and confine himself to the other two—namely, whether the ball would have hit the wicket if the batsman's person had not prevented it, and whether the batsman hit the ball with his bat. Now, if under the present rule the umpire has three things to keep in view and form a judgment on, and only two under the proposed alteration, how can it be fairly argued that the alteration will make his task harder? It must have the opposite effect and make it easier. The late Lord Bessborough once told me that somewhere about the year 1841 the rule as then drawn did not make it clear as to what was meant: Dark and Caldecourt, the two leading umpires of the day, held different views, and the M.C.C. had to be referred to. After much weighing of facts I have come to the conclusion that it will be to the advantage of the game that the rule shall be altered, and the reasons why this conclusion is reached are several: (1) Under the rule as at present drawn the bowling has become in one sense stereotyped, i.e., it is almost entirely over the wicket, as, unless a ball is pitched right up, it is practically impossible to get a man out l.b.w.; (2) the batsman would learn to play the ball with
