MCC members are voting for the second time this year on whether to admit women to their men-only club. The result will be known after Monday's meeting. Here, members give two sides of the argument.
YES
Mark Nicholas Former Hampshire captain and Electronic Telegraph cricket writer
ONE day, perhaps even one day soon, like Monday, women will be eligible to become members of the MCC. This is inevitable because of the massive involvement of women in cricket. Women watch, women play, women umpire and score; women talk, women teach and women write about the game; they still make the tea. It is unfair to exclude one half or thereabouts of our population from sharing membership of a club who have played a main part in the history of cricket and ought to - still can, in fact - go forward to play an important part in its future.
If we were to stand today on a splendid, enviable piece of land in north-west London and decide to build the finest, most desirable cricketing venue on the planet; if we were then to challenge architects to combine the aesthetic appeal of old stands and new, of Victorian brick and space-age aluminium; and then, having done the job, we were asked to host Test matches, World Cup finals and so much more - would we open our club to men only?
No, we would surely not want to. We would only be half a club and what's the value, the reality or the fairness in that?
If we were then to become responsible for the laws of cricket worldwide, for taking a lead in the spirit and ethos of the game, for ground-breaking, missionary tours abroad, for coaching initiatives nationwide, for hundreds of matches against clubs and schools; for the support and patronage of big occasions such as bicentenaries and smaller occasions such as pavilion openings would be want our pioneering club to be open to men only? No, we would surely not.
And were we to be a club for men only, we would be portrayed as selfish, rightly exposed as bigoted and elitist. This is a problem with cricket, the perennial problem of image.
But it need not be so. Young people, new people, women, can be encouraged into cricket quite easily. It is that good a game. Just about anybody who has cricket clearly explained then well taught to them will latch on to it and come to love it. Lack of interest in cricket comes from the unknown and from a regard that the game, and sometimes the MCC in particular, is inflexible and old-fashioned.
To solve the problem of image, cricket needs to open up, to relax a little and allow the 21st century its head. Women have as big a part to play in this as men. Women are as likely to sell cricket to the next generation as are men. Women broaden the game's horizon.
The MCC must inspire this process of involvement in cricket by everyone. The MCC can teach the game as we now know it and trail new versions; the MCC can assist the ICC abroad and breathe life into unsupported schools at home; the MCC will build a cricket academy at Shenley given half a chance and the right backing. The MCC can do these things and so much more, but first it must tell the world something of which no one is yet certain. That the Victorian ideals upon which the club were built - one of which was the exclusion of women - have changed and that they can address this, their most unsatisfactory issue, by dealing with it in-house.
The angry, trenchant attitude of members who are against the idea is odd and sad. They are losing nothing from their membership by accepting women, bar just occasionally their pavilion seat and a short while on the waiting list for their friends and family.
Lord's will not be overcrowded except on the biggest match days, when it is overcrowded anyway. If the waiting list becomes a little longer then it is a small price to pay for encouraging both sexes to share the enormous public responsibilities which make the club so valuable. And let's face it, private club they may be but public privileges they enjoy.
This is not an issue of political correctness, it is an issue of correctness. It should not be too much of an issue about National Lottery money or sponsorship money for these are sideshows compared with the indecency of discrimination.
And it absolutely must not be an argument about the pavilion itself, which clearly some members would retain always as a 'gentlemen's' club. It is an argument about a 'cricket' club, which fosters and nurtures a magical game which is played by everybody - all ages, all colours, both sexes.
And it is an argument about the future and whether or not the game's leading club will allow women to be a part of them, a part of cricket's progress, a part of its regeneration.
NO
Edward Grayson and John MacGregor, long standing MCC members
A SUBSTANTIAL number of MCC members remain deeply troubled by the ramifications of admitting ladies to the Club - a matter scarcely touched on in anything the Committee has published. Despite much hostility from members across all ages, the Committee has allowed NO proposal but their own for discussion, although other reasonable options exist.
Many dissenting members have said they warmly welcome seeing ladies at Lord's, besides fully endorsing all the MCC has done and continues to do - to encourage and promote an interest in cricket among ladies as much as men. However, not to the extent of totally altering the whole ethos of Lord's. To try and justify this, the Committee has sought to convince members at every turn with eight specific reasons in support of a ``yes'' vote at the upcoming Special General Meeting.
Most are either flawed, quite irrelevant to the subject matter, or short on logic. One has to regret that, having consistently failed to carry enough members in earlier votes, this time the Committee proposes to bully members into submission with a broadly false prospectus.
Setting aside the Club's long history and traditions, the fact still remains that MCC is a private citizens' club. Over time, it has earned the right to be the mecca of cricket, along with being as well a focus for men to enjoy real tennis, squash, sporting dinners, and its historic museum. Many of us believe there is increasing danger of much of this being lost by the Club's prevalent mood of harsh commercialism.
One does not need the brain of Einstein to twig that the case for admitting women is to use them as a convenient 'stalking horse', despite vehement denials, in the wider pursuit of new sponsors and Lottery money. It is all totally cynical, covered with a veneer of 'political correctness', to the detriment of many members' wishes, and much of what MCC has stood for over decades.
The Committee's case, in support of a 'yes' vote, is constructed around a MORI survey. But who says, for instance, that in 1998 'it is wrong' to have an all-male club - other than those with an axe to grind? Are the Boy Scouts to be merged with the Girl Guides?
MORI continues that because some women love cricket, or participate in it, they should be given access to MCC membership. What difference would that make to their prospects? And is this any reason to abrogate the rights of existing members? It is also alleged that MCC's all-male status is undermining the Club's role in developing the game, a claim for which no evidence is given, nor appears to exist. In other words, the Committee's proposal is not only flawed, but broadly confirmed as money-driven.
All this said, it is not disputed that arguments exist in favour of radical change to the Club's rules. Some members hold fast to the belief that admitting ladies is overdue, if not fashionable and the 'in' thing as well. Some may feel (wrongly) that MCC is elitist, and now an anachronism. Yet others are prepared to go along with a 'yes' vote because public criticism is being whipped up.
Not only is this the moment for members to stand up for the sake of principle, but those with a vote should think most carefully about what the Club might look like after admitting women. With that barrier removed - what will follow? One matter is quite clear: behaving like a 'doormat' in the face of hostile criticism has never been a guarantee of winning friends, widespread approval, or an argument.
Honour, though, might still be satisfied all round, and at least one practical and useful option exists, which might also safeguard what is treasured by the MCC. The Committee could opt for a parallel private Ladies Club under the aegis of MCC, with its own officers, administration, Pavilion and independent social facilities at Lord's and doubtless - in time - its own waiting list.
This would give ladies full and associate membership within their own operation, besides sharing access to the private nets, professionals, and the Indoor School, on an agreed schedule with their male colleagues.
As a peacemaking scheme, it would be surprising if such an idea would fail to capture the imagination and votes of most of the substantial minority still firmly resisting the high pressure and bulldozing tactics of the present Lord's management.