Sorry to spoil the party, but I can categorically state that Lillywhite did NOT have a first class bowling average of 1.5 or a strike rate of 10.
Very early scorecards generally only credited bowlers with bowled dismissals, and did not record the number of balls bowled or runs conceded by the bowler. This issue gradually improved around the middle of the 19th century with the introduction of Lillywhite's Guides and Wisden's Almanack, but even as late as the 1870s some scorecards, while giving full credit to bowlers for their dismissals, didn't record the balls bowled or runs conceded. There are also a handful of first class matches where the runs conceded are recorded but bowlers aren't given credit for wickets taken with the aid of fielders (i.e catches, stumpings).
Full bowling analysis are only available for innings covering 235 of the 1576 wickets Lillywhite is known to have taken in his first class career. In their historical ignorance or complete disregard for statistical accuracy, Cricinfo have simply taken all the balls bowled and runs conceded by Lillywhite in the comparatively few instances where full information is available, and divided these by the total number of wickets taken in his entire career to arrive at hugely misleading averages and strike rates.
Where full bowling analysis are available, Lillywhite is known to have taken 235 wickets at an average of 10.36, a strike rate of 28.21 and an economy rate of 2.20. This issue affects nearly all pre 1870 bowlers to some extent. The best average of any bowler with (virtually) complete career figures is George Freeman, who took 284 wickets at an average of 9.84, strike rate of 35.47 and economy rate of 1.66. He also took four more wickets in match(es) where full bowling analysis were not kept.
