men of 1899 was slow and monotonous. It was very sound and good, but if that style continues and becomes general, it must inevitably result in the public becoming indifferent. The world of history has lately been discussing the question of picturesque style in writing history. It has been stated by some most accurate chroniclers that it is dangerous for a historian to write like Macaulay and Froude; I suppose they think history should only be written for dull specialists and students, and not for the general public, to whom some historical knowledge is both useful and interesting. Mr. Andrew Lang has replied and opposed this theory in his own inimitable way. Mr. Lang is an enthusiastic lover of cricket, and he will, I feel confident, support me when I assert that style ought to be a consideration in cricket, as it is in writing history. If the system of playing matches to a finish is firmly established, style will suffer, and cricket will suffer too.
The really great cricketer is great on all sorts and conditions of wicket: the great Australian will play well on the more variable English wicket, the great Englishman will do his part on the easy Australian wickets. During the last
