gave the strange reason that on fast true wickets the change "does not help the leg break bowler, as unless one is almost treading on the wicket, one's leg is not in a line between wicket and wicket, while on the plumb wicket the off break bowler can't do enough for the new rule to help him." Mr. Brain unfortunately died in 1914 and if he had lived and read the new Badminton and seen J. W. Hearne and hosts of other modern batsmen and moreover heard modern umpires complain as they do of the complete concealment of the stumps by the legs, his opinion might not have been the same. It is useless to quote his authority now. Mr. Turner, of Oxford County, thought the change unsatisfactory, partly because a batsman had to adopt a different style in Minor County matches, and it would throw additional responsibility on the umpires. His first reason would fall to the ground if the change were made universal, and as the batsmen got more used to the new rule, umpires would not have so many appeals. The late Mr. Paravicini did not think that a fair trial was given on account of the wet wickets, but he approved of the change, and he replied to the argument that it did not make any difference on good wickets, and that on bad wickets the game was difficult enough as it was, by observing that any legislation should be for good wickets as the season (1902) seldom occurred. Mr. Paravicini thought that on good wickets the change would make batsmen play at balls two or three inches outside the off stump which now they very frequently leave alone, stepping in front of their wicket. Mr. Earle Norman, of Herts, was against the change because it was ineffectual on hard wickets, but on soft and slow wickets it reduced scoring when not particu-
