صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني


Another Indian stood listening to the missionary preaching of Christ, and Him crucified," in the depths of the lonely forest. He heard the story until tears rolled down his face, and coming forward, he said, "Did Jesus die for me?-die for poor Indian?" "Me have no lands to give Jesus; the white man take them all away; me give him my dog and my rifle." The missionary told him that God could not accept such gifts. He replied, "Me give Jesus my dog, my rifle, my blanket: poor Indian, he got no more to give; he give Jesus all." Again he was told that Jesus did not want these. The Red man bowed his head in tearful thoughtfulness; then, as a new idea struck him, he looked up, crying, Here is poor Indian: will Jesus have him?" And he gave himself to Jesus, then and there.


[ocr errors]

F an

invention needs an inventor, cricket was never invented, it grew. Much of the uncertainty about its origin arises from the fact that it was slowly developed out of several games which were played in various parts of the country; and it is impossible to say what stage had been reached in the earliest


imes when the word cricket is found in literature. Cricket had been played for centuries before the first rules were drawn up. It was like many boys' games at the present time, in which certain customs are observed, or ought to be observed, but of which there is no official code which can be referred to, should disputes arise. Among some boys a rough and ready method is in vogue, by which might is often the tyrant of right; and it is possible that before the middle of the eighteenth century an equally unsatisfactory plan was adopted for overcoming small difficulties even when men were the contenders.



Author of "The Match of the Season," "Cricket Curiosities," &c.

Roughly speaking, the middle of the eighteenth century is the period at which cricket began to make for itself a place in the art and literature of England. There is a picture in existence which represents the game being played at about 1740, and the most famous cricket poem ever composed was that of James Love; it was written in 1746, and describes a great match between Kent and All England, on the Artillery Ground, Finsbury. Kent and All England had been opponents as far back as 1711, but no details about the match played then have come down

Another, who was travelling, happened to hear a stranger reading the Bible while on a journey, and was so struck by the truths to which he listened, that he sought further instruction, and became a Christian. When he returned home, he told his tribe of his adoption of Christianity, and a most violent persecution began in consequence. He was imprisoned in the wigwam of the chief, and tortured frightfully; but, by the unexpected kindness of a woman of the tribe, he was shown a way of escape, and fled. He succeeded in reaching a place of safety, and found both friendship and protection.

to us.

It has often been pointed out that since the first laws of cricket were published, nearly a hundred and

To-day, there are Churches, having over 5,000 members, among the Red Indians, and from some of these Churches, native missionaries have been sent forth to preach Christ to their countrymen.

fifty years ago, everything connected with the game has been altered except the distance between the wickets. Twenty-two yards were appointed at first, the length of a chain, and that remains the distance to this day. We have here an element of permanency which we can readily understand. Chains would be at hand, as convenient measures of length, and as twenty-two yards have not proved too much or too little for either bowlers or batsmen, the original space has been continued. But all the implements of the game have been altered. Bats, balls, and stumps are different now from what they were when Love wrote his poem, or when the artist depicted the cricket of 1740.


The picture makes the changes more apparent than the poem does, for a writer simply mentions the names of things, and as many of the terms used in the game are the same now as they were when Love wrote, there seems to have been less alteration than has really taken place. We are familiar with wickets consisting of three stumps and two bails, but in the picture there are only two stumps and one bail. Originally, in some parts of England, if not throughout the country, only one stump was used, and this was pitched in a round hole; then when two stumps were adopted, with another stump laid across them, the hole was retained between the stumps, and a batsman was put out by the ball being placed in the hole.


Stumped out" was not enumerated then among the various ways in which a player could lose his wicket. He was said to be "put out." And long afterwards, when stumping was recognised, the old term was sometimes used, and men were said to be "put out." This is only an example of the manner in which words live in our language when changes take place which render them no longer appropriate. We not only speak about the popping crease, but about the block hole, though popping is discontinued, and the block hole is no more. Many changes have taken place with respect to the stumps. In several books on cricket there are diagrams which present

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

these changes at a glance, and show the dates when the alterations were made. But none of them show the single stump. The evidence for this was contained in an old manuscript, and the best authorities on the history of the game insert it in their books.

Catching out and running out must have been far more common than bowling out in the early days of cricket. Bowling at two stumps, when they were only one foot high and two feet apart, was all in favour of the batsmen. Advantages to the bowlers came slowly. The stumps were made higher and brought more closely together, then a third stump was added, and the wickets were enlarged. They have been enlarged more than once. The present size, which has never been regularly exceeded, dates only from 1817. Experiments have been tried with larger wickets, but they have not been favourably received. In the old pictures we see the wicketkeeper represented as standing further away from the stumps than he does now. In fact, the early copies of rules state that the wicket-keeper must stand a reasonable distance behind the wicket. What was considered a reasonable distance we cannot tell. It is considered sufficient in these days to stipulate that he shall not take the ball in front of the stumps, and shall not by any noise incommode the striker.

[ocr errors]

No pads or gloves were worn by either wicketkeeper or batsmen. But it is probable that the bowling was rather slow at first. The pictures which we have representing cricket in the eighteenth century, in which the kind of bowling can be judged from the posture of the bowlers, lead us to suppose that no run was taken, and that the bowling therefore was not very fast. But swift bowling certainly

[merged small][ocr errors]

came up before batsmen began to protect either their hands or legs. There was an outcry against legguards at first, as they were said to increase the number of byes. Like many good inventions they were withdrawn for a time, only to be introduced again and to become universal. The wicket-keepers were still more dilatory to protect themselves, and some of them faced as fast bowling as was ever known, and took the ball with the naked hands. In reports of cricket matches a generation or two ago, it is sometimes said, rather disparagingly, that the wicket-keeper had gloves on.

This absence of pads is one marked difference between the old cricket and the new. The players wore knee-breeches and silk stockings, when they could afford the latter luxuries, and sometimes a severe blow was followed by a blood-stain on the silk, or a lump would be seen rising underneath the stocking.

Such pictures as the one which represents the great match at Brighton, between Kent and Sussex, bring to our minds the old custom of wearing that style of hat which for want of a proper name is called "stove-pipe." We should be surprised if cricketers appeared in that kind of headgear now. It has gone out of fashion, and a good thing too. Caps are the favourite coverings of cricketers at present, except with a few bold players who dare the hottest sun bareheaded. In the old pictures the men are seen to be wearing caps, and a favourite style resembles a jockey's cap. But the umpires wore the threecornered hats which were such favourites with John Wesley that he would not allow any of his preachers to wear any other sort. The umpires and scorers are the only antique-looking figures among the players in the old pictures. They are really among

them. We see the scorers calmly seated, dangerously near the wicket, and the umpire at the batsman's wicket is almost between the wicket-keeper and the longstop. This is said to be an engraver's mistake, but it occurs in several pictures which represent cricket during the eighteenth century.

The umpires stand, bat in hand, after the manner which continued till the present generation, and which is still generally practised in some matches. What is the man's name who was bold enough to go to his post as umpire, without bat, for the first time? Doubtless his decisions would be looked upon suspiciously. There were men who thought that umpires without bats were not fit to interpret the rules of the game, or decide difficult points as they arose. The scoring was done on a stick, or rather on two sticks; for a couple of laths were bound together, and a notch was made for every run. In the old rules the runs are always called notches, as they are still among some old-fashioned players.


It would not be right to judge the size of the ball by the representation of it in pictures. But we may safely assume that it was larger a hundred and forty or fifty years ago than it is now. At the present time both the size and weight are fixed within very narrow limits; but the old rules say nothing about the size, they simply stipulate that it must be between five and six ounces in weight. Unless the balls were put together very tightly, they would be a good size they were only a trifle under six ounces. But we see most difference in the bats. modern cricket bat is too well known to need description. It is limited both as to length and width. Convenience of playing the modern game has caused the present form to be adopted. Very different is the bat in the old pictures. It is long and curved. Some writers have called it spoon-shaped. We have seen bone egg-spoons which for shape looked very much like the bats of the first part of the eighteenth century. Defensive play was not practised then. The batsman's endeavour was to hit the ball away, and the bat was convenient for the purpose. The bat was a variation of the crooked stick which had been used in some of the games from which cricket was developed. Some of the old bats are still in exist ence, and there are enthusiastic collectors of cricket bats who preserve specimens which enable us to see the gradual changes by which the long and curved bats became the straight and convenient instruments n use to-day. Some of the alterations were brought about by changes which took place in the character of bowling, and some were compelled by laws which were passed to prevent players using bats which hid the wicket too much.

Many differences between cricket past and present can be learnt from an examination of the old pictures; but there is much to be learnt from other sources. We cannot tell from the pictures whether the grounds were good or not, but we know that the level grounds of the present time are a wonderful improvement on the fields in which the old players followed the game. Very little care was given to the preparation of wickets, and the outfielding in the best matches was like that which is sometimes seen in village contests now. The creases were creases cut in the turf; and this was not discontinued until cricket-grounds became carefully

kept, and it was found to damage the turf. Then, in olden times, most hits were run out; boundaries were not common, and therefore boundary hits were not generally possible. The reason why there were not so many large scores in former times is mainly owing to the roughness of the ground. The great scores of the last thirty years are not all in consequence of improved playing; a great deal must be credited to the perfect grounds.

We have already said that a perusal of Love's poem would not lead us to suppose that many changes had taken place in the game since he wrote it, if we had nothing else to guide us in the estimate we formed. The simple fact is, that the outline of the game was the same then as now, and a poem can be expected to deal with outlines only. Technical points will appear only casually.

Love speaks of the bowling as being fast, and that is not what the pictures would lead us to expect. The strain of the poem is heroic, and the comparisons are exaggerated, like those of the classical authors whom he imitated. The first bowler was Hodswell, and we read—

“Four times from Hodswell's aim it skims the grass.” This refers to the ball. Hodswell bowled what are now called daisy-cutters; but it must be remembered that the stumps were low, and it was Four balls an necessary to keep the balls down. over was the custom then as now. There are many demands made for five balls or six balls; but some of the best bowlers, including Southerton, have declared that four balls are quite sufficient. The next bowler was Mills, and the description of his style brings to our mind certain underhand bowlers whom we have seen—

"Then poised, and rising as he threw, Swift from his hand the fatal missive flew!"

The reference to bats at the beginning of the poem calls them "well turned bats." The turning was probably the shape which has been already mentioned. Though something is said about defending the wickets, yet the chief use of the bat was to strike great swinging blows. "He waved his bat with fearful swing," is said of Bryan. It is difficult to understand what is meant by, "With double skill each dangerous ball they shun," unless it refers to balls which were likely to be caught.


There was a line or fence around the ground, but balls which passed it were not boundary hits, they had to be run out. Bryan sent the "battered pellet o'er the ring," then five times crossed the shining plain." We learn incidentally that the players were in white, though nothing is said about the material which they wore.

"In decent white most gracefully arrayed."

[blocks in formation]

Cricket, Past and Present.

particulars about the "dark age" of cricket, when gambling and bribery were prevalent.

We have been told of late years that gambling is common in Australia when a great match is played, but Mr. Murdoch has denied it. No greater curse can befall cricket than for it to be made the subject of betting. It is a pity that the Rules of Cricket, published by the Marylebone Club, provide for the settlement of disputed bets. But there is not much gambling in connection with cricket now, and this is one of the things in which it has changed with advantage. Love says

"The busy bettor calculates the odds,

Swift round the plain in busy murmurs run'I'll hold you ten to four, Kent,'-'Done, Sir, done." " Notches are mentioned; and bail, where we have

bails; but besides these there are not many changes to be noted in the phraseology of the game. There were eleven players on each side as now. One of them made a catch, though he fell in doing so, and another missed an easy chance. Most of the poem would be appropriate to a match of the present time, and it is almost difficult to believe that it refers to cricket in 1746. But there is one point of difference which may be mentioned. We have often noticed how quickly the ground is cleared when the bell rings. Love refers to a far rougher method:

"Smith plies with strenuous arm the smacking whip." Smith was the master of the ground, and that was the manner in which he kept the playing space free from intruders. We have known times when Smith with his whip would have been useful.

Among the changes which have taken place in cricket, we must mention the new districts in which it has been adopted. Love speaks of the rivalry which existed between various places, and he enumerates Fierce Kent, Gay Surrey, Fruitful Sussex, and London, Queen of Cities. He says nothing about Nottinghamshire or Yorkshire. These counties were not known then as places where cricket was played. But the north was not without cricketers even at that time. The full score of the match between Kent and England, which Love describes, is in existence, and it is the oldest full score which has been preserved. The next is dated 1771, and relates to a match at Nottingham between Nottingham and Sheffield. It gives the names and the totals of the innings, but does not say which players made the runs. But it shows that cricket was played further north than many Londoners thought. There is a singular entry in the accounts of the Sheffield Church Burgesses, which may be quoted as showing that cricket was played at Sheffield about the time to which Love's poem refers: "Paid cricket players on Shrove Tuesday, to entertain the populace, and to prevent the infamous practice of throwing at cocks, 14/6." The date of that is 1757.

But cricket in the north remained a rough "swiping" game long after it had become scientific in the south. The visit of southern players to Nottingham and Sheffield soon taught the natives the nicer points of the game, and helped to produce that wonderful flock of professional cricketers which go forth every year from those districts to all parts of the British Isles, and even across the Atlantic.

Professional cricketing is very different now from what it was a century ago. A professional then was paid for a match, and then went back to his work until he was wanted again; but now some hundreds of men devote themselves entirely to cricket during four or five months of the year. The more successful of them contrive to live during the winter. upon their summer fees.

But perhaps the chief difference between cricket past and present is the respectability of the game in comparison with the doubtful reputation under which it suffered at one time. There are clubs now connected with schools, colleges, churches, and all kinds of institutions. A change has taken place since a writer in the Gentleman's Magazine wrote in 1743: "The diversion of cricket may be proper in when men ought to be busy, and in the neighholyday-time and in the country; but upon days. bourhood of a great city, it is not only improper of people from their employment, to the ruin of but mischievous in a high degree. It draws numbers their families. It brings together crowds of apprentices and servants whose time is not their own; it propagates a spirit of idleness; and it is a most notorious breach of the laws, as it gives the most open encouragement to gaming; the advertisements most impudently reciting that great sums are laid, so that some people are so little ashamed of breaking the laws that they had hand in making, that they give public notice of it."

[ocr errors]



How's that, Umpire?



NUMBER of years ago some miners in Wales, in exploring an old pit that had long been closed, found the body of a young man dressed in a fashion long out of date. The peculiar action of the air of the mine was such as preserved the body so perfectly that it appeared asleep rather than dead. district had been missed within their remembrance, and at last The miners were puzzled at the circumstance. No one in the it was resolved to bring in the oldest inhabitant-an old lady long past her 80th year, who had lived single in the village the whole of her life. On being taken into the presence of the body a very strange scene occurred. The old lady fell on the corpse and kissed it, and addressed it by every term of endearment spoken in a bygone generation. He was her only love, and she had waited for him during her long life. She knew he had not forsaken her. The old lady and young man had been betrothed sixty years before. The lover had disappeared mysteriously, and she had kept her faith during the long interval. The miners removed the old lady to her house, and that night her faithful spirit rejoined that of her long-lost lover.

[blocks in formation]


And, perhaps, it is because I like even the worst of them, that I cannot help loving even Russian boys, who, by nature, and by practice, too," are very far from our standard of what a boy should be, and what he frequently is, too, both in England and America, and possibly in other countries about which I know nothing.

But, first, before I give you particulars about the

"Bee-keeping, too, is a favourite pastime." A but there are boys and boys!" said a friend of mine to me the other day, when we were comparing notes as to our respective nephews, and young cousins, and boy acquaintances. "And," he continued, "though a boy-lover, I cannot say I like all boys." "Well, I can!" I replied; "I like them - even the worst, in a sort of a kind of a way (as my little niece would say)."

Russian boy, it is only fair to say te that it will not do to judge him by d our rules, or to expect him to conform to our ideas of perfection. Naturally, he is not truthful, nor honest, nor straightforward in any way. So much for his morals!

Nor is he, as a rule, intellectual, or ambitious as a student or a thinker. So much for his mind!


Neither is he a cricketer, nor an oarsman, nor an athlete, nor a sportsman, nor a swimmer. So much for his physical powers!

"But," I hear you say, "there cannot be anything but bad in such a boy as this; nothing good to work upon, not a thing reanded to take hold of." I beg your pardon; there is still room for a few virtues and noble points which would soon become further developed and a real power for good, were it not for the shocking training which most boys receive in Russia, and the utter absence of those kind of influences which tend, under God's blessing, to form the character aright.

But if the Russian boy is deficient in moral tone, and independence of thought, and vigour of physique, he is also pleasantly wanting in the quality which it takes a slang word to express, and which is thus commonly called "cheek!"

I remember, some years ago, hearing the late Dr. Samuel Manning relate a little incident in his own experience, an incident which would have been simply impossible in Russia, from the difference in the character of English and Russian boys.

Dr. Manning found himself on one occasion in a London crowd, through which it was necessary that he should pass. He was trying to make his way among the people, but just before him stood a dirty, ragged lad, a regular city Arab, one of the family of the great unwashed and uncared for, which, alas!

« السابقةمتابعة »