when the umpire has given him out l.b.w., he has met with his deserts. What more can a bowler do than bowl such a good ball that the batsman fails to touch it with his bat, and only stops it with his leg? The bowler suffers the hardship. He has done all that a man can do, but, under the present law, he has not met with his reward. In the case of by far the largest class of bowlers—those who bowl right hand and with a break back—there is no reason whatever why the leg should ever prevent the ball from hitting the wicket. It is the essence of forward play that the ball should be smothered. In the instance brought forward by Mr. Shuter the ball was not smothered, and it may therefore be fairly argued that the batsman should have played back and not forward. At any rate the leg, and not the proper weapon, the bat, was used, and the batsman ought to suffer.
In discussing Mr. Steel's objection I laid great stress on the lob bowling of former days. Mr. Steel brings forward the case of slow round-arm leg-break bowlers who, he urges, would be practically impossible to play if the rule were altered. I reply that you cannot bowl slow leg-break balls
