larly required. Mr. Barker (Surrey 2nd Eleven) only saw about six instances of the new rule being put into force, and "Therefore I can only conclude that the new rule had the desired effect of stopping men playing with their legs and not the bat." Mr. Barker's opinion is valuable and, if correct, is a triumphant vindication of those who want the rule changed. Mr. Hancock (Staffordshire) thought the alteration had not had sufficient trial to enable a definite opinion being given on it, and umpires differed as to the interpretation of the provisions of the proposed alteration which Mr. Hancock rightly thought perfectly plain. Mr. Wheeler (Wilts) said that no practical difference was made to the game, but he thought that there was a tendency for unnecessary appeals which was to be deprecated. Mr. Whitwell (Durham County) said the change was not a success owing to the wet season. He also said that when the ball goes straight the rule was quite ineffective, and when it does a great deal, the umpires cannot tell whether the ball would hit the wicket and consequently they decide in the batsman's favour. But Mr. Whitwell thought that in a dry season when wickets got crumbly, the change would help very materially to shorten the innings, which is exactly what is wanted to diminish drawn matches. Mr. Clayton (Northumberland) thought the change had not enough in it to justify the alteration, and gave umpires too much scope.
The reader will find the above letters given more fully in Wisden's Almanack for 1903. On reading them as a whole it is impossible to say that they bring much conviction. If the writers had met and tried to make a sort of general report, they would probably have failed to have come to an
