The Cambridge University Cricket Club, 1820 - 1901. By W. J. Ford.
(W. Blackwood and Sons. 15s. net.)—This is an excellent book, though the contents are not quite as well arranged as they might have been. The first chapter should have been given wholly to the foundation of the club and the acquisition by it of its local habitation; the second wholly to its doings in the field. The humorous story of the "life member," for instance, belongs strictly to chap. 1. (It is so characteristic that we must quote it. Dr. Porter of Peterhouse had brought his dog 'Hugo' into the pavilion. A. R. Ward, the President, reproved him: "You should set these young gentlemen a better example." Dr. Porter explained that he paid .25 for him, a life subscription. "Capital, James!" cried the "Treasurer portion" of the President. "Have a glass of sherry, James." 'Hugo' died, and Rollo ' succeeded him in his honours. It was the kindly old man's way of helping the finances of the club.) On the other hand, the narrative on pp. 10-11 belongs to chap. 2. We may mention that the real reason why the match in 1848 had to be played at Oxford was that the Oxford eleven could not get leave. Dona were not so accommodating in those days as they are in these, and in term-time, which then lasted for three weeks after the Wednesday in Whitsun week, leave of absence was unobtainable. In the history of the club matches the contest with Oxford naturally has the first place. Mr. Ford thinks that Cambridge should have won some matches which it actually lost; he may be right; anyhow, it is a venial error. On the vexed question of the " wides" of 1896 he is neutral, only protesting against the insults levelled at the Cambridge men. Some of the experiences which he relates are curious. In 1881 an Oxford batsman who had been caught out, as it seemed, left his wicket. The batsman at the other end, however, appealed, and the umpire, after consultation, gave it "not out." Mr. Ford, who saw the incident, had himself said that he would not have gone out without an appeal. (A curious question arises,—if the batsman had been at the Nursery end he would have been out of his ground. Would it have been "the thing" to put his wicket down ?) A less agreeable story is the umpire's verdict of "obstructing the field" given against Absolom in Cambridge v. Surrey in 1868. It roused, as might be supposed, no little indignation. Nothing but the plainest evidence could have justified it, and that there was not, as the writer of this notice can testify. The index of players might be improved. The brothers, John and Alfred Walker, are wrongly credited to Harrow. They were not at that school ; neither, if we remember right, was Frederic Walker.
Previous page
