I played with in any good matches. But I think that he and Kirwan (when at Cambridge) and another bowler, a Hertfordshire man, would have held their own at any time, and have been most useful in matches now. I saw Lord Frederick Beauclerk, when very old, bowl a few balls, and his extreme accuracy of pitch must have made him an excellent bowler. He was very slow with a quick rise. Old Chad, our bowler at Harrow, could bowl very good balls at times, and if in his younger days he could have repeated them, as he used to declare he could, he certainly must have been a good man. I once saw Browne of Brighton bowl in a single-wicket match, but I do not think he would have been superior to Kirwan. The change in the law of leg-before-wicket would have told much against the under-hand bowlers, as they relied so much on the well-pitched balls with a curl on them. My opinion is that really good underhand would be very useful now, particularly for changebowling, but that, with the present grounds, round-arm must be depended upon. Many old bowlers told me that Harris was the best bowler they had ever seen. Under-hand had gone out when I began to see cricket. In fact it had nearly gone out before I went to Harrow. Old Clarke used to tell me that a Nottingham man from whom he learned a great deal was the best of all: his name was Warsop, I think.'
Did you know Budd well? What were his strong points?—'I never saw Budd but once, and then he was old and not as quick as he had been, but still active. He was a very good all-round man, and when I saw him he bowled a good sort of half-round slow, and fielded well. I did not think much of his style of batting, and only called him a dangerous man. There were no pads in his days; and he tried the hit to the on without pads when it would have been out leg-before-wicket if the ball pitched straight from the bowler to the wicket. This made him an unsafe player, but he was a fine hitter.'
