the proper weapon, the bat, and he would hesitate before he threw his leg into dangerous positions in front of the wicket; (3) if bowlers were to bowl round the wicket it would be found that they would occasionally bowl a ball that properly could and would be hit to leg, a hit that is delightful to the player and charming to the spectator, but which, in these days, is practically abolished; (4) the task of the umpires, always difficult, would be made easier. Whether the M.C.C. will make any alteration in the law remains to be seen, but certainly a change should be tried, a few matches should be played, and the effect of the experiment watched. This change in the l.b.w. rule may make an important change in the scoring, but it is not entirely owing to that reason that it is advocated here. Nobody objects to the really first-rate batsman getting his large scores, but what is objectionable is, that on the billiard-table wickets the best bowling should not prevent batsmen, who certainly are not first-class, making hundreds. My impression is that a change in the l.b.w. law would go a long way towards removing this defect. If you carefully watch a great innings, such as Hankey's 70 in Gentlemen
