If anyone is looking for the history of rugby, Wikipedia still suggests this nonsense that while studying at Rugby school, a certain William Webb Ellis decided to pick up the ball and run with it while playing football, thus creating rugby, in 1823. What rubbish. No doubt it suited Rugby school to encourage this narrative, but it just isn’t true.
Rugby had been around long before William Webb Ellis’s dad had a sparkle in his eye. Football/rugby was originally a game of maybe 200 players from each side who, by any means possible, carried or kicked the ball to the opponents’ goal, which was usually a wall.
Precursors of the modern game of rugby are still played today
A good example still being played today is the Shrovetide football match, played in Ashbourne, Derbyshire. Records of this game played on Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday go back to 1667.
The rules are very simple: anyone from north of Henmore Brook is to play on one team and anyone from south of it on the other. The teams even have names, Up’ard and Down’ard. A ball is thrown into the baying mass and is usually never seen again until it reaches, in this case, one of two stone monuments three miles apart. This is achieved by any means possible, and anarchy prevails. The use of fists, feet and teeth is common. Even ladies participate and everyone loves it, apparently.
Obviously, the better players are from the local rugby clubs, who like to play a little rough but seldom get the chance on the rugby pitch. The other type of players that thrive at this sort of thing are the ones who like nothing more than consuming a gallon of foaming ale and a good scrap down at the Scrappers Arms on a Friday night.
As this game goes on for two days and each player takes a break to consume another pint or two, having a constitution to withstand this battering on top of a belly full of beer would be advantageous. It is common for players from the same family or workmates to play on opposite sides and the organisers believe this “actually strengthens their collective identity”. Sure it does. There have been members of my family, friends and workmates who would not have strengthened our collective identity if they decided to surreptitiously bite me on the bum, or anywhere else for that matter.
Rules emerge to enable competition
From this chaos came the need for proper rules. Only then did both football and rugby develop. Many posh private schools played games similar to the one described above, the Eton Wall Game being just one. The schools no doubt thought that this gave little Tarquin character and the ability to lead men into battle with a stiff upper lip. But as little Tarquin’s nose was getting bent on a regular basis, the mums of little Tarquins began to complain and proper rugby rules were devised.
However, a royal commission into public schools was set up in 1864. An important consideration was the idea of ‘muscular Christianity’. Physical activity was being encouraged in schools as a form of ‘character building’, the principle of ‘healthy body, healthy mind’. The British Empire was at its height and public schools were seen as important in producing the next generation of the ruling class. Did they really want rules getting in the way?
But eventually universities and schools wanted to play each other, and standard rules had to be applied. One group favoured hacking while others preferred dribbling, thus rugby and football went their separate ways. In reality, Tarquin’s mum had no influence at all. What did was the need to standardise the rules of either rugby or football so each team could play the others with limited confusion.
But it was exclusive to the middle classes, as were all the other sports played by the ex-pupils of the elite schools and universities.
Sports clubs socially exclusive but rugby itself hugely popular
The Rowing Almanack of 186 listed the social status of those regarded as undesirable participants in the sport: “tradesmen, labourers, artisans or working mechanics” were to be excluded from membership of the clubs. The Amateur Athletic Club, forerunner of the AAA, also explicitly excluded anyone who was a ‘mechanic, artisan or labourer’. In effect the middle classes wanted to exclude the working classes from the sports they viewed as their own.
All the new clubs were founded by members of the middle classes. In Huddersfield, Harry Beardsell, a wool merchant, was instrumental in the formation of the rugby section in the Huddersfield Athletics Club.
To further this exclusivity, rugby clubs applied a membership subscription. In Manchester it was 10 shillings and six pence, in Rochdale five shillings and even the two shillings and six pence charged by Huddersfield, Bradford and Hull was too much for the working class.
Nevertheless, these games eventually attracted huge crowds. 3,500 attended a game between Huddersfield and former students of Leeds Grammar. Public awareness of the rugby game was further enhanced when Tom Brown’s Schooldays, a story about life at Rugby school, was published in 1857. Some 11,000 copies were sold in the first year.
In 1847, the Ten Hours Act was passed and other legislation limiting the hours that workers would be expected to work followed. In 1850, textile workers were allowed to finish work at 2 pm on Saturday, and by 1874 this had been extended to a 1pm Saturday finish. In 1875, bank holidays were introduced so the working man now had more leisure time. This then allowed manual workers to join sports clubs as long as they could afford to pay the membership fee, which still limited their involvement
The Yorkshire Cup and an increasing interest in taking part
Knockout competitions were arranged between the clubs to highlight the profile of their town or factory. The Rugby Football Union (RFU) was very much against cup competitions, as they felt the game was for enjoyment not for winning trophies. However, in Yorkshire a member of the Yorkshire County Association had different ideas. Arthur Hudson, a woollen manufacturer proposed the idea of a Yorkshire Cup.
In December 1877, the cup competition was organised with 16 of the top Yorkshire teams invited to take part in the draw. It was an immediate success with an early game between Halifax and Wakefield attracting a crowd of over 8,000. Attendance began to increase so that in 1878 crowds of over 10,000 were recorded. Numbers increased further when the local railway companies started putting on special trains for spectators to travel to away games.
As more people watched so more people wanted to take part. But the rugby clubs still had membership restrictions and entry fees. Another way for working class men to get involved was needed and it was the churches which provided the opportunity.
Rugby as ‘muscular Christianity’
Many university graduates had joined the church as local vicars. They saw rugby as a way to increase their congregation, and ‘muscular Christianity’ as a way to improve the spiritual life in industrial towns. Churches formed rugby clubs and so we saw the birth of clubs such as Wakefield Trinity and the Leeds club, originally being linked to St. John’s church. In places like Rochdale almost all the churches formed rugby clubs and so the number of working men playing and watching the game increased throughout the north.
And as crowds and popularity increased, so did the prospect of the best players being remunerated for their time and skills. In the Association Football code players began to get paid openly from 1885. However, in London the organisers and committee men in the RFU were determined to keep the sport amateur. These middle-class leaders were prepared to do anything to stop players being paid in any way.
Into this mix came Frances (Frank) Marshall (1845–1906).
Keeping rugby amateur – another way to exclude the working classes
On the left in this satirical cartoon of the time is Rev Frances (Frank) Marshall. Born in West Bromwich, he was a graduate of St. John’s College, Cambridge, and eventually became the headmaster of Almondbury Grammar School, Huddersfield (now King James’s School, Almondbury). Marshall believed rugby was a middle-class pastime.
Marshall was a very keen rugby supporter and referee. As a reverend, he was also very much in favour of ‘muscular Christianity’. He eventually became the northern representative for the RFU and as such had much influence but was still against the idea of players being paid or compensated in any way. He was even against players taking out insurance in case of injury. He had said that “if they can’t afford to get injured, they shouldn’t be playing”. He compiled his set of rules in this regard as follows.
- No ‘Broken Time’ payments
- No unpaid ‘loans’
- No Testimonials
- No Tours
- No employment on condition of playing for a particular club
- No employment in the ‘drinks industry’
- No match payments known as ‘boot money’
- No gifts from well-wishers or sponsors
- No abuse of insurance schemes
As reported by Tony Earnshaw in the Dewsbury Reporter in 2021, sports academic Professor Tony Collins wrote:
“He even backed the suggestion that players who informed on other players for receiving money should be given a £20 reward, confirming the suspicion that it was not money that was the problem for the RFU but who was receiving it.
“In 1893 he helped to suspend his own club, Huddersfield, for breaching the amateur regulations … He fully backed the RFU during the 1895 split as well as its subsequent blacklisting of all those connected with the Northern Union.”
This was an attitude that continued within the RFU for 100 years.
No blue plaque for “divisive hypocrite” Marshall
There was a recent suggestion that a blue plaque should be placed on the Almondbury Schoolhouse, where Marshall was head teacher. Critics of this idea include Professor Collins, who wrote: “Why would a man seen as a divisive hypocrite in his own era be honoured in ours?”
As Earnshaw wrote: “There were other objections. One said: ‘The blue plaque is for a man who had only scorn for the working classes so how can it be appropriate for a blue plaque to be erected on the premises of a state-funded comprehensive school?’”
And a local planning officer said, “Whether his actions were driven by prejudice towards working class people or by his adherence to the purity of amateurism in Rugby Union is debatable, but his words and actions would be out of place in contemporary society”.
Because of Marshall’s divisive stance, he became disliked by both rugby codes. But at least we can thank him for providing us with two excellent games.
I give credit for much of this ramble to Paul Raleigh, who has kindly allowed me to take extracts from one of his talks that I attended. That talk in turn relied heavily on the work of Professor Tony Collins who has written extensively about the history of sport. He is an historian and author, an emeritus professor of history at De Montfort University, a Research Fellow at the Institute of Sports Humanities and a visiting professor at Beijing Sports University. More information can be found via his website.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
