the origin of snooker : the neville chamberlain...

of 9Rev: 1st December 2012

THE ORIGIN OF SNOOKER : THE NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN STORY

by Peter Ainsworth

The game of snooker wasinvented by Neville

Chamberlain in 1875.Everyone knows that. At leastthis is today’s commonlyaccepted theory. But prior to1938 there was an equallyaccepted theory that the gamebeen introduced by a “ColonelSnooker” of the Royal Artillery.Then came the momentousday when Sir Neville FrancisFitzgerald Chamberlain at last

responded to the umpteenth letter speculating on thegame’s origins and staked his own claim, which waspublished in The Field on 19th March 1938. This wasapparently provoked by another claim in the samemagazine, that the game had been invented at “TheShop”, a term used to describe the Royal MilitaryAcademy at Woolwich.Neville Chamberlain waited for an amazingly long timebefore revealing himself as the Father of the game.Despite unremitting speculation on the subject sincethe game became popular in England in the late1880’s, Chamberlain waited until he was in his 83rdyear to reveal that he created the game of snooker in1875, some 63 years previously!However, there are some serious inconsistencies inthe account provided by Chamberlain which couldbenefit from closer examination.

The Earliest References

The earliest contemporary reference which canbe accurately dated and gives a detailed account

of the game of “Snookers” appears in a letter writtenon 2nd February 1886 by Captain Sheldrick fromCalcutta. This ancient mariner describes a gamealready popular at his club in Rangoon (Burma), whichwas directly under the control of the British Army inIndia at that time. He describes the game as follows:

“At our club in Rangoon we play a game calledSnookers a first rate game, any amount of funin it, especially if one of you get snookgered<sic>. The way it is played is the same as Shell-out but you put in the Yellow, Brown, Green &Black balls, if you take the Yellow it is doublethe ordinary life, if the Brown treble, if the Greenfour times, & if the Black 5 times as much as theordinary life, of course you must pot a red ballin before you can play on one of the other beg-gars but some times you run in of <sic> one ofthem and got to pay up the price of the ball it is2, 3, 4th or 5th ball. You ought to start that gameold man it will take first rate I should think with

lots of young fellows, it is just the same as shell-out only these other balls are put on the spotsup the centre of the table.”

The gambling element involved in Sheldrick’s gamegives a clue to the reason for its rapid rise inpopularity. Imagine playing a game of four-handedsnooker where for every point you scored, you werepaid £1 by each of the other players! The variationin the value of the balls appealed to both the skilfuland the lucky in a way which could not be matchedby any other Pool game being played on a billiardtable at that time. Even this strange version hascharacteristics which clearly link it to the moderngame having a pyramid of reds to which was addedYellow, Brown, Green & Black balls which were “puton the spots up the centre of the table”. There areadditional references which appear to take CaptainSheldrick’s game back to 1884 when it was beingplayed elsewhere amongst the British Army in India.The first reliable reference to the game of snookerbeing played in England comes in the columns ofthe Sporting Life in 1887 and further details appeartwo years later in a book by Maj-Gen A. W. Draysonwho, in addition to instruction on the game of billiards,describes a variation of the game of “Snooker’sPool”, which is easily recognisable as the moderngame. Drayson says “This game, which is not as yetgenerally known, or much played, is an amusingextension of the game of pyramids.” He mentions inhis book that the copyright to the rules of the gamebelonged to the billiard table manufacturer,Burroughes & Watts.From other sources, there is also a reference to aset of rules being developed by John Dowland, aminor professional in the mid-1880s. He was alsocredited by some early writers with the game’sinvention, but hard facts regarding this claim aredifficult to discover, and even though Dowland wasknown to be connected with the firm of Burroughes& Watts prior to his death in 1901, no evidence existsof his involvement with snooker which pre-dates thatof Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain’s Game

The similarity of the above games to the versionplayed today is important, because the game de-

scribed in Chamberlain’s letter to The Field is noteven remotely similar to modern snooker. Describingevents in the Officers’ Mess of the 11th DevonshireRegiment, at Jubbulpore in 1875, he says:

“One day it occurred to me that the game of blackpool, which we usually played, would be im-proved if we put down another coloured ball in

Neville Chamberlain in1883


addition to the black one. This proved a success,and, by degrees, the other coloured balls ofhigher value followed suit.”

There is a fundamental problem here which requiresan understanding of the types of game played on abilliard table at that time. Next to billiards, the mostpopular game on a billiard table would have been“Pool”. This game actually derives from the earliestform of billiards which had only two balls (no red)and the players would each take a ball and try to poteach other. Pool was (in 1875) a game which wouldregularly involve up to a dozen players, each havingtheir own cue-ball and taking turns to try and poteach other in a fixed rotation. Those potted wouldlose a “life” and pay a monetary forfeit. After losinga number of “lives” a player was eliminated from thegame. To differentiate between each player’s ball,they were first numbered (in pencil) then colouredby staining with a dye. The range of coloured balls,and the sequence they were played, were initially:White, Red, Yellow, Green, and Brown. The Blue,Pink and Black balls were subsequently added tothis series, and would have been available aroundthis time. Additional players could be added to thegame by starting this colour rotation again with ballsmarked by a “cross” or “spot”. A number of variationsof essentially this same game were played. Amongstthese was the “Black Pool” mentioned byChamberlain. This varied from the basic game onlyin that the black ball was neutral. It was placed onthe centre spot and a player would be entitled toshoot at it only after he had potted his allocated ball.It becomes apparent from this, that there are twomajor problems with Chamberlain’s description of thebirth and development of the game of “Snooker”.Firstly, there is no single cue-ball used, with eachplayer using one of the balls on the table as his own,and secondly there is no reference to a pack of redballs. It may be assumed that the reds were addedlater had not Chamberlain said that the balls addedwere of a “higher value” and significantly, the redball was already established in the sequence of thePool, being the very first colour to be used in thestandard sequence.

The Pyramids Variation

There were many other variations of Pool gamesbeing played in 1875, which were distinguished

by the basic principle of each player using his owncue-ball. However, there was also a completelydifferent game called “Pyramids”. This involved 15red balls being placed in a pyramid formation in thesame position as modern snooker, and the playersshared a single cue ball in trying to pot the reds. Thesame game was sometimes called “Shell-out” whenmore than two players were involved and it is thisgame which Captain Sheldrick mentions in his letter.

Pyramids, or shell-out, has the two basic featuresmissing from Chamberlain’s game—the single cue-ball and the pack of reds. There can really be nodoubt that the game evolved from this source andnot Black Pool.

The Compton Mackenzie Connection

So why was Chamberlain’s claim not questionedmore closely at the time it was first published?

The answer is that it received some very influentialsupport from the famous author and playwright,Compton Mackenzie.Shortly after Chamberlain’s letter appeared in TheField Mackenzie wrote to The Billiard Playerreproducing the claim and leaving it in no doubt thatit carried his full support, describing it as“incontrovertible evidence”. The letter whichappeared in the April 1939 issue of the magazine,received a similar endorsement by the Editor, HaroldLewis, so effectively closing the discussion. It will benoticed that Mackenzie had seen it prudent to changethe words in Chamberlain’s original letter to The Fieldso that instead of Chamberlain adding “other colouredballs of higher value” we are now given to understandthat “others of different values were graduallyadded”. It is not inconceivable that Mackenzie knewexactly what he was doing in making the change, theonly passage in Chamberlain’s original account whichwas altered.Mackenzie had a good knowledge of pool games,having his own table at his home on the Isle of Barrain the Hebrides, where heregularly entertainedfriends with a game of“Indian Pool” morecommonly known as“Slosh”. He must surelyhave researched the storyand been satisfied with itsauthenticity? Well,perhaps, but if so, hecertainly didn’t devotemuch time to the exercise.His autobiography tells us Compton Mackenzie

A 19th century caricature depicting a game of Pyramids


that Mackenzie only learned of the claim in the earlypart of 1939 when details were given to him by MrJohn Bisset, the Chairman of the Billiards Association& Control Council. Chamberlain had apparentlywritten to the BA&CC to register his claim and thepapers had lain on Bisset’s desk for some time whilehe was wondering what to do with them. In January1939, Bisset invited Compton Mackenzie to presentthe trophy to the winner of the World ProfessionalSnooker Championship at Thurston’s Hall on 4thMarch 1939 and shortly afterwards passed onChamberlain’s letter which he felt would provideMackenzie with some interest for his speech.There is a suggestion that Mackenzie may at leasthave spoken with Chamberlain. He says in hisautobiography, “I was able to promise the old veteranthat I would give the true facts”. However, thismomentous meeting with one of the most famouspeople in England has not passed into the familyhistory. Enquiries with modern-day descendents ofthe Chamberlain line revealed that although they areaware of his claim to have invented Snooker, thestory of a meeting with Compton Mackenzie, if it tookplace at all, has now been lost.This apparent lack of investigation into the claim doesnot totally discredit the Mackenzie account, but itcertainly raises some questions as to just how“incontrovertible” his evidence can be considered.

Chamberlain’s New Game

Part of Mackenzie’s evidence, presumably amongstthe documents passed to him from John Bisset,

were a number of letters supporting Chamberlain’sclaim from military personnel, obviously with similarlylong memories.The strange thing about these letters, which refer tothe period between 1884-86, is that they state thatChamberlain was promoting a game of Snookerwhich appears to be essentially the same as the onedescribed by Captain Sheldrick during his visit toRangoon in 1886. Here is a transformation from the“Black Pool” variation to the “Pyramids” based game,and Chamberlain is connected with both!It is crucial to accept at this stage that the originalgame could not have evolved into the new one, andthe more one studies the differences in these games,and the associated billiard table games at that time,the greater will be the conviction that this statementmust be true. There is also supporting evidence forthis from the references supplied by Chamberlainhimself.In 1873, he had joined the 11th Devonshire (Foot)Regiment, which was based at Simla, and was underthe command of his uncle. Two years later theregiment was moved to Jubbulpore, and it wascoincidental with this move that Chamberlain, still just

19 years-old, first christened his game. Within monthsof this momentous event, in 1876, he had moved tothe 1st Central India Horse and stayed with thisregiment until the outbreak of the Afghan War in 1878.If we are to believe Chamberlain’s account, hisvariation of Black Pool became immediately popular.He wrote “Officers in other regiments at Jubbulporefollowed suit with the game in their messes”. Surelythis is where the changes to the game took place?Apparently not. One of the references produced byChamberlain in 1938 came from Major General W.A. Watson, Colonel of the Central India Horse, whosays, “I have a clear recollection of you rejoining theRegiment in 1884. You brought with you a brand newgame, which you called Snooker or Snookers.” Not,you will notice, “when you first joined the regiment in1876”. The game of “Snooker”, despite Chamberlain’sclaim to have invented it in 1875—and for it to havebeen readily adopted throughout the region—wasapparently unknown to his old regiment before 1884!It is clear that at some point Chamberlain discardedhis Black Pool game, which appears to have beenso unsuccessful that it was quickly eradicated fromthe memory of the Central India Horse, and embracedanother, giving it the same name. The question nowbecomes, did he invent this game as well, or did headopt and rename a game which already existed?

Chamberlain in India

We can make a reasonable guess at when thischange is most likely to have happened by

looking at Chamberlain’s military career in India.Chamberlain was certainly well connected in militarycircles following an established family tradition in hischoice of career.Although billiard tables were quite common in India,most regiments having one in their officers’ mess,they were not supplied by the British Army. Rather, itwas left to the officers of a regiment to obtain andpay for such items themselves. Something that mostwere prepared to do in order to alleviate the boredomof their assignments. However, this did not extend to

A typical military mess in the 1870’s


taking them along on military campaigns, and thefirst of these presented itself to Chamberlain in 1878when he was involved with the outbreak of hostilitiesin Afghanistan, which bordered India to the North.In this year Chamberlain was assigned to the personalstaff of Field Marshal Sir Frederick Roberts, who wasCommander-in-Chief of the combined British forcesin Afghanistan. Chamberlain’s position on the staffwas as an Orderly Officer who came under the aide-de-camp Captain Pretyman of the Royal Artillery. Thisis an important connection to which we shall referlater. We can say with some certainty that during the2½ years of this campaign Chamberlain would nothave seen a billiard table, much less played uponone. The entire Army, including the commandingofficers, lived in tents during this period and wouldnot have transported such items with them even if itwas feasible to do so. Additionally, the Afghan Nationwas of the Muslim religion and as Field MarshalRoberts tells us “possessed of a fanatical hatred ofall things European”. So even when the Army capturedand based themselves in the Afghan capital, Kabul,they would have been unlikely to discover any billiardtables waiting to provide them with entertainment.Chamberlain, keen to be part of the action had beenallowed to rejoin the Central India Horse in the closingmonths of the campaign, and received a “slightwound” on 1st September 1880 at the decisive battleof Kandahar. The forces under Roberts disbandedalmost immediately after this and returned to India.Chamberlain was granted a 12 month furlough andreturned to England on board the troop carrier HMSCrocodile which departed Bombay of 31st March1881. This arrived in Portsmouth a month later on30th April 1881.We next find a reference to Chamberlain in 1882when he resumes his duties on the personal staff ofRoberts who by this time had been promoted toCommander-in-Chief of the Madras Army. Roberts’staff also included Lieutenant-Colonel George TindalPretyman, R.A., (Assistant Military Secretary), andCaptain Ian Hamilton, the Gordon Highlanders, (Aide-de-camp).Roberts and Pretyman arrived back in India on 27thand 28th November 1881 respectively, and made theirway to the new headquarters in the hill station of

Ootacamund (generally abbreviated to “Ooty”).During the next three and a half years Roberts andhis personal staff used this location as the base forextended tours of inspection, which as Roberts sayswere to “acquaint myself with the needs andcapabilities of the men of the Madras Army”. Thisincluded all the regiments under his commandthroughout Southern India, which at that time alsoincluded Burma, which borders India to the East.Towards the end of his period of leave, Chamberlainwas re-appointed to Roberts’ staff as an Aide-de-camp and would have returned to India upon theexpiry of his furlough in late February 1882. Alsoappointed at the same time was Captain Iain Hamiltonwho was based in South Africa. Hamilton consideredhis appointment to be linked to Roberts’ desire towrite his memoirs and felt that his selection wasintended to recruit him as a “ghost writer” for thiswork. It was a task that Hamilton didn’t want, andsuccessfully avoided doing, although Roberts dideventually complete his two-volume autobiography,entitled “Forty-one years in India” in 1898.At the time of Chamberlain’s return to India, Robertshad already set off on his first tour of the Madrasarmy and would have been in the final stages of histrip, returning to Ooty from Calcutta where he arrivedon 17th April 1882. Chamberlain may well havetravelled to intercept Roberts on this journey, oralternatively, based himself at Ooty awaiting hisreturn.The hill station was specifically equipped forrecreation, having a climate almost identical to thatfound in England it provided an escape from thesummer heat of the cities. With the Commander-in-Chief of the Madras Army now based there, it wouldsee many more visitors during the pleasant summermonths, both British Army personnel and civilians.Ian Hamilton was even later in joining Roberts’ staff,his ship arriving at Bombay in June 1882 and hetravelled to the hill station shortly afterwards.

Lord Roberts & Staff at Madras in 1883: L-R (Standing)Col. Stewart; Maj-Gen Godfrey Clerk Adjutant-General; Lt.Neville Chamberlain ADC; Cat. Ian Hamilton ADC; Col. du

Caine RA. (Seated) Sir Fred Roberts; Lt.-Col. GeorgePretyman, Millitary Secretary.

Chamberlain returned to England on the troop carrierHMS Crocodile


Significantly, Hamilton, with whom Chamberlainbecame “bosom friends” as he describes it, seemsto be of the opinion that the game was alreadyestablished when he arrived. A letter he wrote to theField in 1938 contained the following passage:

“I have never doubted that my old friend, SirNeville Chamberlain, invented the game ofsnooker. I was at Ootacamund in 1882-84, andthere must still be some of that very crowd leftwho can testify to the belief then current, thatsnooker owed its birth to Neville Chamberlain’sfertile brain.”

This letter was in response to a suggestion that therules were drafted by Lord Kitchener, however, hissupport of Chamberlain’s claim does not read asthough it was based on any first-hand knowledge.From this, we can not only confirm that the birth ofthe game was some time before his arrival, but also,and importantly, discount any involvement byHamilton in this process.Could the game have existed at Ooty even beforeChamberlain’s arrival, just waiting for him to discoverit and give it a new name? This is certainly a possibility.Chamberlain acknowledges that a game based on“Pyramids” was formalised there, writing about hislater travels in India he says: “We were constantlyasked on our travels to show how the game wasplayed. It took but little time to demonstrate this, foreverywhere they knew how to play Pyramids, so weshowed them how to add the other coloured balls,and told them the simple rules for the game, whichhad been prepared by our committee at Ootacamund,in 1882.”

The Burma connection

Along the same line of thought, another possiblesource of the game’s origin suggests itself. We

know from Captain Sheldrick that snooker was beingplayed in Rangoon in February 1886 – could it haveoriginated here and been discovered by Roberts’ staffduring their first visit to that country in January 1882,and taken it back to Ooty?Rangoon, although not exactly isolated, couldcertainly have harboured the game without discoveryfor a longer period than the popular hill station ofOoty. It was one of the furthest outposts of the Britishin India and the garrison stationed there would nothave had a great number of visiting officers fromother regiments. Typically, the trip from Ooty toRangoon would have taken at least 10 days (sevendays and nights by train and three days by shipfrom Madras)Ian Hamilton suggests that snooker was being playedat Ooty in June 1882. Significantly, Roberts and hisstaff, including George Pretyman, visited Rangoonfor the first time in February 1882, and could therefore

have brought the game back, and had it firmlyestablished at Ooty prior to Hamilton’s arrival there inJune.The problem with this theory is that the game beingplayed in Rangoon in 1886 was clearly being called“Snookers” and if it had existed there under a differentname, then they would surely still have been playingit under that name.Incidentally, there is a fascinating possibility relatedto the game described by Captain Sheldrick in hisletter of 2nd February 1886 in which he states:

“I played [snooker] the other night and verysoon tumbled into it they thought they had a mug.I think that before we finished playing I had“snookgered” them for 14 rupees, almost 25bob. They didn’t ask me to play snookers againthat evening.”

Now, it is known that Field Marshall Roberts, to whomChamberlain was attached, arrived in Rangoon on5th February 1886 for his second visit to the country,so it can safely be assumed that Chamberlain was inthe area at that time. If he had been sent in advanceto make preparation for the arrival of his commander,it would be entirely possible that Chamberlain wasactually one of those players who had taken Sheldrickfor a mug!However, to return to the story, it is known thatChamberlain could not have started to promote thePyramid version of the game before leaving forEngland at the end of March 1881, and he nextappeared at Ooty some time between February andApril 1882 where the rules for this version of the gamewere drawn up shortly afterwards. This gives us aperiod of approximately nine months which he spentin England. Could Chamberlain have invented, or seenthe new version of his game while in England?

England: the birthplace of Snooker?

Prior to Chamberlain staking his claim in 1938,there had been plenty of speculation in the

English press on the subject of Snooker’s origins,most of them pointing to the inventor being a “Colonel

“The Shop” - The Royal Military Academy, Woolwich


Snooker” of the Royal Artillery—although the rank ofthis officer is also sometimes described as “Captain”or even “Major”—and the birthplace was commonlyreferenced as being the Royal Military Academy inWoolwich. If these reports are to be believed, thegame was being played in London well beforeChamberlain’s return in 1881, in fact at least oneclaim says it must have existed there as early as1865.However, in his book ‘The Shop’. The Story of TheRoyal Military Academy, Capt. F. G. Guggisbergrecalls that the first billiard table was installed therein 1868. Although this still gives plenty of time for thegame to have been established, the book, publishedin 1900, does not mention Snooker being amongstthe games played at the Academy. It does howeverconfirm that this was the name given to the first termcadet by the older cadets “who were apt to despisethem.”Based on the popular growth of the game after it’sfirst definite reference in The Sporting Life in 1887,it seems highly unlikely that the game could haveremained hidden in the heart of London for any lengthof time, and certainly not long enough to have predatedthe claim of Chamberlain.It is possible that Chamberlain developed the gameat some serviceman’s club whilst in England in 1881.In later life he was known to have been a member of“Naval and Military Clubs” and this would be just thetype of establishment which is likely to have seen thefirst game of “Snookers” in London. But the oddsare against Chamberlain having been the person tointroduce it during a period of leave after the AfghanWar. In Chamberlain’s letter to The Field he mentionsthat “In the eighties rumours of the new game hadreached England”. A strange statement if he hadpersonally introduced it to his London club in 1881.In fact we know from the letter of Captain Sheldrickthat the game was still not well-known in England in1886, while it had become well established in India.This seems to confirm that the game did not start inEngland.

What is a snooker?

It is generally accepted that the term “Snooker” asapplied to the game, came from a name given to a

first-year cadet at the Royal Academy at Woolwich.This would appear to have been in use in the early1870s, Chamberlain having first been made awareof it in 1875. But where did this term actually originate?Dictionaries tell us that the use of the phrase “Cocka Snook” first appeared in print as early as 1791and it has been suggested that the novice recruitsearned their name by their habit of cheekily “cockinga snook” at their non-commissioned officers. This“carry-on” image of military training at this time hardybears scrutiny.

Another offering was made by Lt.-Col. G. L. H. Howell,late R.A. who stated in a letter to the “Billiard Player”published in 1939 that the term was: “time’s corruptionof the original word for a newly-joined cadet, whichwas ‘Neux’.” A rational deduction perhaps, but thereis also an intriguing, and certainly more colourfulalternative.In the 1850s there was a comedy duo called “Hookerand Snooker” who were performing in the Londontheatres during the earliest days of the Music Hallvariety acts. Could it be that Mr. Snooker’s characterwas sufficiently inept that his persona wassarcastically applied by one of the older cadets to ahapless junior at Woolwich, and the name stuck?Unfortunately, this can be little more than guesswork,as extensive enquiries reveal nothing more aboutMessrs. Hooker and Snooker (real names Messrs.Widdicombe and Shepherd) other than a fewnewspaper reviews. Still, there remains the faintestchance that these now forgotten thespians gave theworld a legacy which far transcends the fameachieved in their own lifetime.

India’s Claim to Fame

As the alternatives are eliminated, we are left withthe Hill Station of Ooty as the most credible

birthplace for the game of “Snookers”. From the otherevidence available to us, we can also date this eventfairly precisely as being after Chamberlain’s returnto India in late February 1882 and the arrival of IanHamilton in June of that year, when he confirms thatthe game already existed.For the same reasons as we eliminated the RoyalMilitary Academy in Woolwich as secretly harbouringthe game, so we must dismiss the thought that thegame was already established at Ooty whenChamberlain arrived. This was not a hidden outpost,but a facility which was regularly visited during thesummer months by officers of the Madras Army. IfSnooker had existed for any length of time beforeChamberlain’s arrival, it would certainly have already

The clubhouse at Ootacamund


spread from this source, under whatever name it mayhave been called.This is what Chamberlain had to say of this period:

“Each summer that delightful hill station hadmany visitors, either to hunt with the ‘Ooty’ packof hounds or for a change of climate. Amongthem were officers from such big garrisons asBangalore, or Secunderabad, as well as cheeryplanters of Mysore or Coorg, who rode up for afew days of gallops over ‘The Koondas,’ or a timeof good cheer. Snooker soon became a special-ity at the club, and, in due course, the news of itwas carried far afield, and to billiard playersthroughout India.”

Significantly, Chamberlain also clearly states that thegame was introduced at the time of his arrival, andnot by him alone, but with the assistance of others.He writes,

“I had the great privilege of being on [Roberts’]personal staff, and, with other members of it, wesoon introduced the game at the club at Ooty.”

The “other members” who are credited byChamberlain as being involved with this introductionwere, as previously stated, Lieutenant-Colonel GeorgeTindal Pretyman, R.A., and Captain Ian Hamilton.Ian Hamilton discounts himself from any involvementby his own writings, so from Chamberlain’s statementit would seem that the “introduction” of snooker atOoty was by himself and George Pretyman.By crediting other members of Roberts’ staff with theintroduction of snooker to Ooty, he effectivelydiscounts the period when he might have been aloneat the hill station after his arrival in India, and identifiesa period after the return of the staff from their firstexpedition with Roberts on 17th April 1882.It will be remembered that Chamberlain and Pretymanhad become acquainted during the Afghan War whenboth were members of Roberts’ staff. If the game of“Snookers” had existed at Woolwich, albeit with adifferent name, then Pretyman would presumablyhave known of it. Could Chamberlain have marriedthe name of Snooker to a game known to Pretyman?The main problem with this theory is that Pretymangraduated from the Academy back in 1865, threeyears before the first billiard table was installed.Similarly, if the pair had discussed and agreed theformat of the new game during the Afghan War, thensurely Chamberlain would have taken the opportunityto try it at the London clubs while back in England.The most likely scenario is that Chamberlain and/orPretyman, developed the game during their reunionat Ooty in late April or May 1882. Which one of themactually first thought of adding pool balls to the pyramidset we will probably never know, but we can be certainthat Chamberlain was involved to some extent, if onlyto give it the name he had first coined in 1875.

The Reluctant Hero

Why did Chamberlain wait so long to announcehis claim? Many would say that this suggests

that he had a limited involvement in actually inventingthe modern version of the game. By all accounts hewas certainly an enthusiastic advocate for the gamebetween 1882 and 1886. We know from thereferences produced by Compton Mackenzie that hewas credited with personally introducing the game toat least four different regiments in the Madras Army,between these dates.In 1885 he was happy to claim to be the inventor ofSnooker, having been introduced in that capacity toan English professional player who happened to bevisiting Calcutta in that year. This makes his laterreluctance to reveal his involvement all the moremysterious.After leaving the personal staff of Roberts in 1884,Chamberlain’s military career really took off. Hebecame a Lieutenant-Colonel in 1889 and the followingyear was appointed Military Secretary to the KashmirGovernment, responsible for reorganising the KashmirArmy. In 1899 he left India and followed Field-MarshalLord Roberts to South Africa where he was againpart of his personal staff. The following yearChamberlain left the Army and moved a little closerto home when he was appointed Inspector Generalto the Royal Irish Constabulary, a position he retaineduntil his retirement in 1916. During this time hemaintained a residence in Ireland at Castleknock,Co. Dublin.It could be that during this period he hardly noticedor cared about the growth in snooker and thequestions being asked about its origins, but afterretirement he moved to Ascot in Berkshire where heremained until his death on 28th May 1944. Here hemust surely have been aware of the game’s growth.Even as a member of “Naval and Military” clubs whichhe admitted to frequenting, he must have seen thegame being played with increasing frequency.However, it should be remembered that the other likelycandidate, George Pretyman, also remained silenton the subject. Pretyman left India and returned toEngland in November 1894 where he remained forfive years on the “unemployed list”, then at theoutbreak of hostilities in South Africa he again tookup an appointment under Lord Roberts. He retiredfrom active service in 1907, and died ten years laterat the age of 72. This gave him plenty of opportunityto join the debate had he wished to do so.

The Australian Connection

Almost as an aside to this story comes a tantalisingprospect that we may have uncovered from

Chamberlain’s account, the source of the game’sintroduction to Australia.


In his letter to The Field hereferences a meeting withan English professional “Ithink it was in 1885” withto whom he explained therules of the game, saying“I regret I do not rememberhis name; he was probablya contemporary of JohnRoberts and W. Cook.”Although Chamberlaincannot exactly recall thedate of the meeting, hedoes leave some clues,saying, “”I was dining with

my hospitable and valued friend, the Maharaja ofCooch Behar, in his beautiful house in Calcutta. Afterdinner he took us to the billiard room and introducedus to a well-known English professional billiard playerwho had come to India for a few weeks to give himlessons in billiards.”In a book published by the Maharaja of Cooch Beharin 1908, there is a record of a meeting in Calcuttabetween himself, Lord Frederick Roberts,Chamberlain, and others, prior to them all setting outon a big-game hunt which commenced on 28thFebruary 1885. This almost certainly gives us thedate of the meeting with the English professional towithin a few days.Shortly after the appearance of Chamberlain’s letter,Mr. F. H. Cumberlege also wrote to The Field to givehis opinion that “the professional must have beenJohn Roberts himself who came out to Calcutta in1885.”The idea that this person was the Champion seemsto have been readily accepted, but unfortunately Mr.Cumberlege’s memory seems to be faulty. Theitinerary of John Roberts during 1885 made itimpossible for him to have been in India at the endof February 1885, or indeed any time that year. Norwould Chamberlain be likely to forget beingintroduced to a player who was not only famous,even in India, but also bore the same name as hiscommander-in-chief, who incidentally, was likely tohave been present at the same gathering.Additionally, anyone who has studied the career ofJohn Roberts would know that having obtained sucha marketable commodity he would have promoted itwith vigour. Yet Roberts never even mentions the gameof Snooker, and there is certainly no record of himplaying it until many years after it had becomeestablished in England.In fact the earliest connection between John Robertsand snooker comes from his son, John W. Roberts,who wrote to the Billiard Player in 1938 saying thathis father had been introduced to the game whilsttouring America towards the end of 1893. He says of

the American game “theballs were of the usualAmerican size, roundabout 2½ ins. or 2 5/8 ins.,the six coloured balls(ivory) were numbered onboth sides of the whiteportion, the middle of theballs having deep colouredbands’ yellow 2, green 3,brown 4, blue 5, pink 6and black 7. The usual 15red and the player’s ballincluded the set.” Hecontinues, “My father was so taken up with this gamethat he not only brought over a set of these balls toEngland, but he also brought over three Americanplayers, Slossen being one of them; I think Ives wasanother. The first game of snooker which I witnessedby these American players caused some littlesensation at the time, but what delighted the audiencemost were Slossen’s trick shots.” This surely removesany thoughts that John Roberts had discovered thegame in India eight years previously. So who was itthat Chamberlain met in India in February 1885?There are two good candidates, both of whom werein India at the time. The first of these was theextravagantly named Sackville West Stanley, who,after a career in the front rank of billiard players inEngland, had taken to the Singapore/Malaysia areawhere he played many exhibitions and was alsoengaged by local Princes as a teacher of the game.At first sight this would seem to be a prime candidate,having just the credentials necessary to be appointedas a coach for the Maharaja of Cooch Behar. Theonly difficulty arises in what he might have done withthe rules of snooker once obtained from Chamberlain.He remained in India until 1887 when he returned toEngland. It is possible that the first definite referenceto snooker in the Sporting Life of 1887 came as aresult of Stanley bringing the rules of the game withhim. However, Stanley was virtually inactive forseveral years after his arrival, when he would havehad every chance to promote snooker should he havebeen in a possession of the rules. The absence of

Was it Fred Shorter (left) or S. W. Stanley (right) who metwith Chamberlain in 1885.

John Roberts was not inIndia during 1885Maharaja of Cooch Behar


any reference to Stanley’s name as the game grewin popularity in England mitigates against the casefor him having brought it back to the country.The second leading professional who could have beenin India at the time in question was Fred Shorter wholeft England in the early part of 1885 bound forAustralia. He was suffering from tuberculosis andhad been advised to take a long sea voyage, ironicallyit appears, by John Roberts himself. Shorter hadtoured India before (1880), and could well havestopped there briefly during the voyage. He maytherefore have had the opportunity to make thiscontact with Chamberlain. It is known that he arrivedin Melbourne on 16th March 1885 where, despite hisillness, he was sufficiently well to play a number ofpublic matches promoted by Henry Upton Alcock thefamous billiard table manufacturer. This would tie invery well with being in Calcutta at the end of February.Did Shorter carry a copy of the rules of Snookerwith him and give these to Alcock? or possibly toFrank Smith, who was at that time a leading billiardsplayer in that country and under contract to Alcock?Indeed, Smith was known to have claimed that heand Henry Alcock had invented snooker “at therequest of members of the Indian army” who visitedthe Victoria Club in Melbourne in “about 1887”.Fred Shorter did not last long after his arrival inAustralia, eventually succumbing to his illness onSaturday 22nd August 1885 at Deniliquin, New SouthWales, where he seems to have spent his last dayswith relatives, but there is a good chance that he hadcarried the first news of Chamberlain’s game toAustralia.

Conclusions

The good news for those supporting the claim ofNeville Chamberlain as the inventor of the game

of snooker, is that despite some extensive researchon the subject, no evidence has been found whichconfirms the existence of the game before thetimescales offered by Chamberlain, or for it beingplayed in any part of the world other than India untilwell after these dates.The main problem however is that there appears tohave been two completely separate versions of game.The idea that one evolved naturally from the other istoo much to accept as a credible concept and it canonly be concluded that they must have been devisedindependently.Of course, Neville Chamberlain may have been thesole author of both, and he certainly seems to havebeen involved with promoting first one, then the otherversion. The evidence, as supplied by Chamberlainhimself, appears to be quite strong that he invented

George Pretyman:“Colonel Snooker?”

a “Black Pool” version in1875, but is much moretenuous when it comes tothe Pyramids version (themodern game) which wecan trace back with reliableevidence only as far as1882.The weight of probabilitysuggests that themetamorphosis betweenthe two versions—at leastas far as Chamberlain wasconcerned—actually tookplace in, or close to, May1882 at the Indian Hill Station of Ootacamund.Chamberlain himself does not claim that he was solelyresponsible for introducing the game to “Ooty” alsocrediting by implication, Lieutenant-Colonel GeorgeTindal Pretyman, R.A.It is tempting to link Pretyman to the early storieswhich attribute the game to a “Captain” or “ColonelSnooker” of the Royal Artillery although not all of thepieces fit comfortably in this theory. He certainlymeets the key link with the Artillery, having been agraduate of the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich.He was a Colonel at the time we think the game firstappeared. He would have been travelling withChamberlain and Hamilton as their senior officer,visiting the same regiments, until 1884 when he leftField Marshal Roberts’ staff and thereafter could havepromoted the game independently. But even if GeorgePretyman turned out to be the fabled “ColonelSnooker” this would just establish a connection withthe game of which we are already aware, and notgive us any new evidence that he was the inventor.Was Chamberlain telling the whole truth about theextent of his involvement with the game? We mustassume so. He was 82 years-old at the time heeventually wrote his letter to The Field and it is difficultto think that he had any incentive other than to relateall the facts as he remembered them.All the available evidence points to it being eitherNeville Chamberlain or George Pretyman who tookthe game of pyramids and suggested adding poolballs with different values. Which one, we will probablynever know. We can however be reasonably confidentthat the name of “Snooker” was adopted from asuggestion by Chamberlain.So perhaps Colonel Sir Neville Francis FitzgeraldChamberlain deserves a place in history as theinventor of the modern game of Snooker, but thereare still some areas in this story which require furtherexplanation.

AcknowledgementsMy thanks go to Stephen J. Cox who has provided invaluable research information from Australia, also toRoger Lee and Jack Ben-Nathan for access to material in their personal collections.

the origin of snooker : the neville chamberlain...

Documents