|
The Sydney Riot of 1879 was the first riot to occur at an international cricket match. It threatened the immediate future of England-Australia cricket tours.
England tours to Australia had started in 1861, and had continued to be successful, though they were still in their infancy. The teams that went over were sometimes strong, sometimes not so, because, whilst the promoters sought out the best cricketers, they still had to agree terms with them. Not only that, many could not afford the time for the 48 day or so long boat trip to Australia, the tour itself, and the 48 day trip back.
The first tour in the opposite direction was made by aborigines in 1868. In 1878 a tour was led by Dave Gregory, and was a success, with the Australians famously beating a very strong side put out by the Marylebone Cricket Club, which included the legendary WG Grace. After this tour, the MCC invited Lord Harris to take a team to Australia. Originally the team was only to contain amateurs, but in the event Ulyett and Emmett joined the tour team.
The game
 Edmund Barton, who later became the first Australian Prime Minister, umpired the game and helped to defuse the riot. 10,000 attended the Association Ground, Sydney on Saturday 8 February 1879 to watch the second day of The English Eleven against The New South Wales Eleven. By the end of the day there had been numerous pitch invasions, and the start of an incident that was to sour relations between English and Australian cricketers.
The riot was caused by what the crowd saw as a bad umpiring decision made by an umpire paid for by the English team. Some of the crowd, including a young Banjo Paterson, surged onto the pitch and started to attack the umpire, George Coulthard, who was only 22. The English captain, Lord Harris, was struck by a stick. Hornby grabbed the man who struck Harris and escorted him to the pavilion. Hornby was also attacked and almost lost the shirt off his back. Emmett and Ulyett each took a stump and escorted Harris off, assisted by some members. The other umpire was Edmund Barton, who later became Australia's first Prime Minister. Barton helped to defuse the situation, which helped his publicity campaign when he stood for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly later that year. Independent witnesses said Coulthard's decision was close but fair.
There were also allegations of the riot being started by bookmakers. Nearly one hundred and thirty years later, bad umpiring decisions and betting continue to scandalise the sport. The Australian press immediately condemned the riot.
The game was completed on its next scheduled day, Monday 10 February with the English Eleven winning by an innings and 41 runs, but, as we shall see, had repercussions that continued to the following English summer.
Lord Harris's letter
On 11 February 1879, one day after the conclusion of the match and three days after the riot, Harris wrote a letter to one of his friends about the disturbance. The letter appeared in the Daily Telegraph, a London newspaper on 1 April, and in other London newspapers, where it caused a furore. The letter read as follows:
- I am not certain whether you will be astonished or not at what I have to tell you, but I know you will be distressed that your friends, a party of gentlemen travelling through these Colonies for the purpose of playing a few friendly games of cricket, should have been insulted and subjected to indignities it distresses us to look back upon. We began the return match with the NSW Eleven on Friday 7, scored 267, and got our opponents out for 177 by 3.30 on the Saturday afternoon. Murdoch, who had carried his bat out in the first, and A. Bannerman went to the wickets to commence the second innings. At 19 on the telegraph the former was run out. Before he got back to the pavilion I heard shouts of "not out", "go back", etc., arise from that quarter, and saw the occupants of it rise almost en masse. I at once saw what was the matter, and instead of waiting for D. Gregory (the captain) to come out to me, perhaps unwisely walked to the pavilion to meet him at the gate. He, I found, in the name of the NSW Eleven, objected to Coulthard, the umpire. I must here diverge to explain certain facts connected with the Colonies which are not known or understood at home. Contrary to our custom, it is here the exception to employ professional umpires. This I was not told until after the disturbance. As you know, we brought no umpire, and on arrival at Adelaide I asked the representatives of the Melbourne CC if they could recommend anyone to us whom we could take about with us throughout our tour. They mentioned this man Coulthard, a professional on their ground, whom they had constantly tried and found competent, and added that if we on trial also considered him competent, the MCC would be very glad to give him leave of absence so long as we wanted his services. I considered him on trial a good and trustworthy umpire, and arranged with the MCC that he should accompany us to NSW. Had we known on arrival that a feeling existed in these Colonies against the employment of professional umpires, it is possible we might have acted differently; but, understand, at the same time, that I have seen no reason as yet to change my opinion of Coulthard's qualities, or to regret his engagement, in which opinion I am joined by the whole team. To resume my account of the disturbance on the ground on the Saturday. I asked Gregory on what grounds the objection was raised, and he said at first general incompetence, but afterwards admitted that the objection was raised on account of the decision in Murdoch's case. I implored Gregory, as a friend, and for the sake of the NSW Cricket Association, which I warned him would be the sufferer by it, not to raise the objection, but he refused to take my view of the case. Looking back in the midst of this conversation, I found the ground had been rushed by the mob, and our team was being surrounded, I at once returned to the wickets, and in defending Coulthard from being attacked was struck by some 'larrikin' with a stick. Hornby immediately seized this fellow, and in taking him to the pavilion was struck in the face by a would-be deliverer of the 'larrikin', and had his shirt nearly torn off his back. He, however, conveyed his prisoner to the pavilion in triumph. For some thirty minutes or so I was surrounded by a howling mob, resisting the entreaties of partisans and friends to return to the pavilion until the field was cleared, on the grounds that if our side left the field the other eleven could claim the match. I don't suppose that they would have done so, but I determined to obey the laws of cricket, and may add that for one hour and a half I never left the ground, surrounded the whole time, with two short intervals, by some hundreds of people. At about five o'clock the crowd was cleared off somehow. I then took the opinion of the Eleven as to changing the umpire, and it was decided nem. con. that there were no grounds for the objection, and that we should decline to change him. I informed Gregory of the decision, whereupon he said, 'Then the game is at end'. On Coulthard appearing from the pavilion groans arose from the crowd. I turned to Mr Barton, the NSW Eleven umpire, and asked if I could not claim the match according to the laws of cricket. His answer was, 'I shall give it you in two minutes' time if the batsmen do not return'. I said to him, 'I won't claim it yet. I'll give the other side every chance of reconsidering a decision arrived at, I believe, unadvisedly, and in a moment of passion. Please ask Gregory what he means to do.' On returning Mr Barton informed me that Gregory would send two men to the wickets - a curiously sudden change of mind I think you will allow. However, before the batsmen could appear the crowd had covered the ground for the second time. After some twenty minutes it was cleared for the second time also. A. Bannerman and Thompson then took their places at the wickets, but before a ball could be bowled the crowd broke in for the third and last time. I remained on the ground until the time for drawing the stumps, surrounded as before. Beyond slyly kicking me once or twice the mob behaved very well, their one cry being, 'Change your umpire'. And now for the cause of this disturbance, not unexpected, I may say, by us, for we have heard accounts of former matches played by English teams. It was started at fomented by professional betting men in the pavilion, members of the association - one a member of the legislative assembly - aided and abetted the bookmakers in raising the cry. I blame the NSW Eleven for not objecting to Coulthard before the match began, if they had reason to suppose him incompetent to fulfil his duties. I blame the members of the association (many, of course, must be excepted) for their discourtesy and uncricket like behaviour to their guests; and I blame the committee and others of the association for ever permitting betting, but this last does not, of course, apply to our match only. I am bound to say they did all in their power to quell the disturbance. I don't think anything would have happened if A. Bannerman had been run out instead of Murdoch, but the latter, besides being a great favourite, deservedly I think, was the popular idol of the moment through having carried his bat out in the first innings. As a contrast to the reception the Australian Eleven met with after beating the MCC at Lord's, I may say that when we won the match on Monday, hardly a cheer was given us by the ring. The occupants of the pavilion [barely?] acknowledged our victory. They are capital winners out here, but I am afraid I can't apply the same adjective to them as losers. To conclude, I cannot describe to you the horror we felt that such an insult should have been passed on us, and that the game we love so well, and wish to see honoured, supported, and played in an honest and manly way everywhere, should receive such desecration. I can use no milder word. The game was finished on Monday without interruption. Coulthard had made two mistakes in our first innings, one favouring us, the other the opposite. Murdoch's decision was considered by coverpoint and point to be a good one, and I repeat that the NSW Eleven had no grounds whatever for raising an objection. We never expect to see such a scene of disorder again - we can never forget this one.
- I remain, Yours sincerely
- February 11 - HARRIS
Reply by the New South Wales Cricket Association
The New South Wales Cricket Association were outraged by Lord Harris's letter and got their honourary secretary, a Mr JM Gibson, to write to the Daily Telegraph in reply:
- A few days ago a letter from Lord Harris, published in your issue of April 1, appeared in the Colonial Press. That letter dilated upon a lamentable disturbance which occurred at Moore Park, near this city, during a match played between his lordship's eleven and an eleven of New South Wales, on February 7, 8, and 10 last. Upon the appearance of the latter in our newspapers a feeling of indignation was generally expressed, and within a few hours a requisition influentially signed was presented, calling on me to convene a special general meeting of the New South Wales Cricket Association for the purpose of considering the letter and comments made upon it in some of the London papers. A meeting was accordingly convened, and took place this evening. The President, Mr Richard Driver, MP, occupied the chair, in the presence of an unusually large attendance of members. The letter referred to having been read, and the President, Sir George Innes, MLC, Mr M. H. Stephen, QC, Mr G. H. Reid, and Mr Richard Teece having addressed the meeting, it was unanimously resolved that I should ask you to publish the following statement, in correction of the account transmitted by Lord Harris, which, principally upon the following grounds, is universally regarded here as both inaccurate and ungenerous.
- When Lord Harris prepared his letter of February 11, he was fully aware of the following facts:
- 1. That on the previous day a deputation from the association, consisting of our president, some of the vice-presidents, officers, and members waited upon him, and expressed profound sorrow and regret for the conduct of the unruly portion of the crowd, and Lord Harris was pleased to assure the deputation that he did not hold the association in any way responsible for what had occurred.
- 2. That immediately after the disorder on the cricket ground the public and the press were loud in their indignation at the occurrence, and assured our visitors of their utmost sympathy; and the team received similar marks of good feeling from all quarters.
- 3. That betting on cricket matches is strictly prohibited by the trustees of the ground, so far as it can be so prohibited, and large placards to that effect have always been kept posted throughout the pavilion and its enclosures.
- Lord Harris, by what we feel to be a most ungenerous suppression of these facts and others, has led the British public to suppose that in New South Wales, to quote his own words, 'a party of gentlemen travelling through these colonies for the purpose of playing a few friendly games of cricket should have been insulted and subjected to indignities', whilst the press and inhabitants of Sydney neither showed surprise, indignation, nor regret. We cannot allow a libel upon the people of New South Wales so utterly unfounded as this to pass without challenge. The country upon which such a reproach could be fastened would be unworthy of a place amoung civilised communities, and in the imputation is especially odious to Australians, who claim to have maintained the manly, generous, and hospitable characteristics of the British race.
- Having shown that for what actually occurred the fullest acknowledgments were made, it is now right to point out that the misconduct of those who took possession of the wickets has been exaggerated. So popular amongst our people is the game of cricket that multitudes of all ages and classes flock to a great match. They watch these contests with an interest as intense as any felt in England over a great political question. Lord Harris is, we believe, the first English cricketer who failed to observe that they applaud good cricket on either side, and, so far from our crowds being the bad losers he represents, the English Elevens who have visited New South Wales were never made more of than when they defeated the local team. Previous decisions of the professional brought from Melbourne to act as umpire for the English Eleven had created real, though suppressed, dissatisfaction, and one, giving Lord Harris a second 'life', was openly admitted by his lordship to be a mistake; and when Mr Murdoch, the hero of the hour, who had carried his bat through in the first innings, was at the crisis of the game given 'run out' by what a large proportion of the spectators, both in the pavilion and round the enclosure, as well as the batsman himself, whether rightly or wrongly, took to be a most unfair decision, the excitement and indignation of a section of the spectators, led by the juvenile element, unhappily broke through restraint. Only once before in New South Wales was a cricket ground rushed, and then, as in the present instance, the crowd was seized with a conviction of foul play. But the present demonstration was entirely against the umpire, whom Lord Harris still considers competent, whilst admitting 'he had made two mistakes in our innings'. It certainly was not against our gallant visitors. The only cry was 'Change your umpire!' and the mob voluntarily left the ground more than once in the hope that that would be done. The betting men to whom Lord Harris alludes, and of whom only one or two were present, were not members of this association at all, and it is completely unjust to assign the demonstration to any such agency. Bad as it was, it sprang from no mercenary motive.
- Sydney, June 4th.
Spofforth's view
Fred Spofforth, Australia's Demon bowler, who did not play in the match, did comment on it later with a different slant on the cause. His view was that the Engish team were the unfortunate victims of interstate rivalry:
- Then the crowd could stand it no longer and rushed on to the field, refusing to budge until the umpire was removed. I have no wish to dwell on this painful occurrence, but I should like to point out that the feeling aroused was almost entirely due to the spirit of the rivalry between the Colonies ... The umpire was Victorian, and the party spirit in the crowd was too strong, "Let an Englishman stand umpire," they cried; "we don't mind any of them. We won't have a Victorian." There was not the slightest animosity against Lord Harris or any of his team; the whole disturbance was based on the fact that the offender was a Victorian. But Lord Harris stood by his umpire; and as a result, the match had to be abandoned till the following day.
Aftermath of the riot
An 1880 Australian side captained by Billy Murdoch toured England in 1880; it was guaranteed to get a frosty welcome, and it found it difficult to find good opponents, with most county sides turning them down, although Yorkshire played two unofficial matches against them. However, although it was Murdoch's wicket that started the riot, the English public were more sympathetic towards him than Gregory. Although an attempt to arrange a game against an English XI for the Cricketers' Fund was turned down, eventually Lord Harris was asked by the secretary of Surrey, CA Alcock to put together a representative side to play the Australians.
Although Lord Harris was generous in agreeing to lead the side, three cricketers who played in the infamous Sydney game, Monkey Hornby, Emmett and Ulyett, refused to play. But Harris assembled a strong team, which included the three Grace brothers. Australia, who had not faced strong opposition and were without star bowler Fred Spofforth went down by five wickets. This game, now recognised as the fourth test match is more important than its result, as the custom of cricket tours between England and Australia was cemented.
See also
References
|
