History of cricket to 1725

On Thursday, 10 March 1300 (Julian calendar), wardrobe accounts of King Edward I of England included refunds to one John de Leek of monies that he had paid out to enable Prince Edward to play "creag and other games" at both Westminster and Newenden.[16] Prince Edward, the future Prince of Wales, was then aged 15. It has been suggested that creag was an early form of cricket,[19] but it could have been something quite different.[20] Creag is possibly an early spelling of the word craic here taken as an Irish word meaning fun, entertainment, or enjoyable conversation. This sense of the word crack is found in Irish English, Scottish English, and Geordie in North East England. In Ireland the spelling craic is now more common than crack.[21]

The Royal Grammar School in Guildford where John Derrick was a pupil when he and his friends played creckett circa 1550.

The earliest definite reference to cricket being played anywhere in England (and hence anywhere in the world) is in evidence given at a 1598 legal case, concerning ownership of a parcel of land, which confirms that it was played on common land in Guildford, Surrey, around 1550.[6] The court in Guildford heard on Monday, 17 January 1597[1] (Julian date, equating to 27 January 1598 in the Gregorian calendar) from a 59-year-old coroner, John Derrick, who gave witness that when he was a scholar fifty years earlier at the Free School of Guildford, "hee and diverse of his fellows did runne and play [on the common land] at creckett and other plaies", confirming that the sport was played there by schoolboys c.1550. It is perhaps significant that cricket is the only one of the plaies to be specifically named.[22][14]

In 1598, there was a reference to cricket in an Italian-English dictionary by Giovanni Florio. His definition of the word sgillare was: "to make a noise as a cricket, to play cricket-a-wicket, and be merry".[23] Florio is the first writer known to have defined cricket in terms of both an insect and a game. In a later edition of his dictionary in 1611, Florio infers that to play cricket-a-wicket has sexual associations with references to frittfritt, defined "as we say cricket a wicket, or gigaioggie", and dibatticare, defined "to thrum a wench lustily till the bed cry giggaioggie".[23]

Oliver Cromwell was the subject of the earliest definite reference to cricket being played in London.

The first definite mention of cricket in Kent is deduced from a 1640 court case which recorded a "cricketing" of the Weald and the Upland versus the Chalk Hill at Chevening "about thirty years since" (around 1610). This is the earliest known village cricket match; and the earliest known organised match in Kent, in England and in the world. Inter-parish contests became popular in the first half of the 17th century. As with the 1598 reference, the case concerned the land on which the game was played.[2]

In 1611, a French-English dictionary was published by Randle Cotgrave who defined the noun crosse as "the crooked staff wherewith boys play at cricket"; the verb form of the word is crosser, defined as "to play at cricket".[24][25] Although cricket was defined as a boys' game in Cotgrave's dictionary, as per the Guildford schoolboys above, other references from this time indicate adult participation. The first is in a 1613 court case which recorded that someone was assaulted with a "cricket staffe" at Wanborough, near Guildford.[26] In 1616, John Bullokar referred to cricket in his An English Expositor as "a kind of game with a ball".[27] In 1617, the 18-year-old Oliver Cromwell is recorded as playing cricket and football in London. This is the earliest definite reference to cricket in London.[24]

In 1624, a fatality occurred following a match on Saturday, 28 August, at Horsted Keynes in Sussex. A fielder called Jasper Vinall was struck on the head by the batsman, Edward Tye, who was trying to hit the ball a second time to avoid being caught. Vinall, who died thirteen days later at home in West Hoathly, is thus the earliest recorded cricketing fatality. The matter was recorded in a coroner's court, which returned a verdict of death by misadventure.[28] The tragedy was repeated in 1647 when another fatality was recorded at Selsey, now in West Sussex, a player called Henry Brand being hit on the head by a batsman trying to hit the ball a second time.[29] When the first Laws of Cricket were encoded in 1744, it was illegal to hit the ball twice and a batsman breaking the rule was to be given out.[30] The record of the 1624 case confirms that two villages, Horsted Keynes and West Hoathly, were involved in the match and provides further evidence of the growth of village cricket.[28]

The first definite mention of cricket in Sussex was in 1611 and relates to ecclesiastical court records stating that two parishioners of Sidlesham, Bartholomew Wyatt and Richard Latter, had failed to attend church on Easter Sunday because they were playing cricket. They were fined 12 pence each and made to do penance, which meant confessing their guilt to the whole church congregation the following Sunday.[31][32]

The Sidlesham case is the first of several 17th century cricket references, until the Restoration in 1660, arising from Puritan disapproval of recreational activity, especially on Sundays.[33] Puritan interference had become enough of a problem by 1617 for James I to issue the Declaration of Sports (also known as The Book of Sports) which listed the sports and recreations that were permitted on Sundays. Cricket is not mentioned.[32] Initially, the declaration was effective in Lancashire only, partly as a reaction to Puritan suppression there of certain activities which were pursued by the Roman Catholic gentry. In 1618, the declaration was issued nationally and then reissued by Charles I in 1633. Sunday amusements were strongly opposed by the Puritans.[34]

The declaration had limited success until the Civil War began in 1642. The Puritans were by then in control of Parliament which closed the theatres and issued sanctions against other recreational activities although, again, there was no mention of cricket except when individual players were accused of "breaking the Sabbath". The Declaration of Sports manuscript was publicly burned by order of the Puritan Parliament in 1643.[31]

In 1622, several parishioners of Boxgrove, near Chichester, were prosecuted for playing cricket in a churchyard on Sunday, 5 May. There were three reasons for the prosecution: one was that it contravened a local bye-law; another reflected concern about church windows which may or may not have been broken; the third was that a little childe had like to have her braines beaten out with a cricket batt![26] The latter reason was because the rules at the time allowed the batsman to hit the ball twice and so fielding near the batsman was very hazardous, as the incidents involving Jasper Vinall and Henry Brand would drastically confirm. In 1628, an ecclesiastical case related to a game at East Lavant, also near Chichester, being played on a Sunday. One of the defendants argued that he had not played during evening prayer time but only before and after. It did him no good as he was fined the statutory 12 pence and ordered to do penance.[35]

There are three further references before the Civil War. In a 1636 court case concerning a tithe dispute, a witness called Henry Mabbinck testified that he played cricket "in the Parke" at West Horsley in Surrey.[36] Another ecclesiastical case recorded parishioners of Midhurst, Sussex, playing cricket during evening prayer on Sunday, 26 February 1637 (i.e., Julian date).[37] In 1640, Puritan clerics at both Maidstone and Harbledown, near Canterbury, denounced cricket as "profane", especially if played on Sunday.[38]

When the English Civil War began in 1642, the Long Parliament banned theatres, as they had met with Puritan disapproval. Although similar action would be taken against certain sports, there is no evidence of cricket being prohibited.[39] Except that players must not "break the Sabbath", references to the game before and during the Commonwealth suggest that it was approved; and Cromwell himself had been a player as a young man.[24]

In 1654, three men were prosecuted at Eltham in Kent for playing cricket on a Sunday. As the Puritans were now firmly in power, Cromwell's Protectorate having been established the previous year, the penalty was doubled to 24 pence (two shillings). The defendants were charged with "breaking the Sabbath", not with playing cricket.[39] Similarly, when Cromwell's commissioners banned sport in Ireland two years later on the grounds of "unlawful assembly", there is no evidence that the ban included cricket, which had probably not reached Ireland by that time.[40]

Puritan prejudice did not survive the Restoration. In 1671, a man called Edward Bound was charged with playing cricket on the Sabbath and was exonerated: evidence that attitudes had changed. The case was reported in Shere, Surrey.[25]

The beginnings of cricket's social division between amateurs and professionals, from which the annual Gentlemen v Players contest ultimately evolved, can be traced to the reign of Charles I. In 1629, Henry Cuffin, a curate at Ruckinge in Kent, was prosecuted by an archdeacon's court for playing cricket on Sunday evening after prayers. He claimed that several of his fellow players were "persons of repute and fashion".[41][31] This statement is the first evidence of cricket achieving popularity among the gentry.[41]

It was the gentry who introduced large-scale gambling into cricket and some of these gamblers subsequently became patrons by forming select teams that would improve their chances of winning. During the Commonwealth, gambling was, of political necessity, low key. The earliest reference to gambling on a cricket match is in the records of a 1646 court case concerning non-payment of a wager that was made on a game at Coxheath in Kent on Friday, 29 May that year. Curiously, considering the huge sums of money staked later in the century, this wager was for twelve candles, but the participants included members of the local gentry. The match at Coxheath is the earliest known example of an "odds" game as two Coxheath players were against four Maidstone players; the Coxheath two won. It was possibly a single wicket match and, if that could be proved, it would be the earliest on record.[42]

In 1652, a case at Cranbrook against John Rabson, Esq. and others referred to "a certain unlawful game called cricket". Rabson was evidently a member of the gentry but the other defendants were all working class.[43] Cricket has long been recognised as a sport that bridged the class divide but, in time, the cricketing gentlemen came to be called "amateurs" to emphasise the distinction between themselves and the professionals who belonged to the lower social classes, mostly to the working class.[44] The amateur became not merely someone who played cricket in his spare time but a particular type of top-class cricketer who existed officially until 1962, when the distinction between amateur and professional was abolished and all the then first-class players became nominally professional. In terms of remuneration, amateurs claimed expenses for playing while professionals were paid a salary or fee.[45] Amateur cricket was an extension of the game played in schools, universities and other centres of education, both as a curricular and extracurricular activity. The schools and universities formed the "production line" that created nearly all the top-class amateur players.[45]

John Churchill as a young man. He played cricket at school in the 1660s.

There are few 17th century references to cricket being played at or in the vicinity of schools but, in 1647, a Latin poem contains a probable reference to cricket being played at Winchester College; if so, it is the earliest known mention of cricket in Hampshire.[46] There is a reference to the game at St Paul's School, London c.1665 concerning John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, who studied there.[47] In his Social History of English Cricket, Derek Birley comments that school cricket was "alive and well during the interregnum" (1649–1660). He speculates that the game "must have been known to every schoolboy in the south-east" of England. He doubts, however, that the sport at this time was part of any school's curriculum. Apart from Eton College and Westminster School, all schools in the 17th century had local intakes and no class segregation. Therefore, the sons of rich and poor families played together.[48] As evidenced by the legal cases of 1646 and 1652, described above, cricket was played jointly by gentry and workers.

The earliest reference to cricket at Oxford University is dated 1673. In John Phillips' Duellum Musicum, a 1673 pamphlet concerning music tuition, there is a criticism of his rival Thomas Salmon, who had boasted of being a graduate of Trinity College, Oxford: "He shews but a slender sign of his University-Education: Where he seems to have spent his time rather in the more laudable Exercises of Trap and Cricket, than in any sound Reading".[49]

Depending on when Salmon graduated, it would seem that cricket was a normal activity at Oxford for some time before Phillips wrote his pamphlet.[50] It was certainly well established at Oxford by October 1728 when the 19-year-old Samuel Johnson entered Pembroke College. He told James Boswell that cricket matches were played during the one year he was at Oxford and this was recorded by Boswell in his Life of Samuel Johnson.[51] A comment by Horace Walpole confirms that cricket was being played at Eton during the first quarter of the 18th century.[52] The earliest reference to cricket being played at Cambridge University is dated 1710 and both of those establishments were attended by William Goldwin who, in 1706, wrote a Latin poem of 95 lines on a rural cricket match. It was called In Certamen Pilae (On a Ball Game) and it was published in his Musae Juveniles.[53]

Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond.

On an unknown date in 1702, the 1st Duke of Richmond's XI defeated an Arundel XI at an unspecified venue in Sussex. The source for this game is a receipt sent by one Saul Bradley to the Duke on Monday, 14 December 1702. The receipt was for one shilling and six pence paid by the Duke "for brandy when your Grace plaid at Cricket with Arundel men". It is thought the brandy was bought to celebrate a victory. The venue was probably either Goodwood, where Richmond had his estate, or Arundel, possibly on Bury Hill which was used for cricket in later years. Arundel was a prominent centre of cricket in the 18th century.[85]

After the 1st Duke of Richmond died in 1723, his son Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond, quickly succeeded him as cricket's main benefactor and became a famous patron of Sussex cricket for the next thirty years. The 2nd Duke enjoyed a friendly rivalry with his friend Sir William Gage, another Sussex patron. Their teams played each other many times and their earliest known contest was on Tuesday, 20 July 1725, five days after Sir William's team was beaten by unknown opponents. Richmond wrote to Gage in early July 1725 and issued a challenge for a match to be played at Goodwood. Gage replied to him by letter on 16 July and confirmed that his team would play the Duke's on Tuesday, 20 July. Gage then stated that he is "in great affliction from being shamefully beaten yesterday (Thursday, 15 July 1725) the first match I played ys (sic) year". He went on to wish the Duke success in everything except his cricket match. The game on 20 July was actually played at Bury Hill, Arundel and Richmond's team won by "above forty (runs)". The report in the Daily Journal newspaper on Wednesday, 21 July, confirms Bury Hill (then called Berry Hill), near Arundel, as the venue. The match, played before "a vast Concourse of People", was hosted by Thomas Howard, 8th Duke of Norfolk who gave a ball at Arundel Castle in the evening.[86][87]

The main rival to Richmond and Gage was Edwin Stead of Maidstone, who was the first of the noted Kent patrons. The Sussex teams of Richmond and Gage enjoyed an inter-county rivalry with Stead's Kent that could have originated the concept of the County Championship.[88]

The patrons ensured that cricket was financed in the 18th century but their interest, equally applicable to horse racing and prizefighting, was based on the opportunities that cricket provided for gambling. Every important match in the 18th century, whether eleven-a-side or single wicket, was played for stakes. The early newspapers recognised this and were more interested in publishing the odds than the match scores. Reports would say who won the wager rather than who won the match.[89]

Sometimes, gambling would lead to dispute and two matches ended up in court when rival interests sought legal rulings on the terms of their wagers. On Monday, 1 September 1718, a game on White Conduit Fields in Islington between London and the Rochester Punch Club was unfinished because three Rochester players "made an elopement" in an attempt to have the game declared incomplete so that they would retain their stake money. London was clearly winning at the time. The London players sued for their winnings and the game while incomplete was the subject of a noted lawsuit in which the terms of the wager were at issue. The court ordered that the match must be "played out" and this happened in early July 1719 (the exact date is uncertain but it was before the 4th). Rochester with four wickets standing needed thirty more runs to win but were all out for 9. It is not certain if 30 was their overall target or if they needed thirty more in addition to runs scored in the original encounter; equally, it is not known if 9 was the innings total they achieved or if they added nine more to their "overnight" score. London's 21-run victory is the earliest known definite result of any cricket match. The match is the earliest known mention of White Conduit Fields as a venue.[90][91]

In 1724 (exact date unknown), Edwin Stead's XI v Chingford ended early because the Chingford team refused to play to a finish when Stead's team held the advantage. Another court case followed. It is known that Lord Chief Justice Pratt presided over the case and ordered them, as in the London v Rochester match in 1718, to play it out so that all wagers could be fulfilled. Pratt "referr'd the said Cause back to Dartford Heath, to be played on where they left off, and a Rule of Court was made accordingly".[82] The game was completed in 1726 but the final result is not on record, and there is no confirmation that Stead's team held their advantage and won.[92]

The introduction of articles of agreement, agreed before matches by the stakeholders, largely resolved any problems between patrons and match organisers. The concept was more important in terms of defining the rules of play and eventually these were codified as the Laws of Cricket.[93]

On Tuesday, 24 July 1705, The Post Man announced West of Kent v Chatham, an 11-a-side game to be played in Kent on Tuesday, 7 August. The primary source gives the venue as "Maulden" which almost certainly refers to Town Malling. There were several matches throughout the 18th century involving teams called "West Kent" and "East Kent". Chatham was a prominent centre of cricket in the 18th century.[73][94]

On Thursday, 26 June 1707, there was a London v Mitcham match at Lamb's Conduit Field, Holborn. The result is unknown. This is the earliest known important match in Middlesex and possibly the earliest known to involve the original London Cricket Club, though the date of the club's formation is uncertain and the team here might have been an ad hoc London XI. In a similar vein to the "all England" term used later in the century, the source calls this team "all London". The Mitcham team may have represented the extant Mitcham Cricket Club, which has a claimed foundation date of 1685.[95]

On Tuesday, 1 and Tuesday, 8 July 1707, Croydon played London twice, the first game played in Croydon, probably at Duppas Hill, and the second at Lamb's Conduit Field in Holborn. Both matches were advertised by The Post Man as "two great matches at cricket (to be) plaid, between London and Croydon; the first at Croydon on Tuesday, 1 July, and the other to be plaid in Lamb's-Conduit-Fields, near Holborn, on the Tuesday following, being the 3rd (sic) of July". No post-match reports could be found so the results and scores are unknown. The match in Croydon is the earliest known important match in Surrey. As with the previous match, it is not known if the teams at this time represented formally constituted clubs and it is possible that both were ad hoc teams drawn from local residents. Croydon and London both had important teams in the first half of the 18th century.[96][90] The match in Holborn was a return to the one on 1 July. There has been some confusion about the date of the second match following a misreading of the original source by H. T. Waghorn, who was the first modern researcher, but Tuesday, 8 July is believed to be correct.[97]

On Wednesday, 23 June 1708, a local match took place somewhere in the Canterbury area and was recorded in the diary of one Thomas Minter, a Canterbury resident, who wrote: "We beat Ash Street at Crickets (sic)". Although this was probably a minor match only, it illustrates the popularity of cricket in Kent.[73][98]

The earliest known match that definitely involved county teams, or teams using the names of counties, was Kent v Surrey at Dartford Brent on Wednesday, 29 June 1709. This was advertised in the Post Man the previous Saturday and played for a stake of £50.[90][99] From this time, there are references to counties in use as team names although it is generally believed that the earliest "inter-county matches" were really inter-parish matches involving two villages on either side of a county boundary. Dartford was an important club in the first half of the 18th century and the match is the earliest known mention of Dartford Brent as a venue.[99][100]

One player who could have taken part in the 1709 match was William Bedle (1680–1768), of Dartford, who is the earliest great player whose name has been recorded. He was "reckoned to be the most expert player in England" and must have been in his prime c.1700 to c.1725.[101] Other good players known to have been active in the 1720s were Edwin Stead of Kent; Edmund Chapman and Stephen Dingate of Surrey; Tim Coleman of London; and Thomas Waymark of Sussex.

Village cricket continued to thrive in the 18th century. On Friday, 31 May 1717, Thomas Marchant, a farmer from Hurstpierpoint in Sussex, first mentioned cricket in his diary. He made numerous references to the game, particularly concerning his local club, until 1727. His son Will played for "our parish", as he often called the Hurstpierpoint team. In total, his diaries mention 21 village matches and the entries provide evidence of the widespread popularity of cricket in Sussex.[102] It is from the 1717 season that a continuous history of English cricket by season is possible. Records of cricket have survived from every season after 1716, although the details in most seasons through the 18th century remain sparse.

The first great rivalry in cricket history was between the Dartford and London clubs who are first known to have played each other in 1722. London played some matches against Kent but the county side is believed to have largely consisted of Dartford players. On Wednesday, 19 August 1719, London v Kent was played at White Conduit Fields and Kent won. The report said the teams played for "a considerable sum of money". There is an insight into the priorities of early 18th century cricketers as the contemporary report concludes with: "The Kentish men won the wager" (i.e., the wager was more important than the match).[96]

On Saturday, 9 July 1720, London v Kent at White Conduit Fields was won by London.[90] In this match, two London fielders were badly injured by a clash of heads.[96] H. T. Waghorn noted a lull in the advertising and reporting of cricket after this game and he wondered if that was due to a perception of the sport as dangerous.[96] If there was a lapse in cricket at this time, the more likely causes would be either: (a) the South Sea Bubble which ruined many investors and so could have reduced cricket patronage; or (b), as Waghorn himself mentions, "the (news)papers were small, and space limited, the advertising and reporting (of) matches ceased".[96] The South Sea Bubble may have had an economic impact on investment and gambling as, when the South Sea Company was found to be insolvent, its crash in 1720 caused massive repercussions throughout the economy and many formerly prosperous investors were ruined.[103] A potential impact on reporting was the Stamp Act 1712 which applied stamp duty to newspapers and so increased their publication costs. This in turn caused publishers to reduce paper size with limited space for content.[104]

On Wednesday, 18 July 1722, London v Dartford was the subject of a letter in The Weekly Journal dated Saturday, 21 July 1722. It is believed the match took place somewhere in the Islington area, so the exact venue may have been White Conduit Fields. The match was abandoned following a dispute. The letter said: "A Match at Cricket was made between the little Parish of Dartford in Kent, and the Gentlemen known by the name of the London Club". Teams styled "London" were already in existence, as above, but this is the first actual reference to a "London Club".[90][105][106]

Dartford and London met at Dartford Brent on Thursday, 11 June 1724[107] and, one week later, a return game was the earliest known match at Kennington Common, near where The Oval is now sited. The results of both matches are unknown.[90][108]

On Wednesday, 6 July 1720, Kingston v Richmond was played at an unknown venue and Kingston won. The secondary source is uncertain about the date due to a slight ambiguity in the primary source, a contemporary newspaper published Saturday, 16 July, which refers to "Wednesday last". The date of the match must therefore be either 6 or 13 July. The source says 5 or 12 July but this is an error as those dates were Tuesdays.[109]

There was a Surrey v London match at Moulsey Hurst on an unknown date in 1723. The result is unknown. The source states that "XI Gentlemen of Surrey played XI of London at Moulsey Hurst during the summer". It is the earliest known mention of Moulsey Hurst as a venue for cricket.[110]

In 1723, the prominent Tory politician Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford recorded in his journal: "At Dartford upon the Heath as we came out of the town, the men of Tonbridge and the Dartford men were warmly engaged at the sport of cricket, which of all the people of England the Kentish folk are the most renowned for, and of all the Kentish men, the men of Dartford lay claim to the greatest excellence".[105] It is more than likely to have been Dartford Brent where this game was taking place.[105]

On Monday, 10 August 1724, there was a match at Penshurst Park (result unknown) which featured the combined parishes of Penshurst, Tonbridge & Wadhurst versus Dartford. This was recorded in a diary entry by one John Dawson, who may have watched it. No details are known but Mr Dawson says it was "a great cricket match". Some sources have mistakenly given the venue as Islington but contemporary newspapers confirm that it took place at Penshurst Park.[111]