The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JANUARY 5, 1935. PRINCES FOR VICE REGAL POSTS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 19999, 5 January 1935, Page 10

The Timaru Herald SATURDAY, JANUARY 5, 1935. PRINCES FOR VICE REGAL POSTS.

Because of the impending retirement of Sir Isaac Isaacs, from the vice regal post of GovernorGeneral of the Commonwealth of Australia, the report coming from London, synchronising with almost intriguing reticence in official circles in the Australian capital, seems to lend colour to the current report that a member of the Royal Family may one day represent the King in Australia. The cable messages this morning suggest that although there is no precedent for the King's son to act in a vice regal capacity in the Dominions, it is considered in well-informed circles in London that the atmosphere for such an appointment is now more favourable in view of the success of the Duke of Gloucester’s tour. The Australian Press Association goes as far as to say that responsible quarters in London agree that the efforts being made by the Australian Government to secure the consent of the King to the appointment of the Duke of Ken 1* as Governor-General of Australia stand a better chance of fulfilment than any previous movement. to secure a member of the Royal Family as the vice-regal representative in Australia. .Manifestly the King’s sons have become so thoroughly acquainted with the people of the Dominions overseas that their deep interests in fhe young nations growing up in the outposts of the Commonwealth of British nations, and their wide knowledge of the problems confronting their kinsmen overseas, fully qualify the Princes for the honoured posts as the King’s representatives. It is deeply significant, in view of Australia’s somewhat radical attitude to vice-regal appointments when the present GovernorGeneral was chosen, that the respectful request for a member of the House of Windsor to fill the viceregal post should come from Australia. The Australian visit of the Duke of Gloucester, however, has yielded an impressive revelation of the attitude of the Australian people to the Royal Family. The Australian nation took the King’s son into their hearts and thus cemented the somewhat loosely holding bonds of affection and loyalty that bind the British Empire together. The success of the visit of Prince George to South Africa, and the Prince’s marriage has clearly brought the overseas Dominions into closer relationship with the Duke of Kent, and the cable messages suggest this morning that the Duke’s marriage has enhanced the possibility of the King’s youngest son breaking all precedents by becoming the first member of the House of Windsor to fill the honoured post as vice regal representative in an Overseas Dominion. NOTTS AND THE M.C.C. Cricket enthusiasts throughout the world will await with almost breathless interest, the outcome of the indignation meeting called by leading Notts sportsmen at which the treatment of Larwood, Voce and Carr will be discussed; not because the outcome of the meeting cannot be regarded as a foregone conclusion, but because the attitude of Notts ought to be viewed by the M.C.C. as a bold challenge to its attitude on the question of fair or unfair bowling tactics. The wave of indignation that has swept across Nottingham has its source, not so much in the policy of the Marylebone cricket authorities, as in the lack of frankness displayed by the committee of the Notts County Cricket Club 'in its handling of Hie incidents associated with the Australians’ match against Notts during the recent English tour. Moreover, the people in Nottinghamshire have reason to resent the secret diplomacy indulged in by the Notts authorities resulting in the surprise publication of the sensational report of the manager of the Australian team disclosing the fact that the Notts Committee had tendered a most humiliating apology. No English county enthusiastically interested in cricket, much loss Notts, could be expected to overlook such deplorably indiscreet tactics. It can be said at once that both the English Selection Committee and the M.C.C. have blundered rather badly in handling what has come to be regarded as the “bodyline” controversy; indeed, the pronouncement of the Marylebone Cricket Club in condemning fast leg-theory howling—which in some of its forms is called in Australia “bodyline” bowling—rather tamely endeavoured to shift the interpretation of the rules from their own shoulders to those of the umpires. It is this weakness that has prolonged the controversy, which has resulted in the lively agitation in Notts which is designed to put the county cricket officials on trial. No one will deny, of course, that dangerous bowling was not unknown in the past, but the M.C.C. obviously fears that the future of ericket may tie gravely prejudiced if this type of bowling is not checked, and in order to eliminate this type of bowling from the game, and to ensure in future that there shall be no misunderstanding as to what exactly constitutes “a direct attack by the howler upon the batsman,” the M.C.C. Committee lias ruled: ! “That the type of bowling regarded

as a direct attack by the bowler upon the batsman, and therefore unfair, consists in persistent and systematic bowling of fast short-pitched balls at the batsman standing clear of his wicket.

Moreover, the M.C.C. Committee has further ruled that iftnpires in the first and second-class county competitions should be instructed that they will be strongly supported by the M.C.C. Committee in any action which they may take under Law 4” to prevent this type of howling, as now defined, being practised. So far, no umpires have shown any inclination to accept the invitation extended to them to determine the fairness or otherwise of bowlers in first class cricket. In 1933, it will be remembered, the M.C.C. Committee passed the following resolution:

“That any form of bowling which is obviously a direct attack by the bowler upon the batsman would be an offence against the spirit of the game.”

This principle was also affirmed by the Imperial Cricket Conference of July 23. 1934, and it was urged that the controlling bodies of cricket should not permit or countenance such form of bowling. In June, 1933, the M.C.C. Committee cabled to the Australian Board of Control to snv that they would watch carefully for anything which might be regarded as unfair or prejudicial to the best interests of the game:

As a result of their own observations, and from the reports received, the M.C.C. considers that there is evidence that cases of the bowler making a direct attack upon the batsman have on occasions taken place during the past cricket season.

Fundamentally, the English cricket authorities are on sound ground in declaring that “any form of bowling which is obviously a direct attack by the bowler upon (he batsman would be an offence against the spirit of the game,” but thfi difficulty arises in determining the intentions of the howler, since the state of the wicket may convert otherwise fair bowling into a positively dangerous attack, despite the good intentions of the bowlers. Moreover, the unquestioned fact that the fast bowlers of Notts have shown themselves capable of hitting the wickets in spite of the tendency of batsmen to guard their wickets with their pads, serves to emphasise the difficulties confronting the umpires in determining the fairness or otherwise of bowling, and the very fact that under the M.C.C. new ruling, a batsman not standing clear of the wiekpt is not entitled to protection, indicates the difficulties now confronting umpires in the interpretation of the new rules. The sensational upheaval that has literally shaken Notts to its very cricket foundations will perhaps serve this useful purpose that it may result in a more definite understanding between rival English counties and enforce the conclusion that the best interests of cricket would be served by abandoning the Anglo-Australian test until a goodly number of present-day players in both countries have marched out of the game.