A photograph of the Oval in 1896, taken during Surrey’s match against the touring Australian team
Before the deciding Test of the 1896 series between England and Australia, played at the Oval on 10 August, five professional cricketers from the England team sent a “demand” to the Surrey Committee asking for their fee for the match to be doubled to £20. The five men — William Gunn, George Lohmann, Bobby Abel, Tom Richardson and Tom Hayward — were unhappy that wages for Test matches had not risen in line with the increased popularity of cricket over the previous twenty years. Additionally, it emerged that they were also dissatisfied with both the profits being made by the touring Australian team and the amount of expenses claimed by the amateurs on their team which meant that several were surreptitiously being better paid than any professional — a practice known as “shamateurism”. At the time, the teams and playing conditions for Test matches in England were under the control of the individual county committees on whose grounds the games were played. Therefore, the five professionals wrote directly to the Surrey authorities; to further complicate matters, all the rebels except Gunn were Surrey players.
Unsurprisingly, Surrey were unwilling to submit to what they perceived as an ultimatum; they refused any pay increase, dropped the five men from the England team and selected replacements. It was at this point, just three days before the Test was due to start, that the story appeared in the press. Two of the five rebels spoke to the newspapers, making the threat to strike — and their grievances — more explicit.
Once the story had broken, reaction was mixed. Much of the hysteria in the press arose because the Test was a crucial one; two well-matched teams had won a Test match each, and there had already been a huge amount of interest in the deciding game. The drama surrounding the strike only heightened tension, especially when it appeared that England would not be at full strength.
Unsurprisingly, the “quality” newspapers supported Surrey. Most opposition to the professionals was not about their demands for more money, but arose because they were made just before a crucial match against Australia. Even the Surrey Committee did not dispute that the request for £20 was hardly unfair, but refused to discuss it in the circumstances. In fact, almost everyone agreed in principle with the strikers’ belief that they should be paid more.
The Times, while criticising the strikers for the heavy-handed nature of their actions, was not as condemnatory as might have been expected. When the players were dropped, the Times correspondent said: “The Surrey committee, without discussing the merits of the case, naturally refused to be dictated to by professional cricketers who had played at Lord’s and Manchester [in the first two Tests] under the regular terms [of £10] … Had the professionals shown more tact by approaching the Surrey Club in a less dictatorial manner, the committee would no doubt have discussed the matter with them and the difference that has arisen would probably never occurred.” Nevertheless, the article outlined in favourable terms the argument made by the rebels about wanting a share in their sport’s increased popularity; but it concluded that they should have “sought some other means than an attempt to force the hands of Surrey in the week preceding such a great test at cricket as England v Australia”. The author also regretted that the revised England team was no longer a particularly representative one.
Other publications also took an interest in the underlying issues. The Field suggested that “these rumours of amateurs’ expenses have been in circulation for some time” but were being peddled by “sensation-mongers” who had “grossly” deceived the public in exaggerating how much money amateurs received in expenses. As it happens, contemporary reports vastly under-reported how much money amateurs such as W. G. Grace or Walter Read made. Nor was the Field sympathetic. It rubbished any suggestion that county professionals were close to poverty in an article that portrayed them as “surprisingly jolly and content with their lot”. But while the article writer concluded that professionals were amply paid and could not grumble about their much-improved social status, even he did not object to the raising of the fees for a Test match to £20.
The London Evening Standard commented that the strike was “the sole topic of conversation in cricket circles on Saturday”. It suggested that the professionals were being criticised for trying to “force the hands” of Surrey at a “critical moment”, showing “an utter lack of patriotism”. However, it also reported that the majority of their fellow professional cricketers were supportive of the strikers. It suggested that the four Surrey men were prompted to act for that Test rather than earlier ones because Surrey were a wealthy county. Additionally, they were playing on their own ground — all four were very popular with their home crowd — which may have emboldened them to act.
Many newspapers were openly on the side of the professionals. As an article in the Huddersfield Chronicle put it, “sympathisers are not wanting for the players — whose claims are generally regarded as worth consideration, though the methods adopted may be open to question”. The support was most explicit in what were euphemistically referred to as the “popular” papers. For example, the Weekly Sun took issue with the criticism of the strikers by the Australian captain Harry Trott; it pointed to the hypocrisy of the Australian “amateurs” given how much money they made from the tour and stated bluntly: “The charm of this criticism would be more apparent were Trott to tell an excited public the exact terms upon which he, personally, undertook the trip to this country.” The correspondent sided firmly with the strikers, whom he believed “are entitled to our respect for having raised another protest against the shoddy amateurism which waxes fat on ‘expenses’.” Other newspapers singled out individual amateurs who had received generous expenses — notably W. G. Grace and A. E. Stoddart, both of whom were in the England team.
Also in press circulation were the surprising opinions of a “prominent” but anonymous member of the MCC: “Why should [the professionals] only get £10 a match when a certain amateur [almost certainly he was referring to W. G. Grace] gets five times that amount under the name of ‘expenses’?” He believed the public would side with the professionals. Further press enquiries around London revealed many members of the public to be supportive. And a Surrey member, Major Flood Page, stated publicly that he thought his committee should grant the request for £20 as it was “only fair and reasonable” given how much the Australians took from the game.
As the controversy raged back and forth, the strikers again made contact with the press. The four Surrey professionals sent a letter to the Sportsman, defending their actions. Against claims they had waited “until the eve of the test match” before their demands, they responded that they sent the letter on Monday 3 August. The story only broke in the press the following Friday which led to the impression that they “had waited until the eleventh hour”.
But there were also signs of their unity beginning to fracture. William Gunn wrote separately to the Sportsman, saying that he only requested more money “in view of the important nature of the match and the strain involved.” He added that he had not refused to play, but had merely asked for a higher rate and disassociated himself from the comments made by the others, stating “emphatically that no remarks have been made by him concerning amateurs’ expenses or the Australians’ share of the gate”.
One of the rebels, George Lohmann, also began to make conciliatory gestures, in his case because of considerable criticism of his role in the affair. It did not escape attention that he was extremely well paid at Surrey, and was hardly in financial difficulty. Not only that, Surrey had always stood by him despite his frequent unavailability with ill health. And crucially, just over a week before the Test, his benefit match had taken place, which ultimately raised around £1,000, a substantial sum of money. Therefore, Lohmann was singled out in the press for criticism, and accused of ingratitude.
Having previously spoken to the press anonymously, Lohmann now went on the record to defend himself and give some background to the dispute. He spoke to a reporter from the Morning Leader and revealed that he and the other professionals who played in the first Test at Lord’s had discussed the wage and decided “after the match had been played, and not until then, we should ask the MCC for a larger sum than £10.” However, their request was turned down. They were unable to discuss the issue further as the same professionals were not chosen for the Manchester Test and as they were playing away from London did not have a chance to get together beforehand. Nevertheless, according to Lohmann (who did not play at Manchester), Abel and Richardson asked the Lancashire Committee for £5 expenses on top of their £10 fee, but had not heard anything since. Having failed to get a response by approaching the committees at the end of the first two Tests, the rebels decided to act before the final match in the hope of more success.
Having justified the strikers, Lohmann then began to distance himself from them. He said that Abel, Hayward and Richardson, motivated by the money being made by the Australians, wrote their letter to the Surrey Committee and asked him to add his name to it. According to his interview, he told his team-mates that he had wished to consult “my friend Gunn” before signing; he claimed that he had still not seen him at the time of the interview. But something is not quite right about Lohmann’s version: his name was certainly on the letter to the Surrey Committee.
Having played down his role, Lohmann went on to say that the problem had been “brewing for years” and they had received messages of support from “players from every part of the kingdom”. He also claimed that the other professionals in the team would have joined them but had not been asked: “The only mistake we can see we have made is that we kept the matter to ourselves and did not organise our forces.”
In this last point, he was correct. Of the seven professionals originally selected, neither Bobby Peel nor Dick Lilley joined the strikers; nor did the three replacements — George Hirst, Arthur Mold and Dick Pougher. The most likely reason is that, other than Peel, none were regular England players; the prospect of receiving £10 was probably more attractive than being left out in a probably vain attempt to earn £20.
The Surrey Secretary Charles Alcock also wrote to the press; he emphasised that the terms offered to the professionals matched those for the Test at Manchester — £10 plus expenses — and exceeded those offered at Lord’s — a flat rate of £10. But the sympathy of the public was largely with the strikers; there was even speculation that there might have been crowd trouble on the first morning at the Oval if Abel and Richardson were not included in the England team. The police met the Surrey authorities beforehand, presumably to discuss any necessary security arrangements.
On the day the Test began, shortly before play started, the four Surrey rebels were called before the Committee. Richardson, Hayward and Abel backed down and signed a letter of apology. Part of their letter put forward their case: that the Australians, who were nominally amateurs, were making far more from each match than English professionals “and it seemed to us only reasonable that we should beneficiate in a small way out of the large amount of money received”. But having apologised, they played in the Test match.
Lohmann was less accommodating and refused to sign until he had spoken to William Gunn; he and Gunn were therefore omitted from the team. The Surrey Committee also told Lohmann that he would not be selected for Surrey until he apologised. On the third and final day of the Test, Lohmann did so; his letter was circulated to the press and stated that he only refused to sign the first letter of apology because he wished to discuss the matter with Gunn. He also regretted for use of the word “demand” in the original letter, saying that he had not wanted to use it as he considered the matter a request rather than an ultimatum. Lohmann’s involvement as one of the key figures in the strike and his subsequent attempts to disassociate himself from the other rebels does not reflect especially well on him. He never played for England again, but not because of the strike; five years later, he was dead of tuberculosis, leaving a reputation as one of the greatest bowlers of all time.
When Abel, Hayward and Richardson backed down, the Times was forgiving, suggesting that they “never dreamed of the trouble that their demand for extra payment would cause”. Although once more condemning “the clumsy and almost arrogant manner in which their demand was made”, and suggesting that “the action of the Surrey Club in refusing to be dictated to by those whom they employ has been generally commended”, the Times reporter suggested that it was better for everyone, not least English cricket, that they forgave the three professionals and returned them to the team. And again, the article was sympathetic and supported their claims for fairer treatment, although it pointedly refrained from mentioning amateur expenses as a motivation. The author noted approvingly that the affair had “brought the subject of their cricket remuneration very prominently before the public.” But he concluded that the strike “has been a great grief to the best lovers of the game. Loyalty to the Surrey Club and patriotism for English cricket should have been a sufficient incentive to the players to have practised self-denial a while longer.”
Looking back when the issue had been settled, the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News took issue with the way some newspapers had attempted to polarise and escalate the dispute. It also took the view that if the request was a fair one, the manner in which it was presented as an ultimatum meant that it was doomed to failure. The writer praised both sides for the “entire absence of the bitterness which sundry papers did their uttermost to engender”. It also praised the way the strikers had backed down and that Surrey had reinstated them, despite some calls for them to take a harder line in punishing the rebels. The writer was sympathetic to the position of the professionals, praising them as an “estimable body of men” and saying: “That in some respects the position of professional cricketers is capable of improvement will be conceded by the majority of those who really know the details of cricket management.” The article suggested that they could be paid more given the amount of money circulating in cricket, and admitted that there were amateurs who abused the system of expenses.
Wisden reported: “It is betraying no secret to say that [the Surrey Committee] felt greatly aggrieved, on the eve of the most important match of the season, at being placed in a difficulty by four of their own professionals.” On the decision to reinstate the professionals before the game, it said: “After a good deal of deliberation, it was determined that Abel, Richardson and Hayward should play for England. Among leading cricketers, opinions were a good deal divided as to the wisdom of this policy, but in our judgement the match committee took a just, as well as popular choice of action.”
The Wisden editor Sydney Pardon was unsurprisingly not on the side of the strikers, writing: “The earnings of the players have certainly not risen in proportion to the immensely increased popularity of cricket during the last twenty years, but to represent the average professional as an ill-treated or downtrodden individual is, I think, a gross exaggeration.”
But this was not quite the end of the controversy; there was more trouble on the morning of the game. W. G. Grace and A. E. Stoddart arrived at the ground and complained bitterly about the publicity surrounding amateurs’ expenses. To mollify Grace, Surrey put out a statement denying that he had ever been paid anything more than £10 per match to cover his expenses, and had otherwise not received “directly or indirectly, one farthing for playing in a match at the Oval.” Grace indignantly wrote of the matter a few years later in his autobiography, saying: “The incident was regrettable, not only because the strike was ill-timed, but because it led to an unseemly controversy, in the course of which many irritating statements of an absolutely false character were made with regard to prominent amateur cricketers.”
Andrew Stoddart photographed in 1898 (Image: Wikipedia)
But no such statement was made about Stoddart. Part of his problem was that no-one was clear how he could afford his cricketing lifestyle with an income that was estimated at the time to be around £500 or £600 per year. Nor did he have a wealthy family to provide money or an eventual inheritance. While he followed amateur conventions, such as shooting, he did not come from the typical public school background of his contemporaries. In Cricket Captains of England, Alan Gibson suggests of the 1896 season and the controversy over payments to amateurs: “When rumour was flying free, it was inevitable it should rest on him.”
And unlike Grace, Stoddart refused to play in the Test match. The official explanation was that he had a cold, but no-one believed that, at the time or subsequently. David Frith in his biography My Dear Victorious Stod (1977) notes that Stoddart’s withdrawal caused “an usual amount of comment among the people at the ground.” Archie MacLaren later argued, in a 1921 article in the Cricketer, that Stoddart withdrew because there were too many players (after the extra professionals had been called up as a stand-by). At the time, the press suggested he may have withdrawn out of sympathy with the strikers rather than because of his convenient “cold”. Frith wonders if Stoddart “felt himself out of form and unable to do himself justice” but concedes that the primary reason was criticism in the “popular newspapers”, particularly an article in the Morning Leader which “ran a facetious sketch of him and a scathing criticism of his alleged backhanders.”
In later years, Stoddart defended himself in the press: he claimed that the Australian authorities had paid all travelling and hotel expenses during his two tours, and he had merely been given money to order champagne for the team.
After all the various permutations and withdrawals, the England team was finalised for the Oval Test match. Back row: William Hearn (umpire), Tom Hayward, Arthur Lilley, Tom Richardson, Jack Hearne. Middle row: Archie MacLaren, KS Ranjitsinhji, WG Grace, FS Jackson, Teddy Wynyard. On the ground: Bobby Abel, Bobby Peel.
The Test match itself was something of an anticlimax, ruined by rain. While the crowd waited on the first day, a correspondent for the Star found that “the talk around the ropes is all about the great strike … the voice of the people in this instance is unmistakably in favour of the professionals.” On an unplayable pitch, England won easily but had the advantage of batting when conditions were at their easiest when play finally began late on the first day. The Australians were also handicapped at the start by a wet outfield and a wet ball, and suspected that the match only commenced at all in order to appease an impatient crowd.
But there was yet more controversy on the third morning which began with England’s lead worth 86 for the loss of five second-innings wickets. Wisden merely reported: “It was anybody’s game on the third morning, everything depending on the condition of the ground. It was freely predicted that the wicket would improve, but such was far from being the case, the pitch being perhaps more difficult than ever.” Joe Darling, the Australian batsman, later related how the England captain W. G. Grace went into the Australian dressing room at the close of the second day to say to their captain: “Well, Trott, you are going to beat us, as now the weather is settled there will be a good wicket tomorrow.” If this is true, Grace’s remarks are either unduly pessimistic or more likely to be gamesmanship given that England still had two batsmen at the crease and two other capable batsmen to come in Lilley and Peel if conditions had eased.
There was no further rain overnight, and according to Darling: “We went down to the Oval very sanguine of winning. One can well imagine our surprise when we found that there had been a ‘local rain’ of about 22 yards long and 6 feet wide, just where the wicket was.” Only the middle of the ground was wet, and the Australians suspected the Oval groundstaff were responsible for the sabotage. Grace ordered his remaining batsmen to get out as quickly as possible, and Australia were bowled out for 44 to lose by 66 runs. According to Malcolm Knox, in Never a Gentlemen’s Game (2012), Trott afterwards adopted a policy of always tipping the groundsman before any game. Knox adds that the former Australian bowler Fred Spofforth commiserated with the captain afterwards: “Terrible, isn’t it? Things could hardly be worse!” Trott seemed unperturbed and replied: “But tell me, Spoff, are there any decent leg shows on at the theatres?”
A cartoon in Punch: “‘The Three F’s.’ Mr Punch, the Universal Umpire (addressing Dr Gr-ce and Messrs Ab-l and Tr-t). ‘Now, Gentlemen all, I’ll give you a toast that every good cricketer may join in – fair play, fair pay and friendliness!'” (Image: Punch, 22 August 1896)
After the game, Punch printed a poem praising both sides, and a cartoon which encouraged everyone in the dispute to remember the “Three F’s — Fair play, Fair pay and Friendliness”. Whoever drew the picture may have been having a sly dig at the Australians. In the image, Bobby Abel wears a cap denoting him as a “Pro”; W. G. Grace wears his usual striped cap which was worn by many amateurs to differentiate them from professionals. But the third figure in the drawing — identified by the caption as Harry Trott — has a label on his belt that says “Profess[ional]”. As the Australians were nominally amateurs, this is quite likely a criticism of the profits made by the team.
While the strike had been averted, and the professionals had been kept in their place by the authorities, most people agreed that the rebels and their supporters had a point. Over the following years, English cricket tried to address the most blatant injustices in the system to avoid further accusations of hypocrisy. In September 1896, Surrey attempted to end their arrangement with the amateur Walter Read by which he was paid to be their Assistant Secretary despite performing no such duties; although he managed to extend his deal for twelve months, it stopped after that. The following year, both Lancashire and Surrey introduced stricter rules over amateur expenses to prevent abuse. However, these were largely cosmetic changes, and “shamateurism” continued in various forms until amateur status was abolished in 1962.
Once the dust had settled, sweeping changes were made to the way that Test matches were organised in England. The reasons were unrelated to the strike — Yorkshire’s Lord Hawke believed it was fitting that the MCC should take charge of affairs related to the national team. By the time the Australians toured England again in 1899, England selection was no longer in the hands of individual county committees but a Board of Control appointed by the MCC. This new body, instituted in October 1898, was responsible for all aspects of home Test matches. No more would there be inconsistencies over selection (such as the practice of favouring local players), or embarrassing situations such as that in 1896 where Ranjitsinhji was not judged to be qualified for England by one county committee, but could be selected by another.
One of the first decisions of the new Board of Control was to settle the issue of professional pay and amateur expenses. Test match fees for professionals were raised to £20 for the 1899 series; amateur expenses were fixed at 30 shillings per day up to a maximum of five days — which conveniently worked out at £10 per match. Despite the bluster and criticism from the cricket Establishment, the strike had its desired effect. Thereafter, despite the many differences and inequalities that existed between amateurs and professionals, there were no major disputes for some time.
Only after the First World War, when the higher cost of living drove many professionals into league cricket, which offered better wages, were the counties once more grudgingly forced to offer improved terms.
Old Ebor 
