Minor Counties Championship 1909

6 The Election Of Officers – Mr R H Mallett stated that he regretted that he was no longer able to continue the joint secretaryship of the Association. He deeply thanked his colleague for the work he had done and his forbearance towards the speaker. Mr Mallett then proposed the re- election of Dr Earl Norman, which was seconded by Mr A M Miller (Wiltshire) and carried unanimously. Replying, Dr Norman stated that he wished Mr Mallett could have continued in office and hoped that he would still be able to give the committee the benefit of his valuable advice. Messrs P J de Paravicini (Bucks), R H Mallett and Dr Earl Norman were re-elected as the representatives to serves on the Advisory County Committee. At this point, Mr H A Groom (Suffolk) proposed the following resolution: “That in the constitution of the committee each division shall have the opportunity of having a representative on the committee”. He was supported by Cambridgeshire, and, following some discussion, the motion was carried unanimously. As previously constituted the committee had had four representatives from the Southern group of counties, which were geographically closest, and one each from the Eastern and the Northern Groups – it was decided to replace one of the representatives of the Southern Group by one from the Western Group. This was brought about by the voluntary retirement of Berkshire and the addition of Glamorgan, meaning that the committee would now consist of one delegate from each of the following counties: Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Glamorgan, Staffordshire, Surrey 2nd XI and Wiltshire. The Organisation Of The Championship – At this point the delegate from Glamorgan proposed the motion referred to above (“That the present division of the Minor Counties Championship into sections be abandoned and the Championship decided on the same lines as that of the First-class Counties, five out-and-home matches being the minimum required to qualify a county for the competition”). Mr J H Brain said that, in his opinion, the present scheme had never proved satisfactory. It denied counties the freedom to choose their own fixture lists and nor was it a good method of arriving at their premiership. The final was played too late in the autumn and the outcome might depend on a single innings. He declared that the old scheme [involving just one division] was preferable. He went on to say that the Minor Counties had been lucky in the first year in which the divisions had been used [1907] as there had been no hitches but last year there had been an “awful muddle” when three counties finished equal in the Western Division. After numerous letters and telegrams, Devon were left out and an “eliminator” was arranged between Monmouthshire and Glamorgan to decide which of the two was to contest the semi-final. Alas rain prevented the eliminator from reaching a conclusion and, eventually, it was decided that Glamorgan should progress; beating Wiltshire in the semi-final, they went on to lose the Championship Final on a mudbath in Stoke [see pages 9-10 of 1908 book for details]. Mr Brain complained that the matches “got into a groove”; he wished for a greater variety of fixtures and the ability to play some of the other stronger counties. He finished by declaring that the knock-out games were a financial disaster; the games held in the fine weather of 1907 had failed to break even whilst those affected by rain in 1908 had been ruinous, costing the Club over a hundred pounds [this issue would resurface before the Great War]. Mr A M Miller (Wiltshire) seconded the proposal, although not agreeing with Mr Brain on every point. He complained that Wiltshire had to play on some grounds which were not sufficiently prepared and that the playing of the Final in September was far too late. Dr Earl Norman said that he presumed that it was not intended to make any alterations for the 1909 season as the vast majority of the fixtures had already been arranged. Mr N Radcliffe (Devon) supported the motion, though he would prefer that the qualification be set at four rather than five out-and-home matches. Mr K J Key (Surrey) also supported, stating that the