kind, but he was just too late with his right leg for a similar ball in the next over." This incident moved the righteous soul of the late Mr. S. H. Pardon to wrath. It was common knowledge that Mr. Pardon was the writer of the weekly cricket notes in The Times, and in the issue of the 6th of June, 1923, he wrote as follows on this proceeding of Mr. Jardine: "This incident shows to what a pass we are coming to under the modern teaching that batsmen may in certain circumstances, that is, when the ball pitches outside the wicket, regard their legs as a second line of defence." . . .
"The New Badminton Library commended what old-fashioned cricketers would consider an outrage on the game." . . . "The wicket is eight inches wide, the bat four and a half." . . Law-framers never imagined that batsmen would think themselves justified in using two well-padded legs as defensive weapons." . . . " The question does not admit of argument, . . . the evil goes far deeper, it is a grievous injustice to bowler; it is futile to bewail shortage of bowling if as in Hyndson's case by illegitimate means." Earlier in the year, in Wisden's Almanack of 1923, Mr. Pardon in his notes, after remarking that nothing had been done to bring about any change in the law, wrote: "One can at least go on protesting against the pestilent doctrine laid down in the new Badminton that a batsman, in playing a ball that pitches outside the wicket is entitled to regard two well-padded legs as a second line of defence. Surely nothing could be more flagrantly opposed to the true spirit of cricket."
This trenchant criticism of Mr. Pardon in Wisden's Almanack and The Times in 1923 naturally led Mr. Knight to endeavour to make some reply, which will be found in
