[In 1894 the M.C.C. passed a law to the effect that the side which goes in second shall follow their innings if they have scored 120 runs less (not 80 as formerly) than the opposite side in a three days match, or 80 runs in a two days match, and power was also given for the in-side on the last day of a match to declare the innings at an end. This last most important rule was passed partly in order to prevent drawn matches, and partly to prevent cricket lapsing into burlesque, as it has on several occasions. But still the true principle alluded to in the beginning of the preceding paragraph is difficult to find, and the awkward question still remains, as it is within the right of a captain to order his men to get out that he may follow on, is it not within the opposing captain’s right to order his bowlers to bowl wides to prevent the follow on? The motive is the same in each case: one captain desires to follow on because he thinks that by following on he has a better chance of winning the match; the other captain is of the same opinion; is it wrong, therefore, for him to try and defeat that object by bowling wides? I am not able to say that it is. One captain to make his side follow on orders his batsmen to play skittles; the other captain to prevent a follow on orders his bowlers to play skittles. Where is the difference in principle? There is a difference of another kind, which is, that it is easier for a batsman to get out on purpose without making it appear to be a burlesque than it is for a bowler to bowl wides or no balls on purpose. A batsman may run himself out or put his leg in front, and nobody wonders; but if a steady bowler bowls three wides running, the most ignorant spectator sees through the game at once, and yells accordingly. The problem may be stated in another way. Is it cricket to sacrifice runs by running yourself out or knocking down your wicket? If the answer is in the affirmative, then state your reason why it is wrong for a bowler to sacrifice runs by bowling wides or no balls. To a genuine cricketer it is equally unpleasant to see cricket turned into burlesque by the batsmen as by the bowlers; what is difficult to understand is why the batsmen should be allowed to practise burlesque and command the applause of the crowd, while the bowler is hooted and yelled at. The question is a most difficult one to answer, and perhaps the most satisfactory solution may be in the direction of abolishing the follow on altogether, and giving power to close the innings at any time. Every proposal has its drawbacks, and the drawback to this is that it gives an additional advantage to winning the toss; but it is not easy to see that there is any better solution of the question.--R. H. L.]