Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 - 1933), Friday 30 May 1879, page 3


Lord Harris and the Sydney

Cricketers.

The S. M. Herald has been at the trouble of compiling the following history — and commenting pro et con. — of the cricketing row in that colony when the Harris team tried conclusions with an Australian Eleven on their own ground. In our opinion all the letters are prejudiced and not at all impartial, and those who want the truth must “ read between the lines.” The correspondence is, however, worth reading, and will amuse even those who have never wielded the willow :—

The following correspondence appears in the Daily Telegraph :—

“ Sir, — I have received a letter from Lord Harris, which he requests me to forward to you for publication. I do so without further com-ment than to remark that all cricketers will read with great regret the account which Lord Harris gives. He tells me the eleven they beat was ad-mittedly the strongest in New South Wales, if not in Australia. — I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

“ V. EDWARD WALKER.

“ Arno’s Grove, Southgate, March 31, 1879.”

“ Sydney, February 11.

“ My dear E., — I am not certain whether you will be astonished or not at what I have to tell you, but I know you will be distressed that your friends — a party of gentlemen travelling through these colonies for the purpose of playing a few friendly games of cricket — should have been in-sulted and subjected to indignities it distresses us all to look back upon. We began the return match with the New South Wales Eleven on Friday, February 7, scored 267, and got our opponents out for 177 by 3.30 on the Saturday afternoon. Murdoch (who had carried his bat in the first innings) and A. Bannerman com-menced their second innings. At 19 on the telegraph the former was run out. Before he got back to the pavilion I heard shouts of ‘ Not out,’ ‘ Go back,’ etc., arise from that quarter, and saw the occupants of it rise almost en masse. I at once saw what was the matter, and instead of waiting for D. Gre-gory, the captain, to come out to me, I, perhaps unwisely, walked to the pavilion to meet him at the gate. He, I found, in the name of the N.S.W. Eleven, objected to Coulthard, the um-pire. I must now diverge to explain certain facts connected with umpires in the colonies, which are not known or understood at home. Contrary to our custom, it is here the exception to employ professional umpires. This I was not told until after the disturbance. As you know, we brought no umpire, and on our arrival at Adelaide I asked the representatives of the Mel-bourne C.C. if they could recommend anyone to us whom we could take with us throughout our tour. The mentioned Coulthard, a professional on their ground, whom they had constantly tried and found competent, and added that if we on trial found him competent the M.C.C would be very glad to give him leave of absence so long as

we wanted his services. I considered him on trial a good and trustworthy umpire, and arranged that he should accompany us to New South Wales. Had we known on our arrival that a feeling existed in these colonies against the employment of professional umpires, it is possible we might have acted differently ; but understand, at the same time, that I have seen no reason as yet to change my opinion of Coulthard’s qualities, or to regret his engagement, in which opinion I am supported by the whole team. To resume my account of the disturbance. On the Saturday, I asked Gregory on what grounds the objection was raised, and he said at first general incompetence, but afterwards admitted that it was on account of the decision in Murdoch’s case. I implored Gregory, as a friend, and for the sake of the N.S.W. Cricket Association, which I warned him would be the sufferer by it, not to raise the objection, but he refused to take my view of the case. Looking back in the midst of this conversation, I found the ground had been ‘ rushed’ by the mob, and our team was being surrounded. I at once returned to the wickets, and, in defending Coulthard from being attacked, was struck by some ‘ larrikin’ with a stick. Hornby at once seized this fellow, and in taking him to the pavilion was struck in the face by a would-be deliverer of the ‘ larrikin,’ and had his shirt nearly torn off his back. He, however, conveyed his prisoner to the pavilion in triumph. For some thirty minutes or so I was surrounded by a howling mob, resisting the en-treaties of partisans and friends to return to the pavilion until the field was cleared, on the grounds that if our side left the field the other eleven would claim the match, I don’t suppose that they would have done so, but I deter-mined to obey the laws of cricket, and may add that for one hour and a-half I never left the ground, being surrounded during the whole time, with two short intervals, by some hundreds of people About 5 o’clock the crowd was cleared off, by whom I don’t know, for there were not a dozen policemen about. I then took the opinion of the Eleven as to changing the umpire, and it was decided nem. con. that there were no grounds for the objection and that we should decline to change him. I informed Gregory of this decision, whereupon he said, ‘ Then the game is at an end.’ On Coulthard appearing from the pavilion groans arose from the crowd, and at the same moment it began to break the ring again. The two batsmen who had been standing at the wicket returned to the pavilion, recalled, I afterwards found, by Gre-gory, but at the time I thought, possibly because of the threatened irruption of the crowd. I turned to Mr. Barton, the New South Wales umpire, and asked if I could not claim the match according to the laws of cricket. The answer was, ‘ I shall give it you in two minutes’ time if the batsman do not return.’ I said, ‘ I won’t claim it yet ; I’ll give the other side every chance of reconsidering a decision arrived at, I believe, unadvisedly and in a moment of passion. Please ask Gregory what he means to do.’ On returning, Mr. Barton told me that Gregory would send two men to the wickets — a curiously sudden change of mind, I think, you will allow. However, before the batsmen could appear, the crowd had covered the ground for the second time. After some twenty minutes it was cleared, and A. Bannerman and Thomp-son then took their places at the wickets, but, before a ball could be bowled, the crowd broke in for the third time. I re-mained on the ground until the time for drawing the stumps, surrounded as before. Beyond slyly kicking me once or twice, the mob behaved very well, their one cry being, ‘ Change your umpire.’ Now for the cause of this dis-turbance, not unexpected, I may say, by us — for we had heard accounts of former matches played by English teams — it was started and fomented by professional betting men in the pavilion, members of the association. The disgraceful part of the business is that other members of the association, one a member of the Legislative Assembly, aided and abetted the bookmakers in raising the cry. I blame the New South Wales Eleven for not objecting to Coulthard before the match began, if they had reason to suppose him incompetent to fulfil his duties. I blame the members of the association (many, of course, must be excepted) for their discourtesy and un-cricketlike behavior to their guests, and I blame the committee and officers of the association for ever permitting betting. But this last does not of course only apply to our match. I am bound to say they did all in their power to quell the disturbance. I don’t think anything would

have happened if A. Bannerman had been run out instead of Murdoch ; but the latter, besides being a great favorite, deservedly, I think, was the popular idol of the moment through having carried his bat in the first innings. As a contrast to the reception the Australian Eleven met with after beating the M.C.C. at Lord’s, I may say that when we won the match on Monday hardly a cheer was given us by the ring ; the occupants of the pavilion, however, acknowledged our victory. I argue from this that, if we had had the worst of the match on Saturday instead of the best of it, no outcry would have been the result of a decision adverse to us. They are capital winners out here ; but I am afraid I cannot apply the same adjective to them as losers. To conclude, I cannot describe to you the horror we feel that such an insult should have been passed on us, and that the game we love so well and wish to see honored, supported, and played in an honest and manly way everywhere, should have received such de-secration. I can use no milder word. The game was finished on Monday without interrup-tion. Coulthard had made two mistakes in our innings — one favoring us, the other the oppo-nents. Murdoch’s decision was considered by cover-point and point to be a good one, and I

repeat that the New South Wales eleven had no grounds whatever for raising an objection. We never expect to see such a scene of disorder again ; we can never forgot this one. — I remain, yours sincerely, HARRIS.”

Mr. Hadow writes to the Daily Telegraph of April 2 :—

“ Sir, — Everyone who has read the letter from Lord Harris which appears in your columns this morning must share the same feelings, indigna-tion — that gentlemen, who have travelled several thousand miles out of a pure love of sport, should be met by insult and actually assaulted — and disgust, at the return thus made for the recep-tion which the Australian Eleven received while in this country.

“ Not that this disturbance is altogether un-expected ; for though Lord Harris most generously attributes the blame to professional betting men, from personal experience I cannot doubt that Gregory and his eleven needed little prompting.

“ Gentlemen and professionals alike can bear witness that constant wrangling and open dispute of the umpire’s decision was the rule rather than the exception while they were here, and their behavior at Scarborough in the match against Lord Londesborough’s eleven, followed by their scandalous refusal to abide by the umpire’s decision at Philadelphia, foreshadowed clearly enough what was to be expected of them in their own country. This treatment which our friends have received in Australia presents a painful con-trast to that experienced by the last eleven of gentlemen who left these shores in 1872 to play through Canada and the United States. There a dispute was unheard of, and, though the keenest interest and rivalry was everywhere shown, not an incident occurred to disturb the friendly feel-ing which existed wherever we went. Our oppo-nents could recognise, what they seem unable to do in Australia — viz., that we played from love of the game, and in that spirit only.

“ Everyone must feel the warmest sympathy with Lord Harris and his eleven in the outrageous insult offered to them, and it is sincerely to be hoped that we have now seen and heard the last of Australian cricket and cricketers — at any rate until they have learned the true spirit in which the game should be played. They have nothing to complain of their reception here. They were treated right well, nor were their successes grudged them by anyone. True, we made an absurd fuss with them ; but that is a national failing of ours. A great deal was written about their pluck in coming so far to test their skill with that of the mother-country, but this spirit of sport was soon found to be not superior to the attractions of the gate-money. They were ex-ceedingly anxious to be considered as gentlemen cricketers, as opposed to professionals ; but it was a distinction without a difference, for they one and all left this country having made very considerable sums out of what was just as much a pecuniary venture as it was a sporting trip.

“ Apologising fur the length of this letter, I remain yours faithfully,

“ April 1. WALTER H. HADOW.”

An English cricketer writes to the Pall Mall

Gazette, April 2, a letter containing the following

comments :—

“ We only have the story of the aggrieved party ; but after the exceptionally cordial and generous manner in which the Australians were received on their visit to this country the greatest pains should certainly have been taken to protect our players, who derived no profit from their matches, against outrage and insult. If the idea of the ‘ betting men,’ who are stated to have been foremost in this unseemly row, was that the professional umpire, in common lan-guage, had been ‘ squared,’ Mr. Gregory, at any rate, must have known how utterly monstrous such a notion would appear to the Englishmen ; and he ought at once to have used his influence and that of the rest of the eleven to calm the excited mob. No such steps seem to have been taken ; and if this was so the Australians were very much to blame. At the same time, one does not see what good purpose is served by a letter written by a well-known cricketer, and printed in the Daily Telegraph yesterday. Its one object seems to be to abuse the Australian eleven who came to England last year. That they may have made mistakes is quite possible, though little was heard of them at the time ; that they were lucky enough to make money is cer-tain. But in the main they behaved well ; and had they not been so successful at first they certainly would not have paid their expenses. At any rate, these matters have nothing to do with the dis-turbance at Sydney. A Sydney mob has here-ditary qualifications for blackguardism ; and it is very unlikely that the ‘ larrikins ’ who so shame-fully misbehaved themselves would have shown better feeling if the eleven whose success they desired to prevent had came from a neighboring colony instead of from England. The grave point in the affair is the action of the Australian Eleven and the respectable people on the ground. Cricket would cease to be a game at which any but trained pugilists could play if a possible faulty decision could be made the excuse for an assault on the fieldmen by the bystanders. And in making these remarks I have not forgotten

the extraordinary scene which took place at Lord’s a few years ago, when Hearn gave a doubtful docision in the Harrow and Eton match. In that hubbub the lookers-on were at least good enough to confine their assaults to one another. Had the Sydney ‘ betting men ’ and ‘ larrikins’ pursued the same course the English Eleven might have been prevented from winning the match, but they would not, as now, have had to complain of grievous personal hurt and indignity.”

The following latter appears in Bell’s Life :— “ Sir, — No doubt you will receive many com-munications with respect to the letter which has appeared in several newspapers as having been written by Lord Harris during his residence in Sydney, giving Mr. V. E. Walker power to make uso of it for the information of the cricketing community as to the treatment the eleven have received when playing the above match. Being an Australian, proud of my native country, and formerly one of the Eleven of New South Wales, who played against the first two teams that visited Australia under the captaincy of H. H. Stephenson and G. Parr, and also a

member of the New South Wales Cricketing Association, I think it is incumbent upon me as a player to say a few words in reply to the very strong and vindictive epistle that is put forward against our body. In the first place, cricket is cricket ; an umpire’s decision is final, right or wrong ; but, on the other hand, in a dispute which occurs, and is seen by everyone to be un-fair, and the umpire being partial, I have seen the captain make an objection for incompetency, and he has been removed. It is all very well to

hear and listen to the talk and conversation that is now spoken of, but I have no doubt by the next mail many of my Sydney friends will reply to Lord Harris’ letter, and give us a true, fair, and im-partial account of what actually did occur. As

from my past experience in New South Wales and Victoria, as to our conduct in the treatment of the English players, nothing will alter the

same — the continued kindness as shown to them by the residents of Sydney and Melbourne will always be spoken of by those who played against us prior to the visit of Lord Harris’ team. As to the New South Wales Cricketing Association, it is composed of a body of gentlemen, and sup-ported by all lovers of the noble game, and not the class that Lord Harris wishes his readers to believe. If the insult that has been given to the eleven is true, I suppose the New South Wales Eleven had no control over the excitable specta-

tors, and as the New South Wales team had three of their players who have only recently left the shores of Old England, they would not forget the kindness which was bestowed upon them during their cricketing tour. Lord Harris’ letter will be eagerly read by thousands in Australia, and I have no doubt that (‘ as a body’) the New South Wales Cricketing Association will openly contra-dict that part which bears upon the conduct and character of those who are allowed to misconduct themselves in the pavilion. A body of gentlemen who support the noble game in Australia, and have shown the same spirit to all former elevens who have visited our shores, will not allow the letter to pass unnoticed ; and I for one, as a player and a working member on the committee

when in Sydney, can testify us to our treatment to all our visitors. Trusting you will be pleased to give the above insertion in your next issue, being 18,000 miles away from those with whom I am acquainted, I beg to subscribe myself,

“ W. J. COULTER, an Australian Cricketer. “ Walmer, Kent, April 4, 1879.” ______________________________________

CORDUROY velvet is one of the novelties of the of the

season.