Three weeks after scoring the first two centuries in a single match, William Lambert was banned from Lord's by the MCC committee on a charge of having deliberately underperformed in an earlier England v Nottingham match in which both sides had been suspected of arranging the result. The evidence was gathered by Lord Frederick Beauclerk, his old enemy from the 1810 single-wicket affair. Lambert never played senior cricket again. He was, in effect, the first cricketer banned for match-fixing.
The 1810 'Play or Pay' single-wicket match in which Lambert had bowled wides at Beauclerk had created a personal enmity that lasted seven years. Beauclerk's growing influence on the MCC committee through the 1810s gave him the means to act on his grievance. The 1817 match-fixing rumours involving the England v Nottingham match offered the means.
The England v Nottingham match was played in the early summer of 1817 with very heavy betting. Reports of unusual activity — odds shifting suddenly, players changing their stated form — circulated in the sporting press immediately afterwards. Beauclerk began collecting witness statements within days.
Match-fixing in Regency cricket was almost as old as betting on the game. The big stakes attached to MCC matches — sometimes a thousand guineas or more — drew gamblers, jockeys and tipsters; corrupt arrangements between players were widely suspected and occasionally proven. The 1817 England v Nottingham match, played at Trent Bridge or possibly at Nottingham racecourse (sources differ on venue), was widely reported as a 'cross' — a match in which both sides agreed to lose. Lambert played for England. Whether he had actually conspired to lose, or had merely underperformed in a single innings, was never publicly established. The accusation was framed by Beauclerk, who had been collecting evidence on Lambert for years and used the inquiry as the means to eliminate his most dangerous professional rival from senior cricket. The MCC committee, dominated by Beauclerk and his allies, met in late July 1817 and resolved that Lambert was 'no longer to be employed at Lord's'. There was no formal hearing in the modern sense. Lambert had no opportunity to confront witnesses. The MCC's authority did not extend to other grounds, but in practice Lord's controlled the senior fixture list, and a Lord's ban meant the end of senior cricket. Lambert was 38. He returned to Reigate, took up tavern-keeping, and continued to play country-house cricket for another twenty years. His last recorded match was in 1839, at the age of 60.
Early summer 1817: England v Nottingham match played with heavy betting
Rumours of a 'cross' — both sides arranging to lose — circulate immediately
Beauclerk collects witness statements
2-5 July 1817: Lambert scores 107* and 157 for Sussex v Epsom at Lord's
Late July 1817: MCC committee meets to consider the Nottingham allegations
Lambert banned from Lord's; no formal hearing held
Lambert's senior career effectively ended at age 38
1810
Lambert beats Beauclerk in single-wicket by bowling wides
Early summer 1817
England v Nottingham match — suspicions of a 'cross'
2-5 Jul 1817
Lambert scores 107* and 157 for Sussex v Epsom
Late Jul 1817
MCC committee bans Lambert from Lord's
1839
Lambert's last recorded country match at age 60
1851
Lambert dies at Reigate aged 71
“Lambert was no longer to be employed at Lord's.”
“Whether the allegations were true or not is unknown.”
Lambert returned to Reigate and continued to play in country and club matches. He kept the Old Tankard public house and lived to 71. The MCC never formally rescinded the ban or examined the evidence. Beauclerk used the same committee machinery the following year to bar Osbaldeston. Match-fixing in cricket continued — the Kent v England matches of 1819-20 had similar suspicions — but no further bans were issued in the period.
The first formal cricket ban on a charge of match-fixing — but a deeply unsatisfactory verdict, reached without proper evidence and almost certainly motivated as much by Beauclerk's personal grudge as by genuine concern for the sport's integrity.
Lambert's case is the founding precedent of cricket's anti-corruption tradition, and an unhappy one. The MCC asserted the right to ban a player on its own authority and without formal hearing — a power that has, in essentially the same form, descended through every later cricket administration. Modern anti-corruption codes take care to provide hearings and evidence; the procedural shortcomings of 1817 were a lesson learned over two centuries.
Cricket Canada
12 May 2026
ICC suspended six months of funding to Cricket Canada over governance failures and financial misreporting — 63% of their total revenue.
Multiple franchises
8 May 2026
The IPL's Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) submitted a formal report to the BCCI in May 2026 flagging "certain anomalies" observed across the league stage: unauthorised persons had been seen in the team dugout, on the team bus, and at team hotels during IPL matches in apparent breach of anti-corruption Standard Operating Procedures. IPL chairman Arun Dhumal confirmed the report publicly and warned that "very stringent action" would be taken if violations continued. Separately, the BCCI tightened protocols after reports that certain franchise owners had been seen mingling with players in restricted areas — a specific interaction prohibited under the anti-corruption framework.
Various county sides
1865-08-01
Despite MCC's attempts to reduce gambling on cricket through the 1840s and 1850s, county cricket in the 1860s still operated in a culture where betting was widespread and where allegations of arranged results circulated freely among those closest to the game. Several county fixtures of the decade generated suspicion among contemporaries that the outcome had been agreed in advance, though the absence of formal investigation meant that no players were ever charged.