To give some context to the situation, I should remind you that the Football League had been formed in 1888 and consisted of Midland and Northern clubs. Impartial referees had been the norm in the League and other parts of the football world. The south, Woolwich Arsenal, aside was a football backwater lagging well behind in all aspects of the game. Northern newspapers knew all the nuances of the game and frequently published stories where bias was even remotely suspected. The most respected sports newspaper, The Athletic News, had repeatedly raised this issue for many years. The following clip from the 21st February 1888 is typical –

“It appears that the referee had formerly played for Leek, and though he doubtless acted in an impartial manner, we need hardly repeat that such a selection was injudicious. The referee ought, in ever instance, to be as free from the very appearance of bias as it is possible to get him. A referee may be as just and wise as Solomon, and yet he shall not escape calumny if he can, however remotely, be connected with either team.”

Add to this is the simple principle of fair play – a cornerstone of British life. It should not be necessary to write this principle down in the Laws of the Game nor in the guidance to referees. It should be obvious to all that a referee who had controlled 7 out of the last 10 Millwall games and had his photo taken with them should not be involved in a game that would go a long way to decide who would be Champions. The Luton football public knew it – they saw Mr Whittaker’s photo with the Millwall team and were incensed. The Southern League could not see it. Mr Whittaker could not see it. Millwall preferred not to see it. What could LTFC do?

The Luton Town F.C. minute book entry for Monday 24th September reveals that the club objected to the Southern League.

The Club wrote the following to the Council of the Southern League ten days before the game.

“Luton Town Football Club

10 Grove-road, Sept 25th 1894 To the Council, Southern League Gentlemen,

I am requested to bring before the Council what appears to us rather peculiar, viz., the manner of electing or appointing referees to the League games, as we were under the impression that it was an established rule that no man should act as referee in any match if he was at interested in either of the competing clubs; and bearing this in mind, we are surprised that one man, and he, printed and published in The Sketch with the Millwall team as Millwall’s referee, should be chosen to act for what practically his own club, in three important fixtures, and we for one respectfully enter our protest against Mr Whittaker acting in our match v. Millwall at Luton. We do this on three grounds: 1, that Mr Whittaker being Millwall’s referee is ineligible; 2, that as this match means so much to the competing clubs, it necessary and imperative that no one should be allowed the opportunity of fancying or suggesting that the scales of justice told against either club; 3, it might possibly tend to the harmony at present existing between us being strained instead of strengthened. We wish it to be clearly understood that what we have said is not in any way directed at the gentleman named, but at the general principal, as we consider it detrimental to the best interests of the League, and we hasten to say that it would give us great pleasure to welcome Mr. Whittaker in any of the other League fixtures, but in this particular match we respectfully urge that it would be better for all concerned that a man quite unknown and distinct from either club should officiate. We have no choice, neither do we wish any. In conclusion, I must add that in Luton and district the feeling runs very high on this matter, and it would be, to say the least, very injudicious to press the appointment. For our own part, all we ask is that no ground, however slight, for suspicion should be allowed to exist.

On behalf of the Committee L.T.F.C. Isaac Smith, Sec.”

The letter does not reflect the minutes of the meeting. The letter makes it sound as though LTFC was the source of the high feelings. The start of the letter should have included that “in Luton and district the PUBLIC feeling runs very high on this matter.”

And perhaps followed with “we suggest that Mr Whittaker step aside for this one game as there does not appear to be any other way to quell those high feelings amongst the public.”

We must bear in mind that LTFC did not know Mr Whittaker. LTFC did have a close relationship with the referee Mr Rostron Bourke who had brought representative teams from London to play against LTFC. His representative teams came at the end of the 92/93 and 93/94 seasons and were of an exhibition nature and were followed by the traditional tea at the LTFC HQ at the Midland Hotel. However, that relationship was founded in friendly matches not Cup or League games. And certainly there is no photo (that we know of) of the LTFC team with Mr Rostron Bourke. I have found a photo of Mr Rostron Bourke with the London Caledonians from the same period. Caledonians were not however, a League side.

The reply from the Southern League, below, arrived one week before the match against Millwall.

“Southern League

7 Rutland-road, Ilford

Sept, 28th 1894 Dear Sir,

Your letter of the 25th inst. addressed to the Council was duly laid before a special meeting of the Management Committee last night. We had the express assurance of both Mr. Whittaker and Mr Gordon, that the former had not the slightest connection with the Millwall Club. The coincidence of his portrait appearing in The Sketch, along with the team of the Millwall Club, is surely a very slight ground for the charge of partiality you prefer against him. It must surely occur to you that any referee officiating in that particular match would have been placed in a similar position. As a matter of fact, I find that Mr. Rostron Bourke and Mr S. R. Carr have on previous occasions figured in the photo of the team of Millwall Club, and one would be loathe to think that they would of necessity be biassed in favour of that club. In appointing a referee for your League match on the 6th prox., the Committee, bearing in mind the importance that that result bore to the determination of the League Championship, appointed Mr. Whittaker, as the referee most likely to give satisfaction to everyone. As you objection to his appointment is based upon an erroneous assumption I have no doubt this explanation will remove it. Perhaps you see your way to take some steps to counter the feeling that has engendered in your district against our appointment, and which may have been inflamed through the position you have thought fit to take up. I trust to have an opportunity of witnessing on the 6th October what must prove such an interesting match, and we have not the slightest doubt that Mr Whittaker will have been found to have given unbounded satisfaction to everyone concerned. In conclusion, as you have gather from the foregoing, the Management Committee cannot see their way to depart from the original choice. It is an established rule, as you say, that no man should act in any match, if he was at all interested in either of the competing clubs, and this rule has not been departed from.

“The referee, passing unnoticed a decided trip by Geddes eventually pulled up Matthews for a bad foul on Allen amid the applause of the spectators.”

“For some reason a free-kick was given against McEwen…” from which Millwall scored their first goal.

“The ball was now heavy and slippery and a new one was procured, which Graham [Millwall] was at first declined to accept, but withdrew his objection when Mr Whittaker insisted on the change. The incident was notable, and its significance was not lost on the crowd.”

“The home goal-keeper was ‘floored’ before he could get at the leather, but his appeal for a foul was disregarded.” Millwall scored their second goal as a result of the goalkeeper being fouled. The new law of the game that Summer was that a goal-keeper could only be barged when he had the ball. This foul cost Luton the Millwall second goal and immediately afterwards –

“..and the next decision of the referee A GLARING MISTAKE, must have convinced them that they had little fear of losing their lead. The ball was kicked on to Robertson’s hand by McEwen in a most palpable fashion but Mr Whittaker gave a free-kick against Luton !” The law at the time was that if the ball hit a hand, it was a free-kick – the word “deliberate” was not in the Laws of the Game.

The above clip continues

“This was enough to dishearten any team, and when a goal-kick was awarded Millwall when Geddes deliberately fouled near his own corner-flag, the Reds (Luton) for a time seemed for a time to almost relax their efforts and almost give up trying.”

Luton scored their third goal to pull the score back to 3 4 but the cheers had hardly died away

“before Mr Whittaker blew his whistle for “time” prematurely by several minutes at least.”

The crowd entered the pitch after the game and as dear old Harry Ashby was to recall 63 years later, Mr Whittaker was “mobbed.” It seems this means he was heckled but not touched.

The Luton Times Sports editorial from the 13th October 1894 summed up all of the above with the highlight being -

“From the first matters have appeared to be rather than”fishy” and the fact that the Millwall executive were so ready and obligingly willing to officer and run the whole concern, made me a trifle suspicious.”

The Luton Reporter does not add any more detail and there is zero criticism of the referee in the report which merely tells us what happened without opinion. The sports editorial of the Reporter is also of a different tone to the Luton Times in its verdict –

On the Monday the LTFC committee met, their stance no doubt hardened by Mr Whittaker’s display two days earlier. Here is the minute book entry for the 8th October 1894 –

“Mr Squires proposed that this meeting advise the Secretary to publish in the London and Local papers, the whole of the correspondence relating to our objection to Mr Whittaker officiating in our League fixture with Millwall in order that the public may judge whether or not it was a wise action on the part of the management committee of the League Council to persist in sending Mr Whittaker after we had entered our protest against him and also that he notifies to the league council and to all the clubs engaged in the competition and to the Referee’s Association that we absolutely refuse to take part in any match at which Mr Whittaker is appointed to officiate as referee.

The publishing of Mr Clarke’s reply to our protest is subject to his sanction for the same. Mr Barford seconded and carried unanimously.”

Isaac Smith wrote to the Southern League on the 9th October “Dear Sir, Some one from your committee has broken faith and has thought well to publish extracts with criticisms, from my letter objecting to Mr Whittaker acting as referee, my committee have instructed me to publish in the London and local football papers the whole of the correspondence relating to this matter, so that the public may judge whether we were justified in our action – also whether your committee acted wisely in disregarding our wishes – forcing Mr Whittaker to act were he certainly was not wanted. Replying to your letter and its explanations and decision, I have to say that they did not satisfy us in the least; on the contrary, they, if possible made matters worse, and as to your prophecy that he would give everyone satisfaction, allow me to convey to you and the committee and council through you that not only are we not satisfied but have come to the decision not to allow our men to take the field again with this gentleman as referee. This is plain and straightforward, but it is much better to say what we mean now than to wait until further appointments have been made then object. That we had, and still have, good grounds for our objection I think it is confirmed by the report which you will find in a Leicester paper sent under separate cover. Referring to publication, we hold your letter of Sept 28th back, so that if we do not hear from you to the contrary by Thursday night’s post we shall publish your reply with our protest.

Yours truly etc”

The Southern League Chairman replied as follows on the 10th October – “Dear Sir

I am in receipt of your yesterday’s letter referring to your recent League match against the Millwall F.C. I certainly think that the action your Committee intend to take with regard to the appointment of Mr Whittaker as referee is not the right one. Such questions should be brought before a meeting of the Emergency Committee, in divulging to the Press particulars of what transpired at our last meeting is certainly to be deprecated in the strongest manner. Kindly let me know full particulars. “The public” is not the tribunal to whom you should appeal, and under the circumstances, I must ask you to refrain from publishing any of the correspondence about League business. I will lay your letter before to-morrow evening’s meeting of the Management Committee, and propose that a Council meeting be at once convened to consider your protest and other matters relating there

The Council of the Southern League met on the 19th October 1894. From the Luton News –

“Luton and the League The Meeting of the Council

A special meeting of the Council of the Southern league was held on Friday evening at the Billiter Coffee House, Fishmonger-alley, Fenchurch-street. The meeting was ostensibly convened to consider Luton’s request that Mr Whittaker, the secretary, should not be again appointed to referee in any match in which the Lutonians were to take part, but strangely enough, when the agenda reached Luton, it was found that this matter had been omitted altogether, and the place of honour – that is the first position – was accorded to the following : ‘Mr Whittaker’s complaint against several of the Luton Committee.” This omission was pointed out by Mr I. Smith, and subsequently the grievances which Luton wished to ventilate were placed under the head “Correspondence.”

The meeting commenced at half-past six, under the Presidency of Mr R.H. Clark, and among the numerous delegates present were Mr H. Arnold (Luton), Messrs Gordon and Clarke (Millwall) etc, and Mr Whittaker, of course, was also there. After settling the very important question of Referee’ expenses, the Council deciding that referees should be paid third-class railway fare and 7s 6d. for expenses, the all-important subject came up for discussion.

Mr Whittaker said he was very sorry to have to bring the matter before them, but it was a matter which evidently, from past experience, would have to come before them, and the sooner it was settled the better. He made a charge of incompetency against the Luton Committee, in not looking out for their crowd, and in a way encouraging the crowd by the actions of these committeemen. When he went onto the ground there were distinct cries of ‘Here he comes; here’s Millwall’s referee.’ Of course, he took no notice of that and went to his box, where one of the Luton committeemen was very nice indeed. After the match was over, there were a good many disgraceful remarks on the part of the spectators, such as “what’s your commission?” He made his way to the box, and when inside, the door being open, he heard one committeeman say, in answer to someone who said “Well, we’ve won to-day,” “Yes, you have won, but would not if it had not been for that thing in there. That thing won the match for you.” He heard that distinctly, and several of the Millwall committeemen had come there on purpose to look after him.

The CHAIRMAN That is the only thing you heard you took exception to.

Mr SAUNDERS : I thought it was uncalled for. I heard no other remark beyond that.

Mr WHITTAKER : Did you see any committeemen follow the crowd down.

Mr SAUNDERS replied that he could not say he did. When he found things were quiet and the people dispersing, he and his friends went. When he went down the street a little afterwards, the boys were all following the referee down, hooting him to the station. he should say there were about 500 boys.

Mr ARNOLD said it seemed to him that the matter which Mr Whittaker had brought forward in this fashion raised not only the particular question to which attention had been drawn, but other questions affecting it, and if he had had notice of what the charge was he had no doubt that he could have brought witnesses who would have substantiated much that had been said.

The CHAIRMAN: You don’t deny that such things were said?

Mr ARNOLD said he did not deny that a certain gentleman did refer to Mr Whittaker as a thing, and another gentleman said he believed the match was lost through Mr Whittaker.

The CHAIRMAN: Was that another committeeman?

Mr ARNOLD said he believed the same thing himself, and he thought the whole committee were of one opinion with regard to that. In fact, it would be a very difficult matters to find a person who was not of the same opinion.

In reply to a further observation by the Chairman, Mr ARNOLD said he would admit personally that he said that if Mr Whittaker were a gentleman he would not have come to Luton after they had protested against him. Also in regard to the refereeing shown that day, he said he was a “waster”.

A GENTLEMAN present remarked that that was a rather unparliamentary expression.

Mr WHITTAKER said that he would like to say that not only did Mr Arnold say he was no gentleman to come there, but he went further and said that if any other referee had been there they would have drawn the match if not won it.

Mr ARNOLD said that raised the whole question of the match, and the conduct of the referee. He was quote prepared to go into that matter, and he thought he could substantiate what he said.

THE CHAIRMAN, whose voice was inaudible, was understood to ask Mr Arnold if he did not come there to refute these statements.

Mr ARNOLD said he did not come there to refute them, because he did not know what they were. He did not wish to refute them. Continuing, Mr Arnold said Mr Whittaker had thrown out some very peculiar insinuations regarding the Luton crowd, and had led the council to infer that the only protection he received was from the Millwall committee – (Mr WHITTAKER: “Hear Hear”). There were members of the Millwall committee there and members of the Luton committee there – (“Who made the remarks” interposed the CHAIRMAN. Yes those remarks were not made in the presence of 500 spectators, but after the majority of the people had gone.

Mr WHITTAKER : I said in the presence of a hundred.

Mr ARNOLD said there was not a hundred. The crowd had gone, and Mr Whittaker was in the box. He himself was there, four other committeemen were there, a few gentlemen from Millwall and half a dozen others. That was all that were there when these remarks were made. Mr Whittaker said none of the Luton committee were there while as a matter of fact these committeemen were there for the express purpose, if any need had arisen, to do what they could to secure the referee from molestation. As it happened, there was no danger. Mr Whittaker also referred to the fact that those gentlemen were chattering all the time. He presumed that everyone was at liberty to talk if he liked, without asking that gentleman. Then Mr Whittaker said that Mr Smith was the only gentleman who in any way tried to get the crowd away. That was deliberate…well, he would not say what he was going to, but it was not in harmony with the truth. Mr G.H. Barford had spoken to the crowd asking them to go away, he (Mr Arnold) had done the same, and the police also, acting under instructions from the committee, did all they could in the same direction. In his opinion, therefore, Mr Whittaker’s assertion was hardly in harmony with the facts in the case. He (Mr Arnold) would certainly like to go into this matter of the refereeing. Would the correspondence that had taken place with the Luton Club come before this meeting?

They considered it would be much better for another gentleman to be appointed. In some further remarks as to where the information in regard to Luton’s protest emanated from, Mr Arnold said he would like to ask the secretary whether he communicated it to any London papers.

Mr WHITTAKER said he did not, and expressed the opinion that the information must have emanated from Luton.

The CHAIRMAN said he did not think they need go into this question at all. The question was as to future action. The correspondence showed that Mr Whittaker was not desirable at Luton, and they had a large number of others they could select from. The Management Committee was entrusted with the appointment of referees, and he thought it could be left to them. He thought they should show confidence in the committee by leaving the whole matter to them.of Mr Whittaker’s refereeing

Mr ARNOLD said in regard to Mr Whittaker, they knew very little about him at Luton before this particular match. They had heard of him, and thought he was a very good referee but as has been said, there was an opinion in Luton that he had refereed so often at Millwall that it was inadvisable for him to come on this occasion, though Mr Smith states in his letter that they would have been perfectly pleased and satisfied to receive Mr Whittaker at any other League match. After the exhibition they had had of Mr Whittaker’s refereeing, however, they did not want him any more.

Mr GORDON : May I ask Mr Arnold if he accepts the contradiction by Mr Whittaker of his having any connection whatever with Millwall Club.

Mr ARNOLD: Yes certainly.

Mr GORDON : That was the point on which I thought an apology should be made. The CHAIRMAN remarked that Mr Arnold said Mr Whittaker was a “waster.”

Mr ARNOLD said he was speaking his own personal opinion and not expressing that of the committee. The Luton Football Committee were not, he presumed responsible for the language he used – (laughter). He did not usually, before he said anything, submit it to the committee and ask them whether they would be favourable to the language he used.

Mr WHITTAKER said he should like to point out that this matter had not been settled. He would like to point out to the Luton representative that the Management Committee was selected by representatives from every club in the League for the express purpose of appointing referees and other incidental matters that came up. They, he presumed had the confidence of those gentlemen. He did not see they could do anything in the matter at all. If the Management Committee thought fit to appoint him in a match is which Luton was concerned, he did not see any reason for Luton to be consulted.

Mr ARNOLD said surely if the Management Committee knew strong feeling existed in a place against any gentleman, it would be injudicious to say the least, to appoint such a gentleman to referee them. That was why the letter was sent.

The CHAIRMAN said, to put the matter in order, it would be necessary to have a resolution.

Mr ARNOLD then moved: That the Management Committee be instructed from this meeting, considering the feeling at Luton regarding Mr Whittaker, not to appoint him in any match in which Luton is concerned.”

Mr Clark (MILLWALL) asked if that would not be establishing a precedent.

Mr WHITTAKER said he reckoned it as a slight on himself. he certainly thought himself as good a referee as any in the south of England.

Mr HAYWARD (Clapton) seconded the motion as a matter of form.

Mr GORDON again recommended his plan of sending Mr Whittaker repeatedly.

A remember that Mr Gordon, the President of Millwall, contributed copiously to the Morning Leader newspaper and to the football section of The Star newspaper. So he had plenty of contacts to mobilise opinion his way, which he did.

The London Press attacked Harry Arnold so he decided to write to the Luton News – “Sir, Will you kindly allow me, through the medium of your paper, to say that the reports of the recent Southern League meeting appearing in the London papers convey a very wrong impression of what actually transpired there. I was not called to order by the Chairman for using objectionable language, but for being out of order in attempting to discuss the refereeing of Mr Whittaker. The language that I used, to which exception has been taken, was merely used as a correction of what Mr Whittaker stated I said at Luton, and which was the subject of his complaint. My attitude was, and still is, that I was speaking in a private conversation with some friends to whom I made the remark “That Mr Whittaker was no gentleman or he would not have come to Luton after a protest had been lodged against him coming.” I also said, in connection with the exhibition he gave as a referee, that he was a “waster.” These expressions I refused to withdraw and express my regret for, on the ground that I had the perfect right to express myself in conversation without the matter being reported to the League for that body to take action regarding it. Thanking you in anticipation. I am, yours sincerely

H. ARNOLD

Bedford-road, Luton, 24th October 1894.” 

22nd October 1894 LTFC minute book entry –

“Letter received from Mr Whittaker – “It was the proposed by Mr Barford and seconded by Mr Squires that a special night be given to go thoroughly into the question Re. Mr Whittaker and Southern League. On being put to the meeting 4 voted for and 4 against, the chairman giving the casting vote against.

It was therefore decided to proceed with the business relating to the same. Mr Arnold as delegate read the report of the meeting which took a considerable time, and as it was getting late the following resolution was carried, That this meeting adjourn to Wednesday at 8 o’clock. The Secretary to acknowledge Mr Whittaker’s letter stating we are calling a special meeting during the week to consider the matter.”

24th October minute book entry –

“SOUTHERN LEAGUE. It was resolved that Mr Arnold’s resignation as delegate to the Southern League Council be accepted but at the same time a vote of confidence in Mr Arnold was passed unanimously the whole committee believing he had worked conscientiously on behalf of the club.

It was then proposed by Mr Barford and seconded by Mr Scott that the committee appoint a new delegate in place of Mr Arnold, acquaint Mr Whittaker of the appointment and stating we would tender an apology to the council at the next meeting.

AMENDMENT proposed by Mr Horn, seconded by Mr Hackett that a written apology be sent through the secretary to the council of the Southern League. On being put to the meeting the chairman declared the amendment carried.”

I can see why, in 1957 Harry Ashby remembered the name Whittaker, 63 years later. Having your photo taken with the Millwall team weeks before the most important game of the “Battle of the League” was a huge error of judgment by Nat Whittaker. He should have stepped down and let an independent referee take charge. As he was Secretary of the Southern League, that body, devoid of any LTFC representatives on the Council, set an ambush, broke its own rules, ignored Football League policy, refused to refer the matter to the F.A., and defended him at any cost. And the cost was very high. It’s a prime example of one person being more important than everything else – football, the Southern League, the integrity of the game, the fans and the players.

The Royal Ordnance club, who were also in the Southern League, wrote to the club later to say that they understood why an objection was made about Mr Whittaker. The minute book entry of 12th November 1894 shows that the committee resolved that -

“Sec write Ordinance expressing sympathy with them, also suggesting they should protest.”

Royal Ordnance also had a letter published in the Morning Leader -

“I should not be doing my duty if i did not protest against the unfair tactics of Mr N. Whittaker’s refereeing in our match with Millwall on Saturday. I consider that he was the sole cause of our team falling to pieces in the second half in allowing the goal when a Millwall man handled the ball before it was put through. Then again, I must remind him that he deceived the team by putting his whistle to his mouth after an appeal for a foul in front of goal. I consider all these three goals were as unjust as ever given on a football field; also that the game ought to have been stopped, as it was at Clapton. Yours etc J.A. Wren, Hon Sec. Royal Ordnance F.C.”

Of course the Royal Ordnance committee would have authorised that letter.

LTFC had been excluded from the Southern League Council and so had no voice in the construction or governance of the League. Even the newspapers saw that. How on earth did the League think the public would react to the appointment a referee who was photographed with the Millwall team and had refereed them 7 times out of 10 before the game at Dallow Lane. The game was so important as the winners would take a huge step towards being Champions. The independent correspondents (and a Millwall fan) letters to the newspapers back up Luton’s case against Mr Whittaker refereeing as does indirectly, the objection from Royal Ordnance. Faced with this, the Southern League manufactured a blatant, disgraceful and disgusting ambush of the Luton delegation at the meeting on the 19th October.

The Southern League were never going to find against their Secretary and referee, Nat Whittaker so they closed ranks. Let us break it down –

First, it is highly likely they or Mr Gordon of Millwall, leaked Luton’s objections to the London press. Yes there had been leaks by the LTFC committee to the Luton press before but not to the London press. There was no clue in the Luton press of any such protest prior to the game. It was in Nat Whittaker’s interest to get the press on his side by pointing out this slur on his name.

Second, the Management Committee said in a letter that it would go to the Council meeting but the Council said it was a matter for the Management Committee. This seems to be deliberate obfuscation.

Third, as pointed out by Mr Arnold, the agenda issue breached the Committee’s own Standing Orders.

Fourth, no charges were put to LTFC nor Harry Arnold in writing or at any time before the meeting. Finding out at the hearing when witnesses were lined up must have infuriated the LTFC delegation. I therefore do not blame Harry Arnold for his stance.

Fifth, the procedure was completely round the wrong way. The initial LTFC complaint came first, then Mr Whittaker’s performance on the pitch then the aftermath.

Sixth, Mr Whittaker knew the agenda and prepared his case carefully and was able to call witnesses. He was not rebuked for not calling the independent witness from Basingstoke who would have helped LTFC”s cause.

Seventh, LTFC could not call witnesses and the Chairman did not mention an adjournment to enable LTFC to prepare as would be usual in these circumstances. We are all aware that if you get a fair hearing, whether you win or not, as least you have had your day in court so to speak. LTFC had no chance to put their case which itself added to the resentment and irritation.

Eighth, Millwall had too much influence at the meeting, Gordon and Clarke, who were not going to give LTFC an inch in their quest to replay the match. Their evidence was hardly going to be unbiassed and risk the game being replayed. Mr Gordon’s remark that Luton were “trying to rule the league” was a bit rich considering LTFC had no member on the Council and independent observers considered Millwall’s influence far too high.

LTFC had had enough of the Southern League. On the 7th January 1895 the committee resolved to –

“write to the Secretary of 2nd League with regard to entering 2nd Division” of the Football League.

The Luton Times of the 15th March 1895, below, shows that LTFC were to be offered a place on the Southern League Council when the AGM convened in May. Too little too late.

The 2nd April 1895 minute book entry records –

“It was then resolved to recommend the following rules for the consideration of the League council. That no official of the League be appointed as referee also that no playing member become an official also that the Council meet monthly.”