|
foot of page As wide as the wicket The match | The Whites | John Nyren's evidence | The "Brett Declaration" | The motive | The new bats Conclusion Version |
As wide as the wicket
Anyone who has studied the history of cricket up to the advent of roundarm bowling will probably agree that the single greatest controversy the sport had to deal with, until then, concerned the width of the bat. Section 5.7.2 of The Laws of Cricket innocuously states that the bat shall be no more than four and one quarter inches wide at its broadest part. What this statement does not reveal is the tremendous row that erupted when someone tried to use a bat that was fully as wide as the wicket itself.
The incident is shrouded in controversy even now. There are still questions asked about who exactly introduced the monster bat, when it happened, who challenged it, and how. About the only thing we can be certain of is that the maximum width was stipulated in the 1774 version of the Laws, having been absent from the 1744 version.
The match
|
| The Cricketers of My Time |
H. T. Waghorn in his Cricket Scores, Notes, etc. (1730–1773) states that:
On Monday (i.e., 23 September) began to be played on Laleham Burway, near Chertsey, in Surrey, a great cricket-match depending, the Hambledon and Chertsey Clubs (the latter being allowed to pick four men), which was decided on Tuesday evening in favour of the former. Great sums were depending on this match, which was very strongly contested by both parties, the winners heading their opponents only by a single notch, viz:–
Hambledon (both innings) 218; Chertsey 217.
According to G. B. Buckley in his Fresh Light on 18th Century Cricket, although he defers to Waghorn on the main details, the match was for £50 a side. It "had to be played out at Chertsey", the wickets to be pitched at 10. His source was the St James Chronicle dated Thursday, 19 September 1771.
There are no newspaper reports of the game beyond what Waghorn and Buckley found, and certainly nothing to suggest that a great hullabaloo had taken place. Our main evidence for what occurred is based on a book written two generations later by the son of Hambledon's captain; and by a piece of paper dated Wednesday, 25 September 1771, and signed by Hambledon's three leading players.
The Whites
Not for the last time in the 18th century, there was confusion about players called White. A number of Whites were active in the 1790s, and researchers have a nightmare trying to differentiate them, their difficulties increased by the player called Knowles who used White as a pseudonym (or vice-versa!).
Differentiating between the Whites of the 1760s and 1770s is relatively easy, but some previous writers have made hard work of it. There were two. One was "Daddy" White of Reigate who played in various Surrey and All-England teams, often against Hambledon, until he retired in 1779. He has a biography in Arthur Haygarth's Scores & Biographies (on page 40) and lived to a ripe old age. He is the one who was responsible for the monster bat controversy, though we may question his motive.
His namesake contemporary was "Shock" White, who may or may not have been called Thomas. He was first recorded as playing for Hampton in 1761, so he was probably older than "Daddy" White. Ironically, this appearance for Hampton was against Chertsey at Laleham Burway. He was latterly a resident of Brentford, also north of the river Thames in Middlesex. He was twice mentioned by the Daily Advertiser in 1773 as "Shock" White of Brentford. Furthermore, while "Shock" played at Tothill Fields for Westminster versus London on Wednesday, 18 August 1773, "Daddy" was simultaneously playing for Surrey v Kent at Sevenoaks Vine. "Shock" White had nothing to do with Surrey or Chertsey or outsize bats; yet he has often been blamed for the incident.
This is one aspect of the controversy that we can be sure about. Despite certain books saying that Thomas "Shock" White introduced the huge bat, it was Thomas "Daddy" White who did it, and "Shock" White was a completely different player. It is not clear who originally confused the two Whites, though it may well have been John Nyren, son of the Hambledon captain.
John Nyren's evidence
|
| A modern bat gauge |
Several years since (I do not recollect the precise date) a player, named White, of Ryegate (sic), brought a bat to a match, which being the width of the stumps, effectually (sic) defended his wicket from the bowler : and, in consequence, a law was passed limiting the future width of the bat to four and a quarter inches.
In a footnote, Nyren adds:
I have a perfect recollection of this occurrence; also, that subsequently, an iron frame of the statute width, was constructed for, and kept by the Hambledon Club; through which any bat of suspect dimensions was passed, and allowed or rejected accordingly.
One or two writers have taken Nyren at his word on the footnote but, as usual, Nyren is unreliable. He was born at Hambledon in 1764, and so he was a young boy of nearly seven when the infamous match took place. It is questionable if Nyren was actually present as Hambledon to Chertsey in those days was a long journey. When he says he has "perfect recollection", he is surely recalling his father talking about the incident in, no doubt, heated terms. I was seven when I first watched Test cricket, but I admit my actual recollections are memories of comments made by others about certain incidents, rather than a reliable eye-witness account of the incidents themselves, which in any case I have subsequently read about, or seen recordings of.
Nyren certainly could recall the iron frame. It was surely shown to him, and he will have handled it, and watched his father demonstrate its use.
In an earlier passage, Nyren refers to "Shock" White as one of the four leading bowlers to oppose Hampshire in the 1770s, and he is wrong, for this was "Daddy" White again.
In John Nyren's The Cricketers of My Time, the editor Ashley Mote rightly says that Nyren was a plagiarist, and it is true that parts of his work were taken sometimes verbatim from earlier works. It could be said we are all plagiarists unless we are truly original! No matter. Nyren does seem to have adapted someone else's much earlier words when he talks about "a player, named White, of Ryegate".
The "Brett Declaration"
The MCC has in its possession a paper, evidently written by Tom Brett and signed by himself, Richard Nyren and John Small. This document, which is in effect a slip cut from a larger sheet of paper, may be called the "Brett Declaration" for want of a more appropriate name. It amounts to an item in the minutes of a Hambledon Club meeting, though it may have been a separate document that was subsequently discussed at a club meeting. It has been suggested that the paper is a forgery, but that is introducing a conspiracy theory into circumstances where the solution is surely the most obvious of the options.
The "Brett Declaration" states:
In view of the performance of one White of Ryegate on September 23rd
that ffour (sic) and quarter inches shall be the breadth forthwith.
this 25th day of September 1771
Richard Nyren
T Brett
John Small
It has been supposed that a 19th century forger took the words "a player, named White, of Ryegate" from Nyren, and wrote "one White of Ryegate" on the forged declaration. That is wrong. It was the other way around. Nyren, the plagiarist, must have seen the declaration many times, and had the phraseology in his head. It is curious that White's first name is not used in either source. Nyren may well have been confused about White's name. He was clearly confused about many things if you read his book carefully! But he had an easy escape because all he had to do was simply adapt Brett's words. Tom Brett certainly knew that White was called Thomas, but he was still incensed enough about the incident to refuse to call him by his given name. That is only natural. Brett's anger can be seen in his use of the word "performance". He is using that word in its most derogatory sense.
|
|
John Frederick Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset, 1767. |
A few points need to be considered here and the most crucial one is the doctrine of Neville Cardus that "the game and its players have always reflected their times". This was the anything goes world of Georgian England, not the stuffy protocol one of Victorian England. Aristocrats in those days were notorious for enjoying themselves while having some other fellow deal with any issues that might arise. The classic case is Lord's. Why is it called Lord's, and not Winchilsea's or Lennox's? Because when the jolly good chaps decided they wanted their own private venue, they didn't want to soil their hands with the necessaries. No, they got one of their bowlers to do the work for them: Thomas Lord, an enterprising fellow, don't y'know!?
When the Hambledon players came back from Chertsey, shouting the odds about White, and took their objections to the Duke of Dorset or whoever, is it not reasonable to assume that Dorset told them to: "Put it in writing, and get one of your fellows to make this damned gauge thing that you're wanting"? The club members yawned, but agreed Brett had a point, and so Dorset added: "Yaas, one shall have it in the Laws when one gets around to having one's scribe write them up. I say, dashed beastly business, don't y'know?"
You may ask why Brett "had the point" and not one of the more senior (i.e., older) players. Although Tom Brett was still only 24, he was unquestionably the club's main, and therefore senior, bowler. This was not Victorian England, and Brett did not need to know his place if he was demonstrably the best bowler around. No doubt he had the ball in his hand when White walked in, and so he was the one who furiously objected to the umpire, and then summoned his captain for support. In short, he raised the issue and the club, both members and players, told him to see it resolved. So he wrote the "Brett Declaration"—and he did write it: compare his signature with the writing of the declaration—when he returned to Hambledon a couple of days later. Richard Nyren's name was added as he was the club captain.
Why did Small sign it too? Because Richard Nyren was Hambledon's #2 bowler, and thus far it looks like bowlers whingeing about a batsman putting one over them. Having Small sign it provides a seal of approval from other batsmen—and Small was no mere "other batsman". More importantly, Small's signature showed that if the game's greatest batsman would happily use a bat that was subject to a prescribed limit, then everyone else should use it too. Small's support was absolutely vital to having the rule imposed.
You will note I said: "Richard Nyren's name was added". Others have pointed out that Nyren's "signature" on the declaration is unlike his signatures on two official documents, when he witnessed the marriages of George Leer and Tom Sueter. That is so, but an added problem is that the two official signatures differ from each other as well!
|
| Neville Cardus |
The how really doesn't matter. The facts are that the incident occurred, the issue was raised, and the Laws of 1774 provided the permanent solution.
The motive
But why did White do it? There are three possible reasons, and again we must remember Neville Cardus' doctrine when we think about what could and did happen in Georgian times.
First, he did it as a prank because he knew the Laws written in 1744 said nothing about the width of the bat; just as they also said nothing about the bowler's arm action, incidentally. Perhaps there were a few volatile characters on the Hambledon team, and White thought he would "wind them up". If that was his intention, he seems to have succeeded because it looks as if some of the Hambledon people went ballistic!
Second, and given the times I seriously doubt this, he was deliberately cheating. Not legally cheating as the Laws were silent on the issue, but morally cheating in terms of acting against the spirit of the game. The action in itself seems too outrageous to have been done with any serious intent unless there was a third motive.
Third, and this is the one that seems to have escaped all previous writers on the subject. Thomas White realised that there was a loophole in the Laws, and it may well have been a sore point for many years that players were using different-sized bats. It may have become an issue that no one would assert themselves to address: remember the notorious torpor of Georgian aristocrats. So White forced the issue. He knew that people who are angry will resolve to take action. White selected his target with care as he knew the Hambledon Club was the one with the clout to enforce a change in the Laws.
The new bats
|
|
Early bats. The middle one, dated 1774, is straight and unspliced. |
But whereas a hockey stick shape has practical limitations that would constrain the creation of one of monster proportions, a straight bat does not have such constraints, and it's entirely feasible that a straight piece of wood might as easily be twelve inches wide as four and a quarter inches wide. In 1744, when the existing Laws were written, the bat was always a hockey stick.
The issue could not arise until the bat changed shape, never mind width.
The fact is that an official limit on the bat's width would have come sooner or later. A second fact is that "Daddy" White did force the issue, and the new limit was already in place, via the Hambledon Club's iron frame, before the Laws were rewritten in 1774.
Conclusion
It seems that every cricket history book ever written contains some reference to this controversy. Only a few seem to realise the difference between Thomas "Daddy" White and "Shock" White. Few go into any real detail about the whys and wherefores of the big bat incident, and I don't think anyone has considered the connection with the advent of the straight bat only a few years previously. Neither has anyone else considered that White was forcing an issue, rather than cheating or joking.
Version
I should perhaps add that this article, as originally written, was published by The Cricket Society about twenty years ago. This is an amended version. I've done a bit of copyediting, removed some unimportant and insignificant mentions, and reformatted the whole to accommodate the needs of online output.
|
top of page Death Comes to Cricket | And one was a tie |
No comments:
Post a Comment