CRICKET. LORD DURHAM ON COLONIAL CRICKET. LOKD DUEHAM ON COLONIAL CRICKET.

Evening Post, Volume XLIX, Issue 116, 17 May 1895, Page 4

CRICKET. LORD DURHAM ON COLONIAL CRICKET. LOKD DUEHAM ON COLONIAL CRICKET.

A well-known Wellington cricketer, who was recently in England, had his attention drawn during the time he was at Home to a newspaper paragraph reporting Lord Durham to havo said at a public gathering that the defeat of the Australians in one of the tost matches was attributable to the Englishmen's superior qualities of pluck and endurance, by which they had conquered overwhelming odds. The Wellington resident at once wrote to his Lordßhip asking him to reconsider his statement, and added that his own experience, a 8 well as that of Englishmen not living in the colonies, must be that Australians W9re just as pluoky as their cousins at Home. lord Durham wrote in reply that the report was incorreot. What he said was— " Those of yon who play cricket have probably read the accounts of the great orioket match that has lately been played in Australia. I reioioo not bo much at the victory of the English Eleven as at the manner in which it was won. It was a gallant and pluoky fight against what appeared to be an almost overwhelming score- over 500 runs, I think. That is the spiritin which aportshould be conducted. It is gratifying to know that Australia and all oar colonies have adopted and delight in the sports and pastime of the Old Country." He never taid, or thought of Baying 1 , Englishmen showed superior qualities of pluck and endurance, as he expressly wished to show that he had no partisan feeling, and that it was not the defeat of the Australians which pleased him, buttfce good uphill game played by the English. The whole tenor cf hie argument was that games and athletics produced powers of enduranoe, patience, and pluqk in their followers, nnd at a cricket bazaar it was natural he ehould take the latest cricketirn example of thoso qualities. He had the very highest opinion of Australian cricketers from his experience of their play in England, aid should have been stultiying bis own argument if ho had insinuated that love of ciioket produced "suporior qualities" in an Eng. lishman to thoso in an Australian. Fair play was the very essence of sport, and on that account alone he should uoi jvieh to insinuate so foolish a suggestion as that one seotion of the Anglo-Saxon race had superior qualities of pluck to other sections throughout the Empire. Boasts of British superiority had of late years been confined chiefly to prize lighters — not in the ring, but on paper !