"He seems, at any rate, to admit it; for I find this on page 232, in his chapter upon 'Captaincy':-- "'The duties of a captain vary somewhat according to the kind of match in which his side is engaged, and to the kind of club which has elected him. To begin with, first-class cricket, including representative M.C.C., county and university matches, is quite different from any other--partly because the results are universally regarded as more important, partly _because certain obligations towards the spectators have to be taken into consideration. The last point applies equally to any match which people pay to come to see_. . . . With regard to gate-money matches. The captains of the two sides engaged are, during the match, responsible for everything in connection with it. _They are under an obligation to the public to see that the match is played in such a way as the public has a reasonable right to expect_.'" "And pray," demanded Verinder, "what are these 'obligations towards the spectators,' and 'reasonable rights' of the public?" "Well, I suppose the public can reasonably demand punctuality in starting play; a moderate interval for luncheon and between innings; and that stumps shall not be drawn, nor the match abandoned, before the time arranged, unless circumstances make it absolutely necessary." "And who is to be judge of these circumstances." "The captain, I suppose." "In theory, yes; but he has to satisfy the crowd. It is the crowd's 'reasonable right' to be satisfied; and by virtue of it the crowd becomes the final judge. It allows the captain to decide, but will barrack him if displeased with his decision. Moreover, you have given me examples to illustrate this 'reasonable right,' but you have not defined it. Now I want to know precisely how far it extends, and where it ceases. Does Ranjitsinhji provide this definition?" "No," said I; "I cannot find that he does."