Ginger Stott is a name that was once as well known
as any in England. Stott has been the subject of
leading articles in every daily paper; his life has
been written by an able journalist who interviewed
Stott himself, during ten crowded minutes, and filled
three hundred pages with details, seventy per cent.
of which were taken from the journals, and the remainder
supplied by a brilliant imagination. Ten
years ago Ginger Stott was on a pinnacle, there was
a Stott vogue. You found his name at the bottom
of signed articles written by members of the editorial
staff; you bought Stott collars, although
Stott himself did not wear collars; there was a Stott
waltz, which is occasionally hummed by clerks, and
whistled by errand-boys to this day; there was a
periodical which lived for ten months, entitled Ginger
Stott's Weekly; in brief, during one summer
there was a Stott apotheosis.
But that was ten years ago, and the rising generation
has almost forgotten the once well-known name.
One rarely sees him mentioned in the morning paper
now, and then it is but the briefest reference;
some such note as this "Pickering was at the top
of his form, recalling the finest achievements of Ginger
Stott at his best," or "Flack is a magnificent
find for Kent: he promises to completely surpass the
historic feats of Ginger Stott." These journalistic
superlatives only irritate those who remember the
performances referred to. We who watched the
man's career know that Pickering and Flack are but
tyros compared to Stott; we know that none of his
successors has challenged comparison with him. He
was a meteor that blazed across the sky, and if he
ever has a true successor, such stars as Pickering
and Flack will shine pale and dim in comparison.
It makes one feel suddenly old to recall that great
matinée at the Lyceum, given for Ginger Stott's
benefit after he met with his accident. In ten years
so many great figures in that world have died or
fallen into obscurity. I can count on my fingers
the number of those who were then, and are still, in
the forefront of popularity. Of the others poor
Captain Wallis, for instance, is dead—and no modern
writer, in my opinion, can equal the brilliant descriptiveness
of Wallis's articles in the Daily Post.
Bobby Maisefield, again, Stott's colleague, is a martyr
to rheumatism, and keeps a shop in Ailesworth,
the scene of so many of his triumphs. What a
list one might make, but how uselessly. It is enough
to note how many names have dropped out, how
many others are the names of those we now speak
of as veterans. In ten years! It certainly makes
one feel old.
No apology is needed for telling again the story
of Stott's career. Certain details will still be familiar,
it is true, the historic details that can never
be forgotten while cricket holds place as our national
game. But there are many facts of Stott's
life familiar to me, which have never been made
public property. If I must repeat that which is
known, I can give the known a new setting; perhaps
a new value.
He came of mixed races. His mother was pure
Welsh, his father a Yorkshire collier; but when Ginger
was nine years old his father died, and Mrs.
Stott came to live in Ailesworth where she had immigrant
relations, and it was there that she set
up the little paper-shop, the business by which she
maintained herself and her boy. That shop is still
in existence, and the name has not been altered.
You may find it in the little street that runs off the
market place, going down towards the Borstal Institution.
There are many people alive in Ailesworth to-day
who can remember the sturdy, freckled, sandy-haired
boy who used to go round with the morning
and evening papers; the boy who was to change the
fortunes of a county.
Ginger was phenomenally thorough in all he undertook.
It was one of the secrets of his success.
It was this thoroughness that kept him engaged in
his mother's little business until he was seventeen.
Up to that age he never found time for cricket—sufficient
evidence of his remarkable and most unusual
qualities.
It was sheer chance, apparently, that determined
his choice of a career.
He had walked into Stoke-Underhill to deliver a
parcel, and on his way back his attention was arrested
by the sight of a line of vehicles drawn up
to the boarded fencing that encloses the Ailesworth
County Ground. The occupants of these vehicles
were standing up, struggling to catch a sight of the
match that was being played behind the screen
erected to shut out non-paying sightseers. Among
the horses' feet, squirming between the spokes of
wheels, utterly regardless of all injury, small boys
glued their eyes to knot-holes in the fence, while
others climbed surreptitiously, and for the most part
unobserved, on to the backs of tradesmen's carts.
All these individuals were in a state of tremendous
excitement, and even the policeman whose duty it
was to move them on, was so engrossed in watching
the game that he had disappeared inside the turnstile,
and had given the outside spectators full opportunity
for eleemosynary enjoyment.
That tarred fence has since been raised some six
feet, and now encloses a wider sweep of ground—alterations
that may be classed among the minor
revolutions effected by the genius of the thick-set,
fair-haired youth of seventeen, who paused on that
early September afternoon to wonder what all the
fuss was about. The Ailesworth County Ground
was not famous in those days; not then was accommodation
needed for thirty thousand spectators,
drawn from every county in England to witness the
unparallelled.
Ginger stopped. The interest of the spectacle
pierced his absorption in the business he had in
hand. Such a thing was almost unprecedented.
"What's up?" he asked of Puggy Phillips.
Puggy Phillips—hazarding his life by standing on
the shiny, slightly curved top of his butcher's cart—made
no appropriate answer. "Yah—ah—AH!"
he screamed in ecstasy. "Oh! played! Pla-a-a-ayed!!"
Ginger wasted no more breath, but laid hold of
the little brass rail that encircled Puggy's platform,
and with a sudden hoist that lifted the shafts
and startled the pony, raised himself to the level
of a spectator.
"'Ere!" shouted the swaying, tottering Puggy.
"What the ... are yer rup to?"
The well-drilled pony, however, settled down again
quietly to maintain his end of the see-saw, and, finding
himself still able to preserve his equilibrium,
Puggy instantly forgot the presence of the intruder.
"What's up?" asked Ginger again.
"Oh! Well 'it, WELL 'IT!" yelled Puggy. "Oh!
Gow on, gow on agen! Run it aht. Run it AH-T."
Ginger gave it up, and turned his attention to
the match.
It was not any famous struggle that was being
fought out on the old Ailesworth Ground; it was
only second-class cricket, the deciding match of the
Minor Counties championship. Hampdenshire and
Oxfordshire, old rivals, had been neck-and-neck all
through the season, and, as luck would have it, the
engagement between them had been the last fixture
on the card.
When Ginger rose to the level of spectator, the
match was anybody's game. Bobby Maisefield was
batting. He was then a promising young colt who
had not earned a fixed place in the Eleven. Ginger
knew him socially, but they were not friends, they
had no interests in common. Bobby had made
twenty-seven. He was partnered by old Trigson,
the bowler, (he has been dead these eight years,)
whose characteristic score of "Not out ... 0,"
is sufficiently representative of his methods.
It was the fourth innings, and Hampdenshire
with only one more wicket to fall, still required nineteen
runs to win. Trigson could be relied upon to
keep his wicket up, but not to score. The hopes of
Ailesworth centred in the ability of that almost untried
colt Bobby Maisefield—and he seemed likely to
justify the trust reposed in him. A beautiful late
cut that eluded third man and hit the fence with
a resounding bang, nearly drove Puggy wild with
delight.
"Only fifteen more," he shouted. "Oh! Played;
pla-a-a-yed!"
But as the score crept up, the tensity grew. As
each ball was delivered, a chill, rigid silence held
the onlookers in its grip. When Trigson, with
the field collected round him, almost to be covered
with a sheet, stonewalled the most tempting lob, the
click of the ball on his bat was an intrusion on the
stillness. And always it was followed by a deep
breath of relief that sighed round the ring like a
faint wind through a plantation of larches. When
Bobby scored, the tumult broke out like a crash
of thunder; but it subsided again, echoless, to that
intense silence so soon as the ball was "dead."
Curiously, it was not Bobby who made the winning
hit but Trigson. "One to tie, two to win,"
breathed Puggy as the field changed over, and it was
Trigson who had to face the bowling. The suspense
was torture. Oxford had put on their fast
bowler again, and Trigson, intimidated, perhaps, did
not play him with quite so straight a bat as he had
opposed to the lob-bowler. The ball hit Trigson's
bat and glanced through the slips. The field was
very close to the wicket, and the ball was travelling
fast. No one seemed to make any attempt to stop
it. For a moment the significance of the thing was
not realised; for a moment only, then followed uproar,
deafening, stupendous.
Puggy was stamping fiercely on the top of his
cart; the tears were streaming down his face; he
was screaming and yelling incoherent words. And
he was representative of the crowd. Thus men
shouted and stamped and cried when news came of
the relief of Kimberley, or when that false report
of victory was brought to Paris in the August of
1870....
The effect upon Ginger was a thing apart. He
did not join in the fierce acclamation; he did not
wait to see the chairing of Bobby and Trigson. The
greatness of Stott's character, the fineness of his
genius is displayed in his attitude towards the dramatic
spectacle he had just witnessed.
As he trudged home into Ailesworth, his thoughts
found vent in a muttered sentence which is peculiarly
typical of the effect that had been made upon
him.
"I believe I could have bowled that chap," he
said.
In writing a history of this kind, a certain licence
must be claimed. It will be understood that I am
filling certain gaps in the narrative with imagined
detail. But the facts are true. My added detail
is only intended to give an appearance of life and
reality to my history. Let me, therefore, insist upon
one vital point. I have not been dependent on hearsay
for one single fact in this story. Where my
experience does not depend upon personal experience,
it has been received from the principals themselves.
Finally, it should be remembered that when
I have, imaginatively, put words into the mouths
of the persons of this story, they are never essential
words which affect the issue. The essential
speeches are reported from first-hand sources. For
instance, Ginger Stott himself has told me on more
than one occasion that the words with which I closed
the last section, were the actual words spoken by
him on the occasion in question. It was not until
six years after the great Oxfordshire match that
I myself first met the man, but what follows is
literally true in all essentials.
There was a long, narrow strip of yard, or alley,
at the back of Mrs. Stott's paper-shop, a yard
that, unfortunately, no longer exists. It has been
partly built over, and another of England's memorials
has thus been destroyed by the vandals of
modern commerce....
This yard was fifty-three feet long, measuring
from Mrs. Stott's back door to the door of the coal-shed,
which marked the alley's extreme limit. This
measurement, an apparently negligible trifle, had an
important effect upon Stott's career. For it was in
this yard that he taught himself to bowl, and the
shortness of the pitch precluded his taking any run.
From those long studious hours of practice he
emerged with a characteristic that was—and still
remains—unique. Stott never took more than two
steps before delivering the ball; frequently he
bowled from a standing position, and batsmen have
confessed that of all Stott's puzzling mannerisms,
this was the one to which they never became accustomed.
S. R. L. Maturin, the finest bat Australia
ever sent to this country, has told me that to this
peculiarity of delivery he attributed his failure ever
to score freely against Stott. It completely upset
one's habit of play, he said: one had no time to
prepare for the flight of the ball; it came at one so
suddenly. Other bowlers have since attempted some
imitation of this method without success. They
had not Stott's physical advantages.
Nevertheless, the shortness of that alley threw
Stott back for two years. When he first emerged
to try conclusions on the field, he found his length
on the longer pitch utterly unreliable, and the effort
necessary to throw the ball another six yards, at
first upset his slowly acquired methods.
It was not until he was twenty years old that
Ginger Stott played in his first Colts' match.
The three years that had intervened had not been
prosperous years for Hampdenshire. Their team
was a one-man team. Bobby Maisefield was developing
into a fine bat (and other counties were throwing
out inducements to him, trying to persuade him
to qualify for first-class cricket), but he found no
support, and Hampdenshire was never looked upon
as a coming county. The best of the minor counties
in those years were Staffordshire and Norfolk.
In the Colts' match Stott's analysis ran:
| overs | maidens | runs | wickets |
| 11·3 | 7 | 16 | 7 |
and reference to the score-sheet, which is still preserved
among the records of the County Club, shows
that six of the seven wickets were clean bowled.
The Eleven had no second innings; the match was
drawn, owing to rain. Stott has told me that the
Eleven had to bat on a dry wicket, but after
making all allowances, the performance was certainly
remarkable.
After this match Stott was, of course, played
regularly. That year Hampdenshire rose once more
to their old position at the head of the minor counties,
and Maisefield, who had been seriously considering
Surrey's offer of a place in their Eleven
after two years' qualification by residence, decided
to remain with the county which had given him his
first chance.
During that season Stott did not record any performance
so remarkable as his feat in the Colts'
match, but his record for the year was eighty-seven
wickets with an average of 9·31; and it is worthy of
notice that Yorkshire made overtures to him, as he
was qualified by birth to play for the northern
county.
I think there must have been a wonderful esprit
de corps among the members of that early Hampdenshire
Eleven. There are other evidences beside
this refusal of its two most prominent members to
join the ranks of first-class cricket. Lord R——,
the president of the H.C.C.C., has told me that this
spirit was quite as marked as in the earlier case of
Kent. He himself certainly did much to promote
it, and his generosity in making good the deficits
of the balance sheet, had a great influence on the
acceleration of Hampdenshire's triumph.
In his second year, though Hampdenshire were
again champions of the second-class counties, Stott
had not such a fine average as in the preceding
season. Sixty-one wickets for eight hundred and
sixty-eight (average 14·23) seems to show a decline
in his powers, but that was a wonderful year for
batsmen (Maisefield scored seven hundred and forty-two
runs, with an average of forty-two) and, moreover,
that was the year in which Stott was privately
practising his new theory.
It was in this year that three very promising recruits,
all since become famous, joined the Eleven,
viz.: P. H. Evans, St. John Townley, and Flower
the fast bowler. With these five cricketers Hampdenshire
fully deserved their elevation into the list
of first-class counties. Curiously enough, they took
the place of the old champions, Gloucestershire, who,
with Somerset, fell back into the obscurity of the
second-class that season.
I must turn aside for a moment at this point in
order to explain the "new theory" of Stott's, to
which I have referred, a theory which became in
practice one of the elements of his most astounding
successes.
Ginger Stott was not a tall man. He stood only
5 ft. 5¼ in. in his socks, but he was tremendously
solid; he had what is known as a "stocky" figure,
broad and deep-chested. That was where his muscular
power lay, for his abnormally long arms were
rather thin, though his huge hands were powerful
enough.
Even without his "new theory," Stott would have
been an exceptional bowler. His thoroughness would
have assured his success. He studied his art diligently,
and practised regularly in a barn through
the winter. His physique, too, was a magnificent
instrument. That long, muscular body was superbly
steady on the short, thick legs. It gave him a
fulcrum, firm, apparently immovable. And those
weirdly long, thin arms could move with lightning
rapidity. He always stood with his hands behind
him, and then—as often as not without even one
preliminary step—the long arm would flash round
and the ball be delivered, without giving the batsman
any opportunity of watching his hand; you could
never tell which way he was going to break. It was
astonishing, too, the pace he could get without any
run. Poor Wallis used to call him the "human
catapult"; Wallis was always trying to find new
phrases.
The theory first came to Stott when he was practising
at the nets. It was a windy morning, and he
noticed that several times the balls he bowled
swerved in the air. When those swerving balls came
they were almost unplayable.
Stott made no remark to any one—he was bowling
to the groundsman—but the ambition to bowl
"swerves,"[1] as they were afterwards called, took
possession of him from that morning. It is true
that he never mastered the theory completely; on a
perfectly calm day he could never depend upon obtaining
any swerve at all, but, within limits, he
developed his theory until he had any batsman practically
at his mercy.
He might have mastered the theory completely,
had it not been for his accident—we must remember
that he had only three seasons of first-class cricket—and,
personally, I believe he would have achieved
that complete mastery. But I do not believe, as
Stott did, that he could have taught his method to
another man. That belief became an obsession with
him, and will be dealt with later.
My own reasons for doubting that Stott's
"swerve" could have been taught, is that it would
have been necessary for the pupil to have had Stott's
peculiarities, not only of method, but of physique.
He used to spin the ball with a twist of his middle
finger and thumb, just as you may see a billiard
professional spin a billiard ball. To do this in his
manner, it is absolutely necessary not only to have
a very large and muscular hand, but to have very
lithe and flexible arm muscles, for the arm is moving
rapidly while the twist is given, and there must be
no antagonistic muscular action. Further, I believe
that part of the secret was due to the fact that Stott
bowled from a standing position. Given these
things, the rest is merely a question of long and
assiduous practice. The human mechanism is marvellously
adaptable. I have seen Stott throw a
cricket ball half across the room with sufficient spin
on the ball to make it shoot back to him along the
carpet.
I have mentioned the wind as a factor in obtaining
the swerve. It was a head-wind that Stott required.
I have seen him, for sport, toss a cricket ball into
the teeth of a gale, and make it describe the trajectory
of a badly sliced golf-ball. This is why the
big pavilion at Ailesworth is set at such a curious
angle to the ground. It was built in the winter following
Hampdenshire's second season of first-class
cricket, and it was so placed that when the wickets
were pitched in a line with it, they might lie south-west
and north-east, or in the direction of the prevailing
winds.
The first time I ever saw Ginger Stott, was on the
occasion of the historic encounter with Surrey;
Hampdenshire's second engagement in first-class
cricket. The match with Notts, played at Trent
Bridge a few days earlier, had not foreshadowed any
startling results. The truth of the matter is that
Stott had been kept, deliberately, in the background;
and as matters turned out his services were only
required to finish off Notts' second innings. Stott
was even then a marked man, and the Hampdenshire
captain did not wish to advertise his methods
too freely before the Surrey match. Neither
Archie Findlater, who was captaining the team that
year, nor any other person, had the least conception
of how unnecessary such a reservation was to
prove. In his third year, when Stott had been studied
by every English, Australian, and South African
batsman of any note, he was still as unplayable as
when he made his début in first-class cricket.
I was reporting the Surrey match for two papers,
and in company with poor Wallis interviewed Stott
before the first innings.
His appearance made a great impression on me.
I have, of course, met him, and talked with him
many times since then, but my most vivid memory
of him is the picture recorded in the inadequate
professional dressing-room of the old Ailesworth
pavilion.
I have turned up the account of my interview in
an old press-cutting book, and I do not know that
I can do better than quote that part of it which
describes Stott's personal appearance. I wrote the
account on the off chance of being able to get it
taken. It was one of my lucky hits. After that
match, finished in a single day, my interview afforded
copy that any paper would have paid heavily for,
and gladly.
Here is the description:
"Stott—he is known to every one in Ailesworth
as 'Ginger' Stott—is a short, thick-set young man,
with abnormally long arms that are tanned a rich
red up to the elbow. The tan does not, however,
obliterate the golden freckles with which arm and
face are richly speckled. There is no need to speculate
as to the raison d'être of his nickname. The
hair of his head, a close, short crop, is a pale russet,
and the hair on his hands and arms is a yellower
shade of the same colour. 'Ginger' is, indeed,
a perfectly apt description. He has a square chin
and a thin-lipped, determined mouth. His eyes are
a clear, but rather light blue, his forehead is good,
broad, and high, and he has a well-proportioned
head. One might have put him down as an engineer,
essentially intelligent, purposeful, and reserved."
The description is journalistic, but I do not know
that I could improve upon the detail of it. I can
see those queer, freckled, hairy arms of his as I
write—the combination of colours in them produced
an effect that was almost orange. It struck one as
unusual....
Surrey had the choice of innings, and decided to
bat, despite the fact that the wicket was drying
after rain, under the influence of a steady south-west
wind and occasional bursts of sunshine. Would
any captain in Stott's second year have dared to
take first innings under such conditions? The question
is farcical now, but not a single member of
the Hampdenshire Eleven had the least conception
that the Surrey captain was deliberately throwing
away his chances on that eventful day.
Wallis and I were sitting together in the reporters'
box. There were only four of us; two specials,—Wallis
and myself,—a news-agency reporter, and
a local man.
"Stott takes first over," remarked Wallis, sharpening
his pencil and arranging his watch and score-sheet—he
was very meticulous in his methods.
"They've put him to bowl against the wind. He's
medium right, isn't he?"
"Haven't the least idea," I said. "He volunteered
no information; Hampdenshire have been
keeping him dark."
Wallis sneered. "Think they've got a find, eh?"
he said. "We'll wait and see what he can do against
first-class batting."
We did not have to wait long.
As usual, Thorpe and Harrison were first wicket
for Surrey, and Thorpe took the first ball.
It bowled him. It made his wicket look as untidy
as any wicket I have ever seen. The off stump was
out of the ground, and the other two were markedly
divergent.
"Damn it, I wasn't ready for him," we heard
Thorpe say in the professionals' room. Thorpe always
had some excuse, but on this occasion it was
justified.
C. V. Punshon was the next comer, and he got
his first ball through the slips for four, but Wallis
looked at me with a raised eyebrow.
"Punshon didn't know a lot about that," he said,
and then he added, "I say, what a queer delivery
the chap has. He stands and shoots 'em out. It's
uncanny. He's a kind of human catapult." He
made a note of the phrase on his pad.
Punshon succeeded in hitting the next ball, also,
but it simply ran up his bat into the hands of short
slip.
"Well, that's a sitter, if you like," said Wallis.
"What's the matter with 'em?"
I was beginning to grow enthusiastic.
"Look here, Wallis," I said, "this chap's going to
break records."
Wallis was still doubtful.
He was convinced before the innings was over.
There must be many who remember the startling
poster that heralded the early editions of the evening
papers:
SURREY
ALL OUT
FOR 13 RUNS.
For once sub-editors did not hesitate to give the
score on the contents bill. That was a proclamation
which would sell. Inside, the headlines were
rich and varied. I have an old paper by me, yellow
now, and brittle, that may serve as a type for
the rest. The headlines are as follows:—
SURREY AND HAMPDENSHIRE.
EXTRAORDINARY BOWLING PERFORMANCE.
DOUBLE HAT-TRICK.
SURREY ALL OUT IN 35 MINUTES FOR 13 RUNS.
STOTT TAKES 10 WICKETS FOR 5.
The "double hat-trick" was six consecutive wickets,
the last six, all clean bowled.
"Good God!" Wallis said, when the last wicket
fell, and he looked at me with something like fear in
his eyes. "This man will have to be barred; it
means the end of cricket."
Stott's accident came during the high flood of
Hampdenshire success. For two years they held
undisputed place as champion county, a place which
could not be upset by the most ingenious methods of
calculating points. They three times defeated Australia,
and played four men in the test matches.
As a team they were capable of beating any Eleven
opposed to them. Not even the newspaper critics
denied that.
The accident appeared insignificant at the time.
The match was against Notts on the Trent Bridge
ground. I was reporting for three papers; Wallis
was not there.
Stott had been taken off. Notts were a poor lot
that year and I think Findlater did not wish to
make their defeat appear too ignominious. Flower
was bowling; it was a fast, true wicket, and Stott,
who was a safe field, was at cover-point.
G. L. Mallinson was batting and making good
use of his opportunity; he was, it will be remembered,
a magnificent though erratic hitter. Flower
bowled him a short-pitched, fast ball, rather wide
of the off-stump. Many men might have left it alone,
for the ball was rising, and the slips were crowded,
but Mallinson timed the ball splendidly, and drove
it with all his force. He could not keep it on the
ground, however, and Stott had a possible chance.
He leaped for it and just touched the ball with his
right hand. The ball jumped the ring at its first
bound, and Mallinson never even attempted to run.
There was a big round of applause from the Trent
Bridge crowd.
I noticed that Stott had tied a handkerchief round
his finger, but I forgot the incident until I saw
Findlater beckon to his best bowler, a few overs
later. Notts had made enough runs for decency; it
was time to get them out.
I saw Stott walk up to Findlater and shake his
head, and through my glasses I saw him whip the
handkerchief from his finger and display his hand.
Findlater frowned, said something and looked
towards the pavilion, but Stott shook his head. He
evidently disagreed with Findlater's proposal. Then
Mallinson came up, and the great bulk of his back
hid the faces of the other two. The crowd was
beginning to grow excited at the interruption.
Every one had guessed that something was wrong.
All round the ring men were standing up, trying to
make out what was going on.
I drew my inferences from Mallinson's face, for
when he turned round and strolled back to his
wicket, he was wearing a broad smile. Through
my field glasses I could see that he was licking his
lower lip with his tongue. His shoulders were
humped and his whole expression one of barely controlled
glee. (I always see that picture framed in
a circle; a bioscopic presentation.) He could
hardly refrain from dancing. Then little Beale, who
was Mallinson's partner, came up and spoke to him,
and I saw Mallinson hug himself with delight as he
explained the situation.
When Stott unwillingly came back to the pavilion,
a low murmur ran round the ring, like the buzz of
a great crowd of disturbed blue flies. In that murmur
I could distinctly trace the signs of mixed
feelings. No doubt the crowd had come there to
witness the performances of the new phenomenon—the
abnormal of every kind has a wonderful attraction
for us—but, on the other hand, the majority
wanted to see their own county win. Moreover,
Mallinson was giving them a taste of his abnormal
powers of hitting, and the batsman appeals to the
spectacular, more than the bowler.
I ran down hurriedly to meet Stott.
"Only a split finger, sir," he said carelessly, in
answer to my question; "but Mr. Findlater says I
must see to it."
I examined the finger, and it certainly did not
seem to call for surgical aid. Evidently it had been
caught by the seam of the new ball; there was a
fairly clean cut about half an inch long on the fleshy
underside of the second joint of the middle finger.
"Better have it seen to," I said. "We can't afford
to lose you, you know, Stott."
Stott gave a laugh that was more nearly a snarl.
"Ain't the first time I've 'ad a cut finger," he said
scornfully.
He had the finger bound up when I saw him again,
but it had been done by an amateur. I learnt afterwards
that no antiseptic had been used. That was
at lunch time, and Notts had made a hundred and
sixty-eight for one wicket; Mallinson was not out,
a hundred and three. I saw that the Notts Eleven
were in magnificent spirits.
But after lunch Stott came out and took the first
over. I don't know what had passed between him
and Findlater, but the captain had evidently been
over-persuaded.
We must not blame Findlater. The cut certainly
appeared trifling, it was not bad enough to prevent
Stott from bowling, and Hampdenshire seemed powerless
on that wicket without him. It is very easy
to distribute blame after the event, but most people
would have done what Findlater did in those circumstances.
The cut did not appear to inconvenience Stott in
the least degree. He bowled Mallinson with his
second ball, and the innings was finished up in another
fifty-seven minutes for the addition of thirty-eight
runs.
Hampdenshire made two hundred and thirty-seven
for three wickets before the drawing of stumps, and
that was the end of the match, for the weather
changed during the night and rain prevented any
further play.
I, of course, stayed on in Nottingham to await
results. I saw Stott on the next day, Friday, and
asked him about his finger. He made light of it,
but that evening Findlater told me over the bridge-table
that he was not happy about it. He had seen
the finger, and thought it showed a tendency to inflammation.
"I shall take him to Gregory in the
morning if it's not all right," he said. Gregory was
a well-known surgeon in Nottingham.
Again one sees, now, that the visit to Gregory
should not have been postponed, but at the time
one does not take extraordinary precautions in such
a case as this. A split finger is such an everyday
thing, and one is guided by the average of experience.
After all, if one were constantly to make
preparation for the abnormal; ordinary life could
not go on....
I heard that Gregory pursed his lips over that
finger when he had learned the name of his famous
patient. "You'll have to be very careful of this,
young man," was Findlater's report of Gregory's advice.
It was not sufficient. I often wonder now
whether Gregory might not have saved the finger.
If he had performed some small operation at once,
cut away the poison, it seems to me that the tragedy
might have been averted. I am, I admit, a mere
layman in these matters, but it seems to me that
something might have been done.
I left Nottingham on Saturday after lunch—the
weather was hopeless—and I did not make use of
the information I had for the purposes of my paper.
I was never a good journalist. But I went down
to Ailesworth on Monday morning, and found that
Findlater and Stott had already gone to Harley
Street to see Graves, the King's surgeon.
I followed them, and arrived at Graves's house
while Stott was in the consulting-room. I hocussed
the butler and waited with the patients. Among
the papers, I came upon the famous caricature of
Stott in the current number of Punch—the "Stand-and-Deliver"
caricature, in which Stott is represented
with an arm about ten feet long, and the
batsman is looking wildly over his shoulder to square
leg, bewildered, with no conception from what direction
the ball is coming. Underneath is written
"Stott's New Theory—the Ricochet. Real Ginger."
While I was laughing over the cartoon, the butler
came in and nodded to me. I followed him out of
the room and met Findlater and Stott in the hall.
Findlater was in a state of profanity. I could not
get a sensible word out of him. He was in a white
heat of pure rage. The butler, who seemed as anxious
as I to learn the verdict, was positively frightened.
"Well, for God's sake tell me what Graves said,"
I protested.
Findlater's answer is unprintable, and told me
nothing.
Stott, however, quite calm and self-possessed, volunteered
the information. "Finger's got to come
off, sir," he said quietly. "Doctor says if it ain't
off to-day or to-morrer, he won't answer for my
'and."
This was the news I had to give to England. It
was a great coup from the journalistic point of
view, but I made up my three columns with a heavy
heart, and the congratulations of my editor only
sickened me. I had some luck, but I should never
have become a good journalist.
The operation was performed successfully that
evening, and Stott's career was closed.
I did not see Stott again till August, and then I
had a long talk with him on the Ailesworth County
Ground, as together we watched the progress of
Hampdenshire's defeat by Lancashire.
"Oh! I can't learn him nothing," he broke out,
as Flower was hit to the four corners of the ground,
"'alf vollies and long 'ops and then a full pitch—'e's
a disgrace."
"They've knocked him off his length," I protested.
"On a wicket like this ..."
Stott shook his head. "I've been trying to learn
'im," he said, "but he can't never learn. 'E's got
'abits what you can't break 'im of."
"I suppose it is difficult," I said vaguely.
"Same with me," went on Stott, "I've been trying
to learn myself to bowl without my finger"—he held
up his mutilated hand—"or left-'anded; but I can't.
If I'd started that way ... No! I'm always feeling
for that finger as is gone. A second-class bowler
I might be in time, not better nor that."
"It's early days yet," I ventured, intending encouragement,
but Stott frowned and shook his head.
"I'm not going to kid myself," he said, "I know.
But I'm going to find a youngster and learn 'im.
On'y he must be young.
"No 'abits, you know," he explained.
The next time I met Stott was in November. I
ran up against him, literally, one Friday afternoon
in Ailesworth.
When he recognised me he asked me if I would
care to walk out to Stoke-Underhill with him. "I've
took a cottage there," he explained, "I'm to be married
in a fortnight's time."
His circumstances certainly warranted such a venture.
The proceeds of matinée and benefit, invested
for him by the Committee of the County Club, produced
an income of nearly two pounds a week, and
in addition to this he had his salary as groundsman.
I tendered my congratulations.
"Oh! well, as to that, better wait a bit," said
Stott.
He walked with his hands in his pockets and his
eyes on the ground. He had the air of a man
brooding over some project.
"It is a lottery, of course ..." I began, but he
interrupted me.
"Oh that!" he said, and kicked a stone into the
ditch; "take my chances of that. It's the kid I'm
thinking on."
"The kid?" I repeated, doubtful whether he
spoke of his fiancée, or whether his nuptials pointed
an act of reparation.
"What, else 'ud I tie myself up for?" asked Stott.
"I must 'ave a kid of my own and learn 'im from his
cradle. It's come to that."
"Oh! I understand," I said; "teach him to bowl."
"Ah!" replied Stott as an affirmative. "Learn
'im from his cradle; before 'e's got 'abits. When I
started I'd never bowled a ball in my life, and by
good luck I started right. But I can't find another
kid over seven years old in England as ain't never
bowled a ball o' some sort and started 'abits. I've
tried ..."
"And you hope with your own boys...?" I
said.
"Not 'ope, it's a cert," said Stott. "I'll see no
boy of mine touches a ball afore he's fourteen, and
then 'e'll learn from me; and learn right. From the
first go off." He was silent for a few seconds, and
then he broke out in a kind of ecstasy. "My Gawd,
'e'll be a bowler such as 'as never been, never in this
world. He'll start where I left orf. He'll ..."
Words failed him, he fell back on the expletive he
had used, repeating it with an awed fervour. "My
Gawd!"
I had never seen Stott in this mood before. It
was a revelation to me of the latent potentialities of
the man, the remarkable depth and quality of his
ambitions....
I intended to be present at Stott's wedding, but
I was not in England when it took place; indeed,
for the next two years and a half I was never in
England for more than a few days at a time. I sent
him a wedding-present, an inkstand in the guise of
a cricket ball, with a pen-rack that was built of little
silver wickets. They were still advertised that
Christmas as "Stott inkstands."
Two years and a half of American life broke up
many of my old habits of thought. When I first
returned to London I found that the cricket news
no longer held the same interest for me, and this
may account for the fact that I did not trouble for
some time to look up my old friend Stott.
In July, however, affairs took me to Ailesworth,
and the associations of the place naturally led me to
wonder how Stott's marriage had turned out, and
whether the much-desired son had been born to him.
When my business in Ailesworth was done, I decided
to walk out to Stoke-Underhill.
The road passes the County Ground, and a match
was in progress, but I walked by without stopping.
I was wool-gathering. I was not thinking of the
man I was going to see, or I should have turned in
at the County Ground, where he would inevitably
have been found. Instead, I was thinking of the
abnormal child I had seen in the train that day;
uselessly speculating and wondering.
When I reached Stoke-Underhill I found the cottage
which Stott had shown me. I had by then so
far recovered my wits as to know that I should not
find Stott himself there, but from the look of the
cottage I judged that it was untenanted, so I made
inquiries at the post-office.
"No; he don't live here, now, sir," said the postmistress;
"he lives at Pym, now, sir, and rides into
Ailesworth on his bike." She was evidently about
to furnish me with other particulars, but I did not
care to hear them. I was moody and distrait. I
was wondering why I should bother my head about
so insignificant a person as this Stott.
"You'll be sure to find Mr. Stott at the cricket
ground," the postmistress called after me.
Another two months of English life induced a
return to my old habits of thought. I found myself
reverting to old tastes and interests. The reversion
was a pleasant one. In the States I had been forced
out of my groove, compelled to work, to strive, to
think desperately if I would maintain any standing
among my contemporaries. But when the perpetual
stimulus was removed, I soon fell back to the less
strenuous methods of my own country. I had time,
once more, for the calm reflection that is so unlike
the urgent, forced, inventive thought of the American
journalist. I was braced by that thirty months'
experience, perhaps hardened a little, but by September
my American life was fading into the background;
I had begun to take an interest in cricket
again.
With the revival of my old interests, revived also
my curiosity as to Ginger Stott, and one Sunday in
late September I decided to go down to Pym.
It was a perfect day, and I thoroughly enjoyed
my four-mile walk from Great Hittenden Station.
Pym is a tiny hamlet made up of three farms and
a dozen scattered cottages. Perched on one of the
highest summits of the Hampden Hills and lost in
the thick cover of beech woods, without a post-office
or a shop, Pym is the most perfectly isolated village
within a reasonable distance of London. As I
sauntered up the mile-long lane that climbs the
steep hill, and is the only connection between Pym
and anything approaching a decent road, I thought
that this was the place to which I should like to
retire for a year, in order to write the book I had so
often contemplated, and never found time to begin.
This, I reflected, was a place of peace, of freedom
from all distraction, the place for calm, contemplative
meditation.
I met no one in the lane, and there was no sign of
life when I reached what I must call the village,
though the word conveys a wrong idea, for there is
no street, merely a cottage here and there, dropped
haphazard, and situated without regard to its
aspect. These cottages lie all on one's left hand;
to the right a stretch of grass soon merges into
bracken and bush, and then the beech woods enclose
both, and surge down into the valley and rise up
again beyond, a great wave of green; as I saw it
then, not yet touched with the first flame of autumn.
I inquired at the first cottage and received my
direction to Stott's dwelling. It lay up a little lane,
the further of two cottages joined together.
The door stood open, and after a moment's hesitation
and a light knock, I peered in.
Sitting in a rocking-chair was a woman with black,
untidy eyebrows, and on her knee, held with rigid
attention, was the remarkable baby I had seen in
the train two months before. As I stood, doubtful
and, I will confess it, intimidated, suddenly cold and
nervous, the child opened his eyes and honoured
me with a cold stare. Then he nodded, a reflective,
recognisable nod.
"'E remembers seein' you in the train, sir," said
the woman, "'e never forgets any one. Did you
want to see my 'usband? 'E's upstairs."
So this was the boy who was designed by Stott to
become the greatest bowler the world had ever
seen....