2017 is James Tredwell’s Testimonial Year. The festivities kick off with a lunch (which I suspect will run way beyond tea time) on January 19th, and by the time the year ends, Tredders will have eaten far too many meals, given far too many speeches, signed far too many bats and played far too many rounds of golf in between taking wickets and scoring runs for Kent. Last year it was the same for Darren Stevens, at least in terms of meals, speeches, autographs, golf, runs and wickets. But there is one big difference.
Last year, as one of his final acts as Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne ruled that sporting benefits should not be completely tax free, as they have been for 90 years. From 2017, only the first £50,000 that is raised on Tredwell’s behalf will be tax free: thereafter James must pay tax at the going rate. This change came about largely because footballers in particular were having testimonials which raised well over £1 million, which on top of their vast (and taxed) wages, made a mockery of the idea that a benefit or testimonial was to help an impoverished professional sportsman as he retired from his sport. Mr. Osborne is not a noted sports lover, and he obviously saw an opportunity to bring a little more money into the national purse at a time of excessive belt-tightening. But at least the first £50,000 is tax free.
The man who was largely responsible for the fact that any of the benefit money is untaxed was born 102 years before James Tredwell, in 1879. James Seymour is one of Kent’s most honoured names, a stalwart of Kent’s batting order from his debut in 1902 until his retirement 24 years later. He was the only professional in the Kent team employed purely as a batsman, and he certainly justified his place, scoring 26,818 runs for the county, including 53 centuries and totalling over 1,000 runs in a season sixteen times. He was the first Kent player to score two centuries in a match, which he did at Mote Park in 1904 against Worcestershire, and he twice established a record high score by a Kent player, scoring 204 against Hampshire in 1907 and then 214 against Essex in 1914, a score which is still the record at Tunbridge Wells. He also took 659 catches, and was part of a brilliant group of close fielders who contributed greatly to Kent’s success in that golden era just before the First World War. He features at gully in the famous painting by Chevallier Tayler, ‘Kent v Lancashire 1906’. Only Woolley and Hardinge have appeared more often for Kent in first-class matches than James Seymour. That he never played for England is perhaps a surprise, as there have been many inferior cricketers who have won England caps.
In 1920, his 19th season as a Kent professional, he was awarded a benefit and having been on a professional cricketer’s notoriously poor wages for all that time, certainly needed any help that his benefit could give him. He chose the match against Hampshire during Canterbury Week as his benefit match, and despite being run out for a duck in the first innings, he made 74 in the second innings and helped Kent to win by 165 runs. Frank Woolley took eleven wickets in the match, and made the highest score on either side, 80, which must have pleased the large Canterbury crowds. All in all, Seymour had a very good benefit.
According to the official records, Seymour’s benefit match raised £939.16s.11d, although the Kent CCC Committee minutes show a figure of £1,492.8s.6d. Either way, it was a very useful sum, which attracted the attention of the Inland Revenue who wanted their share. Seymour, a doughty fighter for the rights of professional sportsmen, felt instinctively that this was unfair, and luckily he had a strong supporter in the shape of Lord Harris, who took up Seymour’s cause with great gusto. It has to be remembered that professional sportsmen in those days were not considered capable of handling their own affairs, and the rules of Kent CCC stated that “the Committee reserve to themselves an absolute and unfettered discretion as regards Benefit Matches, the collection of subscriptions in connection with such matches, and dealing with the net proceeds of such matches in any way they may think desirable in the interests of the beneficaire (sic).”
The case was fought through several layers of court action, with the first court finding in favour of Seymour, but then having the verdict overturned on appeal by the Inland Revenue. The final appeal to the House of Lords was concluded on 24th May 1927, almost seven years after the match which had raised the money. One of the judges deciding the case was Lord Harris’ brother-in-law, a remarkable conflict of interest, but the judgment held that “the award of the benefit match to the cricketer was not a profit accruing to him in respect of his office or employment, but was in the nature of a personal gift and not assessable to Income Tax.” As The Cricketer commented later, “Practically all his brother professionals owe to him their undying gratitude for the forethought and courage required by any individual who is capable of standing up against the demands of the Inland Revenue.” Or, as Derek Carlaw wrote in the Kent CCC annual of 1994, “Present day recipients of tax-free six figure benefits may like to stop counting their money long enough to speculate on what might have happened (a) if Lord Harris had not been prepared to pull every available string on behalf of professional cricketers and (b) if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had displayed a little more nous and chosen a county in whose professionals Lord Harris had no paternal interest.”
Seymour became a cricket coach at Epsom College, and used his benefit money to buy a small fruit farm near Marden, but he did not enjoy it for long. He died suddenly in September 1930, aged only 50, leaving a widow and three children. His grandson Richard Seymour has subsequently donated several items of his grandfather’s memorabilia to the Kent collection.
If we are thinking of Kent professionals who deserve a wonderful benefit, it is hard to come up with anybody more deserving than the other James, Tredwell. I remember playing against him in a village match at Brookland when he was only 14 and even then he looked to be a class apart from the rest of us (not always difficult when playing against Saltwood). He has gone on to become a stalwart of Kent, scoring runs and taking wickets when they are most needed. Tredders is also a highly popular tourist with many England ODI and Test teams over the past few years. He may only have played two Tests while other less effective off-spinners have played more, but in one way that is two more Tests than some curiosity spotters might have wanted. Before his Test debut in the second Test against Bangladesh in March 2010, he came on as a sub in the first Test at Chittagong and immediately took a blinding catch to dismiss Mushfiqur Rahim off the bowling of Graeme Swann. At the fall of the wicket, he then went off the field again, and thus had at that time the unique Test career of one ball as sub, which he caught. It was probably not a disappointment to him to be picked in his own right for the next Test, but a bizarre Test record was thus destroyed. I still don’t know if there has been another case of a substitute fielder coming on for one ball of a Test and taking a catch. I doubt it, but I’d love to know.
Seymour and Tredwell, two pillars of completely different eras of Kent cricket a century apart, but both worth raising a glass to as the season gets under way.