The Battle of …

Bramall Lane…

December…

1864

Part Eight…

TO THE EDITOR—

After the lapse of a whole week, a letter appears in your issue of to-day, purporting to be signed by ‘The Hallam Players’ asserting that that part of your report which referred to the conduct of…

Mr William Waterfall

in striking…

‍ ‍ Major Creswick

is wholly…

unfair!

…& that the object of their letter ‘ is to defend the character etc, if I remember rightly, your reporter stated that while struggling with…

John Charles Shaw

…as well a with Waterfall, the Major accidentally hit Mr Waterfall in the face!

This agrees entirely with what I myself saw…

Mr Waterfall was holding the Major ( an act in itself - foul), who, in swinging himself free, hit Mr Waterfall with his arm…

…There was not at the time any question raised as to the blow being anything other than accidental, even by Mr Waterfall’s warmest friends!

The assertion that the Major ‘deliberately’ struck Mr Waterfall is grossly untrue & is now first made after the lapse of a week from the occurrence…

“ I know next to nothing as to the truth of the statement that Major Creswick had previously threatened to strike Mr Waterfall, but the statement comes from such a questionable source that I cannot believe that the Major ( whose character as a football player stands second to none…) would do as alleged, unless…

…under provocation which would justify the threat!

“One more word…

…Oh do go on!

The letter is signed ‘THE HALLAM PLAYERS’ & justifies the conduct of Mr Waterfall - That there may be a few among those who played in this match who would justify Mr Waterfall in striking Major Creswick ‘or any other man’ I do not question but I cannot believe that that letter has the approbation of many gentlemen who played with…

The Hallam Foot Ball Club

…on that occasion!

Jan. 6, 1863

AN EYE WITNESS

Cont, here…