exceptionally good scores. Common Room Cup, 1881; Farrar Cup, 1882. Has left.

Lieut. O. F. Waterfield, 1832 (46.3). - A thoroughly reliable and experienced shot. Captain for 1883.

Sergt. D. M. Wauchope, 1881 (52.0).-Developed this year into a really good shot, combining steadiness with judgment. Winner of Common Room Cup, grand aggregate class shooting, Average cup, 1882. Has left.

Privt. H. R. Manton, 1882 (47.0).-Wonderfully steady and cool for his side. Shews great promise for next year.

Corpl. M. Tanner, 1881 (39.7).-Shot fairly well till the Cheltenham match, when his average was 44; but then fell off terribly and got utterly careless. Has left.

Sergt. F. E. Mason, 1882 (42.1).-Second only to Wauchope at the short range but made some curious scores at the long, especially if "coached." Quite retrieved his character in the Spencer Cup competition at Wimbledon.

Bugler C. H. Lascelles, 1882 (42.0)-Was not quite at home in the kneeling position, but made some good shooting in the prone.

Col.-Sergt. H. G. Goodacre, 1881 (39.1).-With plenty of aiming power, lacks somewhat the nerve and steadiness required by the new positions. Has left.

Natural History Society.

AT the preliminary meeting on Thursday, Sept. 21st, the two vacancies on the Committee caused by the departure of P. H. Maddock and H. L. Callendar were filled by the election of W. F. H. Blandford and C. H. Roberts. The President then nominated Blandford to the post of Secretary, which Maddock filled last term.

The "District" Prize has been won by B. S. Collett, and the prize for the best drawings to show the resemblance between living creatures and the plants on which they feed, has been awarded to W. H. Rotheram.

The Entomological and Astronomical Sections have been resumed, and if sufficient number of members desire to take advantage of them, the Ambulance classes will be continued.

The first proofs of some of the sheets of the large map of the Marlborough Downs are now under correction. The Society having been placed on the list of those societies who are entitled to receive donations from the British Museum, a very considerable and valuable selection, mainly from the Zoological department, has been made by Mr. Preston, who has also added to the Herbarium a very large and choice collection of dried flowers placed at his disposal by the authorities of Kew. The labour of arranging such a mass of material as he now possesses is immense, but when it is once safely housed in the New Museum, which is growing visibly, we have reason to believe that we shall be able to show something to be proud of.

The services of a skilled entomologist have been secured, to arrange in the new cabinet our present collection of moths and butterflies.

LECTURES FOR THE TERM.

Sep. 28th, "Elementary Astronomy," L.E. Upcott, Esq.
Oct. 12th, "An Insect's mouth under the Microscope,"
Rev. T. N. Hart-Smith.

Oct. 26th, "Fortification," G. W. Rundall, Esq.
Nov. 11th, "The Sun," Dr. Hudson.
Nov. 23rd, "Wine," F. Richardson, Esq.

VOL. XVII.-No. 282.

THE CRICKET SEASON.

"THE fielding is not good." "Our fielding was extremely bad." "Our fielding was shameful." "As regards our fielding the less said the better." Such were the comments by different writers on the first four foreign matches played by our XI this year. In the record of the fifth match another note is sounded. The fielding is described in this as "a marvellous improvement on our previous performances." In the Cheltenham Match it was "very creditable." Finally, in the Rugby Match, the fielding" was always above the average and was sometimes exceedingly smart."

We think the above extracts point a moral, and it is this, that to any XI worth their salt the most honest criticism is the most wholesome. And it is because of this and because we feel sure that we ought to have an extremely strong team in 1883, that we venture on a few remarks less complimentary than the splendid results of this year's cricket would seem to warrant. First, there can be no doubt that our fielding was abominably bad for quite half the season. Never in the present writer's recollection were so many catches missed here in a season as

PRICE 3d,

were missed this season in the first two or three matches. In fact it was not so much bad fielding generally, as inability to hold the easiest catches, which was our failing. And in spite of the favour. able comments of the newspapers we never wholly got rid of it. If the chances missed at Cheltenham were few, few were offered, and if in the Rugby match two were accepted, two and a half were missed. In this department let us hope for marked improvement next year.

Secondly, a similar consensus of opinion may be gathered from the same sources as to the tameness of the batting. Whether or no this expression of opinion had anthing to do with those pre-eminently dashing innings played by Marley and Rose at Cheltenham, and Padwick and Quinton, at Lords, we cannot say, but it would be gross flattery to say that our team this year was a strong batting one. Still at the close of the season it was full of promise. If we had no single batsman likely to make fifty, it was comforting to see different fellows coming off on different days, and it will be strange indeed if we cannot turn our weakness into strength next

XI we can remember defeated at Lord's, which was ever so much stronger than the victorious one in batting and fielding. But we can remember very few that had better bowling. It is seldom that a school has better slow bowling than Leaf's, and how consistently well he bowled all the season, subsequent figures will show. If Buckland's slows were not deadly, they had that most useful straightness, which will probably become deadliness some day, while his fast underhand-many of which were admirably pitched, and by no means the 'grubs' which victims indiscriminately dubbed them-were as destructive of wickets as they were unproductive of runs. Garnett also developed into a bowler with a dangerous break, and with Marley's straight expresses, with Harding good on his day, and with Rose known to have got wickets, to vary the menu, we had many changes and not one of them bad. No wonder then that both our main victories were bowlers' victories, and here the moral is to try and raise either in the fruitful soil of Preshute or elsewhere, another Steel or Leaf, and a good fast bowler for '83. But if bowling mainly won our matches there is another reason worth noting. If honest criticism of palpable faults is wholesome, there is nothing so pernicious to sound cricket as that eternal cricket shop,' which (as the foolish penny newspaper gush affected the English XI v. Australia) makes fellows chronically nervous,and at their worst on days when they should be at their best. To be for ever talking of cricket as if it were a solemn moral exercise, or indeed a serious business at all, is, we are convinced, as bad for our chance of success as it is intrinsically absurd. It makes fellows feel as if the funds will fall, or the barometer go down if they make a duck at Lords, and funk instead of run, becomes the characteristic of our game. Now of late we fancy we are not wrong in saying that a different spirit has grown up, and that the Cheltenham and Rugby matches have been played more as housematches are played, when the wish to win is the uppermost feeling, preventing ridiculous over-valuation of opponents, and where each individual player is keen on getting the maximum of pleasure out of the game, pleasure, which, we have been assured by actual players in past years, was the last feeling they experienced from the moment they entered Lord's to when they left it. We trust we have seen the last of that sort of thing, and we can hardly suppose that

the innings of Turner last year, of Marley and Rose at Cheltenham this, and Padwick, Quinton, Rowe, and, on the second day, of Buckland at Lords, are not indications that we have. We may perhaps also be allowed to say that our Captain seems to have progressed with his team. It is a first-rate out-look for us, that he with his experience and the prestige of a double victory will be back next year. He is not likely to shrink from taking a bowler off because the bowler thinks he ought to stay on, and will keep a cool head if the day is going against us.

With this preface, which we hope will not be considered an impertinence, we proceed to a very brief survey of the actual play of the year.

In the Liverpool match we were beaten by eight wickets, but almost entirely by the scoring of two men, Potter and Cox. Had we taken the chances given, the result would have been different. Wynne in this match played two of those steady innings, which we afterwards learnt to expect from him as a matter of course. Had he been present at Lord's our victory would probably have been much more decisive. and Leaf also scored well, Leaf got 6 wickets for 57 runs, and Padwick made a brilliant catch.

Rose

Against Trinity Leaf and Rose were again to the fore with scores of 54 and 30, but our bad fielding lost us the match by three runs.

Rain hindered our showing what we could do against the Oxford bowlers, Peake and Shaw and Harrison. But it did not prevent Oriel from running up 195, of which Peake scored 61 in good style, and Harrison hit (while we missed him) 53.

Rowe made 22 and 43 against the Hampshire Gentlemen, Wynne 25 and 34, Marley 36, and we won by 6 wickets against a weak team of which E. J. Gunner was top scorer with 42 and 18. Leaf got ten wickets and Padwick made another fine catch.

In the Old Fellows match no long score was made on either side, and the school need not be ashamed at being beaten by a team numbering such famous names as those of S. C. Voules, H. Bell, R. F. Miles. &c., besides H. Leaf of 1881 renown. Leaf got wickets in this match and Buckland also 7, and the latter made perhaps the best catch of the season.

The main result of the Cheltenham match was to show that we could beat a strong XI. Clifton bes Sherborne, Cheltenham beat Clifton, and by beating Cheltenham, we think we may claim to have had the