The Early Years: Hatfield Cricket Club in the Nineteenth Century

The Early Years: Hatfield Cricket Club In The Nineteenth CenturyGraham Debenham

THE EARLY YEARS:HATFIELD CRICKET CLUB IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURYGraham Debenham Published 2025

Contents. PART ONE INTRODUCTION 01. THE FIRST MATCH 05. LIFE FOR HATFIELD CRICKETERS IN 1851 10. THE LAMBERTS OF HATFIELD 20. LIFE BEFORE 1851 28. SINGLE-WICKET CRICKET 41. HATFIELD CRICKET CLUB AT LORD’S CRICKET GROUND 47. OFFICIALS 60. HATFIELD, HERTFORDSHIRE AND… ENGLAND 76. OTHER NOTABLE PLAYERS 98. INTER-CLUB MATCHES 112. CRICKET: 1851 - 1901 124. THE HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY CHALLENGE CUP 148. BEST PERFORMANCES 164. PART TWO: MATCH DETAILS, REPORTS, ETC. PRE-1851 168. 1851 - 1860 203. 1861 - 1870 229. 1871 - 1880 254. 1881 - 1891 275.1891 - 1900 310.

Introduction. When Hatfield Cricket Club played its ‘first match’ in 1851, the sport of cricket was vastly different from the game we know and love today. The first official laws of cricket were established in 1744 by the London Cricket Club. These laws included regulations on the size and shape of the ball, the distance between the wickets, and the length of the pitch. Over time, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) became the authoritative voice on cricket laws and regulations. The MCC was founded in 1787, and by the nineteenth century, it played a crucial role in shaping how cricket was played and organised. Throughout this period, numerous changes were made to the laws of the game to increase standardisation and consistency across various regions. The introduction of round-arm bowling in the 1820s marked a significant turning point in the history of cricket. Before this time, bowlers had to keep their arm below the waist and bowl the ball underarm. However, some players began experimenting with a higher arm action, which allowed them to generate more speed and bounce. Initially, this new type of bowling was considered illegal, and bowlers were even penalised for throwing if their arm was deemed too high. Despite this, round-arm bowling gradually gained acceptance as the game evolved. In 1835, the MCC legalised roundarm bowling but stipulated that the arm could not be raised above the shoulder. Even so, underarm bowling remained popular, with the ‘lob’ delivery being a favourite of many bowlers, including William Stocks, the star bowler of Hatfield Cricket Club. In the mid-19th century, overarm bowling gained popularity, with players experimenting with the delivery as early as the 1820s and 1830s. In 1862, a landmark cricket match was played between the All-England XI and Surrey, in which overarm bowling was used. The MCC’s 1864 legalisation of overarm bowling is often considered the start of ‘modern’ cricket. This change allowed for even greater speed and bounce, helping to evolve the game further. The length of an over has undergone several changes throughout cricket's history. In the nineteenth century, an over consisted of only four deliveries, which increased to five in 1889. The six-ball over, which is standard today, was introduced in 1900, except for Australia, which continued to play with eight-ball overs until 1979. Another difference between the modern game and that of 1851 is that there was no such thing as a boundary, which didn’t enter into the game’s 1

laws until 1884, before which there had been no limit to the number of runs that could be scored from a single delivery. With the introduction of the new ‘boundary law’, what we understand today as a four was a four. Conversely, however, hitting the ball over the boundary was only worth five runs (I only looked this up after having read a match report in which a couple of the batsmen hit fives). The six as we know it was introduced in the early twentieth century. Yet, it was possible to score six before this by literally hitting the ball out of the ground. In the 1800s, cricket wasn’t a pursuit for the working man. Organised sport on a Sunday was a definite no-no, and despite the Factory Act of 1850 ensuring that all work ended by 2 p.m. on a Saturday, cricket was only played during the mid-week. Thus, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the sport was the preserve of the professional classes, shopkeepers, and the clergy. Regular cricket on Saturdays did not emerge until 1889, following the lead set by the Football League that had started the previous year. Even then, games continued to be played regularly in midweek, for example, from the 1890s until the 1930s, clubs such as Hatfield ran a Saturday XI and a Thursday XI. Sunday cricket did not emerge until the 1930s. Matches at this time were played over two innings, sometimes spanning two (or occasionally three) days. If a game was not concluded before time was called, the result was decided based on the first innings. Towards the end of the 1880s, there was a shift towards single-innings matches as players became less willing to make themselves available for all-day fixtures. This marked a significant change in how cricket was played, as matches became shorter and more accessible to a broader range of players. Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, another factor ensured that cricket was a pursuit reserved for the gentry: gambling. Publications such as Bell’s Life in London and Sporting Chronicle were replete with challenges made and accepted, not just in cricket, but in all sports. Some wagers involved not insignificant sums of money, equivalent to several thousand pounds today. For this reason, cricket reports before the 1840s were more frequent for single-wicket competitions than club matches. The town itself was unrecognisable from Hatfield as it is today. The railway had just arrived, and the town consisted only of the Old Hatfield and a few assorted cottages and farmhouses. With the opening of the railway, a ‘new town’ began to emerge in the area the town centre now occupies. The next expansion came in the latter part of the 1920s with the development of the area around Stonecross Road (which would have consequences for the cricket club) and with the arrival of the Barnet bypass in 2

1930, along with the de Havilland aircraft factory, estates at Hatfield Garden Village, Birchwood, and Ellenbrook were developed. At the end of the nineteenth century, with a population of approximately 3,500, the number of cricket clubs supported by the local community was impressive. In addition to the Town club, there was Hatfield Newtown, Hatfield Fire Brigade, Hatfield Brewery, the fledgling Hatfield Estate, Hatfield St Mary’s, Hatfield Hyde (part of Hatfield until the creation of Welwyn Garden City), plus clubs in Essendon, Newgate Street, Wild Hill, and North Mymms. However, it must be said that there was a crossover in membership between the clubs. When I first encountered Hatfield Newtown CC, such was the familiarity of some of the names, I wondered if it was the Town club. It was only when I found an occasion when both clubs had home fixtures on the same day that I was able to put that theory to bed. As with my previous books on the history of Hatfield Cricket Club, The Lost Years: Hatfield Cricket Club 1901-1945 and Parklife: Hatfield Estate Cricket Club 1946-1978, the volumes previously produced by H J Gray have proved invaluable information sources. John was fortunate to have possession of scorebooks covering most of the period between 1851 and 1885. However, somewhat frustratingly, he chose to dedicate more page space to the club's book of accounts than to details of the cricket played, and in some cases, he did not even provide the score for certain matches. Different from his volumes dealing with later periods, John did not see the benefit of researching match reports in local newspapers. For this reason, his work ends abruptly after 1885 and is equally sparse for the years before 1851. Surprisingly, I have gathered details of hundreds of matches from these periods. This is the second incarnation of this book. The first attempt was, quite frankly, rubbish. In essence, it was simply a collection of match reports with minimal narrative by myself. In part, this was because the prime source of information relating to the period was H J Gray’s Cricket in Hatfield: 18th & 19th Centuries, which I found almost impossible to read. This is not being disingenuous towards John, who, in his own words from the preface, wrote, ‘The detail may be tedious for anyone who may read through the ensuing pages.’ The first time around, it was a case of simply skimming the pages to look for any details relating to cricket matches. After completing a similar task for the years from 1901 to 1945, I was determined to do the same for the club’s earliest days and decided to bite the bullet and work my way through 1,000 pages of prose. As H J Gray said of his work, ‘Nonetheless, it may one day provide data for others to edit or rewrite the subject matter as a marketable history.’ 3

If anyone reading this has previously read the original version, they may notice an omission. The first effort contained details matches attributed to elevens variously described as junior or juvenile sides. As I said at the time, it is impossible to determine whether or not these teams were formally, or informally, for that matter, with the senior club. It cannot be ruled out that they were instead connected to Hatfield School. As I reach the end of my journey back into the club’s past, I am left with contrasting emotions. While it has been a rewarding experience, particularly in uncovering snippets of information previously unknown in the club’s records, it is frustrating and sad to discover how much has been lost to the club forever. H J Gray owned a wealth of documents and memorabilia, which may have been destroyed upon his death or left to gather dust in the attic of someone who does not appreciate their worth. 4

The ‘First’ Match Those familiar with Hatfield Cricket Club may question why this section does not begin in 1850. After all, the Club has declared this its year of establishment for many decades, featuring on the annual fixture cards and letterheads and being incorporated into the club badge when a branded playing kit was introduced. When the Club’s members sat down at the Red Lion Hotel, Hatfield, on Friday, 3 November 1950, to celebrate ‘One hundred years of cricket in Hatfield: 1851-1950,’ only circumstantial evidence of its existence in 1850 had come to light. Precisely when the Club switched its year of establishment to 1850 is undocumented. 1851 was the answer to a question that nobody was asking. This is not the place to dwell upon the position the cricketers of Hatfield found themselves in the aftermath of the Second World War. Suffice it to say that the present and the future were of far greater consequence than the past.1 The catalyst that would, in time, lead to an interest in the History of the Club was the election of Stanley Coles Hankin as a vice-president in September 1947. Stanley Hankin’s association with the club dates back to 1903. However, his family’s connections go even deeper into the past, with his uncle (Henry Hudson Hankin) and father (Frederick James Hankin) serving time as Hon. Secretary. Shortly after becoming a vice-president, Hankin showed the club some old scorebooks which had been among his late father’s possessions, the oldest of which dated to 1851. It was this discovery that, as previously mentioned, had prompted the Club to hold its centenary celebration in 1950. The case for adopting 1851 as the year of establishment was strengthened by Joseph ‘Charles’ Simpson, a former 1st XI Captain. Sadly, the date is not recorded in any minutes, but it was presumably between 1950 and 1952 when he was a vice-president that Simpson presented the Club with a small book of accounts relating to match expenses from 1851 through to the 1880s that corresponded match for match with the old scorebooks. The decision to formally adopt 1851 as ‘year zero’ was taken at the General Committee meeting on Monday, 06 December 1954. The minutes’ book was recorded as follows: Club Cricket Conference Handbook: Hon. Sec. read a letter from the President, Club Cricket Conference, Colonel R S Rail Kerr CBE, DSO, MC, urging that affiliated clubs do all in their power to see that the 1955 Handbook is absolutely correct and up to date. Meeting agreed we put a case to have our year of Establishment shown as 5

1851. How 1851 morphed into 1850 will be discussed later on. There will also be ample evidence of the existence of Hatfield Cricket Club before both of these dates, hence the quotation marks in the chapter title. It is not for me to unilaterally declare a new year of establishment. All I will say is that if you accept the proposition that the club that was in place in 1850 was the same one as in 1851, which you should, then logic dictates that a year much earlier than 1850 should be considered as its starting point. But that is for later. For now, attention shifts to Hatfield Park on Tuesday, 15 July 1851, for the visit of South Herts CC. South Herts Cricket Club H J Gray optimistically mused that Hatfield’s inaugural opponents may have been an eleven that represented the south of Hertfordshire. The reality was more mundane. Just as the modern West Herts CC is nothing more than a local club, so was the case with South Herts.2 The match, as it turns out, was a local derby of sorts. Unlike Hatfield Cricket Club, no ambiguity exists as to the year that the South Herts Cricket Club was established, with its genesis being reported in the local press. NEW CRICKET CLUB FOR SOUTH HERTS. At a meeting of gentlemen, held through the kindness of Mr Dimsdale at his house at Essendon on Wednesday, the 2nd of August, it was resolved to form a cricket club, under the title of the South Herts Cricket Club. We hope that this beginning may be fully carried out and well supported by the gentry of this part of the county. The practice day is Thursday, when the members will meet at Mr Dimsdale’s ground, which he has generously offered for the purposes of the club. Hertfordshire Mercury - 12 August 1848 The ‘Mr Dimsdale’ referred to in the above article was Charles John Dimsdale (1801-1872), who would later become the fifth Baron Dimsdale, a title bestowed upon the family by the Russian Empress Catherine the Great in 1872. Dimsdale’s ground, which had opened in 1848, was used as the home ground of Essendon Cricket Club and was situated within the 100-acre park of the family seat at Essendon Place. The house, which has since been subdivided into multiple dwellings, can be found adjacent to the Hatfield London Country Club. As for the cricket ground itself, it presumably wasn’t tremendous, as, while it was considered suitable for practice, except for their debut home fixture in 1849 (against Ball’s Park), there is no evid6

ence that the club utilised it for matches. In 1851, South Herts played ‘home’ and ‘away’ fixtures with Hatfield at Hatfield Park, and in 1953, both matches against the Earl of Uxbridge’s XI were played at Tewin Water. Throughout the short existence of the club, which only lasted until 1857, from 1849 onwards, the only examples of them playing on a ground other than that of their opponents were in 1853 against Harpenden and in 1854 against Redbourn, both of which were played in Hatfield Park. With Essendon CC firmly established by this time and with a limited population to draw upon, it would be understandable to question how a village the size of Essendon could sustain two cricket clubs. The answer lies in the hope that the club would be ‘well supported by the gentry of this part of the county.’ An inter-club game played on Dimsdale’s ground a fortnight before the meeting with Hatfield gives an interesting insight into the makeup of the club’s membership. The match was played between the Oxford and Cambridge members and the Rest of the Club, whose numbers were supplemented by players of Essendon. To achieve this, the club drew players in from places such as Hatfield, North Mymms, and Potters Bar, which, although it sounds contradictory to the earlier assertion that South Herts was not a representative team, Hatfield CC also attracted players from the same area, often the same players.4 Of the eleven players that appeared for South Herts in Hatfield’s ‘first match’, seven would go on to play for Hatfield. Two of Hatfield’s men had previously turned out for the Essendonbased club, and another of their number would at a later date. Although misreporting and typos make research into this period a hazardous enterprise, from a sample of nineteen matches, as many as twenty players appeared for both clubs. As strange as that may seem, it will soon become clear that this was par for the course for the time. If the press can be relied upon, South Herts were opponents of some renown. Against Ball’s Park in 1850, they were described as a ‘crack club,’ and when playing the Earl of Uxbridge’s XI in 1853, the epithet of ‘these two celebrated and powerful elevens’ was forthcoming. The eleven that lined up against Hatfield predominantly drew from the ranks of the gentry, as per its mission statement, with the notable exception of the brothers John (1823-1915) and Thomas (1834-1886) Ray. The Essendon butchers would later switch their allegiance and represent Hatfield. By way of contrast, the Hatfield eleven drew relatively few of its players from the upper echelons of local society. The Reverend Arthur Peile would have been classed as gentry, as would, presumably, the unidentified A Kennion by his name being appended with Esquire, as was the custom back in 7

the day. As the son of a clergyman, Francis Faithfull, who was studying at Trinity College, Oxford, may have been. As for the rest of them: James Taylor was a tailor, William and Frederick Stocks were cordwainers, William Faircloth a wheelwright, Thomas Champion a carpenter’s apprentice, James Dunham a plumber, and Charles Hardum a glazier and plumber.5The occupation of George Fairbrother is unknown; however, his father was Land Steward for the Marquess of Salisbury. That is not to suggest that Hatfield CC was some kind of socialist utopia. It too had its fair share of gentry down the years, and as has already been mentioned, in addition to the brothers Ray, five other members of the South Herts XI also played for the club. With the match not taking place until the middle of July, it would not be unreasonable to question whether this was the club’s first outing of 1851. The evidence that it was is strong. Firstly, while the cricket season would occasionally begin earlier than this, matches in May or June were thin on the ground at this juncture in time. Secondly, and most compellingly, details of every match recorded in the club’s book of scores for 1851 were also reported in the press, and vice versa. As for the match itself, the report from the Hertfordshire Mercury[see below] shows that, despite at first glance looking like a draw, it ended in a decisive victory for Hatfield. The Laws of Cricket stipulated that a match was to consist of two innings per side; however, by this time, it was the norm for a single day to be allocated for a match of club cricket, and therefore, the outcome of the vast majority of fixtures would be decided on a one-innings basis. A match was played on Tuesday last in Hatfield Park, between the Hatfield and South Herts Cricket Clubs. It was arranged that the scores of the first innings should determine in whose hands victory was, in case the second innings should not have been played out at the conclusion of the day’s play. The Hatfield gentlemen beat their opponents in the first innings, who, however, nothing daunted, run up their score in the second innings to 120. On the side of the South Herts. Mr Birch acquitted himself well in both innings in the bowling, as also in the batting department. In the second innings, Messrs Church and Dimsdale showed some slashing, and Mr G Lysley some careful play. On the part of the Hatfield Club, Mr Peile’s play was very superior; he made some beautiful hits to the leg, and in excellent style. Mr Fairbrother also batted and bowled extremely well. The day, notwithstanding a few showers, was on the whole favourable. The attendance of beauty and fashion was above the average. The score stood as follows: 1st Innings SOUTH HERTS 2nd innings G Lysley b Hardum 4 b W Stocks 12Rev. A Green c Fairbrother b Hardum 1 b W Stocks 08

J Ray b Fairbrother 0 b Peile 19 R Birch c Hardum b Stocks 14 c Faithfull b Hardum 14Capt. MacKinnon b Hardum 1 b Peile 1R Dimsdale c W Stocks b Fairbrother 0 b W Stocks 12J Church c and b W Stocks 21 run out 11G Gay c Faircloth b Peile 3 b W Stocks 1W Lysley b W Stocks 2 b W Stocks 3H Alington b W Stocks 0 not out 5T Ray b W Stocks 0 c Faithfull b Hardum 7byes 8, wide balls 2, no balls 1 11 byes 19, wide 15, nb 4 38Total 54 Total 1231st Innings HATFIELD 2nd innings A Peile b Birch 24 not out 22J Wilson b Birch 2 b J Ray 2W Stocks c Church b Birch 0 W Faircloth c Green b Birch 5 not out 1C Hardum b J Ray 1 A Kennion b Birch 5 b Birch 2F G Faithfull run out 4 c Green b Birch 0G Fairbrother b T Ray 30 F Stocks b J Ray 9 J Dunham run out 2 T Champion not out 0 
 byes 14, wide balls 22, no balls 2 38 byes 4, no balls 2 6Total 120 Total 33Hertfordshire Mercury - 19 July 1851 1 The circumstances that led to the destruction of the Cubs Records and the freshstart made after the war can be found in ‘The Lost Years: Hatfield Cricket Club1901-1939’ and ‘Parklife: Hatfield Estate Cricket Club 1946-1978’. 2 The distinction of the modern-day West Herts is made because, in the latter decades of the nineteenth century, the Hertfordshire County Club would organiserepresentative fixtures between West Herts and East Herts. 3 Thomas Dimsdale, a physician and smallpox expert, had travelled to Russia in1768 to inoculate Catherine the Great and her son, Grand-Duke Paul, against thedisease. 4 Whereas Potters Bar today lies within South Hertfordshire, before the creation ofGreater London in 1965, it was a part of Middlesex. 5 A cordwainer is a shoemaker. 9

Life For Hatfield Cricketers in the Nineteenth Century The pampered club cricketers of the twenty-first century would be horrified if confronted by the conditions faced by their counterparts of some two centuries past, both on and off the pitch. Grounds were rough, and the wickets were appalling. Fatalities on the field of play were more common than you would think. A combination of the state of the wickets and the inadequacy of the protective equipment of the time. It is also surprising that injuries were more common in the days of round-arm bowling than in the over-arm era. The most disturbing instance I have come across was the unfortunate demise of a gentleman by the name of Thomas Neal following a match played at Richmond Green in September 1843. The Chelmsford Chronicle reported that he ‘died from the effects of two successive blows to the groin from a cricket ball.’ The abdominal guard was not introduced until 1874. Except for the big grounds such as Lord’s, The Oval, etc., pavilions were almost unheard of. The lucky ones would get changed in an adjoining tavern (for example, cricketers playing at No Man’s Land in Wheathampstead may have used the Wicked Lady), but for most, Hatfield’s players amongst them, a more primitive solution was required. There are many thankless tasks involved in running a club cricket team. Ensuring that eleven players arrive at the ground to participate in a game is hard enough today. Before the invention of modern luxuries such as social media and satnavs, it was considerably more stressful. Imagine a time before the telephone and the motor car. The Ground Cricket had been played on the North Lawn of Hatfield House since at least 1789. The location of the ground was a strange compromise. It could be seen from the house, but it was situated as far away from it as the space would allow. One of the problems with not researching the club’s history chronologically is the discovery that certain aspects of the club’s life occurred earlier than stated in previous volumes. In The Lost Years: Hatfield Cricket Club 1901-1945, I expressed surprise at the level of groundsmanship that existed in 1901. The evidence provided by the club’s books of accounts shows that a similar degree of husbandry to the cricket table was in place at least as early as the 1850s. The cricketers of yesteryear did not enjoy the beautifully manicured outfields that we see today. Although a mower that animals could draw had 10

been invented in the 1840s, the powers that be at Hatfield Park preferred to rely upon more traditional methods, and the cricket ground was kept in trim by sheep grazing. As crazy as it may seem, sheep grazing was preferred over machine mowing at the Lord’s Cricket Ground for many decades, with the sheep herded into a pen in the corner of the ground on match days. There was, of course, an unwelcome side effect of using sheep, and somebody had to be paid to clear the ground of animal excrement before a match. It would appear, however, that the club possessed a hand mower to prepare the wicket. At least, that is the assumption based on the fact that from the earliest entries in Hatfield CC’s book of accounts, payments were made for mowing. There is also evidence in the accounts that the cricket square was fenced off by chains between matches to protect it from marauding animals. The sheep that kept the grass short on the outfield weren’t the only livestock employed to assist with the groundwork. The book of accounts lists payments in 1867 for rolling the ground with a horse used to pull the roller. The following season, it was noted that the roller was being pulled by bullocks. For Hatfield cricketers with long memories of rolling the wicket at Hatfield Park and in the early years at Ascots Lane, this will explain why the club possessed a heavy roller that required five or six people to move it. The club’s financial records show that close-season remedial work was carried out on the cricket table every two or three years. While it may seem unusual that this was not an annual occurrence, it should be taken into account that a relatively small number of matches were played each season. Today, the worn-out patches on the pitch would be reseeded and topdressed. The preferred method at the time, a procedure continued by the club into the 1960s, was to replace the damaged areas with fresh turves of grass. When it came to groundwork, there was no such thing as volunteer labour. Mowing, rolling, watering, sweeping, cleaning, and wicket preparation all extracted a fee from club funds, often accompanied by a beer or two to quench the workers’ thirst. As intimated earlier, the ground at Hatfield Park was not accompanied by a pavilion. On match days, a large tent was transported from its place of storage outside the Park (for which someone was paid), erected before play and dismantled afterwards (another fee paid), and returned from whence it came (yet another fee). The home side would likely have changed in the comfort of their own homes, but the visitors would have used the tent. The tent, which provided the only cover on the ground, would have housed the scorers, who would have taken advantage of the beer that was brought into 11

the Park and stored therein. The tent wasn’t required for teas, a concept that surprisingly wasn’t incorporated into cricket until the twentieth century. Cricket at the time was an all-day affair, with matches generally starting at 11 o’clock or noon, and at 2 o’clock, the players would decamp to a local tavern for a substantial lunch. As a quick aside, at a match against Stevenage in 1880, the club stumped up the cash to provide the umpire and scorer with twelve pints between them. How much was consumed during the game is unknown! Clubhouses Having just explained that Hatfield CC did not possess a pavilion, it may seem strange to now talk about clubhouses, but the two are not synonymous. As has been stated, very few clubs would have had a pavilion. However, they would all have patronised a local inn, which would have been adopted as its clubhouse, some of which would advertise themselves as such. These ‘clubhouses’ would have been used for lunches on match days and presumably for post-match congeniality. Hatfield also used to hold quarterly ‘club nights’, which, as well as an opportunity for the players to meet up, were also used by the club to collect subscriptions from its members. While it was not recorded how many people attended these evenings, it is on record that on one such occasion in 1880, the equivalent of 30 pints of ale was debited to club funds. In 1851, the club frequented the Salisbury Arms Tap. The ‘Tap’ was located in the public rooms adjoining the highly respected Salisbury Arms coaching inn. The inn and its tap rooms stood beside the private entrance to Hatfield House and Park opposite St Etheldreda’s church in Fore Street, Hatfield. The Salisbury Arms Inn closed in 1879, and the building became known as The Gatehouse. Following the closure of the ‘Tap’, the club established its new clubhouse at the Two Brewers Inn at the top end of Church Street. At the time, Church Street was known as Back Street on the basis that it led to the back entrance to St Etheldreda’s Church (similarly, Fore Street led to the front entrance). In keeping with the church theme, it was in one of the Two Brewers outbuildings that the Methodists first held religious services in Hatfield in 1851. Because of cows and horses wandering around outside this place of worship, it became known as the Moo Cow Chapel. In 1883, the Herts Guardian described the Two Brewers as ‘the resort and place of meeting for the Hatfield Cricket Club. The Dining and Tea Room, looking onto the lawn and garden, has been renovated and greatly improved, and the 12

house is a convenient place to call for Town and Country Visitors to Hatfield House and Park.’ Last orders were called for the final time in 1886, and the pub was demolished in 1888 to make way for a new Rectory for Lord William Cecil.1 After a short tenure at the Two Brewers, the club’s next port of call became its favoured watering hole until the 1930s. The precise date of the closure of the old clubhouse is not known, but the club was in situ at the One Bell Inn (also known as the One Bell Hotel, the names being interchangeable) by the time of its end-of-season dinner on Thursday, 23 September 1886. When it was standing, the One Bell was on Church Street, on the corner of the junction of Church (Back) Street, Fore Street, and Park Street. Since the rerouting of the Great North Road in the 1960s, its former site would have been on the junction of Broadway, Fore Street, and Park Street. If you wish to visualise it today, look diagonally across the junction from the Eight Bells. Organising a Match In the mid-nineteenth century, there were relatively few matches played each season. Quite apart from the expense of staging games, the practicalities of arranging them were problematic. Today, a quick search on the internet, a brief exchange of emails, and job done. Before that, there were directories containing club contact details, and matches could be arranged over the telephone. No such luxuries existed in the distant past. Fixtures against other sides in the immediate vicinity weren’t too difficult, with players associated with multiple clubs, a point of contact would be known. Of course, this would still necessitate written correspondence, either by post or by messenger. But how would you go about arranging a match against a team you didn’t know? A clue to this could be found in the 12 August 1849 13

edition of Bell’s Life in London and Sporting Chronicle. Among multiple such instances was a challenge from Hatfield CC to Luton CC to play a match. If the Luton club wished to accept the challenge, they were to make it known at the Salisbury Arms Tap, Hatfield’s clubhouse. Team selection would also have been a protracted affair. Not all of Hatfield’s players lived within the town but in the outlying villages. Then, of course, there were the guests and professional players who came from further afield. To contact those nearby, the club engaged the services of boys to act as messengers, as evidenced by a boy being paid a shilling in 1853 to deliver a message to a player in Essendon. For those further afield, the postal service would have been utilised. The process was sped up in the 1870s when the club was able to make use of telegrams. The club, naturally, stumped up the cash for the return message. Once the eleven was finalised for a home match, it was time for the printing of the bills for the match. Cricket matches were well attended at this time, and bills (flyers), which listed the players, would be posted around the town to advertise forthcoming fixtures. This was, of course, an era before the invention of the motor car. The railway came to Hatfield in 1850, providing trains to Hitchin in the north and London to the south. The opening of branch lines in 1858, Welwyn Junction to Hertford and Welwyn Junction to Dunstable (via Wheathampstead, Harpenden, and Luton) and in 1865, Hatfield to St Albans, opened up new travel options to the club. As the century progressed, the fixture became more North London-centric as the railway became a more popular mode of transport. Before this, the only option available was to travel to away fixtures by horse and cart. This involved hiring the horses and a driver, paying for the horses to be fed and watered (at a coaching inn nearby to the ground), and payment was required for turnpike fees. Turnpikes were an early form of road tax. Main roads would be blocked by turnpikes (gates), and a toll would have to be paid for the gate to be opened. To give an idea as to the cost to the club of playing away from home, when the club travelled to King’s Langley on 31 August, the hire of ‘horses and man’ was £1 16s 0d, an equivalent today (2025) of over £200. Given this level of expenditure, it is hardly surprising that so few fixtures were played at this time. The first occasion of Hatfield CC players travelling to a match by train occurred on 13 September 1853, when the club paid for five members of the team to make the short trip (one stop) to Welwyn Station (now Welwyn North) to play against Lord Uxbridge’s XI at Tewin Water, a short walk 14

from the station. The fare amounted to a little over a shilling a head, or approximately £5 accounting for inflation, which coincidentally is the same as for a return ticket today! For the same match, the club expended sixpence for a ‘dog-cart’ to ‘fetch’ William Faircloth. As much as I would like it to be that Faircloth arrived for the game in a dog-drawn cart (a vehicle that was popular with bakers in the early Victorian period), I suspect that it was in a two-wheeled horse-drawn vehicle designed for sporting shooters and their gun dogs. To equate the expense of playing equipment in language that cricketers will understand, the cost of a cricket ball (six shillings) would buy you 36 pints of beer and was the equivalent of three days’ pay for an agricultural worker. Batting gloves cost the same as a ball, bats were approximately twice as expensive, with gauntlets (wicketkeeping gloves) somewhere in the middle. The most costly item appears to have been batting pads, although there is an insufficient sample size in the club’s accounts to make a firm judgment. Players would rely on the club to provide the playing equipment, so the kit inventory taken to a match in 1887 makes interesting reading. Three bats appear to be perfectly adequate, but five pads! So that’s four being used by the batsmen at the crease, leaving only one for the next man in, so he will have had to take a pad from the outgoing batsman. And only two pairs of gloves. Presumably, there weren’t too many left-handers at the club. Umpires and scorers travelled and ate at the club’s expense, and, as referenced earlier, drank at the club’s expense. The umpires also extracted a fee for their services. The club also covered the travel costs of any guest or professional players in the team, with the latter naturally receiving a fee from the club. Paying the Bills Staging a game of cricket at this time, as can be seen, was an expensive business. Except for the secretary and treasurer (who, for most of this period, was the same person), who gave their time pro bono, all other work related to the club had to be paid for. So, where did the money come from? The bulk of the club’s income circa 1851 came via honorary subscribers, which in more modern parlance would be donations from vicepresidents. For the gentry, clergy, members of the professions, and the wealthier businessmen, the annual subscription amounted to ten shillings (approximately £60 in 2025 after adjusting for inflation), while the less affluent shopkeepers, publicans, tradesmen, etc, paid six shillings. Inflation 15

was virtually non-existent in the nineteenth century; however, in 1856, the lower rate for subscribers increased to eight shillings. These ordinary patrons were able to pay their subscriptions in instalments, which were collected at the quarterly club nights held at the Salisbury Tap. The club’s most generous patron was the Marquess of Salisbury. Tempora mutantur.2 In 1851, his lordship’s contribution towards the club’s running costs equated to £2 (£240), which was broken down into the standard ten-shilling subscription plus an additional £1 10s to cover the costs of three inter-club practice matches. By 1881, his donation had increased to £6 10s (approx. £670). This was not a one-off, and by 1883, he had upped his annual payment to £6 14s, and for the 1887 season (the last for which the club’s income is known) it was £6 13s. It is difficult to see how the club could have survived without such largesse. Additional club monies were raised by organising fundraising concerts, which were held in the Public Hall. The earliest evidence of such occurrences was found in the Herts Advertiser of 21 April 1849, which reported that ‘Two grand concerts were given in the Public Hall on Thursday in aid of the Hatfield Cricket Club. The entertainments were under the patronage of the Marchioness of Salisbury, Viscount Cranborne, MP, Viscountess Cranborne, Rev. Lord William and Lady Florence Cecil, Lord and Lady Robert Cecil, Lord Hugh Cecil, and several other influential persons in the neighbourhood.’ The club was clearly held in high regard by the town. As for the monetary worth to the club of these events, the 1881 accounts record that three concerts in 1881 raised £5, which is the equivalent of just over £500 today. 1 The Rectory is now (2025) Ambient Support, which is set back a distance fromChurch Street, which suggests that the Two Brewers was a sizeable establishment. 2 A Latin adage that refers to the changes brought about by the passage of time. 16

Hatfield circa 1847. The Salisbury Arms Inn is in the top left-hand corner.The One Bell Inn (The Eight Bells is behind the horse and carriage on the left)17

The One Bell Inn The Two Brewers The Salisbury Arms Tap18

Floor plan of the Salisbury Arms Coaching Inn, with Fore Street at the bottom. Hatfield CC’s clubhouse in the tap room.19

The Lamberts of Hatfield Members of the Lambert family do not appear in any lists of famous sons of Hatfield; however, in the second half of the nineteenth century, they were the most renowned sporting family produced by the Hertfordshire town. Alas, for Hatfield Cricket Club, that fame came primarily from the world of real tennis. Had it not been for the distraction of the ancient racquet sport, three of the family had the potential to have made a name for themselves in the noble art of leather and willow. That is possibly being a trite disingenuous, as one became a first-class cricketer, while another was arguably the most successful cricketer to don his whites for Hatfield CC during the reign of Queen Victoria. J Lambert (1814-1903) The patriarch of the family did not enjoy the sporting success of his progeny, but it was from him that they developed an interest in both real tennis and cricket. The son of Simon and Eliza Lambert, Joseph (known as John) was baptised in Hatfield on 13 February 1814. It is assumed that he was born in that year; however, it was a movable feast throughout his life. In the censuses of 1841, 1851, and 1861, his year of birth was given as 1814. In 1871 and 1881, it was 1815; in 1891, it was 1813; and in the 1901 census and upon his death in 1903, it had moved forward to 1811. Joseph was taught the game of real tennis by his brother-in-law, Thomas Sanders, and in 1849, he replaced him as Marker of the court at Hatfield House, which essentially meant that he was the court’s professional. As an aside, when the Hatfield House court opened in 1842, the first match to be played on it was between the 2nd Marquess of Salisbury and F G Faithfull, the Rector of Hatfield, who in time would become an Hon. Secretary of Hatfield Cricket Club (1851-1854). Five of Joseph’s six sons followed in his footsteps and became real tennis professionals, one of whom (as will be seen later) succeeded him at the Hatfield court, and later, his grandson, Alfred, managed the court from 1924 to 1939. Lambert Senior’s cricketing career was brief and unremarkable. Three appearances for the club were recorded from 1851 to 1853, and in four innings he managed a highest score of two, the other three resulting in ducks. Although he wasn’t a successful player, he retained an interest in the game, and records of the club’s matchday expenditure show that in the early 1860s, Lambert’s services were engaged as an umpire. Presumably support20

ing his sons, old Joe can be seen in two team photographs taken to commemorate the club’s visits to the Lord’s Cricket Ground in 1885 and 1897. At the time of the latter match, he was in his mid-80s. He was buried in Hatfield on 5 June 1903. C G Lambert (1842-1915) Born on 31 May 1842, the third son of Joseph and Ann Lambert, although christened Charles George in Hatfield on 31 July 1842, was always known as George. Despite being a talented cricketer, it was in the world of real tennis that George made his name. His first real tennis engagement was under Thomas Sabin at the Merton Street court in Oxford, where he learned the game. His progress was remarkably rapid, and within a few years, he had become a prominent figure in the tennis world. In 1866, he took over as the manager of the court at Hampton Court Palace. Three years later, he was appointed as the head professional at the Marylebone Cricket Club’s court at the Lord’s Cricket Ground, which was then considered the best in London.1He held this position for twenty years. It was during the earlier part of his time at Lord’s that Lambert reached the zenith of his career. In 1869, he narrowly lost to John Moyer Heathcote, but he soon surpassed that exceptional player. In 1871, Lambert became the world champion when the reigning champion, Edmund Tompkins, voluntarily relinquished his title without a match. Lambert held the title unchallenged for fourteen years until 1885, when he was nearly forty-three years old. In that year, he was challenged and narrowly defeated in a match at Hampton Court Palace by the aggressive 25-year-old American Tom Pettitt of the Boston Athletic Association. Lambert was also defeated in 1886 by Charles Saunders, who subsequently became the champion of England. Consequently, Lambert’s match-playing career came to an end shortly thereafter. George left his hometown for Oxford whilst still in his teens, and Hatfield CC was deprived of the services of a promising young cricketer. That’s not to say that he didn’t play for the club, for he did make sporadic appearances between 1864 and 1881. George made his debut for his home club on 18 July 1864 against Hertford, a match he would have wanted to forget after collecting a pair of ducks. Redemption came eight years later when, against the same opponent, he hit his highest score as a Hatfield player with 68 runs, his only half-century for the club. From the surviving records, George is shown to have taken five wickets in an innings on three occasions, 21

against Lyonsdown in 1869, and against Hertford and Bohemians in 1870. Ironically, the most significant contribution of George Lambert to the fortunes of Hatfield CC came as a result of his real tennis career. Whilst employed as a professional at Lord’s, he played cricket for St John’s Wood Ramblers. George brought the Ramblers to Hatfield Park in 1870, and the following season, the clubs met in a fixture at the Lord’s Cricket Ground. This began a long sequence of visits by the club to ‘headquarters’, a subject discussed at length elsewhere in this book. With his wife Jane (née Mellows), George had four children (three sons and a daughter), the eldest of whom is the aforementioned Alfred, who became a real tennis professional at the Hatfield House court. In later years, he suffered from gout and died at his home in Tufnell Park, North London, on 1 August 1915. W Lambert (1843-1927) William was the most proclaimed cricketer of the Lambert clan, although sadly for Hatfield, as with his elder brother, the allure of real tennis drew him away from the town. Born on 19 April 1843, the fourth son of Joseph and Ann, he made his debut for Hatfield CC in 1866, and the following year, he hit his first half-century for the club when scoring 67 runs against Essendon. Precisely when is unclear, but by the time of the 1871 census, William had left Hatfield and was living in Teddington while in the employment of the real tennis court at Hampton Court Palace. He was still actively involved with his hometown club, albeit as a paid professional. With the bat, he hit innings of 40 against Islington Albion (1868), 43 against Middlesex Rangers (1869), 67 against Bohemians (1871), and 50 against Hertford (1885). He had even greater success with the ball, taking five or more wickets in an innings on six occasions in the 1870 and 1871 seasons. The best of these was an eight-wicket haul against Islington Albion, no mean feat as the North London side was one of the leading clubs at this time. William’s big break in the world of cricket arrived in 1871 when he was selected to play for 15 Colts of England versus the MCC at Lord’s on 8/9/10 May. With William being 28 years of age at this time, it would appear that the word ‘colt’ had a different meaning back in the day. He didn’t have the best of games, but he was now mixing with a different class of players. In the first innings, he was dismissed by none less than Dr W G Grace, and in the second, he became one of George Wootton’s (Nottinghamshire) 983 first-class wickets. It was not until 1874 that William came to 22

prominence when a string of high scores brought him to the attention of Middlesex CCC. In Haygarth’s Scores and Biographies, Volume 12, he was described as ‘an excellent batsman, bowls middle-paced, round-armed and fields generally at slip.’ In the same publication, it was noted that in 1874, William had, while playing for Hampton Wick, scored 123 against Anomalies. 102 against Incognito and 100 for Hatfield against Essendon.2 In July, he made his first-class debut for Middlesex versus Surrey at The Oval, scoring 34 not out in his first innings. This turned out to be the highest score of his brief career as a first-class cricketer, which encompassed seven matches between 1874 and 1876. William continued to make his living as a professional sportsman, and although he continued to live in the vicinity of Marylebone, he continued to make regular appearances for Hatfield up until the mid-1880s. Surplus to requirements at Middlesex, William made a brief foray into the world of minor county cricket with the county of his birth, Hertfordshire, making his debut against Somerset at Clarence Park in 1880. A disappointing playing career for the County, which totalled five appearances, came to an end in 1887. Although described by Haygarth as a slip fielder, a report on Hertfordshire’s match against MCC in 1885 noted that Lambert ‘kept wicket in fine style for his county, as besides making two catches in each innings he only gave one bye.’ William’s swansong for Hatfield arrived in 1890 when, aged 47, he scored 57 runs against Luton Montrose. At some point, William had been employed at the real tennis court at Lord’s, and by 1888, he was a professional player at Hewell Grange, near Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, at the court of Lord Plymouth. The 1901 census shows that even at the age of 57, William was still engaged in this position; however, by the time of the 1911 census, he had retired to South Wales. William and his wife Annie had three children: two daughters and a son, Stanley, who maintained the family tradition by becoming a real tennis professional. William died in St Fagans, Cardiff, on 4 March 1927. C Lambert (1850-1915) Charles, the sixth and youngest of the Lambert boys, was born on 24 June 1850. Unlike his brothers, he remained in Hatfield and became, probably, the most prolific cricketer to play for the club in the nineteenth century. When you consider that Charles Lambert was by a substantial margin the club’s leading wicket-taker of the eighteen hundreds, it is perhaps sur23

prising to learn that in the early years of his career, he played as a batsman/wicketkeeper. Debuting in 1870, there is no record of his bowling or taking a wicket until the 1874 season. As was the norm for those who touted their services professionally, Charles was associated with multiple clubs, with Essendon and Hitchin CCs benefiting from his talents in the 1870s. Evidence from the club’s book of accounts suggests that Charles rarely extracted a fee from his hometown club. However, he always enjoyed lunch at the club’s expense when he played. One of the frustrating things when dealing with this period of the club’s history is the lack of knowledge regarding playing averages and club prize winners. The sole nugget of information before 1894 relates to the 1883 season, when a report in the Herts Guardian confirmed that Charles had been presented with a prize bat for heading the batting averages. In a modern context, a winning average of 17 may not sound impressive (William Groom came second with an average of 13). However, it must be remembered that playing conditions at the time made it a bowler’s game. His best score during that season was an unbeaten 56 runs against Stevenage, with what was the only known half-century of his Hatfield career. Although it would not be until the 1880s and 1890s that Charles excelled with the ball, the first of his momentous achievements arrived in the summer of 1877. For the match in question, the visitors to Hatfield Park on Friday, 17 August, were an XI selected by Hubert Lavie Butler, and it was probably playing under the name of Young Hertfordshire. As with the ‘Colts’ of England’ side in which William Lambert appeared, ‘Young’ is something of a misnomer. Rather than a side containing the cream of the county’s youth, Young Hertfordshire would probably have been something akin to a team of trialists for the recently formed Herts County Club. After Hatfield had batted first, with Lambert contributing 27 towards Hatfield’s total of 137 all out, he then single-handedly bowled out Butler’s men, taking all ten wickets in the visitors’ 79 all out. Regrettably, the number of runs conceded by Lambert was not recorded for posterity. In the early 1880s, Charles began to shine as a bowler, taking five or more wickets in an innings on at least nine occasions between 1880 and 1883. To put this achievement into perspective, during the same period, Charles Bradshaw (twice) was the only other Hatfield bowler on record to have taken a ‘five-for’. With gaps appearing in the scorebook and sporadic reporting in the local newspapers, the true extent of Lambert’s prowess in the decade will remain a matter of speculation. Moving into his forties, the early 1890s was a fertile period for the youngest Lambert. In the seasons 24

spanning the period from 1890 to 1895, Charles is on record as having taken five or more wickets at least 18 times. Six of these were in 1894, when Charles took 55 wickets in total, winning the bowling prize with an average of 4.80 runs per wicket. The prize was retained in 1895, with Lambert taking 45 wickets at an average of 7.64. If Lambert’s feat of taking all ten wickets against Young Hertfordshire wasn’t impressive enough, he repeated the trick against Harpenden on Friday, 14 August 1891 (all ten clean bowled). And he wasn’t done yet. Against Cockfosters at Hatfield Park on Saturday, 28 July 1894, he took all ten wickets for 14 runs from eleven overs, still the best bowling figures in the club’s recorded history. His career began to wind down after the 1895 season, but there was still time for a swansong in 1899 when he took nine wickets against the London City Police. Describing the latter years of his playing days as a ‘wind-down’ is misleading insofar as, from at least as early as 1894, until 1897, he was the club’s vice-captain. With the elected captain, Lord Robert Cecil, rarely, if ever, seen on the field of play, his vice was the de facto captain of the team. Unsurprisingly, Charles was also a talented real tennis player. At the age of 19, he was employed as a professional at Lord Salisbury’s court, and having been an assistant to his father, he took over the management of the court from 1898 until his death. When announcing his death, The Times (of London) said, ‘Although he never rose to championship honours, Charles was, in his prime, a very fine player, with a wealth of return and much judgement.’ Curiously, Charles played a part in the downfall of his brother, George. In preparation for his world title challenge in 1885, the Bostonian Tom Pettitt spent a year in Hatfield, and it fell to Charles to help him prepare for the big day. (While in Hatfield, Pettitt was a guest of the club when it entertained Potters Bar in Hatfield Park on 2 July 1884). Before his death on 1 December 1815, three months after his brother George had died, Charles had been ill for several years; however, he continued playing tennis into his sixties. Charles and his wife, Caroline, had two daughters and a son, Edgar, who naturally became a real tennis professional. 1 The real tennis court at the Lord’s Cricket Ground was located on the site of thecurrent Mound Stand. 2 The 1874 season coincided with a gap in the scorebooks of Hatfield CC. This isthe only reference to what would have been the first known century for the club. 25

George Lambert. Real tennis world champion 1871-1875.26

The Evening Standard, 31 July 1894Charles Lambert Joseph (John) Lambert27

The Early Years: Life Before 1851 The Beginning? When Hatfield Cricket Club came into existence is a question that will never be satisfactorily answered. Anyone associated with the club during the last five decades or so may raise an eyebrow at the starting point of this book being 1851, since the assumption has been that its year of establishment was 1850. So, where did 1850 come from? There is no record in the club’s minute books of the year being formally adopted; however, the honours board commissioned following the death of Club Chairman Walter Whitby in 1968 lists a club secretary for that year. The support for this is taken from the first entry by Frederick Grantham Faithfull (Hon. Secretary (1851-1854) in the book of accounts, ‘Receipts - 1851, July 14: From former Secretary, W Hart, £4 12s. 7d.’ Speaking at the Club’s annual dinner in 1949, Harold Dunham provided further evidence. Dunham’s grandfather, James Benjamin Dunham, was also a former Hon. Secretary, in office from 1858 until 1865. Speaking at the Club’s annual dinner in 1949, Dunham referred to an entry in his grandfather’s diary from August 1850, in which the sixteen-year-old James wrote ‘entered Hatfield Cricket Club.’ Other entries included 19 July 1850: ‘cricket match between Hatfield Club and St Albans Club’ and, on 15 August: ‘finished St Albans Club game.’ It would be over 70 years before evidence of these fixtures was discovered. The death of Walter Whitby was the catalyst for a flurry of enthusiastic interest in the club’s past, and between 1968 and 1973, tantalising information was unearthed, pushing the club’s origins forward. However, there was no confirmation that the club’s existence had been continuous. H J Gray compiled details of ten confirmed matches played by Hatfield CC between the years of 1818 and 1841, and two possibilities from earlier. Gray also referenced H T Waghorn’s The Dawn of Cricket, which mentioned a game played on 7 June 1797 between Hatfield and Hertford Town that Hatfield ‘won hollow’. With no details of the players involved or the venue, however likely it may seem, it is impossible to confirm beyond doubt that this was Hatfield, Hertfordshire. Credence comes from two sources. On the subject of cricket, the Victoria History of the County of Hertford, commissioned in 1897 but not completed until 1923, states that Hatfield had a club in 1800. Following the death of the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, the 27 August 1903 edition of Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game, while ruminating on the irony of a man with no interest in cricket having a club playing on his back lawn, 28

concurred that the Hatfield Club had been formed in 1800, but with the caveat that it had reformed in 1851. Did this mean that the gap in knowledge between 1841 and 1850 was significant? For five decades, that was the history of the club. Without wishing to downplay the countless hours I have spent reinvestigating the past of Hatfield CC, I have enjoyed the benefits of technological advances that H J Gray couldn’t have imagined. As a result, the conclusion must be that the assumption that the club had reformed in 1851 was based upon the fact that that was when the records of the current club had begun. As of early 2023, the number of known matches played by Hatfield CC before 1851 had increased to 51 (including confirmation of the second fixture against St Albans in 1850), and more importantly, at least one match in each season between 1841 and 1850 to confirm continuity. This tranche of research also brought forward the first known match to have been played at Hatfield Park from 1818 to 1814. But this wasn’t the end of the story. The first reference to cricket, as opposed to Hatfield CC, being played in Hatfield Park to be unearthed by H J Gray, had come from the St James’s Chronicle of 26 September 1789, which recorded that ‘on Wednesday, 23rd September 1789, two picked men of Bedfordshire played two men of Hatfield at single wicket, for fifty guineas, in the Park of the newly created First Marquess of Salisbury at Hatfield’. Gray also quoted a report in the Maidstone Journal, dated 7 September 1790, of a match played at Wades Mill on 18 August 1790 between ‘Hatfield cricketers and an eleven representing the County of Hertford.’ The County side won by 140 runs. I greeted this with a note of caution. A fire at the Lord’s Cricket Ground in 1823 destroyed the MCC’s archives, and as a result, records of the game before this date are few and far between. Research in this area is complicated by the closeness of places such as Hatfield Peverel and Hatfield Broad Oak, both of which had cricket clubs. After an initial excitement at finding a reference to Hatfield cricketers in 1765, further digging should reveal that it related to Hatfield Peverel. What happened next was fortuitous, to say the least. I had no realistic expectations, but with access to the archive of The Times (of London), I took a punt. I hit the jackpot. Firstly, and of minor consequence, the ‘two men of Hatfield’, after nearly a quarter of a millennium, can be identified as Thomas Hickson and Joseph Evans. But of much more importance, it was discovered that Hatfield CC was a going concern in 1789, with fixtures played home and away against Watford. From the preview of the first encounter, with most of the team identifiable as men of Hatfield, it is clear 29

that Hatfield CC was already a known force in the world of cricket. CRICKET Tomorrow will be played, in Lord Essex’s Park, Cassiobury, a match at Cricket between the Gentlemen of Watford and Hatfield. The following is a list of the players: WATFORD HATFIELD Hon. J Capel Joseph Evans Hon. E Capel George Evans Mr H Grover Thomas Bacey 1Mr. Donythorne George Field Mr. Careless Thomas Huggins Mr. Belch James Chamberlaine 2Mr. Grover George Sibley Mr. Jones D. Pallet Mr. Swannel Thomas Hickson Mr. Lomas James Lowden Mr. Hackman John Mawe As there are some of the best players in the county engaged in it, it is imagined that it will be a good match. The Times - 18 August 1789 At the Cricket match, lately played at Lord Essex’s Cassiobury Park, the Hatfield club beat the town of Watford. Lady Salisbury backed the former, Lady Essex, the latter. The Times - 24 August 1789 CRICKET MATCH The return match between the Marchioness of Salisbury and the Countess of Essex began playing in Hatfield Park on Wednesday morning and ended the following evening. Notwithstanding that one of the Hatfield men was in the early part of the game disabled by an unfortunate accident, and no “lost ball” occurred to assist them, their style of playing was so superior to the Cassiobury Club as to beat them by the following majority of notches. 1st Innings HATFIELD 2nd innings J Evans b Donythorne 0 b E Capel 19J Mawe c Donythorne 9 b E Capel 0T Hickson b Donythorne 7 c E Capel 24T Huggins b J Capel 8 b Donythorne 10G Sibley b Donythorne 1 c Lomas 1830

Pallett b Donythorne 0 b Donythorne 15Chambers c Jones 5 b E Capel 30G Field run out 40 b E Capel 2J Lowden b Donythorne 20 last man 0Pacy last man 34 c Grover 4G Evans b Capel 1 b Donythorne 0Bye runs 13 9Total 130 Total 1311st Innings WATFORD 2nd innings Lomas c Sibley 10 b Evans 1E Capel run out 7 b Pacy 14Careless b Evans 0 b Pacy 14Groves last man 1 b Pacy 4Belch c Sibley 25 c Chambers 0Harcourt c Field 1 b Pacy 11Grover b Evans 2 c Chambers 3Donythorne b Evans 4 c Huggins 20J Capel b Pacy 2 c Sibley 6Swannell b Evans 2 b Evans 0Jones c Huggins 0 last man 2Bye runs 3 5Total 57 Total 77The Times - 31 August 1789 1 Bacey and Pacy are probably the same person; Pacy is likely to be correct. 2 Chamberlaine and Chambers are possibly the same man. Both surnames werepresent in Hatfield in the late 1700s. CRICKET On Wednesday, the 23rd instant, was played in the Marquis of Salisbury’s Park, a match at Cricket between two of the Hatfield Players against two picked men from Bedfordshire, for Fifty Guineas. HATFIELD Hickson b Draidge 0Evans b Draidge 29Total 291st Innings BEDFORDSHIRE 2nd innings Draidge b Evans 1 b Evans 1Marshall b Evans 2 b Evans 0Total 3 Total 1Hatfield 261Watford 134 Majority in favour of Hatfield 12731

The Times - 26 September 1789 CRICKET On Monday, the 28th inst., the return Match for Fifty Guineas, between the two Hatfield players and the two Bedfordshire Men, was played at Leighton Buzzard, which terminated as follows: 1st Innings BEDFORDSHIRE 2nd innings Draidge b Evans 1 b Evans 1Marshall b Evans 1 b Evans 2Total 2 Total 3HATFIELD Hickson b Draidge 0Evans b Draidge 20Total 0The Times - 03 October 1789 The matches against Watford took place shortly after the storming of the Bastille and the French Revolution, and by the time of the next recorded cricket match in Hatfield Park, Napoleon had been exiled (temporarily) to the island of Elba. Through a combination of the MCC’s pre-1823 records being destroyed and the scarcity of surviving newspapers, which contained little coverage of cricket anyway, details of any matches played by Hatfield CC in the intervening quarter of a century will forever remain unknown. The first information on the club to emerge in the nineteenth century came from the unlikely source of the Windsor and Eton Express, which shows both how difficult it is to hunt down snippets of news and gives an indication of the club’s reputation insofar as it was considered newsworthy outside of the immediate locality. The article, published on 25 September 1814, gave brief details of two victories against Hertford. The first match, played at Hertford, was won by Hatfield by five wickets, and Hatfield also won the return fixture at Hatfield Park, this time by a margin of 60 runs. In 1817, there were reports of two fixtures against the County of Hertford. The difference between the County of Hertford and what we would Hatfield 29Bedfordshire 4 Majority for Hatfield at one innings 25Hatfield 20Bedfordshire 5 Majority for Hatfield at one innings 1532

today recognise as the Hertfordshire County XI will be discussed in a later chapter. The first match, played at Hatfield Park on Thursday, the 7th, and Friday, the 8th, of August, gives an interesting insight into the popularity of cricket at this time. The Parish of Hatfield, which stretched from Lemsford and Hatfield Hyde to the north down to North Mymms in the south, had a population of approximately 2,500. Let’s not forget that the railway had yet to reach Hatfield, and there was no motorised transportation. Incredibly, the crowd in attendance on the first day of the match was estimated as being at least 2,000 strong. The return fixture, on the 13th and 14th of August, was played on No Man’s Land Common (Nomansland as it is now known), Wheathampstead. With the venue of the match at Hertford in 1814 unknown, No Man’s Land is the oldest ground still in use, that it is known that Hatfield played on.1 Honours were left even, with Hatfield winning at home and losing away. 1818 witnessed an increase in the reported activities of the club, with the results of four fixtures known. Bizarrely, all four were played against the County of Hertford, which I guess is an indication of the club’s reputation in the county at this time. Another, and probably more significant, sign of the club’s standing would be the appearance of Lord Frederick Beauclerk in the Hatfield XI for the third and fourth matches. Lord who? You may be asking? I must confess that for many years (decades), I wondered why his portrait adorned a wall of the clubhouse. It is difficult to make a modernday comparison, but Beauclerk was the most famous cricketer of his day, and if he were around today, in the age of franchise cricket, he would have made even more money from the game than he did at the time. How he came to be playing for Hatfield this year is unclear. The County of Hertford won the first two matches, the second one very convincingly, with Edward Bruton of Kimpton scoring 125 out of a total of 319, an uncharacteristically large total for the period. The fourth match was won equally easily by Hatfield, winning by ten wickets after being set a total of eight runs to score in their second innings. The result of the third match is a matter of contention. The London-based newspapers all had the result as a win for the county. Conversely, the regionals all had the scores reversed and named Hatfield as the victorious team. Frustratingly, unlike the previous two games, nobody printed a scorecard. The Rev. Lord Frederick de Vere Beauclerk (1773-1850) Lord Frederick Beauclerk was a colourful and controversial figure in the 33

early days of cricket. Born in 1773, he was the descendant of King CharlesII and his mistress Nell Gwynn. Although he was a cleric by profession, he also made a substantial income from playing cricket for stakes, claiming to earn at least £600 a year, a colossal sum at the time. As a cricketer, Beauclerk was one of the best single-wicket players of his time. He was a fine batsman with a scientific approach, but was also impulsive and occasionally lost his wicket trying to cut straight balls. He was a hard-hitting batsman with excellent strokeplay, particularly to the off. His underarm bowling was slow but highly accurate, and he was able to get the ball to rise abruptly off a length. He was known for wearing a white beaver hat while playing, along with a white shirt, nankeen breeches, a scarlet sash, and white stockings. He once threw his hat down on the pitch in frustration at his inability to dismiss the obdurate batsman Tom Walker, known as ‘Old Everlasting’. Despite his contributions to the game, Beauclerk was a controversial figure off the field. He was said to be foul-mouthed, dishonest, and one of the most hated figures in society. He was known to buy and sell matches, and it 34Rev. Lord Frederick de Vere Beauclerk (1773-1850)

is said that a notorious criminal once refused to travel in the same coach as him on account of his ‘fluent and expressive vocabulary.’ He was also described as cruel, unforgiving, cantankerous, and bitter. Despite his flaws, Beauclerk played a significant role in the early days of cricket. He made eight centuries on the first Lord’s ground, an exceptional achievement in an era of low-scoring and uneven pitches. He was the second president of MCC in 1826 and was one of the few who played while in office. He also persuaded MCC to call a meeting to ban round-arm bowling in 1822, even though he had been known to claim wagers when playing alongside the earliest round-armers like John Willes. Beauclerk died in 1850 at the age of 77, and his obituary was notably absent from The Times. With fixtures against the County of Hertford seemingly having come to an end, at least for now, it is possible to conclude that Hatfield’s star was beginning to wane by the 1820s. Details of relatively few matches from the decade have survived, and at first glance, the identity of Hatfield’s opponents may appear underwhelming. The cricketing landscape was very different back then, and Hatfield were still competing against clubs with renowned reputations. The first match of which there is any knowledge was at Hatfield Park against Kimpton. Probably aided by the fact that Lord Beauclerk was the local vicar, Kimpton was a force to be reckoned with in early nineteenth-century cricket in Hertfordshire. Despite what I have just said, Hatfield’s reputation must still have been worth something, for the match was played for a wager of 50 guineas, a sum equivalent to just shy of £4,500 in 2025. Despite the odds being 3/2 in favour of Kimpton, Hatfield emerged the victor over two innings. Another of the leading Hertfordshire clubs in the early years of the nineteenth century was Ware. In 1806, when playing against Kimpton, who evidently enjoyed a flutter, the sum at stake was 100 guineas. It is inconceivable that Hatfield hadn’t met Ware beforehand, but the first recorded fixtures between them (home and away) date to 1827. Ware had a couple of home grounds at the time, although it is difficult to accurately locate either of them. Most matches were played in Ware Park, which stretches from the other side of the A10 from the current home of Allenbury & County Hall CC, virtually to Bengeo. Other matches were played on Ware Marsh, which doesn’t appear on any map I have seen. Presumably, the location of Marsh Lane is a clue. If you look at a modern-day map of Ware, to the 35

south-east of the town, you will see some lakes. Maps from the late nineteenth century do not show any lakes, so it may be that they were created as a way of draining the floodplain. On one occasion, a match was described as being played on Angel Mead, which is at the northern end of this area. In the ensuing years, fixtures between the clubs, played for a purse, were commonplace, and a fierce rivalry developed between them, which led to a meeting in 1842 that ended in acrimonious circumstances. According to the report published in The Era, the match had ‘excited considerable interest, in consequence of the well-known abilities of the players.’ The match was in the fourth innings and finely balanced, when the game was stopped ‘through the conduct of the Ware umpire, who acted in a most barefaced manner, in giving out one of the players, a Mr Archer; the affair was so palpably unjust and one-sided to the numberless spectators present, and to everyone concerned (excepting those who wished it as it was), that the Hatfield gents, much to their credit, struck their stumps, and, though in a fair way winning the game, gave up the money, rather than play under such circumstances, at the same time registering their disgust at such a disgraceful proceeding.’ Six days later, it must have been an interesting atmosphere when the return match was played at Ware Marsh. Although having said that, the Hertfordshire Mercury reported that ‘the evening was spent in the utmost harmony… …Mr Archer, and indeed all the Hatfield gentlemen, expressed their regrets that they did not finish the match last week.’ Returning to the 1820s, another new opponent of note was Islington Albion. Islington were one of the leading lights of Middlesex cricket and would later play a part in establishing the Middlesex County Club. The results of the two matches played between the clubs in 1825 couldn’t have been more contrasting. At Hatfield Park, Albion won by an innings and one run, while Hatfield triumphed by eight wickets in the return, which was played in Hackney. A journey from Hatfield to Hackney may not sound like a big deal, but let's not forget that the players would have travelled by horsedrawn carriages. It is possible that the match in Hatfield Park witnessed the debut of William Stocks, who, from an admittedly far from complete record to draw on, was one of the leading Hatfield players in the pre-1851 era. I say possible because, although he was definitely in the team the following season, on this occasion, no initial was given in the match report, so it could have been his elder brother Thomas. Stocks, along with all the other significant players from the 1800s, will be profiled elsewhere in this book. Moving into the 1830s, a new batch of opposition appeared, and some more long-lost grounds. Of course, that is not to say that it was the first 36

time Hatfield had played these clubs; it is simply the earliest evidence of such matches. A case in point is Hitchin CC. Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle of 2 August 1829 published the result of a game between the ‘Hitchin and Hatfield Amateurs,’ which may or may not have been connected to the senior clubs. At this point in history (pre-1866), the home ground of Hitchin was at Butt’s Close, which is the area of greenery to the immediate south of Hitchin Town Football Club’s Top Field Ground. Another ‘new’ ground that the club visited was at Bernard’s Heath to play St Albans. The precise location of the cricket ground on the heath has been lost to time; however, an educated guess would be that it was in the vicinity of the now-defunct Cricketers public house, located at the junction of St Peter’s Street and Sandridge Road.2 St Albans CC modestly proclaimed themselves as Hertfordshire’s premier side of the 1820s, so with the Essex and Herts Mercury proclaiming in 1835 that Hatfield and Ware were ‘Both towns being celebrated in the annals of cricketing,’ the series matches played in 1833 will have been of significant interest. For the record, Hatfield won at Hatfield Park, St Albans, at Bernard’s Heath, but, alas, the result of the deciding match to have been played at No Man’s Land is unrecorded. The report on the match at Bernard’s Heath in the County Press was accompanied by an interesting aside about one of Hatfield’s players. It revealed that the highest scorer in Hatfield’s second innings, Abraham Green (1806-1859), a miller from Essendon, ‘had only one hand; but with that one, triflingly assisted by a mechanical construction to attach the bat to his unfortunate arm, he did great execution.’ Prosthetics of the time were gruesome affairs [see picture at the end of the chapter], so it would be interesting to know how much help it afforded him. There was a bit more travelling involved for the remaining new venues visited by the club. A fixture against Enfield in 1832 was played on Chase Green, which, unsurprisingly, is near Enfield Chase railway station. The green is still there, if slightly smaller than it used to be, with the railway line cutting through its western edge. Strictly speaking, Hatfield didn’t play their match away to Finchley in 1835, but they did travel, only for an acrimonious dispute concerning the one-armed Mr Green to result in the fixture being cancelled. Two weeks after Finchley had won convincingly at Hatfield Park, the team travelled to Church End, which, before the urban sprawl of today, was a village to the south of Finchley. Hatfield wished to substitute Green for a previously named player, and when Finchley refused to allow the change, Hatfield refused to play. Slightly edging out Finchley for distance was Bishops Stortford, who Hatfield played home and away in 1839. 37

Bucking the trend, the away fixture was played at Cricketfield Lane, the home of Bishops Stortford CC since 1825. There were two events of significance in 1835, one of a local nature and the other for cricket in general. It is inconceivable that it hadn’t happened before, but on Thursday, 6 August, at Hatfield Park, in front of ‘a great number of spectators’, William Stocks became the first Hatfield batsman on record to hit a half-century when he scored 53 runs against Ware. Of more importance to the cricketing fraternity was the decision by the MCC to amend the laws of cricket to legalise the use of round-arm bowling. It took a long time for underarm bowling to disappear, but from this point forward (until overarm bowling was developed in 1864), bowlers were allowed to deliver the ball with the hand at not above shoulder height, à la Sri Lanka’s Lasith Malinga. A final word on the 1830s relates to Stevenage CC. A history on the club’s website cites two matches being played against Hatfield in 1832. Sadly, there is no mention of the results, and I have been unable to unearth any confirmation of the fixtures. It’s challenging to provide a well-informed opinion about the state of cricket in Hatfield during the final decade before its official history commenced. The majority of information comes from the Hertfordshire Mercury,and consequently, matches against Ware, Hertford, and Ball’s Park figure prominently. Entering the 1840s, the reputation of the club was still intact. In September 1840, the Hertfordshire Mercury, reporting on a match against Ware, spoke of ‘The Hatfield, whose superior play is so well known in the county,’ and that they were considered ‘as certain of being victors.’ So confident were those present of a Hatfield victory that there were no takers at odds of 6/1 on a Ware victory. This was fortunate for those offering such generous odds, as Hatfield were promptly beaten by seven wickets. There was no shortage of talent among the Hatfield club, with arguably the three best players of the pre-1851 era playing in tandem during the decade. William Stocks was now in his prime, and he had been joined by Thomas Hammond in the 1830s, and in the 1840s, William Faircloth added his runscoring ability to the mix. The individual playing careers of all three are detailed in the chapter, Other Notable Players. The importance of this triumvirate to the success or otherwise of the club cannot be overemphasised. Before the 1841 season, William Stocks’ 53 runs against Ware in 1835 was the only half-century by a Hatfield player of which there is any knowledge. Thanks to Stocks and Faircloth in particular, despite the small number of results known, the 1840s were something of a 38

run-fest. On 3 August 1841, the number of fifties scored for the club increased from one to three. Batting in tandem, Faircloth (67) and Hammond (58) helped Hatfield romp to a second innings total of 253 against Ware. Set a daunting target of 292 to win, Ware were bowled out for 12! Hatfield’s winning margin of 279 runs was a record that would stand for 170 years. It has only been surpassed once, and that was by a single run. Like buses, so the saying goes, three come at once, and before the month was over, Stocks had scored 53 against the County of Hertford. It didn’t end there. Faircloth hit 52 against Ball’s Park (Hertford) in 1843, Stocks, 62 against Ware in 1846, Faircloth, 53 against Hertford in 1847, and, finally, Stocks, 74 against Luton in 1849.3 Not content with scoring all of Hatfield’s recorded fifties in the final decade of the pre-history era, of the nine known instances of bowlers taking five or more wickets in an innings, five were by Stocks and the other four by Hammond. Like an idiot, the significance contained within a newspaper report on a match between Hatfield and Hertford in 1844 flew completely over my head. Having read the side being described as the under-eleven of Hatfield Club, I blindly assumed that this was another example of youth cricket and filed it away accordingly. It was only a couple of years later, when reviewing the material, that the penny dropped. It was highly unlikely that there would have been organised cricket for such a young age group in the middle of the nineteenth century. After all, even when I was that age, the youngest Colts XI was the under-thirteens. A quick look at the players involved revealed that the youngest member of the eleven to be identified was the seventeen-year-old John Fairbrother. The eldest were William Chapman and James Dunham, aged 28 and 26, respectively. So, it turns out that ‘under-eleven’ was another way of describing a 2nd XI, and this was the earliest evidence that the Hatfield Club was running two elevens. 1 In the nineteenth century, Hertford played fixtures at both Ball’s Park andHartham Common. It is believed that the ground at Hartham was originally located close to the site of Hertford East station, before moving to the area now occupied by tennis courts after the coming of the railway. 2 It is currently (2025) the Amrit Indian restaurant. 3 As the current ground of Luton Town and Indians CC dates to 1905, this is another ‘lost’ ground to add to the list. 39

A Victorian-era prosthetic arm of the kind that may have been used by Abraham Green in 183340

Single Wicket Cricket As stated earlier, gambling played a big part in cricket in the pre-twentieth-century era, and single-wicket cricket was no exception. Being familiar with the concept of double-wicket cricket, I was unsure as to how the single-wicket variety differed. At first glance, both appeared to consist of two versus two. Finding examples of three versus three only served to muddy the waters. On learning that, unlike in the double-wicket version, the fielding side did not consist of eleven men, the low scores were something of a surprise. It was only after stumbling upon the laws of single cricket that it began to make sense. Admittedly, it did not make much sense until I also came across a couple of explanatory illustrations. The laws and illustrations are reproduced at the end of this chapter. If you are familiar with double-wicket cricket, temporarily erase it from your mind. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, single or double referred to the number of batsmen at the wicket during play, i.e. what we know as cricket is ‘double wicket’ because players bat in partnerships, while in single cricket, there is, unsurprisingly, a single batsman. I will leave you to read the laws of single-wicket cricket for yourselves, but in essence, it was a variation of cricket that allowed the game to be played by teams of four players or fewer. As a pastime, it was widespread; however, most of it was not newsworthy, and as a result, it was not an easy topic to research, and very few examples involving Hatfield players have come to light. The reports of the first two matches, printed in The Times, have already been reproduced in the chapter The Early Years: Life Before 1851. What wasn’t reflected on previously was the amount of money that was being staked. When Thomas Hickson and Joseph Evans, of Hatfield, took on two men of Bedfordshire, home and away, in 1789, each match was played for the sum of fifty guineas. Accounting for inflation in 2025 terms, by winning both matches, Hickson and Evans relieved the men from Beds of over £14,000. If it was the players themselves who put up the stakes, then Evans, who didn’t score a run or take a wicket, must have been very grateful for the efforts of his partner! Almost half a century passed before the next reference was found, and even then, there is no evidence as to whether or not a match took place. In 1838, as was commonplace at the time, a challenge laid down by two members of the No Man’s Land Club was accepted via the pages of Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle. If the match had come off, it would have been a tantalising prospect, with the Hatfield Club to be represented by Thomas 41

Hammond and William Stocks, the club’s two standout players of the time. No Man’s Land, Wheathampstead, was the home venue of the County of Hertford, for whom, in addition to Stocks and Hammond themselves, was represented by one of their proposed opponents, John Lines (1808-1901). Abraham Rowley is more of a mystery. Census returns for 1841 fail to identify anyone in Hertfordshire with that name (or anywhere else in the south of England), although he appears to have played twice for Hatfield in that year against, ironically, the County of Hertford. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.– Sir, Being informed by Mr Franklin, of No Man’s Land, that John Lines, of Codicote, and Abraham Rowley, of Markyate Street, are open to play Thomas Hammond and William Stocks, of Hatfield, at single wicket, I have to inform you they accept the challenge for any sum they think proper, to play home and home, i.e. Hatfield and No Man’s Land. I am, Sir, a well-wisher to the Hatfield Club. Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle - 23 September 1838 It is also apparent that single-wicket cricket wasn’t all about money. When Hatfield played Ware in Hatfield Park on 27 August 1840, the home side ran out comprehensive winners by a margin of an innings and 70 runs, leaving some time to kill after the match. In my day, in a now sadly lost tradition, clubs would play a ‘beer match’. On this occasion, the void was filled by a one-on-one encounter between two of the club’s younger members, the nineteen-year-old William Wells and the twenty-three-year-old Charles Bradshaw. Nothing is known of Wells, but Bradshaw (1817-1893) was a brewer, and his son Charles George John Bradshaw (1855-1936) became one of the club’s leading players in the 1880s. Bradshaw Jr is unfortunate not to have been granted a place in the chapter of notable players, with two fifties and five five-wicket hauls to his name. THE HATFIELD AND WARE CLUBS played a match in Hatfield Park, Thursday last… A single-wicket match took place after the above between William Wells and Charles Bradshaw. The former won in one innings, scoring 22, and Bradshaw 1 and 7. Essex & Herts Mercury - 01 September 1840 This period is the sweet spot with newspaper reporting of cricket on the upturn, and single-wicket cricket was deemed newsworthy. Especially when money was changing hands. William Stocks was once again Hatfield’s man in demand, and he was the favourite against George Hillyard of Welwyn 42

CC. The bookies got it wrong. Although playing for Welwyn, as the report implies, he was a resident of Hatfield and was living in Fore Street. Other than the fact that he was a police officer, nothing is known of Hillyard, although it is possible that he was the G Hillyard who was playing for Islington Albion later in the decade. Despite round-arm bowling being legalised in 1835, both players still preferred to bowl underarm. I must admit that I find the concept of fast underarm short-pitched bowling hard to visualise. SINGLE WICKET AT SALISBURY PARK.– An interesting match at single wicket came off on Monday last in the Marquis of Salisbury’s park, Hatfield, between Mr William Stocks, the crack player of Hatfield, and Mr George Hillyard, a young man lately come to reside at the same place. Both are straight and fast underhand bowlers, but Mr Stocks, from his play in the county matches, was the favourite at liberal odds. Mr Hillyard went in first and commenced playing in slashing form, obtaining three runs for one hit. When he had scored nine, he was bowled out by a short-pitched ball. Mr Stocks got the same number of runs off the bat as his opponent (three of his hits being for two runs each), and three wides in addition. Mr Hillyard, in his second innings got seven, making another hit for three runs, and was again bowled by a short-pitched ball. Mr Stocks, in his second innings, having played a ball forward on the on side, attempted to make a run and was thrown out, much to the discomfiture of his backers, who complained that he had run the same risk more than once in his first innings. The following is the score:– Mr Hillyard: first innings–23 balls, 18 hits, 9 runs, bowled; second innings–22 balls, 18 hits, 7 runs, bowled: total 16. Mr Stocks: first innings–30 balls, 13 hits, 9 runs, bowled; wide balls 3; second innings: 9 balls, 4 hits, 0 runs, run out: wide ball 1–total 13; Mr Hillyard winning by three runs. Mr T Hammond, of Hatfield, and Mr John Otway, of Welwyn, officiated as umpires. Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle - 26 September 1841 The final match to surface from this period involving members of the Hatfield Club was another inter-club affair, with Charles Bradshaw again demonstrating his keenness for the game. From the result of the match, it looks as though the club may have let a potential talent slip through its hands. Nineteen-year-old Frederick Wingrave (1824-1868), originally from Markyate Street, was a cooper who was living in Park Street. With so few reports surviving from the 1840s, it is impossible to speculate how much (or how little) cricket Wingrave played, but he was in the side in 1844. He spent the rest of his life in Hatfield, so presumably lost interest in the game, or I have over-egged his potential, and he spent his days playing 2nd XI cricket. A SINGLE WICKET MATCH took place in the Marquis of Salisbury’s Park, Hat43

field, Herts, on Wednesday last, between Mr Charles Bradshaw and one of the members of the Hatfield Cricket Club. Wingrave scored 0 and 53, and Bradshaw 1 and 21, Wingrave thus winning by 31 runs. Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle - 30 July 1843 John Hughes states that, having been accused by Mr John Chapman of Hatfield (Herts) that he could easily beat him at cricket, he will play the said Chapman a home and home match for £1 or £2. Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle - 14 September 1851 I’m not sure whether to admire his brazen (if delusional) self-confidence or condemn the loud-mouthed stupidity of John Chapman (1818-1893). His playing record for Hatfield does not provide an iota of tangible evidence to even begin to suggest that he had the beating of Hertford CC’s John Hughes. The simple fact is that Hughes, who will be discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this book, was arguably the premier cricketer in Hertfordshire at the time. The tiniest straw with which to clutch is that the previous season, a Chapman (minus an initial) appeared in a Hertfordshire XI. On the downside, Chapman isn’t exactly an uncommon surname. It certainly wasn’t in the ranks of Hatfield CC, where John was joined by his brother William (1816-1848) and his cousin James (1818-1867). Two of James’s sons, Francis Augustus (1848-1932) and Charles James (1846-1925), would also play later in the century. Based on the available evidence, one can only hope that his teammates talked him out of such an ill-advised and potentially expensive folly. Three decades passed until the final mention of this format of the game materialised. A very strong pairing of the brothers William and Charles Lambert (who have already been mentioned) was no match for a Redbourn duo containing an eighteen-year-old upstart. Ashley Angola Coles (1863-1925) would go on to play for Hertfordshire, although despite making 59 against Staffordshire on debut, he only made five appearances. His partner, William Proctor, was a St Albans player, and he also turned out for Hatfield a couple of times in 1890, taking five wickets against Harpenden. SINGLE WICKET MATCH A single-wicket match for £10 was played at St Albans on the 9th September, between Messrs Charles and William Lambert of Hatfield against W Proctor and A Coles of Redbourn, resulting in favour of the two Redbourn players by 16 runs. The bowling of both sides was particularly good, and the batting of Proctor in the 44

first innings was very good, and A Coles (a very young player) in the second innings was much admired. The Lamberts, being well-known good cricketers, considerable interest was felt on the occasion. 1st Innings REDBOURN 2nd innings W Proctor b C Lambert 12 run out 4A Coles b C Lambert 0 b W Lambert 19Total 12 231st Innings HATFIELD 2nd innings C Lambert b Proctor 7 b Coles 11W Lambert b Proctor 1 run out 0Total 8 11Hemel Hempstead Gazette and West Herts Advertiser - 17 September 1881 Laws for Single Wicket Where Less Than Five Play A-Side i. When less than five play on each side, bounds should be placed at twenty-two yards, from, and in a line with the off and leg stump. ii. The ball, when struck, must pitch in front of the bounds; and the run obtained by the batsman touching the bowler’s stump or crease with his bat, and returning to the popping crease, etc, as at double wicket. iii. The umpires must call no hit unless the batsman keeps one foot behind his popping crease when he strikes the ball, in which case the batsman cannot score. iv. No byes, overthrows, stumping, or catching out behind wicket allowed. v. The fieldsman must return the ball on the inner side of the prescribed boundary, between bowler’s stump and the batter’s wicket, otherwise runs can be obtained till the ball is so returned. vi. After the batsman has obtained a run and starts for another, should the ball in the meantime be returned between him and the wicket, he will not be entitled to make further runs. vii. For a lost ball, the batsman is entitled to three runs, also if the ball is stopped by fieldsman with his hat. viii. When there are five or more playing on each side, then byes, hits, overthrows, and stumping is allowed, and no bounds required. ix. The same laws apply to the bowler as at double wicket. x. One minute is the time allowed between each ball after being returned to the bowler. 45

Figure 1. A representation of early 19th-century single-wicket cricket, played here with four ona side. In practice, the three fielders may stand rather further from the bat. Note the stumps pitched square of the wicket on either side to mark the bounds.Figure 2. Balls A and B are dead. Ball C has pitched in front and passed outside the bounds - it is in play, even though it is now behind square. If the fielder gathers the ball and returns it, behind the bounds, directly to the wicket, it is not in play and may do no service. The batsman may continue to run. If the fielder wishes to return the ball toward the wicket, he must first move to D, in front of the bounds.46