Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Thursday 13 February 1879, page 6


THE SCENE ON THE SYDNEY

CRICKET-GROUND.

(FROM THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, FEB. 10.)

This match (the English Eleven v. eleven of New South Wales) was continued on Satur-day, and, we regret to say, was marked by the most disgraceful scene we ever remember to have witnessed on any cricket-ground in the metropolis. Such a display of unbridled rowdyism, perpetrated as it was in the pre-sence of His Excellency the Governor, Lady Robinson, and party and a large number of the prominent citizens of Sydney, and directed against the English players who are at pre-sent our guests, will probably remain as a blot upon the colony for some years to come. The unfortunate occurrence origi-nated in the decision of the English umpire, who, in the second innings of the New South Wales team decided, on appeal, that Murdock was run out. The moment the de-cision was given the disturbance commenced, and it is a significant fact the hooting and groaning proceeded first of all from about a dozen persons in the pavilion, some of whom, at all events, were known to be pecuniarily interested in the result of the match. One well-known betting man himself acted as fugleman, and the crowd outside, encouraged by this bad example, worked themselves into a state of violent excitement, and presently broke through all bounds of decency and fair play. All round the enclosure hundreds of people demanded the withdrawal of Coulthard, and before the vacancy created by Murdoch’s retirement was filled, a large number of “ larrikins ” sitting at the bottom of the terrace, and within the boundary fence, made a rush for the centre of the ground, and were quickly followed by hundreds of roughs, who took possession of the wickets. The English team soon found themselves in the centre of a surging, gesticulating, and shouting mob, and one rowdy struck Lord Harris across the body with a whip or stick. Mr. Hornby at once seized the cowardly ruffian and attempted to bring him into the pavilion. As a general mêlée was a now im-minent, a number of gentlemen from the pavilion and grand stand (including the trustees of the ground and members of the Cricket Association) hurried to the assistance of the English team, who might otherwise have been seriously maltreated, but as the mob were evidently bent upon reaching Mr. Hornby’s prisoner, a scene of confusion en-sued and blows were received and returned. The small body of police who were present were too late to get to the centre of the ground when the rush occurred, and subsequently found it difficult to make their way through the crowd. However, by dint of determina-tion, and no little physical exertion, the Eng-lish team were escorted into the pavilion, and Lord Harris’s assailant was locked up in one of the committee rooms, being re-leased afterwards on giving his name and address. Several of the English team re-ceived a few scratches, and Mr Hornby’s clothing was somewhat torn, but beyond this, as far as our reporter could ascertain, no serious injury was inflicted, and the umpire, about whose safety some doubts were entertained, came off scatheless, owing mainly to Mr Hornby’s prompt assistance. It appears that either before or after Lord Harris was assaulted, one of the English professionals made use of a grossly insulting remark to the crowd about their being nothing but “sons of convicts,” and this no doubt had something to do with the frenzied excitement which arose all at once, and incited the crowd to acts of violence. As there were two or three thousand people on the cricket area and in front of the pavilion, the bell rang for clearing the ground, but it was some time before the excitement subsided, and an oppor-tunity was afforded to resume the play, Thomson and A. Bannerman and the Eng-lish Eleven went into the field, but as soon as the crowd saw that Coulthard had not been withdrawn, strong expressions of disap-proval were heard and the ground was again rushed. Expostulation by Mr, Driver and other gentlemen appeared to have no effect, and another adjournment to the pavilion took place. Lord Harris and Mr. Gregory subsequently discussed the question of having another umpire, but the majority of the English Eleven decided, naturally enough, to stand by their umpire, and the ground having in the meantime been once more cleared, the players pro-ceeded to the wickets for the second time, but as the more disorderly portion of the spectators were determined not to allow the match to go on with Coulthard, about 300 men and larrikins repeated the perform-ance of taking possession of the ground, and remained there until nearly 8 o’clock when all hope of resuming play was aban-doned. There were about 10,000 spectators present during the afternoon, and it is only fair to say that of this number there were not more than 2,000, at the outside, who took an active part in the disorder. A large ma-jority of the public were evidently deeply humiliated by the occurrence (especially after the cordial reception of the Australian team at home), and much indignation was ex-pressed that the scene should have originated through the ungentlemanly conduct of a few persons in the pavilion.

Commenting upon the scene in its leading columns the Sydney Morning Herald ob-

serves :—

Bad as was the behaviour of the mob in re-fusing to allow the game to proceed, justice compels us to admit that the first instiga-tion to disorder came from the pavilion. It was from that quarter that the first shouts of “ not out” proceeded, and that the player, who was quietly accepting the obnoxious de-cision, was greeted with shouts of “ go back.” The pavilion is supposed to be the rendezvous of the élite of the cricketing com-munity, and it ought to give the tone to the expression of opinion on the ground. But merely local sympathies have unfortunately been over-represented there, and, what is far worse, a large betting element exists almost undisguised, although contrary to rule. This prevents men from being dispas-sionate observers, and as a matter of course, when the passions are uncontrolled a little spark may cause an explosion. The pavilion was really responsible, to no small extent, for the riot. It is quite true that after a sufficient time for reflection, the pavilion de-sued, and cheered, the resumption of the game on the foot of concession to the umpire’s decision. But it was then too late. It is easier to raise the devil than to lay him, and when the mob had once taken possession of the enclosure, neither pavilion nor police could get them out.

[ With regard to the removal of the the umpire, the following letter has been addressed to the editor of the Echo newspaper by Mr. W. C. Goddard, one of the umpires in the first match. As to the betting, it will be remem-bered that in the telegraphic news from Syd-ney yesterday it was stated that Lord Harris had written a letter relieving Mr Coulthard from the imputation of betting, and assuming the responsibility of Mr. Coulthard’s engage-ment] :—

(To the Editor of the Echo.)

Sir, — As one of the umpires in the first match, New South Wales v. Gentlemen of England, which took place a fortnight ago, I have been frequently asked my opinion as to the unfortunate affair that everyone is aware took place in connexion with the return match on the above union Ground to-day, and with your permission I would like to give ex-

pression to same.

Whatever may be the opinion of the public as to whether the decision of the umpire in Mr. Murdock’s case was right or wrong, the question that immediately followed was that he (the umpire) should be removed from the position. The law on the subject is very clear, viz., that “ No umpire is to be changed during a match unless with the consent of both parties, except he be found guilty of betting on the match, in which case either

party may dismiss him.”

After each captain has consulted his re-spective team, it rests with them alone to arrange matters ; and if either of them shall refuse to consent to the change it is plainly the duty of the side seeking the removal to proceed with the play, or surrender the match

to their opponents.

In the case of to-day I cannot say whether, had the question been left alone to the cap-tains, Lord Harris would have consented to a change ; but when a very objectionable sec-tion of the members of the ground in the pavilion — who set the crowd in motion — who assumed an impudent attitude of compulsion, and otherwise acted in a black-guardly manner, I think the English team shone out in their true colours when they declined to accede to any change ; and moreover, showed a most generous and laudable spirit in not claiming the match on the score of the play not being proceeded with within the prescribed time.

None can regret what has taken place more than the committee of the Association, who feel deeply the misfortune of having admitted to membership of the ground many who should even be precluded from access to any cricket ground. — I am, sir, your obedient servant, W. C. GODDARD.

Brombee, St. Leonard’s, Feb. 8 ____________________________________

IN November, 1877, a sale of sealskins took place in London, and the sales in about an hour and a half realised £170,000. A similar sale has recently been held at the Commercial Sale rooms, Mincing-lane, and about the same quantity of furs sold for £250,000 — nearly half as much again as they fetched 12 months previously,