Lives in Cricket No 34 - Frank Mitchell

52 the boys of the town for over four hundred years, but it was seemingly not regarded as of sufficient quality to be named in Wisden . Mr Cunliffe (as he then was), the batsman facing the relevant bowling, was educated at Eton. Another complainant through a letter to The Times was R.A.H.Mitchell. This Mitchell was not related to Frank and came from a very different background. Educated at Eton and Oxford, he was a cricket Blue for four years from 1862-5, and captain of Oxford for the last three of those years. He became an assistant master at Eton in 1866 and it was from Eton that he wrote in July 1896 somewhat sarcastically suggesting that there was no necessity for a change in the Law because the good feelings of cricketers generally would avoid a repetition of Frank Mitchell’s actions. ‘ Surely Cambridge will not compel us to have a law for the University match which is not required on other occasions .’ To add to any confusion about relationships, R.A.H. Mitchell had a son Frank Herbert Mitchell, born in 1878, who also later played for Oxford. Frank Herbert later became Sir Frank, and Assistant Private Secretary to King George V. On 6 July 1896, almost immediately after the Varsity match, the MCC Committee held a regular meeting. It received notice from Mr W.E.Denison, a Past President of both Nottinghamshire and MCC, on behalf of another Committee member Captain John St John Frederick –  a past Oxford Blue, and a very occasional cricketer  for Hampshire and Middlesex – that the Captain would shortly propose to the Committee that the law of ‘Follow on’ be altered. The upshot was that the MCC Selection Committee to whom Captain Frederick was added as a supplementary member were instructed to consider whether any alteration to Law 53 was desirable. For 27 July 1896 the minute reads: The Selection Committee had met and recommends that a reference be made to the cricketing counties and to the Australia XI now in England and to the leading clubs in Australia as follows: (1)     Whether any change in Law 53 is expedient. In the case of the Australian clubs the incident which led to the reference might be explained and the state of public feeling aroused by it. (2)     If a change is desirable to consider the following suggestions:- (a)      To give the side which in the first innings of a three day match is 120 runs ahead [or 80 runs ahead in a two day match, or 60 runs ahead in a one day match] the option of asking the other side to follow on (b)     To abolish the ‘Follow on’ altogether. If the latter course appeared to be expedient it might be worthy of consideration whether the closure rule might not also be altered  [to allow declarations either at any time or other specified times] It was Lord Harris who proposed that the Selection Committee report be adopted and the minutes record that the report was adopted but only by 5 votes to 4. The names of those who voted for and against the proposal are not noted in the minutes. The 1896 season with the follow-on controversy