# The Hambledon Men/A Conversation with Lord Bessborough

LORD BESSBOROUGH ON CRICKET
By The Right Rev. H. H. Montgomery
(Written in 1889.)
Perhaps there is no living authority on cricket greater than Lord Bessborough. Years ago he figured in all the best matches as the Hon. Fred. Ponsonby, and now he has become a link between the past and present race of cricketers. I myself owe him a deep debt of gratitude for many hours' 'coaching' at Harrow. It was, I think, a happy thought to ask him his opinion upon many a point of the game. The questions and answers are given below.
Did you know W. Lambert, the old Surrey player?—'I never saw Lambert. He had been excluded from Lord's and from other great matches, but he continued to play in the country for many years, and Mr. R. Grimston once played a match with him in Surrey. He was old then, but Taylor told me he must have been a very fine bat, and was still a good bowler. On talking over the old players with old Clarke, the Nottingham bowler, he said, "Lord Frederick Beauclerk and Beldham were very good bats, but Lambert was the best batsman I ever saw, and Pilch comes next." Old Mr. Bowdler, an old Winchester cricketer, also told me he thought Lambert was the best bat he had ever seen till Pilch came out. That was before Grace's day. He used to stand with his left foot out a very long way and then draw it up rapidly on playing. He thought it put the bowler off his pitch.'
Did you ever see Beldham play?—'I never saw him play; but I always heard cricketers of old times speak of him ​as a fair rival of Lord Frederick. I saw him once at Lord's when he was a very old man and came to see a Gentlemen and Players match. I felt very much complimented when I was told after my innings by Walter Mynn that he heard Beldham say that was "something like hitting".'
How should you describe Felix as a bat?—Felix became a first-rate batsman and a well-known cricketer when he was old for the game, but young in intellect, health, strength, and spirits. When I first saw him play in 1834, he was a beautiful and a splendid hitter. His positions and action were magnificent, but he was then very unsafe. He played with his bat held over his shoulder, and a quick shooter was most likely to be fatal to him. He played principally in suburban matches. But when he began to appear at Lord's he put the bat beside him in the usual way and studied defence. He became certainly one of the best batsmen that ever played, by means of practice to the best bowlers, and more constantly to the "catapulta", which he invented in order to get good practice at Blackheath, where he had a school. His disposition inclined him to be rather unsteady, as he was always longing for a sensational hit. But he was an enthusiastic lover of cricket without any jealousy of the play of others, though burning to distinguish himself; and he was one of the cleverest, most accomplished, kind-hearted, and truest friends I ever had. He sent me a little likeness of himself, done with his left hand when his right was paralysed, shortly before his death.'
Do you remember anything of Martingell and Day, the Surrey bowlers?—'I brought out Martingell in a match, Surrey v. Gentlemen of M.C.C., at Lord's, July 15th, ​1839, when he was a very young cricketer, having heard of his bowling in the country against (I think) "the Montpelier". He bowled beautifully in that match, and was soon engaged in good matches. Up to that time Surrey had played no matches for many years. Martingell was a very regular bowler and very straight. He had a nice curl from the leg, but after the change in the law of leg-before-wicket this curl was against him, for good players put their legs in the way of his best balls. Day did not come into notice till he was getting on in years, but he was a very fine bowler, perhaps none better in his time, very accurate in pitch and with a fine rise and spring upon the ball. Altogether his was a very fine, bold style, in some respects resembling Beaumont, the present Surrey bowler.'
Who was the best of the original round-arm bowlers?—'I suppose Lillywhite and Broadbridge without doubt.' (It is stated that Martingell was a very eager bowler, and was famous for bowling no-balls. In 1858, no less than 30 of these are credited to him. Broadbridge, mentioned by Lord Bessborough above, was once caught off a wide; he was playing for Sussex against England, at Brighton, on July 23rd, 1827, and threw his bat at the ball and was caught off it.)
What lesson would modern cricketers have to learn from any of the old worthies?—'Nothing, I think, which the play of W. G. Grace and of A. G. Steel would not teach them. I call the play of both of these "the old-fashioned play"—that is, the accurate timing of the ball, and seeing and playing it correctly after the rise from the ground, with the knowledge when to make exceptions to that rule.'
How would you compare the best under-hand bowling of old days with the best modern round-arm?—'This is a very difficult question to answer: Old Clarke, of Nottingham, was the only first-class under-hand bowler ​I played with in any good matches. But I think that he and Kirwan (when at Cambridge) and another bowler, a Hertfordshire man, would have held their own at any time, and have been most useful in matches now. I saw Lord Frederick Beauclerk, when very old, bowl a few balls, and his extreme accuracy of pitch must have made him an excellent bowler. He was very slow with a quick rise. Old Chad, our bowler at Harrow, could bowl very good balls at times, and if in his younger days he could have repeated them, as he used to declare he could, he certainly must have been a good man. I once saw Browne of Brighton bowl in a single-wicket match, but I do not think he would have been superior to Kirwan. The change in the law of leg-before-wicket would have told much against the under-hand bowlers, as they relied so much on the well-pitched balls with a curl on them. My opinion is that really good underhand would be very useful now, particularly for changebowling, but that, with the present grounds, round-arm must be depended upon. Many old bowlers told me that Harris was the best bowler they had ever seen. Under-hand had gone out when I began to see cricket. In fact it had nearly gone out before I went to Harrow. Old Clarke used to tell me that a Nottingham man from whom he learned a great deal was the best of all: his name was Warsop, I think.'
Did you know Budd well? What were his strong points?—'I never saw Budd but once, and then he was old and not as quick as he had been, but still active. He was a very good all-round man, and when I saw him he bowled a good sort of half-round slow, and fielded well. I did not think much of his style of batting, and only called him a dangerous man. There were no pads in his days; and he tried the hit to the on without pads when it would have been out leg-before-wicket if the ball pitched straight from the bowler to the wicket. This made him an unsafe player, but he was a fine hitter.'
'THE BAT AND BALL' ON BROAD HALFPENNY
(From a drawing by Mr. E. H. New)