Part 53

In January of this year, at a large complimentary dinner held at the English Club, he was presented by Mr. W. Forbes Morgan, on behalf of the members and subscribers of the Pau Hunt, with a beautiful two-handled Queen Anne Cup, and an address of thanks for the rare sport shown during his Mastership. Pau is fortunate in possessing, in addition to the foxhounds, a good pack of drag hounds, which meets once or twice a week, and which provides a fast gallop for those who prefer this kind of sport. In former years the drag was by far the more popular branch of the sport, but foxhunting has become more and more popular, and the drag has suffered in consequence.

The horn is carried by Walter Smethurst, who has been over ten years as huntsman with the Pau hounds. The fields, after the new year, number fifty and upwards, consisting principally of American and French sportsmen, and there are at least half a dozen ladies who hunt and go well. The number of English who hunt is very limited, although in former years there were a good many members of this nationality.

The Pau country may be said to resemble parts of Ireland, consisting of wide tracts of moorland, and small enclosures, fenced with bank and ditch, the former bearing very often a thick hedgerow, and the latter being very blind, with gorse and briar. In the Oloron Valley, to which the drag goes once or twice a season, stone walls and hedges are met with, and the going is all grass. The Garderes district—about ten or twelve miles from Pau—is a fine open country with clean fences and sound going; and the Auriac, in the other direction—to the east of the Bordeaux high road—is a grand country with high banks that take a deal of doing.

Good hunters can be hired at Pau, and stabling can be easily procured in the town. The Hon. Secretary to the Hunt, Mr. J. Barron, will always supply any information that may be required with regard to hunting in the neighbourhood.

South African Policy of the Marylebone Cricket Ministry.

“England _v._ South Africa,”

“The Fifth Test Match,”

“An Innings Defeat for England.”

“Mr. Warner, interviewed, said South Africans were undoubtedly the superior side, especially on their own wickets. It was a good thing that they had won the Test matches, as it had given a fillip to the game in South Africa.”—_Reuter’s Special Service_, April _2nd_, 1906.

MR. LACEY’S OPINION.

In the course of an interview at Lord’s yesterday afternoon (April 2nd) Mr. F. E. Lacey, the M.C.C. Secretary, said (the _Star_ states) in response to an inquiry regarding the reason that the M.C.C. eleven should have been so unaccountably beaten in four of the five Test matches: “Not unaccountable at all. It is a case in which the better side has won.

“There is little doubt that the South Africans have improved wonderfully, but certainly M.C.C. should have done better.

“I believe the chief cause of our defeat has been poor fielding. Then again, such really great batsmen as P. F. Warner and Hayes have not done themselves justice.

“A great many judges of the game attribute the apparent failure of our team to the fact that our men are playing on matting, but I can scarcely agree with them. I have practised a lot on matting wickets, and, judging from my own experience, it should hold no terrors for a really good batsman.

“I can only attribute the defeat of our eleven to inferior play. The fielding has been poor, the bowling only moderate, and the batting, with one or two exceptions, second-rate.

“Of course, it is very difficult to judge when one is sitting in the pavilion at Lord’s and the games are being played in South Africa, so perhaps I may be wrong.

“I am very pleased with the success of Crawford, who is, in my opinion, the finest all-round man on the side.

“It was never intended to send a representative eleven of England, but I thought we had chosen a side quite worthy of upholding the cricket honour of the country. Apparently we were wrong.

“Our defeat cannot do any harm; in fact, it may lead to a lot of good, and if the South Africans visit us in 1907 they should command a great amount of respect from all the first-class counties, as, judging by the improvement in their play, they will give us some good games, and may even be a hard nut to crack for a representative English team.”

These quotations are taken from the columns of the _Sportsman_, April 3rd, 1906, and to them it is desired most earnestly to invite the attention of those patriots who wish to see English cricket maintain its supremacy. Let one regard for the moment these two gentlemen individually as Mr. F. E. Lacey, Secretary of the Marylebone Club, Prime Minister of Cricket, and Mr. P. F. Warner, captain of English teams sent to play against the Colonies, Colonial Secretary of the Marylebone Club, which up to the present time has, without any Opposition, assumed and carried on the Government of Cricket.

The position in which they find themselves at the time of making these disclosures to the Press is as follows:—

For some years past, since 1888, the cricket associations of South Africa have from time to time invited English cricketers to visit South Africa in order to assist in the development of the game in that country. The team under Mr. Warner’s captaincy is the fifth that has visited South Africa, the preceding ones having been under the private management of, 1888–9, Major Wharton; 1891–2, Mr. W. W. Read; 1895–6, and again in 1898–9, Lord Hawke; and now, 1905–6, under the management of the Marylebone Club, with Mr. P. F. Warner as captain.

Major Wharton’s team was in no sense a powerful one, and included some amateurs of obscure cricket origin; and they lost four matches in the course of their travels. Mr. Read’s team was a strong one, and lost no matches. Lord Hawke lost two matches on his first visit to Africa, but, profiting by this experience, returned in 1899 with an unbeaten record.

An opportunity was afforded to South African cricketers of trying their skill against English cricketers in the summer of 1904, when a team of South Africans came to England to play a comprehensive programme, which included twenty-two first-class matches, against the Counties, ’Varsities, M.C.C., and so on, with a special match, by request, against England at Lord’s. Our visitors were modest, and without suggesting a series of so-called Test matches, asked as a favour that upon one occasion, and that at Lord’s, the headquarters of cricket, they might be allowed to meet the full strength of England in order that they might learn an important lesson in the game of cricket. This match was played in the middle of July, and the Africans brought their best eleven to Lord’s, and gained a decisive victory by 189 runs. But they were unable to exult in their triumph, for the management of the Marylebone Club took so little pride in the team they had selected to represent England that the match was chronicled as “South Africans _v._ an English Eleven,” and all cricketers know that the words, “An English Eleven,” applied to a team condemn the team in one’s mind before one has read the names. So little enough credit was given to the Africans for winning the one match they had arranged against England at Lord’s; although anyone who, in common with the writer, watched carefully the whole course of the match from start to finish, must have realised that as they played then our visitors might on their day have beaten the pick of England.

The result of that tour worked out: matches played 22, won 10, lost 2, drawn 9, tied 1. The first match they lost was the second of their tour, at Worcester, and of this game “Wisden’s Almanack” says: “The South Africans had all the worst of the luck, as, after holding their own on the first day, they had on the second to bat on a ruined pitch.”

So there was not much disgrace about this defeat. The other match lost was against Kent at Canterbury, where the home team, for some reason or another, always show to advantage. Kent batted first, and we read that: “Helped by the condition of the wicket, which had never been perfect, Blythe was very difficult at the finish.” And so the Africans lost by 104 runs. To an unbiassed observer it would seem that if upon the two occasions when they suffered defeat the Africans had happened to have won the toss, they might well have added a couple of wins to their record instead of losses.

These three matches—namely, the two first-class games lost by the Africans in 1904 and the Test match won by them at Lord’s—have been dwelt upon at some length in order to remind readers that the performances of that team were the performances of fine cricketers, and any intelligent student of the game who saw Mr. Mitchell’s men in the field must have realised that it was no fool’s job to find a team to beat them.

Now let us see what happens afterwards. Affairs settle down after the war in South Africa, and the time arrives when the Colonies are prepared to try their strength against the mother country.

South African cricketers are anxious to receive a visit from an English team, to treat all the members as their guests, and to pay the salaries of the professionals. In a spirit of the most confident loyalty, African cricket places herself in the hands of the Marylebone Club.

Africa is to pay the piper, the Marylebone Club is to call the tune. The tune has been played to its dismal end, and of the five Test matches four have resulted disastrously for _soi-disant_ England, the one win for the M.C.C. team being by a narrow enough margin.

Without committing oneself to any criticism of the composition of the team which was sent under the auspices of the Marylebone Club to Africa to render an account of English cricket, it may be sufficient for present purposes to suggest that if that team had been advertised to play at one of the gate-money carnivals of cricket at Blackpool or Bournemouth, and labelled according to custom “An Eleven of England,” there would probably have been no unseemly rush of trippers hustling for a shilling seat to watch their performances. Yet, according to this contention, what Blackpool would not afford in the way of extravagance, South Africa had to endure to the end.

An endeavour has been made to be very moderate in the premises, and now it is time to turn to the remarks made respectively by Mr. Warner, whom we have styled Chief Secretary for the Colonies, and Mr. Lacey, the Prime Minister of Cricket.

In the hour of disastrous rout and defeat they have been interviewed each “on his own,” separated from one another by thousands of miles. Let us see what they say.

Mr. Warner says “the Africans were undoubtedly the superior side, especially on their own wickets. It was a good thing they had won the Test matches, as it had given a fillip to the game in South Africa.”

So Mr. Warner says it is a good thing that the side styled “England” has lost the matches styled Test matches, for that will give a fillip to cricket in South Africa. One wonders if it will!

It might have seemed obvious that South African cricket “filliped” itself when its representatives swept the field in 1904, and one must bear in mind that the Australians—who, at all events, can always be depended upon to send their best—have met with more than one reverse when they have taken on a South African team. One might ask a good sportsman like Mr. Warner whether it is likely to give a fillip to a good shot to have to give the _coup de grace_ to a wounded hare or to go through the dull routine of killing a low-flying pheasant? Or, perhaps, to get back to his freehold, the popping-crease, to ask him would he prefer to score 128 runs against Africa or against XVIII. of Middleburg.

Mr. Warner is the most courteous of guests and opponents, and can be depended upon to say the right thing upon all occasions, but somewhere at the back of his head one suspects that there lurks the polished idea that it would have been better for African cricket, better for English cricket, and especially better for himself, if he had been enabled to be in the company of the best of English cricketers in this African campaign, and to have firmly asserted the supremacy of the Old Country at our national game.

One or two of our general officers suffered defeat in South Africa a few years ago, but we never heard of any of them exulting in the idea that it was a “good thing, as it had given a fillip to fighting in South Africa.” And we may be sure that Mr. Warner, over this unfortunate tour in Africa, has been throughout as keen as any general officer. But he had not got the men!

Now, what is to be said of “Mr. Lacey’s opinion,” as reported in the _Star_ newspaper, when he consented to be interviewed upon the “unaccountable defeat of the M.C.C. team in four Test matches out of five.” The Secretary of the Marylebone Club is stated to have said, “Not unaccountable at all. It is a case in which the better side has won.”

Later on Mr. Lacey is reported as saying: “It was never intended to send a representative eleven of England, but I thought we had chosen a side quite worthy of upholding the cricket honour of the country. Apparently we were wrong.”

Now here is an important statement. Mr. Lacey seems to imply that he could have sent a more powerful team to South Africa if he or the management of the Club had been able to realise that the Africans, whom they had seen winning at Lord’s in 1904 against their own Eleven of England, were an extremely good side of cricketers.

According to the _Star_, Mr. Lacey has now no good word for the side of which he says, “I thought we had chosen a side quite worthy of upholding the cricket honour of the country.” He says: “I can only attribute the defeat of our eleven to inferior play. The fielding has been poor, the bowling only moderate, and the batting, with one or two exceptions, second-rate.”

“I believe the chief cause of our defeat has been poor fielding. Then again, such really great batsmen as P. F. Warner and Hayes have not done themselves justice.” Further, he says, “A great many judges of the game attribute the apparent failure of our team to the fact that our men are playing on matting, but I can scarcely agree with them. I have practised a lot on matting wickets, and judging from my own experience, it should hold no terrors for a really good batsman.”

The great want of the team appears to have been a really good batsman, and it seems a thousand pities from the point of view of the cricketing public that Mr. Lacey did not personally conduct this team.

But “All’s well that ends well,” and the final paragraph of the opinion of Mr. Lacey upon South African cricket states that:—

“Our defeat cannot do any harm; in fact, it may lead to a lot of good, and if the South Africans visit us in 1907, they should command a great amount of respect from all the first-class counties” (not yet, even, is the Marylebone Club pledged to extend any more respect to South Africa than was the case in 1904), “as judging by the improvement in their play, the South Africans will give us some good games, and may even be a hard nut to crack for a representative English team.”

Yes! they probably will be all that Mr. Lacey predicts, because, unless we are mistaken, the South African team so long ago as 1904 came up to that form, and it would have been as well if Mr. Lacey and those who assist him in the management of the Marylebone Club had realised this obvious fact a few months ago, before they organised this Majuba of cricket which has caused so much disappointment to cricketers in the two hemispheres.

Mr. Lacey and Mr. Warner are agreed that “the better side has won.”

Cricketers are almost entitled, respectfully, to ask upon this point whether a better team could have been sent by the M.C.C. than this team which Mr. Lacey now runs down. And if the answer to this be in the affirmative, then the next question is, why was not a better team sent to represent England?

The Africans asked to meet the strength of England, and they have handsomely beaten the team put into the field against them. They have performed their part of the bargain, and it seems almost ungenerous of the Secretary of the Marylebone Club to assume this air of patronage and to talk of the South African team as if they were a lot of schoolboys undergoing an Easter course of coaching on the matting practice wickets at Lord’s.

A result of this unfortunate business is that the Africans are already knocking at the gate again, and we are informed that immediately at the conclusion of the tour a cable was despatched asking that a South African team should be received in England in 1907 on the same lines as an Australian team, which appears to signify a programme including five test matches, which may mean, according to Mr. Lacey, five hard nuts “to crack for a representative English team.” But why not have sent the nut-crackers to South Africa first?

CRICKETER.

Some Fables on Horses.

Probably, for research and widely diffused knowledge, spread over a long and laborious life, the work of that celebrated octogenarian, Dr. Cobham Brewer, who, at the age of eighty-five, brought out his new edition of “Phrase and Fable,” is, to my thinking, unique in its way, teeming as it does with interest to every class of both reader and writer.

As a sportsman, it appeals to me in many a page, and in culling a few tit-bits from it I may help to enlighten and enliven your readers on things not generally known.

_Longchamps_ is, as we know, to-day, the scene of one of the most fashionable French racecourses, yet history tells us that every Wednesday, Thursday and Friday in Passion week, the Parisians went there in procession in private carriages and hired cabs, all the smartly dressed men and women who wished to display their spring fashions. The origin of the custom being that there was once a famous nunnery there, noted for its singing. In Passion week all who could went to hear these religious women sing the Psalms. This custom grew into a fashion, although the nunnery no longer exists, the procession is as fashionable as ever, and so is the racecourse.

_Lose the horse and win the saddle._ A man made a bet of a horse that another could not say the Lord’s Prayer without a wandering thought. The bet was accepted, but before half-way through, the person accepting the bet looked up and said, “By the bye, do you mean the saddle also?”

_A horse_ is worthy of especial notice here. A good horse is said to have fifteen points. He should have three properties of a man, three of a woman, three of a fox, three of a hare, and three of an ass—of a man, bold, proud, and hardy—of a woman, fair-breasted, fair-haired, and easy of movement—of a fox, a good tail, short ears, with a good trot—of a hare, large eyes, a dry head, and good running—of an ass, a big chin, flat legs, and a good hoof.

Neptune is supposed to have created the horse. When Athene, the goddess of wisdom, contended with Neptune as to which should give the name to Athens, the gods decided that it should be called by the name of that deity which bestowed on men the most useful boon. Athene created the olive tree, and Neptune created the horse. The vote was given in favour of the olive tree, and the city was called Athens.

The first person that drove a _four-in-hand_ was, Virgil tells us, Ericthonius.

On the death of Smerdis, King of Persia, the competitors for the throne agreed that he should be king whose horse neighed first when they met the day following. The groom of Darius showed his horse a mare on the day appointed, and immediately it arrived at the spot on the following day the horse began to neigh, and won the crown for its master.

A horse in the catacombs was an emblem of the swiftness of life.

In Christian life the horse is the emblem of courage and generosity.

The horses of Diomed, Tyrant of Thrace, were flesh-eaters, and were fed on the strangers who visited his kingdom. Hercules vanquished the tyrant, and gave his carcase to the horses to eat.

In the British Army we have Elliot’s Light Horse, Paget’s Irregular Horse, The Black Horse, The Blue Horse, The Green Horse, The Royal Horse Guards, and The White Horse, as applied to particular regiments.

Both in mythology and history we have a multitude of celebrated steeds. Thus:—

_Akabar._—A hot one. Was one of the horses of Sunna.

_Abaster._—Away from the stars—belonged to Pluto.

_Abraxus._—Was one of the horses of Aurora.

_Actæon._—Effulgent, was one of the horses of the sun.

_Æthon._—Fiery red. Was another horse of the sun.

_Acton._—Swift as an eagle. Was a horse of Pluto’s.

_Aligero Clavileno._—The wooden pin-winged horse on which Don Quixote mounted to effect the deliverance of Trifaldi and her companions.

_Amathea._—No loiterer. Was one of the horses of the sun.

_Aquiline._—Like an eagle. Raymond’s steed, bred on the banks of the Tagus.

_Arion._—War horse. Hercules’ horse, given to Adrastos. Brought out of the earth by Neptune with his tridents. Its right feet were those of a human being; it spoke with a human voice, and ran with incredible swiftness.

_Arundal._—Swift as a swallow. The horse of Bevis of Southampton.

_Babicca._—The simpleton. The Cids’ horse. He survived his master two and half years, during which time nobody was allowed to mount him, and he was buried before the gates of the Monastery of Valencia, and two elm trees were planted to mark the spot. This horse’s name arose because Roderigo in his youth was given the choice of a horse by his god-father, and chose a rough colt, and his donor called him Babicca, a fool, for doing so, but Roderigo transferred the name to his gift horse.

_Barjado_ was Ronaldo’s horse, of bay colour, once the property of Amadis of Gaul. He was found in a cave guarded by a dragon, which the wizard slew. He is said to be still alive, but flies at the approach of man, and no one can hope to catch him.

_Babico._—Swift, like Zanthos, his sire was the West Wind, and his dam Swiftfoot the harpy, and was given by Neptune to Peleus.

_Bayard._—A bright bay. He belonged to the four sons of Aymon, and grew larger or smaller as one of these four mounted him.

_Bevis._—The swift. The horse of Lord Marmion.

_Black Agnes._—Belonging to Mary Queen of Scots, given her by her brother Moray, and named after Agnes of Dunbar.

_Black Saladin._—Warwick’s famous horse. Coal black. His sire was Malek, and it was said of him that when the race of Malek failed the race of Warwick would fail also, and so it came to pass.

_Borak._—The lightning. The horse that conveyed Mahomet from earth to the seventh heaven. He was milk white, had the wings of an eagle, and a human face with a horse’s cheeks. Every pace he took was equal to the furthest range of human sight.

_Brigliadoro._—Golden bridle. Orlando’s famous charger, second only in swiftness and wonderful powers to Bayardo.

_Bronte._—Thunder. A horse of the sun.

_Brown Hal._—A model pacing stallion.

_Bucephalus._—Ox-head. The celebrated charger of Alexander the Great, who was the only person that could mount him, and he always knelt down to receive his master. He was thirty years old when he died, and Alexander built a city as a mausoleum, which he called Bucephala.

_Capilet._—A grey horse of Sir Andrew Aguecheek, spoken of in Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night.” A capilet signifies a small wen on a horse’s neck.

_Celer._—Swift. The horse of the Roman Emperor Verus, that was fed on almonds and raisins, covered with purple, and stalled in the Imperial palace.

_Cæsar._—A model Percheron stallion.

_Copenhagen._—The Duke of Wellington’s charger that he rode at Waterloo. Napoleon’s favourite charger was called Marengo, and was represented in the famous picture by Vernet of Napoleon crossing the Alps. His remains are now in the United Service Museum in London.