distinguished players when in their prime, but his preference for the older player is so marked and so general, that I think another explanation than mere merit must be found. The reason is, I believe, entirely subjective; it lies in the critic himself. When he saw George Parr bat he was one individual, when he saw Maclaren he was another: he was young in the first case and old in the second. Many of us can remember the state of mind we were in when in our early youth we saw first-class cricketers and first-class cricket; we had looked forward to some particular match for weeks, and what was our frame of mind when the great day arrived? It was one of boundless admiration and delight, but there was no criticism and knowledge. In cricket I can speak with experience on this matter. When I was twelve years old, illness prevented me from being at school at Eton, but did not prevent me from being taken to see Gentlemen v. Players, both at Lords and the Oval, and I saw both matches. I can remember many things in both those matches still, but I can see how it all appeared couleur de rose; there was not a bad ball bowled, there was not a bad hit made. Youthful
