commodity-values of the substances of which they are made. But there are no cases on record in which any standard has attained stability of purchasing power under changing conditions; and such a standard is generally held to be unattainable. The working of a gold-exchange standard based on index-numbers is totally different from the working of such a standard as that of India. Prof. Fisher does not realise this distinction. It is a little anomalous' (he says) 'that these gold-exchange standard countries now have a power to regulate their price-level which is not possessed by the gold-standard countries themselves. The latter are, by their present system, kept absolutely at the mercy of the accidents of gold-mining and metallurgy, while the former can keep or change the par of exchange with gold countries at will' (op. cit. p. 340). Now, rupee prices in India during the last ten or twelve years have risen about double, though the parity with gold has been maintained. We should like to know by what methods Sir David Barbour would have proceeded if he had been asked to ensure the stability of the rupee in general purchasing power.

Before any serious manipulation of the world's currencies can be expected with the view of attaining greater stability of purchasing power, the causes which under modern conditions bring about changes in general prices must be much better understood and much more. accurately measured. The revised version of the quantity theory gives us no more assistance in connecting the new gold supplies with the recent rise in prices than was given by the theory in its older forms. In some respects the revised version is retrograde. The relations of credit to gold on the one side and to general prices on the other, and the distinctions between inconvertible and convertible currencies, are not so clearly realised by Prof. Fisher as by Mill and Bagehot, not to mention later writers. He tries to apply the quantity theory in a simple form to actual problems, but his main results are either hypothetical or illustrative of hypotheses. One thing, however, his book has shown, and that is the necessity of a much deeper and broader investigation of the causes that affect general prices, and therefore the purchasing power of money; and, if the International

Commission of which he is the advocate is appointed, we may expect valuable results. In the meantime, however, although it has been approved by the President of the United States, the appointment has been delayed, apparently for political reasons. It is said that the op

ponents of the tariff in the United States are unwilling to admit that the rise in the cost of living in that country has any other serious cause; and they think the admission that, perhaps, the new gold has something to do with it might abate the popular resentment against the tariff.

It is quite possible that, before the International Commission is appointed, the rise in prices may have met its reaction. Even if the supplies of gold do not fall off, there are other factors of at least equal importance to be taken account of. The value of money (i.e. in the sense of its purchasing power) depends, like other values, on demand and supply. The price level must be so adjusted by the play of demand and supply that the quantity of money' offered at that level will be equal to the quantity demanded. Stated in this most general form, the theory is difficult to grasp; and the difficulties are increased when we consider the various elements that enter into both the supply of 'money' and the demand for 'money.' The annual production of gold is only one of the elements affecting the supply of 'money.' The recent conference of bankers in Germany has shown that the expansion of credit money has been pushed to the extreme. The American crisis of 1907 is not yet forgotten. To judge by past history, the rapid development of new countries seems likely to lead eventually to a period of over-production and a consequent fall in prices. The demands of India and possibly of China must be considered. That there is some connexion between the quantity of gold available for monetary uses and the level of prices may still be considered as plain a truth as that there is some connexion between seasonal temperatures and the apparent movements of the sun. But the meteorologists have recently confessed in public their inability to forecast the weather even for a season in advance, and the currency prophets would do well to imitate their caution.

J. S. NICHOLSON.

Art. 10.-RECENT CRICKET.

1. Imperial Cricket. Edited by P. F. Warner. London: London and Counties Press Association, 1912.

2. Jubilee Book of Cricket. By K. S. Ranjitsinhji (H.H. the Jam of Nawanagar). London and Edinburgh: Nelson, 1897; new edition, 1912.

3. England v. Australia. By P. F. Warner. London: Mills and Boon, 1912.

4. Twenty-Four Years of Cricket. London: Mills and Boon, 1912.

By A. A. Lilley.

It is probable that the present year, that of the triangular tournament, will be regarded as the date of a new era, just as 1878, the year of the visit of the first Australian team, was the starting-point of modern cricket. Down to 1878, cricket had been complacently regarded as the English national game; it was played as a game, and, if there were abuses, there was also a fine sporting atmosphere. It is no exaggeration to say that when Australia beat M.C.C. on that memorable May day, England was profoundly amazed. It was recognised that our kith and kin from the Antipodes were our rivals at our own pastime, and could show us developments of which we had no previous conception, such as the abolition of long-stop and new methods of bowling and placing the field. Ever since then, cricket has tended to become imperial, instead of merely British, and in its first-class section has grown into a more business-like and cumbrous but less sporting affair. As a commercial concern, first-class cricket must be pronounced a failure; half the counties are barely solvent, and only a few can count on the considerable measure of public support necessary to pay for the modern conditions under which the game is pursued. Nevertheless, to-day, cricket is loved by many more people than ever before, and the present year should herald the development of the game according to the requirements of the younger generation. Any modifications seem heresy to the conservatism of the dry-as-dusts of cricket. But a game which does not suit itself to contemporary exigencies is in peril of growing obsolete if it be entirely dependent upon popular support. Archery was once the national pastime of England; to-day it bears the same

relation to cricket in general esteem as caviare to a mutton-chop.

English modern cricket, in its first-class aspect, has been mainly affected by the encounters between the mother-country and the two Commonwealths and by the matches played for the county championship. Test matches, which are the quintessence of the former, have just been brought to comparative ineffectiveness by undue surfeit. By constant alteration in the method of reckoning, the county championship has been rendered obscure to the ordinary spectator, who does not appreciate the present complicated system of obtaining results by 8 varying series of points. The popularity of the county championship was attained under the old faulty but clear method of subtracting losses from wins and ignoring drawn games. It was obviously unfair, but it was simple: and the reduction of the results of matches to series of decimals has chilled contemporary enthusiasm. Cricket is, however, in a transition state, both as to the future regulation of the championship and also as to fresh developments in playing the game itself; to both matters attention must be directed later in this article.

There was no indication of the subsequent superb Australian cricket when, in its chrysalis state, various twenty-twos in the different States were easily defeated by an English professional eleven in 1861. Those old-time professionals were of very different type from that of the smart paid element of to-day. If they were not so well educated, were less concerned as to the cleanliness of their cricketing garb, and, in some cases, were not so sober as their modern successors, they were masters of their art, as it was then understood; and, could they be rein. carnated next summer, their bowling would probably be as effective on our modernised billiard-table wickets as in their own time, when hardly anyone except W. G. Grace could really master shooters at Lords. Those men were the pioneers of modern cricket, just as the privateering dare-devil men of Devon, who manned the ships of Hawkins and Drake, were the forefathers of the seamen forming the crews of our Dreadnoughts.

The Australians were apt at learning the game of the mother-country, but to it they brought individuality and

1

development, just as the Americans systematised polo when they specialised on it. Games are affected by the temperament of those who play them; and the Australian temperament has had a good deal to do with the professionalising of first-class cricket in England, for it evinced a sterner and more methodical spirit than had been prevalent here. Visiting this country ostensibly as amateurs, the Australians have never made any secret of their commercial aims. Not only have they demanded a due proportion of the receipts and on many occasions cleverly prolonged a game into the third day, but some of the minor players have been attracted by a lesser share, thus enabling the leaders to obtain more, whilst the now notorious quarrel of the Six, which has wrecked Australian cricket all through the present year, was solely concerned with money. But, desirous to attract, the Australians have taken care to play attractive cricket.

As a whole, their batting has been sound rather than finished. True, there was W. L. Murdoch, the greatest bat bred in any colony, and Trumper, the most attractive run-getter that can be recalled, as well as such tremendous hitters as Massie, M'Donnell, Bonnor and Lyons; but the main survey suggests dogged pertinacity, the combination of punishing power with obdurate defence careless of polish. In fielding they were the first to show a side entirely cooperative as well as individually brilliant, while they taught us to modify our fields not only for the bowlers but for the idiosyncrasies of the batsmen. This latter art has been neglected in the last three or four years, when the once remarkable standard of captaincy has been sensibly lowered all over the world. Lord Hawke, Sherwell, Darling, Noble, Leveson Gower and F. S. Jackson have not left a single successor comparable to them as leaders; indeed, of all the captains in contemporary cricket, only A. O. Jones could be mentioned in the same category. Blackham, though he came originally as reserve to Murdoch, created an impression as a wicket-keeper only second to that of Spofforth as the 'demon bowler.' To these two, in their respective departments, may be ascribed the earliest personal attraction effected by Australian cricketers in this country. Be it noted that undue demands were never made on their prowess. Jarvis was a deft substitute if Blackham's