This is quite interesting...

I recently looked at the scorecard for the 1882 Oval Test, and the auditor in me noticed that Fred Spofforth of Australia had bowled 36.3 of the 71.3 overs that England faced. Surely this means that he must have bowled consecutive overs at some stage? I immediately ruled out the possibility that Cricinfo has printed an error, and leapt to the conclusion that the Aussies had cheated, the match should be awarded to England, and all subsequent Ashes matches have been a travesty and sham. Or have I missed something? asked Tom Allkins
Well, as it turns out you haven't destroyed the whole Ashes legend, which started after Australia won that match at The Oval in 1882. Gerald Brodribb's book Next Man In, a fascinating look at how the Laws of Cricket evolved over the years, reveals that the original 1744 code of Laws allowed the bowler to change ends just once during an innings, but allowed him to bowl successive overs when he did. In 1870 this law was tweaked slightly: "Provided he does not bowl more than two overs in succession, a bowler may change ends twice but no more often in an innings." So that's what happened in that 1882 match, and in several others around this time. In 1889 the law was amended again, to allow the bowler to change ends as often as he liked, but removing the ability to bowl successive overs, which remains the case today.