of Mexico, 1930-1932 (d. 1963)[8] Albert Leo Stevens, pioneering American balloonist (d. 1944) March 12 – Wilhelm Frick, German Nazi politician (d. 1946) March 18 – Edgar Cayce, American psychic (d. 1945)

Though Parliament has not yet been dissolved, the preparations for the general election are creating some ferment. The dissolution will take place during the first week in April, and the elections will be over before the end of that month. The Ministerial policy has not yet been announced, but it will be divulged by the Premier shortly before the dissolution. The absence of all knowledge on this subject, however, has not deterred new candidates from declaring them-selves, and there are nearly 200 already in the field. Many have delivered ad-dresses, but a large proportion are waiting for the Ministerial programme before declaring themselves. Their opinions will depend, in a great measure, on the manner in which Sir James McCulloch's proposals are received by the country. The total number of electors on the roll for the new Assembly is 181,219. The larger part of the new candidates belong to the so-called Liberal party, and short work will doubtless be made of the claims of some of them. Sir J. O'Shanassy is to stand for Belfast, and Professor Pearson, the historian, has abandoned his scholastic duties for the turbulent career of a politician. Though a freetrader, he will contest Boroondara in the "liberal" interest, the advocacy of a progressive land tax being his passport to the affections of Mr. Berry's followers.

The approaching elections have monopolised attention during the month, which has not been distinguished by any very interesting events.

The dissolution of Parliament has not yet been definitely settled, but will probably take place during the first week in April. The Ministry have not given any indication of the policy they purpose submitting to the country. The Premier, however, will issue his address in the course of the next week or two, and will meet his constituents at Warrnambool very shortly afterwards. The number of candidates who have announced themselves has greatly increased during the month. A few prominent politicians have delivered public addresses, but the majority are waiting the exposition of the policy of the Government. The electoral rolls under the new act have been issued. Weather Matters brightened on the morrow. After a thorough dose of sleep—it was their first in more than a week—they rose on Thursday to a morning warm and clear, “a regular cricket day.” “The weather we soon found much warmer than that we had left, and a warm [sic] and then a shower bath, a change of linen, and a good breakfast made us feel once more happy.” They held a great review of the ground, and saw that everything was in its prettiest condition. They were especially delighted with the wicket, which was “all that could be desired”—“perfect,” even—in being “smooth and dry on top, and damp underneath.” It would be a fastidious batsman who could mount a serious objecton to it. Lillywhite: “In magnificent weather ... on a perfect wicket.”

What has long been required on the Neutral Ground—cocoanut matting—was used for the first time on March 17, and was found to be a great improvement on the bare earth. The Association Committee have done well. Perhaps players who do not score on this ground will not make so many excuses as they have hitherto. (White Rose “Cricket Notes” South Australian Register, 7 April 1877.)

The somewhat oppressive heat experienced on Friday (the Argus states) was followed on Saturday afternoon by a storm of thunder and lightning and a deluge of rain, which fell with more than tropical violence, and the street channels soon became flooded to an extraordinary degree. In the lower portions of Elizabeth-street the current occupied the whole of the roadway and footpaths, rendering the shoot utterly impassable. Between twenty and thirty footbridges were wrenched from their fixings by the force of the water, and carried far down the street. At the post-office, and for some distance up Bourke-street East, the water rose until the Royal Arcade and the floors of the adjoining shops were flooded. In Elizabeth-street some of the shop floors were covered with water to a depth of l8 inches. In Swanston-street, and at the intersection of Little Bourke and Russell streets, the Hooding was also considerable. The underground drainage at the intersections of the streets proved quite inadequate to carry off the water, and the pipe at the intersection of Bourke and Russel streets became choked, and still remains in that condition.

A fortnight earlier, in the match between Melbourne and South Melbourne: “The wicket upon which the match was played could not be surpassed, and the bowling upon it had not the slightest ‘devil’ in it. Rowley is to be complimented upon the preparation of such an excellent piece of turf.” Censor in Australasian, February 24: “The recent heavy downpour of rain which visited Melbourne and its suburbs will have the effect of rendering the turf on the various cricket-grounds very dead. Run-getting therefore will be found a matter of considerable difficulty. It has lessened materially the chance of the South Melbourne men carrying away the Cup. If the grass, however, has not been allowed to make too much headway it may be better than is expected.” Most experienced member of the side, for one, was little comforted by all this: “I did not feel at all comfortable” about the prospect of taking on a select Australian eleven “after reading our letters from home, enclosing a leader from the Daily News on losing our match at Sydney, said to be eleven a side.” To lose would be to incur even more of this sort of thing, and certainly, after their late travails, and against this opposition, the English were more likely to lose here than they had been in Sydney in January. March 10: “The weather for the past day or two has been unseasonably hot. Up to 3 o’clock yesterday the atmosphere was so oppressive to be almost unbearable; at about that time has the wind veered round from north to west and then shifted round the compass to the east. A very heavy thunderstorm—accompanied by a tornado, which scattered branches right and left—fell at Violet Creek, and, apparently, went towards the Victoria Fall where it would doubtless have a good effect on a large bash-fire burning there yesterday morning.” As so often, violent heat succeeded by a violent storm: Cricket in Melbourne on March 11, day before the Englishmen were expected back in Australia, “was spoilt by the rain. The grounds were in a sad condition, and some of them were submerged.” “Saturday's storm [10 March] just held off sufficiently long to enable matches to be commenced, and put a few players to the disadvantage of batting in a very bad light. [...] Then the rain came down, and in about an hour the Melbourne and East Melbourne enclosures prevented most unwonted sight. In the former the water gathered on the lower portion of the ground to such an extent as to entirely cover the lower row of seats, and nearly submerge the second row; and at East Melbourne also the seats at the railway end of the ground were quite covered—each of the grounds having a miniature lake on it. After the rain had ceased for half-an-hour the only way to reach the East Melbourne ground from that of the Civil Service was by clambering along fences, as the water was quite a foot deep all along the road crossing the railway at Jolimont. Several of the Sydney cricketers [for the Combined Match, presumably] had been on the Civil Service ground, and were amongst those who had thus to work their passage back, so that they can hardly say their visit to Melbourne lacked incident.” From Christmas-time until within the last ten days this colony, in common with its neighbours, has suffered from extremely dry weather, due in the southern districts to the prevalence of south winds, which have provided cool weather on the coast but withheld the moisture from the pastoral and agricultural lands, and caused the needful supply of water to fall very low, or totally disappear. Bad accounts have been received from the inland portions of the colony of the loss of sheep and cattle, and of the mischief wrought by bush fires. The fires, as the effect of six weeks' drought, became general, and the atmosphere was overcharged for upwards of a week with smoke. The sky was obscured with haze, and the sun only seen for days in succession as through a glass darkly. At night, when the little wind that blew in the daytime stilled down to a calm, the smoke produced effects similar to those of a dense fog, which interfered to some extent with the safe navigation of the harbours. The steamer Argyle went stem on to the shore at Warrnambool on the 5th inst, from the inability of the men on board to see the jetty light, though within half a mile of it and in Port Phillip, the Queenscliff, one of the bay steamers, grounded twice in Cole's Channel on the night of the 8th inst. This state of things which, when note in taken of all the circumstances it combines, may be regarded as very unusual, was suddenly interrupted about a week ago by sharp thunder-storms, following closely upon one or two days of hot winds.

Fuller particulars as to the condition of the weather are to be found under an appropriate heading, and in this place it is only necessary to mention that in one or two places the showers which accompanied the thunder-storms were heavy enough to cause floods. From Sandhurst last week accounts were received of one of the most terrific downpours known for years past. For several hours the streets were impassable and serious damage was done to the shops. A woman named Mary Dann, wife of a policeman, was drowned in Bendigo Creek, two persons in the suburbs had narrow escapes and at Long Gully the dam of Koch a Pioneer Company, unable to hold back the immense body of water collected behind it, gave way. During the thunderstorms several persons in different parts of the country were killed by lightning. At Wedderburn, two—a mother (Mrs Hickmott) and son—were struck dead as they stood in the doorway of their housem and a second son was paralysed. Twice last week Melbourne was visited by storms, and on Friday night the dead body of a young man named Charles Richard Bean, son of Mr George Bean, miller, of Hotham, who had evidently been struck by lightning, was picked up in the street.

In our last month's Summary we had to record the continuance of one of the most severe droughts which has afflicted Victoria for a number of years past. Grass had nearly altogether disappeared in many portions of the colony, and water was also becoming scarce. Squatters and selectors were suffering alike, although of course the loss of stock would be more severely felt by the men of small means. The same kind of weather continued to prevail up to Monday, 12th inst. On that evening a heavy thunderstorm occurred, which extended over a very large portion of the colony, accompanied by a welcome deluge of rain. The storm was heaviest in the Sandhurst district, the rainfall being sufficiently heavy to flood the low lying parts of the town and the adjacent district. One woman was drowned through the sudden rise of the waters, and two persons were washed out of their beds, but managed to make their escape to a place of safety. Heavy thunderstorms also occurred on the 14th, 15th, and 16th. The storm on the latter evening was very severe m Melbourne and the surrounding districts. One man was struck dead by lightning in Elizabeth-street. The total rainfall for the week in Melbourne was 1.35in, making the total rainfall since the beginning of the year 1.63in as compared with 1.60 during the same period of 1876 and 5.05 in 1875. It is needless to say that the rainfall has been an inestimable boon to all persons connected with agricultural or pastoral pursuits. Already the face of the country wears a different aspect, the waterholes have been filled, and the fears of a disastrous loss of stock consequent upon a prolonged drought have disappeared. The country has not, however, had anything like a sufficient drenching as yet, but now that the weather has broken a further downfall may be hoped for in time to do good.

Last month we noted a break in the weather, and an accident on the Echuca railway, caused by waters sweeping over the permanent way. The change in the weather did not produce other than comforting cool nights; the days have been hot, and as though to sustain the summer character of the climate, there was a terrible closeness in the atmosphere, and a gathering together of the elements of a severe storm. The fury of the visitation was unknown at Castlemaine, so far as experience went, but at Melbourne and Ballarat, the downpour of water was without a parallel. No less than one inch of water fell in Melbourne in fifteen minutes. The streets and cellars were flooded, and there was a large destruction of property. At Ballarat the calamity was even still greater, shops and houses were flooded and some of them torn up and carried away by the violence of the waters. Happily only one life was lost, but there were in both places many hair-breadth escapes. The storm passed over a small line of country in which it expended the pent up energies of electric forces. The deaths by lightning were unusually numerous. A selector named William H. Jones, was struck dead on the Albury-road, about six miles from Doniliquin, while on his way home. The horse he was riding was also killed, and both bodies were found lying as they fell, the rider's legs astride the saddle, proving that death in both instances must have been instantaneous. The deceased's hat and coat were burnt on one side, and his head and body much discoloured. He had apparently been struck on the head, and the deadly current had then passed downwards through the body, and thence into the horse. But as we have said several such cases happened and a large number of sheep also perished. These heavy showers have filled the watering places, started the pastures into a vigorous spring, and put the soil into the finest condition for getting on with the tillage necessary for the reception of the next crop. It is expected that the stock, which were being reduced to severe straits, will now rapidly recover, and already a difference is perceptible in the market, there being an absence of the frequent drafts of sheep which were pushed in for sale at any price for the purpose of easing the runs. The rush of wheat to the metropolis has this season been quite unexampled, owing to the fact that almost all of that cereal now produced in the colony has been grown upon the recently opened prairies to the northward. As in those regions there are no made roads, and as the tracks are all but impassable after rains, the farmers have carted their wheat direct from the threshing machines to the various railway stations, whence it has been conveyed to the central market. Threshing has now finished, and the teams are busy with the ploughs. The average yield of wheat promises to be somewhat under that of last year, but the decrease is not expected to be so serious as that disclosed by the harvest returns for South Australia. Referring to the rush of wheat to the metropolis a contemporary says: During the twelve months of 1876, we received by rail at Spencer-street, from the country districts, 228,637 bags of wheat; in 1876, by the same route, 210,330 bags; in 1874, 204,307 bags, and in 1873, 183,665 bags, up to the 16th March, 1877, no less than 194,472 bags of wheat were delivered from the 1st January. It will be seen that this grand total is over 10,000 bags in excess of the entire receipts by rail in 1873, whilst it is only 34,085 bags below the total of last year—a mere bagatelle when the deliveries of this season are remembered. Keep up this average but another fortnight, and we shall have received in Melbourne in twelve weeks what last year we got in twelve months.

The ground on Saturday last was not so fast as on the previous Saturday, the turf having been completely submerged by water almost daily during the week to keep the grass green. The grass grew in consequence, and it was seldom, indeed, that a good hit along the ground produced 4 runs. This was particularly noticeable on the pavilion side of the turf, where there was a crop of clover flowers which prevented the ball running.

The ground was somewhat dead after the recent heavy rains, and there were about 1000 persons present.

The storm on Saturday afternoon severely tested the drainage arrangements of the Melbourne streets, and it would be folly to pretend that they proved quite efficient. As our readers are aware, great improvements have lately been made, so far as the surface of the various roadways are concerned. The awkward open gutters at the intersections of the various streets, which for years tried patience and springs alike, have been replaced by culverts, and people may now pass on wheels from one part of the town to another without being jolted to pieces or having their necks dislocated. But excellent as these culverts are in this point of view, it cannot be denied that they impede the rapid discharge of storm-water, and have a tendency, by damming the various streams, to produce temporary floods in the low-lying parts of the city. At ordinary times they answer all requirements, but every now and then there comes an occasion when the quantity of water to be passed off is beyond their capacity, and then, it is to be feared, they cause a great deal of damage. The question now arises—what remedy shall be provided for this state of things? Shall we revert to open channels and perpetual concussion? We hope not. A very ready way out of the difficulty was suggested long ago by Mr AK Smith, and we trust to see it speedily adopted. If we remember aright, this gentleman proposed to carry a tunnel from the junction of Elizabeth and Lonsdale streets to the West Melbourne swamp, which would carry off the drainage from the whole of the northern portion of the city. If this were done, not only would the new culverts be sufficient to pass any volume of water that could by any possibility reach them, but others might be put in where at present the quantity to be disposed of is too large to admit of their insertion without some undesirable interference with the level of the roadways they would subtend. No doubt the construction of such a tunnel would cost a considerable sum of money, but the annual saving it would be the means of effecting would also be very large. Streets cannot be flooded without extensive damage being done to the roadways, as anyone walking about Melbourne on Sunday must have seen. A storm of rain like that which fell on Saturday must, under the existing state of affairs, cost the ratepayers thousands of pounds. Then, again, the injury done to private property is very great. We feel confident that the monoy saved every year by preventing the destruction of roadways, the flooding of shops, and the spoiling of goods, would pay the interest on the cost of the tunnel alluded to ten times over. Will no councillor take this great practical matter in hand?

A sunny Melbourne day, not too hot with a freshening breeze. “A pitch that the tourists said was of English standard.”

March 15. 9am: Wind calm; weather hazy, fine. Barometer, 30.19, thermometer, 70. 1pm: Wind S., moderate; weather very fine. Barometer, 30.15, thermometer, 72. 4 pm: Wind S., fresh; weather cloudy, fine. Barometer, 30.15; thermometer, 72.

Date and Hour Barometer At Sea Level Attached Therm. Temp. of Air. March 14, 9pm 30 186 67.8 65.6 March 15, 9am 30 150 67.2 69.0 March 15, 3pm 30 106 68.6 67.9.

Name of Place Bar. Ther. Wind Point Wind Force General Remarks Melbourne 30 05 69 NE Light Fine, cloudy, hazy. Miscommunication of the starting time Although “the match had lost a good deal of interest in public estimation owing to the fact that neither Evans nor Allan was to take part in it,” the press forecast “a very considerable attendance,” and indeed a fair number paid their ochre more than three hours before the start. This, however, owed less to exuberance than to a misapprehension as to that start. Two of the metropolitan papers had given it as 10:00, two others 13:00, “and the consequence was that many persons who visited the ground at the earlier hour enjoyed the privilege of waiting” for the later one. Before these unfortunates learnt the true state of the case, “some dissatisfaction was expressed at the delay which was apparently taking place,” and “young men began to shout good-temperedly for some play.” Begbie: “The oldest of Australian sporting traditions was honoured at once when the crowd began to barrack before the players had even appeared—some things seem preordained. A misunderstanding over the starting time set the younger spirits roaring for action. Kerry Packer would have recognised the potential of the thing immediately.” The Australasian shook its head: “It is a pity that these mistakes should occur, as having to wait about two or three hours before play commences is not likely to encourage people to go again.” One of the offending rags, The Argus, blamed the misinterpretation of some curiously-written figures in a notice supplied to us on Thursday. One o’clock seemed a late hour to begin a game that was to be stopped at 5, especially when half-an-hour had to be deducted for luncheon at 2 o’clock. Practically it left only three hours for play, and the question naturally suggested itself whether life is not too short to permit of such spendthrift waste of an autumn day. The paper added, in a flimsy attempt to make light of its blunder, that the start-time “seemed a late hour to begin a game that was to be stopped at five, especially when half-an-hour had to be deducted for luncheon at two o’clock. Practically it left only three hours for play, and the question naturally suggested itself whether life is not too short to permit of such spendthrift waste of an autumn day”. The upshot of all this was that “a number of persons anxious to witness the match had left the ground before the match commenced.” Those remaining diverted themselves for the time being in “most unmeasured” denunciations of Allan, and before noon were treated to “some loose practice, in which most of the Englishmen and all the Sydney men took part, the Victorians, with the exception of Hodges, being conspicuous by their absence”—another hint that intercolonial relations had a long way to go. Play in England usually began at noon, which James Pycroft attributed to “the railway trains that do not allow the match to begin early on the first day.” Scheduled for a sharp 13:00, play began five minutes late. At midday “the wind rose somewhat,” and the air became “a trifle cold,” but nothing to disrupt the “clear good light.” Half an hour before the wickets were due for pitching, roughly a thousand were assembled. Thousands more kept away “in the belief that an eleven lacking the two bowlers of Australia could originate nothing worth the trouble of a visit to the MCC ground.” “There were very few ladies,” [At the jubilee test of 1936/37, attended by upwards of 70,000, women were rumoured to outnumber men] and the new grandstand, “of which the members were most proud,” “was practically empty,” presenting “what is known as ‘a beggarly array of empty benches.’” But the lawn and the sloping embankment, where another row of seats had been added, was scattered with spectators,” and the members’ reserve was “well filled.” “The population of the colony of Victoria on December 31st [1876] is estimated at 840,341.” “The people who stayed away … in the belief that an eleven lacking the two bowlers of Australia could originate nothing worth the trouble of a visit to the MCC ground.” There were “plenty of booths, and refreshments are plentiful and good Everything, in fact, promises well, and although not quite what was fondly expected, there is every prospect of a fine exhibition of cricket on both sides.” “Melbourne's response to the match was as ambivalent as that of the cricketers.” “But to see the Melbourne Cricket Ground at its best the stands must be full. A yacht makes no show unless it has a full spinnaker, a full spread of canvas. When the stands are full at the MCG then it is alive” (Dunstan Paddock xiii). “Even so the English team seemed far too powerful, and the newspapers gave the colonials very little hope, so much so that only 1000 people turned out for the start.” SMH: “There was a fair attendance when the match commenced.” The Melbourne ground had a new grandstand, but most spectators preferred to sit on the lawn embankment or on wooden seats in front of the cycle track. Were clearly expecting better. Advertisement the day before:

WANTED, BARMAIDS for grand stand Melbourne Cricket-ground. Apply Kavanagh's Star Garter Hotel, Nelson-road, Emerald-hill.

The Melbourne Cricket Ground had lately been “considerably improved.” It was, reported a South Australian observer, round in shape, and not quite so large as the Adelaide Oval. It is, however, an exceedingly pretty ground, surrounded on all sides by elms as well as native trees, and on the side of it nearest Melbourne is a very handsome Grand Stand capable of seating about fifteen hundred people, and said to have cost about £6,000 or £7,000. It has been proposed to so arrange the seats that the Stand can be used not only for its present purpose, but also for spectators anxious to witness the football matches which take place on the reserves outside the cricket ground and to the back of the present structure. The elm-trees planted on the ground afford capital shade to the spectators, and similar ones would prove a decided improvement to the Adelaide Oval. “An imposing new 6000-seat grandstand.” “The first public grandstand, as seen in the right of this photograph, was built in time for the First Test in March of 1877 and had a capacity of 2000 spectators. Known as the Reversible Stand, the grandstand featured a unique system of ropes and pulleys, which allowed for the seating to be reversed so that spectators could watch football in the adjoining Yarra Park.” “The grandstand was designed by architect George Browne. It took about half a day for the seating to be reversed by a gang of men…. Sadly, the grandstand burned down in 1884, a great loss for the MCC…. The stand was replaced by a more conventional structure. What a shame.” For James Lillywhite's tour of 1876-77 the club built a new grandstand for £4678. This was a stand in the true English tradition. It faced both ways and it held 2000 people,” “with the remainder of the ground surrounded by a grass bank.” “At the end of the cricket season it would be reconstructed so that the seats faced the other way. This meant that during the summer the spectators could watch the cricket in the MCG, then in the winter the football out in Richmond Park. In 1876 the club did not tolerate football on the sacred turf of the MCG. Few seriously believed then that a ground could be a sea of football mud in August and a cricket playing wicket in September. Yet during the winter of 1877 there was a football match between the Melbourne and Carlton clubs which added £95/12/8 to the club funds, and the ground did not appear to suffer any damage. This bore out TW Wills' idea, when he wrote his letter to Bell's Life suggesting that the MCC should form a football club. He wrote that it would be of vast benefit to any cricket ground to be trampled upon, and it would make the turf firm and durable. However, the club permitted just this one match. The MCG still was not ready for regular football.” Earlier in the tour: “Lillywhite himself spent most of the time in earnest consultation with his agents, trying to untangle complications over the Boxing Day fixture. The most desirable venue was the Melbourne Club's ground, the facilities of which were superior to any other. However, when Fred Grace had arranged to have its exclusive use, Lillywhite had agreed to use the East Melbourne Club's ground. Now that Grace's tour had fallen through, Lillywhite was most anxious to play at the larger ground where the profits would be much greater, but the East Melbourne Club, having spent money on improving its facilities, was threatening Lillywhite with litigation if he withdrew. Despite help from a lawyer, Lillywhite had not succeeded in resolving the problem when the time came to catch another steamer for the three-day voyage to Sydney.” Would later be burned in a blaze from ditch to rampart. The past season will also be memorable for the erection on the MCC ground of the finest grand stand in the world. Whether the club will be able to carry out the entire design and erect a new pavilion, &c., as intended, remains to be seen. We hope so; and we venture to think, if the matter is taken in hand in the proper way, that in the course of a year or two all the necessary improvements could be defrayed from the proceeds of grand matches and other athletic exhibitions on so favourite an arena. England elevens come and depart, and the promoters of the speculations carry away thousands of pounds. Spiers and Pond netted £12,000, clear of all expenses; Parr's team half that amount; Grace's eleven did equally well, and probably Lillywhite's balance to the good is little short of Grace's and Parr's. Why should not the club derive a greater benefit than it has done? It would be for the general public's good that it should do so, as it would be enabled thereby to study the public comfort more than it can now, by the erection of permanent conveniences for the accommodation of the thousands who flock to witness the grand matches. The site of the MCC is the most convenient to the city, and there is no other ground so favourably situated, or so able to accommodate large crowds. Some enterprising Bagot, it appears to us, is all that is necessary to carry out that comprehensive plan of improvements which is only at present foreshadowed by the splendid stand from which so many persons obtained an excellent view of the England matches. (Australasian “Some Remarks” 12 May 1877.) “This edifice has apparently been suggested by the grand stand on-the race course in its design, but a considerable improvement is made by breaking up the front of the roof into gables, or peaks, whereby an Elizabethan air is given to the style. Mr G. Browne, the architect, has altogether succeeded very well with the opportunities afforded him. The building is a good, solid one, with massive pillars supporting the roof, which is of galvanised iron. The stand will accommodate more than one thousand ladies and gentlemen with abundance of room, only allowing for the seats, which are like those of the racecourse stand, rows of ‘pews.’ Underneath the stand are the bar and luncheon room, both very commodious. The scheme is, nevertheless, only a part of what it is intended to accomplish. The skating rink, billiard room, and racquet court are yet to be fitted up, if proceeded with.” HH Stephenson’s team also greeted by a new grandstand: “The new grandstand, 700 feet long, was completed for the occasion, to accommodate nearly 6000 people. Mr Stephenson was astonished when he arrived, for here was a ground better than anything in England, and certainly there was no cricket pavilion in the world to compare with Melbourne's new grandstand. The whole of the underneath of the new stand was given over to publicans, who advertised that they would have 500 cases of beer. [...] The Herald put the crowd at 25,000, but some said it was as high as 30 or 40,000. Certainly it was the biggest cricket crowd on record.” The 1876 grandstand had not a long life. “Was completely destroyed by fire. The flames seem to have broken out about 9 o'clock, and although there was a very large proportion of brick and iron work in the building it burned so fiercely that within an hour it was in ruins. [...] The fire appeared to have burned through from the skittle alley at the western end of the building, and when seen had got strong hold of the light woodwork and benches. The wind was blowing from the westward, and this, with the open character of the building, aided its destruction. The flames travelled so rapidly that in about 20 minutes the whole stand was on fire. [...] The service pipe to the ground was only a small one, and was not nearly equal to the requirements. Other brigades having arrived several lengths of hose were connected, and two streams of water were brought from plugs near the Parade Hotel, while two other streams were also obtained from Jolimont. These united efforts made no impression, however, and for all practical purposes the half score of brigades might just as well have been absent. The pressure of water for Sunday was remarkably slight. The great volume of flame could be seen some distance off, and very soon there was a large crowd of people, the majority in negligent Sunday morning attire, gathered on the football ground outside. [...] At noon the flames had burned out, and an inspection of the building showed that the masonry work was cracked in so many places that it was entirely useless for re-building, and must all come down. [...] The origin of the fire is not known. [...] The popular theory is that a lighted cigar stump must have smouldered in the dry sawdust, a layer of which covers the skittle-alley, and that during the night this burned slowly until one of the walls was reached.” “Mr McAlpine turned on a hose, but there was no chance. In 20 minutes the stand was blazing from top to bottom. [...] In the eighteen-eighties there was no such luxury as a State fire brigade. The insurance companies sponsored the Assurance Brigade, which was the most efficient, then there were all types of company and local brigades. The Assurance Brigade did not acquire a proper steam fire engine until 1886. [...] The water pressure was miserable, and the vast collection of firemen stood by virtually idle while the stand burnt to the ground. [...] Nobody ever discovered the cause of the fire. The popular theory was that it started in the skittle alley. The alley was closed from 6.30 p.m. on Saturday, but there was a thick layer of sawdust on the floor. Perhaps someone dropped a cigar stump and there it smoldered with the sawdust slowly burning until it lit one of the walls. [...] Nor was the Herald pleased about the lack of water pressure in winter and of all times on a Sunday morning. "The gallant colonel, unattached, who now controls the •water Supply Department will have to satisfy the public with something more than the customary stereotyped excuse." The stand was insured for £3000, and the Indemnity Insurance Company paid £2900 within a fortnight. The club thought this highly satisfactory, and the committee asked William Salway to design another stand, at a cost of £11,490. The new pavilion provided accommodation for 1500, plus 450 in the section for the ladies. The plans provided for cast iron columns of 11 inches in diameter at a distance of 20 feet, a vast improvement over the massive brick and cement pillars which were such a conspicuous feature of the old stand. This stand was torn down to make way for the new Northern stand built for the Olympic Games in 1956.”

“The grand stand was built in 1877, on debentures, taken up principally by members of the club. It occupied an area of 240ft. by 80ft., and was intended to seat 2,000 persons, but as many as 3,000 have been accommodated when intercolonial and international cricket matches were played on the MCC ground. From a purely architectural point of view it was not a very elegant structure, but its plainness was more than counterbalanced by its usefulness. The novelty about it was that it could be reversed, so that in football season, when matches were played on the ground adjoining, the same accommodation was given to spectators as at the most important cricket match. It was, in reality, a two-story building, the ground floor being occupied by ladies' rooms, a skittle-alley, a large luncheon room, and two refreshment bars. The sitting accommodation was above this, and was reached from the lawn in front by three broad stairways. The lower story was a series of brick work arches, resting on a bluestone foundation, and the iron roof covering all was supported by a series of brick work pillars [...]. The original cost was £4,400, but repairs and improvements have been made at various times, bringing the total expenditure on the grand stand up to £5,980. The broad brickwork pillars in front of the seats interrupt the view slightly, and recently the committee had under consideration a project for replacing these by double iron pillars, but the estimated cost was considered too great, and the idea was abandoned for the time being. Improvements were being made with the seats, reversible backs being fitted to the benches, so is to make them more comfortable. The building is insured for £3,000 in the Indemnity Insurance Company.”

“There was an old cow shed in the outer reserve. The club turned this into a skittle alley. Skittles—80 years before the arrival of indoor bowling—was all the rage in Melbourne. There were alleys up and down Bourke Street, there were alleys in the new Eastern Market, and the MCC skittle alley proved very popular with the older members.”

The day’s pleasure did not end with the drawing of stumps or the kicking of the last goal by the famous "Same Old" Essendon football team. The social side was continued in the pavilion, in the skittle alley and in various other ways. Skittles was a game of games in those days when the shadows made outdoor sport impossible, and the East Melbourne cricket ground possessed one of the most active groups in this old game.

The South Australian Register thought it had “been built too high,” and did not much care for the “large promenade, suggestive of a betting ring, in front.” George Brown, architect of the Grand Stand, had a year ago completed another project important to cricket historians: “Sunbury wore holiday aspect yesterday, and the morning and midday trains from Melbourne were filled with visitors, Mr WJ Clarke had issued invitations to upwards of a thousand persons to participate in a fête—one of a series, we believe—given to celebrate the completion of a handsome mansion he has erected on his Sunbury estate, from the plans and designs of Mr George Browne, the architect of the Theatre Royal in this city.” “Melbourne, he [Southerton] wrote, could one day amount to something.” Southerton: “The day we arrived our host took me for a drive in his buggy round the suburbs of Melbourne, and I was really astonished at the rapid strides the place has made in three years. In a few more, at the present rate, it will assumed somewhat the aspect of a second London. I was struck also by the appearance of the orchards, some of the trees laden with fruit of the finest description, while the plum-trees, which had borne fruit once this summer, were again in bloom, the recent rains having caused the sap to rise again. I was told that it was not an unusual occurrence, and that the plums will form to about the size of a pea, and then fall off.” Clearly hadn’t seen much of it on first two visits that tour: learn of their itinerary. His first proper look at the place. “Should the weather prove at all favorable, the contest will be closely watched by all lovers of the now national game. The experience the Eleven has gained in New South Wales and New Zealand will enable them to face with vigor and skill the abilities of the eleven chosen Australians” (Ballarat Star “Cricket” 13 March 1877.) “The present ground is the Club's third, acquired in 1853 and in 1861 described by Stephenson, who brought England's first team to Australia, as being better than any ground in England.” “Even when Mr Stephenson's England XI played at the MCG on New Year's Day, 1862, it was considered the best-equipped cricket ground in the world. That situation has never altered.” “It is clear from the records that right from the beginning the committee had one ambition—to make the M.C.G. the finest cricket ground in the colonies.” “The MCG is not a beautiful ground, nobody would call it that. Maybe it was in the last century, when Dr WG Grace talked of its elm trees and the well that provided such cool, clear water. Alas, these things have gone, but something else has taken their place. The MCG has all the atmosphere of the big time, and little that's great takes place in Melbourne without the MCG being part of it.” “When Robert Russell, a 28-year-old surveyor, came from Sydney a year later [1836] there were 15,000 sheep and 200 settlers in the district” founded by John Batman. “In 1837 Russell drew up the plans for Melbourne, under the orders of Governor Bourke and the Lands Commissioner, Robert Hoddle.” Russell “raced a horse in the first race meeting and he played in the first cricket match…. Racing came first, and the meeting took place in March 1838 on the west side of Spencer Street near Batman's Hill. Now it is the site of Spencer Street Railway Station. Yet as more Government officials, more military men and graziers came to the settlement, naturally, attention turned to an even more gentlemanly sport, cricket. Robert Russell had the idea that there should be a village cricket club and he became one of the foundation members of the M.C.C. On November 15, 1838, five gentlemen met and drew up a document agreeing to form a cricket club to be called the "Melbourne Cricket Club," subscription one guinea…. Port Phillip was a small settlement, but the founders of the M.C.C. were key men. F. A. Powlett, the first president, was the Crown Land Commissioner of the Western Division of the Port Phillip Settlement and also the first Police Magistrate. It is almost certain that he was a descendant of the Rev. Charles Powlett, who took such a part in the founding of the Hambledon Club, the first cricket club in England. For years he was the best cricketer in the colony and there is one thing nobody can take away from him-he made the first century and he took the first hat-trick. He has another neat distinction. He shares with T. F. Hamilton the honour of being one of the two presidents of the M.C.C. who have represented their State or Colony at cricket.” MCC moved here after a railroad ran through its previous headquarters. “The gold rush was very good for the club. Not only did it bring cricketers, but in four months in 1855 the club gained 200 members. The secretary recorded: ‘No club in the world ever increased its practical and numerical strength so rapidly as the MCC.’” “Mr RC Bagot, the man who designed Flemington racecourse, took the job of redesigning the MCG. He altered the shape of the ground to make it a perfect oval, he put drainage pipes underneath, he re-planted, he re-turfed. He did such a brilliant job that the grateful MCC made him a life member. Bagot had the help of Baron Von Mueller. What a team. Dr. Mueller was the man who designed the Botanic Gardens. He presented Bagot with 400 choice trees to plant between the inner and outer fences.”

The secretary of the MCC has made arrangements with the Melbourne Omnibus Company to run a line of their omnibuses every few minutes each day from the time of opening during the forthcoming combination match, from the omnibus office in Bourke-street to the cricket groand, fare 3d. each way. Tickets will also be sold at the company's office for admission to the ground and stand.

According to the graphic letters of Australia’s newspaper of record,

The match, Australia v. England, will be commenced on the MCC ground at 10 o'clock today, and the stumps will be drawn at 5 o'clock, so that neither side shall have its chances jeopardised by bad light. For reasons to be found elsewhere, Mr Allan, whose services as a bowler were almost indispensable, will not play for the colonies, and his place has been very inadequately filled up by the choice of Mr Hodges, of the Richmond Club. The English team plays without Pooley, whom they have had to leave in New Zealand. As the elevens now stand, probabilities are largely in favour of England. Press Only ?? devoted correspondents at the ground. Contrast with the Olympic Games eighty years later, when “more than 1000 correspondents had to operate from the ground. Facilities for the Press and radio included 800 seats in the members' stand and more than 100 seats in other parts of the ground for broadcasters. In addition, there were numerous individual Press offices, 48 soundproof broadcasting boxes, film-processing laboratories and interview rooms. Furthermore there was an Overseas Telecommunications Commission centre in the members' stand with the ability to clear a quarter of a million words a day. News from Melbourne had to go everywhere-Aberdeen ... Budapest ... Casablanca ... Moscow ... Yokohama ... Zurich.”

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS Sir,—I should like the Match Committee to coneider the advisability of having this combination game played without any adjournment for lunch. I believe that the adoption of the suggestion will secure a larger attendance than if play commenced in the forenoon. It must be borne in mind that the days fixed are not holidays, and that people will have but lately enjoyed an outing at the autumn race meeting. Let the Match Committee announce a charge of 1s. admission to the ground, 1s. to the stand or reserve, play from 2 until 6 o'clock, and thousands will go to our beautiful ground to enjoy four hours’ good cricket. Yours, &c. CROPPY March 9

Competing events:

The fourth annual exhibition of the West Bourke Agricultural Society was held yesterday at Lancefield-road, in the new yards given to the society by Mr WJ Clarke. As the exhibits were numerous and the day was fine, there was a large attendance of visitors, especially as it was known that His Excellency the Governor was to be present. The special train leaving town at 9am had every seat filled, and more than one intending visitor had to remain at Spencer-street until the starting of the ordinary forenoon train. His Excellency Sir George Bowen was a passenger by this train, and upon his arrival at Lancefield-road he was met by Mr WJ Clarke, the president of the society, and driven to the show-yards, about a quarter of a mile distant. He was there received by the president and members of the committee, and Mr Thomas, the hon. secretary, read the following address: "To His Excellency Sir George Ferguson Bowen, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over the the [sic] Colony of Victoria, &c . &c. "May it please your Excellency,--We, the president, vice-presidents, and council of the West Bourke Agricultural Society, in welcoming your Excellency for the second time to the agricultural district of Lancefield, desire to express in the first place our heartfelt assurance of loyalty and attachment to the throne of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen. "It is with feelings of the greatest gratification that we have the honour of your Excellency's presence on the important occasion of opening our new show-yards, the more so as we feel assured of the very great interest taken by you in any matter which tends towards the agricultural progress of the colomy. “This society was inaugurated in the year 1874, and our shows were held alternately in the townships of Romsey and Gisborne, but finding that the number of exhibits, especially of live stock, was largely increasing year by year, it was decided to erect new yards in a central position, which could be availed of by exhibitors from all parts of the colony. "Feeling, as we do, Sir, the growing importance of agriculture and stockbreeding, and its effects upon the community, both socially and commercially, we look upon such exhibitions as the one you are now about to witness as being of the gravest moment, both from an educational point of view as well as in promoting a healthy rivalry amongst all classes of persons, depending as they do, directly or indirectly, on agriculture. “We cannot, however, but express to your Excellency our conviction that the time has arrived when more is required to be done than merely educating by the eye. A sound practical and theoretical course of training is now necessary for the young agriculturist if he is to successfully keep pace with the improvements and inventions ot the day; and towards the establishment of some such school of agriculture our attention has been directed, and we hope, with the aid of the other societies of Victoria, to ere long see it an accomplished fact. “We feel that your presence here on this occasion is a most gratifying assurance of the importance you also attach to the character and usefulness of such societies as the one we have the honour to represent. "We trust that your Excellency may be spared to witness many anniversaries of the opening of these yards, and long to rule over this colony in peace, happiness, and prosperity. “We have the honour to be your Excellency's most obedient servants, “WJ CLARKE, President. “ALFRED N. THOMAS, Secretary.” His EXCELLENCY replied as follows:—“Gentlemen,—I have listened with much satisfaction to the address which has just been read, and thank you for this assurance of your devoted loyalty to the Queen, who (I need not remind you) is herself a practical farmer, and keeps up with success the excellent herds of choice cattle which were formed by the late Prince Consort at Windsor. I thank you also for your expressions of goodwill towards myself. The hearty welcome which you gave me when I attended your last show made me readily accede to your invitation to be again present this year. I entirely agree with you as to the practical importance of periodical exhibitions of this kind, and as to the necessity for the establishment in Victoria of one or more agricultural colleges on the model of those which have proved so useful in the mother country. Your president has conferred a boon on Victorian farmers by bringing out here, at his own expense, a professional gentleman skilled in agricultural chemistry, and whose lectures I nave read with much interest; but, as you remark, we want institutions in which a systematic and continuous training can be given, to enable our young agriculturists to keep pace with the rapid progress of the present day. The modesty of your president has doubtless led to the omission from your address of all reference to the fact that this society owes to his munificent liberality the valuable land on which this show is held, and the commodious yard and other buildings erected upon it. I believe that there are many among the leading colonists of Victoria who appreciate the golden maxim that ‘Property has its duties as well as its rights.' Certainly, two of those colonists have lately proved their appreciation of that maxim by generous and well-timed gifts to public institutions. I need scarcely add that I refer to Sir Samuel Wilson and to Mr WJ Clarke. And now, gentlemen, at the request of the council of your society, I declare these new yards to be open for public use." The Governor having been shown over the ground, and inspected the various exhibits, was conducted to a large marquee, where luncheon had been provided. Mr WJ Clarke, president of the society, occupied the chair, and about 120 gentlemen sat down to table. The usual loyal toasts having been disposed of, Mr CLARKE said he had much pleasure in propoting “The health of His Excellency the Governor," who, he was glad to say, had honoured them with his presence that day. (Cheers.) He was happy to inform those present that Sir George Bowen would be an exhibitor at the show next year. (Cheers.) He had a special breed of cattle at home which he believed none of them could compete with. (Hear, hear.) He might say that the class of cattle was a very good one, and there was only one exhibit of its class in the show. (Cheers. "What is it?”) He referred to Alderneys, and if any of those present intended to compete with the Governor they must get good Alderneys. (Cheers.) He asked them to drink the health of the Governor in bumpers. (Cheers.) Sir GEORGE BOWEN (who was received with long-continued cheering) said: Gentlemen, I am very sensible of the kind terms in which my health has been proposed by you, and also of the hearty manner in which it has been received by all present. I can assure you I was very glad to accept the invitation of the West Bourke Agricultural Society to open their new yards, which they owe to the munificent liberality of the president, Mr WJ Clarke. (Cheers.) In my reply to your address of welcome, I remarked that I believe many of the leading colonists of Victoria appreciate the golden maxim that "Property has its duties as well as its rights"—(hear, hear)—“and that two of those colonists had already proved their appreciation of it by generous gifts to public institutions. (Hear, hear.) I referred, of course, to Sir Samuel Wilson and to Mr WJ Clarke. May their noble example have many followers. (Cheers.) Moreover, gentlemen, I always rejoice to be present at agricultural shows, and that both on public and personal grounds. On public grounds, because I fully recognise the great practical uses of these periodical exhibitions, and on personal grounds because no one is a greater admirer and lover of good stock than I am myself. (Cheers.) As has been stated by the chairman, and is known to many gentlemen present today, I am forming at Government-house a small herd of pure-bred Alderneys. (Cheers.) My modesty—a quality which I possess in common with your president—(cheers and laughter)—and which, in his case at least, is the proverbial companion of true merit—(cheers)—my modesty, I repeat, prevents me from confiding to you my own private opinion of my own Alderney cows. I confess, however, that I think I can fairly beat the one exhibit shown here today. (Cheers.) I may perhaps mention that I have been advised by good judges to exhibit some of my herd at the next show of the National Agricultural Society in Melbourne, and as many of you will no doubt be present, you will be enabled to judge my cattle for yourselves. (Cheers.) But, gentlemen, I do not intend on this occasion that my talk sball be only of bullocks. We all see the great advantage of public competition among stockholders—(hear, hear)—and I desire, through you, to press on the community at large the great advantage of public competition among placeholders. (Hear, hear.) In other words, I wish to take this opportunity of making another appeal to the people of Victoria in favour of the substitution of competitive examinations for ministerial patronage as the only proper passport to the public service of the state. (Hear, hear.) As you all know, patronage has long been exploded in England. It was only last year that a very eminent statesman declared in the Imperial Parliament that no public man of sense or honour would now accept office if it were still clogged with the intolerable and invidious burden of patronage. (Hear, hear.) [What was going on in America’s nascent Guilded Ages, with its Tammany corruption, etc., had no doubt partially motivated these sentiments.] It has been truly said that under that system the giving away of every place “makes one ingrate and ten enemies." (Hear, hear.) That system, however, “still cumbers the earth" in Victoria. As I have said elsewhere, the father of a family in so-called aristocratic England who desires to get his son into the civil or military service of the state, has to ask a favour of no man. (Hear, hear.) He gives his son a good education, and sends him up to do his best at the periodical state examinations. But the father of a family in so-called democratic Victoria, who wants to put his son into the public service must still go, cap in hand, to some Minister or other influential member of the colonial Parliament. This I look upon as a strange anomaly. (Hear, hear.) Suppose, gentlemen, that this society, instead of opening its yards to the public competition of the whole colony, and giving as prizes, according to the award of skilled, impartial, and independent judges, was to leave the distribution of those prizes to the secret decision and single will of some one individual, however worthy and respected—for example, of your worthy president—I would ask you, would such a system be satisfactory? ("No, no.") In the first place, I believe that your president, or any other man of sense, would decline so invidious a task, as all Ministers of the Crown have done, and yet the supposed case is what still holds good in Victoria with regard to the civil service. (Hear, hear.) Of late years, gentlemen, England has avowedly borrowed from Australia vote by ballot and many other liberal reforms. Would it not be well that Australians should borrow from England this one liberal reform? Is it fair that, as the Irishman said, “the reciprocity should be all on one side?" There is no time now to show the manifold advantages of the system of public competition over Ministerial patronage, and I will only remark that experience in England has proved that by open competition the state secures both an efficient and an economical civil service—(cheers)—efficient because it thus gets able and well-educated servants; and economical, because public men are no longer tempted to multiply places for the sake of purchasing political support. (Hear, hear.) I need scarcely say that this is not a question of party politics, or I would not allude to it. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, however, when I first drew attention to this subject, public men of all parties expressed their entire concurrence with me, and the public press of all opinions applauded me to the echo. (Hear, hear.) But as I have said before, it is to be feared that this important question may be forgotten amid the strife of the coming general election, precisely because it is not a party question, or a question likely to make or unmake Ministers. (Hear, hear.) I hope, however, that every elector in Victoria will bear this question in mind, and that at all events every agricultural elector will ask every candidate, “Are you in favour of competition between men as well as between bullocks, between the paid servants of the state as well as between the fat sheep of the farmers?" And now, in conclusion, I will ask you to join me in drinking prosperity to the society to which open and fair public competition has always been the rule—I mean the West Bourke Agricultural Society—(cheers)—coupled with the name of the president. Mr. W, J. CLARKE responded to the toast, and in doing so expressed the pleasure he had felt during the past three years in being associated with tho council of the West Bourke Agricultural Society. He congratulated the members on the harmonious manner in which the members of the council had worked together, and he believed this had been one great cause of the number of exhibits at the show. The exhibitors had confidence in the council, and this naturally conduced to the success of the show. (Cheers.) They had also been fortunate in securing able judges, and consequently stock had been brought from all parts of the colony. (Hear, hear.) He had to thank His Excellency the Governor for his kindness in being present that day, and he hoped that at the next annual show, they would again see him amongst them. (Cheers.) Some other routine toasts were disposed of, and the company then separated. THE SHOW Before referring to the exhibits, it will be right to mention that the new show grounds and buildings, occupied yesterday for the first time, have been presented to the society by its president, Mr WJ Clarke. The plans for laying out the grounds and the designs for the buildinge were the work of Mr Walter Macfarlane, secretary of the National Agricultural Society, who has also been chiefly concerned in superintending the performance of the works, which are as yet not fully completed. The inner row of horse pens, we presume, are to be roofed, and it will be necessary to closely board up the partitions between the stallions and the bulls, or bull fights, having less harmless terminations than the one of yesterday, will be likely to occur. When finished, the show grounds, which comprise eight acres, will be the most complete of their kind in the colony. Such a present is, we need hardly say, as handsome as it is unique. Only a slight glance around the upper portion and sides of the ground was required to determine that in horse stock and cattle the show was by far the best the sooiety has held. The breeding season for horses having passed; the stallion sections, especially in the draught class, were not as liberally supported as the sections for mares and young stock of both sexes. In aged stallions, Mr G. Smith's imported Marquis of Lorne, and Mr J. Haley's Wattie 2nd, were placed first and second. Mr Dugdale's Tasman, by Victor, and Mr WJ Clarke’s Crown Prince were the only three-year-olds shown, and the judges placed them as named. Of two-year-old colts only two were shown—Mr Anthony Watson's Sir Walter Scott, by the last Champion of Scotland, and Mr A. Graham's Young Sir Colin. Yearlings numbered nearly a dozen, and amongst them were several very promising colts. The draught mares constituted one of the best oiled sections of this class of stock that we have seen of late years. They numbered no less than 21, and there were besides 16 dry mares and eight three year-old fillies. The name of Mr WJ Clarke occurs frequently in the catalogue in these sections, and when to this are added the names of RS Graham, Moore Brothers, D. Junor, J. Robertson, Algie Lade, Haley, Dagdale, M'Gregor, T. Watson, A. Graham, W. Robertson, Birney, Lord, &c., the excellence of this portion of the show will be understood. The judges were, however, unable to find an owner for the first prize brood mare amongst the above, for Mr Joel Horwood's Mountain Maid was present. The second prize was given to Mr RS Graham's Violet. Princess Maude 8th (M'Donald and Dill's), was made first in dry nares, and Lady Cromwell, by Champion of Scotland (Mr Brady's), first in three-year-old fillies. In two-year-olds, the first place was given to perhaps the best developed filly on the ground, Mr. John Smith's (of Dean) Princess Maude 11th, by Lord Clyde; Mr J. Robertson's filly, by Champion of Scotland, was second. Upon the whole, the foals dropped since 1st August, 1876, were not as creditable a lot as might have been expected from the excellence of many of their dams. No less than seven thoroughbred stallions came to parade, viz., C. Frasers Ladykirk, James Croughog Springfield, W. Peters's Peter Finn, WJ Clarke's Palmerston, G. Smith's Othello, Q. Stokee's Southern Chief, and J. Glenn's Confusion. Ladykirk and Springfield, it will be seen, gained the honours. Mr Cordell, Lancefield, sent no less than five dry mares, but failed to obtain a place, Mr Clarke's Dancing Girl and Mr Lade's Atheling getting first and second; Mr Abbott's Young Riverina and Mr Crough's mare by Panic gaining similar honours in the dry mare section. In three year old colts, Mr Fraser won with an unnamed colt by Ladykirk, Mr Crough's Priority, by The Peer, being second, Mr Clarke's special prize of £10 for the best stallion for breeding carriage horses and backs was very properly awarded to his own Young Montrose. His hacks, Melbourne and Dusty Miller, also obtained the prizes in a rather numerous section. Trotting horses, in saddle and in harness, pairs of buggy mares, and single buggy horses, were interesting features, and were a suitable course provided, their prowess would, as elsewhere, be a great attraction. But we must now turn to the cattle. Of the ten short-horn bulls over three years old catalogued, nine were presented to the judges, Messrs JG Dougharty, W. Turner, and — Hann, who soon dismissed four, leaving Nessrs Brisbane's 8th Duke of Derrimut, Mr M'Dougall's Gallovidian, Mr Wragge's Prince Charlie, Mr Riddell's Duke of Warlaby, and Mr Horwood's Cherry Oxford 2nd in the ring. The decision was in favour of the three first as named. All are pretty well known, some, but not all of them, favourably. In two-year-olds Mr M'Dougall's Hercules by Field-Marshal Booth was placed first, Mr Horwood's Count Genova second, and Mr Rennick's 5th Duke of Lancaster third. Contrary to the usual rule, yearlings were fewer than aged bulls, and of those catalogued one or two were not paraded. Mr Clarke's Prince Ernest was coquetted with for a time; he has wonderful coat and appearance for his breeding. Mr Horwood showed a nice calf, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, by Cherry Oxford 2nd, and another, Duke of Montpelier, by Duke of Melbourne; but the judges were content with neither. Mr M'Dougall's Lothario was placed first, Mr Riddell's Earl of Alvie, by Earl of Geneva, second, and Mr Riddell's Duke of Warlaby 6th, third. Since he was last shown the Duke has much improved. There is a large entry (24) of shorthorn cows, but their merit was not equal to their numbers. The judges could not pass Horwood's Duchess of Bridgewater, brought out as she was in good form. She not only gained first prize in her section, but was subsequently nearly gaining the championship—this, however, was ultimately given to Mr M'Dougall's bull Hercules. In the cow class Mr M'Gregor's Lediner, and Mr Rennick's Princess 5th, were placed second and third. The three-year-old section gave Mr Horwood another, or rather two other victories, for he gained first and second with Princess of Bridgewater and Brassknocker the 4th, whilst the third fell to Brisbane's Jessica, a nice heifer by 8th Duke of Derrimut. But, as if to make up for this advantage, Horwood's Matilda's Geneva gained only third place in two-year-olds, the first and second places going to Rennick's Princess Alice and Brisbane's Rosebud. In yearlings Mr Riddell came to the fore, distancing Mr Horwood and Messrs Brisbane. Herefords were, as usual at Victorian shows, not numerous, but Mr. R. Orr (of Kyneton), Mr. E. Baker (of Bolinda), Mr WJ Clarke, and Mr H. Campbell, were the successful exhibitors, and the quality of their stock was good. There were very few Ayrshires, and not as large a number of dairy cattle as there would have been had not the shorthorn-cow section been distended by animals whose proper place was the dairy section. Sheep were as numerous as could be expected at this season. And here we are obliged to find fault with the management. The prize-tickets were not attached, as they ought to have been, by the stewards, when the awards were made; the numbers of the pens did not tally with those in the catalogue, so that, to avoid error, it was necessary to refrain from criticism. As far as could be ascertained, Messrs Lobb, Hogan, Benson, WJ Clarke, W. Jeffreye, D. M’Gregor, Donald Juror, and Wm. Robertson were the principal prizetakers in Lincolns and Leicesters. Some good crossbred and fat sheep were also exhibited. There was a creditable show of pigs made by H. Towerring, JN Beasley, M. Wall, WJ Clarke, E Baker, and — Hogan; some of them immense animals, far too large for the colonial taste. Dairy produce and harness were shown in a large tent; grain, farm produce, and poultry in another. There were a dozen exhibits of wheat, most of it fairly clean, but somewhat pinched by the drought. Mr H. Towersing, Gisborne, secured first and second prizes for what was certainly the same sample of wheat—two bags constituted an exhibit. This was red wheat, and slightly pinched. The third prize was given to the most fully developed sample (Mr. A Harper's) in the show, but the kind is not always a favourite with millers. Mr. Harper was first in oats. Mr. Daly, Mr. Bretherton, and Mr. M'Pherson, also won prizes in the order named in a section of 12 exhibits. The malting barley prizes were won by Messrs M. M'Pherson, R. Dawes, and JB Phipps. Peas were well shown, and there was some fine, but not clean, rye-grass. The district is evidently adapted for growing potatoes, Swedish and other turnips, but the cabbages and long-mangel prizes fell to Mr Woodman, of Malvern. Butter was shown in considerable quantity. The winners of first prizes in the three sections were Messrs D. M'Cartney, J. Lang, and D. M'Cartney respectively. In cheese Messrs F. Poy, J. Ochiltree, and Peter Mitchell were first second, and third. Mr Onians, of Lancefield, and Mr. Towersing, of Gisborne, took the prizes for hams. Messrs Sanders, of Melbourne, were first in bacon, Mr Towersing coming second. The show of implements was, as might be expected so near Melbourne, of no great extent. Mr Murro's Victory windmill and pump was a conspicuous object. Mr Hugh Lennon was the only exhibitor of ploughs, both single and double furrow. Messrs T. Robinson and Co. were represented in barrows, grubbers, &c., and the local waggonmakers contributed numerous specimens of their work. Churns, well-made, were sent by Mr Cherry; and buggies and waggonettes by Mr Crutch. Mr Looney, of Bourke-street, sent some well-made saddles and harness, for which he received awards. Gregory elected captain “The choice for captain was between [BB] Cooper of Victoria and Dave Gregory of NSW Mercifully ‘no silly intercolonial rivalry was to be allowed to interfere with the prudent conduct of the match,’ and Dave Gregory was elected.” “An event,” according to Don Whitting, writing seventy years, later, “which caused as much astonishment in two States as the subsequent events in the game. The idea of a team comprising six Victorians and only five New South Welshmen electing a New South Welshman captain left the Colonials rocking. Nothing like it had ever happened before.” This, when we peruse the contemporary reportage, seems an overstatement: “The result of their decision was generally commended, as everyone felt that Gregory was capable of wisely handling his men.” “There can hardly be any doubt,” declared The Argus, “that the Sydney man was the fittest of all the eleven for the position.” His charges “showed by the appointment they made that no silly rivalry between the colonies was to be allowed to interfere with the prudent conduct of the match.” If relations were not warm, they were at least disinterested and professional. It may have helped that Gregory had selected all the men now electing him. “Team unity,” a serious question given intercolonial politics, and the billeting arrangements, “was boosted on the morning of the match when the Australian players met to elect their captain and the vote went to Sydney's Dave Gregory when it might well have gone 6-5 to a Victorian.” Cooper born in England, and learnt his cricket in England. Gregory Australian born and bred. I notice that the Association have hitherto appointed a captain for each team they have sent into the field. It appears to me that it would be much more satisfactory to the players and to the person chosen if the Committee would allow the team to elect its own captain. (White Rose “Cricket Notes” South Australian Register, 7 April 1877.)

His captaincy improved on the England tour:

From a purely cricket point of view, a principal cause of success was Mr. Gregory's captaincy. It bas been very truly said that England does not at the present time possess his equal. He has mastered the difficulty of the problem as to when to change the bowling, The most celebrated of our English captains-such as Mr. W. G. Grace, Daft, and Mr. I. D. "Walker, have-not, with all their practice, overcome this difficulty. Mr. Grace is, no doubt, a very effective bowler, but he has, times out of number, kept himself on for dozens of overs longer than was desirable. Daft, though not a great bowler himself, commits a similar fault when he lets a man keep on for an indefinite period, simply because he is a good man and is bowling maidens. Mr. Walker, though his generalship is superior to that of the two ad-mirable players just mentioned, sometimes seems to lose his grasp of the game, and to omit making the proper changes at the proper times. Several very good captains have of late years been pro-duced by the Universities. Mr. Law, Mr, Green-field, Mr. Ridley, the Hon. E. Lyttelton, and Lord Harris, are all able to keep their fingers, as it were, on the pulse of the game, and to fight the mimic battle in such a way as to command the ad-miration of spectators. But the great majority of men, amateurs and professionals alike, who are placed in the position of captain fall very far short of the ideal director of an eleven. Mr. Gregory very nearly approaches that ideal, He realises that his business in the field is to get the other side out as soon as possible, and not to prolong the innings by a series of useless maidens, which, while they gratify a bowler's vanity, weary the field and the spectators, and encourage the batsmen. He makes his changes with promptitude and excellent judgment, and he varies his field with a quick apprecia-tion of the peculiarities of different batsmen. All this seems simple enough on paper, and the wonder, it may be, is that there are not more good captains ; but in practice it is not easy to manage an eleven in the field, and to disregard all personal feelings, all prejudices, and all interested aa vice, and go straight towards the goal-victory-using your team like a machine, out of which you are bound to get the greatest possible amount of work at the least possible cost. (Daily News “Departure of the Australians” 20 September 1878.) Gregory wins the toss Gregory won the toss from Lillywhite, and inevitably and immediately elected to bat. The attendance of spectators was still between 1,000 and 1,500—“more moderate than so important an event as the first contest between the cricketers of the old country and the colonies on level terms was worthy of,” and “not at all equal to the expectations of the promoters of the match.” But this figure was misleading, for “there was more interest in the game” than it implied, and “the weather being so magnificent, there was every prospect of an improvement in this respect.” Begbie: “The day was glorious, the pitch well prepared, and the result a foregone conclusion. So the crowd gathered at the old Richmond Paddock was small enough to begin with.” “About 1000 spectators were scattered round the ground, still shaded by eucalypts and elms.” These gnarled and warted elms, “planted by each member of Mr Stephenson's All England XI in 1862,” famous in their own right; now perhaps most celebrated as the favourite viewing spot of Tom Horan: The distant prospect made so radiant by its contrast with the shade in which he sat, and made so precious by the arched perspective through which he saw it, that it was like a glimpse of the better land. “Though it used to be said that his ‘favourite elm’ was really a pittosporum.” In 1913 the [Melbourne Cricket Club] committee came to a drastic decision. This was to cut down the finest trees on the ground, the 11 lovely old elms planted by Mr Stephenson's Eleven in 1862. Not only were the trees large and shady but they stood for the first English team ever to come to Australia. Yet they had to go, and more than anything else this meant the end of an era at the MCG. No longer was it like a country ground, now for ever it was to be a big sports arena.” To this, arguably, dates the creation of cricket’s first stadium, as distinct from ground. Wilmot, doing his own “Round the Ground” column a quarter-century after Horan’s death: “The small trees, so carefully planted, grew apace and formed a delightful background, but gradually they came under the axe, and had to give way, first to the Wardill and Harrison stands and later to that wonderful building which affords shelter to so many thousands and has transformed the cricket-ground into a huge stadium. It is magnificent, but I think there is not one of the veterans who does not deplore the loss of those glorious old trees. On them, and far beyond, away out into the Richmond paddock we rested our eyes on so many shades of green. Now we have only the glare of massive concrete. The romance has gone, and with it the heroes of the past, but their memory still lives.” The days when they frequented that happy comer which the dear elms brightened could never fade in their remembrance. They never saw that corner but they wished to see those elms. In their memories there was a mournful glory shining on the place, which would shine forever. Jack Worrall in 1928: “W. Maher showed me a photograph of the first English team that visited Australia. He saw them play in Melbourne, and also saw them plant, the elms round the ground—those shady elms that, dear old Tom Horan loved so well.” Research by Timothy J. McCann [Arthur Hogben of Sidlesham and the first Test match, Timothy J. McCann, The Cricket Statistician, no. 188, Winter 2019] suggests that Arthur Hobgen, who had frequently played alongside Lillywhite as part of the Priory Park Club in Chichester, was instrumental in backing the tour. The Englishmen took to the field in “cloth caps and ties splashing colour”, and there were about 1,000 spectators. Walking out onto the park His sharp, eager face framed in his earflapped travelling cap.

Australia 1st innings

In short time was published the issue of the toss, whereon umpires Ben Terry and Curtis Reid, nominal representatives of (because born in) England and Australia respectively, emerged to furbish the stumps. I say “nominal” because their true allegiance was to the Melbourne Cricket Club. Terry’s, as ground bowler, was to terminate with the termination of the season—more particularly, with his decision to join a rival club—but Reid was still firming his ties. By October he would be ordained its first paid secretary. His loyalties divided as Terry’s were soon to be redirected: Reid would not umpire second match, preferring to play for his club side: “After the termination of the match sides were chosen, the most noticeable features being the hitting of Riddell, a fine catch by C. Reid…” For a long time past I have been wondering—and I guess most other persons interested in cricket have also been making themselves—who the new Association umpires are. The fact that they have been appointed, and that some of them have already officiated, is well known; but the names of the whole complement have never appeared in the newspapers. Indeed, whether six, eight, ten, or a dozen have been nominated is not yet known. This is manifestly unfair, as it staves off criticism. Whose fault is it? Perhaps the fault lies at the doors of some members of the Committee, who love not the idea of umpires appointed by the Association. Certainly the whole business has been mismanaged; and lately we have been going back to the former practice of allowing players to umpire—Messrs Gibbs and Burgan, to wit. If this be the way the principle of Association umpiring is carried out, the sooner we return to the old haphazard “system” the better. Already it is pretty patent to all cricketers that one or two of the selections made are not the wisest possible; but until the names of the whole are published neither I nor any other writer can well comment on them. Meanwhile the Committee—or the responsible representatives—are doing their best to bring the principle into ridicule. I shrewdly suspect this was their object from the beginning.

Terry was called upon to relieve Kelly. The change did not retard the efforts of the batsmen, and despite Terry's endeavours to bump them, a load cheer announced the arrival of 140 upon the black board, and directly after Major caused further demonstrations of approval to be made by sending Cosstick to leg for 4. The score being exactly the same as that obtained by Melbourne in their first innings, a single to each batsman and a four off Terry to Major brought 150 to the public view. Slight then made a fine on drive for 4 off Cosstick. Midwinter came on again instead of Terry, whose bowling was very short and harmless.

Midwinter once more went on instead of Terry—a highly necessary change.

The England team was no sooner visible than cheered. A like reception greeted Australia’s openers, who were at their posts before the fieldsmen had settled in theirs. To Pooley’s vacant lot went John Selby, next to whom was James Southerton at “short slip”—a position to be distinguished from “long slip” as today we distguish first slip from second. It was Southerton’s favourite place, as sparing him, in the fiftieth year of his life, and the twenty-third of his first class career, the cardiovascular supererogations demanded of other positions and younger fielders. Tom Emmett took point, and took seriously its etymology, laying himself within reach of the “point” of the bat, which today we would call silly. 2021’s point was 1877’s “cover point,” where The Australasian has Allen Hill, but the Weekly Times is probably correct in putting him at “forward cover,” which would forestall an overlay. Harry Jupp was at mid-off—but probably wider than is or was wonted, since behind him, “for big hits,” stood Andrew Greenwood: a very straight long off. Lillywhite was at “short leg,” which in modern speech translates to “square leg,” and would have been straighter for the same reason that Jupp was wider, for there was another Harry, Charlwood, at deep square leg. Somewhere between mid-on and midwicket was Tom Armitage, and George Ulyett patrolled the boundary behind him. [insert graphic of field] The bowler was Alfred Shaw, widely esteemed “the bowler of the day,” but just what he bowled is matter of dispute: Anthony Meredith describes “slow off-breaks,” while Ron Saw has him opening with a “fast, round-arm ... leg-cutter.” These views are irreconcilable. But reconciliation is unnecessary, for both are bunk. FJ Ironside, in a widely circulated preview of the 1876/77 tour, gives the opinion that Shaw was “a medium-paced bowler.” In this he has the support of every serious contemporary source, including Lillywhite’s Companion for 1878. Alfred Shaw, who assisted him [Lillywhite] in his managerial role, was another short and stocky fellow. The Nottinghamshire slow-medium bowler was one of the most accurate of all time, sending down more overs in his career than he conceded runs.

Like his Australian rival, Shaw’s place in history was thus assured by his involvement in that opening exchange. Like his Australian rival too, Shaw had come to cricket after being sacked from his first job of work – that of a human scarecrow in his home village of Burton Joyce in Nottinghamshire. In a bid to avert the mind-numbing tedium, which involved blowing a horn and wielding clappers, Shaw and a fellow scarecrow deserted their posts to play cricket. The youngsters were found by the angry farmer, whose wheat had been scoffed by a swarm of rooks. “There was no excuse for such a dereliction of duty,” wrote Shaw. “That night I accepted my week’s wage and, with it, my discharge.”

Shaw was thirty-four years old, and in Meredith’s telling “sprightly.” He was “plump but not yet grossly fat, dapper with a handlebar moustache and side whiskers.” Within a few summers the moustache and the whiskers would give way to a full beard, making him the dead image of Henry VIII of glorious memory. To be sure, he had not King Hal’s bigness, nor his burliness, nor his noisiness, but he would become every bit as small-eyed and double-chinned and swinish-looking, and even now, as a bowler, had something of his artfulness. In the opening match of the tour, in Adelaide, he had inspired the locals by “the easy grace with which he delivered his balls, and the precision and certainty with which they broke the wicket.” One of those locals, a seventeen-year-old George Giffen, remembered “going out one evening after the Englishmen had concluded their practice and finding on the pitch, which was rather soft that day, a patch about the size of a small saucer that the balls sent down by the great Notts bowler had worn.” Shaw was always dubious of claims like these, but they appear so frequently as to strike the historian as having some force. He shot out these cinders of precision, as if it were done by mechanical revolvency. Still, we must not form the impression that he was a mere automaton. In Ironside’s careful phrasing, he was “very effective, never off the wicket, and with varied pitch.” It is instructive to compare Lillywhite’s field for Shaw in practice with the theory he laid out in the Cricketer’s Companion for that year. [Insert page from Lillywhite, recommending field for Shaw.] Long stop is missing (a surprising token of his faith in Selby); long slip, too—both relegated to the straight boundaries. In this excess of caution we have an expression of his view of the wicket, and perhaps also of his inexperience as captain. His county, Sussex, had always been amateur-led; so too the United South of England XI, of which he was a popular constituent. “As a captain,” hedged Southerton, “he would probably be ‘highly commended,’” but the prevalent opinion among his charges was that “he would not get the first prize.” Anthony Meredith casts him as “an uninspiring leader,” over whom “stronger personalities usually got their own way.” One of these was Tom Emmett, who “would continually lecture Lillywhite about field-placings, until the latter’s patience eventually evaporated.” The fielding on both sides was excellent, but it was generally thought that the captain of the Victorians changed the position of his men too often. (South Australian Register “Victorian CC v. Mount Pleasant” 7 April 1877.) But the defensive field had possibly another explanation: Lillywhite may have been weary of Australia’s opening batsman. [How many runs had he scored off straight drives against Lillywhite’s team previously on this tour?] In the Second Test, a fortnight from now, Bannerman would strike three successive fours, all straight down the ground, off Allen Hill. 1876/77 had been a fine season for the young right-hander. He had top-scored for the NSW XV against Lillywhite’s team in January, and second-top-scored, “with his usual free and confident batting,” in the eleven-a-side match. He would head the Sydney club averages with an average of 67, far in excess of anything else. Bannerman followed. His first hit was a straight drive for 4, and the score continuing, Hill was put on, vice Shaw; off this over Bannerman scored three fours in succession, sending the ball right down to the chains for straight drives. This he capped by a five hit, right over the chains. (Sydney Mail “Second Combination Match” 7 April 1877.) Born in Kent, he had learnt his cricket in Australia, having immigrated at the age of two, but he was, for that, no less a product of English coaching than any of England’s batsmen. William Caffyn, the old Surrey professional, who stayed behind in Australia after his second tour with George Parr's XI in 1863/64, had taken Bannerman in hand at the Warwick Club in Sydney. Caffyn was one of those coaches who preferred rather to cultivate native talent than to choke it by precept: “The system I worked on was never to try and make all bat alike. If a man was a hitter I tried to make him hit with as great safety as possible; if, on the other hand, another player was naturally a ‘stonewaller,’ I encouraged him in this style of play.’” He probably had Bannerman and his brother Alick in mind: Charles was of the former school, his brother, infamously, the latter. Charles would himself move into coaching at the end of his playing days, but did not at first follow Caffyn’s example.

Writing of Trumper’s youth in Town and Country Journal in January 1913, S.H. Bowden recalled Bannerman’s unheeded entreaties (‘Leave it alone, Vic; that wasn’t a ball to go at’) and eventual decision to let the boy do as he pleased. The characteristic lasted. Monty Noble described it as Trumper’s capacity for listening politely and attentively to all advice but going ‘his own sweet way’. His immortality is not only manifested in the legend of his genius; it is reflected in the abiding Australian belief that individual flair and natural talent will out.

Is credited [quoted] with allowing Trumper’s natural flair to out. Generally attributed to the obviousness of Trumper’s talent; I suspect, though, that the Caffyn method was passed down. Seems—check—not to have played any competitive cricket in the month preceding this match, but he had been in fine form during the practices on this ground over the past week. Charles Bannerman is known today by a feat and an image. The feat, of course, is that of having faced Test cricket's first ball and scored its first run and peeling off its maiden century, a match-winning 165 from an Australian all-out score of 245 at the MCG in March 1877. The image is a widely published photograph taken nearly 53 years later of an elderly Bannerman, in hat and coat, laying a gently approving hand on the shoulder of Donald Bradman at the SCG, when the 21-year-old was about to commence his near-vertical ascent through cricket's hierarchy of records. The time lapse between feat and image is perhaps just as evocative. Bannerman's cricket peak was brief and lonely: you can almost argue that it was confined to that innings, when he took toll of an English bowling attack still queasy from a stormy crossing of the Tasman, for it was almost exactly twice his next best first-class score, and he played only two further Test matches. But a record is one thing, a first another. A record can be broken; a first can never be busted to second. Bannerman's feat afforded him such imperishable status that he could, as it were, induct Bradman in an Australian batting lineage, with the additional prophecy: "This boy will clip all the records." The big gap is also an enigma, both enticing and off-putting to a potential biographer. Bannerman has probably waited as long as any cricketer for a historian to go searching for him, and Alf James, a studious classicist, reveals the pressure of the years in Australia's Premier Batsman. The traces are scant, limited and ambiguous. There are no photographs of Bannerman in action. The written accounts of his batting are disappointingly short of detail. James deems him a pioneer of "forward play", but a mental image of his batting is hard to summon. Likewise a personal image. When James quotes a fond 1923 memoir of Bannerman from the journalist Jack Worrall - "May he long remain with us, with his big blue eyes and his lisp" - the intimacy of the observation is powerful because it is so exceptional. Otherwise James has been left to recite a lot of scores, including some lengthy threadbare sequences, which seem a little redundant seeing that they are recapitulated in statistical appendices. Yet there is something here, and if the writing is mainly serviceable, with the occasional Latinate flourish, an intriguing story is at least hinted at. Born in Woolwich, Bannerman was two years old when his family arrived in Sydney, his mother heavily pregnant with his brother Alick, himself destined to play 28 Tests. Their father worked at Sydney's mint, whose deputy master was an accomplished round-arm bowler. The boys walked in, then, on an evolving game. It was also the unruly game of an unruly people, and Charles Bannerman was no exception. James reveals that 19-year-old Bannerman lost his own mint job for "insolence to his superior officer and general insubordination", and went through a period in his early twenties when he alienated many contemporaries by his cocky club- and colony-hopping. "The colt was considered a bright particular star while he lasted," said a censorious columnist in the Sydney Mail in March 1874, "but a good many people have come to the conclusion that for some time he has been on the wane, and that if common sense does not come to his aid he will be snuffed out forever." David Warner, then, has a distinguished antecedent. Although not even Warner had three children with his first wife and two children with a mistress ten years his junior. Bannerman's crowded hour of glorious batting life came when he was 25. After the subsequent Australian tour of England, he dropped away precipitously, in a way strangely foretold. And although James has been unable to establish any satisfactory explanation, writers seemed uncannily aware that the process was irreversible. By 1879, the Sydney Morning Herald was calling him "only the ghost of himself", Australian Town and Country Journal "only the ghost of the player we used to know", and the Sydney Mail was asserting that there was "no prospect of improvement".Whatever they meant, they were right. For the next five years, Bannerman averaged less than 15 in first-class cricket. "Drink and gambling, it is reputed, was his downfall," wrote a contemporary many years later, although James shies from this "far-fetched conclusion on the slight evidence available".James being a reluctant interpreter, the reader is left in a way to build their own story. My own was this. Bannerman was unusual in his Australian era in playing openly as a "professional". After losing his mint job, he seems to have had only fragmentary employment outside the game. Instead he relied on playing, touring, coaching and umpiring. His only other fallback, bookmaking, was a constraint. Not only did it eat into his Saturdays, but the England team of 1882-83 refused to accept him as an umpire - not surprising, really, given the betting-related cricket riot at the SCG four years earlier. Bannerman was a "professional", in other words, long before there was anything like a professional cricket structure. And for it he, and others, paid a price. Probably the most moving passages in James' book are from a news story in Sydney's Evening News, May 27, 1891, headlined "A Cricketer in Low Circumstances": Bannerman had been arraigned to answer charges of desertion of his wife, and failure to provide for her. An exchange is recorded: Judge: Your family is in destitute circumstances. How do you get your living? Bannerman: By cricketing, your Worship. Judge: But it's the off season now, and there's not much doing in that line. Bannerman: I've nothing to say against my wife, your worship, at all. If you will give me a week to try and get the money, I might get some of it. By cricketing, your Worship: four desperate words to encapsulate the precariousness of the professional cricket life, for the player and for their financial dependents. Blessedly it was not to be the end. Cricket biography reserves a special place for the tragic figure. Bannerman ends up being a rarer figure in biography - a subject who flirted with tragedy and survived. When his wife died in 1895, he was able to marry his mistress, and he benefited by testimonial matches in 1899 and 1922; his prudent brother, meanwhile, grew wealthy. In that 1930 photograph with bashful Bradman, Bannerman strikes a pose of solemn dignity befitting the prestige of his achievement - with maybe just a hint of the character he had been in his playing days. For is that a cigarette in his hand?

“Physically he packed a powerful punch at 5ft 7½in and 11 stone five pounds. Tom Garrett ... branded him ‘a pocket Hercules.’ Bannerman was athletic and played a number of sports; he was an accomplished runner, a fair amateur rower (albeit ‘subject to cramp’) and a useful swimmer and billiard player. In a rare personal recollection of him,” there rose to the memory of the Australian cricketer-turned-journalist Jack Worrall [...] Bannerman’s ‘big blue eyes’ and ‘lisp.’”

Under different circumstances, Bannerman might have been playing for England. He was born in Woolwich, London, in 1851, the son of William Bannerman, a Scotsman, and his wife, Margaret, who came from Ireland. When Charles was two, the Bannermans emigrated when his father – a lance-corporal in the Royal Sappers and Miners at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich – was posted to Sydney. The British government had set up a Sydney branch of the Royal Mint to counter a black market in gold at the height of the gold rush, and Bannerman worked in the Mint as a blacksmith. He’d been in Australia for six years when he suddenly died, aged 40, after an attack of delirium tremens (DTs), a condition normally caused by alcohol withdrawal. It left Charles’s mother with seven children to support including his younger brother, Alec, who also played for Australia.

Charles Bannerman played his earliest cricket at Sydney’s Warwick Cricket Club, a stone’s throw from the Sydney Mint. He was taught by Billy Caffyn, a famous Surrey and England all-rounder, who’d stayed in Australia after touring as a player. Practices were staged in the shadow of the Mint where the teenage Charles worked as a mechanic. Bannerman, however, had no time for the job and was cocky and rebellious in his youth. In 1871, one month before his 20th birthday, he was sacked from the Mint “having persistently neglected his duty, notwithstanding repeated warnings and opportunities of amendment and having moreover been guilty of insolence to his superior officer and general insubordination”. He had a temper too, quitting Warwick CC in a huff to join East Sydney when one of his team-mates earned more than he did for making a big score. The Sydney Mail criticised his childishness, insisting that he was “so spoiled and petted” by his early cricketing success that he “lost his head”. Bannerman returned to Warwick a year later and he also represented New South Wales, who then played infrequently against Victoria, then the only other Australian first-class opposition. In the weeks before the first Test, Bannerman played a key role in two wins achieved by New South Wales XVs against James Lillywhite’s tourists that first gave rise to the idea – hitherto thought absurd – that Australians could challenge their English counterparts in 11-a-side games. Until then, it was not felt that an Australian XI would be strong enough to compete on equal terms with the English, who often played against up to 22 players to make a game of it. But the success of Bannerman and his colleagues helped inspire a “Grand Combination Match” (the official title of the first Test), which featured 11 players from Victoria/New South Wales (Melbourne/Sydney) against Lillywhite’s men. Over 1 Shaw opened from the stand end, on the south-eastern side of the ground. The cool wind was in his face, from the sweet south sliding, “a little stronger than might have been desired.” He had seen worse on this tour—in the thrilling finale to the first of the New South Wales matches, “a strong gale of wind blew straight down the wicket,” and as Shaw “could not act against it,” he switched ends, bowling with the wind, Hill against it. Today roles reversed. “Play commenced at one o'clock today, under the auspices of fine weather and a good attendance. Dave Gregory captained the combined team, and Lillywhite their opponents. The former won the toss, and sent in Nat Thompson and Bannerman. When the score had reached 2, Nat was bowled by Hill for one. Horan went in next, and when the total had reached 40 Horan was caught by Hill off Shaw for 12. Dave Gregory was next, but was run out after making a single. 3-1-41, Bannerman not out 22, end the play gone to luncheon. Cooper next joined Bannerman, and the pair ran the score up to 108, when Bannerman had made 77 not out, and Cooper 15 not out, the former making 10 in one over off Armitage. At this point five bowlers had been tried. At 4.40 Cooper was bowled by Southerton for 15. Midwinter came next, but was caught by Hill off Southerton for 5. Total for 5 wickets, 142. E. Gregory was next in, but was caught by Greenwood off Lillywhite for nil. The total at this point was 146 for six wickets, Bannerman being not out with 105. Blackham went in, and when the stumps were drawn had scored 3, Bannerman being not out with 126, the total standing at 166, including 3 sundries.” The done thing, at this point in the narrative, is to reach for the ready cliché. “There was a hush on the ground for a few moments,” asserts Stanley Brogden, “as Alfred Shaw, accepted as the finest bowler in the side, and possibly the finest bowler playing in the world at that time, began his run to deliver the first ball.” Richard Begbie opts for “silence.” Ron Saw: “Alf Shaw, the English opening bowler, tugged his cap down, ran five quick paces to the wicket and sent down a fast, round-arm delivery. Well, to Charles Bannerman it was fast. Today it would have been called a medium-pace leg cutter.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A near thing—near as a toucher: Another layer of japan, “the thickness of a sheet of paper, would have caused the ball to hit the stump.” Our source for this is Southerton’s account for The Sportsman: “He was so near being bowled the first ball that the thickness of a sheet of paper would have caused the ball to hit the stump.” The regnant assumption about Test cricket’s first ball is that we know nothing about it (cite example), and certainly it is true that none of the Australian newspapers offered a description. Others have presumed to know what they do not. Richard Begbie is so taken with the cliché of hushed solemnity that he imagines that “Bannerman gravely defends the first ball in Test cricket.” Bannerman so near being bowled first ball. The most important near thing in the game’s history—the tiny forgotten integer that could have altered the whole equation of the international game. Test cricket’s first ball, in short, was its most operative. “At the Melbourne Cricket Ground on March 15, 1877, it was fast, even though Bannerman had time for a stylish, flourishing backlift before he drove it through the covers for two. It was the first shot of one of cricket’s greatest innings; the first of the first Test ever played between Australia and England. [Note that there’s no evidence for some of this and contradictory evidence for the rest, and that many of the details, including, bizarrely, the umpire’s name, are made up. Relegate the rest to footnotes.] Dave Gregory had won the toss for Australia and had opened with his fellow New South Welshmen, Bannerman and Nat Thomson. There weren’t many spectators: probably fewer than 1000 on that first day. It was a combined NSW and Victorian rather than an Australian XI, and its chances were regarded as pretty slim. The only really exciting cricketers in the team were Dave Gregory; Jack Blackham, the great wicketkeeper, who wore skin-tight gloves, stood up close and performed stumpings off even the fastest bowlers; and Billy Midwinter, the huge all-rounder, who was English anyway. The Englishmen, on the other hand, were all busy professionals. They had already beaten several kinds of hell out of colonial teams 15 and 22 strong. So Shaw bowled three more balls to finish the (four-ball) over; and Bannerman hit two of them for twos, driving them past Tom Armitage who, at mid-on, was either drunk or pretending to be drunk but, either way, was having a lot of trouble keeping his eye on the ball. Nat Thomson pushed the other English opening bowler, Bert Hill, for a single; and, two balls later, was bowled neck and crop. There was no wild rejoicing. Nobody kissed Hill. The Englishmen expected quick wickets. Everybody did. It was unusual for a batsman to reach double figures in those days. Tommy Horan came in and batted solidly, leaving Bannerman to make the runs. He was making them, too, though he’d been lucky a couple of times. In Shaw’s second over Bannerman lobbed an easy catch to Armitage, who was still staggering around at mid-on. Armitage saw it coming, took off at a pace roughly that of a sick lobster, waved his hands at the ball, over-ran it, fell over, climbed to his feet and fell over again. In the members’ stand Mr William McIntosh, secretary of the Richmond Cricket Club, actually fell out of his chair laughing. In most circumstances Armitage would have been sent off to bag his head; but James Lillywhite, the English captain, had only 12 players, and Edward Pooley, the England, Middlesex and Surrey wicketkeeper, was off the field and his replacement, John Selby, scuffling and fumbling about behind the stumps, didn’t seem much steadier than Armitage anyway. Slowly the score built up. Horan went for 12. Dave Gregory was run out for one. B. B. Cooper, the Victorian captain, stayed with Bannerman through the fast attack, which included the sharp and nasty lifters of George Ulyett. Then Lillywhite brought on his “spinners and twisters” and James Southerton, at 50 the oldest man on the field, bowled Cooper and had Billy Midwinter caught for a paltry five. Had Southerton been kept on he might have run right through the Australian batting, but Lillywhite was a strange cove. He brought on Armitage and the game became a circus. Round-arm bowling had been legal since 1835, overarm since 1864; but Armitage was one of the last of the underarmers and, incredibly, they’d let him get at the singing syrup all over again during lunch. As a result Armitage bowled first a grubber, a ball with which Bannerman admittedly couldn’t do much, then a donkey-drop which Bannerman hit over the fence. He tossed another so high that the umpire waved a wide. Anything he got on the wicket Bannerman hit like the crack of doom. It was slaughter. Why Lillywhite kept him on we may never know, but Armitage bowled three overs and two balls of a fourth before his captain stopped it. “Hey, fair go!” called Bannerman. “He hasn’t finished his over.” “He’s feeling poorly,” said Lillywhite. “Just as well.” said Edward Gregory from the other end. “If he was feeling any pain at all this would be simply brutal.” The umpire, Jarvis, agreed, laughing heartily, and Armitage was sent off to wander the outfield. Gregory, who had been stonewalling for nearly half an hour, went, for a duck, in Lillywhite’s next over. And at stumps on the first day Australia was 6/166, of which Charles Bannerman had made 126. Next day, with about 5,000 spectators at hand. Lillywhite brought back his rested pace men, Shaw and Ulyett; and Ulyett caused some bother. His deliveries were kicking up sharply, hitting both Bannerman and Jack Blackham. He didn’t take a wicket—it was old Jim Southerton who finally bowled Blackham—but he split Bannerman’s finger. Bannerman had to retire, hurt, at 165. Alf Shaw, on for his third spell, cleaned up the tailenders, [p. 25] Tom Kendall and Jimmy Hodges. Tommy Garrett, the young Sydney LTniversity bowler, had held up his wicket for 19 not out, second top score in an innings of 245. It’s worth noting that Tom Emmett, the famous Yorkshire spinner, bowled 12 overs in that innings, almost certainly tossing in his sosteneuter, a ball which pitched on the leg stump and flicked away toward the off bail; but he didn’t get a wicket. The English openers should have been packed away early. In the first over squat little Harry Jupp hit his wicket and a bail fell and Blackham and the bowler, Jimmy Hodges, both appealed loudly and happily. But Jarvis said not out. “I didn’t see what made it fall,” he said. Hodges did get a wicket, Selby’s, a few overs later. But Jupp and Harry Charlwood, another nuggety little stonewaller, stayed together for what seemed like weeks, patiently putting on runs, scuttling between the wickets like jackrabbits. They might have been there still had not Gregory brought on Billy Midwinter. Precisely what Midwinter bowled is not known. He’s never mentioned in the company of pace men; and, indeed, he may even have had a sosteneuter up his sleeve. But he bowled a great deal, fourth in line, cleaned out the middle-order bats and finished with 54-23-78-5. And there it was: England had made only 196 and Melbourne wanted to award the freedom of the city to the entire Australian team. And, as if you wouldn’t have known it, Australia’s second innings was a disaster. Bannerman, who shouldn’t have batted at all, opened again with Nat Thompson, and Ulyett was in full cry. Bannerman went for four, and it seemed to put the mocker on the rest of the team. Australia, with a pitiful 104, had let England off the hook. England needed only 154 to win—a target so easy they might have done it opening with Armitage after a long lunch. But Lillywhite seemed determined to make life hellish for himself. Bert Hill, the fast bowler who had fluked 35 not out in the first innings, was sent in to open with John Selby; and Kendall got him with the second ball of the innings. Selby dug in and seemed likely to stay in, partnered first by gloomy, plodding little Harry Charlwood, then by George Ulyett. Then everything happened at once. Hodges got Selby, and Kendall seemed to run amok. He bowled Charlwood, bowled Ulyett, had Greenwood and Armitage caught and Shaw stumped. The crowd had built to 12,000, 11,999 of whom thought Kendall was doing a pretty good job. The fly in the ointment was a certain Captain Fowler; late, it was said, of the 10th Hussars,” who shook his head with magnificent displeasure. “When Kendall bowled Charlwood, the captain, sitting among the members, called out: “This should be stopped.” Nobody seemed to know what was up. But when Kendall skittled George Ulyett the captain gave tongue again. “The fellow is not playing fair,” he shouted. “He is throwing the ball.” Somebody said “Rubbish” and somebody else laughed “There’s an officer and a sporting English gentleman for you.” And that so infuriated Fowler that he stood at the fence shouting “Shame!” as Kendall bowled Emmett. He was led away, but Test cricket had experienced its first Ugly Scene, and a precedent had been set which was to nourish the English cricketing Press for a century to come. Anyway, England had collapsed for 108; and Kendall, who had bowled unchanged throughout the innings, who had bowled entirely unremarkable, medium-paced, left-arm ho-hums, had taken 7/55. Australia had won by 45. What on earth had happened? It has been suggested that Blackham, the demon wicketkeeper, scared out more people than were caught or stumped or bowled. It has also been suggested that the Englishmen, over-confident, had followed Armitage’s example at the butts. It seems much more likely that it was all the result of the vagaries of a preposterous pastime that was to bewilder, infuriate, bore, charm, excite, stultify, delight and otherwise occupy a good deal of the sporting world for another 100 years; and which will be driving people to happy distraction 100 years hence!” “Nearly 30,000 had attended” the first XV match at Sydney in December. At Canterbury a couple of weeks earlier: “Altogether over 25,000 people watched the game. However, very few paid and the match was a financial disaster. Bennett had blundered again. Both at Christchurch and Dunedin cricket was played on public grounds, which could not be fenced off.” It has been a sporting fairy tale to see a team devastated by the ignominy of being bowled out for the fifth-lowest score in the history of 143 years of Test cricket a week ago, come roaring back at the venue where it all began, when Charles Bannerman played back the first ball bowled at him at the MCG in 1877. And to witness the spirit of the team crowding around the batsmen, encouraging and egging each other on, led unobtrusively by a quiet man with steely determination who has pulled all the right strings thus far. (Ghosh “Ajinkya Rahane” Outlook, 29 December 2020.) A Shaw to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman, who was evidently ready to begin as soon as the order for battle was given,” opened the scoring almost at once, cutting a single past point from Shaw’s second delivery. Begbie: “And then a roar as he pushes the second away for a quick single. The Anglo-Australian scoreboard has begun to roll.” “Alfred Shaw opened the bowling from the eastern end to Charles Bannerman, who scored Test cricket’s first run when he cut the second ball past point.” Nat Thomson, whose name in the press was invariably rendered with a P, and who appears to have so rendered it himself, and who until Wisden 1993 was always so rendered by cricket historians, “is one of those men who's a host in himself, whether in a match when some extraordinary effort is wanting, his bowling and batting being both excellent and positively improving; or where colts need encouragement, either in a match or before it. Herein too, lies one great excellence of the ‘lion-hearted Ned,’ [this clearly refers to Ned Gregory] whom I dearly like to see at the wickets with a young player: for he has the faculty of giving confidence in great perfection, and he's one of the severest pasters of loose trundling we have.” Had limits to his ability to shepherd the young: “I ask old Harry about that once beautiful batsman and fine all-round cricketer, Nat Thomson. "Nat is caretaker of the Burwood ground," replies Harry. Burwood is the club that fielded while 726 were being made for 5 wickets, and I find that under the pennant limitation the game was finished without requiring the other five wickets to fall. This seems a pity, for the innings, if completed, might have been a record, to say nothing of the beneficial effect the additional exercise would have on the members of the fielding team. I ask what sort of bowling is Burwood bowling, and Newell tells me that the lowest score made against it this season is about 500. I hope old Nat will give his Burwood boys a bit of coaching with the ball; it could not do them any harm, and might do them good, even though the material to work upon may be very raw.” Vastly experienced, being then in the thirty-eighth year of his age, and of his first-class career the twentieth. Lillywhite: “a good bat, and bowls very straight, and is a fine field.” Horan: “Nat Thompson was a fine all-round cricketer, with a beautiful style of batting.” Had scored nineteen against these bowlers in NSW’s first innings in the eleven-a-side game in mid-January, one of only two double-figure scores: “got by excellent play.” Also unbeaten on seventeen in the second innings, holding on with Dave Gregory to secure an unlikely draw. Nat Thomson’s average in Sydney club cricket in 1876/77 (for whom?) 270 at 38. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. Thomson “the Sydney veteran, a batsman who has been the representative of his colony in intercolonial matches since 1857,” “safely negotiated the other two balls.” A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. The last was described as “a teazer,” which presumably means that Shaw gave it some air. So concluded Test cricket’s first over. Four balls. A month ago in Wellington the locals had been “simply so afraid of Shaw that he was able to mow them down” according to his humour, at point taking four wickets in four deliveries. “In fact, he performed a feat of which there is no precedent in this colony, and which the great bowler has never accomplished but once or twice before in his whole career—he took four wickets in an over, three clean bowled, and the last lbw. His analysis shows 13 wickets for 11 runs.” An over in 1877 was of four balls, so one of every delivery. In Adelaide in 1876/77 six. Around 1500 spectators were inside the MCG when, shortly after one o'clock on a sunny afternoon, the first ball in Test cricket was bowled by Alfred Shaw to Charles Bannerman. The first run came off the next delivery, and the first wicket in the fourth over, when Allen Hill bowled Nat Thompson. The ignominy of the first duck fell to Edward Gregory later in the day. Over 2 [insert 1876 image of Hill] Allen Hill, “a fast round-arm bowler,” bowled from the railway end on the south-western side of the ground. He had “a beautiful, easy delivery,” but there is some disagreement over what he did with the ball. Anthony Meredith, in his excellent book Summers in Winter, describes him as “an effective bowler of fast off-cutters,” while Stanley Brogden, in his execrable book The First Test, tells us that Hill “could not work the ball,” and “depended on length and accuracy and pace.” I know who I trust. [Find a contemporary source to settle this.] “HILL, ALLEN, native of Kirkheaton, near Huddersfield. A fast, round, straight delivery, with good break. In his matches with Yorkshire (by whom he is considered a very serviceable player) he is accredited with a bowling average of 14.15 runs per wicket. Hill's bowling for Yorkshire when playing against Lancashire is deserving notice: He took 10 wickets for 38 runs, in 43 overs, out of which there were 21 maidens. This performance speaks for itself. Still later (in 1875), when playing for the North, exceeded this feat by taking the wickets of WG Grace, GF Grace, and Charlwood in one over! As a bowler, he is considerably improving, and in another match this season—Yorkshire v. Lancashire—the victory of the former was solely attributable to Hill's bowling, which, to adopt the quotation in its integrity, "was splendid, and almost unplayable." In the match in question Hill obtained six wickets as against 28 runs.” ““The game between Yorkshire and Lancashire was played on a dead wicket and was principally remarkable for the small scoring. For York, Armitage, Ullyett, and Greenwood were the principal batting contributors, and Mr AN Hornby and Barlow for the other side. The feature of the match, however, was the destructive onslaught of Allan Hill with the ball. In the account of the match Bell's Life says, "The last four overs delivered by Hill gave five wickets for one run."”” “One of the finest bowlers Yorkshire ever produced.” “He was a straight, fast and accurate round ammed bowler with a beautiful delivery, and, though he lacked Freeman's sting and perhaps some of his pace, his bowling was faster than it looked. Just under six feet in height and of powerful build, he always appeared to bowl with the utmost comfort to himself, for, unlike so many fast bowlers, he took only a few steps before delivering the ball. Concerning his methods WG Grace has said “In pace he was not quite so fast as Freeman or Tarrant; but he had a very easy delivery and beautiful style. He did not put much work on the ball, although now and then he would break from the off; but he bowled very straight and kept a good length, and I have had occasional balls from him that required all my skill to get my bat in front of, and one or two that completely beat me. I forget the exact distance he took before delivering the ball; but I know it was much shorter than the average run of fast bowlers…. He was very keen, and tried all he knew to get wickets, no matter the quality of the batsman against him: but after I got well set I have seen him decline to bowl a third or fourth time."” Not always so workshy: “On five occasions he and Emmett bowled unchanged through both completed innings of match for Yorkshire—twice against Surrey and Lancashire and once against Notts—and he also performed the same feat for the county with Ulyett, Armitage and Peate.” “In Scores and Biographies the late Mr. Haygarth said of him, with perfect truth, "Hill is very popular, and a worthy, honest and unassuming man, a hard worker in the field, keen about the game, and jealous in doing his duty as a cricketer." He was also possessed of distinct sense of humour, and could tell many interesting and amusing stories concerning his cricket career.” Alas, not interviewed too often, so that a great many of those stories died with their auditors. “UNLIKE any fast bowler of modern days in methods and style Allen Hill, who died at Leyland, Lancashire, on Monday last at the age of sixty-five, was one of the finest cricketers ever produced by Yorkshire. As seen from the ring or the pavilion Hill was apparently not much above medium pace, and a débutant who had not been told of his peculiarities was inclined to be immensely surprised when he received the first ball from him. Like Arthur Mold, he had a very short run—indeed, it was hardly a run at all, but merely a few steps. It seemed almost impossible to a batsman that a man who leisurely strolled up to the wicket and bowled with the simplest and easiest of actions could deliver a ball at a pace which few modern bowlers could equal. It is a mistake to describe him as one of the old-fashioned slinging round-arm bowlers, for he was not at all unlike Mold, except that his arm was a little lower. He was exceedingly straight and accurate in his pitch, and, although he seldom could get much break on the ball, it had a great deal of spin on it, and would grind on the bat almost like a ball from Mycroft. As his run and action took so little out of him he would doubtless have played for Yorkshire much longer than he did, if he had not met with an accident which resulted in a broken collarbone.” “Players. Hill was a very popular cricketer, quiet and good-tempered, and, like most Yorkshiremen, he never gave up trying.” HILL, ALLAN, born at Kirkheaton, Yorkshire, Nov. 14th, 1845; resides at Lascelles Hall, Yorkshire; is a very fine fast right-handed bowler, and good bat. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 206.) Selby, meanwhile, “apparently no double of Pooley,” had “prudently shifted from wicketkeeper’s place to short-slip, out of the way of the cannonade.” This, from The Argus, is an instructive remark, conveying as it does how wicketkeeping was regarded, and what it entailed, in 1877. Strictly speaking, you were not “keeping wicket” unless you stood up to the stumps. To “keep” something, after all, one must be in reasonable proximity to it. To stand back, as modern wicketkeepers do, was to stand at “short slip” (or “sharp short slip,” as the Weekly Times had it). The Age was appalled. “Selby,” it told its readers, “did not even stand up to the fast right-hand bowling” (emphasis added). If this seems bonkers today, it is worth remembering that until the Blackham revolution, the wicketkeeper had usually the support of a long-stop. Hill had not had a great tour so far. From the Second Test: “It was now noticed that Selby who had proved far too cautious a wicketkeeper to be of great service to his aide had given place to Jupp, and that for the first time since the loss of Pooley there was a man close behind the stumps when Hill bowled.” LONG SLIP, a position of great importance, requiring much judgment and activity—judgment, because the ball when struck in this direction often travels along with a marvellous twist or bias. The proper place for long slip is just far enough from the wicket to save the run, and having a sight of the wicket half way between short slip and point. If the bowling be very fast, he had better stand about three or four paces nearer the long stop, but not so sharp as not to see the wicket. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 55.) A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. “His first over to Bannerman was a maiden,” the batsman being “unable to get one away.” “From the start,” reported the Weekly Times, “the Englishmen bowled and fielded in a manner that showed that they felt the responsibility of their position, and knew that they were intrusted [sic] with the high cricketing honour of old England.” Over 3 A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. Thomson got off the mark by cutting Shaw “nicely” for a single. “A couple might have been made”—“easily,” too—“but both batsmen appeared over-cautious.” Presumably Bannerman did not yet cleave to an axiom of his later life: “The man who refuses an easy run frequently gets out soon after.” “No special results, save 2 runs,” had come of the first three overs. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Bannerman “was somewhat abroad at the start, especially to Shaw,” and “began by defensive play.” He had one “exceedingly narrow” escape at the start of his innings, and this seems as likely a place as any to situate it: According to James Southerton, “a piece of tissue paper could not have been got between a ball from Shaw and his wicket.” Over 4 A Hill to NFD Thomson: no run. A Hill to NFD Thomson: OUT. Hill’s second over’s second ball was “a shooter” or “a trimmer,” both of which are to say that it kept very low. Too low, certainly for Thomson, whose belated stroke refused contact. On The Herald’s account, it disorganised his leg-stump; on The Age’s account, it “scattered” them all, like chaff before the blast. Whatever the truth of the matter, the Australians were two for one—a state of repair quite equal to the worst fears of their supporters—and Thomson off to the right-about, “to the disappointment of all who expected a fine innings from him, for the small score of 1.” The Age recalled the poor running (or rather the non-running) of the previous over, and anticipated the Bannerman precept. To the wicket next, upon this windswept afternoon, presented himself Tom Horan: a young gentleman of twenty years, and “the best batsman in Victoria.” He had top-scored against these same bowlers upon their last stay in Melbourne. A “patient East Melbourne batsman who was known for his sound back play,” he was welcomed with a warmth approaching to rapture. “The crack bats of Victoria and New South Wales” were now together for the first time?. Lillywhite: “Horan, the best bat in Victoria, joined the Sydney crack.” Lillywhite: “Horan is the best batsman in Victoria, and worth a place in any eleven, also a good field.” T. Horan, the premier bat of the Colony, though only 20 years of age, being equally good at cutting and hitting to leg; a good field; has fallen off in his bowling. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 199.) Horan, who was well set and playing splendidly; his time bad, however, come, he being given leg before to Kendall. (Australasian “Richmond v. East Melbourne” 24 February 1877.) As I stand on the centre of the turf this beautiful Christmas morning. I look towards the pavilion and stand and smokers' pavilion, and reflect on the wonderful changes that have taken place in the arrangements of the old club during my time. Only a little while back I said goodbye to the first caretaker of the MCC, old Rowley, who was off to Western Australia to pass the rest of his days there. What a change since his days, when the old wooden pavilion was the chief building on ground. Yet there was a homely charm about that old place that lingers still in memory. There I put my flannels for my first colts' match, there I drank clear cold water from a well that might have had tons of microbes in it for aught I knew or cared; and then with a bunch of sweetwater grapes, that hung in tempting clusters, we further slaked our thirst, and laughed down many a summer sun on evenings long ago. When "old Mac" was alive he used to refer to a "tosporn" tree that was a favourite of mine. That "tosporn” disappeared in the march of improvement, and now 'the only remaining "tosporn”—that by the press-box—will soon vanish from the scene. Many a cricket yarn has been spun by old identities beneath the leaves of that pittosporum for years past, and I think I must ask the Major for a small branch of it before it is cut down. The smokers' pavilion will also disappear, and in its place will be a handsome grandstand, capable of accommodating about 3,000 persons. The press box will be in the present pavilion, not right behind the bowler’s arm, but near it. I got a terrible shock. I heard that the scoring-board is to be moved to the south side of the ground and that its re-erection would involve the destruction of my favourite elms. This pretty well broke me up, but I have since ascertained that the scoring-board will be placed some distance away from my favourite tree. If the elmers really felt that their tree was about to be destroyed they would, I feel sure, form a deputation to wait upon the Major with a view to prevent any such calamitous occurrence. (Horan “Round the Ground” Australasian, 13 January 1906: 84.) In front of the pavilion the Supreme Court bench is represented by Mr. Justice Holroyd, Mr Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice A'Beckett, and none present watch the progress of the play more attentively than they. If Tom M’Kibbin had been brought before them when he missed Maclaren at short-slip off Hughie Trumble, what a bad time he would have had. I shall never forget the roar of "Oh' of disgust that went round when Tom dropped that easy chance. He looked fixedly at the turf for a place in which to bury himself, but, as old Mr Trumble observed, "the ground was too hard after the heat." [That detail again about the grass getting hard at the MCG late in the day.] (Horan “Round the Ground” Australasian, 15 January 1898: 131.) “Tommy” Horan, of revered memory, was not noted for quick-footed action, and was always likely to be troubled, therefore, by a good slow bowler; but no man—not even WG—was more at home to the fast stuff. He was a scientific batsman with defence and hitting power nicely blended, and a surer or better square leg hitter has never been seen in Australia. He was run out for 124 against Lord Harris's team at Melbourne in January, 1882, in the first Test match I ever had the pleasure of witnessing. A great batsman and raconteur, he was the dear old friend of everybody, and it is questionable indeed whether he was not better known as a writer on cricket in the columns of "The Australasian" under the pen-name of "Felix," for, verily, his pen was blessed with a silver nib. (Worrall “Progress” Australasian, 12 November 1932: 10.) The proud position of premier in the batting average of the season is taken by T. Horan, of East Melbourne, who has the splendid result of 40 an innings for thirteen innings, three not out. His largest score was in the first Cup match, against eighteen of St. Kilda, when he obtained 132, not out. Of course the bowling was not of high quality, but for all that it was straight, and with an eighteen in the field the performance is not to be despised. But Horan can rest his fate for the season on his doings against the Englishmen, and, putting on one side Bannerman's wonderful inning, his play when opposed to them was superior to that of anyone else. He cannot be described as a brilliant batsman, for, although no-one hits harder when a chance comes, he is extremely cautious at times—painfully so—in defence. Comparing him with Bannerman, there are very many who would prefer to back his average in a series of matches against the dashing Sydneyite, for, though he cannot force scoring as the latter can at times, he never risks anything, and the safe game must pay in the long run. Without doubt, therefore, the batsman who is best entitled to them has won the spurs for the season 1876-7. (Point “Past Season” Leader, 26 May 1877.) “Tom Horan, a powerful all-rounder who became a famous cricket writer under the pen-name ‘Felix.’” A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. Horan “safely negotiated the remainder of the over” “without scoring.” Over 5 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden from Shaw to Bannerman, some smart fielding preventing a run being obtained.” Over 6 A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. “A maiden from Hill,” “Horan playing the fast bowler nicely.” Over 7 A Shaw to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman, to whom Shaw had been pitching the ball up in a very tempting manner, at last got hold of it, but only loosely, and 1 was the result of a hit to the on.” One source describes it as “a pull,” but it sounds front-footed. The term “sweep” was not yet in currency. CB Fry, suggestively, in his book on Batsmanship (1912), calls it a “pull-drive.” This is specifically identified as “Shaw’s first ball” of the over. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. The other three were “taken by Horan without result. Bowling and fielding excellent, and scoring consequently slow.” Both sides keeping their guard high. Over 8 A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: two runs. But now “the scoring became pretty active.” In Hill’s next over Bannerman got a couple, “very prettily,” to square leg, playing the ball in that pleasing “style which distinguishes his play.” Having been “somewhat abroad at the start, especially to Shaw,” this batsman had now “settled down.” A Hill to C Bannerman: one run. “Immediately afterwards,” in the same over, he played Hill (again “very prettily”) for a single to mid-on, where Armitage perpetrated “a mull in the field”—or, in today’s idiolect, a fumble. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. Over 9 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden from Shaw to Bannerman.” Over 10 A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: two runs. Horan now “began to show symptoms of good play.” He “made his first by prettily playing Hill to square leg for a couple.” “The ball was well returned by Greenwood, but he had to run too far … to be able to save the extra run.” A Hill to TP Horan: two runs. More “beautiful leg play” off the next ball, which brought another brace. It was again “finely fielded by Greenwood,” and again “well returned,” but once more he could not prevent the extra run. This took the score into double figures, “much to the delight of the Australians,” who cheered and applauded. Horan appeared in form. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. Over 11 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: two runs. Bannerman, too, was in good action, and together he and Horan “skilfully contended against the best bowling of England.” Next came a brace to Bannerman from a “fine” “long drive along the turf.” It went as the crow came—not quite so straight, but nearly: just a little to the on. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 12 A Hill to TP Horan: four runs. There are occasions in the changing course of human affairs when success becomes the keenest satire upon desert. The first ball of the next over—“a shooter,” which Horan “barely snicked off the wicket,” with “a fluke-like cut” —furnished one such. He deserved nothing for it—deserved, perhaps, to lose his wicket—but he gained by it instead. “Through slips” it went, fine enough that several reporters mistook it for byes. It was the first four in the history of Test cricket, but I see grounds doubt that it was, as has been assumed, the first boundary. We find none of the standard formulations, in newspaper accounts, of its going “to the chains” or “to the fence,” which leads me to suspect that it was run out, or “all run.” [See if every other four in the Test is described as going to the fence or the chains. Did Hill have a long stop?] Nature of the boundary: surrounded by chains. Horan in January 1914: “What a change has taken place in the ground since those days. In the days of the old chain fence I have seen an English player jump over, run to the booth, have a long sleever, and get back to his place in the field in very quick time.” “Horan ... hit the first boundary when he fortuitously edged Hill,” and the ball slid askew “through the slips.” Begbie: “Tom Horan came in to redress the balance by snicking Hill at once through slips for the first boundary of the match.” A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: one run. Horan stubbed “a single past point,” or “away in the slips.” The scoring had become “quite lively” now, “principally off Hill.” A Hill to TP Horan: no run. Over 13 A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. “A maiden from Shaw to Horan.” Over 14 A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: two runs. Now “both batsmen settled down to business in earnest.” They were batting “splendidly,” “but Bannerman was the more active of the two.” “Playing with great vigour and freedom,” he now took a “nicely made couple” for a hit to square leg. A Hill to C Bannerman: two runs. From the same over came two more to Bannerman, “beautifully” driven past mid-on. This took the score to twenty for one, a milestone heralded by cheers. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. Over 15 A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. “Horan was unable to get any of Shaw’s next over away.” He was “scoring slowly,” “contenting himself with patient defence, apparently biding his time,” for “the bowling and fielding was simply splendid.” This is especially remarkable when we remember that, on their own account, the Englishmen had “scarcely recovered their land legs.” Over 16 A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: three runs. At the other end, however, “the batting was truly magnificent,” and “runs came sure and steady.” In this over Bannerman straight-drove Hill “splendidly” for three, “running it well out.” The last two scoring strokes had “followed one another at a rate which must have been satisfactory to the friends of the colonial team.” This is also quite probably the incident Bannerman’s partner recalled, more than a decade later, in his column for The Australasian: “I was batting with him at one stage and Allen Hill, the fast bowler with a beautiful easy delivery, sent down one which Bannerman drove back hard along the turf. The ball hit Hill on the wrist and cannoned off it for 4.” Horan’s memory, usually so sharp, is errant in that last particular, for in point of fact—forgive the spoiler—Bannerman did not strike a boundary off Hill during the subsistence of their partnership. But in other details Horan’s account chimes with contemporary reportage: The Argus tells us suggestively that the ball went “by Hill to long-off,” the Weekly Times that it went “straight and hard.” Certainly this delivery is the only plausible candidate, and Horan’s recollection does reconcile a possible contradiction or tension between the direction of the stroke and the position of the fielder. It also solves a 144-year-old mystery, but this I shall withhold for the present, to spare you the enormity of two spoilers in one paragraph. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. Over 17 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “The wonderful Shaw then came with another maiden,” this time to Bannerman. He “evidently puzzled both men, but their defence was grand.” To every thrust they had a parry. They were playing him “with extreme respect.” Over 18 A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: two runs. “Not so with Hill, however,” as Horan cut him “beautifully” and “finely” for two through the slips, “the 4 being saved by Ulyett.” The batsman had treated the crowd to “some pretty play” so far. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. Over 19 A Shaw to C Bannerman: two runs. After three straight maidens from Shaw, that bowler “shared [sic] an even worse fate” than Hill: The first ball of this over was “loose,” and Bannerman cut it for two. Having “established himself at the wickets,” he now resolved to “open … out upon both bowlers.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: two runs. He got two more to “short leg” next ball, from what The Herald describes, curiously, as “a neat cut .” “A pretty hit,” from The Argus, is easier to countenance. Australia had reached thirty. 21 of those were off Hill, and all of those since the accession of Horan. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 20 Hill continued from the stand end, but there was now “a dark lump … the size of a cricket ball” on his wrist. Horan would see, not yet remember it, when he wrote about it all those years later. “Do you see that umpire walking in at the 4 o'clock adjournment? That is Charlie Bannerman, the most brilliant bat Australia ever brought forth. His 165, retired hurt, against the Englishmen in 1877 helped to make Australian cricket. Jim Lillywhite said over and over again it was the finest innings he ever saw. I was batting with Charlie in that match, and the fast bowler Allan Hill was on. Charlie played one hard back along the ground ; it struck Alan Hill on the wrist, made a dark lump half the size of a cricket ball thereon, and went to the fence like a shot. Charlwood at forward cover used to stand stock still while those tremendous strokes went bang against the picket fence, and in one instance broke a picket. No wonder poor “Augur,” whom we all sadly miss today, thought so highly of Charlie Bannerman's batting.” A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: one run. The injury seems not to have affected Hill’s “speedy shots,” but his radar was not likewise spared, as in this over he twice “provide[d] work for Greenwood at long leg.” First Horan got him “away again in the favourite place” for a single. LONG LEG takes his place in the field about fifty or sixty yards from the wicket, almost at right angles to the striker's wicket. I should recommend a larger angle, because most men hit the leg "swipe," as it is called, somewhat late. By so standing he will be able to allow for the twist which nine times out of ten the ball has upon it under the operation of this hit. Of course, it is needless to say, the long leg should be able to throw well, to catch well, and be well upon his legs. Often he will have to cover much ground and catch in the act of running. This should also be a subject of much practice. And the best way of practising this catching in the act of running, is to let a person throw the ball upwards (you being distant about sixty yards), not so as to fall without your having to move, but a little wide of you, sometimes about six yards to your left, sometimes about six yards to your right. Run to the right or left and try to make sure of the catch with one hand. You will be surprised at the number you will miss. Be not daunted, but persevere, and you will soon master this difficult but highly important accomplishment of fielding. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 54.) A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: three runs. And then there were three. They went to the same province, but “ought only to have been two, the third being made in consequence of an overthrow.” The fault was not Greenwood’s; it was the result of “rashness on the part of Horan, which tempted Hill,” after receiving the throw from long leg, “to try a left-handed shot at the wicket.” Hill was right-handed, so “of course the ball missed … and there was nobody to stop it until an extra had been obtained.” This was an aberration for Hill, who as the day progressed came in “for frequent applause for his splendid return to the wickets.” We now come to speak of the COVER POINT, whose duties can only be performed by a man well on his legs, and well practised in catching, and in rushing in and throwing in with celerity and great accuracy. In returning a ball, aim at the wicketkeeper's head; the ball will reach him after having fallen a little by the laws of gravitation, making for him an agreeable catch, and which he much prefers to the risk of having his legs bruised by aiming low. Lawn practice will render you wonderfully perfect at dashing in at the ball and returning it with surety and despatch. The position of cover point in the field varies also according to the bowler and the batsman. Sometimes it is good for him to stand in front of the point so as to have a view of the striker. Sometimes, but seldom, in the rear of point. This is when the bowling is outrageously swift. Let the cover point keep his eye upon the ball even after he has thrown it in, as in case of a mistake by the wicketkeeper he (the cover point) may actually have to back up his own throw, i.e., supposing the leg draw returns the backing up throw awkwardly. Overthrowing is sad clumsy work; it overturns the gravity of the field, displaces the men, disturbs their tempers, and is often the occasion of losing runs not to be regained. Therefore it is that once more, before I take my leave of the "cover point," I recommend that this important post in the field be intrusted only to those who can catch well, stop well, dash well, and return the ball with surety and despatch. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 53-54.) Over 21 The events of that over “brought on a consultation,” the upshot of which was that Hill changed ends “for the accommodation of Shaw, who wanted to bowl with the wind,” which was still “fairly strong.” Begbie: “Lillywhite ordered his bowlers to change ends when the score reached 30.” A Hill to C Bannerman: three runs. Hill’s first ball from the stand end met “a pretty forward drive,” which sent it hard and straight for three to long off. The Australians’ hitting had been “sure,” but Bannerman’s “was by far the more brilliant.” “Though a man of medium height, he showed great reach.” A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. “The others were not scored off.” Over 22 “Shaw went to the other end.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: one run. Bannerman “fluked Shaw for a single,” taking his tally to a quarter-century. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. Over 23 A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: one run. “One to Bannerman to square leg off the last ball of Hill’s next.” Over 24 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman scored rapidly, but Horan was rarely in front of the bowling.” Begbie: “Horan, like most who succeeded him, was content to defend while Bannerman began to expand at the other end.” The former got “another single for a snick” off the last ball of Shaw’s over, fetching the score up to forty—“the result of three quarters of an hour’s play.” That was three singles to Bannerman in consecutive overs—“good cricket.” Over 25 A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden from Hill to Bannerman.” Over 26 A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. “Ditto from Shaw to Horan,” who “was well set and batting well.” His style was “pretty.” Over 27 A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. This was slow going, but Bannerman was “a forcing batsman, not a mere slogger, for I had been too well taught for that by Al Park and Caffyn. I picked my ball.” Over 28 Shaw now began his “third [sic] over from the west end.” A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: OUT. Now “a catastrophe,” as Horan played back to a “bumper.” “Bumper” and “bouncer” were not convertible terms in 1877. A “bumper” could be merely a ball that bounced, or “bumped,” a little more than the norm; elsewhere this one is described as “a real bumpy ball.” Modern commentators—Richard Begbie, for example—have missed the point, but there are other clues if you care to look for them. Not the least is that this delivery was “a slow one,” pitched “well up,” its bumpiness was down to “a heel mark,” from which it sprung up either onto “the handle of the bat,” or onto the batsman’s thumb, and yielded “an easy chance,” “quietly taken,” by Allen Hill at third man. Another source puts him “in the slips,” another specifically “at short slip,” which is certainly how we would describe the position today, when third man is assumed to be on the fence. “Fly slip” is the best modern approximation. But perhaps I ought to follow Lillywhite, who was after all the man who set the field: “Horan was caught at slip.” At any rate, Horan was on his way for twelve—a “splendid” innings, characterised by “careful play, lasting over three-quarters of an-hour.” Australia was forty for two. This was considered an “unlucky” dismissal, but for which “Horan might have done wonders.” The wicket, as we have seen, was considered “perfect.” According to the Weekly Times, this was the “one occasion during the day it failed to play truly.” But it is interesting to read that although full, Horan played back to this delivery. This would suggest either that he had received and been given to expect the occasional “bumper” already today, or else that (lbw rules being what they were) he could play even near-half-volleys from the crease. “Horan at least was unfortunate, or he might have been expected to have made a heavy score.” Horan had batted “splendidly,” but now he retired in a very sad plight. SMH: “Caught in the slips … the ball getting up on to the handle of the bat.” “An easy catch to Hill at third man.” “With the score on 40, Horan was bounced out by a quicker one from Shaw, who had him taken by Hill at third man.” The next highest contribution was Tom Horan's soundly made 20 in Australia's second innings. His play was so sound and correct that Jupp preferred it to that of his more dashing team mate, as being more in accordance with professional usage. Dave Gregory, the Australian captain, was the new batsman. He and Bannerman went way back. “It was from David,” one reads, “that Charlie’s early cricket education was obtained.” Gregory had been the protector of his boyhood; now he was the companion of his prime. These two, New South Welshmen both, would play all three of their Test Matches at the MCG. They share this distinction, otherwise unique, with Carl Mumba of Zimbabwe, whose three Tests, as of late 2020, have been confined to Harare, but who is only twenty-five, and is likely to be better travelled soon. “The six-foot tall, bushy-bearded captain Dave Gregory—said to have borne a striking resemblance to the infamous bushranger Ned Kelly.” “He was born at Fairy Meadow, New South Wales, Australia, 15th April 1845. He was educated at St. James’ Church of England School, Sydney and gained a job in the accounts section at Government House. With his brothers Arthur, Charlie, Ned and Walter he learnt his cricket at the National Club. All, except Walter, were later to play for New South Wales and David and Ned played in a Test Match. Moving to the Warwick Club they benefited from the coaching of William Caffyn. David was a useful right-hand batsman and, although no stylist, could attack or defend as the situation demanded. A right-hand fast found-arm bowler his action was thought suspect and he eventually gave up bowling because of this. He first played for New South Wales in 1866/7 and was selected as captain of Australia for their first three Test matches. His great achievement was his success in holding together a team of differing factions during the long, twelve month tour of England in 1878. This tour started for the Australians in the November of 1877 and ended just over a year later. His achievement culminated in the Australians’ victory over MCC at Lord’s from which point the tour was ensured success. He was the New South Wales captain at the time of the riot in 1879 and captained Australia again in the Test of 1878/79 English tour. He was sole selector for Ncw South Wales at times during the 1880s and was Secretary of the NSW Crickei Association from 1883 to 1891. In his employment he was promoted to Paymaster of the Treasury in 1897. When the Federation took place in 1901 he was offered the post of Head of the Federal Treasury and with it a knighthood. He refused both offers as it would have involved a move from Sydney to Melbourne.” He closed accounts with the world “at Turramurra, New South Wales, 4th August 1919.” Lillywhite: “GREGORY is a fine batsman, and a good long-field; can also bowl.” Had scored an unbeaten 53, “by brilliant play,” against these bowlers in the first-class match in Sydney in mid-January, doing much to secure a draw. For 100 years a Sydney team was not complete without a Gregory. (Dunstan Paddock 45.) A Shaw to DW Gregory: one run. To his opening ball Gregory first “stepped out” and then “let out” with an on-drive, “but the quick fieldsman at long-on only permitted him one run.” Selby, meanwhile, though not up to much in his most immediate wicketkeeping duties, showed himself “capable of taking the ball well from the field.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 29 “At present,” reported The Herald, closing its account for the day, “there are but few people on the ground, but they all watch the play” with the truest interest. A Hill to DW Gregory: no run. A Hill to DW Gregory: no run. A Hill to DW Gregory: no run. A Hill to DW Gregory: no run. Gregory “then played a maiden from Hill.” Over 30 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: RUN OUT. “In the next over from the same bowler [Shaw], an unwise attempt was made to steal a run, on the assumption that Jupp was asleep.” The ball went “over to mid-on,” where the fielder was as sharp as a surgeon’s lancet. He returned the ball “finely,” to be “as finely taken and applied by Selby,” before Gregory could make good his crease. [Use here also the remarks about Selby showing he could take the ball from the field.] Gregory had “somewhat foolishly” and “awkwardly ran himself out.” Jupp was a very good fielder—“more specifically, a quality thrower”—having played his formative cricket on a ground so uneven as to make the outfielders invisible and overthrows abundant. 41 for three, with Bannerman not out 27, was the upshot of the first hour’s play. With Australia in this flourishing state of circumstances, the bell rang for luncheon, and Gregory in his walk of shame had a company to lose himself in. “Awkwardly ran himself out.” This adjournment was attended by “great complaints,” for “it was said, and very justly too, that commencing so late as one o’clock, and not playing after five, was little enough time in all conscience to devote to so important a match; but when nearly an hour is deducted from that it becomes really absurd. Four days, with four hours’ play on each, will never finish this match, and so, if there is any intention of finishing it, the arrangements had better be entirely changed.” In fact lunch was scheduled for only half an hour, but somehow “spun itself out to 40 minutes.” It was like the Melbourne of John Batman’s foundation, barely four decades prior, when “it was difficult even to know the time of day, because until 1843 there was no public clock. There were two or three watchmakers in the town, but they disagreed constantly about the time, and sometimes their claims could vary by an incredible margin” (Dunstan Paddock 2.) “Lunch was taken after 55 minutes with Bannerman on 27.” Second-ever intercolonial match (first in Melbourne), in 1851, between Tasmanians and Melbournians: “Play was due to start at 11 a.m. sharp, and any player who was not at his post was liable for a fine of £2. Whatever the state of the game lunch was to be taken at 1.30 p.m. Mr. Yewers, the caterer, was under contract to furnish a luncheon including three dozen bottles of champagne each day, the wine to be approved, he taking the change of a greater or lesser number. Even though there were seven breweries in the colony at the time, it was the custom in those days for gentlemen cricketers always to have champagne at lunch and apparently French champagne too. This continued right up until the eighteen-eighties, when standards slipped. The MCC made a ruling and the cricketers switched to beer.” Effervescent drinks. “Roger Iddison when he returned [from the 1861/62 tour] went down in history as the first Englishman to venture an opinion on the Australian as a cricketer: ‘Well, o'i doant think mooch of their play, but they are a wonderful lot of drinking men.’” Begbie: “Bannerman on 26 had already given” an earnest “of things to come.” “Lunch ... ran ten minutes over in more ‘spendthrift waste of an autumn day.’” The new members needed entertainment, so in January, 1856, the M.C.C. put adyertisements in all the newspapers issuing a challenge to play any eleven in the Australian colonies for nothing or anything up to £1000. New South Wales accepted the challenge and decided to play for nothing on March 27. [First-ever intercolonial between Victoria and NSW.] William Tunks, a great figure in the history of N.S.W. cricket, was the force behind the N .S.W. team. He was a publican, and his hotel was a rendezvous for all the best cricketers of his day. But the story goes that both Tunks and Mrs. Tunks disapproved of cricketers drinking beer, so they always received tea at the hotel. For the intercolonial match at Melbourne a large barrel of tea, complete with a tap, was placed on the ground. This caused considerable astonishment among the Victorians, who were accustomed to drinking beer even for breakfast. It astonished an eagle-eyed police constable, who at once took it for granted that here was beer being sold without a licence. History records that he had a very ugly shock when he tasted the contents of that barrel. Admission was l /-, ladies free. An excellent German band was in attendance; furthermore, there was a printing machine in a marquee which printed cards of the match on the fall of each wicket. Judging by the rate of fall of wickets, the printing machine must have taken an apoplectic fit before the day was done. The homely look of the N.S.W. players, plus the dear, old under-arm style of their star bowler, McKone, caused great amusement amongst the spectators. Betting, of course, was one of the chief attractions of cricket at this time and the books were giving 2/1 on Victoria. […] McKone as he went into action with his underarms had to listen to the [p. 19] giggles of the crowd, but he was deadly. He took 4/25 in the first innings and 5/11 in the second. Victoria made 63 and N.S.W. scored 76 in reply. After the first day there was a lavish ball. It is unknown to this day whether it was the superb skill of the Sydney bowling or whether it was a tribute to the gaiety of the ball, but in the second innings next morning Victoria was all out for 28. Then N.S.\V. lost seven wickets before the team had the necessary 16 runs required to win. (Dunstan Paddock 18-19.) (Dunstan Paddock 18.)

It was a dinner to provoke an appetite, though he had not had one. The rarest dishes, sumptuously cooked and sumptuously served ; the choicest fruits; the most exquisite wines ; marvels of workmanship in gold and silver, china and glass ; innumerable things delicious to the senses of taste, smell, and sight, were insinuated into its composition.

There were signs in the late 'seventies and the early 'eighties that cricketers were becoming more sober people. Not that Melbourne was quietening in any way, the free-spending land boom was yet to come, but there were strong moral influences at work. For example, the Sabbatarians were immensely vocal, and barely a day went by when they did not complain of some piece of wickedness that was taking place in Melbourne. They protested against the shameful running of railway trains on Sundays, and there was a deplorable case in 1874 when 1500 railways employees went on a train excursion to Mt. Macedon, where drinks were sold. Their toughest fight was over the opening of the National Gallery on Sunday. This was not as harmless as you might think, for in 1883 Chloe, now in Young & Jackson's saloon bar, the nude painting by Lefebevre of Paris, was put on display. The Sabbatarians were horrified. There was a debate in the Argus. The artists McCubbin and Longstaff nobly defended Chloe, but a father replied: "Would any of the gentlemen trustees permit a nude picture of their daughter or sister to be hung there, and, if not, why anyone else's daughter?" Said a mother: "Can it be right that a mother cannot take her young daughter to a public gallery, never to speak of her sons, without feeling her cheeks tingling with shame?" Anyway the Melbourne Cricket Club was doing its bit. The committee decided that champagne lunches, which always had been inseparable from intercolonial matches, in future would be plain but substantial. Beer would replace champagne, but at the finish of play there would be a grand dinner for the players. The players, oddly enough, did not complain, and there was no deterioration in the standard of play as a result of the switch from champagne to beer. But one wonders whether James Lillywhite was saddened by all this. He returned with his All England team of professionals at the end of 1876. He had shown in his letters to the Argus that he was not above an interest in champagne.

“In life as in cards the best of us are occasionally inclined to cheat,” and I am almost tempted to cheat your readers out of their customary jottings, as there is not much literary food of an interesting nature to be picked up just now. However, I suppose I must endeavor to please a fastidious public. By the Argus I notice that a novelty has cropped up in cricketing circles. A contest between water and beer came off on Clare ground recently. Beer won, and water has been lamenting ever since. The "spirit" of the teetotallers is not weak, and they are determined to have another try for first place. The potent influence of beer was too strong, and the weaker element had to succumb. Both sides are sanguine of success in the next event, and both sides will fight hard to vindicate their respective creeds. Being of the cold-water fraternity I hope the Templars will "leather" those of the "moderate persuasion" properly, but I am afraid the star of the latter shines too "bright" to be defeated.

After lunch and toddy…

A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. “Play was resumed at twenty minutes to three,” or “a quarter to three o’ clock,” when Bannerman returned to the wicket in the company of BB Cooper, “an English player of some note in former days,” who with WG Grace was responsible for first-class cricket’s then-record first-wicket partnership. Cooper was “a splendid all-round batsman, with strong defence, and was specially good on the leg glance.” “Cooper, who’d been born in India and attended Rugby School in England, was a stylish batsman and the most experienced member of the home XI (he’d played for Middlesex and Kent before emigrating in 1869).” A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. “Cooper took the latter half of the over, which the fall of Gregory’s wicket had interrupted, without a mishap.” Over 31 The interval had swelled the crowd to something like 3,000. Begbie: “Word had spread and the crowd had now trebled in size.” On the lawn was immersed “a numerous company of the youth and beauty of Melbourne, many of whom seemed to take a more than passing interest in the game.” The grandstand remained a less-travelled coign of vantage, but the gumtrees of Yarra Park were closely invested with “the usual number of black clusters of free onlookers.” “The younger elements of the lower social scale were there in abundance too, outside, clinging to the gum-trees in Yarra Park—the very trees which Bannerman's fierce drives had peppered during practice earlier in the week.” At one time the hill had been their preferent outpost, but now “the elms which have grown up within the fence have deprived people of the cheap view they used to get.” A reporter from The South Australian Register thought “the Victorian Association might take a lesson from South Australia, and have their ground fenced up to such a height that ‘outside’ spectators could not get, as they now can, as good a view of the game as the more liberal individuals who have paid their couple of shillings each. As a caution to the hundreds who on great matches climb the gum-trees outside the Adelaide Oval, it may be mentioned that one youth on the first day … dropped from his ‘free seat’ in one of the eucalypti, and had to be admitted into the Melbourne Hospital soon afterwards.” “Nonetheless the match was certainly a big social event, the members' lawn resplendent with the fashionable youth and beauty of the day.” The eucalyptus trees in Yarra Park, in which the ground is sited, bore a number of “free onlookers”, one of whom “dropped from his free seat in one of the eucalypti and had to be admitted into the Melbourne Hospital soon afterwards”.

The crowd was on its feet again [Third Test, 1958] when Sobers went to his triple-century in ten minutes short of nine hours with a single off Fazal. “By that time the place was humming,” he said. “Sabina Park is a small ground and, in those days, with spectators hanging on to the light pylons, dangling from trees and with their legs through the double-decked stands at the northern end, it was like a bull-ring. It was then, and only then, that I settled in my mind that I could get that Hutton record – in fact, that I would get that record.” A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. “Hill followed with a maiden to Bannerman, whose defence was something to see.” With skill and calm he had parried all thrusts. Indeed, at this point in his career, his defence was thought better even than that of his brother Alick, who would become in time the most famous defender of all: “The younger ‘Bannerman’ bowls for his club: but when he matures, his place will be among the crack bats of the colony. He needs defence badly, which he cannot better acquire than by practically utilising some lessons from his brother; and, indeed, he can hardly go wrong with other such skilled exponents of safety to follow Evans, Nat Thompson, and Powell, not to speak of the Gregorys and Murdoch. At present he's not to be implicitly trusted against such bowling as the English men treated us to, or as we have to expect from Victoria; but he only needs patience, and perseverance, to get in on the front rank; and he's good in the field.” Over 32 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: one run. “Cooper opened his account in Shaw’s next” with “a languid cut” for “a single in the slips,” “the ball being beautifully fielded by Southerton.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 33 A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. “Some hesitation was shown over a similar cut off Hill, but Jupp aimed badly at the wicketkeeper, and Cooper’s life was spared.” A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. “Cooper … played a maiden from Hill, whose lightning pace did not seem to suit the Melbourne man.” More than one report observes that he “did not appear to like the fast stuff.” Over 34 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden to Shaw, all finely played by Bannerman, the supporters of Australia being now very desirous to see the New South Wales crack get set after lunch.” Over 35 A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. “A maiden from Hill to Cooper,” Emmett at cover doing “some fine fielding,” and earning a gentle, rippling ovation. Over 36 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “Another to Shaw.” Over 37 A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: one run. “Cooper contributed another single by a hit to leg off the swift bowler.” Six overs into the second session, the score had advanced by just two runs. “Cooper ... gave as much strike as possible to Bannerman, who started to play with growing freedom, especially in the arc between mid-on and mid-off.” A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. Over 38 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. “Nothing was done in the next,” although “Cooper made up his mind more than once to attempt a big hit … but prudently shut the steam off at the last moment.” Over 39 A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: three runs. “Bannerman soon livened up matters” by playing Hill “beautifully to square-leg for 3.” “Had Emmet been two seconds later in his pursuit of the ball, it must have crossed the path to the pavilion fence. Though the runs now came slowly … the play was far from dull.” The pavilion was frequently disturbed with applause for “the smartness of the Englishmen in the returns of the ball, and the exploits of such men as Emmett and Ulyett were very pretty to look at.” A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. Over 40 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “Another maiden to Shaw.” Over 41 A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. “A maiden from Hill to Cooper,” whose batting, if slow, was “good.” Over 42 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 43 A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: two runs. “After more maiden[s],” Cooper cut Hill “prettily” “in the slips.” A Hill to BB Cooper: one run. This was followed, “in rapid succession,” by a single to leg off the same bowler. “Every loose ball from Hill he scored off,” reported the Weekly Times, from which we may safely gather that there had not been many. A Hill to C Bannerman: two runs. Bannerman then hit Hill to leg for a couple, bringing up the fifty. “Both batsmen,” observed The Ballarat Star, “were evidently ‘well in,’ or what is termed, in cricketing circles, ‘well set,’ and the bowling at this stage of the match was well worthy of the reputation of the representatives of England, and the batting on behalf of Australia was equually [sic] as creditable, for it was apparent that each side was anxious to do its utmost to obtain a victory.” An anonymous member of the Melbourne Cricket Club “had announced his intention, prior to the commencement of the match, to give a prize of five guineas to the highest scorer,” as well as to the best bowler. These prizes were expected to increase the public interest subjoined “to a match of this character, and each player’s performances were narrowly scrutinised by those present. It was naturally to be expected that when slick old and experienced cricketers as Bannerman and Cooper got together their opponents would have all their work to do.” Over 44 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. “Shaw again bowled a maiden.” Over 45 A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: four runs. Bannerman was now set, “hitting freely to all parts ” with a concert of hand and eye quite glorious to behold. Presently, with an air about him which was an example to mankind, he lifted Hill over midwicket. He did not usually go in for lifting; a subtle artist, he preferred to keep things grounded. The Argus cited his steadiness in this respect as proof that “caution and accuracy were allied to enterprise.” We may take his departure from it as proof that he was confident. His score was 36. “Kept on increasing his score, hitting freely to all parts of the field and adding several fours.” This hit, carefully described as going “to the pavilion fence,” is designated by the Weekly Times “the first 4 of the match”—a venial error (if you accept what I theorised in Over 12), because we tend to think of “fours” and “boundaries” as interchangeable. MID WICKET (On) is the next and the last to be named as completing the field. And though last, and apparently extra, is by no means least in consideration. This post is entrusted to none but the brave, the active, and, I may add, the intelligent. Only substitute for these cardinal attributes, the flincher, the indolent, or the man void of understanding, and the post is as good as deserted. All his intellect is required to watch the action of the batsman, and judge as to the direction of the coming bit. His intellect is again called into action in judging whether to dash in at the ball, or whether he should fly, as it were, to the right or to the left, as well to field the ball as to make the catch. One of these many circumstances has to be determined upon in a moment of time. The lawn practice with the two nets will make you quite a proficient in returning the ball to the wicket-keeper or to the bowler in the “dash.” Accuracy and despatch will, by this practice, have become part and parcel of your fielding, and many a run-out results from the manner in which this picking up and returning the ball is performed. "If it be done, 'twere well it were done quickly;" in fact, when neatly done it is the very essence of good fielding. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 55.) “His team-mate Tommy Horan, writing of the match twenty-eight years afterwards, remembered the crowd's tumultuous applause as Bannerman sent stroke after stroke crashing into the pickets.” A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. A Hill to C Bannerman: no run. Over 46 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. “Another maiden was now recorded to Shaw.” Cooper “appeared satisfied with keeping his wickets intact,” and his “stubborn backplay … stood out in marked contrast with the resolute activity and venturesome efforts of Bannerman.” Over 47 At this point came the first change in the bowling, Ulyett relieving Hill, and with it a considerable revision in the symmetry of the field, for Ulyett on hard surfaces was “liable to bump them in,” his “terrific speed” being “his great characteristic.” He was the youngest member of the side, and also “the one destined for greatest cricketing fame.” Already he was “the best all round cricketer probably in the world.” “G. ULYETT, of Yorkshire. A fast round bowler, with a high delivery—particularly unpleasant to play on a lively wicket [accounts for the difference, perhaps, between him and Hill, who did not bowl bouncers]—reminding us of one of our local bowlers, but of course with rather more of judging powers, and nothing of “occasional slinging." In the match—Gentlemen v. Players, contested a few months since, Ulyett's pace brought a few batsmen to grief, being maimed they had to retire. With a bowling-average, however, for the season past, of only one wicket for 27.12 runs, this can scarcely be called good, but like "Tarrant"—the terror of a former English team—he may quickly mow us down. As a batsman, he is undeniably more successful than a bowler, and in several matches, playing with Yorkshire, was top scorer; is, in fact, thought much of by his county. His batting average last season was 13.26 runs per innings, and looking to his subsequent play he promises to improve on this in the 1876 analyses. Is stated to be a magnificent field, and with so many others like him in this respect a treat is truly in store for all lovers of cricket, the like of which, perhaps, we may never see again.” “He was not tall—about 5 feet 10½ inches—but he had a very high delivery and made the ball rise sharply with a strong break.” ULYETT, G., born October 21st, 1851, and resides at Pitsmoor, near Sheffield; plays for Yorkshire, being a successful bowler, one bat, and a brilliant field. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 208.) Lillywhite was banking heavily on Ulyett, a hefty Yorkshireman, who was considered the fastest bowler in England. His short-pitched balls rose viciously and all the batsmen took a battering round the body. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: one run. The new bowler, as expected, “put them halfway and bumped” (the first documented bouncers in Test cricket), but Bannerman took a single from the first ball, “for a rather uppish leg hit.” It sounds very much as if Ulyett tucked him up with a spear at the body. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. “The second bumped and hit Cooper warmly,” either on the hand or on the fingers, “and play was suspended until his demand for a glove had been complied with.” Handware was not standard in 1877, and by the standards of today’s armour casements it was tenuous. As at length we shall find Bannerman gloved as well, we may assume either that he had worn them from the off, or else that he, too, availed himself of this interval. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: two runs. “Cooper very soon had revenge,” hitting the last ball of the over to leg for a brace. Over 48 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: two runs. “Two to square-leg to Bannerman off Shaw,” “a grand hit … well fielded by Greenwood, brought up 60,” “of which the New South Wales crack had made 39.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 49 G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: one run. “In Ulyett’s next Cooper got a nice single in the slips,” “prettily played past third man.” G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: three runs. “Then ensued some lively performances.” In the same over “Bannerman, who was batting very finely, [got] a 3 to long-on off a full toss.” Another source says it went to square leg—a recurrent ambiguity in the coverage. Over 50 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: three runs. “Bannerman followed this effort by hitting Shaw beautifully” “past cover-point next over for a similar number.” “Bannerman … made matters very warm for the field, and knocked the bowling about all over the ground.” He had come into the belief that he could do as he pleased with these bowlers, and was forming a determination to do it. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. Over 51 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden from Ulyett to Bannerman, the last ball being a full toss to leg.” “Ulyett bowled very wildly, and usually wound up the over with a full pitcher. Bannerman tried to drive one of them to Richmond, but the ball got jammed under the bat.” Over 52 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. “Another maiden to Shaw.” Over 53 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden to Ulyett.” “Bannerman was very busy with him.” Over 54 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: four runs. Cooper “jumped out at Shaw and pulled him” “over the head of short-leg”—a “fine” stroke. It sounds like a slog sweep. There is no mention of a fielder giving chase; if there was a chaser, his cause was vain, and the ball won going away, “amidst cheers.” It brought in four, and brought up seventy. Readers will recall that Cooper in over 38 had more than once shaped for “a big hit” off Shaw, before “shut[ting] the steam off at the last moment.” A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. Over 55 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: one run. “The play now became very slow.” A single to Bannerman, “the result of a stolen run,” was “all [sic] that the next five overs yielded, the attack and defence being conducted with almost equal skill.” G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. Over 56 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden from Shaw.” Over 57 G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: one run. “Cooper snicked a full toss from Ulyett to long-leg for a single.” Over 58 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. The first of “a couple maidens to Shaw.” Over 59 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. It is not to be assumed that Bannerman was playing a strictly defensive game for the moment. In fact he made “numerous hard hits” down the ground, only for Allen Hill, “a good field” stationed at mid-on, to throw himself in their way. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. Ulyett completed the maiden to Bannerman with “a full pitcher, which threatened to cut his body in two.” We are apt to forget how recent an innovation is the no-ball sentence for waist-high full-tosses. That they came so thick in this spell—it goes without saying that they came fast—and “usually” at the conclusion of an over, would appear to prove that Roy Gilchrist was not their first wilful exponent. Nor would Ulyett be the only bowler today deliberately to eschew the pitch. Good tices and also full tosses are worth practising. A toss before men are set, often gives a chance to the field if placed accordingly. Were it not that tosses are difficult to moderate, and therefore expensive to the score, they should be more often tried. Remember, with a toss you have generally to hit across wicket, and the least error in judging the pace is fatal. Beware, therefore, in batting how you treat one too carelessly. As to tices, at first you go in it is wise to block them. When more confident you may go in to a tice and make it a toss. In the days of the catapult an experiment was tried. The engine was set for tosses, and many men were surprised to find that they could not always hit tosses accurately at a certain elevation. (Pycroft, James, "An Old Player's Maxims," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 20.) “H. Knowles (18), has been very successful this year [1877, for Forest School, Leytonstone] with ‘head’ balls.” Over 60 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. The second of “a couple maidens to Shaw.” He had bowled three in succession. Over 61 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: one run. ” “The batsmen proved unassailable, Bannerman especially so.” Presently he “varied the monotony by playing Ulyett nicely,” but “slowly,” for a single to mid-on. The second adverb is suggestive, bearing in mind what we read earlier about how “Hill at mid-on stopped numerous hard hits from Bannerman.” It is not improbable that the batsman caught him on his heels, a little too deep, bracing himself for another lusty drive. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. Over 62 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Shaw’s overs in this period were “nearly all maidens.” “In fact, the batsmen appeared unable to score off the wily bowler.” Over 63 G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: one legbye. In Ulyett’s next “another was scored for a [leg]bye.” Leg-byes should be called aloud to the scorers, by the umpire at the bowler's wicket, as soon as the run is made. The bowler's umpire, also, is the proper party to give notice of byes to the scorers—best done by holding up the hand. A good umpire will avoid the necessity of questions being unpleasantly screamed out from the scorer's table. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 59.) G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. Over 64 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. “Shaw bowled steadily and patiently to Cooper, but the defence was obstinate.” Over 65 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: four runs. “Five singles only” having been made in the last half-an-hour—in fact it was only four—Bannerman at last on-drove Ulyett to the long-on fence in front of the ladies’ reserve. It was a lofted stroke, another seemingly calculated to get over the problem of Hill’s impassable fielding. It airlifted Bannerman’s score to fifty—the first such milestone in Test cricket. By Charles Davis’s reckoning, it had taken him “around 130 minutes,” by mine 131 balls. “Bannerman, however, had ploughed on skilfully, reaching his fifty in two hours, ten minutes.” G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. Over 66 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: two runs. “In the next over, Cooper at length succeeded in breaking the monotony of Shaw’s over by cutting”—or “snicking”—him “beautifully” through the slips and thence “deep” for a brace. It sounds like a delicate late cut. In running the second Cooper “had a hair-breadth escape from a run-out.” The scoreboard now “indicated 80, with only three wickets down. This state of affairs further gratified the Australians.” A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. Over 67 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: three runs. “Bannerman went on adding to his score in such a manner as to call forth loud cheers,” in this case driving Ulyett, “beautifully” and “straight” and “all along the carpet,” for three to long-on. As one source calls this “a pull,” there may have been a hint of cross-bat; certainly this would be more consistent with Ulyett’s length. Whatever the nature of the stroke, its quality, we are assured, was “grand.” G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. G Ulyett to BB Cooper: no run. Over 68 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: four runs. Bannerman “followed this feat by smiting Shaw to the chains.” It, too, went to long on—another “grand” drive, with all the wood behind it. Chains: Phillips obtained a single for a drive off the third ball of Boyle's sixth over, and from the fifth ball Giffen made a hit to leg, which, catching in some inequality in the ground, bounced over Kyte's head, and just went through the chains. At first it was hardly known whether it had gone through or not, but the spectators called out “four, four,” and the umpire nodding his head, 4 were credited to Giffen amid great cheering. (South Australian Chronicle “Intercolonial Cricket Match” 7 April 1877.) A Shaw to C Bannerman: four runs. Yet another “grand” drive to the boundary from the next ball, struck “beautifully” past cover point. There is in these details an index of how tight the English lines had been, for this was the first off-drive of Bannerman’s innings. The power of his driving, and speed of his scoring, were among the freshest things that passed in review before Tom Garrett when he wrote of Bannerman in 1935: “In physique he was a pocket Hercules.” He was now “hit[ting] out on both sides, high and low, making fourers off every bowler.” The score, “amid great applause,” had moved into the nineties, and the partnership into the fifties. After the early wobbles, things were now in an orderly train, and “the supporters of old England beginning to feel queer.” Australia’s were “jubilant, no more 3’s to 1 on the Englishmen being obtainable.” Two boundaries in one over was a vanishingly feat against Shaw, possibly the most accurate trundler in the history of the game. Having at first struggled with this bowler, Bannerman was now handling him “with impunity.” Another called him “a splendid hitter all round, and extraordinarily powerful in his play.” Bannerman: “My favourite stroke was between the mid-off and cover, and I could push them away to the on as well.” “I never knew a man whose off-drive reminded me more of Charlie Bannerman than did Wallie Watling's.” We have no photograph of Bannerman in action—not even one of those posed items of the ubitiquous firm of Hawkins & Co., which represented batsmanship in every variety of stiffness it was capable of producing. The nearest thing we have is a scruffy newspaper image—there is no original plate—of a dark-dressed man, aged beyond guess of years, fashioning an off-drive with an umbrella. Archie Jackson looks on. But we have plenty of representations of his face. There are quick and lively faces, full of change and motion. Then there are the faces of the Bannermans, or should I say Bannermen. [Quote Alf James on Charles. Insert image of Bannerman off-driving for Jackson.] With a fine composure of face. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 69 Ulyett having been “very unsteady,” and punished with the uttermost severity of sporting chastisement, Lillywhite made another change. James Southerton entered the chat. “SOUTHERTON, JAMES, born at Petworth, Sussex. One of Grace's team who visited us in 1874. Admittedly more successful as a bowler than a batsman, his latest best display in the former capacity was in a match in July last—the Marylebone and Ground against Surrey—when he had seven wickets for 52 runs, 37 out of the 62 overs being maidens. Spoken of as being the best round-arm bowler of the age, the honor of this is disputed by some in favor of A. Shaw. With the latter's average last season of 9.50 runs per wicket as against 13.29 of Southerton's, conclusions point to Shaw's supporters as having the best of the argument. In batting, Southerton, in his first Australian trip, was not at all successful, and with the mediocre average of a trifle over 5 runs per innings, may be regarded as having been particularly unfortunate. This, however, was fairly compensated for by the success which attended him as a bowler, many of the wins scored by the team being in the main attributable to Southerton, who was accredited for all matches played with the fine average of 5.81 runs per wicket. Southerton is batting very much better this season, and taken altogether is a most valuable acquisition to the present team.” As Southerton was a slow bowler, Selby came up to the wicket, and peered sheepish through the stumps, as if it were a prison or a bar of justice. It might have been a gesture of solidarity for Pooley. Jini Southerton, the vice-captain and at 48 by far the oldest member of the party, was, like Jupp, known for his devotion to his •wife and family and the speed with which he would return to them as soon as a match was ended. He was a hairdresser for many years before becoming licensee nearby at The Cricketers on Mitcham Green. Like Lillywhite, he was highly literate, and had made an agreement with The Sportsman to send back regular articles about the tour. Southerton had a balding head, straggly side whiskers and short, ample frame which made him look more like everybody's favourite uncle than a vigorous Test cricketer. He was a slow right-arm bowler who spurt, or threw, big offbreaks; strangely, the older he became, the higher went his arm, so that he started as a roundarm bowler. but by the time of the tour was nearer to overarm. An article which he wrote for the red Lillywhite contained some splendid wisdom on the art of bowling, which he compared to the art of fishing. 'You must have plenty of ground bait, and the ground bait in cricket is to continue to give the batsman almost but not quite every kind of ball that he wants. When he hits at a ball well and freely he is on the feed, and 14 Jim Lillywhite's Tour then is the bowler's time to drop a ball very like the last in appearance but with a slight difference of pitch, break and spin, and one of the field is very likely to play the part of the man with the landing-net.' As a slow bowler Surrey's Southe􀇎ton was still reckoned to be second only to Alf Shaw ofNotts. A son of one of the English team which played in the first Test match against Australia, will be the first journalist since 1881 to be sent officially “Down Under" to report the matches between the two countries during the coming winter. He is Mr Sydney J. Southerton, the well-known sporting journalist, who is undertaking the journey on behalf of Reuter's and the Press Association. His cabled reports of the matches will appear in the “Derby Daily Telegraph." Mr Southerton's father was famous in the 'sixties and 'seventies as "The man of many counties." In one season he played for three—Sussex, Surrey, and Hampshire. His son, chatting to a reporter, today, explained how he did it. "My father was born in Sussex, lived in Surrey, and had an engagement at Southampton. Before the days of qualification rules he was thus able to play for all three counties. (Derby Daily Telegraph “Test Match Reports” 5 September 1928.) “Mr. Sutherton [sic], who has been report ing cricket matches for 34 years, has visited Australia before, and in 1893 acted as official scorer to Blackham's Australian Eleven in England.” Oldest Test debutant. Two whole years ago: “Southerton, the well-known and respected Surrey bowler, who, for many years has done good service for the County Club, has taken the Cricketers' Inn, Mitcham. On Saturday an application was made to the Croydon magistrates for temporary authority to carry on the license which had once been held by Mr.Dawson. Southerton, in answer to the Bench as to why he was changing his avocation, said he was getting old, and would soon have to [p. 8] leave off cricket, although he had not entirely given it up. Dr. Carpenter - Don't leave it off until you are bowled out. - Southerton said he should continue as long as he could. - Temporary authority was given " (Croydon Advertiser and East Surrey Reporter, 8 May 1875). A veteran, but also a late bloomer: “In accepting the position, what can he have been thinking? Clearly, he needed employment. Even with the loss of Alice, he had a family to support – wife Sarah, and 2 sons, William aged 4 and Ernest, 1. Looking back, he had played for 2 county sides, Sussex and Surrey, but in only around 14 1st-class matches over 6 years. His record was modest, very few runs and, depending on which records we go with, either 3 or 6 wickets. At the age of 34, most people would have thought that his best cricketing days were behind him. Was that his thinking? Or did he continue to look ahead, to the next match, or the next change in his method, as being the one that could make the difference? … Southerton also played for his third County side [in 1861], representing Hampshire against Marylebone Club & Ground at Lord's, at the end of July. He took 1 wicket – his last in 1st-class cricket for 3 years – and scored 20 and 15, but it was a one-sided affair, with MC&G winning by an innings and 202 runs.” “In September [1863] he was back at the Antelope Ground, Southampton. He played against Surrey, but this time for Hampshire and then for Eleven Players of England against 14 Gentlemen of the South. E.M.Grace was in the side of Gentlemen, scoring 112. At one point Southerton was brought on against him, to bowl his slow "underhands", and Southerton missed a caught and bowled chance. The fact he was bowling "underhands" however, indicates that he had not yet developed the bowling he was to achieve fame with.” “1864 continued in similar vein. He was about now starting to bowl his right-arm slows, but as he developed this style he seems to have reserved its use in matches to minor games, and not 1st-class cricket. He made frequent appearances at the Antelope Ground (as umpire for 11 Gentlemen of Hampshire against 11 Gentlemen of Sussex, for South Hants against South Wilts, as umpire for Surrey against 14 of Hampshire, for Hampshire against Middlesex, having started as umpire but being allowed to take the field to replace an absent player, for South Hants v Royal Engineers, for Players of the South v Gentlemen of the South), interspersed with games for Sussex (v Surrey at the Oval, v Middlesex, v Kent) and for Hampshire (v Middlesex, v Surrey at the Oval, v Sussex at Brighton).” “For Southampton Union, in September [1865], he took 8 wickets as Ringwood were skittled out for 45, and 3 more as they made 37 in a 2nd innings, replying to the Union's 253. Again, at the Antelope Ground his bowling was almost unplayable for Players of the South against 14 Gentlemen: “The bowling of the Players was splendid, Southerton especially doing great execution, getting no less than 19 wickets in the two innings. This is not the first time by any means that this bowler has distinguished himself this year, but the present is an extraordinary performance, for not only had he a strong batting team to perform against, but James Lillywhite, certainly one of the best in England, was bowling throughout at the other end" (The Sportsman, 30 September 1865). His contribution did not go unnoticed. In its analysis of bowling over the 1865 season, Bell’s Life in London and Sporting Chronicle noted that “Southerton may also be mentioned as being highly successful, and has given sufficient proof that he would be useful to his county – Sussex” [Bell’s Life in London and Sporting Chronicle, Saturday 4 November 1865].” “At the end of the season [1866] the great success of his "slows", averaging over 4 wickets an innings for Hampshire, was noted. Between them, he and Tubbs sent down 783 of 1075 overs bowled by Hampshire in 7 matches (Sporting Life, 14 November 1866).” “The local paper noted that Southerton had “within the last two or three years, adopted a new style of bowling, in slows, and no matter which side of the wicket he bowls, the ball breaks in such a peculiar manner as to puzzle the striker” (Brighton Gazette, 27 June 1867).” “Southerton's form was entering the most brilliant time of his career. He took the most wickets – 210 in first-class matches, in 1870, but more than 100 in 10 consecutive years starting in 1867. For the 6 seasons through to 1872, when he represented both Sussex and Surrey (and pretty much whoever else would have him – South of England Eleven, Players of the South and more), his record was impressive [Source: cricketarchive].” He it was who probably missed Pooley most: their long and illustrious partnership as bowler and stumper—the Warne and Healy of their day. “Southerton was not the only one to gloss over the reasons for Pooley’s absence. While knowing that Pooley’s bet had been a trick, of sorts, I think it unlikely that they felt it unfair. And it is hardly surprising that the cricketers should have wanted to protect one of their own. Indeed, Southerton may have felt this more than most – Pooley was his Surrey colleague, and as wicket-keeper a crucial part of the success that he had enjoyed. Whatever the outcome of the case, Southerton would not have wanted to say or write anything that might have damaged Pooley’s prospects or impacted his reputation.” Had only three years to live: Having played in the first-ever Test in Australia, he would not live to see the first-ever Test in England. “Southerton kept a diary for this tour, as for that with W.G., and sent regular bulletins back for publication in The Sportsman, writing as “One of the Twelve”. There were also accounts in Sporting Life, for which Southerton had written on Grace’s tour. There was speculation, as The Sportsman letters were published, as to who they were written by. In the Sheffield Independent on 7 March 1877, their cricket correspondent, “Point”, presumes that they are by Jim Lillywhite himself. But they can clearly be identified as Southerton’s work. An article [The Diaries of J. Southerton, The Cricket Quarterly, Volume 8, author presumed to be Rowland Bowen] on his diaries, records that the reports from “One of the Twelve” can readily be identified as Southerton’s “from their similarity and indeed identity with his diaries at various points”. The misapprehension did not, in any case, last long – Lillywhite’s Cricketers’ Annual of 1879 refers to Southerton as having provided “graphic descriptions” of the tour. It may be that the articles that appeared in Sporting Life were by James Lillywhite – these tend to stray less far from accounts of the games than the wider reports Southerton provided. As captain, Lillywhite may have been too busy to write much more, and may also have felt – as leader of the group - more constrained in what he could write about his colleagues, though Southerton, too, was pretty circumspect.” 1878: “His bowling was now a little less successful than in earlier years. He continued playing for Surrey, but was not called upon to bowl as much. Whilst his figures remained respectable, his overall wickets taken were down.” “As we have seen, Southerton was initially a medium or medium-fast bowler. He was 32 before he took his first 1st class wicket in 1860. He started to develop the slow round-arm bowling for which he was to become famed in the first half of the 1860s, following his appointment at the Antelope Ground. It came after his time at Wimbledon: "Wimbledon … play on the Common, the ground having been laid by Brockwell. Southerton was for some time their professional, and was here, as elsewhere, much esteemed for his quiet, unassuming manners. He was not at that time a slow bowler" (Sporting Life, 5 January 1870). At the start of the 1864 season he played for Mitcham against 16 of Croydon on Mitcham Green. Mitcham made 169 in their innings, and bowled Croydon out for 41. Batting again, Croydon finished on 27 for 10, of which Southerton took 8. It was reported that Croydon were "unable to stand against … the round-arm slows of Southerton" (Sporting Life, 30 April 1864), so it appears that he had begun to develop his style at this point, a little before this suggestion from the Sporting Life: "Southerton, the now-famous slow bowler, was here first tried for Sussex … He was at this time a fine field, and looked upon as a coming bat; as a bowler, his pace was a little over medium. I fancy it was Mr H.Gale (an old Marlburian) and some other Hampshire gentlemen who first gave Southerton the idea, in 1865, of trying his slows. It was probably through ill-health that he lost his batting. " (Sporting Life, 16 February 1870). The reference to Mr H. Gale looks likely to be a mistake for Mr Fred Gale ('the Old Buffer'), resident of Mitcham and long-time writer on cricket (and other sports). In Twelve Days of Grace, West notes that before 1864 Southerton may have been limited by the laws which required all bowlers to raise their arms no higher than the shoulder at the time of delivery. This imposed considerable strain on the bowler's physique. Under these conditions, few had been able to achieve much success as spin bowlers. HH Stephenson had gained some success using his fingers to bowl a fast off-break, but it was genuinely difficult to bowl off spin with a round-arm delivery, and the strain had soon told on him. In 1864 the M.C.C. revised Law X, removing all restrictions on the height of the bowler’s arm. Southerton had previously suffered from exertion caused by bowling, so any easing of this that was enabled by the rule change was undoubtedly welcome to him. The precise relationship between the revision of Law X and Southerton’s emergence as one of the foremost bowlers of the age is not, however, easily disentangled. [p. 87] What is clear is that Southerton was used much more strongly as a bowler in 1865. At the end of that season, where his first-class cricket was devoted to Hampshire, the strength of his bowling was being noted: "Southerton may also be mentioned as being highly successful, and has given sufficient proof that he would be useful to his county - Sussex. FIRST-CLASS MATCHES ONLY….Southerton, J. 8 innings bowled in; 1127 balls; 281 overs; 562 runs; 84 maidens; 43 wickets; Average 11; 0 wides; 1 no ball." (Bell's Life in London and a Sporting Chronicle, 4 November 1865). As he began to have greater success, in the 1867 season when he was claimed by 3 counties - Hampshire, Sussex and Surrey - the Brighton Gazette noted that: " [Southerton] has, within the last two or three years, adopted a new style of bowling, in slows, and no matter which side of the wicket he bowls, the ball breaks in such a peculiar manner as to puzzle the striker. His bowling is not so effective on such a lively ground as the Brighton ground as it is on a dead, heavy turf …" The success, and turn, he was obtaining is suggestive that he was adopting a higher arm. As late as 1869, however, there were descriptions of him, still, as a round-arm bowler. At the end of that season it was noted that "he has proved, by the quality as well as the quantity of wickets obtained, the best slow bowler of late years…. There is no doubt whatever that, for a round-arm bowler, he can work the ball more than was ever known to be done by any other man…." (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 27 December 1869). In his autobiography, William Caffyn – who went out to Australia with the All-England team under George Parr in 1863-1864 - notes that Southerton: ".. had a nice easy delivery, and never seemed to tire. By the time I returned from Australia in 1871 he had altered his action a good deal, having then a much higher delivery than in earlier years" (Seventy One Not Out: the reminiscences of William Caffyn). Certainly by 1871, therefore, his high arm is noted as a distinguishing feature of his bowling. Other accounts, too, suggest that his action got higher and higher over the years. So it seems that there was no sudden change in response to the law change, but a gradual development in his style. [ESPN says that Southerton “turned his hand to slow round-arm bowling (then a rarity) and as time went on metamorphised into a more conventional slow left-armer.’”] That could be consistent with his raising his arm higher than most in the second half of the 1860s, but also makes the spin he obtained in the earliest years of this transition all the more remarkable. Southerton’s own writings do not help pin things down. In his A few wrinkles on bowling, which appeared in James Lillywhite’s Cricketers Annual, 1876, he noted the benefits that some bowlers had gained from a high arm (specifically referring to J.C. “Jem” Shaw and George Freeman), but himself favoured keeping the arm low: [p. 88] “The arm should be kept as low as possible with the shoulder, as this of itself will produce facility of delivery, without an excess of physical labour.” As a low-born professional, reliant on his bowling for his livelihood and wanting to maintain some advantage, it is possible that he was not entirely forthcoming about his own style. That would, however, be at odds with his reputation for honesty, other examples of his efforts to encourage others develop, and his desire – expressed in the same article – “to serve cricket”. On the matters of speed and spin, Southerton advised young bowlers on the benefits of pitch and spin over pace.” “Southerton was also reckoned to be a clever bowler, thinking through what was necessary to get his man: " … one over at a batsman is sufficient to reckon him up; a fielder is 'placed' for him, the ball is bowled, and it is almost reduced to a certainty that, unless the player can anticipate Southerton, the next over will be his last" (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 27 December 1869). W.G.Grace similarly gave Southerton credit for his variation: “On a sticky wicket he could get a great deal of work on the ball, and he was very clever in altering his pace and pitch. A careless batsman, or one playing against him for the first time, was very often taken in by it, and Southerton used to chuckle when he gained a wicket that way. Another trick of his was to deliver three balls, causing them to break six inches or more, and then to put in a fast straight one – a trick which was often successful. He had to be watched very closely: for he had a good head on his shoulders, and was continually seeking for a weak spot; and more than once I have seen him deliver the ball before he reached the crease” (Cricket, by W.G. Grace). [p. 89] Southerton explained his approach as being based on tempting the batsman by giving him close to, but not exactly, what he wanted: “The great aim I have always had, and, obviously that which should be the aim of every one with any pretension to bowling, is to try and vary the pitch, pace, and break of the ball without the knowledge of the batsman. …. the ground bait in bowling is to continue to give the batsman almost, but not quite, every kind of ball that he wants. …. Of course, to become a skilful bowler requires much study, and I can safely say from experience that it is an art that must be cultivated for many a long day”. He was a great defender of the art of slow bowling, and its potential for success, as against fast bowling: “Fast bowling is very expensive at times, in byes and ‘snicks’, through the slips, and a lucky player, by just turning the ball, may score five runs without any skill on his part. My idea is that the bowler should bowl well within his strength, and should have as his main aim the attempt to weary the batsmen’s patience by a well sustained steady attack. He must expect to be punished occasionally, but it is often the first sign of hitting in the play of a batsman that serves to encourage the bowler. … J.C. Shaw, Silcock and Wilsher do not pound away at their fastest pace, but bowl so much within their strength as to have almost complete command over the ball” [A few wrinkles on bowling, James Southerton, in James Lillywhite’s Cricketers Annual, 1876.]. As to how he obtained turn, Southerton was remarkably unforthcoming. In A few wrinkles on bowling he wrote that the great aim was to vary the pitch, pace, and break of the ball, which: “requires much study, and I can safely say from experience that it is an art that must be cultivated for many a long day… The spin of the ball and the judgment requisite to puzzle a batsman are matters entirely of experience… To impart the mysteries of the rotary motion of a ball is not only difficult but impossible, except by personal initiation.” The nearest he got to explaining his turn was to say that “… there is no better plan, to my mind, that to allow the tips of the fingers to touch the seam of the ball, holding it tightly, so as to give it the greatest amount of spin”. So he was not giving much away, though reflecting his own work ethic, he may have been keen to emphasise the need for practise and hard work. For many seasons at Surrey, Southerton was teamed up with Pooley as wicket-keeper and this no doubt added to his success. The Birmingham Daily Gazette (27 [p. 90] December 1869) noted the benefit from having Pooley behind the stumps, for Surrey at least, “without whom his bowling would not be nearly so destructive”. Between 1866 and 1879 the combination accounted for one-fifth of Southerton's 1681 wickets, and more of them through stumping than catches. On one occasion, playing for USEE against 15 of Southgate, Southerton bowled 15 consecutive balls to Mr A.W.Daniel, each of them played at and missed. Pooley brought an end to Daniel's misery by stumping him off the next. Pooley, however, was not a fan of Southerton's action. James Lillywhite, writing in 1901, felt that a wicket-keeper was the best placed to detect a throw, and recalled that he “once heard Pooley accuse Southerton of being the biggest thrower in England, at a time when no one else could detect the slightest sign of it” (Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser, 8 January 1901). In fact, it is recorded that Pooley went so far as to say that Southerton never bowled a ball in his life. W.G. Grace described it as “rather a peculiar delivery” [Cricket, W.G. Grace, J.W. Arrowsmith, 1891], and noted that it was considered doubtful by many players. Indeed, asked if he remembered Southerton’s bowling, the great Australian, Harry Boyle, apparently replied, “Do I remember his throwing”? However, the style of Southerton’s bowling – slow, with off spin as a weapon (whether from round arm or a gradually higher arm)- was relatively new and there is less to question his action at the peak of his performances in the early 1870s. Batsmen had not really encountered a slow bowler like him, with a prodigious off break, and wicket after wicket fell to him. Gradually however, batsmen got more used to him. Fred Gale reckoned that Southerton could be worked out, to some degree at least: " Any one who practised to him could find out when the break 'off to on' was coming, as he hung fire for a second in delivery, and took a strong purchase from the heel off his right foot" (The Game of Cricket, Fred Gale). It is suggested by West that Southerton began to quicken his pace, at the expense of break and spin, to try to avoid punishment from big hitting batsmen who were beginning to work him out. By 1879 one of the cricket annuals reported that his "delivery is very like a throw now". So clearly there is a question over his style at the end of his career. But he had his defenders, and the Rev. Harold Tate was of the number. Writing in Cricket in 1906, that authority noted the appearance of a throw, but that “standing behind him one could see that his delivery was quite fair. He crooked his arm as a man throwing slow might do, and then seemed to push the ball across to the wicket.” Southerton was rarely, if ever, no-balled and umpires “were quite as particular in [his] time.”” As the following song indicates, Southerton was reckoned, with Alfred Shaw, to be in the tradition of William Clarke as a bowler: [p. 91] When old Bill Clarke was in the flesh, He used to trundle slows; Round bowling then was rather fresh, As ev'ry 'block'-head knows. He did not try to break one's leg, Nor e'en to smash one's jaw; He pitched' early slow for the Centre peg, Like Southerton and Shaw. (Sheffield Independent, 7 June 1875). Like Clarke, Southerton had a good head on his shoulders. That, and a willingness to work hard, may be the greatest factor in his success: “Above all … the bowler should learn to accommodate himself to the play of a batsman. To do this requires a reasonable amount of perception” (James Southerton, A few wrinkles on bowling). (Gault Southerton 86-91.) It is clear that there was also a mutual admiration, even if to a degree grudging on the part of Grace: “On a sticky wicket he could get a great deal of work on the ball, and he was very clever in altering his pace and pitch … Another trick of his was to deliver three balls, causing them to break six inches or more, and then to put in a fast straight one … he had a good head on his shoulders, and was continually seeking for a weak spot.” " All of them bowled with their head … Southerton was one of that school, and proficient at it too, but the wickets were not so good in his days and helped him considerably" (quoted in Cricket's Silver Lining, 1864-1914). SOUTHERTON, JAMES, born at Petworth, Sussex, November 16th, 1827; resides at Mitcham, Surrey; height, 5ft. 4½in.; he is a good bat, and for many years has been quite A1 as a slow round-hand bowler. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 208.) Southerton [in 1877] has fewer wickets, but an average four runs per wicket better than in 1876 Emmett, too, has wonderfully improved; in 1876, he took 45 wickets for 22 runs each; in 1877 72 wickets have cost him but 13 runs a piece. Armitage has been very successful with his slow round-hand.

The attack was completed by Surrey slow bowler James Southerton, who remains the oldest Test debutant at 49.

J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. “Southerton’s first was a maiden,” although the bowler was discouraged to find that the wicket was every bit as “easy to play on” as it looked. Over 70 A double-change in fact, as Lillywhite also “took the Notts champion off.” After ?? straight overs, Shaw finally taking breath. From Thomas Armitage, a stonemason from Keighley, “some novelties were expected.” His underarm lobs had brought him into prominence the preceding summer in England, so that he had arrived in Australia with “no small reputation,” which in the first match of the tour was instantly vindicated, as he picked up seven wickets for eleven runs from just sixty balls, making “the anxious batsmen seem like total novices.” But it was all downhill from there. Against New South Wales in January, his “full pitchers and daisy cutters caused roars of laughter,” and “he was evidently out of form and soon got out of temper.” His field spoke eloquently of his form: “Three fieldsmen were placed at the edge of the circle behind the bowler.” “I noticed in the papers the other day that Tom Armitage, cricketer, is dead, at the age of 74. He has played a good long innings, and I trust that his dismissal from the batting arenas was happy and peaceful. I well remember him in 1878 [sic]—a member of Lillywhite's professional team—"the Lob Bowler Holy Terror." I was a cricket enthusiast in those days, in fact, I am still. I was "young and charming." I was a young surveyor under Her Majesty, and Mr Goyder (mostly under the wonderful Mr Goyder) away up in the north, but I arranged my annual leave so that it should synchronize (blessed word, that, almost as good as "Mesopotamia") with the arrival of the English professional team in Adelaide. Lord, how I enjoyed that match. I saw every ball bowled and every bat stroke. The match lasted, I think, about three days, but beyond Armitage's wonderful performance I have but hazy recollections of details. My good friend Mr Mostyn Evan has them, I am sure, in full detail and also that other dear old Johnny of a cricket enthusiast—I really forget his name—who knows all about the big matches, and can tell you why they were won, or why there were not won, sort of "all same brother," as our coloured original owners of all our freehold and lease-hold properties would say, to that same other dear old Johnny who can, offhand, give you the name and pedigree of every blessed horse, winner of an important race for last 50 years. I am inclined to think that Armitage took 8 wickets for about 12 runs in the first innings, but I am quite open to correction. My enjoyment of the match was much enhanced by the fact that for part of the time I was seated beside a slim, graceful curly headed girl (she is in England just now, visiting our grandchildren). Our seats overlooked the entrance to the back of the stand, whereby the players made their entrances and exits, and on the margin of the programme she made rapid thumbnail sketches of them in pencil. Lord knows what became of that programme. I wish I had it now, for I am sure that Professor Henderson and Mr Pitt, and those clever girls down, there would hail it as a welcome addition to their archives.” “Armitage played a couple of matches for Yorkshire before 1875, but it was in that year that he became a regular member of the team. His career wan a short one, as he practically dropped out of first-class cricket soon after his return from Australia. One of his most remarkable feats was against Notts in 1875, when he took five wickets for six runs.” “A report from New York states that the once well-known English cricketer Thomas Armitage is confined in a lunatic asylum at Kankakee, Illinois. Armitage was born at Wakeley, near Sheffield, April 25, 1848; he was 5ft 10½in in height, and weighed about 12st 10lb. He played for Yorkshire, and was a round arm, medium pace bowler, very straight, and also bowled lobs well; his bowling was very successful in 1876. He was one of five Yorkshiremen in the fourth English team which came to Australia in 1876-77, the party being conducted by James Lillywhite, but he was not, very successful on that occasion either in batting or bowling.” “THOMAS ARMITAGE, native of Walkley. A young player of very great promise; and who during the season past and the season just commenced has particularly distinguished himself. A round-arm medium-paced bowler, not unlike his fellow bowlers, straight, but with the additional advantage of being able to bowl slow under-hand "lobs." To this latter, in fact, was due the only defeat which Nottinghamshire experienced last season, Pinder having stumped four in one innings off Armitage, the batsman, as no uncommon result in cricket (and which is too often the failing of players "this side of the line"), having fallen victims to an over-anxiety to hit. It is also related of ARMITAGE, that in a county match, out of 17 balls the results were 5 wicket and 6 runs. A splendid field and excellent bat. Bowling average, 10.6 runs per wicket; batting, 16.2 per innings. Most in a match 66, in neither of which innings was he out. In June of the present year (1876) in a match, Yorkshire v. Surrey, Armitage's "lobs" did great execution. In 16½ overs he got 6 wickets for 20 runs. His opponents were, in fact, unable to cope against his “deceivers," and though the second wicket fell for 37, the last was down for a total of 74. Batsmen without patience will do well to note this.” “The stories that are periodically sent round from America that Tom Armitage, the former Yorkshire cricketer, is confined in a lunatic asylum in the States are very painful reading to Keighley people, with whom Armitage was a great favourite. A few months ago a statement gained currency that he had died in Kansas, but the telegram which came from Chicago yesterday seems to show that that rumour was not correct. Tom Armitage was a native of Hallam, a suburb of Sheffield. He was above the middle height, strongly built, hale and hearty, genial to a fault—a splendid type of a Sheffield “blade.” He went to Keighley as professional in May, 1870, and remained there until the end of the season of 1877. He proved himself one of the best "pro’s" ever engaged by a club. His introduction to Keighley was almost accidental. For the season of 1870 two professionals had been appointed, but so disappointed were the Committee with the principal man after the first match that his engagement was mutually broken. Armitage was playing with a Lancashire club at the time, and the late Mr WL Brown, who went over to see him, was so taken with his powers as a "lob" bowler that be engaged him on the spot. Armitage made his first appearance at Keighley on May 14th, 1870, with the first eleven against the next 22. As an all-round man the Keighley Club have probably never had his equal. His underhand twisters puzzled the best of batsmen. He also bowled fast right arm with a slight break, and on occasions did great feats in this line. The number of people he got caught at long square leg from his lobs was very great in a season. Mr Seth Waring, the president of the Keighley Club, and himself one of the best bowlers in the district 20 years ago, informed our correspondent this morning that he had batted against RC Tinley, the Notts man, who was considered to be the great lob bowler of his time, and he could say without a doubt that Armitage was infinitely a better bowler. In his opinion Armitage was the best lob bowler in England that this generation had known. He once made that remark in the presence of Tour Emmett, when the latter said Armitage was not in it with Bob Humphreys, the Sussex bowler, but he (Mr Waring) still held to his opinion. [Emmett, of course, had seen Armitage’s Australian disaster.] Armitage could "get" the best batsmen in England. Armitage was no duffer with a bat, and he made some capital scores with Keighley. Armitage made his first appearance with Yorkshire in 1872 against Notts, but he only scored one run in two innings, and he failed to get a wicket. He did not figure any further with the County Eleven that season, nor in 1873, nor 1874, but in 1875 he played frequently, and occupied a splendid position in the bowling averages at the close. In 1876 he had an average of 11 with the bat, and took 43 wickets at cost of 14-27. In 1877 he practically headed the Yorkshire bowlers, taking 42 wickets at a cost of 11.25, the only man above him taking but three wickets. In 1876-7 he went out to Australia with the English team to bowl lobs, but he did not prove a great success. Tom Emmett and Ulyett were also included in that team. In 1878 he fell completely away, only taking six wickets, and these at a cost of 36.1. Subsequently he went to the neighbourhood of Paisley, and afterwards emigrated to America, where he has since been. His averages with the Keighley Club will be perused with interest.” “This is the first opportunity I have had of referring to the passing of another of the old Yorkshire cricket worthies—Tom Armitage, whose death in Chicago was announced recently. To the present generation Tom Armitage is not even a name, but seeing that he was a contemporary of Tom Emmett, George Pinder, Allan Hill, Luke Greenwood, and others of the famous old school of Yorkshire cricketers, it will be allowed that in a cricket sense he was in excellent company. Tom Armitage was one of five Yorkshiremen who were included in James Lillywhite's team that visited Australia in 1876, and he played in the first matches in which the Australians faced the Englanders on level terms—matches which are now reckoned as the first of the "Test series. During that tour the party visited New Zealand, and had an exciting experience in crossing a flooded gorge on the way to Christchurch. They had to travel in coaches, one of which stuck in the torrent, and Armitage distinguished himself by fording the passage waist high with a lady on his back. The scene was painted by an artist who was in the crossing, and I saw copies which both George Ulyett and Alf Shaw possessed. Canon ES Carter told me a very good story concerning Armitage, and one that illustrated Tom Emmett's ready wit. The three were playing for Yorkshire in a match at Bramall Lane, and Yorkshire were in the field. During the progress of the game, Louis Hall and Tom Armitage both ran to field a ball, and as they did so Tom Emmett remarked “Mr Carter, there goes law and gospel." Asked what he meant, Emmett replied "You ought to know, being a parson—Shadow and Substance!" Hall was lean and angular. Armitage inclined to Falstaffian abundance below the waistband: hence Emmett's ready analogy. The Rev. "Teddie" Carter (he was always called "Teddie" in those days—and never resented the familiarity) complimented Tom on the soundness of his theology. I recently received from Mr. WH Abson, Tingley, three old score cards of matches played at Wakefield, for which I take this opportunity of thanking him. One of the cards relates to Yorkshire v. Sussex, played on the College Grove ground, in June, 1873, and Tom Armitage played in that game on the Yorkshire side. The other cards give details of visits of the All England XI, and the United South to the same ground also in the early 70's. “WG” played in the United South team and scored 20 and 51. Yet I have heard it questioned whether "W.G." ever did play at Wakefield! (Pullin “Notes and Comments” Yorkshire Evening Post, 21 October 1922.)” He went to the undiscovered country on the twenty-first of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, in the seventy-fifth year of his age. “A feature in the team will be the presence of Armitage, one of the best slow underhand bowlers that England has seen for years.” For let not my young friends suppose that swift bowling is peculiar to the round-arm delivery. If "slows" is the name for the underhand bowling of the present day, the underhand which I remember should be rather called "swifts." Osbaldeston, or “the Squire," and Brown of Brighton, whom Mr. WARD brought forward to oppose OSBALDESTON, were as fast or faster than Mr. HARVEY FELLOWS, while as to Mr. MARCON, a celebrated Etonian, it was a service of danger, to encounter a gentleman who, it was said, once broke a leg as often times he had broken wickets; not to forget Mr. Kirwan, who in the Town and Gown matches of Cambridge, has given his opponents no little to do with bandages or arnica for days afterwards. (Pycroft, James, "An Old Player's Maxims," Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 15.) ARMITAGE, T., born at Walkley, Sheffield, April 20th, 1848; one of the best round-hand slow bowlers of the day, and a very good bat in the Yorkshire County Eleven. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 205.)

Eleven members of the City Council and the town clerk (with the approval of the Health Committee) yesterday visited Jolimont, in order to play an equal number of the non players of the East Melbourne Cricket Club. Some fun and a pleasant game were expected, but early in the proceedings the EMCC were found to have too many old soldiers in their team for them to deserve the title of the East Melbourne muffs, bestowed on them by the mayor when he proposed their health at the lunch given by the club to the visitors. Mr Reid was captain of the club twelve, and the mayor, as this this was his maiden appearance on the cricket field, took charge of the corporation twelve, with Alderman Stewart in a position equivalent to the rank of navigating lieutenant. The public were chiefly interested in the performances of the council team, which were characterised by some noteworthy features. Councillor Amess, the longstop, stonewalled behind the wickets with marvellous success. Much attention was paid to the fielding of Alderman O’Grady and the town clerk. These two must be bracketed together, for it always took the pair of them to fetch the ball in from long leg. Mr Fitzgibbon threw it one half the distance, and Alderman O’Grady pitched it the other half. Councillor Arnold, in unwise imitation of Alderman O’Grady, and with none of his art, attempted to stop the ball with his shins, and found the first experiment so painful that for the future, whenever he saw the ball on its way to him he made a bridge with his legs, and let it pass freely underneath. Councillor Pigdon averaged one catch m three, and received many congratulations on his success. The most subtle bowler proved to be Councillor Fenwick, who varied the pitch so as to completely puzzle the batsmen. Sometimes the ball dropped from the clouds on the crease, sometimes it hopped all the way along from the bowler’s wicket in a manner not unsuggestive of the leaps of a kangaroo. Mr Budd, who would have made top score for the club if he had been allowed to stay in long enough to do so, was surprised by one of the latter sort of balls, and up to the time the stumps were drawn had not forgiven Councillor Fenwick for the advantage that the latter took. Alderman Stewart, once a prominent member of the EMCC, bowled round arm with desperate energy, but only moderate luck The opinion prevailed all over the ground that if he had not (out of unnecessary consideration for his old comrades) aimed somewhat frequently at short slip and “draw," he would have knocked down the wickets even oftener than he did. Seven bowlers were tried, but he was never changed. For the EMCC both Reid and Henty batted far too well, and should have been ordered out, had the umpires known their duty, as soon as they got 10 apiece. Councillor Curtain hit out most unmercifully when the turn of the corporation came, and fieldsmen had to be posted at the edge of the circle. He seemed set for the day, when an insidious ball from Carson slipped unobserved under his bat, and broke up the wicket. The EMCC scored 122, and the corporation 70. The former went in a second time, and notwithstanding all the efforts of the corporation, with the assistance of a bowler and three fieldsmen borrowed from the EMCC, the first two men could not be not out. As soon as the council saw that the pair had erected an impregnable defence, they prudently withdrew from the attack. Carson was not out with 30, and Howard not out with 22, when the game was stopped.

T Armitage to C Bannerman: four runs. Bannerman disembarrassed himself of the first with the smallest conceivable ceremony, driving it “in beautiful style along the ground to the chains” at long on. T Armitage to C Bannerman: two runs. The second went past square leg for two.

T Armitage to C Bannerman: no run. 
T Armitage to C Bannerman: four runs. The last was a full toss. Bannerman required no second permission. From “a vigorous downward stroke,” it scintillated to the bowling-reserve fence, near the pavilion on the offside.

Ten off the over, and from the crowd a combustion that might have agitated the Speaker of the House of Commons. It also marked the ascent of the century, “Bannerman having made 71 out of it,” like a man playing against his eight‑year‑old cousin in the park. Armitage’s over, as much for its absurdity as for the inhospitality of its receipt, would live long in unreliable memory. Dave Scott (“The Almanack”) would recall in later years how Bannerman “in one over from Armitage got 16 off 4 balls.” The bowler retreated to his billet in the field. Thus bad begun, but worse remained behind. Over 71 Southerton, who had begun his professional career as a batsman, had himself begun his bowling career as a lobster: “The game against Surrey did, however, see Southerton claim a first 1st-class wicket, that of Lockyer. His bowling had been called up only at the end of a very difficult day in the field, and it seems that he had changed his style of bowling: "At the Oval, on June 1, Surrey was in … and that for nearly the whole day…there they stopped, until ten minutes to six, when the scorers put up 323, … at last the Sussex men tried Southerton, with his lobs, the second of which Lockyer jumped to meet, missed it, and was very properly and very well stumped by Mr. Hale: and as a bystander observed, 'We wonder how'he' liked being served so?" (Sporting Life, 22 December 1860).” J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. “While this lively sport went on,” Cooper was “contented with the maintenance of a stonewall against the assaults of Southerton,” whose next over, “as also his first, was a maiden.” Over 72 “Ten off the first over was a bad commencement, but Armitage was not disheartened.” And yet, though “he changed his tactics,” his second over “was hardly less disastrous than the first.” T Armitage to C Bannerman: wide. First he “tried to pitch the ball over Bannerman’s head on to the bails.” In the first element of this mad endeavour he was undeniably successful—the ball did indeed go “high over the batsman’s head”—but he “misjudged the distance, and the umpire pronounced the catcher he gave to the wicketkeeper ‘a wide.’” The tactic had in fact been tried before, and successfully, by EM Grace, inspiring one of cricket’s most celebrated works of fiction, Conan Doyle’s “The Story of Spedegue's Dropper.” Begbie: “He appeared to be trying for a kind of dive-bomb effect onto the top of the bails.” “Wide balls” depend not on the crease, but on being out of the reach of the batsman—a point left entirely for the umpire to decide. Take great care that the bowler does not deliver wide of his return crease; this, in effect, gives the batsman wrong word and will spoil any match. Umpires should consider that the real interest of a match is destroyed by one single blunder. The odds of 12 wickets to 11 may result from a single mistake. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 59.) T Armitage to C Bannerman: no run. T Armitage to C Bannerman: four runs. More “condign punishment,” as “Bannerman again hit him to the bowling-reserve fence—a beautiful hit all along the ground.” T Armitage to C Bannerman: no run. T Armitage to C Bannerman: no run. Over 73 J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. “Southerton then bowled his third maiden.” Over 74 T Armitage to C Bannerman: wide. “Armitage began his third over with a ball over Bannerman’s head, which,” according to The Argus, “could only have been reached with a clothes prop.” Alfred Shaw would one day chuckle over this line in his memoirs, adding that the earlier wide had gone over not only the batsman’s head, but the wicketkeeper’s as well. Since we have contemporaneous testimony that that one was in fact caught by Selby, and not as high, it seems reasonable to conclude that this detail applies to the clothes-prop ball. Under the circumstances, I think we may forgive Bannerman his refusal to take a bye. T Armitage to C Bannerman: one run. Howbeit, he did take a single off the next ball—the first scoring shot in his innings of whose nature we know nothing. Perhaps, after what had gone before, a mere single seemed barely worth mentioning. T Armitage to BB Cooper no run. “This gave Cooper a chance at the slows.” Armitage tried “rolling the next along the ground”—a tame, pusillanimous, daubed, insipid thing. This was “too much for the crowd,” which was now “shaking with laughter.” It would require a painter, and no very common one, to depict Armitage’s face as he heard them. This was bowling “of the sort that the Sydney men used to bring round from New South Wales for the matches of 20 years ago.” Cooper met it “with a horizontal bat,” and did so, one likes to think, with more of condescension than care. Perhaps he was just testing the waters. It would be wrong to assume that Bannerman, observing this from the non-striker’s end, would have made more it. In fact he had a deep and abiding respect for the daisy cutter. In an intercolonial contest on the same ground a decade later, he himself bowled “‘Sydney grubbers,’ as long derided by the Victorians,” and was duly “jeered and booed” by the same contingent. (Hint there that they wouldn’t have been so received in Sydney.) But his 25 overs cost only 36 runs, and he “was unlucky not to take a couple of wickets.” “Other rare old-timers in ED Heather and T. Testro were in attendance every day. What a long association with the game of cricket has fallen to the lot of Mr Heather! Secretary of the Association for years and of South Melbourne, he has taken an active part in the management of the game for nearly a lifetime. And is it not on record that he played for Victoria in the 14th match against New South Wales in Sydney in 1871, though his initial is given as J. in an old book in my possession? I believe he is the oldest surviving member of this State's players, with the exception of CS Gordon, now living in Dorset, England, who made 121 against New South Wales in 1870, and DM Sargent who played in the first match for Victoria against New South Wales in 1856. And what of the great hand bowler, T. Testro, who, in his capacity as justice of the peace, has discarded his underhand tactics! He delights in talking of the old days when his squirming grubbers were the terror of batsmen and the delight of bat makers. Skittling Percy McDonnell one occasion with a delivery that wriggled like a snake and with the velocity of a cannon-shot, the dashing Percy was so disgusted that he smashed the stumps with his bat—grubbers, in Percy's opinion, being the antithesis of what should be classed as cricket. And is it not also on record that in a match on the Melbourne ground when the Victorians were playing the Welshmen that the same Percy threatened to hit Charlie Bannerman over the head with the bat for bowling what were known in those days as Sydney grubbers? But the reason of the name I have never been able to discover.” T Armitage to BB Cooper no run. A second grubber—“disgraceful!” cried The South Australian Register. “Simply rot,” wrote one of the Armitage’s colleagues. Once more Cooper met it horizontally, showing a like caution to the Victorian batsmen of 1884/85. The only thing more mortifying than a “common domestic grubber” is getting out to it. T Armitage to BB Cooper no run. With the day melting around him, Armitage liquidated his over and his spell “with another full toss,” off which Cooper inexplicably failed to score. “Such rubbish … has probably never previously been seen on the ground.” Attempts have been made to account for it—Stuart Brogden, for example, asserts that “Armitage was exhausted from the New Zealand tour”—but they ignore the fact that he had been dishing trash for months. “He has never,” wrote Lillywhite, “since being in the colonies, been able to pitch a ball within yards of where he tries.” Why the dispensations of Providence should have so ordained was more than his captain could comprehend. It is the most impenetrable mystery that ever baffled human inquiry. The Argus wondered if he had “thrown his skill overboard on the passage out.” On the bright side, he had “caused considerable amusement by his performance.” Armitage had bowled his last ball in Test cricket, only a few minutes after his first. Despairing of lobs on his return to England, Armitage would take up round-arm bowling for the 1877 season. “The underhand is always about the wicket and requires a straight bat above all things” (Pycroft, James, "An Old Player's Maxims," Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 15). “Those years had their moments. Lord Harris brought his XI to Australia in 1878-79, and in a match against Victoria A. N. Hornby, the great English amateur, bowled 12 maidens in succession. He specialised in a type of ball which was known as the "Sydney Grubber." It was a fast underhand delivery aimed directly at the middle stump, and at no stage did it ever leave the ground. The M.C.G. spectators became angry. First they chanted "Why don't you have a go?" and when the impossibility of scoring off Hornby became obvious they switched to "Take him off." It is sur-[p. 58]prising how little barracking has changed at the M.C.G. in 83 years.” Always on Bee Donahoo's fixture list there was the match against the Combined Hunt Club eleven. He liked to field a strong team against the visitors, and one year he had the famous Australian left-hander, Clem Hill, the last match Hill played. Mr. G. A. Watkins, of the big firm of butchers and a racehorse owner, was called in to bowl to Hill. Mr. Watkins through his entire cricket career experimented with the same ball, a left-handed, well-directed, under-arm grubber, a ball that didn't rise an inch from the ground. To everybody's amazement Mr. Watkins got Hill with his first ball, out to a simple catch. This was awful—Hill, the mighty Clem, out to a grubber. Hill appealed to the umpire: "Nobody told me he bowled left-handed grubbers." And there were comments from the team, for Clem Hill was V.A.T.C. handicapper at the time. "Watty, your horse'll get top weight after this." Hill tried to browbeat the umpire, but he wouldn't be browbeaten, and so grinning Hill left the field. The next man in was Laurie Chapman, the State Under-Secretary. Mr. Watkins gave him exactly the same ball as he gave Clem Hill. Chapman tried to drive the ball hard, Watkins got his hand to it, and in all the excitement he fell and broke his kneecap in three places. The players carried him from the • ground and they used one of Clem Hill's pads as a splint. On the pad they wrote: "This pad was used as a splint for the world's worst bowler, who captured the wicket of the world's best left-hander." Mr. Watkins was in hospital for several months.

A fortnight later, during the Second Test:

Whitridge now went on to bowl, and as he was no-balled by Mr Budd four times running, amidst cheers derisive and otherwise, finished his over with underhand balls which were of course unmercifully bit about. In all ten runs were obtained from this over. (Adelaide Observer “Oval” 7 April 1877.) He then bowled underhand lobs, one of which Boyle hit to the chains. Scores being made off two of the no-balls, only 4 were counted as no-balls. (South Australian Chronicle “Intercolonial Cricket Match” 7 April 1877) Southerton on Armitage against XV of Victoria: “in the second innings of the fifteen, had any one from England seen our ‘lob’ bowler try, they would not have believed it to be the same man.” “So out of sorts was the seasick Armitage, a normally useful slow-medium bowler, that he could manage only three overs which, in those days, consisted of four balls.” “One of his offerings sailed so high over Bannerman’s head, and the next so pathetically along the ground, that one account said that ‘the crowd was shaking with laughter, as nothing like this had ever been seen in the Colonies before.’” Over 75 Bannerman, for the first time, had strike to Southerton, whom he held in regards of the highest: “Mr. S. J. Southerton, who is touring with the M.C.C. team as Reuter's representative, and is one of the partners in Wisden's Almanack, is a son of James Southerton, of Surrey, who, as a member of Lillywhite's team in 1876-7, played in the first two Tests, and also in the first eleven aside match, referred to. Mr. Southerton was very delighted to meet Charlie Bannerman on Friday at the match. He congratulated C.B. on having played that big innings of 165 over 50 years ago. ‘Your father was a pretty gooa bowler, Mr. Southerton, you can take it from me,’ said Charlie, who ought to know.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “An uppish hit,” to the on for a single, broke the flow of Southerton’s maidens—although one reporter was by now so accustomed to them that he blindly recorded another. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. Over 76 With the score 110 for three, Armitage surrendered the ball, oppressed with heavy shame, and retreated to a quiet station—“three overs of his peculiars having been quite sufficient for his captain,” who now took the ball himself. Lillywhite “was a short, stocky man, about 5 foot 7 inches tall, in his mid-30s. Dark, meeting eyebrows lent his face a certain patrician severity, as did the sideboards and moustache which on tour he would grow to a full beard. He was smartly dressed, with new bowler hat; beneath it there was the dark, gypsy-like tan of the professional cricketer.” His style was “left-arm slow-medium,” varying between roundarm and overarm, and notable for its “ease of action and delivery.” “Tireless and exceptionally accurate,” Lillywhite would deceive the batsman “by raising or lowering his arm, and appearing to vary the length of the ball while all the time a uniform pitch is maintained…. The only thing that varies is the curve described before the ball pitches.” “LILLYWHITE, J. (Sussex). As a good all round cricketer may be considered a most valuable acquisition to the present team. Style of delivery—left-handed, medium pace, and very straight, with good break. On his former visit to us in 1873-4 was particularly successful as a bowler and with the average of 5.35 runs per wicket ranks here trifle better performer than Southerton. When Grace's team played the combined team of 15 (N.S.W. and Victoria) in February, 1874—this being looked upon as one of the most important engagements—Lillywhite's bowling contributed materially, if not wholly, to the victory of the Eleven. Eighteen wickets fell to him for 72 runs, giving four runs per wicket, and these comprising batsmen of no mean order, was a performance which won Lillywhite high eulogiums. Still later in the 1875 season, on his return home, with an average of 13.65, his bowling in no way depreciated, and in the present year (1876) even now maintains a good position. As a batsman he is far above the ordinary run, and against the 15 of Victoria in February, 1874, tied G. Grace for top score with 40 runs, after a fine display of cricket. Subsequently to this he again showed some fine play in a match between Sussex and Kent, making a long score, and not out. A capital field, and equally fine catch.” LILLYWHITE, JAMES, born at West Hampnett, near Chichester, February 28th, 1842, a very fine left-handed bowler, medium-pace, with very easy delivery, and a good bat; is Secretary for the United South of England. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 207.) Meredith: “Like many a bowler-captain, he tended not to bowl himself enough, often needing considerable persuasion before taking the ball.”

Short and stocky, with bushy beard, Lillywhite came from a famous cricketing family and was player/captain/manager/tour promoter rolled into one.

J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman, who waited eagerly for the new man,” attacked him at once with “a hard drive to the off,” “but by this time the frequency of his fours had led to the establishment of a fieldsman in the weak place, and the best hits now only yielded singles.” As a consequence “slow scoring ensued.” J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. Over 77 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. “Bannerman … could not do anything with Southerton.” Over 78 J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. “A maiden to Lillywhite.” Over 79 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman got Southerton to the on for a single, making his score about 80.” In fact, it was exactly that number.

J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run. 
J Southerton to BB Cooper: no run.

Over 80 J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: one run. He “then cut Lillywhite very hard” and “beautifully … to the on … the hit being worth 4,” “but Emmett’s fine fielding prevented more than one being scored.” Of course, the stroke could not both have been a well-timed “cut” and gone “to the on.” I follow the latter detail, because it issues from the Weekly Times, whose account is more thorough than The Bendigo Advertiser’s; and because Emmett was earlier recorded as fielding at square leg. The Sporting Life, hailing Emmett ascension to the Yorkshire captaincy a year from now: “If example is of any value, Emmett is the man for the place. No day is too long or too tiring for him. From the time that play is called in the morning till the going down of the last of the wickets, the indefatigable left-hander is always at work. His brisk, active nature shows itself in everything that he does. He hits hard, runs hard, works hard in the field, and bowls very hard indeed.” For Emmett, as for all great fielders, there were a few basic principles, the chief of which was “always [to] think the ball is coming to you; then, of course, you are on the alert, as though you were going to start for a sprint race, because getting off quickly is a great thing in fielding.” J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. J Lillywhite to BB Cooper: no run. “Up to this time Cooper had played the Surrey bowler with a discretion which plainly had a little fear behind it.” In fact, he “had not scored for the last half hour, simply contenting himself with keeping his wickets together,” and “allowing his partner to make the running.” He would “stop balls which Bannerman met determinedly at the pitch. But Cooper’s back play, if not productive of runs, was pretty to look at, and many a ball was arrested within six inches of the wicket.” Over 81 Eighty overs is an important landmark in modern cricket, as permitting the transposition of the old ball by a new. But there was no such Law in 1877, and the ball with which you opened was the ball with which you finished. Only when its decrepitude became incontestable—when the very shape and form of “ball” had departed from it—could it be converted, and then only by mutual consent of the captains. Indeed, it was only with the rise of swing bowling, roughly two decades after this match, that the properties of sheen and seam came properly to be understood. So Southerton persisted with the old one. "The Melbourne" Match BALL; try sample, 6s. 6d., stamps Maker, 41 Albert-street, Windsor. (Age “Australian Cricketers” 15 November 1876.)

J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: four runs. After this frustrating series of singles to a deep-set field, Southerton had at length “to take the punishment which could not be administered to Lillywhite.” Bannerman hazarded a bold flight down the track and hit him (“splendidly,” “smartly,” “finely”) to the long-off boundary. One source says long on, but the distinction is fine: According to the Weekly Times, the ball went “right over” the bowler’s head—i.e., very straight. This is, surprisingly, the first time we find Bannerman chasséing beyond his crease. I say “surprisingly” because he was a champion of the tactic. His brother Alick, more limited in his ideas, was once “engaged to coach two sons of a wealthy Sydney sportsman. After a while the coach was taken ill and Charlie Bannerman carried on the good work. One of the lads, with the right foot held rigidly inside the popping crease, reached forward with the left foot and made an off-drive. ‘A good drive, my boy!’ said Charlie. ‘But it would have been a better one if you had stepped into the ball.’ The boy was puzzled. Then Charlie showed him what he meant. The boy hesitated and said he had been told by Alick not to move the right foot. ‘Why?’ asked the mentor. He thought he might get out ‘stumped.’ ‘I made a lot of runs one way and another in my time,’ said Charlie to the lad. ‘And I never had more than ten men in the field in mind when I was batting. I never gave the wicketkeeper a thought.’ It was,” wrote JC Davis, “one of the cricket philosophies of Charlie Bannerman.” He had a rooted feeling on this point, and the youngster soon apprehended its depth. “With brilliant footwork he used to jump in to the ball and hit it on the off with a velocity not often seen now.” According to Tom Garrett, “he used his feet as well as any batsman who ever played.” Charles Beal, future manager of the Australian team, echoes these observations: “He was a quick-footed hitter. He would jump in like a cat and biff would go the ball on the off or on the straight drive. He could hit the ball as hard as any man I ever knew.” “In an era when most leading batsmen played from the crease, content to let the ball come to them, Bannerman was unusual in that he often advanced towards it, even against the quicker bowlers. Charles Beal, who managed the Australian sides in 1882 and 1888, described him as ‘a quick-footed hitter,’ saying: ‘He would jump in like a cat and biff would go the ball on the off or on the straight drive. He could hit the ball as hard as any man I ever knew, but he did not go in for lofting the ball.’ Bannerman described himself as ‘a forcing batsman—not a mere slogger.’” “It was during the visit of the fourth team (Lillywhite's) that the first Test match was played in Melbourne—in March, 1877—and resulted in a victory for Australia by 45 runs. Who can forget Charles Bannerman's great innings, 165 (retired hurt) out of 245? Bannerman was very quick on his feet, and I remember that in that innings he treated all the bowlers alike, fast and slow, going out and driving them with great power. That innings must ever be regarded as one of the greatest in Test matches, for the opposing team contained the cream of the professional talent of England, the only notable absentee being Morley.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. He “followed it by a single” “with a hit to the on.” He was now “arousing the enthusiasm of all.”

J Southerton to BB Cooper: OUT. With Southerton’s next ball, the last of the over, he finally found a hole in the bat  of Bransby Cooper, “who was much too late” to prevent its getting among his timbers.

Clean bowled, he departed, after fully two hours at the crease, for a “carefully obtained” fifteen. “Steady but not brilliant,” he had “toiled hard,” “rendered his side good service,” and “played well for his runs.” “The board proclaimed 4-15-118. Of this large number … Bannerman had made no less than 86.” “The parting of these hitherto champions of the bat was looked upon with regret.” “Cooper showed a splendid defence, but scored very slowly.” “Cooper … all batted splendidly.” “Cooper, after steady but not brilliant play, was bowled by Southerton, after making 15.” Over 82 “The lion hitter of the Australians … filled the breach, and was well received.” Billy Midwinter, a professional for the Melbourne Cricket Club, seemed “quite a favourite among ‘the outer crowd’” as he walked out, the observed of all the ground, to partner Bannerman. “These two cricketers,” confided The Ballarat Star, were the “best of friends.” As they were also “the two big batters of the eleven,” “the spectators prepared themselves for a treat.” Midwinter, however, “had let it be known that he would not attempt any big hits against the wind,” into which Lillywhite was currently bowling. Attentive readers will recall that Shaw changed over for similar reasons earlier in the day. The strong southerly breeze had “increased during the afternoon.” “Midwinter, the Victorian slogger, made his appearance.” That appearance was a striking one. So muscular he spread, so broad of breast, he might have sat for Hercules. Cricket grounds he made smaller than they need have been, by being so very much out of proportion to them. “Midwinter was to make a name for himself as the only man ever to play Test cricket for Australia against England, then for England against Australia. He toured England with the 1878 team and he returned to Australia in 1881 as a member of the visiting English side, a name to be remembered ever since for cricket quiz programmes.” “Who alone in cricketing history was to play Tests for both Australia and England. He appears to have been impartial and proof against corrupting influence, even when it emanated from WG Grace, arguably the greatest gamesman of all time.” “One of six non-Australian-born players in the home XI who took five for 78 with his medium pace. In addition to playing eight Test matches for Australia, Midwinter played four for England before meeting a desperately sad fate. Unhinged by the sudden death of his wife and two children, he died in a lunatic asylum, aged 39.” J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run. J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: one run. “A single to the off was scored by Bannerman, for a hard hit.” This “brought the giant opposite to Lillywhite,” “and the field spread out.” “Midwinter, whose big hitting had helped the Victorian XV to victory, one 5 off Shaw clearing the spectators easily and going 120 yards. Midwinter was an interesting fellow, impressively powerful physically and said to be the son of a failed gold prospector.” J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run. J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run. But conditions were not at present disposed for any decoration within the range of his art. Like Cooper before him, he “was not at all comfortable facing Lillywhite.” Off one of these deliveries he “had evidently a narrow escape of being bowled.” The Weekly Times says that he “failed to play his first two balls,” The Argus that he “played so crudely at two balls he got from Lillywhite that his admirers felt relieved when the umpire called ‘over.’” From this I gather that he played and missed at both. One of the England players thought he looked nervous. Certainly he “did not seem at home at all.” Over 83 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: four runs. In Southerton’s next over, Bannerman let out and “sent a low skimming hit” to long-off. Alfred Shaw, posted in that position, “had the chance to earn a glorious name … but the Notts cricketer, desperate a rush as he made for the ball, only reached it with the tips of his fingers.” He said later that “the light spoiled his sight,” but The Argus was having none of it: “The catch was possible, and we should have been very sorry to have seen it offered to so dexterous a fieldsman as Emmet[t].” Not just Emmett, said The Age, but “a[ny] more active man than Shaw.” The Weekly Times is a great deal more charitable, describing “a good effort to make a catch.” As it was, the ball went to the chains for four. Walters comes closest: “According to the Melbourne Argus, Bannerman almost perished for 87 when he hit a low skimming drive off Southerton to Shaw, who had ‘the chance to earn a glorious name.’ However, ‘desperate a rush as he [Shaw] made for the ball, he only reached it with the tips of his fingers.’ The paper added: ‘He [Shaw] says the light spoiled his sight… The catch was possible, and we should have been very sorry to have seen it offered to so dexterous a fieldsman as Emmett.’ Just as newspapers made no mention of Shaw’s claim that Armitage dropped Bannerman off his bowling before he’d reached double figures, so Shaw’s memoirs made no mention that he himself dropped Bannerman.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. Over 84 J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run.

J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: four runs. Despite his resolution not to attempt anything expansive to bowling from the railway end, Midwinter “could not resist the first chance he got to lift a ball from Lillywhite to the chains” at long-on. It was “a good drive,” “high” and “straight” and “grand.”
J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run. 
J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run. 

Over 85 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: four runs. Bannerman, “not to be outdone, opened his shoulders” in Southerton’s next—“another beautiful, straight hit,” “well placed” to long off for four. The scoreboard “indicated 130 to the credit of the representatives of Australia.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: four runs. The next ball, the last of the over, was driven “to the fence” at “square leg for a similar number, the batsman’s score being now 99. This was probably another of CB Fry’s “pull-drives” or sweeps. His score was moving at a compound interest, so rapid as to mock all the powers of the imagination. Over 86

J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run.
J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run.
J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run.
J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: no run. “A maiden from Lillywhite to Midwinter.”

Over 87 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman drove Southerton hard for a single,” making “his individual score 100, and hands were clapped all round the ring.” “Cheers,” too, for this was the first century by a colonist against an English team, in any form of cricket. It was also, of course, the first Test century, a splendid niche in the temple of fame—“a display of cricket,” exalted the Weekly Times, “the brilliance of which has never been equalled in Australia.” He had faced roughly 173 balls (needing but forty to move from the half- to the century), but had given as yet—for the air blew fresh upon him—no hint of fatigue. So keen was his eye, and keen his judgment, and likewise his attention, that “Grace himself,” argued The Argus, “could not have batted with more resolution and greater brilliance.” His range, if not circumferent, was singular for its time: He had hit to leg, and he had driven and cut, with a vital authority exquisite to see. Those who saw would remember it always. “Raising his century just half-an-hour later [after his fifty] to ‘clapping hands all around the ring.’” Begbie: “He raced through the 90s with three boundaries, and when the third brought his hundred up the crowd went wild.” This brought Midwinter face to face with Southerton for the first time: “If one player could be said to have troubled Southerton, then this was undoubtedly Charles Inglis Thornton. Southerton tended not to fare so well against big hitters ("Hitting seems to pay better than attempting to play Southerton's twisters", Sporting Life, 9 January 1869) and Thornton was certainly one of those.” “Southerton does seem to have worried more about Thornton than others. As he got older there are reports that he became more afraid of bowling slow to hard hitters but it is of Thornton that he said "he used to lay awake at night wondering what he would do if Mr C.I. Thornton sent one straight back to him" (Surrey Cricket - It's History and Associations).” “Most records in sport, like promises and piecrust, are made only to be broken. There are, however, four cricket records which are unbeatable, and they all stand to the credit of one man, Charles Bannerman. He scored the first century in a test match, 165 (retired hurt) at Melbourne, in 1877, the first century by an Australian, 125 not out, in New Zealand, against 22 of Invercargill, the first century by an Australian in England, 133 against Leicestershire, and the first century by an Australian in America, 125 against Montreal—the last three during the tour of the 1878 Australian Eleven. Forty-four years have elapsed since the first test, and now, on the eve of the hundredth game, Bannerman is one of the few survivors of the 22 men who battled for supremacy before the Ashes were created, if the verb is permissible of something that never actually existed. Like so many men who have spent much of their leisure in field games, he is wonderfully preserved for one of his age—he will be 70 next July. For years after he had retired from active play Bannerman was a leading umpire, and he officiated in many test matches. BOLD AUSTRALIANS ‘New South Wales and Victoria, each playing with 18 men, had defeated WG Grace's team in 1874,’ remarked the veteran, when asked what he remembered of his innings. So when Jim Lillywhite brought out an eleven three years later we combined to play the first match, Australia against England…. Anyway, we played without Spoff, and won by 45.’ ‘Thanks to your great innings,’ he was reminded, to which he rejoined: ‘Don't make much of what I did. Don't forget Tom Kendall's bowling. What a pity he didn't go to England with us in '78. He was a left-hander, and one of the very best.’” “He became the first Australian to score a century in New Zealand (v XXII of Invercargill), in England (v Leicestershire, not then first-class) and in Canada (v XXII of Montreal).” “Charles Bannerman, whose death at 79 took place suddenly in Sydney on Wednesday, was, as already stated In The Mercury, the first Australian to score a century against England in Australia. Probably very few nowadays are aware that Bannerman held another record; he was the first Australian batsman to score a century in England. This was made against Leicestershire in 1878, when Bannerman made 133 run out. He hit twenty-three 4's, three 3's, nine 2's, and the rest singles. The Field stated that "the runs were made in masterly style, and it would be difficult to imagine more faultless play or in which tremendous hitting was accompanied by so large an amount of scientific cricket." It was on March 15, 1877, that Charles Bannerman played his famous innings of 165 against England on the Melbourne cricket ground. He was opposed to the bowling of Lillywhite, Shaw, Ulyett, Emmett, Hill, Southerton, and Armitage. Clem Hill, whom it pleased providence to make one of Australia's greatest batsmen, was born on the day following the close of the match. A chronicler of the time stated that Bannerman received a tremendous crack on the hand from one of Ulyett’s, which split his finger, and he was forced to retire, and could not resume his innings, which amounted to 165, earned in a most masterly manner, without a chance. It included eighteen 4's, nine 3's, thirteen 2's, and the rest singles." Australia won the match by 45 runs—Australia, 245 and 104 (C. Bannerman, 165, retired hurt, and 4); England, 196 and 108. It was in that match that the late Tom Kendall (perhaps the best left-hand bowler the world has ever known) took eight for 109, one in the first innings and seven in the second. In, the return match England (201, and six for 122) won by four wickets, Australia scoring 122 and 259 (C. Bannerman 10 and 30). Kendall, who took six for 106, was selected to go to England with the 1878 Australian team, but returned to Australia after the programme of preliminary matches in New Zealand had been played. Charles Bannerman was a brother of AC Bannerman, probably the greatest stonewalling batsman in cricket history. Charles Bannorman was a familiar identity in Sydney, and he could always be seen in the pavilion at the Sydney cricket ground whenever big matches were being played. The writer of this article met him there last season when the English team were playing New South Wales, on its way to New Zealand. The old chap talked interestingly of his youthful days, and said it was a million pities Tom Kendall never went to England, where he thought he would have been a tremendous success. Charles Bannerman was delighted with the batting shown by Bradman, Allsopp, Jackson, and Kippax; and Duleepsinhji also delighted him with his wristy elegance and suppleness.” J Southerton to WE Midwinter: no run. J Southerton to WE Midwinter: no run. Over 88 J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: one run. “This attention stimulated both batsmen to fresh exertions,” Bannerman “following the effort by cutting Lillywhite for a single.” J Lillywhite to WE Midwinter: one run. There followed “a single to Midwinter for a hard drive,” “along the ground,” “from the English skipper.” J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run. J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: four runs. The last ball saw “Bannerman run out” of his crease and again hit the bowler “hard and straight.” “Lillywhite had to turn round to watch” as it went “to the chains for 4.” This “brought [up] the 140, of which Bannerman had got 105”—exactly 75 per cent. At least even Lillywhite, bowling with great “skill,” had come in for some punishment, enabling the Weekly Times to remark that Bannerman had “caused the captain of the Englishmen to resort to every bowler in his team, but all to no purpose, as he continued to pound every bowler to every part of the field.” No-one could “make an impression on him.” “To Bannerman,” observed The Argus, “all the bowlers proved alike. The change from Hill to Ulyett and Emmett and from Shaw to Southerton, and then to Lillywhite,” made no odds; during all which length of time, however, “Bannerman had been batting brilliantly…. His defence against the best bowling in the world was wonderful, while if the bowlers were in the least degree loose he meted out to them the severest punishment.” Over 89 J Southerton to WE Midwinter: no run. J Southerton to WE Midwinter: OUT . Midwinter now “thought it time to do something worthy of a giant”—some “such prodigious work as only a giant or a perfect Hercules can do”—and perhaps to “recall people’s attention to the events of the Christmas match,” in which, against these same bowlers, he had blasted four fours and a five. “So he stepped out” and “let out” and attempted to put the ball out of the ground. It was a “tremendous,” “splendid,” “gigantic” hit, and it was greeted by “a grand cheer.” The ball flew swift through the incumbent air, up to the highest height, and appeared to be soaring far beyond the chains at long on. George Ulyett, stationed some distance from its destination, “had to run as well as ‘get back.’” Pulling up within an inch or two of the boundary, and only a foot or two from the spectators (whose hearts were at their very lips), he “curved his back into the form of a bow,” stretched up his arms, and was “just able to reach the ball as it was passing over.” He held it “splendidly,” “beautifully,” “magnificently,” and the crowd raised its voice into “a perfect storm of cheers.” It was a catch to keep in a jar on the mantel. A shade more powder and Midwinter would have had a fiver. There were not six inches in it. The telegraph board, which ought in all justice to have registered “4-15-147,” showed instead “5-5-142.” “Writing about the game at the time of its centenary, Ray Robinson [Bannerman the hero – First Test won by Australia, by Ray Robinson, in Centenary Test Official Souvenir Publication of the Australian Cricket Board, 1977] describes this as: “William Midwinter … stepped out to belt Southerton over Ulyett [at long-on] and, it seemed, over the grandstand as well. …. Backing until he leaned against the fence, Ulyett curved his back into the form of a bow and stretched up his hands. He held the ball securely. Had Midwinter hit it six inches higher the glorious out would have been written down as five”. Lillywhite’s description: “Midwinter now drove Southerton far away, and the ball looked like going over the chains, but Ulyett was waiting, and made a magnificent catch just as the ball appeared to have gone out of bounds” (Sporting Life, 9 May 1877).” SMH: “A grand hit to long-field right up to the chain fence, and was splendidly caught by Ulyett.” Casually passed over in the most recent treatment: “All-rounder Billy Midwinter with the score on 142, caught on the boundary by Ulyett off Southerton.” The new batsman was Ned Gregory, “the captain's brother.” At the beginning of the decade, stationed in the Caretaker’s Cottage at the Sydney Cricket Ground, he had been “used to carry buckets of clay from (Moore) Park Road to the Alliance Ground, so that he and Charles Bannerman could practise on a fast pitch which played like that at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.” Now, a half-decade later, on that very MCG, he was Bannerman’s partner in the very first Test Match. “The beautiful wickets of the present day were then non-existent, and scores did not give pencil-pliers anything like the amount of work they have now when our wickets, on the beautiful Melbourne and Sydney grounds are unsurpassed in the world. I can recall one match on the old Albert ground. New South Wales had lost five wickets for 8 runs. Ned Gregory was batting, and received a severe blow in the eye from a sudden rising ball, delivered by Sam Cosstick. Ned had to retire, put some raw beef steak on his eye, and later came back to continue his hand. So effectively did he acquit himself that his score was 65 not out of a total of 116, put together by the whole side.” Bravery: “Once when playing against the Bathurst Terror, Richardson, of whom report says, he once bowled the pads clean of batsman’s legs, Gregory was hit by a ball from him in the forehead and it bounced back to the bowler who caught it. It is a peculiar coincidence that Sid Gregory, his son, when playing against Surry Richardson, was hit in the head by a ball which was afterwards caught some distance behind the wicket.” Begbie: “Had Ulyett missed and the ball cleared the fence, Midwinter would have only scored a five in 1877. The odds were stacked against the batsman.” It would perhaps be more accurate to say that they are stacked in his favour now. Gregory's best performance was in 1875, when in the match against Victoria 4 wickets had fallen for 5 runs. He went in and carried his bat out for 65. When partly through his innings he was hit in the left eye by the ball, which opened it to the brow and cut the cheek below. After having it stitched he went on with his innings, and in spite of his accident carried his bat out. Before he could go in the second innings he had to have his eyes lanced, as they were completely bunged up. He carried his bat out again, this time scoring 14. This performance gained for him the soubriquet of Lion Hearted Ned. (Recorder “Cricket Notes” Truth, 30 April 1899.) Country players and those unable to obtain the services of a player to coach them may take heart by Ned’s statement that he was certain that he learnt his cricket by reading and acting upon the advice of a book entitled "Felix on the bat." (Recorder “Cricket Notes” Truth, 30 April 1899.)

Second Test:

Midwinter … was finally caught by Emmett off Lillywhite. The catch was the grandest that has been seen for many a long day, the ball going low all the way to long off, where the Yorkshireman took it magnificently. (Adelaide Observer. “All-England Eleven v. Eleven of New South Wales and Victoria.” 7 April 1877: 10.)

J Southerton to EJ Gregory: no run. J Southerton to EJ Gregory: no run. Over 90 J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run. J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: one run. Bannerman cut Lillywhite for a single. J Lillywhite to EJ Gregory: no run. J Lillywhite to EJ Gregory: no run. Over 91 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. Over 92 J Lillywhite to EJ Gregory: no run. J Lillywhite to EJ Gregory: no run. J Lillywhite to EJ Gregory: no run. J Lillywhite to EJ Gregory: OUT. “Several [sic] maidens having been bowled,” Gregory lifted Lillywhite to Andrew Greenwood. Some say this fielder was stationed at long on, others mid-on, while The Age argues that the ball was “pulled … round to square leg.” This specificity as to the nature of the stroke inclines me to follow its follow it, not least because Greenwood was fielding in that area last time we checked in with him. What is certain is that the ball fell into his hands—“a nice catch,” caught “finely” and “cleverly”—and stayed there the necessary time. The Gregorys had made just one run between them. The last of their number, after what The Argus described accurately as “a short life” (and rather strangely as “a merry one”), had registered “the first duck in international cricket, [a] dubious method of creating history.” He had not examined his partner’s play with that leisure, that attention, that care, which he might have desired to bestow upon it, and which it might possibly have repaid, for Bannerman’s innings “showed that the safe plan was to keep the ball down.” SMH: “Well caught by Greenwood at mid-on.” “Ned Gregory, brother of captain Dave, had registered Test cricket’s first duck when he was caught at long-on by Greenwood off Lillywhite, which had left the hosts 143 for six.” Over 93 Jack Blackham, “the well-known wicketkeeper,” soon to be known still better, came out put right what had gone amiss. “Not a great bat,” but “quite … useful,” he would finish with only one century from his 275 first-class outings. 100 years later, in the Centenary Test: “Marsh (with a photograph of Blackham in his pocket) was within five runs of the first century by an Australian wicketkeeper against England.” “What annoyed the older players was his cross-bat.” What impressed his admirers was his value in a tight spot. A fortnight ago, on this very ground: “The Southern captain had well nigh exhausted his stock of changes when M'Gan bowled Blackham, after that player had made a rapid innings for 49 runs.” Lillywhite: “BLACKHAM is a first class wicket-keeper, filling that post for Victoria, and generally makes runs.” J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. First he “played a maiden,” “but did not seem at all at home to Southerton.” Over 94 J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run. J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman … made a single off Lillywhite.” J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. “Scoring for a time was steady.” Against Lillywhite “Blackham batted with all the coolness for which he is noted.” Over 95 The crowd by now “had increased very materially,” “to between 3,000 and 4,000,” according to The Australasian. It could now be proven that “the arrangements on the ground are excellent, and everyone … enabled to obtain a good view.” The Argus estimates the number at “about 4,500”—“fair,” reckoned The Bendigo Advertiser, “but not very large, the grandstand [still] being thinly patronised.” The Herald counted 4,000 at a minimum, which was also the estimate of the England team. The South Australian Register, eager to show that “the attendance was not so good as in Adelaide,” lowballed its estimate at “about 2,500 persons,” a “wretched” number, but anticipated that with the revival of public interest attendant on Bannerman’s heroics, the attendance would be larger tomorrow. “By the close 4500 people had turned up, but few bothered to use the stand, which was said to have only a smattering of people in it all day.” Nat Thompson was out bowled Hill for 1, but Charles Bannerman stayed firm. The good news spread as it did many years later in the Bradman era; the crowds began to flock to the M.C.G. The numbers grew from 1000 to 4000. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: two runs. “Bannerman was soon at it again with 2 for a stolen run,” “Shaw falling … asleep while following the ball.” We do not know where he was fielding, but the last time we saw him, barely ten overs ago, he was dropping a catch off the same bowler at long off. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. Over 96 J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. “A maiden from Lillywhite to Blackham,” who was playing “with great patience.” Over 97 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. ”Bannerman hit Southerton hard for a single.” J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: two runs. “The new comer broke the ice” at last by cutting Southerton “prettily”—in fact “very prettily” (emphasis added)—through the slips for a brace. Over 98

J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run.
J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run.
J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run.
J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden to each bowler,” first from Lillywhite to Bannerman.

Over 99 J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. Now another from Southerton to Blackham. Over 100 J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run. J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: two runs. “Two more to Bannerman, past short leg, brought the 150.” J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman got Lillywhite away for … 1.” J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. Bannerman “was now doing all the scoring,” as Blackham “wisely kept up his end and used patience to give Bannerman the bowling.” Begbie: “Blackham ... annoyed the tourists by holding up his end with a sadly crossed bat.” Over 101 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: three runs. “The Sydney man still went on hitting tremendously.” This time he got Southerton “hard” and “well” to long off (apparently a favourite area for him against this bowler, or this bowling) for three. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. Over 102

J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: no run. 

J Lillywhite to C Bannerman: one run. He “then placed Lillywhite neatly to the on for a single.” J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. J Lillywhite to JM Blackham: no run. In an account increasingly short on detail, from a reporter increasingly short of space, The Age mistakenly records “a maiden from Lillywhite.” Over 103 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: two runs. “An uppish two in the slips by Bannerman off Southerton,” from a cut. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “In quick succession” came “1 for a ball played to short-leg, and well run by Blackham.” Over 104 “Lillywhite at this stage, seeing a change was necessary, handed the ball to Emmett.” His management of the England bowling “did not commend itself to those qualified to judge, and it was considered that he should certainly have had Shaw on a second time.” As noted earlier, however, Shaw was “simply spun out.” His late travails in the field are strong index of his exhaustion: Through slowness or stroppiness, mostly at long off, he had forfeited at least five runs today, more than any of his team-mates. “EMMETT, THOMAS, native of Halifax. Another bowler, but as a performer scarcely as effective as a few others who accompany the team. Has a left-handed, puzzling, deceptive style of delivery, and when on the wicket requires to be very carefully played. Accredited as he is with the moderate average last season of only 16.21 runs per wicket, there must be more in him than figures give him credit for, coming as he does in a team chosen by a first-class general. As a batsman—and notwithstanding his small average of 9 runs per innings for the last season—there is withal in him the inherent qualities of a good cricketer. As proof, in the present season (1876) he has already made an excellent commencement: In June of the present year, in an early match (the Marylebone and Ground v. Yorkshire), he batted exceedingly well, and later, in July last (the North v. the South), made 70 runs by superior play, and against anything but inferior bowling. Still later, in the same month (the Players v. Gentlemen), Emmett never batted better, and by a splendid display of cricket won a special compliment through the Press for his 42 and [sic] not out. Every cricketer has his day, and appearances point to Emmett's as being in the dawn, an appearance which, for him and his compeers, could not come at a more opportune time.” ‘Emmett had a most ungainly action bowling and a most remarkable action batting; he was one of the cricketers who defied analysis and baffled criticism.’ R.H.Lyttelton, 1898. “With a nasty break and most difficult to play.” Thirty-five years old now, but still in the pink of health and fitness; indeed, was denied a benefit the previous season in England for precisely that reason: “It is tolerably well-known that the left-hander is not particularly minus of the ‘means that make the mare to go,’ while Pinder last winter was dreadfully indisposed. He is all right again now, but he did not get well for nothing, and a benefit next year would prove very opportune. As for Thomas, there is no doubt a good time coming, but, in the remaining words of the song, he must ‘wait a little longer.’” The Australasian on Emmett at the beginning of the tour: “a puzzling trundle, with the most awkward of awkward deliveries. He delivers the ball from the outside of the return crease, and his body is in such a peculiar position when the ball is sent from his arm that the batsman finds he is bowled before he knows where he is. Emmett generally comes in from the leg, but bowling on a siding he puts on the opposite break. He will prove one of the most dangerous bowlers in the team.” Had been little seen at the MCG before: “After Adelaide, the side sailed to Melbourne, where Emmett and Jupp appeared in a game between Yarba Bend and Melbourne on 23 November. The former turned out for the Yarba side, playing ‘very nicely’ with the bat according to reports, but not bowling particularly successfully. The side then moved to Sydney at the end of the month, where Shaw and Emmett were in excellent form in practice, and Emmett was again reportedly considered ‘the most dangerous bowler as far as the Sydney team is concerned.’ Looking ahead to the game at Christmas in Melbourne, a local paper commented that ‘Emmett’s bowling seems to be much feared by the Victorian team.’ Despite the positive reports, a week later the tourists lost to a New South Wales side in a four-day match. Emmett made one of the better scores in the first innings (‘a splendid display of cricket, which won him a host of admirers’) and bowled economically. His erratic bowling style was again commented on, but ‘Seale, in hitting wildly at a ball very much to the off, gave Hill a catch at third man, which was eagerly accepted.’ The enthusiasm to see the tourists was such that reportedly 3,000 people (5-6,000 was the claim elsewhere) paid a shilling just to witness the 25 runs needed to win the game. In all, it was suggested that 30,000 saw the tourists. By Christmas, the England side was in Melbourne, where they were impressed by the cricket ground and, in particular, the grand stand. In the game with Fifteen of Victoria, Emmett delivered just 14 out of the 173 overs bowled in the first innings and five out of 85 in the second innings, although he took 3-10 towards the end of the contest.” Indeed, had bowled relatively little in Australia at all, his early performances marked by an erratic line. Famous even at home for his offside wides. But his speed and bounce made life uncomfortable for the locals. Eleven-a-side match against NSW in January: “Emmett was not needed as a bowler in the first innings but later reports mentioned that his ‘rib-binders’ were ‘hard when they hit you’. Southerton and Emmett were also described as having ‘distinct and striking actions’.” “Emmett was the seventh bowler used.” Note Emmett’s losing his bowling form on arrival in Australia; note it again when we arrive at Armitage, who was worse. “In reviewing the summer of 1886, there was widespread praise for Emmett, who bowled the most overs of all the Yorkshire bowlers – 1,143 in all matches – although he also conceded 51 wides [rose to 68 by the end of August the following year]. In contrast, Edmund Peate bowled one wide in 828 overs.” “In an interview in early 1888, Mordecai Sherwin, the captain of Nottinghamshire, was asked about the debate around an alteration to the ‘leg before wicket’ rule. In response to the assertion that Tom Emmett was strongly in favour of it, Sherwin commented ‘Yes; he’s continually bowling on the off-side to get a man caught in the slips or at the wicket. When he is bowling, his arm is six feet off the wicket. If a batsman steps across his wicket to get at an off-ball from a bowler like that, and it whips back on to him, he is to be given out under the new rule, if the umpire thinks it would have hit the wicket.’” No-one could bowl like Emmett. Not even Emmett could bowl like Emmett, which is why he bowled so many wides. “Emmett recommended that bowlers put as few balls to leg as possible and never forget to try and bowl to the fielders. Referring to hints on bowling by Alfred Shaw, in which he had recommended a bowler to hold the ball with all the fingers and thumb, Emmett said a great many bowlers preferred the thumb and two fingers. He added ‘From my experience I have found the latter to be the better way. Of course, this is a matter the bowler can decide for himself, as he will be able to know which feels the better way for putting the spin on.’” “In his 1900 book ‘Talks with Old English Cricketers’, A.W.Pullin wrote that ‘It is not hyperbole to describe Tom Emmett as the greatest character in nineteenth century cricket. There have been greater cricketers than he, but none so genuinely droll and individualistic.’” “Contemporaries admired and feared Tom Emmett’s bowling and recognised his worth. W.A.Bettesworth called him ‘a genius’ and said that he could bowl balls ‘which no man had ever seen or dreamed of before’. At the same time, he believed that, what he called, Emmett’s ‘want of method’ stopped him from being the very greatest bowler of his day [Bettesworth (1900) p290]. Nevertheless, he was an exceptional left-handed, round-arm fast bowler, who started off at a ‘stinging’ pace, and slowed down to medium as he aged…. Emmett’s slowing-up in pace happened gradually, but by 1880 he had taken to bowling much slower according to Lillywhite’s Annual. Three years later, it was noted that he had reduced his pace again in 1882. [John Lillywhite’s Cricketers’ Companion 1880 p136; James Lillywhite’s Cricketers’ Annual 1883]. In 1906, however, Cricket suggested that he had got faster again in his later years, without ever recovering the pace of his days in partnership with George Freeman.” “Emmett himself said that his bowling action came naturally, but it was clearly a complex process. An article in The Sportsman in 1877 described his approach, noting his ‘delivery is very awkward as he brings the ball round with a sweep, and he bowls round the wicket so very wide that he is especially difficult to see….when you are least expecting it there comes a trimmer, which whips from the leg to the off like lightning.’ Scores and Biographies noted that he was a ‘high, fast, left, round-armed bowler with a sweeping delivery’. As he ran up to the wicket ‘his arm did so many eccentric things that it was not easy for a batsman to see when the ball left his hand’ [Scores and Biographies, vol 11, p274; Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game, 7 July 1904]. Another description of his run-up talked of his hand shaking just before he delivered the ball. Lyttleton too commented that: He had an odd, corkscrewy sort of action, took a long run, and had a most extraordinary action of the left elbow, and neither he himself nor anyone who ever saw him had the remotest notion whether the ball was going to be straight or crooked. In fact, Emmett thought carefully about his bowling and he ensured he remembered the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents. One profile” made report of him “as ‘essentially a head bowler’ and suggested that, in the course of an over or two, he could get the measure of a batsman’, even when younger bowlers were struggling.” “One man who got to know Emmett’s bowling well was George Pinder, the Yorkshire wicketkeeper, who played with him until 1880. He told ‘Old Ebor’ that ‘it was no joke keeping wicket to…Tom. Emmett, who used to sling in the ball at times in a way that made the stumper keep his eyes open and his wits about him. He used to ‘corkscrew’ his deliveries in a very perplexing way. There was a certain ball which appeared going to leg, but which would whip in on middle and off stumps. As soon as I saw that ball I gave the batsman up [Old Ebor, p77]. In addition to bowling wide, Emmett also sought to vary the length of his balls by employing the whole width of the bowling crease or bowling from behind it. It all added up to a powerful and unorthodox mixture, but one which was considered quite economical by some; George Atkinson, for example, remarked that he could ‘swing away for weeks’ [Old Ebor, p23].” “As Richard Daft put it, Tom Emmett was ‘all wire and whipcord; one of the very best bits of stuff a cricketer was ever made of.’” In the whole tour: “Armitage bowled two wides, Hill two, Emmett fourteen and two no-balls, and Shaw one no-ball.” “Of the bowlers only the left-arm Emmett, with his deliveries angled in from wide of the crease, failed to please: 'The pace appears fast, but the exertion looks too great to last for long [same thing was said by English journalists of Spofforth]. His bowling is not by any means elegant.' There were suggestions too that he threw the ball.” “Tom Emmett, too, liked his drink and was a popular Yorkshire captain in the days before Lord Hawke demanded a more sober outlook from the team. 'After a cricket luncheon, his perception was sometimes a trifle hazy', was one wry contemporary comment, though Emmett himself indignantly declared of his notorious, heavy-drinking Yorkshire XI, 'I never saw woon of our fellows coom onto field oonfit for plaay'. The delight of the ladies, who called him 'Mr Punch', Emmett was a wild but lively left-arm bowler (whose famous ball - the 'sostenutor' - pitched leg and hit the top of the off stump), a forcing bat and a mobile fielder in the slips and gully, who tended to hold brilliant catches but drop easy ones because his tongue was too active.” In the Second Test described as bowling “fast left-handed shots.” EMMETT, THOMAS, born at Halifax, September 3rd, 1841; is a fast left-handed bowler, and fine bat, and very free hitter. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 206.) T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: one run. “All bowling seemed to come alike to Bannerman, who still scored freely.” The last ball of Emmett’s first he cut for one past point, taking the Australian tally into the 160s. Over 105 J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. This brought him in front of Southerton, whom he duly drove for another single. J Southerton to JM Blackham: one run. “Blackham putting him to the off for a single the next ball.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. Over 106 T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. Blackham, as we have seen, “did not seem at all at home to Southerton.” The Age applies the same remark to his handling of Emmett. Over 107 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “Another single to Bannerman off Southerton.” J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. Over 108 T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: three runs. “More scoring on the part of Bannerman, whose hits were so numerous as to be quite monotonous.” This time he “cut Emmett in the slips,” “rather uppishly, for 3.” T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. Over 109 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. At 17:00, after a maiden from Southerton, stumps were drawn, “so as to avoid the plea of bad light.” Bannerman had 126 of a gross 166, far outstripping anything previously accomplished by an Australian against foemen of this calibre. His admirers rushed the ground and thrust him on their shoulders, and bore him from the field. To the Weekly Times, descrying again the dormant grandstand, this seemed a meagrely recognition: “He should certainly have been treated to an ovation, but he was not.” When the same critic attempted a tribute of his own, however, he found his pen in fetters. “It is impossible,” at length he sighed, “to speak too highly of his play.” Nor could even The Argus, whose correspondent must rank among the great stylists of Australian sports journalism, discover a superlative fit for the moment.

His supple Limbs with nimble Labour plies,

Despairing of adjectives, they sought instead for precedents and parallels, but again found there none. Australia had never seen such an innings; it never would see such another. It eclipsed and predominated the whole of the canon. It was “the grandest display of batting by a colonial player which has ever been seen in these colonies” (The Argus), “the finest display of vigorous batting ever seen in Melbourne” (The Age), “about the finest display of cricket ever seen on the MCC ground” (The Australasian), “the grandest display ever seen on the Melbourne ground” (The Leader). “His exhibition of true cricket, fine defence, with spirited and scientific hitting on both sides, has never been equalled by an Australian” (The South Australian Register). “Never has a finer innings been witnessed in these colonies…. His innings will long be remembered in the colonies as about the most noteworthy exhibition of cricket ever witnessed…. every trundler in the team had a try at the Sydneyite; but all alike signally failed in making an impression” (The Herald), for it was all one to Bannerman; it all rebounded from him without taking the least effect. “Shaw and Southerton were perhaps the least punished, while Armitage, in three overs which he bowled, was knocked about in the most shameful manner. His slows do not appear to have any points in them at all” (The Herald). Begbie: “After lunch Lillywhite tried several bowling combinations in the attempt to dislodge Bannerman, who flourished under each new regime.” They did not eschew superlatives; they indulged themselves superlatively. It will retain forever a privileged niche in the pavilion of cricket history. SMH: “Bannerman played a magnificent innings, and hit very freely. He was frequently applauded for his hits as he obtained successive fours. Altogether, he displayed a grand exhibition of cricket.” Horan, writing in 1914, considered him “perhaps as brilliant a batsman as Australia has ever known.” The Englishmen had less trouble articulating themselves. They thought it no derogation from their dignity to own that they had been on the end receiving of “one of the grandest innings ever played.” Lillywhite give him a regular tongue-bath, rating his hitting “terrific” and his defending “perfect,” and venturing the view that he was “about the best professional batsman I ever saw.” [Can move this to a new sentence, comparing these superlatives with the ones Lillywhite gave in his annual.] Southerton made utterances of a like purport, but for Ulyett there was no “about” about it, and no need for the “professional” caveat either: Bannerman was, quite simply, “the world’s best.” He yielded the palm to nobody, not even WG Grace. Lillywhite told journalists that he had seen as good a knock back in England—he had WG Grace in mind —but that never in all his born days had he witnessed its superior. Bannerman’s latest batting partner would give it as his considered opinion, in the 1930s, that Don Bradman “most resembles in style and effectiveness our first Test centurion.” The play of The Don, for Blackham, was like the blowing of old breezes and the ringing of old bells. Batting first, under the leadership of Dave Gregory, the home side made 245. It was really a one-man effort, as Charlie Bannerman, before having to retire through having a hand injured from a fast ball from Ulyett, had made 165. Even to this day Jack Blackham considers that wonderful effort of Bannerman's as the greatest display of batting he has ever witnessed. He used his feet to the fast stuff, as well as to the slows, driving with mighty power and certainty, the flower of English bowling being unable to hold him in check. I should say it was the first time on record that a batsman danced down the pitch to the slows, a feat that must have astonished and bewildered the English men, who were unaccustomed to such daring methods and rude handling. In that famous victory Charlie Bannerman set a fashion that has ever since been an Australian characteristic. Quoting my dear old friend, John McCarthy Blackham, once again, in his opinion the nearest approach of any man to Charlie Bannerman's style he has ever seen is the modern one of Don Bradman. It is strange that after such a lapse of time Charlie Bannerman should reappear in the person of Don Bradman, another New South Welshman. (Worrall “Progress” Australasian, 12 November 1932: 10.) [To check that claim will take me an awfully long time. Will leave it for a second edition.] “Nothing like Bannerman’s play had ever been seen in the Colonies either, at least not from an Australian. The Australasian called it ‘the grandest display of batting by a colonial player which has ever been seen,’ adding that ‘Grace himself could not have batted with more resolution and greater brilliance than Bannerman of Sydney.’ The paper said that Bannerman ‘hit with decision, sharpness and vigour,’ and that the ‘constancy with which the ball was sent along the turf showed that caution and accuracy were allied to enterprise.’ James Lillywhite said that although he had seen as good an innings before in England, he had seen none better.” “Bannerman's hitting was, in Lillywhite's words, 'truly terrific', but it was tempered with good sense, Lillywhite praised his 'perfect defence.'” “Bannerman's batting in March, 1877, for Australia against Shaw and Lillywhite's team on the Melbourne ground, really led to the formation of the 1878 Australian team for England. He scored 165, "retired hurt," and Australia won the match, in the main owing to his grand exhibition.” Lillywhite stated that he had clapped eyes upon a finer innings, “and predicted that the brilliant ‘Charlie’ would delight lovers of the game in the old country [already hints]. He did some fine work, but made only one century, 133 against Leicestershire.” “I think, as we talk, of the lamented ‘Augur's' opinion that Charlie's 165 retired hurt in 1877 was the finest innings he had ever seen, and, considering the splendid class of bowling he met—Shaw, Allan Hill, Ulyett, Tom Emmett, and Jim Lillywhite—I still hold that we have never seen that innings surpassed for force and brilliance. Do you remember how he punished Tom Armitage's slows? By the way, I noticed in a recent copy of Cricket that Tom Armitage still plays. He is in the United States, plays with the Pullman Club, and has made good scores for them. Suffering from infirmity of mind, he had for a time to be placed in an asylum, and his old friends in Australia will be glad to know that he hay thoroughly recovered. The last time I saw Tom was on the Cambridge ground in 1862 [sic: 1882]. He then looked as if fortune had not dealt kindly with him. We had a modest quencher together, and I remember Tom's friend was very much puzzled when I said, "It's my 'shout.'” It was Tom who said to the waiter in Ballarat when he was carving the beef, "Giv's a piece as woan't bend.” From what I could gather from the Sydney players, Charlie Bannerman is all there as coach on the Sydney Cricket ground. It was thought at one time that little Alick would be engaged as coach, but he wanted too high a figure, and so the negotiations fell through. I am glad to hear that from this month forward Alick will be able to play again, his hours of labour having been shortened.” “In 1876-7 Hill visited Australia as a member of Lillywhite's team, and in the course of the trip took 113 wickets, all but three of the matches, however, being against odds. It was during that tour that England and Australia first met on even terms—at Melbourne, in March—and Hill always spoke most highly of Charles Bannerman's inpings of 165 not out, saying that he had never seen finer batting—a very great compliment indeed seeing that he had witnessed many of "W.G.'s" best innings when the Champion was in his prime.” Lillywhite: “after treating all our bowling in much the same fashion, at the call of time BANNERMAN was not out with 126, compiled without the slightest chance; his hitting was terrific, and defence perfect.” Lillywhite: “BANNERMAN is by far the best batsman in New South Wales, and I am quite sure will make his mark in this country, let who will bowl against him.” They could not have believed in it had not they seen it. Bannerman’s monopoly on the scoring was such as accounted for more than two thirds of Australia’s runs—proof, mused The Argus, not only of his excellence, but also “of the excellence of the bowling of the Englishmen, for only the player who got not his eye merely, but his whole body in, can be said to have felt at home.” The Age picked out Ulyett and Southerton as the best; and the latter, certainly, was well pleased with his day’s work, complaining only that “the wicket was so true that the ball could with difficulty be got past the bat.” “It must be conceded,” said The Herald, “that the Australians … had the advantage of a magnificent wicket. It was essentially a batsman’s wicket.” “English recollections of the tour were explicit about the fine quality of the wicket.” In an interview forty-five years later, Bannerman would place Lillywhite’s attack among the strongest ever to visit Australia, with “plenty of variety” and “quality right through.” Assessing it severally, he was as free with his adjectives as they had been for him. Shaw was “the most perfect length bowler England has had.” Lillywhite was “steady and accurate.” Emmett and Southerton were “fine,” and Hill “very fast.” Ulyett, “not nearly so fast,” was nonetheless “a real good ’un.” Speaking in 1921 (the year of Gregory and McDonald), Bannerman “did not think bowlers today are as deadly as those of years ago.” This judgment he delivered, on the telling of his examiner, in no spirit of self-laudation, and I can well believe it. It was the only time he spoke publicly, on the record, of his great innings. All that being, it does occur to me that a good-faith appraisal would have found more to say of the fat pickings of Thomas Armitage than that he bowled “slows.” There was excellence, too, in the England fielding. Even including the mistakes of Shaw and Armitage (and excluding several stops by Hill), I calculate that they saved, by their undaunted pertinacity, no fewer thirteen runs over the course of the day. To the spectators this was “a revelation … for fielding in the Colonies then was poor.” The Englishmen were pleased with their efforts, too, if Lillywhite’s report in The Sporting Life may be taken to represent the generality of their feelings. “The bowlers kept the batsmen, who one by one succeeded Thompson, under restraint. The only player not in awe of them was Horan.” SMH: “The fielding was excellent, but the bowling was collared, no less than seven men being put on.” On the other hand, “the absence of Pooley was greatly felt, Selby being a very poor substitute with the slow bowling and not attempting to take the fast.” That he had gone through the day without conceding a bye—without, indeed, any recorded error—and yet came in for such criticism, is necessarily striking to modern optics. But the coverage is universal on this point. It is repeated, in near-identical terms, in every report. It seems strange that Jupp was not given the post, for he had stopped Pooley’s gap previously at Surrey, and would take the gloves for the Second Test. “When the return match against Sussex was played at Brighton, from 11-13 August [1864], Southerton played for Hampshire. Indeed, he kept wicket and was responsible for 3 stumpings in Sussex’s first innings. Nevertheless, he could not prevent another Sussex win, again by 10 wickets.” Conceivably Selby’s frequent appearances on this tour as Pooley’s long stop (only to the fast bowlers, mind you) were adjudged adequate preparation for the present office. Second Test: “After lunch, Jupp kept the wickets in the place of Selby.” Is this the source of the unsupported idea that it happened in the First Test? Selby’s performance ultimately turned out to be more forgettable than excrebable: Decades later, both Blackham and Bannerman would insist that Pooley had been England’s wicketkeeper. It were better for both Pooley and Selby if everyone had forgotten. David Frith seems to have made a similar error, placing Pooley’s detention between this First Test and the return fixture. Test cricket's opening day lasted but three hours, but crammed into those were no fewer than 109 overs -- 72 in six-ball terms. When grumpy old men complain of modern over-rates, they do so with cause. Our days in hours are twice as long, but only a quarter longer in balls (and even that assumes what is now rare: the completion of the allotted 540). On top of all that, we must remember how many more changeovers (33 per cent) are occasioned by the four-ball as against the six-ball form. No spectator would have felt, as he left the ground on the evening of March 15, 1877, that he had witnessed an especially vigorous day, but a run rate of 1.52 would have felt to him as 3.69 feels to us. It would rank, in other words, among the upper twelve per cent of quick-scoring days in the Twenty-First Century. It is a sobering reflection that despite our shorter boundaries and our flatter wickets and our bigger bats -- despite, too, the cross-pollination of the limited-overs revolution -- it is we, not our forefathers, who are cutting the throats of the graces. [Is Test cricket slower than ever? And was it faster than ever in 1877? Do some calculations.] It's important, too, to be clear about why slow over-rates are so bad. When, with the limited-overs revolution, six balls became a unit of time, rather than merely a convenient demarcation, statisticians ceased to measure tempo in runs per minute. [Cite great fast-scoring innings of which we know the minutes, not the balls faced.] The change was inevitable (if, apparently, unnoticed), but in one respect misleading. It's not the volume of overs we care about; it's the volume of "entertainment" (roughly speaking, runs and wickets) we pack into them. Is an over of ten runs, ten minutes in the making, more "entertaining" than four overs of twenty in the same period? Probably not. I'm fond of pointing out that the run rate on Test cricket's opening day, 1.52, would have felt to its spectators as 3.69 feels to us; would rank, in other words, among the upper twelve per cent of quick-scoring days in the Twenty-First Century. It's probably too late to do anything about over-rates. You can't put the spunk back in the bull. But if we bear in mind the above, an alternative quickly suggests itself: We will soon have to contemplate abolishing the draw and limiting the overs in Test and first-class cricket. This is radical only on its face. The idea is to restore the longest format to its former velocity (what I suppose I should call it's "real run rate"), not to make it more like T20. But Pycroft in that year’s Lillywhite’s Companion shows that there were grumpy old men even in those days, when things moved at a speed that seems to our eyes miraculous: “Were time rigidly observed when the game is going on, and if the batsman going in were always ready to meet the batsman coming out; and if—as might generally, if not always, be arranged—the players found refreshment, as they could, without any wasted dinner hour, then four or five hours would be saved in every match, and the game made more pleasant for the spectators.”

If your party take the field first, let your bowlers take full time between the delivery of the balls. If your opponents get well in, and are getting runs too fast, change the bowler from whom most runs are obtained, taking care that the bowler you put in his place is opposite to him, both in delivery and speed.

Bannerman salving intercolonial tensions: “There is great excitement here [Sydney] over the cricket match, Bannerman's play being the theme of admiration. As telegrams were received announcing his score at leading hostelries, the cheering was deafening.” Crowd had not compared favourably with that of Boxing Day: “This match, which was commenced on Boxing Day under most unfavorable circumstances as far as the weather was concerned, was concluded to-day on the Melbourne Club ground, in the presence of an immense number of spectators. In fact, after the principal shops and warehouses had been closed, it appeared as if the cricket ground was the general rendezvous. The weather was in every way favorable, the sun but being too powerful, and a nice cool breeze from the sea prevailed throughout the day. His Excellency Sir Geo. Bowen arrived early in the afternoon, accompanied by a party of ladies, and remained until the wickets were drawn.” Basked in the sunshine of the gubernatorial countenance. Meanwhile in Sydney: “Thursday, March 15 There was immense excitement in the vicinity of the Legislative Assembly on Thursday afternoon, to hear the result of the ministerial crisis. Only a tithe of those in attendance succeeded in obtaining admission. The Speaker took the chair at thirty minutes part 4. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT AND RESIGNATION. Mr ROBERTSON rose and said: I received this afternoon, at twenty minutes to 4, the following note from his Excellency the Governor: “Government House, Sydney, March 15, 1877. “Dear Mr Robertson,—In view of the crisis which has now arisen, I have reconsidered the position in all its bearings, as I intimated to you I should do in minute of the 8th instant, and I have arrived at the decision that I should not now be justified in accepting the advice to dissolve, which you verbally tendered to me on Thursday last. “Yours, very truly, HERCULES ROBINSON.” 'Whereupon, at seven minutes to four, I tendered to his Excellency the resignation of myself and my colleagues. By desire of his Excellency, we hold our offices until our successors are appointed. With a view to allow that this House do now adjourn until Tuesday next. (Moderate cheers from the Opposition.) The motion was carried, and the House adjourned accordingly to Tuesday next…. Immediately after the Speaker took the chair in the Legislative Assembly yesterday afternoon, Mr Robertson informed the House that he had received a letter from his Excellency the Governor, intimating that in view of the crisis which had arisen, he had reconsidered the political situation in all its bearings, and had arrived at the decision that he should not now be justified in accepting the advice tendered by Ministers to dissolve Parliament. Upon receipt of that communication (shortly before 4 o'clock in the afternoon) Ministers at once tendered their resignation; but they will, in accordance with the usual practice, hold office until their successors are appointed. The Assembly, on motion of Mr Robertson, adjourned until Tuesday next. In the Legislative Council, yesterday afternoon, Mr Docker, representative of the Government, informed the House of the resignation of the Ministry, and took occasion to express his sense of the very great obligations under which the Government had been laid by the Council by the extreme courtesy and even kindness with which they had been treated, and on behalf of the Government he tendered the House his sincere thanks 1 for that courtesy. The Council then adjourned till Wednesday next.” Further distracted on March 16 by death of Archbishop Polding: “His Grace, Archbishop Polding died this morning at seven o'clock, 10. p.m. Great interest is felt in Archbishop Polding's death. The Evening News and Echo contain lengthy obituaries, and were eagerly bought. The body was visited by a large muster today. It lies in state in the Sacred Heart Presbytery. Tomorrow, the general public will be admitted, after which, the body will be removed to the pro-cathedral, where solemn vespers will be performed. Solemn dirge on Sunday evening, and Pontificial High Mass on Monday. After which, the procession will start for the Petersham Cemetery. The Supreme and Police Courts adjourned to-day, out of respect of Arch; bishop Polding. Many shops were partially closed.” Victoria, too, in the midst of a political stand-off, on the question of free trade versus protectionism. More internationalistic?—went with free trade?

(FROM THE SYDNEY ECHO, MARCH 19.) This day there has taken place the funeral of the Venerable Archbishop Polding. His death has been regretted by religionists of all denominations, and the large attendance at the funeral of people of all creeds and countries bore an ample testimony to the strength and widespread character of the re-spect and esteem entertained for the memory of the late Archbishop. Thousands who took no real part in the procession, as such, discontinued their labours and by their pre-sence en route testified their feelings with re-gard to the bereavement that has fallen on the Roman Catholic Church in this colony. Business pursuits were very largely dis-continued throughout the city; and along George-street and other thoroughfares many of the leading places of business were closed. From an early hour this forenoon there was a large gathering at St. Marys pro-Cathedral, and in the neighbourhood, and long before the funeral services were com-menced, there were thousands within the building, which became crowded almost to suffocation. The services were commenced at 10 o'clock, when lauds were sung. The Re-quiem Mass was then celebrated; Archbishop Vaughan officiated. In the celebration the archbishop was assisted by the assistant-deacons, Very Rev. Prior Dwyer and Rev. P. Quirk. The large united choir who per-formed the Requiem Mass (Mozart's) was led by Mr. Delany, organist. The music was under the superintendence of the Rev. Father Leeming. Dr Colletti was master of the ceremonies. The cantors were the Rev. Fathers Leeming and Cunningham. After mass was over the absolution was pro-nounced, and thus terminated the proceed-ings in the cathedral. It had been expected that Archbishop Vaughan would have de-livered an oration, but this had been de-ferred in the meantime. Among the church dignitaries present at the High Mass were Dr. Murray, Bishop of Maitland; Dr. Quinn, Bishop of Bathurst, and Dr. Lanigan, Bishop of Goulburn; Monsignor Lynch, Dr M'Elroy, Deans M'Carthy, Forde, Sheridan, O'Brien, and Hanley, Prior Dwyer, Fathers Dwyer, Gallagher, O'Dwyer, Mahony, Sheri-dan, Flanagan, and Petre. Bishop Quinn, of Brisbane, arrived from Brisbane, per steamer, just in time to take part in the procession. The next task was to get the very large procession into marching order. A great crowd had formed in College-street, from the new cathedral as far as Park-street, up which the procession was to turn; but an avenue was kept clear for its passage by mounted and foot police. The police ar-rangements, merely for the keeping of a clear passage (for the great mass of people was most orderly) were excellent of their kind and were under the personal supervision of the inspector general, Inspector Read, and the other chiefs of the metropolitan force. The procession started about 12 o'clock. First came the Holy Catholic Guild of St. Mary and St. Joseph, numbering several hundred members, distinguished by rosettes of black and white, marshalled and led by the Rev. Father Mahony. In front was earned the fine gold cross of the guild. The walking procession consisted throughout of four abreast. The Catholic Guild numbered nearly 500 members. The Hibernian Guild followed, with nearly 300 members. Then came the St Erancis Guild, Brothers of Temperance, German Society, &c. Then the Catholic Literary Societies and Christian Doctrine Societies--the whole of the societies represented in procession numbering about 1,000 people. Then fol-lowed the band of the New South Wales Artillery, headed by Father Leeming, and playing the "Dead March in Saul." Then came about 100 more mourners on foot, fol-lowed by the tutors and students of Lynd-hurst College; the Marist Brothers, about 20 in number; then the sanctuary boys of the cathedral, 50 in number, in their robes; then over 60 priests, walking, Bishops of Maitland, Bathurst, Goulburn, and Brisbane, Monsignor Lynch, and other priests in carriages. Then a carriage in which were Archbishop Vaughan and Father Colletti, chaplain to the late archbishop. At this point came up the hearse, through the glass sides of which was seen the coffin, draped with flowers, and surmounted by an elegant catafalque. The hearse was attended by a guard of mounted and other police officers. Then came rather Sheehy, Drs Bennett and Milford, medical attendants on Dr Polding, in one carriage; then a number of mourners on foot. After the carriages of the late Archbishop Polding and of His Excellency Sir Hercules Robinson came a private car-riage, in which were Sir Alfred Stephen (Lieutenant Governor). Sir James Martin (Chief Justice), and Sir William Manning. There were between two and three hundred carriages and other vohiclea in the proces-sion. The last of the cabs in the funeral pro-cession did not leave St. Mary's Cathedral until 10 minutes past 1. It had thus been fully an hour in moving away. It was prob-ably about three miles long--one of the most extended processions that has ever followed any of our colonists to his last resting place. The roads were lined with people three or four deep. Many of the shops were closed or partially closed, and many thousands of persons testified their respect for the memory of the venerable prelate who so long controlled the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church in this colony. THE LYING IN STATE. (FROM THE SYDNEY EVENING NEWS, MARCH 17.) The lying in state was neither grand nor effective, and those who were curious to wit-ness the scene must have been sadly dis-appointed. The question arose whether the affair was so quiet on account of its occurring in the Lenten season, or had taken its un-assuming character at the direction of the archbishop himself, or from the desire of the clergy that it should be in keeping with his own quiet unobtrusive style. Whatever is the reason, the ceremonial was not an im-posing tribute to the remains of so distin-guished a man. The room was draped in purple, and here and there on the walls there hung wreaths of flowers and foliage. At the head of the archbishop, at a short distance, was an altar, with a crucifix, decorated with flowers and furnished with six tapers. In the centre of the room lay the remains, at a height of about 3ft. from the floor. On either side and at the head were tapers, 12 in number, and at the foot there kneeled continuously, in prayer, two of the Marist Brothers. The body was enrobed in full pontificals, at the head was the crozier, at each corner of the dais a wreath of flowers, and on either side of the body cuttings of the pampas grass. The face was veiled, and the hands were folded together on the breast, holding a small crucifix. The features of the lamented gen-tleman continued to wear in death that calm and dignified expression they wore in life, and judging therefrom, it seemed as if his end, in peace and quietness, was in harmony with his life.

The departure of the Bishop of Sydney for a term has been followed closely by the de- parture of Archbishop Polding on the longer journey. His late Grace has been declining in strength for some time, and a light attack of bronchitis brought his ailments to a crisis. Practically, he has ceased for some time past to exercise any authority, his sway having passed to the younger and more vigorous hands of his co-adjutor. His death will be sincerely regretted by many who remember the long career during which he united the manners of the English gentleman with the dignity of the prelate.

The Most Rev. Dr Polding of Sydney, died on the 16th inst., from conges- tion of the lungs and his remains, after lying in state at the Chapel of the Sacred Heart, were interred on Monday in the Petersham Cemetery. Dr Polding, whose decease has caused wide-spread sorrow, not only in New South Wales, but in all the neighbouring colonies, had attained the ripe age of 83.

Monday […] The public offices here closed to-day after 11 o' clock out of respect to the memory of the late Archbishop Polding, and the places of business were half closed. There was a great concourse of persons at St Mary's Pro- Cathedral this morning during the requiem service. The funeral cortege started from the Cathedral at noon, preceded by the various Catholic societies and the Permanent Artillery band playing the "Dead March in Saul." Then came the hearse, followed by Arch- bishop Vaughan and other Roman Catholic clergy, the Governor's carriage, the Chief Justice and other judges, the President of the Council, the Speaker of the Assembly and other members of the Legislature, the foreign consuls and others. The procession extended for three miles, and along the route crowds assembled. Thousands went out to the Petersham Cemetery where the service at the grave was most impressive.

Archbishop Polding died at 7 o'clock this morning, at his residence, in Victoria-street, Darlinghurst. Most of the shops in the city have partially closed. During the day the courts were closed, and the bells of the Roman Catholic and Church of England places of worship were tolling. The body of the late archbishop was removed to the Chapel of the Sacred Heart, where it is lying in state, and will he buried on Monday morning in Petersham Cemetery, after service has been performed at the pro-cathedral. The late prelate passed a restless night, but died peacefully and almost imperceptibly. His last moments were watched by Dr Vaughan, Dr Corletti, Doan Hanley, Dean O'Connell, Prior Dwyer, and Fathers Hayes and Athy. The funeral cortége is expected to be one of the largest ever seen here; it will be attended by all classes of people.

The death of the Most Rev. Dr Polding, Roman Catholic archbishop of Sydney, is announced by telegram from Sydney. The event was not unexpected as for some time past he has been suffering from severe illness, and at his advanced age recovery was felt to be almost hopeless.

Death has rarely taken from the people of Australia one who will be more sincerely regretted, or whose memory will be more fondly cherished by men of all classes and of all creeds, than the late Archbishop POLDING. Everyone to whom he was known, either personally or by repute, on hearing of his fatal illness, must have been impelled to echo the wish which HENRY the Fifth uttered on behalf of old Sir THOMAS ERPINGHAM: “A good soft pillow for that good white head." And if the last hours of the deceased prelate needed any such solace as that “Which should accompany old age, As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends," they must have been abundantly soothed by the spontaneous evidences of sympathy, affection, and respect which were afforded to Archbishop POLDING on his death-bed. Nor was it his rank which inspired the esteem and veneration in which he was held by Protestant and Catholic alike. It was the simplicity, suavity, benignity, and benevolence of his character. He was a Churchman of the CARLO BORROMEO type. He was a Christian first, and a Catholic afterwards. He was a gentleman in the truest sense of the word before he was a priest, and he never ceased to be both Christian and gentleman during his long and exemplary life. No ecclesiastical boundaries fenced in the native kindliness of his disposition. His creed was that of Home, but his church was mankind. We have little doubt that his theological doctrines were of the most orthodox character, but the best sermon he ever preached was his daily life. His was a Gospel of peace, and its "hidden springs" were not polemics, but benevolence in thought, word, and deed. He lived in amity with all around him, hoping and believing the best of those who differed from him on points of faith, and doing the best for such as needed his counsel and assistance, without inquiring into their opinions. It was their necessities which appealed to him, and their belief or unbelief did not repel him. Hence the magnitude of the social influence he acquired, and the feeling of personal attachment which he conciliated, for there are tens of thousands of men to whom dogmas are either indifferent or incomprehensible, whereas character and conduct speak eloquently to the understandings and the hearts of gentle and simple, sceptic and believer.

In 1833 Dr Polding was nominated to the see of Madras, and would have been appointed but for his desire to continue his work at the college where he had so long labored. He therefore declined this bishopric, but in 1834 he was consecrated bishop of Hierocaesarea and in the following year he was sent out to Sydney with authority as vicar-apostolic of New Holland and Van Diemen's Land. Upon him devolved in a great measure the formation and establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in New South Wales. Two or three Roman Catholic clergymen had laboured previously in Sydney but under great difficulties. In 1817 the Rev. Mr Flinn went to Sydney, but not having the requisite authority from the Imperial Government to reside in the colony he was forcibly removed. This arbitrary conduct led to the matter being brought prominently under the attention of the home Government, and eventually a limited number of Roman Catholic chaplains were appointed to minister to the members of that denomination in the community. Amongst the number was the Rev Dr Ullathorne—one of Dr Polding's pupils—afterwards bishop of Birmingham, who arrived in Sydney in 1833. In February, 1835, Dr Polding was appointed by Lord Aberdeen as one of four additional chaplains for New South Wales, at an annual stipend of £150. It was intended at first that he should officiate only as chaplain but it was subsequently considered advisable by the church to which he belonged that he should be permitted to exercise episcopal authority, and the sanction of the Government was given to this arrangement, his stipend being increased to £500. He arrived in Sydney in September, 1835, accompanied by three priests—the Revs Gregory, Sumner, and Corcoran. Immediately on his arrival he assembled his clergy and dividing the inhabited portions of the diocese into districts, he retained one priest to assist him to minister to the resident Catholic population of Sydney then numbering about 6 000 persons, and appointed the five other clergymen to the outside districts. In May, 1836, he addressed a letter to the Governor submitting the justice and expediency of augmenting the number of Catholic chaplains in the colony by at least six. In 1841 Dr Polding went to Europe, and in the following year was raised by Gregory XVI to the newly established archiepiscopal see of Sydney. Whilst in Rome he was despatched by His Holiness on a diplomatic mission to Malta, which he fulfilled so satisfactorily that he was rewarded by being created a count of the Holy Roman Empire, and bishop-assistant at the Papal throne. He returned to Sydney in 1842. On several subsequent occasions he visited Europe. In 1846 he went, and was absent from his diocese for about two years. In 1854 he again paid a visit home and returned in 1856. An interval of nearly 10 years elapsed before his next visit. In 1866 he left for Europe and returned to the colony in the following year. He presided in April 1869 at the sittings of the Roman Catholic Provincial Council held in Melbourne, to consider various subjects affecting the church, including those of education, mixed marriages and the establishment of new churches. Seven Australian bishops, in addition to the primate, were present at the council. In September, 1869, Dr Polding started for Rome to be present at the Oecumenical Council, but he was seized with serious illness and was unable to proceed beyond Bombay. He returned to Sydney in December of the same year. His last visit was made about two years ago. His great age and failing health rendered necessary some assistance in the performance of the arduous duties attaching to his high position. In 1873 Dr Roger Bede Vaughan was appointed coadjutor archbishop and arrived in Sydney on December 16, 1873. […]He obtained not only the veneration and esteem of the members of his own denomination but the respect of the whole community. An instance of the appreciation in which his high character was held by members of other denominations is shown in the fact that during his last illness he was visited by the Bishop of Sydney, Dr Barker, and other Protestant clergymen. His denomination, which on his arrival in the colony numbered about 20,000, now exceeds 150,000. [… “]It may be said of him that he has so far as he was able taken advantage of every opportunity, in speeches, in addresses, and in pastoral letters to his flock, to cherish peaceful and affectionate relations with his fellow citizens to discountenance and extinguish that hateful spirit which would import and continue here the shameful intolerance of other lands, and above all, he has uniformly taught by word and example how intimately we are, and ought to be, identified with all that concerns the stability and greatness of our fatherland.”

The Weekly Times: “one of the most brilliant exhibitions of cricket in Australia, and it is indeed doubtful if better cricket has ever been shown in the world.” “The All England eleven, as will be seen by our telegraphic news, commenced their match against the combined team of New South Wales and Victoria yesterday, and when the stumps were drawn had 6 wickets down for 166 runs. This was principally brought about by the splendid stand made by Bannerman, who contributed no less than 126, and is still not out with Blackham. The others who have yet to go in are Garrett, Hodges, and Kendall, and should these three be in form, it is doubtful if the combined eleven will be dismissed for less than 200. Notwithstanding this, however, the colonials will have a good deal of trouble in getting rid of the Englishmen for any small score, as the Englishman are all reported to be in fine betting form after their New Zealand tour, and it must also be remembered that the combined team will not have Allan’s assistance, which will be a great defect.” “The match between the All-England Eleven and a combined team of Victoria and New South Wales was commenced on the Melbourne Cricket Ground to day before a very large attendance of spectators. D. Gregory who was elected captain of the combined team, won the toss, and decided upon going in, Thompson and Horan being the first representatives. The colonials managed to keep possession of the wickets during the whole of the day, and when the stumps were drawn only six of their wickets had fallen for 166 runs, of which C. Bannerman made 126 not out. His play all through was a magnificent exhibition, and he quite collared the bowling, no less than seven changes being tried. The fielding of the Englishmen was superb, its special feature being the magnificent catch made by Ulyett at the chain fence which disposed of Midwinter.” Spofforth: “But to return to the cricket: A fifteen of New South Wales began by beating Lillywhite’s eleven very easily, and then a majority of the players of both Victoria and New South Wales expressed their wish to meet the Englishmen on equal terms. The authorities would not agree at first, thinking we should be easily beaten, but finally we had our own way, and made a good match, although defeated. In a second game, played at Melbourne, Australia won. [Wasn’t it the other way round?] It was an all-round triumph, a red-letter day in cricket history. Not only had the Colony at last defeated the Mother Country, but Charles Bannerman had defied the best bowling that England could produce. Lillywhite, Southerton, Shaw, Allan, Hill, Emmett and Ulyett were all tried, but without effect, and it was only when he sustained a nasty accident to his finger that he retired hurt for a faultless innings of 165. The Englishmen themselves assured me that it was one of the finest exhibitions of batting they had ever seen, and from this day there was no longer any question but that Australia could hold her own against the world.” “As far as the match has already gone it is an agreeable surprise…. The two days' play have been the most interesting ever witnessed in the colony” (Kyneton Observer “Combination Cricket Match” 17 March 1877). “But Australia made steady progress and at the close of the first day were 166 for 6, with Bannerman undefeated on 126.” As a lenient sky brought on her parting hour, “the teams then went out for dinner and an evening at the opera .”

Mr. Lazar's Italian Opera Company, at the Theatre Royal, have occupied most of the attention given to music since our last monthly summary of news. The business at this house has improved since a reduction was made in the price of admission to the pit and upper circle. During the month the following works have been produced, namely,"Linda di Chamonni," "Il Trova-tore," "Il Barbiere di Siviglia," "Faust," "La Figlia del Riggimento," "Un Ballo in Maschera," "La Sonnambula," "Lucrezia Borgia," "Tutu in Maschera," and "Don Giovanni." In addition to the names of the singers given in our last notice, there ap-peared on the 5th March Signora de Barrati, who played with considerable success the part of the page Oscar in "Un Bailo in Maschero." Signor Arturo Stefani, a new basso recently arrived, appeared on March 12 as Duke Alfonso in the opera "Lucrezia Borgia," and after giving a nervous performance of "Vieni la mia Ven-detta" was fairly successful in the principal scene of the opera, namely the chamber scene in the second act. Signor Enrichetta Emos is the name of a new danseuse, also newly arrived to strengthen this company. The most successful performances hitherto have been "Il Trovatore," "Faust," "Un Ballo in Maschera," and "Lucrezia Borgia," in all of which Signora Guadagnini has been the leading lady. The other events in music have been few.

“Tutti in Maschera” was successfulIy repeated at the Theatre Royal last evening. Tonight "Faust" will be produced.

The Theatre Royal having been occupied during the month by the Italian Opera Company, dramatic performances have been confined to the Opera-house and the Academy of Music.

Seems they went a day too early. Faust was something to see:

At the Theatre Royal last night the performance of "Faust" was a musical treat which was greatly enjoyed by all who witnessed it. We do not recollect any representation of this opera to have been given with more thoroughly artistic finish, Signora Guadagnini was brilliantly successful in the third and fifth acts, those being the scenes in which she has most to do. Signor Paladini cannot be too highly commended for the intelligent care he has taken to refine upon his previous performances of "Faust." He was so successful last night that he might have repeated "Salve dimora" if he had chosen to do so, because the applause which greeted the conclusion of it was both hearty and prolonged. Signor Cesari was encored for his "Dio del' or." Signor Gambetti, Signora Venosta, and Signora Fabris were equally valuable in bringing about a general result which, upon the whole, we think has never been surpassed in Melbourne. Tonight, the entertainment will consist of "Lucrezia Borgia," a grand ballet, and a principal scene from the lost act of “Pipelé.”

Southerton was possibly not they typical professional cricketer of the age. He was cultured and well-read. On Lillywhite’s [sic: Grace’s] tour he went to the opera on successive nights in Launceston, to watch Faust and Il Travatore, whilst his companions sought other pleasures (women and drink). They were more of a captured audience onboard the ships, of course. Southerton observed, on the outward journey of the 1876-1877 tour, just on from Port Said, how they enjoyed one evening: “The evening was perfectly lovely, there being a full moon, and almost as light as day. A theatrical party engaged to go to Calcutta performed on the quarter-deck “Still Waters Run Deep” and “A Quiet Family.” These pieces were very well played, and thoroughly enjoyed by all” (Sporting Life, 14 October 1876)

That famous first test match between England and Australia away back in the seventies—tomorrow will be the forty-sixth anniversary of its commencement—flashed into my mind on the Melbourne cricket ground on Saturday, when Mir Isi Moss introduced me to Charles Bannerman, Australia’s champion batsman of the seventies. Here was the hero of the match revisiting the scene of the greatest triumph of his brilliant career, and it was a delightful experience to talk with him of the times when Australia burst suddenly upon the cricketing world with a successful challenge to England’s supremacy in the great national game. Old-timers still tell, with a twinkle in their eyes, of the sensation that was caused by Australia’s 45 runs victory in that famous match against James Lillywhite’s team of 1876-7. Previous English teams had always played against odds in the colonies, and usually proved equal to the task of defeating their opponents. The programme for Lillywhite’s team was arranged on similar lines, but Australian cricketers had made great strides since the visit of the famous WG Grace’s team three years previously, and fifteens of New South Wales (twice), and Victoria succeeded in defeating the visitors. THE FIRST TEST New South Wales thereupon threw out a challenge to play the Englishmen on level terms, but they made a poor showing, and only time robbed the Englishmen of a certain victory. A few weeks later, however, an Australian team, chosen from Victorian and New South Wales players, met the Englishmen on the Melbourne ground in the historic first test match, and won by 45 runs. This result was brought about mainly by the magnificent batting of Bannerman, who scored 165 of the 245 runs made by Australia in the first innings, and then had to retire through injury, and the bowling of Tom Kendall and Billy Midwinter. Bannerman was always a most dashing batsman, and his innings on this occasion was one of the most brilliant ever seen on the Melbourne ground. The bowlers were Tom Emmett, Allan Hill, James Lilly white, Alfred Shaw, George Ulyett, Tom Armitage and J. Southern [sic], who rank among the most famous of English trundlers, and comprised a most formidable attack, every class of bowling being represented. A fortnight after this match, a return game was played, also in Melbourne, when the Englishmen had their revenge in winning by four wickets. The outcome of these games was the visit of the first Australian Eleven to England in 1878. A BRILLIANT BATSMAN Charlie Bannerman was one of the most brilliant batsmen Australia ever had, and he was particularly brilliant on the offside. There was no mercy shown to the off theory bowlers while he was at the wickets, and he could hit as hard as the test of our hitters. He played for New South Wales for about 15 years, and was only about 35 when he played his last game. A study of his career seemed to me to indicate that he had dropped out of big cricket before he should have done so, and when I mentioned this to him he promptly agreed, and declared that he was dropped far too soon. Now 71 years old, Bannerman hardly looks his age, although he has not enjoyed very good health recently. He says that the visit to Melbourne has resulted in an improvement. He came over with the Sydney City Tattersall's team, and stood umpire for them in their recent game with Melbourne Tattersall's club. He is still mentally alert, and says that he does not feel his age. That the love of battle is still in him was shown when he looked wistfully at the players in the field and declared, "I would love to be out there, fighting it out again." PAST AND PRESENT The Melbourne ground, of course, in the seventies was nothing like the magnificent place it is now. It is over 20 years since Bannerman was in Melbourne previously, and he notices great changes on the ground, notably the erection of the stands in the outer reserve. But he will not have it that wickets are so much better how than they were in his day. "The outfields are certainly better," he says, “but I played on wickets quite as good as any that are produced today.” His comparisons of the cricket of his day with that of the present are interesting. He admits freely that batting has improved immensely and says that the fielding was as good then as it is now, but declares that the bowling of the present day is not to be compared with that of the past. WL Murdoch was a wonderful batsman, but he gives the palm to Victor Trumper as the greatest we ever had. There were several others in recent years who, he considers, were very little behind Trumper. He regards George Giffen as a great batsman and a great bowler, and considers that he dropped out of the game before he should have done. Giffen was a fine model for other batsmen to copy, and South Australia benefited not only by this [sic] own deeds but by his example to others. Regarding bowlers, the veteran batsman has a high regard for Frank Allan, George Palmer, Charlie Turner, and others, but he considers that Fred Spofforth was the greatest of them all. “During that 1878 tour,” he said, “Spofforth bowled in every match, and when you consider the long distances we had to travel and the consequent strain, this was an extraordinary record. Spofforth had three kinds of bowling—very fast, medium pace, and one as slow as Mailey’s; and he never changed his run or his delivery for any of them. The result was that the batsmen never knew which was coming, and the best of them were always being beaten by him. The way he concealed his deliveries was wonderful. Turner had a better record than Spofforth, but I consider that Spofforth was the best bowler who ever lived. Turner was a great natural bowler, with a beautifully easy delivery, but he had not the artifices of Spofforth. “We have not now a bowler within measurable distance of some of those I have named,” he added. “Two bowlers of the class of Allan, Palmer, Turner, or Spofforth would make all the difference to Australia now. But I don't see any of them in sight.” He agrees that Blackham was the prince of wicketkeepers, although he has a very high opinion of H. Carter's ability. THE OFF-THEORY Regarding features of present-day cricket, he is, as one might expect from a man who in his day was severe on the off-theory stuff, whole-hearted in his condemnation of the practice of leaving it entirely alone. "The trouble is," he said, "that most batsmen do not seem to know how to play it. They do not brink their left leg across as they should do. By bringing the leg across they would be facing the ball as it passed them, and they would be able to get over it, and hit it safely." As he spoke, Park played forward to a good length ball from Gibson, and sent it towards the covers. "Look at that," he said. "That was a perfectly played stroke. Now if, in playing at an off-theory ball, the batsman brought his left leg across, as that batsman took his forward in making that stroke, he would be able to hit the ball with safety. It is a blot on the game when so many off-theory balls are allowed to go by.” Bannerman's memory for events of the past is wonderfully good. One instance out of neveral that occurred during our talk will suffice. Mr Tom Testro, the old Port Melbourne underarm bowler, came up and said: "I don't suppose you remember me?" "Yes, I do," replied Bannerman. "I saw you playing against the Players, at the Prince's ground, in 1878," said Mr Testro. "Yes," replied Bannerman, "I made 61 in that match." On looking up the score I found that he was right. JOE TAYLOR POSTED SCORES Soon after my talk with Bannerman, I met Joe Taylor, who for so many year's was a valued official of the Melbourne Cricket Club, and he informed me that when Bannerman made his great score against England in the first Test, he posted the scores on the board. There was, of course, no scoring board of the kind that is now such an ornament to the ground, but the scores were put up by tens, in the manner that obtains now on most of the suburban grounds. Joe afterwards became the official scorer for Victoria in all the big matches, and carried out his duties most effectively” for a long count of years. “He has a very vivid recollection of Bannerman's innings, and says that most of the runs came from powerful drives. The scoring box in which he operated was afterwards taken away and erected on the Williamstown Cricket Ground.

“Play ended at five o’clock after three hours, 15 minutes’ cricket with wicketkeeper Jack Blackham unbeaten on three.”

At the close, 5pm - there had been around three-and-a-half hours' play - Bannerman had made 126 out of 166 for 6, Test cricket's first hundred. The two teams spent the evening at the opera. Topsy Waldron: “I saw Charlie Bannerman make his 165, retired hurt (damaged finger), out of a total of 245 runs, and I question whether a better innings has ever been played in Australia. I can well remember him” jauntily stepping out a little with his well-shaped right leg “to Allan Hill, the Yorkshire fast bowler, and driving him for four 4's in one over, four balls an over being the law then.” Gained high reputation, both for himself and for Australia. [Dunstan:] It seemed certain that he would bat right through when at 165 a rising ball from Ulyett hit him on the hand, split a finger and he was unable to continue. But for this injury he could have been the first cricketer to make 200 in a Test match. Even so he scored 165 out of Australia's total of 245, an extraordinary achievement when you consider that no other Australian made more than 20 in either innings. The Argus was so excited that it asked for a Charles Bannerman subscription even before the match was over. "We should not grudge him a jot of the honours won even if he did come from Sydney." James Lillywhite said he had seen as good a display of batting in England but never better. Even WG Grace himself could not have batted with more resolution. At this distance it is not easy to judge the quality of Bannerman's batting on that day. Stanley Brogden in his book "The First Test" wrote: "It is doubtful whether there was ever a finer innings in Test cricket, for Bannerman was batting without great traditions behind him, and without Test experience, which counts so much with modern Test batsmen." Allan’s withdrawal so late that its withdrawal didn’t reach everyone. Tasmanian paper at close of day one: “Garrett, Kendall, and Allan have yet to go in” (Mercury “Combined Cricket Match” 16 March 1877). SYDNEY, March 15. The Government were defeated in the Assembly last night, and resigned today. (Weekly Examiner “Intercolonial” 24 March 1877.) Everybody knows that physical is distinct from moral courage, and is willing to admit the superiority of the latter over the former quality. Happy are the men in whom both are found, as in the instance of John Knox, over whose grave a nobleman pronounced the famous eulogy, “Here lies one who never feared the face of man.” Such words could be uttered over the graves of very few persons. It is a curious fact that these two kinds of courage are but seldom blended in the same man. You have surely known men who have abounded in physical courage, who could not be appalled by any dangers, but who have been so deficient in moral fortitude that they have been afraid of their meanest companions—have trembled at a sneer—and have been as unable to say the little word “No!” as if they were dumb. Iron on one side they have been clay on the other. And on the other hand, the world has many a man almost wholly destitute of physical courage, afraid of dogs and dark seas, but in all moral matters able to use honestly the trite words, “I dare do all that may become a man.” Moral courage has been defined as “springing from a consciousness of virtue, and rendering him in the pursuit or defence of right superior to the [?] of reproach, opposition, and contempt.' A principle of that kind must be worth culturing by every man who wishes to make something worthy of himself. Says Shakspeare: He's truly valiant that can wisely suffer The worst that men can breathe, and make his wrongs His outsides; to wear them like his raiment, carelessly. Physical courage is that unflinching steadiness of nerve which makes us superior to the sense of personal danger. Like all other gifts and qualities, it comes by way of natural endowment to some men, while others have to make it a subject of culture. It is often transmitted from father to son, and thus becomes a family heritage. It is a proud boast of many an English family that none of its men have ever flinched from danger, and an ancient house might boast of many a worse hereditary quality. But it is important to remember that true courage is not to be confounded with foolhardy rashness. There are men who unintelligently rush into unnecessary danger, just as there are dogs that will rush at anything and everybody; but they are not to be commended. To endanger ourselves thoughtlessly is often to endanger our friends who come to our rescue. In the New Zealand war the writer has seen men delight in placing themselves where bullets were thickest and dangers most abounded in the most insane manner, without achieving any object whatever by this wholesale exposure of themselves; and the mischief was that they dragged their friends after them (for soldiers will not desert one another in danger), and sometimes with disastrous consequences. It was said by one of the Press critics that Bannerman, in his great innings at Melbourne the other day, hit 'with decision,' resolution, and boldness; but also that he did not forget prudence and caution, placing the ball where there was no field, and hardly giving a “chance” in the course of a whole day’s batting. That is a good illustration of true courage, which is ever allied to prudence and caution. It is just as much a soldier's duty to lie down behind cover when that bugle-call sounds on the field of battle as it is his duty to put all his manhood into the charge when the bugle sounds the advance. Caution and courage modify each other as do the centripetal and centrifugal forces. A man without pluck is less than a man, for he is a coward; and a man without caution is also less than a man, for he is a fool. “The truest courage is always mixed with circumspection.” We call the lion a noble animal because he is full of daring; but does he not act with a good deal of circumspection? If he displays the valour of a bull-dog, does he not also exhibit the caution of a cat? It has well been said that “courage, by keeping the senses quiet and the understanding clear, puts us in a condition to receive true intelligence, to make computations upon danger, and pronounce rightly upon that which threatens us.” When a man's arithmetic fails him, in an hour of peril, it is a sign that his valour is imperfect. We have already said that it is universally admitted that moral bravery is a nobler quality than physical intrepidity; but the latter is by no means to be despised. Eminently it is a manly qualification, and one which can render a great deal of valuable service. For is it not a fact that every man's course in this world is pretty plentifully sprinkled with perils and dangers? Is it not simply a matter of fact that not one of us knows the extremity in which he might be unexpectedly placed to-morrow? And the power of acting manfully in all dangerous emergencies has a value which any man can appreciate. Unflinching nerves are very good property. A nervous man is even more to be pitied than a nervous woman. Cowards die many times before their death; The valiant never taste of death but once. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that man should fear, Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come. Fearlessness amidst all the hazards and horrors that may occur on land or sea saves a man from the agonies which are born of effeminate timidity. More than that, it should be remembered that steadiness of nerve in danger means presence of mind. Never is a man in such need of the masterful control of all his faculties as when he is face to face with imminent peril. If he is “milk-livered” then he is paralyzed, and is utterly unable to seize the chance of escape which may offer itself. Fear will weaken a man even to utter helplessness. When a man's nerves fail him he feels as if he had no muscles either, and becomes the pitiful victim of the threatening evil. But a brave man can avail himself of any advantage Presence of mind and courage in distress Are more than armies to procure success. Personal bravery is one of those qualities which stand well in society. A coward is visited with contempt as well as pity. The soldier who shows the white feather under fire will evermore receive, as he deserves, the ridicule of his comrades. The man who puts on his life-belt, shuts himself up in his cabin, refuses to eat, and wails out his fears, when the ship is caught in a gale that strains every rope and timber in her, will be the jest of his fellow-passengers for the rest of the voyage. A reputation for pusillanimity will cling to a man throughout the term of his natural life like pitch. It is notorious that few qualities recommend men to women more than a good repute for personal courage. The female temperament naturally timid, and perhaps that fact induces some of our fair friends to exaggerate the worth of the opposite characteristic in men. At any, rate ladies are disgusted with cowardice in the sterner sex, and few retributions would make a nervous man wince more than to hear some divinity of his acquaintance say of him, A coward is the kindest animal, 'Tis the most forgiving creature in a fight! We do not know why a favourable answer should not be returned to the query whether physical courage is a fairly prominent element in the character of Australians. We have sprang from a valorous stock; for Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen are peoples whose historical certificates of courage are not surpassed by those of any other peoples. Whatever advantage there may be in having a brave ancestry is ours. But are we likely to deteriorate in this respect? Are the conditions of colonial life calculated to conserve and culture this national quality or otherwise? War is one of the greatest helps to the development of valour, and happily Australia is far from the regions of modern wars. But the nature of life in these colonies favours manly nerve. Up-country experiences are full of healthy adventures that strengthen and encourage the principle of intrepidity. Station life is antagonistic to effeminacy, and the same remark may be made of the Australian avocation of gold-digging. All robust, adventurous callings are sure to produce stout nerve. It may also be said that the sports of Australia tend in the same direction. Aquatic recreations and the cricket-field may be adduced as illustrations. On the whole, the temper of colonial life ought to breed fearlessness in our native youth. If the reader is troubled with nerves which give way occasionally under the strain of dangers, let him recollect that courage is susceptible of culture. It is among the things which can be brought under the dominion of a man's will. You can fight your fears and tremors as you can overcome your other weaknesses. Let Shakspeare's noble words come upon you as the tones of the trumpet come upon the dauntless soldier: Be great in act as you have been in thought; Be stirring as the time; be fire with fire; Threaten the threat'ner, and outface the brow Of bragging horror; so shall inferior eyes, That borrow their behaviours from the great, Grow great by your example and put on The dauntless spirit of resolution. (Locutor “Physical Courage” Sydney Mail, 14 April 1877.)

The combination cricket match, Australia v. England, was commenced yesterday, on the Melbourne cricket-ground. The Australian team was at the wickets during the whole of the afternoon, and when the stumps were drawn had made 166 runs with the loss of six wickets. Of this score Bannerman (not out) made 126, by the finest play ever seen in Australia. Between 4,000 and 5,000 people were on the ground. The game will be resumed today at half-past 12 o'clock. In addition to the silver cup presented by the proprietors of The Australasian to the best bowler, a gentleman who does not wish his name to be disclosed, will give a prize worth £5 5s. to the highest scorer.

The programme of the All-England Eleven has been so altered that they will not revisit Sydney, and Mr Evans will be disappointed of his hoped-for opportunity to bowl them out. They have determined, instead, to play a return match against 15 of Victoria at Easter, on the MCC ground, and to visit Ballarat, Sandhurst, and probably Ararat and Castlemaine before they leave Melbourne for England. The financial prospects of the team, it is believed, will be better in this colony than in New South Wales, and they will be saved the unpleasantness of the sea trip to and from Sydney, which they might possibly have to make in stormy weather.

The annual show (the fourth) of the West Bourke Agricultural Society was held yesterday, in the grounds presented to the society by their president, Mr WJ Clarke. In honour of the occasion, His Excellency the Governor went by the ordinary midday train, and after formally opening the show, was entertained at luncheon, returning to town by the special train in the evening. The exhibition was by far the best the society has held. The draught and thoroughbred horse sections were numerously, and also in quality, well supported. The cattle sections, short-horns especially, were also of superior merit.

Very few of Melbourne’s sizeable population could afford to spend time watching cricket. Signs of social decay:

Yesterday morning, at a quarter to 10 o'clock, a well-dressed woman, apparently hbout 26 years of age, entered the ladies' waitingroom at the Hobson's Bay Railway Station with a boy about three years of age and an infant six weeks old. She desired the attendant, Lucy Swan, to take charge of the infant until she should go to give the boy a drink. The attendant, having no suspicion that anything wrong was intended, complied, and the woman with the boy left. Time wore on, but the woman never returned, and on search being made it was discovered that she had deserted the infant. The matter having been then placed in the hands of the police, the infant was sent to the Children's Hospital, while a warrant was issued for the woman's arrest.

The woman Ellen Gandell, who deserted her child at the Hobson's Bay Railway Station on the 15th inst., was brought before the Prahran Police Court yesterday, and remanded to appear at the City Court this morning.

"A most pitiable case (says the Castlemaine Representative of Saturday) came before the Castlemaine Bench this morning. Four chil-dren, all under 14 and all of exceedingly small size, were brought up charged with breaking into a hut at Yandoit. They had confessed their guilt to the policeman, and it seems the unhappy little creatures had been roaming about half starved and wholly uncared for. The mother was a widow and had nine children, one in service and the rest on her hands. Her cows had died, and she got a precarious living by sewing, washing and occasional fossicking in the creek. The police knew nothing against her, and it may be assumed her story is true and that the children, left to their own sweet wills in her absence, did that which eight out of every 10 children would have done--helped themselves when they found an opportunity. Doubtless, the magistrates present had good reason for the course they pursued, but it scarcely seems the best use to make of the eldest boy to send him to a reformatory. Three others were committed to the Industrial Schools, but it seems a matter of regret, as we have before noticed, that they cannot be boarded out without the preliminary demoralising, not purifying purgatory of the Industrial Schools."

A young man named Charles Johnston, residing in Cardigan-street, Carlton, when sitting on the limb of a tree looking at the All England v. Australia cricket match yesterday, lost his balance and fell a distance of 25ft. to the ground. He sustained severe injuries to his back, and had to be conveyed to the Melbourne Hospital for treatment.

WARRNAMBOOL, THURSDAY The news of Bannerman's play in the International Cricket Match was received with great applause here. Much satisfaction is felt al the stand made by the Australians.

SYDNEY, Thursday The debate on Mr Piddington's contingent resolution was continued until half-past 2 o'clock this morning. Two motions to adjourn the debate were negatived, and the resolution refusing supply was carried, amid considerable excitement, by a majority of 33 to 27, and the House then adjourned. During the day the Ministry resigned. In the Assembly tonight there was a large attendance of members, and the galleries were crowded. Mr Robertson announced the receipt of the following note from the Governor: “Dear Robertson, In view of the crisis which has now arisen, I have reconsidered the position in all its bearings, as I intimated to you I should do in my minute of the 8th inst., and I have arrived at the decision that I should not now be justified in accepting the advice to dissolve, which you verbally tendered to me on Thursday last." Mr. Robertson, therefore, tendered the resignation of the Ministry, and they only bold office until their successors are appointed. The House has adjourned until Tuesday.

The cricket match between eleven of Australia and the All England Eleven was commenced yesterday on the Melbourne Ground. The game at present is in favor of the Colonials, the score standing at 166, with the loss of six wickets. To this Bannerman, by fine play, contributed 126, and when the stumps were drawn for the day he was not out. Cooper played a serviceable innings for 15 runs, keeping up his wicket with characteristic patience whilst Bannerman scored. Midwinter appears to have been disposed of by a splendid catch, made by Hill. The game is to be continued to-day. A great amount of interest is centred in the match.

The Sydney Morning Herald, in referring to the illness of Archbishop Polding, says that he is suffering principally from congestion of the lungs. He has been ailing for about four months, but was not considered in much danger until his return from a visit he paid to the Blue Mountains about three months ago. His medical advisers consider rest and quietness absolutely requisite to preserve his life.

The often used expression of "having a Sunday out" never had its meaning better exemplified than in the innings played by Charley Bannerman against the All-England Eleven at Melbourne. He must have felt “fit” when he got up that particular morning; he must have wanted, badly, to have some real good bowling to play against. Nothing under the All-England article could possibly have suited him on that day; he would have felt himself simply wasted on colonial bowlers, with his full power of eye and, wrist, and the gift of lightning decision as to how to play to the best each varied ball, which gifts were one and all so well developed in him on that auspicious "Sunday out" of his. He must have inwardly returned thanks that his vein of fitness and the All-England match v. Eleven of Australia should have come together on the same day. The better the bowling the better pleased he seemed to be to get it to play at, and the better to place it into the bargain. A cricketer does not feel this every day by a long chalk. He never was in better form; never had such men to meet as on this great occasion of the most equally pitched match Australia has ever played against England; and a score of one-half, or even one-third (in an innings) of what he made this time, would have "handed him to posterity," or, at all events, have caused him to be shouldered to the pavilion in the complimentary but comfortless style, usual on such occasions. Applauding him till they were black in the face. Over 110 Day the Second commenced with the happy news that Bannerman’s heroics were “now certain to be recognised by a testimonial commensurate with the brilliancy of the performance,” for an unnamed member of the Melbourne Club had put up a valuable trophy for the highest individual Australian score. This, as The Herald reports it—and The Argus sounds a similar note—looks very much like a landmark in the evolution of Australia’s imagined community: “Victorians are anxious not only to recognise undoubted skill, but also to show that to them whether an Australian hails from one side or the other of the Murray it is all the same—he is still an Australian.” Bannerman had also revivified interest in the match itself—not only for “all lovers of the game,” but also for “those who possess national instincts.” To these, and such as these, the whole affair wore a much pleasanter aspect than at its commencement. Bannerman had restored the sunshine to their faces. News of his performance had “gone through the city,” chalked on the walls and cried in the streets, and was likewise the town-talk of lesser municipalities. It gave hope of an improved attendance today.

March 16. 9am: Wind S., light; weather overcast, gloomy. Barometer, 30.38; thermometer, 69. 1pm: Wind SSE, light; weather overcast, fine. Barometer, 30.37; thermometer, 70. 4pm: Wind S., moderate; weather overcast, dull. Barometer, 30 35; thermometer, 68.

Data and Hour Barometer At Sea Level Attached Therm. Temp. of Air. March 15, 9pm 30 218 67.8 61.5 March 16, 9am 30 336 64.9 60.6 March 16, 3 pm 30 327 65.0 62.0.

Name of Place Bar. Ther. Wind Point Wind Force General Remarks Melbourne 30.24 61 SSE Mod. Ocast, dull; r. ’01.

The fifth annual drawing of the Art Union of Victoria took place yesterday afternoon in the Melbourne Athenæum. There was a fair attendance of members, and Mr. Richard Twentyman occupied the chair. The CHAIRMAN, in opening the proceedings, thanked Mr. Buvelot for painting a picture specially for the society, and complimented Messrs. Sands and M'Dougall for their efforts to give an excellent reproduction of that picture. He also congratulated the members on the progress of the art union during the five years of its existence, and said that its growth had surprised even its founders. He concluded by speaking in terms of praise of the academy exhibition, to be opened on the following day. The progress report of the council was read as follows:-- “Ladies and Gentlemen,-It affords your council sincere gratification to announce that the Art Union of Victoria still enjoys the confidence and support of the public, and that its annual revenue continues to increase. The subscribers this year number 1,300, and the revenue now exceeds £1,400. After providing for the cost of the presenta-tion chromolithograph and all expenses, there will remain in hand a balance of about £885, of which the council propose to devote £780 3s. to the payment for the 66 prizes to be distributed this day. It will be observed that although the amount apportioned to the prize schedule is considerably larger than it was last year, there is a small reduction in the number of prizes. The council have been induced to make this change by an in-spection of the pictures to be exhibited by the academy on and after to-morrow. They have found that this year there are actually fewer pictures at smaller prices, while there is a large increase in the number of really meri-torious works at higher values. In short, the Art Union of Victoria is achieving the purpose which its founders had in view, namely, to encourage the production of good pictures by creating a demand for them. The council desire to record their appreciation of the aid rendered to them by many of the agents. Of these, Mr. J. W. Carroll, of Sale, heads the list with 68 subscribers, a number sur-prisingly large when the sparse population of his district is considered. Mr. E. J. Wivell follows with 40 from South Australia; while Messrs. J. G. Jennings, of Colac; J. A. James, of Castlemaine, J. H. Hageman, of Mansfield, and others have done almost equally well in their respective districts. The council would fail in their duty if they omitted this opportunity of expressing their obligations to Mr. T. A. Coleman, who has for several years, under your hon. treasurer, ably conducted the financial affairs of your society. "Melbourne, March 16, 1877."

But the crowd was rather select than numerous. According to The Herald, it was “not a thousand”—perhaps “some seven or eight hundred.” But The Australasian plumps for “at least 3,000,” surmising that Bannerman’s achievement had “created considerable excitement,” and reporting from the ground that “many wishes were expressed for him to carry his bat.”—Clearly stating the crowd at its peak. Move this there. “On the second day interest quickened, and there were about 3500 in the ground, with another 500 looking over the fence. On the first two days many people entered the ground on forged tickets.” “Light rain fell last night. The weather is now fine, but dull.” There had been a little rain overnight, but no damage to the surface, which remained “in first-rate order for run getting.” This came as a relief to the Englishmen, who “must necessarily have the worst of it in this respect.” The wicket was by modern standards an uncertain beast (as witness its behaviour for Horan’s dismissal), but for the time it was almost perfect, so that “tall scoring is almost sure to prevail,” and Australia’s first innings “may now almost confidently be set down at about 300.” Not that victory was assured, “especially as the Australian bowling is weakened.” Most newspapers predicted a close contest, but The Argus sounded almost pessimistic: “As matters stand at present they are far from satisfactory, for though 166 with four wickets to fall is an achievement full of promise, the colonial eleven must make up their minds to have a long day in the field when the turn of the Englishmen comes.” The Herald: “Unfortunately, the bowling department is not very strong, and the professionals may succeed in punishing it to a merry tune.” The Argus, however, offered a crumb of comfort: “If the colonials can only repeat their first innings’ exploit, and there are a number of good bats quite likely to come off, they will, on paper, have all the best of it.” The morning was overcast, the light “rather dull,” but it grew finer, though still “not good,” towards noon. There was, as yesterday, a southerly wind, “rather strong” and “somewhat cold … yet the weather was in other respects suitable in every regard,” especially considering the season, and gave “every prospect of a magnificent day’s plays [sic].” For this, however, the crowd had once more to wait. The resumption was scheduled for 12:30 prompt, half an hour earlier than yesterday, and it is true that at precisely that time the English players went into the field, but once there (once more) they appeared to want nothing so much as delay, for they took a full quarter of an hour to disengage “from the hasty and somewhat valueless practice which all of them seemed anxious to indulge in.” “The second day was cooler and overcast.” The overnight batsmen took their places at 12:45, Bannerman being received, no sooner than the crowd clapped eyes upon him, with a tremendous broadside of cheers. Blackham, not out three, took the first over from the south-western end, as Emmett resumed his spell of the evening before. “The match between the All-England Eleven and the combined Colonial team was resumed today, play being commenced punctually at half-past twelve; the weather was fine, the ground in excellent condition, and the attendance of visitors large.” Lillywhite: “Play was resumed the next day just before one.” “Day two began at 12.45pm in cool and cloudy weather before a crowd of around 3,000.” Dunstan: “At last Melbourne began to realise that the combined eleven had a chance, and the next day 12,000 people were waiting at the M.C.G. to see Bannerman continue his innings.” T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. He opened with a maiden. Blackham seemed “rather unsettled.” Over 111 Now Southerton resumed his spell of the previous evening. Having conceded 34 runs, he was somewhat fortunate to do so. The late John Lillywhite had always insisted that “you ought to change when 30 runs are got,” and his cousin, Southerton’s captain, usually complied. But one spell feels like two when divided by a night’s rest, so the slow bowler began from the north-eastern end to Bannerman, “upon whom every eye was directed.” He seemed, like his fame, to have grown two sizes since this time yesterday. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: three byes. “Selby let his third ball pass”—or less euphemistically “missed one”—and “in the absence of a longstop,” three byes ensued. These were Selby’s first such concessions, but the parenthesis suggests a solution the mystery of the widespread reproof he had endured for yesterday’s performance. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. Over 112 T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. “Emmett then bowled a maiden to Bannerman, who played every ball splendidly, the bowling giving him no opening for scoring.” Over 113 J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. “Blackham received a maiden from Southerton.” Although “the pitch showed no ill effects from the showers which had fallen during the night,” the Australians batted with a caution that was next to marvellous, and “for some time nothing was added to the score.” Over 114 T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: one run. “Four maidens came in succession before Bannerman opened the day’s scoring … from a drive off Emmett.” It went “away to the off for a single along the turf.” This, “with 3 for byes previously run,” put 170 on the tins. Over 115 J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “In Southerton’s next over Bannerman got a single, thanks to Armitage’s blundering at mid-on.” J Southerton to JM Blackham: three runs. “Blackham cut the following ball beautifully”—“a nice,” “neat” stroke past point. It brought three, “much to the satisfaction of the spectators, who had by this time increased in numbers.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. He “made another single off the same over for a drive,” straight back past the bowler. Over 116 T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. “The first ball of Emmett’s next Bannerman got off beautifully”—“a tremendously hard hit”—“but it was so smartly fielded that no run could be made.” Hill at cover (“forward cover”), fielding as if for life, “was loudly applauded.” Bannerman was “as active and sharp,” “as free and determined, as ever,” “but Thursday’s experience had enabled Lillywhite to station fieldsmen on all the beaten lines of traffic.” It would take “some time to open up new tracks for the ball.” This was one of “several good ones … stopped by the fine fielding of the Englishmen.” T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. “The over was a maiden.” Over 117 J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. “A maiden from Southerton to Blackham.” Over 118 T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. This maiden is not specifically mentioned, but it is needful to separate Southerton’s previous over from his next. It also guarantees consistency with the traditional scorecard, whose figures for Emmett I am otherwise unable to replicate. Over 119 J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: one run. “The next contribution was a single to Blackham, who put one of Southerton’s easily to leg.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. Over 120 T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. At some point in this over, there occurred a most uncommon event: “Armitage distinguished himself in the field.” T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. The foregoing suggests an assertive stroke from Blackham, which itself was a rare thing at this point. Multiple sources attest that the Australian wicketkeeper still “did not seem quite at home to,” or “happy with,” Emmett’s bowling. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. Nor were these the only remarkable events in this superficially uneventful over. At another point “Selby tried very hard to stump the Victorian wicketkeeper.” This suggests yet another rare thing: that Selby was standing up to the stumps for a non-spinner. In this case, presumably, he was sustained by a longstop. While Emmett had begun his career as a genuine quickie—and his early battles with WG Grace have entered the game’s mythology—he was closer to forty now than thirty. Although he is still listed as “a fast left-handed bowler” in John Lillywhite's Cricketers' Companion for 1878, we are explicitly told, by multiple sources, that Selby “did not keep up to the wickets when the bowling was fast.” It stands to reason that Emmett, at least in this case, was not. Over 121 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. “A maiden from Southerton to Bannerman,” who was still struggling to beat the straight fielders. He “could not drive Southerton past mid-on or mid-off”—this despite evidence that Hill, yesterday’s main obstacle, had moved into the covers, yielding mid-on to Armitage. Over 122 T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. “Ditto from Emmett to Blackham,” who continued to bat “very stiffly, and with none of the freedom sometimes noticeable in his play.” Some of the credit must redound to the bowler, who “sent in some excellent balls, and more than once puzzled Blackham.” Over 123 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. “Another maiden from Southerton.” Over 124 T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: one bye. “After three [sic: four] maidens,” “at last a bye enabled the pair to change ends.” T Emmett to C Bannerman: no run. T Emmett to C Bannerman: four runs. Now Bannerman “let out with his characteristic suddenness at an off ball,” a species of delivery was not uncommon from this bowler, who was notorious for his offside wides. It was also short; and of those two bad things, worse things often come. The stroke, “one of the finest of the match,” was “a nice cut,” “splendidly” executed, and Charlwood at cover point found it “far too hot a one to stop.” The Age, less generous, has him “letting the ball by.” It “ran along the turf all the way” to the pavilion fence, taking the score into the 180s. “A tribute of praise has lately been given to Charlie Bannerman by the veteran Tom Emmett. After over twenty years’ experience of cricket, during which he has seen all the world’s best performers with the bat,” he was of opinion that Bannerman, in the prime of his good qualities, “was the finest batsman he has ever seen.” Quite the Apollo of Emmett’s pantheon. Over 125 J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: three runs. Blackham cut Southerton “away cleverly in the slips,” and “nearly to the rink for 3.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. Over 126 T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: four runs. “In Emmett’s next over,” “he outdid this feat,” sending the ball “travelling to the ladies’ reserve.” This, too, was a cut—“brilliantly made.” In fact, “the only runs [Blackham] got with ease were the results of cuts. These he was always ready to make,” the strokes “being very clean and good.” T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. T Emmett to JM Blackham: no run. We are told that at this point “both men played steadily.” It cannot be coincidental that Blackham had at last escaped from the end to which Southerton was bowling. His contribution to this point, from 61 balls, was eleven, out of a partnership of 45. Over 127 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman then stepped out to Southerton,” and lifted the ball “just an inch or two too high”—or perhaps “too … fast”—for Armitage at mid-on, who “jumped high in the air to effect a catch,” and “managed to touch the ball, but could not hold it.” It was “a brave attempt,” the mere “ghost of a chance.” Shaw’s recollections of Armitage’s fielding would prove less reliable than his memories of the same man’s bowling. Interviewed in 1898, “Shaw says that early [sic] in his innings Bannerman ‘should have been out to one of my [sic] slow ones, but he was missed by Armitage.’” A few years later, in an autobiography ghosted by his interviewer, he added a few sics more: “Bannerman … was missed by Armitage at mid-off [sic] before reaching double figures [sic]. I was the bowler [sic], and the ball was lobbed up in the simplest fashion [sic], and struck Armitage in the stomach [sic].” This account has been recycled for more than a century, including by major authorities: Alan Gibson, in The Cricket Captains of England, and Anthony Meredith, in Summers in Winter, have had especial fun with it. It would be an affront to the reader’s sagacity to inform him that Shaw quite failed to recollect the chance he had blown yesterday. But karma pre-empted him: In the first detailed account to reach England, Southerton reported that Shaw was each time the guilty party, and that both catches were goobers. Begbie: “He even had a life before reaching double figures, when he skied a sitter to the corpulent Tom Armitage at mid-off. The crowd exhaled its corporate relief when Armitage fumbled at the ball and dropped it.” Begbie elsewhere describes him as “rotund.” The image of a bulky Armitage lobbing deplorables and perpetrating the biggest miss before Carol Yager is an attractive one, and no account of this match fails to conjure it, but is it true? [See if Southerton’s was the first detailed account to reach England. Lillywhite’s, in The Sporting Life, may have been printed first. Armitage does drop a catch off Kelly in the Second Test: “Soon afterwards, the ball took a low arrow-like flight from Kelly’s bat to Armitage at mid on, but that fieldsman let it drop from his hands to the ground.”] Ulyett, “who was behind him, allowed only one run out of the 4 which the hit deserved.” Of all England’s fielders, “Ulyett, perhaps, displayed most activity in fielding at deep positions.” “Alfred Shaw wrote in his memoirs that Bannerman was dropped off his bowling by Armitage at mid-off before he’d got to double figures, but no newspaper mentioned it. Shaw said that ‘the ball was lobbed up in the simplest style and hit Armitage in the stomach.’” J Southerton to JM Blackham: one run. “A single to Blackham was scored off the next ball, “then 190 was displayed, and the backers of Australia got more hopeful still.” Over 128 Now, for the first time today, “a change of bowling was … thought necessary,” and Shaw went on in place of Emmett at the railway end. A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. “He bowled a maiden to Blackham.” Over 129 J Southerton to C Bannerman: four runs. Bannerman drove the first ball of Southerton’s next over “hard and straight,” “past the bowler to long-off for 4,” and so brought up the fifty partnership. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “…following the effort up with another drive” along the ground for a single to long on. J Southerton to JM Blackham: no run. J Southerton to JM Blackham: one run. “Then Blackham snicked one off Southerton.” Over 130 A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: one run. Blackham now “made a similar amount off a full hop from Shaw.” What is a “full hop”? I have no idea, having never encountered the term before. Conceivably it is the opposite of a long hop: that is, a full toss. This is no more than an educated guess. I think it must be some Victorian anachronism or malapropism—but now I pick up James Anderson's Bowl. Sleep. Repeat. (2019), and read in it a tragic tale: “When I was playing for the under-17s once, a lad got out to a rank full hop; his eyes lit up and he just lobbed it down someone's throat. His dad was the umpire. When he reached the pavilion, from the pitch you heard a faint smash, then silence. He'd put the window of the door to the dressing room through with his bat. His dad made his excuses briefly and followed him. The kid appeared ten minutes later, full kit on his back, walking out of the drive into the distance. He was walking home. No lift that day.” The Boys' Own Paper for June 3, 1882, advocating footwork in young batsmen, would seem to settle the matter: "With very slow bowling, and high in the air, you should take it as a full hop." Over 131 J Southerton to JM Blackham: OUT. This took Blackham to the other end, where his old nemesis, “the wily Southerton, proved too much for the Victorian wicketkeeper.” To the over’s first delivery he “attempted a hit to leg.” The ball evaded his bat and nuzzled his pad, before contravening his leg-stump. Blackham had played “good cricket during his stay,” and “his runs were very well made.” The analysis on the scoreboard was “7-17-197.” “Blackham … all batted splendidly.” Tom Garrett, “a rising player of great promise, both as a bowler and a batsman,” was the new—I had almost said “man,” but he had not yet come to man’s estate. The youngest, at eighteen, of all his team-mates and opponents, and the youngest of all Australians who ever played Test cricket against England, he faced up now to the game’s oldest debutant—old enough literally to be his father. There is a pleasing symmetry in the reflection that the hoariest of these pioneers was the first of them to die, and the most youthful the last. By 63 years would Garrett outlive Southerton, and by ten years the last of the others, running a longer course by far than was usually allotted to cricketers in the Nineteenth Century. Lillywhite: “GARRETT is a good fast bowler, and a capital field, also a very steady upright bat.” Probably had a lot on his mind: The Legislative Assembly of New South Wales has since our last summary been the theatre of some stormy scenes and exhibitions by no means creditable to a legislative body. On a motion for adjournment on the 20th January, charges were brought forward against the Minister of Lands, Mr, Garrett (who was then absent from illness), of attempted corruption and continued drunkenness. The charges gave rise to great disorder and personal attacks and retaliations, in which the most offensive epithets and insinuations were bandied about on both sides of the House. Mr Garrett defended himself a few days afterwards from the charge of corruption, which he indignantly denied, but with regard to the charge of intoxication, admitted that while in Melbourne on a recent visit he had almost constantly been in a state of intoxication, although, as an excuse, he said he had secluded himself so carefully that none of his friends could find him. Mr Piddington, the leader of the Opposition (who was elected to that position on the resignation of the post by Mr Parkes), taking advantage of the state of feeling, moved a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry. The debate which followed—if debate it could be called—was chiefly distinguished by a discreditable interchange of personalities between the members on the Opposition and Government sides of the House. Mr Robertson, the Premier, attempted to the last to save his colleague, Mr Garrett, but several of the Government supporters expressed their intention of voting for the motion unless there was a distinct announcement of that gentleman's resignation, and even after this had been made, the Government only obtained a majority of three. Mr Garratt [sic], it should be plated, had previously tendered his resignation but the Governor, at the instance of Mr Robertson, had held over its acceptance the Government owing to their precarious position, had some difficulty in procuring a successor to Mr Garrett, but at length the office of Minister of Lands was offered to, and immediately accepted by, Mr Baker, member for the Southern gold fields. His re-election to his seat in the House is considered certain. [Get stuff from Bonnell on this.]

The libel action, Robertson v. M'Elhone, in which plaintiff claimed £2000 damages, was tried last week before the Supreme Court, Sydney. The alleged libel was contained in the following letter written by the defendant to the Minister for Lands: "Sydney, 20th November, 1876. Sir,—I have the honor to call your attention to the scandalous neglect of the case of John Thomas Frost at the hands of the clerks in the auction branch of the Lands Department (meaning that the plaintiff, as such clerk, had been guilty of scandalous neglect in the discharge of his duties). Mr. Frost some months since took up and paid for a portion of land which had been offered for sale and not sold. After he bought the land a person named Abel Harris claimed all of part of this land as bought by himself, but he took the land at the wrong land office. Over two months since I went to the auction branch to look after the case for Mr. Frost, and was shown the papers by a clerk, I think a Mr. Robertson (meaning the plaintiff), who told me Frost would get certain portions he had bought, and a refund for the rest without delay. Lately I received a letter from Mr Frost advising me he had not received his refund, and to-day I went to the auction branch of the Lands Office, and was told" (meaning that the plaintiff told the defendant) “Mr. Frost's refund voucher was sent last week, and a letter had been sent me; this I knew to be a lie," (meaning that the defendant knew that the plaintiff had spoken a falsehood), "as I received no letter, and believed Frost's refund had not been sent. Alter some time Mr. Robertson" (meaning the plaintiff) “turned the papers up, and then coolly told me the Minister had not decided the case as yet, as to who was to have the land. I beg to call your attention" (meaning the attention of the Minister for Lands) “to the gross neglect and delay of the clerks in the case, and also to the deliberate lies told to myself, in reference to it" (meaning that the plaintiff had been guilty of gross neglect an delay in carrying out his duty as such clerk and in order to shield himself from the consequences thereof had told the defendant deliberate falsehoods) "I shall call the attention of the House to this case when it meets, and try if there is not some way by which the Lands Department with its army of useless clerks" (meaning that the plaintiff was a useless clerk) “cannot be made to do the work they are paid. It is disgraceful beyond measure the way the work of the public is neglected in the Lands Department, and to cover the gross neglect highly paid clerks resort to lying to cover their disgraceful neglect of the public business. I have the honor to be, Sir, yours obediently, J. M'Elhone, The plaintiff was non-suited.

The Mudgee independent, who apparently writes from personal knowledge, observes that the elevation of Mr Ezekiel Alexander Baker from the rank and file of the Government supporters to the prominent position of being successor to Mr Garrett as Minister for Lands, will be truly a surprise to most people. The only parallel to this “move” on the political chess-board which we can just now remember, was the appointment of Mr Abbott, as the first Minister for Mines in the Parkes Ministry, and, perhaps, the elevation of Mr Burdekin to be Colonial Treasurer in the second Cowper Administration, in 1866. Perhaps Mr. Burdekin's case is the nearest in exactness to Mr. Baker's, but it is to be hoped that the parallel will not be further extended, because Mr. Burdekin had hardly time to get acquainted with the way to his room in the Treasury before Mr Cowper had to resign, and he again became an obscure unit in the “collective wisdom." We hope a better fate is reserved for Mr Baker, for, though not a brilliant man, or even possessed of abilities beyond the average standard, yet he is a steady, industrious worker, with sincere liberal sympathies, and, what is of much more importance to the Ministry just now, he has no very decided opinions. We mean that he knows when he is well off, and will not imperil the existence of that pleasant condition by crotchety opinions of his own. He has been a firm believer in Mr Robertson and his land legislation, and will, we believe, endeavor to carry out the spirit of those laws as well the letter. We speak thus positively of him because we know him, as perhaps none others know him, having worked with him in the cause of mining and laud reform for years. Mr Baker has an unusually brilliant opportunity of making a name for himself, such as will be the most gratifying testimony of his usefulness as a Lauds Minister. His department is in a state of chaos. The heads of its branches are at loggerheads, and disorder reigns supreme. Abuses have, within the last two years, become developed to such an extent that public confidence in the impartiality of the department, nay more, its purity, has been shaken, it is freely asserted that there is a wide difference made between the rich and the poor in transacting the public business, and it will be Mr Baker's duty to at once endeavor to remove this slur upon his department, and thus restore public confidence. Laws which were intended to be easily understood have, by departmental regulations and precedents, become so complicated, that there is not one official in the Lands Department who can explain correctly the mode in which any class of cases are dealt with from beginning to end. There appears to be no system, no uniform practice, no reliable mode of transacting the public business. In undertaking to remedy these irritating abuses we know that Mr Baker has an Augean task to perform, but, with “a will and a way," he will, we are sure, be able to “deodorize” the abuses, and then remove them safely, and, we hope effectively. In Mr Baker the free selectors and miners have an impartial friend, who will, whilst not favoring, cause justice to be done to them, which is more than could hitherto be obtained; not through any antagonism of Mr Garrett, but simply through, we are sorry to say, his censurable neglect of duty as Minister for Lands.

"A rather peculiar blunder occurred at the Water Police Court on Friday last," the Sydney Morning Herald reports, “before a Bench of which the stipendiary magistrate was not a member. A girl named Mary Ann Inglis, it appeared, was app[r]enticed to Mr, Thomas Garrett, late Minister for Lands, as a general servant. She absented herself without leave from service, and a warrant was issued for her apprehension. Between the time of the granting of the warrant and the girl's arrest it would appear that the prosecutor left the colony, and the girl was remanded until yesterday. She then admitted she was guilty of the charge, but though Mr, Garrett had been telegraphed to at Melbourne, no instructions were received from him as to what course to pursue in the case. The Bench thought the best thing to do was to further postpone the case until Monday next, and the girl accordingly was sent back to the lockup until that time, and being ignorant of the law she appeared satisfied with the decision of the magistrates. At any rate, she made no ostensible objection to it. Mr. Roberts, the solicitor, who happened to be present, said he had no interest in the matter except to prevent the law being abused, and pointed out that the Bench was in error. The Apprentice Act, he observed, did not anthorise the imprisonment of females at all, or youths under 14 years of age. The prisoner had pleaded guilty to the charge, but her master and mistress being absent from the colony, she could not be sent back to her place. Imprisonment, therefore, was a punishment she had not legally merited. No one, he thought, liked imprisonment; and this girl certainly ought to be discharged at once, especially as the issue of the warrant in the first instance was not justified by law, nor the laying of the information by the act. After some deliberation, the girl was brought into court again and discharged, but not before she had apparently suffered illegal imprisonment. This case demonstrates that a knowledge of the law on the part of the unpaid magistracy is as indispensable as ever, and to prevent such unpleasant mistakes as thus temporarily, and perhaps unwittingly, suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in the future, it should be mado a sine qua non of their eligibility."

J Southerton to TW Garrett: no run. [Note: You’ve quoted Garrett on Bannerman at least twice before the former comes in to join the latter.] J Southerton to TW Garrett: no run. J Southerton to TW Garrett: no run. He “was at once put to slow play,” playing out the over “safely.” Over 132 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: one run. “A single to the on, prettily played, was scored by Bannerman in Shaw’s next.” This took his tally to 140. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. Over 133 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. “Bannerman … then received a maiden from Southerton.” Over 134 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. “Garrett was not able to score off Shaw’s next over.” He and Bannerman had “settled down to steady work.” Over 135 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: one run. “Bannerman made a single off Southerton.” J Southerton to TW Garrett: no run. J Southerton to TW Garrett: three runs. Bannerman’s single “enabled Garrett to commence operations with three off the same bowler,” snicking him “luckily” to long leg, “and 200 went up, amidst loud cheering.” Over 136 A Shaw to TW Garrett: two runs. “Two more to Garrett for a nice cut off Shaw,” past point, and another burst of applause. They were letting off these exclamations like minute guns now. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: four runs. Garrett got the last ball of the same over away to fine leg for four, “thus making nine in three hits.” The crowd was rapturous: “So lively a companion had not been found for Bannerman since Horan was in.” His play was “very pretty.” Over 137 J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. Not since Horan, indeed, had Bannerman found a partner even livelier than himself. In the course of a maiden from Southerton, he drove one “hard to the on,” but his old nemesis Hill, apparently restored to his old position, “stopped the ball splendidly.” As on the opening day, the England fielding was “excellent. Their system of having a ball picked up and quickly thrown in to the proper fielder was in itself a useful lesson to all young cricketers…. The greatest accuracy was displayed by the picker-up-and-thrower of the ball, as well as by the receiver of it.” But it is not quite true to say, as The Ballarat Star does, that in this respect “not a single mistake was made.” By my reckoning they conceded sixteen runs through misfields or bad throws, but these they reimbursed with interest by the 31 runs they saved. Emmett, Ulyett and Hill came in for especial praise, saving twenty runs between them, and demonstrating “the supreme value of active movements in the field, and promptness in the return of the ball.” The last-mentioned especially seemed ubiquitous: here and there, and where not, like the conjuror's half-crown in the lady's handkerchief. Over 138 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: two runs. From the other end “the score mounted quickly,” still “amidst great applause,” as Garrett showed again “that he meant business” by cutting Shaw deep to third man. This took Australia to 210. A Shaw to TW Garrett: one run. The next ball Garrett drove to the on for a single. The Australasian was all praise: “This young player has a very taking style, free and wristy, and will most probably be one of our most formidable opponents in the intercolonial matches for some time to come.” Over 139 J Southerton to TW Garrett: one run. “Off the next from Southerton Garrett again scored,” adding one from “a well-made drive.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. “The field had no rest. If the hits did not produce runs, they furnished work.” J Southerton to C Bannerman: no run. J Southerton to C Bannerman: three runs. “More punishment awaited this bowler when opposed to Bannerman,” who “jumped out” and drove him “tremendously hard all along the ground to long-off, and got 3, Emmett failing to pick the ball up.” Prior to this error, “that sure field” had saved at least six runs. Over 140 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: four runs. Another pretty piece of business: Bannerman jumped out again, this time to “a tempter,” and with a lofted drive sent Shaw “splendidly” to long on. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 141 J Southerton to TW Garrett: no run. J Southerton to TW Garrett: two runs. Southerton bowled “a short backed ball” (described more familiarly as “a fast long-hop”), which Garrett cut “nicely” for a brace, and “220 was displayed, for the batting had evidently got the best of the bowling.” “Garrett showed that the reputation he brought with him from Sydney of being the most promising player there was not” far beyond his deserts. “He ably seconded Bannerman’s efforts after the departure of Blackham.” J Southerton to TW Garrett: no run. J Southerton to TW Garrett: no run. Over 142 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run, “the bowler trying all he knew to get him, but unsuccessfully.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: one run. “Away flies the ball to the on, Bannerman this time executing the hit,” which The Herald places at square leg. Galvanised by Garrett’s arrival, Bannerman “was now playing with confidence and precision equal to that displayed by him yesterday.” His score was 149. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. Over 143 The Lillywhite brain had schemed in vain, and now it schemed again: Ulyett’s “cannon shots” displaced Southerton’s “slows,” and Selby retreated to his old berth at “short slip.” Still he would “not keep up to the wickets when the bowling was fast.” G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. “At once Bannerman quietened down to bat out a maiden.” His “style of defence was the admiration of all,” but he seemed to find Ulyett’s bowling “more difficult to get away than any of the others.” Over 144 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. The advent of Ulyett seems to have disarranged Selby’s concentration, for in Shaw’s next he had an “easy” chance of catching Garrett, but declined the favour, allowing the ball to “rebound from his hands,” “going in … and out again.” A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. “A maiden.” Over 145 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: four runs. Bannerman “made a better commencement in the second from the swift bowler.” He brought up his 150 from the first ball: “beautifully driven” square of the wicket, “tremendously hard,” to the ladies’-reserve fence. He was hitting now “with great freedom. The ball was constantly on the run. Most of the hits were forward cuts, straight drives to off and on; no leg hits, strictly so called, were made, but the ball was frequently ‘played’ to leg, with pretty effect and admired success.” G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. Over 146 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run: one of “several maiden overs” from Shaw. Over 147 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: two runs. Bannerman “came down with great force on the last” of Ulyett’s next, taking a brace from another off-drive. The number of runs he scored by this stroke would form a sum in simple addition. Over 148 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. In the next over the Englishmen—all of them—were united in an appeal, shooting it out of themselves as if they were loaded with it, “for a catch at the wickets off Garrett, but the umpire gave his decision in favour of the batsman.” A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. “Slow scoring then ensued,” as “Garrett played a maiden from Shaw.” Over 149 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. “Bannerman ditto from Ulyett.” Over 150 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. Over 151 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. The Yorkshire fast bowler had resumed his tactic of yesterday: “Many of the balls from Ulyett were not pitched more than halfway, but the velocity with which they descended on the turf carried them on with a single bound to the batsman, and proved very difficult to hit.” Over 152 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. “Garrett, after a maiden or two, favo[u]red Selby at the wickets with a[nother] chance, which was declined.” The Age says it was an “easy” one. This makes Shaw’s unfounded attack on Armitage even more difficult to comprehend, for he had a ready and deserving scapegoat in his wicketkeeper. Selby had dropped two chances of his bowling in the last twenty deliveries, and appeared to be doing his utmost to vindicate the exacting criticisms of yesterday. Pooley remained “a serious loss to the Englishmen.” A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. Over 153 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. Over 154 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. “Another maiden from each bowler.” Over 155 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run, “Ulyett bowling well, being credited with four maidens in succession, and giving Bannerman all he knew to stop him.” Over 156 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. That made it eight straight maidens, according to the Weekly Times, since the appeal in over 148. Nine in all. Over 157 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: four runs. But in the next over “Bannerman broke the spell,” albeit in unconvincing fashion, “snick[ing] Ulyett uppishly” through the slips for four. Ulyett, with his bouncers, had radically altered the rhythm of the innings; the only runs in this period were streakies. It is possible, too, that the batsmen were playing for lunch. Bannerman to this point had made but three productive strokes behind square on the offside, each of them described as “uppish,” and each likely the result of an outside edge. Six decades later, in a valuable abstract of his technique, Garrett recalled that “all his runs were made in front of the wicket,” and that behind it his vocabulary was limited: “He never used the modern strokes of the late cut or the leg glance.” Indeed, only one of his scoring shots to date had gone behind square on the legside, and even that is subject to doubt. To modern eyes it seems a pretty narrow gauge through which to drive one’s attacking payload, but Bannerman’s biographer has some suggestive context: “In single-wicket matches involving fewer than five players in each team, hits behind the wicket did not result in runs; which is why Bannerman, as the leading exponent of the drive, was always wanted for such contests.” Bannerman himself, looking back on this innings as a septuagenarian, confirms that he scored “most of my runs in front of the wicket,” and “never used the back-cut, because there were so many men behind the wicket, and it was so easy to make a mistake.” Australia, meanwhile, was into the 230s, with three wickets still in hand. Bannerman today, according to The Leader: “His hitting, especially to the off, was perfection—clean and hard—and though at times he forced the scoring, he rarely seemed to take risks.” He never put his foot where he could not see the ground. The Australasian was taken with its combination of “the elegant style and beautiful wrist play of the late Mr CG Taylor (whom probably few of our readers now remember) and the stubborn defence and hitting of Mr WG Grace. A finer and better innings has probably never been played at Lord’s.” G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. Over 158 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. Over 159 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. Over 160 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. “More maiden overs.” Over 161 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. “Bannerman, whom the Englishmen could not bowl, and who would not give them catches,” gave them little fielding either, but “his defence of a wicket was an example to all cricketers.” G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. Things remained in statu quo until 14:00, when “after another maiden from Ulyett, luncheon was had,” with Bannerman still unbeaten on 159, Garrett fifteen, and Australia 232 for seven. Both men “seemed quite at home with the bowling,” which Bannerman played, today as yesterday, “with perfect ease, being thoroughly master of it.” His innings was “admired as much by his friends and the spectators as it was by his opponents.” “In fact,” mused The Herald, “it appeared as if it would be impossible to get him out in a week, so thoroughly was he set, and so completely had he mastered the trundling of the very strong bowling team opposed to him.” Lillywhite: “at lunch time the score stood at 232 for seven wickets—159 to BANNERMAN, and 14 to GARRETT.” “The Combined side reached 230 for seven at the break (Bannerman 159).” Over 162 The game was resumed sometime between 14:40 and 14:45. The interval had been timetabled for only thirty minutes, but by this point the papers had given up complaining. The crowd had grown betweenwhiles, and new arrivals (among them, reposing from the cares of state, the Governor of Victoria, the Right Honourable Sir George Bowen GCMG) were agreeably surprised at the present disposal of events, for “not many people expected the innings to be prolonged beyond lunch time.” The grandstand was yet sparse, perhaps because “the weather proved rather chilly in the absence of the sun,” which had not had, to date, even a walk-on part. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: one run. “Garrett initiated proceedings by driving Shaw for a single,” “which the bowler ought to have stopped.” Garrett was still batting “splendidly.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 163 G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. “A maiden to Ulyett,” who was still “bumping them in fast and high.” Strange to say, these were the first deliveries he had bowled to Garrett, who had been at the non-striker’s end for the entirety of his spell, now eleven overs old. A remarkable index, this, of the meanness of the bowling and the fielding. [Note it later, too, when remarking upon how much better the Englishmen were at rotating the strike and picking up quick singles.] Over 164 A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: two runs. But “Bannerman soon went to work,” first by pulling off Shaw to long on for a couple. The ball was probably well outside off, since another account says that he “dragged” it. It was probably the first pull, properly so called, of the innings. “Did I pull like the modern batsman? Of course,” said Bannerman, 44 years later—“when I got the right ball.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 165 G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. G Ulyett to TW Garrett: one legbye, which The Bendigo Advertiser mistook for a single to Garrett. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. G Ulyett to C Bannerman: four runs. Now Bannerman “aroused enthusiasm” by driving Ulyett “magnificently” to the off, “all along the ground,” for four, bringing up the 240. Omens were good: “The Australian team had an excellent prospect before it,” the batsmen having proven that “the stoppage had not interfered with their eyesight.” Bannerman’s judgment, the power of his hitting, and his minute placement, if they were capable of any increase, were palpably increased today. With Southerton and Emmett already seen off, and Shaw and Ulyett struggling to find the right page in the manual, there remained only Hill and Lillywhite, “who might be fresh, but would not be novel.” Over 166 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. “A maiden from Shaw” to Garret, “who seemed likely to stay in for an hour.” He was batting “splendidly … and there was every prospect of the two carrying the score up to 300 before they were parted.” Lillywhite, it seemed, “saw no specific plan by which to separate the two Sydney men within the next hour.” What the ball looked like, at this juncture in its history, scarcely bares imagining. Over 167 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: RETIREMENT. Now “a most lamentable accident” took place. “I tried,” recalled Bannerman, “to play Ulyett to the on, but the ball got up,” and was on him in a breath—a very “cannon shot.” It struck the middle finger on his bottom hand, smashing the nail and splitting the flesh, “right down the side,” “in all directions,” and to the very bone. The fault lay with his primitive gloving, whose indiarubber protected only the first two joints (the metacarpophalangeal and the proximal interphalangeal), leaving the distal interphalangeal exposed. This seems to have been standard for the time. After “a considerable delay,” Bannerman left the field, “apparently suffering great pain.” He was cheered, and loudly, but the loudly cheering faces discharged every expression but joy. There has been one attempt to recreate the scene in paint. It has its charms, but it fails the test of verisimilitude: [insert] “When the total was 240, however, Bannerman was struck a painful blow on the second finger of his right hand by Ulyett as he tried to turn a short ball to leg. Although Bannerman was wearing batting gloves, the India rubber had worn away at the point of impact and he was forced to retire hurt for 165.” During the 1930s Vickers Gin (est. 1750) issued calendars in Australia which featured, in the style of 'Pub Art', a likeness of a well-known sportsman with monthly tear-off tabs which listed the principal sporting events in each State for that month. The names of the artists are not known. The following is the commentary which accompanied the calendar for 1937. "This is an artist's reconstruction of the scene on the Melbourne Cricket Ground on 16th March, 1877 when C. Bannerman was unable to continue batting after a ball from Ulyett, English fast bowler, had split the top joint of his left middle finger to the bone. Bannerman had given, in the words of the press of the day, "the grandest display of batting by a colonial player which has ever been seen .... " "W.G. Grace himself could not have batted with more resolution and greater brilliance." Bannerman's 165 included 18 fours. Frith to me: “I'd assume the artist depicted CB as leaving the field with his 165 on the board. Maybe he wasn't in so much agony as to be grimacing? Artist's licence either way would have applied, I think. Maybe it would have made a more "heroic" picture if CB had been shown clutching his hand and with agony written all over his face...” The Englishmen suffered him a further delay while some doctors in the pavilion, sensible of the urgency of the case, sewed up his wound, but a full ten minutes passed, and on their passing Lillywhite called for a new batsman. Even now the governing belief, rather assumed than conveyed, was that Bannerman would soon be back. Lillywhite: “He had to retire, having played the very best cricket possible to conceive for the great score of 165 without a chance.” “Bannerman's great innings had reached 165 when he was hit by a short-pitched ball from Ulyett. Unfortunately the india-rubber had disappeared from part of his righthand glove and Bannerman's middle finger was unpleasantly split to the bone. The England team waited for ten minutes, as a doctor tended the wound in the pavilion, and then called for another batsman. This reasonably chivalrous action was not reciprocated in the second innings when Bannerman bravely batted again. Ulyett contined to bowl short and 'Bannerman showed he now had a wholesome dread of that vigorous bowler's bumpy ones and suffered himself to be clean bowled in consequence.' There were other Australian heroes. The Victorian wicketkeeper Jack Blackham fully justified Conway's faith. Southerton reckoned he had not seen better wicketkeeping. Blackham conceded no byes, yet needed no long-stop, except for the few overs [p. 63] which Dave Gregory bowled, or, rather, threw. The brave Blackham, utterly impassive after a bad blow on the side of the face when standing up to the fast-medium left-armer Hodges, contrasted starkly with Selby, the All-England stand-in for Pooley, who retreated in the direction of short-slip to take anything above slow-medium. Much was made of Horan's bad luck when caught by Selby 'at a place which is never filled except when there happens to be a wicket-keeper like Selby with more discretion than valour'. Generally, Selby was a very poor substitute and gave Tom Armitage, the team's regular long-stop, a hard time of it. The betting barons of Melbourne may have been well pleased, for Pooley's presence would surely have tipped the first Test Lillywhite's way. There were several effective English performances, most notably from Jupp and Ulyett. Jupp's 63 was a gritty performance. Always the complete professional, he was at one moment baiting the crowd, feigning departure after cutting a ball onto the ground and into Dave Gregory's hands, at the next brazenly fooling the umpires, a favourite Jupp pastime. As he turned a ball to long-leg for two, his foot touched the leg stump and dislodged a bail. The Australians at once appealed to the umpires but neither saw what had happened and Jupp was certainly not going to enlighten them. The crowd's anger mounted as Jupp's innings grew and, at the close of play, Terry, a Melbourne professional who was umpiring for All-England, was set upon by spectators and 'bounced'. Jupp was well versed in ill the game's subtleties. Towards the close of the second day's play, he attempted to shield his new partner Greenwood, protesting to the umpires, without hope of success, that the sun's re-appearance was blinding. His hand shielding his eyes from the imagined glare, he looked in turn at bowler, sun and umpire, the elaborate pantomime wasting valuable seconds, before he settled down, with consummate care, to face the next ball. This played, he moved down the wicket and - to the fury of the Australians - demanded his sun hat from the pavilion. Justice, however, was done. Greenwood's wicket still fell before the close. There was great jubilation at the Australian victory but much ridicule of Lillywhite's men.” ‘“Mozart”—Bannerman's “not out, 165," counts as a "not out" in the averages’ (Australasian “Answers to Correspondents” 7 April 1877). Bannerman continued to dominate the next day until, shortly after lunch, the middle finger on his right hand was split by a lob from George Ulyett, forcing him to retire hurt on 165. His percentage of the innings - 67.3% - remains a record. It was not the best innings and he was helped by what contemporary reports described as poor bowling and fielding. He was dropped when in single figures - a simple chance to mid-off hit a nonplussed Tom Armitage in the stomach. “Bannerman had batted for four-and-three-quarter hours and his innings included 35 singles, 14 twos, ten threes and 18 fours. Eleven of his boundaries were scored between wide mid-off and wide mid-on, four in front of point, two in front of square leg and one to third man. His hundred was the first by an Australian against English opposition, the highest Test score in Australia until Syd Gregory’s 201 in the 1894 Sydney Ashes Test and it remains the highest by an Australian on Test debut. Incredibly, Bannerman’s percentage of his side’s runs (67.34) also remains the highest in a completed Test innings.” “There was Dr. Patrick Cussen, president of the first Medical Association, and almost certainly a relative of Sir Leo Cussen, who was later a great president of the club. Dr. Cussen was famous, too, for performing the first surgical operation in the colony. He successfully removed the hand of a soldier whose fingers had been blown off in the discharge of a blunderbuss when firing a salute to Lady Franklin on the occasion of her visit to the colony in 1839.” Still alive and a member in 1877? Gregory and Thomson not wearing gloves when opening the batting for Australia in the second innings of the return Test: “Ulyett was bumping very viciously, and let both batsmen have it on their unprotected left hands.” Don Ambrose: “a blow on the thumb [sic] from George Ulyett.” “Tom Kendall, born in Bedford.” G Ulyett to TK Kendall: three runs. “Kendall filled the vacant wicket” and was in clover right away, “smartly” driving his first ball hard to long off for 3. Lillywhite: “Kendall is another very fine left handed bowler, and frequently makes a moderate score quickly.” G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. Over 168 A Shaw to TK Kendall: no run. A Shaw to TK Kendall: no run. A Shaw to TK Kendall: no run. A Shaw to TK Kendall: OUT. But “the last ball of the next over proved fatal to him,” as in attempting an on-drive “he got under the ball,” spooned it up “behind the wicket, and was easily caught by Southerton,” either at slip or at third man. The telegraph board registered “8-3-243.” Conceivably this was fresh in the mind of The South Australian Register when its reporter complained that some of the batsmen in this innings “potted a few balls in uncricketer-like style.” Over 169 Bannerman remained in the pavilion. Out instead came Australia’s number eleven. G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. G Ulyett to TW Garrett: two runs. Garrett signalised the occasion by playing Ulyett “prettily” to square leg for two, and so moved into second place, ahead of Blackham, on the innings scoring chart. His runs had been “exceedingly well got.” G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. G Ulyett to TW Garrett: no run. Over 170 I’m sure that one of the dailies remarks on the strangeness of Lillywhite’s failure to reintroduce Hill to the attack. I must have deleted it, and must find it again. As it was, England’s fastest bowler delivered only one spell (if we do not take his change of his ends to have inaugurated a second) in the entirety of this innings. The mystery is explained by what Horan tells us of the blow to his wrist.

Passfield then relieved Allee, and with his third ball bowled Hodges, who had been in a long while for 1 run. 5-1-52.

A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: OUT. Now “the left-hander faced Shaw and was mildly bowled.” I take the adverb to indicate that this dismissal was a soft one: that he offered no front, no shield, perhaps no shot; and that if he did, it was brushed aside like a beaded curtain. Everyone agrees that he was “clean bowled.” Bannerman’s injury having held prohibitive, the innings came thus, “amidst great applause,” to an abrupt expiry. Its worth was 245 runs, made “against the best bowling in the world, and some splendid fielding,” and therefore “most creditable.” The Age proclaimed it “a great performance, and one of which the colonies should be proud.” A member of the England team thought it “a good but in no way mammoth score, as the ground was perfection for batting,” but another, Southerton, considered it “rather formidable.” The South Australian Register thought the Australians had batted “remarkably well.” In this it claimed to be “speaking generally,” but generally speaking there was nothing to speak of. The median score, at five, was 160 short of the highest, which constituted 67 per cent of the whole. That this proportion remains unexceeded, despite the effluxion of more than 2,000 Test Matches, and ?? innings, and ?? careers, and 143 years, every cricket fan knows, or has some reason to know (the matter having been occasionally mentioned). It is also the highest score by an Australian on debut. By The Herald’s reckoning, it “stands alone in the annals of cricket in this colony, and has perhaps never been excelled in the world.” Posterity has been just as generous. To Alf James, Bannerman’s biographer, “there is no question, given the conditions, that the innings ranks among the top dozen ever played in Test cricket.” Begbie: “An innings which passed into legend.” Proportion stat not noticed at the time, or for many years after. I have one regret. Of cricket’s great early chroniclers, only a few of were there to see it. One was Dave Scott: “The impression his batting made has remained on my mind as one of the most brilliant innings I ever saw in my life. It was a revelation … [a] masterpiece … the most brilliant cricket that has ever been shown on the MCC Ground.” It remained evergreen in his memory—a thing not of many years ago, but always of the present instant. His heart must cease to vibrate ere he could forget it.

We are chatting about big totals and great individual scores by Mackay and Noble. Someone says that Mackay's 194 is the finest innings ever played on the ground. But that is too sweeping a superlative for me, when I recall some of the splendid innings I have seen played by representative cricketers of England and Australia on the Melbourne ground. One that I especially admired was Clem Hill's 188, a grand essay which pulled Australia out of the fire in a test match against Stoddart's team. That was the match in which Hill and Trumble averted a collapse by being the chief agents in changing five for 32 into 332 all out. That was the time when a rinker made the remark to AC Maclaren, who was stationed in the deep-field, “’Allo, Mac. The kangaroo is still "oppin'.” The celebrated old slow bowler D. Wilkie reckons that the finest innings he ever saw on the ground was C. Bannerman's 165 (retired hurt), against Shaw and Lillywhite's English team in March, 1877. Lillywhite considered it the best innings he had ever seen, and Shaw himself told Mr Wilkie that, though he went very dose to Bannerman's wicket in the first two or three overs, he was glad he didn't get him, because, said he, “I would have missed witnessing the best innings I ever saw.” (Horan “Round the Ground” Australasian, 13 January 1906: 84.)

Bannerman had given but two chances, and those awkward ones, in four hours and 45 minutes. The South Australian Register daresayed that “in all probability he would, but for the unfortunate accident, have carried out his bat with nearly 200 runs to his credit.” Courting the same contingency, and supporting it by the observation that his 39 runs today had been, “if anything, better” than yesterday’s 126, The Age estimated that Australia would have scaled 300. This was the view also of Lillywhite’s team, or at least of its captain, who reckoned Bannerman “would have seen the whole side out.” As to the rest of this match, however, it was doubtful he would be seen again, and if that doubt were to resolve in his favour, but small chance he would even approximate his late triumph. “No bones are broken,” reported a telegram to the Evening News in Sydney. Another, in Victoria, reported just the opposite. At such tidings, with such bodings, “a general expression of regret was expressed.” Par scores: “It is not a little strange that while the Albert Club has been showing here what can be done when batting has the best of the bowling, the men of East Melbourne have been making a similar exhibition in Melbourne, playing against the Civil Service, ten of the East Melbourne first eleven, their best bat, Horan, being away, made an innings of 528 in two afternoons, during which 637 balls were bowled.” WT Treadaway: “I saw Charlie Bannerman's innings of 165, retired hurt,” and swore it could never fade in his remembrance, on which it always came with special force. Horan, 1914: “No one on the ground has the game more at heart than Dr. Willis, whose son Carl has come along very well as batsman, field, and bowler. The doctor was asked what he regarded as the best innings he had seen on the ground, and he picked out Mackay's great innings for New South Wales against Victoria. J. Taylor fancied Archie McLaren's 228 for England against Victoria. Both were certainly splendid performances, but in my opinion we have never had any display superior to C. Bannerman's 105 (retired hurt) against a crack English team in March, 1877. His innings really won the match for Australia.” “The Cricket match between the eleven Australians and the All England eleven at present in the colonies is creating intense excitement as it progresses. It was feared the comparatively poor eleven the colonies were able to send into the field, in consequence of several crack players withdrawing from the match, would have but a poor chance. They have, however, done admirably. On Thursday the match commenced by Australia going to the wickets. The innings was remarkable for the unprecedented batting of Bannerman, who on Thursday and yesterday made the tremendous score of 165, not out, against England's best bowlers, and then he had to retire without finishing his innings, having injured his hand. The innings closed for 245, nine wickets down.” “This match was resumed to-day. There was a large attendance on all parts of the ground. The game was commenced by three byes being scored off Southerton. These were followed by several maiden overs. Bannerman then commenced by scoring for a drive off Emmett’s bowling. Blackham commenced his scoring by getting a pretty cut for 3, followed by another for 4. Shaw now relieved Emmett, and Bannerman got another 4 for a good straight drive. Blackham was bowled by Southerton after reaching 17. Garrett followed, and was at once at home. He played with great freedom; his first was a snick for 3, which brought the score up to 200. Garrett got a nice cut for 2, and a splendid 4 for a square-leg hit off Shaw—6 runs far the one over. Ulyett replaced Southerton, and Bannerman got 4 off his first over. Garrett was missed at the wicket by Selby, the ball coming into his hands. At this stage of the game Bannerman received a tremendous crack on the hand from a ball delivered by Ulyett, which split his finger. He was forced to retire, and could not resume his innings, which amounted to 165, played in a most masterly style without giving a chance; it included 18 fours, 9 threes, 13 twos, and the rest were singles. This was the finest innings against such bowling ever played in the colonies. Kendall made a 3, but was caught by Southerton. Hodges was bowled by Shaw without scoring. Garrett, after a well-played innings for 19, carried out his bat. Byes 4, leg-bye 1; total 245.”

Next-highest score came from Garrett, 18 [sic] not out, a run for every year of his age. (Frith England versus Australia 12.)

Hill never returned to the attack, and so unable to resume at Test level his successful bowling partnership for Yorkshire with Emmett. Not always an eager man when the going was tough: “During the summer of 1876, W.G.Grace was in extraordinary form. Later he recalled the impact his high scoring had on bowlers, apparently even Emmett. Referring to his 318 against Yorkshire, he wrote that he had been scoring so freely that bowlers were reluctant to take him on. On this occasion: ‘Lockwood, who was captain of Yorkshire this season, never had his team under firm control [Emmett would take the captaincy from him after another season, in which matters reached almost a crisis], and he found it difficult to get anyone to bowl. All sorts of excuses were made by the bowlers when they were requested to go on. Hill was pressed to take a few overs, but he tried to excuse himself. While Lockwood was persuading him to bowl, Tom Emmett joined in the conversation, and, turning to Lockwood, said, “Why don’t you make him, you are captain.” Then someone suggested that Tom should have a go himself. Tom, however, showed no anxiety, and someone remarked, “You’re frightened to go on yourself.” Nettled by this remark, Emmett took the ball, and began to bowl, but he was so angry that he could not get near the wicket. During the first over most of his balls went anywhere but in the direction of the batsman’s wicket. At all times Emmett was erratic, but on this occasion he excelled himself’ [Grace, W G (1899) Reminiscences of Cricket and Other Sports, pp150-151].” This time had the excuse of the bruise. “The spectators found the Australian total of 245 was beyond their wildest hopes. Bannerman's innings was a marvel, though Sydneysiders said they'd known he could do it.” Worse than the blow that Bannerman had inflicted on Hill, but with a similar result: not seen again at the crease that innings. “Records are one thing, firsts another. One distinction that Bradman could never have was that of scoring Test cricket’s first hundred. Bannerman’s achievement will echo forever. He set the bar for others to raise.”

Alick started his Test Match career in 1879, on our M.C.C. ground, against Lord Harris's team, and a wonderful start he made! Tom Emmett introduced the wretched "off theory" (a worse pest than the rabbit), and most of our fellows were trapped. Emmett got seven wickets for 77 runs, one of his victims being C. Bannerman. Alick, however, refused to get himself out, and made the top score of the match, which we won by 10 wickets. Spofforth, standing as much by himself with the ball as Bannerman with the bat. A curious comparison here occurs to me. In Charlie Bannerman's opening match (two years before) he made 165 out of 240 whilst he was batting, or more than two-thirds of the score; whereas Alick in his maiden effort made 73 out of 226, or less than one third. I hope when the Englishmen tackle us in Sydney next December some of our new men will emulate the initial performances of the Bannermans; we may need them.

I remember, on the return of that first Australian Eleven in 1879, John Conway, to whom I was related, told me that Charlie Bannerman's prowess against the cream of England's bowling in the first Test match in Australia, when he scored 165 not out, was one of the best advertisements they had had. Charlie, besides being a champion bat was a wonderful outfield, every bit as good as J. M. Taylor, of Sydney, and our Vern Ransford, and that, too, in the days when the outfield wasn't like a bowling green, as it is nowadays.

When Lillywhite's English team played here, in 1876-7, they were defeated by Australia on the Melbourne ground, chiefly through the magnificent batting of C. Bannerman, who scored 165, and was then obliged to retire through a smashing blow on the fingers from a very fast ball, sent down by George Ulyett, the famous Yorkshireman. (Horan “J. Conway” Australasian, 28 August 1909.)

A final comment on the first Test is that the over consisted of four balls. I mention this because the scores credit Shaw with bowling 89 overs, of which 50 were maidens - an obviously misleading comparison with modern statistics. This highlights my personal opinion that any reference to maiden overs has long since become anachronistic and serves no useful purpose. (Bradman, Don, “Foreword” to Frith England versus Australia 7.)

England 1st innings

“The tourists began batting at 3.30 after the pitch had been lightly rolled.” The wicket was rolled and swept, which took “a few minutes,” but as the clock advanced no further than 15:30, there was, for once, no loss of time. Australians went into the field sans Bannerman but avec Newing—of whom, beyond the initial “W,” there is no record in any of the standard archives. Thanks, however, to the efforts of my pals Peter MacIver and Ric Sissons, who were quick to respond to a Facebook solicitation, I am able to reveal a little more about Test cricket’s first substitute. His name was William. He was born in 1855. He was “a sterling cricketer” for Carlton United; briefly its Secretary. He was also, in the words of an obituary, “a regular veteran in the football world, and in the early days of the Carlton Football Club was one of the most brilliant players.” He never played first-class cricket, but had appeared thrice for Victorian XVs and XVIIIs against English tourists, and in 1877 was registered as a professional with the Melbourne CC. His wife, licensee of the Horsemarket Hotel, found him lifeless in bed there on April 23, 1895, aged thirty-nine, when a great many of his present team-mates were still active in high-level cricket. In January: “The play was of the most uninteresting character, and the bowling and fielding of the Melbourne a long way from being first-class, Kelly and Newing must be excepted from the general charge of poor fielding which must be brought against the senior club's players” (Australasian “Cup Match” 20 January 1877). The newspapers even had leading articles on the third match at the M.C.G. It promised to be a beauty. Victoria had won the first, England the second. Sadly it was washed out by rain when the Grace XI had a slight advantage on the first innings. There was one remarkable incident. The English umpire, Mr. Humphrey, feeling unwell retired, and he was replaced by a Victorian, Mr. H. Budd. According to the Argus, Newing drove a ball off Lillywhite with such force that it went to the chains in front of the grandstand and rebounded on to the turf. Budd signalled a four. But GF Grace called that he had stopped [p. 41] the ball. It was not a four, it was a two. The crowd began to hoot. "WG Grace took the part of his brother and spoke in such an insulting manner to Mr Budd, the umpire, that he refused to remain in the field any longer and he walked off." Mr Humphrey had to come on again. Unlikely to miss Bannerman in the field: On July the 3rd Charlie reached his 76th year. It is hard to imagine two more opposite styles of batting than those of these brothers. Charlie was brilliant, Alec painfully slow. The younger brother was an out-and-out stonewaller, though there were times when he opened his shoulders and made surprisingly aggressive strokes. In the field, also, their actions represented extremes. Alec ranked amongst the finest mid-offs the world has seen. Charlie was slow of movement, and was, therefore, placed in those positions where least activity was required. In the days when Charlie was at his best such great Englishmen as Ulyett and Southerton, who were out here in 1876 with Shaw and Lillywhite's combination, expressed the opinion that Charlie was the foremost batsman of the world. This statement was perhaps exaggerated, for we remember the deeds of WG Grace and even Ulyett himself. However, he was decidedly amongst the first flight. In proof of this we need not go beyond his wonderful innings of 165 (retired) at Melbourne in the first test engagement played between England and Australia. I cannot remember any first-class performance in which one man so stood out above all his fellows as did Charlie Bannerman's on that occasion. Just think of it! The nearest contribution to his on the side was TW Garrett's 19, and the 165 were got in a total of 245. It is 50 years since that remarkable contest was played, and it was a famous victory for Australia by 45 runs. In connection therewith it is worthy of mention that two of the greatest cricketers of all time were absent from the Australian XI—Spofforth and Murdoch. The latter was omitted for Blackham, and because of that Spofforth stood down, he holding the opinion that the Victorian could not take his lightning-like deliveries. In the return engagement, played a fortnight later, both were in the eleven, yet England won by four wickets. In the famous MCC match, which was all over in one day, and victory rested with the Australian Eleven, Blackham was omitted for Murdoch. Later Spofforth freely admitted that Blackham was the prince of wicket-keepers. By the same token, in a recent book brought out by “Patsy” Hendren, the title of “Prince of Wicketkeepers” is claimed for Gregor McGregor. It is a title that belongs to Blackham. I have always regretted that Bannerman was unable to continue that innings of his for 165. Ulyett hit him on the finger and split it; and so he was forced to retire. Possibly he would not have added many more, for the innings of the side was drawing to a close, but there was just the chance, seeing that he was in his best punishing mood, that he might have got to the 200. The victory gained by the Australian Eleven over Shaw and Lillywhite's team was responsible for the first Australian Eleven's visit to England. John Conway talked the matter over with DW Gregory; the eleven were got together; they toured the Australian colonies and New Zealand, and met with so much success that, the lion was then bearded in his den. And how well the team performed is a matter of history. The visit of the eleven to England was succeeded by Lord Harris's All-England Eleven tour of Australia. In one of the matches we had a splendid opportunity of witnessing Bannerman's punishing powers. He was in with HH Massie, and these two dealt it out to Ulyett and company with a vengeance. It was a rather warm day, and old followers of the game who were present will remember seeing Lord Harris with a handkerchief hanging from his hat to shade his neck cutting off fours. It was the champagne of cricket. There was little to choose between the two in the pace of run-getting, notwithstanding that Bannerman had a damaged hand. Here again Ulyett had an experience which supported his previously expressed opinion that for about three years Charlie Bannerman was foremost amongst the world's best batsmen. There was a big difference in the styles of HH Massie and Charlie Bannerman. The latter was orthodox; the former was, like Victor Trumper, a law unto himself, Bannerman had great power of stroke, and so had HHM; but, while one never knew where the athletic Massie was going to place the ball, the other was always correct. Both were extremely powerful in all their strokes. Massie hit mostly along the ground, whereas Bannerman would sometimes take a step forward and lift the ball out of the ground. One hit of his is well remembered. The ball travelled high over the old pavilion, striking the high fence. Another ounce weight and it would have had to be fished out of “Nanny-goat Pond,” as Kippax Lake was then called. The two Bannermans learnt their cricket in the Domain, where in their very young days they were glad to do a bit of fielding, to be rewarded with a strike. The Domain was the handiest for practice to those engaged in occupations in the city, and especially so to those who worked in the Government Printing Office. In 1871 the two brothers, as well as a few others, worked hard in “scouting” for the Gregorys when the latter were training for the single-wicket match against Victoria, and it was from David Gregory that Charlie Bannerman got his early cricket education. In the very early ’70’s Charles Bannerman played with the Warwick Club, and he continued therewith until he and his brother Alec joined the Carlton Club. In 1871 he first appeared for NSW against Victoria. It is interesting to cast one's eye over the names of the men who in those days represented the colony. They were E. Sheridan, R. Hewitt, N. Thompson, J. Coates, M. Faithfull, G. Moore, C. Bannerman, and Ned, Dave, and Charlie Gregory. George Moore was the grandfather of CG Macartney, and was one of a cricketing family. In the return match there were included Hand, who came down from Maitland, and Arthur Docker, a brother of Judge Ernest Docker, Wilfred, Tom, and Jack—all fine exponents of the game. For 15 years (1871 to 1880) Charlie Bannerman represented NSW. During that period his scores were not by any means of the dimensions that might have been expected from one concerning whom Englishmen had expressed so high an opinion. His best were 81 and 32 (not out) in 1874, at Melbourne, and in the following engagement, in the southern capital 83. He got 52 at Sydney in 1881, and 79 (not out) also at Sydney, in 1885. He was one of the eleven who totalled 775 in 1882, which included WL Murdoch's great, innings of 321, TW Garrett's 163, and SP Jones's 109. The Carlton Club in the late ’80s had practically an intercolonial side, including the following first-class men: Alec and Charlie Bannerman. T. Nunn, Percy McDonnell, Percy Marr, CTB Turner, SP Jones, Ike Wales (who kept wickets). Of the 22 who took part in the first test match there are but four now living—C. Bannerman, TW Garrett, JMcC Blackham, and one Englishman, James Lillywhite. All of these, though getting on in years, are in good health. It is a singular fact that, while practically every cricketer has to graduate for his State or for his county before playing for Australia or England, TW Garrett represented Australia and toured England, Australia, and New Zealand with an Australian eleven before he appeared against Victoria. Present-day cricketers are amused when they peruse the averages of players of fifty years ago. The batting and the bowling figures were very low. For instance, in the Australian tour of the colonies and NZ in 1877-8 C. Bannerman was first with 24.28, T. Horan next with 23.23, and DW Gregory third with 20.19. These were the only three who had an average of 20. But the bowling! This would fill Mailey and company with envy. Spofforth took 281 wickets at a cost of 4.10 apiece, Garrett 103 for 3.28, and Kendall 102 for 6.26; and yet there were better figures than these, though not for so many wickets. Bailey took 28 for 2.19, Murdoch 12 for 3.8, Blackham 23 for 3:14, Boyle 68 for 6.13, and Allan 83 for 6.2. Charlie Bannerman has the unique record of having scored for Australia the first century in a test match—165 (retired) at Melbourne, in 1877; first in England—133 against Leicestershire, in 1878; first in Canada—125 at Montreal, in 1878; and in New Zealand—125 at Invercargill, in 1877-78 season.” W. Newing, of the MCC, with 27.3 for six innings, two not out, showed us what we already know, that he is a capable batsman; but he has not, I think, made any advance on his previous form, and will never quite reach the front rank. His fielding has been remarkably good, and in that respect it is difficult to beat him. (Point “Past Season” Leader, 26 May 1877.) G. Alexander, who has 22.9 for ten innings without the benefit of a not out, also is claimed by the MCC, and has shown all his old ability to get runs rapidly. I am not sure that, while his capacity in that respect has not decreased, he has not steadied somewhat. Perhaps his best performance was making 61 against Richmond in the Cup match, so nearly won by the latter. He and Newing got together at the crisis of the second innings of Melbourne, and made respectively 61 and 52, thus giving the metropolitans a chance of winning, which most unexpectedly came off. As a fieldsman, he is one of the most indefatigable we have, and there is no part of the field that he cannot be made use of in. As a bowler he has not advanced. (Point “Past Season” Leader, 26 May 1877.) The first match of the season between these two clubs took place on the Albury ground on Saturday last, and resulted in a victory for the local club with 36 runs to spare. The weather was all that could be desired; the ground played perfectly true; and a good sprinkling of the fair sex viewed the game. Thus the competitors had all they could desire. The local club were materially assisted by Newing—one of the opponents of the All-England Eleven in the late match with Victoria—who played a short but brilliant innings for 21, C. Hutton eventually getting amongst his stumps. (Ovens and Murray Advertiser “Wangaratta v. Albury” 1 March 1877.) A fine bowling side. It was in batting that its stitching showed. Over 1 John Hodges was entrusted with the first over. The Argus, for one, approved this show of faith: “There is great promise in Hodges, and let us hope it may someday be fulfilled.” Already he had been, in Brogden’s assessment, “the meteor of the season.” [Elaborate.] Of his mode of attack there is some doubt. CricketArchive lists him as “round arm Left-arm fast-medium,” while one of the England team, who would know, describes him as “slow left hand.” Southerton’s description, “left-hand slow round,” assumes a happy middle ground. At any rate it seems clear that Hodges was a slow bowler, and indeed it was not uncommon, before the advent of swing, for spinners to open the attack. He started from the railway end, with his field in humble array: Blackham wicketkeeper; Dave Gregory and Newing “long fields off” (presumably denoting long off and deep cover); Cooper at point; Kendall short leg; Horan cover; Garrett, mid-off, waiting next over to take his own spell of duty; Ned Gregory, short slip; Thomson mid-on; and Midwinter long-on. Such a deep-set composition, at the very outset of an innings, strikes strange upon modern eyes. The captain was eager to protect his young bowler. Helping a friend recently on his forthcoming biography of Wilfred Rhodes, I was struck by how often this archetypal "slow left-arm orthodox" bowler was in his own time designated "slow-medium" or even "medium." My related ponderings on ball changes, articulated here in an earlier post, would seem to offer the solution. "Slow bowling" today is synonymous and interchangeable with "spin bowling," whereas everyone from "medium" to "fast" is covered by the designation "seam bowler." But before the seam came into its own -- that is to say, before Rhodes's buddy George Hirst popularised swing bowling -- there was nothing bar speed to distinguish the two. *Everyone* "broke" the ball, including the fast men; the only question was the velocity at which they did so. Speed, quite properly, was the sole criterion for the assessment of speed. Which seems a great deal more coherent than the modern taxonomy. Only in the formal sense is Shahid Afridi a slower bowler than the purportedly medium-paced Chris Harris. Anomalies like these have been touched on before, but I flatter myself that I've traced them to their root. It's certainly true that there were no "slow-medium" or "medium-pace" spinners after WWII, by which time the last of the pre-swing crop had retired. PS: I think I've worked out why Rhodes was often in his own time called slow-medium or even medium. "Slow bowling" today is synonymous with "spin bowling," whereas everyone from "medium" to "fast" is covered by the designation "seamer." But before the seam became a prominent element -- that is to say, before George Hirst popularised swing -- there was nothing bar speed to distinguish the two. Everyone "broke" the ball; the only question was the velocity at which they did so. (Even the fastest were assessed on the quality of their "break backs.") The old designation seems the more coherent. Only in the formal sense is Shahid Afridi a slower bowler than the medium-paced Chris Harris… The opening partnership arrived in good time, Jupp and Selby dividing the dignity of the office. The former, “a pint-sized player of 5 feet 6 inches,” was in WG Grace’s reckoning one of only two professional batsmen fit to rank with the amateurs of the decade. He marched out bare-headed, and took first strike, and was even more confident than these details usually indicate. After a day and a half in the field—a day and a half of Bannerman, a day and a half of batting made to look easy—he had vowed to score at least seventy. On a wicket so flat, so even-paced, he could hardly be satisfied with less. Several of his team-mates had resolved to make full as many. Tom Armitage had snapped up 7/1 that he would make a half-century.

Armitage, determined to make amends, bet his captain £7 to £1 that he would make a fifty. He failed in that particular as well. In his defence, he, like several of his team-mates, had suffered from severe seasickness on the return trip from New Zealand and was reportedly barely able to stand on the morning of the match.

The Argus saw grounds for their bullishness [Had The Argus—i.e., Horan—reported the details above? Would be another indication that it was Horan, who would, as a fellow participant in the match, have been in reasonably close proximity to them]: Australia’s 245 “was not too heavy a total for the Englishmen to face, the quality of the bowling they had to deal with being considered.” The Herald, too, had its doubts about the colonists’ attack: “The only men they have with the slightest pretensions as bowlers are Midwinter, Garrett, Kendall, and Hodges. Midwinter and Kendall are sometimes ‘off,’ and Hodges is young, inexperienced, and judging from the last match he played in [Learn more], nervous in big matches. The Englishmen therefore will have every opportunity of scoring well, and the match may still be regarded as an open one.” South Australian Register the previous day: “Jupp is quite well.” Why wouldn’t he be? Ballarat Star, after the match there in early Jan: “Jupp, we are glad to learn, is so much better that he will be able to proceed to Geelong today.” Same paper before the match: “Jupp came up with the rest of the team in the morning, but was so unwell that he could not even appear at the Oval.” From Gault’s Southerton biography: “Harry Jupp, who had suffered so badly on Grace's tour, fared little better this time round. After playing in the very first game of the tour, at Adelaide, he was unwell. Unable to play, he acted as umpire a couple of times, but now, recovering from rheumatism, he caught a cold in his eye, and was advised, reaching Ballarat, to confine himself to a dark room for a fortnight.” In a sense this was an improvement: On his previous visit to Australia it had been a padded room. “Before leaving Wellington, the tourists were pleased to be rejoined by Jupp, who had been recuperating in Melbourne, but now rather better had managed to get a boat out to New Zealand.” “From Wellington we journeyed to New Plymouth, winning in one innings, and from there to Nelson, where we again won in one innings; Jupp, who had not played since our first match at Adelaide, played here, and was in all day for 30.” Now that Jupp us well again the Eleven will be very strong in batting. (Australasian “Combination Match” 24 February 1877.) JUPP, HENRY born at Dorking, Surrey, November 19th, 1841, where he resides; one of the best professional batsmen and a splendid field, and good judge of the game. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 206.) JR Hodges to H Jupp: no run. “Surrey's Harry Jupp, nicknamed the Young Stonewall for his careful back-footed play which had made him one of England's leading batsmen, was, in contemporary description, 'a broad-shouldered, powerful, thickset, muscular man'. A brickmaker by trade originally, he had been licensee of the Suu Inn at Dorking, his home town, before moving recently to a pub in Lower Norwood. Now aged 34 and a most popular individual, he had been presented with an expensive watch and chain shortly before sailing by 'a few admirers of his great merit as a cricketer and of his character as a man'. Lillywhite's Scores and Biographies saluted his personal qualities: 'He is one of the steadiest and best behaved cricketers … His example might well be copied with advantage by many …. 'Jim Lillywhite, however, had anxieties about Harry Jupp, for the recent loss of his wife had not only affected his form but also his state of mind.” “Jupp's sudden disappearance into the bush, nobody knowing where, and his return several days later, with inflamed eyes. His wild, despairing look, when ordered by the Ballarat doctor to stay in a darkened room for two weeks.” Took no risk. Made assurance doubly sure. JR Hodges to H Jupp: no run. JR Hodges to H Jupp: two runs. Hodges expressed his sense of his captain’s commendation by opening with two dot-balls, but Jupp drove the third to mid-on for a “well-run” single. This he increased twofold through the generosity of Nat Thomson, who “threw the ball sharply to the bowler, who missed it, and an overthrow resulted.” JR Hodges to H Jupp: one run. The Bendigo Advertiser reports that Jupp took a single “in the slips” from the next ball, but most sources assert that it went in precisely the opposite direction. The circumstantial evidence supports the majority opinion: In playing the stroke, and “drawing back quickly,” Jupp “turned on his heel,” and as the ball went out to long leg, “just touched his wicket and dislodged one of the bails.” Jupp admitted later, or was rumoured to have admitted, to having “touched the bottom of the leg stump with his foot.” The Australians, both on the field and off it, appealed to umpire Reid with a vehemence that threatened to crack their cheeks, “but as Terry, to whom Mr Reid referred the matter, did not see the bail fall, of course he had to say ‘not out.’” There is more ambiguity here—one source situates the events just described in the opening delivery of the innings, another when Jupp got his brace, and two more in Hodges’s second over—but I think my chronology makes sense, as according most faithfully with the evidence, and as begetting no anomalies in the scorecard. This is perhaps the place to say that there are a great many more errors and contradictions in the coverage of England’s innings than there were in Australia’s—a symptom, possibly, of the toll on the journalists of their frantic over-by-over notations, and also of their greater familiarity with the Australian batsmen: Some accounts, indeed, have the wrong batsman facing this over. The Australasian was not too tired to point out, in a suggestive tone of voice, that that Terry was England’s umpire, although it did own that under the circumstances his decision was correct: Having been blind to the incident, he was in no position to give the batsman out. “Such is the fortune of cricket.” Terry, incidentally, is the most anonymous figure in Test history—more so, now, even than Newing. We do not when he was born, and we do not know when he died, but in 1906, rather strikingly, he is reported to have become a “flourishing bookmaker” in Scotland. SMH: “He [Jupp] gave a chance yesterday, the very first ball, but was missed.” Southerton “Unfortunately, in playing back at the first or second ball he had, he trod on his wicket and dislodged a bail, but no one seeing it of course he could not be given out.” “It would have been far worse had either umpire spotted that Jupp had trodden on his wicket before he had scored, but he survived the appeal, to the booing of the crowd.” Over 2 Garrett took up the ball at the other end. [Both junior men—the most junior in the side?—opening Australia’s bowling. Were they accustomed to open, or was this a nerve-settling device?] He bowled “fast right hand.” “Garrett,” the University bowler, promises to become good all round, for he bats with confidence and freedom, not allowing trifles to disconcert him; and as he gains strength his bowling will become more effective, I provided he will keep in view the necessity, while his hand holds the ball, of guiding its delivery with his head. Being a fine active young fellow, and not lazy, of course he'll be good in the field and keep on improving.” Playing for Sydney University against Singleton the previous month, “I am informed by a gentleman whose word I have no reason to doubt that the Singleton team in their second innings adopted the unprecedented course of requesting that Garrett should be taken off, as the batsmen could not play him, and that the University generously (and, as it now appears, foolishly) acceded, and put on Coutts and Powell, the latter bowling underhand lobs of a most erratic description.” “Still another was T. Garrett, who achieved signal success, with the ball on many occasions. Indeed, certain batsmen in England preferred to meet Spofforth rather than Garrett.” TW Garrett to H Jupp: three runs. “Jupp got a cut for 3 the first ball.” SELBY, JOHN, born at Nottingham, July 1st, 1849; right-hand medium-pace bowler; a fine field, and an excellent bat. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 207.) TW Garrett to J Selby: one run. “The Englishmen soon showed they meant to make the running very fast from the start, the slightest opening for a run being taken advantage of.” They took “a single off the next two balls,” both for “very small hits,” “not … more than five yards in front of the wicket.” Their Australian counterparts, it was confidently asserted, “would not have attempted a run” for either. Indeed, saw yesterday how cautious the Australian openers were in their running between the wickets. “J. SELBY, of Nottinghamshire. Brings with him a good cricketing reputation. A splendid bat, particularly effective against fast bowling, a rapid scorer—in short, a good all round player. Selby's later performances, indeed, have brought him somewhat prominently forward, and his play last season gained him a fine position; in fact nearly first place in the best professional element. So far as the season (1876) has advanced, he promises to maintain this high cricketing honour; in nearly every match played up to the end of August of the present year having obtained double figures, and showing evidences of improvement. With the characteristics of his brother professionals—patience and an able defence—these coupled with his fine batting average for 1875, namely, 27½ runs per innings, were sufficient inducements for his being selected in the present team. Not being professedly a bowler, like a few others in the twelve, his services in this respect will scarcely be required in face of the bowling talent which already exists in the team. An admirable field in any position.” Similar remarks on WG Grace, Boxing Day 1873 on this ground: “Said the Australasian of his second innings: ‘As a judge of a run and for speed between the wickets he is unequalled in the world. He makes safe runs where we would not dream of even stealing them. The ease and power with which the leviathan played the bowling, the shooters and bumpers, met equally coolly, not hitting the ball over the moon, but making runs simply and rapidly without apparent effort, showing, when opportunity offered, brilliant cutting and driving, defence impregnable—all this was as near perfection as it is possible to be.’” TW Garrett to H Jupp: one run. Jupp and Selby, on the other hand, “showed the advantage of constant practice together, no indecision, no false starts, but each well backing up the other, and seizing every opportunity. This is a lesson which should not be lost on our players,” commented The Australasian, “as more matches are lost by bad judgment than anything else.” It helped, of course, that Garrett’s field, too, was “extended to stop hard hits.” [Contrast and compare, showing how Australian captains learnt from these early eccentricities. I’d like to introduce that discussion in the second innings. Don’t forget to add it to 1882.] He was even younger and less experienced than Hodges. TW Garrett to J Selby: no run. Over 3 JR Hodges to H Jupp: no run. JR Hodges to H Jupp: one run. “A run was beautifully stolen off Hodges’ next”—“a remarkably short one,” again only “about two yards from the stumps,” but the batsmen scampered post haste and gave “much amusement.” “The manner in which Jupp commenced from the outset to place the ball for sneaking singles was magnificent.” JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. JR Hodges to J Selby: two runs. Next came “2 to Selby, who dragged Hodges to the on”—a pull, probably, “neatly effected.” Nor (if you accept my conclusions about the opening over) was it the first of its kind. That Hodges was struggling to keep a length is supported by The Herald, which comments that “the bowling of the Richmond colt was not up to the mark; and was evidently much relished by the batsmen” (emphasis added). The score was into double figures, “and the spectators were greatly delighted with the manner in which the runs were stolen.” The Melbourne crowd was “as impartial in the applause of the players, whether they represented the colonies or the mother country. Altogether, the play on both sides was highly appreciated”—a fact the English players were quick to appreciate in their turn when they gave their recollections of the tour. Lillywhite: “They are a very fair and impartial public at Melbourne, each side getting applause when merited, which is more than can be said of Sydney.” Times would change, and populations with them. Pelham Warner [when?] “was less impressed by the Melbourne crowds which (as at Adelaide) actively supported the home side but gave little applause to the visitors. Barracking too was frequent. When Strudwick missed a stumping, there were cries of ‘Send out Lilley! We want Lilley! Give him his return ticket and send him home.’” Must not form the impression that Melbourne was uniformly genteel:

A correspondent complains that for weeks past, owing to juvenile vagabondism of the grossest character, it has been almost impossible to walk in Victoria-parade or adjacent streets after nightfall without being insulted and hearing coarse and obscene language. A lady who was insulted by a mob one night recently threatened to call the police, when one of her assailants exclaimed, “We can afford to pay a few bob for a lark.” (Age “News of the Day” 4 April 1877.)

“Larrikinism" is not the name of a new virtue, though it may be said to designate a new colonial product, and a product specially manufactured in Melbourne. The “larrikin” is as much a growth of Melbourne as the "hoodlam" is of San Francisco, and there is little to choose between them. The "larrikin" is an embryo ruffian, a boy in years but a man in vices. He gambles, drinks, chews, cheats, smokes, sets hothouses on fire, rifles drunken citizens' pockets, insults respectable women, is proud of his familiarity with the non-virtuous, rings bells, wrenches of knockers, and has a fatal precision in the use of obnoxious missiles. He is only in his element after dark, when he terrifies quiet people, and parades the street singing atrocious songs. The bands of “larrikins” infest particular localities, and like parish dogs, refrain from poaching on each other's preserves. The existence of this numerous and well-defined class of juvenile "rowdies" may be traced partly to the number of parents of both sexes who are drunkards; partly to increasing relaxation of parental control; and partly to the homeless mode of living of many families, sleeping in crowded lodgings, feeding in restaurants, and spending the evenings in saloons or among the lowest amusements of a city. Bad example is infectious; the lawless life of the larrikin has great fascinations, and even well-to-do and well-meaning parents often lose all control over their boys. They run wild, and won't go to bed, and from the time that “stopping out at nights" begins to howling about the streets in the glory of full-blown "larrikinism," is one of the shortest roads to ruin that is anywhere traversed. Over 4 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: one run. “A single to Jupp for a cut off Garrett.” He was batting “with his wonted steadiness.” TW Garrett to J Selby: no run. TW Garrett to J Selby: no run. Over 5 JR Hodges to H Jupp: no run. JR Hodges to H Jupp: one run. This was probably another quick single, Selby drawing admiration for his backing up, and his “marvellous dexterity as a run stealer.” He was in fact a professional runner: “Of short, muscular build, Selby had.􀍸on some important short-distance races and was looking forward to making a big profit from his running in Australia. As a batsman he was renowned for his speed between 12 Jim Lillywhite's Tour the wickets, a quality which did not always endear him to his less athletic colleagues.” “Selby's most profitable run was against Ellis, 'the Auckland flyer'.” “Selby had a long life, and scored pretty rapidly, getting several fours, and with Ulyett ran up a good score. The bowling, however, was too good to be trifled with, and the fielding all round was good.” “The foot-race between Selby and Ellis, Auckland's best runner, for £100, resulted in the cricketer winning easily. He is said to be equal to Hewitt in pedestrianism” (Weekly Times “The foot-race…” 24 February 1877). “While the Cricketers were at Auckland, Selby ran a foot-race with a man named Ellis, the Champion of that place, for £100. Selby won the race easily (Long-Stop “Cricket” Rockhampton Bulletin, 10 March 1877). “Before leaving Auckland, Selby took on a local man, Ellis, in a race over 100 yards. The English players had backed Selby strongly, and it is possible that somewhat underhand tactics may have been at play. Selby had lost in a race at Ballarat, against a runner named Sharp. Ellis was known to have beaten Sharp, so whilst the odds were around even, they were substantially better for Selby than they might have been. What is in question is whether Selby had been putting his all in when he raced Sharp. We may never know. But certainly the tourists cheered enthusiastically when Selby won, by around 2 yards. They were straight off to the boat, and arriving there a local newspaperman reported that the sight was “a sorry one for Auckland eyes. On the table was a heap of notes and gold, and each member of the eleven as he came up added something to it” [Summers in Winter, Four England Tours of Australia, Anthony Meredith, The Kingswood Press, 1990].” JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. Over 6 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: one run. This seems to have been yet another. TW Garrett to J Selby: no run. TW Garrett to J Selby: no run. But “Garrett was bowling well and the Englishmen had to work for their runs.” Over 7 JR Hodges to H Jupp: no run. JR Hodges to H Jupp: three runs. “Three to leg by Jupp, off Hodges.” Another pull, probably, in which case it was also “neatly effected.” JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. Over 8 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. This was “followed by an appeal for a catch by the wicketkeeper, in reference to Jupp, which was disallowed.” TW Garrett to H Jupp: two runs. “2 for an off-drive in Garrett’s next over,” “for one of which he was indebted to D. Gregory” at mid-off. There was in the Australian fielding “a noticeable laxity,” and “the contrast between the performances of the well-drilled Englishmen and the reckless hurry of the colonial team soon attracted notice.” They were not, strictly speaking, unforced errors: “The way in which Jupp and Selby got singles in cases where it would not have occurred to our men to get a run at all” had “astonished” the fielders out of their five senses, and “made them a little wild, and led to some careless returns of the ball.” “The unfortunate weakness of the Australians in the bowling department became painfully apparent,” and the fielding was at first extremely loose. The men had never before worked together in the field, and it was painful to see the mistakes they made at starting.” “There is one thing which astonished us all when the American baseball players came over, and that was their wonderful accuracy in catching and throwing; and so it was also with the native Australians. Their fielding was perfectly wonderful. Not one in a thousand can expect to attain the perfection which is or was exhibited by Mr WG Grace, Mr. G. STRACHAN, and Mr VE WALKER when he fielded his own bowling. Why, these three fielded middle off and middle on to their own bowling. But many can do much better if they practise, especially as regards the art of throwing to a wicket. It is cruel to see a ball come a “Yorker” to the wicket-keeper or go over his end, or see the wicketkeeper's hands punished by a terrific throw, when the men are quietly at home and not attempting to move. A fieldsman is part of a great machine, one cog-wheel of which, getting out of order, throws the whole machine out of gear” (Gale, Frederick, "The Abuses of Modern Cricket," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 30-31.) Sign in the Second Test that the lesson was being learnt: “The useful lessons taught by Selby in the first match had not been lost on Midwinter, for he took the first opportunity to steal a run for a ball placed not more than four yards in front of the wickets. Similar feats performed in two successive overs called forth tremolos from the spectators. Some few lapses were noticed in the field. Emmett, usually perfect in his department, only half-stopped a hard cut along the ground from Kelly, and in the next over, at mid-off, let the ball pass between his legs. For some time the entertainment consisted chiefly of stolen runs some of them got in a very dexterous manner. These activities had the effect of putting some life into the fieldsmen.” There were exceptions. Blackham was magnificent, and ?? did some bits, but… Constrast Australian fielding here with that of 1861/62, in second-ever combined match (when, to be fair, there were twenty-two of them): “"Setting on one side other causes," wrote a chronicler at the time, "the fielding of the Twenty-two may be considered as having had great influence on the game. At all times under good generalship, it is difficult to make high scores with so many in a field, but on the present occasion nearly, every man could be de pended upon as safe." The victors were captained by G. H. B. Gil-bert, the old English cricketer related to the Graces, who had played for the Gentlemen against the players of England eleven years earlier. His placing of the field was highly praised. The fact of only one of the English- men having had his wicket bowled down, added to that of there having been no sundry of any kind in either innings, shows the eulogy of the Australian fielding to have been not misplaced.” TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. Over 9 JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. JR Hodges to J Selby: four runs. “The score increased slowly” until Selby hit one “well” “to square-leg for 4, bringing 20 up.” This was another of those “neatly effected” leg hits. The delivery is specifically described as “a long hop,” which strengthens my suspicion that Hodges’s length was wavering. JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. Although Jupp had outscored him, Selby “appeared likely to become dangerous.” 23 for no wicket: “a fair commencement.” The partnership, which “seemed fair to last,” had broken the field with most admired disorder. Over 10 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. “Garrett then bowled the first maiden,” and Jupp enjoyed still further good fortune, in playing one “on to the wicket without dislodging a bail.” Over 11 JR Hodges to J Selby: no run. JR Hodges to J Selby: OUT. But in Hodges’s next Selby “played the ball softly into the hands of Cooper at point.” The adverb, with variations, recurs in almost every account of this dismissal, and in such a way as to incline me to espouse it in its adjectival guise. That it was what we call “a soft dismissal” is best shown by Southerton, who describes Selby as “playing very lazily” at the ball. The telegraph board read “23-1-7.” Lillywhite: “SELBY was caught at point.” Charlwood succeeded—“a short man, too, only a half-inch taller” than his partner, with whom he had survived any number of hardships on this tour. On the voyage over from England, tossed about by contrary winds and currents, they had occupied a cabin next door to Alfred Shaw, who one day “heard such a groaning” and then some words of devotion, and then the query, “Juppy, ain't I a good prayer?”—whereupon Shaw burst into the cabin, bursting himself with laughter, and asked what was the matter. “Alf,” cried Charlwood, with a countenance greenly mottled, in the manner of sage-cheese, “I'm dying!’ “Nonsense!” returned Shaw. “You're worth a lot of dead men yet.” Charlwood went on as if he had received no answer—“Remember me to my wife and family. I shall never see them no more!”—and having delivered himself of these touching entreaties, “turned his face to the side of the bunk, and groaned and prayed again,” and tried imagining a place where it’s always safe and warm. Like all the party, he had endured still greater privations in New Zealand. He did not endure them best. In the course of a series of “ascents and descents of narrow, precipitous tracks” en route to ??, he had been so frightened “that he took to running behind his coach.” Nor were mal de mer and nervousness the whole of Charlwood’s afflictions. He was cursed, too, with a chronic timidity. A few months back, in the Suez Canal, the manager of the Royal Corinthian Comedy Drama Company was singing praises of his singing. Charlwood had received the harmonious impeachment with a becoming modesty, but when that same manager insisted he take the slot between “Still Waters” and a farce, the poor fellow lost his bottle and took himself off in search of it. A long while later—too late to keep his engagement—they found him in bed, counterfeiting sleep.

“CHARLWOOD, HUNRY, born at Horsham, Sussex. A quick run-getter, and powerful all-round hitter. In the latter qualification we might say “a second Alfred Mynn." Though reported to having fallen off in 1874 he recovered himself in the early part of 1875, his average for the latter year being 20¾ runs per innings. Latest advices report him as being in “excellent form.” In matches both against Surrey and Kent, Charlwood played very fine cricket, and in one more particularly at Huddersfield, between the North and South, when, with GF Grace as a companion they put together 205 runs. Charlwood in July of the present year (1876) showed a fine exhibition of batting (Sussex against Kent), scoring 123 and 40 respectively, without giving the slightest chance! As he has already shown excellent cricket there is no reason why he should not show it again, and if, as is stated, not quite in his "old form" in 1874, with the average of 28.1 runs per innings to his credit (not yet reached by any of our Intercolonial performers), we have yet to learn what it is to be “in form.” If Charlwood even maintains his 1874 average he will prove a very troublesome customer at the wickets. A fine field, very active, and reliable at all points.” “As the doings of those professional players who are to visit us during the present season possess more than ordinary interest for colonial readers, we have taken the following information from the English sporting files:—In the contest between Sussex and Kent, Charlwood, one of the Australian twelve, for the former played two grand innings of 40 and 123; Lillywhite, for the same side, making 28 and 31.” 

CHARLWOOD, HR, born at Horsham, December 19th, 1846; a fine free hitter and a dashing field. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 205.) JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: no run. JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: four runs. Here, however, he started bold, “pounding” his second ball past the square-leg umpire [Who?], who was almost knocked off his pins. The wicketkeeper's umpire will stand with most advantage between the two creases, at least ten yards off—if nearer, and if not between the two lines of the two objects, his eyes cannot so easily take in the foot of the batsman and the hand of the stumper at one view. Look well to “ball in hand," and see that the wicketkeeper does not shake off the bail with his toe. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 59.) Over 12 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: four runs. “The last ball of the next,” from Garrett, Jupp cut “well,” “beautifully” and “hard”—one of a number of “grand hits along the carpet” to which we are about to be treated. The boundary ought perhaps to have been foiled, but “Midwinter seemed to think it better to reserve his strength for the bowling, to which he expected to be called presently, than to pursue a ball which had made up its mind to go to the fence.” The Argus reckoned that “if the fieldsman had exerted himself he might have saved one of the runs.” As it was, the score moved into the thirties. Over 13 JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: no run. JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: three runs. Now Charlwood made “a determined drive off Hodges,” and the ball went “to long-off for 3, the former [sic: ‘fourer’] well saved by D. Gregory.” “Then there's “Dave Gregory” who has always been one of my special pattern players; for there's nothing too good or great for him to do at the wickets or in the field.” The second-wicket partnership, already into double figures, was providing “the fieldsmen [some of them, anyway] with lively employment.” JR Hodges to H Jupp: no run. JR Hodges to H Jupp: one run. Jupp got Hodges “nicely to leg for a single.” Over 14 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. “Garrett, whose bowling was hard to play, put in another maiden.” Over 15 JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: no run. JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: one run. “Hodges’ next yielded a single to Charlwood.” That the two batsmen were of similar build and stature is illustrated by an error in The Ballarat Star, which asserts that in this period “Jupp did all the scoring.” JR Hodges to H Jupp: no run. JR Hodges to H Jupp: no run. Over 16 TW Garrett to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TW Garrett to HRJ Charlwood: one run. “Charlwood … also got the only run that was obtained in the next over.” TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run, “the batsmen having great difficulty in stopping Garrett, who was bowling well.” Over 17 JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: no run. JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: four runs. Before running in again, “Hodges glanced across to Midwinter to see if he was ready to stop a leg hit”—or perhaps to coerce him into readiness, for that fielder’s lassitude in Over 12 was still fresh in the mind—“and then invited Jupp to favour him with a catch.” Hodges appears to have dropped short designedly this time, but the result was no different: Jupp “hit round” at the ball, and got it “far out of the fieldsman’s reach”—“a fine hit,” “beautifully” made, which took Australia into the forties. Of this number no fewer than 27 were off Hodges, who “seemed to be well liked by the batsmen.” JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: no run. JR Hodges to HRJ Charlwood: no run. Over 18 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. “A little later, Jupp cut one from Garrett sharply to D. Gregory, who snapped it up in an instant, and Jupp pretended to walk off to the pavilion. The crowd clapped hands, but soon found that they had been taken in.” Jupp was likely inspired in this by WG Grace, for whom, on their tour of 1873/74, this had been a favourite prank. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. “A maiden from Garrett to Jupp.” Over 19 The score had ascended to 41 for one, and at no light pace. In this position of affairs, it seemed politic to relieve Hodges of his duties, and to requisition the services of Kendall, another slow left-armer, who “on a wicket that suited him … could make the ball talk,” turning it both ways, and “as replete with devices to shift the batsman as an egg is with meat.” “Australian fast [sic] bowler Kendall took eight for 109 in the two English innings.” TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: one run. But “still the runs came fast and furious, both the batsmen playing with great rigour.” Charlwood took a legside single off his very first ball. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: three runs. Jupp hit Kendall’s third ball “prettily” to leg for three. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. Over 20 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. “The second maiden in succession to Garrett,” whom “they could not get away.” Over 21 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: three runs. “The operation was repeated in the next over,” when Charlwood played Kendall “nicely under his leg for 3.” This stroke, now obsolescent, was known as the “draw.” The new bowler so far “was by no means up to the mark.” I have ever thought it an advantage in my own play that I had practised well against underhand bowling before learning to play to the round-arm; for that is the practice that makes the straightest players. As to the style of the players of my early days, look at Tom Hearne, and you see it at once. "Yes,” someone will say, “in those days, they used the draw," as HEARNE does now, or did before the illness which, I fear, will limit his services for the future to the post of umpire. The truth is that, whenever you see a man play straighter than anyone else, the draw seems to come of itself: witness John Wisden. (Pycroft, James, "An Old Player's Maxims," Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 16.) “Hanging guard," or back block, is made by simply hanging the bat in a vertical position, following the ball back to within half a foot distant from the wicket. Dropping it quickly will kill the shooters. “Leg draw" is much the same as the “hanging guard" as to action of body, but the blade of the bat is turned inwards, so that the ball may glance off out of the reach of the wicketkeeper. [The draw an evolution of the stroke used to combat shooters, and probably became rarer as shooters did.] This leg draw is often rewarded with two and often with three runs. Off fast bowling the ball often shoots through the field escaping good fielding. "Leg square." This is now reckoned the finest hit of the game. True! when it is well made. But it must be allowed that unless it be well made it is full of danger. To prove this, it needs only to be said, that the ball when hit is still rising, and the hit, unless made quite on the square, will only cause the ball to rise "higher and higher,” making a long but not unacceptable catch for the square leg. By this "attitude practice," even without the ball, I am sure, as I speak from experience, the young cricketer will derive much instruction. It is needless to say that a good bowler, who can command the ball so as to bring these different circumstances of hitting and defence into operation, is a great desideratum for the young cricketer; but in the absence of this desideratum, "attitude practice” is as useful as the practising of scales is to the musical tyro on the piano. No-one can dispute the validity of the practice which enables you to throw yourself instanter into the required attitude, thereby learning how to use the arms and legs. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 57.) TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. “As soon as Gregory saw the horse safely out of the stable (to speak by metaphor), he sent Hodges to lock the door.” By this we are to understand that Hodges went to field square on the legside, where by my reckoning almost half England’s 48 runs had come. The equivalent of trying to plug a burst dam by repositioning a handful of sandbags. From the outset Gregory’s field had left a great deal to be desired. There is also a hint in this remark—it is The Argus’s remark—that he had been reactive or reactionary. The same newspaper reports that Cooper at point, where he had an excellent reputation, was the only man “constantly seen in the same place.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 22 TW Garrett to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TW Garrett to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TW Garrett to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TW Garrett to HRJ Charlwood: no run. “The third [consecutive] maiden to Garrett.” Over 23 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. And now “a maiden to Kendall.” Hodges in his new berth was distinguishing himself, which The Herald found “pleasant to observe,” for it served “a marked contrast to his mulls in the last match he played in.” Learn more. Over 24 TW Garrett to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TW Garrett to HRJ Charlwood: three runs. “Charlwood then fluked Garrett for 3 in the slips, bringing 50 up—the result of three-quarters of an hour’s play.” The run-rate (2.08) extrapolates to 3.26 in six-ball overs. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. Over 25 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: one run. “Charlwood then drove Kendall for a single.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: one run. “Jupp did likewise.” Over 26 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. “A maiden to Garrett.” The batsmen had accomplished very little just lately, “the bowling being very true,” and the fielding “very good.” Over 27 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: one run. “Charlwood played Kendall for a single.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: one run, “Jupp driving the same bowler also for a single.” Over 28 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. “Another maiden to Garrett.” Over 29 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. “A maiden to Kendall.” Over 30 At this juncture, by some inscrutable decree of Lillywhite’s judgment, Midwinter came on at the grandstand end for Garrett, “who had been bowling well.” Australia’s captain was consistently confounding. The Argus was more charitable than most: “So many maiden overs had been bowled by Garrett that Gregory could scarcely have taken him off in order to let the Englishmen score; probably he saw a little further into the future than the spectators, and noticed forerunners of some big hits.” Midwinter bowled medium pace, with “a fine high delivery,” and a break from the off. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. Jupp cut his first ball past point for a single. WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: three runs. Charlwood got three from his second—a “nice” “hard” drive or cut. It would have been worth one run more but for Garrett, “one of the smartest fields in New South Wales,” who with hot haste “finely stopped [it] on the rink.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Over 31 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: one run. “One to Charlwood off Kendall for a hard drive brought 60 up,” the culmination of some “careful play on both sides.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: two runs. Jupp cut the next past point for a brace. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 32 WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: no run. WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: one run. From Midwinter’s next came an offside single to Charlwood. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Over 33 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: two runs. This he followed with “an artistic drive for 2 off Kendall,” “well to the off.” TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. Over 34 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Midwinter “sent down another maiden.” Over 35 Now Thomson took the ball from Kendall, who had bowled “fairly, though not as well as expected.” NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: three runs. “Still the runs came, for Charlwood was in splendid trim.” He cut the last ball of the over “deep” and “hard” “in the slips.” Midwinter, overcompensating for his late attack of dolce far niente, “was in such a hurry to return the ball that he had not time to decide which wicket to aim at, and so threw it midway between the two. Nobody had been stationed there to receive the ball from the field, and an overthrow was the cause of 1 run out of the 3.” Over 36 WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: no run. WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: one run. Charlwood “played Midwinter for a single.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. “Jupp, deprived of the opportunity to steal runs for small hits to short leg, then played the ball softly to the off, and got singles.” The first of these was “a stolen one off Midwinter [which] caused 70 to go up,” “much to the delight of some.” Over 37 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. “A maiden to Nat Thompson.” Over 38 WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: no run. WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: two runs. Charlwood, who “was batting brilliantly,” made from Midwinter’s bowling “a fine off-drive” for what should have been three, but that he ran one short. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. “Jupp then got Midwinter away for 1.” The bowler “did not seem to be up to his usual standard.” Over 39 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: one run. “Each batsman scored a single in Thompson’s next.” NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: one run. These were, in fact, “more stolen runs, each batsman apparently trying to outdo the other in this department of the game.” “From hard hitting they [had] descended to run-stealing,” observed The Argus, Jupp in particular being “constantly on the look-out for chances.” NFD Thomson to H Jupp: one run, “Jupp finishing the over by getting the same bowler away for a single.” Over 40 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. “Scoring after this was slow,” beginning with a maiden to Midwinter. Over 41 NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. “Thompson followed his example.” Over 42 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. “Jupp then drove Midwinter for a single.” WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: no run. WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: no run. Over 43 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: one run. Jupp “played Thompson to leg for another single.” NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. Over 44 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. “A maiden to Midwinter.” Over 45 NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: no run. NFD Thomson to HRJ Charlwood: one bye. This was “followed by a bye…” NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. “… which, however, did not prevent the veteran from bowling a maiden.” The Australian attack had “improved” since the advent of Thomson, who had “unexpectedly” proven himself “a moot useful trundler. His bowling has not much ‘devil’ in it, but it is too straight and too well meant to be trifled with; consequently comparatively few runs were made off him.” Over 46 WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: no run. WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: OUT. At length the pressure told, Charlwood being “caught at the wickets in Midwinter’s next.” Blackham took it “skilfully,” in such “beautiful style” that no report omitted to praise him. Charlwood drew more measured superlatives. His 36 runs were “all got in good style,” and “without a chance,” by dint of “a fine dashing game.” All told it had been “a nice innings to watch,” “characterised by some grand hits,” “very clean and true.” Southerton thought it “very good.” Lillywhite: “CHARLWOOD was caught at the wicket.” Ulyett walked to the wicket in martial state, “and at once determinedly faced the bowling.” [Against NSW XI earlier in the tour: “Ulyett, in particular, had a splendid game, scoring a vigorous 94, which turned out to be the highest innings of the tour and, bowling with real ferocity, made a number of direct hits on the batsmen.”] His 94 against New South Wales in mid-January, in the tour’s only previous eleven-a-side match, was the highest to date [Did it remain so?] of the tour, and the principal item in his reputation as “the most dangerous man in the side. His fourteen stone made him the terror of loose bowlers.” He was an idol in his native Yorkshire for his “audacious hitting, outstanding fielding and fiery bowling.” Emmett a great admirer of his stance, and proposed it as a model to all young cricketers. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. He “took the remainder of the over without scoring.” Over 47 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: two runs. “Jupp cemented the partnership by playing” the next from Thompson “neatly past short-leg for 2: 80 up.” NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. Over 48 WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: four runs. “The new batsman opened his shoulders to Midwinter, and drove him nicely”—“beautifully,” even—“to the chains” at long-on for four. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. Over 49 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. “Thompson’s next was a maiden.” Over 50 WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run, “Midwinter following his example.” Over 51 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: three runs. “The Surrey batsman’s next contribution was a pretty leg hit for three off the Sydney bowler,” well placed and “beautifully” executed. NFD Thomson to G Ulyett: no run. NFD Thomson to G Ulyett: no run. Ned Gregory, “anxious as he seemed to be to save runs, could not get into the proper place. Eventually he did find the track, and was immediately brought to his knees by a very hard hit, which it took him all he knew to stop.” After an indifferent start, the Australian fielding had “improved somewhat.” Over 52 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: three runs. Midwinter’s next over brought Jupp got a “lucky” three from a “snick.” England was 91 for two. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. Over 53 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: one run. “Jupp then ran 1 for a leg hit off Thompson.” NFD Thomson to G Ulyett: no run. NFD Thomson to G Ulyett: one run. Ulyett, whose play was now “equally as lively as Charlwood’s,” now drove one “hard” and “straight into the hands of Kendall at mid-on, an easy catch, but the offer was declined,” and the batsman took a run. “A lady in the grandstand asked why, if the catch would have put the Englishman out, the fieldsman let it drop. Obviously the mysteries of the game had not been fully explained to her.” Her touching bafflement illustrates how simple a chance this was. Kendall, “that usually sure field,” had a familiar excuse: It seems “the dark line of spectators” spoilt his view and put him out in his calculations. 93 for two. Over 54 WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: four runs. “The batsman testified his gratitude” by driving Midwinter “high to long-on for 4, the ball bounding over the stand fence” and thence “into the bar.” A better drive the sun could not have shone upon, that shining day. England’s captain was delighted, and he spoke his delight within hearing of a reporter. “Very likely,” he remarked, “they’ll have to pay the piper for letting Ulyett off!” WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: one run. Ulyett “followed with one for a stolen run.” His innings had been “brilliant.” It was looking “dangerous.” Over 55 NFD Thomson to G Ulyett: no run. NFD Thomson to G Ulyett: OUT. Presently Thomson tendered an appeal to umpire Reid, and Ulyett’s stay was “suddenly, and most unexpectedly to himself, cut short by a call of lbw.” He did not suffer it to pass without dissent, having the bad taste to look ferocious, and to indicate “somewhat forcibly,” first by shaking his head, as if in bitterness he would shake it off, and then by “dig[ging] his heel into the ground where he said the ball pitched,” that he did not concur in the umpire’s decision. There was no Hawkeye to arrange the dispute. 98 for three was England’s total, Ulyett’s portion a racy ten. It seemed for a moment that a team of horses would be insufficient to draw him from the wicket, but at length he retreated of his own accord, with the air of a man whose disgust is too deep for words. The crowd “was too glad to see the last of his dangerous, broad back to worry about his sportsmanship,” but it drew heavy censure from the press. The Argus struck the gentlest note, but its reporter seems only to have spotted the gentlest constituents of the demonstration: There could be no doubt, from the way which Ulyett shook his head, that he had no mind to leave, [but] he did not show his disapprobation in a very open manner to the spectators. Public confidence in Mr Curtis Reid’s impartiality, therefore, was not shaken. The Age, which reported best what The Argus omitted, tut-tutted that such behaviour would not be tolerated in England for a moment; and not only would he be compelled to express his regret, but probably some more marked notice would be taken of it. For a professional player should be the first to abide by the rule of the game, and the principal of them is never to dispute umpire’s decision. The Australasian was more succinct, but no less emphatic: “Whatever a batsman’s opinion on such a matter may be, he should keep it to himself, at all events until he has left the ground.” In fact, Ulyett kept it even less to himself off the ground than on it, returning to the pavilion in such a state as never was, and loudly informing friends and team-mates, and anyone else who cared to hear, that “if they would go with him to the wicket with a tape-line, he could prove that his leg could not possibly have been in the way.” It would be a while before his face resumed its natural form, which was a thing of light and joy. In its cheerful seasons, no temper could be more cheerful than his. But he had a dark side, and Australia had a way of bringing it out. Lillywhite: “ULYETT drove MIDWINTER twice for four, and was then given out leg before, a bad decision.” The features are given to man as the means by which he shall express his emotions, and yours are faithful servants. Only “two or three minutes” having elapsed since Lillywhite’s prognostication, he was replaced by Andrew Greenwood, from whom “some good performances were expected.” “GREENWOOD, ANDREW, born at Cowms, Septon, near Huddersfield. Another cricketer, who has before visited us. With a perfect defence, free and skilled, was an especial favorite when last amongst us, and looked upon as a model cricketer. In his matches in these colonies his batting averages approached to within a shade of 16 runs per innings, and when obtained against fields of eighteens and twenty-twos, may be considered as an excellent performance. Greenwood, in 1875, carried the professional palm of precedence for fine batting, and, in short, played thorough cricket against England's best bowling. He may, in fact, be looked upon as “the lion” of the team, and for “wrist play” reaches almost perfection itself. The splendid average of 34.3 for 1875 (verging close on the heels of even the Champion himself), is alone proof of what he is capable of doing when in form. As a further evidence of his improvement, in the year in question (1875), with 13 innings less, he made considerably over 100 runs more than in 1874. If allowed to become set at the wickets the presumption is that some of our fieldsmen have a merry time in store for them. A splendid field and reliable catch.” Now the question is, Is the law of leg before wicket founded in reason or is it not? As the law stands now, the two conditions of "pitching straight" and "would have hit" with any ball not over-pitched, can only exceptionally be fulfilled, and not one man in five is fairly out of all those given out “leg before wicket." The bowler, with the present law, obviously loses the benefit of his break and reward of his skill. As regards the umpire, the law is a delusion and a snare. He is subject to frequent appeals on what is with the delivery of most bowlers, almost an impossibility. Now take away one of the two conditions—do not require the ball to be pitched straight—and then these errors will be far less frequent, though no such law can ever give satisfaction at all times. The common objection is that, with the law as now proposed, the umpire could not be trusted. I reply, every experienced player knows that umpires give many a man out contrary to the law now, so the point is one of comparison. Would the umpire's responsibility be greater than it is now? Certainly, there would be far more men out from leg before wicket if they did not alter their play, and this penalty would be justly deserved if they continued to guard their wickets with their pads instead of with their bats; but soon the result would be that they would stand clear and give the bowler a better chance. At present, a man like A. SHAW, whose bowling breaks back, may sometimes honestly claim leg before wicket, but as to the generality of bowlers (unless they bowl over the wicket, which is the worst possible policy, except late in the game, when the ground is worn), nothing can be more absurd than a law which virtually says, the better you bowl the more the batsman shall be allowed to take advantage of you. (Pycroft, James, "An Old Player's Maxims," Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 18.) To be out "leg before wicket," first, the ball must pitch straight (straight, that is, not merely from hand to wicket, but straight actually from wicket to wicket); secondly, you must be satisfied that no “breaking" away or sudden rise should have prevented the ball from hitting the wicket, if not stopped by the leg. Such is the law. With round-arm bowling “leg before wicket” can very rarely occur—much more rarely than is commonly decided. On this point opinions differ; so let every round-arm bowled join the near stump of his own wicket with the opposite stump of the other wicket by a white thread, and then try if he can ever hit the wicket with a good length ball that does not pitch outside that line, and, consequently, not straight from wicket to wicket. Without a “break-back," the thing is impossible with any but an over-pitched ball, provided that the bowler do not deliver "over the wicket.” (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 58-59.) NFD Thomson to A Greenwood: no run. NFD Thomson to A Greenwood: no run. Over 56 The attendance having gained its zenith, it seems a shame there was not more to attend to. Ten overs had lapsed since the last run, but still the crowd seemed to delight in what it saw, and was impartial in its ovations: “The sympathy has been, as might naturally have been expected, principally with the colonials; but still the Englishmen were warmly applauded whenever they deserved it.” The average estimate puts the number present at 4,333. To The Australasian “the members’ lawn presented a very animated appearance, being thronged with gaily-dressed ladies.” Even the famous grandstand, so barren yesterday, was “better patronised than before, and altogether it was evident that the public had begun to realise that, instead of a runaway victory for the Englishmen, a close and exciting contest might be anticipated.” The only restraint on their enjoyment was the weather, which was still “somewhat dull” and “rather chilly.” A the approach of the eighteen-eighties the MCC was gaining a few comforts. Every member now received two ladies' tickets, and much was done to improve the ladies' reserve. As the records put it, the Ladies' Reserve "is now a place where the fair visitors can see and be seen to advantage, and when tired of watching the sterner game, can turn to the quieter attractions of croquet and flirtations."

“A large number of spectators is supposed to have got in free, by means of tickets not sold at the gates, but procured illegitimately somewhere else.” “Some clever scamps had counterfeited a number of members’ tickets, and the Association were defrauded of a considerable sum in this way.” Melburnian fraudsters were doing a roaring trade: “The citizens were alarmed today [Saturday] by rumours of extensive forgeries having been committed on a well-known bank in Collins-street, whose headquarters are situated in another colony. The name of a well-known firm of solicitors has been unwarrantably made use of to a considerable amount, and the police have been requested to acquaint themselves of the culprit's residence. The second case was in connection with a well-known sporting man, who is well known to cricketers, both, in England and the colonies, whose name has been forged to in number of documents of pecuniary value to an irritating extent. The third has already come before the Police Court in the shape of a prosecution of one George G. Scott, who is charged with forging an acceptance of Peter Curran for the trifling sum of L1432, which he was permitted to draw against by the City of Melbourne Bank. Curran denies the acceptance, but, although he admits that he occasionally becomes intoxicated, is quite sure that he I did not sign the bill which forms the basis of the prosecution, and states that had he done so it would not have been of value unless marked with a private stamp known to his bank. The surroundings of the case are peculiar, and Scott has, therefore, been committed for trial, bail being allowed in two sureties of L250 each. In addition to these financial excitements we have had to-day the inquest upon the fire at Mast's hotel. It appeared to ordinary intelligences that some deliberate fire raiser had piled op combustibles in likely spots in Mast's mansion at a time, when no one was likely to be on the premises, and that these by some mysterious reason had the imprudence to set themselves on fire. An agent valued the furniture, &c., before at L200 and after it at L90, but in face of the fact that Mrs Mast and Mast's neice [sic] deposed that he was at home at South Yarra at the time the fire broke out, and for some hours previously suspicion was paralysed, and the jury therefore returned a verdict that the place was wilfully set on fire, but they could not say by whom; and that although there were grounds of suspicion against Mast there was no evidence to connect him with the offence” (Mount Alexander Mail “Melbourne” 17 March 1877).

WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: three runs. “Jupp got Midwinter to leg prettily for 3, bringing 100 upon the board.” WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. Over 57 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. But then “a long series of maiden overs followed.” The bowling was “excellent,” being “very straight,” and the batsmen played it “carefully.” Harry Jupp, at the outset of this sterile season, had made 47 runs from 120 balls—slow, but not obtuse. With Ulyett’s dismissal he regressed to type, and refused to compromise himself by any stretch of his professional caution. His nickname at Surrey was “Young Stonewaller” (after “Old Stonewaller,” Will Mortlock), but his Australian notoriety was such that “Jupp” had become a byword and a nickname itself. Willie Campbell, the Victorian blocker, had been christened “The Colonial Jupp.” So too, sometimes, Bransby Cooper, now fielding to the real thing. Alick Bannerman, the stoniestwaller of them all, would one day be fêted as “The Australian Jupp.” Nothing new to Australian crowds: “In Geo. Parr's team Carpenter and Hayward, who generally went in together, were the most stubborn batsmen that Australian bowling has had to contend with. Both at Melbourne and at Sydney they tired out all the opposing bowling talent, and with exemplary patience kept their wickets intact for hours, being content with singles when they came.” The drawbridge was up; all was locked and barred. His reputation best illustrated less in what was said of him that how he was invoked in the analysis of others. GH Kopke, has a "Jupp-like” defence, only wants more practice with the bat to be of as much service to the eleven as that celebrated cricketer has been to Surrey. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 166.)

The South Adelaide men are following the good example set them by the older Club. Their play on the Oval against the Hindmarsh caused deep interest, because it was generally known that both teams would have their strongest players in the field, and the victory of South Adelaide was not entirely unexpected. Coppinger batted as only a true batsman can, and his fine defensive innings reminded one much of Jupp. He certainly took all the sting out of the bowling, and this allowed the other players to make runs. (White Rose “Cricket Notes” South Australian Register, 7 April 1877.)

Willie Campbell, is called the Australian Jupp; the prettiest bat in the club [play, for audiobook, those two bars from 50Cent’s “In Da Club”—“doom-doom”], but has not played much this season; his average last season was 51, and we hope to see more of him next season. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 199.)

As it was many years before scorecards included balls-faced columns, it is difficult to say quite how boring Jupp was. But there are suggestive factoids. Eleven times he saw a Surrey innings to its entire completion, contributing fewer than forty per cent of its runs. In his second innings of the present tour, at Nelson, he had kept his timbers up all day, for a score of thirty. His bat was famously straight (product of a daily observance in front of the looking glass), and the Australians were about to see a good deal of it. Over 58 WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. Over 59 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. Over 60 WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. Over 61 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. The day sauntered on towards stumps like an idle river very leisurely strolling down a flat country to the sea. “Juppy,” as he sauntered along with it, had better been called “Guppy”: His blade was as blunt as that man’s penknife. Over 62 WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. Over 63 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. Over 64 WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. Southerton: “Greenwood […] did not start at all well.” Over 65 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. And so the game continued “with hardly any variation, only it was discernible that both teams were each anxious to become victorious.” Jupp, for his part, was as inflexible as a figure of brass. Test cricket to the Victorians must have seemed as great a miracle as to us it seems today. The Argus, just a few days after the match, denouning long-winded parliamentary speeches: Condensation is in fact, one of the necessities of a busy age, in which leisure is unknown, and “time is money.” Long speeches belong to a period in which people spent two or three days in travelling from York to London; thought nothing of wading through a novel in twelve volumes, like Sir Charles Grandison or Clarissa Harlowe; listened patiently to “three mile prayers and half mile graces;" kept voluminous diaries like Miss Burney and Mrs Delany; danced slow and stately minuets in the ball-room; drank a long string of toasts and sentiments at private dinner parties, sat out five act dramas stuffed full of dreary didactics and moral monologues at the theatre, and dawdled through life as though it were a quadrille performed in tempo adagio. But in an active and bustling epoch like our own, when a man can travel round the world in eighty days, when we correspond by electric telegraph instead of by letter, pass from one part of the country to another at a speed of thirty or forty miles an hour; transact large operations in business by the interchange of a few words, or by the stroke of a pen; refuse to endure sermons that exceed twenty minutes in duration, and pass capital sentence upon a play, a story, or an entertainment, by pronouncing it to be “slow," all those who “think they shall be heard” for their much speakign," are social and political anachronisms. They may interest antiquarians as fossil relics of the past, but they have no legitimate title to consideration as living men and women. They are as much out of place in this active and impatient age as would have been an ancient Briton in his suit of woad in the Strand of Shakspeare's time. Over 66 WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. Over 67 NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: two runs. “Jupp at last broke the spell by a couple off Thompson.” NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. NFD Thomson to H Jupp: no run. Over 68 WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: one run. A nondescript single to Greenwood, by which I mean precisely that there is no description in any of the newspapers. They give only its value. Took him 26 balls—check—to get off the mark. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. Jupp contributed another such, and with it brought up his half-century—a “first-class” innings. He was batting, reported The Herald, “in something like his old form, and more scientific cricket … it would be difficult to imagine, albeit he was somewhat lucky in escaping once or twice early in his innings.” But now he was ensconced, and comfortable, and must have felt a good deal like Robinson Crusoe, when he had got into his fortification, and pulled his ladder up after him. England was 105 for three. Especially remarkable given the ailment that prevented him from taking Pooley’s place behind the wicket. Over 69 “Just five minutes before half-past five, the time arranged for drawing stumps, the sun, which had been shrouded by clouds all day,” broke forth “in all its full glory,” and filled the world with strange and sudden light. In a moment the ground was a golden bowl of fire, and the light, “by contrast” with what had gone before, “something dreadful.” To the batsmen it was like “stepping from a darkened room into the light.” Nor was this the entire extent of their difficulties, for the sun also “threw long shadows across the ground,” which rendered it a matter of some absurd difficulty for the batsman to see the ball. This was a recurring problem at the MCG: “On Boxing Day and during the Christmas holidays, when these important matches are usually played, the sun’s rays interfere considerably with the sight of the, players,” but the sunless skies of late summer had to this point largely mitigated the problem. The root of that problem is not far to seek. The common practice, for reasons of basic astronomy, is to pitch the wickets north to south (or south to north). But I believe you will have noticed that the ends at the MCG were east and west. There was, famously, a great deal of farce about the first-ever Test Match, but I think mine is the first book to spotlight this singular detail. Conceivably it also accounts for the bizarre playing hours. Nor was it, at this time, in this country, unique to the MCG. An exciting match in Sydney, in the town of Mudgee, begun on the final day of this match, was played out in similar conditions. Bernard Whimpress: “The Victorians do things strangely. When they operated their prime Australian Rules football competition within state boundaries several Victorian Football League grounds (including the MCG) ran east west and the G still does for this sport.” When the ground was being readied for the 1956 Olympic Games: “The Olympic Games Organising Committee made it clear that the M.C.G. would need to be perfectly flat to conform to Olympic requirements. Engineers looked at the Arena and they found that there was a fall of 7 feet 6 inches from east to west. This meant virtually that they would have to tear away the whole surface of the ground. There were many other conditions, such as a building of an underground tunnel to the Arena, with which it would have been impracticable for the MCG to comply.” How many fast bowlers in this Test had to run uphill? Similar to Jupp’s ground at Dorking.

Through the same cold sunlight-rolder as the day declines,-and through the same sharp wind-sharper as the separate shadows of bare ttees gloom together in the woods, and as the Ghost's Walk, touched at the westem comer by a pile of fire in the sky, resigns itself to coming night,-they drive into the park. he Rooks, swinging in their lofty houses in the elm-tree avenue, seem to discuss the question of the oceupancy of the carriage as it puses underneath ; some agreeing that Sir Leicester and my Lady are come down ; some arguing with malcontents who won't admit it; now, all consenting to consider the question disposed of; now, all breaking out again in violent debate, incited by one obstinate and drowsy bird, who will persist in putting in a Inst contradictory croak.

Recollecting, perhaps, how the Victorian batsmen had succumbed to “this very same light” in late December, on his most recent visit to the MCG, Jupp here made a demonstration, urging the umpires to draw the stumps. Disappointed at their refusal, and none appeased by their explanation, and supported by Charlwood, he chose to devour one minute of the five remaining in a pantomime, “looking first at the sun, shading his eyes with his left hand, and then at the bowler and the umpire.” His object was plain, and it earned him “a hoot” from the crowd—the first such in the match, and therefore in the history of Test cricket. Victorian-era Victorian spectators were more tranquil than their barracking posterity. According to the Press Association, the only mainstream outlet present as those which had staffed the Ashes had not bothered with these games, Hammond began his innings with “effortless ease”. He was particularly strong on the leg side en route to 41 at stumps, reached in 57 minutes with six fours. At the other end, Wyatt made 56 out of 127 for one, play ending 50 minutes early when Wyatt complained that the setting sun was in his eyes. A week or so later, at Ararat: “The game was frequently interrupted by squalls, Jupp, while he was in, retreating from the least sprinkle of rain.” Dave Gregory, meanwhile, thought this a moment fit to bring on Kendall in place of Thomson. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Jupp took one ball with every possible manifestation of reluctance… TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. … and then called for his hat. “This was brought to him by Charlwood”— it may have Charlwood’s own—and ate up a few seconds more. The Herald was amused to see Lillywhite’s men “caught in the trap which they so successfully used” against the Victorians last December, but thought it also a teachable moment. If Australian cricket had reached the point of competing even-handed with England, the events of this day are sufficient to show that it still had much to learn, and its betters to teach, about the lesser and darker arts. [You put this the same way a little later. Decide which you’ll use.] Southerton on the match against the Victorian XV: “As to the bad lights during which we lost nine wickets for 27 runs in the second innings: ‘the wickets are pitched east and west, and during the last three-quarters of an hour it is a very bad light at both ends, and in this light we got them, Shaw bowling towards the sun and Ulyett the other end. […] at one time it looked as if we should win easily; but we were had in the bad light as we had them the evening before and were all out for 129, losing the match by 31 runs.” Fourth day, First Test, Pakistan v. West Indies, 1957/58, during Hanif’s epic 337: “There had been a four minute interruption because a mirror of a parked car was reflecting in the batsmen’s eyes.”

“Returning to Sydney, there was an unsavoury match against a combined New South Wales and Victoria Fifteen, likely to be the toughest game of the tour. On the third day, with the tourists batting and well ahead, Grace scored an aggressive 73, but when he was out there was a strange passage of play when the tourists were content to get out – so as to give more time to dismiss the combined team (these were days when declarations were not possible) – and the combined team were bowling wide of the stumps to prevent this!  With three hours left, needing an unlikely 309 to win, the Fifteen began their second innings. Grace was desperate to win - he, and likely his team-mates, had significant bets on such an outcome. The Fifteen were desperate to hold out, possibly for mixed reasons. Some may have taken exception to their opponents having bet on the outcome, but then it is quite possible that some of the Fifteen had taken a bet that the match would be drawn! Some may have objected to the English team’s tactics earlier in the day, in deliberately seeking to get out, but their own tactics in bowling wide of the stumps were hardly admirable. It seems likely that tempers had got the better of both sides.  The Fifteen now wasted as much time as they could, re-tieing shoelaces, consulting between overs, but the wickets gradually fell. The crowd, perhaps surprisingly, wanting to see some action, were on the side of the tourists. At one point one of the batsmen, Sam Cosstick, was given out "hit wicket". It was a highly dubious decision, and with the batsman initially refusing to go, Grace was on the point of taking his side off. But the batsman relented, and left the field. Finally, at 5.35, with 25 minutes to spare, the last wicket went down and Grace's team were able to celebrate.” 

That is, the [20th-Century Melbourne Cricket Club] club elevens played cricket for fun. For example, in the 'thirties it was often noted that the umpires tended to ease the clock on a little as the time moved towards 6 p.m., a very difficult period in Victoria, for, after all, the hotels closed at six. (Dunstan Paddock 258.) TK Kendall to H Jupp: four runs. Jupp having exhausted his stock of artifices, took the rest of the over “without a murmur,” and saw Kendall clearly enough to send him “on a journey through the chains at leg.” It was a “grand” hit, one of several he had made today, all “along the carpet.” Most of them earlier in the day, when Kendall was bowling his first spell. Jupp, indeed, “liked Kendall” [Bring stats to bear], and against him “played an unusually open game.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 70 WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: OUT. First up next over, with “the sun shining straight down the play,” came “a quickly-rising ball.” Greenwood elected to cut it, but the decision was fatal: He had misconstrued the line—only “just clear of the off stump”—and it met his outside edge accordingly. Ned Gregory at “short slip” took the catch “smartly.” The consensus (which was especially strong with the Englishmen) is that the batsman had been blinded by the light. “It was impossible almost,” claimed one of the Englishmen, writing in The Sporting Life, “to see anything.” But happily for them there was nothing more to see, for the “stumps [Play was scheduled to close at “half past 5.” Did it?] were drawn as Greenwood walked off the field.” Lillywhite: “the sun coming out just after cost GREENWOOD his wicket; the stumps were then drawn, four wickets being down for 109, Jupp not out 54.” The score, at close of play on day two, was 109 for four. Since the latter number symbolised “such formidable persons as Charlwood, Greenwood, Selby, and Ulyett,” The Argus thought it improbable that England would score a first-innings advantage. But one could not be as sanguine about the Australians’ chances over two innings, especially since it was now generally known that their best batsman would be incapable. The Argus’s conclusion, most astute, was that “more will depend on the ability of the players to prolong the game until the stumps are drawn on Monday than on the big scores that they may make in the meantime.” The longer they were in, the rougher would the wicket become, and the greater the odds that England, batting last, would founder. The Herald echoed these assessments, if not these prognostications, adding only, in consolation, that Australia had “many good bats” besides Bannerman, and that “it is possible that some of these may come off to a good tune, and a victory be scored for Australia.” This newspaper, the most perfervid advocate of an eleven-a-side struggle, was delighted with the first two days, which had fully borne out the opinion expressed long since in these columns to the effect that, could we get anything like a really representative team together, the chances would be slightly in favour of the colonials. Even put in Evans and Spofforth instead of Hodges and Kendall, and where would the visitors be in this match? The exchange of these two men would materially strengthen the team in batting; and the gain in bowling power would be incredible. The Australasian, meanwhile, anticipated these self-congratulations. The match, as now it stood, “cannot but be satisfactory to those who have been upholding the vast improvement which has taken place of late years in colonial cricket.” Nowhere was the improvement plainer than in the wicketkeeping of Blackham, who had performed his brief “with great skill,” quite “surpassing himself,” and without resigning a single bye, and had given an earnest of the sensation he would create in England the following year. The same had been true of Selby, of course, on his first day as a Test-Match stumper, but there was an essential difference: Blackham had stood up to everything, fast or slow, and “had no longstop to help him.” He had begun a revolution, in not only Australian cricket but the whole history of the game. Within a few decades the long stop would be redundant.

At 77, however, M'Gan, who had just previously missed being stumped, gave Blackham another opportunity, which that wily custodian of the sticks was not too slow to avail himself of…. The bowling of the MCC was straight but plain, but Blacklam's alertness behind the wickets greatly assisted, he having secured four wickets during the innings.

A few days later: “For the last hour the light was very bad, and the MCC wanted to stop the game, but they had to go on until the time first fixed upon, 6pm.”

17 March – Edith New, suffragette (died 1951)

There was a large attendance at the cricket match today, the weather being fine. Bannerman's innings was considered the finest display of cricket ever seen in the colony.

Blackham is credited with four wickets out of the nine down, and his wicketkeeping generally was very fine, and seems to be improving.

Play was resumed in this match at a quarter to three on Saturday last, the game standing Melbourne, first innings, 144; South Melbourne, first innings, nine wickets for 157. The last two batsmen, J. Slight, not out 49, and Conway, commenced the proceedings to the bowling of Midwinter (stand end) and Cosstick. Blackham was absent, and Gibson officiated in his place at the wickets, whilst W. Slight and Treadaway fielded for Blackham and Carr, the latter of whom has departed for Western Australia.

Lou Woolf was a South Melbourne stalwart for some years and for many years has been the father of the Victorian Bar, to which he was called nearly 60 years ago. Although in his 80th year, no-one would suspect it from his appearance. As a cricketer he was a useful batsman, and was famous as a long-stop, which was an important position in his day. He was, however, one of the last to fill that position in important cricket in Victoria, because the superlative wicket keeping of Jack Blackham made it unnecessary. He played against New South Wales in 1877. [Was Woolf already on his way out?]

First-ever match played by an English touring team in Australia: “The Englishmen were immeasurably superior to their opponents at all points of the game except in the case of long-stopping by Butterworth.” “The second day ended with things equally well balanced.” There is a notion, implicit in most books which treat of this development, that the wicketkeepers of the ante-Blackham era were primitive and clumsy, and that everything post-Blackham has been an extension of his revolution. This is untrue and unfair. Wicketkeepers before Blackham stood up to the stumps, and were supported by their long stops. Blackham’s innovation was to dispense with the long stop and yet remain at the stumps. Modern wicketkeepers have dispensed with the long stop, but also with the traditional berth directly behind the wicket. The history of their trade, from the beginning of the Twentieth Century, is the history of their retreat. Retreat is no advance. Partially it was necessitated by the fin-de-siècle renascence of fast bowling, which had been made almost obsolescent for a couple of decades—not coincidentally the same decades in which Blackham’s example was most successfully mimicked—by the apotheosis of WG Grace and the changing conditions wherein he thrived. Not the least remarkable of Blackham’s 1878 feats was to stand up to the fast bowling of Spofforth even when it was short of pitch. To take a bouncer directly behind the stumps is a superhuman feat. It is no slight on George Duckworth to observe that he never stood up to Harold Larwood. Bodyline would have been impossible, and the West Indies attacks of the 1980s would have been hamstrung, had they been impelled to make allowances for the comfort of their wicketkeepers. Although claims have been made for George Pinder of Yorkshire, Blackham here may well have been the first [Research this! Get Batchelor on parsons and Blackham]. Horan: “Whatever may have been, the superior merit of New South Wales crack batsmen as compared with Victorian, we can, beyond a shadow of doubt, lay claim to having, in the veteran, JM Blackham, the finest wicketkeeper that Australia has ever known. Indeed, I think WG Grace told me that in his opinion Blackham was the best, “keeper” in the world, and “WG” knew them all right back to the days of Lilley, Pilling, and Pooley. Pilling, in my opinion, ranked very close to Blackham, and so did “Aph” Jarvis. Carter, of New South Wales, is a very fine “keeper,” and has maintained his form well. A special feature in Blackham’s work was his wonderful quickness in getting to the bails. I saw him once stump W. Barnes, of Nottingham, off a fast leg-shooter. The rapidity with which the bails went off fairly astonished Barnes, who never dreamt of being stumped off such a ball. JJ Kelly was also a highly capable wicketkeeper, who did some fine things in England and Australia.” The Australian bowling, too, had quite surpassed expectations. The Age bravoed Garrett, Midwinter and Thompson in particular, but of Hodges it said nothing, and of Kendall it was critical, and of the fielding (Blackham excepted) it was derisive. England’s star performer was Jupp—Southerton thought his innings “capital”—but no-one forbore to qualify their praise by noting the calamity of the fallen bail. This, indeed, was still very green in the memories of certain spectators, who “bounced” Ben Terry as he was leaving the field. The Age shook its head: “We fear that the respect paid to an umpire’s decision depends very much on what side he happens to stand for.” However, when he reached 19 and the score was 32, England’s champion ran himself out. Initially, Grace stood his ground, which only whipped up the crowd, who turned their ire on umpire Charles Pullin. In echoes of the Sydney riot of 1879, when the crowd vented their anger at Murdoch’s run-out against Lord Harris’s men, Pullin needed a police escort back to the pavilion as hundreds remonstrated at the close of play. After their own countrymen had been at fault for the Sydney rumpus, the Australian press seized this chance to lampoon the English. The Melbourne Argus said “the Surrey mob certainly acted up to their reputation for being the most ruffianly in England” and that “verily the Sydney larrikin is a polished gentleman compared to the Surrey rough”. The Adelaide Observer chimed in: “There are a few people who seem to attend the matches solely for the purpose of creating rows if they can, and these are making Kennington Oval an evil reputation.”

After Foster’s record innings, Warner felt that England’s lead of almost 300 was “a task before which even such giants as Trumper, Hill, Noble and Duff might well quail”. However, he was mindful of the “indomitable pluck and resolution of the Australians”, who have “inherited to the full that spirit of never giving in which we are so proud of saying is inherent in the British race”. Australia indeed showed indomitable pluck as they moved to 254 for three on the fourth evening, just 38 behind. Hill and Trumper, in fact, seemed to be steering them into a position from which England could conceivably have lost. But at this key stage, Hill was controversially run out after Trumper played a leg-break from Braund past mid-off and the batsmen tried to take a fifth run on an overthrow. Hill was furious at umpire Bob Crockett’s decision and there were groans and hisses in the crowd. Warner walked from his fielding position towards the pavilion with the aim of getting the protests to stop. “But instead of them listening to me, the booing became louder than ever.” Noble was next man in, and the Australia captain sat with Warner beside the boundary, hoping that the outcry would end. “During these moments,” wrote Warner, “Noble and I were talking the matter over and I told him that we should be compelled to leave the field if the demonstration against Crockett did not cease. After a while the noise abated somewhat, and Noble advised me to go on with the game. The moment we started play, the noise became, if possible, greater than ever, and shouts of ‘How much did you pay Crockett, Warner?’ – ‘Have you got your coffin ready, Crockett?’ – ‘Which gate are you leaving by, Crockett?’ rent the air. It was a most difficult situation, but I think that, on the whole, I acted wisely in not withdrawing the team from the field.” Warner said there was “absolutely no excuse” for the demonstrations and that “even such hardened Test match players as Hirst and Rhodes were quite upset”, with Crockett needing police protection on leaving the ground. (Walters Men Who Raised the Bar ??.)

Terry was not the only man that evening to be roughly handled. Several hours later, in a development which has skirted the pages of all previous chronicles, Tom Armitage was returning from some jollification, or perhaps he was headed to it; at any rate, was taking the bohemian air of Bourke Street, when he crossed a disgraceful scene.

In front of him he saw, in the gaslight, a tallish man, walking with a slight stagger, and carrying a white goose slung over his shoulder. As he reached the corner of Goodge-street, a row broke out between this stranger and a little knot of roughs. One of the latter knocked off the man's hat, on which he raised his stick to defend himself, and, swinging it over his head, smashed the shop window behind him. Peterson had rushed forward to protect the stranger from his assailants, but the man, shocked at having broken the window, and seeing an officiallooking person in uniform rushing towards him, dropped his goose, took to his heels, and vanished amid the labyrinth of small streets which lie at the back of Tottenham Court-road.

At the City Police Court on Saturday, Thomas Ray a recent arrival in the colony was charted with insulting behaviour, and Thomas Armitage, one of the English cricketers, was charged with attempting to rescue him from the police. On Friday night Ray, being under the influence of liquor, conducted himself in a disorderly manner at the side bar in the vestibule of the Theatre Royal, and was given in charge to Constable White. He resisted strenuously, and at the door of the theatre Sergeant Mooney and Detective Coleman came to the assistance of the constable. Armitage chanced to be passing by, and re-cognised in the prisoner a young man who had come out to the colony in the same vessel as the English cricketers, and interfered on his behalf. Mr. A. Read appeared for Armitage, and stated that hsi client did not at first observe that Ray was in the hands of the police, or he would never have interfered. Ray was fined 10s., and Armitage 5s. Unable to stand by as one man was strong-armed by a group of heavies, he precipitated himself into their midst with the honourable intention of liberating him. But the heavies turned out to be officers of the law, and their victim a deplorable. Armitage spent the night in their custody, and possibly in his company. The Ballarat Star’s Melbourne correspondent adds a few wrinkles: “Armitage, one of the prominent members of the English team, was today fined 5s for attempting to rescue from the clutches of the police a friend of his [so not a stranger, raising the possibility that Armitage was present when the insulting behavior occurred] who was arrested in Flinders lane [different street] last night for insulting behavior. Armitage proved himself to be a very Hercules in a ruction, and floored his assailants in a pretty style, which did honor to the eve of St Patrick.” Armitage keeping an interesting sort of company. What constituted “insulting behavior” in this instance is not clear. The term in those days cast a wide net; vagueness of expression, and perhaps of meaning, too. From the next paragraph of the Ballarat Star’s column: “A case came before the Emerald Hill Police Court to-day, in which Mr James Page, formerly mayor of that town, was charged with using abusive language to Mr John Whiteman, the well-known MP. Mr Fisher, who appeared for the defence, suggested that Mr Foote, one of the local magistrates, should retire from the bench, on the ground that an ill-feeling existed between Mr Page and himself, but Mr Foote declined to adopt the proposal, stating that he was aware of his duty. After consultation between the friends of both parties, Mr Page stated, "At the instance of my friends, I wish to say that I regret what has occurred," and the case was thereupon withdrawn, without costs.” Also on Bourke Street that night, the sort of incident that, combined with the one just described, makes the imagination to run wild:

An inquest was held to-day on the corpse of David Milne, an outfitter, in the Royal Arcade, who was seized with a kind of fit in Bourke-street, on Friday evening last. In accordance with the medical evidence a verdict of death from sanguineous apoplexy was returned. (Geelong Advertiser “Melbourne” 20 March 1877.)

Clearly based on these, taken before or during the game:

The members of the Australian Eleven in the combination cricket match have been photographed and grouped into a picture by Mr Chuck, of the Royal Arcade. The picture has been placed in the MCC pavilion. Nearly all the heads have been well taken, but some of the men have evidently proved difficult subjects. (Argus “March 17, 1877” 6.) [Seems to have repurposed these photographs for the 1878 tour, which is the only form in which they appear to survive.]

Our telegram last evening announced the death of Mr B. Sayer, landlord of the Ball and Mouth Hotel, Bourke-street, Melbourne. Mr Sayer was for a long time a resident of the Ovens, having been proprietor of the Newtown flour mills, from whence he removed to Wangaratta, when he entered upon the life of a boniface as mine host of the Council Club Hotel, and afterwards leased Reid's flour mill in the same town. About seven years ago he went to Melbourne. Mr Sayer was well liked by all who knew him, and leaves a widow and an infant child.

The courageous conduct of a constable in Bourke-street on Wednesday last is worthy of notice. A horse in harness, and with the shafts of a buggy dangling behind, came galloping furiously along Swanston-street. After coming into contact with a cart it turned up Bourke-street, which was at the time crowded with all kinds of vehicles, and a serious accident seemed imminent. Constable Walsh, who was on duty between Swanston and Russell streets, rushed forward, and at great personal risk seized and stopped the animal. His conduct was admired by many onlookers, and it has been brought under the notice of his superior officers. It appears that the horse belonged to Mr Swindley, who resides in Emerald-hill, and that it was being driven in a buggy on the St Kilda road, when it bolted in the direction of Melbourne. Near the Immigrants' Home the vehicle was thrown violently against a fence, and the shafts breaking it was there left behind, whilst the horse pursued his course across Prince's-bridge and into the city. No-one was injured.

At the CITY COURT on Monday, Mr. Sturt, P.M., and Messrs. Renny and Noonan, J.P.'s, presiding, two boys, named John Butler and William Turpenny, were charged with stealing a cage containing two canaries from the pre-mises of the Rev. W. Thomas, in Grey-street, East Melbourne. A lad named Gough was sentenced a few days ago for the same offence, the cage having been found in his possession. It was shown that the two prisoners now before the Court were also implicated in the theft, by having been present assisting when it was com-mitted. As Butler had never been con-victed before he was sentenced to only one month's imprisonment, while Turpenny, who had been several times previously before the Court, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. A respectably-dressed young man named John Parkes was charged with driving a cab without a licence. When somewhat under the in-fluence of liquor he found the vehicle standing without its driver outside an hotel, took possession of it, and drove about the city at a furious pace. He was severely re-primanded by the Bench, and discharged. A young fellow named George Heffernan was charged with having been illegally on pre-mises. On Saturday night, at about half past 10 o'clock, Mr. Taylor, the proprietor of a refreshment booth on the Melbourne Cricket-ground, saw the prisoner and two others enter his tent by creeping under the canvas. He captured the prisoner, and tied him up with a rope until he brought a constable, to whom he gave him in charge. The other two offenders escaped. The pri-soner was sentenced to six months' hard labour.

“An inquest was held at the Melbourne Hospital to-day on the body of David Milne, a well-known resident of this city, who has for some considerable time past carried on the business of a tailor and outfitter in the Royal Arcade. The deceased, who was about 48 years of age, after closing his shop on Friday evening, was walking down Bourke-street, apparently on his way to take the train for his private house, at Prahan, when he was observed to stagger, and catch hold of a verandah post. A Mr Alexander Gray, who happened to be passing at the time, asked him what was the matter, but the deceased was unable to reply, and he shortly afterwards became unconscious. He was then placed in a cab, and taken to the Melbourne Hospital, where he died two hours later. A post-mortem examination proved that death had resulted from apoplexy, and the jury returned a verdict to that effect.” Possibly the fact that he was engaged in a very important cricket match, and was due to bat first thing on its resumption [He goes in later in the second innings. So was no. 6 high for him? Could Lillywhite have been punishing him for his arrest?], contributed to his being let off next morning “with a small fine.” To the best of my knowledge, it was not until the Pakistani spot-betting scandal of 2010 that another player would be arrested during a Test Match. Armitage, we have seen, had done a spot of spot-betting himself, but this was of the kind to be rather hindered than helped by his imprisonment—in short, the more innocent kind. His small fine would have become, in effect, a very big one had he spent the day in gaol.

It seems hard to believe now, but it was a catering firm that brought out the first English team, Messrs Spiers & Pond, the proprietors of the Cafe de Paris in Bourke Street.

Ascencio De Frietas, landlord of the Mechanics' Hotel, Bourke-street east, was summoned by Constable Lavie, at the District Court yesterday, for pumping water having an offensive smell from his premises into the street. The offence was proved by the police, and the defendant was fined 10s., with 20s. costs.

Could it have been this guy?—

A cowardly fellow dared Thomas Cooper received a well-merited sentence at the City Police Court on Saturday [probably March 24, whereas I need March 17]. He was charged with having assaulted and robbed of 17s an old man named Thomas Scott. The offence was committed on Friday night in Little Bourke-street, when Scott was passing along somewhat the worse of liquor. A woman who witnessed the occurrence seized the offender, and held him until Constable O'Meara arrived and effected his arrest. The Bench sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

VICTORIA Melbourne, March 17 Armitage, one of the English cricketers, was arrested last night for attempting to rescue a prisoner from the custody of the police in Bourke-street. Armitage was let off this morning with a small fine.

Also home to Boyle & Scott. Southerton spent the evening more innocently: “After the second day’s play Southerton records in his diary that he “Bought a ring for the wifey for £5” (around £590 in today’s money) and then, when starting to discuss the events of the third day, that “In going down the street, purchased a black swan skin for 2/6, took an albatross head to be dressed.” [Swan skin, with the feathers still on, was used for garments, mainly trimming. Not sure about the head, but albatross feathers, even whole wings, were used in the millinery trade for decorating hats. Thankfully no more.]” Governor Bowen went to the opera:

The performances at the Opera-house this evening will be for the benefit Miss Ada Ward, when "Dauicheff" will be performed for the last time. The evening's entertainment will commence with “The Happy Pair," in which Miss Ward will take the part of Mrs Honeyton. The performances are under the patronage of His Excellency the Governor and Lady Bowen, who will attend the theatre.

At the Opera-house last night there was a well-filled house, and the dress-circle was especially crowded on the occasion of the benefit of Miss Ada Ward. His Excellency the Governor and Lady Bowen and the Misses Bowen were present. The play of Danicheff" was preceded by the pretty comedietta of "The Happy Pair," an elegant dramatic trifle which has, on many previous occasions, served to amuse a Melbourne audience, but which could not have been better played than it was last night. Miss Ward's performance of Mrs Honeyton, besides being marked by ease, grace, and dignity, was distinguished by a spice of merry humour, which rendered it peculiarly acceptable. It suggested how much we may hope from her in the direction of high comedy during her forthcoming engagement at the Theatre Royal. Mr Sothern's Honeyton was gentlemanly and unaffected, its only fault being an occasionally somewhat too rapid manner of speaking. The audience were emphatic in their expressions of gratification, and if Miss Ward had had any doubt of her popularity, she would have been well assured of it last night. Several bouquets were thrown to her during the progress of the comedietta, and she and Mr Sothern were called before the curtain at the end. "Danicheff" followed for the last time, and was received, as usual, by the audience with as much applause as if it were being played for the first time. Tonight it will give place to "Our American Cousin." Mr Sothern will play the part his father has made world-famous; Mr Fred Lyster will take the part of Asa Trenchard; Miss Minnie Walton, Mary Meredith; Mademoiselle Legrand, Florence Trenchard; and Mr Caroy, that of Abel Marcott.

“Yesterday afternoon, the Englishmen went in and they appear on a fair way to approach closely to their opponents' first innings score. Jupp played splendidly. The bowling of Thompson, Midwinter and Garrett was very good. Blackham's wicketkeeping could hardly be surpassed. There will probably be an immense crowd on the ground today.” “The English Eleven commenced their first innings with Jupp and Selby at the wicket, facing the bowling of Garrett and Hodges. The scoring was very rapid from the start, no opportunity being lost to steal runs. Selby was caught by Cooper at point! Charlwood and Jupp ran up a lot of runs, hitting to all parts of the field. The bowling was changed, and Kendall, Midwinter, and B. Thompson were tried. The bowling was very good, but the wicket played splendidly. Charlwood at length was well caught by Blackham at the wicket for 36. Ulyett was given out leg before wicket when he had scored 10. Greenwood was well caught in the slips by E. Gregory off Midwinter, and Jupp was not out for 54; leg-bye 1. Total, 109. It was very fine cricket all through, and the Englishmen played splendidly.” “Bannerman's score included seventeen 4's nine 3's, the rest doubles and singles. He never gave a chance. Garrett also played very well. The fielding and batting of the Englishmen so far has been very good, and the bowling on the part of the colonial team is also good.” Geelong Advertiser, Friday evening: “The weather is exceptionably favorable to the Englishmen, for the light has been clear and grey, while a cool breeze has kept the batsmen and fieldmen [sic] in good humor, but should there be a resumption of warm weather and glaring sunlight on Monday, the chances of the Australians will be considerably improved. At present there appears to be little probability of this, for electric clouds are massed to seaward, and although rain cannot be anticipated, heat seems equally unlikely.” Round Arm of Australian Town and Country Journal, two days into the match (March 17 edition), pronounced it “shorn of much interest that would have attached to it by the manner in which our representatives, if such they can be called, were chosen; but still, of course, one can hardly help feeling some anxiety as to the result, and hoping that the men of this colony may keep up their credit.” We have got a real musical prodigy amongst us—a little child—only five and a half years old, named Ernest Hutcheson. He exhibits an intuitive knowledge of and skill in music quite equal to that recorded of Mozart. He is a genuine infant phenomenon, and if he be not spoiled by too precocious development, will one day astonish the world. His parents have allowed him to give one or two public exhibitions of his marvellous powers, but there is a strong feeling amongst the devotees of the musical art here that no further such displays ought to be allowed until the boy has gone through a complete course of musical and general education. In this conviction I entirely agree.

Day three was a Saturday, but as The Oxford English Dictionary traces our first use of “weekend” to 1879, it had not in 1877 the happy subtext it conveys to us now. It would be another seven decades ere the six-day week shrunk to five. March 17, however, was also St Patrick’s Day —a holiday —and as such it promised a much better attendance. There were other attractions, including a race meeting at Kyneton, but the organisers’ hopes were fortified by the state of the match, and strengthened by a turn in the weather. The Melbourne Cricket Ground that morning was a lovely, crisp, sunlit space. The sun, so reticent on Thursday and Friday, shone bright from a naked sky, but the air was “clear and cool.” The squall was gone, too, and in its place blew a gentle breeze, sweet as breath of kine. “A more glorious day for cricket,” sang The Age, “could not be imagined”—“one of those glorious Australian days,” chimed The Herald, “which unfortunately are only too rare, but are delightful when we do have them.” Following the established pattern, however, the crowd at the commencement was “rather sparse,” the hour being “too early for any very large gathering to be expected.” That hour had been advertised as 12:00—thirty minutes earlier than on Friday, and a full sixty minutes earlier than on Thursday. But as on Thursday and Friday, there was an unaccountable delay, so that the cricket only resumed somewhere between 12:15 and 12:20, when Armitage accompanied Jupp to the wicket, and took first strike. Midwinter had still three balls to deliver of yesterday’s final over. Umpires must shoulder some of the blame for the delays. Curtis Reid’s next playing fixture:

Play was to have commenced at 10.30 am, but it was not till about noon that the preliminaries had been completed.

Melbourne folk still amply vindicate their old-established claim to be considered the most eager of all English communities in holiday-keeping.

Ballarat Star’s Melbourne correspondent: “The day has been devoted to amusement. As the sun rose the joy bells announced to the Hibernian portion of the population that St Patrick’s Day had been born, and the scarves of green with golden border and golden harps and shamrocks were speedily exhumed from their depositaries, houses were decked with bright-green leaves, sprigs were twisted with hats, and with springy step our Irish friends started on their annual festival. At mid-day crowds filled the streets to witness the annual procession, which was unusually large, and which, marched to the music of four bands. On arrival at the Treasury the processionists halted while the bands played the national anthem, and thence proceeded to the Friendly Societies’ Gardens, where the customary sports were provided. The day was also signalised by the opening of the Exhibition of the Victorian Academy of Arts; by the polo match, India v Australia, at the Horticultural Society’s Gardens; and by the cricket match, on the MCC Oval. The art exhibition was fairly attended considering the rival attractions with which it had to compete, but the polo contest did not come off, as the Australians did not turn up in sufficient numbers, and consequently a scratch game had to be improvised, in which the Indians took part on both sides. The bulk of the pleasure-seekers visited the Melbourne ground, and the show of toilettes in the reserve was quite equal to that of any off-day at the racecourse, while the entertainment provided was fully satisfactory to many thousands of spectators.” Beneath a powder-blue sky. Bravery at Ballarat: “The dreadful wicket, the bravery of Armitage and Hill, batting on despite many bruises.”

The first polo match between an Indian team of players and one of Australians was announced to come off yesterday afternoon in the National Agricultural Society's ground, on the St Kilda road. At 3 o'clock, the hour fixed for the game to commence, the Indians were all ready, but owing to some misunderstanding the Victoriaa players were absent. After waiting for some time, the Indians, captained by two Englishmen, played a practice match of three a-side. The ponies used are very low in condition, and not well trained to the game. The Indians played well, but they would have no chance of victory if matched against an average team of Victorian players. They all hit well, but their play could not be snown owing to their badly trained ponies.

The annual meeting of the Kyneton District Racing Club was held on St Patrick's Day. The attendance was large, the weather bright, and the racing good. […] The special trains from Melbourne were well patronised, and the day's sport was greatly enjoyed by the visitors.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR SIR,—The true celebration of the anniversary day of our patron saint is an affair of the heart and intellect, and a profound veneration for the character of that great man who went about doing good in a truly Christian spirit. It is a day that should, be observed in sacred harmony, not disturbed by personal jealousies nor marred by sordid commercial greed. I have no sympathy with those who have endeavored to postpone the celebration from the Saturday to the Monday. We should keep to the historic day, otherwise the gathering would lose half its charm. I almost question whether the emblematic trefoil shamrock would look half so fresh and green. I confess I blush for some of my countrymen, who, with loud of national feeling, admiration for the immortal memory of our titular saint, and a great anxiety for the charities, yet are trying to change the day of celebration for a little paltry gain on the market day, when they know full well that there would be a vastly greater number of visitors on the Saturday than would be on the Monday, as the country farmers, with their wives and daughters, would flock in on the Saturday, and combine business with pleasure, and would be in a position to contribute liberally to the charity funds. I therefore trust, for the honor of my countrymen, they will not pander to selfishness, but go to work in earnest, and celebrate the historic day in a manner worthy of our country, worthy of the grand object of charity, and worthy of the immortal memory of St Patrick. Yours, &c., HIBERNICUS. Ballarat, 16th February.

The annual meeting of the Kyneton Dis-trict Racing Club, which was held on Satur-day afternoon, on the Campaspe course, was one of the most enjoyable of the many plea-pant gatherings that have been held on this beautiful little course. As usual at this meeting the weather was all that could be wished for a day's out-of-door sport. There was such a large muster at the Spencer street Station that it was found necessary to send up two special trains. His Excellency the Governor, Lady Bowen, and a party of friends went up by the special train which left Spencer-street at 10 o'clock. Kynetun was reached at about noon, which left ample time to get to the coarse before the first race started. There was a good muster of cabs at the railway station, and though they charged high fares, and had curious ideas as to the number of persons their vehicles could hold they lost no time when once they had started, and the weather was so thoroughly pleasant that very few grumbled. The attendance on the course was very good. The stand enclosure was as full as it could well be for the conve-nience of the visitors. On each side of the course there was a dense crowd of spectators, extending from the turn into the straight to the turn past the stand. Under every tree there were little clusters of vehicles, the occu-pants of which appeared to be enjoying a very pleasant picnic. The scene from the stand was a most agreeable one. The country was beautifully green, and the people all looked well dressed, healthy, and happy. If it were desired to impress a foreigner with the wealth and prosperity of Victoria, it would not be amiss to take him to a Kyneton race meeting. The beautifully situated town is well built and thriving, the country round is thickly dotted with substantial farmhouses while nowhere is there to be seen the least evi- dence of poverty. The course is crowded with private vehicles, strong useful buggies, and various kinds of chaise carts, many of which might be used for carrying farm produce to market, but are none the less comfortable conveyances on that account. The horses, as a rule, are rough in their coats, but they are useful animals, and in good condition. For all the outward evidences of substantial prosperity, even the far famed Western country, with its rich soil, must yield the palm to Kyneton. In one important matter this meeting is superior to all others--the luncheon is not to be equalled, and that is a great element in the success of the outing. Mr. E. H. Wedgwood has been the caterer for this club for some years past, and each year he ap-pears to improve on the preceding one. His Excellency the Governor and Lady Bowen were most heartily cheered both on arriving and on leaving the course, and as might be expected on the day, most of the hats which were waived had a little bunch of green placed in the band.

“Appropriately the ground looked at its best on the Saturday, St Patrick's Day, when green was the predominant colour in all the streets of Melbourne. ‘Seldom has the MCC ground presented so pretty a picture,’ wrote the Argus. ‘The smooth-shaven green was in such order that the ball, when smartly hit, almost invariably beat the fieldsmen in the race to the chains. The glistening turf stood out in lovely contrast to the dark solid mass of the onlookers thickly packed in a border.’ Fine weather completed the bright picture.” “The Melbourne police too were busy, wrestling with traffic problems. Precise stopping places outside the ground were allocated to engaged cabs, disengaged cabs and omnibuses. The latter, for example, were to 'stand on the north side of the parade, along the fence, and to have the horses' heads towards the east, and to extend westward from 20 feet west of the entrance to Yarra-Park…' Bureaucracy clearly was flourishing at the time of the first Test.” “Glorious weather and the sniff of an unparalleled upset brought out a crowd of 10,000 on the Saturday afternoon (a half-day holiday in the working week of 1877).” ADELAIDE, 19th March Between 6,000 and 7,000 persons attended the circus on Saturday. The troupe goes to the provinces this week.

At the match today there were about 10,000 persons present, and great interest was displayed. The game was opened by Armitage and Jupp going to the wickets to the trundling of Midwinter and Kendall. The bowling was very good, and the scoring consequently slow. Armitage was well caught by the wicketkeeper; and Shaw, who followed, was clean bowled by Midwinter. Jupp, after a good innings of 63, was given out leg before wicket. He gave a chance yesterday the very first ball, but was saved. Lillywhite soon ran up 10, and Hill played a fine free innings for 35, carrying out his bat. Southerton was caught at point by Cooper. The innings closed for 196. The combined began their second innings by sending in Bannerman and Thompson to the bowling of Shaw and Ulyett. Bannerman was greatly cheered, and made one good hit, and after making four was bowled by Ulyett, the ball breaking all across. Thompson began [to] play well, bat fell off, and was caught at point by Emmett. Garrett shared the same fate. Horan played well, and made some beautiful cuts between slip and third man, but after running up a score of 20 he was finely caught by Selby behind the wicket. Cooper played very streaky, and was soon had by Shaw. Midwinter kept to his wicket for some time, playing very carefully, but in getting one away to leg was caught at short leg by Southerton. E. Gregory played very freely, and soon ran up his 11. He, too, was caught at point of Ulyett. Blackham 6, leg before wicket; D. Gregory 3, bowled Shaw; Kendall 5, not out; Hodges 3, not out. When the stumps were drawn nine tickets were down for 83 runs. The bowling and fielding were admirable. The only change this innings in the bowlers was between Ulyett and Hill, and Shaw kept on the whole time. It was a grand treat being present on the Melbourne Ground on Saturday. The weather was brilliant, and there were 10,000 people present. The English players were in the ascendant towards evening. Play began at noon, when Jupp, joined by Armitage, went in. Armitage was caught at the wickets by Blackham, off Midwinter, after scoring. The same bowler disposed of Shaw for 10 and Emmett 8, the sixth wicket falling for 135. The crowd becoming quite excited cheered every maiden and each point of real or assumed excellence in the fielding. The Australians did not field nearly so well as the Englishmen, who performed astounding feats in this direction yesterday and again today. Blackham, however, was brilliant at the wickets, even better than Selby. When the score stood at 145, Jupp, who had played a masterly defensive scientific innings for sixty-three, retired leg before wicket. There were now a hundred runs to get with only three wickets to fall, and the excitement was intense. Emmett was clean bowled by Midwinter next wall amidst loud cheers. Hill, Lillywhite, and Southerton made a long and unexpected stand, the captain hitting freely until he was caught and bowled by Kendall for 10. The veteran bowler got 6, and helped Hill to make a lot more. The Yorkshireman played quite a dashing innings for 35, not out. The total score amounted to 196, 49 behind the Australians. At a quarter past 3 England took the field, and wicket after wicket fell with a rapidity which evidently shocked most of the spectators. In less than two hours and a quarter nine of the colonials were out for 83 runs. Bannerman was sufficiently recovered to bat, and he played a few balls very hard, but was then clean bowled by Ulyett for four runs. He was vociferously cheered on coming out from the pavilion. Horan played a grand innings for 20, and he is morally sure to prove a tough one for the South Australians at Easter. Midwinter is a fine fellow, and scored 17 by careful play. Hodges and Kendall are not out. Shaw appeared particularly difficult to interpret, and took five wickets, viz., Thompson, Garrett, Cooper, Blackham, and D. Gregory. Ulyett bowled splendidly, and got Bannerman, Midwinter, and E. Gregory. Selby made a nice catch off Hill, Horan retiring in consequence. The Englishmen fielded with clock-like regularity. Emmett caught Thompson, Garrett, and E. Gregory. Great interest will attach to Monday's play. A testimonial is proposed for Bannerman. The Englishmen will not visit Sydney, but will play a return match with Victoria at Easter against 15 players.

GRAND COMBINATION MATCH ALL-ENGLAND ELEVEN V. COMBINED ELEVEN OF NEW SOUTH WALES and VICTORIA, Will take place on the MELBOURNE GROUND MARCH 15th, 16th, 17th, and 19th. Admission to ground each day, 2s.; grand stand, 2s.; tickets for the four days—for ground, 5s., for ground and stand, 10s. They can be obtained at Nicholson and Ascherberg's, Collins-street, and at the Omnibus Company’s office, 100 Bourke street east, on and after Monday. R. JOHNSON, Hon. Sec. MCC

ALL-ENGLAND ELEVEN V. AUSTRALIAN PLAYERS. MARCH 15, 16, 17, and 19. Arrangements have been made with the Melbourne Omnibus Company to run a special line of omnibuses to cricket-ground, Fare, 3d. Tickets for the grand stand and ground will be sold at the omnibus office, and by the drivers of the omnibuses. Grounds and return omnibus fare each day, 2s. 6d. Stand and do. do. each day, 4s. 6d. Tickets of admission for every day of the match will be sold at the Omnibus Company's office on and after Tuesday— For ground, 5s. For ground and stand, 10s. RICHD. JOHNSON, Hon. Secretary MCC

GRAND COMBINATION MATCH, ALL-ENGLAND ELEVEN COMBINED ELEVEN OF NEW SOUTH WALES and VICTORIA, Will take place on the MELBOURNE GROUND MARCH 15th, 16th, 17th, and 19th. Admission to ground each day, 2s; grand stand, 2s; tickets for the four days—for ground, 5s; for ground and stand, 10s. They can be obtained at Nicholson and Ascherberg's, Collins street and at the Omnibus Company's office, 100 Bourke street east, on and after Monday. R. JOHNSON, Hon. Sec. M.C.C.

ALL ENGLAND ELEVEN V. AUSTRALIAN PLAYERS. 15th, 16th, 17th, and 19th MARCH. Arrangements have been made with the Melbourne Omnibus Company to run a special line of omnibuses to Cricket ground. FARE, 3d. Tickets for grand stand and ground will be sold at the Omnibus Office, and by the drivers of the omnibuses. Ground and Return, omnibus fare each day … 2s. 6d. Stand do. do. do do … 4s. 6d. Tickets for Admission during the four days of the match will be sold at the Omnibus Office on and after Today. For Ground, 5s.; for Grand Stand, 10s. RICHARD JOHNSON, Hon. Secretary M.C.C.

The match Australia v. England was continued yesterday on the MCC ground. Through an unfortunate accident, Bannerman was compelled to leave the wicket, when he had made 165, and when Garrett and he seemed set for the rest of the day. The innings then came to a speedy conclusion, for the last two men had very short lives. The hurt suffered by Bannerman, a split finger, was caused by a swift ball from Ulyett. It is feared it will incapacitate him for the rest of the match. The total score of the colonial eleven was 245. Four of the Englishmen were put out for 109 runs. Though the colonial team are not likely to be tied in the first innings, they can hardly hops to hold their own unless Bannerman recovers. Jupp made the fine score of 50 (not out), and Charlwood 36. Play will commence today at noon. Members of the MCC are requested to show their tickets at the pavilion gate. Attempts have been made in a somewhat wholesale manner by strangers to get free admission to the ground. During the play today Allan's Premier Band will perform the following programme of music: Grand march, "The Inflexible" (Kelly); waltz, "Messenger of Love" (Coote); quadrille, "Girofle-Girofla" (Lecocq); polka mazurka, "Eugenie" (Krein); overture, “La Ruch d'Or” (Bonnesan); waltz, "Golden Beauty" (Godfrey); melody, "Distant Greeting" (Godfrey); galop, "Cliquot" (Riviere); mosaique from “Joseph” (Brepsant); polka, “Bouquet of Sparks" (Hartner); quadrille, “The Bastille” (Glover); galop, "Express" (Becker). Today, being St Patrick's Day, will be observed more or less as a holiday, and the amusements provided for pleasure-seekers are of a sufficiently varied nature. The combined cricket match will no doubt be the great centre of attraction, and, judging from the present aspect of the game, should provide a very exciting afternoon's entertainment. The St Patrick's Society's annual fete will be held in the Friendly Societies' Gardens. A grand polo match—India v. Australia—will take place in the Agricultural Society's grounds, St. Kilda road, and this being the first public match of the Indian Polo players in Melbourne, will no doubt attract a large attendance of spectators. The annual exhibition of the Victorian Academy of Arts will be opened to the public in the afternoon. Yacht races will be held at the Albert-park Lagoon, and a swimming entertainment at the St Kilda baths. In the evening the usual places of entertainment will be open, besides which a special performance will be given at St George's Hall by the Cosmopolitan Dramatic Club.

Several hundreds of persons assembled at the Emerald-hill baths on Saturday after-noon to witness aquatic performances by members of tho South Melbourne Swimming Club. A large number of those present were ladies for whom chiefly the entertainment was provided. An active interest was taken in the proceedings by his Honour Judge Cope, president of the club, and Dr Barker, the vice president. The captain, Mr. W. Wynne, took a leading part in the per-formances, and Mr. J Bennie acted as director of the sports. From their dress the performers appeared like so many football players, minus their boots. The water was comparatively tranquil, and the programme, which was of a lengthy character, was entered on with spirit. The various modes of enter-ing the water, such as diving from spring-board, platform, and roof, running headers, leaping, vaulting, plunging, drop, front and back somersaults, &c., were fully illustrated. Diving for distance, leap-frog diving through hoops, and hide and seek were engaged in, and the different styles of swimming were exhibited. Persons supposed to be drowning were rescued, and a dummy, representing a drowned man, which had been sunk in the middle of the bath, was dived for, and bought on the platform several times in short spaces of time. Among the more amusing events was a representation of a mutiny and ship-wreck at sea, robbery under water, a ducking match and "a scene." The latter consisted of a burlesque love affair, in which the "fair" one was several times nearly drowned by rival admirers. During the afternoon Professor Strickland performed various sub-marine feats, amongst which may be men-tioned walking on the bottom in a depth of 9ft., with a man standing on his shoulders, and he also gave many practical demonstra-tions of the remarkable floating power of water. As a whole the entertainment was quite a success.

The annual fete, held under the auspices of the St Patrick's and the Hibernian Aus-tralasian Catholic Benefit Societies, took place in the Friendly Societies' gardens on Saturday, and was in every respect perhaps the most successful affair of the kind yet carried out by the joint committee of management. The members of the H.A.C.B.S. assembled at St. Patrick's Cathedral in the morning, where a special Service was held, after which they marched to the vacant space in front of the Education offices, where they joined the St. Patrick's Society--an association which is intended to be of a more national character, and many of the members of which are not Roman Catholics. The procession was then formed and marched down Bourke-street along Elizabeth-street up Colins-street and thence to the gar-dens. The procession which was accom-panied by four brass bands, and was mar-shalled by Messrs Whelan, Rafferty, and Mahon, was the largest yet organised by the Societies, and as the display of banners was very liberal, while every member of the pro-cession wore a large green sash, a very striking effect was produced. Several new banners were unfurled for the first time on the occasion--that of the Richmond branch of the HACBS being the most elaborately ornate. Opposite the treasury the pro-cession stopped for a few minutes whilst the foremost band played the National Anthem amid some cheering. The crowd of spectators at different points along the line of march was excessive, especially opposite the Parliament Houses and the General Post office, the traffic in consequence at these places being stopped for some time. On arriving at the gardens (shortly before 1 o'clock) the procession at once broke up, and those who composed it set about enjoying themselves in the various methods provided. The gardens even at this time were already well attended and during the afternoon still larger numbers continued to flock in, until there must have been fully 12,000 persons present. The fine weather enabled a well arranged programme of sports to be gone through satisfactorily while during the intervals between the different events, dancing, kissing in (and out of) the ring, "Aunt Sally," and the numerous other modes of pass-ing the time provided on such occasions, were fully availed of. Some of the step dancing was excellent and was evidently highly appreciated by the spectators as well as the performers, the national "reel and jig" bein g of course the predominant dances. Some of the races created great amusement, and the vaulting math elicited some of the finest vaulting ever seen on the ground, the winner--J. H. Donegan--clearing 10ft. 10in. The booths appeared to be well patronised, but the large gathering was very orderly, and the services of the police were only required in the cases of three or four larrikins, who committed themselves towards evening. That the affair was a financial success may be gathered from the fact that the societies, after paying all expenses, have netted about £330 as against £260 last year.

The following matches were played on Saturday afternoon:-- Star of Richmond v. South Richmond (Fifteen)--This match, which was for the Richmond Junior Challengo Cup, resulted as follows:--South Richmond, first innings, 103, Star, three wickets for 10. The highest scorers for the South were Hosie 15, Ryan 11, Kershaw 13, Smithurst 12, and Ralph 10. The match will be continued on Saturday next. Hotham United (Holders) v. North Mel-bourne, for the Hotham Junior Cup.--North Melbourne (batting one man short), 86, Rankin by fine play making 25 (not out), M'Cance 20, Mair 16, Young 15. Hotham United 53, with eight wickets down; Ivory 26 and Dellitt 10, being the principal scorers. Wright, for North Melbourne, bowled ex-ceedingly well, securing seven out of eight wickets. St Andrews v. Cypress--This match re-sutled in a decided victory for the former by 3 runs and nine wickets to spare, the scores being--Cypress, 70; St. Andrew's, 73, with the loss of one wicket. The highest scorers were--For the St Andrew's, Geo. Smith 36, not out, E. Yeatman 31, not out, and for the Cypress, G. Coles 21, and Crosby 15, not out. Geo. Smith and C. Badham bowled well for the visitors. Richmond Imperial v. Star of Richmond (Second Eleven)--Won easily by the former. For the winners, M. O'Shea (27) and J. Morgan (17) batted well for their runs. Adelphian v. Bellevue--This match was won by the Adelphian Club by 10 runs, the scores being respectively 70 and 51. Carlton Combination v. Telegraph United--Won by former with three wickets and eight runs to spare.

HANDBALL There was a large attendance of players and spectators at the Carlton court on Saturday.

Mr JM Peebles, the spiritualistic lec- turer gave the first of a series of lectures at the Opera-house last night, in the presence of a very large assemblage. The theatre was crowded throughout and the audience lis- tened with attention to Mr. Peebles's dis- course. The exposition of spiritualistic doctrines, and the arguments supporting them, were ably put forward by the lec- turer, but they contained no novelties. As an instance of how widespread belief in spiritualism was becoming, he mentioned that many circles had been established in China, Egypt and throughout the various countries of Europe. In America its progress had been so great that there were few settlers even in the most remote districts who if questioned, would not admit that there was something in it. In fact, spiritualism was fast taking a hold upon the public mind, whatever scoffers against it might say. It was announced that Mr. Peebles would de- liver another lecture next Sunday evening.

The Court of Aix has set aside a lady's will because she was under the influence of a belief in spiritualism.

The Kyneton race meeting, which takes place today, has all the prospect of proving even a greater success than any previous gathering on the Kyneton course. This meeting has been for some years past a great favourite with the Melbourne people, and each meeting has seemed more attractive than the one preceding it. Unfortunately the near approach of the AJC Autumn Meeting has had the effect of reducing the fields considerably, but there is still a sufficient number of horses left in the various events in the programme to give some good sport. Should the weather keep fine it is not at all unlikely that the Railway authorities will have to send two special trains instead of one. There is always a large attendance of Melbourne ladies on the Kyneton course, and this year it is expected that the patronage of the ladies will be much greater than it has ever been. The special train will leave the Spencer-street station at 10am. There has been very little betting on any of the events, the meeting being looked upon more as a pleasant holiday than a means of speculation, which may in some degree account for its great popularity.

I have seen St Patrick's Day in New York, as well as in Melbourne. For that day the city is given over to the Celt, the procession seems endless, and is to be met with everywhere. A green eruption breaks out. The Mickeys and Biddies wear green sashes and scarves and dresses. The flag of Old Ireland waves triumphant over a foreign soil, and the native born American thinking of Tammany groans and submits. At the City-hall the mayor reviews the procession, or part of it, and receives and delivers addresses. There are carriage loads full of pious priests, there seem to be thousands of them. There are crosses and pictures of the holy saint. There are hundreds of flags with the gold harp on the green ground, and amongst them the shot-torn emblems of the gallant 6 th, the Irish Brigade of Thomas Francia Meagher. “If it hadn't been for the Irish," said one of my old men, “we'd have whipped the d—d Yankees out of their boots." I have acquired sense of late years, and am credulous on many points I formerly believed in, but certainly the number of foreigners in the Northern army, and especially Irish, had a good deal to do with its success. We know the colours of the 69th New York well. I remember spending one St Andrew's Day at Petersbugh (Va.), and being the guest of the Caledonian Society there. In the language of Hans Breitmann, "What heavenly drinks!" Scotchmen are sensible, and don't fool away too much time in processions and such, but early get to real business. And for good square drinkers, they beat the world. I have, however, never spent a happier holiday than that St David's Day at Pwllheli, and the pleasant memories made me glad to receive a ticket for the excursion to Sorrento on the 1st March.

The seventh annual exhibition of the Vic-torian Academy of Arts will open this after-noon, at 1 o'clock, in the hall of that body, on the Eastern-hill. There are 137 oil paintings and 116 water-colour drawings on view. Conspicuous among the former, both on account of their size and subject, are two representations of some of the most mag-nificent scenery of New Zealand, by M. von Guerard. One of these has already been described in our columns. It is a view of Milford Sound, on the West Coast, and its sombre grandeur offers an effective con-trast to the sunny brightness of the com-panion picture, Lake Wakatipu. This fine sheet of water, which is 60 or 70 miles in length, and resembles the back, seat, and front legs of a chair in shape, is fed by the melting snows, and the watershed of three lofty ranges of mountains, the main sources flowing into it from Mount Earnshaw, which rises to an al-titude of 9,165ft. at the northern extremity of the lake, while the surplus waters are carried off by the River Molyneux or Clutha, another affluent of which takes its rise in Lakes Wa-naka and Hawea, 60 miles to the north east-ward. Thus situated, Lake Wakatipu offers an inexhaustible variety of subjects for the artist, who must feel fairly embarrassed, not merely by the opulence of the themes which invite the exercise of his pencil, but also by the constantly varying aspects which any one scene presents, owing to the changes in the position of the sun and the fluc-tuating play of light and shadow on the mountains and the water. The most romantic of the Swiss lakes do not offer anything more picturesque than is to be found on the banks of this New Zealand sheet of water, the very narrowness of which adds to its charms by bringing the mountains nearer to the eye of the spectator, while its abrupt deflection to the westward at Queenstown, and its equally sudden deflection to the northward, 20 miles from that place, has all the effect of a coup de théâtre upon the tourist, who ascends the lake in a steam-boat, especially as at the second bend there opens out a wonderful panorama of moun-tains, superb in colour and imposing in form. Those who have visited the lake will recog-nise the conscientious fidelity with which M. von Guerard has reproduced some of the grandest features of its scenery, and those who have not, can scarcely avoid feeling a strong desire to witness for themselves a prospect which combines the qualities of majesty and amenity in equal proportions. As usual, landscapes predominate among both the oil and water-colour pictures sent in for exhibition, and this, taken as a whole, is more notable for quantity than quality. Fully one-half of the paintings and drawings which have been hung ought to have been excluded, for they are not, in any sense of the word, works of art, nor do they offer any indication that those who have occupied their time in producing them will ever become artists. We need not indicate more particularly the pictures which should have been excluded, as they will obtrude them-selves on the notice of the visitor from all parts of the room; although it is only just to the hanging committee to say that as a general rule these misdirected efforts have been hung up so high or so low as to be inac-cessible to sctutiny. Turning, however from these to those which bear the names of some of the more prominent members of the Academy, we find three pictures from the pencil of Mr. Chester Earles. No. 23 is that of a young lady "under a cloud," who is sallying forth to a ball, enveloped in one of those fleecy articles of ornament and apparel which are so named, and carrying a bouquet. In No. 254 we are introduced to a youthful matron in a state of languor and limpness, on the evening of a third hot wind day, which has committed such terrible ravages upon her complexion as almost to defy the power of cosmetics to remedy them. Chapeau Bleu is the title of No. 6, presenting us with a blonde, whose fashionable hat has a blue lining to it; while "Far Away," No. 55, depicts a pensive woman, whose mental condition is akin to that of Mariana in the Moated Grange, while her face seems racked with pain. Mr. W. H. Jarrett contributes two pic-tures, one of which comes very near being a work of conspicuous merit. The scene is the Gulf of Spezzia, with the city of that name; the spectator being supposed to be looking down on both from the old Roman road, which runs along the Riviera, In the dis-tance are the celebrated Carrara Mountains, on the treatment of which, and of the inter-vening valley and the sky, Mr. Jarrett may be congratulated. It is in handling the fore-ground that his technical skill falls short, as it is deficient in force. Apart from this defect, the picture displays such a nice feeling for nature, and such a good perception of artistic effect, that Mr. Jarrett cannot fail, with perseverance, to overcome the executive difficulties of his art. The same gentleman contributes a view of Snowdon. Of Mr. Ford's five pictures, we must give the preference to No. 93, which is entitled "A Spig of Lilac." In flower-painting, he is facile princeps among our Victorian artists; and the present group is exquisitely worked out without any sacrifice of truth to mere prettiness or over-refinement of finish; while the arrangement of the lilac, and of the accompanying camellias, with their foliage, is unstudied and eminently natural. No. 77, " Between the Showers at Milking-time," is a well-composed and cleverly painted cattle piece; the pose of each of the kine being so varied from that of the rest as to produce a picturesque effect, while, in point of texture, the animals leave little to be desired. In another picture, repre-senting a sunset in Somersetshire, Mr. Ford has unsuccessfully grappled with a condition of the atmosphere which not one artist in ten thousand could endeavour to transfer to the canvas without the certainty of failure; because colour can only caricature, just as language is impotent to describe, such a lustrous phenomenon. Mr. H. J. Johnstone's "Sunset on the Goulburn" repeats the characteristics of one of his best pictures last year,—the rich after glow in the sky, and the hush of nature at the coming on of evening, the darkling trees reflected from the unruffled surface of a pool, and the unbroken solitude of the lands-cape. Everything respires tranquility, and there is no breath of air to stir the lightest leaf of the underwood or to occasion a ripple on the water. Similar in sentiment is No. 20, "Evening at Warlands," on the Strathalbyn-road, near Adelaide, from the same pencil. Mr. J. W. Curtis's pictures occupy no in-considerable space, and while this proves his industry, it is satisfactory to add that he is one of our most progressive artists. None of the exhibitors have a more lively sense of the picturesque than himself; and his pro-ductions this year prove that he is acquiring increased facilities for the technical expression of what he sees and feels. As an illustration of this, we would single out from the nine or ten pic-tures of his on view, the water-colour drawing No. 183, entitled "Underwood's Track, in the Plenty Ranges." This is an admirable study of forest scenery, painted with a firm, free hand, in rather a low key of colour, but quite harmonious, and exhibiting a multi-plicity of detail in the ferny undergrowth, without confusion. Note the fidelity to nature with which the barkless stems of the trees are depicted in the foreground, and how well the distance is given. Among the oil paintings by the same artist, all of which are full of natural sentiment, there is one called "The Close of a Summer's Day," which, although by no means free from fault in the execution of it, betrays such a delicate appreciation of a particular phase of atmo-spheric phenomena that we shall be disap-pointed if Mr. Curtis does not distinguish himself some day as a successful interpreter of some of the most striking of the fugitive aspects of cloud-land. Mr. Thomas Wright contributes five, Mr. Isaac Whitehead seven, Mr. Van den Houten sixteen, and Mr. F. L. Montague six, land-scapes to the exhibition. Mr. Whiteheads view of Arthur's Pass, Otira Gorge, New Zealand, gives a very good idea of the grandeur and massiveness of form assumed by the mountain scenery of that country, without, however, catching the brilliancy of colour of which Mr. John Gally is such a masterly exponent. Mr. Van den Houten's "Dort on the Maas," is the most pleasing work we have yet seen from his pencil; and Mr. Montigue's style is too familiar to need describing. For poetry of feeling and ex-pression, we like Mr. Piguenit's "Quamby's Bluff, Tasmania," as well as any work in the academy. Subdued in colour and quiet in tone, it appeals to the imagination, while it is pleasing to the eye; and the companion picture, "Morning on the Upper Huon," has also many good qualities. A third picture, by the same artist, "The Thumbs, near Wellington Falls," is carefully and accurately painted. Mrs. George Parson's water-colour drawings we still prefer to her efforts in oils; and we might indicate the "View from Berwick-hill" as a good specimen of her powers in this direction. It is a beautiful landscape which has been ably dealt with, especially as regards the distance, while the atmosphere is bright, transparent, and truly Australian. Mr. E. W. Cook's four water-colour drawings combine some excellent qualities, and will bear a close scrutiny. Mr. Hoyte's views of New Zealand scenery have been well chosen, and the good honest work which he has put into such a clever picture as that which portrays the "Head waters of the Warmakariri, Canterbury," must not be passed over without commendation. Mr. Gibbes is patiently making steady progress, of which his water colour drawing of "Mount Bullen" may be cited as a valid proof. It is certainly a grand subject, of which the artist has caught the spirit, while you can see that its adequate expression in the language of colour is only a question of time. The figure paintings are the weakest fea-ture of the exhibition, and the best head in it is the work of an amateur. It is little better than a sketch in oils, but it is about the only face with a human look in it. Of Mr. Habbe's productions in this line, we regret to be unable to say anything com-plimentary, but we may mention by way of compensation that big picture of "Britannia Ruling the Waves," with the assist-ance and consent of Neptune, and his com-pany of nereids and tritons, is more highly priced than any other picture in the exhibi-tion. Among the flower-pieces, omitting those which have very properly been "skied," there are several which are notable for either promise or performance; some roses by Miss A. S. Hart, and some blackberries by Miss Bligh coming within both categories.

In consequence of the continuation of the International Cricket Match, in which the public interest will of course be centred, the cricket matches fixed for to-day are much below the average both as regards number and importance. A match will be played on the East Melbourne Ground between the first eleven of East Melbourne and eighteen Collingwood Juniors, chosen from clubs competing for the Collingwood Challenge Cup. The game will commence at 12 o'clock. A Richmond team will play a match against the Kew Asylum club. The following matches have also been ar-ranged:--Carlton Combination v. St. An-drews, in Royal-park; Carlton Combination (second eleven) v. Telegraph United, Royal park; St. Andrews v. Cypress, on the ground of the former, in Yarra-park, at 3 p.m.; Yarra Yarra v. Abbotsford (second elevens) in Dight's-paddock; Adelphian v. Bellevue, at University-paddock; Adelphian (second eleven) v. L. Foster and Sons, at Royal-park; Parkville v. Rose of Hotham, at Royal-park; Melbourne Imperial (first eleven) v. next fifteen, at the Military-reserve.

The Catholic societies of Geelong cele-brated the anniversary of St Patrick's Day in the usual manner, by holding athletic sports on the Corio Cricket Reserve. The proces-sion to the ground was a very lengthy and imposing one, and, in point of numbers, was quite equal to that of previous years. The sports programme was a lengthy one, and the several events were spiritedly contested.

March 17.--9 a.m.: Calm; weather hazy, very fine. Barometer, 30.39; thermometer, 67. 1p.m.: Wind S., light; weather clear, fine. Barometer, 30.33 ; ther-mometer, 68. 4p.m.: Wind S., light; weather fine. Barometer, 30.29; thermometer, 68. March 18.--9a.m.: Wind N., moderate; weather fine. Barometer, 30.30 ; thermometer, 68. 1p.m.: Wind N., moderate; weather fine. Barometer, 30.30; thermometer, 90. 4p.m.: Wind S.S.E., light; weather fine. Barometer, 30.30; thermometer, 92.

WE Midwinter to T Armitage: one run. The erstwhile inmate took a run from his first ball, “bringing up 110.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. Jupp, not out 54 overnight, did likewise with the next. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. Over 71 “Kendall resumed the bowling from the southern end…” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. “… and commenced with a maiden to Jupp.” Over 72 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: one run. “Armitage again cut Midwinter for a single.” From this I infer that his previous scoring shot was a cut as well. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. “Jupp repeated the feat.” Over 73 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. “Kendall, who was bowling in something like his usual form, followed with another maiden to Jupp,” “the Surrey batsman playing him cautiously.” Over 74 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. “Then Midwinter gave Armitage a maiden,” which the batsman “played carefully.” Just four runs from the first five overs of day three. Over 75 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: one run. Jupp got Kendall to leg for a single. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. TK Kendall to T Armitage: one run. One more to Armitage, who was “playing well.” Over 76 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. “Another maiden from Midwinter to Armitage.” Both men had their wits about them. Both in later life would lose them. [Elaborate at some length.] Over 77 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. “Once more a maiden from Kendall to Jupp.” The bowling so far was “much better” than yesterday, “fully up to their best form,” and the wicket “more dry and fiery.” The fielding was also much improved. The captaincy, too: “D. Gregory had profited somewhat by the experience picked up on the previous day , and stationed his men in such a way as to minimise the batsmen’s chances of run stealing.” All of which accounts for the fact that “to Midwinter and Kendall the Englishmen gave considerable respect.” Over 78 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: four runs. “At last, however, Armitage got hold of Midwinter nicely,” sending him deep and square on the legside. Horan made hot speed and arrested the ball just in front of the bowling-reserve fence, but had as well have saved his energy, for “four were run” anyway. Horan a stout man, and by no means a brisk one. “I laugh now when I think of the time I tried to save a fourer at Brammall-lane [sic], and from the 20,000 a voice rang out, ‘Go it, stoompy, thou'lt hev it if thou gets loop to 't.’” WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. Over 79 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. “Another maiden from Kendall to Jupp, Blackham apparently missing a chance, and certainly not keeping wicket smartly as usual.” Over 80 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. “A maiden from Midwinter to Armitage, the batsmen apparently not being bent on sneaking runs at all hazards, but rather inclined to break the bowling if possible.” Easier said than done, that, for “both bowlers were evidently on their mettle,” and drawing regular volleys of applause. The batsmen had to be content merely with “stopping the balls, all very well on.” Over 81 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Yet another maiden from Kendall. Nor was this dry offside fare of the Emmett kind, and very often of the modern kind, contrived merely to throttle the rate of scoring. It was aggressive and incisive, and “kept the batsmen playing.” Kendall in particular was bowling “magnificently,” “giving Jupp all he knew to stop him.” It seems “Young Stonewaller” was playing himself in, and had made very little advance in that labour despite having been at the wicket eleven overs today. England in that time had progressed by just ten runs. Possibly his eyes were acting up again. Over 82 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: two runs. Armitage made a “skilful” cut through the slips, “the ball being well fielded by Garrett,” whose activity in this sphere had been “very praiseworthy.” The score moved into the 120s. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. Over 83 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Kendall “again treated Jupp to four teasers, preventing him from scoring, and nearly having his wicket.” It sounds, from The Age’s elaboration—“Jupp’s wicket was in great peril”—as if he was almost bowled, and on another inference as if it happened more than once. Over 84 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: OUT. At length “Armitage could not resist snicking one of Midwinter’s medium-pacers.” This, for an irony, probably could have been left alone. The contact was thin, the catch “very low down.” In all likelihood it was a bottom edge—notoriously difficult even when standing back, but Blackham, as we have seen, was right behind the stumps. His derring-do was lauded to the skies, adverbs like “beautifully,” “splendidly” and “smartly” being in high demand. Armitage, his wager well and truly lost, was out after roughly thirty minutes’ batting. England was 121 for five. Lillywhite: “ARMITAGE was finely caught at the wicket.” Next in was Shaw, who “had been known as a batsman in his early days,” but was scarcely up to the level of “bowling all-rounder” now. Ironside on Shaw: “A resolute and hard hitter, with a batting average last season of 12.10, and most in an innings, 56.” Lillywhite on Shaw: “a good bat.” WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. He survived “the last ball of the over.” Over 85 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: two runs. Shaw “scored a single off Kendall,” says The Australasian, but there is no mention of it in The Herald, The Bendigo Advertiser or The Age, whose reports are much more thorough. Nor does it appear in Shaw’s scoring-shots list. Nor, for the matter of that, was Shaw even on strike! What actually happened was that Jupp made a cut for two, “away between point and slip.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 86 WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. WE Midwinter to A Shaw: one run. “This was followed by a single to each batsman off Midwinter.” The first Shaw drove “well to the on.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. The second was more eventful: “Jupp played Midwinter to leg, and made a dash for a run. The fieldsman—Thompson, we think—threw the ball badly to the bowler, who missed it, and Hodges backed up just as clumsily. The results were a run made and a wicket saved.” In fact, the run “might have been made two in consequence of an overthrow, but the batsmen misunderstood each other.” Over 87 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Now the scoring again “became very slow,” beginning with “a maiden from Kendall to Jupp.” Over 88 WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. WE Midwinter to A Shaw: one run. “Another single to Shaw for a draw off Midwinter.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. “One also to Jupp off the next ball.” WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. Over 89 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. “A maiden to Kendall,” “the batsmen playing steadily to avoid following [on] their innings.” This had begun to appear “a not improbable contingency.” Over 90 WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. WE Midwinter to A Shaw: one run. “Ditto to Midwinter.” This, from The Herald, must be another mistake. A single to Shaw appears clearly in his scoring-shots list, and is necessary to bring him on strike for the next over (where, indeed, even The Herald has him). Leaving this over virginal would be to give Midwinter at least one more maiden, and one fewer run, than he has in the published scorecards. There is also a helpful aside from The Argus that at about this time “Shaw became active in the matter of small hits.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Over 91 TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: three runs. “At last the tale of Kendall’s maidens was broken by Shaw,” who “livened up matters by driving Kendall to the on for three,” “a fine hit … and 130 went up.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 92 WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. “The first ball of Midwinter’s next Shaw was let off by E. Gregory at short slip.” The Bendigo Advertiser thought it “a difficult chance.” WE Midwinter to A Shaw: one run. “The batsman showed his gratitude by putting one of Midwinter’s in the slips for a single. 130 up.” Shaw “was playing rather prettily.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Over 93 TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. “Kendall bowled a maiden to Shaw” Over 94 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. “Midwinter followed with the same to Jupp.” Over 95 TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: two runs. Then Shaw “got Kendall well to leg for two.” TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. Over 96 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. “A maiden from Midwinter to Jupp,” who had settled into his foundations like a building, unmoving and immovable. He guarded his wicket as the apple of his eye. Over 97 TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: one run. Then Shaw took a single to long-off. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 98 WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. WE Midwinter to A Shaw: OUT. This brought him in front of Midwinter, to whose second ball, “a straight one,” he shouldered arms, “with the inevitable result.” In these words The Bendigo Adveriser does an injustice to The Bendigo Infant, and to Alfred Shaw as well. In point of fact it was not “straight” at all; it pitched well outside off, on a good length, and straightened sufficient to dethrone the off-stump (or at any rate its bail). Other observers got it right, hailing “a beauty,” a “hummer,” a “ripper” (Lillywhite). It left England 135 for six. “She coom back on thee, lad?” asked “one of the Yorkshiremen,” and Shaw said it was so. Some recording angel of the press, hovering above or around them, overheard this exchange, and recited it in The Argus the following day. In an early draft of this book, I suggested that the unnamed was Emmett, as being the only Tyke old enough (age) to have any business calling Shaw (age) “laad.” But a few weeks before going to press, I happened to be reading one of Horan’s “Round the Ground” columns for The Australasian (January 11, 1896), and came upon a reference to “the match in which ‘Mid’ bowled one of the Englishmen, and ‘Happy Jack’ said to his comrade as he reached the old pavilion, ‘She coom back on thee, laad?’” This unveiling, pleasant to me but trivial in itself, would seem to suggest another one, and bigger. Tom Horan was our first great cricket writer, and probably our greatest writer-cricketer, but of his early work we know little. The accepted story is that he made his name (if a name can be made which is palisaded by a pseudonym) covering the 1878 tour of England, and made it famous with his “Cricket Chatter” and “Round the Ground” columns for The Australasian. A 1989 anthology, edited by Pat Mullins and Brian Crowley, draws on these latter, of which there is nothing more ancient than 1879. Horan’s Diary, edited by Frank Tyson in 2001, purports to collect the 1878 reportage. Having followed me so far, you will know where I am headed: The Argus account of the inaugural Test Match may be our earliest specimen of his writing. Like all Horan’s writing, it bears all the marks of having been written rather than typed: a distinction of some import, which the keyboard has since dissolved in oxymoron. That hellish device had arrived in Australia just five months before (affixed to a typewriter, imported by Messrs WH Masters and Co., “and intended to supersede the pen”), and was not yet a fixed article in the equipment of the Melburnian newsroom. Not everyone is convinced. My friend Peter MacIver, when I put this to him:

I would think that it was highly unlikely that Horan wrote the account. Far more likely to have been Tom Brown (I know but can't remember his real name off the top of my head) or "A Bohemian" who was the current writer of Pavilion Echoes. He had taken over from Tom Brown in 1876/77 and was in turn replaced by Horan in 1879 if memory serves me correctly. As a rule it seemed to be whoever wrote Pavilion Echoes was the one who wrote the cricket reports. No-0ne has ever worked out exactly who "A Bohemian" actually was. Best guess seems to be Dan Wilkie [Malcolm Knox asserts it], but it I'm not entirely convinced by that…. Interesting, but I'm not sure. As a rule the writer of Pavilion Echoes tended to write cricket reports. I also know that Julian Thomas (The Vagabond) had a go at writing cricket reports around this time. He was not good at it. I do get the connection, but I would need to think about it very carefully and dig before I would agree. "A Bohemian" wrote only for The Australasian in 1877. My argument is that Horan wrote The Argus account. It's funny, because I actually had a few lines earlier about how well-written it was, and how much I'd like to know who wrote it. Anyway, there's an obituary in The Gippsland Times which specifically says that Horan worked on the cricket columns at various times for both The Argus and The Australasian. It's also worth noting that The Argus's is the only major account that did not offer a minute, over-by-over notation, of the kind that Horan, being on the field, was in no position to take. Its account is a remarkably modern one—that is to say, broad and impressionistic, not narrowly chronological—and very vivid . It is, in short, precisely the report we would expect him to have authored. Also those references to the ladies. More evidence that Horan wrote The Argus piece on the inaugural Test: One of the things I noted was that it was the only major account not to do an over-by-over notation—which makes sense if the author was Horan, because he was out on the field. Horan didn't play in the Second Test, electing instead to tour Adelaide with his club side. So he couldn't have written The Argus account of the Second Test. And what do we find with the Second Test? Suddenly The Argus is doing almost an over-by-over notation. See how many specific balls are described in The Argus’s First-Test report versus that for the Second Test. Style is also completely different. The reporter for the Second Test appears to like the rare word “emulous”—was it common with Horan? More from the Second Test: “This made a total of 21 off three overs, and an onlooker not inaptly pronounced Spofforth to be a white elephant.” [This reporter quoting members of the crowd, which Horan, whom I suspect to have reported the First Test for The Argus, never did—check.] And more: “Anyone who followed such a “well-graced actor” [an allusion favoured by “A Member of the MCC” writing to The Australasian in 1881; find other examples] as Blackham needed to be very clever not to draw attention to the loss which the team suffered under, but Murdoch must be held to have acquitted himself very creditably. At last Gregory was persuaded to take his expensive bowler off, and Garrett went on in his stead. Had he heard the murmurs of the crowd he might have preferred Midwinter.” MacIver: “That does sound persuasive, but A Bohemian was also a beautiful writer.” So we have to ask ourselves what is more plausible:

(a) that “A Bohemian” and Horan, who happened to work for the same paper, both overheard this trivial exchange, and both thought it worth printing, and told it in exactly the same way; or (b) that only one of them did.

Sorry, but I think (b) is clearly the more likely case. "A Bohemian" seems to have contributed solely to The Australasian in 1877. If MacIver is right about him writing the cricket reports, too, he would have written The Australasian's. But The Argus carried a quite different account, in quite a different style. I think it unlikely in the last degree that the same man wrote both. Indeed, the very lameness of the anecdote would seem to strengthen my case. It is unlikely to have struck more than one person as being worth printing. Clearly Horan heard what The Argus’s reporter heard. He can't have gotten it from reading The Argus, because he has the detail that it was Ulyett. One shit anecdote, repeated only twice in twenty years, is likely to have been repeated by the same guy. MacIver right to point out that Argus and Australasian were sister paper’s. That morning’s Australian Town and Country Journal, seeking to denounce its Melbourne rivals, and defend Spofforth from their attacks, confused the two at least once. Horan fond of the expression. It stuck with him. Appears multiple times in his writings over the years. Even took at times to calling off-cutters, or “break-backs” as they were then known, “coom backs.” Couldn’t resist its punning potential either: “Coombe was the successful bowler, and presently he secured Peters, who said that the ball had ‘coom’ back on him, and so caused him to give a catch. At this stage Coombe had three wickets for no runs, so he had evidently ‘coom’ back on them all right.” So far as I can tell, the only other Australian journalist to use it, and then only once, was Donald MacDonald, who did indeed cover cricket for The Argus, but only from 1881. Only grounds for doubt: the way he refers to himself. Occasionally we find him awkwardly glowing in praise of his own cricket, and at others he writes as if he knew not Horan’s mind. But this may be an affectation. I could go mad second-guessing myself. See if there are instances of this kind in stuff we know was by him. I shall proceed from here on the assumption that I have this right. In later years there would be some sneering and controversy about cricketers with newspaper bylines, but the byline itself was the only innovation. Newspapers as slow to apprehend their marketability as they were to grasp the potential of their front pages, which until the turn of the century were, with few exceptions, devoted entirely to advertising.

Mr. R. Teece, the old University and intercolonial player of New South Wales, talks to me of old matches, in which he and I took part, in the days when Mr E. Barton, the famous federationist, was a batsman, and reported matches for the "Sydney Morning Herald."

Groube covered the 1880 tour as “?” for ?. Southerton and Lillywhite, as we have seen, wrote on this 1876/77 tour for The Sportsman and The Sporting Life respectively. Continue in this vain. Just discovered that Horan wasn't the only player-journalist in the inaugural Test. You sent Today at 12:41 AM Noticed that a couple of weeks after the Second Test of 1876/77 Thomas Kendall played for the Melbourne Press Club in Bendigo. You sent Today at 12:41 AM So ran a Trove search and discovered that Kendall, on moving to Tasmania, worked as a journalist for The Mercury for 40 years. You sent Today at 12:42 AM These two nuggets strongly suggest that he was active in journalism -- possibly cricket journalism -- in 1876/77. A link with old time cricket and football was severed yesterday by the death of Thomas Kendall, who for many years figured in Australian cricket as the champion left-hand bowler of his period, having performed grandly for Australia against English elevens on the mainland. Some 43 years ago the deceased joined the mechanical staff of "The Mercury" where he remained until illness overtook him a few months ago. In his younger days Mr Kendall played with (the Wellington Cricket Club; and the Railway Football Club. He toured Australia and New Zealand with one of the early Australian elevens, but did not go with them to England. His fame as a bowler was world-wide, and it was always the regret of English cricketers that they did not see him on their playing grounds. A man of genial temperament and always ready to take the punishment of his bowling smilingly, Mr Kendall was a popular player, and his name will always be remembered in Australian cricket. Though not claiming any pretensions to batsmanship, he often knocked up good scores when the runs were needed. He leaves a widow and a grown-up family of four sons and three daughters. The funeral takes place tomorrow morning. (Mercury “Mr Thomas Kendall” 18 August 1924.)

Mr Thomas Kendall, who passed out at Hobart on Sunday, was 73 years of age, and had resided in Tasmania for 40 years, during the whole of which time he was engaged on 'The Mercury' newspaper. He was famous on the cricket pitch as a left-handed bowler, and was for several years Tassy's leader in that particular line of sport. He played with Wellington Club against interstate and visiting English teams. He leaves a widow and grown-up family of four sons and three daughters. The Inky Way has lost a good man. (Truth “Journalist and Cricketer” 24 August 1924.) “The excitement with respect to the great cricket match has been worked up to fever heat today, and great disappointment was expressed when it was known that Bannerman had been injured and had been compelled to retire from the wickets without being put out. The result of course prejudicially affected the chances of the Australians, but even bets are still being laid that England will not reach the score attained in the first innings, and these appear to be borne out by the figures so far, for although Jupp is well set, and appears prepared to score until further orders, it is well known that the last four of the English team are not likely to knock up thirty runs amongst them.” The Bendigo Adveriser was less grudging in its assessment of the outgoing batsman, who had, it said, “played very well.” “Well enough,” demurred Southerton, and with some cause, for Shaw had but ten runs to show for himself. Emmett walked in to replace him, “and the field was spread out in compliment to his hitting powers.” His partner may also have kept his distance. In New Zealand a couple of weeks before, they had come almost to blows: “Jupp, riding inside the coach and comparatively dry, had taken exception to being asked to get out and wade across a deep river, whilst Emmett, who was already soaked to the skin, continued to sit on the box. Accordingly, Jupp climbed up and pulled Tom Emmett off his seat.” Theirs had been a fraught and physical relationship from the start. Their first meeting in first-class cricket (check), Yorkshire v. Middlesex in 1868: “Emmett was in fine and fast form, hitting Jupp in the neck at one point.” Emmett was no tailender. As recently as 1873, the year of his only first-class century and his highest season’s batting average (23), he had been proclaimed “the best left-handed bat in England.” “One observer commented that his ‘improvement in batting has been more marked than that of anyone playing in first-class matches. Though left-handed he plays quite straight, and is always steady – virtues not often possessed by left-handers.’ Across England, W.G. Grace was the pre-eminent batsman, with Jupp second, but the commentator suggested that the ‘only other professionals whose batting in the past season has been remarkably good are William Oscroft, of Nottingham, and Tom Emmett, of Yorkshire.’ Lillywhite’s also praised Emmett, commenting that his strides forward as a batsman were ‘simply marvellous’, and arguing that it was hard to know whether he or Andrew Greenwood was the premier batsman in Yorkshire [John Lillywhite’s Cricketers’ Companion, 1874, p63].” “Many years later, George Ulyett recalled that they did not arrive until 11am on the morning of the game: ‘Before we got there we had to cross another brook up to the knees in water. Tom. Emmett had been riding in the rain on the box for hours, but Jupp was so vexed at having to get out of the coach and wade, while Emmett was sitting in his wet clothes on the coach that he pulled Tom. off and they quite got to high words over it. I suppose Jupp thought that as Tom. was already soaked, a little extra wet would have done him good, while he (Jupp) might have been allowed to remain under cover as the brook was being forded [Old Ebor, p206].’” First appearance on his next tour: “Emmett is the Emmett of two years ago. Not much pretence at style, but for all that one of the most difficult men of the lot to get rid of, especially if runs are badly wanted.” “One of Emmett’s most famous pupils at Rugby was P.F.Warner, who later captained Middlesex and England in a career which stretched to 1920. In a talk at the school in 1937, Warner referred to Emmett as his ‘headmaster’ [Warner (1921) p25, Howat, G (1987) Plum Warner, p170]. A few years after Emmett’s death, Warner wrote that: ‘he was a splendid coach, if occasionally an excess of zeal led him to correct one too vehemently. ‘See here, Mr. Warner,’ he used to say, as he took the stump at the bowler’s end out of the ground and proceeded to tell one how to play some particular stroke. He always liked to see a boy hit—here, perhaps, was something of his own impetuous and energetic spirit—and he was always urging one to ‘lash at her,’ and nothing gave him greater joy than clean hard ‘punch,’ as he called it.’ Warner added that ‘Emmett’s motto for forward play was “Get the left leg well out to the bat [sic?],” and he used to allow us to hook a ball, though always warning us that there was an element of risk in it. “Do it by all means,” he used to say, “if you can, as it will bring you plenty of runs; but remember, it is not fundamentally a sound stroke.”’ In his autobiography, Warner remembered ‘lovely summers’ with Emmett, and recalled his ‘erect and active figure, with head thrown back, striding across Bigside in white flannels, and with a Yorkshire cap crowning his grey and well-shaped head.’ He said Emmett had had four rules. These were to be move the left foot to the ball when playing forward and bring the right leg up to the bat when playing back; no facing of the bowlers; ‘smell her, sir, smell her’; and in jumping out to drive, ‘If you come to her, come. You may as well be stumped by two feet as by one inch’ [Warner (1951), p27, Warner (1920), p74].” “Emmett clearly embraced the responsibilities at Leicestershire, not being afraid to introduce innovations. According to one who experienced his coaching (A.E.Knight), he did his work with ‘a rare and effervescent joy’. One novelty was a boarded wicket he had made for the players. It was a strongly framed and ledged arrangement, about 16 yards by 2½ yards of one inch flooring screwed to two inch battens. It was let into the ground and covered with matting. The writer noted that it presented ‘a glorious surface for the exploitation of that delightful ‘push’ stroke whose perfect execution would invariably send the veteran into ecstasy.’” “Tom Emmett’s record as a bowler is remarkable, but he also handled the bat with an idiosyncratic style, right from the moment he left the pavilion, striding into battle often with his bat inverted like a walking stick. He did not have the same level of success as a batsman in what remained a bowler’s game for much of the century, but as we have seen, his batting improved during his career. The Leeds Mercury noted that ‘he was not without ability as a batsman; and during the time he led his colleagues he was often responsible for getting the team out of a tight corner.’ The maverick nature of his approach to bowling was replicated with his batting. To Lyttleton, ‘it was impossible to tell what he would do with any one ball. You might bowl two consecutive full pitches, and he would play them steadily when another batsman would hit them to the ropes. On the other hand, you might pitch him a fair length ball, and you would see old Tom Emmett hit it hard over the bowler’s head. He seemed to have no principle of batting.’ He certainly liked to have a go if the circumstances were right. At Hull in 1877, for the North v South, for example, he ‘played in splendid style, on the principle of a “short life and a merry one”, and he made some of the best lifts of the day, one ball being beautifully skied over the pavilion, apparently with the greatest of ease.’” “Others were less impressed with Emmett’s batting. One writer commented that ‘some of his strokes were so unorthodox that the purists were amazed at his indifference to appearances, for in those days it was not in accordance with the canons of the art of cricket to depart from ordinary methods.’ The same article considered that Emmett would have had little to learn from early twentieth-century batsmen about ‘cow shots’, suggesting that he would hit across the line of a full-pitched ball. He always drove with great force on the off, and once when a fieldsman at point was standing rather close Tom said to him. “If I were thee, mister, I’d stand a little further back, because when I hits there I hits adjectival hard.’ A similar story was told about Alec Bannerman, the Australian, at Harrogate on a slow, tricky wicket. I said “Alec, you are rather close in; are you married?” He said ‘No.’ ‘Oh, then, you’re all right.’ I replied. ‘It doesn’t matter if I kill you, but if you had been married I should have advised you to get a bit back.’” “It is unclear whether the ending of the engagement was connected to his health problems, which may have become more evident during the year. According to E.J.Radcliffe, who captained Yorkshire in 1911, Emmett then took up an appointment at Downside School, near Bath. Lord Hawke had secured the coaching post for Emmett, but Radcliffe remembered that he was ‘really beyond his job in 1901. He was, as he had always been, a great and really amusing wit, but having been afflicted to his detriment with an ever present thirst, he was more intent on warning the young against the evils of alcohol than on teaching cricket. Constantly did he say ‘Mr Radcliffe beware o’drink for it was fair ruin o’ me!’ Poor old Emmett became a great responsibility of mine, and one day it was reported to me he had not been seen for twenty-four hours. In due course he was found wandering on the railway line and taken to Leicester Asylum where he died’ [Hodgson, p85]. As we shall see, this last point was not actually true and casts doubt on some of the other recollections, but suggests that much was not well during the period. The final years were sad ones for Emmett. ‘Old Ebor’ commented at the time of his death that they were ‘in dark contrast to the sunniness of his cricketing days.’ Signs that he was in some personal trouble can be seen in an article by the same writer in July 1901. ‘Old Ebor’ wrote that he was pleased that Yorkshire was considering providing assistance to Emmett, adding: These are rather delicate matters to refer to publicly. Tom Emmett, I may say, however, has had a great deal more trouble to meet in recent years than falls to the lot of the average man, and he is now in need of assistance. The Yorkshire Committee yesterday decided to make a weekly grant of 10s for the time being, and to see if some assistance can be obtained from the Cricketers’ Friendly Society. At the time of the census at the end of March 1901, Emmett was staying with his sister in Cheshire, which may have been a passing visit or a sign that he was being looked after. Things then deteriorated and news about Emmett’s ill-health spread, with the newspapers advising that ‘serious reports are to hand of the mental condition of Tom Emmett’. His health apparently gave way at the same time as his wife also became ill and was admitted to the Leicester Borough Asylum. This was a devastating blow for Emmett, who was ‘greatly depressed’ as a result. Her death on 9 May 1903 then reportedly ‘unhinged his mind’, and as a result ‘the severe mental strain was more than he could endure in his nervous condition, and his mind gave way under it.’ He had ‘a relapse, and it was found necessary that he should have absolute quiet and rest.’ He too became an inmate at the Leicester Borough Asylum.”

There was a piece of ornamental water immediately below the parapet, on the other side, into which Mr. James Harthouse had a very strong inclination to pitch Mr. Thomas Gradgrind Junior, as the injured men of Coketown threatened to pitch their property into the Atlantic.

WE Midwinter to T Emmett: one run. Emmett drove his first ball to long off for a single. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run, “the next ball nearly disposing of Jupp.” Either his was a charmed life, or he had nine of them. To date he had exhausted six. This makes his innings difficult of evaluation. In praise of it we might say that he could not get out; in reproof, that he seemed to struggle to stay in. Over 99 TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. “Blackham, who seldom touches the stumps unless he has clear justification for it, knocked down Emmet[t]’s wicket as the batsman reached out to drive Kendall, but Emmet[t] had omitted to withdraw his right foot, and the appeal was in vain.” Emmett: “In playing forward be very particular to keep the right foot in its place and reach well out with your left, springing on to the toes of the right foot, which helps to take your body well forward to the ball, which is very necessary to have a good strong forward stroke, giving your bat a good swing in the air, nearly as high as your head, and then you come with some force on the ball.” TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. Over 100 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. “The game then became very interesting to onlookers who like to see bowlers treated with respect.” Over 101 TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. “The bowling was splendid, and both batsmen seemed to experience the greatest difficulty in stopping it, Jupp particularly undergoing a searching examination.” Over 102 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. “All this time the … fielding continued excellent,” especially on the part of Dave Gregory: “Nobody could have picked the ball up more neatly or thrown it in straighter.” Blackham, meanwhile, “was again himself at the wickets.” Over 103 TK Kendall to T Emmett: two runs. “The monotony was now varied,” as “Emmett at last broke the spell” by cutting Kendall for two, “well-got,” through the slips. Ned Gregory was possibly to blame for the runs: Patrolling this area, he had “stopped many hard hits,” but many a time and oft—“too often”—he had dropped to his knees, “and thus lost time.” TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. Over 104 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run, “Jupp contenting himself with preserving his wicket,” to which he clung with the constancy of a martyr. Each blow struck was a blow parried. Lillywhite was generous enough to call it “a fine steady innings.” How the spectators saw it, as it dragged its dreary length before them, I can only imagine. Over 105 TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: one run. Emmett got Kendall to the on for a single. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 106 WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: one run. “One to the same batsman.” The few runs that redounded in this passage came “principally through the exertions of Emmett,” and those “chiefly … in the form of cuts.” Emmett: “The cut is the prettiest stroke of all the strokes used in batting, and the stroke over which there is more diversity of opinion than any other. The times I have had the question put to me as to which I considered the right way to cut the left or the right leg forward or across. Well, in my opinion, there is only one way to cut, and that is, put your right leg across and spring on the toes of the left and don’t hit the ball too soon; let the ball not be exactly past the wicket, but try and cut it when within a few inches of the wicket, and let your body be facing the short slip or nearly so.” This, by my reckoning, brings up the 140. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Over 107 TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. “A maiden from Kendall to Emmett.” Over 108 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. “Ditto from Midwinter to Jupp.” Over 109 TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: one run. “A single to leg off Kendall was Emmett’s next contribution.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 110 WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. “A maiden from Midwinter to Emmett.” Over 111 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: one run. “One to Jupp.” TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: two runs. “Kendall then tried a quick one, and the Yorkshireman cut it for two.” He had played the spinner ably. His first game back in England in 1877: “He was though back in the side at Sheffield for the game with Surrey on 18 June. Whatever effects the long journey to the other side of the world had had, they appeared to have worn off as he opened with Eastwood, bowling 35 overs and taking 2-28. He then top scored with 47 in an innings of 137, exactly the same as Surrey’s. The visitors set Yorkshire a target of 152 to win but, despite a second significant contribution with the bat from Emmett, Yorkshire collapsed and lost by 66 runs. The defeat gave rise to considerable debate in Yorkshire, and there were many theories as to the causes of the failure. One reporter commented that ‘scarcely any of the team can play slows except Tom Emmett. Why? They go in as funky as frogs, and keep messing and poking about the wicket till they get done, instead of letting fly as they used to do in the brave days of old.’ Defeat by Nottinghamshire followed, before Emmett left for three Gentlemen v Players fixtures in London, where he generally made only small contributions, except at Lord’s, where he scored 47 not out.” Emmett was unbeaten on ?? now after ?? balls, and looking solid. If it could not yet be said that he “tuk rut” (his favourite phrase for a settled batsman ), he was getting there. Over 112 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. “One to Jupp off Midwinter.” WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. Over 113 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 114 WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. “Midwinter sent down another maiden.” Over 115 “At the close of an hour and a quarter’s very slow play,” Gregory tasked Garrett with collapsing the stalemate. The crowd endorsed the change with a cheer. Kendall had been “in good form,” “bowling splendidly,” “and frequently puzzled the batsmen,” but had had “no luck.” TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. The new bowler began as the old one had ended: “with a maiden to Jupp,” who had now just four runs from his last 64 balls. His last boundary was yesterday evening—almost 100 deliveries ago. He had added just nine to his overnight tally. To outward appearance he rather languished for want of an object. Over 116 WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. “Midwinter followed with a maiden to Emmett.” Over 117 TW Garrett to H Jupp: no run. TW Garrett to H Jupp: OUT. At last. Garrett “coaxed” Jupp into getting “right across his wicket to a straight one,” which struck his leg. Again, it would seem that he offered no stroke. The appeal was succeeded by his clearance to the pavilion, “and the scorers [had] to write those mystic letters ‘lbw’—the bete noire of a cricketer—after his name.” So ended his lease on the crease: the occupation of three mortal hours and eleven overlong minutes. He had fallen seven runs short of the seventy he had forecast, but he did have Test cricket’s first half-century. It was not quite free of “possibles,” and in the end it seemed to die out of its own vapidity, but it had been, taking it all in all, and certainly on its own terms, an impressive feat of endurance. The South Australian Register made it “characteristic of the man—stubborn and careful generally, but very decisive at times.” The Herald thought it “splendid.” The Australasian opined he was “speedily [sic] regaining his old form,” but it had published the same assessment, in the same words, almost six months ago, just before his arrival in the colonies. Hindsight entitles us to reject it. Jupp, in truth, was falling from his high estate, and never would regain it. The 1876 English summer was the last in which he ever broke a thousand runs: and even that he managed only by the very rind of his teeth. The innings just concluded is today his most famous: a fit coda to a fine career. “Jupp out leg before at 139, having played well for 63.” “It would have been even worse for the English had umpires Curtis Reid and Richard Terry noticed that Jupp, the ‘Young Stonewaller,’ had trod on his stumps before he’d scored. Jupp’s inflamed eyes might have prevented him from keeping wicket but they weren’t so badly affected that he couldn’t open the batting and top-score with 63.” Of the professionals [in 1877], Lockwood, Daft and Jupp, have all held their own in position, though with smaller aggregates than in 1876. Charlwood, well as he batted in Australia and New Zealand, has fallen off, but Greenwood shows an advance from 16 to 26, and Ulyett from 17 to 25. Amongst the numerous Colts whose merits have been put to the test, but few promising batsmen have been found of late years. (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 115-116.)

He was “greatly cheered” on approaching the pavilion by a crowd now hot on Australia’s chances. With three wickets to fall, England was exactly 100 runs astern. The follow-on seemed certain, and if consummated would “probably” (The Herald) give Australia the match. The man sent forth to forfend this fate was Allen Hill: “a very fair bat,” according to a profile circulated in the Sydney press ahead of the team’s arrival. He had never made—nor would he ever make—a first-class fifty, but he had accomplished 49 against a middling Middlesex attack in August. His first-class career average was dragged down to 8.94 by his final five seasons (1879-1883). As of 1877 he was still “a staunch and useful man, even in a first-class eleven,” but of this had given so little evidence in Australia that that opinion was wavering. “Allen Hill too remembered that the only occasion on which he got talent money from Yorkshire for his batting was when he made 49 against Middlesex in 1876. Although it was usually only given for reaching 50, Emmett told him ‘You must bustle the Committee for the talent money this time’, and he received it [Old Ebor, pp118-119].” His partner will have had little sympathy: “Before giving any hints on teaching batting, allow me to impress on everyone connected with any public school or club, never to teach pupils to adopt that unmanly and selfish method of ignoring the bat and stopping a good ball with their legs.” TW Garrett to A Hill: no run. TW Garrett to A Hill: no run. He took the remainder of the over. No alarms and no surprises. Over 118 WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: no run. WE Midwinter to T Emmett: OUT. To the third ball of Midwinter’s next, however, Emmett played forward and missed, and it sent his wicket into a state of collapse. “She had coom back on him too,” grinned Horan. At this there was “great applause,” and “a feeling of confidence in young as well as old Australians.” Emmett’s wicket was Midwinter’s fifth—the first such in the history of Test cricket. But it has been forgotten, even as the first Test century has been mythed and folklored. In fact, it was belittled even at the time. Blackham’s catches—so went the argument—had been “pieces of luck for the bowler,” as great catches very frequently are. Tom Horan, for one, was “not at all disposed to fall in” with this view. He recognised that great wicketkeeping catches usually owe something to the man who drew the edge. That man, today, had done his work “very skilfully.” He also “bowled with his head,” in the vernacular of the time, and must have carefully groomed Shaw and Emmett for the surprise that did them in. At 13:46, Lillywhite walked out “to stem the tide of disaster.” England was still 21 runs short of staying the follow-on, which under the Laws of 1877 required a deficit of at least eighty. It seemed “probable” that the two outstanding wickets would go long before that touchstone surged into view. Four had fallen today for the addition of just 36 runs. Lillywhite was under no illusion about his abilities with the willow. “I was played for my bowling, not batting,” he said bluntly in an interview fifty years later. But as he took up his position at the wicket, “evidently meaning business,” he was received with “loud cheers.” “There is no knowing what a tail-end will do sometimes,” said a spectator. WE Midwinter to J Lillywhite: four runs. He put his first delivery, the over’s last, “uppishly” past the square-leg umpire. Kendall scoured after it with a precipitation quite his own, “but could not get to the chains in time.” Over 119 TW Garrett to A Hill: no run. TW Garrett to A Hill: no run. TW Garrett to A Hill: no run. TW Garrett to A Hill: no run. “Then Garrett bowled a maiden.” Over 120 WE Midwinter to J Lillywhite: no run. WE Midwinter to J Lillywhite: no run. WE Midwinter to J Lillywhite: no run. WE Midwinter to J Lillywhite: no run. “Another maiden from Midwinter to Lillywhite.” Over 121 TW Garrett to A Hill: no run. TW Garrett to A Hill: one run. Now “the game became lively,” and Hill made his first contribution a single to long-off, bringing up the 150. He seemed not at all inhibited by the bruise which had kept him out of the bowling attack. TW Garrett to J Lillywhite: no run. “A hard cut by Hill was ably stopped and smartly returned by Cooper” at point—“a fine bit of fielding,” which earned him his mead of applause. He had done “one or two smart things” today. Generally, indeed, the Australian fielding had been “magnificent, not a chance worth speaking of being given.” TW Garrett to J Lillywhite: four runs. “Lillywhite answered with four to leg” from the last ball of the over—“another good hit.” Over 122 WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: two runs. “Hill, not to be out-done,” “also began to do his best.” Here he drove Midwinter past mid-off for a couple. WE Midwinter to A Hill: two runs. Hill “put his weight (which is by no means trifling)” into the next ball, “pitched well up by Midwinter,” and lifted it into the deep. Horan, “placed far out,” ran in breathless haste, and “made a good effort,” but “just failed to get his fingers to a fair chance.” Most reporters assert that it was more a “near thing” than a “fair chance,” and they are correct to do so, for the ball clearly dropped short. “The running distance was too great,” observed The Herald, which thought it a “gallant” attempt. Horan himself confirms, in his report for The Argus, that the ball “took the ground just before he reached it, but he charged onwards upon it with his body. There are not many players,” he continued with pride, “who would have so bravely risked a painful blow to stop a hit.” As it was he had “saved 2 runs out of 4, and was much applauded.” Later in the same report he observed that while “nothing could be in stronger contrast, as we remarked in the account of Friday’s play, than the drilled movements and machine-like accuracy of the Englishmen, and the reckless hurry of the colonial eleven … Horan, Garrett and D. Gregory may be regarded as exceptions to the rule.” WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. Over 123 Now Kendall returned to his old end, in place of his replacement. TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: no run. Persisting with his counterattack, Lillywhite left his crease to Kendall’s very ball, and “narrowly escaped being stumped.” “There was an appeal,” but it was rejected. TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: no run. TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: no run. TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: two runs. Lillywhite was so little the wiser for this near-calamity as still to entertain the designs that had been its cause, and even to conceive the idea of executing them again. This he did to the last ball of the over—and did it much better, stepping out of his crease and driving it “nearly square for a couple.” He moved thus into double figures, and brought up the 160. Six more runs and the follow-on would be averted. Over 124 WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: three runs. “A snick by Hill off Midwinter” through the slips yielded “three fluky ones.” WE Midwinter to J Lillywhite: no run. WE Midwinter to J Lillywhite: no run. Over 125 TK Kendall to A Hill: no run. TK Kendall to A Hill: two runs. The next over brought “a nice hit” off Kendall to mid-on, where “Thompson threw the ball in wildly to Kendall, and Midwinter, to whom it passed on from the wicket, flung it in a still worse manner to Blackham: 2 runs were thus got for overthrows.” Horan heaved a sigh: “From the careless aim sometimes taken by the men at short-leg and mid-on some evidently believed Blackham had arms like an octopus and could reach 10ft on each side of the wicket.” TK Kendall to A Hill: no run. TK Kendall to A Hill: one run. “Another single in the same place,” in the same over, and to the same batsman, “saved the Englishmen the disgrace of following their innings.” Lillywhite’s counterstrike, embraced also by Hill, had done the trick. Over 126 WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: two runs. Hill then cut Midwinter for “a neat 2.” WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. Over 127 TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: OUT. To the first ball of Kendall’s next, however, “Lillywhite changed his mind in playing back,” and “poked” the ball “quietly,” “gently,” “softly” into the bowler’s hands. Kendall had his first wicket, “though he had bowled splendidly all the time.” Most reports aver that the catch was “easy,” but The Ballarat Star says he took it “cleverly.” “Southerton was the last man out of the Englishmen’s team to send in, and as at this stage, they had made sufficient in numbers to entitle them to a second innings, they were in high glee.” The Ballarat Star is overstating the matter, for the deficit remained substantial, and the new batsman was “not looked upon as likely to increase the score to any appreciable extent.” “Early in his career, Southerton's main cricketing role was as a batsman… It was as a batsman that he was first selected to represent Surrey. He was recommended to Surrey in 1853 by Charles Hoare, born in Mitcham, who had been the first Surrey captain from 1846 to 1850, was their then Treasurer, and frequently played for Mitcham. Southerton was called up for a game in September 1854, and against Sussex, the county of his birth. The Committee of the Surrey Club were in the process of obtaining a new lease at the Oval and felt that they could not play there. The game was played at the Royal Brunswick Ground, Hove, starting on Thursday 28 September.” “In the absence of much success, Southerton left Surrey in 1858. Nevertheless, he was still regarded with promise as a batsman. Lillywhite’s Guide of that year records that he “Promises to be quite first-rate as a bat, and is a splendid field anywhere. He has a strong defence, and can hit all round”…. In his later career, with Sussex and Surrey, Southerton was selected for his bowling. His batting was generally not well regarded, particularly his defence, and there are frequent references to it having been undermined by illness. Having developed initially as a batsman, however, there was clearly some ability to draw on, and occasional flashes of what might have been.” “It is known, for example, that he had once, in a game for Fred Caesar’s XI against Tom Sherman’s XI at the Oval, in 1862, hit Sherman clean out of the ground [St Andrew’s Citizen, 6 May 1905]. For Surrey against M.C.C. and Ground, including W.G.Grace, in July 1871 he made his highest 1st-class score of 82 in a total of 352. When he was out, run out, this was partly put down to his tiredness: " Southerton joined Pooley, and some rare cricket resulted from their Union, the mistaken policy of putting Southerton in so late being again made apparent … by five minutes to six this pair of 'stickers' had put on between them 100 runs … Southerton appeared as much exhausted as was the Marylebone bowling … just as the clock had struck seven, Southerton played a ball and started to run, it was finely fielded and Wootton had a side shot at his wicket, and threw him out, amidst great cheering. Southerton and Pooley had run a 'dead heat', each having scored 82 runs from the Marylebone bowling, and raised the score from 160 to 335, without either having given a fair chance. Southerton's innings was, both offensively and defensively, an [p. 11] admirable one, his leg-hitting and cutting being especially commendable…" (Morning Advertiser, 21 July 1871). Southerton seemed to feel, in later years, that his batting was undervalued. He had an admirer, however, in the Surrey Secretary, C.W.Alcock: “He was a remarkably good bat at one time, and one could never be certain even during his last matches that he would not make a big score. I remember him saying to me, 'Mr Alcock, you don't believe I was ever a good bat do you?' I told him that I was quite certain he was a good bat at that very moment. He then gave me a lot of score sheets and I was astonished to see the runs he had made. [His best innings in matches of note were 70 for XXII of Hampshire v The United England Eleven at Winchester in 1862, and 82 for Surrey v M.C.C. and Ground at the Oval in 1871]." (Quoted in Chats on the Cricket Field, W.A.Bettesworth). The fact that Southerton had his scoresheets to hand is indicative, perhaps, of his own defensiveness about his ability, and pride in past achievements.” “Following these low scores, on 14 July [1858] Southerton restored his confidence in a drawn game for Hayes, against the Standard Club, at Peckham-rye. The Standard finished on 56 for 8, replying to Hayes 251: " Southerton, who is a native of Sussex, and has played well for his County, in this instance made the great score of 156, against all sorts of bowling." (Morning Advertiser, 17 July 1858). This score stood as a Hayes Club record for 77 years [www.hayescricket.co.uk , accessed 23 June 2018].” One of the most extraordinary incidents involving the 2 of them also occurred in July 1870, with Southerton playing for Surrey against M.C.C. and Ground. Southerton had taken 7 wickets, including W.G.Grace caught and bowled for 84, as MCC&G made 191. Batting for Surrey, Southerton cut the second ball he received hard into the ground and straight to W.G. Southerton walked, under the impression he was out, though no appeal was made, and the fielders, including Grace, assured him it was a bump ball. He could not be persuaded to return, and thus is recorded in the scorebook as, "retired, thinking he was caught 0". There is no suggestion of sustained foul play by Grace. He had simply decided to have a bit of fun. The report of the dismissal in Wisden suggests that he did not, on catching the ball, throw it up as if a catch, though that is not Grace’s recollection. Recalling the incident, he wrote: "… he [Southerton] sometimes closed his eyes to hit; and once, when I was fielding at point, I proved it by claiming a catch from a ball which had palpably struck the ground before I caught it. ‘Jimmy’ opened his eyes just in time to see me toss the ball up, and I, to carry on the joke, said he had given me a ‘hot ‘un’; then he believed he was caught, and walked out. The fieldsmen told him he was not out, and Pooley whistled him to return, but Southerton would not believe it”. Grace may not have been quite so innocent as that! He admits elsewhere that he tried to quieten Pooley, “Keep quiet, Pooley, and we’ll have the laugh at him”, and that “we should not have carried the joke out” except that the match was a foregone conclusion. Southerton was known for his fair play, as well as his stubbornness. On this occasion it looks like the combination proved his downfall! TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. But he “safely finished the over.” He had first encountered Kendall as a fast bowler on the 1873/74 tour, when “one over from him was a sample of the lot,” but thought him now a conspicuous example of “how bowling can be acquired.” It was “slower” these days, “more dodgy, and breaks about very much, and is not at all easy to play.” Over 128 WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: one run. In the next over “Hill gave a difficult chance,” hard and low, “to Midwinter off his own bowling, which was not secured,” and the batsmen ran one. WE Midwinter to J Southerton: no run. WE Midwinter to J Southerton: no run. Over 129 TK Kendall to A Hill: no run. TK Kendall to A Hill: one run. “A single by the same batsman off Garrett [sic] brought up 170.” TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. Over 130 WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. Now came the adjournment for lunch, time having stolen on unobserved. England was 170 for nine, still in a minority of 75. Hill was unbeaten on fifteen. Southerton had yet to start an account. Over 131 “After the usual interval Southerton took block to Kendall.” TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. “Kendall bowled a maiden.” Over 132 WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: three runs. In Midwinter’s next, Hill “let out, and drove him well to the off,” “past cover-point, for 3.” WE Midwinter to J Southerton: no run. WE Midwinter to J Southerton: no run. “Southerton survived the rest of the over with difficulty,” playing it “very awkwardly, and twice put the ball up behind the wicket—chances, however, which no-one could take advantage of.” Over 133 TK Kendall to A Hill: no run. TK Kendall to A Hill: one run. “A single to Hill, off Kendall.” TK Kendall to J Southerton: no run. TK Kendall to J Southerton: two runs. Now Southerton got off the mark, cutting—The Age says “chopped”—Kendall through the slips for a couple. “The batsmen,” remarked The Australasian, “evidently were ‘as giants refreshed.’” Over 134 WE Midwinter to A Hill: no run. WE Midwinter to A Hill: one run. “A hard hit by Hill, off Midwinter, for one.” A reference in Horan’s Argus report to how this batsman “drove Midwinter with great vigour both to the off and the on” leads me to believe that, in contrast to his last scoring shot off Midwinter, this one went to the onside. WE Midwinter to J Southerton: no run. WE Midwinter to J Southerton: no run. Over 135 TK Kendall to A Hill: two runs. Hill began the over with “two very streakily in the slips” from an “uppish” stroke. TK Kendall to A Hill: one run. “The 180 went up directly after,” with “one more by the same batsman for a drive off Kendall.” The Age observed that if Hill was “streaky now and then,” his runs were “generally well and rapidly made.” In Horan’s assessment, his innings was “first-class.” TK Kendall to J Southerton: one run. “Southerton then drove Kendall for one.” TK Kendall to A Hill: four runs. Hill then got Kendall “beautifully in the slips.” The was a full toss, and probably rather a high one, since the stroke is described as a cut. The ball did not make it to the boundary, the fourth run being down to “smartness on Hill’s part.” It was hardly likely to be down to smartness on Southerton’s part. He had been once a celebrated sprinter, but the lightness of youth had shrunk into the heaviness of age. This was the only run so taken while he was at the crease; nor by running did he save any for England in the field. Over 136 WE Midwinter to J Southerton: no run. WE Midwinter to J Southerton: three runs. “Southerton … snicked Midwinter in the slips for three,” showing “that ‘luck and pluck’ will sometimes pull a man through in cricket as in other things,” and also that “poking the ball up where there was no field to catch it … is the next best thing to keeping it down.” He was six not out, having kept his situation with an ill-conditioned tenacity that occasioned much offence and disappointment. Such trouble had he given the bowlers that The Express & Telegraph reported, without checking, that he must be in double figures now. WE Midwinter to A Hill: four runs. Hill drove the next ball “to square leg over the fieldman’s [sic] head” for four—“a fine hit,” which I take to have been another pull-drive or sweep shot. The score was into the 190s, and as Hill “seemed to be able to hit at everything with impunity,” 200 seemed suddenly very come-at-able. WE Midwinter to A Hill: four runs. The next was stamped with the same seal. Hill jumped out and sent it “very hard” to the right of cover point. That was eleven off the over, from “fine, free, vigorous hitting.” Since the post-lunch maiden, the strike rate was 130—better by five times than what had gone before. Hill’s innings, just 41 balls old, was already worth 35, and had imparted 22 of this partnership’s 28. He had made more than half Jupp’s runs in less than a sixth the time. This was not without presage or precedent. After top-scoring at number ten in Christchurch, he had successfully opened the batting for the final two weeks of the New Zealand tour , and in that berth did some very good things. But his previous fourteen outings in Australia had yielded just one innings in double figures, which accounts for the bemusement of the local press. Over 137 Time for a change. Garrett supplied the place of Kendall… TW Garrett to J Southerton: OUT… and immediately did for Southerton, who made “a high cut” off his very first ball. Cooper leapt up at point, and with his right hand held a catch worthy to be admired. So England was outed for 196—49 runs behind. “Bannerman's place in the field was filled by Newing who filled the post of substitute very creditably. Throughout the day the fielding was very good, the bowling also having greatly improved.” “The pick of the bowlers was Midwinter.” Australia 2nd innings

“The wicket having been duly rolled,” the Englishmen took the field betimes (at “about half-past 3 o’clock ,” or perhaps as early as “twenty minutes past three”). Bannerman, whose finger was still “very bad,” insisted on opening Australia’s second try. The appearance of his name afforded “great delight” to the spectators, who were now much greater in number. An attempt had been made—by whom does not appear—to trim the admission to a shilling, but its unsuccess seems not to have run down the gate, which had done a brisk stroke of business all the afternoon. Nor, apparently, did the rigorous measures taken against the counterfeits of yesterday. The South Australian Register believed authorities had acted too late in this regard, and adapted Horan’s criticism of Gregory: “They locked the door when the steed was stolen.” One never hears of these things till the mischief's done; all sorts of defects are found out in the stable door after the horse is stolen. It is impossible to say at this distance what is intended by this, but it is true that the Englishmen complained at game’s end—one of them publicly —that their takings were far smaller than the magnitude of the attendance had given them to expect. The Bendigo Advertiser guessed today’s number at a minimum of 8,000. Inspired by Australia’s glowing prospects, they had streamed in since lunch, so that, for the first time, the grandstand held fewer vacant seats than people. Not since the Englishmen’s Boxing Day match had it been so chocker. Among them was Oscar Ashe, the great Australian actor, in company with his father, a man after my own heart, who “patronised every sport, whether he understood anything about it or no.” Of cricket he knew nothing, Ashe recalled, “but he went because his pals went, and wherever he went I had to go.” As Ashe was only six years old, “Mother had to come with me, and she was always glad to have an outing. All I can remember was shouting and crowds and tents.” He would become an enthusiastic cricketer himself, and was all his life an enthusiastic spectator. “It was ‘as lovely a day for cricket as Melbourne ever enjoyed,’ with bright sunshine and a light breeze, and the new grandstand was almost full.” Over 1 There was much shouting then, for Bannerman and Thomson had just broken upon their view. The former especially they received with many tokens of welcome, which resounded until the flattest echo had succumbed to the contagion, and was shouting just as loudly. The mere sight him poured balm into their anxious souls. The Englishmen were less becharmed—or better say he charmed them in a different way—for he came upon their vision like a ghost. The captain, having once conquered surprise, took to admiring his pluck, but Southerton thought him the veriest fool. At the stand end, with his finger in splints, he took the first over from Alfred Shaw. “He must have been tough as nails,” remarked Keith Miller a century later. “Despite his injury, which had scarcely improved, Bannerman opened the hosts’ second innings and received a rousing reception from a day three Saturday crowd of around 12,000.” “For some time the spectators were doubtful whether Bannerman would again wield the willow in this match and there was immense cheering when he appeared with Nat Thompson at the wickets. The Englishmen were then only 40 runs behind and it was thought they must win.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “The first ball delivered was quietly returned to the bowler by Bannerman, rather high, and most unaccountably missed.” The Bendigo Advertiser disagrees: “a hard chance,” and not as unaccountable as all that. The South Australian Register clarifies the picture by remarking that “a taller man” would “easily” have caught it. Shaw was only five feet and four inches. On day one he had dropped Bannerman because the ball was too low; today he dropped Bannerman because the ball was too high. It is singular, too, that in both innings of this Test Match, forever associated with this batsman, he survived his first ball but narrowly. What a king pair would have meant for the immediate future of international cricket—how it would have altered the flow and form of history—is a vertiginous thought to contemplate. “Bannerman, severely incapacitated and given a rousing reception as he walked out, was again dropped, this time before scoring, but it wasn't nearly such a costly miss, as he made only 4.” Southerton: “In the second innings he was the first ball he had again being nearly out, as Shaw missed an easy chance of ‘c and b.’ A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. “As was only to be expected,” wrote The Age, “he did not bat with the same verve and confidence as in the first innings.” The Australasian was concerned: “Bannerman showed that the injury received in the first innings considerably cramped his play, and it was debated whether it would not have been better for Gregory to have played a man short when the probabilities were so much against Bannerman contributing much to the score in his crippled condition. However, that was a question for Bannerman to decide, and if he wished to play, his captain was quite right in acceding to his request.” Horan offers a counterpoint to these commentaries, telling us that in this opening over Bannerman “hit several balls back to Shaw in his own vigorous style,” and ascribing awkwardness cited by the others to the aftershock of his strokes, not the strokes themselves: “Every hit was certain to produce a jar which must tell on the nerves.” Kyneton Observer: “Bannerman seemed at home with Shaw's bowling.” “Bannerman played out the opening over from Shaw, a maiden.” “He was ‘very cramped and showing the effects of his injury.’” His attitude and manner told their story. There was grit in the instrument, a crack in the lense. Over 2 “Ulyett came on at the other end.” I doubt he would have done so in Bannerman’s absence. You will recollect that Allen Hill was Shaw’s bowling consort in the first innings. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. “A maiden was bowled by each bowler.” Over 3 A Shaw to C Bannerman: four runs. Bannerman hit the first ball of Shaw’s next “hard” to the long-on chains—this “magnificent” drive eliciting clarion cheers, “as it showed that Bannerman had not been completely incapacitated.” Indeed, such was the oomph of the stroke that many forgot that his incapacitation was even partial, and rather “believed that he was in fit trim for a second career of glory.” “Bannerman ... then got off the mark by driving Shaw to the mid-on boundary.” A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. A Shaw to C Bannerman: no run. Over 4 G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: two runs. Thomson was off the mark, putting Ulyett “prettily” to square leg for a couple. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: one run. Now he cut him “away nicely in the slips for 1.” G Ulyett to C Bannerman: no run. “Bannerman hit Ulyett hard to the off, but a fieldsman stood in the way.” Over 5 A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. “Shaw bowled a maiden.” Over 6 G Ulyett to C Bannerman: OUT. Ulyett settled Bannerman’s business with the first ball of his next over, “swift” and “splendid,” and “breaking all across the wicket.” The batsman was quite beaten. It “crushed” his wicket, “just taking the off-stump,” which had in turn the effect of “scattering” the others. Bannerman, newly christened “The Champion of Australia,” walked off for four, “loudly cheered,” but the Weekly Times was no more taken with this paltry recognition than it had been with that which closed the opening day. Accordingly it copied and pasted itself. Australia was seven for one. One of the Englishmen, writing home, thought it evident that Bannerman had “‘funked’ Ulyett through his bad finger.” As he faced only two deliveries from the Yorkshiremen (scoring convincingly off one of them, this seems a reach). Its author tacitly conceded as much by observing in the next breath that he “showed great pluck [in Victorian argot an antonym for ‘funk’] in going to the wickets at all.” Horan, too, was full of praise for his “unbounded pluck,” but rather undermined the point by arguing that “nobody can long stand up against fast bowling with a damaged finger.” Would Bannerman “funk” Ulyett in later games after this? If so, observe something like: But it is the case that… Lillywhite: “ULYETT bowled him with a good one; he was evidently afraid of his finger.” This was a real kick in the dick, but Horan, as he looked at his team-mates, took heart: “There appeared to be enough life left in the ten who remained to guarantee a fair score.” Just as Bannerman could not have been expected to load up the runs in his present condition, so it was unreasonable to assume that his colleagues would give as bad a show this time around, especially since a number of them had done creditable work against Lillywhite’s XI earlier in the season. Horan had himself accumulated 81 in the Boxing Day match. He came out now, and was “warmly received.” “Bannerman, suffering as he was from a split finger was not expected to score much if at all, and the sequel proves” that he had quite slaked his thirst for Ulyett's bowling, “for after getting four from Shaw he succumbed to the first named's first ball [perhaps this means his first ball from Ulyett].” G Ulyett to TP Horan: two runs. And he soon fell to scoring. Ulyett’s first ball went “a regular skyer to square-leg,” but no-one was there to catch it. He ran two. G Ulyett to TP Horan: no run. G Ulyett to TP Horan: no run. Over 7 A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: one run. As if rather invigorated than chopfallen by Bannerman’s departure, “both batsmen soon appeared at home,” and were quickly making runs. Thomson here hit Shaw “hard for a single” to mid-on, “and 10 made its appearance on the board.” A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. Over 8 G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: two runs. Ulyett “was bowling very viciously—pitching halfway and bumping,” but Thomson got him away “prettily” for two “in front of short-leg.” He was now “warming to his work.” Already he had “played very well.” G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. Over 9 A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. The pitch was still “in excellent condition.” Indeed, “the only person who seemed to have a fault to find … was the careful Horan, who, mindful of the mishap that befell him on the first day, was constantly on the watch for the appearance of heel-marks and bumps, and employed his bat as a smoothing iron at the commencement of nearly every over all the time he was at the wickets.” These, if my theory about The Argus report is correct, are Horan’s own words! A Shaw to TP Horan: two runs. Now he cut Shaw “beautifully” through the slips for two. A Shaw to TP Horan: one run. The next ball he played “artistically” for a single to mid-on. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. Over 10 G Ulyett to TP Horan: four runs. “This brought him in front of Ulyett,” whose first ball, “a regular longhop,” Horan “splendidly” cut past point to the chains. That the ball was a long hop entitles us to reject The Australasian’s claim that the stroke was “a fine drive.” Horan was “batting splendidly,” and “looked dangerous.” He “was quite at home to both Shaw and Ulyett … and seemed to understand that he had received a commission to play both for Bannerman and himself.” G Ulyett to TP Horan: no run. G Ulyett to TP Horan: two runs. “The ball but one after” met another cut. It hastened to the third-man fence, where Jupp, by a perfect miracle of dexterity, forestalled the boundary. He was fielding “exceedingly well,” but that was no surprise. G Ulyett to TP Horan: no run. Over 11 Twenty minutes into their second innings, at 21 for one, the Australians were healing apace, and the spectators recovering their spirits. The cricket was “excellent,” and the weather still perfect, and “with a well-made turf ‘wicket,’ as even as a billiard-table, the most ardent lover of the game could not but be pleased with what nature had provided on one hand and the skill of man on the other.” “Seldom,” remarked Horan, “has the MCC ground presented so pretty a picture as that which was looked down upon by spectators in the grand stand.” “The glistening turf stood out in lovely contrast to the dark solid masses of onlookers, thickly packed in a border which reached nearly three-fourths of the distance round the circle.” A large attendance had been looked for, and a large attendance had been realised. Horan heard estimates ranging from 9,000 to 12,000, but most plumped for 10,000, and the average is 10,200. It was a riveted assembly, too, and the atmosphere thus created will only have improved and intensified the play. The Englishmen felt it out on the field . The reserve was panoplied with hundreds of ladies, all in the bright finery of fashion . Horan admired the abnegation which enabled them to sit so patiently and so long through “a game of which few of them understood the simplest rules.” Lillywhite: “10,000 persons were on the ground.” Southerton: “There was a grand show of people on the ground today, but as [sic] it has happened on big days before, both here and at Sydney, that the amount taken never comes up to the assumed number of people in the ground. That we are robbed there is no doubt, and to a good tune; but in spite of all our watching and the employment of detectives yet we cannot discover how it is done.” “Receipts were seriously diminished by a spate of forged tickets and by an old anxiety, the embezzling of gate money. 'That we are robbed there is no doubt', wrote Southerton, 'and to a good tune, but in spite of all watching we cannot discover how it is done.' Detectives were hired by Lillywhite, but in vain.” Similar problems at the Philadelphia Exhibition of the previous year, commemorating the centenary of American independence [check]:

Philadelphia mounted the Exposition—the equivalent of a modern World’s Fair—on the one hundredth anniversary of American Independence. Despite the depression and an inordinately hot summer, it proved a great success, attracting 9,799,392 visitors (perhaps more, since broken turnstiles failed to record the count on some busy days) to its seventy-four acres before it closed in the fall.

[Melbourne, March 17:] There was a large attendance at the Kyneton races. (Australian Associated Press “Colonial Telegrams” South Australian Chronicle and Weekly Mail, 24 March 1877.)

It is stated that the All-England Eleven made £7000 by their trip to New Zealand. (Glen Innes Examiner “General Intelligence” 4 April 1877.)

The first curator at the M.C.G. was Rowland Newbμry, a very careful Scot. In the old days a curator had to do everything. The story is told of how he took the takings home on New Year's Day, 1862, when the Melbourne and Districts XVIII was playing Mr. Stephenson's All England XI. There had been a record crowd, between 25,000 and 30,000. So much money had been collected Rowland Newbury was terrified. He was sure a thief would get into the house and steal it, so he hid all the money in the kitchen oven. He neglected to tell his daughter about this, and she was just lighting the fire to bake some bread when Mr. Newbury rushed in to rescue the takings. Since then facilities for looking after the takings have improved a good deal, with armed officials and armoured security wagons; but there was a scare in 1931 at the time of the famous Coles hold-up, when Constable Derham was shot in the head. On a Saturday evening, just after the finish of a League football match, the day's takings, all bagged up in canvas bags, were held in an area close to the main members' entrance. The men in charge of the cash were awaiting the arrival of an M.C.C. official before ordering a hire car to take the money to the bank. A plain-clothes policeman, the regular armed escort, was there. Just then a taxi driver walked into the ground. He said he was looking for a fare, which seemed odd, because everyone had gone home. The escort policeman was suspicious and he asked him several questions. Suddenly he recognised the alleged taxi driver as a man convicted of an offence a week or two earlier at the Richmond Court. Obviously everything was all set to go into action, for 30 yards away a large black car was parked. Its doors and windows were locked and there was a slumped body, apparently asleep or drunk, over the steering wheel. However, the radiator was warm, and obviously the engine had been running a few moments before. By this time the hire car had arrived and the takings went safely to the bank. Very soon after, the spectacular Coles hold-up took place. The two gunmen who shot Constable Derham were the same men who waited outside the M.C.G. that day. Anyone who visits the M.C.G. now will see two large lamps on brackets protruding from the brickwork of the Members' Pavilion, facing the park area outside the ground. Their installation dates from the date of the Coles hold-up. They light the area very well, and mercifully there have been no armed robberies at the M.C.G. Rowland Newbury was the first man who had to worry about the takings, and after him came the curators W. McAlpine and Tom McCutcheon. The late Ted Morton, who was assistant to each of these curators, wrote in his memoirs, published in 1928: "The first curator of my time was Rowland Newbury, and associated with him were Sam Cosstick, Sam Borders and Charlie Dench. Occasionally a flock of sheep were let on the ground to keep the excess growth of grass in check. During McAlpine's term as curator a di::termined effort was made to improve the condition of the ground. Each year for a period of seven years 400 loads of Merri Creek soil were spread over the ground, the main object being to turf the ground completely and level it." Morton says of Newbury that had he wanted to he could have taken the Aboriginal team to England. He was a burly 16-stone Scotchman, and he had been known to lift a cottage piano singlehanded into a wagon. Although he paid Bert Luttrell the tribute of making wickets to last out any of our present-day marathon Test matches, his highest compliment went to McAlpine. "He knew the temper of a wicket better than any other man I ever knew. […] One of the problems of the time [just before WWI] was the galvanised iron gate at the back of the scoreboard. The larrikins used to scramble over this gate and enter the ground without paying. Then they would organise a sweet little racket. They would get themselves pass-out checks, sell them out in the park, and scramble in over the gate again. NZ leg of the tour had not been a financial success, “the open nature of many of the grounds reducing the number of paying spectators. Southerton clearly held their agent largely to blame,” in yielding his assent to the proposal “to play at public grounds, and had a warning for teams that might come after: “That we enjoyed much of it is beyond doubt, that there was “muddle” in the management of it all through is equally beyond doubt, and its success in the winning, or the matches being drawn, is also undoubted; but financially it has been a failure, or nearly so, owing to cause I have previously stated, and any future team contemplating a visit here would do well to ascertain more than we knew before they determine to come” (The Sportsman, 8 May 1877). “A band of music helped to vary the monotony that, to the gentler sex, is attached to what is known as the ‘manly game.’” Bands were not uncommon at major cricket matches before World War I. His one “considerably added to the enjoyment of everyone by playing airs at intervals during the day.” “But now I have reached the old man at the tennis court gate, and so have completed my circuit. The old man is none other than Sam Borders, who has been in the service of the MCC ever since 1861. I ask him whether he has heard of Sam Cosstick lately, and he replies, "Oh yes, last week; he is still in Maitland, and is in good health." A chat with Sam Borders puts me in mind of the old band stand, which he used to haunt in the old, old days. It was far sightlier than the present amorphous apology for a band-stand, which offends the sight, obstructs the view of people in the grand stand, and detracts from the otherwise perfect appearance of the whole enclosure.” A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. Thomson, playing back, gave Shaw “a very hard chance off his own bowling, which the trundler was unable to secure.” This, by my count, is his third spillage of the match, and his fifth fielding error. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. “Two maidens at this time were bowled by Shaw in succession.” Over 12 G Ulyett to TP Horan: no run. G Ulyett to TP Horan: four runs. “In Ulyett’s next the score was further augmented” by Horan, who cut him “beautifully” to the boundary. “The smooth-shaven green was in such perfect order that the ball, when smartly hit, almost invariably beat the fieldsman in the race to the chains.” G Ulyett to TP Horan: no run. G Ulyett to TP Horan: no run. “From the same bowler’s last ball Horan got another cut in the slips, splendidly fielded and returned by Shaw,” for a wonder. Fielding, apparently for the first time in the match, in his preferred position. Ironside on Shaw: “A safe catch, about the best short slip extant, with remarkable quick return.” Southerton had been there in the first innings; there is no accounting for the change. Over 13 A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run, “Shaw bowling a maiden.” Over 14 G Ulyett to TP Horan: no run. G Ulyett to TP Horan: one run. “After a maiden to Shaw, Horan got the fast bowler in the slips for a single, but was nearly run out.” As the ball went deep into the outfield, the near thing must have ensued from some mix-up or hesitation over the second run. Horan’s handling of Ulyett, from whom he had taken thirteen runs in as many balls, was a theme of no little admiration. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. G Ulyett to NFD Thomson: no run. Thompson, in contrast, was now without a run in three overs. He had “commenced playing well, but he fell off.” Over 15 A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. “A maiden from Shaw.” Over 16 “Ulyett, having done his appointed task in disposing of Bannerman,” had been rather less successful against Bannerman’s replacement, and now resigned his place to Hill. Apparently recovered from the bruise which had so limited his first-innings contribution. The Englishmen had gone through 140 overs in this match since the quickest of their number had last delivered an over. A Hill to NFD Thomson: no run. A Hill to NFD Thomson: no run. A Hill to NFD Thomson: no run. A Hill to NFD Thomson: one run. Thompson cut “his last ball away in the slips for one.” Over 17 A Shaw to NFD Thomson: no run. A Shaw to NFD Thomson: OUT. This brought Thomson opposite Shaw, who now bowled “one on his toes.” Thomson answered with an on-drive, “getting well on to” it, and striking it “sharply,” but it was “finely caught by Emmett at forward short leg” (or “close-in mid-on,” or less probably midwicket). “2-7-27 was not considered a good commencement.” Lillywhite: “A splendid catch by EMMETT got rid of Thomson.” On the arrival of Garrett, Australia’s second most successful performer in the first innings, “scoring was slow for a time.” A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. Over 18 A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: one run. Horan made a cut, and the new batsman “was nearly run out in assisting his partner to get a run.” A Hill to TW Garrett: no run. A Hill to TW Garrett: no run. Over 19 A Shaw to TP Horan: no run. A Shaw to TP Horan: one run. Horan “then ran boldly out to drive Shaw to the on; the ball was well fielded, and only a single allowed.” A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. Over 20 A Hill to TP Horan: no run. “Most of the balls from Hill pitched to leg,” suggesting a deliberate plan of attack. His wicketkeeper was “fielding as a very fine draw to the fast bowling, and keeping wicket at the same time,” confirming a deliberate plan of attack. Almost sixty years before Larwood and Jardine, an England touring team had brought leg-theory to Australia. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: no run. A Hill to TP Horan: two runs. “Horan tried several times to get hold of them or glance them off his bat,” and at length succeeded, playing one away “neatly to leg for 2,” and taking Australia into the thirties. Of these, “by genuine cricket,” he had made twenty—a proportion almost Bannermanesque. Since his arrival, in fact, he had accounted for all but four. He was batting “exceedingly well, more freely than in the first innings,” with “some beautiful cuts between slip and third man,” but in truth he was “free all round,” and as a stylist he had no peer in the elite ranks of early Australian batsmanship. Over 21 A Shaw to TW Garrett: no run. “Garrett played the ball back to Shaw in a somewhat uppish manner, and this induced the watchful Emmet[t],” “watching his opportunity,” “to creep in from mid-on.” A Shaw to TW Garrett: OUT. “Garrett suddenly discovered that he had given this dexterous fieldsman an easy catch” at what we would now call silly mid-on, and walked off for a duck. Australia was 31 for three. “It was highly amusing to notice the cat-like way in which Emmett at mid on crept up behind the batsmen who were playing Shaw’s bowling. In this way he succeeded in one innings in catching three [sic: two] men who found difficulty in deciding how to play the deceptive Nottingham bowler.” Reading Jeremy Lonsdale’s biography of Emmett, one is struck by how often, even in middle age, Emmett’s movements are summed up in the adjective “frisky.” “Garrett was caught by Emmett close up.” The crowd looked on in a sudden sullen humour as Cooper took the vacant wicket. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. He “received the remainder of the over in safety.” Over 22 A Hill to TP Horan: no run. The legside attack continued, with Selby still “in a place where no fieldsman usually is placed.” A Hill to TP Horan: OUT. Presently Hill induced Horan to flick at “a leg-ball that would have done no harm if allowed to pass unnoticed,” and Selby, “by an effort,” “made a smart catch.” This is the first “strangle” in Test cricket, and its first dismissal by leg-theory tactics. Like some famous successors, it was not well received. The crowd had certain loose atoms of an idea, which became solid in tomorrow’s press, that something unfair or underhanded had been doing. All held the batsman blameless. The Age groused that “if Selby had been in the ordinary place at the wickets, or if Pooley had been in the team, Horan would probably have got four runs instead of losing his wicket.” In substance this is fair: It was only because of Selby’s limitations as a wicketkeeper—because he had “more discretion than valour”—that he was standing so far back; and it was only because he was standing so far back that Hill was seized with his afflatus. It was a strange and novel dismissal. As we have seen, run-scoring behind square, on the legside as well as the off, was a very rare thing. The leg-glance, the stroke that gives rise to strangles, not yet invented. How many runs in this match behind square on the legside? Southerton: “I have omitted to say that Horan, the Champion bat of Victoria, when well set and getting busy, was caught by Selby, who was standing a sort of short slip to the fast bowling, and got over quickly to the legside, and snapped one that just touched the bat.” That it was strange and novel also appears in the confusion of one or two other reporters. The Australasian, for example, seems to have been unaware that it was a ruse at all, assuming (and then reporting) that Selby accomplished the catch by “jumping across from short-slip.” I need hardly add that Brodgen repeats the error, but it is a painful surprise to find his clumsiness rubbing off on his co-author, for John Arlott tells us that when Selby gathered the ball, he was “standing twenty yards back.” I have combed the lands and dragged the seas in quest of his source, but it has resisted all combing and dragging. My faith in its being is injured further by his misidentification of the bowler as Ulyett. Should it ever emerge, though, it would be an invaluable bit of evidence. I have long believed that the most instructive clue as to the quality of pre-film cricket would be an idea of the velocity of its bowling. Indeed, this is one of the few objective and quantifiable standards by which we gauge modern cricket. That in 1877 a speed gun had yet to be contrived is not the prohibitive handicap it may at first appear. There is another possible metric: the distance between the wickets and their keeper. But here we encounter a problem. Most wicketkeepers of the time, fortified by their long stops, stood up to the stumps in all circumstances, however brisk the bowling. Selby, as we have seen, is a rare exception. A stopgap for the absent Pooley , with nominal experience behind the stumps, he stood well back to all but the slow bowlers—just as modern wicketkeepers do. And twenty yards is roughly the margin they permit themselves… The Argus comes closest to vindicating Arlott, placing Selby “half-way between the wicket and longstop.” But The Age has him only “a few yards back on the legside,” while The South Australian Register says vaguely that he “went a long way behind the wickets while the bowling was fast.” The only numerical estimate comes from Lillywhite’s camp, published in The Sporting Life a month and a half later. According to this unnamed source, Selby was only “ten yards from the wicket.” Lillywhite in the Companion (one of many duplications between this account and that which confirm their common authorship): “HORAN was caught by SELBY standing ten yards back from the wicket, for 20, just as he was getting dangerous.” This seems devastating, and may well be, but before we accept that fast bowling in 1877 was only half as quick as the vintage of 2021, we should look again at that line in The Argus: “half-way between the wicket and longstop.” We do not dilute the language by inferring from it that there may have been a long stop in place. In fact, we shall one in place later in this innings, to the bowling of Ulyett, who was generally reckoned slower than Hill. Under this circumstance Selby would perhaps not have retreated quite so deep as he would have done in the absence of that protection. It is a misconception that long stops, like other “long” fielders (off and on), were positioned in the deep, almost on the boundary. John Lillywhite advised them “to stand to receive the ball on making its second bound from the bowler’s hand. Only shew the batsmen that you are up to your work by taking the ball ‘clean,’ and throwing it well into the wicketkeeper, and they will not attempt to steal a ‘bye.’” Of course, if ten yards is “half-way between the wicket and longstop,” then long stop was twenty yards away; and if the ball bounced its second bounce before it had travelled twenty yards, then Hill would be downright pedestrian by modern standards. But to assume that Armitage followed the advice of Lillywhite’s uncle would be assuming a great deal. There are other grounds for caution. By 1882, Billy Murdoch was every bit as incompetent a gloveman as Selby. Against Middlesex (in a match made remarkable by his thirty byes), Murdoch is recorded standing ten yards back to Spofforth, his erstwhile champion, whom at that point nobody rated an out-and-out fast bowler; certainly he was slower than the Hill of 1877. The wicket, which is more, was wet, and presumably much slower than today’s MCG surface, which we have just seen likened to a billiard table. Unless Selby had a long stop and Murdoch had not, it makes no sense to find him adopting the same position. Also worth bearing this in mind when looking at old photographs of cricket in progress, which are striking for how close the wicketkeeper stands even to fast bowlers. I suspect this is a legacy of the long stop. A better clue furnished by the slip fieldsmen, who are usually as twice as far back as the gloveman: an illustration of this, for example, in Frith England v Australia 82, or “Hobbs on 19 edges Gregory over gully, Kelleway, who gets his fingertips to the ball” (Frith England versus Australia 139).

Again, how many amateurs do we ever see practising fielding? I remember, when a boy, that fellows who were in the eleven would go on to the cricket ground ipso motu, and stand in the middle of the ground when four or five wickets were pitched, and field for an hour. And we bad a golden rule at school, which was that a fag was always let off fagging for the two hours during which he was on duty for a catch. It is not beneath anyone's dignity to go long stop, which is the very best practice for fielding, on his club ground, or to stand point, or short slip, or mid-off to the practice wicket. But, alas! the net is ruining practice. It has become a necessity, because the fellows won't go long stop; and so we have to pay a lot of parish boys to look out, because amateurs won't, and the consequence is that the parish boys become better fields than the young gentlemen in many cases. The want of this practice in fielding is that some amateurs are often all abroad in a grand match, and hence the ghastly exhibition of fours and fives clean through a man's legs, dropped catches, and—oh! shades of FELIX, CHARLES Taylor, and men of that stamp!!—overthrows down to the boundary, occasioned by a shot at the wicket, with no one backing up. Much of the amateur fielding of the present day is simply superb, long-stopping has been reduced to a great art by many gentlemen, and the muffing is occasioned by those who either cannot or will not learn the game; and they cannot learn it except by constant practice. No-one can be certain. I once saw, in a North v. South match, I think, two catches dropped two balls running by two of the safest men in England. I will venture to say that I have a dog who would have caught them both, as the ball was just popped up in the air. Mr ID WALKER dropped one and either Jupp or T. Humphrey dropped the other, and the catches were spoken of as the catch which Mr WALKER dropped and the catch which Jupp or HUMPHREY (or whoever it was) dropped. Probably, in each case it was the only catch that either missed that year. (Gale, Frederick, "The Abuses of Modern Cricket," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 30.)

“The fate of Horan was a sad disappointment to the friends of the Australian Eleven, and the prospect became very gloomy.” “Hope was now centred in the next man—Midwinter,” who came out to join his South Melbourne club -mate Cooper. “The field scattered wide,” with “several men stationed at the verge of the horizon,” “in expectation of some big hits.” A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. Over 23 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: one run. Cooper hit Shaw to leg, and Midwinter “cleverly ran a single.” By my reckoning, this is Australia’s third stolen run of the match. England had eight more, with a second innings still to come. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. Over 24 A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: one run. Cooper then “played Hill prettily in the slips,” and Midwinter again took “a clever run for his partner.” But The Age suggests that the learning curve was steep, describing this run as “laboriously acquired.” His next major match: “This match for the Challenge Cup, which promises (on account of interruptions it has met with) to last until the middle of next month, was advanced a stage on Saturday. It seems likely to produce only two results, one of which may prove useful. It will enable the MCC eleven to bring up their averages and it should teach the St Kilda eighteen that before they can hope to win the cup, they must dovelope or get hold of one or two bowlers, and place their fieldsman under the instruction of a drill sergeant. The St Kilda captain had his men so placed on Saturday that often two were seen in pursuit of the same ball, yet nobody could say that the extra man was not wanted. There was one fieldsman near the pavilion fence who seemed to have legs for no other purpose than to mako a bridge for the ball to pass under. Several men near tho wickets occa-sionally stopped hits neatly, but performances of the sort were too rare to redeem the field-ing from the general character of badness. The St. Kilda uniform--red and black tripes--is conspicuous, but apparently not popular with the members, for less than half of the 18 had it on. It may not be in-judicious on hot days to reduce it to a ribbon, and substitute white shirts for coloured ones. The state of the score at the resumption of the play was--St Kilda 142, MCC (with no wicket down), 18. The two "not out" men, Gibson (10) and Cooper (8), took their places at about half past 2 o'clock. Watching them for the first hour, after the stirring play of the previous week, was so dull a pastime as riding in a slow-goods train after some speedy travelling in an express. In fact, the game was devoid of all entertain-ment until Gibson "fetched" his partner with a hard drive towards the opposite wicket. Cooper presented his back to the ball when he should have jumped out of its way, and received the blow in an appropriate place. Gibson was thus deprived of at least three runs, but he seemed to enjoy the mishap as much as anybody. Though the play waa slow, the batsmen got runs, and the score mounted up to 90, when Hates, a medium paced bowler, was put on, and Cooper cut the second ball into the hands of Little at point. At 110 Gibson was caught in the long field. He made 61, top score of the day, but it took him two hours and a quarter, in addition to the time he was in on the previous Saturday, to get the runs. Nevertheless, he must be allowed to have given some valuable service. A drowsy effect was wrought upon the spectators until Midwinter went in to recall some of the memories of the late match against the English eleven. He woke up the field rather by bold run-stealing than by hard hitting, and very soon had them in a state of picturesque disorder. Overthrows became numerous, and the batsmen in-curred what, under other circumatances, would have been dangerous risks with per-fect impunity. Eventually, at the close of three quarters of an hour a refreshing play, Midwinter was bowled off his pads for 32. He made several good hits for 4 in the course of his innings.” A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. “Matters did not look lively.” Horan (who would know) informs us that as in the first innings , “Hercules did not mean to begin the work of the giant until he had got his eye in.” Over 25 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: one run. “Another single to Cooper off Shaw,” also “laboriously acquired.” But this is perhaps a reference to the stroke he played rather than the run he ran, for The Express & Telegraph tells us that at about this time Cooper shaped “very streakily.” A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. This “brought Midwinter opposite the premier bowler, but he contented himself with playing the ball, and did not try a big hit,” and so made the deep men nugatory. The Australasian surmised that the funambulism of Ulyett was still green in his mind, and that “the lesson of the first innings was not thrown away on him.” Midwinter, of course, had entered upon that innings with the intention of playing a guarded game, but here he went to still greater lengths, demonstrating “the utmost caution.” Horan observed that “he had evidently signed some heavy bond not to play rashly.” The lead, after all, was just 83, and after him there were but few runs to come. Bannerman in the first innings had done much to occlude the insubstantiality of Australia’s batting. Over 26 A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. A Hill to BB Cooper: no run. Nor did Cooper give much assurance, “showing no form at all.” Over 27 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: one run. As in the first innings, so in this: Midwinter could not long throttle his nature. In this over he let out “savagely” and larruped the ball off the sweet spot of his bat. The Age tells us it went to (deep) square leg, but cow corner seems likelier, for we are told that it was Greenwood who “saved more than one being run.” According to The South Australian Register, which esteemed him the outstanding fielder in an outstanding unit, he was generally stationed at long on. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. Over 28 A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. “A maiden to Hill.” Over 29 A Shaw to BB Cooper: no run. A Shaw to BB Cooper: OUT. In his fifteenth over, “Shaw's persistent attack on Cooper at last met with success,” for Australia’s out-of-sorts number five was clean bowled, middle stump, playing forward “at a break-back in very crude fashion.” “A ripper!” declared Lillywhite. The Age confirms that it “kept low,” accounting in large measure for the crudeness deplored by Horan, but it is difficult to square this with the “trimmer” entertained by The Bendigo Advertiser. In any case, the score was 35 for five, and the spectators looking “rather glum.” The innings cut a very fantoccini figure; it hung together by the merest of threads. As “mishap succeeded mishap,” Horan began to fear that it would close for “less than 50.” The general impression—“that the score would never reach 60”—was only slightly more sanguine. Lillywhite: “BB Cooper bowled by a ripper from Shaw, half the wickets being down for 35.” “E. Gregory filled the breach…” A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. “… and took the remainder of the over.” Over 30 A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: one run. “The big batsman, profiting [again] by the example of the Englishmen, stole a run.” As The Age says it went “to long off,” there cannot have been much “stealing” about it. A Hill to EJ Gregory: no run. A Hill to EJ Gregory: one legbye. There is a general consensus that Gregory got off the mark with a run off Hill to short leg, but a glance at his scoring-shots list shows that he did not begin with a single. This must be the legbye “obtained off Hill” at some point in this period. Over 31 “There ensued a long period of anxious calm. Both E. Gregory … and Midwinter batted with extreme carefulness.” A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. “Shaw bowled a maiden to Gregory.” Over 32 A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. “… and Hill one to Midwinter,” who “kept to his wicket.” Over 33 A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. Over 34 A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. “Two maidens from each bowler.” Over 35 A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: two runs. Gregory “broke the monotony of a series of maiden overs” when he cut Shaw “finely along the carpet” in front of cover point for two. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. Over 36 A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: one run. Midwinter played “a good defensive game, contenting himself with some singles when the opportunity presented itself.” Presently he abstracted another single, “well-run,” either to mid-on or “to the off,” and took the total to forty for five. His running was worthy of Selby and Jupp. Second Test: “Midwinter played grandly. He had backed himself to make 29, and played steadily for two hours for 31 without giving a chance, though often tempted. The fieldsmen were placed very deep for giant hits, and he got fourers off Shaw and Lillywhite, and stole runs most impudently, a la Jupp” (Adelaide Observer “All-England Eleven v. Eleven of New South Wales and Victoria” 7 April 1877). Midwinter is next in order, though his performances really entitle him to a very much higher relative position. He comes out of the figure ordeal with 18.4 for ten innings, but it must be remembered that six of those were against the All-England Eleven, and that the total of his runs against them for the six innings was 118—a very excellent performance. He has shown us that when he chooses, or the occasion requires it, we have hardly a more reliable batsman, and the quickness with which he can learn was very evident to those who watched him throughout the England matches. His fitting in the first match will not soon be forgotten, and if this trip to England shall teach him how to use his strength and reach with discretion he will be our most formidable player against New South Wales. His field, too, improved great from observation of the Englishmen, and he acquired a splendid return to the wicket, probably from watching Hill. As a bowler I shall deal with him hereafter. (Point “Past Season” Leader, 26 May 1877.) A Hill to EJ Gregory: one legbye. “A leg-bye followed.” A Hill to WE Midwinter: two runs. “Midwinter’s bat descended with great vigour on an off ball” which was also a full toss, and “should have got 4,” because it went well beyond point, but Emmett tracked 77it at a round pace, “and the ball was back to the wicketkeeper before the batsmen had made more than 2.” The Bendigo Advertiser describes the stroke as a drive, but almost everyone is agreed on a cut. It must have been a pretty high full toss. Over 37 A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. “Shaw’s nineteenth over was a maiden.” This was “quiet play, slow to watch,” but “very steady.” Gregory was batting “patiently and well.” Over 38 A Hill to WE Midwinter: no run. A Hill to WE Midwinter: one run. “In Hill’s next Midwinter got a single past third-man.” A Hill to EJ Gregory: no run. A Hill to EJ Gregory: no run. Over 39 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: four runs. “Then the patient defence met its reward, and the bowling fell off. Midwinter threw off the restraints he had imposed on himself, ran confidently out to Shaw,” and drove the ball through the offside, all along the ground to the bowling-reserve fence—a shot so good it might have been a gamekeeper. It won him “hearty applause.” A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. Over 40 A Hill to EJ Gregory: no run. A Hill to EJ Gregory: no run. A Hill to EJ Gregory: no run, A Hill to EJ Gregory: no run. “Another maiden from Hill.” Over 41 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: one bye. “A couple of singles” in this over, the first of which, given the sequence of Midwinter’s scoring shots, must be the bye which otherwise goes unmentioned in the press. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: no run. A Shaw to EJ Gregory: one run. “Gregory pulled Shaw to the on” for the second single, which brought up Australia’s half-century. Matters were “beginning to wear a more hopeful aspect.” Over 42 A Hill to EJ Gregory: two runs. He “drove Hill the first ball of next over to long on for a couple.” A Hill to EJ Gregory: no run. A Hill to EJ Gregory: four runs. Then he made “an excellent cut” off the third, “putting him to the boundary beautifully,” amid “great applause.” A Hill to EJ Gregory: two runs. A bad over ended with a bad ball—“a full pitcher,” Hill’s second in three overs—which Gregory pulled high to leg. He might have scored three—Jupp and Selby would surely have done so—had he been alive to the possibility of an overthrow, but both he and Midwinter “had run past the wicket, and the chance was lost.” Eight runs off the over. Having shown some “good steady play,” Gregory now was playing “very freely.” Over 43 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. “Shaw bowled a maiden to Midwinter.” Over 44 The sixth-wicket partnership had “increased the total to 58,” principally from this end, so “Ulyett’s bumps were substituted for Hill’s cannon balls.” G Ulyett to EJ Gregory: OUT. Ulyett’s first delivery was short and rising, which was predictable enough, but it took Gregory by surprise. He plied his bat like a flail—a cut, they said, but it was barely that—and spooned it up to Emmett, who held it “safely.” Emmett had had a hand now in half of Australia’s wickets, and had “repeatedly evoked applause by his efforts.” He seemed “ubiquitous.” This time he was at point, where he seems to have been most comfortable, and where, in New Zealand in the fortnight prior to this match, he had won rave reviews. Australia was 58 for six, Gregory having been stopped just as he was starting. Blackham came out to replace him, “the light at this time being very bad.” For “very bad,” knowing what we do of the weather today, and with yesterday’s example before us, we should read “very bright.” Another South Melbourne combination . G Ulyett to JM Blackham: one run. Little phased, Blackham quickly “settled down to work,” getting “Ulyett away to leg for a single first ball.” G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: one legbye. From the next ball came a leg-bye, taking the score to sixty. G Ulyett to JM Blackham: no run. Over 45 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: one run. “Midwinter then made a single in the slips off Shaw, this time rather uppish.” To date, in this respect, he had been remarkably disciplined. Horan was pleased to find that he “had learned to keep the ball on the ground.” In consequence, however, “runs were only obtained in driblets.” A Shaw to JM Blackham: two runs. “Blackham drove the next to long on for a couple.” A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: one run. “Blackham now began to score quickly,” “getting a single to mid-on from the last of the over,” “it being well run by Midwinter, upon whom the example of the Englishmen in making short runs had evidently not been lost.” Over 46 G Ulyett to JM Blackham: no run. G Ulyett to JM Blackham: one run. “Midwinter … made a similar run for Blackham in Ulyett’s next.” G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. Over 47 A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: one run. “A single was made by Blackham in Shaw’s twenty-fourth over.” A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. Attentive readers will have observed that that single was not the most remarkable thing about this over, for Ben Terry counted one ball too many. Over 48 G Ulyett to JM Blackham: no run. “The play once more became steady, and the runs few.” G Ulyett to JM Blackham: no run. G Ulyett to JM Blackham: no run. G Ulyett to JM Blackham: no run. “Ulyett bowled a maiden.” Over 49 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: three runs. Midwinter, “not to be behindhand,” drove Shaw to long on for a single, and hesitated over a second, with the result that the batsmen “got both at the same end, but fortunately for them the fieldsman who had the ball could not throw it in straight.” Then they “added couple for an overthrow.” The fielder is unidentified, but this incident was no doubt at the front of The Age reporter’s mind when he observed that “the English fielding was now and then loose in places.” A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. Now Umpire Terry compensated, giving Shaw only three balls in his 26th over. Perhaps this was deliberate. Over 50 G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: one run. Midwinter had made now “a very good stand,” with “an exhibition of excellent batting.” Presently he took a single to mid-off (or “in front of point”). The Australasian asserts, in contradiction of all available evidence, that this stroke went for four: “Midwinter opened out to Ulyett and secured his first 4.” Perhaps the “opened out” bit is true. Australia was seventy for six. If the crowd was not yet restored to its former confidence, its late fears at least had been mollified. G Ulyett to JM Blackham: no run. G Ulyett to JM Blackham: no run. Over 51 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: one run. He “then snicked Shaw to short-leg for a single.” A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. Over 52 G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. “Midwinter … accepted a maiden from the fast bowler.” Over 53 A Shaw to JM Blackham: no run. A Shaw to JM Blackham: OUT. Blackham, “no match for Shaw’s wily ways,” now “ran out to a ball pitched well up … and got hit on the leg,” “right in front.” Umpire Terry’s decision seems bold. Under the Laws then in place, the ball had not only to hit the batsman in line, but also to pitch in line. Furthermore, it was only with the rise of Hawkeye that umpires grew bold enough to dismiss batsmen who had used their feet. It should be said, though, that his decision drew no censure in the press. 71 for seven. Blackham’s next appearance: Blackham batted with free-dom and livelness, particularly when favoured with an opportunity to effect cuts. The career of the latter was brought abruptly to a close in consequence of the habit he seems to have fallen into of stopping the ball with his leg instead of his bat. The Australian captain was in at number nine. Horan thought this “rather late” for such an “undoubtedly … fine hitter.” A Shaw to DW Gregory: no run. A Shaw to DW Gregory: no run. Over 54 G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. Midwinter “played a maiden from Ulyett.” Over 55 A Shaw to DW Gregory: no run. A Shaw to DW Gregory: three runs. Gregory “was not long in opening his score,” making here a “fine, free” cut off Shaw for three. “He seemed to be about to favour the spectators with some lively play.” A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. Over 56 G Ulyett to DW Gregory: no run. G Ulyett to DW Gregory: no run. G Ulyett to DW Gregory: no run. G Ulyett to DW Gregory: no run. But first he “took a maiden from Ulyett, whose fast bowling appeared not to be exactly relished by the captain.” In truth it was relished by no-one bar the Englishmen and their supporters. Ulyett’s figures, up to the present moment, were 14-5-21-2. He had bowled “remarkably well” all through the match, but had quite outdone himself this second innings, and “literally [sic] ‘stuck the batsmen up,’” as The South Australian Register thought proper to put it. Over 57 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. “More maidens ensued, the trundling good, and the batsmen playing carefully.” Shaw, unchanged from the start of the innings, had been “remarkably fine, and it appeared almost impossible to get runs from him.” Like Ulyett (but apparently not “literally”), he “stuck most of the batsmen up, and brought his great reputation once more from the shade into the sunshine.” The fielding, too, had so recovered its edge as to merit the descriptor “admirable.” Shaw himself, after his early balls-up, had done “exceedingly well.” As such the scoring was “painfully slow.” From Shaw, indeed, it was “almost impossible.” Over 58 G Ulyett to DW Gregory: no run. G Ulyett to DW Gregory: no run. G Ulyett to DW Gregory: no run. G Ulyett to DW Gregory: no run. But as the runs slowed to a trickle, so the paeans came in a tide. “The bowling of Shaw and Ulyett,” reckoned The Herald, was “superior to anything ever before displayed even by this strong bowling team.” Ulyett’s calculated hostility was such that “for several overs none of the players seemed able to understand him…. The match has most undoubtedly proved that ‘head bowling’ rather than force is most required to get wickets against such first-class batsmen as Australia can now boast.” Three maidens had lapsed since Gregory’s first runs. Over 59 A Shaw to WE Midwinter: no run. A Shaw to WE Midwinter: one run. Midwinter broke the spell by lifting Shaw “hard” to the on for a single, and in the doing broke his resolution to keep the ball aground. He had made seventeen, “a very serviceable innings,” “by real good steady cricket.” He was playing “grandly.” But he had grown impatient. A Shaw to DW Gregory: no run. A Shaw to DW Gregory: no run. Over 60 G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: no run. G Ulyett to WE Midwinter: OUT. Ulyett fired in another bouncer, and Midwinter seems to have fanned a hook at it; at any rate, he made “an attempt at a hard hit.” But it struck him on the finger (which he had prudently confined to a glove), and “bounding high in the air,” “curling up towards short leg,” was “safely held” by Southerton. “8-17-75.” Several observers thought him unfortunate. The Age reported his dismissal as “a fluke,” observing that “altogether the luck was entirely against the Australians.” Southerton: “Midwinter, who played a more steady game than was expected of him.” Over 61 Kendall was in, second last. He was worth anything to Australia that the MCG contained, if only he would only stay there. “Smith and Kendall appeared first at the wickets, to the bowling of Searcy and Boyle. Kendall hit right merrily for 17, when Boyle found a weak spot and bowled him” (Australasian “Richmond v. East Melbourne” 24 February 1877).

A Shaw to DW Gregory: OUT. The next ball was “a hot one,” but not so hot that it should have burnt first through Gregory’s defence and then through his timbers. It was a poor stroke, a culpable stroke. Horan speculates that he was actuated by “the feeling that he must make the most of the little time at his disposal, which led him into temptation, and let Shaw find an easy way to his wicket.” Whatever the niceties of his getting out, out he was, for three: “a great disappointment.” This was true, too, of his brother; indeed, of the New South Welshmen as a collective, who had contributed just 25 runs between them. The Australian innings, with Australian hopes, was nodding like a sunflower; like a sunflower it had run to a deal of seed. A glance at the telegraph board would have sent any patriot’s heart into his shoes. Alfred Shaw, in contrast, had been resistless. Gregory’s was his fifth wicket of the innings. He had bowled from the start, without a break. His match figures were 86-47-83-8, with the prospect of another to come. Nor was this, for him, an especially wonderful thing. In a first-class career spanning three decades, he bowled more overs (??) than he conceded runs (??).Meredith: “In twenty-seven seasons he took over 2,000 wickets and bowled more overs than had runs scored off him!” The Australians had crumbled before him like a hollow heap of sand. Only Bannerman and Horan, according to the later, “and perhaps Midwinter,” seemed not “to stand in awe of the master.” It was one of those collapses which come so quickly as to seem more of the order of a disappearance:

The bell at the gate had scarcely sounded when Mr. Meagles came out to receive them. Mr. Meagles had scarcely come out, when Mrs. Meagles came out. Mrs. Meagles had scarcely come out, when Pet came out. Pet had scarcely come out, when Tattycoram came out. Hodges walked out, last man, on the hope of saving some few cinders from the holocaust. There were five minutes left in the day, and “not a few” who thought he would subside long ere they did. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. Over 62 G Ulyett to TK Kendall: no run. G Ulyett to TK Kendall: four runs. First, however, Kendall “opened his shoulders to Ulyett, driving him beautifully” over the mid-off for four. Horan thought the stroke “worthy of Bannerman,” even if the latter was less inclined to the aeolian way. Kendall had no such misgivings. For Richmond on this ground in January, he had skied his way to an unbeaten 42, one of the “freest and most rapid contributions” of his career. G Ulyett to TK Kendall: one run. The next ball he put in the air again, cutting it over the head of point for a single. This took Australia to eighty. G Ulyett to JR Hodges: three runs. Hodges was at an impressionable age, so it should not astonish us that he was quick to follow suit, hitting Ulyett “hard” and “desperately” through square leg for a “pretty” three. The score was 83 for nine, which translated into a lead of 132. Kendall was not out five, Hodges three. So stood the case at stumps on the third day. If the newspapers are anything to go by, the purists will have gone home happy. The Herald reported that “throughout the day the exhibition of cricket on both sides was splendid,” which word was duplicated in The Ballarat Star. “Splendid” was also how Lillywhite elected to draw the efforts of his bowler. But the press did not represent quite so faithfully the feelings of the partisans. Horan in The Argus had a professional imperative to be optimistic, and seems rather to strain for it, but cannot account for the others, of whose tone and substance The Ballarat Star is an exemplum: The match, it said, still hung “in the balance,” such that it was “difficult to state how it will end.” The Englishmen, at best, were narrow favourites. The Herald anticipated a fourth-innings target of “140 at least.” This was presuming a lot upon the last-wicket pair, but “should the bowling and fielding of the colonials today be as good as it was on Saturday,” there was “no certainty” that it would be achieved. The bookmakers, having England 7/4 on, took a more realistic view. So too The Evening Journal, based in Adelaide. Meredith: “However, a Sunday rest-day now intervened and the Englishmen began celebrating prematurely.” Any evidence for this? Begbie: “The Englishmen were back to their professional best, and it looked as though Bannerman's masterpiece may have been in vain. The Sabbath was a sober day of rest, rendered the more sober by Australia's dwindling prospects.”

Saturday (St. Patrick's Day), though not a public holiday, was generally observed by that portion of the community who claim St. Patrick as their national saint. Through-out the day green was the prevailing colour in the streets. The Hibernian societies organised a procession, and marched round the town, down to the Friendly Societies' gardens, where their fete was held. The weather was very fine, and rendered the open air entertainments highly enjoyable. On the M.C.C. ground the combined match All-England v. Australia was continued. A polo match was held at the Agricultural Society's ground, and at Kyneton the race meeting, always held on this day, passed off very satisfactorily. In the evening the usual places of entertainment were well at-tended. The match Australia v. England attracted an unusually large number of spectators to the M.C.C. ground on Saturday. The English Eleven finished their first innings for 196, or 49 runs less than the Colonial Eleven. Had the right-hand man of the combined team been unhurt, the condition of affairs would have been favourable for them, but Bannerman was not in a position to do more than show that he had pluck. Though he went in first, he really could not be re-garded as fit to do so. When the stumps were drawn nine men were out for 83. "What a falling off was there, Horatio." The match will be either finished or drawn to-day. Play will commence at noon, and the price of admission to the around after 3 o'clock will be 1s. At present the English team appear to have the best of it. The proposal to award a handsome testimonial to Bannerman has been taken up by the Victorian Association, who are so impressed with the necessity of making the presentation worthy of the occa-sion that the canvass for subscriptions will be conducted in such a manner as to enable all classes to contribute. The English Eleven entertain the highest opinion of Bannerman's performonce, and have intimated that they will subscribe £5 5s. to the fund.

The day broke; the shadows fled away. The weather was of high promise.

The Government astronomer reports: "The weather during the past week was fine, but generally dull and hazy, until to-wards the end of the week, when it was bright and clear. The highest temperature in the shade, 77.1deg., was recorded on the after-noons of the 14th and 15th; the lowest, 47.2deg., on the early morning of the 17th. The highest reading of the baromoter, 30.173in., occurred on the evening of the 16th, with a light south-easterly breeze; the lowest, 29 907in., on the afternoon of the 15th, with a moderate southerly wind, and throughout the week the readings of the barometer were high and very steady. Light misty rain fell on the evening of the 15th, amounting to 0.01in., making the total rainfall since the beginning of the year 5.93in., as compared with 2.45in. during the same period in 1876, 6.65in. in 1875, 5.53in. in 1874, 7.09in. in 1873, 6.42in. in 1872, 6.97in. in 1871, 3.39in. in 1870, 2.38in. in 1869, 3.35in. in 1868, 5.17in. in 1867, 2.90in. in 1866, min. in 1865, 6.44in. in 1864, 8.23in. in 1863, 2.42in., in 1862, 6.68in. in 1861, 3.85in. in 1860, 3.74in. in 1859, 6.09in. in 1858, or an average of 4.82in."

The annual meeting of the Kyneton Dis-trict Racing Club was held on Saturday afternoon, and proved a most successful affair. The attendance was very large, the weather bright and warm, and the racing good. His Excellency the Governor and Lady Bowen attended the meeting. Quick-silver won the Hurdle Race, Gaffer Grey was second, and Alice Hawthorne third. The Kyneton Handicap was won by Southern Cross, Fillibuster was second, and Haricot third. Benham won the Novel Selling Race, and was sold for £40 giving the club funds £30. Southern Cross won the Lauriston Handicap, and Peerless was second. Monk and Tom Kirk ran a dead-heat for third place. Beeswing won the Hack Race, and Hailstone the Consolation Stake. The special trains from Melbourne were well patronised, and the day's sport was greatly enjoyed by the visitors. A polo match played by the Indian team introduced by Mr. Parsons, was held in the Agricultural Society's grounds, St. Kilda road on Saturday afternoon. It had been anticipated that some of the members of the Melbourne Polo Club would have joined in the match and that the play would have been between the Indian and the Australian team, but the lattter did not come. A scratch match was therefore arranged to amuse the small number of spectators present. The blues were--Mr. M'Adam, Rajjub, and Hardee; and the reds--Mr. Parsons, Karreer, and Mortisar. Several games were played and victory declared itself on the side of the blues.

The Victorian Academy of Arts was opened on Saturday afternoon. His Excellency the Governor had been requested to perform the ceremony, but owing to a previous engage-ment he was unable to be present. All formalities were therefore dispensed with. During the afternoon and evening a consi-derable number of visitors attended the ex-hibition.

In their second innings the Englishmen made one hundred and six; Colonials one hundred and four. The highest score was made by Selby, 38. Bowling throughout very good.

CLEARED OUT. - MARCH 17. […] Ly-ee-Moon, s.s., 611 tons, F. Saunders, for Sydney. Passengers--saloon: Mr. and Mrs. Dodge, Mr. and Mrs. W. Gordon, Mr. and Mrs. E. Howard and child, Mr. and Mrs. Garrett, Mrs. J. S. Smith, Mrs. A. M. Hutchinson, Miss Baillie, Miss Dewhurst, Miss Par-nell, Hon. R. M. Stuart, Captain Craig, Messrs. Davenport, Alfred Davenport, J. E. Brown, J. C. Telford, R. Bryant, T. M. Dermer, J. Nissen, H. M. Caldwell, C. Caldwell, Dewhurst, C. E. Albrucht, CV. Hoffmeyel, Angel, David Christopher, and 17 in the steerage. W. Siddeley and Co., agents. […] Ly-ee-Moon, for Sydney.--6 packages tobacco and cigars, 200 cases salmon, 50 packages tea, 45 casks bottled stout, 18 oven plates, 3 packages cottons, 50 cases brandy, 5 cases confectionery, 7 packages drapery, 13 bags bean meal, 14 bags linseed, 2,247 bobbins (woollen yarn), 280 bags potatoes, 30 boxes tinplates, 50 cases castor oil, 10 packages merchandise.

Date and Hour Barometer At Sea Level Attached Therm. Temp. of Air March 16, 9p.m. 30 356 62.6 55.8 March 17, 9a.m. 30 352 63.3 62.1 March 17, 3p.m. 30 244 65.0 71.0. Over 63 The Australasian takes up the story: “The sound of rain in the night raised fears as to what the day would bring forth. However, old Sol shone out brightly in the morning, and the day proved fine, though very close.” The Australian Associated Press went for outright heat rather than humidity, but The Herald thought it “admirably suited for cricket.” Standing the sun like Salamanders. The Government Astronomer reports: “[…] lightning on the evening of the 18th. […] Rain fell on the early morning of the 19th to the amount of 0.01in., making the total rainfall since the beginning of the year 5.94in., as co,pared with 3.46in. during the same period in 1876, 6.65in. in 1875, 7.36in. in 1874, 8.45in. in 1873, 7.76in. in 1872, 8.26in. in 1871, 3.51in. in 1870, 2.42in. in 1869, 3.35in. in 1868, 5.37in. in 1867, 3.92in in 1866, 1.96in. in 1865, 650in. in 1864, 8.32in. in 1863, 2.43in. in 1862, 7.08in. in 1861, 3.91in. in 1860, 3.86in, in 1859, 6.88in. in 1858, or an average of 5.34in.”

March 19.--9 a.m.: Wind E.N.E., light; weather cloudy, dull. Barometer, 30 35; thermometer 74. 1 p.m: Wind N., light; weather fine, sultry. Baro-meter, 30.34; thermometer, 75. 4 p.m.: Wind E., very light; weather very fine. Barometer, 30.25; thermometer, 74.

Date and Hour Barometer At Sea Level Attached Therm. Temp. of Air. March 17, 9 p.m. 30 260 65.8 62.8 March 18, 9 a.m. 30 300 65.0 71.0 March 18, 3 p.m. 30 254 67.0 84.8 March 18, 9 p.m. 30 228 70.4 69.2 March 19, 9 p.m. 30 290 68.4 75.0 March 19, 3 p.m. 30 214 72.0 86.0.

From Observations taken at 9 a.m. Yesterday, and Reduced to Sea Level and 32° Fahr. Name of Place Bar. Ther. Wind Point Wind Force General Remarks Melbourne 30 18 75 N.N.E. Light Sultry, fine, r. 0.01.

From Observations taken at 9 a.m. on Saturday […] Name of Place Bar. Ther. Wind Point Wind Force General Remarks Melbourne 30 26 62 N.E. Light Fine, clear.

CRICKET COMBINATION MATCH The PLAY TO-DAY will COMMENCE At 12 noon, And Cease at half past 5 p.m. After 3 o' clock the price for admission will be ONE SHILLING JOHN CONWAY, Agent, A.E.E.

The ground, according to The Evening Journal, was likewise amendable. If “ground” here means “pitch” (which it very often did in Nineteenth-Century reportage), this omened good for Lillywhite’s men. They took the field sometime between 12:15 and 12:20, presumably after the usual warm-ups and practices. These must have been even more annoying than usual, for there was but one wicket to take, which “it was thought would be done in one or two overs.” That is one clue that public opinion was little influenced by its fence-sat fourth estate. Here is another: “Very few professed judges of the game had any doubt at the commencement of the play … that the English eleven would win the match. Some persons, in language to be admired for its suggestive brevity rather than its elegance, pronounced the result to be ‘a moral for Lillywhite’s eleven.’” But we can do better than anecdotal evidence: For all the certainty of The Herald that the match retained “great interest for the public,” and would “induce a very large attendance,” there were only 300 to 400 people present at the start. You could cut the tension with the jackhammer. The advertised reduction after 15:00 of the price of admission, from ?? to a shilling, may account for some of this. “England needed only 155 to win and it seemed all over. The crowd certainly thought so, for there was a miserable attendance of 3000 for the final day.” Begbie: “Only a few hundred watched the Englishmen take the field at noon on the Monday.” Shaw resumed from the railway end to Hodges… A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: four runs. “…who got the last ball well away” through square leg for four—“a good hit.” His only previous runs, made last night, had also gone through square leg. Hodges was a genuine number eleven, with that number’s taste for the swat across the line. This stroke he had manifested repeatedly, but with little success, in the same match that brought Kendall his 42. But he had a good eye, and in club cricket his technical shortcomings were not nearly so fatal, which is why in that match he was in at number six. Over 64 Ulyett went on at the other end. Tailenders in 1877 were not quite as doughty as the 2021 vintage. Bouncers were sure to discomfit them. G Ulyett to TK Kendall: no run. G Ulyett to TK Kendall: four runs. But bouncers can be pulled and hooked. Kendall lifted Ulyett’s second to square leg or mid-on for another four, taking the score into the nineties “much to the gratification of the backers of Australia.” G Ulyett to TK Kendall: no run. G Ulyett to TK Kendall: no run. Over 65 A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: one run. “Efforts were not slackened, for 2 were obtained from Shaw’s next over,” by means of a single to each batsman, who clearly “meant business.”

A Shaw to TK Kendall: no run. 
A Shaw to TK Kendall: one run. “Ten off three overs.”

Over 66 G Ulyett to TK Kendall: four byes. The first ball of the next over went past everyone en route to the fence. The Age blames Armitage at long stop, but that unhappy cricketer had a tenable excuse, the ball having deflected off an imperfection in the outfield. In this we find further support for the theory that The Evening Journal meant “pitch” by “ground.” The former, according to The Australasian, was playing “well and truly, though somewhat faster than on the previous day.” The rain overnight had revivified it. This is the first appearance in the press coverage of a long stop, but probably not the first time in the match that that position had been occupied. By 1877 it was ever-present, almost mandatory, having been “reduced [sic] to a great art by many gentlemen.” In the words of James Lillywhite’s late cousin, the far-famed John, it Yields to none in point of courage, adroitness, and close watching, and yet, curious to say, it is full of unthankfulness when you perform its wonderful duties well, and full of groans should you appear to be awkward by reason of the difficulties which will present themselves in spite of good ground and great exertions. Armitage could have testified. Implicit in Lillywhite’s remarks is that it was not a job for the idle. To field at long stop was to be pressed into frequent service—more frequent by far than we would expect from the small number of mistakes perpetrated by modern wicketkeepers. But we should avoid the conclusion, at first blush very tempting, that their Nineteenth-Century counterparts were forever bumbling and bungling. The rubbishing of Selby shows that a great deal was expected of them. For one thing, they almost always stood up to the stumps, even for fast bowling. For another, the long stop was there not only to protect against errors; he also permitted the wicketkeeper to sidestep unsafe deliveries (not uncommon against fast bowling on archaic pitches) at no cost to the byes column. But in this case we find Selby with a long stop even after his retreat from the stumps. Where Blackham combined the two most difficult elements of his art—standing up to fast bowling and forfeiting the insurance of a long stop—Selby did away with both. We now have some idea of why, despite having conceded only five byes in 235 overs before this, his efforts were so universally condemned. G Ulyett to TK Kendall: two runs. “Next ball Kendall played nicely to leg for 2.” G Ulyett to TK Kendall: no run. G Ulyett to TK Kendall: four runs. Kendall went aerial again to the last ball of the over —a drive of the first water, either “to the off” or “over the bowler’s head” (or both, if Ulyett was bowling around the wicket). This brought up the Australian century, and brought the crowd to its feet. There were but few of them, but their cheers were resonant. Day four was four overs old. Already it had yielded twenty runs. The last-wicket pair, having “realised the importance of the position,” took calculated risks, and the utmost care when discrimination were against them. Their partnership for the moment was a mere fly in the ointment, a monkey in the wrench, a pain in the ass. Given another twenty minutes, it might become much more than that. Over 67 A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. A Shaw to JR Hodges: no run. “A maiden from Shaw to Hodges, the bowling sending the batsman far back on his wicket, but not proving effective.” Over 68 Ulyett’s late punishment—ten runs off the last over—moved Lillywhite to take affairs into his own hands. J Lillywhite to TK Kendall: one run. Kendall drove his first ball for a single to “forward cover-point.” In eleven deliveries, by “some neat play,” he had added a dozen to his Saturday’s five. The last-wicket partnership, after a quarter-hour’s batting, was worth 21, off 21 balls. This, according to Horan, was “one more run than we considered it prudent to allow them.” J Lillywhite to JR Hodges: no run. J Lillywhite to JR Hodges: no run. J Lillywhite to JR Hodges: OUT. “Then the end came, the last ball of the over being one too many for Hodges.” As it was well up to the bat, he attempted, quite reasonably, to drive it. But cricket is a cruel and exacting game, and seldom takes the will for the deed. Shaping “very simply,” and unable to get over what was probably a yorker, his stroke met unresisting air, and his middle stump received it. 104 all out. Of this number Hodges had made eight, “got at a very important stage of the game.” Kendall’s contribution was a not-out seventeen. The two left-handers—the only two in the team—had shown “by no means the worst play of the match.” Arguably it was the best of the innings. With Bannerman out of the way, “the rest,” wrote Southerton, “did not give us much trouble.” The tenth-wicket stand was worth more than a quarter of the Australian total, and almost twenty per cent of England’s 154-run target. This was not so modest as it might have been. From the calamity for 35 for five had followed only an average equality of failure. But it was surely insufficient to lend hope to success. “Chasing 154 (an apparent formality considering their strength).” It is difficult to say how the experts felt about Australia’s chances. With so much time left in the day, the match was certain to be decided, either way, before stumps. They would not have to broadcast their predictions, and none of them did. The Bendigo Advertiser’s hindsight is that “matters were very interesting.” The Herald claims to have thought them “tolerably even.” But expert opinion could comfortably distance itself from the popular variety, and report that honestly, by the suggestive expedient of the passive voice: England’s target “was regarded as by no means a formidable undertaking for them.” That was Horan. Here he is again, in an account for the same newspaper’s European section: “No doubt was entertained of their ability to make the required number.” England 2nd innings Over 1 Begbie: “Lillywhite wanted 154 for England's pride.” There was a short interval, during which the wicket was carefully rolled, and after which, in the words of The Australasian, “no time was lost by our men in getting into the field.” This they did, in due form and state, at 12:45. For the first time they were joined by Bannerman, who stood at long off and short leg, “though his finger was still stiff from Friday’s hurt.” He was “hailed with a hearty cheer,” and with equally “hearty applause.” Five minutes glided by ere the English batsmen egressed from the pavilion. The wait is perhaps accounted for by the entirely altered composition of the opening pair. This time it was Greenwood and Hill. The latter took the first over from Kendall, bowling from the southwestern or railway or “upper wicket.” As we have seen, he had opened successfully in several of this tour’s lesser matches. TK Kendall to A Hill: no run. TK Kendall to A Hill: OUT. But he did not long enjoy the dignity in its biggest. Seeking to larrup his second ball to long on, he “carefully” popped it up to Nat Thomson at mid-on, who held it “quite as carefully”—“the board showing the century in the most unpleasant manner for the in-team.” “1-0-0!” cried the scorers, and there was “great rejoicing amongst colonials generally.” Lillywhite did not explain Hill’s promotion, which after Jupp’s first innings seems queer, but he must have regretted it. Perhaps he had ordered a repeat of Hill’s first innings, his idea being demoralise the Australians (or as we put it now, to “take the game away from them”) by a belligerent gambit. They lost Allen Hill second ball, slogging to mid-on, and within an hour were 22 for 4. From there, on a wearing pitch, there was no way back. Belligerence was the last thing he could expect from the next item in his vanguard. Jupp was in so early that he might have been opening again. “Lillywhite was taking no more chances.” Nor was the Australian captain. Remembering the aggravations and embarrassments of Friday, he brought in his field, “to prevent thefts.” TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Jupp “took the remaining two balls of the over without scoring.” Over 2 Midwinter took up the bowling from the north-eastern end (otherwise “the lower”), and prepared to give battle to Greenwood. WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: one run. The Yorkshireman cut his first ball for a single, which must have gone pretty fine, since the Weekly Times and The Herald report a bye. Theirs are very accurate accounts (especially in opening sessions, before the obtrusion of fatigue and the contraction of room), but I find cause to reject them in the list of Greenwood’s scoring shots, which was almost certainly copied from the scorebook. It is not improbable, of course, that the scorers, Plummer and Kennon, made an error themselves, in failing to spot or hear the umpire’s signal. We are not given the direction of Greenwood’s stroke, which would usually be “past point” or “in the slips.” My suspicion is that he missed, and that Blackham did the like. But the evidence is insufficient. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: one run. Jupp “gave a chance to E. Gregory in the slips, but the fieldsman slipped in trying to get in to it, and 1 was scored.” The Bendigo Advertiser is not necessarily inconsistent in saying that the ball was “well put away to the off.” WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: no run, the batsmen “appearing to find cautious play necessary.” At any rate, “it was obvious that neither … relished the Australian bowling.” Kendall and Midwinter, in “excellent form,” were “not to be trifled with.” WE Midwinter to A Greenwood: two runs. Presumably, then, Greenwood took no undue risk in “cutting for a couple the last ball,” which “ought to have been but a single had Kendall taken the ball smartly.” He let it through his legs instead. Over 3 TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: one run. “Three were then got off Kendall.” First Jupp cut or “drove him for a single.” TK Kendall to A Greenwood: two runs. Then “a couple to Greenwood to leg next ball.” TK Kendall to A Greenwood: OUT. The next ball, the last of the over, did for Greenwood. He essayed a drive, but “did not take into consideration the curl that was on the ball,” and like Hill before him, spooned it “high” in front of the wicket, this time to Midwinter at mid-off (or “forward cover”), who held “a dolly catch.” He left the field looking perfectly imbecile. “2-5-7!” called the scorers. Begbie: “A flicker of hope as the Australian tail wagged briefly.... But now Kendall fanned the flicker with a couple of quick English wickets.” Over 4 “The appearance of Charlwood prepared the spectators for some lively play.” WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: no run. WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: one run. And he “showed that he meant business by scoring a single off each bowler,” first cutting Midwinter in the slips for one, “which might have been a four but for Kendall’s agility.” That fielder thus earned back threefold the run he had forfeited an over ago. It was to be a recurring theme in this innings: “Most of the players who fumbled a ball soon made up for the offence by extraordinary smartness in some other direction.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Over 5 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: one run. We have no specific detail for the second run mentioned above, but The Bendigo Advertiser confirms that Charlwood took it from the very next over. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. TK Kendall to H Jupp: no run. Over 6 WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: no run. WE Midwinter to HRJ Charlwood: one run. With yet another, from Midwinter’s next, he hoisted England’s double figures. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Jupp, said The Australasian, was “doing nothing.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. So much for that! Now he “opened his shoulders” and drove the ball back “tremendously hard to Midwinter’s left hand, the bowler being unable to hold it, and doing well to stop it.” Arriving “no higher than the knees,” it was “too difficult to take on such short notice”—“hardly possible,” in fact. But Midwinter made “a great effort,” and probably foiled four runs. Over 7 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: four runs. To date Charlwood had contributed only singles, but “evidently meant to make the running fast if possible, and in Kendall’s next opened out” and got him “splendidly” to deep square leg. “A policeman stationed at the edge of the circle had to hasten out of the way” as the ball “bounced past him and over the chains into the midst of the crowd.” It was the first boundary of the innings. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: two runs. Later the same over, Charlwood drove down the ground for a single. Dave Gregory, at long off, returned the ball “smartly,” but Kendall fumbled the receipt, “and the batsmen stole a run while he was looking about to see what had become of it.” Over 8 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: two runs. In the next over, as if tribute, “Horan dashed in to stop a hit along the ground to mid-on, but forgot to pick up the ball, and the vigilant batsmen at once availed themselves of the opportunity to procure an additional run.” “With the exception of Blackham,” confirmed The Australasian, “the fielding at this time was not first-class, one or two runs being given through carelessness or bad judgment.” WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. Over 9 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: two runs. Another commanding hit to long off from Charlwood brought up the twenty. Jupp’s share was just four, but Charlwood, “playing very vigorously,” had “made matters merry, and put eleven together in a very short space of time.” His innings had been “brilliant,” his runs “well-got,” even though, in The Herald’s review, “the bowling and fielding [sic!] was excellent.” TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. There is some disagreement as to the rate of scoring at this point. Horan though it “rapid,” but The Sydney Morning Herald told its readers that “the bowling was all too good and the runs were only obtained very slowly.” For the record, they were going along at more than two runs an over—3.33 in six-ball terms. Over 10 WE Midwinter to H Jupp: no run. WE Midwinter to H Jupp: OUT. Jupp had better have taken his tone from Charlwood, for now Midwinter bowled a slow, full, straight one, in playing which he got right across and in front, “again defending his wicket with his legs.” This, the Australasian’s choice of words, implies no stroke; the word “again” admits of a like conclusion about his dismissal in the first innings. “‘Out’ was the answer,” given at once, to the appeal, “much to the jubilation of our men’s supporters. 3-4-20.” With this, according to The South Australian Register, all hope died in the breasts of the English sympathisers.” It is curious to find both The Ballarat Star and The Herald telling their readers that Jupp was “smartly” and “magnificently” caught behind. Probably they missed the delivery, and saw or heard only the appeal, and worked off the assumption, not unreasonable, that any catch by Blackham must be a great one. Certainly “caught” made more sense than “lbw,” the latter Law being stricter than it is today, and its execution rarer in proportion. For “the mainstay of the Englishmen” to have been pinned twice in this manner was a freakish chance. The South Australian Register considered it “perhaps the most unfortunate feature” of the entire match. Its explanation for this remark is of some interest, as showing how moot was this mode of dismissal in 1877: There is always a certain degree of regret and often unpleasantness in connection with such decisions, and especially when so much depends on the play of a single man, or when that man is a sure scorer like the renowned Surrey batsman. It is pretty generally known that Jupp makes a practice of standing before his wicket, and the knowledge of this fact would lead to less sympathy being shown towards him. While saying this, however, I do not wish it to be understood that I am imputing unfairness to the umpires who officiated in the match—Messrs Curtis Reid and Terry—who are highly respected here. I am merely recording the fact, and expressing regret at the contingency which arose. In fact, neither of Jupp’s severances seemed dubious to those who reported them, and I think it implicative that we have no proof of dissension from Jupp himself. He never forbore when he felt his rights had been encroached upon. That in pad-play he had formed a dangerous habit he confirmed just three months later, in his first match back in England, when he was again limed lbw both innings, this time by WG Grace. John Selby was the new batsman, like Greenwood a rapid scorer. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. Over 11 TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: no run. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: two runs. “Just after Selby joined Charlwood, the latter pulled Kendall to square-leg for 2.” But The Australasian describes this as a drive, so I have split the difference with a sweep. TK Kendall to HRJ Charlwood: OUT. To the next, a legside delivery, he went forward “with negligent ease.” But it “hung a bit,” and on pitching turned out to have “far more ‘devil’ in it than he allowed.” It spun across him, beat his outside edge, and trimmed his bails. It was a miracle of rare device: an authentic jaffa. If a good fairy had formed it with a wave of her wand, it could scarcely have been better. 22 for four: The innings was collapsing like a starved man’s cheeks. The Australians’ supporters, if “a little incredulous,” were tickled pink. This much was natural, but it is curious to read Horan’s assurance that “the friends of the Englishmen” remained certain of their triumph. These, after all, are the same friends we met only an over ago with misery on their faces. In Horan’s telling they still believed that “the quality of the men left in the eleven was good enough to leave the probable issue undisturbed.” How Horan could have been privy to their sentiments, being out in the field, we cannot now ascertain, but we are entitled to our suspicions. At any rate it is impossible to square their thinking with the simple fact that Ulyett, Charlwood’s successor, was “the last of the crack bats of the team,” and probably the only man left who could exercise his influence towards the bright reversal of these dismal events. Here he came now, “looking very like business.” TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. Over 12 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. “These two batsmen were evidently determined to reprieve the lost positions of their confreres, for they commenced to play very carefully,” beginning with this maiden from Midwinter. The bowling “was too good to be trifled with, and the fielding all round good also.” Over 13 TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. “Ulyett batted out a maiden from Kendall,” who was applying his utmost arts, winding webs and meshes by the concessions of his fingers. In this way he had gotten a pretty tune out of the wicket, which was “a good deal worn from having been played on for four days; and made the ball ‘bite’ a bit.” Certainly it was “not nearly so good on Monday, the ball breaking at times considerably.” Adapt: “The Richmond end of the pitch, where the vast procession of English fast bowlers had worn their track, was like a road back of Bourke.” Over 14 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: one run. The defibrillation began: “Selby made his first single in Midwinter’s next over, to mid-off.” WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run, Ulyett showing “some very careful and judicious play.” Over 15 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: four runs. “In Kendall’s next Selby opened out” with a “beautiful” hit through square leg. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: one run. But then he skied Kendall “clean behind the wickets,” where Ned Gregory, running from slip, “engaged in an attempt to lay hands on the ball.” In this he failed, but only just, having too far to run. The batsmen stole a single—itself “very flukey,” for there was “a very narrow squeak of a double death by catching and running out.” Over 16 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. “A maiden from Midwinter to Selby.” Over 17 TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: two runs. Ulyett to this point had shown “admirable caution,” content with “the barren honours to be got out of maiden overs.” But now he opened his score with a “hard-hit” drive to long-off, where “the inability of D. Gregory to at once pick up the ball made all the difference between 1 and 2 runs.” “30 up!” reported The Herald, exclamation mark and all. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. Another close shave from the next ball, which “was nearly played back to Kendall.” TK Kendall to G Ulyett: four runs. Ulyett recovered well enough to drive the following delivery, to great acclaim, to the long-on boundary for four—a “fine,” straight hit, “all along the ground.” Over 18 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. “Midwinter’s next was a maiden. He bowled so well that few runs could be made off him.” Over 19 TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. “Ditto from Kendall to Ulyett,” who was “very nearly bowled” by the concluding delivery. Kendall was “evidently not [to his] liking.” Over 20 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: one run. “The batsmen now seemed set for a lengthened stand, and runs came slowly but surely.” Here Selby took a single from “a splendid hard hit to long off,” where Bannerman, despite his injury, did some tidy fielding. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. Over 21 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: one legbye. “One to Selby off Kendall,” says The Herald. The Bendigo Advertiser says it went to leg. But it does not appear in Selby’s scoring-shots list, and to follow it would be to leave us a legbye short. It is specifically described, furthermore, by Horan (although, for the obvious reason that he did not and could not provide an over-by-over account, he does not situate it precisely): “Selby received a hard blow from Midwinter on the left knee, and limped about for a few seconds until an opportunity occurred for a run, when all his lameness was forgotten.” TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. So much forgotten, in fact, that Ulyett “several times refused to run for hits which Selby thought possible.” TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. Over 22 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. “A maiden from Midwinter to Selby.” That The Age refers to “a maiden from each” bowler at this point would seem to strengthen my case for a legbye in the last one. To give the run to Selby would be to leave both his batting and Kendall’s bowling with one more run than in the scorecard, and to deny the latter one of his maidens. Over 23 TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. “In Kendall’s next over Ulyett was nearly stumped by a splendid piece of wicketkeeping on Blackham’s part.” TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: one run. “The batsman made a single off the over…” Over 24 WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: one run. “…then one off Midwinter.” Although “the scoring for some time was very slow, owing to the excellence of the bowling … the batsmen succeeded in sneaking runs.” WE Midwinter to J Selby: two runs. “The monotony of singles was in some degree relieved” by the next ball, which Selby drove for a brace, one run being down to a fumble from Horan at long on. It took England into the forties. “On the whole,” if we believe The South Australian Register, the Australian fielding was “excellent.” Horan is specifically cited as an exception, but in his own account he spreads the blame, writing that generally “the fieldsmen behaved very shakily.” WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. Over 25 TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: three runs. “A leg shooter.” Ulyett only just got sufficient wood on it—“a slight touch,” “a fluke-like hit”—to spare his wicket. “One of the runs ought to have been put down to Selby, for it was got solely through his quick decision and nimbleness of foot.” TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. Over 26 WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: no run. WE Midwinter to G Ulyett: one run. A single to Ulyett “for a nicely placed ball off Midwinter.” WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. Over 27 TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: two runs. “The next hit of note was made by Ulyett, who drove Kendall well” to long-off, where Dave Gregory fumbled (not for the first time) and so permitted a second run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. This was “followed by a hit which would have scored had not Midwinter fielded actively.” His last two stops, off his own bowling and here, had blocked at least five runs between them. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. Over 28 The ground had begun to shift. Presently, “to the surprise of everyone,” Gregory brought himself on in place of Midwinter, “who was bowling very well,” but who may have wounded himself in the course of the previous over’s callisthenics. Of this I have no direct evidence, but it would furnish a sane reason, otherwise absent, for his ejection from the attack. For the first time in the match, Blackham required a long stop. From this you will have gathered that Gregory was either the fastest or the most erratic bowler in the Australian eleven. In fact he was both, but it had been whispered that he never “bowled” at all, and in his own team was one who had done more than whisper: It was six years since Nat Thomson no-balled him during a single-wicket intercolonial, precipitating a lifelong estrangement. “During the match a peculiar incident took place. D. Gregory, expecting that the umpire would no ball him for throwing, went up to the crease and made a pretence of bowling, not letting the ball out of his hand, and the umpire fell into the trap, calling "no ball." A great up roar ensued, and the umpire had to resign his position, W. Caffyn taking his place, and allowing Gregory to bowl without interfering with him. D. Gregory and Wills were bowlers of very doubtful delivery, and were frequently "no-balled."” Nor were his champions very convincing: “Round Arm,” in the Australian Town and Country Journal, gives no better defence than that in these “days of great latitude to bowlers,” Gregory ought to have his share. Still, his action had “long been allowed by colonial umpires to be fair,” which is why, for the moment, he saw no reason to defer to the prejudices of civilisation. In later years, however, Gregory would switch delivering a species of slow stuff his fellows mysteriously christened “Detrioters.” As the MCG had hosted a jaculative quarrel only a fortnight earlier (an ill-tempered fixture between the Melbourne and South Melbourne clubs), it seems unwise in Gregory to have risked another. Possibly John Conway, the quarreller-in-chief on that occasion, and by a coincidence also the organiser of this Test Match, had been careful to secure more reasonable officials. [Check for evidence.] “In 1872 Ned captained a combined 13, composed of Sydney, Tasmanian and South Australia a cricketers against Victorian team. The Victorian team was composed of Gibson, Campbell, Cooper, Gaggin, Kelly, Conway, Cosstick, Hepburn, McGann, Boyle and Willis. They made 136 and 89, the chief scorers being Cosstick 36, Cooper 29, Gaggin 27, Gibson 24. The combined team consisted of D. Gregory, E. Gregory, Teece, Hewitt, Coates, Thompson and C. Bannerman of Sydney, Hogg and Arthur of Tasmania, Morecombe, Barnes and Gooden of S. Australia. They made 113 and 113 for five wickets, winning easily. Arthur made 15 and 34 not out, E. Gregory 26 and 27, winning a cup, C. Bannerman 22 and 11 and D. Gregory was no-balled by G. Curtis the Sydney umpire.” E. Gregory came next, and immediately opened with a straight drive for a single, which he supplemented by a splendid drive between square leg and mid-on clean over the fence for three runs. Tumultuous cheering greeted this feat. During the next five minutes he made a single and several fine hits, which landed just behind the boundary stump. He now made a hit to square leg over the fence, which landed behind the outer boundary flag. An appeal was made against the hit, as the ball did not lodge in front of the boundary stump, but the umpire, Nat Thompson, refused to recall his decision, and when Sam Cosstick went to the cover point boundary to take a view as to where the ball pitched, he quietly remarked that the umpire was mistaken. Thompson upon this rather injudiciously left the field, amid some manifestations of disapprobation from the spectators, but he was persuaded soon after to resume his position; Mr Geo. Curtis having in the interim kindly filled the vacant post. (Leader “Intercolonial Single Wicket Match” 22 April 1871.) The betting, which had been at the commencement of the game 2 to 1 on Victoria, did not change, and the total of 24 runs was not considered beyond the abilities of the Victorians to contribute. Dave Gregory opened the bowling to Conway. The two first balls were no-balled by Nat Thompson, and the bowler handed the ball to his brother, E. Gregory, who commenced in rare form. (Leader “Intercolonial Single Wicket Match” 22 April 1871.) [Day two:] Dave Gregory was during Wills's innings again no balled in the first and second, but the third ball the bowler made a pretence of delivery—going through every action of the peculiar throw which characterises Dave Gregory's bowling but retaining the ball in his hand instead of permitting it to leave for the batsman's wicket. The umpire cried "no ball," and the ball was cast down, and the New South Wales trio retired to the pavilion (for which there was not the slightest necessity), and objected to the umpire. The umpire refused to recall his decision, and the “no ball" was allowed to stand over until competent authorities should judge as to whether it should count as a run or not. The umpire's mistake was a very excusable one, considering that it is well known D. Gregory throws, and that the "no ball" is to be called the very instant of delivery. To be precise in this, there is nothing easier in the world than to anticipate, particularly when the bowler gives his aid to deceive the umpire in his delivery. There was altogether too much bombast indulged in over the affair, and an altogether unnecessary amount of personal abuse indulged in by persons who should know better at the umpire's expense. It should be remembered umpires are but mortal, and are, therefore, open to error. Caffyn replaced Thompson, who declined to stand again. (Leader “Intercolonial Single Wicket Match” 22 April 1871.) Before concluding these remarks it may be mentioned that an ugly dispute occurred over the bowling of D. Gregory. The Victorians being without an umpire, the Gregories recommended N. Thompson as an eligible person for the post. The Victorians accepted N. Thompson as their umpire, and at the very outset D. Gregory was “no balled" by him twice in succession for throwing, amid great dissatisfaction from the crowd, and people who should have known better. At a later stage of the game, when D. Gregory went on again at Thompson's end, he was no-balled twice; but in the third ball he pretended delivery, and went through every action which constitutes the throw, save letting the ball go out of his hand. The umpire called "no-ball," and the Gregories forthwith left the field, and objected to him as umpire. N. Thompson declined, since they objected, to stand any longer, so he left the wicket; and the crowd showed excessively bad taste in yelling and hooting at him in the manner in which they did, and there can be no doubt that this disgraceful conduct had a marked effect on the decisions of Messrs Caffyn and Hilliard in relation as to whether D. Gregory bowled fairly or not. One of the umpires acknowledges that he cautioned him. If there was any doubt as to whether the ball was fair or not, the batsman should have the benefit, and the man "no balled." In reference to Thompson, he deserves the best thanks of every one for the noble stand he took to uphold the true principles of cricket; and the manner in which he was treated does not cast the least slur on his fairness as an umpire, nor can it be characterised as anything but a miserable subterfuge. (Leader “Intercolonial Single Wicket Match” 22 April 1871.) On the 8th, 10th, and 15th April 1871, the three Gregorys, Edward, David, and Charles, played a single wicket catch against Wells [sic], Cosstick, and J. Conway, and the Gregory's won by 5 runs. The match originated in this way. The three Victorians had previously played the recognised best three New South Welshmen—Lawrence, Nat. Thomson, and Caffyn—and beaten them twice, once for £100, and boasting of this feat so much Ned got irritated and challenged them to play the three Gregorys. The Victorians, thinking it a soft snap, accepted the challenge, and the brothers won as already stated. The game took place on the Albert Ground, Sydney, and 5000 people witnessed it. During the match a peculiar incident took place. D. Gregory, expecting that the umpire would no-ball him for throwing, went up to the crease and made a pretence of bowling, not letting the ball out of his hand, and the umpire fell into the trap, calling "no ball." A great uproar ensued, and the umpire had to resign his position, W. Caffyn taking his place, and allowing Gregory to bowl without interfering with him. D. Gregory and Wills were bowlers of very doubtful delivery, and were frequently “no balled.” (Recorder “Cricket Notes” Truth, 30 April 1899.) The Albert club sent to Toowoomba the strongest team it ever put into the field, and staggered everybody by suffering defeat at the hands of a weak team of the Aubigny club. During the match a deal of superfluous temper crept in, and no doubt elbowed out some of the cricket. In the matter of a captain objecting, to what appears to be a throw by a roundarm bowler, Queensland is much behind the times. The objection is made too often. Nothing can more closely resemble a throw than the deliveries of Southerton or D. Gregory, but we never hear now-a-days of either being “no-balled” or even objected to. It is the umpire's province to decide whether the alleged throws shall pass or not. Farther, throwing is not so difficult to play as bowling. If a man throws he cannot put any spin or bias on the ball, and shooters are very few. Therefore, though I by no means wish to encourage throwing, I should like to see fewer objections, especially where there are two opinions of equal value of the particular case in dispute. (Grubber “Cricket Notes” Week, 14 April 1877.) DW Gregory to J Selby: one run. Gregory’s “questionable style of delivery was at once remarked by the spectators.” It had, they thought, “a suspicious resemblance to a throw.” Selby got his first ball through the slips for a single. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. Ulyett drove the third “to the on,” or “to short leg,” and took two, thanks either to “the slowness of Hodges” or to his “mulling in the field,” or to both, which would explain the Weekly Times’s strong reference to his “wretched” efforts here. The Australians, with Blackham’s swift-responsive exception, had surrendered any number of runs through “sheer clumsiness.” But there was another problem, which was one of basic technique. “The hits were stopped,” according to Horan, “but the ball was not at once picked up, and the momentary delay was all that was needed to enable the batsmen to get an extra run.” They seemed unable “to stop the ball and pick it up from the turf with one action of the hand.” The Australasian here observed, as others had observed of the first innings, that “a lesson of working well together, and being always on the alert, may well be taken from the Englishmen.” Talking about grass, I am inclined to think that our Victorian fieldsmen should know something about it. I remember reading a delightful sketch about grass by Ruskin, and if our fieldsmen had something approaching his matchless charm of expression and elevation of thought I am sure they could favour us with some pretty poetic prose on the subject of grass. I know one young fellow whose sprinting day after day in futile pursuit of the splendid strokes of Mackay and Noble was a theme for praise all round the ground. He distinctly avers with great confidence that he knows every blade of grass on the MCC ground. More than this, he tells us something about grass that we cannot find even in Ruskin. This young Victorian fieldsman has found that the grass on the MCC ground "becomes very hard to the feet at about half-past 5 pm each day." And, would you believe it, this extraordinary statement (resulting, beyond a doubt, from close and continuous study) is strongly supported by comrades of this young fieldsman. They should be grateful to Mackay and Noble for enabling them to acquire so much information about the peculiarly hardening property possessed by grass on the MCC ground as the shades of evening are coming on. By the way, one looker-on, in a sympathetic tone, said to one of the Victorian sprinters, “Would you like a motor-car to chase them with?” (Horan, Tom. “Round the Ground.” The Australasian, 13 January 1906: 85.) DW Gregory to G Ulyett: two runs. Over 29 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. “Blackham had a chance to stump Selby, off Kendall, but could not get hold of the ball.” TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: one run. “Then a single by Selby from Kendall to long off required the 50 to be telegraphed.” Over 30 DW Gregory to J Selby: no run. DW Gregory to J Selby: one run. “A single to Selby off Gregory.” DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. Over 31 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. “Little was done for some overs.” Lillywhite was impressed by the bowling, Kendall’s especially. Over 32 DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. Over 33 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run—but a big chance, as Ned Gregory at slip dropped his second catch of the innings. “Ned played his first big match in 1862, with 22 of New South Wales against Stephenson's team, making nil and 4. His fielding in the outfield was by the Englishmen voted as magnificent, and he made no less than four catches in the match.” TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: one run. Selby indicated his gratitude with a single, “impudently stolen,” the ball having gone “no further than halfway to the opposite wicket.” The crowd, much diverted, gave him an ovation. Over 34 DW Gregory to J Selby: no run. DW Gregory to J Selby: one run. Feeling his oats, he stole another impudent single off Gregory, again “by putting the ball midway between the wickets.” The crowd repeated itself, too. If, as The Evening Journal reported, “the bowling was too good to be trifled with,” Selby was content to take his chances with the field. By my reckoning, he had been at the crease now for ten of these “ludicrously small hits”—major contributions in a match of such skeletal margins. “In this department the Englishmen proved incomparably better than the Australians, who, however, had the excuse of not having been drilled together. Many were the runs stolen by the Englishmen—particularly Jupp, Selby, and Emmett—for hits that did not send the ball a dozen yards—scarcely half-a-dozen sometimes—from the bat. Several runs were obtained for balls that were blocked almost dead, and which only went three or four yards between the two wickets. The batsmen were always on the lookout for this run-stealing, and not one of the Englishmen was run out. The Argus, commenting on this point on the day after the match, says the Australians have yet a very great deal to learn on this point. Undoubtedly they have.” “From the visitors much has still to be learned and we shall expect to see the present match produce marked effects on the season of 1877-8. Players like Charlwood, Selby, and Jupp show that as the attack improves upon the defence the batsman must steal advantages from the field. The first experiments may cause a few batsmen to be run out but efforts to place the ball should not be attended with many risks. Thoughtful attention should be taken of the fact that numerous as were the runs stolen by the English batsmen, not one of them was run out.” DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. He was all on fire to do it a third time, “but Ulyett, to the amusement of the crowd, signified by means of a little pantomime action with his left leg that it was absurd for a lame man to venture for impossibilities.” It is unclear how Ulyett sustained his injury , or if he was joking. Among cricketers he was a celebrated humorist and prankster, and this certainly sounds like a mimic of Selby’s behaviour in Over 21. Despite his loss of temper in England’s first innings, and his cruel bouncers in each of Australia’s, Ulyett was as sweet-tempered” and light of cheer “as beseemed a man known everywhere as “Happy Jack.” Over 35 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: one bye. For reasons that will very shortly become clear, I need Ulyett on strike in this over, and the only way to do that is to add a bye. This occasions no contradiction. Despite its appearance in the scorecard, we find no mention of a bye in any report of England’s second innings—not an uncommon fate for this species of run. But I do have to put it somewhere (even as I put to one side the strange events of Over 2). I have chosen this Kendall over rather than Gregory’s last because Blackham had a long stop for the latter. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: one run. Perhaps Ulyett had only been urging caution in Over 34. If so, his partner did all he could in this to vindicate him, being “very nearly run out in attempting one off a hit by Ulyett.” Had not Cooper’s throw been errant, there would have been no “nearly” about it. This, according to The Bendigo Advertiser, was another of those “ludicrously small hits.” It reduced the target to double figures. To Lillywhite’s men and their supporters, it was as if a cloud had passed from the sky. Over 36 We have seen that Gregory brought in his field on the early arrival of Jupp. But he seems not to have remembered that Selby was the professional runner, and that he, too, had stolen singles in England’s first innings. At any rate, it was only at this point that the Australian captain drew in his field. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: two runs. Now Ulyett drove Gregory to “short leg” (The Age), which seems an odd place for a drive to go, so I have made it midwicket. It brought him a couple, “again per favor of Hodges as to one of them.” The Australians had now conceded more runs than they had saved, which makes The Evening Journal’s praise of their fielding rather difficult to take in. Ulyett, meanwhile, “by good, free play,” had moved to nineteen, and with Selby had shown “the best style of free and yet true cricket.” DW Gregory to G Ulyett: no run. DW Gregory to G Ulyett: two runs. Acquiescing at last, he stole another run from the same over, and by the duress thus exacted upon the field, got one more on top of that: “So many runs had now been thrown away ... that Thompson thought it a pity not to throw away some more, and took a foolish shot at the bowler’s wicket when there was nobody near to stop the ball.” This was his third overthrow of the match, accounting for four runs in total. As the clock struck 14:00, the players adjourned for lunch, England having marshalled 59 of the 154 required. Ulyett and Selby walked off with 21 and sixteen respectively. They had placed a more hopeful appearance on the face of affairs. The scruffiness of the fielding indicated the set of the current. Even the bookies were beginning to despair: “Several persons were on the lookout for backers of the colonial eleven, but apparently could not find any.” This was not for want of punters, for there was now “a very good attendance on the ground.” Horan estimates it at “fully 2,000”—a near-sixfold improvement on the numbers at the commencement. With the match poised as it was, and ticket prices shortly to be slashed, it would only improve as the day progressed. This paragraph needs cleaning up (possibly deletion, in light of subsequent discoveries): In fact the score was 60 [no, it is 59]. As we have seen, the only extra in this innings so far—the legbye—was overlooked, but the confusion seems to come after the advent of the fifty. The Herald, whose account specifically documents ten runs between that point and lunch, also gives the score as 59 for four, and those singles are essential both for the batsmen's lunchtime scores, which are correct, and for having them at the correct ends for the deliveries that follow. A curious anomaly, which Charles Davis encountered as well. The upshot is that there will be a discrepancy of one between my score and the traditional one, but this is nothing to fret about. There is no way of removing a run without putting the batsmen at the wrong ends and making a mess of the whole enterprise. I'm confident, therefore, that the mistake is not mine. Actually, the confusion probably has its roots in the extras, only three of which are specifically mentioned. Two runs previously credited to Selby need to be given to byes, lest he finish with 40, and byes with three. “There was, as usual, much betting on the match, particularly on the last day. At lunch-time, with All-England not apparently well placed at 50-4 in their quest for 154, the betting still favoured them and few backers could be found for the Australians.” They appeared now, with those early dismissals, to have played a very cruel trick on their supporters, raising up hopes which they were bound to disappoint. Over 37 Play resumed at “about a quarter to 3,” or “ten minutes to,” the half-hour rationed for lunch having expanded to fifty. No official excuse or explanation was ever given. Horan suggests “the heat of the weather.” Upon Kendall, as he resumed his spell, was every eye in the pavilion head. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. “Both elevens then resumed play with strong determination,” Kendall opening with a maiden to Selby. “The excitement being now great, loud applause greeted the feat.” Over 38 Garrett took up the ball at the grandstand end, his captain’s efforts, legal or otherwise, having availed him nothing. Gregory seems not to have drawn so much as a false stroke in his five preprandial overs. The change was “greeted with cheers,” which seems a bit much; likewise The Evening Journal’s assertion that he had been “knocked about.” Nine runs off five overs is the equivalent of 2.7 an over in modern terms, and looks still better when we observe that almost half of these were down to misfields or quick singles. TW Garrett to G Ulyett: no run. TW Garrett to G Ulyett: no run. TW Garrett to G Ulyett: three runs. Ulyett effected a “nice,” “hard” drive to Garrett’s third ball, which Bannerman at mid-off failed to waylay with his uninjured hand. “The batsmen—two men who allowed no grass to grow under their feet when they needed to be in motion—got 3,” which took the score beyond sixty. If they had not yet made the wounded whole, they had at least effected some repairs. Ulyett, the dominant partner, was showing “the form which made him such a favourite in Adelaide” in the tour’s opening game. His “free, vigorous innings” was now four short of the 28 he made on that occasion. TW Garrett to J Selby: no run. Over 39 “Kendall again took the ball, and every eye was watching the play.” TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. TK Kendall to G Ulyett: no run. “Cheers denoted the fact that the bowler stopped a hard drive off his third ball.” TK Kendall to G Ulyett: OUT. Now the fourth was “sent on its journey, and a scream of delight denoted that it had performed its mission, Ulyett’s bails being scattered.” This was “an exactly similar ball to the one that got Charlwood,” and Ulyett “played at it in the same way .” If this be true, it was “a leg ball” that “hung a bit,” and the batsman played forward “with negligent ease.” Then it spun across him and “‘worked’ into the wicket.” If a face so bright can darken, Ulyett’s bright face darkened somewhat at this. He “evidently knew nothing” about it, and was heard to declare that Grace himself could not have survived it. There was more in this remark than the saving of its author’s dark-bright face, for when Kendall “tossed his hat high up in the air, in the manner of [Frank] Allan,” nobody thought his exultation too great.... Several of the fieldsmen shook hands with the bowler, and the friends of the colonials seemed not so reluctant as they were five minutes before to listen to proposed bets. 5-24-62. “After the fall of Ulyett, much money was put on a home victory.” Begbie: “Suddenly Australia was back in the game.” Suddenly it was possible. More than that; it was probable. Over 40 “The two Nottingham men of the team were together as Shaw appeared at the wickets.” TW Garrett to J Selby: no run. TW Garrett to J Selby: four runs. Selby, “inspired thereby,” connected well with a legside full-toss from Garrett, and lifted it “finely to leg to the bowling reserve.” The reaction of the crowd may be inferred from a general account of its behaviour, provided by The Ballarat Star: “The contest was one of evident interest to the spectators, for as each hit was made affording a score, and each ball was well or badly fielded, as the case may be, they displayed their satisfaction, or otherwise, in a pronounced manner.” TW Garrett to J Selby: no run. TW Garrett to J Selby: two runs. Selby then “snicked” the same bowler, “evidently not in form,” to “short leg” for a couple. Over 41 TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: one run. Shaw cover-drove Kendall for a single, but “seemed very glad to leave the rest of the over to Selby.” One sympathises, for “nothing could have been better at this point than Kendall’s bowling.” He had the batsmen on the point of his lance. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. The last ball of the over Selby hit “hard” to Cooper at point—“a sharp low catch,” “but too hot to hold.” Horan sympathised: “The opportunity was one which only a man capable of sudden springs like Kelly could have snapped up.” Over 42 At last Billy Midwinter returned in place of Garrett, who had “fared no better” than the “knocked-about” Gregory, except that Gregory’s nine had taken twenty deliveries; Garrett’s nine required just eight. But it was now obvious to everyone, even Australia’s bashful skipper, that neither of them should have bowled; in other words, that Midwinter “should not have been taken off.” Second Test: “The manner in which Gregory managed his bowling did not at all commend itself, and his undisguised partiality for the deliveries of Spofforth had a good deal to do with losing the match for the combined team. Had he made as much use of Midwinter, and tried him early in the innings [in the first Test, too, he took Midwinter off unaccountably], it was quite on the cards that the Australians might have won the match…. His first ball was played by Greenwood for a single in front of point, and Ulyett drove the next straight for 4, the last of the over being sent to square-leg for a couple—30 up—nearly every one off Spofforth, who had been on quite long enough. Ulyett then cut Kendall for 3, and got a single off Spofforth to mid-off, sending Kendall next over high to square-leg for 8. 40 up. A single to Ulyett off Spofforth in the slips, and Greenwood played that bowler nicely to the on for 3. Next over from Kendall Greenwood hit to mid-off, Bannerman letting the ball through, and giving 3 runs. Garrett now bowled instead of Spofforth, Midwinter not yet having been tried for some reason.” WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. WE Midwinter to A Shaw: no run. WE Midwinter to A Shaw: one run. Shaw played the over’s concluding delivery “prettily” to the off for a single. Over 43 TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. TK Kendall to A Shaw: no run. “Shaw then faced Kendall,” and “nearly put the second ball of the over, which he imperfectly blocked, on to his wicket.” TK Kendall to A Shaw: OUT. The next was insinuating. It drew him like a corkscrew, and like a corkscrew he jumped, but his stroke fell upon the air, and Blackham downed his bails “in the twinkling of an eye.” “Beautifully stumped,” said The Age. Horan suggests it was an easy chance, since it “made straight for [his] hands.” But these accounts are not necessarily in conflict. Kendall, “in great form all through the innings,” now had five wickets—five for 35. The colonials yippee-ki-yayed: “In five minutes the complexion of affairs had completely changed.” The traditional scorecard, like most reports, has this wicket, the sixth, falling at 68. Only The Age says seventy, which is also my number, and would seem to be perfectly correct, given the well-documented succession of runs since Ulyett’s wicket, on which everyone agrees. Horan is among the 68ers. Since he was fielding at the time, it is fair to suspect that he got his data direct from the scorers; indeed, he specifically thanks WK Plummer “for the courteous manner in which he furnished the particulars.” But it is also fair to suspect that Plummer was in error . I give my reasons at the close of this innings, when the best of them arises. When things were looking their worst, from a home point of view, Tom Kendall, a left-hand bowler, came into the picture. Keeping an excellent length and turning nicely from leg—in fact, Tom Horan said that he could bowl the wrong 'un also—he took seven wickets for 55 runs. England being routed for 108 runs. It was a deadly bit of left-hand bowling, for which he has never received due recognition, all the honours, as at the present day, going to the maker of runs. (Worrall “Progress” Australasian, 12 November 1932: 10.) Armitage was sent out next—“a good man to go in,” but nobody was now so foolhardy as to lay odds on his steering England to victory. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. “He accepted Kendall’s last ball, a ‘yorker,’ in safety.” Over 44 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: one run. “Both Armitage and Selby went in for run-getting, and helped themselves freely to small hits off Midwinter.” First, from Sebly, a single past mid-on. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: two runs. Then Armitage drove Midwinter to long on for a brace. The Age here falls in line with the error described earlier, and in so doing makes a joke of its report, which now registers England’s seventy for a second time! Over 45 By 15:00, the post-lunch discount had told. The crowd was now about 3,000—a number The Ballarat Star could safely report as “large.” The South Australian Register was more conservative, estimating something between 2,000 and 3,000, and observed a little unfairly—but only a little—that “the character of the public attendance ... each day was quite a commentary on the prospects of the colonial team. As these prospects brightened the crowd increased; as it diminished the crowd became less.” Sir George Bowen was there again, this time in company with Lady Bowen, “and like all who were present, took a deep interest in the match.” “Great excitement prevailed.” The heat was scorching, and the sky, though sunless, “sufficiently bright to afford the players a good view of both bat and ball.” “There was a large attendance, including the Governor, at the cricket match today. Blackham's wicket-keeping was the subject of general admiration.” Kept unwinking watch and ward. One had to see Blackham on all kinds of wickets, and against all classes of bowling, fully to appreciate his marvellous certainty and dexterity. Truly he was a wonder, and there has never been his equal. He stumped many batsmen by coming forward with the ball in the one action, many 'keepers having the fault of giving slightly when taking the ball. I never saw him make a mistake in a close finish, however impossible the chance might have seemed. It mattered not whether it was a snick or a stump on the leg side, and wide at that, he gathered it in unerringly, and won the match. It was his really strong suit. WG considered him peerless. He did everything without fuss, while in taking the ball from the field, however wide the return, he was supreme, and he rarely broke the wicket when taking the ball. (Worrall “Progress” Australasian, 12 November 1932: 10.) And the heart of the [Melbourne Cricket] club is the Long Room. Here one can see the gloves of "the prince of wicketkeepers," Jack Blackham, the bat and gloves of Hugh Trumble. (Dunstan Paddock xiv.) TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: one run. “Selby then snicked Kendall in the slips for a single.” TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. TK Kendall to T Armitage: one run. “Armitage put him to leg for another single.” Over 46 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. “A maiden from Midwinter to Armitage.” Over 47 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: four runs. “Selby then cast aside his cautious tactics,” and pumped Kendall to the square-leg chains. The batsmen had run five ere it reached them, but the match conditions permitted Selby only four—this “in spite of the clamours of the crowd,” who sportingly chanted for the stroke’s full value. With the batsmen somewhat breathed by the journey, and by the heat of the day, this seemed a ripe moment for Test cricket’s first-ever drinks break. They recouped their wind between mouthfuls. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: one run. On resuming, “the fieldsmen had to keep their eyes wide open,” for Selby “showed he did not mean to miss the shadow of a chance.” Presently he got Kendall to the off for a single, probably a quick one. Over 48 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: one run. Now he took another from Midwinter. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. Over 49 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. A maiden, “the bowling being extremely good.” Over 50 WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. “Midwinter, not to be outdone, followed suit.” His bowling, too, came in for praise. Over 51 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. “Selby, who had been batting remarkably well, now made a succession of good hits.” The first of these, from the opening ball of Kendall’s next, was a straight drive, but so well did he hit it that Armitage had not time enough for evasive manoeuvres. It knocked the bat from his hand, and may have saved as many as four runs. Selby was disgusted, and Armitage no less so, for it “apparently nearly knocked the hand off as well.” In fact it dealt him “a sharp blow” to one of his fingers. For this latter reason, though a single was still possible, none was taken: Armitage “had no mind to run, and thought only of his finger.” Tom Armitage ranks high in the list of miserable Test debuts. Begbie: “He was set for a pretty average game.” Indeed, what with the humiliations of this match, and his bruising at Ballarat, and the crossing at Otira, and his being thrown at Suez into “a large, muddy puddle,” I think I can assert in safety that no cricketer has endured a more miserable tour. The horrors had fallen on him thick as hail. TK Kendall to J Selby: three runs. The next ball Selby drove “hard to the off,” “well out of his partner’s way,” but not sufficiently out of Dave Gregory’s. He was still at long off, and “by a great piece of dexterity,” and the tiniest of margins, kept the batsmen down to three. If you believe every contemporary report, this took the score into the eighties. If you believe me, the error was now entrenched; the true score was 84 for six. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. Over 52 WE Midwinter to J Selby: no run. WE Midwinter to J Selby: four runs. Another hard hit from Selby in Midwinter’s next. The ball went “straight by him,” or rather over his head—“a clean drive” for four. Horan remarks of Midwinter that he “met occasionally with sharp treatment in the second innings.” But this was the first boundary off him in the innings, after nineteen overs. The Australasian considered him “in very good form” all through this match, albeit “not fortunate.” WE Midwinter to J Selby: three byes. Next ball Armitage made amends for the previous over, “backing up splendidly,” and enabling the batsmen to cross thrice. Horan thought it more lucky than splendid: “The third run … was got in the most daring manner, and nothing but doubt on the part of the fieldsman saved Armitage from being run out.” Possibly that fieldsman was Tom Garrett, whose outcricket goes largely unmentioned, save for The Age’s general remark: “The fielding of the colonials, excepting that of Garrett, who, however, had little to do till towards the end, was notably good.” As was so often the case with byes, some accounts register these as runs off the bat. Horan describes a “hit to leg,” the Weekly Times “a snick to leg.” Presumably what happened was this: Selby played at and missed one down the legside, which Blackham missed in his turn. WE Midwinter to T Armitage: no run. Over 53 TK Kendall to J Selby: no run. TK Kendall to J Selby: two runs. Selby, “now forcing the scoring” and “getting runs whenever he could,” “peppered Kendall viciously.” In this instance he cut him “finely for a couple, bringing the 90 [sic].” “Selby’s innings was well worth seeing, his hitting being clean and true, and he seemed the only one besides Ulyett who could score off the bowling. TK Kendall to J Selby: one run. Driving at the next ball, he skied it to long on for a single. If there were a fault in his “fine dashing play,” it is that he was “a trifle ‘uppish’ at times.” But he had made the bulk of his 38 runs “by the very best cricket, and in a remarkably short time.” In fact it had taken him 86 deliveries, but his strike rate for the last 27 was almost ninety: “Evidently had made up his mind that the game, if it was to be won at all, would only be won by bold play.” Since ?? he had scintillated as if some jealous will had released him. Well set now, “he looked extremely dangerous,” and had made the scales to tremble, if he had not yet fully tilted them. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. Over 54 England had now 94 (or 92, if you prefer), which was sixty runs short of the target. At this point, “by a happy inspiration, Mr Gregory thought of Hodges,” who then, by a happy inspiration of his own, thought to tack a fielder “between long on and square leg.” JR Hodges to J Selby: OUT. Selby, bent on attack, did not pause to adapt to the change, and in trying to hit his first ball out of the ground, quite misjudged it. Horan, having executed the word of command, had on his own account “simply to stand still and wait.” The catch was “a sitter,” and the credit “due in great part to the bowler.” With this, The Australasian tells us, the telegraph aired the figures “7-38-92,” which explains why even those reporters who initially dissented from the two-run deficit were now in league with it. They were unlikely to persist in their own analyses when they had the official analysis before them. But it is clear that they entertained some doubts, being at unusual pains suddenly to name their source. Selby’s innings was praised far and wide, but its terminal stroke drew condign censure, and he walked off under a heavy fire of eyes. “He ... threw it away,” deplored The Age, “by recklessly hitting out.” By recklessly hitting out, of course, he might also have won it. His departure put England out of hope’s pale. The match looked “a gift for the Combined Team.” On the crowd this realisation seemed to less to dawn than to apperate: Just as suddenly as the sun burst out within five minutes of the close of the play on Friday, so suddenly was the expected defeat (which for a time the onlookers could only hope would be toned down as much as possible) converted into certain victory. The best batsmen were out, and those to come were “not looked upon by any means as certain scorers.” Tom Emmett, the first of their clan, had had a quiet match so far, bowling seventh in the first innings, without success, and not at all in the second; and scoring only eight in England’s turn. Substract his triumphs of catching, and his Test debut had been little better than his partner’s. Armitage took strike, having crossed while the ball was aloft… JR Hodges to T Armitage: no run. JR Hodges to T Armitage: no run. JR Hodges to T Armitage: no run. “… and finished Hodges’s over without scoring.” But not without drama, for presently Blackham appealed for a stumping. Unsuccessful, but nothing discouraged, he turned to the other umpire with an appeal for a catch. ??, like ??, said, “No.” Over 55 TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. Emmett took a maiden from Kendall. The Argus implies he did so uneasily, for at this point it describes Armitage as “the only batsman left who could play the two left-hand bowlers.” Over 56 JR Hodges to T Armitage: no run. JR Hodges to T Armitage: no run. JR Hodges to T Armitage: no run. JR Hodges to T Armitage: no run. “Another maiden to Hodges was greeted with cheers.” Over 57 TK Kendall to T Emmett: one run. Emmett was off the mark with a single “to mid-off,” or perhaps “to the on.” The first opinion, which we owe to The Age, seems the best supported. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. Over 58 JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. “No runs were now made for several overs, but Blackham got a nasty blow on the right cheek from a ball from Hodges.” The Weekly Times says it hit him the eye, but the cheek seems likelier, for it “discomposed him very little.” JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. Emmett “then played another maiden to Hodges,” that bowler’s third in a row: “Neither Emmett … nor Armitage, could do much with the bowling.” Over 59 TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. TK Kendall to T Armitage: no run. TK Kendall to T Armitage: OUT. How “little discomposed” was the Australian wicketkeeper? The answer is tendered by his next contribution: “Blackham had now revenge for the injury he had met with, catching Armitage beautifully at the wickets off Kendall … and any odds offered on the colonials, but the excitement notwithstanding was intense.” “8-3-93 [sic].” “Everything now depended upon Lillywhite and Emmett … and an encouraging cheer greeted the captain as he emerged from the pavilion,” but he seems to have taken little encouragement from it, for on The Bendigo Advertiser’s account he walked “dejectedly ” toward the sunken wreck he had a dream of raising. “There were now four left-handed men at the head of affairs—two batsmen and two bowlers.” Emmett himself, on becoming Yorkshire captain in 1878, would be, in the words of John Lillywhite’s Cricketer’s Companion, “wonderfully modest” in putting himself on to bowl. “Even if Emmett was about to be replaced by Hawke, it was clear that he had performed more than capably. The main reservation was simply that, as captain, he had increasingly only put himself on to bowl in an emergency. In 1878, he bowled nearly 4,000 balls in first-class cricket, but between 1879 and 1882 the average was around 2,300 a season. Only once Hawke was thoroughly in charge did Emmett again bowl over 4,000 balls a season, which he did for the rest of his career.” “He also stepped back from bowling during his period as Yorkshire captain, doing it less in 1879 and 1880 than he had for almost a decade. W.G.Grace thought he was ‘too modest about his qualities’ when captain and should have bowled more often in that period. It was only when Lord Hawke – who knew Emmett’s value – took over as captain, that he had his late-career period of success, including his remarkable year of 1886.” TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: no run. “Lillywhite … took Kendall’s last ball in safety.” Over 60 JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. “Hodges in the next very nearly bowled Emmett, and the fourth maiden was recorded to him.” In the first innings he had failed to deliver a single maiden; in this his figures were 4-4-0-1. He had bowled “splendidly” since his introduction, the batsmen being “completely puzzled.” Over 61 TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: no run. TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: two runs. “Lillywhite hit Kendall to long-on for a couple…” TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: two runs. “… getting a similar next ball for a pull in front of square-leg.” TK Kendall to J Lillywhite: no run. “Apart from FE Allan, we had a second fine left-handed bowler in Tom Kendall, who was looked upon by J. Lillywhite as one of the best he had seen. I think Lillywhite suggested to him the advisability of going to England to play for a county. Tom, I believe, is still all right in Hobart.” Over 62 JR Hodges to T Emmett: no run. JR Hodges to T Emmett: three runs. “Emmett then snicked Hodges luckily,” either to leg or through the slips—the former is better described—for three. This brought up England’s 100. JR Hodges to J Lillywhite: OUT. “Hodges revenged the fluke by clean bowling Lillywhite next ball.” It had him in twenty minds at once. “9-4-100 [sic].” The Weekly Times was satisfied that Hodges had now atoned for “his shortcomings in the field.” Lillywhite retired in a state of mind even more maudlin than that in which he had come. All allowances made for the condition of the wicket, his charges had not shown “anything like the form expected of them.” The scorecard looked like a grain field after a hailstorm. Southerton came, “a forlorn hope,” and laid himself out like a shipwrecked sailor, ready to make the best of it. “The friends of the Englishmen,” their views remodelled once more, “knew it was no use to knock at his door with a demand for 55 runs.” JR Hodges to J Southerton: no run. The new batsman—the last batsman—“took Hodges’s remaining ball safely, but he evidently did not half like it.”

Mr. Bounderby, with his hands in his pockets, walked in im¬patient mortification up and down at the side of the long dining¬table, while the spectators greedily took in every syllable of Mrs.Pegler's appeal, and at each succeeding syllable became more and more round-eyed [astonished: go more poetic; say “grew round-eyed more and more”].

Over 63 The excitement, which had grown “more intense at the fall of each of the Englishmen’s wickets,” had reached its very meridian. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. “A maiden to Kendall.” Over 64 JR Hodges to J Southerton: no run. JR Hodges to J Southerton: no run. JR Hodges to J Southerton: no run. JR Hodges to J Southerton: no run. “Hodges followed suit, Southerton not being able to do anything with him.” His figures were 6-5-3-1—the three, of course, being the product of a “fluke.” But Horan struck a note of restraint: “Hodges was the added feather which turned the scale, but the heavy weights which rendered the turn possible had already been contributed by Kendall. When Hodges went on all the best men, save one, had been disposed of.” Over 65 TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: two runs. Southerton subserved Emmett in running two for a cut off Kendall. It was as the sprinkling of water on a pyre. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. TK Kendall to T Emmett: no run. Over 66 JR Hodges to J Southerton: one run. Now Southerton assisted himself to a driven single off Hodges. The Weekly Times says it was a cut, but gives less detail. Presumably it went square of the wicket on the offside. But another thing that newspapers says is entirely true: that this was the first “legitimate” run off Hodges’s bowling. The ball was “both well fielded and returned by Garrett.” JR Hodges to T Emmett: two runs. “Emmett then dragged him for a couple” next ball to square leg. JR Hodges to T Emmett: one run. “Repeating the performance,” he got a single to the same port the ball after. England wanted 46 more of these. JR Hodges to J Southerton: no run. Over 67 TK Kendall to T Emmett: OUT. Emmett had grown too fond of the pull, which presently he essayed it again. The ball “stood up,” as he liked to say, “and stared at one.” Confounded in his calibrations, he dragged it on to his wicket, and put the match out of its last suspense. And so, said the Weekly Times, in an arresting final line, “the Australians became the champions of the world.” Scorers’ error The Australians won the match by 47 runs, to the surprise of most persons. To Mr C. Bannerman's splendid batting this successful result is chiefly to be attributed. Our telegram with reference to this matter is slightly mixed [more evidence as to the scoring error—this battered paper seems to have been the only one to mark the discrepancy], but the total, we believe, is correct. It would puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer to decipher the telegrams which we receive for nearly every issue of this journal, and no satisfaction can be obtained. If we complain at the local office, it is said that the fault lies with the town office, and vice versa. [Indication of frantic nature of life at Sydney newspaper offices in the match’s final moments.]

For the Second Test on the MCG interest was tremendous, and at last there was radio. 3AR had been in action for nearly a year, and no longer did one have to stand outside the Age or the Argus office to get the latest news. 3AR bought the radio rights for the season at the Melbourne Cricket Ground for £75. The new morning daily, The Sun-News Pictorial" reported on January 1, 1925: Wireless operators will obtain a first-hand description of every incident [p. 136] in the Second Test match which begins today. This is the result of arrangements made by the 3AR broadcasting station. The company has secured the services of the Victorian Eleven captain, E. R. Mayne, and will describe the progress of the game. A special land line has been run from the studio in Elizabeth Street to the M.C.G., where a special observer from 3AR will transmit over the telephone to the broadcasting studio a complete description of the match. The enterpris􀀴 of 3AR marks a new era in the use of radio. The wireless operator in the remotest part of Australia will be able to learn the many turns which the game may take within a few seconds of the time at which the spectators on the ground become aware of them. 3LO, the other broadcasting station, will also broadcast the scores every halfhour. The sun shone precisely as the M.C.C. committee would have wanted it to shine, and all cricket attendance and cash records were broken. There was the new world record for a cricket match on the first day, 49,413, then 47,000 on the second day, 48,151 on the third, 33,129 on the fourth, 23,740 on the fifth, and so it went on. Even the new car park provided some records of its own. Nobody had ever seen so many automobiles massed in the one spot. On the first day there were 1770 cars and 2500 on the second. [Note also Bannerman’s testimonial as being the first.]

Mr. J. Cresswell thinks the MCC scoring-board, good as it is, is considerably behind the board on the Adelaide Oval, and that the young fellow (Haines) who works the oval board is a marvel of smartness, and should be seen at his work to be properly appreciated. The young fellow is here to see this match, but I do not meet him.

The game, which has excited the utmost excitement throughout the colonies, was concluded today in favor of the Australians with 47 runs to spare. The play throughout has been the grandest ever seen in Victoria, and indisputably proves the rapid strides made by colonial cricketers since the visit of Stephenson's eleven fifteen years ago. On Saturday there were 12,000 present on the Melbourne ground, and when play was concluded the utmost excitement prevailed. To-day the Australian team increased there [sic] score to 104, leaving the Englishmen 154 to win. This they failed to do. The weather was hot, and the attendance good, there being 10,000 present. At the close of the match there was great cheering, and the utmost enthusiasm prevailed. The bowling was splendid. Kendall was on the whole time, and took 7 wickets for 55 runs; Hodges, 2 wickets for 7 runs. Allan was hissed. The fielding throughout was first class. The case against Dr Reeves, for treating a lunatic in his private hospital, was dismissed to-day. The English cricketers proceeded to Sandhurst this evening. In the match to-day, Bannerman fielded and did good service, whilst Blackham's wicket-keeping was splendid.

Lillywhite: “the Australians winning by 47 runs, due almost entirely to the wonderful batting of BANNERMAN.” “The Combined Cricket Team won the match by 47 runs.” Possible just an error by the telegraph-board operator: could bring him in here. In the Second Test, according to The Argus, “on Monday Cosstick (the umpire) no balled Spofforth twice for passing the crease, but only one no-ball appeared in the score. The reason why the other was not noted was simply that Cosstick did not call it out loud enough to be heard. If the gross scores had been anywise close the omission might have caused trouble; but in the absence of all provision for the appointment of auditors, it is not easy to see how the mistake could have been corrected.” Second Test: “The score as it has appeared in The Argus was kindly furnished from day to day by Mr. Kennon.” As late as after the Second Test:

The desire of the cricketers of the two colonies of New South Wales and Victoria (which may be said to represent Australia as regards the game of cricket) to meet the All England Team on equal terms, has at length been gratified, and two matches have been played. In the first, the Australian team, to the surprise of every one, were victorious, attributable to a magnificent display of cricket on the part of Charles Bannerman, New South Welshman, who scored 165 in the first innings against every bowler in the team, and then retired in consequence of an accident, which incapacitated hit from further play on that day. The team in the first match contained six Victorians and five New South Wales men: the two crack bowlers of the latter colony, Evans and Spofforth, did not compete. The match on each side was played out, and the Australians won by 47 notches. Our English readers may well imagine that such a result cause intense gratification to the colonials, and of course no little pride, in the fact that eleven men[,] nearly all natives of Australia[,] could be found to hold their own against such formidable opponents; it is only fair to say, however, that this feeling was not carried to vulgar excess. Of course a very natural outburst followed immediately on the close of the contest, both in Melbourne and Sydney, and Bannerman is to receive a testimonial from both the colonies. The second match commenced on Easter Saturday, and on Monday it looked very like a one-innings affair, as the combined team had only scored 122 in the first innings, while the doughty Britishers had placed 261 to their credit, the Australians, however, in their second innings came within 2 of the All England first innings[,] having scored 259, giving their opponents the respectable score of 121 to make to win, which they only succeeding is doing after losing six wickets.

As late as May: “the combined eleven won by 47 [sic] runs.”

Our edition of the 28th did not contain a report of the first day's proceedings, on account of the East Sydney Secretary having volunteered the loan of his club's score book, and then breaking his promise, for which he has our thanks.

The Cup matches have nearly all been played out. Two out of the three matches resulted in ties, and they have not been played over again, so they must count as draws, and neither Club gains nor loses a point. In one case—the South Australian v. Kensington—the former Club failed to win the match in consequence of the scorers not giving one of the batsmen credit for all the runs made by him. This is unfortunate, but still there is no remedy for such a case.

The All-England Eleven has been defeated by a combined New South Wales and Victoria eleven, by 49 [sic] runs, in a two innings match. The element of flukiness, or unusual luck in favour of the Australians, was not absent, as Bannerman, of New South Wales, made 165, and was then not out, but had to retire, owing to an injury to his finger. It is probable that another match of the same kind will be played before the English players leave for England.

Richmond (second eleven) v. Camberwell, resulted in a drawn game, the scores being—Richmond, 83; and Camberwell 47, with three wickets to full. For the Richmond—Maloney made 27, Bury, 16; and Barthold 12; and for Camberwell—Dunn, 12; Brooks, 10; and Plummer 10.

And what famous matches! The soul-stirring challenge games that were the predecessors of our present pennant competitions. The famous "Lost Ball” match between East Melbourne and Melbourne in 1871, which caused excitement such as had never been known in a match before. In the excitement players, umpires, scorers, and spectators got into a hopeless muddle, and there had to be readjustments in the scores, which are said to have given East Melbourne the victory by two runs instead of one, as was originally thought.

Crowd reaction In a state of high ecstatic fervour, eyelashes moist with feeling, the crowd jumped the chains. ““The excitement was tremendous. About 4,000 were present, and the applause deafening.” At length they assembled in front of the pavilion, where they set up a cycle of cheers: “Kendall!” “Hodges!” “Bannerman!” “D. Gregory!” and so on, through the rest of the eleven. Triumphant shouts wounded the air; their clamours pierced the vaulted roof. “We’ll send an Eleven to England!”—first public mention of the idea. “Now they’ll know in England we Australians ain’t all black !” Then the cheers gave way to groans and hisses—these for Frank Allan —and then again to cheers for the Englanders: “Lillywhite!” “Jupp!” “Shaw!” The sound was “immense, emanating as it did from both young as well as old Australians.” “There was great excitement at the close, and vociferous cheering. The bowling today was really splendid, and the fielding excellent especially Blackham's wicket keeping.”

In short, there was such eating and drinking, such music and capering, such a ringing of bells and tossing of caps, such a shouting, and singing, and revelling, as the narrow overhanging streets of old London City had not witnessed for many a long day.

Of the burnt bettors: with as great an access of sourness as if they had just swallowed a quart of vinegar.

The result of the match, England v. Australia, today, while it has put money into the pockets of those who pluckily backed their adopted country, has greatly gratified those who expressed a reasonable dissatisfaction with Mr Allan's vacillating demeanor in leading the Committee to suppose, until the last moment, that he would be one of Australia's champions, and then backing out, and disturbing, by so doing, the basis upon which the team was selected. It is quite irrational to suppose, as some people seem to consider, that a leading cricketer should give his time on such an occasion as a matter of duty, but when he has once given his consent to play, nothing short of illness or peremptory domestic reasons should induce any cricketer to risk the whole game by his withdrawal. Mr Allan was selected simply for his bowling, and had he been a reliable player, the team might have been improved in the batting department, whereas his sudden withdrawal compelled the Committee to sacrifice the willow-weilders [sic] to the trundlers. The feeling with which the public view the matter, especially after the liberal offer of the Cricketing Association to place a special coach at Mr Allan's disposal if his excellency would deign to come to Melbourne and resist the attractions of the Warrnambool Carnival, was evinced today in the hearty groans with which they favored the announcement of his name at the close of the match. How strangely, too, does his conduct contrast with that of Bannerman, who, out of patriotism and cricketerlike feeling, spent a couple of months in Melbourne as a member of the South Melbourne Club, in order that he might familiarise himself with Allan's bowling, and so be in a position to do better service for his colony. (Geelong Advertiser “Melbourne” 20 March 1877.)

Coming out summoned by ovation before the pavilion, the red blood blushing in their faces.

The tremendous crowd that had followed the fortunes of the game with unabated interest were electrified by the thrilling climax and their enthusiasm knew no bounds. They applauded the men who had made cricket history in that memorable contest and it is on record that some of the spectators left the ground only when the shades of night had fallen and the heroes of the day had long since departed surrounded by admiring friends and clamouring enthusiasts. (Third Man “First Test Ever” Telegraph, 6 February 1933.)

From reviewing the past season, the question naturally arises—What chance has Victoria against New South Wales next year, as it is the turn of that colony to come here. It is no use disguising the fact that New South Wales is now very strong, whilst it is not probable that this colony will next year have the benefit of Allan's services as a bowler. Those persons who were so load in abusing and ridiculing him because he broke his promise (if promise he did) to play in the combined matches may yet see cause to regret the course they took. It was never quite clear to as why an amateur player should have been subjected to such wholesale abuse. If the Russian guns had been thundering at our doors and he had refused to shoulder a musket in defence of hearth and home, he could scarcely have been subjected to greater condemnation, and we shall be much surprised if he ever turns up again in a cricket field. His detractors may say, better be beaten without him; but there should be some gratitude shown for past services. "The bowler of a century" is not easily replaced; and if we mistake not he will be "wanted" when next Victoria and New South Wales meet in the field. (Australasian “Some Remarks” 12 May 1877.)

LOST, near Melbourne Cricket-ground, a BOOK, containing sketches of Jewellery. Mr. Robertson, jeweller, Little Collins-street.

Went hey-go mad.

The roof yet vibrated with the cheering, when the assembly dispersed.

Race Perhaps because it appeared in a South Australian journal, or perhaps because it is a sticky thing to chew over, or most likely a bit of both, that chant at the end of the match has never been repeated. The time has come—if not now, when?—to say something about it, and to draw from it and related data an overdue decision: Australian cricket in the 1870s was not the merely nationalist undertaking one always reads about; it was rather, or in addition, an ethno-nationalist project. The first thing to say about this is that it needs saying. Although it has always been implicit, it has seldom risen to the level even of subtext. When we speak of Australian cricket in this period, we speak, unthinkingly, of white Australian cricket. Until very recently, when anyone spoke of the first Australian eleven to visit England, he spoke of 1877-78, even if he knew of 1868. In a sense true: the Aboriginal team was the first from Australia; Gregory’s would be the first to claim to represent Australia. The Australia to be represented, the face Australia wanted to show to the old country, was a white one. And the evidence is accumulating that at the time it was explicit, which is to say conscious and deliberate: that part of what motivated them was an earnest and conscious desire to correct the impression the 1868 Aborigines had created—an impression they really had created. It's probably time historians got explicit about it, too. Sissons to me, 7 September 2021: “Have come across interesting comments about Henry and Marsh in 1904-04.” Follow up, if you haven’t already. That point you make about being seen to be English is so important. Found myself nodding as I read it. We’re apt to think of it as an index merely of a colonial inferiority complex, a desire to be validated—to be recognised as worthy—by the metripole. But race is implicit in Englishness, certainly as it was construed in the Nineteenth Century. As to Mullagh, I don’t think it’s necessary to search for a conspiracy, or to attempt to read the minds of the officials. It suffices to note that he would have been an ideologically awkward selection for a team that purported to represent the colonies in the way I've described. I doubt they even considered him. Very different to the Krom Hendricks case in South Africa. That’s the main difference between Marxism and liberal history: The former looks at material power relations and the ideological superstructure they create; the latter flaps around idealising—I use the word in more than one of its meanings—the protagonists: looking into the motives and the thinking of individuals. A small remove from Great Man history. It's not very scientific. As to your final thought, I was thinking more of Spofforth, who was very proud of his English heritage (devoting a large introductory portion of his New Review memoir to it), and who, after being called “the demon nigger bowler of Australia,” or something like that, was roused to on-field greatness in the MCC match. One doesn’t want to overstate the matter. Overstatement in these matters usually takes the form of elevating an element to the level of a rule—a factor to a thesis. But it was an element and a factor, and no small one, and as such deserves greater attention than to date it has received. Regarding those early tours and triumphs, are you aware that anyone has developed the Mandle theorem on the stimulus they gave to Australian nationalism? I'm increasingly inclined to add the prefix "ethno-" to that last word: There's the pointed exclusion of Unaarrimin from the inaugural Test team, despite a press crusade; the ugly chorus in front of the pavilion after Australia's 45-run victory ("Now they'll know in England we Australians ain't all black!"); and the rather creepy relief in some colonial newspapers that, on this evidence, Anglo-Saxon haematics were untainted by exposure to the antipodean sun.

Winning margin The margin of Australia's victory was 45 runs, a result remarkably repeated in the Centenary Test in March 1977. "The combined team worked together with the utmost harmony and goodwill," reported The Australian.

“The bowling analysis was not correctly taken, so that only the score can be given” (Australasian “Melbourne v. St. Kilda” 14 April 1877). “Remarkably, the 45-run victory margin was repeated by Australia in the Centenary Test against England at Melbourne in 1977.”

Australia’s bowlers “The colonies had to fall back on bowlers who at the time seemed of the second rank, but whose recent performances [in the Test] now render it doubtful whether they can be fairly placed in a different class from the three already named.” “Hodges has the best bowling analysis, but Kendall was by far the most destructive bowler, and is the favourite for the silver cup given by the Australasian.” “Kendall became the winner of the silver cup awarded by the proprietors of The Australasian to the most successful bowler in the combined eleven. He bowled eight wickets for an average of 13.6 runs each. Hodges had actually a better average—11.3 runs per wicket—but he bowled such a small number of balls compared with Kendall—less than a fourth—that he would not allow himself to be named in competition with his friend and colleague. [It is the best thing—perhaps the only good thing—we know of him.] The sum of £15 was collected by Mr Wilfrid Loughnan in the reserve for presentation to Kendall and Blackham. Bannerman, of course, carries off the prize for the largest score.” “Kendall received the prize of £5 5s offered by a member of the Melbourne Club to the best bowler.” “The bowling today was really splendid. The fielding was excellent also, especially the wicketkeeping of Blackham.” “The bowling and fielding of the Australians was better than in the first innings, but still not nearly so good as that of the Englishmen.” “The silver cup given by the proprietors of the Australasian for the most successful bowler has been awarded to Kendall, who proved himself by far the most useful of the six men who were tried in this department. To him was due the wonderful surprise which those who only saw Saturday’s play would experience when reading on Tuesday morning that the tide of victory had turned against the Englishmen. In the second innings he captured seven wickets for 55 runs. His average was reduced by his performance in the first innings, when he only got one wicket for 54 runs. Hodges had the best analysis.” “This was magnanimous on the part of Hodges, and quite unlike took place after the All-England match in Adelaide, when the average alone was allowed to decide the question.” “In the matter of bowling the chief credit goes to Victoria, notwithstanding the absence of Allan, and both Kendall and Hodges will in future be regarded in a light less obscure.” “Kendall was the hero of the second innings, and the Englishmen seemed to be unable to do anything with him, he getting seven wickets for 53 runs.” “As bowlers, Kendall (who carried off the prize presented by the proprietors of this journal), Midwinter, and Hodges are such as would win renown when pitted against the best batsmen in the old country, and whom any county in England would be proud to own.” “To the excellent performance of Kendall, backed up by the skilfulness of the wicketkeeper, and the timely aid rendered by Hodges, the final result must be ascribed.” “Tom Kendall, a famous left-hand bowler of olden times, passed away at the age of 72 years in Hobart on August 17. As showing what a link Kendall was with the past, it is only necessary to mention that he played in the first Test match on the Melbourne ground in March, 1877, when Australia gained a memorable victory by 45 runs. It was in this match that Charles Bannerman made his never-to-be-forgotten 165 (retired hurt), the first century ever made in a Test, while Kendall's bowling was of equal merit, as in the first innings he took one for 54, and in the second seven for 55, his second essay being wonderful figures for a bowler in his first Test match. Thus the two best individual efforts in the game were gained by Bannerman with the oat, and Kendall with the ball. In the second Test, played in April, of the same year, Kendall again bowled excellently, taking four for 82 in the first innings, and two for 24 in the second. On this occasion England won by four wickets and two runs. For England Ulyett, known as "Happy Jack," a big, good humoured, hard-hitting Yorkshireman, carried off the batting honours with scores of 52 and 63, while with the ball both Lillywhite and Kendall took six wickets for 106 runs. It will be remembered that Kendall toured Australia with the first white Australian eleven, known as the 1878 team, but was not a member of the combination when crossing the seas. When in Sydney the batting and fielding capabilities of Alick Bannerman were brought under the notice of D. Gregory, Murdoch, and J. Blackham, and the little stonewaller was tried out on the old Albert ground with W. Murdoch, J. Blackham, and, I think, Tom Horan as judges. The bowler selected was Kendall, as he was slow and tricky, and could flight and spin the ball, and so ably did little Alick perform that the judges picked him straight away as one of the team. It is not often that players achieve Australian distinction before State recognition, yet it is on record that both Alick Bannerman and George Bonnor represented Australia before being chosen by New South Wales, which is proof unmistakable that those early Australian combinations had good judges of the game at the head of affairs. Googly bowling is supposed to be of fairly modern growth, but both the late Tom Horan and Jack Blackham have assured me that Kendall could turn the ball either way without his action being detected, though, in those days the art was termed "breaking the wrong way." [Bosanquet had been only five months in the womb when the inaugural Test was played: was born only a fortnight before Wilfred Rhodes.] In "Conway's Australian Cricketers' Annual for 1876-7," it is stated that "the rapid rise of Kendall into the foremost rank of our all-round players may be looked upon as one of the events of the season. With increasing years he is picking up experience, both in bowling and batting, but in the field he is still a trifle inert. As a batsman he is peculiar. To see him play his first ball or two, one would not fancy him capable of getting a run; but he has a wonderful eye, and puts his runs together with marvellous rapidity against any bowling. As a bowler, however, he is most noted, and most good judges here say he is equal to Allan; the Englishmen say he is better, and that for his bowling alone he is fit for any team in England." Kendall made his home in Tasmania more than 40 years ago, and leaves a widow and grown-up family of four sons and three daughters. The connecting links with the early history of the game are slipping away one by one, and Tom Kendall with his cunning left arm made cricket history close on 50 years ago. As the deceased was a member of the Australian Eleven in the first Test match ever played, the names, of those who took part in it may prove interesting. The Australians were [list of players]. I only had the pleasure of playing once against Kendall in an interstate match against Tasmania, on the East Melbourne ground, and though he was past his prime he had not lost all his powers, and bowled finely.” “The one time international cricketer, Mr Tom Kendall, was this week the recipient of a very graceful and thoughtful compliment from his old club, Richmond (Vic). He received an honorary life membership card, accompanied by the following letter: "With kindest greetings from the president (EJ Cotter, MLA), and members of the old club. Memories of the first Test linger when T Kendall was acclaimed the winner of the match. With best wishes from all.—D Chessell, Hon Sec." As all who follow cricket know Mr Kendall, in his day, was the finest left-hand bowler Australia has ever known. It is extremely gratifying to him to know that though it is as far back as 1877 since he last played with the Richmond Club, his old clubmates have not forgotten him. Mr Kendall, who has been engaged at "The Mercury" office since he first came to Tasmania in 1880, played in the first England v Australia test match at Melbourne in March, 1877, and it was his great bowling in the second innings of England that gave Australia victory by 45 runs. In the first innings he sent down 152 balls for 16 maidens, 54 runs and one wicket, but in the second innings he had the splendid figures of 133 balls, 12 maidens, 55 runs, seven wickets. It was in this match that C Bannerman made his name famous as a batsman by scoring 165 in the first innings, when he retired through being hurt.” “Today, when England and Australia will begin another series of tests, the time is opportune to recall that it was 59 years ago on the Melbourne Cricket Ground that Australia first rose to the level of English cricket by defeating a side from the old country in a test. Cricket has been played between England and Australia for 74 years. HH Stephenson brought the first English team here in 1862, and two years later G. Parr headed a strong combination. At this time Australian cricket was developing in strength and it was greatly assisted by the coaching of those two fine English players, Lawrence and Caffyn, who remained in Australia to polish up the colonials. The early English teams to visit Australia were opposed by sides of 22, but 15 years after the arrival of the first English players the Australians were ready to match their strength against the best that England could send to this country. Australia's First Victory In 1877 a test match was played in Melbourne and Australia promptly established her equality with English cricket by winning handsomely. It was in this game that Charles Bannerman, the first of the really great Australian batsmen, scored 165 out of a total of 245 and then had to retire through an injury to his hand. This innings thrilled Australia as does a Bradman 300 to-day, and must rank as one of the most brilliant of the many that sparkle in test cricket. It must be remembered that in those days wickets were not of the perfectly prepared and covered type that assist modern batsmen. The runs were made against bowlers that England would probably welcome today. They included Alfred Shaw, a master of length and flight; James Lilywhite, a superb bowler; and Southerton, one of the trickiest of his time. Shaw was the forerunner of that great band of English bowlers, masters of length, flight, and break, who have followed in the intervening years, such as "Bobby" Peel, "Johnny" Briggs, Wilfred Rhodes, SF Barnes, Colin Blythe, and others. Old hands have related stories of how Shaw could drop the ball time after time on a threepenny bit. It was just their way, perhaps, of emphasising the remarkable accuracy of the Notts bowler, but he could wear a spot on the pitch by his precise length and direction, and his bowling had an enormous influence in impression on young Australian bowlers of the day the difficult art of maintaining length while varying flight and spin. Associated with Charley Bannerman in a leading part in Australia's picturesque Test victory 59 years ago was Kendal [sic], one of the greatest of early Australian bowlers. When England was in a winning position, he took seven wickets in succession and pulled Australia through.” “I have often wondered what would have happened if Tom Kendall had made the trip. To many readers of this article his name will probably be unfamiliar, but good judges in a position to express an opinion have ranked him as the best left-hand bowler Australia ever possessed—very high praise, indeed, when the doings of teams are recalled. He was chosen for the visit to England, and took part in the preliminary colonial tour, taking 102 wickets at an average cost of 6.26; but, despite this success, was left behind. Spofforth told me that increasing weight was the cause of his withdrawal, and although it might be an exaggeration to say that he bowled with one hand whilst he held up his stomach with the other, the fact cannot be questioned that he put on weight very rapidly. Old Australian cricket guides tell us that Kendall was a native of Victoria, but such is not the fact, for he was born in Bedfordshire. He took part in little first class cricket, but in the two test matches wherein he played he obtained 14 wickets for 15.35 runs each, and had a batting average of 13. He had a nice easy delivery, and on a wet wicket was at times almost unplayable. It is no exaggeration to say that, if he had given all his thought and energy to the game, he would have become recognized generally as one of the kings of cricket. For many years he has been living in Tasmania, where his advice has often been sought by young cricketers, who have not asked in vain.” Kendall could have one of Australia’s all-time greats, but he was one of those men who stand in their own light. “Kendall was kept on all through the day.” “The bowling and fielding of the colonials was splendid especially the former. Kendall, who bowled throughout the innings, took seven wickets for 55 runs, and Hodges two wickets for seven runs. Bannerman was able to field today, and he also did some good service. Blackham was as brilliant as ever behind the wickets, and was frequently applauded…. At the conclusion of the match there was immense cheering over the result. Allan was hissed and groaned at when he made his appearance on the ground. The English cricketers proceeded to Sandhurst tonight.” Yet this was one of those days when a bowler was born for the occasion. Tom Kendall, a left-hander, bowled practically unchanged throughout the innings. His was the bowling performance of the match. He took 7 for 55. Never again did he bowl so well, and but for this First Test he would be completely forgotten. He was not chosen to tour England in 1878. But on this day, to the astonishment of all, he routed the Englishmen for 108 and the combined side won by 45 runs outright. Kendall was clapped and cheered off the ground.

Tom Garrett is another remarkable personality, being an astute leader and a great all-rounder. The bowler in my playing time that made the most pace off the pitch was Charles Turner, though Jack Blackham maintained that he held no preference over Garrett in that regard. The veteran holds the remarkable distinction of having played in the first Test match between England and Australia, at Melbourne in 1877. That historic engagement took place 59 years ago, when Garrett was only a boy of 19. All the Englishmen that played in that match have passed the Rubicon, Garrett being the only known living representative of the occasion. When last heard of some years ago J. Hodges was still alive, but nothing has been heard of him for years. The Veteran also played in the first three Test matches between the old land and the new, and visited England three times. He is 78 years of age, and going strong. It would be a nice compliment if he were a guest of the different associations at the Test games. (Worrall “Cricket Veterans” Australasian, 5 December 1936.) In the match Kendall took one for 54 in the first innings off 152 balls, and seven for 55 in the second innings from 133 balls, a really splendid first performance in a Test match. As he made 3 and 17 not out with the bat, his share in the victory was a worthy one, Midwinter took five for 23 in the first innings from 216 balls, and one for 28 in the second innings off 76 balls, besides making 5 and 17 with the bat. Garrett took two for 22 in the first innings, and none for 9 in the second, his batting contributions being 19 not out and nil. Hodges took one for 27 and two for 7. The list would not be complete without mentioning Blackham's share in that first great victory, a win that blazed the trail to many successes. With the bat his contributions were 17 and 6, and as the prince of wicket keepers caught three and stumped one, he performed his part creditably. For England, Alfred Shaw, England's champion bowler, took eight wickets for 102 runs. In the return match, a fortnight later, on the same ground, England won by four wickets. The reason why I have dwelt on the first match is that its result had such a marked influence on Australian cricket. It really stirs the blood to visualise the scene on that famous old Melbourne ground after the lapse of half a century. (Worrall “Progress” Australasian, 12 November 1932: 10.)

MELBOURNE, March 20 Kendall receives the silver cup presented by the proprietors of the Australasian, for the best bowling average in the cricket match. (Weekly Examiner “Intercolonial” 24 March 1877.)

Kendall “Kendall ... wreaked havoc on the country of his birth by taking seven for 55 with his left-arm spin.” Kendall’s next appearance: “Kendall was unavoidably absent until too late for his bowling to be required.”

Hodges Standard at the conclusion of books like these go through the list of protagonists and tell the reader what became of them after. I’ve never enjoyed reading these, and as such have no desire to write one. But in the spirit which has taken over this book—the spirit of fact-checking and record-straightening—I find I must make one exception. I see you didn't quite buy my Mullagh thesis. Hope I'll be able to persuade you shortly. Even more eyebrow-raising, and better supported, is what I'm finding about JR Hodges, the most anonymous of the early Test cricketers. Seems he was convicted at least six times of exposing himself in public to underage girls. Deserted his wife after his second release from prison, at the turn of the century, and relocated to South Africa, where within months he was done for arms trafficking. His generally accepted death date and place (17 January 1933, Melbourne) is false: a confusion and conflation with that of JH Hodges, an umpire. How JR spent his final days, and where and when they ended, I still need to determine. But it's rather thrilling to be able to say that if I haven't hit upon Test cricket's first BLM case, I do have its first #MeToo culprit.

Blackham The press in its assessment of Blackham was almost as commendatory as it had been four days ago for Bannerman. The Australasian thought he had had been “simply perfection”: Nothing better could be seen. If he has ever been surpassed in that difficult department of the game, it has been by the great master of the gloves alone, the celebrated Tom Lockyer, and we do not venture this opinion from mere hearsay, but from an experience that dates from a time when Box was in his prime The Age thought it “sufficient to say he was as good in the second innings as in the first.” “Blackham at the wickets deserves particular mention, and is going to receive what will be still more gratifying to him—namely, a public presentation for his grand wicketkeeping. There was a great deal of ‘blowing’ about him, and not a few persons declared that he was Pooley’s superior. I could not see it, though he was infinitely better than Selby.” “The wicketkeeping of Blackham was equal almost to that of Pooley.” Blackham’s work “was the general subject of admiration,” giving the first hints or forewarnings of the revolution he was shortly to direct. His bravery—standing up in all conditions, and against all bowling, without a long stop, and in the most primitive gauntlets—is almost unfathomable. For the better part of the next two decades, his hands would endure everything consistent with the retention of their fingers; by his career’s end they were notched, and seamed, and crumpled all over. Cricket has come a long way since 1877, but I cannot imagine we have seen much advance on his early mastery of the stumper’s art. “Blackham—the man whom Spofforth had suggested couldn't keep wickets—caught three and stumped one.” Begbie: “Kendall kept them there, backed up by the superb catching and stumping skills of the luxuriously bearded Blackham.”

Bannerman “Will always be associated the name of Charles Bannerman, of Sydney, whose score of 165 (not out), is one of which Grace or any batsman who ever lived might feel justly proud. He is to be rewarded by a public subscription, and no man more deserves it. The testimonial already promises to be one of considerable value. Besides this he won an anonymous prize of five guineas for the best batsman. In the correct card sold (and printed) on the ground the uninitiated public were informed that Bannerman ‘was the prettiest and most brilliant bat in the team; has a stubborn defence, and is a great punisher of loose bowling.’ All this the great Sydney man deserves; more could scarcely be said.” “Bannerman takes the prize of five guineas given by an anonymous fiend for the best batsman. Arrangements are being made for a great public subscription for him; also one for Blackham, whose wicketkeeping has been marvellously good.” “Bannerman was awarded the prize offered by the proprietors of the Australasian for being the highest scorer.” “This match was won almost entirely by the magnificent batting of Bannerman.” It was arguably the single most important innings in the history of cricket: “It is easy to state that Charles Bannerman’s enduring reputation rests almost solely on his undefeated score of 165 in the very first Test Match when his next two highest scores in first-class cricket were only 81 and 83…. And the victory to which it led undoubtedly gave the Australian players the confidence and the legitimacy to make their first tour of Britain a year later.” “Of the other 21 innings played by the Australians in the match, the highest was only 20!” “He set many records which yet survive. He faced the first ball in Test cricket, scored the first run and made what remains the highest score by an Australian in his first Test. He also scored an unsurpassed 67.35% of his team’s total. Bannerman was paid £20 to take part in the match. This was equivalent to the wages for about three months of the average worker. He had cited the need to travel 600 miles each way to his home and also the loss of two weeks’ time. It later transpired that he had also been paid £10 to take part in each of the matches for XV of New South Wales (including the supplementary first-class game). [Letters from John Conway to The Sportsman (London) reproduced in The Sydney Morning Herald on 12 October 1878, p. 7, and in The Freeman’s Journal on 26 October 1878, pp. 7-8.]” “A meeting has been called for tomorrow to start a testimonial to Bannerman” (Ballarat Star “Latest Intelligence” 20 March 1877). “North Adelaide’s John Hill (father of Clem and five other brothers who represented South Australia) was the first to raise the century mark at the Oval with an undefeated 102 for North Adelaide against Kent on 26 January 1878.” Similarity of Kendall and Bannerman in their rise and fall. The maiden splendour of their morning star shook in the steadfast blue. Turned out to be only a shooting star—brief and brilliant, but gone too soon. Read Baily_s_Magazine_of_Sports_and_Pastimes.pdf in Bannerman folder. Bannerman one of Australia’s first heroes, a symbol of its united strength. Not above intercolonial pettiness himself, however: “When chosen to tour England in 1878 there was little love lost between the New South Wales and Victorian members of the team. A strong swimmer, in a storm off the coast of New Zealand, he was asked who he would save in a shipwreck. He replied he would save the New South Welsh men and leave the Victorians to drown!”

A very interesting and exciting match at cricket, was played here on Saturday last, between eleven Brookfield, and eleven Clarence Town school boys. Several by no means big boys on each side, displayed no mean skill with the ball and bat. Such devoted attention is now paid by young and old cricketers here, perchance in the hope to emulate the deeds of Bannerman, almost justifies the' assertion of those who are not such enthusiastic admirers of the game that one and all have “Bannerman on the brain.” I have heard that our first eleven intend flying at such high game as your almost invincible. (Maitland Mercury “Clarence Town Boys v. Brookfield Boys” 14 April 1877.)

He took Clennam's card, and appropriate pecuniary compliment.

Trinkets and testimonials A meeting of men of means held there, to concert measures for a testimonial to Bannerman.

The Australian XI were all presented with a gold watch each by the Victoria Cricket Association - captain Dave Gregory getting a slightly larger one - while a public subscription raised £83 for Bannermann and £23 for Kendall and wicketkeeper John Blackham.

Dave Scott: “A testimonial was at once started on his behalf, and so well supported that £165—or £1 a run—was raised and presented to genial Charley. There is little doubt that this innings of Bannerman gave Mr Conway and other leading cricketers the idea of organising the first team for England.” “A GOLD medal presented to a tragic, trail-blazing Scarborough cricketer when he starred in the very first Test Match more than 130 years ago is set to fetch up to £20,000 at an auction next Tuesday. The medal was given to Henry Rupert James Charlwood, better known as Harry Charlwood, for taking part in the historic Australia-England match – the world’s first-ever Test Match – at Melbourne, which started on March 15 1877. Mr Charlwood later became the owner of The Bell Inn on Blands Cliff and he also played cricket for Scarborough. He and his family lived on Sandside. He was only 41 when he collapsed and died at The Bell Inn on June 6 1888. Now, 122 years after his death in Scarborough, the medal he received for taking part in the very first Test Match is up for sale and is expected to fetch between £10,000 and £20,000 at Graham Budd Auctions at Sotheby’s in London. The medal is engraved with crossed cricket bats, stumps and a ball. On the other side it is engraved: “Presented to H. Charlwood by Geo. Browne, architect, M.C.C.Grandstand, Melbourne, 1877”. Auctioneer Graham Budd said: “The medal we are selling was engraved to the Sussex professional, Henry Rupert James Charlwood,who was born at Horsham. He was a right hand bat and played in both the Melbourne Test Matches of 1877. “In the historic First Test he batted at number three for England, scoring 36 in the first innings and 13 in the second innings. During the second Test, played between March 31 and April 4, he batted at number four and scored 14 and a duck during England’s four-wickets victory. In three of his four innings he was victim of the bowling of Tom Kendall. These were the only two Test matches of H.R.J. Charlwood’s career that spanned 197 First Class matches. Harry Charlwood was the mainstay of a poor Sussex county team for several seasons and was noted for his attacking top-order batting style. He was also an occasional lob bowler and a specialist cover fielder, taking 89 career catches. He scored five centuries – his highest score being 155 – and altogether scored over 7,000 runs. He later played for Derbyshire and last played in 1882.” On June 9 1888, the Leeds Mercury newspaper reported his death under the headline “Death at Scarborough of a famous Sussex cricketer”. The Mercury said: “The death took place at the Bell Hotel, Scarborough, on Wednesday evening, very suddenly, of Mr H.R.J. Charlwood, who since 1882 has been the proprietor of that establishment, and who, in his day, was a foremost cricketer. “About half past eight o clock, Mr Charlwood was sitting reading in the bar, he rose to speak to a friend and suddenly fell to the floor, being apparently seized with a fit. Medical aid was summoned and Dr W.C.E. Taylor was soon in attendance, but death ensued within half an hour. Mr Charlwood was a member of the Scarborough cricket club committee and played with the first eleven, making some notable scores. On the 13th September, 1879, on the Scarborough ground, when Scarborough wanted 72 runs to win with only 40 minutes to play, Mr Charlwood joined Mr R. Baker,the present secretary of the club, and mainly through Charlwood’s brilliant hitting, the match was snatched out of the fire two minutes before the lapse of time.” The York Herald newspaper said: “Mr Charlwood had been in ill health for a long period and quite recently was unable to leave his bedroom. But that the end was so near was not anticipated by anyone and therefore the announcement of his lamentably sudden ABOVE … The Bell Hotel, which Harry Charlwood owned and where he sadly died death has been everywhere received amongst his friends and relations with intensified pain and regret.” Mr Charlwood left a wife, Ann, and three children, Gertrude, Frederick and Lionel. This was the second tragedy to hit the Charlwood family. In 1880 Harry’s brother, Charles, who also played cricket for Sussex, died at the age of 37. Fortunately Harry Charlwood’s widow, Ann, did find happiness. In 1891, three years after Harry’s death and when she was in her early forties, she remarried. Her second husband was a Welsh hotelier named Hamer.” [Include image of Charlwood’s medal.] “The president then referred to the splendid score made by Charlwood, and said that a few lovers of cricket intended to present that gentleman with a gold medal. He would get this on the return of the team in March. Mr Charlwood sang a very pretty song, and as it was now nearly 7 o’clock, the Englishmen left for the railway station en route to Geelong. As the train left the station, they were loudly cheered, by the numbers assembled to see them off.” “Each of the Australian eleven in the first combination match has been presented by the Victorian Cricket Association with a gold medal in commemoration of the victory. It takes the form of an eight-rayed star, four of the rays being imitations of stamps, and has an imitation ball as a centre. In addition to being suitably inscribed, each of the medals bears the name of the recipient, so that they will form a pleasing memento of the first occasion on which an Australian eleven met and conquered an English eleven.”

The Victorian Cricketers' Association, in order that those of the colonial players interested in the match New South Wales and Victoria v. All England Eleven, played and won by the Australians on the Melbourne ground, might have some lasting remembrance, commissioned Brush and Drummond, Colling-street, with the order for the eleven medals in solid gold suitably inscribed. They are most appropriate in design, which is in the form of a Maltese cross with cross bets and cricket ball in centre, and form a very best appendage to the watch chain. (Australasian “Presentation Medals” 14 April 1877.)

“A meeting of the Victorian Cricket Association was held yesterday afternoon [21 March], at Oliver's Cafe. It was reported that £80 had been collected for the testimonial to Bannerman, and that £17 had been collected for the purchase of trophies for presentation to Blackham and Kendall, in recognition of their play in the late match. A proposition that a gold medal should be presented to each member of the Australian eleven in commemoration of the victory was favorably entertained.” Not altogether well received outside of Melbourne and New South Wales. Could easily be forgotten that there were other colonies besides. Brisbane Telegraph editorialised as follows:

A CORRESPONDENT of the Melbourne Argus has suggested that the public should subscribe for suitably inscribed gold medals to be presented to the Australian cricketers who, on the 16th of March and three subsequent days, achieved a signal victory on equal terms over the English professional team. He says: “We owe them this for the grand advertisement their victory will be for us in Old England." It was truly a brilliant victory of the sort. It deserves applause as an exhibition of native excellence in a popular English sport. The progress made in cricketing skill by colonial players since the year 1862, when a combined team of twenty-two of the picked players of New South Wales and Victoria were beaten or an English eleven, has been very great, and its genuineness has been during the present summer, demonstrated on many a field. That it has been appreciated has been proved by the tens of thousands who have paid to witness the various contests with the British team. There has been no stint of patronage and no beggarly show of applause. So far as the visitors are concerned, if any of them be prudent and economical in the conservation of the golden harvest they have reaped they will at home be able to enter into some permanently lucrative business. In a single season they have pocketed more plunder here than they would do in a cricketer's lifetime in the old country. Nor have some of our best colonial players been wholly disinterested in the honours they have won. In the last match in Sydney between the Englishmen and fifteen of New South Wales several of the latter team were paid handsomely for their services. It is not in the least likely that any member of the New South Wales contingent of the combined eleven bas been spending some weeks and exhibiting his skill in Melbourne without ample “consideration." There is nothing intrinsically or analagously [sic] wrong in this. If a clever elocutionist, or singer, or musician, or conjuror, or actor may travel the world round for the wealthy reward of talent, there is no valid reason why an oarsman or a cricketer should not do the same. Perfection in any art or science depends somewhat on a natural adaptation. Instinctive skill—commonly designated "genius"—is often a failure through the absence of incentives to action or a resolute spirit which defies petty obstructions to advancement. Clever men sometimes work from vain or ambitious motives—sometimes from sheer necessity. But genius of any cast becomes luxuriantly rank if it be not educated and disciplined. A man would no more by mere instinct become a first-clas rower or batsman than he would become a first-class surgeon or lawyer. In each case the preparatory system of drill, of training and education, must be gone through. When the educating process has manifested and disciplined the natural abilities, the certified athlete or practitioner may demand his price. With regard to athletism, the danger is that the present enthusiastic patronage of skill may lure many young men from more practical and useful pursuits. New South Wales is in danger of becoming intoxicated with the flattery of her athletic successes. She accredited herself with immeasurable prestige when TRICKETT won the championship of the Thames. Now BANNERMAN's performances with bat, and Evans's performances with a ball, are to be "a grand advertisement in Old England." "A grand advertisement" of what? Of the suitability of our climate to develop muscular energy by the aid of rowing and cricketing? All this can be done at home, more effectually than here, or we should not, in the case of cricket, have a team occasionally coming all the way from England to contend against large odds, as is mostly the case. We have no objection whatever to recreation, and especially such recreation as tends to strengthen physical muscle, but it would be detrimental to the real interests of these colonies, were our colonial youth to be induced to regard athletic sports as a track to fame and subsistence. It is easily possible to abuse our legitimate sources of amusement. It would almost seem as if New South Wales derived greater distinction, in her own estimate, if not in that of the wide world without herself, by the exploits of her athletes than of her com missioners. The fame of Philadelphian exhibits is valueless, compared with the "grand advertisement” of Trickett's victory on the Thames. The triumph of the Hon. HENRY PARKES on the political arena of Macquarie-street is over shadowed by the achievement of BANNERMAN at Melbourne. Who cares for politics when a first-class cricket match is being anticipated or played? More money has been expended on "wiring" the state of the late games than about the Parlimentary crisis in New South Wales, or the General Election of Victoria. The grandeur of Australian institutions, the honour of Australian prowess was seen in the wake of Trickett's boat on the muddy Thames, and is seen here in the wicket creases of Australian sporting grounds. Has not this enthusiasm gone almost far enough? Is it not possible that in strengthening the muscles of the body we may be unduly relaxing those of the mind? We should deprecate with physical litheness a corresponding flexibility of moral principle. Any excessive elasticity there would be injurious to the colony. There is a danger of our reaching the point of gambling folly with regard to our young men, from which we should regard them as sinewy animals to be reared like blood horse stock, for merely sportive purposes; and that the cool head, the keen eye, the lithe wrist, the swift foot, were to be made the stock-in-trade of professional gamesters and black-legs. Gambling is the curse of all sport. There has been a vast deal too much of the pernicious business connected with the round of matches played by the English eleven. The degradation of cricket to the level of blackguardism will be detrimental to the social and material interests of the colony. We require the best muscular strength and the ablest genius of our young men for the cultivation of our soil, the building of our towns, the education of our children, the making of our laws and literature, and the general advancement of the colonies. In fostering the feverish enthusiasm of sport we may develop muscle for no permanently worthy object, and we may lose productive energy, useful capital, and sound moral vigour. (Telegraph “April 7, 1877.”)

Adapt for their first meeting with Geo. Browne the architect: “They were a merry party, and had lain all night at Malwood-Keep, a hunting-lodge in the forest, where they had made good cheer, both at supper and breakfast, and had drunk a deal of wine.”

A preliminary meeting was held at Punch's Hotel, on Saturday evening lest, for the purpose of devising some means of recognition of Bannerman's performances, Edmund Barton, Esq, barrister-at-law, in the chair. The following resolutions were unanimously adopted: 1. That in view of the admirable performance of Charles Bannerman in the match All England versus Combined Eleven of New South Wales [sic], this meeting considers it desirable that the public should recognise the high merit of that performance. 2. That the gentlemen present—Messrs Barton, Sheridan, Webster, Kellick, Keddie, LJ Park, and Urquhart, do now constitute a temporary committee for the furtherance of the above object. 3. That Mr LJ Park be requested to act pro tem, as hon. secretary, and he be asked to convene a meeting of persons favourable to the project, such meeting to be held at Punch's Hotel, King-street, on Tuesday next. (Evening News “Australia v. All England” 19 March 1877.)

Australia won by 47 runs. There was tremendous cheering. The subscription for Bannerman is general. He is credited with the victory. The English cricketers challenged the Victorians to a return match. It is doubtful if it will be arranged. The backers of the English are very angry, and say they did not take care of themselves, and had no interest in winning. There is immense excitement in Melbourne to night. It was hardly surpassed by the Melbourne Cup. The Victorian players want to try conclusions next time against the English with eleven instead of fifteen. Others talk of arranging a combined match with eleven of both colonies in Sydney. The result of the match will probably alter the arrangements of the English players in some way. Both English and colonial players say the match was decided on its merits. The boys are subscribing for Bannerman in the factories and other business places. (Riverine Herald “Cricket Match” 20 March 1877.)

MELBOURNE. A testimonial is being raised for Bannerman; the Englishmen bave given five guineas. (Maitland Mercury “Special Telegrams” 20 March 1877.)

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS Sir, I trust that the Victorian Cricketers' Association are taking some steps to originate a testimonial to Bannerman, to mark the appreciation of the people hero of his magnificent display of batting in the match now going on between Australia and England. It is a performance unprecedented in the colonies, and very seldom equalled in the old country. The fact of Bannerman being a New South Welshman ought not to interfere in any way with the success of getting up such a testimonial. In a case of this sort all local feeling or jealousy must be set aside. For the time being, we all—Victorians or New South Welshmen—must forget our geographical distinctions, and only remember that we are of one nation, Australia. Victoria may, no doubt, envy her sister colony the possession of such a cricketer as Banner man, but at the same time his performance sheds a halo of honour and glory, not only on New South Wales, but on the whole of Australia. When we have shown the people of the old country—as we have done—that we are their superiors on the river, and at any rate their equals in the cricket-field, we have done much to claim their attention and command their respect. It is not too much to say, then, that performances, such as Trickett's with the oar, and Bannerman's with the bat, will have more effect in making Australia known and appreciated in England than ball-a-dozen agents-general or paid lecturers. In conclusion I would suggest that the Association should give the public an opportunity of subscribing towards such a testimonial, as I am sure that hundreds of delighted spectators would only be too glad to show in that way their appreciation of Bannerman's play.—I am, &c. COVER-POINT March 16. (Cover-Point “Testimonial to Bannerman” Argus, 17 March 1877.)

At a preliminary meeting held at Punch's Hotel, Sydney, on Saturday evening last (says the Echo), it was decided—(1.) “That, in view of the admirable performance of Charles Bannerman in the match now being played at Melbourne, this meeting considers it desirable that the public should recognize the high merit of that Achievement." (2) "That the gentlemen present viz., Messrs. Edmund Barton, P. Sheridan, J. Kellick, F. Webster, LJ Park, T. Keddie, RC Hewitt, and—Urqubart—do Duw constitute a temporary committee for the furtherance of the above-mentioned object." (3) “That Mr LJ Park be requested to act pro tem, as honorary secretary, and be asked to convene a meeting of persons favourable to the project, such meeting to be held at Punch's Hotel, King-street, on Tuesday evening next (20th instant), At 8 pm." The meeting referred to has been convened accordingly. (Maitland Mercury “Testimonial to Bannerman” 22 March 1877.)

At a meeting last night, it was resolved to invite the secretaries of cricket clubs and others to co-operate in collecting subscriptions for testimonial to Bannerman. (AAP “New Government” Maitland Mercury, 22 March 1877.)

“All East Melbourne men will be glad to hear of the substantial progress and welfare of Mr AT Hill, an ardent lover of the game and an old member of that club, who has been resident in the North-eastern district for some years. On the occasion of Hill being recently transferred from the post of manager of the Dookie branch of the National Bank to the Bairnsdale branch his friends marked his departure in the most demonstrative manner, entertaining him at dinner and preventing him with a handsome silver salver valued at 70 guineas.” “After lunch opportunity was taken to present an address and bat to Mr. James Parnell, s young and promising player of the Dungog Cricket Club, who is leaving the district for 8ydoey. The address was read by William Aldrich, Esq., J.P., President of the Dungog Cricket Club.”

That evening, on the stage of the Theatre Royal, Madame LoLo presented the prizes which wealthy Adelaide enthusiasts had offered (an interesting variation of the modern man-of-the-match awards). John Selby was presented with a silver-mounted bat and Tom Armitage (somehow winning precedence over Shaw) with a silver-mounted ball. Shaw, however, together with Jupp, received an electro-plated pint tankard. There were also prizes for the Australians, a silver inkstand and a silver lever watch, incentives which had been on display in the committee-room all day, to be awarded to the best batsman and bowler from the Norwood and Kensington clubs.

They threw themselves into a committee in the most impassioned manner, and collected subscriptions with a vehemence quite extraordinary. C. Absalon in 1877: “The last match he played in for this club was at Dulwich, against the Crescent, when he took eight wickets for 7 runs. For his fine bowling they gave him a ball, and a bat for getting 40 runs against Tottenham.” Against XXII of Wellington in February: “Several trophies were given for batting, bowling, and fielding, chiefly to members of one of the clubs participating in the contest. Mace took the cap for batting, Cross a bat each for bowling and fielding, and W. J. Salmon also a cup for fielding.” Allen Hill no stranger to trophies: “His first match for Yorkshire was against MCC and Ground at Lord's in May, 1871, when he failed to meet with much success, obtaining a pair of spectacles and taking a couple of wickets for 63 runs. Three months later, when Freeman had broken down, he was accorded another trial, against Surrey at the Oval, and then created something of a sensation by bowling unchanged through the match with Emmett and taking a dozen wickets—all bowled down at a cost of only 57 runs. He also made the highest score, 28, in the first innings of his side, and Yorkshire, set 84 to make, won by ten wickets, Rowboth and Luke Greenwood making the runs without being separated. For his bowling on that occasion—his first inter-county match—he was presented with a silver cup.”

A large testimonial is being raised for Bannerman, the cricketer, to which the English Eleven have subscribed [already, before they left for their next fixture that night]. (Evening Journal “Victoria” 19 March 1877.)

“In 1870, having already played 5 games for Surrey, Sussex claimed him for their own game against Surrey, starting 23 June. Southerton bowled Sussex to victory, taking 4 Surrey wickets in the first innings and five in the second. Indeed, Surrey got off to the worst possible start: " The first over was a real 'cricket curiousity' … From the first ball delivered by Southerton, Jupp was very cleverly stumped by Phillips… Stephenson, who followed, cut the second ball for 2; off the third he was well caught at point, letting in Griffith, who drove the remaining ball forward and high, right into the hands of Reed, who judged and made the catch well amidst general applause. Southerton having got rid of three of his 'old pals', and Surrey's best wickets, became entitled to, and was rewarded with, a new hat by Mr. Smith, hon. secretary of the Sussex County Club" (Morning Post, 24 June 1870).”

C.W. Alcock remembers a present Southerton brought him back after one of his trips to Australia: “Everybody liked him, and liked his way of speaking out what was in his mind. He was very independent, and most good-natured. After he had returned from a visit with one of the England elevens to Australia, he gave me a valuable gold locket for my watch-chain. His way of presenting it was quaint. I happened to mention to him that my liver was out of order. He said nothing, but in the following day came up to me and remarked, 'Mr Alcock, [p. 95] I've been thinking that I have a box of pills here which will cure you,' I laughed, and put the box in my pocket, forgetting all about it until the evening, when I mentioned to my wife that Southerton had given me some special pills. We opened the box, and found a locket, with my initials engraved upon it - from 'J.S.' The next morning I was very angry with him for spending money over me like that; but he smiled serenely, and said, 'I knew you would never accept the locket unless I got you to take it by some dodge" (quoted in Chats on the Cricket Field, W.A.Bettesworth). Alcock clearly valued the gift highly. Thirty years later, reminded of it, he produced it from his pocket. The fact that he was employed by, first, the Sporting Life and second, the Sportsman, to send bulletins of his two Australian tours back home for publication indicates a capacity on his part to write and to inform. Certainly, he skates over some of the issues which could reflect badly on his colleagues – Jupp’s drink-related problems for example. There is also clearly more that he might say about the fractions within the touring party on WG. Grace’s tour (though he does not entirely by-pass the issues, for example the separation of professionals and amateurs to different hotels on arrival in Melbourne). In relation to his diaries, the author of an article in The Cricket Quarterly (presumed to be its editor, Rowland Bowen), says that “He did not on the whole have much to say … but every now and then he made a remark which is worth preserving. For the most part his accounts of cricket are of the very baldest, and as to the scenes of his travels, they have been described far more competently and attractively by many other travellers”. [p. 96] This seems extremely harsh. It may be that the diaries served for Southerton as an aide memoire for his letters home. But these communications are much more than match reports. They provide an insight to the difficulties of travel, whether by boat or by road. He writes, reasonably fairly, about the quality of the opposition, and about the nature of the reception the tourists received at different locations. Lillywhite’s Cricketers’ Annual 1879, credits his writings as having aroused curiosity at home in witnessing the prowess of men such as Charles Bannerman, Kendall, Spofforth and Evans – which must have contributed to the success of the Australian tour to England. It also compliments Southerton for his “graphic descriptions” of the 1876-77 tour. The quality of his writing belies his background as the son of a Petworth shoemaker and as a hairdresser from Mitcham.

After the first match of the tour, in Adelaide, “SELBY, for the highest score, was presented with a silver-mounted bat, and ARMITAGE with a silver mounted ball for best bowling, and Jupp and Shaw with a silver cup each for their fine batting and bowling.” “A silver cup was presented to GREENWOOD for highest score” against Newcastle in December.

The English cricketing team were entertained by Mr Geo. Browne, the architect for the new grand stand on the Melbourne Cricket Club ground, on Saturday last. In the morning, Mr Browne drove the cricketers round the city and suburbs in a cricketers round the city and suburbs in a handsome drag, drawn by a capital team of six bays. The party then proceeded to Heidelberg where luncheon was provided, and done full justice to. In the evening, Mr Browne entertained his guests at dinner at Clement's cafe, Swanston-street [same street as the typewriter]. The spread was in every way creditable to the caterer, and the more substantial viands having been disposed of, toasts and songs followed each other in rapid succession. The usual loyal toats [sic] of course came first, after which Mr W. Kelly proposed the health of the Guests of the Evening. Mr J. Lillywhite, the captain of the team, responded in a speech which was very brief, but very much to the point. In speaking of the grand stand in course of erection on the Melbourne Cricket Club ground, he said it was the noblest one he had seen in all his travels. Success to Cricket in Victoria, the health of the Host, and some other toasts having been drunk, the party separated after spending a very pleasant evening. The musical arrangements were satisfactorily carried out by Mr St John Caws.

The Victorian Cricket Association also was thrilled. Every man received a gold medal. Dave Gregory's medal, of course, for the purpose of sound discipline was a trifle larger than the others. The subscription for Bannerman brought £87 /7 /6 [seems to be a myth that it realised £165—does his biographer repeat this error?] and another for Blackham and Kendall £23/5/-.

Meredith one of the few to get it right: “Charlie Bannerman's century, which earned him a post-match collection of £87 7s 6d.”

Prior to the departure of our trio from Sydney, Mr Sutton, of George-street, presented them with a meerschaum pipe each; and Mr Hurley, also of George-street, presented Mr Conway with a splendid bat, in appreciation of his fine bowling during the match. (Leader “Intercolonial Single Wicket Match” 22 April 1871.)

First visit to Melbourne in November: “On Saturday Mr Brown, the architect of the splendid grandstand on the Melbourne ground, gave us a trip round the pleasant drives of Melbourne, and invited us to a banquet in the evening, all of course accepting the invitation and enjoying it.”

At a meeting held tonight [Tuesday, 20 March] it was resolved to open subscription-lists for a testimonial to Bannerman. (Ovens and Murray Advertiser “New South Wales” 22 March 1877.)

“The Bannerman testimonial reaches [as of 22 March] already nearly £100. A proposal has been made for a team of eleven gentlemen cricketers from England to visit the colonies. (Reuters “Telegraphic” Brisbane Courier, 23 March 1877).

[Monday, March 19:] A testimonial is being raised for Bannerman, It is likely that a large sum will be subscribed. The English Eleven give five guineas. (Australian Town and Country Journal “Melbourne” 24 March 1877.)

Tuesday [March 20] Kendall has been awarded the Australasian Cup for the best bowling average in the recent match. Another eleven-a-side match is contemplated at Easter, at which Evans is to be asked to play. (Australian Town and Country Journal “Melbourne” 24 March 1877.)

A movement is [March 20] on foot here [Sydney] and, it is believed, in Brisbane, to get up a testimonial to Bannerman for his splendid batting in the cricket match at Melbourne between a joint New South Wales and Victoria team and the English cricketers. (Week “Intercolonial” 24 March 1877.)

It is the intention of those parties interested in cricket to get up a splendid testimonial for Bannerman. (Burrowa News “Melbourne, Monday” 31 March 1877.)

Steps have been taken at Sydney to raise a fund for the purpose of presenting Mr C. Bannerman with a testimonial in recognition of his excellent display of cricket in playing against the All-England Eleven at Melbourne. All the prominent clubs have been written to seeking co-operation. (Riverine Herald “Miscellaneous” 31 March 1877.)

[March 23:] The success of our champion batsman on the Melbourne Cricket Ground is a cause of boundless exultation with our cricketing public and all natives of the colony. To score 165 against the best bowler in England, and then to retire only because he was disabled, is something for a lover of athletic sports to boast of. A testimonial is being got up here as in Melbourne in recognition of Bannerman's skill—only I hope it will not be used to put him into a public-house, as in the case of Trickett, our champion oarsman. There is great disappointment and some little indignation expressed at the refusal of the All-England Eleven to play another even match in Sydney. Some are vain enough to say that they are afraid of such bowlers as Evans and Spofforth and such batsmen as the former and Bannerman. [page 6] My own opinion is that they are afraid of nothing, except of losing a chance of making the most money in the least time. They have not come to Australia to play for fame, and they do not expect it will materially affect their reputation whether they win or lose. (South Australian Register “New South Wales” 2 April 1877: 5.)

The testimonial to Bannerman will be presented at the close of the present match [the Second Test]. (Australian Associated Press “Victoria” Evening Journal, 4 April 1877.)

At the conclusion of the play today the testimonial which has been got up for presentation to Bannerman, in recognition of his late brilliant performance, will be handed to him by Mr C. Croaker, vice-president of the MCC as well as of the Cricket Association. It amounts to about £90. (Argus “April 4, 1877” 4 April 1877: 6.)

At the termination of the cricket match yesterday, Bannerman was presented, in the Melbourne pavilion, with, the sum of £90, the result of the subscription made in recognition of his splendid innings of 165 in the first combination match against the English men. The recipient made a suitable reply. (Age “News of the Day” 5 April 1877.)

Mr Stewart Keightly, of the accountants' department of the Hobson's Bay Railway, having been appointed to an important position in a neighboring colony, was entertained at a dinner at the Sarah Sands Hotel on Tuesday evening, and presented with a bat, suitably inscribed, by the members of the Brunswick Cricket Club, as a mark of appreciation of his services in connection therewith. Mr W. Dods, the president, occupied the chair, and the evening was spent in a most enjoyable manner. (Age “News of the Day” 5 April 1877.)

Between 30 and 40 gentlemen connected with the Brunswick Cricket Club entertained Mr Stewart Keightley, of the Hobson's Bay Railway department, at dinner at the Sarah Sands Hotel on Tuesday evening and presented him with a bat suitably inscribed as a mark of appreciation of his services as secretary to the club. The occasion was Mr Keightley’s severance from the club, owing to his having received an appointment in another colony. (Argus “April 6, 1877” 5.)

Mr Punch rejoices to read that the subscription towards the Bannerman Testimonial in Melbourne is progressing so favourably. He hopes that an equal effort will be made in Sydney. At the same time our English news informs Mr P. that a tangible acknowledgment of Mr WG Grace's prowess in the cricket field, which has long made him champion cricketer of the world, is about to be started in England. With a duke for a treasurer, and, doubtless, many other lordling swells on the committee, there surely should be enough collected to set up “the Doctor” wherever he may pitch his tent, with house, pill-box, and all complete. To his juvenile friends of the willow, who are striving to rival Evans, Coates, or Bannerman, Mr Punch bids them, “Practise, practise, practice! and take heart of Grace!” (Sydney Punch “Similia Similibus Dona” 7 April 1877.)

I see the Britishers have beaten the Combined Eleven in the return match, winning with five wickets to spare. Well, [the] turn about is only fair, and it was scarcely to be expected the Australians would win always. Telegrams do not state the names of all the players, but Evans is understood to have been one. Allan, who at the last moment refused to play in the previous match, went to the Warrnambool races the same day, and was hooted round the course. Serve him right. (Long-Stop “Cricket” Rockhampton Bulletin, 7 April 1877.)

In a recent issue of the Sydney Mail, the editor takes exception to the idea that Bannerman is entitled to the thanks of the community for his very successful stand against the English players, in the combined match. And further, that “Cricketers and oarsmen and crack shots are not public men in any true sense.” This is an assertion that can certainly he controverted. According to my notion any man is entitled to rank as a public man who brings his country or fellow citizens into popularity, let the means by which that end is accomplished be what they may. It will scarcely he denied that the Australian cricketers, oarsmen, and rifle teams, have achieved a greater prominence and distinction in other countries for the colonies than many years of plodding industry would have done. 1876 has shown Australia and Australians in quite another light to what they were seen in before. And what has been the cause? Why the success of her cricketers, her crack shots, and her oarsmen. Consequently, I think the persons who have brought about these results are entitled to some consideration as public men. If an American team of cricketers had achieved the same victory over the Englishmen, their success would have been deemed worthy of being recorded in the archives of their country. They would have been lauded to the skies, and feted by their countrymen where ever they went. Then why should not Bannerman receive a public monetary, as well as honorary, recompense for the part he played so well against the Eleven of All England? Bannerman, Evans, Slade, Trickett, and others have proved that Australians have the stamina and muscle to successfully compete with the best men of the mother country, which will obtain greater amount of respect and eminence for us out of Australia, than would the pseudo-philanthropy of many so called public men. The truth of this assertion is shown in the opinions already expressed by the Press of England and America, with reference to the power and skill of Australian colonists in their international contests. (Long-Stop “Cricket” Rockhampton Bulletin, 7 April 1877.)

In the first match between the England Eleven and a combined Australian Eleven, the two colonial players who gained special distinction were Messrs Bannerman and Kendall—the former receiving a handsome testimonial for his magnificent exhibition of batting, and the latter being the winner of the bowling trophy presented by the proprietors of The Australasian “for the best bowling performance in the match.” These exponents of colonial skill are both very young men, and both acquired their cricket in the colonies—Bannerman in New South Wales, of which place he is a native, and Kendall in this colony. As a batsman, Bannerman possesses a very neat style, and is a brilliant and clean hitter all round, and a very fast run-getter. His long innings of 165, “not out, hurt,” was obtained without a mistake all through, his play being quite perfect. He was obliged to retire, owing to an injury to his hand from one of Ulyett's “cannon shots.” Kendall is a left-handed bowler, with a high delivery, and bowls a very difficult ball. He was mainly instrumental in disposing of the Englishmen's wickets in the second innings, thereby winning the match, and he richly merited the handsome trophy he won. Both players are a credit to the colonies, and each would take a high position in the most important matches of the old country—the one as a batsman, and the other, as a bowler. The photographs used for our engravings were taken by Mr. Chuck, Royal Arcade. (Australian Sketcher “Bannerman and Kendall” 14 April 1877.)

A MEETING of the Committee and Persons holding Subscription Lists will be held at Punch's Hotel, on TUESDAY EVENING next, at 8 o'clock. Hon. Secretaries: LJ PARK, F. WEBSTER. (Sydney Morning Herald “Bannerman Testimonial Fund” 16 April 1877.)

All those desirous of recognising the brilliant cricket lately shown in Melbourne by Mr C. Bannerman, are reminded that all subscription lists will be called in on Monday next for the purpose of presenting what has been raised. The different lists all show goodly amounts, but still the treasurer will be glad to hear from any others who have up to the present time forgotten it. (Australian Town and Country Journal “Testimonial” 12 May 1877.)

The testimonial presented to Trickett, the champion sculler, who defeated Sadlier on the Thames, amounted to about £900. The pre-sentation was made by the Premier. (Argus “New South Wales” 21 February 1877.)

The movement recently initiated in Melbourne, to raise a subscription to recoup the proprietors of the Age for loses [sic] sustained by the recent libel action is extending to the country districts. Several gentlemen in Kyneton, intend to take the matter up, and possibly they will make public the course they will pursue in a day or two.

Charity—noblesse oblige—all the rage in the pre-welfare-state era. Research this.

"I would like to say about the Carltons," added Mr Beal, “that they were not only a cricket club, but a band of friends. If one member had an opportunity of doing another fellow a good turn, it was looked upon as an honor for him to be permitted to embrace it. A spirit of camaraderie permeated right through from start to finish. We played cricket for cricket's sake and good-fellowship. We used to have nigger concerts every year, and once got £90 odd for old Nat Thomson. And sometimes we performed for charity.”

Limited welfare-statism and social democracy in Victoria, and even that subject, from the paper of record, to assaults I hestitate to call proto-Randian only because the prefix is prolix. Even down to the libertarian conceit of associating itself with reason and logic (“common sense and justice”):

A reference to the summary of events which appears in another part of this issue will show our English readers that we are undergoing that mild excitement which usually precedes a general election. Day after day our columns are partly filled with reports of the utterances of gentlemen anxious at any personal inconvenience to serve the country, and preserve democracy from the dangers which threaten it, owing to the iniquitous designs of conservatism on the one hand, and the insidious devices of wealth on the other. It is almost needless to say that we are constantly assured, with a solemnity which is very impressive, that there never was a time in the history of the colony when so much de-pended on the events of the few following months. If Messrs. A, B, and C be returned to Parliament, then our future prosperity will be assured. The so-called "people," seeing the whole of the burdens of the state transferred to property, will be quiet, and even con-tented, for a time; but only let Messrs. D, E, and F succeed by artful wiles in their nefarious attempts to cajole intelligent constituencies into voting for common-sense men, and our prospects are too horrible to contemplate. We do not remember one general election in Victoria which has not involved, in the opinion of Opposition members, the gravest considerations ever submitted for the consideration of constituent bodies, and it is evident that the pending appeal to the electors, which cannot now be long delayed, is to be no exception to the general rule. But is it a fact that there is anything in the existing state of affairs which constitutes a "burning question]" We most decidedly say No. The only subject which seriously occupies public attention at present is the revision of the incidence of taxation—a matter which is, of course, tolerably comprehensive. It is seen by men gifted with capacity for thought, and honesty to give expression to their views, that our present system of taxation is about as vicious as the ingenuity of man could make it. It hampers trade, checks the healthy growth of industries, plunders certain sections of the community for the benefit of others, confuses general ideas as to right and wrong, honesty and chicane, weighs heavily upon the working man, and allows property to go free. Of course intelligent and fair dealing people desire to Bee some remedy applied to this most undesirable state of affairs. Its members desire to free commerce from all unnecessary trammels, to do away with legislative favouritism as between classes, and to assist the labouring classes by reducing the cost of necessaries, making good any deficiency which might be caused in the customs revenue by a fair and universal tax on realised wealth. We submit that this is a rational and an equitable programme, and one to which intelligent men may reasonably give their adhesion. The constitutional and free-trade party in Victoria has undoubtedly right and common sense on its side, and we are bound to think that those will ultimately prevail, and fashion the policy of the country, but it is doubtful whether public opinion is at present educated up to the standard which must be attained before the voice of truth and justice can obtain a hearing. All that we can hope to do at present is to assist in obtaining a modification of the tariff in the direction of fairness, and prevent as far as possible the further injustice contemplated by those professional politicians and pseudo-philosophical malcontents, who seek in political life a refuge from merited destitution or the means of revenge upon an unappreciative society. This is a business, how-ever, that electors who see through the artifice of politicians who would use them or live upon them, can go about in sober earnestness, neither exaggerating its value nor underestimating its importance. The policy of the Opposition is based upon a principle which certainly has simplicity to recommend it. Its object is to pander to popular cupidity by transferring the entire burden of taxation from labour to capital, so far at least as this can be done without interfering with protection. Protection having, of course, failed to bring about that universal prosperity which its advocates predicted it would produce, the "Liberal party," as the advocates of monopoly style themselves in this antipodean world, found it necessary to discover some other panacea for the self-created disadvantages under which the masses labour in this as in most other countries. They had not far to look for what they wanted. Having done as much damage as possible to the commercial and trading classes in the interests of "native industry,” they turned upon a class which perhaps is more hateful still, namely the large landholders The constitutional party has always contended, that while land is a fair subject for taxation, it can only be fairly taxed along with other forms of realised wealth. In England, and indeed throughout the whole of Europe, estates were conferred upon the ancestors of the present proprietors, subject to certain conditions of service, and those which have been purchased in modern times have been bought, together with any obligations their possession may entail. In Victoria, however, the condition of affairs is entirely different. All the land alienated from the Crown, with a few insignificant exceptions, has been acquired by the grantees by purchase, and is just as much the representative of industrial energy as any bank shares or Government debentures in which men may have invested their savings. It is admitted, of course, that a day may come when the increased population of the world would press very heavily on its food producing capabilities, and that then land, owing to its limited quantity, might fairly be made the subject of exceptional legislation, but to treat it differently to other kinds of property, when it has been acquired in the manner we have described, and while there are 13,000,000 or 14,000,000 acres awaiting selection in this colony alone, would be, in our opinion, a most unfair proceeding. The idea, however, of singling it out for penal taxation is popular, and not only do professional politicians such as Mr Berry and his followers advocate it with all the force they can muster, but even gentlemen like Professor Pearson and Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, who ought to know better, do not hesitate to recommend the scheme, on grounds, alas, which only make educated men blush for their order. It is not to be supposed, however, that the other side of the question has been entirely without supporters. Some gentlemen, to their credit, have spoken out boldly, both on the subject of tariff reform and land taxation, advocating without equivocation the claims of common sense and justice. That more have not come forward is owing probably, to the silence of the Government, which up to the present time has given no hint as to its intentions. It may be etiquette to withhold the Ministerial programme until after the dissolution has been gazetted, but certainly the observance of custom on the present occasion has been attended by great inconvenience. The telegraphic message from England, which we published yesterday, informs us that the political situation in this colony is regarded hopefully by the London press. The Times, recommends Sir James M'Culloch to adopt either a free trade or a protective policy, while the Economist thinks [then as now!] that “all leading politicians should choose sides on the great question of the day, and bring the present uncertainty to an end.” No doubt the advice of both our contemporaries—which, we may mention, was in the possession of the Victorian public three days after it was published in London—is admirable, and will no doubt receive the consideration it deserves. If Sir James M'Culloch takes a decided attitude, it is true he may fail, but assuredly he will come to the front again. What rational men require is an “all round” system of taxation on property, the immediate abolition of non productive duties, and a provision for the gradual extinction of protective imposts. We say “gradual,” because it is thought that the state should not suddenly withdraw its aid from industries winch it has injudiciously fostered. We trust that when the next mail leaves we may be able to report that the Government has put forward a programme as loyal to sound general principles as the exigencies of practical politics will permit. If our English contemporaries should feel inclined to blame us for this large concession to expediency, we would have them remember that in the colonies men are sometimes more important than measures.

Matters are well in train for the return cricket match against the English Eleven at Easter. Negotiations have been opened up with Mr Evans, of New South Wales, to induce him to come to Melbourne. Mr Bannerman, though he has to visit Sydney between the present date and the date of the match, can be depended on to play; but it may be necessary to find substitutes for the two Gregorys, who have been obliged to return home. The Cricket Association met yesterday, to receive reports as to the progress which had been made in the collection of subscriptions for the testimonial to Bannerman. The hon. secretary (Mr Handfield) stated that the collections amounted to £80. From the manner in which applications had been responded to, it was believed that the sum could be increased to £100. The association, therefore, decided that the lists should be held open until Monday next. The same action was taken with reference to the collections made for Mr Kendall and Mr Blackham, which up to yesterday amounted to £17. The testimonial to Bannerman will take the form of a purse of sovereigns. The association thought that a presentation should be made to each member of the Australian eleven, to commemorate the late match, which was regarded as the most important event that had yet occurred in the history of colonial cricket. An appropriation not to exceed £30 was voted from the funds for the purchase of suitable medals, the design of which was left to Mr Peryman and Mr Handfield. Some conversation ensued regarding a proposal to bring out eleven gentlemen from England in the season of 1878-9, under the auspices of the association; but as the meeting had been called for the transaction of special business, the subject was ordered to stand over until the next general meeting.

A correspondent writes as follows with reference to the recent “Old England v. Young Australia” cricket match: “Without any desire to disparage the prowess of individual players in the late match, I think that the exertions of the team as a whole are worthy of recognition. It was owing to the care, steadiness, and pluck of all that the cricketing 'stars' shone so brilliantly. May I suggest, through your columns, that each player should receive a gold medal suitably inscribed (or some other lasting record of the match), to be handed down as a token of the way 'our boys' played. We owe them this for the grand advertisement their victory will be for us in Old England." Our correspondent encloses a cheque for £2 2s., as a contribution to the fund he wishes to see raised.

Arrangements for the return combination match, to commence next Saturday, between eleven representatives of Australia and the English professional cricketers are (says the Argus) now complete. Messrs Spofforth, D. Gregory, and Thompson left Sydney for Melbourne on Tuesday. The other three representatives of New South Wales are already here, viz., Messrs. Garrett, Murdoch, and Bannerman. Several changes have been made in the eleven, whose strength must be regarded as increased. It is now well equipped with bowlers. The name, however, of Mr. Horan will be missed from the list, he has preferred to be one of the eleven which the East Melbourne Cricket Club is about to send to South Australia, but his place will be pretty effectively filled by Mr Murdoch, of Sydney, who is not only an excellent batsman, but a fine fielder. Mr Kelly will take the position which Mr Cooper occupied in the former eleven. Mr Spofforth may be regarded as more than an efficient substitute for E. Gregory. He is a very dangerous bowler; his pace is much faster than Ulyett's (which no doubt Bannerman thinks quite fast enough), but he has such control over the ball that he often puzzles the batsman by changing to slows. It is his speed and the peculiarity of his style which made him doubt whether he should be effective in the first match, unless supported by a wicketkeeper well accustomed to his bowling. Should Blackham, who acquitted himself with such great credit when he had medium-paced bowlers like Midwinter and Kendall to deal with, be unable to take readily and comfortably to Spofforth, who is quite new to him, Murdoch will be available whenever wanted. Spofforth will be an acquisition as a batsman as well as a bowler. Garrett, Bannerman, and Murdoch practised on the MCC ground on Tuesday, and all showed good form. The eleven will be as follows:—Bannerman (N.S.W.), Blackham (Vic.), Garratt (N.S.W.), Gregory, D (N.S. W.), Hodges (Vic.), Kendall (Vic.), Kelly (Vic.), Midwinter (Vic.), Murdoch (N.S.W.), Spofforth (N.S.W.), Thompson (N.S.W.) The umpires will be Mr. Curtis Reid and Mr. Terry, the MCC professional. From the Sydney newspapers it appears that steps have been taken for the presentation of a testimonial to Bannerman on his return to Sydney. The project has been taken up with so much spirit that the testimonial may be expected to prove a handsome one.

At the termination of the cricket match on April 4, Bannerman was presented, in the Melbourne pavilion, with the sum of £90, the result of the subscription made in recognition of his splendid innings of 165 in the first combination match against the Englishmen. The recipient made suitable reply.

On Tuesday evening last a meeting was held at Punch's Hotel, for the purpose of taking steps to raise a testimonial to Mr Charles Bannerman in recognition of his admirable display of cricket in the late cricket match played at Melbourne, Australia v. All England. Mr E. Barton occupied the chair. The following gentlemen were elected a committee to carry out the object of the meeting, viz. Messrs. J. Urquhart, TC Hinchcliffe, Walford, E. Barton, GER Jones, A. Vyner, and the hon secretary and treasurer, Messrs LJ Park and F. Webster consented to act as hon. secretaries, and Mr James Kellick as hon. treasurer. Subscription-lists will be forwarded to all parts of the town as well as the country.

There is a myth, foundationed deep somehow, that Bannerman made exactly £165 out of these testimonials.

We have received the following additional subscriptions for the boy O'Brien, who was disabled for life by an accident at a boot factory:--Collected by Mr Monke, Brick-makers' Arms Hotel, Simpson's-road, £1 1s.; A Friend, 5s.

Subscriptions are coming in and being col-lected pretty freely for the fund in aid of the sufferers by the late flood in Ballarat East. Bishop Thornton sent a very kind letter, with an enclosure of £3 3s.

Before the welfare state. Even then its size too great for the freetraders—the proto-libertarians—of The Argus.

SYDNEY, Monday. A meeting has been called for to-morrow to start a testimonial to Bannerman.

At a meeting held to-night [Tuesday] it was resolved to open subscription-lists for a testimonial to Bannerman.

A grateful public subscribed £1 for every run he made (165) and if one equates the worth of an Australian £1 in 1877 with its current debased value, Charles Bannerman must have been catapulted by that innings into a state of relative affluence. (Bradman, Don, “Foreword” to Frith England versus Australia 7.)

Legacy of the match It was a wellhead of nationalism in Australia; in cricket, of internationalism. For Australia, and Australian cricket, it was a revolution. It put them on an eminence they hardly could have hoped to reach. It was the acorn from has sprouted the oak of a century’s growth. “Will be ever memorable in the annals of cricket as the first occasion on which, meeting on even terms, the representatives of the old world have succumbed to those of the new.” “Will ever stand out as a prominent landmark in the annals of cricket.” “‘What will they say in England?’ when the wire conveys the news that an All-England Eleven have been fairly beaten by an equal number of Australian cricketers. ‘The old folks at home,’ and even the most prejudiced believers and upholders of English prowess and everything British—because it is British—in this colony, must be forced to the conclusion that we can play cricket ‘some’ in Australia.” “The conquest of the Australian combined Eleven will ever stand out as a grand landmark in the history of the British national game throughout the world.” “A great triumph has been won by the colonial cricketers.” “With the exception of Mr BB Cooper and one or two others the victorious eleven are natives of Australia, and their success on that account must be doubly gratifying to all who have the welfare of these colonies at heart. For although cricket is, when all is said in its favour, merely an amusement and recreation, yet, nevertheless, the great proficiency attained by colonial players is a most hopeful sign, and gives us reason to believe that the same energy and determination which have led to such happy results in the cricket field will be displayed also in the more important concerns which tend to the advancement of the colonies at large.” “The match just ended will not only be the beginning of a new era in the annals of cricket in Australia, but it will in all probability prove of incalculable benefit as an indirect means of making known to the people of the old country something concerning the advancement of Australia and her people, as well as their prowess in the cricket field.” Australasian: “One of the most pleasant reflections connected with the match is that the combined team worked together with the utmost harmony and good will. On Victorian ground a New South Wales player was chosen as captain, and under him the whole team acted as if all ideas of rivalry were forgotten. We were as proud of Bannerman as of Blackham or Horan.” “Altogether, this match should do much to encourage both cricketers and cricket supporters, and no doubt will have a good effect on the future welfare of the game.”

“Australians, and more particularly Victorians and New South Welshmen, have undoubted cause for congratulation.”

“To conquer Lillywhite’s team with an eleven composed of the best players on the continent would have been something to be proud of, but to do so without the aid of the two best bowlers, makes the victory so much the greater.” “If, however, the result of the last four days’ play be simply regarded as proof of the teachability of the colonial cricketers, and the rapid progress they have made under instruction, then it must afford us the utmost satisfaction. Some of the English visitors, upon whom the events of the trip have produced no small impression, see in the clearness of the atmosphere and the steady fineness of the summer weather, as well as in the strong relish that the colonists have for outdoor sports, the principal conditions which are needed for the successful development of the national game. From English masters the cricketers of the colonies have got all the education which has enabled them in this contest, to carry off their laurels. They received their first lesson in batting from Stephenson’s eleven, and the team which recently visited the colonies under the command of Mr Grace imparted the final instruction which was requisite in the art of bowling. For proof of this last assertion it is only necessary to note the fact that save for five overs that D. Gregory was on, the colonial team had no longstop in the field. Headwork has superseded mere strength of arm, and the old school of fast bowlers, which was represented in the early days by Gid. Elliott and is represented in these days by the veteran Sam Cosstick, must be held to have now almost completely passed away.” “The universal opinion respecting the match was that it was one of the best ever played on the Melbourne ground—one from which both players and spectators derived the greatest pleasure. We hope that the return match, to be played next week, will be equally enjoyable.” “The great match of the Eleven of All England versus Eleven of Australia ended in a victory for the colonial, players after a well-fought fight.” “Everything passed off very agreeably except to the representatives of England, who had to admit that the lessons they had” read “the Australians had not been without good results.” “This most interesting match was continued today, and afforded great satisfaction to all lovers of the game.” “Played on even terms, on an excellent wicket, and with splendid weather throughout, it must be confessed that the Englishmen have been beaten on their merits. It is true that they began the match on the very next day after their somewhat rough sea voyage from New Zealand; that if they were to meet the same team again they might I think probably beat them; that the victory of the Australians was mainly due to the magnificent and hitherto unparalleled score of Bannerman; and that they had the best of the splendid wicket; but taking all these things and the glorious uncertainty of cricket into consideration, it must be admitted that the match just finished has been fairly contested throughout, and that the winners have undoubtedly proved themselves the best men.” “It is necessary to emphasise the word ‘professional’ lest hasty persons should run away with the idea that colonial cricket has proved itself to be equal to English cricket.” Not mentioned by many of the players in their memoirs and interviews and essays—at least as compared with the MCC match of 1878 and the Ashes match of 1882. “The recent defeat will show any Englishman who intends to bring out an All-England Eleven in future that he must bring one stronger in batting power—the great weakness of the present team.” Shaw: “The success of the Australians created immense jubilation in Melbourne and other Colonial centres. It would have been strange, indeed, had the effect been otherwise. For the time being the defeated Englishmen and their associates in the Colonies had to be content to eat humble pie—sweetened, it is true, with the thought that it was members of their own race who had offered it—but humble pie all the same. We were counselled that in the arrangement of future tours it should be borne in mind that Colonial cricket had improved (a statement that was perfectly true), and that ‘instead of eight out of every ten players, on emerging from the pavilion, leaving their hearts behind them, or allowing that necessary organ to subside into their boots,’ they had acquired more nerve as well as increased skill. On reading the following verses in The Australasian of March 24th, 1877, based on some caustic criticisms of Colonial mannerisms by Anthony Trollope, we certainly thought our Colonial kinsfolk had recovered their nerves most effectually. The line[s] were by ‘Corn Bob,’ and were appropriately headed

THE BRAZEN TRUMPET. Anthony Trollope Says we can wallop The whole of creation at ‘blowing,’ It’s well in a way, But then he don’t say We blow about nothing worth showing. We’ve got the best clime On this side the line; Our lands are both fertile and strong; We’ve corn, wine, and oil, Which take a good soil To ripen and bring ‘em along. We’ve pedigreed stocks, And finer sheep flocks Can be seen nowhere else on the earth. Rams, horses, and bulls, And long-stapled wools, Our pastures sustain and give birth. We grow bone and muscle To stand a stout tussle; We’ve licked “All England” at cricket; How well we can row ‘Twere needless to show, Since Britain knocked under to Trickett. We’re proud of our ‘birth, We’re proud of our earth, We’re proud of our ewes and our rams, We’re proud of our mines, We’re proud of our vines, And we’re proud to be aught else but shams. Now, Ant’ny Trollope, Say we can wallop The whole of creation at blowing. But take back your sneer My word, now! Look here! D’ye think it’s for nothing we’re crowing?

On “blowing”:

A willingness to listen to reproof may, for aught we know to the contrary, be a distinguishing feature of the South Australian mind, but it certainly is not a prominent trait in the Victorian character. The tendency in this colony is to exalt ourselves exceedingly, and to look on any one who hints that we are anything but perfection as being half fool, half knave.

“The Australasian also told us we were the weakest side by a long way that had ever played in the Colonies, ‘notwithstanding the presence among them of Shaw, who is termed the premier bowler of England.’ It added, ‘If Ulyett, Emmett and Hill are fair specimens of the best fast bowling in England, all we can say is, either they have not been in their proper form in this Colony or British bowling has sadly deteriorated.’” Shaw rather wished he could have put this reporter through his gruelling experiences just prior to the Test. He had other, more proximate excuses. Shaw would take to blaming his faulty memory of Armitage’s fielding for the defeat: “As Australia only won by 45 runs, it will be seen this mistake cost England the match.” Since that mistake did not exist, it cannot have cost England anything. “A notable date in the long story and record of Test cricket with its thrills, its feats, its imperishable memories and associations, is March 15. Upon that date 50 years ago the first Test match between England and Australia was commenced on the Melbourne Cricket ground. For the first time Australians met their tutors and mentors of England on even terms, attempted the ambitious task of teaching their grandmothers to suck eggs, and not less to their own surprise than delight, succeeded in it. On those early autumn days of 50 years ago on the Melbourne Cricket ground was hatched from one egg, which was not a duck egg, a bird which was believed to be a duckling, but which unexpectedly turned out to be a swan. And with it was born a new impulse, a greater ambition. The defeat of Lillywhite’s eleven led immediately to many events of interest, one of them being the organisation of the first Australian Eleven to visit England—that is, the first team of white cricketers, because the first and only team of aboriginal cricketers had already made the experiment. Everyone knew that in beating England by 45 runs the Australians had achieved a great thing, but how great not one of the victors know or dreamed. They were unaware that it was a test match, the first of more than a hundred which may become hundreds. THE NEW ERA In the 65 years that had passed since the first English eleven under Stephenson came to educate us, Australian cricket had made substantial progress. Victoria had some very good cricketers even in 1862, yet in their first game against Stephenson’s men one innings of the Victorian eighteen was a cipher as far as batting results were conerned, because in their two hands they had a fine market basket of 18 duck eggs. Lillywhite’s team was the fourth to visit Australia, and the glamour of the incomparable WG Grace had in 1873-74 given the game a great push ahead. Many loyal old Englishmen declared that Grace would never be got out during his stay in Australia and they believed it. The first shock to Lillywhite’s eleven—without any doubt a strong side, and especially strong in bowling—was its defeat in in turn by fifteen of Victoria and New South Wales. It was Shaw’s first appearance in Australia, and we were prepared to believe anything of a man described as “the great corkscrew bowler.” As a boy, I went for the first time to the Melbourne cricket ground in full expectation of seeing the ball describe a spiral flight through the air. When Midwinter, the blond, curly-haired giant from Bendigo, began to hit Shaw’s bowling, enthusiasm and apprehension were mingled. Someone sitting near me said, “He can't expect to slog Shaw's bowling like that.” “Can’t he?” retorted another. “You just watch him. He’ll hit him clean out of the paddock.” It was a good prophecy, and Midwinter was actually caught “out of the paddock,” because Ulyett, in taking the catch, had to bend his back well behind the picket fence. In addition to Shaw there were Lillywhite and Emmett, two left round armed bowlers of a type that has passed away, a fast bowler in Allan Hill, another almost equally fast in Ulyett, and a very puzzling slow bowler in Southerton. EMERGENCY BOWLERS One almost forgotten fact which at the time made the game look a forlorn hope for Australia was the absence of the three best bowlers. Spofforth, whom I verily believe to have been the greatest bowler the game has known, declined to play unless Murdoch were picked to keep wickets for him. How curious that the man who was to become the greatest bowler in the cricket world should have had so little faith in the greatest of all wicketkeepers, for Blackham, the prince of them all, was the alternative. Of the many men who realised Blackham's greatness in the years to follow none had better reason to rate it highly, none had better knowledge of its incomparable skill than Spofforth. Another absentee was Evans, a really great right-hand bowler, who was never able to join an Australian team for England until his powers had waned. The disabilities of the Australian side seemed to have reached a climax when at the last moment the tried left-hander, Frank Allan, not extravagantly known as “the bowler of a century,” telegraphed from Warrnambool his inability to play. The Australian attack seemed to be hopelessly crippled, but there were still left two men in Midwinter and the left-hander Kendall capable of rising to a great occasion. C Bannerman is and ever will be the hero of the first Test match. He was the first man in for Australia, made the first run, and came out finally crippled, yet unbeaten, with a score of 165, an achievement so far surpassing all reasonable expectation that it seemed almost past belief. As a batting feat, apart from the occasion it was a great and dazzling innings, though all that need be said of its technique now is that Bannerman’s best stroke, a distinctive, forcing shot past cover, has never in my recollection been so effectively or so frequently made by another batsman. The total of the innings was 245, and after Bannerman’s 165—a long way after it—came Garrett's 18 and Blackham's 17 as next best scores. It is an interesting coincidence that these three highest scorers in the first Australian innings are the only three men engaged in the game of 50 years ago who are still alive. As an example and an inspiration, no innings ever played in Test cricket accomplished quite so much as this great effort of Bannerman’s. At the very outset it stamped the treat games with a distinction which they have never since lost. It inspired immediately the ambition to send an Australian Eleven to England in the following year. Wanting such an impulse, the first Australian visit might have been delayed for years because even with Bannerman’s proof of what was possible the project was by many condemned as reckless and impossible, and John Conway, who originated it, was widely accused of leading a number of inexperienced young Australians down the road to ruin. HAPPY-GO-LUCKY KENDALL Bannerman's batting feat so eclipsed every other incident and achievement of the first Test match that for 50 years many Australians have remained almost ignorant of the important share which two bowlers had in that great event. In their second innings the Australians only scored 104. I remember Bannerman coming in with his hand bandaged, but he was hopelessly handicapped and Ulyett bowled him when he had scored 4. The top scorer in that innings was Tom Horan, whom his contemporaries remember not less as the polished batsman than the polished cricket writer “Felix” of The Australasian. In my personal memories of cricket no figure stands out so clear, and no association is more valued than the long friendship and the endless charm of a chat with him about the game which he so greatly loved. I remember a cricket writer of that period offering to bet that if he were taken blindfold to an interstate match on the Melbourne Ground he would name the moment when Tom Horan came in to bat. Even with their lead of 49 runs on the first innings the Australians were able to set their rivals no more than 153 for their second hand. It remained for left-hander Tom Kendall in a bowling achievement ranking with Bannerman's batting triumph to prove it too many by 49 [sic]. If my memory can be trusted the two Richmond left-handers, Kendall and Hodges, came into the game only when the greater three, Spofforth, Evans, and Allan, declined. Kendall, a very fine bowler at his best was not always dependable, and, although he was picked for the first Australian Eleven a year later, and bowled remarkably well at times in its long preliminary tour through the States and New Zealand, he was a cherry, happy-go-lucky character, who never took the game as seriously as he should have done, and so was left out of the final choice for England. At this crisis of 1877 he was, however, the great bowler, and in taking seven wickets for 55 runs, drove home the wedge which split the supremacy of England asunder. In the first innings Midwinter took five wickets for 78 runs. Never a great or compelling bowler in the same sense as Spofforth or Evans, he had a very shrewd, deep-thinking, and observant head, which counter-balanced any deficiencies in his bowling arm. He could "size up" speedily the strength as well as the weakness of “those other merchants," as he generally referred to the rival side, and if he could not absolutely beat his batsman he had many ways and wiles for keeping him quiet. One of the familiar figures of the Back Creek Cricket-ground, Bendigo, at that period was Midwinter, sen., in moments of happy exhilaration goading the other side with the assurance, "Me and Bill, and the blinking dog will play the lot on you." The name of Gregory was great in Australian cricket then as now. Dave Gregory captained the Australians in this memorable match. A stalwart, black-bearded man and a fine figure in the cricket field, he resembled in some ways England's him “WG.” An English writer, seeking to pay him a compliment, described him as "the beau ideal of an Australian bushranger."” “On March 15, 16 and 17, in 1877, was played the first international match between England and Australia. Much water has run under the bridge during the intervening fifty years, and no fewer than one hundred and fourteen contests have been placed on record. Of the 89 in which a definite conclusion has been reached Australia has won 47 and England 42. Twenty-five have been left unfinished, and one, set down for Manchester, was abandoned without a ball having been bowled. A New South Wales fifteen had just triumphed over James Lillywhite's All-England XI on the old Albert ground at Redfern by 13 wickets, and then the colony (there were no States then) threw down the gage for an eleven-aside match. This was limited to only two days, and the result was a draw, the home eleven requiring 140 and had six wickets in hand, an innings of 53 by the late David W. Gregory saving defeat. Then on the 15th March, two months later, on the Melbourne ground, came the first great Australian v. England battle at England’s national game. The names of the players on that historic occasion will live after generations have passed away. They deserve to be illuminated in letters of gold, “emblazoned on the scroll of fame,” and hung in the main hall of each of the great cricket pavilions of the world. They are: [list of players] The two great men, Spofforth and Murdoch, wore absent. The latter was displaced by Blackham, and because of that fact "Spoff" declined invitation to play, asserting that Blackham could not negotiate his fast deliveries. Murdoch had proved his ability to "take" time, for he and Spofforth played together in the old Albert Cricket Club. It is a singular fact that Murdoch stood down for Blackham in the first test match, and that when the two went to England twelve months later Blackham was replaced by Murdoch in the famous MCC one day contest, when the Australians won the most sensational match on record by nine wickets. Evans, who had captained the New South Wales Eleven, was not, as far as I know, asked to play, which was strange seeing that he had led the New South Wales side a few weeks previously, and he had bowled remarkably well against Victoria. He should have been in in place of Hodges. The captaincy of the Australians was on the shoulders of DW Gregory, and he carried his side to victory, the margin being but 45 runs. There are several points about this match which make it memorable apart from the fact that it was the first of its kind. Charles Bannerman played his famous innings for 165 retired hurt, in a total of 245, the nearest figure to his being but 19 by TW Garrett. Blackham stonewalled for an hour while Bannerman hit. Kendall, the left hander, bowled in most deadly fashion in the Englishmen's second venture, securing seven for 55 in a total of 108, and Blackburn [sic] excelled himself behind the wickets, thus laying the foundation for the reputation as the “prince of wicketkeepers” which was to be his inheritance. With regard to Kendall it was a great mistake that he was not one of the first Australian Eleven to visit England. After touring Australia it was decided, when the team was at Adelaide, to leave him behind. In the opinion of some contemporary men he was the greatest bowler Australia has produced, which is saying a lot. There was, however, a reason for his retirement from the eleven. All but four of the twenty-two who took part in that famous struggle have gone to that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns. The four are JMcT [sic] Blackham (in his 72nd year), Charles Bannerman (in his 77th), Thomas W. Garrett (in his 70th), and James Lillywhite (who is 85). It should be mentioned that when Bannerman made his 165 the hat was passed round, and he was handed £165. Both he and TWG are regular attendants at all the big matches at the Sydney Cricket Ground, and are in excellent health. A fortnight after the above contest the return was played on the same ground and England made honours easy [sic] by securing a four-wicket victory. The Australian side this time included Murdoch and Spofforth. Blackham, however, kept wickets. A first innings failure by the home side practically explains the defeat, though there was little in it up to the finish. Still, the margin may not have been as deep as a well or as wide as a church door, but it served to even matters until DW Gregory's Australian team defeated Lord Harris's English XI on the Melbourne ground by ten wickets. Spofforth upheld his reputation as the "Demon" bowler by accounting for 13 wickets for 110, which proved to be the forerunner of many brilliant bowling feats in these contests.” “As the first Test match between Australia and England took place on the Melbourne Ground in March, 1877—50 years ago to the month—the chief incidents in connection with that historical engagement should prove of exceptional interest to all cricket lovers of our day and generation. But before commenting in any way on the marvellous after-effects of that first never-to-be-forgotten match the names of those who played in it may bring back pleasant memories to those among us who were fortunate enough to be present on that glorious occasion. To others who were not so privileged the stirring events that heralded Australia's victory will bear repetition after the lapse of 50 years, and be a help in remembrance of the debt we owe those plucky and talented Test pioneers of ours. Australia's team on that epoch-making occasion consisted of: C. Bannerman, N. Thompson, T. Horan, D. Gregory (captain), BB Cooper, W. Midwinter, E. Gregory, J. Blackham, T. Garrett, T. Kendall, J. Hodges. England: H. Jupp, J. Selby, H. Charlwood, G. Ulyelt, A. Greenwood, T. Armitage, A. Shaw, T. Emmett, A. Hill, J. Lillywhite, J. Southerton. Of the Australians three men, in the persons of Charlie Bannerman, Jack Blackham, and Tom Garrett, are still in the land of the living, while every Englishman who made history on that memorable occasion has gone, let us devoutly hope, to happier fields. It is also worthy of notice that in the first international match between the two great cricketing countries England's players were all professionals, led by James Lillywhite. In that first Test Australia was successful by 45 runs; but in the second Test, played on the same ground in the following month, England won by four wickets. But it was the first and greater match that set the seal on our fame and paved the way for those mighty struggles that followed. I am indebted for the incidents in the match to an old and valued book in my possession called "Conway's Australian Cricket Annual." In the first match Australia lost the services of Allan, Evans, and J. Slight, and in the second those of Allan, Evans and Horan. In justice to Lillywhile and his merry men it must be mentioned that they felt the loss of Pooley, their wicketkeeper, most severely, as neither Selby nor Jupp proved equal to the emergency. As a result the wicketkeeping was not much above second eleven form, and this fact alone must have had some influence on the result, as the bowling of Shaw, Lillywhite, and Southerton lost half its effectiveness when unsupported by an efficient wicketkeeper like Pooley, who at that time had no compeer in England in taking medium-pace and slow bowling. As a set-off to the Englishmen's weakness, the Australians had the benefit of John McCarthy Blackham behind with the gloves on, and as he caught three and stumped one in the match his presence and skill had a marked influence on the result of the game. Even at that period he was classed as on an equality with Pooley—a very high compliment indeed. Pooley did not return from New Zealand with the team, the reason thereof being given in the following words: “A calamity here (Dunedin) befell the eleven, which they felt most severely in their subsequent matches in Victoria. Pooley was concerned in a fracas at Christchurch, which ended in the victim of the English wicketkeeper—for Pooley got the better of his man—having some of his property wilfully destroyed. A warrant was issued for Pooley's arrest, and an opportunity was offered him to compromise the matter. Pooley treated the matter with indifference; the majesty of the law was upheld, and Pooley was taken to Christchurch to answer a charge of wilful damage to property. The case, which was remanded, ultimately broke down, Pooley was acquitted, and a number of the residents of Christchurch gave substantial expression of their sympathy for him by presenting him with a gold ring and a purse of sovereigns. Pooley's detention in New Zealand during the time of the two combination matches at Melbourne was a severe loss to the Englishmen, who could have better spared any other man in the team." Who knows to what an extent Australian cricket gained through Pooley's opponent, and if he were an Englishman—as seems likely—it would be one of the game's little ironies that he unconsciously helped Australia against his own country. At the time the match was arranged it was considered by a large number of the inhabitants that Australia had "no chance on earth" to lower the colours of the Englishmen, who were considered unbeatable at their own game. "Cheeky Australia" was the common expression in evidence for daring to suggest even that men born in this country were equal in any way to those born in the land from where their fathers hailed. Many prejudices have had to be fought down and outlived in this new country of ours; but surely it was a laudable ambition to pit ourselves against our teachers, for if we won it would justly be said that we had learnt our lesson well, while if we lost it could just as clearly be seen that our education was not completed, and that we must live to fight another day after our weaknesses had been corrected. The result showed, however, that it was confidence and pride of race, and not colonial "cheek," that was the dominating factor that guided our footsteps in that memorable month of March, 50 years ago, for, in a game that made history, the practically untried Australians triumphed over a splendid combination of English professionals, rich in talent with ball and bat, and expert in the field. In commenting on the match "Conway's Guide" makes the following remarks: “To give a candid opinion as to the relative merits of English cricket, as shown by Lillywhite and his companions, and that exhibited by the Australians, we have very little to learn save in the matter of fielding. Taking our bowling all [p. 783] round, we excel. Shaw is no doubt a better trundler than any man we have in the colonics; but compare the following great Australian quartet—Allan, Evans, Kendall, and Spofforth—with any four bowlers in the last eleven, and ask any unprejudiced judge of the game, and the verdict will go for Australia. Allan and Kendall would be in any team in England in their bowling alone. Spofforth is a better fast bowler than we have seen in the colonies for years; and last, though not least, what a grand bowler Evans is. Did any English bowler ever play such sad havoc among our Victorian batsmen as he did in the intercolonial matches, and were not Lilly while and his companions ‘stuck up’ by him more than once? Then in batting, where were there two better batsmen in the last team than Horan and Bannerman? The latter is far beyond their best man, Ulyett, and Horan is equal to the Yorkshire smiter or any other member of the team. In wicketkeeping, also, we can hold our own, Blackham being as good as Pooley; and Murdoch. of New South Wales, nearly as good. The fielding—there is the rub. The sure catching, the grand picking up of the ball, and the quick return to the wicketkeeper are points in the game where we show to great disadvantage. Another deficiency in our play is the want of knowledge, which all our best cricketers exhibit, in judging a run. The All England eleven in that respect are perfect. Their proficiency in this regard, together with their marvellously accurate fielding, goes a long way towards winning a match." In looking at the scores and studying the bowling, one can read the match fairly well. In looking at Charlie Bannerman’s 165 retired hurt—a fast delivery of Ulyett's imparting a severe blow on the hand—it can be seen at a glance that only one other man on the side made a score of 20 in either innings—Horan making 20 in his second knock. With the ball, Midwinter's five for 78 in England's first innings and Kendall's seven for 55 in the second speak eloquently, and tell their own story. Jupp headed the list for England with 63, followed by Selby with 38, Charlwood 36, Hill 34 not out, and Ulyett 24. The great bowler for England was Alfred Shaw, a wonderful length bowler, who took three for 34 in the first innings and five for 38 in the second. Still, as the passing of 50 years has not dimmed its significance or lost its historic charm, I will publish the official account of the match. Australian cricket owes such a debt of everlasting gratitude to those grand old pioneers who blazed our path to victory on that famous old Melbourne ground in March, of 1877, and if the following short account of the match given below will stir the blood of the present generation and help in keeping alive the patriotism that made the men under Dave Gregory light their way to success, then my object will have been achieved. It is as follows: “However, we must bid adieu to New Zealand, and hasten on to the Melbourne Cricket-ground, where Australia first dared to oppose England, eleven against eleven. Despite the absence of Allan, Evans, and J. Slight, the Australians—under the command of D. Gregory, of New South Wales—won the match. How the supporters of Australia rejoiced, and how the partisans and believers in the unconquerable spirit of the Englishmen grieved was patent to all who viewed and talked of the great battle. The combined eleven of Victoria and New South Wales won by 45 runs. It was indeed a great victory, and in every department of the game—save in fielding—the Australians surpassed their opponents. C. Bannerman was the hero of the hour, and his never-to-be-forgotten display of batting in the first innings—when he had made the fine score of 165, and then had to retire owing to a severe blow on the hand—is described by the cognoscenti as being a performance of which even Grace himself might be proud. He defied the entire bowling strength of the eleven for hours, and hit to all parts of the field in the most determined and splendid style. But one possible chance can be urged against his wonderful display. That took place early in the innings; but after that his cricket was perfection itself. He took his opponents by storm, and Lillywhite declared him the best professional batsman in the world. The Victorian crack, Horan, is next entitled to be ranked as a worthy contributor to this signal triumph. His play in both innings was marked by patience and care, and his runs were obtained by strict cricket. The Englishmen were much pleased with his style, and Jupp preferred his play to that of the vigorous New South Welshman. Midwinter, Garrett, and Blackham also played well for their runs, the 18 not out of Garrett being specially worthy of mention. Nor must Kendall be forgotten for his merry combination of 17 in the second innings. "Of the Britishers, Jupp secured most runs, making 63 in the first innings; but that performance was most laboured and clumsy compared with the style in which the great Surrey batsman usually makes his runs. Selby and Charlwood are entitled to most praise, for they got their runs splendidly. Ulyett also batted with great vigour, and was becoming very aggressive in the second innings when Kendall sent him to the pavilion with an undeniable one. The feature, of the last day's play was the magnificent bowling of Kendall, who secured seven wickets at a trifling cost. The turf just suited him, and the Englishmen pronounced his bowling most difficult to play, there being any amount of ‘curl’ and mischief in it. So great an attraction was the match that a return one was at once arranged, to take place during the Easter holidays.” In alluding to the second match, Conway's Annual says: “The contest created great interest, and was looked forward to with the keenest anticipation, both by the public and the players. The weather was favourable, and every accessory was there necessary for a fine display of cricket. The game was played at Easter, and thousands flocked to the Melbourne Cricket-ground to witness the struggle, and amply were they paid for their trouble, for another hard-fought and most interesting battle look place between England and Australia. There was a slight alteration in the ranks of the Australians—Kelly, Murdoch, and Spofforth being substituted for Horan, Cooper, and E. Gregory. The loss of Horan—who had a prior engagement with his club at Adelaide—was felt; but it is questionable whether the presence of Kelly, Spofforth, and Murdoch did not collectively more than make up for the absence of Horan and his companions. On that point there is considerable difference of opinion." Although half a century has elapsed since that first match has taken place,—a contest that fired the enthusiasm and cricket spirit of young Australia—the glamour of the bat over the hall is still a marked characteristic of the game. It is safe to say that almost every cricketer in the land could tell offhand that splendid score of Charlie Bannerman’s, while not one in 50 would be aware even of the men who took wickets, let alone bowled. What appeals to the onlooker when a big score is made is the movement and charm of the man with the bat. They see his wrists flick in making the cut, his spring at the pitch of the ball, and his follow through in the drive, his stepping in front of the wicket for the pull, with a somewhat similar action either for the glance or leg hit. Thus every movement is focused on their attention, and in the gaining of a century the expert onlooker is thrilled many times and oft. The natural result is that batting as an art appeals more to the imagination and the senses than bowling. The various strokes can be seen, and therefore appreciated from all parts of the ground. As with batting, so with fielding, every onlooker getting the full value in both those spectacular departments. But it is not so with the ball. An infinitesimal number of those present at any match can see what the hall is doing. They can all tell a good length ball, a yorker, a short pitched ball, or a full toss, and that is about all. But apart from the batsman's action in playing at a ball it is all surmise whether the ball turned from the off or leg, or dipped in flight. The change of pace, the whip from the pitch, the varying flights, the turns and overspins are not so clear to the uninitiated as the stopping of the ball by a fieldsman, or the clouting of the ball by a batsman, and as so much of the personal element is thereby discounted, the taking of, say, five wickets in an innings by any bowler is not of such a transparent or transcendent character as the making of a century. An argument among old cricketers when was a colt was: "Which was the better performance—taking five wickets in a big match on a good wicket for 100 runs or making a century"? In that far-off period preference was ever to the bowler, and I can see no argument of later years to alter the decision. A proof that seems almost unanswerable is that more centuries are made on good wickets than five wickets taken in an innings—the real test of a bowler. And, while no man will dispute that wonderful score of Charlie Bannerman's in tile most far-reaching Test match that has ever been played, it certainly appears rather remarkable that Tom Kendall's bowling has been practically lost sight of. In the first innings he took one for 54 and in the second seven for 55—in all eight wickets for 109 runs. Bannerman made 165 and 4, and can it honestly be said, apart altogether from the glamour of that masterpiece of his, that his contributions were of greater value than Kendall's bowling? Wonderful as that left-hander performed in that maiden effort, the figures of Shaw, the great Nottingham bowler, were even better, as his combined efforts were eight for 89. And incidentally one may remark that in the second engagement most wickets were taken by Kendall for Australia and Lillywhite for England with exactly the same figures, viz., six for 106. In the march past during the last 50 years many great figures have appeared upon the stage, played their parts, and ceased to be. Some have reached greater renown than any individual member of those two pioneer combinations with bat or ball, yet no man through all the years has outshone John McCarthy Blackham in his own sphere. Great batsmen, splendid bowlers, and rare all-rounders have figured in these contests, bearing comparisons, more or less, with one another; but the prince of wicket-keepers has never been dethroned, for his like on all wickets against all classes of bowling has never been seen. That is not to say that class keepers have not figured in engagements between the two countries, only to show that, great as they have been, Blackham has been the master of them all, that he is still with us, and that he disposed of four batsmen in that far-away match of 1877 that gave birth to Australia as a cricket nation. The planting of that seed has seen the growth of a mighty nourishing tree, with its branches ever spreading. So far they have overlapped three continents, with a fourth in the West Indies giving tangible proofs that it is entitled to come under its influence on the terms of equality.” “Today is the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the first test match, which was played in Melbourne on March 15, 16, 17 and 19, 1877. Since that memorable game 113 matches have been contested on the playing fields of Australia and England. What glorious memories those 114 games in all recall in the minds of many Australians and Englishmen. Still hale and hearty is Charlie Bannerman, the hero of that first great trial of strength between England and Australia. To have played the first ball bowled in a test match, and got the first century in the first test match can never be paralleled. Test cricket 50 years ago was not nearly as strenuous as it is nowadays. The hours of play in that first game were from one o'clock till five. Going in first for Australia—Dave Gregory having won the toss—Bannerman made 126 not out in a total of 166 for six wickets on the opening day. The next day he took his score to 165 before he received a tremendous crack on the hand from bowler Ulyett, and was forced to retire. Australia's total reached 245, the other nine batsmen made 72 between them, and there were eight sundries. England replied with 196, and the second innings of Australia produced only 104, but Tom Kendall got 7 for 55 in England's second innings, and Australia won by 40 runs, England's second knock only realising 104. The Victorian Cricket Association suitably recognised Bannerman’s great match-winning effort by initialing a subscription list and a purse containing £83 7s 6d was handed to him. On the Melbourne Cricket Ground, only one Australian—Clem Hill—has exceeded Charlie Bannerman's score in a test match. Exactly 20 years later, 1897, Hill made 188 after Australia had lost six wickets for 57. It is a coincidence that Clem Hill was born in Adelaide while the first test match was in progress in Melbourne, and on Thursday next the greatest of all Australian left-handers will celebrate his fiftieth birthday. TW Garrett, who also took part in the first test match 50 years ago, is still in the best of health. He made second top score in the first innings, 18 not out. Messrs Bannerman and Garrett will receive numerous congratulations from their many friends In Sydney today.” “Tuesday, March 15, will mark the Jubilee of Test cricket. It will be 50 years since the first called a Test game was played by representatives of England and Australia. Melbourne was the first city honored with a Test. No one can estimate the enormous value of the Test games and the part they have played in binding together the Empire. Interest in the Test matches now is practically world-wide, and hundreds of thousands of people who care little about club cricket become intensely wraped [sic] up in the game when these international matches are in progress. James Lillywhite brought a team from England in the 1876-77 season, and they fought the first Test match against an Australian team composed of the combined forces of New South Wales and Victoria. March 15, 16, and 17 were the days of play. The men who represented the Commonwealth created tremendous excitement and stimulated pride throughout Australia when they surprised the Englishmen by winning with 45 runs to spare. Prior to this match Austrailan cricket had been on a low plane, as former visiting teams from England had administered defeats fairly easily. Charlie Bannerman, Dave Gregory, Tom Garrett, Fred Spofforth, Jack Blackham. Tommy Horan and Billy Murdoch were among the giants who first earned recognition for Australia in the cricket world. In the first Test Dave Gregory captained Australia. Just after 1 o'clock on the first day. Gregory decided to make first use of the wicket, and sent in Charlie Bannerman and N. Thompson. Australia scored 166 runs the first day, Bannerman, who was in wonderful form, contributing 126. The next day the Australian score was carried to 240. Bannerman had made 165 when George Ulyett, Yorkshire, hit him on the hand with a bumping ball. This innings of Bannerman's is a classic in Test cricket. Bannerman was a hard hitter, and excelled on the off. England responded with 196, of which Harry Jupp rattled together 63. In the second innings Australia were equal to compiling only 104. This time Bannerman was bowled by Ulyett for four. England were left to score 154 to win—a total task which was generally regarded as not being beyond them. With characteristic grit the Australians set about their task. Tom Kendall struck his best form. So well did he bowl that the might of England could not resist him, and, thanks to his seven wickets for 55, they were dismissed for 108. Australia had won the first Test by 45 runs. For the match Kendall took eight wickets for 109, and was the outstanding bowler by reason of his second innings feat. Midwinter also bowled well, taking six wickets for 101. On the English side, Shaw bowled remarkably well. He took eight wickets for 89. In that game Australia was represented by C. Bannerman, N. Thompson, T. Horan. DW Gregory, BB Cooper, W. Midwinter, EJ Gregory, JM Blackham, TW Garrett, T. Kendall and J. Hodges. The English side was: H. Jupp, J. Selby, H. Charlwood, G. Ulyett, A. Greenwood, T. Armitage, A. Shaw, T. Emmett, A. Hill, J. Lillywhite and J. Southerton. In all, 114 Test games have been played. Australia has won 47, England 42, and 25 contests have been drawn.” “UP to the middle of ‘the fifties’ no cricket had been played in Australia particulars of which would interest the present generation of players or supporters of the game. The Albert Club, in New South Wales, and the Melbourne Club, in Victoria, were the two principal cricket institutions in the colonies, and in March, 1856, on the Melbourne Cricket, Ground, the first match between New South Wales and Victoria took place. There is no doubt that the initiation of those matches led up to the visit of the first English team in the season 1861-2. That combination of professional players, captained by the late HH Stephenson, found Australian cricket not exactly, as I have frequently heard asserted, in a ‘primitive’ state, but lacking education in the subtle points of the game. The Australians, however, were apt pupils and so much did they profit by the visit of Stephenson and his companions, and by the lessons of subsequent visits of English teams, under the captaincy of George Parr (1863-4) and WG Grace (1873-4), that a representative Australian Eleven was able to meet and defeat James Lillywhite's English professional team on the Melbourne Cricket Ground in March, 1877. That was the first of the matches which have been played by the two countries on level terms, and considering the all-round excellence of the English team, and especially its inclusion of such a constellation of bowling stars as Shaw, Ulyett, Emmett, Hill, Lillywhite, Southerton and Armitage, Australia's victory by 45 runs was a splendid triumph. It was accomplished chiefly by the brilliant batting of Charlie Bannerman, who, going in first in Australia's first innings, had made 165 runs by superb cricket, when Ulyett smashed one of his fingers and caused his retirement. The super-excellence of the famous elder Bannerman’s play on that memorable occasion is emphasised by the fact that the next highest Australian score in either innings was 20, by Horan, in his second attempt. In the match Alfred Shaw took 8 wickets for 89 runs, Tom Kendall 8 for 109, and Midwinter 6 for 102. The return match; was played on the same ground a fortnight later, when England won by 4 wickets, thanks in a great measure to the fine batting of Ulyett, who made 52 in the first innings and 63 in the second, out of a total of 122 for 6 wickets. It will doubtless interest readers today to know that Australia's representative team which defeated England in the first match ever played by elevens of the respective countries, consisted of C. Bannerman, N. Thompson, DW Gregory, E. and T. Horan, B. B. Cooper, W. Midwinter, JMcC. Blackham, T. Kendall, and J. Hodges, of Victoria. In the return match, above referred to, T. Horan, BB Cooper and E. Gregory were replaced by TJD Kelly, WL Murdoch and FR Spofforth. Encouraged by the form shown by the Colonials in these two matches, Jack Conway formed his famous, pioneer team, which visited England in the following year (1878); but no test match had been included in the English programme arranged for the Australians, who, however, returned to Melbourne with a satisfactory record of success in the old country. Lord Harris' team was touring the colonies in that season; and on the 2nd January, 1879, the two teams commenced a match (the third test between England and Australia) on the Melbourne Cricket Ground, which the Australians, led by Dave Gregory, won by 10 wickets. Alick Bannerman, who made 73 in his only innings, was the highest scorer on either side, and doubtless many who read these lines will remember, as I do very vividly, the thunderous applause which greeted ‘Spoff’ when he did the hat-trick in England's first innings, clean bowling Royle and MacKinnon with consecutive balls and Emmett being caught by Horan off the next.” “SIXTY years and more have passed since the first Test cricket match between England and Australia was played in Melbourne. In that time revolutionary changes have taken place in the conditions under which the game is played, in its technical methods, its rules, and its management. The transformation must amaze TW Garrett, veteran of Australian cricket, who entered his 82nd year recently. He alone of the 22 players who took part in that first match in Melbourne in 1877, and of the first Australian team which visited England the following year, is still alive. In 1877 overarm bowling had been legalised little more than a decade. Wickets were "natural"—that is, they were not subjected to the intense preparation of the present day. Bowlers relied on elementary principles—the swerve was known, but it had not been developed as it was in later years by George Hirst and others; the googly had not been thought of. The bowler's art was based on length and accuracy, with skilful variations of flight and break. WG Grace was still revolutionising batting. Before he broke into first-class cricket a few years earlier a batsman played a forward game or he played a back game. Grace, however, founded modern batting by uniting the good points of all the good players and, in the words of Ranjttsinhji, "made utility the criterion of style." In 1877, however, his example had not yet borne full fruit. Other developments in batting, such as the introduction of the two-eyed stance, came many years later. Changes in batting technique and improvement in wickets led to marked changes in field placing. A captain who today set a field similar to those customary in Garrett's time would be asking for trouble. In 1877 it was still usual for a wicketkeeper to have the assistance of a long stop. Changes in the laws since 1877 have been numerous. Most of them have been of a minor nature, but even since the Great War such important innovations as a smaller ball, larger stumps, and a new lbw law have been approved. Oversea [sic] tours in 1877 were risky financial ventures, undertaken by individuals, in most cases for personal gain. English professionals, for instance, frequently banded together for a tour of Australia. It is a far cry to the tours of today, immense undertakings arranged far in advance by the Marylebone Cricket Club and the Australian Board of Control. So much depends on their success today that State associations and English counties—which provide the lifeblood of the game—are largely dependent on them for survival. Yet, despite all changes, the game basically is the same today as when Garrett took the field at Melbourne 62 years ago. The cricketer can still read descriptions of the match and appreciate every move that took Australia, step by step, to the victory which made her cricket name. * Youth has always played a big part in Australia's cricket success. Her first team consisted almost entirely of young players, and it has been the same in nearly all the 142 matches which have followed. The youngest of a youthful band in 1877 was Garrett. He was aged only 18 years and eight months when the match was played, and no other man, Australian or English, has taken part in a Test match at so early an age. He played a useful part in the first Test match, for his score of 19 not out was the second highest. In Australia's first Innings, and as an opening bowler he took two wickets for 22 runs when England batted the first time. He failed to score at his second attempt, and finished the match, which Australia won by 45 runs, with an analysis of no wickets for nine runs in England's second innings. Few of Australia's early Test players are still alive. In fact, of those who played in the first 16 matches, to the end of the 1884 tour of England, only three survive. They are Garrett, WH Moule, better known as Judge Moule, of the Victorian County Court Bench, and SP Jones, who for many years has been living in New Zealand. Garrett played in 19 Test matches against England, and was an important member of Australian teams for which he was available between 1877 and 1888, when he took part in his last match. Although a useful batsman, his main value to Australia was as a steady, accurate bowler. He bowled more than 2,700 balls against England and took 36 wickets at an average of 26.90. In 33 innings he made 340 runs, averaging 12.6. His best season was 1881-2, when he had analyses of six for 78 and five for 80, and finished on top of the bowling averages with 18 wickets at a cost of 20.38. His highest score was 51 not out in 1885. He visited England with three Australian teams in 1878, 1882, and 1886. * Of those who played with Garrett in the first Test, few have left big reputations. Charles Bannerman, who made 165 of Australia's total of 245 in the first innings before a hand injury compelled him to retire, was the hero of the match. He was the greatest of Australia's batsmen in the early days, with the exception of WL Murdoch, and it was a pity he was able to play in only three Test matches. The tall, strongly-built, black-bearded Dave Gregory—first of a famous line—was Australia's captain. A year later he led the 1878 team which stormed the citadel of English cricket and seat the seal on its country’s fame by defeating an MCC XI, which was virtually a Test team, in four and a half hours. DW Gregory averaged only 20 runs an innings in his five matches, but he is one of the immortals of Australian cricket. JM Blackham was the greatest player on either side in the first match. For nearly 60 years he was recognised throughout the world as the best wicketkeeper the game had produced. Today W. A. Oldfield is generally considered to have been his equal. WE Midwinter is best remembered because he is the only cricketer who has played for both England and Australia. T. Horan was a graceful batsman who represented Australia in 15 matches, and made a century in one. T. Kendall was of particular interest to Tasmanians, for he was born in this State, although he was playing in Victoria when chosen for the first Test match. He was Australia's most successful bowler in that game, and took eight wickets for 109 runs. His 14 wickets against England cost 15 runs each. The remaining four players—N. Thompson, BB Cooper, EJ Gregory, and J. Hodges—passed quickly out of cricketing ken. Gregory alone of his family was not a success in Test matches. Such were the men who laid the foundation of Test cricket. Little did they know that they were laying the foundation of a series of matches which has developed into the greatest of all International sporting events. CAPTION: MORE THAN 62 years ago TW Garrett, at the age of 18, took part in the first Test cricket match between Australia and England. Sole survivor of the 22 players in that match he is now living in retirement in Sydney.” “'Tis an old story now—how, for the first time in the history of cricket, an eleven of Australia met and defeated a powerful English team led by Lillywhite; but a great deal of reverence is paid to our oldtime champions, and the names mentioned in this historic fight for supremacy, on the cricket field will refresh many a memory, and perhaps bring back to mind some of the great performances of the first band of men who were deemed worthy of representing Australia on the cricket fields. I was a mere lad when this match was played, but I saw it., and some of the incidents are still as fresh as ever to me. The information which I give, however, is gathered from an old Cricketers' Annual in my possession, which contains a resume of the performances of Lillywhite's team. Great excitement had been manifested throughout Australia, because fifteen of New South Wales and fifteen of Victoria had been successful in beating the visitors. Then News' South Wales tried to repent the performance on even terms, and this was the first time when any of the colonies had tried to play a visiting team eleven a side; but they managed to make only a very uneven draw. Then the idea of an Australian Eleven was mooted, and it became immensely popular. On March 15, 10, 17, and 19, 1877, the following teams were on the Melbourne Cricket Ground: Australia: Thompson, C. Bannerman, E. Gregory, D. Gregory (capt.), T. Garrett (New South Wales), J. Hedges, T. Horan, W. Midwinter, B. B. Cooper, J. Blackham, and T. Kendall (Victoria). England: Jupp, Selby, Charlwood, Ulyett, Greenwood, Armitage, Shaw, Emmett, Hill, Lillywhite, and Southerton. Allan, Evans, and Spofforth were asked to play for Australia, but could not; while Pooley, the famous English wicketkeeper, having got into some trouble in New Zealand, was absent from the ranks of his comrades. From the scores it will be seen that the match resulted in a glorious win for Australia by 45 reins, and the first step was thus taken in making Australian cricket famous: [scorecard] The Annual (Ironsides of 1876-7) says: “It was indeed a great victory. C. Bannerman was the hero of the hour, and his never-to-be-forgotten display of batting was described as being worthy of the great W. G. Grace. Lillywhite said he was the best professional batsman of the day. He hit the English bowlers to all parts of the field in the most determined style. But one possible chance can be urged against him. That took place early in his innings, and afterwards his cricket was perfection itself. His retirement was caused by his getting a very severe blow on the fingers from Ulyett's fast bowling. The Victorian crack, Horan, is next entitled to be ranked as a worthy contributor to this signal triumph. His play in both innings was marked by patience and care, and his runs were obtained by strict cricket. Jupp preferred his correct steady methods to the more dashing, brilliant tactics of Bannerman. Midwinter, Garrett, and Blackham played well for their runs, especially Garrett. Kendall's 17 in the second innings was a merry contribution. Among the Englishmen Jupp secured most runs, but his performance was laboured and clumsy. Selby and Charlwood are entitled to most praise, for they got their runs splendidly. Ulyett was getting aggressive in the second innings. The feature of the last day's play was the magnificent bowling of Kendall, who practically did as munch towards tile victory as Charley Bannerman. His bowling completely beat the Englishmen, there being both ‘curl’ and ‘mischief’ in it.” Alfred Shaw had a wonderful record with the ball for the whole match—356 balls, 50 maidens, 89 runs, 8 wickets. Four balls to the over were bowled in those days.” “The London Star recalls in this interesting reference to the test match at Melbourne in 1877 how times have changed. It is hard to realise in these days of wireless, telephones, and cables that England waited for months for news of the first Teat match in Australia in 1877. In 1924, when Hobbs and Sutcliffe were making their thrilling stand, the world heard of every detail within a few minutes, but in the match 49 years ago England had to wait from March until May for even a short account of what our cricketers had done. AUSTRALIA WON The first Test Match was played at Melbourne on March 15, 16, and 17, 1877, and the first account was published in The Times on May 14, nearly two months later. Australia won by 45 runs, and the match was as full of thrills as any of the later encounters. The cricketers of 1877 prided themselves on the bushiness of their beards. No fewer than 12 out of the 22 had beards of the "brid’s nest" type, and not one was clean shaven. Betting was carried out openly in the crowd, and when play began the odds were in favour of England. LILLYWHITE'S ELEVEN Actually the England team was known as Lillywhite's Eleven, and the Australian side was a combination from New South Wales and Victoria. England's men were professionals, and The Times Melbourne correspondent says: “The match began and ended in good temper. Lillywhite’s pecuniary success must have consoled him for his defeat.” In fact, until this match no English professional eleven had been boater outside England, and the Australians were more optimistic than confident of being the first conquerors. BANNERMAN'S CENTURY Australia batted first, and the Test began in promising style by the opening batsmen, C. Bannerman, of New South Wales, making a century. The play of Bannerman soon altered the odds, and the betting veered in favour of Australia. Bannerman hit up 165, and then retired owing to a badly cut finger after an innings which aroused general admiration. The English cricketers declared that they had never seen Grace make a better baiting display. Bannerman, however, was the only Australian to do anything in the first innings, and Southerton (Sussex, Hants, and Surrey) and Alfred Shaw, the Notts and Sussex man, bowled in such irresistible style that the team was dismissed for 245. TW Garrett, the New South Wales bowler, hit up 19; and Blackham, the Victorian wicketkeeper, made 17, but the recognised batsmen all failed. H. Jupp, the famous Surrey batsman, and J. Selby, of Notts, opened for England, but the partnership was” timely “dissolved, Selby being dismissed after scoring 7. Jupp and H. Charlwood (Sussex), who came in at the first wicket, raised the hopes of England by a long stand, and a first-innings lead appeared probable. Charlwood was caught at the wicket after a useful 30, and Jupp was deceived into putting his leg in front of a straight one from Garrett after an unblemished 63. Then W. E. Midwinter, whom old Gloucestershire supporters will recall, and who was then playing for Victoria, found his best form with the ball, and claimed a number of easy wickets. Andrew Greenwood, the Yorkshire player, was dismissed for a single. T. Armitage (also of Yorkshire) went back for 9; Alfred Shaw made 10, and Thomas Emmett (Yorkshire) was clean-bowled for 8. The great Yorkshire player, G. Ulyett, who was to figure in so many more Tests, was lbw to Thompson for 10; J. Lillywhite (Sussex), the captain, was dismissed by Kendall for 10; and J. Southerton made half a dozen. Midwinter's bowling was almost unplayable, and only Allen Hill, of Yorkshire, rescued the tail from ignominy by carrying his bat for 35. BOWLING TRIUMPH The first innings closed with England 49 behind, but another sensation came in this remarkable Test when Australia collapsed completely in their second innings. The great Bannerman turned out to bat with his cut finger heavily bandaged, but the handicap of his injury was too great, and he was clean-bowled by Ulyett for 4. The second innings was a triumph for the bowling of Alfred Shaw, who hit the stumps of the formidable DW Gregory and Cooper, and accounted at very little cost for the wickets of Thompson, Blackman [sic], and Garrett. Ulyett was in great form at the other end, and in addition to dismissing Bannerman, claimed Horan, the great Victorian batsman, Midwinter, and E. Gregory. Australia were all out with a score of 104, Horan, with 20, being at the head of the scoring. Once again the batting altered, and England's prospects of winning the first Test appeared very rosy. They only needed 154 runs in the second innings to win, and there seamed every possibility, of this score being reached with comparative ease. True, Jupp was again lbw, this time to Midwinter, and with only 4 runs to his credit; but Selby and Charlwood appeared to be batting with considerable confidence. Everyone living today who saw the match must remember with a thrill the excitement of that English second innings. TOM KENDALL'S BOWLING Two points stand out with startling clearness—the bowling of Kendall and the collapse of England's long tail. Kendall bowled with such accuracy and judgment that he turned the tables completely, and from having a winning position, England became a beaten side. From the time Kendall took the wickets of Charlwood (13) and Ulyett (24), the match became a procession from and to the pavilion. Selby, who opened the, innings with Jupp, held on grimly to make 38 before being snapped up by Horan off Hodges, but the other batsmen failed lamentably. MAGIC WICKETKEEPING Behind the wicket was the redoubtable Blackham, and the combination of his rapid judgment and Kendall's bowling made short work of the tourists. Kendall claimed seven wickets, and England were dismissed for 108, leaving Australia the winners by 45 runs.” “You know the result of our great cricket match. Australians will "blow," to use Mr. Trollope's word, about it for some time to come. It was played on the ground of the Melbourne Club, between Lillywhite's eleven and a combined eleven of New South Wales and Victoria. We are told that it is the first match in which an English professional eleven has been beaten out of England. Each side was under a certain disadvantage. Pooley, the English wicket keeper, had been left in New Zealand, and Allan, the best Victorian bowler, upon whose services the colonial eleven almost entirely depended in his department, suddenly retired, and a substitute had to be found at the last moment. The betting was altogether in favour of the Englishmen before the match began, but the splendid play of Bannerman, from New South Wales, soon altered the odds. He made 165 runs before he retired, not out, with his finger badly cut. The Englishmen declared that they had never seen a finer display of batting, not even by the great Grace. The other Australians brought up the score in the first innings to 245. The Englishmen then went in and made 196. The Australians followed and, with Bannerman disabled, made 104, leaving the Englishmen 150 to make to win, and a most interesting game was brought to a close with the fall of their last wicket for 108 runs, leaving our men the winners by the runs. This victory is certainly creditable to Australia. The scores were made against presumably the best English bowlers, among whom were Shaw, Emmett, Ullyet [sic], and Southerton. The fielding of the team was excellent, and, although it is considered relatively weak in batsmen, Jupp Charlwood, Greenwood, and Selby are said to be strong enough to give, at least, an average efficiency. As may be supposed, the game was watched witi intense excitement by enthusiastic crowds, and those who could not get to the ground clustered round the newspaper offices to see the last despatches from the seat of war placarded on the door posts. It began and ended in good temper and Lillywhite's pecuniary success must have consoled him for his defeat.” “A REMARKABLE fact in connection with the second Test in Sydney was the presence of the only three Australian survivors of the first Test match played in Melbourne in March, 1877. Their names and ages are as under: Charles Bannerman, born July 31, 1851; John McCarthy Blackham, born May 11, 1853; and Thomas W. Garrett, born July 26, 1858. In that match, 51 years ago, Charlie Bannerman, who immortalised himself by making 165, retired hurt; strange to say his only century in Australia. It was a fast ball of George Ulyett's that did the damage. It is remarkable that after the lapse of 51 years he actually saw the champion of the day somewhat similarly disabled by a fast, rising ball, Ponsford having a bone broken at the back of his left hand by Larwood. Jack Blackham says that Charlie Bannerman's 165 was the best innings he has ever seen, and that Garrett was one of the best good wicket bowlers that ever lived. It may also be mentioned that Bannerman's opinion of Blackham's wicketkeeping is the same as that of WG—"there has only been one 'keeper." It certainly is a coincidence that the only English survivor of that first Test is the captain, James Lillywhite, a Sussex player, who was born in February 23, 1842—a grand old man. James Southerton, a son of the English slow bowler, who played in the match referred to, and who is travelling with the English team as Router's representative, was also an onlooker at Sydney, the English link being thus maintained. Thus that second Test in Sydney was historic in more ways than one.”

Chasing 154 to win, England were skittled for 108, with slow bowler Tom Kendall (like Bannerman, born in England) taking 7 for 55.

Although England squared the series by winning the second Test, the Australians were jubilant at having shown that they could match their rivals. One newspaper summed up the mood in an editorial on the day Lillywhite's side set sail for home. "It shows that in bone as muscle, activity, athletic vigour, and success in field sports, the Englishmen born in Australia do not fall short of the Englishmen born in Surrey or Yorkshire". "For the time being," wrote the Argus, "we must forget we are Victorians and New South Wales and our geographical distinctions, and only remember that we are of one nation - Australia." (Williamson “Birth of Test cricket” ESPNCricinfo, 23 January 1998.)

Evening Standard’s (then just The Standard’s) Australian correspondent: “Australian cricketers are in ecstasies. Fifteen of the New South Walesmen having beaten the All England Eleven, and fifteen Victorians having done the same thing, it occurred to the colonial players that they could pick out an Eleven from the two colonies to meet the English Eleven on equal terms. This was looked upon as an illustration of the overweening confidence the Australian has in his own powers, and the British element out here predicted that Young Australia would be taught a lesson. However, strange to say the English team suffered defeat, as you may perhaps have heard by telegram. The match was played here in Melbourne, and was commenced last Thursday and finished on Monday. The great feature of the match was the magnificent batting of Bannerman, of Sydney, in the first innings. This player was sent in first and remained in all the first day. When the stumps were drawn he had made 126. (The game commenced at one and ended at five o'clock—half-an-hour being allowed for lunch). The English captain, Lillywhite, tried all his bowling talent on him, but neither Shaw, nor Southerton, nor Ulyett, nor Armitage could touch his wicket or get a catch from him. The next day was the same. He got his eye in, and knocked the ball all over the field. At last a bumping ball from Ulyett struck him and smashed his finger, so that he had to retire after having contributed 165 by the finest play that has ever been seen here. Jupp and the English team generally said that, with the exception of the Grades, they had not seen better batting anywhere. The total of the score of the Australians for the first innings was 245. The English Eleven then went in and made 196, of which Charlwood contributed 36, Jupp 63, and Hill 35. Notwithstanding the injury to his hand Bannerman went in for the second innings, made one fine drive for 4, and then he was bowled by Ulyett. With his fall the hopes of the Australians fell—especially as they made only 104 in their second innings. However, the All-England Eleven were put out for 106, and the match was therefore won by 47 runs. The Australian has indulged in a little of what Mr. Trollope calls “blowing.” What with Trickett's victory over the champion of the Thames and what with this cricket match it is not to be wondered at that the youth of the colonies begin to fancy themselves. As I said before in a former communication, I suspect the upshot of this affair will be that our Australian teams will be playing at Lord's within two or three years. Already the thing is talked of, and has led steady-going folk to calculate the chances the Australians would have against a picked team of Englishmen. The result of the calculation is decidedly against the Australians winning in their present form. For if it had not been for the exceptionally fine innings of Bannerman the Englishmen here would have beaten them. And the present English team is not very strong in batting power. Its forte is bowling and fielding. Moreover, it had lost its wicketkeeper, Pooley, left behind in New Zealand, and from one cause and another was not in a high state of efficiency. On the other hand, it is admitted that the three best Australian bowlers were not in this match. Their engagements would not allow them to attend, and it was greatly feared the match would be lost in consequence.” Adapt for that chap who writes to Old Boy: “there was a tranquillity about it, and about her—a quiet, good, calm spirit—that I never have forgotten; that I never shall forget.” Trollope: he depreciated Sydney; he depreciated Australia. Store it in the securest corner of his memory. The news, when it arrived in England, came strange as news from Bree. Long was the way that fate them bore, O’er stony mountains cold and grey, The Sundering Seas between them lay, The reddest-letter day in Australia’s cricket calendar.

For the first time in All England Eleven has been beaten by an Australian eleven. Such a result has astonished thousands people to the utmost degree, but it may fairly be claimed for THE HERALD that from the time this match was decided upon, the readers of this journal were advised that Lillywhite's eleven had by no means an easy victory before them, and that with such a strong batting team as the two colonies could select, if there were a disposition to lay heavily against the colonials, any considerable odds that might be offering were worth taking. It is true that at that time it was supposed that either Spofforth or Evans would be amongst the New South Wales contingent, and it was, of course regarded as a certainty that Allan would one of the Victorian players. Neither of these bowlers played, and for reasons which, for the credit of the colonies, the less said about them the better. On the other hand their defection was to some extent counterbalanced by the absence of Pooley from his usual post at the wickets, and, beyond question, this fact enabled our men to play with a freedom they would never have dared to attempt had he been in their rear . However, after the team that has just scored such a decisive victory was finally selected, and Pooley's absence was assured, we continued to regard the match as by no means a certainty to the visitors, and held that, notwithstanding our weakness in bowling, the Australians would not be shamefully beaten, and had the off chance of winning. The off chance has come off, and for the first time in the annals of cricket, an English eleven will leave to go home with the tale of a defeat on even terms, and that, too, at the hands of a people amongst whom cricket was practically unknown a quarter of a century ago. It is gratifying also to note that the eleven that sustained the credit of the colonies are, with the single exception of Cooper, essentially Australian cricketers, so that it cannot be urged that we need imported material to defeat English cricketing skill . Whatever credit rests with the colonies for this victory is purely their own. To have beaten the Englishmen under any circumstances would have been gratifying, but to beat them with a team consisting to very large extent of Australian natives, and with but one exception of cricketers who have been trained in the game in the colonies, is highly creditable. As to the claims of the two colonies in connection with this match it is remarkable that there is very little to be said for one more than can be said for the other. New South Wales sent us five men who scored 210 runs out of a total of 333 made off the bat in the two innings. One of the five, however, made no less than 169 runs in the match, and once was not out. This leaves only 41 runs to be distributed amongst the other four, or an average of 5.1 per innings. The six Victorians scored 123 runs, or an average of 10.3 per wicket, so that although to Bannerman undoubtedly belongs the honor of winning this match, so far in the batting is concerned, the Victorians acquitted themselves most creditably, and made by no means a poor show against the very best bowling and fielding that England can produce. But if the New South Welshmen made most runs, our men assisted them in securing the victory by keeping down the scoring on the other side. The bowling of Kendall and Midwinter was throughout splendid, although loose for some few overs, when the Englishmen were playing their first innings. A bad start was made in fact, and this enabled the visitors to come very near the large score previously made by the Australians. An improvement was soon observable, and better bowling than that of Kendall, Midwinter, and Hodges in the innings yesterday could not be desired. Kendall is credited with eight wickets, three being clean bowled. Midwinter took six wickets, of which two were clean bowled. Hodges had three wickets, one being bowled, Garrett two wickets, and Thompson one. It will thus be seen that our men had the bowling pretty well to themselves. In the fielding we find the names of Victorians figuring nine times for catches, while E. Gregory is the only New South Welshman who is credited with a catch. Of course this is not the only test of excellence in fielding, and we cannot overlook the fact that the Gregorys especially distinguished themselves in stopping runs. Altogether, however, in the fielding our men had slightly the better of it, even taking into account several undoubted mulls made by some of them. So far then the claims of the representatives of the two colonies to credit in connection with this victory are about even. If New South Wales can point to the most brilliant batting performance ever seen in the colonies, Victoria can confidently refer to wicketkeeping that has never been excelled, both for smartness and general effectiveness. Blackham caught or stumped two men in each innings, stopped innumerable runs, and thoroughly compelled the Englishmen to be very careful about taking any liberties with the bowling—and to bowling which, as the average against some of the best bats in the world will show, would do no discredit to any first-class match at home. For one thing, however, Australia is undoubtedly deeply indebted to New South Wales, and to the players themselves. It was a graceful act to elect one of the Sydney men to the captainship, and it was judicious act to select D. Gregory for the post. Never perhaps has a captain in an important match given such universal satisfaction as Gregory did in this one. His impartiality in the difficult task of handling a team composed of men who usually meet as friendly rivals, but were now joined against the common opponent, was admirable. Sometimes his changes of bowlers appeared unaccountable, but cricket is a sport which is unlike many others, in that the looker on does not always see the best or the game, and in this case hardly one of the changes that were made failed in achieving the desired result, thus clearly showing a careful analysis of the weak points of the batsmen, combined with a knowledge of the bowlers that was astonishing, considering that the captain had seen little or nothing of three of them until this match commenced. The features of the game, then, so far as the play of the colonials was concerned, were the batting of Bannerman, the wicketkeeping of Blackham, the bowling of Kendall, Midwinter and Hodges, some good fielding, and last, but not least, the excellent judgment shown by the captain. Bannerman will receive a substantial recognition of his splendid performance, and Kendall wins a cup presented for the best bowling average; but in addition to these, Midwinter's services should not be allowed to pass unnoticed, and D. Gregory deserves some souvenier [sic] commemorative of the first even-handed victory achieved by Australian against Englishmen in the cricket field. As for the English eleven, their play was really admirable, and anyone who witnessed the match must have come to the conclusion that the result is to be ascribed not so much to any falling off in the game at home, as in the rapid progress made in the colonies. Such bowling as that of Shaw and Ulyett in the second innings of the Australians has never before been witnessed here, and the fielding was splendid. For all that the Australians were undismayed, and all the efforts of their opponents could not prevent them putting together the respectable total of 104, although one of their men was practically placed hors de combat. It would be too much to say that we could beat this eleven whenever out best team meets them on even terms, but it is certain that Australia can now put into be field eleven men whose claims cricketers are by no means to be despised. (Herald “Combination Cricket Match” 20 March 1877.)

Clarence Moody often give the credit -- even more often the blame -- for inventing Test cricket. All this and a great deal more was so written about, and sung about, and talked about at that time and since, that the world has had good cause to be sick of it, forever. If I were to repeat for you all the encomiums to the Australians, and all the condemnations of the Englishmen, you would think The Inaugural Test Match (if you do not think it already) the most tiresome book in the world. So I shall say no more than that after a vast spillage of ink, the players readied themselves for a Second Test Match. Can introduce The Bulletin’s bullshit by going first through all the reminiscences left of people who saw this match, and noting how little anecdotal colour there is in them: a remarkable contrast to the first two Tests in England (which have the advantage of having been seen on each day by more than 20,000 people). Go through all the witnesses who looked back on the match, and note how little they had to say of it. So one understands why some have seen fit to make things up.

BRAVO, Australians! "All England" has been beaten by "All Australia"—no, by New South Wales and Victoria alone. The other colonies of Australia had no part or lot in the contest, but they will participate in the glory shed upon the Southern Hemisphere by the victory. There is just one drawback to the complete satisfaction that would otherwise be given by this second victory over the athletes of the mother country—it is calculated to unduly exalt Young Australia in its own eyes, and foster that bumptiousness which has made the Yankees look so ridiculous. But the victory will be gratifying to every settled colonist for the evidence it supplies that there is no degeneracy as yet at any rate of the Anglo-Saxon race in Australia. It has been assumed that life here is not only shorter than in the mother country, but that it is also distinguished by a lack of the indomitable energy which has given the national distinctiveness to John Bull. It is even now too early to assume that the Climate of Australia is not enervating, or that there is no deterioration in the native-born colonist. But it may be safely asserted that the evidence of deterioration has yet to be supplied, and that the victories of Trickett and the Australian Eleven go far to establish the character of Australia as a country where physical prowess is not likely to decline. It may be urged that the cricket match was virtually won by one player, Bannerman, which is no doubt true. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the best "allround" cricketer in New South Wales, Evans, was unable to be present at the match. Our telegram says that the excitement in Melbourne is intense, which is natural enough. Few colonists expected the Australian team to win, and none hoped for such a victory as it is now our pleasure to record. A recent article in one of the most influential London journals, the Pall Mall Gazette, expressed genuine regret at the circumstance that the champion's belt had been taken away to Australia by Trickett, and it endeavoured to discover special reasons for that misadventure. Perhaps the cricket victory will again cause mourning in Pall Mall, and draw forth fresh reasons for defeat. But every victory won since the creation of the world might have been reasoned away with an if. The fact, however, remains that Australia has won two distinct victories over the mother country, and the moral effect of these victories will not be destroyed by sophistry. The Australians may well take their stand upon the “irresistible logic of facts." (Rockhampton Bulletin “March 20, 1877.”)

There is only the telegraphic intelligence on which to base remarks as to the great match between the All-England Eleven and the Combined Victorian and New South Wales Eleven, but it can be safely said that the All-England Eleven have been tried on their merits. If it be said that the absence of Pooley upset the Eleven and caused the various members of the team to field in places with which they were not familiar, it must on the other hand be recollected that the best possible Australian eleven was not in the field. The match therefore has been played on even terms, and has resulted in a decided victory for the Combined Team. Each side did its best. Bannerman's magnificent score of 165 not out will secure for his name a permanent place in all retrospects of Australian cricket. Both in Melbourne and Sydney subscriptions are being collected, so that a testimonial may be presented to this great batsman. That the score was not a piece of luck, but the result of first-rate play, is proved by the fact that the English Eleven have subscribed to the testimonial. This score, too, will secure Australian cricket a place in the next issue of Lillywhite's Guide; and so, not merely in politics, but also is social matters and national sports shall we secure the attention of the English press. It is a great pity that there should have been any disputes over the play of this match. Both Jupp and Ulyett protested that they were wrongly given out in the first innings. Ulyett appears to have made a decided demonstration. “Point,” in the Leader, makes a strong and, on the facts stated, justifiable attack on Allan for backing out at the last moment. Point puts the matter very plainly, and says Allan backed out because he was afraid of losing his reputation as a bowler. By the latest telegrams it appears that Allan's name has been greeted with groans. The Eleven are to play at Sandhurst, Ballarat, and Ararat. The Sydney papers express regret that there will not be another trial of strength with the Eleven on the Albert Ground. Perhaps the Eleven did wisely in deciding not to go again to Sydney. They would undoubtedly have had to play on level terms with New South Wales team, and defeat from one Australian province would have been a far more serious thing than the defeat they have just experienced. (Cover-Point “Cricket Notes” South Australian Advertiser, 21 March 1877.)

It was a singular triumph, but it was not a decisive one. In the heady aftermath, it might easily have been forgotten—indeed it was—that things could have gone far otherwise. Bannerman could as easily have made a pair in this match as 169 runs; another coat of varnish on his stumps in the first innings, and alerter fielding from Shaw in the second, and he would very likely have done so.

Reflecting on the Tests, these 2 games did not have the status of “Tests” at the time they were played. Indeed, the 1878 Wisden said nothing about the Melbourne match and covered the tour as a whole in just a few lines. But Wisden, first issued in 1864, was a rival to the longer-running publications by Lillywhite (Lillywhite’s Guide first appearing in 1849). Unsurprisingly given the family link James Lillywhite’s Cricketers’ Annual included extensive coverage. There was more to this than just the rivalry of annual publications, as explained by Gideon Haigh in his book, Silent Revolutions. John Wisden and Fred Lillywhite had been in business together between October 1855 and December 1858, but had fallen out. John Wisden’s decision to start his own guide was – in part- thumbing his nosed at Lillywhite. And Lillywhite’s Guide was hardly complimentary about Wisden’s ability as a cricketer. Fred Lillywhite died in 1866, and his Guide was absorbed into John Lillywhite’s Cricketers Companion. But rivalry continued. In its early years, up to the 1869 edition, Wisden was light in its inclusion of text – it looked to the inclusion of scorecards as standing for themselves, rather than adding much by way of commentary. Lillywhites publications, on the other hand, were sometimes critical of individuals for their performance and behaviour, and had got into trouble with some scions of the game as a result – notable the Marylebone Cricket Club took a dim view. From its 1870 edition Wisden began to include more by way of descriptions of matches. But this did not extend to James Lillywhite’s tour. It has been suggested that Wisden may somehow have “overlooked” the 1876-1877 tour because it was a private venture, but against the background of rivalry with Lillywhites, the failure of coverage is hardly a surprise. 79 As late as 1930 Wisden was dismissive of the 1877 matches, and of those played in Australia by Lord Harris’s touring team in 1878-79. Acknowledging that these representative games were now counted as Test matches, it’s editor, C. Stewart Caine, argued that “none of those encounters should strictly be so regarded”, dismissing Lillywhite’s team as merely “a financial speculation”. This 1930 Wisden did not go so far as to expunge the 1877 games from its record section, but as noted by Haigh, this was “perhaps because Caine’s statistician, Sydney Southerton, was actually the son of James Southerton, who had been one of Lillywhite’s players”. It was not until 1978, however, that Wisden caught up with the real world and actually published a scorecard of the inaugural 1877 Test, alongside that of the 1977 Centenary Test. For The Australian: “The victory of the Australian Eleven over the English cricketers is no ordinary triumph. For the first time a team representing the cricketing prowess of England has been beaten on equal terms out of that country. The event marks the great improvement which has taken place in Australian cricket; and shows, also, that in bone and muscle, activity, athletic vigour, and success in field sports, the Englishmen born in Australia do not fall short of the Englishmen born in Surrey or Yorkshire”.

The joy throughout the two colonies was overwhelming. The Australasian was careful. While they were overjoyed at the victory, perhaps it would be a good idea not to "blow" too much at this stage. But the Daily News in Sydney saw it as epoch-making: Up to this year England had at least led the world in cricket. An American or Australian Twenty-two might play an English Eleven with a fair chance of not being defeated, but to be defeated in a cricket contest man to man by the natives of an island comparatively lately discovered is too much, and yet a well-known bust in the headquarters of the game is not reported to have shed tears, nor has any other omen been observed at Lord's or The Oval. For all that the sceptre has passed away so to speak, the flag is struck. It may console them to note that the English race is not degenerating and that in the distant land and on turf where lately the blackfellow hurled his boomerang, a generation has arisen which can play the best bowlers of the time. Melbourne Punch was so thrilled that it put the story of the match into verse. These were the final stanzas: There came a tale to England, 'Twas of a contest done: Australian youths in cricket fields Had met the cracks and won; They fell like sheaves in autumn, Despite the old-world dodges. Their efforts vain the runs to gain Off Kendall or off Hodges; Then rose a shout Australian That echoed to the main, 'Twas confident, not "blowing", "Again we'll do the same!" [p. 49] Moral. Presented to Messrs. Allan, Evans and Spofforth with the compliments of the cricketing world: When bowling cracks of little mind Prove beggars upon horses, Australia is compelled to find Fresh strength and new resources. For Allan, Evans, Spofforth She does not care a snuff, Since Kendall, Mid., and Hodges prove Themselves quite good enough. So patriotic A., E., S., Next time, 'tis we will strike; Henceforth go play with babes, For like should mate with like. Southerton: “People at home do not know or do not think that it is quite a different thing to play a match at home, fit and well, and to play one out here after the very rough travelling by land and sea one has to go through here, and I defy any team to play anything like up to their form for at least three days after such travelling. The cricketers here know it full well, and in their intercolonial matches they invariably arrive and practice at least a week before playing the match [as indeed the Australian team had done for this match]; but if it had been so, and we had been beaten by an eleven of New South Wales, I would add that at home it is scarcely possible to foretell at the beginning of the season who is to be the champion county for any number of years, and that it is acknowledged that the very uncertainty of the game is the secret of its popularity. Why should not these colonials have a chance, who, instead of the four months we have at home to pursue the game, have here eight, and on a fine day in their winter can also play it comfortably where all the players are very keen on it, and allow no opportunity to escape them to effect an improvement in every point of the game, except umpiring, in which department there is much room for improvement. Their style, with few exceptions, is not what we should admire, but they take a great amount of getting rid of on their own grounds, as the peculiarities of turf or of light do not affect them to the same degree as they do a stranger. All these things, when added to the fact that they have as good bowlers, as good bats, and nearly as good fieldsmen as ourselves—but lacking the experience—compel me to say that although the time has not quite arrived for them to play successfully against an All-England eleven even handed, yet fifteen of them would taken an excessive amount of trouble to beat from the best eleven that could be brought against them from home. Facts speak for themselves. Bannerman in this match can get one hundred and sixty-five runs without a chance that came fair to hand, in as fine and free style and manner as ever an innings was played at home, and then had to retire by receiving a blow on the middle finger of the right hand, which split it, from a ball of Ulyett’s. But to show how much is due to chance in the game, in the first innings he was so near being bowled the first ball that the thickness of a sheet of paper would have caused the ball to hit the stump, and in the second innings he was the first ball he had again being nearly out, as Shaw missed an easy chance of ‘c and b.’ Had both these chances come off his name would have been scarcely mentioned, whereas now he is the hero of the hour, and I sincerely hope that he may be well rewarded for his very brilliant performance, and I am sure I only echo the sentiments of not only our side here, but all lovers of good cricket everywhere. We have from time to time taught the colonials how to play cricket, and ought we not rather to rejoice over the loss of a match? And speaking in the interest of the game, I quite think if the winning a match would do them no good it would do us no harm.” It may have been that the Englishmen were affected by their trip across the Tasman Sea, but in every aspect of play our men defeated them at all points of the game except fielding, winning our first real international contest by 45 runs. That famous victory created such enthusiasm throughout the continent that its effects have never really abated. It was a gallant band, and Australia, in a cricketing and national sense, owes every member of it a debt of undying gratitude. Even if our men on that memorable occasion 55 years ago, had been unsuccessful in their striving, our liability would have been just the same, as they were the first men to breed and awaken the feeling of nationality. (Worrall “Progress” Australasian, 12 November 1932: 10.)

“Australia's win shocked the Englishman, astounded Australia, and probably flabbergasted the Australian players themselves.” Melbourne's valiantly nationalistic Age trumpeted: ‘An Australian Eleven has met a picked Eleven of the very flower of English cricketers, and has given them a signal defeat. Such an event would not have been dreamed of as coming within the limits of possibility 10 or 15 years ago, and it is a crushing reply to those unpatriotic theorists who would have us believe that the Australian race is deteriorating from the Imperial type or that the lengthened residence under Australian suns must kill out the Briton in the blood. The experience of yesterday points to the very opposite conclusion. It shows that in Bannerman we can train a batsman who is not surpassed in any English school of cricket … while in the person of young Blackham we have a wicketkeeper, also of native growth, who is in his department what Roberts is at the billiard table, and Blondin on the tight-rope.’” To the great credit of the combined cricketing team representing the two colonies of New South Wales and Victoria, the All-England Eleven, probably the strongest in bowling and batting talent which ever left England's shores, have best beaten, although admittedly the two best of the colonial bowlers (Allan and Evans) did not play, and Spofforth, of Sydney, one of the finest bats [sic], could not take part in the match. Under these circumstances, there were few who did not despair of the game which has succeeded mainly, it must be admitted, by the admirable stand made by Bannerman in his innings of 165, but also largely aided by the fine bowling of Kendall, Midwinter, and Hodges. When the play finished on Friday, four of the Englishmen's wickets only were down for 109 runs, and on Saturday they were not disposed of until 196 had been registered to their credit, leaving them 49 behind their opponents in the first innings. The combined team then took the wickets, Bannerman going in first. He made but little show, his damaged finger preventing his successfully wielding the willow, and his appearing at all was more a matter of pluck and endurance than of real value. When the wickets were drawn on Saturday the combined team had only added 83 in the second innings, with eight wickets down. The remaining two men on Monday put together 20 before they retired, and thus the Englishmen had 155 runs in their second innings to get to win. This they did not succeed in doing, mainly through the excellent bowling of Kendall, Hodges, and Midwinter. The fielding of the combined team was much inferior to the Englishmen, and many runs were stolen by the latter. The second innings of the All-England Eleven only reached 168, and they were thus beaten by 47 runs. Kendall received a testimonial as best bowler, and Bannerman as best bat of the combined team. It is stated that Bannerman will stay in Victoria, and that Midwinter will join the All-England Eleven and go home with them. (Kyneton Guardian “Combination Cricket Match” 21 March 1877.)

These Australians, children planted by English care, nourished up by English indulgence until they were grown to strength and opulence. Richard Begbie, one of cricket’s lesser historians, but among its most excitable, ranks this match as “one of those pivotal moments in human endeavour.... Ned Kelly was just beginning to test the local constabulary of Benalla, and Queen Victoria had been in the saddle a paltry 40 years when that first Test match was played between England and Australia, and modern history really began.” Begbie: “Australians responded with universal glee. But this glee was a more complex thing than it has become in the simple world of 1990. The Melbourne Age summed up the significance of the win like this: ‘Such an event would not have been dreamed of as coming within the limits of possibility 10 or 15 years ago, and it is a crushing reply to those unpatriotic theorists who would have us believe that the Australian race is deteriorating from the Imperial type, or that the lengthened existence under Australian suns would kill out the Briton in the blood.’ The English responded to the event with almost complete disdain. A brief paragraph in The Times promised that ‘the Australians will “blow” about it for some time.’The Times was undoubtedly more prescient than The Age concerning attitudes to the great game. It was to become the great touchstone for Australia, not of how like unto the parent we might actually be, but of how very different we have become.” Lillywhite in the Companion: “But for New South Wales and Victoria combined—and it must be remembered that the population of these two colonies together does not amount to half that of London—to muster an eleven capable defeating James Lillywhite’s representatives was a grand triumph for Australian cricketers.”

FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT Thursday, 22nd March, 1877 The cricket match, Rochester v. Deniliquin, was played at the latter place on Wednesday last, and resulted in an easy victory for the Victorians. Now that the All England Eleven are in the colonies, endeavoring to teach the colonials how to wield the willow, the principal topic of conversation centres upon the doings of the cricketing world, in which the performances of Mr Bannerman figure so conspicuously. The success of the colonies over the Eleven has animated and infused fresh life into some of the colonials of the country towns to emulate the example of Evans, Spofforth, and Bannerman, who have already established their names on the scroll of fame in the arena of cricket. (Riverine Herald “Cricket Match: Rochester v. Deniliquin” 24 March 1877.)

The cricket match, All England Eleven v. Australian Eleven, terminated, not as we expected, but as we desired. On Friday, Bannerman, in playing one of Ulyett's balls, was struck in the middle finger of the right hand, the flesh of which was cut to the bone. This caused his retirement, he having up to this time made 165 runs, out of a total score of 240. The accident was deeply regretted, as the total of the Australian score was evidently considerably influenced by it, the remaining wickets falling for five more runs only. Despite that accident, the colonials' first innings closed for 245 runs, and four of the Englishmen's wickets had been levelled for 109 runs when the stumps were drawn for the day, On Saturday the Englishmen made 196, which left them forty-nine behind the colonials, and the latter, in their second innings, had lost nine wickets for eighty-three runs. Jupp increased his previous day's score of fifty-four to sixty-three, and Hill hit freely for thirty-five, not out, and saved the Englishman the necessity of following their innings. For the Australians, Horan got 20; Midwinter, 17; and E. Gregory, 11. The match was concluded on Monday, and resulted in a victory for the colonial by 45 runs. The second innings of the Australians closed for 104 runs, leaving the Englishman 154 to get to win, and they succeeded in getting 108 only. Kendall played spiritedly for 17, not out, for the colonials; and Selby, with 38; Ulyett, 24; and Charlwood, 18, were the chief scorers for the Englishmen. Kendall bowled splendidly, getting seven wickets for 55 runs. The cup offered to the bowler in teh colonial team obtaining the best average has been won by Kendall, whose performance in both innings shows thus: 71.1 overs, 26 maidens, [page 16] 109 runs, eight wickets. Midwinter comes next, with 73 overs, 30 maidens, 101 runs, six wickets. It is contemplated to play a return match at Easter, the present team being changed by the substitution of Evans and Spofforth, probably for Hodges and E. Gregory. (Advocate “Sports and Games” 24 March 1877: 15-16.)

“We have some tangible return at last,” writes the Melbourne Leader, “for the public money and enthusiasm invested in the grand old- English sport of cricket. It would be hazardous to speculate upon how many thousands of pounds have been ? expended even to approach English excellence in the game, and now, with an even eleven, Australia has beaten all England, and between them New South Wales and Victoria hold pro tempore the championship of the cricketing world. With by no means the best team that could have been selected Australia retired from, the field with the large margin of forty-nine to its credit, mainly due, be it said, to Bannerman, of New South Wales, who has earned for himself as a cricketer as brilliant a fame as attaches to any player of the old world. There will be another even match, between England and Australia at Easter, and if we score a victory on that occasion, the championship, will be doubly ours until the Englishmen challenge possession, either upon the home sod or upon Australian soil. In the one case they will have an opportunity of showing the same liberality to our cricketers that has many times been exhibited to themselves, and, in the other it will not be necessary, it may be hoped, to subsidise an English team to come out here to Australia to recover the laurels lost by them in Melbourne in 1877.” (Cover-point “Cricket Notes” South Australian Chronicle, 31 March 1877.)

They had wished for this ardently, but it came more grateful by being unexpected.

THE time we went to press last month did not allow us to give the account of the cricket match played between an Australian Eleven from New South Wales and Victoria, and the All England Eleven brought out by James Lillywhite. The match is historical from its being the first in which Australia and an All England Eleven competed on equal terms, and also as being the first time that an All England Eleven was beaten outside England. When the first arrangements were made for the match the number of the colonial men was fixed at 13 but separate fifteens defeated them with such decided success, both in Sydney and Melbourne, that 11 were eventually deemed a sufficient number for the colonies combined to bring into the field. The Australian team was to have included three bowlers who won honours not only in the preliminary matches against Lilly white's eleven, but in tbe matches played three years ago against WG Grace's team. Two of them have mounted to a high position out here—Mr Evans, of New South Wales, and Mr Frank Allan, of Victoria—through the wonderful command that they have acquired over the ball. But neither of them was able, or at any rate willing, to play. These two refusals prevented an array of the best talent of the colonies against the strong team of players brought hither under Lilly white's command from the old country. The third refusal, from Mr Spofforth, of Sydney, was not of any great consequence. The colonies had to fall back on bowlers who at the time seemed of the second rank, but whose recent performances now render it doubtful whether they can be fairly placed in a different class from the three already named. Lillywhite's eleven was weakened by the loss of Pooley, the celebrated wicketkeeper, who got mixed up in some acts of larrikinism in New Zealand, and bad to stay there to answer a charge brought by the police. His place was filled by Selby, who, however, would not keep wicket to the fast bowlers. The match began on Thursday, March 15. The colonial players, commanded by Mr. D. Gregory, of New South Wales, had the choice of innings and went in first, to get the use of the excellent wicket which bad been prepared on the MCC ground. Bannerman and Thompson, both of Sydney, faced the bowling of Alfred Shaw and Hill. The latter batsman stayed in only a short time, but the former quickly opened out upon both bowlers. Though a man of medium height, he showed great reach, and hit with tremendous vigour. The public were treated to a display of the finest cricket ever witnessed in Australia. Bannerman established himself at tbe wickets from the very commencement, and proceeded to punish the bowlers with great severity. His principal qualities were quickness of sight and sharp decisive action. The bowlers kept the batsmen, who one by one succeeded Thompson, under restraint. The only player not in awe of them was Horan, of Melbourne, who made top score in the match at Christmas, but be was unlucky enough to get caught on the present occasion off a ball which bumped out of a heel-mark in the turf. To Bannerman all the bowlers proved alike. The change from Hill to Ulyett and Emmett, and from Shaw to Southerton, and then to Lillywhite, made no difference to him. The runs came freely, and the score rose from 50 to 100, and from 100 to 166, when at the close of three hours' play, the stumps were drawn for the day. Six wickets had fallen. Bannerman had obtained 126 (not out), Horan 12, and BB Cooper—an English player of some note in former days—15. Play was resumed next day. For an hour and a half the same lively sort of game was carried on. Bannerman, better supported than on the first day, hit out with great freedom. The ball was constantly on the run. Most of the hits were forward cuts, straight drives to off and on; no leg hits, strictly so-called, were made, but the ball was frequently "played" to leg with pretty effect and admired success. Finally, Bannerman, when at the height of his career, and bracketed with Garrett—a batsman who seemed likely to stay in for an hour—was suddenly disabled by a swift ball from Ulyett, which split the middle finger of his right band, and compelled him to retire. He had then made 165 runs, and the only chance he had given was a low, skimming catch to Shaw on the first day, which the fieldsman could not reach. The Englishmen confessed they had never seen a finer performance at home. Bannerman, we may state, was taught his cricket in Sidney by Caffyn. The innings closed soon after his disablement for 245 runs. A fair commencement was made by Jupp and Selby. The former batted with his wonted steadiness, and the latter showed marvellous dexterity as a run-stealer. The first wicket (Selby's) fell for 23 Charlwood and Jupp then got together, and provided the fieldsmen with lively employment for some time. Eventually the wicketkeeper (Blackham) caught Charlwood brilliantly off Midwinter. The score stood at 79—a high average. Some play equally as lively as Charlwood's was shown by Ulyett, but he first hit a ball up to mid-on (which was missed), and was then given out leg before wicket. The fourth wicket (Greenwood's) fell for 109, and the stumps were drawn until Saturday. An improvement in the bowling obliged the batsmen to play with more caution on the third day. Jupp was ultimately got rid of for 63. Hill made the fine score of 35, not out, and the contributions of the rest brought the total up to 196, or 49 short. Bannerman, though only partially recovered from his severe hurt, insisted on batting. He opened the second innings with Thompson, but was bowled at an early stage of the play by Ulyett, whose cannot shot caused the unfortunate accident on Friday. From the rest of the eleven a fair stand was looked for, as some of them had previously batted well against the Englishmen in Sydney or in Melbourne. Horan, who obtained 20; Midwinter, who obtained 17; and E. Gregory, who got 11, were, however, the only three to score respectably. Shaw and Ulyett were both in fine form, especially Shaw. Nine wickets fell for 83. On the fourth day (Monday) the last two men raised the total to 104, and Kendall carried out his bat for 17. The gross score for the two innings was 349. This left the English eleven 154 to get to win. No doubt was entertained of their ability to make the required number. But the Victorian bowlers shone out as lustrously on the last day of the match as the Sidney batsman had done on the first and second. Backed up by a smart wicketkeeper, Kendall (a left-handed bowler) fairly stuck the eleven up. Midwinter, who bad bowled almost throughout the first innings with fair success, met occasionally with sharp treatment in the second innings; but Kendall was dangerous to the last. First, Hill was caught for 0, then Greenwood for 5, next Jupp (the mainstay of the eleven) was given out leg before wicket for 4, and, lastly, Charlwood was bowled clean for 13, and four wickets were down for 22. Still the friends of the Englishmen had no doubt as to the ultimate result, when Selby and Ulyett became partners. The former batted with extreme liveliness, and the latter showed admirable caution. The score went quickly up to 62. At that stage of the play Ulyett was bowled clean with a ball from Kendall, which he was heard to say Grace himself could not have played. Selby was the next victim. The score stood at 92, when Hodges, a left-handed bowler, was put on. Selby was caught off the first ball by a fieldsman who had been specially posted between long-on and square-leg to wait for the catch. The end soon came. Armitage was the only batsman left who could play the two left-hand bowlers, and he was soon smartly caught by the wicket-keeper. The innings closed for 108 runs. The gross score amounted to 304 runs, or 45 short of the number made by the colonies. The match was witnessed by numerous spectators. On the third day nearly 10,000 persons were present. Fine weather prevailed throughout. It should have been a batsman's rather than a bowler's match on both sides, from the splendid condition of the turf, and the smoothness and springy character of the pitch. Perhaps the state of the ground, which showed little tendency to cause the ball to bump (save when Ulyett discharged his thunderbolts down upon it midway between the wickets), accounted for the only partial success of so noted a performer as Shaw. Nevertheless, Shaw got the largest share of the wickets, and the best average—viz., eight wickets for 89 runs, in 359 balls. The ablest bowler in the colonial eleven was Kendall, who delivered 286 balls for 109 runs and eight wickets. Seven of these wickets were obtained on the second day for 55 runs. The match is the greatest triumph which has been won by colonial cricketers on the Australian cricket field. It shows what progress has been made since Stephenson's eleven came out 15 years ago and beat 22 in Melbourne and in Sydney. Three years ago Grace's eleven were beaten in one innings by 18 Victorian players. Since then great improvement has been shown in both batting and bowling, but in the present match many occurrences took place which showed that the colonial players had still much to learn as fieldsmen. The contest took place at an appropriate time for the Englishmen. They had had three months' experience of the climate and the cricket fields of the colonies. It is true they bad only landed from a five days' voyage the day before the present match, but no prejudicial effects were traceable to the influences of the sea trip. Had there been any, they would have been shown in the first innings. The return match was arranged to be played at Easter. A silver cup, presented to the best howler in the colonial eleven by the proprietors of The Australasian, was won by Kendall, who is a member of the Richmond Cricket Club. Steps have been taken for the presentation of a handsome testimonial to Bannerman. Great commendation has been bestowed on the wicketkeeper, Blackham, who has almost reached perfection in his department of the game, and more than once astonished the visitors with his alacrity in taking the ball from the bowler. (Australasian Sketcher “Cricket Match” 14 April 1877: 7.)

South Australians looking for their own Caffyn, having seen, in the inaugural Test, the evidence of his good work on Bannerman:

Last Thursday a well-attended meeting of the South Australian Cricketing Association was held, and it was then decided that Messrs Lillywhite and Southerton should be requested to act as Agents for the Association in procuring a competent person as coach from England. The salary to be offered is £200 per annum, and the engagement is to be for three years. At the expiration of that term, if the coach prove suitable, he is to receive a bonus of £50, or else have his passage paid to England. This is a step in the right direction, and there is not likely to be any difficulty in raising the money required to pay his salary, as several gentlemen have already expressed their willingness to subscribe to a fund for the payment of a coach. The benefits to be derived from the engagement of such an official are so well known that there is no need for me to recapitulate them. That we have the makings of good cricketers among us may be seen by the Victorian and All-England Matches which have been played during the last month. Several of our young players only need to be told when they are playing incorrectly and how to play properly to become first-class cricketers. The general idea of the members at the meeting appeared to be that the person who acted as coach should be a young player who was already or was likely to become a first-class player. In my opinion a cricketer who is only a moderate player, but who has a thorough knowledge of the game, would be quite as capable of instructing our young players in the proper method of playing, as a rising young player with a reputation. Besides this the salary offered would be more likely to attract the former than the latter, who would probably like to gain some laurels on the English cricket fields. There is no doubt that whoever may be chosen by Messrs Lillywhite and Southerton he will be a person who will be able to perform his duties efficiently. (Cover-Point “Cricket Notes” South Australian Chronicle, 21 April 1877.)

The following is a review of the play of the All England, New South Wales, and Victorian teams, in the several matches from the year 1862 to 1877. The appended tables, showing at a glance the relative performances of the four English teams of cricketers as against New South Wales and Victoria, dating as far back as 1862 and reaching up to the present, year, 1877, will, no doubt, prove of especial interest to those of your readers who are partial to this great national pastime. It is not intended that the colonies should be taken as in contrast one with the other, but rather viewed collectively, as showing to what extent cricket has improved at both places, best evidenced by our gradual success against succeeding English teams. The first teams which visited us (Stephenson's and Parr's respectively, in the years 1862 and 1864) unquestionably in colonial cricket had much weaker play to contend against, and it was only the prospect of the visit of other English players which brought about an activity into our cricketing element, and perforce stronger local teams against succeeding elevens. This is manifest on reference to the New South Wales play given below in table No. 1, which varied and improved in the average runs per wicket from 4.32 to 9.4. Our declension in cricket, even noticeable on the visit of Parr's team, recovered greatly in the long interval, ten years, between the visit of Parr in 1864 and that of Mr. WG Grace in 1873, when a marked improvement became first visible in the New South Wales play, which rose to 7.2 runs per wicket, from 4.28—Victoria in the like interval showing much better, the difference in favour of that colony giving an increase of about 8 runs per wicket, or about 130 per cent. This improvement still further increased, for in the existing year (1877), as we know, New South Wales and Victoria separately encountered and defeated in every instance admittedly the best bowling team which ever left England, and to my thinking a superior collective batting team, notwithstanding opinions to the contrary, which are not at all reconcilable with their average English play lately referred to in the columns of the Sydney Mail. Indeed, for colonial cricketers to have defeated such a team even-handed, with undeniably their best average bowlers (Evans of New South Wales, and Allan of Victoria) not amongst their number—but withal an able representative in the coming' man, Kendall—would some weeks since have been a bold prediction, but having occurred is a circumstance in colonial history which will create as much astonishment when the news of it reaches home as it did here amongst even our most sanguine supporters. On reference to table No. 1 below, (showing the principal teams and their comparative successes, the average runs per wicket is adopted as tending to bring each individual player in all completed matches as near as possible upon equal terms. No. 1 Comparative Performances of All England, New South Wales, and Victorian Teams respectively [table] The batting powers of the English teams, taking the two colonies as the basis, are shown by above table to be as follows, and I therefore place the four English elevens in their order of merit thus: [table] The superiority of the play in 1877 over that of 1862 or 1864 will sufficiently counterbalance the difference in the number of local players which the Englishmen had to meet. Lillywhite's twelve hence (taking our improving cricket into account, and guided by the above figures) has held its own with preceding teams. Below I give a resume of the more important matches, embracing, however, only those played by the respective English teams in Sydney and Victoria, locally, and no doubt this table will prove very interesting. [table] The following are the names of the players who composed the respective English teams: HH Stephenson's—Messrs E. Stephenson, Bennett, Mudie, Griffiths, Caffyn, Iddison, Laurence, Sewell, Mortlock, Hearne, and Wells. G. Parr’s—Messrs Anderson, Caesar, Lockyer, Tarrant, Jackson, Tinley, Hayward, Carpenter, Caffyn, Clarke, and EM Grace. WG Grace's—Jupp, Greenwood, Gilbert, GF Grace, Oscroft, Humphrey, Lillywhite, M'Intyre, Bush, Southerton, and Boult. J. Lillywhite's—Jupp, Greenwood, Southerton, Ulyett, Hill, Armitage, Selby, Pooley, Shaw, Charlwood, and Emmett. Of the bowling a few words will suffice. To say that we have correspondingly improved in this would be superfluous. The relative progress in this department of the game may be best seen by reference to the following: [table] In the disparity of the English bowling average from 2.0 to 4.3 runs per wicket, no better proof can be given of the colonies' improvement in batting. Having this former in view we cannot, however, regard the averages given above as at all a fair criterion of the respective merits in contrasting one English team with the other. Having indeed regard to the circumstance of the improvement before mentioned, we may fairly award to Lillywhite's team as to bowling first place, and to the colonies, Now South Wales and Victoria first and second positions respectively. Leaving for the present statistics, I will now betake myself to the sequel. What effect our late achievement against Lillywhite’s team will have in the future upon our colonial players remains to be seen—this, I take it, in a not at all improbable visit from twelve gentlemen cricketers from England. For the information of the uninitiated or uninformed who may know nothing of the talent behind the scenes at home, I would briefly state that in two successive seasons (1875 and 1876) the gentlemen secured easy victories against the professional players (amongst whom were Shaw and some five others of the present English team), in the first instance winning by 202 runs, and in the latter year still easier by 98 runs in one innings. The victories in fact on the part of the gentlemen, with the exception of two seasons (one game being a draw), have been successive for ten years. To account for the successive defeats which have met Lillywhite's team, the reasonable presumption is (and only a fair one in contrasting the elevens) that it is not owing to the inferiority of the team of 1877, but simply to our improving cricket. Here, I may confidently say, lies in part the grand secret. A spirit of emulation amongst our cricketers of both colonies, and an ambition it may be to figure in more important contests, international or intercolonial, has undoubtedly brought about good results and a system of practice which has told against Mr Lillywhite’s men, leaving out of question the probable ill-effects of over-hospitality, which do haunt the English j players at every step. To those who would be disposed to draw disparaging comparisons between the present and preceding English teams, I would ask, in proof, what chance would Parr's team have now against eighteen of our local players? No greater in my opinion than that already experienced by the present English cricketers. A careful review of the preceding shows—what? That it is indeed to these periodical visits from the old country that we must in a great measure attribute our improvement, influenced to a certain extent by our intercolonial matches; but withal I am not so sanguine as some would have it, with the figures of the English players before me, that either colony could now, with the remembrance of late successes, meet on equal terms a picked English team, combined or otherwise, and with the like hopes of victory which attended the combination match of March last, which it must not be forgotten was won by an exhibition of individual play by C. Bannerman unprecedented in the annals of cricket—a victory, however, reversed by the English Eleven in the return combination match at Easter. In conclusion, that the colonies have done exceedingly well is beyond question, and that none will be found more willing to award them every credit than our friends “o’er the water” we may rest content. Taking 1862, what we were, and 1877, what we are, of our even-handed victory in March we should certainly be proud; but to hope just yet to follow this up, or to now meet England on equal terms, let our better sense rule, and teach us to adopt still yet “cariston metron,” not forgetting that “160’s and not outs” are not every-match occurrences, and that an over-estimate of our ability to go oft and do likewise may in the sequel bring us to the wall, giving us a practical conviction of the soundness of the quotation just mentioned. (Ironside “Cricket in the Colonies” Sydney Mail, 28 April 1877.)

The individual performances of the past season have been no wise behind those of previous years in excellence, and probably if anything the standard of play has been advanced if we may take the matches against the Englishmen as the test; and until Australia shall have usurped the position of premiership at cricket now occupied by the mother country no other mode of estimating our progress can be adopted, for there is no absolute standard at cricket, and so we must be continually striving. The cricket of now is an improvement on that of a decade back, and without saying that that of 1880 will show as marked an advance—for according to our present lights that is not possible—we can still anticipate that the play of our descendants will have advanced considerably nearer to that perfection for which we all strive, and which none will ever attain. (Point “Past Season” Leader, 26 May 1877.)

Australians are fast acquiring for themselves the reputation of being adepts in all games and sports pertaining to the British people. Not many years since England invariably carried off the palm against all comers in sports where pluck, skill, or endurance were the essentials to victory, but lately Australians have proved that they are not to be despised as rivals of the sons of the mother country. The rowing championship of the world won by Trickett, and the defeat of the All-England Eleven in the neighboring colonies, are proofs of this. In horseracing we in the Sonthern Hemisphere are quite as enthusiastic as are our relatives in the old country, and the times in which some of our fastest races have been run prove beyond a doubt that on the turf we may, or soon will, be able to hold our own. The thoroughly English game of cricket receives the warmest support of nearly every colonial, and in the sister colonies men are to be found who would be a credit to the best team England ever produced. As Australians we should be proud of such men as Bannerman, Horan, and Midwinter, who by their splendid cricketing abilities have shown that Englishmen will have to bestir themselves if they wish to retain their laurels as champions of the cricket field. Judging by the rapid strides the “noble game” has taken during the last few years in all the colonies, more especially in New South Wales and Victoria, we firmly believe that it will not be long before an Australian team of cricketers are sent to England, and that they will return as did Trickett, crowned with success. Negotiations have been already commenced for the departure of such a team. (South Australian Chronicle “Cricket in South Australia” 9 June 1877.)

Cricket has received a great impetus during the past season in consequence of two All England matches being played in the same season, and also an East Melbourne match. Although defeated, the South Australians exhibited considerable improvement since the visit of the previous All-England Eleven. The weak point was undoubtedly in batting, and in the want of confidence exhibited by most of the players on the colonial side. The fielding of our men in the first All-England match was very good, but in the return a great falling-off was perceptible. The same bad fielding was also noticeable in the match against the East Melbourne Eleven. This was the first time a Club Eleven has appeared on our shores, and since its return to Melbourne the members of the team have spoken in high terms of the welcome they received from South Australian Cricketers. Should the match prove an annual affair, as is deemed probable, it is to be hoped that such friendly feeling as existed in this match will always remain between the opposing teams. (South Australian Chronicle “Cricket in South Australia” 9 June 1877.)

Great surprise was expressed in Beechworth, when it became known that eleven Australians had defeated the All-England Eleven by 47 [sic] runs. The result proved the rapid advancement made in the game of late years, and Australia may be proud of being able to boast that she has thrashed the mother country both on the river and in the cricket field on equal terms.

Possibly spurred by outcome of the match:

LECTURE by JB THOMPSON (“Yorkshireman,” editor Cricketer's Guides), Melbourne Atheaeum, Wednesday, 21st March. Professor IRVING in the chair. Tickets, 2s. 6d.; schoolboys, 1s.

A lecture on Cricket will be delivered tonight, at the Athenaeum, by Mr JB Thompson. The chair is to be taken by Professor Irving, and as the lecturer's capacity to deal with the subject in an exhaustive manner is undoubted, the lecture will in all probability be of an exceedingly interesting character, more especially to those who patronise the game.

A lecture on the subject of “cricket” was delivered at the Athenaeum last evening by Mr JB Thompson. The chair was filled by Professor Irving. Mr Thompson pointed out that cricket was a game not much more than 150 years old, and he regretted that therefore he had been unable to find any allusions to it in Shakspeare [sic]. Attention was called to the many good qualities developed by the sports and the healthy exercise which it provided for the muscles of the body. No betting-men had been able to tamper with cricket, and he was proud to have it to say that no match had ever been sold on Australian ground. Great surprise had been felt by the English cricketers at the progress of the game in the colonies, and the present Eleven never expected to meet such strong teams as those which had been opposed to them in Melbourne and Sydney. The lecturer received a a [sic] vote of thanks, as also did the chairman.

Australians, and more particularly Victorians and New South Welshmen, have undoubted cause for congratulation in the grand victory their cricketers have just gained over Lillywhite's All-England Eleven. Played on even terms, on an excellent wicket, and with splendid weather throughout, it must be confessed that the Englishmen have been beaten on their merits. It is true that they began the match on the very next day after their somewhat rough sea voyage from New Zealand; that if they were to meet the same team again they might I think probably beat them; that the victory of the Australians was mainly due to the magnificent and hitherto unparalleled score of Bannerman; and that they had the best of the splendid wicket; but taking all these things and the glorious uncertainty of cricket into consideration, it must be admitted that the match just finished has been fairly contested throughout, and that the winners have undoubtedly proved themselves the best men. Perhaps the most unfortunate feature of the game was that Jupp, who was regarded as the mainstay of the Englishmen, should be given out leg before wicket in both innings. There is always a certain degree of regret and often unpleasantness in connection with such decisions, and especially when so much depends on the play of a single man, or when that man is a sure scorer like the renowned Surrey batsman. It is pretty generally known that Jupp makes a practice of standing before his wicket, and the knowledge of this fact would lead to less sympathy being shown towards him. While saying this, however, I do not wish it to be understood that I am imputing unfairness to the umpires who officiated in the match—Messrs Curtis Reid and Terry—who are highly respected here. I am merely recording the fact, and expressing regret at the contingency which arose. One decision much commented on, and that may have been a mistake, was that by which Ulyett's brilliant life in the first innings was suddenly and most unexpectedly to himself cut short by a call of lbw. As the details of the match have already appeared in the Register, I propose in this article merely to give a brief resume of the leading features or incidents in connection with it. ANTICIPATIONS AND ABSENT BOWLERS Prior to the beginning of the match few were sanguine enough to believe that the Australian Eleven would defeat the English professionals, especially as Allan, of Victoria, and Evans and Spofforth, of New South Wales, had declined to play. Allan is admitted on all hands to be the best bowler in the colonies; indeed, his title of "the bowler of the century" shows that by many of his admirers he is regarded as superior even to Shaw, the great Nottingham trundler, who rejoices in the title which he has so well deserved of “the bowler of the age." Evans is considered only second to Allan so far as colonial talent is concerned, and it was therefore feared with these cracks absent the Australian Eleven would cut a sorry figure. The greatest possible indignation was expressed at the conduct of Allan, who at the last moment and after the necessary furlough had been obtained for him, left his colleagues in the lurch by declining to come because—forsooth! he wanted to remain at his home at Warrnambool to see his friends who visited the district during its carnival week, which occurred at the same time. Most of the papers have passed very severe strictures on his conduct, and the Argus has suggested that in future he should be regarded as having retired, having always been such an uncertain man. This advice is to be acted upon in the return match, and the name of Allan was received with groans and hisses at the close of the match, when the colonial players who had distinguished themselves were receiving the loud and hearty plaudits of the excited crowd. The refusal of the Sydney men was not so unreasonable; and met with no outward tokens of disapprobation. THE GROUND AND THE ATTENDANCE As the Melbourne Cricket Club Ground, where the match was played, has of late been considerably improved, it may interest South Australians to read a few words descriptive of it. It is round in shape, and not quite so large as the Adelaide Oval. It is, however, an exceedingly pretty ground, surrounded on all sides by elms as well as native trees, and on the side of it nearest Melbourne is a very handsome Grand Stand capable of seating about fifteen hundred people, and said to have cost about £6,000 or £7,000. It has been proposed to so arrange the seats that the Stand can be used not only for its present purpose, but also for spectators anxious to witness the football matches which take place on the reserves outside the cricket ground and to the back of the present structure. The elm-trees planted on the ground afford capital shade to the spectators, and similar ones would prove a decided improvement to the Adelaide Oval. In one respect, however, the Victorian Association might take a lesson from South Australia, and have their ground fenced up to such a height that “outside” spectators could not get, as they now can, as good a view of the game as the more liberal individuals who have paid their couple of shillings each. As a caution to the hundreds who on great matches climb the gum-trees outside the Adelaide Oval, it may be mentioned that one youth on the first day of the recent match here dropped from his “free seat" in one of the eucalypti, and had to be admitted into the Melbourne Hospital soon afterwards. The character of the public attendance on the Melbourne Cricket Club Ground each day was quite a commentary on the prospects of the colonial team. As these prospects brightened the crowd increased; as it diminished the crowd became less. The match began on Thursday, March 15, and continued till Monday. The attendance on the first day was wretched—worse than it would have been in Adelaide—the ostensible reason being that the Australian combined team had not much chance of success. On that day Bannerman turned the scale by scoring 126 runs not out. Next afternoon the spectators had increased in number from 2,500 to 4,000 or 5,000. On Saturday, the Englishmen being behind the Australians, the attendance increased to 10,000, and the scene was brilliant in the extreme. It should, however, be remembered that the day was St. Patrick's Day, and observed as a general holiday. On Monday the Englishmen had a little advantage and the attendance fell again to 2,000 or 3,000; though at 3 o'clock the price of admission was reduced to 1s. An attempt was made to secure a similar reduction on St. Patrick's Day, but the attempt failed. The Grand Stand has, in my opinion, been built too high—with a large promenade, suggestive of a betting ring—in front; and on each day excepting Saturday it presented quite “a beggarly array of empty benches." Some clever scamps had counterfeited a number of members' tickets, and the Association were defrauded of a considerable sum in this way. They locked the door when the steed was stolen. THE PLAY: THE BATTING With this victory, which will ever stand out as a prominent landmark in the annals of cricket, will always be associated the name of Charles Bannerman, of Sydney, whose score of 165 (not out), is one of which Grace or any batsman who ever lived might feel justly proud. He is to be rewarded by a public subscription, and no man more deserves it. The testimonial already promises to be one of considerable value. Besides this he won an anonymous prize of five guineas for the best batsman. In the correct card "sold (and printed) on the ground[”] the uninitiated public were informed that Bannerman “was the prettiest and most brilliant bat in the team; has a stubborn defence, and is a great punisher of loose bowling." All this the great Sydney man deserves; more could scarcely be said. He went in first, and retired hurt after eight wickets had fallen; so that in all probability he would, but for the unfortunate accident, have carried out his bat with nearly 200 runs to his credit. He was batting the greater part of the two days—of about four and a half playing hours each—and his exhibition of true cricket, fine defence, with spirited and scientific hitting on both sides, has never been equalled by an Australian. Lillywhite's own testimony that he never saw a finer innings is worth much, and is well deserved. At first Bannerman did not seem at home against Shaw; but afterwards he played him with impunity, making some good forward drives off him to the chains. It is a notable fact that the “great batsman” had two exceedingly narrow escapes—one at the beginning of his first innings, when, according to Southerton, "a piece of tissue paper could not have been got between a ball from Shaw and his wicket," [the reporter clearly saw Southerton’s account before it was published] and in the second innings when he gave Shaw a catch which a taller man would have easily taken. Horan, who is shortly to do duty on the Adelaide Oval, did the next best service for Australia, and played two splendid innings. He scored 12 and 20, and had the misfortune in the first innings to be caught off a real bumpy ball, and in the second “in a place where no fieldsman usually is placed,[”] and where Selby would not have been but that in keeping the wickets he bad more discretion than valour, and went a long way behind the wickets while the bowling was fast. Horan has a beautiful style of batting—free all round, and seemed quite at home with Shaw and the other English cracks. As the full scores are appended, I shall not enter into further details. Garrett, the University man from Sydney, is a pretty bat, and played very freely in the first innings. The Gregorys did not come off in their old style. Midwinter, who seems quite a favourite among “the outer crowd," played grandly in his second innings for 17, and in his first effort was proceeding to do such prodigious work as only a giant or a perfect Hercules can do when he was magnificently caught by Ulyett within an inch or two of the pavilion fence. A grand cheer greeted the hit; but the catch, for which Ulyett had to run as well as “get back," elicited a perfect storm of cheers. Speaking generally, the Australians batted remarkably well, though some of them potted a few balls in uncricketer-like style. Among the Englishmen Jupp carried off the palm, scoring 63, after, however, receiving an extra lease of life. To make up for this he was l.b.w.'d almost before scoring in the second innings. His innings was characteristic of the man—stubborn and careful generally, but very decisive at times. He made a few grand hits along the carpet. Charlwood was the “next favourite," as favouritism goes. I need hardly say his two innings were brilliant. His score of 36 in the first innings was obtained without a chance, and was characterized by some grand hits. Selby or Ulyett perhaps showed the best style of free and yet true cricket, though Selby was a trifle "uppish" at times. Their scores are the best commentary on their play. Both tried hard to make runs when most needed in the second innings, and when the third wicket had fallen with nearly a hundred runs to get all hope died in the breasts of the English sympathizers. Hill played a very free innings for his 35 not out, and seemed to be able to hit at everything with impunity. THE BOWLING Though Bannerman spoiled Shaw's average considerably, the great Nottingham bowler has come off best among his compeers with eight wickets to his credit. Hill has the best average with two wickets for 20 runs, but the palm must undoubtedly be awarded to Shaw, though his average per wicket cost 11 runs. Ulyett bowled remarkably well, especially in the second innings, when he literally “stuck the batsmen up," and obtained three wickets for 39 runs. For several overs none of the players seemed able to understand him, but the match has most undoubtedly proved that "head bowling” rather than force is most required to get wickets against such first-class batsmen as Australia can now boast. The veteran Southerton bowled well in the first innings. The silver cup given by the proprietors of the Australasian for the most successful bowler has been awarded to Kendall, who proved himself by far the most useful of the six men who were tried in this department. To him was due the wonderful surprise which those who only saw Saturday's play would experience when reading on Tuesday morning that the tide of victory had turned against the Englishmen. In the second innings he captured seven wickets for 55 runs. His average was reduced by his performance in the first innings, when he only got one wicket for 54 runs. Hodges had the best analysis. The Argus this morning, speaking on the subject, says—"Kendall became the winner of the silver cup. He bowled eight wickets for an average of 13'6 runs each. Hodges had actually the best average—11.3 runs per wicket —but he howled such a small number of balls compared with Kendall—less than one-fourth— that he would not allow himself to be named in competition with his friend and colleague." This was magnanimous on the part of Hodges, and quite unlike what took place after the All-England match in Adelaide, when the average alone was allowed to decide the question. Midwinter, the giant, who, by the way, has become professional for the M.C.C., bowled very skilfully in the first innings, and captured five out of the ten wickets for 78 runs. He has a fine high delivery, medium pace, and breaks well from the off. THE FIELDING In this department the Englishmen proved incomparably better than the Australians, who, however, had the excuse of not having been drilled together. Many were the runs stolen by the Englishmen—particularly Jupp, Selby, and Emmett—for hits that did not send the ball a dozen yards—scarcely half-a-dozen sometimes—from the bat. Several runs were obtained for balls that were blocked almost dead, and which only went three or four yards between the two wickets. The batsmen were always on the lookout for this run-stealing, and not one of the Englishmen was run out. The Argus, commenting on this point on the day after the match, says the Australians have yet a very great deal to learn on this point. Undoubtedly they have. They allowed a few runs to be made by overthrows, but on the whole their fielding was excellent. There were a few exceptions—and Horan was guilty of one or two—but most of the players who fumbled a ball soon made up for the offence by extraordinary smartness in some other direction. Blackham at the wickets deserves particular mention, and is going to receive what will be still more gratifying to him—namely, a public presentation for his grand wicket-keeping. There was a great deal of "blowing" about him, and not a few persons declared that he was Pooley's superior. I could not see it, though he was infinitely better titan Selby, Pooley's substitute on the occasion, who did not keep up to the wickets when the bowling was fast, and who missed at least two chances. Ulyett, perhaps, displayed most activity in fielding at deep positions; though another Yorkshireman, Emmett, outrivalled him in the number of catches made. It was highly amusing to notice the cat-like way in which Emmett at mid-on crept up behind the batsmen who were playing Shaw's bowling. In this way he succeeded in one innings in catching three men who found difficulty in deciding how to play the deceptive Nottingham bowler. Greenwood fielded well at long on; but so indeed did all the Englishmen in their respective positions. VICTORIAN AND NEW SOUTH WADES REPRESENTATIVES The batting strength of the combined team proved to be in New South Wales—thanks to the grand score made by Bannerman. It is a noteworthy fact, however, that the other four New South Welshmen—the two Gregorys, Garrett, and Thompson—only scored 20 amongst them in the first innings; and that in the second innings the five Sydney men only scored 26. In the matter of bowling the chief credit goes to Victoria, notwithstanding the absence of Allan, and both Kendall and Hodges will in future be regarded in a light less obscure. RETURN MATCH It had been arranged that the Englishmen should play 15 Victorians at Easter, on the M.C.C. Ground, but now that the Australian Eleven has proved too much for the English professionals, the match on that occasion—the same days as the East Melbourne men will be playing at Adelaide—will be made a return of the present one, with the addition, if possible, of Evans, the great New South Wales bowler. As already stated, Allan is not to be asked. The return, with Evans, is likely to prove even more interesting than the match just ended, and it may end either way. Personally I am inclined to think that, despite the weakness of the “tail end" of the English team, Lillywhite's All-England Eleven will prove the victors next time, especially if they go in first, and have the best of the ground. Still the recent defeat will show any Englishman who intends to bring out an All-England Eleven in future that he must bring one stronger in batting power—the great weakness of the present team. The match just ended will not only be the beginning of a new era in the annals of cricket iu Australia, but it will in all probability prove of incalculable benefit as an indirect means of making known to the people of the old country something concerning the advancement of Australia and her people, as well as their prowess in the cricket field.

Cricket is drawing to a dose. The AEE leave today (the 10th) for Adelaide where they play a final match, going on to the old country from there by the mail. They played two matches here against Australian elevens; they were beaten in the first by 45 runs, but won the second by four wickets. Neither Evans of Sydney, nor Allan, played in either match, but Spofforth played in the second. The Eleven were fortunate in the weather, Easter time being particularly fine, and the pecuniary results of their trip, notwithstanding some mismanagement, most be very satisfactory. In the first match, Bannerman of Sydney, scored 165 not out by most brilliant play; he was compelled to retire hurt on the band by one of Ulyett’s cannon shots. The total of the Australian score was 245. Against this, from the bowling of Kendall (V.), Hodges (V.), Midwinter (V.), the Eleven only got 196, of which Jupp got 63, Charlwood 36, Hill 35. In the second innings the colonials only scored 104, Horan, 20, being the highest figure. The AEE went in to wipe off 153, which they failed to do, scoring only 106. Selby 38, Ulyett 24, and Charlwood 13, being the highest figures. In this match the proprietors of this journal offend a handsome silver cup for the best bowling performance on the colonial aide, and the trophy was won by Kendall. The second match, also against [page 466] eleven Australians, was played on Saturday, Easter Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and a most pleasant match it was. Australia went in first and made 122, to which England responded with 261. Australia not to be best made 259 in their second hands, leaving England 121 to win. Before they could obtain this number, Jupp, 1; Selby, 2; Greenwood, 22; Charlwood, 10; Emmett, 3; Ulyett, 63; were all got rid of, but Hill played a good innings of 17 not out, and he and Shaw carried out their bats. It is evident from the result of these matches that the present Eleven are not strong enough to play a combined Australian team, as it would have been a very near thing with them in the second match had the bowling been better managed, as three wickets—Jupp, Selby, and Charlwood—were down for 9 runs. Ulyett undoubtedly won the match by his dashing play, but the bowling was awfully bungled. The Eleven have also played at Ballarat, Sandhurst, and Ararat, but these matches have only local interest Pooley was acquitted at Christchurch, where he had been detained on a charge of damaging property. His absence in the two matches was a great loss to the Eleven.

There were 133 births and 82 deaths in Melbourne and the suburbs during the week ending March 3. Of the total deaths, 39, or about 29½ per cent, were of children not exceeding the age of 3 years, 35 being under the age of one year. [Find the equivalent figures for nine months after the inaugural Test.]

“Australia’s win in the inaugural Test aroused terrific excitement throughout the land, leading to their maiden tour to England the following year. Although no match on that tour is regarded as a Test, the Australians played 15 first-class games and caused a huge stir when they beat MCC at Lord’s in a single day. Bannerman was the tourists’ best batsman, with 566 runs at 20.96 and a top score of 61 against the Players. In those days, sizeable scores were rare on uncovered pitches liable to shooters and oddities of bounce.” When English tours of Australia had commenced, not two decades ago, Australian cricket had been a gentle steed. But how it reared and teared now. A match that sparked few vivid recollections, even among those whose recollections are usually remarkable for their vividness. Tom Horan would always remember the events of 1878 and 1882 with a vividness that came both from their drama and from a lifetime of recounting them. Of 1877 he wrote very little.

It may be permitted to the Australians to take some little credit to themselves for the signal victory which they have just gained over the English cricketers. Forty-five is a large majority for mere colonials to have gamed in a well-fought cricket-field against the pick of English professionals. So far as we can recol-lect, English cricketers have never be-fore played outside England on equal terms and been beaten. In Australia they have before now played teams exceeding themselves in numerical force with varying results, but the match just concluded is the only one in which an English eleven has contended with an equal number of opponents not of Eng-lish birth and met defeat. Of course it may be said that Lillywhite's eleven now in Australia is not the best possible English eleven, and it is certain that it does not comprise all the very beat English batsmen, since a very large proportion of these is always to be found among the gentlemen players, who are not always available for travelling teams. But our visitors number in their ranks the best English bowlers and fieldsmen, which is much, while it has also to be borne in mind that the combined team that was opposed to them did not include the whole of the best cricketing talent of Austialia. Three of our best bowlers, Evans, Spofforth, and Allan, were absent, and one of our best bats, Bannerman, was disabled in the first innings. So far as the statistics of the contest show Sydney had the best of us in batting, through the splendid performance of Banner-man in the Australians' first innings; but some of our own men also handled the willow with excellent effect, when we remember the quality of the oppo-nents they had to face. And on the other hand, the bowling of our Kendall, Midwinter, and Hodges was above all praise. [Remarkable how often this point is made. Intercolonial rivalries much stronger than the rivalry with England.] Either of these three bowlers would elicit the highest commendation of the most fastidious cricket cognoscenti in the world by such play as they showed during the match just concluded. Australia has every reason to be deeply gratified by the results of the match, though, of course, the issue is no sufficient reason why our cricketers should not strive after a still higher degree of excellence and skill than they have yet exhibited.

The combination cricket match ended yesterday in a victory for the colonial team by 45 runs. The English eleven had a good prospect before them when they com-menced their second innings, but met with a succession of mishaps, which the ad-mirers of the colonial players will consider fully explained by the excellent bowling of Kendall, and the well-timed aid which was rendered by Hodges. The former carried off the silver cup which was awarded by the pro-prietors of The Australasian to the best bowler in the Australian eleven. None were taken more by surprise by the result of the match than the Englishmen. Whether or not they had any bets on the match them-selves we don't know, but they were heavily backed by their friends, and £100 was the amount of one wager laid with a supporter of Australian talent. Fair progress has been made with the collection of a sum of money for presentation to Bannerman. Such was the effect of the victory that it was deter-mined that the match to be commenced on the M.C.C. ground in the Easter week shall be on the same terms as the present one, namely, eleven aside. An effort may be put forth to secure the presence of Evans, but Allan will not be asked to play. The match will be commenced on Saturday after Good Friday, and continued on Easter Monday and Tuesday. It will, as much as possible, be made a return of the match which was finished yesterday. The All England Eleven play at Sand-hurst to-day, to-morrow, and on Thursday. On Friday they begin a three days' match at Ballarat; and on Tuesday and Wednesday next week play at Ararat. In each case the local players will be represented by 22.

A lecture on the popular subject of cricket is announced tobe delivered at the Athenæum to-morrow evening by Mr. J. B. Thompson. The lecturer's intimate acquaintance with the subject and long experience in the cricket field should enable him to treat the topic in an interesting manner. Professor Irving will occupy the chair.

"Today's Doodle hits the deck with a light-hearted rendering that captures the spirit of sportsmanship and the inaugural Test match," Google said.

Yesterday – 15th of March, 2017. As we woke up in the morning and stared into our smartphones, Google greeted us with a lovely doodle – after all exactly 140 years ago, in 1877, the first ever Test match was played between England and Australia. Most cricket fanatics would have immediately clicked on the doodle which led to a plethora of articles and scorecards, depicting the happenings of a sunny afternoon at Melbourne when the English team - conspicuous by the absence of the legendary Dr. W.G. Grace - took on the Australians. Here’s presenting seven things you need to know about the very first International Test match played in the history of mankind - #1 An all professional English Team In those days, the cricketing scene in England saw heavy rivalries between two factions – one who played cricket full-time and called themselves the “professionals” and one who played cricket along with their other full-time jobs, more out of passion and entertainment, aptly named as the “amateurs”. Funnily enough, the amateurs on average were much better players – Dr. W.G. Grace – being a leading example. The captain, all-rounder James Lillywhite, apparently having learnt valuable lessons from infighting during previous tours, preferred to tour Australia with an all-professional line-up of just 12 cricketers. #2 England’s first choice wicket-keeper jailed for assault Ted Pooley – the truant wicket-keeper England’s first choice wicketkeeper Ted Pooley had to miss the historic first test match, largely due to his affinity towards gambling. The English team had a brief stopover in New Zealand where a lot of unofficial cricket matches were organised for the tourists, often featuring more than eleven players in the opposition. The culture of betting, based on the individual scores of batsmen, was quite common at that time and Pooley, who never missed a chance of making easy money, put his money on all batsmen representing the Canterbury side, scoring 0. By coincidence, eleven batsmen ended up doing exactly that – but what of course didn’t help Pooley’s case was, that he himself stood as an umpire in that match – convenient, wasn’t it? Needless to say, a brawl ensued and Pooley was left languishing in a Christchurch jail, while the rest of his teammates scripted history. #3 A united Australian team The united Australian XI Australian cricket, at that time, also had their fair share of problems – due to the continual tiffs between Victoria and New South Wales. With much difficulty, a combined Australian XI comprising of established players from both sides was put together. However, as soon as Frederick Spofforth - Australia’s leading fast bowler at that time – came to know that Jack Blackham of Victoria has been chosen as wicketkeeper over his New South Wales teammate Billy Murdoch, he backed out. The selectors however, were able to rope in quick replacements, which resulted in a united Australian team for the first time ever – which is one of the key reasons, why this match was designated in due course as the first International Test Match. #4 The many “firsts” alfred shaw The first delivery in Test cricket was bowled by Alfred Shaw of England The first delivery in Test cricket was bowled by Alfred Shaw of England and was faced by the legendary Australian opener Charles Bannerman. The first ball was a dot and the first run came from the next delivery off Bannerman’s blade. Bannerman went on to score Test cricket’s first century, but unfortunately also became the first batsman to retire hurt, when he broke the index finger on his right hand just after lunch on Day 2. As a result, W. Newing, got the opportunity to become the first ever substitute fielder in a Test match. Allen Hill of England claimed the very first Test wicket when he bowled Australia’s Nathaniel Thompson – and also took the very first catch in Test cricket to dismiss T. P. Horan off Alfred Shaw’s bowling. Australian captain Dave Gregory was the first cricketer to be run out in the Test match, while his brother Ned Gregory earned the dubious distinction of scoring the first duck later in the innings. In England’s first innings, Australian medium pacer Midwinter picked up Test cricket’s first ever five-wicket haul, and in England’s second innings, wicket-keeper Blackham claimed the first Test match stumping. #5 Mid-match betting and more! Charles Bannerma Charles Bannerman: First centurion Charles Bannerman wouldn’t have gone on to score 165 had it not been for English all-rounder Thomas Armitage, who made a mess of a simple catch, resulting in the ball hitting his tummy. Armitage apparently having felt immensely guilty, placed a bet with his captain Lillywhite that he would score a fifty – but made a mere 9 and 3 in the match. Another notable incident involved England’s second choice wicket-keeper Harry Jupp, who was forcibly included to ensure the English had a playing eleven, as his eye inflammation rendered him unable to keep wickets in this match. Jupp made up for his absence as a wicket-keeper by scoring England’s first Test fifty, but not before he had accidently stepped onto his stumps – something which both umpires failed to notice – resulting in an extra life for him before he became Test cricket’s first LBW victim to Thomas William Garrett’s bowling. #6 Golden Match Rewards Blackham Blackham – A career kick-started by Pooley’s absence As was the custom, the “gate money” – money collected from the spectators was equally divided between both the sides and England by virtue of their loss received just that and managed to just break even. The Australians, who won by 45 runs, were of course richly rewarded – each player was presented with a gold watch by the Victoria Cricket Association. The public also pooled in to present a lump sum to Bannerman for his century, medium pacer Thomas Kendall for his 7 wicket riot in England’s second innings and wicket-keeper Blackham for his astute keeping behind the stumps. #7 140-year-old Records! James Southerton James Southerton – Test cricket’s oldest debutant Two records still stand from the very first Test match ever played. One involves the lone centurion Bannerman whose score of 165, laced with 18 boundaries and lasting 290 minutes meant that he scored 67.3% of his side’s runs. The record came under severe threat by his compatriot Michael Slater 122 years later, when he scored 123 of Australia’s 184 during the fifth Ashes Test match of 1999. While statistically speaking, there is a fair possibility of this record getting broken sometime in future, the other record of oldest Test debutant seems to rest permanently with James Southerton – who walked into the first ever Test match to be played, aged 49 years and 119 days.

The wicket was “excellent” the weather “splendid” and the crowds came in droves. On that first day of the first cricket Test match between England and Australia, 140 years ago today, the colonial team faced the best the Mother Country had to offer and knocked up a 166 for six wickets on the first day. A lot of the credit went to opener Charles Bannerman who scored 126 of those runs. Bannerman was possibly Australia’s best batsmen at the time, our first Test hero and the first to score a century in a Test match. While his career would later be cut short by illness, he will always hold an important place in Australian cricket history. Despite being such a legend of the game in Australia, Bannerman was actually born in Woolwich in Kent, England in 1851. His family migrated to Australia when he was young but he soon took to his adopted land. He first made his name playing cricket for Sydney’s Warwick Cricket Club and was trained by former Surrey great William “Billy” Caffyn. By 1871 Bannerman was playing professionally and was good enough to be selected for a NSW team to play a Victorian side. He played in several other representative sides over the next few years, including a combined colonies team against the Victorians in 1873. One newspaper reported that while he played “exceedingly well” in that match, he had a “too great anxiety to score” and could do with a bit more defensive play. Back then cricket was a very different game, with four-ball overs, underarm bowling was still common and a hit over the fence was only worth five runs. The amateur game was also considered the purest form of cricket and when James Lillywhite gathered professional players together to tour Australia in 1876-77, most of England’s best players, who were all amateurs, including the great W.G. Grace, declined to take part. Australia was keen to test its mettle against an English side for the first time on equal terms. Before then colonial teams had usually been allowed to field extra players to even things out, but now it would be an even contest with teams battling it out for national pride. However, the English side was at a slight disadvantage; they had lost their specialist wicketkeeper Ted Pooley, a compulsive gambler who had to be left behind in New Zealand after getting into a brawl over a disputed bet. The first match was played at the MCG, starting on March 15, 1877. Bannerman, who faced the first ball, went on to score 126 on the first day (the first Test century on debut). On day two he added 39 runs before a split finger forced him to retire hurt for 165 — still the highest first innings score on debut by an Australian batsman. Australia’s total was 245 and they went on to win the match by 45 runs. After Bannerman’s stunning performance, a meeting was convened at Punch’s Hotel, chaired by barrister Edmund Barton (who later became our first prime minister), to “devise some means of recognition of Bannerman’s performances”. A subscription was taken up for a testimonial for the cricketer, netting him £100. Bannerman went on the first official tour of England by an Australian team in 1878 and became the first Australian to score a century in England. But that was his last time representing Australia against England. Officially he was never selected again because of illness. But rumours suggested he did not enjoy the fame that went with being such a high profile sporting hero. He is said to have racked up debts from his gambling and problems with alcohol. He continued to play for NSW until 1888 and later became a coach and umpire, but he was never able to capitalise on his fame. In 1920 when the first cricket match anywhere in the world was broadcast on radio it was played as a benefit to raise money for the impoverished former Test star.He died in 1930, but not long before his death he was at the SCG when Don Bradman scored 452 not out in a Sheffield Shield game for NSW against Queensland. The two met and were photographed shaking hands, two of the greats of the game.

As the Australians recently won the rubber against England after five very exciting games, it is interesting to recall the first Test match, at Melbourne, March, 1877. I remember it as though it were to-day. It was thought presumption in some quarters for the Australians to play Eng-land on even terms when the match was arranged. Those of that opinion said, "Now you will see the conceit taken out of the Kangaroo." A very strong team was selected, viz., C. Bannerman (the then champion batsman of Australia), Dave Gregory, Nat Thomson, E. Gregory, T. W. Garrett (N.S.W.), T. Horan, B. B. Cooper, J. M. Blackham, T. Kendall, J. Hodges, W. Midwinter (Victoria). F. R. Spofforth was also selected, but it was said he re-fused to play because Murdoch was not selected, being of opinion that no one else could take his bowling. Whether this was true I know not, but Spofforth did not play. Dave Gregory was unanimously elected captain, and winning the toss Australia went to the wickets. The great feature of the first innings was the magnificent bat-ting of Charlie Bannerman, who made 165 unconquered, having to retire through an injury. He went in first, remained at the wickets all that day, scoring 126 out of a total of 166 for six wickets, the match not starting on the first day till 1 o'clock. His batting was a revelation to all who witnessed it, and though I have seen many fine innings, this one of Banner-man I think, under the circumstances, was the best I ever saw. Against the best bowling of England he never seemed in difficulty, and scored off all the bowlers brought against him with equal facility. Lillywhite, the English captain, rang the changes again and again, but Bannerman, by brilliant cricket on that day, was the master of them. He cut, drove, and hit to leg and other parts of the field without apparent exertion, four after four follow-ing in rapid succession. His batting caused great excitement, and the follow-ing day a large crowd was there early to see him continue. He soon got to work, and by the same brilliant play piled on the runs at a rapid rate, till he had reached 165, and looked good for 200, when Ulyett, who was bowling very fast and short and getting the ball up high, struck him on the middle finger of the right hand, and he had to retire suffering great pain. It was believed he would be able to come in again, but the injury was more serious than imagined, cutting right into the bone. The innings closed for 245. The only other double figure scorers were Gar-rett 19 not out, Blackham 17, Cooper 15, Horan 12. Shaw got three wickets for 51, and Southerton three wickets for 61. Shaw, Southerton, and Lillywhite the same day told me that they had never seen a finer and more brilliant innings than Bannerman's at any time, and not even the great master, W. G. Grace, had ever played a more brilliant innings. A testimonial was got up for Bannerman, which realised £165, a pound a run, a fitting tribute to a great and masterly performance. England, in their first effort, made 196, Jupp playing a good innings for 63, Charl-wood 36, and Hill 35 not out ably assist-ing. Midwinter bowled well, taking five for 78, Garrett two for 22, Thomson one for 14, Hodges one for 27, Kendall one for 54. Australia in their second innings made 104, Horan playing well for 20, Mid-winter 17, Kendall a plucky innings for 17 not out, E. Gregory 11. Bannerman, who had not recovered from his injury, was bowled by Ulyett for 4. Shaw took five for 38, Ulyett three for 39, Hill one for 18, Lillywhite one for 1. England had only to make 154 runs, which seomed an easy task, but the Aus-tralians bowled and fielded so well that they could only make 108, and Australia won the first Test match ever played be-tween England and Australia on even terms by 45 runs, amidst the most in-tense excitement. Selby, with 38, Ulyett 24 were the only double figure scorers. Kendall was in deadly form with the ball, taking seven for 55, Hodges two for 7, Midwinter one for 23. In justice to the Englishmen one must state they were heavily handicapped through the absence of Pooley, their regu-lar wicket-keeper, who had not returned from New Zealand, and Selby kept wickets in hla place. The result of this groat victory was brought about by the brilliant batting of Bannerman, the splendid bowling of Mid-winter, Kendall, Hodges, and Garrett, the magnificent wicket-keeping of Blackham, and the excellent captaincy of Dave Gre-gory, bucked up by really good fielding of the whole team. "What will they say in England?" was the general thought at the time.

THE testimonial being arranged for Archie Jackson by the sportsmen of Balmain makes one wonder why the times have changed in such matters. In the days of yore the feat of the colt would have been recognised promptly by those who witnessed the inspiring things, in the match. It was so when Charlie Bannerman made cricketers sit up as he smote the English bowling so hard and often in the first Test match over 50 years ago.

• Charles Banner-man was born in Kent, England, on July 3, 1851. At 77 years of age he is as keen on cric-ket as ever. One of the three mem-bers of the pioneer Australian Eleven still living, he has very keen eyesight, and follows play closely without the aid of glasses.

No one derives greater pleasure from watching the young cricketers making good than this old champion, who has occupied the same pavilion seat for many years at big cricket. He is an ardent admirer of Brad-man, Jackson, Marks, Fairfax, and other young ones. * Led to the First Team Abroad Some years later, when Charlie Ban-nerman wrote a very graphic page in our cricket history, by making 165 in the first Test match between England and Australia, Dave Scott described it as "the most brilliant cricket ever played on the Melbourne Ground. It did not mat-ter who was bowling (he said), Banner man scored off them all freely. In one over from Armitage he got 16 off four balls. There is no knowing how many he would, have made had he not met with an unfortunate accident, his forefinger being split by a fast ball bowled by Ulyett, and he had to retire, uncon-quered. "I was on the ground," said Dave, "and the impression his batting made has remained on my mind as one of the most brilliant innings I ever saw. It was a revelation. A testimonial was at once started on his behalf. It was so well supported that £165— or £1 a run was raised and presented to the genial Charlie." There is little doubt that this in-hings of Bannerman gave Mr. Jack Conway and other leading crickets the idea of organising the first team for England.

VICTORIA AND NEW SOUTH WALES MATCH STARTING TO-DAY BEARS ON SHEFFIELD SHIELD AUSTRALIANS APPEARING FOR N.S.W.: PONSFORD AND RYDER PENALISED BY V.C.A.: IS IT TOO ARBITRARY? (By "NOT OUT.") The troubles of cricket in Sydney may be thrust into the back-ground to-day by the game itself. Victoria, with all its laurels thick, tackles New South Wales in the return match. Unfortunately, Victoria is shorn of some of its brightest stars. Everyone would have looked for-ward with ardor to seeing W. M. Woodfull and W. H. Ponsford, as well as J. Ryder, at the wickets. The achievements of Ponsford, especially since his return from Eng-land, have been sensational. When such a batsman is at the top of his form, he is fascinating to the crowds, and Ponsford, at his best on the Sydney wicket, has always shown most admirable cricket. It is to be sincerely deplored that the V.C.A. has seen fit to decline to permit Ponsford and Ryder to play for their clubs in three matches during the ab-sence of the Interstate team. It implies a reflection on the spirit of the players, that no reasonable sportsman will be inclined to accept as true. The two men have given so much time to the game within the past twelve months, that something must be due to their own affairs. IT is possible that the Sheffield Shield match starting to-day may provide a spirited finish on Saturday afternoon; that is, on the fourth day. If so, the Saturday crowds will see something unusual, though earlier in the season Queens-land provided a few spicy things to while away the time of the hillsiders. The return to the home eleven of a number of the Australians makes the match more interesting than it would otherwise have been. The piling up of over one thousand runs by Victoria in the Melbourne match might have deprived this one of all interest to the public if the personnel of the teams had been practically similar. As things stand, however, New South Wales should possess a good chance of turning the tables with anything like well-balanced luck. The wicket is not covered after the start of the match, as is the case in Melbourne, and possibly this may bring in the old element of the weather playing a part by providing a wicket to assist the bowler. The New South Wales team to-day comprises: H. L. Collins (capt.), C. G. Macartney, A. Mailey, W. A. Oldfield, J. M. Taylor, S. C. Everett, A. F. Kippax, R. McNamee, N. Fox, A. Jackson, N. Phillips, G. Morgan (12th). W. Bards-ley, T. J. Andrews, and J. M. Gregory were not available. It will be the first appearance of most of the Australians since their return from England. Most of these players have practised keenly, and look bright and well. Their zest for cricket has not been dimmed by re-cent controversies, in which they have taken no part, but in which they have been represented as dissatisfied with the Board of Control's allotment of the bonus. Later news is that H. L. Collins, suf-fering from a recurrence of the shoulder trouble (neuritis) from which he suf-fered in England, is not available. G. Morgan takes his place, and D. Seddon is twelfth man. C. G. Macartney, who will captain the side, led them in the first two home matches, in which they were defeated. In the three matches away, A. Kippax, as leader, had two wins and a defeat. "C.G." is thus provided with an opportunity of pulling the side through to victory for the first time in a home match this season. It is to be hoped H. L. Collins will soon get rid of the shoulder trouble; it was very severe in England. The players have practised zealously in the last two weeks, and should be in fair to good form. The Victorian team consists of H. L. Hendry (c.), J. Ellis (v.c.), D. Blackie, A. E. Liddicut, A. Morton, K. Rigg, F. King, F. Baring, B. Davie, J. Mullett, K. Millar, and Salvana. It will be novel to see Victoria led by a former Sydney man in H. L. Hendry. F. R. Mayne, a South Australian, a little while back played the part of leader for Victoria with much success. Experience has eminently qualified him for the job. With Woodfull, Ponsford, Ryder, Love, and Hartkopf not playing, his task is heavier than those other captains have had to shoulder for some time. Sal-vana, Millar, and Davie met with suc-cess in the recent Second Elevens match in Sydney. In this match last year, New South Wales scored 708, and Vic-toria 290 and 322, the home team win-ning by an innings and 96 runs. Pons-ford and Woodfull each made a century in the second innings. For the home team, Collins 143 and Kippax 271 not out were the century makers, and Everett the most successful bowler, with four for 57 and five for 91. PONSFORD AND RYDER The one piece of cricket sensationalism developed by the week is the refusal of the Victorian pennant committee to allow W. H. Ponsford and J. Ryder to play for their clubs during the absence of the Interstate team, owing to reasons given by the players being deemed to be in-sufficient. This action by the committee is to be deplored. It is difficult to see what evidence could be sufficient to war-rant such action. Amateur players who have given so much time to representa-tive cricket in the last year or two should not be dealt with in this way. The rule that empowers a committee to take such action pre-supposes that men who play representative cricket are not sportsmen. The news comes through from Mel-bourne that the reasons given by Ryder, who is a traveller, were that his ten-months' absence with the Australian team in England had put him out of his stride in business, and that another month at present would not be to his ad-vantage. He had, further, lately built a home, and it required some of his at-tention. He reminded the committee that he had represented Victoria for many years, and had made sacrifices for cricket and given of his best. He said that, further, he had a private reason. After deliberation, the committee in-formed him that they would adhere to their previous decision, unless he made known his private reason. "Are the others insufficient?" asked Ryder. "Yes," was the reply. "In that event, there is nothing further to be said," he rejoined. THE QUEENSLANDERS The Queensland selectors have chosen the following to practice for the match with Victoria next week: L. O'Connor, A. D. Mayes, R. M. Oxenham, L. Oxen-ham, R. Higgins, E. Bensted. F. Gough, P. M. Hornibrook. F. C. Thompson, L. L. Gill, W. Rowe, E. Thurlow, N. Grant, M. F. Brow, and E. Knowles. With Hornibrook strengthening the bowling, and the Victorian team weak-ened, the Queenslanders should make a much better fight for success than in the recent Melbourne match, in which Victoria secored 533 to their 147 and 217. THE MELBOURNE C.C. TEAM The team to leave for N.Z. on Friday when the Sheffield Shield matches have been completed ought to be strong enough to give the New Zealand team for Eng-land an ample test, and to play attrac-tive cricket. It is to be captained by W. W. Armstrong, and to include also H. L. Hendry, V. S. Ransford, A. Sandford, B. Onyons, Ebeling, Campbell, Wood, Rodgerson, Jewell, J. Johnston. T. Arm-strong and Dakin will also join the team if they can obtain leave. “THE NEXT CAPTAIN” Under the above caption, a writer in the "Athletic News" says: 'In stating his farewell, J. M. Gregory suggests that the next Australian cap-tain should be W. A. Oldfield. The sing-ling out of Oldfield has met with a re-markable unanimity of opinion in the Commonwealth. In England we sub-scribe to the senti-ment. Oldfield is an engaging personality, shrewd as a cricketer, and with-out a rival in the world as a wicket-keeper. Moreover, his batsmanship is such that in the last Test series he was as capable of open-ing the innings as going in eighth wicket down." W. A. Oldfield is probably not looking for the job. Anyhow, there is a long way to travel in cricket before the next Australian team tackles England for the Ashes. H. L. Collins, himself, is young enough as cricket captains go, to retain the honor if he keeps up his form, as he no doubt will if he remains keen on the game. In Melbourne, W. M. Wood-ful has been suggested as captain; in Adelaide V. Y. Richardson is suggested. The matter will probably solve itself all in good time. H. L. COLLINS An English note in reference to the Australian captain which has just come to hand (from the "Athletic News") is very interesting. It is headed, Aus-tralia Rebuilding," thus: "The loss of the Test rubber has awakened Australia to a sense of the need for culti-vating the young cricketers. It is character-istic of their thoroughness that immediately the necessity has arisen the means is at-tended to. At the same time, it is felt that in the New South Wals officials deposing H. L. Collins, the tourists' captain, there has been an ungrateful attitude for genuine ser-vices rendered, both as leadr and as capable cricketer. Meantime Australia appears to have an abundance of young batsmen, judg-ing by events in the Sheffield Shield matches. But where are the bowlers?" H. L. Collins was not deposed as cap-tain of New South Wales. He was chosen as captain every time, but did not play. That he is not on the selection commit-tee is due to his having returned too late to officiate in the early work of the selec-tors, though it would be idle to ignore that each Australian Eleven selector in his State was defeated for a position on the local seelction committee. PONSFORD AND OTHERS "Victorian" writes me from Melbourne on an interesting little matter: 'In the "Referee," of January 12, referring to W. P. Ponsford's likely acceptance of Sir Lindsay Parkinson's (Chairman of the Black-pool Club) offer to play League cricket with Blackpool you mention that Australia had lost many other good players, amongst them being J. R. M. Mackay, a greater batsman than Ponsford. It would be interesting to your readers to give the performances of these two players. I am certain that figures would show greatly in favour of Ponsford, who has put up such a phenomenal record in first-class cricket, one that no other player has equalled. Most of the present genera-tion of cricket supporters may not have seen J. R. M. Mackay or heard much about him. It was a great misfortune when he met with an accident, which affected his sight; it was a big loss to Australian cricket. I had the pleasure of seeing him batting against Vic-toria when he made some big scores, and no doubt he was a great batsman, but Ponsford stands alone as far as performances in first appearances in first-class cricket are con-cerned. You may perhaps quote that the bowling was better in J. R. M. Mackay's days. Admirers of W. L. Murdoch would claim that he was better than either, for he met far better bowlers in his day, and so opinions would differ. But Ponsford's figures are un-approached.' When I stated that Mackay was even greater than Ponsford, it was not in any sense conveying a reflection on the bat-ting excellence of Ponsford. When at the top of his form, it was my impres-sion that if Mackay had been selected in the Australian Eleven for England, he would have returned one of the world's best batsmen of any period. In all first-class cricket in this country, Mackay had only about 26 innings. In his last sea-son he scored 194, 18, and 50 against Victoria, 90, 105, and 102 not out, against South Australia, 131 and 203 against Queensland, and 4 and 136 against Australia. He was much taller than Ponsford, well-built, had a great reach and a wonderful eye, while he had most of Trumper's strokes, and the rare precision in timing and placing shown by that wonder. Mackay had the inestim-able advantage of practising regularly with Trumper and M. A. Noble, and im-bibed the best in the two men of such different methods. Ponsford has played much more first-class cricket than Mackay, and answered every question eloquently. In England he performed ad-mirably, considering all things. Every-one knows that bowling to-day is not so good as it was twenty years ago. But in any day Ponsford would have been a champion batsman under Australian con-ditions. ENGLAND'S FIRST 'KEEPER Apropos of a question answered in the "Referee" last week, Mr. W. J. Reeves writes me: "I looked it up and quote the following from the Melbourne 'Argus' of that date in March, 1877. Shaw be-gan from the east end with the wind in his face. Selby kept wicket. Emmett was point, Jupp mid-on, Lillywhite short-leg, etc. Hill, a fast, round-arm bowler, bowled from the opposite end, and Selby, apparently no double of Pooley, prudently, shifted from wicket-keeper's place to short slip, out of the way of the cannonade." Charlie Bannerman and T. W. Garrett are the only two Sydney men left who played in that first Test. On the ques-tion being put to them, each replied that Pooley had kept wickets, forgetting that Pooley had been detained in New Zea-land at the time. Though the great wicketkeeper of the team, he was not available, having joined the team too late to take part in either match with Australia. By the way, in looking up the notes of the first Test by some of the English players, one is struck by the general tone of appreciation of the bat-ting of Charles. Bannerman for 165. WHAT WAS THE RESULT? Mr. H. Leesing writes from Crow's Nest, Queensland, giving an unusual situation: "A match was played at Crow's Nest, be-tween Crow's Nest Juniors and Toowoomba Junior Bros. Crow's Nest scored 110, Too-woomba 87. It was agreed to play another innings, an extension of time of 15 minutes being also decided upon by the captains. Crow's Nest scored 47, making their aggregate 157, which Toowoomba exactly equalled when time was called, with only six wickets down. Would you consider that a win for Toowoomba by four wickets?" Similar cases have occurred within the past -year or two. The game results in a tie, each side having scored the same number of runs. * * * THE RAIN'S EFFECT Recent heavy showers have benefited the cricket grounds of Sydney, none more so than the Sydney Cricket Ground. Its brown, parched aspect of a few months back has been displaced by an English green. The fielding ground in parts, how-ever, is still not so uniformly trim and smooth as it used to be, seemingly as a result of the gruelling it has had from football in Winter, followed by abnormal dry weather. It costs much to keep the ground watered. Some time ago, when the consumption of water seemed extra-ordinary, investigations at last revealed that an old underground pipe had been leaking for a long time. When this was rectified, the figures showing the con-sumption immediately dropped. SOME BIRTHDAYS Many happy birthday returns on January 26 : D. Reese (N.Z.), A. D. Nourse (South Africa). 27 : Dr. E. P. Barbour (N.S.W.), G. P. Barbour (Sydney Uni ^ versity), L. E. Oxenham (Q.). 28 : M. A. Ndble (N.S.W.), H. Strudwick (Eng.) „ 29 : W. Renshaw (Gordon), H. Payne (Essex). 31 : W. W. McGlinchy (N.S.W. _ , and Q.) February 1 : H. Bridgman (S.A.), L. Green (Lancashire). * * * Mr. J. R. M. Mackay has a team in Sydney playing a series of matches this week. They played a team on Centennial Park on Monday, and met Mr. J. Searle's team at Chatswood yesterday. Rain prevented grade competitions being continued in Sydney on Saturday, no play taking place on turf wickets, save in one Third Grade match. THAT CURIOUS CATCH The ways of getting out are many and de-vious. In Christchurch (N.Z.), on Jan. 8, a batsman in a junior grade match at Hagley Park had scored 89. He got full on to a ball which came like a shot out of a gun straight for the batsman at the other end, who was unable to get out of the way. The ball struck him on the head, knocking him out. It was deflected, and mid-on held the catch. SYDNEY CLUB AVERAGES The leading performers in the First Grade do not include any of the Australians who hae not yet figured in many matches, some in no matches. J. Hogg has scored the greatest number of matches runs, 565, A. Jack-son being next with 508. Young players oc-cupy prominent places in both lists. In bowl-ing, W. J. O'Reilly, of North Sydney, who showed good form in the Interstate second elevens' match in Sydney, is at the head, his 21 wickets having cost 14.57 runs each. BATTING AVERAGES I. N.O. H.S. ' Ttl. Avg. ! A. F. Kippax (W.) 5 0 148 440 88.00 B. Salmon (Mos.) 7 2 142* 433 86.60 ? 1 A. Jackson (Bal.) 7 1 168 508 84.66' J. Hogg (Uni.) . 8 0 150 565 70.42: C. Targett (St.G.). 5 1 150* 277 69.25 W. Gerdes (Gor.) .6 2 * 88 273 68.25 E. A. Dwyer (Mos.) 7 2 161* 341 '68.20 Dr. W. J. McCristal (Rand.) ... 7, 2 119* 269 67.25 A. E. Scanes (St.G) 7 0 157 440 62.85 R. Loder (N.D.) . 9 2 128 432 61.71 A.. Ratcliffe (Gl.) 7 0 139 410 58.57 R. Bardsley (W.S.) 9 2 114* 389 55.57 L. Gwynne (Man.) 10 1 175* 497 55.22 G. Morgan (Glebe) 7 1 90 317 52.S3 H. Cranney (C C.) 6 0 69 289 48.16 A. McGrath (N.S.) 10 2 109* 373 46.G2 D. Seddon (Pet.) 6 0- 143 276 46.00 A. Ross (Uni.). . 7 0 201 316 45.14 A.P.Wells (Padd.) 9 1 143 359 44.S7 E. L. Waddy (C.C.) .... 7 0 123 313 44.71 ; F. Mair (Glebe). 8 0 119 351 43.87 H. C. Steele (Marr.) ? 8 .1 115 307 43.85 V. Johnstone (W.) 9 0 158 390 43.33 H. Caswell (Wav.) 6 0 74 253 42.16 D. Mullarkey (St.G) 8- 1 104* 292 41.71 F. Buckle (N.D.) . 9 1 143 328 41.00 A. R. Rowe (Padd.) 8 0 80 323 40.37 N. Phillips (Gor.) 7 0 112 281 40.14' Other batsmen; L. Chinn (N.D.) 38.62, S. Thomas (Bal.) 38.55, S. Donnan (Rand.) 38.44, F. Rowland (Mos.) 36.85, B. Watson (Gor.) 36.37, M. Ward (Rand.) 35.50. H. Benjamin (Pet.) 35.22, R. Pennycuick (N.S.) 34.60, T. Bailey (Marr.) 34.12, B. Fairfax (Marr.) 31.62, J. Foskett (Glebe) 31.50, S. Trumper (Manly) 31.00, A. Punch (N.S.) 30.44. E. Newman (Manly) 29.88, E. F. Rofe (Pet.) 29.55, G. Wheatley (Bal.) 28.00, S. Josselyn (W.S.) 27.77, A. Dein (Marr.) 25.90. BOWLING AVERAGES. ? , Wkts. Runs. Avge. W. J. O'Reilly (N.S.) . . 21 306 14.57 A. F. Kippax (Wav.) ... 12 177 14.75 R. Pennycuick (N.S.) . . 16 256 16.00 L. Gwynne (Manly) ... 20 321 16.05 R. McNamee (Rand.) . . 22 363 16.50 B. Long (W.S.) .... 27 472 17.48 C. C. O'Connor (Wav.). 34 . 603 17.73 C. Nicholls (Cum.) ... 15 270 18.00 H. Caswell (Wav.) . . 15 294 19.60. G. Amos (Marr.): ... 25 506 20.24 S. King (Pet.) .... 19 394 * 20.73 H. Kennett (Pet.) ... 27 561 20.77 F. Jordan (Glebe) ... 18 375 20.83 N. Fox (Gordon) . . . 16 344 21.50 N. Morris (Glebe) ... 29 629 21.68 F. Merchant (Rand.) . . 20 435 21.75 N. Campbell (Gordon) . 22 491 22.31 W. H. Bassett (Mos.) . . 34 759 22.32 C. Griffin (Uni.) .... 24 554 28.08 H. Dupain (W.S.) ... 13 318 24.16 Others: A. C. Y. Yates (Wttv.) 25.69; O. P. Asher (Padd.) 25.83, H. Waghorn (St. G.) 25.91, J. Mould (Uni.) 25.93, H. Hunt (N.D.) 26.10, L. Wall (Padd.) 26.46 S. Smith (N.S.) 26.91 H. Hooker (Mos.) 28.78 O. Stenmark (C.C. 29.30 H. King (St. G.) 30.14, E. Tweed dale (W.S.) 30,80, C. Leabeater (C.C.) 32.11, R. C. Coogan (N.D;) 32.86, S. Hird (Bal.) 33.00, J. Carter (Rand.) 34.73, J. Fisher (Bal.) 36.20, A. Ross (Uni.) 37.50. Positions in the Sydney First . Grade pre miership are: — Glebe 22, Waverley 21, Rand wick 19, Petersham 18, Western Suburbs 18, Gordon 17, Mosman 17, St. Geprge 17, North Sydney 16, University 16, Paddington 14, Bal main 13, Cumberland 13, Manly 13, Marrick ville 11, N. District 11. H. L. Hendry, A. J. Richardson, and C. V. Grimmett are not available for the C. G. Macartney testimonial match.... R. N. Hickson, the representative batsman of some years ago, scored 102 out of 193 for J. R. M. Mackay's against N. I. Blue's team on Mon-day. W. A. Gregg, another N.S.W. repre-sentative. scored 40 not out. For the vic-tors, J. Taylor made 45, R. Hall 35, H, Cas-well 35, and J. Sullivan 27. APPRECIATION Victor Richardson, captain of the South Australians, has formed a particularly high opinion of the New South Wales colt, A. Jackson. Chatting about him on his return to Adelaide, he remarked that that lad was undoubtedly the cricket find of the year. He was a future Australian Eleven player. BRIDGMAN'S "DEBUT" H. Bridgman has had only one appearance this season. That was on Saturday week, when he knocked up 119 for West Torrens. Bridgman has played for the Western Sub-urban team for over 20 years, and must be the oldest A Grade player in S.A. Once he captained a South Australian team, and for a long time he has had charge of West Torrens. An item from England: "The wedding took place on December 11, of Sir Francis Lacey, the late secretary of the M.C.C., and Mrs. Mary Marshall Campbell Walker, daughter of Mr. R. Ramsay, of Melbourne, Australia, widow of Mr. Campbell Walker, of Rickmans-worth. The ceremony, which was solemnised at St. Mark's Hamilton-terrace, was a very quiet one. Sir Francis Lacey had as his best man Mr. W. Findlay, who succeeded him as secretary, at Lord's, and among a small company present were Lord and Lady Hawke. Sir Francis Lacey's first wife, Lady Helen Lacey; died in 1908. She was the daughter of the ninth Earl of Northeek." An English team leaves London, on Tues-day next, for Jamaica. It will include Hon. Lionel Tennyson, F. Gillingham, and P. G. H. Fender.

NOTE OF THE WEEK. As every normal Australian boy is fami-liar with Test matches--of which between England and Australia 114 have been played, or partly played--you may be interested in the fact that Test mutch cricket will have its jubilee on March 15 next. On that day it will be 50 years since the first ball was bowled in the first match. The actual term "Test match" was not heard for many years afterwards, but when records for Test cricket were being pre-pared it was agreed that this particular game of 50 years ago should be regarded as the first (because it was the first) occa-sion upon which representative elevens of England and Australia met upon even terms. So the jubilee of Test cricket counts from the day on which the first ball was bowled in that match. Upon that point there need be no doubt or difference of opinion. The scores were:--Australia, 245 and 104; England, 196 and 108; so that Australia won by 45 runs. That game was historic in many ways. First of all because Charles Bannerman, who went in first for Australia, made 165 of their first innings total of 245, and, through an injury to his hand, was obliged to re-tire unbeaten. The next highest scores were TW Garrett 18 and JM Blackham 17. We have no space for detail, but in my opinion England's six bowlers in that first Test match were a better lot than those who won the "ashes" in the last game. Apart from the actual number of runs scored, I regard that innings of Banner-man as the greatest batting achievement of 50 years. It was absolutely the first in-nings played in the Test matches, because Australia batted first and Bannerman went in first. Coupled with the success of Aus-tralia, it led directly to the formation of the first Australian Eleven, which went to England in the following year. You may have seen a photograph of that first bearded eleven, and would think they must have been the oldest lot of cricketers who ever went to England, while, as a fact, I believe they were, on the average, the youngest side. The beards made all the difference. I have often thought what a wonderful vision it would have been if those Australian winners of the first game could have seen the Test match happenings ahead. Of them it may indeed be said that they builded better than they knew. One reason, per-haps, why we have so many great batsmen today and so few great bowlers is that, in the public mind, the great batsman has always ranked so much higher than the great bowler. It was just the same 50 years ago, because, while generations of cricketers and cricket-lovers have heard of Bannerman's monumental batting feat, you seldom hear mention of the Australian bowlers. In the first innings of England, Midwinter, a blonde giant from Bendigo, took five wickets for 78 runs, but a far finer effort, and one which ranked in merit and effect with Bannerman's triumph, was Kendall's seven wickets for 55 runs in the second innings. Kendall was a left-hand bowler, who played for Richmond--which club had also another left-hand bowler, Hodges, in the team. The wicket-keeper in that first Test match was JM Blackham, who caught three of the English batsmen and stumped one. The thousands who looked on must have realised that they were watching a great 'keeper, but which of them could have dreamed that after 50 years keen and sometimes sensational cricket Black-ham would still be praised on both sides of the world as a "prince of wicket-keepers"--the greatest, without any man-ner of doubt, that the game has known. In cricket the play is, of course, the great thing, yet it seems to me a pity that this jubilee of Test cricket may be allowed to pass without any sort of celebration at all.

The first win of the Australians caused tremendous excitement in England. Mr. Joe Coates, the well-known Intercolonial playor from Sydney, who was then in Eng-land, in writing to a friend, said, "When the news came that Australia had beaten England it caused great excitement, and made people talk more about Australia than 50 immigration agents could have done if they were to lecture for 12 months. It would be a good opportunity to send a team home, as the Australians would take well, the public being anxious to see the cricketers who defeated their champions.' Apparently Southerton was of the same opinion, as before leaving Australia he offered to make one of a syndicate to take a team home, but the Australian players declined his offer, preferring to go on their own resources. During the Winter Mr. John Conway was in communication with the leading Australian players, and it became an accomplished fact during the cricket season commencing in 1877. Each of the players of the first Australian team prior to touring the Colonies, put down £50 to form the nucleus of a fund to take them to England. The tour of the colonies was a big success, and they did not require to draw on their first deposit. And the tour in England In 1878 was a huge suc-cess, both at cricket and in a financial sense. It was a plucky venture, and they well deserved their success. They gave the public of England good cricket, and received a royal welcome in the home of cricket.

The first of some 800 Test matches during Test cricket's first hundred years was played between sides that were hardly fully representative. The term 'Test' was as yet unknown, and few of the participants or onlookers could have had any idea of the vast importance that England-Australia matches - let alone cricket contests between other countries- would assume in years to follow. (Frith England versus Australia 12.)

The twenty-two combatants in the first Test match (though it was not then referred to as such), in March 1877 at the tree-fringed Melbourne Cricket Ground, can have had scant notion of how public curiosity in England v Australia matches would swell in the years ahead. Within twenty years the series was firmly established and enticing spectators from all corners of both countries. It was to become a bond of Empire, a focal point of fervid speculation and, at the same time, of reminiscence, compounded as the decades advanced. As the passenger ships made their leisurely way to and fro with their cabinloads of international cricketers, one Test rubber after another extended the saga. Global war twice caused suspensions. Otherwise, the exchanges have been regular and almost frequent enough. Means of communication, crowd expression and other associated phenomena have adjusted to the times: teams are now transported by air in a matter of hours; 'live' pictures of play are transmitted to millions through television; the fabricated radio commentaries of the 1930s have long since been superseded by instantaneous broadcasts. Charles Bannerman made the first run for Australia on that opening day in 1877; ninety-eight years later Doug Walters made the 100,000th. The cavalcade of great players in between is awe-inspiring, and an imposing crop of tour books and brochures has sprung from their deeds. Charles Pardon, Ranjitsinhji, P.F. Warner, Frank Laver, Philip Trevor, J.B. Hobbs, E.H.D. Sewell, P.G.H. Fender, Sydney Smith, M.A. Noble, A.E.R. Gilligan, Bruce Harris, D.R. Jardine, Arthur Mailey, William Pollock, Neville Card us, Denzil Batchelor, Clif Cary, JH Fingleton, W.J. O'Reilly,John Arlott, E.W. Swanton, A.G. Moyes, E.M. Wellings, Alan Ross, Rex Alston, Peter West, R.S. Whitington- each with his own approach, be it witty, acerbate, penetrative, or happily superficial, with or without a collaborator- these are the authors whose battle dispatches have carried the story through to the present generation. As for newspaper columnage allotted to the Tests, who could possibly calculate it, even to within a thousand yards? (Frith England versus Australia 10.)

On March 15, 16, and 17, in 1877, was played the first international match between England and Australia. Much water has run under the bridge during the intervening fifty years, and so fewer than one hundred and four-teen contests have been placed on re-cord. Of the 89 in which a definite conclusion has been reached, Aus-tralia has won 47 and England 42. Twenty-five have been left unfinished, and one, set down for Manchester, was abandoned without a ball having been bowled. A New South Wales fifteen had just triumped over James Lillywhite's All England XI, on the old Albert ground at Redfern by 13 wickets, and then the colony (there were no States then) threw down the gage for an eleven-aside match. This was limited to only two days, and the result was a draw, the home eleven requiring 140 and had six wickets in hand, an innings of 53 by the late David W. Gregory saving defeat. Then on March 15, two months later, on the Melbourne ground, came the first great Australian v. England battle at England's national game. The names of the players on that historic occasion will live after generations have passed away. They deserve to be illuminated in letters of gold, "emblazoned on the scroll of fame," and hung in the main hall of each of the great cricket pavilions of the world. They are:— Australia: D. W. Gregory (NSW), capt.; E. J. Gregory (N.S.W.), C. Bannerman (N.S.W., T. W. Garrett (NSW), N. Thompsnn (N.S.W.), T. Horan (Victoria). B. B. Cooper (Victoria), W. Midwinter (Victoria). J. McC. Blackham (Victoria), T. Hodg-es (Victoria). T. Kendall (Victoria). England: J. Lillywhite (Surrey), capt.; H. Jupp (Surrey), J. Souther-ton (Surrey), A. Shaw (Notts), J. Selby (Notts), A. Greenwood (York-shire), A. Hill (Yorkshire), T. Armit-age (Yorkshire), H. Charlwood (Sussex). The two great men, Spofforth and Murdock, were absent. The latter was displaced by Blackham, and because of that fact "Spoff." declined invitation to play, asserting that Blackham could not negotiate his fast deliveries. Murdoch had proved his ability to "take" them, for he and Spofforth played together in the old Albert Cricket Club. It is a singular fact that Murdoch stood down for Blackham in the first test match, and that when the two went to England twelve months later, Blackham was replaced by Murdoch in the famous M.C.C. one-day contest, when the Australians won the most sensational match on record by nine wickets. Evans, who had captained the New South Wales Eleven, was not, as far as I know, asked to play, which was strange, seeing that he had led the New South Wales side a few weeks previously, and he had bowled remarkably well against Victoria. He should have been in in place of Hodges. The captaincy of the Australians was on the shoulders of D. W. Gregory, and he carried his side to victory, the mar-gin being but 45 runs. There are sev-eral points about this match which make it memorable, apart from the fact that it was the first of its kind. Charles Bannerman played his famous innings for 165 retired hurt, in a total of 245, the nearest figure to his being but 19 by T. W. Garrett. Blackham stone-walled for an hour while Bannerman hit. Kendall, the left-hander, bowled in most deadly fashion in the English-men's second venture, securing seven for 55 in a total of 108, and Blackham excelled himself behind the wickets, thus laying the foundation for the reputation as "the prince of wicketkeepers," which was to be his inheritance. With regard to Kendall, it was a great mistake that he was not one of the first Australian Eleven to visit England. Alter touring Australia, it was decided, when the team was at Adelaide, to leave him behind. In the opinion of some contemporary men he was the greatest bowler Australia has produced, which is saying a lot. There was, however, a reason for his retirement from the eleven. All but four of the twenty-two who took part in that famous struggle have gone to that undiscovered undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller returns. The four are: J. McT. Black-ham (in his 72nd year), Charles Ban-nerman (in his 77th), Thomas W. Gar-rett (in his 70th), and .lames Lilly-white (who is 85). It should he men-tioned that when Bannerman made his 165, the hat was passed round, and he was handed £165. Both he and T.W.G. are regular attendants at all the big matches at the Sydney Cricket Ground and are in excellent health. A fortnight alter the above contest, the return match was played on the same ground, and England made honours easy by securing a four-wicket victory. The Australian side this time included Murdoch and Spofforth. Blackham, however, kept wickets. A first-innings failure by the home side practically explains the defeat, though there was little in it up to the finish. Still, the margin may not have been as deep as a well or as wide as a church door, but it served to even matters until D. W. Gregory's Australian team defeated Lord Harris' English XI. on the Melbourne ground by ten wickets. Spofforth upheld his reputation as the "demon" bowler by accounting for 13 wickets for 110, which proved to be the forerunner of many brilliant bowling feats in those contests. (Gregory “Test Cricket Jubilee” Armidale Chronicle, 2 April 1927.)

The Australians have beaten the Englishmen by 45 runs, and that, too, without the assistance of the two best bowlers in the colonies—Allan and Evans. For this victory Bannerman is entitled to most credit, and it is to be hoped that he will receive some substantial recognition of his magnificent batting in the first innings. Kendall has justified the expectations of his numerous friends by his splendid bowling, and even Hodges, only a second-rate man, has distinguished himself in this department of the game. Altogether, we should imagine that a finer display of cricket never was seen in Melbourne. This is the first match that has been won by Australians against Englishmen playing on even terms. After this there will be some talk about sending a team to England. If only the best men could go, the team would give a good account of themselves in the mother country.

Vagabond conversation John Stanley James changed his name to Dr Stanley James, then to Julian Thomas, and wrote under the pseudonym of The Vagabond. John Stanley James aka Stanley James aka Julian Thomas aka The Vagabond (courtesy: The Australasian) Somewhere in the Melbourne General Cemetery is a headstone simply stating Julian Thomas The Vagabond. In 1887, John Bartholomew’s Gazetteer of the British Isles described the placefir as follows: Walsall, parliamentary and municipal borough, market town, and parish, Staffordshire, 8 miles NW. of Birmingham and 123 from London by rail 3 Banks, 3 newspapers. Market-day Tuesday. The parish consists of the 2 townships of Walsall Borough and Walsall Foreign, population 7652 and 50,801 It is an undeniable fact that the history of mankind can boast of several instances where a chance remark or a seemingly trivial incident has precipitated a series of events that have, in their entirety, constituted a major and abiding historical chronicle. This narrative revolves around one such remark made in a casual conversation. The story had begun November 15, 1843 when the Walsall household of Joseph Green James, an attorney, whose family were also the owners of an iron foundry, and his wife, Elizabeth, became the proud parents of their only son, subsequently named John Stanley James. There would be two sisters born subsequently, as projected in the 1851 Census Record. Having completed his basic education, James Jr had worked as an articled clerk his lawyer father for a while. His documented biography, written by John Barnes, depicts John Stanley James as having lived a varied and interesting life, and of his having been a man who was something out of the ordinary mould for the times. His sheltered apprenticeship had not lasted long, however, and he had moved to London after an altercation with James Sr. Making a reasonable living in London was not an easy task for a tyro in the mid-1800s. With his little legal training, he first tried his hand at drawing up legal documents and contracts as rough drafts and then copying the final terms of the instrument legibly on to parchment paper, engrossing the document, to use the legal terminology of the times. When that did not prove to be very profitable, he tried his hand at journalism. A restless soul, he had then sought employment first as a railway clerk and then as a station master in Wales. When that had not worked out, he had returned to London in 1868, and tried to revive his journalism career. Speaking of his varied and colourful career in later years, James Jr was to recount how he had once been imprisoned for a few weeks on charges of spying in Paris in 1870. Back in London, he had reported on the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71). In 1872 he had reported the events leading to the formation of the National Agricultural Labourers Union with farm labourer and lay Methodist preacher Joseph Arch as the elected leader of the movement. His journalistic skills and reputation had been, by his own estimation, on the ascendency by this time. His relationship with his father, however, continued to deteriorate, and after another difference of opinion, rather more serious this time, he had decided to forsake his native country of birth and to try his luck in the United States of America, sailing there in 1875. James Jr s short but eventful sojourn in USA has been the subject of much study by Robert Flippen, who contributed his observations to a book about him, under the title The Vagabond Papers. The book reveals the fact that James Jr had found his way to Farmville, traversed by the Appomattox River, in Virginia, in 1875, and was welcomed by the Farmville British Association. He was named a member of the Board of a local bank within a short interval of his arrival. Being quite impecunious at the time, he had had the foresight to marry Carolyn Lewis, the wealthy widow of a Virginia planter. Using his wife s money, James had set about ordering a grand Victorian mansion to be built for himself atop a bluff overlooking the Appomattox River. The local media had reported in 1875 that the grand mansion had been completed and ready for occupancy in a mere 10 weeks time, a remarkable example of the industriousness of the local builders. Projecting himself as a Dr Stanley James (his first nom de plume, as it were), he had began to advertise in the local papers his intention of opening a seminary, to be named the Stanley Park Academy, for a select number of boys under 16 years of age, with himself as the Principal. For many years, the four-storey edifice would be known locally as the Stanley Park Mansion. James had proved to be a very poor banker and to be quite irresponsible about the use of the funds from people who had entrusted their hard-earned money to the bank for safekeeping. When his customers had lost money because of his laxity, he had begun to repay the amounts from his wife s money. Hauled up in court, James had sought the easy way out by making over the house, the furniture and other contents of the mansion to his wife and by absolving his wife of any further debts incurred by himself. For inexplicable reasons, given the brevity of his stay in the USA till that time, James had quickly become an ardent advocate of the local British expatriates seeking American citizenship. He had begun to write letters to the local British population urging them to follow his advice. Not everyone had been en rapport with his thinking, however, and his untoward zeal in this regard had soon become a major cause of concern for many recipients of his letters, including some influential media stalwarts, who had begun to engage him in a debate on the issue in print. Under the circumstances, James had thought it prudent to move out of USA at the earliest. It was late in 1875 that James landed at Sydney, this time in the guise of Julian Thomas, impecunious as before. This time, however, he was determined to make a success of his journalistic skills. Gravitating to Melbourne, he began to write a series of articles for the Argus on some of the lesser-known aspects of life in metropolis, bringing into focus many issues that were, for all practical purposes, taboo for the press of the times. He is believed to be one of the pioneers of investigative journalism, and to be a pathfinder in the concept of immersion journalism, a term upgraded to embedded journalism in modern times. In 1876-77, a series of articles began to appear in the Argus highlighting life in such institutions as the Pentridge Gaol, Melbourne Hospital, poor houses and charitable institutions, and mental asylums. These were largely 5,000-word pieces, invariably written in the first person, and appearing under the bye-line A Vagabond. In April 1876, the Argus published an article entitled A Night in the Model Lodging House that began to set tongues wagging. There was no question about the sincerity with which he went about establishing his credentials as a journalist among the Colonials. His biography states that to add a stamp of authority and verisimilitude to his copy, and to gather first-hand material, he spent a day in the Immigrants Home, had himself admitted to the Benevolent Asylum, worked in the capacity of a porter at the Alfred Hospital, as an attendant at Lunatic Asylums, and as a dispenser-cum-dentist at Pentridge Gaol. Melbourne was soon agog with curiosity about the real identity of The Vagabond. Let us now take up the saga of this extraordinary person in the words of Malcolm Knox in Never a Gentleman s Game: By night, as it were, he dwelt among the lowly. A George Orwell of his time, he consorted with beggars, prisoners, prostitutes, penniless immigrants, and lunatic asylum inmates, documenting their plights By day, he was soon seen as a well-dressed Englishman with connections in the right places. What, one may be asking oneself at this point of the narrative, did this journalist and boulevardier of the Yarra, to quote Knox, have to do with cricket? It may be remembered that James Lillywhite Jr had been touring the Antipodes with a team of professional English cricketers in 1876-77 Australia with the intention of taking on Colonial teams on even terms and of generating their own finances on tour. Having begun in Australia, the travelling party were having a short stint in New Zealand, when the powers that be in Australian cricket had conceived of the possibility of fielding a team of combined New South Wales and Victoria players, designated grandly as United Australia, against the visitors. The visitors were not averse to the idea and it was determined that a set of two matches would be arranged at Melbourne upon the return of the tourists. The first game was to begin at Melbourne on March 15, 1877. Being a well-connected man-about-town by this time, Julian Thomas, to use his present avatar, had soon befriended Lillywhite and had been present at Melbourne Cricket Ground along with thousands of onlookers on the historic first day of the match when the Sydney batting ace, Charles Bannerman, had put the bowling of the tourists to the sword to the tune of 165 before being compelled to retire hurt when a delivery from Yorkshireman George Ulyett had damaged his hand. In conversation at the White Hart of Melbourne later, Thomas had enquired whether, in Lillywhite s estimation, a reciprocal visit by a representative Australian team to England would generate the same level of interest in the Home Country. This was a new concept to Lillywhite, and one never before been thought of. Keeping the experience of the tour of the team of indigenous Australian cricketers with which Charles Lawrence had visited England in 1868 playing only minor games in mind, Lillywhite had not been very sure. Thomas was quick to point out that he did not have exhibition matches in England in mind, but was asking whether a tour by a representative Australian team to England, playing against the major English counties and clubs, against the Gentlemen and the Players, perhaps even a representative England team on equal terms, could be arranged. Lillywhite s response to this query by Thomas is, very regretfully, lost to posterity. Sitting close by had been John Conway, a noted Melbourne all-rounder and cricket entrepreneur. One remark by Thomas had caught his ear. There d be plenty of money in it, Thomas had remarked to Lillywhite. It was as if a seasoned war horse had heard the sound of a bugle in the heat of the battle. Hearing the magic mantra of money, Conway had been unable to restrain himself and had quickly joined in the conversation, eager to discuss the issue. The persuasive tongue of Conway had then convinced Lillywhite about the financial possibilities of such a venture to such an extent that, before the Englishmen had left Melbourne, Lillywhite had promised to probe the possibility once he was back in England, promising to stay in touch meanwhile. The events that followed in quick succession and some details of the tour of England in 1878 by the first fairly representative Australian team have already been chronicled in these pages. John Lazenby has given a comprehensive account of the tour in his book The Strangers Who Came Home. Suffice it, then, to state that the chance remark made in a private conversation between two men in a smoky and ill-lit Melbourne bistro called the White Hart was to lead to one of the most famous cricketing rivalries of all time, culminating in the aura and legend of the Ashes, the attendant passion surviving the passage of time. Having done his bit for the establishment and development of cricketing ties between England and Australia,Thomas turned his attention to the fulfilment of his journalistic dreams. His journalistic career began to blossom in an unprecedented manner, his undercover work as The Vagabond being read avidly and being appreciated by the cognoscenti.His keen observations, practical judgements and meaningful suggestions for reforms were to make his offerings, published as The Vagabond Papers, very popular and eagerly awaited, and by degree, his journalistic avatar became quite a cult figure, as mysterious as it was thought-provoking. In Aug/1877, after a round of farewell receptions, the presentation of an illustrated citation and 308 sovereigns, Thomas set sail for Sydney to write for the Sydney Morning Herald.At this point of time, Julian Thomas was enjoying, perhaps, the zenith of his journalistic career, albeit incognito, his true identity not being revealed till 1912. Although his writings from this point onwards did not turn out to be as popular or as eagerly anticipated as The Vagabond Papers, his output was as prolific as before, but the flavour of his offerings began differ in character. By all accounts, he now assumed the role of a roving reporter, visiting many far-off places, his nose for a good story helping him to identify and elaborate on events and experiences that would be likely to interest the readers of his columns. Several collections were later made of these travel-related writings, some of the well-known ones being Occident and Orient (1882), Picturesque Victoria (1884), and Cannibals and Convicts (1886). By the early 1890s Thomas had become a well-known figure in the media world of Australia. In 1890, he was appointed the Secretary to the Victorian Royal Commission on Charities, holding the post till 1892. In the meantime, he continued to write sporadically, mostly for the Melbourne Leader. The September 5, 1896 issue of the Argus carried the headline Death of a Well-known Journalist. The single column report informed the general public that Mr. Julian Thomas, The Vagabond had passed away on Friday, September 4, 1896. The news item carried the information that Mr Thomas had not been keeping good health in recent times, and that the once-popular figure was being seen but rarely in his usual haunts. It seems that Thomas, who was known to have been suffering from cardiac asthma, had gone up to his rooms on Princess Street, a rather run-down and squalid area of Fitzroy on the Thursday evening, in an apparently normal state. It was also common knowledge that he had, of late, almost given up eating and drinking. His dead body was discovered in his bed the following morning. The column ended with the information that his internment was scheduled to be carried out at the Melbourne Cemetery on September 5, the cortege to leave his chambers at about 3 PM. Over years, there have been individuals whose fame and achievements have transcended their passing away. Thomas was one of them. The December 8, 2012 issue of the Herald Sun was emblazoned with the headline Melbourne Press Club’s Hall of Fame honours significant contributions to journalism. Short descriptions of the first 20 inductees to the Melbourne Press Club s Hall of Fame followed the headlines in chronological order. The introduction for the fourth name in the list was as follows: JOHN STANLEY JAMES THE VAGABOND (1843-1896) James, aka Julian Thomas but famous for his Vagabond byline [sic], practised immersion journalism more than a century before the term was coined. His fly-on-the-wall pieces inside Melbourne institutions such as lunatic asylums, hospitals and other institutions were the talk of Melbourne for their detailed descriptions, revelations and anonymity. He began one piece on the Kew asylum like this: The Angel of Death hovers continually over Kew, but he brings no terror with him. Death is relief to many of these poor lunatics The cricket fraternity will always owe a deep debt of gratitude to the journalist who, by one chance remark made to Lillywhite in a Melbourne tavern in 1877, fortuitously overheard by Conway, had made bilateral cricket ties with England and Australia a reality with all the subsequent historic significance attached to perhaps the most famous sporting rivalry of all.

Test-Match status “Not that it was called a Test match then.”

Strictly speaking Charles Bannerman was not one of The Men Who Raised the Bar. The Australian batsman set the bar, leaving it next to “165”, a record that stood for seven years. Bannerman’s score in the very first Test gave the record the perfect start. He faced the opening ball of the game, the story neatly beginning with him. Strictly speaking too, Bannerman did not perform his feat in a Test, or know at the time he’d set a record. The match was between a combined Melbourne/Sydney XI and James Lillywhite’s touring team and only later termed “Australia v England”. In 1894, Clarence Moody, an Adelaide journalist, wrote in his book Australian Cricket and Cricketers a list of what he considered “Test matches”. This was accepted by Charles Alcock, the Surrey CCC secretary and leading English authority, and so was born – with glorious quaintness – the glorious tradition of Test cricket.

Relf survived for almost 90 minutes then fell in the final over before tea, caught in the slips by Armstrong off Saunders. He’d contributed 31 to a ninth-wicket stand of 115 with Foster, which helped England lift their lead to 162. By now, Foster had passed the highest Test score by an England batsman – K. S. Ranjitsinhji’s 175 against Australia at Sydney in 1897. He’d also passed the second-highest individual Test score – Syd Gregory’s 201 in the 1894 Sydney Ashes match, when the Australian was ninth out and missed the chance to beat Murdoch. Gregory, a tiny right-hander from New South Wales, was cheered when he beat Charles Bannerman’s 165 for the highest Test score made in Australia, showing the rising importance of these and other landmarks now that Test cricket was officially recognised. Bannerman stood in that 1894 game as an umpire, England winning by ten runs after following on – one of only three instances of a side winning a Test in such fashion, the others being England’s defeat of Australia at Headingley in 1981 and India’s of Australia at Kolkata in 2001.

Intercolonial rivalry “The Victorian bowlers shone out as lustrously on the last day of the match as the Sydney batsman had done on the first and second.” Sydney’s focus elsewhere:

The remains of Archbishop Polding were interred at Potersham Cemetery, Sydney, on Monday last, the premises throughout the city all being closed, and all classes joining in the procession, which was three miles in length.

Government have proclaimed a half holiday on Monday.

Archbishop Polding's funeral yesterday was the largest ever seen in Sydney. The cortège extended three miles in length. Members of all religious denominations attended. The route folowed was so thickly crowded that all traffic was impeded.

There have been no St. Patrick celebrations this year [in Sydney].

The most important ecclesiastical event of the week is the death of Archbishop Polding. He expired on the 16th instant, and was interred on Monday with great ceremony. The procession from the cathedral to the Petersham Cemetery is said to have been three miles long, and consisted of leading citizens and ministers of all denominations, among whom Dr Polding was justly esteemed for his personal worth, however much they might differ from him on matters of religion. Dr Vaughan is now Archbishop of Sydney, and the highest authority of the Church of Rome in Australia. An abler man than his predecessor, he is also likely to prove a severer disciplinarian, and far more of a churchman than a citizen. At the grave of Dr Polding he gave a brief funeral oration, at the close of which is the following passage: “If you would do something for him, remember his soul in your prayers, for, however spotless a man's life may be, there is an eye more searching than man's—the eye of the Judge of all men; and if there be any soil it will have to be burned out in the purging fires. Pray, then, that he may receive that reward he longed for in life, and you will have performed the most holy service you can perform to John Bede Polding. Having buried his remains, you may free his soul from the penal fires in which it may even now be placed.” It was somewhat startling to his Protestant hearers to learn that a pious Catholic like Archbishop Polding might be in purgatory. The secular Press has permitted the oration to pass unnoticed, but the religious organs are full of it, and it will be food for controversy for some time to come.

“Several burglaries are reported to have taken place during the funeral of Archbishop Polding.”

SYDNEY, 19th March The public offices wore closed today after 11 o'clock, out of respect to the memory of the late Archbishop Polding, and the places of business were half closed. There was a great concourse of persons at St Mary's Pro-Cathedral this morning during the requiem service. The funeral cortege started from the Cathedral at noon, preceded by the various Catholic societies and the Permanent Artillery band playing the Dead March in Saul. Then come the hearse, followed by Archbishop Vaughan and other Roman Catholic clergy, the Governor's carriage, the Chief Justice and other judges, President of the Council, the Speaker of the Assembly and other members of the Legislature, the foreign consuls and others. The procession [?] for three miles, and along the route crowds assembled. Thousands went out to the Petersham Cemetery, where the service at the grave was most impressive. A meeting has been called for tomorrow to start a testimonial to Bannerman.

19 March: “The remains of the late Archbishop Polding were interred to-day. There was an immense funeral, persons of all ranks and denominations being present. The cortege was three miles long.” “SYDNEY, March 21: The new Ministry is complete.”

"Point," in the Leader, in speaking of the coming match at Easter between the East Melbourne Club and the South Australian Eleven, says that the East Melbourne men will probably leave on the 27th instant. He adds—“At all events, the Eleven will be the strongest that has yet visited Adelaide from Victoria." A glance at the names—which need not be here repeated, as they were published in the Advertiser on Monday—will show that this is an accurate statement. This is an indirect compliment to South Australia.

31 March: “Victoria won every match at handball against the Sydney players.”

Archbishop Polding's funeral on Monday was one of the most imposing processions of the kind ever witnessed in the Southern World. The public funeral awarded to the remains of the late Mr Wentworth was the only one that approached it in magnitude and magnificence. When the head of it had reached the cemetery at Petersham the tail had not moved very far from St Mary's Cathedral. That is to say, it was more than three miles in length. While the bulk of those who followed were Roman Catholics, a very large number of gentlemen belonging to the other denominations, even to the Jewish Rabbi, also joined in paying the last tribute of respect to the deceased prelate. There was a great crowd of Roman Catholic dignitaries and priests in the procession. Dr O'Quinn, the Bishop of Brisbane, arrived by steamer just in time to take part in the procession. The funeral was preceded by the customary service at St Mary's, where the body had been lying from the preceding Saturday night. […] Before the body was transferred from the Presbytery to the Cathedral it was laid out in state, and looked upon by nearly 10,000 persons. (Week “Sydney” 31 March 1877.)

In the two combined matches that were played subsequently this colony has not so very much to be proud of, as the principal honours were borne away by New South Wales, which quite eclipsed us in batting; although in bowling Midwinter, Kendall, and Hodges proved (the first two particularly) that they could win without Allan, even against an England eleven. (Australasian “Some Remarks” 12 May 1877.)

For we, or rather Australia, would have won the second match most undoubtedly but for the bad generalship of the captain, who seemed to have “Spofforth on the brain.” Midwinter and Kendall might have pulled off the match had they been made better use of. Dave Gregory, however, seemed to lose his head when the pinch came. (Australasian “Some Remarks” 12 May 1877.)

It is not our intention to go seriatim through the matches of the past season and comment upon them. We shall at the end of this article give the general bowling and batting averages of the chief players in the principal matches, leaving the club averages to speak for the rest. Reference to the past season is mainly interesting as serving to throw some light on our prospects in the season to come against New South Wales. And, referring to the sister colony, we must take exception to the narrow-minded spirit in which the combined matches were treated by the cricketers of New South Wales and the sporting press of that colony. We made a New South Wales player captain, and we subscribed a handsome testimonial to Bannerman for his splendid score of 165, not out; but for some fancied slight, or neglect, on the part of the promoters of the AEE, in not asking for the patronage of the New South Wales association, that body threw cold water, or attempted to do so, on the combined matches. In the press only the barest allusions were made to the matches, but for all that they were the greatest successes, and, as exhibitions of good cricket, far superior to anything the Albert ground can show or hope to show, as all cricketers know that the Albert ground is one of the worst to play on in the world from the nature of its turf, which is not to be compared to that of the MCC. (Australasian “Some Remarks” 12 May 1877.)

Financial success of the match “There were about 20,000 spectators” over the four days.” “Statistics of population, published up to the end of 1876, put down the population of the Colony at that time at 840,341. The excess of births over deaths as 13,249, and of arrivals over departure 3,520, making the total increase of population for the year 17,069.”

While there had already been four major tours by English sides to Australia, the team arranged and captained by James Lillywhite that left England in November 1876 was the first to visit as a business venture rather than following an invitation. There were the almost customary moans about the quality of the pitch and the umpiring, but of more concern to Lillywhite's men was their share of the gate money. Southerton noted that throughout the trip "the financial returns rarely tallied with the estimated number of people present".

On the professionals’ profits. These working men had done well for selves. Emmett in particular had come a long way: of his start as a professional “what we could remember was that his cricket bag was made of a local newspaper, and he invariably went out in clogs.” One reason for the Englishmen being “robbed … in spite of our watching and the employment of detectives” may have been that they kept no books: “the team had been back a fortnight or so, when Hogben, who was to have the lion’s share of the profits, met Lillywhite in Chichester, and the following conversation is said to have ensued. “Well Jim, back I see, and I suppose you will soon be along to settle up”. “I dare say I shall” said Jim, and a few days later he appeared at his old friend’s house where tea was served and pipes smoked. Then said Hobgen, “Now we’ll settle up, got your books?” “Books, I ain’t got no books”, said Jim, and fumbling in his pockets, he pulled out gold and notes to the tune of several thousand pounds” (report included by Timothy J. McCann in his article on Hobgen, The Cricket Statistician, Winter 2019). It was announced in 1877 that a team of Australian cricketers would visit England the next year. Southerton's view - that a combination team "will give most English counties something to do" - was reported in the press. But Southerton’s previous writings had helped create the conditions that now allowed this tour. This is acknowledged in the 1879 edition of James Lillywhite’s Cricketers Annual: “The idea of a visit from an Australian team, it may be safely stated, was at first treated as something of a joke by our English cricketers. It is true that Southerton in his graphic descriptions of the tour of James Lillywhite’s Eleven … had prepared us for the possibility of such a trip. … Our countrymen had already been familiarised to some extent with the Colonial players, and Southerton’s letters had made them curious to witness the prowess of men like Charles Bannerman, … Kendall, whose bowling the Surrey veteran assessed to be quite as good as that of Alfred Shaw; of … Spofforth, yclept the “Demon Bowler” …, of Evans, the best all-round player in the Colonies”.

Return match “A return match is talked of, but nothing definite is known.” “Instead of the return match v. Fifteen of Victoria, it was immediately decided to play a return eleven of a Combined team, which will be played on March 31 and April 2, 3, and 4, when the Britishers will have a chance of retrieving their lost laurels.” “With regard to the Eleven we must say that in our opinion they deserve a few days’ rest before they meet the combined team again. Men are not machines to be set to do a certain amount of work in a certain time. They are but human, and the hard work they have gone through during an Australian summer must, to some extent, have told upon them… They will require to be in their best form for the return match, particularly if Evans should take part in it. We need not condole with them on their defeat. It is only the old story of the old man being beaten by the boy. During successive visits they have taught the colonial youths how to conquer, and Shaw, and Ulyett, and Lillywhite may be proud of such pupils as Bannerman, and Blackham, and Kendall. They will be on their mettle next time, so we must not, as Mr Trollope says, indulge in too much blowing, but endeavour in the second essay to prove that the result of the first match was no fluke.”

Not satisfied with their defeat in the late combination match, or perhaps very well aatisned with its pecuniary results, Lillywhite has arranged a return match which will be commenced today on the Melbourne ground. It had been intended, in the interval between the recent match and to-day, tbat the Englishmen should go to Sydney to meet a team of .thirteen o- New South Wales, aad on their . return play another match against fifteen of Victoria; but, for some ' reasoa, that intention was abandoned, and various country matches were arranged in Victoria to-fiH-np tte time.- Accordingly when Lillywbite, or his agent--mindfal of his previous blunder—applied to the New South Wales Association to assist them in procuring the players for their new combination match, they were naturally irate, .and refused to have anything to do with it whatever. However, as. ?In- '{he previous match, ttie. . association : has been done without, and certain playera selected. { In view, apparently, of the fact that Victoria : had six representatives in the last match, she is to have only five in this, whilst New South Wales has six. Evans was again asked to take part, but, though leave of absence had been obtained for him, declined to come to Melbourne. The six chosen from over the border are—Bannerman, D. Gregory, Garrett, Murdoch, Spofforth and Thompson. Victoria will be represented by Blackham, Hodges, Kelly, Kendall and Midwinter. Murdoch, Spofforth and Kelly, therefore, are in place of Horan, Cooper and E. Gregory, who took part in the last match. Probably the team, all round, is as strong as the last, and will render a good account of themselves. This match comes so close upon the heels of the other that the only thing which will make it a success is the anticipation that the Englishmen will show their true colors in it—which no one believes 'they did in the last. The quantity of travelling they have gone through since their arrival in the colonies would alone be sufficient to I account for their want of freshness; but I when, added to that, it is notorious that the greater portion of the team have not been living with that strictness—to put it mildly—that is requisite, it is not difficult to give reasons for their defeat in the late match. And if the same course of conduct be continued up to and throughout this present - match I shall not be in the least surprised to eee them defeated again. The eleven must bear this in mind, that they are to be treated like any other public performers, and criticised as such, and they must be made plainly to understand that tjbey have a duty to perform to the public, and that if when they enter the field to play in any match they are not—from causes entirely within their own control—in a condition to exert themselves to the best of their ability, or if they do not so exert tuemselvea; they are simply taking money under false pretences. (Leader “Cricket Gossip” 31 March 1877.)

Report dated 21 March: “There is to be a return match, eleven aside, in Easter week; it will be commenced on the day after Good Friday, and continue on the following Monday and Tuesday. It is scarcely to be expected, yet it would be remarkable if the Australian team were again successful.” “It was determined that a second game against Eleven would be played, to take advantage of the interest engendered by the first, and played for the benefit of the tourists. Before this, there were games at Bendigo, Ballarat and Ararat. In none of them did Southerton bowl.” Would not bowl again until the second innings of the Second Test, and then to match-winning effect. Seems often to have been underutilised by Lillywhite on this tour. The combination match resulted on Monday in the defeat of the English Eleven by 45 runs, the numbers being—The Englishmen, 302; the Colonials 347. There was a good deal of excitement throughout the day, and especially at the close. The Australian [sic: Australasian] Cup for the best bowling average was awarded to Kendall, who bowled splendidly. The batting prize goes to Bannerman, and a testimonial is being raised for him. Another combination match is to be played at Easter, when an effort be made to secure Evans. (Associated Press “Latest Intelligence” Gippsland Times, 21 March 1877.)

A footrace of 100 yards, for £50 side, has been arranged between Selby and an amateur, to come off early in April. Thomson and the two Gregorys left for Sydney to-day. Bannerman and Garrett remain behind for the present. (Associated Press “Latest Intelligence” Gippsland Times, 21 March 1877.)

The combination cricket match ended on Monday in a victory for the colonial team by 45 runs. The English eleven had a good prospect before them when they commenced their second inning, but met with a succession of mishaps, which the admirers of colonial players will consider fully explained by the excellent bowling of Kendall, and the well-timed aid which was rendered by Hodges. The former carried off the silver cup which was awarded by the proprietors of The Australasian to the best bowler in the Australian eleven. None were taken more by surprise by the result of the match than the Englishmen. Whether or not they had any bets on the match themselves we don't know, but they were heavily backed by their friends, and £100 was the amount of one wager laid with a supporter of Australian talent. Fair progress has been made with a collection of a sum of money for presentation to Bannerman. Such was the effect of the victory that it was determined that the match to be commenced on the MCC ground in the Easter week shall be on the same terms as the present one, namely, eleven aside [sic]. An effort may be put forth to secure the presence of Evans, but Allan will not be asked to play. The match will be commenced on Saturday after Good Friday, and continued on Easter Monday and Tuesday. It will, as much as possible, be made a return of the match which was finished on Monday. (Mercury “Combination Cricket Match” 23 March 1877.)

Bannerman will play in the new combination match, Evans also, likely Midwinter goes to England with Lillywhite's team as a professional cricketer. (Portland Guardian “Latest Telegrams” 23 March 1877.)

[March 19:] After the abrupt breaking off of the proposed cricket match in Sydney, the association has declined to assist in the second combined match. (Mercury “Intercolonial” 23 March 1877.)

ADELAIDE, 19th March Between 6,000 and 7,000 persons attended the circus on Saturday. The troupe goes to the provinces this week. (Mercury “Intercolonial” 23 March 1877.)

A foot race of 100 yards, for £50 a-side and a trophy of £20, has been arranged to take place between Selby, one of the English Eleven, and an amateur. The match will take place on either the Melbourne or South Melbourne cricket grounds, on the 4th, 5th, or 6th April, provided cricketing arrangements do not interfere. (Advocate “Sports and Games” 24 March 1877: 16.)

Matters are said by the Melbourne Argus to be well in train for the return cricket match against the English Eleven at Easter. Negotiations have been opened up with Mr. Evans, of New South Wales, to induce him to come to Melbourne, Mr. Bannerman, though he has to visit Sydney between the present date of the match can be depended on to play, but it may be necessary to find substitutes for the two Gregorys, who have been obliged to return home. The Cricket Association met on Wednesday, to receive reports as to the progress which had been made in the collection of subscriptions for the testimonial to Bannerman. The hon. secretary (Mr. Handfield) stated that the collections amounted to £80. From the manner in which applications had been responded to, it was believed that the sum could be increased to £100. The association, therefore, decided that the subscription lists should be held open until Monday next. The same action was taken with reference to the collections made for Mr. Kendall and Mr. Blackham, which up to yesterday amounted to £17. The testimonial to Bannerman will take the form of a purse of sovereigns. The association thought that a presentation should be made to each member of the Australian eleven, to commemorate the late match, which was regarded as the most important event that had yet occurred in the history of colonial cricket. An appropriation not to exceed £30 was voted from the funds for the purchase of suitable medals, the design of which was left to to [sic] Mr Peryman and Mr Handfield. Some conversation ensued regarding a proposal to bring out eleven gentlemen from England in the season of 1878-9, under the auspices of the association; but as the meeting had been called for the transaction of special business, the subject was ordered to stand over until the next general meeting. (Evening News “Cricket at Melbourne” 26 March 1877.)

The team for the combined match to take place on Saturday will consist of Bannerman, D. Gregory, Murdoch, Garrett, Spofforth, Thompson, Midwinter, Hodges, Kendall, Kelly, and Blackham, with Mr Curtis Reid as umpire. (Express and Telegraph “Latest Telegrams” 28 March 1877.)

Arrangements for the return match, to commence next Saturday, between eleven representatives of Australia and the English profeseional cricketers are now complete. Messrs Spofforth, D. Gregory, and Thompson left Sydney for Melbourne yesterday. The other three representatives of New South Wales are already here, viz., Messrs Garrett, Murdoch, and Bannerman. Several changes have been made in the eleven, whose strength must be regarded as increased. It is now well equipped with bowlers. The name, however, of Mr Horan will be missed from the list. He has preferred to be one of the eleven which the East Melbourne Cricket Club is about to send to South Australia, but his place will be pretty effectively filled by Mr Murdoch, of Sydney, who is not only an excellent batsman but a fine fielder. Mr Kelly will take the position which Mr Cooper occupied in the former eleven. Mr Spofforth may be regarded as more than an efficient substitute for E. Gregory. He is a very dangerous bowler; his pace is much faster than Ulyett's (which no doubt Bannerman thinks quite fast enough), but he has such control over the ball that he often puzzles the batsman by changing to slows. It is his speed and the peculiarity of his style which made him doubt whether he should be effective in the first match, unless supported by a wicketkeeper well accustomed to his bowling. Should Blackham, who acquitted himself with such great credit when he had medium-paced bowlers like Midwinter and Kendall to deal with, be unable to take readily and comfortably to Spofforth, who is quite new to him, Murdoch will be Available whenever wanted. Spofforth will be an acquisition as a batsman as well as a bowler. Garrett, Bannerman, and Murdoch practised on the MCC ground yesterday, and all showed good form. The eleven will be as follows: Bannerman (NSW) Blackham (Vic) Garrett (NSW) Gregory, D. (NSW) Hodges (Vic.) Kendall (Vic.) Kelly (Vic) Midwinter (Vic) Murdoch (NSW) Spofforth (NSW) Thompson (NSW) The umpires will be Mr Curtis Reid and Terry, the MCC professional. From the Sydney newspapers it appears that steps have been taken for the presentation of a testimonial to Bannerman on his return to Sydney. The project has been taken up with so much spirit that the testimonial may be expected to prove a handsome one. The sale of sites for booths at the All England Cricket Match takes place today, at Kirk's Bazaar, at 12 o'clock. (Argus “Return Combination Match” 28 March 1877.)

The team selected for the return combined cricket match, to take place on Saturday, comprise Bannerman, D. Gregory, Murdoch, Garrett, Spofforth, Thompson, Midwinter, Hodges, Kendall, Kelly, and Blackham, with Curtis Reid as Umpire. (Australian Associated Press “Latest Telegrams” Evening Journal, 28 March 1877.)

The combined team has been selected for the Easter match. It includes—Bannerman, D. &. E. Gregory, Murdoch, Garrett, Spofforth, Thompson, Midwinter, Hodges, Kelly, and Kendall. (Maitland Mercury “Melbourne” 29 March 1877.)

The return match between the All-England Eleven and eleven Australians, selected from amongst the players of New South Wales and Victoria, was commenced today on the Melbourne cricket ground. A few weeks since eleven Australians met the Englishmen on even terms, and defeated them. The result of that match gave rise to a vast amount of discussion, the supporters of the old world representatives averring that they were not in their best form, and that the win was a fluke, owing to the innings of Bannerman, which could never be repeated. Others did not hesitate to say that the game was not played on its merits, and that it was lost for the express purpose of creating excitement, and inducing gate money for the return match. Most people, however, will hold that neither of those excuses is well founded, but it is owing to the difference of opinion that the excitement and interest in the match commenced today is so intense. The team which is to represent Australia is not exactly the same as the last one, as E. Gregory and Cooper are out, their places being supplied by Spofforth and Murdoch. This gives New South Wales six players and Victoria five, the last team having been composed of six Victorians and five New South Welshmen. The present eleven may be regarded as slightly stronger than the last, for though it has not gained in batting powers the presence of Spofforth undoubtedly renders it stronger in the bowling department. Bearing in mind, therefore, the result of the last match, and that this team if anything is superior to one that was victorious that occasion, soma very excellent cricket may be expected, and there is tolerably certain to be a close contest to whichever side victory may incline. The weather promises splendidly. There have been a few slight showers during the last few days, but they have not been sufficient to interfere with the condition of the ground, which is in reality all that could be desired. A splendid wicket has been prepared, and there is everything that the most fastidious cricketer could desire. The weather has cleared up, the sun is shining brightly, and although the breeze is slightly chilly, yet altogether better weather for the game could not be picked. It is to be hoped that it will continue during the match, and that nothing will interfere with the game being played out and a satisfactory conclusion being arrived at. (Herald “Cricket Carnival” 31 March 1877.)

This match begun under favourable circumstances on Saturday should interest the public from the likelihood that it will show better than the former one the exact stage of progress reached by colonial cricketers. It must at any rate settle the doubts prevalent in many minds as to the earnestness and the capability of the Englishmen. Of course spectators who know so little of the game as not to see in the admirable play which they witnessed a fortnight ago a full contradiction of the rumour that the result of the first match was predetermined will no doubt remain unsatisfied until the gross scores of the present elevens come to be compared. Since this must be the final chance that the English players could have—for the contest still to take place in Adelaide will decide no question of moment—not only to recover their personal reputation but to maintain the honour and glory of old England it was to be believed that they would come well prepared for the struggle. The known hospitality of all Australians—the readiness with which we uncork champagne to offer a glad welcome even to champions who visit us expressly to humble our own heroes in the dust—may, in the first stages of the Englishmen’s tour, have brought genial influences into play which would not operate in other circumstances. Now however that duties of the sternest sort had to be performed Hill and Ulyett might be expected to train their 81-ton guns centrally on the wickets in order to give the fullest aid to the subtle assaults of Shaw—a bowler who may for a time be baffled by a batsman like Bannerman but can never be wholly deprived of the hope which often enables him to persevere to the close of a long day. Jupp, the man of stolid looks and impregnable defence, no doubt had pondered over late painful experiences and could now be trusted not to stand in front of the stumps when the bowler happened to be a straight and the umpire resolute. Charlwood, to whom cricket seems to be a merry pastime, needed only to credit Kendall and Spofforth with cunning which unless he had his eyes open would prove dangerous; and Selby had only to bring to his venturesome performances as a striker some of the admirable prudence which characterises him as a wicketkeeper in order that both might prolong their innings from one hour to two or even three and between them perhaps contribute 100 to the score. It only required, in fact, a few improvements such as are here indicated to enable the Englishmen to begin the game with cheerful hearts and contented minds. (Argus “Return Combination Cricket Match” 2 April 1877.)

The Cricketers were lucky in having brilliant weather after the rainy week. The pitch was in excellent condition, and fortune again favoured the Australians, who had the best of it. Dave Gregory, the captain, won the toss and sent his men to the wickets. The Combined Team are stronger this time, having amongst them Spofforth, the great Sydney bowler, second only to Evans. Evans declined to come professedly because he had not sufficient time to practice, and Allan was never asked. Ned Gregory, Horan, and Cooper absent, but their places were well filled by Kelly (admittedly the best point in Australia), Spofforth, and Murdoch; the team comprised six New South Welshmen and five Victorians. (South Australian Register “Return Match” 2 April 1877.)

So far as New South Wales and Victoria are concerned the visit of the All-England Eleven to Australia terminated at Easter. Since the defeat of the team by the representative fifteen, of both colonies it was considered that a combined eleven, embracing the crack players of this and the neighbouring colony, would have a good chance against Lillywhite's team, and the match was arranged. Evans and Allen, undoubtedly the two best bowlers of Australia, did not play; but notwithstanding this disadvantage, the combined eleven won by 47 [sic] runs. The scores were: Combined Team—1st innings, 245; second innings, 104. All-England, 1st innings, 196; 2nd innings, 106. C. Bannerman, one of the New South Wales representatives, played a brilliant "not out" innings of 165, and had to retire owing to an injury to his hand by a ball from Ulyett. During the Easter week a combined team again met the All-England Eleven on the Melbourne ground, and were defeated by four wickets. The Australians made a determined stand in the second innings, and turned what at first threatened to be a one innings affair into an exciting contest. The scores were: Australia, 122 and 259; All-England, 261 and 122, for six wickets. It is understood that negotiations have already been opened for the purpose of sending a team from the colonies to England to play a series of county matches. (Sydney Morning Herald “Summary of News” 13 April 1877.)

As regarded bowlers, they lacked the services of the best two men in the colonies, one of whom, on account of the manner of his refusal to play in the first match, was not asked to be one of the eleven in the second [Argus doesn’t even mention him by name!], and the other, Mr Evans, of New South Wales had good reasons why he could not come to Melbourne. (Argus “All-England Eleven” 16 April 1877.)

“The success of the ‘Grand Combination Match’ inspired a ‘Return Combination Match’ in Melbourne a fortnight later, subsequently classed as the second Test.”

1878 tour And now Austral’s sons, immortal grown, by a long series of acquired renown...

It is very nearly nineteen years now since the idea entered Jack Conway's head of taking an Australian team to England. That was after the defeat of Jim Lillywhite's team on the Melbourne ground in March, 1877, when Australia won eleven-a-side, owing chiefly to the magnificent batting of Charlie Bannerman, for 165 retired hurt, against Alfred Shaw, Jim Lillywhite, Southerton, Ulyett and Allan Hill. The notion of taking a team home was viewed adversely by some, but others warmly supported the project, and the pioneer team was finally banded together and in England met with a reception which princes might envy. Nowadays valued services of years ago are apt to be forgotten or ignored, and as Jack Conway's cricket name is getting further and further removed from the ken of the rising cricketers of today, I make this special reference to the pioneer team just to let budding Australian Eleven men know the name of the gentleman to whom they owe the inception of those tours which now, as then, are the joy and honourable ambition of Australian cricketers. (Horan “Round the Ground” Australasian, 11 January 1896: 64.)

“I took out the fourth team in 1876 at the invitation of Mr. John Conway. He it was who had persuaded Grace to visit the country three years before, and during that tour I arranged with him to bring out the next team. He acted as my manager and arranged my fixtures list for me. “During this trip the first two Test matches were played. We played two at Melbourne, losing the first by about fifty runs and winning the second by four wickets. I suppose the games do not rank as official Tests. The fact remains, however, that they were the first played. The England team being my own, I was the skipper. So you see a professional has not only captained England in these great national cricket contests, but they were inaugurated by a professional. Charles Bannerman won the first match for the Australians by scoring 165 not out in their first innings. “My team was composed entirely of professionals, and included Emmett, Shaw, Southerton, Pooley, Jupp and Greenwood, all at the top of their form at that time. The tour paid well; we had big crowds at almost all the matches, although charging as much as half-a-crown for admittance, and everywhere we found nicely kept grounds and good and true wickets.”

[IMAGE] English Cricketer to Australian.—“IT'S ALL HOOMBUG, LAAD, SENDING OOS SIXTEEN THOUSAND MILES TO SHOW YOW CRICKET. WHOY, THERE'S SOOM OF YOW AS CAN TEACH US SUMMUT. IF THEY WANT TO MAKE OWSTRALIA KNOWN IN T’OULD COUNTRY, GOVERNMENT OWT TO SEND ELEVEN OF YOW LAADS WHOME—BETTER NOR THOWTY AGENT-GENERALS.” (Melbourne Punch “After the Match” 22 March 1877.)

An Australian eleven has met a picked eleven of the very flower of English cricketers, and has given them a signal defeat. Such an event would not have been dreamed of as coming within the limits of possibility ten or fifteen years ago, and it is a crushing reply to those unpatriotic theorists who would have us believe that the Australian race is deteriorating from the Imperial type, or that lengthened residence under Australian suns must kill out the Briton in the blood. The experience of Tuesday points to the very opposite conclusion. It shows that in Bannerman we can train a batsman who is not surpassed in any English school of cricket, and in Kendall and Midwinter, but products of the soil, bowlers almost as good; while in the person of young Blackham we have a wicketkeeper also of native growth who is in his department what Roberts is at the billiard-table and Blondin on the tight-rope. As long as we have such rare feats of skill and muscle to record as they have exhibited in the Melbourne oval within the last few days, we can very well afford to leave the pejoravis view of colonial life to the grumblers who insist that the Anglo-Saxon will not bear transplanting, and that lads who have selected their favorite vice before they have got their mustachios, and girls who have formed their private theories of the summum bonum while they are still in the middle form at school, offer a poor prospect for the health and vitality of the next generation. There is no doubt that in both sexes of the colonial there is wanting some organic element which supplies “the cheeks of cream” to the Englishman's familiar type of feminine loveliness, and furnishes what Falstaff calls “the big semblance of a man” to the champions of his playgrounds and gymnasia. But though young Australia is apt to be too weedy to be symmetrical, he is a very Hercules in endurance, and as full of spirit and dash, and the courage which risks everything in the cause of humanity, as though he kept his teeth and complexion for a ruddy old age. If these traits in his character are worth preserving, there is no better field for cultivating them than the cricket field. Quickness of eye and strength of limb, and manliness of bearing, the fortiter in re and the suaviter in modo are all taught in that miniature school of discipline, and that, too, without a single one of the qualifying considerations that are associated with other sports and games. Coursing, shooting, hunting, and racing all bring a certain amount of danger and suffering in their train, whereas the bat and hall are emblems of a healthy and painless enjoyment, which can give no offence to an archbishop. (Kyneton Observer “Great Cricket Contest” 22 March 1877.)

When eleven residents of the colonies can meet England's best men level handed on the cricket field and thrash them, the game has got to a high pitch of excellence in Australia. (Idler “Northern Jottings” Northern Argus, 23 March 1877.)

I reckon the Australians have "whipped the darned Britishers" this time. It was bad enough to be thrashed by a team of fifteen; but on equal terms very few thought the colonials would stand a show with their professional antagonists. Bannerman has certainly immortalised himself, and has achieved a victory no one could have imagined possible. One hundred and sixty-five runs against the best bowlers in the world! It seems almost incredible, and has only been equalled by the Champion himself. To Bannerman the honour of victory chiefly belongs, but the entire team must have played splendidly to have beaten the Englishmen by so many runs. The question naturally arises how a team of Australians, who are principally amateurs, can best an equal number of English professionals! One answer is to be found in the fact that colonial cricketers are far more skilful and enduring at the game than their English compeers gave them credit for. Another reason is that the English Eleven were badly chosen. The Eleven seem to have been selected with the idea that they would be invincible in their bowling, and that the Australians would find them quite unplayable. The sequel has proved the fallacy of this opinion. The great strength of the Australians is in their excellent all round play, while the Englishmen have only one or two good bats, and others who are more than indifferent; consequently the superiority of the colonial batsmen has more than neutralised the expertness of the All England bowling. It would be far more satisfactory to cricketers if they could get out an English Eleven composed entirely of gentleman players, who would much better represent the cricketing strength of England, and at the same time be above the suspicion of selling their matches, if they lost. While heavy betting is indulged in, professionals, whether rightly or wrongly, will always be open to the doubt of not having done their best, when they lose. If gentleman players could be induced to visit the colonies this would not be the case, and if we obtained a victory over them the honour would be so much the greater. The return match between the New South Wales and English Elevens will take place at Sydney in a few days. (Long-Stop “Cricket” Rockhampton Bulletin, 24 March 1877.)

Extract from score of Cricket Match, English. Eleven v. Combined Eleven Did not PUNCH wisely choose not long ago Him who should bear his banner in the van Of the mock battle 'twixt the friendly foes? When 165 was scored by Bannerman, Not far out was the tip, nor bad the call— For gallant Charley was “not out” at all. (Sydney Punch “C. Bannerman, 165—Not out” 24 March 1877.)

[March 20:] A match of 200 yards has been arranged between Selby and an amateur, to take place early in April. (Australian Associated Press “Colonial Telegrams” South Australian Chronicle and Weekly Mail, 24 March 1877.)

There is only the telegraphic intelligence on which to base remaks [sic] as to the great match between the All-England Eleven and the Combined Victorian and New South Wales Eleven, but it can be safely said that the All-England Eleven have been tried on their merits. If it be said that the absence of Pooley upset the Eleven and caused the various members of the team to field in places with which they were not familiar, it must on the other hand be recollected that the best possible Australian eleven was not in the field. The match therefore has been played on even terms, and has resulted in a decided victory for the Combined Team. Each side did its best. Bannerman's magnificent score of 165 not out will secure for his name a permanent place in all retrospects of Australian cricket. Both in Melbourne and Sydney subscriptions are being collected, so that a testimonial may be presented to this great batsman. That the score was not a piece of luck, but the result of first-rate play, is proved by the fact that the English Eleven have subscribed to the testimonial. This score, too, will secure Australian cricket a place in the next issue of Lillywhite's Guide; and so, not merely in politics, but also in social matters and national sports shall we secure the attention of the English press. It is a great pity that there should have been any disputes over the play of this match. Both Jupp and Ulyett protested that they were wrongly given out in the first innings. Ulyett appears to have made a decided demonstration. "Point," in the Leader, makes a strong and, on the facts stated, justifiable attack on Allan for backing out at the last moment, “Point” puts the matter very plainly, and says Allan backed out because he was afraid of losing his reputation as a bowler. By the latest telegrams it appears that Allan's name has been greeted with groans. The Eleven are to play at Sandhurst, Ballarat, and Ararat. The Sydney papers express regret that there will not be another trial of strength with the Eleven on the Albert Ground. Perhaps the Eleven did wisely in deciding not to go again to Sydney. They would undoubtedly have had to play on level terms with a New South Wales team, and a defeat from one Australian province would have been a far more serious thing than the defeat they have just experienced. (Cover-Point “Cricket Notes” South Australian Chronicle and Weekly Mail, 24 March 1877.)

IT may be permitted to the Australians (says the 'Argus' of Tuesday [have checked that issue—can’t find these lines there]) to take some little credit to themselves for the signal victory which they have just gained over the English cricketers. Forty-five is a large majority for mere colonials to have gained in a well-fought cricket-field against the pick of English professionals. So far as we can recollect, English cricketers have never before played outside England on equal terms and been beaten. In Australia they have, before now played teams exceeding themselves in numerical force with varying results, but the match just concluded is the only one in which an English eleven has contended with an equal number of opponents not of English birth and met defeat. Of course, it may be said that Lillywhite's eleven now in Australia is not the best possible English eleven, and it is certain that it does not comprise all the very best English batsmen, since a very large proportion of these are always to be found among the gentlemen players, who are not always available for travelling teams. But our visitors number in their ranks the best English bowlers and fieldsmen, which is much, while it has also to be borne in mind that the combined team that was opposed to them did not include the whole of the best cricketing talent of Australia. Three of our best bowlers, Evans, Spofforth, and Allen [sic], were absent, and one of our best bats, Bannerman, was disabled in first innings. So far as the statistics of the contest show, Sydney had the best of us in batting, through the splendid performance of Bannerman in the Australians' first innings; but some of our own men also handled the willow with excellent effect, when we remember the quality of the opponents they had to face. And, on the other hand, the bowling of our Kendall, Midwinter, and Hodges was, above all praise. Either of these three bowlers would elicit the highest commendation of the most fastidious cricket cognoscenti in the world by such play as they showed during the match just concluded. Australia has every reason to be deeply gratified by the results of the match, though, of course, the issue is no sufficient reason why our cricketers should not strive after a still higher degree of excellence and skill than have yet exhibited. (Northern Star “Late Cricket Match” 31 March 1877.)

The speculative eleven who came out in charge of Lillywhite to exhibit the supremacy of English professional prowess in the cricket field have received such a drubbing from an equal team of New South Welshmen and Victorians, at Melbourne, as will excite their memories for many a long day. This combined team, which did not by any means include the very best players in either of the colonies, defeated their adversaries by a total of 47 runs [sic]—349 having been gained by them, and 302 by the Englishmen. Bannerman contributed a score of 169 [sic], and retired (not out) in his first innings, in consequence of an injury to his hand. We presume that the game was fair one, and that Mr Lillywhite's invincibles will now admit to having been beaten on their merits, although there exists the usual doubt as to whether they will leave the colonies at all satisfied with such diminished prestige. The British journals have now matter enough on which to enlarge concerning the respective values of gentlemen and professional players; and if any of them are still of opinion that the present eleven considered the mercantile prospects of their trip too much apart from that regard for honor that should animate every true cricketer, it is quite within their province to advise the exportation in future of such teams only as can win a match whenever they have the desire so to do, irrespective of wagers or other such trifles mixed up with the pretty little game of bookmaking. (Illustrated Sydney News “Current Topics” 31 March 1877.)

Then, again, having last week, in the desire to show a little enterprise, written about the match between the Combined Australian Eleven and the All-England Eleven on the telegraphic news received, “Cover-point” finds that the ideas expressed in the previous article are so much in accord with what appears in the latest issues of the Australasian and Leader that it is difficult to write anything fresh on the subject. Both of these Melbourne papers refer to the great progress cricket has made in Australia during the last 15 years, as evidenced by the fast that in 1862 the first All-England Eleven beat a combined 22 'chosen from Victoria and New South Wales players. 'Point,' in the Leader, occupies some space in his article in showing that Bannerman's score was no piece of luck, but was simply somewhat larger than some of his best performances in intercolonial and Challenge Cup matches. He also refers to the fine play of Horan and the fielding of Midwinter. Kendall is the recipient of the cup given by the proprietors of the Australasian as a reward to the best bowler in the recent match. (Cover-point “Cricket Notes” South Australian Chronicle, 31 March 1877.)

Criticism of the English team Their chase might not have been helped by the large lunch, and copious quantity of beer, they consumed during the break.

The English team of cricketers left Adelaide by the last Suez mail steamer (Bangalore) for England, after having spent some four months in their tour through the Australian colonies. Their visit can scarcely be looked on as a success, except perhaps in a pecuniary point of view. Lillywhite and his team have signally failed in upholding the honour of England as the best cricketers in the world, and some of them by their conduct have caused people to think them anything but a credit to their country in more ways than one. As far as their cricketing powers are concerned, the Australasian says: “As an eleven representing the cricket talent of the old country, they are decidedly the weakest by a long way that has ever played here, notwithstanding the presence among them of Shaw, who is termed the premier bowler of England. If Ulyett, Emmett, and Hill, are fair specimens of the best fast bowling in England, all we can say is, either they have never been in their proper form in this colony, or British bowling has sadly deteriorated. The same journal also adds, that "Kendall is as good a bowler, if not better, than either; and that Armitage's slows are a bad sample of Sydney grubbers of 20 years since." It will be interesting to know how Lillywhite will account for the thrashing his team have received from colonial players when he arrives in England, and also the reception that will be given on their return to “the best team in the world!” (Rockhampton Bulletin “Cricket” 5 May 1877.)

After a four months' tour through the Australian colonies, the All-England Eleven took their departure this week in the mail steamer Bangalore, and are now on their way back to the old country. They have had some hard work to go through, and have played a good many matches, and we trust they have both been pleased with their visit, and have found it a remunerative one also. As an eleven representing the cricket talent of the old country, they are decidedly the weakest by a long way that has ever played here, notwithstanding the presence among them of Shaw, who is termed "the premier bowler of England." If Ulyett, Emmett, and Hill are fair specimens of the best fast bowling in England, all we can say is, either they have never been in their proper form in this colony, or British bowling has badly deteriorated. Kendall is as good, if not better, than either. Southerton and Lillywhite are both very well in their way, but they are both rather passé: and we need hardly refer to Armitage's slows, which reminded us of a shocking bad sample of the Sydney grubbers of 20 years ago. In batting the Eleven were very weak. Jupp never was in proper health all the time he was here. Ulyett is a brilliant hitter, and Greenwood, Selby, and Charlwood are all good average batsmen; but after them there is a long weak tail, unless we except Hill, who now and then proves himself of some use. How Lillywhite could ever have expected to beat Fifteen of Australia with such a team is past comprehension, as he should have been able to form a pretty correct estimate of colonial play. They were opposed to players, many of whom were superior to themselves, and were always, it must be allowed, in better condition to play. An eleven representing the full strength of Australia, could have played a Fifteen of England, if the other four were no better on the average than the Eleven; for, it must be remembered, we played a combined team, which comprised neither Evans nor Allan. We have a wicket-keeper better than Pooley, and in Bannerman we have a better batsman than any in the England Eleven. Thompson and D. Gregory and Kelly are quite equal to the best of the Englishmen, whilst a dozen others could be selected from this colony and New South Wales a long way superior to the other members of the England Eleven. The Englishmen played better together, and fielded more like a well-drilled corps than the colonials, and to this fact their limited success is to be attributed. However, as as [sic] far as this colony is concerned, some very enjoyable matches were played, and some good cricket was shown, and perhaps it was more relished by the public, owing to the sides being more equally balanced than on previous occasions, when the England Elevens played against longer odds. We would counsel whoever may enter into future speculations for importing an England Eleven to bear in mind the great improvement of colonial cricket, and not to imagine that anything will do for Australia. It would require the two Graces with a very strong team to stand much chance now against a combined Fifteen of Australia. In another point, too, the colonials have greatly improved. They have learnt patience from their adversaries, and they can face a crowd better than in the olden time, when eight out of every ten players who emerged from the pavilion to test the British bowling either left their hearts behind them, or allowed that necessary organ to subside into their boots. We have more nerve now, and have learnt to play the game better. However, the Englishmen will no doubt report when they get home what they think of colonial cricket, and explain why they were so often beaten; and, if they speak from their hearts, no doubt the next Eleven that visits Australia will be very differently constituted to that which has just departed. (Australasian “All-England Eleven” 21 April 1877.)

Before Lillywhite's team left Australia, the Melbourne Club engaged Hill and Ulyett as professional bowlers for this season, paying each £200, including all expenses. Both have jibbed on it, and the Melbourne Club find themselves forced to fall back for the present on Cosstick, their other professionals having departed, Terry to the East Melbourne Club, and Midwinter to England. (Week “Cricket Notes” 22 September 1877.)

Cambridge University v Surrey, May 24. Twelve a side. Cambridge won by 7 wickets. Jupp, Southerton, and Pooley were not included in the County twelve, owing to their not having returned from Australia.

Those, like the Australasian, claiming Australia’s success was down to poorness of Lillywhite’s men perhaps given pause by their performances in England immediately after:

The professionals who recently visited Australia arrived home on the 4th June, and have generally scored well since. For the Players v. Gentlemen, on 7th July, Ulyett scored 63 and 118. Eastwood, a colt, who has offered to come out to Melbourne, scored 32 and 29 in the same match. Emmett, for his county, scored against Derbyshire 70 runs, and took 6 wickets for 25 runs. Against Surrey he made 47 and 24; and Armitage, who has discarded his "lobs” for round-arm bowling, took 7 wickets for 47 runs. (Week “Cricket Notes” 22 September 1877.)

Overall, Emmett had had a reasonable tour and established many friendships in Australia and New Zealand. In all games, he batted 38 times and scored 420 runs at 13.4, but only 94 of these were in 11-a-side contests. He also took 58 wickets at 5.1, but none were in 11-a-side games. As a result, one reporter suggested rather disparagingly that both Emmett and Hill ‘entirely disappointed the cricketing public of the colonies with their performances in good matches – and the only conclusion arrived at is that if theirs is the sort of bowling brought against the crack batsmen of England on good wickets, it is not difficult to understand the tall scoring which takes place.’ Life in Australia had been full of incident and amusement for the tourists, especially when travelling with Emmett. Allen Hill claimed to remember an occasion when he and Emmett occupied a double-bedded room, and ‘after we had been fighting the mosquitoes with towels until we were in despair, Tom. jumped up in a rage and shouted to the insects, ‘You little devils, if you don’t keep off my nose you’ll burn your feet.’ ’ Emmett returned home after seven months, a significant time away from his now large family, and a major commitment of time. Over the winter, his doings in Australia had been much publicised, and his achievements of 1876 had not been forgotten. In February 1877, several Yorkshire papers published a long profile, which had previously appeared in The Sportsman. It concluded that there were ‘very few better men around, either among amateurs or professionals, than Emmett…when he was at his best, and it was his day, he was the most dangerous bowler that I have ever seen.’ Despite this praise, as would be the case on many occasions (right up to the present day), the Yorkshire press was not convinced that the county’s players had been properly utilised on tour. The Sheffield Independent suggested that ‘Though James Lillywhite has captained the team generally well, he has scarcely fulfilled all requisites in the bowling department. While Shaw has been kept on continually, Hill and Emmett were frequently shunted before getting fairly into swing.’

Australia were therefore winners of the first ever Test match, by 45 runs. Southerton identified various factors that contributed – the travelling that the Eleven had endured, the loss of the toss such that they had to bat last, the absence of Pooley as wicket-keeper (though the Australians were missing Spofforth and Evans). In the end though, it was the “chances of the game” and the magnificent batting of Bannerman. Noting of Bannerman that “in the first innings he was so near being bowled the first ball that the thickness of a sheet of paper would have caused the ball to hit the stump”, he was nevertheless fulsome in his praise: “I sincerely hope that he may be well rewarded for his very brilliant performance, and I am sure I only echo the sentiments of not only our side here, but all lovers of good cricket everywhere” (The Sportsman, 8 May 1877). The first Test of all time therefore included a Mitcham man, Southerton. He was 49 years and 119 days old and remains the oldest man ever to have made his debut in Test cricket. [p. 77] There was a good crowd for the match. This would have pleased Southerton, and indeed all the tourists, for whom money was a continuing concern. In a report home, he observed: “There was a grand show of people on the ground to-day, but as it has happened on big days before, both here and at Sydney, that the amount taken never comes up to the assumed number of people in the ground. That we are robbed there is no doubt, and to a good tune; but in spite of our watching and the employment of detectives yet we cannot discover how it is done” (The Sportsman, 8 May 1877).

Surrey has steadily progressed, and with half of their matches resulting successfully, the eleven have good reason to be pleased with themselves. Mr STRACHAN is to be congratulated on the form shown by his followers, and four reliable amateurs in Messrs LUCAS , READ, GAME, and LINDSAY have well maintained the prestige of a county whose past has been so brilliant. Jupp showed his old strong defence, in spite of his illness in Australia, and SOUTHERTON is still not to be trifled with. The Colts' matches, however, did not bring forward any new candidate with special pretensions. Notts has been going downhill of late years, and ALFRED SHAW's illness was a great misfortune, for the county is not so prolific of first-class bowlers as it was a few years ago. Five victories were counterbalanced by five defeats, and though the eleven began well by winning five of the first six matches, they fell to pieces at the end of the season, and could make nothing of Mr WG Grace's bowling in either match with GLOUCESTERSHIRE. DAFT, as usual, heads the batting averages, but neither with bat nor ball have the eleven been up to their old standard of excellence. YORKSHIRE, however, has fallen still lower in the rank of counties, though it is not easy to assign any very cogent reason for this. The bowling certainly has not been so deadly as it was two or three seasons back, but the batting has been fairly maintained, GREENWOOD, LOCKWOOD, EMETT and ULYETT all showing averages exceeding twenty runs. Nevertheless, two matches only out of twelve were decided in the county's favour. We shall hope for better results next season. The Middlesex eleven were not particularly favoured by luck in 1877, and their fielding, so brilliant in former years, was unaccountably bad, several of the team apparently having altogether lost the art of catching. Messrs ID WALKER and AJ WEBBE each have the excellent batting average of 38, but Messrs Francis, Hadow, and A. LYTTELTON were unable to take part in most of the matches, and both the batting and bowling strength of the eleven was materially affected by their loss. MIDDLESEX, however, has the credit of having compiled the largest aggregate score of the counties’ season—400 against Notts at Trent Bridge which total Messrs A. LYTTELTON and AJ WEBBE each contributed 100 runs. SUSSEX, with seven defeats out of eight matches, appears in extremis. The county wants both bowlers and batsmen to help JAMES LILLYWHITE and Mr COTTERILL and CHARLWOOD, and we trust that the resolutions adopted at the recent general meeting will give fresh vigour to a sadly debilitated frame. Hants closes the county list with four defeats suffered in four matches: Messrs RIDLEY and Booth have had but weak material to back them up. (Lillywhite, James, "Cricket and Cricketers in 1877," Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 11-12.)

The GENTLEMEN v. PLAYERS matches were, as usual, all in favour of the former. A splendid wicket at the Oval favoured run-getting, the PLAYERS, however, taking nearly double as long in compiling 405 runs as the GENTLEMEN did in compiling 427, and then quite falling to pieces in the second innings, Time failed, or the match would have been easily won by the GENTLEMEN, for whom Mr HORNBY hit superbly in his long innings of 144. The LORD's match was the most exciting first-class match of the year, and the ground helped the bowlers, though they could not get rid of Mr COTTERILL till he had scored 92. The cream of the cricket was kept for the close of the match. When the last man, Mr PATTERSON, the Cambridge Captain, joined Mr GF GRACE, 46 runs were still wanted, and, in spite of excellent bowling and fielding, the pair got the runs. They should be prouder of their not-out innings in this match than of any cricket yet shown by them. This feat recalled that of Mr CE GREEN in 1871, when his not-out 57 at the Oval won the match within a minute or two of time being called. The PRINCE's match we have before alluded to; Mr GF GRACE's 134 and ULYETT's 118 were its chief features, and the GENTLEMEN won by nine wickets. (Lillywhite, James, "Cricket and Cricketers in 1877," Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 12.)

Of the professionals, E. LOCKWOOD, a thoroughly reliable batsman for years past, must be given first place; his aggregate of runs is the highest after that of Mr. Grace. In point of average there is little to choose between him Daft, Jupp, and Ulyett, the Captain of Notts still maintaining his well-know brilliant form, and Jupp his stubborn defence. GREENWOOD, who, however has not played in as many matches as usual, has a capital average, and Barlow and Shrewsbury have shown increased merit. But rising professional batsmen are few indeed. (Lillywhite, James, "Cricket and Cricketers in 1877," Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 14.)

IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASSIGN any satisfactory reason for the retrogression of this famous county of professionals, which stood second to Gloucestershire in the chronicle of the county cricket of 1876. The merits of the eleven were recognised by the selection of Emmett, Greenwood, Hill, Ulyett, and Armitage for places in the Australian Twelve; and the great strength of the county was proved by the defeat of Middlesex at Lord's during the absence of the above named five. Lockwood has batted better than ever; but the Australian representatives were not in their best form, and the county bowling was below its usual standard, Hill, especially, showing a great falling off. There are plenty of good colts, however, to come forward when required, and we believe that Yorkshire will again assert her undeniable strength in 1878. The county matches played were out and home with Gloucestershire, Notts, Lancashire, Middlesex, Surrey, and Derbyshire. (Lillywhite, John, "Hints on the Game," in Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 92.)

May 2 [1877]. South won by 3 wickets. Tremendous rain-storms completely spoiled the wickets, and gave every possible advantage to the bowling. On Whit-Monday, the opening day, more than 7000 people were on the ground though the weather was bitterly cold. The absence from England of James Lillywhite's twelve materially reduced the strength of the sides. The southern team was entirely composed of amateurs with the exception of R. Humphrey.

Opposite of Armitage: “WG Wyld, first-class bat with plenty of confidence, hits well and hard, has improved very much this season; bowls well, but should not try slow round; his lobs would, if he practised them, do more execution than the slow round, and become very serviceable to the eleven; his fielding is extremely brilliant, especially at point; he is a first-rate cricketer all round and has obtained the average bat and ball this season” (Lillywhite (ed.) Lillywhite's Companion 1878: 166). According to Meredith, immediately after the end of the inaugural Test “rumours flew round Melbourne that several Englishmen were drunk and quite unfit for play and that one of their batsmen even had to be helped out of the pavilion by two colleagues and pointed in the direction of the wicket. There was much condemnation of the team's off-field behaviour, even as far away as New Zealand: 'The result will be heard in England,’ wrote the Auckland Weekly News, ‘with mingled feelings of regret, disappointment and indignation—with regret at the loss of prestige, with disappointment at the collapse of their confidence in English skill and indignation at the careless way the team have throughout the tour trifled with the reputation of the country…. Lillywhite and his colleagues are not likely to get a very enthusiastic reception on their return…. There can be no doubt that with sterner self-discipline and more self-respect they might have acquitted themselves much better than they have…. How Pooley and Armitage will explain away their little escapades we shall be interested to learn….’” Meredith assumes that Armitage's “little escapade” was his bet; more likely it was his arrest. “Armitage's 'little escapade' concerned a very big wager of £100 with a 'well-known citizen of Sydney' which he had failed to honour when All-England lost. [Was this separate from his 7/1 wager on himself to score fifty?] At first he simply prevaricated: 'Will send your money when we settle our benefit next week.' Later, his telegrams breathed brazen defiance: 'Armitage says, after your telegram, won't pay; do best.' He was accordingly chased round Victoria and South Australia by a succession of solicitors; Lillywhite was asked to intervene by leading figures in Sydney 'for the sake of the team's credit,’ but declined to do so. Eventually Armitage sailed home, the bet dishonoured.” Meredith: “It is probable that several of Lillywhite's men, and not just Armitage alone, had big money on an English win and certainly there was as great a tension evident in their performance in this match as at any other time on the tour. The English fielding seemed very nervous: Armitage, at mid-off, dropped Bannerman before he had reached double figures, a miss which Alf Shaw, the suffering bowler, could remember twenty-five years later: 'The ball bobbed up in the simplest fashion and struck Armitage in the stomach.' Shaw, however, who seems not to have had much time for Armitage, failed to recall his own two failures to catch Bannerman. The bowling was very wild. Ulyett often pitched less than half way down the wicket, though 'treating Bannerman to a full pitcher which threatened to cut his body in two', and Tom Armitage was so undermined by his expensive wager [this implies it was a different bet] that his lobs got worse and worse. After attacking Bannerman's bails with donkey drops of such height that, said Shaw, one needed a clothes-prop to reach them, he changed to 'grubbers', which Bannerman and Cooper, sensibly enough, played with horizontal bats. Tension, too, seems to have caused an even greater degree of dissent than usual at umpires' decisions.” Cites only Ulyett in the first innings. Grace’s team ahead of the first match of their tour (which they lost to eighteen Victorians by an innings): “Admittedly the cricketers did undergo some heavy hospitality, hardly suited to athletes engaged in a game of skill, yet these cries of being out of form came curiously after the match.” “When the team finally sailed for home in April the Australasian wrote: ‘As an Eleven representing the cricket talent of the Old Country they are decidedly the weakest by a long way that has ever played here …. If Ulyett, Emmett, and Hill are fair specimens of the best fast bowling in England, all we can say is either they have never been in their proper form in this colony or British bowling has sadly deteriorated. An Eleven representing the full strength of Australia could have played a Fifteen of England if the other four were no better on the average than this (English) Eleven.’ Small wonder that the next English team to tour Australia—in 1878-79—was captained by Lord Harris, and consisted of nine amateurs and only two professionals. But even they were beaten in the only Test played, at Melbourne in January, 1879.” Lillywhite in the Companion: “The batting of the team proved, as was foreseen, their weak point: Daft, Lockwood, and Shrewsbury would have been of great service to them in several matches when opposed to the best colonial bowlers.... One thing is certain, that our men in many matches were not seen at their best, but another thing is equally certain, that, even at their best, they could not afford to throw away a chance. [Warning for 1878:] We trust that the County elevens that may be matched against the Australian team who are to pay us a visit next summer will be on their mettle before it is too late. That the Twelve will be well received we are confident, and we are equally confident that they will render a good account of themselves against the very best elevens that may be matched with them.”

Late southern files contain particulars of the cricket match at Melbourne. Neither Evans nor Allan, the two best Australian bowler, took part in the match. The bowling of Armitage and Ulyett is spoken of in very severe terms, being designated "rubbish," [probably, in Ulyett’s case, like Armitage’s, because of the full tosses] and as unworthy of such players. (Rockhampton Bulletin “All-England v. Australia” 27 March 1877.)

The game was resumed on the Eastern Oval on Saturday by the Englishmen taking the field, Goode and Sherard being the first representatives for Ballarat at the wickets. Lillywhite was absent from the field, and Bell, of the City club, took his place as substitute. The attendance was very limited, not more than 100 spectators being round the chains when the innings opened, but during the afternoon it increased to about 600 […] The game will not be resumed on Monday, 49 originally intended, and the result is therefore a draw. This course is taken in consequence of the small attendance on Friday and Saturday. (Argus “All England v. Ballarat” 26 March 1877.) [Next match but one after the Test defeat: shows how much their stock and standing had dwindled.]

Naphtali Daggett, professor of divinity at Yale and a New Light, struck him hard in the pages of the Connecticut Gazette.

Second Test:

All the Yorkshiremen scored largely, and the innings did not close till 261 runs had been totalled. Four of them got 32, 49, 49, and 48 respectively, rather a remarkable closeness of scoring, and quite sufficient evidence to convince a lot of people that they had ranged before hand how many each was to make [as illustrating the paranoia of Melburnians in these matters, and undermining the case that England threw the first match]. (Point “Return Combination Match” Leader, 7 April 1877.)

After a four months' tour through the Australian colonies, the All-England Eleven took their departure this week in the mail steamer Bangalore, and are now on their way back to the old country. They have had some hard work to go through, and have played a good many matches, and we trust they have both been pleased with their visit, and have found it a remunerative one also. As an eleven representing the cricket talent of the old country, they are decidedly the weakest by a long way that has ever played here, notwithstanding the presence among them of Shaw, who is termed "the premier bowler of England." If Ulyett, Emmett, and Hill are fair specimens of the best fast bowling in England, all we can say is, either they have never been in their proper form in this colony, or British bowling has sadly deteriorated. Kendall is as good, if not better, than either. Southerton and Lillywhite are both very well in their way, but they are both rather passé: and we need hardly refer to Armitage's slows, which reminded us of a shocking bad sample of the Sydney grubbers of 20 years a go. In batting the Eleven were very weak. Jupp never was in proper health all the time he was here. Ulyett is a brilliant hitter, and Greenwood, Selby, and Charlwood are all good average batsmen; but after them there is a long weak tail, unless we except Hill, who now and then proves himself of some use. How Lillywhite could ever have expected to beat Fifteen of Australia with such a team is past comprehension, as he should have been able to form a pretty correct estimate of colonial play. They were opposed to players, many of whom were superior to themselves, and were always, it must be allowed, in better condition to play. An eleven representing the full strength of Australia, could have played a Fifteen of England, if the other four were no better on the average than the Eleven; for, it must be remembered, we played a combined team, which comprised neither Evans nor Allan. We have a wicket-keeper better than Pooley, and in Bannerman we have a better batsman than any in the England Eleven. Thompson and D. Gregory and Kelly are quite equal to the best of the Englishmen, whilst a dozen others could be selected from this colony and New South Wales a long way superior to the other members of the England Eleven. The Englishmen played better together, and fielded more like a well-drilled corps than the colonials, and to this fact their limited success is to be attributed. However, as as [sic] far as this colony is concerned, some very enjoyable matches were played, and some good cricket was shown, and perhaps it was more relished by the public, owing to the sides being more equally balanced than on previous occasions, when the England Elevens played against longer odds. We would counsel whoever may enter into future speculations for importing an England Eleven to bear in mind the great improvement of colonial cricket, and not to imagine that anything will do for Australia. It would require the two Graces with a very strong team to stand much chance now against a combined Fifteen of Australia. In another point, too, the colonials have greatly improved. They have learnt patience from their adversaries, and they can face a crowd better than in the olden time, when eight out of every ten players who emerged from the pavilion to test the British bowling either left their hearts behind them, or allowed that necessary organ to subside into their boots. We have more nerve now, and have learnt to play the game better. However, the Englishmen will no doubt report when they get home what they think of colonial cricket, and explain why they were so often beaten ; and, if they speak from their hearts, no doubt the next Eleven that visits Australia will be very differently constituted to that which has just departed. (Australasian “Departure” 21 April 1877.)

We are glad to congratulate our cricketers on the fact that betting on cricket matches has not become an established thing, and that it is discountenanced as much as possible. This is a fact which speaks well for the cricketing morality of the South Australians. (South Australian Chronicle “Cricket in South Australia” 9 June 1877.)

Dealt them a heavy load of criticism. Lined up and delivered an enfilading fire. “Some thought that the visitors’ run-chase on a warm fourth day, watched by around 3,000, was not assisted by a copious lunch and considerable quantities of beer.” “After the Combined team’s famous triumph, the Australian press was suitably crowing. The Australasian said that the tourists were the weakest side to have visited the Colonies—‘notwithstanding the presence among them of Shaw, who is termed the premier bowler of England.’ The paper added: ‘If Ulyett, Emmett and Hill are fair specimens of the best fast bowling in England, all we can say is, either they have not been in their proper form in this Colony or British bowling has sadly deteriorated.’ Shaw offered no excuse for the tourists’ loss. ‘For the time being,’ he wrote, ‘the defeated Englishmen and their associates in the Colonies had to be content to eat humble pie—sweetened, it is true, with the thought that it was members of their own race who had offered it, but humble pie all the same.’”

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARGUS. Sir,--Since the defeat of tie English Eleven by the combined eleven of New South Wales and Victoria, statements have been very freely circulated that the match was not won and lost on its merits, that, in fact, the result was a foregone conclusion, and that the bookmaking influence was all through predominant. Now, I for one most emphatically say that I hold no such belief, but it behoves the members of the English Eleven, for the sake of their own credit and reputation as cricketers both at home and abroad, to at once reply to these statements. This tbey are bound to do, not only to sus-tain their own good name, but also in common justice to those against whom they played and will probably play with again. Mr Lillywhite, as the representative of the team, should let no time elapse in defending the reputation of his men, and the remain-ing 10 should be as anxious as their leader to remove such a slur from them, in-dividually and collectively, as cricketers representing most of the highest talent England can boast of in the various depart-ments of the game. I should not have penned this had the rumours rested alone with a discontented few who had lost their money, but when such statements are openly bandied about and even believed in by cricketers, as well as on-lookers, it is time that they were either sub-stantiated or at once replied to and boldly re-futed; otherwise, I don't see how the association could again ask our best cricketers and those of the sister colony to connect themselves will a doubtful trans-action, and by becoming unwilling tools, play into the hands of a few designing men. --Yours, &c., AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. March 21.

English team leaves MCG “The Eleven proceeded to Sandhurst tonight. They will also play at Ballarat and Ararat.” “The All-England Eleven proceeded to Sandhurst tonight, and will also play at Ballarat and Ararat…. A testimonial is being raised for Bannerman. It is likely that a large sum will be subscribed. The English eleven give five guineas.” Southerton: “Our programme after this is to play at Sandhurst and Ballarat again, then back here to play Fifteen for our benefit at Easter; then a match or two up the country, and finish at Adelaide.” Second Test not yet set in stone when he filed his report.

Date and Hour Barometer At Sea Level Attached Therm. Temp. of Air March 19, 9 p.m. 30.262 71.5 68.9.

Australian team leaves MCG Thompson and Gregory left for Sydney to-day. Bannerman and Garrett remain behind for the present. Kendall has been awarded the Australasian Cup for the best bowling average in the recent match. Another eleven-a-side match is contemplated at Easter, at which Evans is to be asked to play. (Evening News “Melbourne” 21 March 1877.)

“Messrs E. Gregory and Thompson, Sydney cricketers, left by the Wotonga yesterday. D. Gregory, Bannerman and Garrett remain for a while.” “Nat Thompson and the two Gregorys (members of the New South Wales cricketing team) left for Sydney today [21 March]. Bannerman and Garrett will remain behind for the present.”

Statistics Balls faced Ball-by-ball and balls-faced accounts unavailable for batsmen for many years, even when we do have the scorecards. Apparently the first to suggest them:

Seated in his favourite spot on the top seat of the gallery by the Shinnerian kitchen, Colonel King keeps careful analysis of the batting, and thinks it would be a good thing to have a batting analysis on the scoring book, in well as a bowling analysis. The colonel's friend, Captain Burrowes, is with him, as of old, and checks the time taken down by the colonel as each batsman starts batting. (Horan “Round the Ground” Australasian, 15 January 1898: 132.)

Davis to me on CricketArchive and Cricinfo. “The New South Wales scorer James Young’s initiative of counting balls faced as well as time at the wicket had been implemented” for the Fourth Test, also at the MCG, of the 1911/12 Ashes. Control Strokes described with such superlatives as “brilliant” and “splendid” are taken to have been middled. Wagon wheel “Davis records that Bannerman hit 11 boundaries between wide mid-off and wide mid-on; four forward of point; two in front of square-leg; and one to third man. He did, however, score another 20 or so runs behind point.” Note on Discrepancies It took an immense time and a great waste of arithmetic. Solves with my weapons of math instruction. The latter two innings work out perfectly, with the anomalies of England’s second innings fully accounted for. The first two, spread over days one to three, have a few incongruities which are harder to explain. There is no way of telling whether these are a product of misreporting by the press, or of errors on the part of the scorers. It may be significant that halfway through the most error-laden innings, England’s first, The Argus note that at least one of the scorers, WK Plummer, “deserves the thanks of the press for the courteous manner in which he furnished the particulars of the score.” Horan had more cause still to thank Plummer a few years later: scored the game in which he made 250. Tiring reporters: They seem to have come refreshed from their Sunday off. Every narrative is agreed on the progress of England’s final partnership, and yet all, in their scorecards, make it worth eight rather than the six I have documented, with the support of the scoring-shots list and every newspaper account. This suggests a clumsy attempt at the end of the match (well known to all with experience of pre-digital scoring) to make things tally. One reporters, who must have completed his copy before this comprise, is still two runs behind me at the conclusion of the match: “Emmett played on at 105, the Australian Eleven winning by 47 [sic] runs.” Journalists were obviously following the telegraph board. Strong clue there that that’s what it said at close of play. Middle ball.

A question that has been going the rounds of the newspapers is “Should wides and no balls count against the bowler in making up his average?” and opinions are not unanimous upon the point. A local writer, in reply to the question, says that they are not charged against the bowler—two Southern authorities, “Mid-on” and “Felix,” say they are. The question was the result of my contention that the no-ball and wide, being due to no other agency but the bowler, should be taken into consideration when calculating his cost to his side. It is not sufficient to say that they are so taken if they are shown in extended form thus: Jones, 12 overs, 4 maidens, 25 runs, 3 wickets, 2 wides, 3 no-balls, if they have not been added to the runs. The idea of showing wides and no-balls in the above form is to provide the public with the information as to who bowled them. When they do appear in this form, in my opinion, the runs should include them, otherwise they may be missed in making up the averages. How often do we see so many maidens credited to a bowler, yet such so-called maiden contained a no-ball, a wide, or a bye, or a leg bye—with regard to the last two it does not matter very much—and this is simply because proper attention is not paid by the scorers to making the notation that a no-ball has been bowled in the space allowed for the recording of overs. It is absurd to say that the following statement is correct: Jones, 1 over, 1 maiden, 0 runs, 1 wicket, 2 no-balls, 3 wides, and yet that is what the scoring book says in effect hundreds of times. In the olden days we used to show a no-ball by the letters NB, of course, and necessarily, written very small, and the word wide was signified by wd, to distinguish it from W for wicket. One to whom I submitted the question replied that they should not be reckoned against the bowler for the reason that his runs and sundries (which include the wides and no-balls) would not agree with the total of the innings, and if the truth were known this is perhaps the origin in some quarters of excluding them from the runs made off the bowler. I am quite prepared to admit that such authorities as “Wisden” make the runs in the analysis and the total sundries agree with the total innings, thus excluding wides and no-balls from the bowler's figures, but I think it is done erroneously. I have before me a number of annuals and other publications, and while in some cases they are debited to the bowlers they are not in others. Whether right to include or exclude it would be well if some authority, recognised the world over, such as MCC, would lay it down once for all so that there would be uniformity of practice. (Short Slip “Gossip” Sydney Mail, 17 December 1898: 1517.) Select bibliography

I have read every contemporary word on this match, and almost every retrospective. My first draft diligently—boastfully?—listed every citation, but in so doing added more than fifty pages to an already elephantine text. I limit myself here to books.

Dunstan, Keith. The Paddock That Grew: The Story Of The Melbourne Cricket Club. Melbourne: Cassell, 1962. Frith, David. England versus Australia. 8th Edition. London: BBC Books, 1993. Green, Benny. A History of Cricket. London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1988. Meredith, Anthony. Summers in Winter: Four England Tours of Australia under Jim Lillywhite, Plum Warner, Gubby Allen, and Mike Brearley. London: Kingswood, 1990. Waters, Chris. The Men Who Raised the Bar: The evolution of the highest individual score in Test cricket. London: Bloomsbury, 2020. White, Richard. The Republic for Which It Stands. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Accounts to read ASAP https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18821021.2.32.2

Of a batsman who blocks one, is beaten by one, and bowled by his last: like the ancient mariner, he stop’st one of three. “Born on an animal farm in 1984.” For Blurb: “Every page is different!”—AN Other. “True bliss if you enjoy syllables.”—YETAN Other. “Most of what isn’t made up is true!”—Anon. “The punctuation leaps right off the page!”—Anonymous Must paste all Athletic News stuff from 1882—got and read it before my other-books practice. Record scratch. Freeze frame. You’re probably wondering how I got here. Sound in next scene distracting character in this. [When looking at players’ children, see what they were doing nine months before their births.] A ball hit in the air which brings up a milestone should be said to have airlifted England/Australia to 50/100. Learn a lesson from Synecdoche New York: The very first thing we see her do in the film is cough. Near the end of the film, Adele dies of lung cancer. The end is built into the beginning. [Find a player—hope it’s Grace—who did badly on Mondays. Say he liked Mondays even less than the Boomtown Rats, if not quite so little as Brenda Spencer. Or perhaps he was too fond of Sundays. Rest days, those, of course; and Grace was a heavy drinker...] [Go through 1882 EN PASSANTs in Athletic News again.] [Add a chapter in some undeciphered script.]