an equitable spirit is not theirs. Once again let me urge the importance of keeping in view the best interests of the game. If, when wickets were not so good, the runs not half so numerous, and drawn matches comparatively rare, it was in the best interests of the game that batsmen should be given the benefit of the doubt, surely now, when nearly half the matches on fast wickets are drawn, when one wicket averages nearly twenty runs as opposed to ten in former days, when bowlers get prematurely worn out, it is the bowlers who should have the benefit of the doubt. The rules are even altered as against the bowlers in this matter of throwing, because they lay it down that bowlers are to be "no-balled," unless the umpire is convinced that the delivery is fair; and a short time ago power was given to both umpires to "no-ball" a bowler for throwing. Personally, I think that it would be unjust and detrimental to the game if all bowlers who bowled with a bent arm were to be "no-balled," but if the authorities think that there should be no doubt about the matter, let them make the rule thus: All balls shall be bowled; if
