Chapter 3

I was perfectly astonished when I read this statement. "Mr. Morphy had caused the stakes to be reduced from £1000 to £500 a side." Without mentioning Englishmen, there were Americans in London and Paris who asserted that Morphy could be backed against Mr. Stauntonfor £10,000, and the money be raised within twenty-four hours. I mentioned this fact to a noble lady in Paris, in order to show the confidence in which the young American was held, and she replied, "Oh, as regards that, you may tell Mr. Morphy from me, that for £10,000 against Mr. Staunton orany player in Europe, he must not go further than my house."

I asked Morphy to demand an immediate retraction of the unblushing statements contained in the above paragraph, but he replied—"When a man resorts to such means as these, he will not stop until he has committed himself irremediably. Let him go on." Shortly after that Mr. Staunton changed his tactics. Let not the reader suppose I am about to represent things otherwise than they appear on the record. Let him take up the files of theIllustrated London Newsfrom the time of Morphy's arrival in England to his match with Harrwitz; let him examine the analysis of the games, the notes to the moves in that paper, and he will invariably perceive that the American's antagonistscouldormight havewon, the necessary inference being—"There's nothing so extraordinary about Morphy's play, after all." A change appeared in the criticism on the eight blindfold games at Birmingham, but, then, Morphy stood alone, and interfered with no one's pretensions. When, however, the match with Harrwitz came off, Mr. Staunton's tone was suddenly altered, and this gentleman who, previously, had scarcely a word of commendation for Morphy, now talked of "combinations which would have excited the admiration of Labourdonnais."

"The force of 'language' could no further go."

"The force of 'language' could no further go."

Mr. Morphy judged from this unexpected change of tone that Mr. Staunton either believed that thesecontests with continental players would take up so much of his time in Europe, that he would have to leave without playing him; or that Mr. S. was experimenting on the maxim—"There are more flies caught with honey than with vinegar." He therefore addressed him the following letter, and in order that the public might no longer be under misapprehension as to the case in hand, he sent copies of the communication to those papers which had shown him marked kindness in Europe. At the suggestion of a very shrewd and attached American friend, a copy was also forwarded to the editor-in-chief of theIllustrated London News.

The publication of the letter to Mr. Staunton, in so many journals, was a judicious proceeding. Newspapers are not fond of embarking in a discussion which may probably "draw its slow length along," and terminate angrily. Besides, whatever the feeling might be on the merits of the case, Mr. Staunton was certainly in the position of English champion, and John Bull does not like it to be proclaimed that one of his sons shows the "white feather." But, at the same time, rivalry exists between all journals as to precedence of news, and one paper would not willingly be behind the others in giving Morphy's letter. Accordingly, the following Saturday,Bell's Life,The Era,The Field, and theSunday Timespublished it as follows:

MORPHY'S LETTER TO STAUNTON.Cafe de la Regence, Paris,Oct. 6, '58.Howard Staunton, Esq.:Sir,—On my arrival in England, three months since, I renewed the challenge to you personally which the New Orleans Chess Club had given some months previously. You immediately accepted, but demanded a month's delay in order to prepare yourself for the contest. Subsequently, you proposed that the time should be postponed until after the Birmingham meeting, to which I assented. On the approach of the period you had fixed, I addressed you a communication, requesting that the necessary preliminaries might be immediately settled, but you left London without replying to it. I went to Birmingham for the express purpose of asking you to put a stop to further delay by fixing a date for the opening of our match; but before the opportunity presented itself you came to me, and, in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Avery, and other gentlemen, you stated that your time was much occupied in editing a new edition of Shakespeare, and that you were under heavy bonds to your publishers accordingly. But you reiterated your intention to play me, and said that if I would consent to a further postponement until the first week in November, you would, within a few days, communicate with me and fix the exact date. I have not heard further from you, either privately, by letter, or through the columns of theIllustrated London News.A statement appeared in the chess department of that journal a few weeks since, that "Mr. Morphy had come to Europe unprovided with backers or seconds," the inference being obvious that my want of funds was the reason of our match not taking place. As you are the editor of that department of theIllustrated London News, I felt hurt that a gentleman who had always received me at his club and elsewhere with great kindness and courtesy, should allow so prejudicial a statement to be made in reference to me—one, too, which is not strictly in accordance with fact.Permit me to repeat what I have invariably declared in every chess community I have had the honor of entering, that I am not a professional player—that I never wished to make any skill I possess the means of pecuniary advancement—and that my earnest desire is never to play for any stake but honor. My friends in New Orleans, however, subscribed a certain sum, without any countenance from me, and that sum has been ready for you to meet a considerable time past. Since my arrival in Paris I have been assured by numerous gentlemen that the value of those stakes can be immediately increased to any amount; but, for myself personally, reputation is the only incentive I recognize.The matter of seconds cannot, certainly, offer any difficulty. I had the pleasure of being first received in London by the St. George's Chess Club, of which you are so distinguished a member; and of those gentlemen I request the honor of appointing my seconds, to whom I give full authority in settling all preliminaries.In conclusion, I beg leave to state that I have addressed a copy of this letter to the editors of theIllustrated London News,Bell's Life in London,The Era,The Field, andThe Sunday Times, being desirous that our true position should no longer be misunderstood by the community at large. Again requesting you to fix the date for our commencing the match,I have the honor to remain, sir,Your very humble servant,Paul Morphy.

MORPHY'S LETTER TO STAUNTON.

Cafe de la Regence, Paris,Oct. 6, '58.

Howard Staunton, Esq.:

Sir,—On my arrival in England, three months since, I renewed the challenge to you personally which the New Orleans Chess Club had given some months previously. You immediately accepted, but demanded a month's delay in order to prepare yourself for the contest. Subsequently, you proposed that the time should be postponed until after the Birmingham meeting, to which I assented. On the approach of the period you had fixed, I addressed you a communication, requesting that the necessary preliminaries might be immediately settled, but you left London without replying to it. I went to Birmingham for the express purpose of asking you to put a stop to further delay by fixing a date for the opening of our match; but before the opportunity presented itself you came to me, and, in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Avery, and other gentlemen, you stated that your time was much occupied in editing a new edition of Shakespeare, and that you were under heavy bonds to your publishers accordingly. But you reiterated your intention to play me, and said that if I would consent to a further postponement until the first week in November, you would, within a few days, communicate with me and fix the exact date. I have not heard further from you, either privately, by letter, or through the columns of theIllustrated London News.

A statement appeared in the chess department of that journal a few weeks since, that "Mr. Morphy had come to Europe unprovided with backers or seconds," the inference being obvious that my want of funds was the reason of our match not taking place. As you are the editor of that department of theIllustrated London News, I felt hurt that a gentleman who had always received me at his club and elsewhere with great kindness and courtesy, should allow so prejudicial a statement to be made in reference to me—one, too, which is not strictly in accordance with fact.

Permit me to repeat what I have invariably declared in every chess community I have had the honor of entering, that I am not a professional player—that I never wished to make any skill I possess the means of pecuniary advancement—and that my earnest desire is never to play for any stake but honor. My friends in New Orleans, however, subscribed a certain sum, without any countenance from me, and that sum has been ready for you to meet a considerable time past. Since my arrival in Paris I have been assured by numerous gentlemen that the value of those stakes can be immediately increased to any amount; but, for myself personally, reputation is the only incentive I recognize.

The matter of seconds cannot, certainly, offer any difficulty. I had the pleasure of being first received in London by the St. George's Chess Club, of which you are so distinguished a member; and of those gentlemen I request the honor of appointing my seconds, to whom I give full authority in settling all preliminaries.

In conclusion, I beg leave to state that I have addressed a copy of this letter to the editors of theIllustrated London News,Bell's Life in London,The Era,The Field, andThe Sunday Times, being desirous that our true position should no longer be misunderstood by the community at large. Again requesting you to fix the date for our commencing the match,

I have the honor to remain, sir,

Your very humble servant,

Paul Morphy.

MR. STAUNTON. MR. BODEN. HERR LÖWENTHAL.MR. STAUNTON.MR. BODEN.HERR LÖWENTHAL.

At the same time Mr. Morphy forwarded the following communication to the Secretary of the St. George's, requesting the Club to appoint his seconds in the match:—

MORPHY'S LETTER TO THE ST. GEORGE'S CLUB.T. Hampton, Esq.,Secretary of the St. George's Chess Club:Sir,—I beg respectfully to inform you that the New Orleans Chess Club has deposited £500 at the Banking House of Messrs. Heywood & Co., London: that sum being my proportion of the stakes in the approaching match with Mr. Staunton.I shall esteem it a great honor if the St. George's Chess Club will do me the favor of appointing my seconds in that contest. To such gentlemen as they may appoint I leave the settling of all preliminaries.May I request you to lay this communication before the members of the Club, and to oblige me with an early answer?I have the honor to remain, Sir,Your very humble and obed't serv't,Paul Morphy.Cafe de la Regence, Paris,Oct. 8th, 1858.

MORPHY'S LETTER TO THE ST. GEORGE'S CLUB.

T. Hampton, Esq.,

Secretary of the St. George's Chess Club:

Sir,—I beg respectfully to inform you that the New Orleans Chess Club has deposited £500 at the Banking House of Messrs. Heywood & Co., London: that sum being my proportion of the stakes in the approaching match with Mr. Staunton.

I shall esteem it a great honor if the St. George's Chess Club will do me the favor of appointing my seconds in that contest. To such gentlemen as they may appoint I leave the settling of all preliminaries.

May I request you to lay this communication before the members of the Club, and to oblige me with an early answer?

I have the honor to remain, Sir,

Your very humble and obed't serv't,

Paul Morphy.

Cafe de la Regence, Paris,Oct. 8th, 1858.

It would be difficult to imagine a more respectful and kindly letter than that to Mr. Staunton. Since Morphy's arrival in Europe he had considered himself ill-used by that gentleman. His games had been annotated in an inferentially depreciatory manner, his victoriesaccounted for, and his antagonists excused. He had been placed in a ridiculous light before the public by the utterly false assertion that he had come to Europe to challenge Mr. Staunton or any one else—without a groat in his purse. And yet he never charges Mr. Staunton with being the author of the falsehood, although Mr. S. is the known editor of the chess column of theIllustrated London News. He positively invites explanation in the most charitableand Christian-like manner; never even calling the statement in question, as he might have done, a positive untruth, but politely characterizing it as "not strictly in accordance with fact."

TheIllustrated London Newsdid not immediately publish the letter, or make any remark upon it, as did the other papers; but at the commencement of the week, Paul Morphy received a private communication from Mr. Staunton, as follows:—

STAUNTON'S REPLY TO MORPHY.London,October 9th, 1858.Sir,—In reply to your letter, I have to observe that you must be perfectly conscious that the difficulty in the way of my engaging in a chess-match is one over which I have no control. You were distinctly apprised, in answer to the extraordinary proposal of your friends that I should leave my home, family, and avocations, to proceed to New Orleans for the purpose of playing chess with you, that a long and arduous contest, even in London, would be an undertaking too formidable for me to embark in without ample opportunity for the recovery of my old strength in play, together with such arrangements as would prevent the sacrifice of my professional engagements. Upon your unexpected arrival here, the same thing was repeated to you, and my acceptance of your challenge was entirely conditional on my being able to gain time for practice.The experience, however, of some weeks, during which I have labored unceasingly, to the serious injury of my health, shows that not only is it impracticable for me to save time for that purpose, but that by no means short of giving up a great work on which I am engaged, subjecting the publishers to the loss of thousands, and myself to an action for breach of contract, could I obtain time even for the match itself. Such a sacrificeis, of course, out of all question. A match at chess or cricket (proh pudor!why don't he say, "or skittles"?) may be a good thing in its way, but none but a madman would for either forfeit his engagements and imperil his professional reputation. Under these circumstances, I waited only the termination of your late struggle (with Mr. Harrwitz) to explain that, fettered as I am at this moment, it is impossible for me to undertake any enterprise which would have the effect of withdrawing me from duties I am pledged to fulfil.The result is not, perhaps, what either you or I desired, as it will occasion disappointment to many; but it is unavoidable, and the less to be regretted, since a contest, wherein one of the combatants must fight under disadvantages so manifest as those I should have to contend against, after many years' retirement from practical chess, with my attention absorbed and my brain overtaxed by more important pursuits, could never be accounted a fair trial of skill.I have the honor to be,Yours, &c.,H. Staunton.Paul Morphy, Esq.P. S.—I may add that, although denied the satisfaction of a set encounter with you at this period, I shall have much pleasure, if you will again become my guest, in playing you a few gamessans façon.

STAUNTON'S REPLY TO MORPHY.

London,October 9th, 1858.

Sir,—In reply to your letter, I have to observe that you must be perfectly conscious that the difficulty in the way of my engaging in a chess-match is one over which I have no control. You were distinctly apprised, in answer to the extraordinary proposal of your friends that I should leave my home, family, and avocations, to proceed to New Orleans for the purpose of playing chess with you, that a long and arduous contest, even in London, would be an undertaking too formidable for me to embark in without ample opportunity for the recovery of my old strength in play, together with such arrangements as would prevent the sacrifice of my professional engagements. Upon your unexpected arrival here, the same thing was repeated to you, and my acceptance of your challenge was entirely conditional on my being able to gain time for practice.

The experience, however, of some weeks, during which I have labored unceasingly, to the serious injury of my health, shows that not only is it impracticable for me to save time for that purpose, but that by no means short of giving up a great work on which I am engaged, subjecting the publishers to the loss of thousands, and myself to an action for breach of contract, could I obtain time even for the match itself. Such a sacrificeis, of course, out of all question. A match at chess or cricket (proh pudor!why don't he say, "or skittles"?) may be a good thing in its way, but none but a madman would for either forfeit his engagements and imperil his professional reputation. Under these circumstances, I waited only the termination of your late struggle (with Mr. Harrwitz) to explain that, fettered as I am at this moment, it is impossible for me to undertake any enterprise which would have the effect of withdrawing me from duties I am pledged to fulfil.

The result is not, perhaps, what either you or I desired, as it will occasion disappointment to many; but it is unavoidable, and the less to be regretted, since a contest, wherein one of the combatants must fight under disadvantages so manifest as those I should have to contend against, after many years' retirement from practical chess, with my attention absorbed and my brain overtaxed by more important pursuits, could never be accounted a fair trial of skill.

I have the honor to be,

Yours, &c.,

H. Staunton.

Paul Morphy, Esq.

P. S.—I may add that, although denied the satisfaction of a set encounter with you at this period, I shall have much pleasure, if you will again become my guest, in playing you a few gamessans façon.

Now the sending of this private communication was a strange course for Mr. Staunton to adopt. It seemed to be a bait for Morphy, in order that Mr. S. might use his reply in the forthcoming article in the Illustrated London News. The young American resolved that all the correspondence should be public and above-board, and did not even acknowledge the receipt of the letter. The Saturday following, Mr. Staunton gave as excuse for not publishing Morphy's missive, the length of M.'sgames, but promised it and his own response "next week."

On Saturday the 24th of October, the two following effusions graced the columns ofBell's Life. They had also been sent toThe Era,The Field, andThe Sunday Times; but, being anonymous, and inclosing no name or address, were refused admittance.

ANONYMOUS LETTER, APPARENTLY FROM MR. STAUNTON.Trinity College, Cambridge,Oct. 9.Mr. Editor: If you enter any chess circle just now, the questions sure to be asked are, "How about the Staunton and Morphy match? Will it come off? Suspect Staunton wants to shirk it?" Now to these questions it is not always easy to give an answer, and yet they ought to be answered, so as to allow of no possible misconstruction amongst either friends or foes. There is one insinuation which may be very briefly disposed of, namely, that Mr. Staunton wishes to avoid playing. Every one who knows him is perfectly aware that he is only too ready to play at all times, and that at every disadvantage, rather than incur even the faintest suspicion of showing the white feather. For the benefit of those who have not the pleasure of knowing him, or whose memories are not over tenacious, I may cite as an example that in 1844, after vanquishing St. Amant, upon a hint in the French papers that his opponent had expressed a wish to have his revenge, Mr. S. at once started for Paris once more, and challenged him to the field; that from 1840 to 1848 Mr. S. played with every antagonist, foreign and English, that could be brought against him; and at the Chess Congress, in 1851, he rose superior to all personal considerations, and did not shrink from risking his hardly-earned reputation, when the state of his health was such that he felt he could not do himself justice; and all this solely that the tournament might not want theéclatwhich his presence could confer upon it. But, sir, I would submit that this is not simply a question between Mr. Staunton and Mr. Morphy. We are all interested in it. Mr. Staunton is the representative of English chess, and must not be allowed to risk the national honor in anunequal contest, to gratify either the promptings of his own chivalrous disposition or the vanity of an antagonist. "Oh! then you admit that Morphy is the better player?" No such thing. The question is, not as to which is the better player, but whether, if they meet now, they can do so on equal terms. Now, I call it anunequal contestwhen one player, in tiptop practice, with nothing to distract his attention, engages another who is quite out of play, and whose mind is harassed by the unceasing pressure of other and more important avocations. This is precisely Mr. Staunton's case. He is engaged, in addition to his customary occupations, upon a literary work of great responsibility and magnitude, which leaves him scarcely a moment for any other pursuit; certainly not for chess practice. Indeed, were it merely a question of time it would be almost impossible for Mr. Staunton to play a match at the present moment; but this is a matter of small importance compared with the mental strain which accompanies such incessant labor. There is nothing which requires more concentration of thought than chess. One moment of relaxed attention, and the fruits of the most profound combination are scattered to the winds. Real chess between two great players is no mere recreation, but a severe study, and should never be attempted when there is any thing else to claim the least share of that attention which alone can insure success. If Mr. Staunton can steal a few months from business, and devote himself wholly to chess, by all means let him do so, and then meet Mr. Morphy when and where he pleases, and I for one should have no fear for the result. If he cannot do this, I trust he will have moral courage to say "No." If not, his friends should say it for him. He is at least "Pawn and two" below his force of ten years back; and I repeat that he owes it to the English chess world, whose representative he is, not to meet Mr. Morphy at such odds, when he has every thing to lose and nothing to gain. In the present instance, moreover he is under not the slightestobligation to play, as Mr. Morphy gave him no intimation that he was coming over at this particular time, and I believe Mr. Staunton was not aware of his intention of so doing till he was actuallyen route; and it is certainly rather a heavy price to pay for the position which Mr. Staunton justly occupies if he is to be held bound to enter the lists with every young adventurer who has nothing else to do, and who happens to envy him the laurels so fairly won in many hundreds of encounters with nearly all the greatest players of the day. The result of any match which he might now play with Mr. Morphy would prove literally nothing as to their relative chess powers, and I am very unwilling to believe that the American would at all value a victory snatched under such circumstances.Yours obediently, M. A.P. S. Since writing the above my attention has been drawn to a letter inBell's Lifeaddressed to Mr. Staunton by Mr. Morphy, in which the latter tries to assume the character of a much-injured and ill-used man. Now, how stands the case. From the time when he made his sudden appearance here to the present moment Mr. Morphy has been fully aware that the delay in the proposed contest did not depend upon Mr. Staunton, who, so far as he is personally concerned, was, and is, prepared to play; though it does not speak much for that man's sense of honor who would ever think of forcing on a contest when the inequality is so immense as it is between Mr. Morphy's position and that of Mr. Staunton—the one with literally nothing to do but to go where he lists to play chess, the other with scarcely time for sleep and meals, with his brain in a constant whirl with the strain upon it; the one in the very zenith of his skill, after ten years of incessant practice, the other utterly out of practice for that very period. Now, let any one read the reply of Mr. Staunton to the preposterous proposal on the part of Mr. Morphy's friends, that he (Mr. S.) should go over to New Orleans, and then say whether Mr. Morphy, after publicly announcing in the American papers his inability, from family engagements, to visit England before1859, and then choosing to come over without a moment's warning, has anybody but himself to blame if he finds there is considerable difficulty in inducing a man with family cares, and immersed in professional engagements, to sacrifice all for the sake of engaging, upon the most unfair and unequal terms, in a match at chess? If Mr. Morphy does not see the force of what I have advanced, perhaps the following analogous case may bring conviction home to him. Let us suppose some ten or fifteen years have elapsed, and that Mr. Morphy, no longer a chess knight-errant, eager to do battle against all comers, has settled down into a steady-going professional man, (the bar, I believe, is his destination,) and with bewildered brain is endeavoring to unravel the intricacies of some half-dozen lawsuits put into his hands by clients, each of whom, in virtue of his fee, is profoundly impressed with the belief that Mr. Morphy belongs, body and soul, to him. Presently comes a rap at the door, and in walks a young man, fresh from school or college, and at once proceeds to explain the object of his visit, with:—"Mr. Morphy, I come to challenge you to a match at chess. I am aware that you are quite out of practice, while I am in full swing. I freely admit that you may have forgotten more than I am ever likely to know; that you have a reputation to lose, while I have one to gain; that you have not a moment you can call your own, whilst I have just now nothing in the world to occupy my attention but chess.N'importe.Every dog has his day. I expect you to play me at all costs. My seconds will wait upon you at once; and if you decline I shall placard you a craven through the length and breadth of the Union." How would Mr. Morphy reply to such a challenge? Very much, I suspect, as Mr. Staunton now replies to his:—"I have no apprehension of your skill; I am quite willing to meet you when I can, but I must choose my own time. I cannot put aside my professional engagements, to say nothing of the loss of emolument entailed by such a course, and risk my reputation as a chess-player at a moment's notice, just to gratify your ambition." In giving such an answer Mr. Morphy would do perfectly right, and this is precisely the answer which Mr.Staunton now gives to him. And why Mr. Morphy should feel himself aggrieved I cannot possibly imagine. There is one other point which I think deserves mention, namely that four years ago, on the occasion of his being challenged in a similar manner, Mr. Staunton put forth a final proposal to play any player in the world, and to pay his expenses for coming to England. Thisdefiremained open for six months, and he announced that if not taken up in that time he should hold himself exonerated in refusing any future challenges. I now leave the question in the hands of the public, who will, I doubt not, arrive at a correct appreciation of its merits.ANOTHER VERY DISGRACEFUL ANONYMOUS LETTER.To the Editor of Bell's Life:Mr. Editor,—It is a pity chess-players will not "wash their dirty linen at home." Among a few frivolous noodles to whom chess forms the staple of life, Mr. Morphy's jeremiads may assume an air of importance, but to sensible men they sound ineffably absurd, while to those who take the trouble of looking a little below the surface they appear something worse. For what are the plain facts of the case? Mr. Morphy started for England, not to play a match with Mr. Staunton, for he was told that that gentleman was too deeply immersed in business to undertake one, but to take part in a general tourney to be held in Birmingham. Upon arriving here he duly inscribed his name on the list of combatants, and paid his entrance fee. On hearing this, Mr. Staunton, in a spirit of what some may call chivalry, but which, looking at his utterly unprepared state for an encounter of this kind, ought more properly to be termed Quixotism, entered his name also. Well, what happened? On the mustering of the belligerents, Mr. Morphy, who had come six thousand miles to run a tilt in this tournament,was not present. In his place came a note to say particular business prevented his attendance. A message was despatched, intimating that his absence would be a great disappointment, &c., &c. His reply was, that, understanding neither Mr. S. nor any other of the leading players would take the field, he declined to do so. A second message was forwarded, to the effect that Mr. Staunton was then in Birmingham expressly to meet Mr. Morphy, and that he and several of the best players were awaiting Mr. M.'s arrival to begin the combats. To this came a final answer, to the effect that the length of time that the tourney would last prevented Mr. Morphy from joining in it, but he would run down in two or three days. Passing over the exquisite taste of this proceeding, and the disappointment and murmurs it occasioned, I would simply ask, if Mr. Morphy thought himself justified in withdrawing from a contest which he had come thousands of miles to take part in, and to which he was in a manner pledged, upon pretences so vague and flimsy, what right has he to complain if the English player choose to withdraw from one to which he is in no respect bound, and against which he may be enabled to offer the most solid and unanswerable objections? In asking this, I beg to disclaim all intention of provoking a chess-players' controversy, a thing in which the public take not the slightest interest, and for which I individually entertain supreme contempt. I am moved to it only by the spirit ofFair Play.Birmingham.

ANONYMOUS LETTER, APPARENTLY FROM MR. STAUNTON.

Trinity College, Cambridge,Oct. 9.

Mr. Editor: If you enter any chess circle just now, the questions sure to be asked are, "How about the Staunton and Morphy match? Will it come off? Suspect Staunton wants to shirk it?" Now to these questions it is not always easy to give an answer, and yet they ought to be answered, so as to allow of no possible misconstruction amongst either friends or foes. There is one insinuation which may be very briefly disposed of, namely, that Mr. Staunton wishes to avoid playing. Every one who knows him is perfectly aware that he is only too ready to play at all times, and that at every disadvantage, rather than incur even the faintest suspicion of showing the white feather. For the benefit of those who have not the pleasure of knowing him, or whose memories are not over tenacious, I may cite as an example that in 1844, after vanquishing St. Amant, upon a hint in the French papers that his opponent had expressed a wish to have his revenge, Mr. S. at once started for Paris once more, and challenged him to the field; that from 1840 to 1848 Mr. S. played with every antagonist, foreign and English, that could be brought against him; and at the Chess Congress, in 1851, he rose superior to all personal considerations, and did not shrink from risking his hardly-earned reputation, when the state of his health was such that he felt he could not do himself justice; and all this solely that the tournament might not want theéclatwhich his presence could confer upon it. But, sir, I would submit that this is not simply a question between Mr. Staunton and Mr. Morphy. We are all interested in it. Mr. Staunton is the representative of English chess, and must not be allowed to risk the national honor in anunequal contest, to gratify either the promptings of his own chivalrous disposition or the vanity of an antagonist. "Oh! then you admit that Morphy is the better player?" No such thing. The question is, not as to which is the better player, but whether, if they meet now, they can do so on equal terms. Now, I call it anunequal contestwhen one player, in tiptop practice, with nothing to distract his attention, engages another who is quite out of play, and whose mind is harassed by the unceasing pressure of other and more important avocations. This is precisely Mr. Staunton's case. He is engaged, in addition to his customary occupations, upon a literary work of great responsibility and magnitude, which leaves him scarcely a moment for any other pursuit; certainly not for chess practice. Indeed, were it merely a question of time it would be almost impossible for Mr. Staunton to play a match at the present moment; but this is a matter of small importance compared with the mental strain which accompanies such incessant labor. There is nothing which requires more concentration of thought than chess. One moment of relaxed attention, and the fruits of the most profound combination are scattered to the winds. Real chess between two great players is no mere recreation, but a severe study, and should never be attempted when there is any thing else to claim the least share of that attention which alone can insure success. If Mr. Staunton can steal a few months from business, and devote himself wholly to chess, by all means let him do so, and then meet Mr. Morphy when and where he pleases, and I for one should have no fear for the result. If he cannot do this, I trust he will have moral courage to say "No." If not, his friends should say it for him. He is at least "Pawn and two" below his force of ten years back; and I repeat that he owes it to the English chess world, whose representative he is, not to meet Mr. Morphy at such odds, when he has every thing to lose and nothing to gain. In the present instance, moreover he is under not the slightestobligation to play, as Mr. Morphy gave him no intimation that he was coming over at this particular time, and I believe Mr. Staunton was not aware of his intention of so doing till he was actuallyen route; and it is certainly rather a heavy price to pay for the position which Mr. Staunton justly occupies if he is to be held bound to enter the lists with every young adventurer who has nothing else to do, and who happens to envy him the laurels so fairly won in many hundreds of encounters with nearly all the greatest players of the day. The result of any match which he might now play with Mr. Morphy would prove literally nothing as to their relative chess powers, and I am very unwilling to believe that the American would at all value a victory snatched under such circumstances.

Yours obediently, M. A.

P. S. Since writing the above my attention has been drawn to a letter inBell's Lifeaddressed to Mr. Staunton by Mr. Morphy, in which the latter tries to assume the character of a much-injured and ill-used man. Now, how stands the case. From the time when he made his sudden appearance here to the present moment Mr. Morphy has been fully aware that the delay in the proposed contest did not depend upon Mr. Staunton, who, so far as he is personally concerned, was, and is, prepared to play; though it does not speak much for that man's sense of honor who would ever think of forcing on a contest when the inequality is so immense as it is between Mr. Morphy's position and that of Mr. Staunton—the one with literally nothing to do but to go where he lists to play chess, the other with scarcely time for sleep and meals, with his brain in a constant whirl with the strain upon it; the one in the very zenith of his skill, after ten years of incessant practice, the other utterly out of practice for that very period. Now, let any one read the reply of Mr. Staunton to the preposterous proposal on the part of Mr. Morphy's friends, that he (Mr. S.) should go over to New Orleans, and then say whether Mr. Morphy, after publicly announcing in the American papers his inability, from family engagements, to visit England before1859, and then choosing to come over without a moment's warning, has anybody but himself to blame if he finds there is considerable difficulty in inducing a man with family cares, and immersed in professional engagements, to sacrifice all for the sake of engaging, upon the most unfair and unequal terms, in a match at chess? If Mr. Morphy does not see the force of what I have advanced, perhaps the following analogous case may bring conviction home to him. Let us suppose some ten or fifteen years have elapsed, and that Mr. Morphy, no longer a chess knight-errant, eager to do battle against all comers, has settled down into a steady-going professional man, (the bar, I believe, is his destination,) and with bewildered brain is endeavoring to unravel the intricacies of some half-dozen lawsuits put into his hands by clients, each of whom, in virtue of his fee, is profoundly impressed with the belief that Mr. Morphy belongs, body and soul, to him. Presently comes a rap at the door, and in walks a young man, fresh from school or college, and at once proceeds to explain the object of his visit, with:—"Mr. Morphy, I come to challenge you to a match at chess. I am aware that you are quite out of practice, while I am in full swing. I freely admit that you may have forgotten more than I am ever likely to know; that you have a reputation to lose, while I have one to gain; that you have not a moment you can call your own, whilst I have just now nothing in the world to occupy my attention but chess.N'importe.Every dog has his day. I expect you to play me at all costs. My seconds will wait upon you at once; and if you decline I shall placard you a craven through the length and breadth of the Union." How would Mr. Morphy reply to such a challenge? Very much, I suspect, as Mr. Staunton now replies to his:—"I have no apprehension of your skill; I am quite willing to meet you when I can, but I must choose my own time. I cannot put aside my professional engagements, to say nothing of the loss of emolument entailed by such a course, and risk my reputation as a chess-player at a moment's notice, just to gratify your ambition." In giving such an answer Mr. Morphy would do perfectly right, and this is precisely the answer which Mr.Staunton now gives to him. And why Mr. Morphy should feel himself aggrieved I cannot possibly imagine. There is one other point which I think deserves mention, namely that four years ago, on the occasion of his being challenged in a similar manner, Mr. Staunton put forth a final proposal to play any player in the world, and to pay his expenses for coming to England. Thisdefiremained open for six months, and he announced that if not taken up in that time he should hold himself exonerated in refusing any future challenges. I now leave the question in the hands of the public, who will, I doubt not, arrive at a correct appreciation of its merits.

ANOTHER VERY DISGRACEFUL ANONYMOUS LETTER.

To the Editor of Bell's Life:

Mr. Editor,—It is a pity chess-players will not "wash their dirty linen at home." Among a few frivolous noodles to whom chess forms the staple of life, Mr. Morphy's jeremiads may assume an air of importance, but to sensible men they sound ineffably absurd, while to those who take the trouble of looking a little below the surface they appear something worse. For what are the plain facts of the case? Mr. Morphy started for England, not to play a match with Mr. Staunton, for he was told that that gentleman was too deeply immersed in business to undertake one, but to take part in a general tourney to be held in Birmingham. Upon arriving here he duly inscribed his name on the list of combatants, and paid his entrance fee. On hearing this, Mr. Staunton, in a spirit of what some may call chivalry, but which, looking at his utterly unprepared state for an encounter of this kind, ought more properly to be termed Quixotism, entered his name also. Well, what happened? On the mustering of the belligerents, Mr. Morphy, who had come six thousand miles to run a tilt in this tournament,was not present. In his place came a note to say particular business prevented his attendance. A message was despatched, intimating that his absence would be a great disappointment, &c., &c. His reply was, that, understanding neither Mr. S. nor any other of the leading players would take the field, he declined to do so. A second message was forwarded, to the effect that Mr. Staunton was then in Birmingham expressly to meet Mr. Morphy, and that he and several of the best players were awaiting Mr. M.'s arrival to begin the combats. To this came a final answer, to the effect that the length of time that the tourney would last prevented Mr. Morphy from joining in it, but he would run down in two or three days. Passing over the exquisite taste of this proceeding, and the disappointment and murmurs it occasioned, I would simply ask, if Mr. Morphy thought himself justified in withdrawing from a contest which he had come thousands of miles to take part in, and to which he was in a manner pledged, upon pretences so vague and flimsy, what right has he to complain if the English player choose to withdraw from one to which he is in no respect bound, and against which he may be enabled to offer the most solid and unanswerable objections? In asking this, I beg to disclaim all intention of provoking a chess-players' controversy, a thing in which the public take not the slightest interest, and for which I individually entertain supreme contempt. I am moved to it only by the spirit of

Fair Play.

Birmingham.

To these communications the editor appended the following remarks:—

[We print the above two letters, being all the communications we have received from Mr. Staunton's party relative to Morphy's letter in our last. We regret these lucubrations are anonymous, as not showing how far they really represent the opinions of Mr. Staunton himself and his friends on the subject. Regarding their style and phraseology Mr. Staunton may perhaps ask to be saved from his friends, but that is matter of taste. We shall feel bound to print brief replies from Paul Morphy's side. Inferiority once admitted, no matter from what cause, if Mr. Staunton takes the ground indicated in the above epistles, Mr. Morphy has but cheerfully and quietly todrop the subject, and will certainly as a gentleman never challenge Mr. Staunton again. Morphy's friends may still reasonably inquire why all this was not said in June last, instead of giving apparent acceptance to the young American's challenge.—Editor Bell's Life.]

[We print the above two letters, being all the communications we have received from Mr. Staunton's party relative to Morphy's letter in our last. We regret these lucubrations are anonymous, as not showing how far they really represent the opinions of Mr. Staunton himself and his friends on the subject. Regarding their style and phraseology Mr. Staunton may perhaps ask to be saved from his friends, but that is matter of taste. We shall feel bound to print brief replies from Paul Morphy's side. Inferiority once admitted, no matter from what cause, if Mr. Staunton takes the ground indicated in the above epistles, Mr. Morphy has but cheerfully and quietly todrop the subject, and will certainly as a gentleman never challenge Mr. Staunton again. Morphy's friends may still reasonably inquire why all this was not said in June last, instead of giving apparent acceptance to the young American's challenge.

—Editor Bell's Life.]

The reader will observe that Mr. Staunton (or his friends) is the first to commence a newspaper war, probably under the impression that lengthyprotocolingwould sink the real question at issue, or induce Paul Morphy to reply, and commit himself. But the latter saw too clearly what eventualities might arise, and resolved that, in spite of all attacks, he would never be drawn into discussion. In his letter to Mr. Staunton, no point was raised on which to build dispute; Mr. S. was merely required to say what date he fixed for the match. The most sensitive mind could not be hurt with any thing in the letter, and yet "Fair Play" talks of "Mr. Morphy's jeremiads appearing something worse than ineffably absurd." "M. A.'s" lucubration did not obtain admittance into any other paper, but "Fair Play's" shone resplendently in the columns of theIllustrated London News. I have not learned who "Fair Play" is; nor do I wish to know.

When a man's course is straightforward and courageous, he will always find defenders, and sometimes, ardent partisans. Morphy's unassuming modesty had made him friends in every chess community, men who were ready to battle for him as though it were their own quarrel. Hitherto, not a word had been said by,or for, Morphy in the press, and he was determined not to seek succor from that source. The ensuing Saturday the following letters appeared in Bell's Life, the first being from a friend of our hero, well acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and the others from prominent members of the metropolitan chess circles.

LETTER FROM A FRIEND OF PAUL MORPHY.To the Editor of Bell's Life in London:Sir,—Two letters appeared in your paper of last Sunday, one with the signature of "M. A.," the other of "Fair Play." In justice to fact, those communications must not remain unanswered, as the misstatements they contain might perchance mislead some as to the good faith of Mr. Morphy. It is in no improper spirit that I appear before your readers under my own name, but simply because, as I intend replying to your anonymous correspondents with facts, not with hypotheses, I think I am bound in honor to hold myself responsible for what I advance. The chess players of London and Birmingham are not ignorant of the intimacy with which Mr. Morphy has honored me during his visit to Europe, and they will permit me to state, that no one is better conversant with the facts bearing on the case in point than your subscriber. Were it not that Paul Morphy positively refuses to reply to any attack upon himself, preferring that his actions should be the sole witness to his faith, I should not have troubled you or the public with this communication.On the 4th of last February, the New Orleans Chess Club challenged Mr. Staunton to visit the Crescent City, "to meet Mr. Paul Morphy in a chess match." On the 3d of April the former gentleman replied to thisdefiin theIllustrated London News, in the following language:—"The terms of this cartel are distinguished by extreme courtesy, and, with one notable exception, by extreme liberality also. The exception in question, however, (we refer to the clause which stipulates that the combat shall take place in New Orleans!) appears to us utterly fatal to the match; and we must confess our astonishment that the intelligent gentlemen who drew up the conditions did not themselves discover this. Could it possibly escape their penetration, that if Mr. Paul Morphy, a young gentleman without family ties or professional claims upon his attention, finds it inconvenient to anticipate by a few months an intended visit to Europe, his proposed antagonist, who is well known for years to have been compelled, by laborious literary occupation, to abandon the practice of chess beyond the indulgence of an occasional game, must find it not merely inconvenient, but positively impracticable, to cast aside all engagements, and undertake a journey of many thousand miles for the sake of a chess encounter. Surely the idea of such a sacrifice is not admissible for a single moment. If Mr. Morphy—for whose skill we entertain the liveliest admiration—be desirous to win his spurs among the chess chivalry of Europe, he must take advantage of his proposed visit next year; he will then meet in this country, in France, in Germany, and in Russia, many champions whose names must be as household words to him, ready to test and do honor to his prowess."No one would regard the above observations as tantamount to aught else than "If you will come to Europe I will play you;" but we are relieved from the difficulty of discovering Mr. Staunton's real meaning by his reiterated declarations that he would play Mr. Morphy. Within a few days of the latter's arrival in London, the English player stated his intention of accepting the match, but postponed the commencement of it for a month, on the plea of requiring preparation. In the month of July the acceptance of the challenge was announced in theIllustrated London News. Before the expiration of the time demanded in the first instance, Mr. Staunton requested that the contest should not take place until after the Birmingham meeting. At Birmingham he again declared his intention of playing the match, and fixed the date for the first week in November, in the presence of numerous witnesses. Mr.Morphy may have erred in believing that his antagonist intended to act as his words led him to suppose, but it was an error shared in common by every one then present, and particularly by Lord Lyttelton, the President of the British Chess Association, who recognized the true position of the case in his speech to the association, stating that he "wished him (Mr. Morphy) most cordially success in his encounters with the celebrated players of Europe, whom he had gallantly left home to meet; he should be pleased to hear that he vanquished all—except one; but that one—Mr. Staunton—he must forgive him, as an Englishman, for saying he hoped he would conquer him."—(Report of Birmingham meeting,Illustrated London News, Sept. 18, 1858.So firmly convinced were the members of Mr. S.'s own club, the St. George's, that he had accepted the challenge, that a committee was formed, and funds raised to back him. What those gentlemen must now think of Mr. Staunton's evasion of the match can easily be understood; but so strong was the conviction in other chess circles that he would not play, that large odds were offered to that effect."M. A.'s" reasons for not playing, or "M. A.'s" reasons for Mr. Staunton's not playing—a distinction without a difference, as we shall hereafter show—is that "he is engaged upon a literary work of great responsibility and magnitude." Did not this reason exist prior to Mr. Morphy's arrival in June? and if so, why were Mr. Morphy, the English public, and the chess community generally, led into the belief that the challenge was accepted? And what did Mr. Staunton mean by stating at Birmingham, in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Avery, and myself, that if the delay until November were granted him, he could in the mean while supply his publishers with sufficient matter, so as to devote himself subsequently to the match?Mr. Staunton's (I mean "M. A.'s") remark in the letter under review, "I (Staunton or 'M. A.' indifferently) have no apprehension of your skill," is hardly consonant with the previous observation, that "he (Staunton) is at least pawnand two below his force," unless the "English-chess-world-representative" wishes it to be understood that he could offer those odds to Paul Morphy. Nor is it consonant with the fact that he has never consented to play Mr. Morphy a single game, though asked to do so, and when frequently meeting him at St. George's. Of course the two consultation games played by him, in alliance with "Alter," against Messrs. Barnes and Morphy count for nothing, as they were gained by the latter; a result due, doubtless, to "Alter" alone.Mr. Morphy, in the eyes of the chess world, can have nothing to gain from a contest with this gentleman. When Mr. Staunton has met even players such as Anderssen, Heyderbrandt, and Löwenthal, he has succumbed; whilst his youthful antagonist can cite a roll of victories unparalleled since Labourdonnais. And herein is the true reason for "M. A.'s" saying, "Staunton must not be allowed to risk the national honor (?) in an unequal contest."In wishing "M. A." adieu, I would state that his style of composition is so like Mr. Staunton's that no one could detect the difference. And no one but Mr. Staunton himself would ever set up such a defence as "M. A.'s"—that of inferiority, "Pawn and two below his strength," &c. &c. And no one but Mr. Staunton could have such intimate knowledge of his own thoughts as we find in the following verbatim quotations from "M. A.'s" letter: "The state of his health was such that he felt he could not do himself justice"—"his mind harassed"—"the other (Staunton) with scarcely time for sleep and meals, with his brain in a constant whirl with the strain upon it." In the language of Holy Writ: "No man can know the spirit of man, but the spirit of man which is in him."Served up in a mass of foul language, the letter signed "Fair Play," contains an obviously untrue assertion, namely, "Mr. Morphy started for Europe, not to play a match with Mr. Staunton." This is rather outrageous in the face of the challenge from the New Orleans Chess Club, and with Mr. S.'s reply in theIllustrated London Newsof April 3d. So much was it Mr. Morphy's desire to play him, and so little hisintention to engage in the Birmingham Tournament, that he informed the secretary he did not regard such a contest as any true test of skill.To sum up the whole matter, I will state the naked facts.1. Mr. Morphy came to Europe to play Mr. Staunton.2. Mr. Staunton made everybody believe he had accepted the challenge from Mr. Morphy.3. Mr. Staunton allowed the St. George's Chess Club to raise the money to back him.4. Mr. Staunton asked for a delay of one month, in order to brush up his openings and endings.5. Mr. Staunton requested a postponement until after the Birmingham meeting.6. Mr. Staunton fixed the beginning of November for the commencement of the match.If all this do not mean "I will play," then is there no meaning in language. I beg to subscribe myself, Mr. Editor, most respectfully yours,Frederick Milns Edge.Hotel Breteuil, Paris,Oct. 20, 1858.

LETTER FROM A FRIEND OF PAUL MORPHY.

To the Editor of Bell's Life in London:

Sir,—Two letters appeared in your paper of last Sunday, one with the signature of "M. A.," the other of "Fair Play." In justice to fact, those communications must not remain unanswered, as the misstatements they contain might perchance mislead some as to the good faith of Mr. Morphy. It is in no improper spirit that I appear before your readers under my own name, but simply because, as I intend replying to your anonymous correspondents with facts, not with hypotheses, I think I am bound in honor to hold myself responsible for what I advance. The chess players of London and Birmingham are not ignorant of the intimacy with which Mr. Morphy has honored me during his visit to Europe, and they will permit me to state, that no one is better conversant with the facts bearing on the case in point than your subscriber. Were it not that Paul Morphy positively refuses to reply to any attack upon himself, preferring that his actions should be the sole witness to his faith, I should not have troubled you or the public with this communication.

On the 4th of last February, the New Orleans Chess Club challenged Mr. Staunton to visit the Crescent City, "to meet Mr. Paul Morphy in a chess match." On the 3d of April the former gentleman replied to thisdefiin theIllustrated London News, in the following language:—"The terms of this cartel are distinguished by extreme courtesy, and, with one notable exception, by extreme liberality also. The exception in question, however, (we refer to the clause which stipulates that the combat shall take place in New Orleans!) appears to us utterly fatal to the match; and we must confess our astonishment that the intelligent gentlemen who drew up the conditions did not themselves discover this. Could it possibly escape their penetration, that if Mr. Paul Morphy, a young gentleman without family ties or professional claims upon his attention, finds it inconvenient to anticipate by a few months an intended visit to Europe, his proposed antagonist, who is well known for years to have been compelled, by laborious literary occupation, to abandon the practice of chess beyond the indulgence of an occasional game, must find it not merely inconvenient, but positively impracticable, to cast aside all engagements, and undertake a journey of many thousand miles for the sake of a chess encounter. Surely the idea of such a sacrifice is not admissible for a single moment. If Mr. Morphy—for whose skill we entertain the liveliest admiration—be desirous to win his spurs among the chess chivalry of Europe, he must take advantage of his proposed visit next year; he will then meet in this country, in France, in Germany, and in Russia, many champions whose names must be as household words to him, ready to test and do honor to his prowess."

No one would regard the above observations as tantamount to aught else than "If you will come to Europe I will play you;" but we are relieved from the difficulty of discovering Mr. Staunton's real meaning by his reiterated declarations that he would play Mr. Morphy. Within a few days of the latter's arrival in London, the English player stated his intention of accepting the match, but postponed the commencement of it for a month, on the plea of requiring preparation. In the month of July the acceptance of the challenge was announced in theIllustrated London News. Before the expiration of the time demanded in the first instance, Mr. Staunton requested that the contest should not take place until after the Birmingham meeting. At Birmingham he again declared his intention of playing the match, and fixed the date for the first week in November, in the presence of numerous witnesses. Mr.Morphy may have erred in believing that his antagonist intended to act as his words led him to suppose, but it was an error shared in common by every one then present, and particularly by Lord Lyttelton, the President of the British Chess Association, who recognized the true position of the case in his speech to the association, stating that he "wished him (Mr. Morphy) most cordially success in his encounters with the celebrated players of Europe, whom he had gallantly left home to meet; he should be pleased to hear that he vanquished all—except one; but that one—Mr. Staunton—he must forgive him, as an Englishman, for saying he hoped he would conquer him."—(Report of Birmingham meeting,Illustrated London News, Sept. 18, 1858.

So firmly convinced were the members of Mr. S.'s own club, the St. George's, that he had accepted the challenge, that a committee was formed, and funds raised to back him. What those gentlemen must now think of Mr. Staunton's evasion of the match can easily be understood; but so strong was the conviction in other chess circles that he would not play, that large odds were offered to that effect.

"M. A.'s" reasons for not playing, or "M. A.'s" reasons for Mr. Staunton's not playing—a distinction without a difference, as we shall hereafter show—is that "he is engaged upon a literary work of great responsibility and magnitude." Did not this reason exist prior to Mr. Morphy's arrival in June? and if so, why were Mr. Morphy, the English public, and the chess community generally, led into the belief that the challenge was accepted? And what did Mr. Staunton mean by stating at Birmingham, in the presence of Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Avery, and myself, that if the delay until November were granted him, he could in the mean while supply his publishers with sufficient matter, so as to devote himself subsequently to the match?

Mr. Staunton's (I mean "M. A.'s") remark in the letter under review, "I (Staunton or 'M. A.' indifferently) have no apprehension of your skill," is hardly consonant with the previous observation, that "he (Staunton) is at least pawnand two below his force," unless the "English-chess-world-representative" wishes it to be understood that he could offer those odds to Paul Morphy. Nor is it consonant with the fact that he has never consented to play Mr. Morphy a single game, though asked to do so, and when frequently meeting him at St. George's. Of course the two consultation games played by him, in alliance with "Alter," against Messrs. Barnes and Morphy count for nothing, as they were gained by the latter; a result due, doubtless, to "Alter" alone.

Mr. Morphy, in the eyes of the chess world, can have nothing to gain from a contest with this gentleman. When Mr. Staunton has met even players such as Anderssen, Heyderbrandt, and Löwenthal, he has succumbed; whilst his youthful antagonist can cite a roll of victories unparalleled since Labourdonnais. And herein is the true reason for "M. A.'s" saying, "Staunton must not be allowed to risk the national honor (?) in an unequal contest."

In wishing "M. A." adieu, I would state that his style of composition is so like Mr. Staunton's that no one could detect the difference. And no one but Mr. Staunton himself would ever set up such a defence as "M. A.'s"—that of inferiority, "Pawn and two below his strength," &c. &c. And no one but Mr. Staunton could have such intimate knowledge of his own thoughts as we find in the following verbatim quotations from "M. A.'s" letter: "The state of his health was such that he felt he could not do himself justice"—"his mind harassed"—"the other (Staunton) with scarcely time for sleep and meals, with his brain in a constant whirl with the strain upon it." In the language of Holy Writ: "No man can know the spirit of man, but the spirit of man which is in him."

Served up in a mass of foul language, the letter signed "Fair Play," contains an obviously untrue assertion, namely, "Mr. Morphy started for Europe, not to play a match with Mr. Staunton." This is rather outrageous in the face of the challenge from the New Orleans Chess Club, and with Mr. S.'s reply in theIllustrated London Newsof April 3d. So much was it Mr. Morphy's desire to play him, and so little hisintention to engage in the Birmingham Tournament, that he informed the secretary he did not regard such a contest as any true test of skill.

To sum up the whole matter, I will state the naked facts.

1. Mr. Morphy came to Europe to play Mr. Staunton.

2. Mr. Staunton made everybody believe he had accepted the challenge from Mr. Morphy.

3. Mr. Staunton allowed the St. George's Chess Club to raise the money to back him.

4. Mr. Staunton asked for a delay of one month, in order to brush up his openings and endings.

5. Mr. Staunton requested a postponement until after the Birmingham meeting.

6. Mr. Staunton fixed the beginning of November for the commencement of the match.

If all this do not mean "I will play," then is there no meaning in language. I beg to subscribe myself, Mr. Editor, most respectfully yours,

Frederick Milns Edge.

Hotel Breteuil, Paris,Oct. 20, 1858.

The next epistle is from the pen of a former colleague of Mr. Staunton,—a gentleman whose literary articles in theChess Players' Chroniclehave earned world-wide notoriety. In the case under examination, he dissects Mr. Staunton's procedures with the skill of an able anatomist.

LETTER FROM A COADJUTOR OF MR. STAUNTON.To the Editor of Bell's Life:—Sir,—In the few remarks that you have appended to the letters respecting Mr. Morphy's proposed match with Mr. Staunton you have dealt satisfactorily with the whole matter. The letters may be considered under two heads, one of whichdoes not refer to, the other is written upon, the actual subject. That a few lines should be devotednotto the merits of the case will not surprise your readers, when they remember that, prejudice being created against, or in favor of, a particular chess-player, questions are not viewed in their true light; still less will they be surprised when I take this opportunity of doing justice to Anderssen, who is indirectly alluded to in one of the letters. Your Cambridge correspondent ridicules the notion of any evasion of play on the part of Mr. Staunton. His virtue, even approaching a fault, has been the continual search after a match. He resought St. Amant after defeating him, he exposed himself to every one for eight years, and thus earned two characters, one that of the chivalrous paladin, the other that of the representative of English chess. I wonder that an intelligent writer, such as your correspondent is, should not have traced the distinction between resuming play against antagonists already beaten, or likely to be beaten, and commencing matches with really powerful combatants. I wonder, also, that he did not inform your readers that at the time at which St. Amant played with Mr. Staunton, the former, excellent as he was, received odds from Des Chapelles, who was out of play; I wonder that, as if with perfect knowledge, he could write upon such a chess match without alluding to Des Chapelles' celebrated criticism on the Staunton-St. Amant games, a criticism which, published in theBerliner Schachzeitungof 1848, puts both players in their true places. I wonder, again, that he should not have summed up Mr. S.'s subsequent victories in two contests, one with Hörwitz, the other with Harrwitz. I wonder that he should not have told us that Hörwitz publicly announced his inferiority to Der Lasa and Hanstein, and that Harrwitzat the time mentionedreceived P and two moves, but in the same year defeated Hörwitz, the very player upon whose defeat, on even terms, Mr. S.'s reputation mainly depended after his match with St. Amant. Another instance of Mr. Staunton's chivalry is, says your correspondent, an offer to "play any player in the world, and to pay his expenses for coming to England." The bestanswer to this is to quote the actual conditions of the challenge propounded by Sir G. Stephen on Mr. S.'s behalf in 1853: "1. If the acceptor of the challenge be resident abroad, the stake on each side shall not be less than £250. 2. If the challenge is taken up by a player resident in this country, the amount of stake shall be from £100 to £150. 3. That the match be played at a private hotel," etc. After the proposal, Mr. Staunton gave it meaning in a public speech (Chess Players' Chronicle, 1853)—"The challenge was intended for Anderssen's acceptance. The £250 was to cover travelling expenses in a foreign country." Now I wish to ask your correspondent is there here any offer to pay a competitor's expenses? Or will he read it as others do? "I name £100 for men whom I do not fear, but £250 for Anderssen, whom, as he beat me in 1851, Iwishto play with. Nominally, the larger sum will cover his expenses, but as I intend to win, he will practically have to find £250, his expenses, and the bill at a private hotel, simply to give me, the chivalrous Bayard, my revenge?" After this I trust that we shall not hear of chivalry in offering to pay the expenses of a competitor. "M. A.," as a Cambridge man, may be asked whether Mr. S.'s engagement "on a work of great magnitude" (I quote his own words) is equal to Anderssen's mathematical and philological labors? But Mr. S. is the representative of English chess. By whose election is he "divinæ particula auræ?" Des Chapelles was then irreverent, and I am an iconoclast. Is he self-elected? Then away with parliaments and associations of chess, and their self-elected speaker, "Fairplay." I never yet heard of a man calling himself the representative of any thing English, if he will not carry out his representation. I have heard of champions of the river retiring. I have seen them row, and take a beating manfully. I know that Lewis, Fraser, Slous, Walker, etc., gave up difficult chess. I never yet heard of half and half play. Either a man pretends to represent English chess, or he does not. If he makes his claim, whether self-elected or not, he must play (a representative, however ignorant, gives his vote in the House of Commons), if not, he may retire into private life.Morphy may reply to your correspondent and to his coryphæus at the same time—"I have played for ten years. I am not 21, but am prepared to play the best European masters now. If I am challenged when I have taken up another pursuit I will not do one thing. I will not accept a challenge, and months after not carry out my acceptance. I will not, after long delay, name even the day for commencing the match, and then have no idea of playing. True it is that you may not fairly represent English chess. Two British players separated Anderssen from you in 1851, but, Williams being dead, Mr. Wyvill not playing matches, and you still claiming priority in Anglo-Saxon chess, I, an Anglo-Saxon, on behalf of the race that speaks the same language, ask you, will you maintain or resign your claim?" This is true reasoning. The contest, "M. A." assures us, would be unequal. Mr. S. is P and two moves below his strength, yet he represents English play. Where, then, are the even players, where the P and move men? Is the fragrance of the P and two moves so refreshing, that the P and move must not be classed amongst our British roses? Des Chapelles tells us that Philidor classed Legalle as a player on even terms, Verdoni as one to receive pawn for the move, Bernard, Carlier, etc., as P and move players. I think better of English chess players than to claim, with "M. A.," our representative in a P and two moves player. Your Cambridge correspondent will pardon me for attempting to refute his positions. From the style of his letter I am convinced that, had he equal experience, he would write much the same as I have done. "Fairplay's" letter may soon be dismissed; his argument is, that Mr. Morphy came to Europe not to play Mr. Staunton (who had previously refused, F. P. should have added, "to play in America," not in England), but to take part in the tournament held by the Chess Association at Birmingham; that he did not play there, sending different answers for his non-appearance; and, assuming this to be a fault, that therefore any one may commit the same fault, if he can give better reasons for the commission. In answer to this, Mr. Morphy did not come to Europe to play at Birmingham, butto test his strength with the cis-Atlantic players. It reads almost like a joke, when a man writes seriously from Birmingham to inform us that Morphy came 6000 miles to play the first two or first three games, especially when every one in London has known for more than three months that he came to play long set matches. What was Mr. M.'s behavior? He came to England in June, and visited Birmingham directly. He had been offered £70 as a retaining fee on account of the distance travelled by him (similarly Anderssen, Staunton, etc., received retaining fees in 1857), but refused the offer, making, with characteristic generosity, such excuses as "he had not received the Birmingham letters," and that "the meeting was adjourned for two months." In other words, Mr. Morphy, giving up all pecuniary claim, practically paidnearly seven-eighths of the prizes offered to public competition. Hence he did not take part in the little contests at Birmingham. He civilly assented to the alteration of time—he civilly left Löwenthal, whom he had beaten in a set match, a chance of gaining the first prize—he civilly gave answers to telegraphic messages, answers—I regret here that they were more polite than exact—that meant the same thing, "I leave the contest to others." If these replies did not—as short telegraphic messages cannot—express Mr. M.'s meaning, it does not become those who profited by his chivalry to write in the style of "Fairplay;" and I am sure that the Birmingham local committee would be the first to gainsay the latter's statement.Hemust be satisfied, at all events, as Löwenthal, just beaten by Morphy, met Mr. Staunton, whom he was anxious to see pitted against the young American, and won, thereby saving criticism as to "What was, might be, or could be." What "will be," we shall see. Mr. M. went to Birmingham simply to get Mr. S. to name,in the presence of others, a day for commencing the proposed match. Then and there Mr. S. named the 1st of November. A representative of Englishmen should give either abona fideacceptance or a refusal. Morphy's motto is "Play, not talk." He comes and goes to foreign countries to seek play. He is the "Il Puttino" of the New World. At the risk,then, sir, of being called a "frivolous noodle" by your very elegant correspondent "Fairplay," I shall take the liberty of believing what an honest man like Morphy says. I shall not hold Staunton to be the representative of English chess, but shall look to younger and more consistent players as far more likely to maintain what your correspondents call the national honor, and am, sir, your obedient servant,An English Chess Player.East Sheen,Oct. 21, 1858.

LETTER FROM A COADJUTOR OF MR. STAUNTON.

To the Editor of Bell's Life:—

Sir,—In the few remarks that you have appended to the letters respecting Mr. Morphy's proposed match with Mr. Staunton you have dealt satisfactorily with the whole matter. The letters may be considered under two heads, one of whichdoes not refer to, the other is written upon, the actual subject. That a few lines should be devotednotto the merits of the case will not surprise your readers, when they remember that, prejudice being created against, or in favor of, a particular chess-player, questions are not viewed in their true light; still less will they be surprised when I take this opportunity of doing justice to Anderssen, who is indirectly alluded to in one of the letters. Your Cambridge correspondent ridicules the notion of any evasion of play on the part of Mr. Staunton. His virtue, even approaching a fault, has been the continual search after a match. He resought St. Amant after defeating him, he exposed himself to every one for eight years, and thus earned two characters, one that of the chivalrous paladin, the other that of the representative of English chess. I wonder that an intelligent writer, such as your correspondent is, should not have traced the distinction between resuming play against antagonists already beaten, or likely to be beaten, and commencing matches with really powerful combatants. I wonder, also, that he did not inform your readers that at the time at which St. Amant played with Mr. Staunton, the former, excellent as he was, received odds from Des Chapelles, who was out of play; I wonder that, as if with perfect knowledge, he could write upon such a chess match without alluding to Des Chapelles' celebrated criticism on the Staunton-St. Amant games, a criticism which, published in theBerliner Schachzeitungof 1848, puts both players in their true places. I wonder, again, that he should not have summed up Mr. S.'s subsequent victories in two contests, one with Hörwitz, the other with Harrwitz. I wonder that he should not have told us that Hörwitz publicly announced his inferiority to Der Lasa and Hanstein, and that Harrwitzat the time mentionedreceived P and two moves, but in the same year defeated Hörwitz, the very player upon whose defeat, on even terms, Mr. S.'s reputation mainly depended after his match with St. Amant. Another instance of Mr. Staunton's chivalry is, says your correspondent, an offer to "play any player in the world, and to pay his expenses for coming to England." The bestanswer to this is to quote the actual conditions of the challenge propounded by Sir G. Stephen on Mr. S.'s behalf in 1853: "1. If the acceptor of the challenge be resident abroad, the stake on each side shall not be less than £250. 2. If the challenge is taken up by a player resident in this country, the amount of stake shall be from £100 to £150. 3. That the match be played at a private hotel," etc. After the proposal, Mr. Staunton gave it meaning in a public speech (Chess Players' Chronicle, 1853)—"The challenge was intended for Anderssen's acceptance. The £250 was to cover travelling expenses in a foreign country." Now I wish to ask your correspondent is there here any offer to pay a competitor's expenses? Or will he read it as others do? "I name £100 for men whom I do not fear, but £250 for Anderssen, whom, as he beat me in 1851, Iwishto play with. Nominally, the larger sum will cover his expenses, but as I intend to win, he will practically have to find £250, his expenses, and the bill at a private hotel, simply to give me, the chivalrous Bayard, my revenge?" After this I trust that we shall not hear of chivalry in offering to pay the expenses of a competitor. "M. A.," as a Cambridge man, may be asked whether Mr. S.'s engagement "on a work of great magnitude" (I quote his own words) is equal to Anderssen's mathematical and philological labors? But Mr. S. is the representative of English chess. By whose election is he "divinæ particula auræ?" Des Chapelles was then irreverent, and I am an iconoclast. Is he self-elected? Then away with parliaments and associations of chess, and their self-elected speaker, "Fairplay." I never yet heard of a man calling himself the representative of any thing English, if he will not carry out his representation. I have heard of champions of the river retiring. I have seen them row, and take a beating manfully. I know that Lewis, Fraser, Slous, Walker, etc., gave up difficult chess. I never yet heard of half and half play. Either a man pretends to represent English chess, or he does not. If he makes his claim, whether self-elected or not, he must play (a representative, however ignorant, gives his vote in the House of Commons), if not, he may retire into private life.Morphy may reply to your correspondent and to his coryphæus at the same time—"I have played for ten years. I am not 21, but am prepared to play the best European masters now. If I am challenged when I have taken up another pursuit I will not do one thing. I will not accept a challenge, and months after not carry out my acceptance. I will not, after long delay, name even the day for commencing the match, and then have no idea of playing. True it is that you may not fairly represent English chess. Two British players separated Anderssen from you in 1851, but, Williams being dead, Mr. Wyvill not playing matches, and you still claiming priority in Anglo-Saxon chess, I, an Anglo-Saxon, on behalf of the race that speaks the same language, ask you, will you maintain or resign your claim?" This is true reasoning. The contest, "M. A." assures us, would be unequal. Mr. S. is P and two moves below his strength, yet he represents English play. Where, then, are the even players, where the P and move men? Is the fragrance of the P and two moves so refreshing, that the P and move must not be classed amongst our British roses? Des Chapelles tells us that Philidor classed Legalle as a player on even terms, Verdoni as one to receive pawn for the move, Bernard, Carlier, etc., as P and move players. I think better of English chess players than to claim, with "M. A.," our representative in a P and two moves player. Your Cambridge correspondent will pardon me for attempting to refute his positions. From the style of his letter I am convinced that, had he equal experience, he would write much the same as I have done. "Fairplay's" letter may soon be dismissed; his argument is, that Mr. Morphy came to Europe not to play Mr. Staunton (who had previously refused, F. P. should have added, "to play in America," not in England), but to take part in the tournament held by the Chess Association at Birmingham; that he did not play there, sending different answers for his non-appearance; and, assuming this to be a fault, that therefore any one may commit the same fault, if he can give better reasons for the commission. In answer to this, Mr. Morphy did not come to Europe to play at Birmingham, butto test his strength with the cis-Atlantic players. It reads almost like a joke, when a man writes seriously from Birmingham to inform us that Morphy came 6000 miles to play the first two or first three games, especially when every one in London has known for more than three months that he came to play long set matches. What was Mr. M.'s behavior? He came to England in June, and visited Birmingham directly. He had been offered £70 as a retaining fee on account of the distance travelled by him (similarly Anderssen, Staunton, etc., received retaining fees in 1857), but refused the offer, making, with characteristic generosity, such excuses as "he had not received the Birmingham letters," and that "the meeting was adjourned for two months." In other words, Mr. Morphy, giving up all pecuniary claim, practically paidnearly seven-eighths of the prizes offered to public competition. Hence he did not take part in the little contests at Birmingham. He civilly assented to the alteration of time—he civilly left Löwenthal, whom he had beaten in a set match, a chance of gaining the first prize—he civilly gave answers to telegraphic messages, answers—I regret here that they were more polite than exact—that meant the same thing, "I leave the contest to others." If these replies did not—as short telegraphic messages cannot—express Mr. M.'s meaning, it does not become those who profited by his chivalry to write in the style of "Fairplay;" and I am sure that the Birmingham local committee would be the first to gainsay the latter's statement.Hemust be satisfied, at all events, as Löwenthal, just beaten by Morphy, met Mr. Staunton, whom he was anxious to see pitted against the young American, and won, thereby saving criticism as to "What was, might be, or could be." What "will be," we shall see. Mr. M. went to Birmingham simply to get Mr. S. to name,in the presence of others, a day for commencing the proposed match. Then and there Mr. S. named the 1st of November. A representative of Englishmen should give either abona fideacceptance or a refusal. Morphy's motto is "Play, not talk." He comes and goes to foreign countries to seek play. He is the "Il Puttino" of the New World. At the risk,then, sir, of being called a "frivolous noodle" by your very elegant correspondent "Fairplay," I shall take the liberty of believing what an honest man like Morphy says. I shall not hold Staunton to be the representative of English chess, but shall look to younger and more consistent players as far more likely to maintain what your correspondents call the national honor, and am, sir, your obedient servant,

An English Chess Player.

East Sheen,Oct. 21, 1858.

The next two letters, also to the editor ofBell's Life in London, do not profess to argue the question, but are merelyargumenta ad hominum. They serve to show how warm a feeling in his favor Mr. Morphy had evoked amongst the fellow-countrymen of Mr. Staunton.

To the Editor of Bell's Life:Mr. Editor: The general opinion of English chess players is simply that Staunton is afraid of Morphy. If, as his friends say, he is out of condition, let him train, or give up the championship like a man. No one would blame him, at his age and with his avocation, for declining severe matches; but in that case he must resign the belt into fresher hands. The champion ceases to be the champion when he is no longer able or willing to take up whatever gauntlet is flung down. Let the chivalrous boy who has crossed the Atlantic to challenge the chess of the Old World have fair play at the hands of Englishmen. If we cannot beat him fairly, let us not seek to put him off with shabby dodges.Yours, &c.The Ex-President of Provincial Chess Club.Oct. 20th.

To the Editor of Bell's Life:

Mr. Editor: The general opinion of English chess players is simply that Staunton is afraid of Morphy. If, as his friends say, he is out of condition, let him train, or give up the championship like a man. No one would blame him, at his age and with his avocation, for declining severe matches; but in that case he must resign the belt into fresher hands. The champion ceases to be the champion when he is no longer able or willing to take up whatever gauntlet is flung down. Let the chivalrous boy who has crossed the Atlantic to challenge the chess of the Old World have fair play at the hands of Englishmen. If we cannot beat him fairly, let us not seek to put him off with shabby dodges.

Yours, &c.

The Ex-President of Provincial Chess Club.

Oct. 20th.

This is sound, straightforward, English common sense.

To the Editor of Bell's Life:—Mr. Editor: Mr. Staunton either is, or is not, the chess champion of England, ready to defend his "belt" against all comers. If hebethe champion, he hasno rightto plead "want of practice," "literary avocations," or such like excuses, for "semper paratus" must be a "champion's" motto. If he benotthe champion, why then did he hold himself out as such by inviting or accepting Mr. Morphy's challenge? Why did he not say at the first, "Iwasthe champion of England some years ago, but (solve senescentem) I am not so now; I am only a private gentleman, engaged in literary pursuits, and so forth." His true position would then have been clearly understood, and I am sure Mr. Morphy would never have sought to disturb his retirement. But will the English chess-playing public allow Mr. Staunton to put in this pleaafter all that has passed, and after all his declarations of willingness to play? I trust, sir, that, if such an excuse be allowed, at least we shall have the candor to acknowledge ourselves fairly vanquished, and not pretend that we have escaped defeat because we have "prudently" declined the contest. We must be on our guard for the future how we proclaim as our "champion" a gentleman who "retires into private life" the moment a formidable rival appears.Yours, &c.,Schack.

To the Editor of Bell's Life:—

Mr. Editor: Mr. Staunton either is, or is not, the chess champion of England, ready to defend his "belt" against all comers. If hebethe champion, he hasno rightto plead "want of practice," "literary avocations," or such like excuses, for "semper paratus" must be a "champion's" motto. If he benotthe champion, why then did he hold himself out as such by inviting or accepting Mr. Morphy's challenge? Why did he not say at the first, "Iwasthe champion of England some years ago, but (solve senescentem) I am not so now; I am only a private gentleman, engaged in literary pursuits, and so forth." His true position would then have been clearly understood, and I am sure Mr. Morphy would never have sought to disturb his retirement. But will the English chess-playing public allow Mr. Staunton to put in this pleaafter all that has passed, and after all his declarations of willingness to play? I trust, sir, that, if such an excuse be allowed, at least we shall have the candor to acknowledge ourselves fairly vanquished, and not pretend that we have escaped defeat because we have "prudently" declined the contest. We must be on our guard for the future how we proclaim as our "champion" a gentleman who "retires into private life" the moment a formidable rival appears.

Yours, &c.,

Schack.

The week following the publication of the above letters, Mr. Staunton published in theIllustrated London NewsPARTof Mr. Morphy's communication, with the private answer sent a fortnight before. The paragraph in the former, relating to Mr. S.'s iniquitous statement of Morphy's arriving in Europe without funds, was entirely ignored, and that, too, in the face of its having been givenin extensotwo weeks previously by four weekly London papers, and a copy sentto his editor-in-chief.Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementatwas never more thoroughly exemplified, and the course pursued proves incontestably that Mr. Staunton possesses a certain kind of courage which does not stick at trifles. Was it presumable that a man of his experience would dare to commit such an unwarrantable act, or did he think that Mr. Morphy would pass over, in silence, such a suppression?

The animus was now evident. Mr. Staunton had never awarded that praise to the young American's contests which every other chess editor and player in England and Europe had invariably bestowed: still, no action could be taken on this. Mr. Staunton had continually postponed the commencement of the match: no handle to take hold of was offered here, since he had, as continually, asserted his desire to play. Mr. Staunton had announced that the stakes were reduced from £1,000 a side to £500 at Mr. Morphy's request; his antagonist was still silent. Mr. Staunton had published a knowingly untrue statement, and, when the sufferer complains in such manner as to afford him the utmost latitude for explanation and apology, he cancels the paragraph, and does not even deign to refer to it in his reply. Mr. Staunton caps the climax by declining finally to play the match. Thus Mr. Staunton's response to the New Orleans Chess Club,so far as he was concerned, meant nothing. His acceptance of Morphy's challenge in London, and the statement in his paper that the match would come off, meant nothing.His postponements meant nothing. His declarations before Lord Lyttelton and other gentlemen, at Birmingham, meant nothing.

Thus there was apparently an end to the whole matter. But an eventuality presented itself:—Mr. Staunton had shown himself capable of perverting facts to his own benefit, and might he not assert ultimately that Mr. Morphy was the cause of the match not taking place? Could he not, too, at the moment our hero was quitting Europe, declare his readiness to play, knowing that Morphy must be off? He had so acted towards Herr Anderssen after the tournament in 1851, declaring that "the German saw fit to leave," although he was well aware that the Professor's collegiate duties at Breslau rendered it impossible for him to stay in England and play the proposed match. Paul Morphy therefore closed up every avenue of eventual misrepresentation, by the following address to Lord Lyttelton, in his official quality of President of the National Association of English Chess-players:

MORPHY'S APPEAL TO THE BRITISH CHESS ASSOCIATION.To the Right Hon. Lord Lyttelton, President of the British Chess Association:My Lord,—On the 4th of last February the Chess Club of New Orleans gave a challenge to your countryman, Mr. Howard Staunton, to visit that city and engage in a match at chess with me. On the 3d of April Mr. Staunton replied to thisdéfiin theIllustrated London News, characterizing the terms of the cartel as "being distinguished by extreme courtesy," but objecting to so long a journey for such a purpose, and engagingme "to anticipate by a few months an intended voyage to Europe." Believing that "a journey of many thousand miles" was the only obstacle in the way of our meeting, I made immediate preparation, and, within two months, I had the pleasure of repeating the challenge personally in the rooms of the St. George's Chess Club. I need scarcely assure you, my lord, that Mr. Staunton enjoys a reputation in the United States unsurpassed by that of any player in Europe since the death of Labourdonnais, and I felt highly honored when he accepted my challenge, merely requesting a lapse of one month for the purpose of preparing himself for the encounter. Within a short period subsequently, Mr. Staunton obtained my consent to a postponement until after the annual meeting of the British Chess Association. A week prior to that event I addressed him in the following terms:—"Dear Sir,—As we are now approaching the Birmingham meeting, at the termination of which you have fixed our match to commence, I think it would be advisable to settle the preliminaries during this week. Would you be good enough to state some early period when your seconds can meet mine, so that a contest which I have so much at heart, and which from your eminent position excites so much interest in the chess world, may be looked upon as afait accompli.—I am, dear sir, yours very respectfully,Paul Morphy."Not receiving a satisfactory reply to this communication, I again wrote Mr. Staunton as follows:—"Dear Sir,—I must first apologise for not replying to your previous communication. As you observe, my numerous contests must be the excuse for my remissness."It is certainly a high compliment to so young a player as myself that you, whose reputation in the chess arena has been unapproached during so many long years, should require any preparation for our match. Immediately on my arrival in England, some two months since, I spoke to you in reference to our contest, and, in accepting the challenge, you stated that you should require some time to prepare, and you proposed a period for commencing, which I accepted."I am well aware that your many engagements in the literary world must put you to some inconvenience in meeting me, and I am therefore desirous to consult your wishes in every respect. Would you please state the earliest opportunity when those engagements will permit the match coming off, such time being consistent with your previous preparation?"The 'few weeks' referred to in your favor seem to be rather vague, and I shall feel highly gratified by your fixing a definite period for the contest.I leave the terms entirely to yourself.—I remain, dear sir, yours very respectfully,"Paul Morphy."Mr. Staunton left London for Birmingham without deigning to reply.I attended the annual meeting of the Association for the express purpose of requesting a definite period for commencing the match. In the presence of your lordship and other gentlemen, Mr. Staunton fixed that commencement for the forepart of November, promising that he would inform me of the precise date within a few days. I heard nothing further from him on the subject. Your lordship will have remarked from the above that Mr. Staunton has thus obtained three separate and distinct postponements.The approach of November induced me to again address Mr. Staunton, which I did on the 6th of the present month. As my letter was published in numerous London journals, and was also sent to the editor-in-chief of theIllustrated London News, I had a right to expect a public answer, particularly as I had complained of a false and damaging statement in the chess department of that paper. On the 16th Mr. Staunton stated editorially that—"Mr. Morphy's games this week exclude both his letter and Mr. Staunton's reply. If we can spare space for them they shall be given in the next number."On the 9th inst., within a short time of receiving my letter, Mr. Staunton replied to meprivately. As my communication was a public one, I was somewhat surprised at the course pursued by a gentleman holding such a position as Mr. Staunton,and did not, therefore, even acknowledge receipt, fearing that I might thereby be induced unintentionally to commit myself. Having promised my letter and his reply, Mr. Staunton published what he represents as such in theIllustrated London Newsof the 23d inst. He has thereby transferred the question from the chess arena to the bar of public opinion, and as a stranger in a foreign land—a land which has ever been the foremost in hospitality—I claim justice from Englishmen.The most important portion of my letter Mr. Staunton has dared to suppress. I refer to the following paragraph, published by various journals, but omitted by theIllustrated London News, although sent to the editor of that paper as well as to Mr. Staunton himself:—"A statement appeared in the chess department of that journal a few weeks since, that 'Mr. Morphy had come to Europe unprovided with backers or seconds,' the inference being obvious—that my want of funds was the reason of our match not taking place. As you are the editor of that department of theIllustrated London News, I felt hurt that a gentleman who had always received me at his club and elsewhere with great kindness and courtesy, should allow so prejudicial a statement to be made in reference to me; one, too, which is not strictly in accordance with fact."On my first arriving in England, I informed Mr. Staunton that my stakes would be forthcoming the moment he desired, and I was therefore utterly at a loss to account for so unwarrantable a statement being made in reference to me, unless with the intention of compromising my position before the public. And I would ask your lordship's attention to the terms of the suppressed paragraph, couched in such language as to avoid all insinuation of animus, and affording Mr. Staunton the amplest opportunity for explaining away the difficulty. The course pursued by that gentleman cannot do otherwise than justify me in ascribing to him the very worst of motives in publishing what he knew to be incorrect, in denying me common justice, and in giving as the whole of my letterwhat he knew to be only a part of it.From Mr. Staunton I now appeal to the great body of English chess players, I appeal to the British Chess Association, I appeal to yourself, my lord, as theMæcenasof English chess; and, as I visited your country for the purpose of challenging Mr. Staunton, which challenge he has repeatedly accepted, I now demand of you that you shall declare to the world it is through no fault of mine that this match has not taken place.—I have the honor to remain, my lord, yours very respectfully,Paul Morphy.Cafe de la Regence, Paris,October 26, 1858.

MORPHY'S APPEAL TO THE BRITISH CHESS ASSOCIATION.

To the Right Hon. Lord Lyttelton, President of the British Chess Association:

My Lord,—On the 4th of last February the Chess Club of New Orleans gave a challenge to your countryman, Mr. Howard Staunton, to visit that city and engage in a match at chess with me. On the 3d of April Mr. Staunton replied to thisdéfiin theIllustrated London News, characterizing the terms of the cartel as "being distinguished by extreme courtesy," but objecting to so long a journey for such a purpose, and engagingme "to anticipate by a few months an intended voyage to Europe." Believing that "a journey of many thousand miles" was the only obstacle in the way of our meeting, I made immediate preparation, and, within two months, I had the pleasure of repeating the challenge personally in the rooms of the St. George's Chess Club. I need scarcely assure you, my lord, that Mr. Staunton enjoys a reputation in the United States unsurpassed by that of any player in Europe since the death of Labourdonnais, and I felt highly honored when he accepted my challenge, merely requesting a lapse of one month for the purpose of preparing himself for the encounter. Within a short period subsequently, Mr. Staunton obtained my consent to a postponement until after the annual meeting of the British Chess Association. A week prior to that event I addressed him in the following terms:—

"Dear Sir,—As we are now approaching the Birmingham meeting, at the termination of which you have fixed our match to commence, I think it would be advisable to settle the preliminaries during this week. Would you be good enough to state some early period when your seconds can meet mine, so that a contest which I have so much at heart, and which from your eminent position excites so much interest in the chess world, may be looked upon as afait accompli.—I am, dear sir, yours very respectfully,

Paul Morphy."

Not receiving a satisfactory reply to this communication, I again wrote Mr. Staunton as follows:—

"Dear Sir,—I must first apologise for not replying to your previous communication. As you observe, my numerous contests must be the excuse for my remissness.

"It is certainly a high compliment to so young a player as myself that you, whose reputation in the chess arena has been unapproached during so many long years, should require any preparation for our match. Immediately on my arrival in England, some two months since, I spoke to you in reference to our contest, and, in accepting the challenge, you stated that you should require some time to prepare, and you proposed a period for commencing, which I accepted.

"I am well aware that your many engagements in the literary world must put you to some inconvenience in meeting me, and I am therefore desirous to consult your wishes in every respect. Would you please state the earliest opportunity when those engagements will permit the match coming off, such time being consistent with your previous preparation?

"The 'few weeks' referred to in your favor seem to be rather vague, and I shall feel highly gratified by your fixing a definite period for the contest.I leave the terms entirely to yourself.—I remain, dear sir, yours very respectfully,

"Paul Morphy."

Mr. Staunton left London for Birmingham without deigning to reply.

I attended the annual meeting of the Association for the express purpose of requesting a definite period for commencing the match. In the presence of your lordship and other gentlemen, Mr. Staunton fixed that commencement for the forepart of November, promising that he would inform me of the precise date within a few days. I heard nothing further from him on the subject. Your lordship will have remarked from the above that Mr. Staunton has thus obtained three separate and distinct postponements.

The approach of November induced me to again address Mr. Staunton, which I did on the 6th of the present month. As my letter was published in numerous London journals, and was also sent to the editor-in-chief of theIllustrated London News, I had a right to expect a public answer, particularly as I had complained of a false and damaging statement in the chess department of that paper. On the 16th Mr. Staunton stated editorially that—

"Mr. Morphy's games this week exclude both his letter and Mr. Staunton's reply. If we can spare space for them they shall be given in the next number."

On the 9th inst., within a short time of receiving my letter, Mr. Staunton replied to meprivately. As my communication was a public one, I was somewhat surprised at the course pursued by a gentleman holding such a position as Mr. Staunton,and did not, therefore, even acknowledge receipt, fearing that I might thereby be induced unintentionally to commit myself. Having promised my letter and his reply, Mr. Staunton published what he represents as such in theIllustrated London Newsof the 23d inst. He has thereby transferred the question from the chess arena to the bar of public opinion, and as a stranger in a foreign land—a land which has ever been the foremost in hospitality—I claim justice from Englishmen.

The most important portion of my letter Mr. Staunton has dared to suppress. I refer to the following paragraph, published by various journals, but omitted by theIllustrated London News, although sent to the editor of that paper as well as to Mr. Staunton himself:—

"A statement appeared in the chess department of that journal a few weeks since, that 'Mr. Morphy had come to Europe unprovided with backers or seconds,' the inference being obvious—that my want of funds was the reason of our match not taking place. As you are the editor of that department of theIllustrated London News, I felt hurt that a gentleman who had always received me at his club and elsewhere with great kindness and courtesy, should allow so prejudicial a statement to be made in reference to me; one, too, which is not strictly in accordance with fact."

On my first arriving in England, I informed Mr. Staunton that my stakes would be forthcoming the moment he desired, and I was therefore utterly at a loss to account for so unwarrantable a statement being made in reference to me, unless with the intention of compromising my position before the public. And I would ask your lordship's attention to the terms of the suppressed paragraph, couched in such language as to avoid all insinuation of animus, and affording Mr. Staunton the amplest opportunity for explaining away the difficulty. The course pursued by that gentleman cannot do otherwise than justify me in ascribing to him the very worst of motives in publishing what he knew to be incorrect, in denying me common justice, and in giving as the whole of my letterwhat he knew to be only a part of it.

From Mr. Staunton I now appeal to the great body of English chess players, I appeal to the British Chess Association, I appeal to yourself, my lord, as theMæcenasof English chess; and, as I visited your country for the purpose of challenging Mr. Staunton, which challenge he has repeatedly accepted, I now demand of you that you shall declare to the world it is through no fault of mine that this match has not taken place.—I have the honor to remain, my lord, yours very respectfully,

Paul Morphy.

Cafe de la Regence, Paris,October 26, 1858.

To this appeal, Lord Lyttelton made the following admirable reply, which covers the whole ground:—

LORD LYTTELTON ON HOWARD STAUNTON.Bodmin, Cornwall,3d November.Dear Sir:—I much regret that I have been unable till to-day to reply to your letter of the 26th October, which only reached me on the 1st inst. With regard to the appeal which you have made to the British Chess Association, I may perhaps be allowed to say, as its President, that I fear nothing can be done about the matter in question by that body. It is one of recent and rather imperfect organization; its influence is not yet fully established. It is practically impossible to procure any effective meeting of its members at present, and it is doubtful whether it could take any step in the matter if it were to meet. I must therefore be understood as writing in my private character alone, but, at the same time, you are welcome, should you think it worth while (which I can hardly think it can be), to make further use of this letter, in any manner you may wish.Your letter has but one professed object; that we should declare that it is not your fault that the match between yourself and Mr. Staunton has not taken place. To this the reply might be made in two words. I cannot conceive it possible that any one should impute that failure to you, nor am Iaware that any one has done so. But, in the circumstances, I shall not perhaps be blamed, if I go somewhat further into the matter. In the general circumstances of the case, I conceive that Mr. Staunton was quite justified in declining the match. The fact is understood that he has for years been engaged in labors which must, whatever arrangements might be made, greatly interfere with his entering into a serious contest with a player of the highest force and in constant practice, and so far the failure of the match is the less to be regretted. Nor can I doubt the correctness of his recent statement, that the time barely necessary for the match itself could not be spared, without serious loss and inconvenience both to others and to himself.But I cannot but think that in all fairness and considerateness, Mr. Staunton might have told you of this long before he did. I know no reason why he might not have ascertained it, and informed you of it in answer to your first letter from America. Instead of this, it seems to me plain, both as to the interview at which I myself was present, and as to all the other communications which have passed, that Mr. Staunton gave you every reason to suppose that he would be ready to play the match within no long time. I am not aware, indeed (nor do I perceive that you have said it), that you left Americasolelywith the view of playing Mr. Staunton. It would, no doubt, make the case stronger, but it seems to me as unlikely as that you should have come, as has been already stated (anonymously, and certainly not with Mr. Staunton's concurrence), in order to attend the Birmingham Tournament.With regard to the suppressions of part of your last letter, I must observe, that I am not aware how far Mr. Staunton is responsible for what appears in theIllustrated London News. But whoever is responsible for that suppression, I must say, that I cannot see how it is possible to justify or excuse it.I greatly regret the failure of a contest which would have been of much interest, and the only one, as I believe, which could have taken place with you, with any chance of its redounding to the credit of this country. I still more regretthat any annoyance or disappointment should have been undergone by one, who—as a foreigner—from his age, his ability, and his conduct and character, is eminently entitled to the utmost consideration in the European countries which he may visit.I am, dear sir, yours truly,Lyttelton.Paul Morphy, Esq.

LORD LYTTELTON ON HOWARD STAUNTON.

Bodmin, Cornwall,3d November.

Dear Sir:—I much regret that I have been unable till to-day to reply to your letter of the 26th October, which only reached me on the 1st inst. With regard to the appeal which you have made to the British Chess Association, I may perhaps be allowed to say, as its President, that I fear nothing can be done about the matter in question by that body. It is one of recent and rather imperfect organization; its influence is not yet fully established. It is practically impossible to procure any effective meeting of its members at present, and it is doubtful whether it could take any step in the matter if it were to meet. I must therefore be understood as writing in my private character alone, but, at the same time, you are welcome, should you think it worth while (which I can hardly think it can be), to make further use of this letter, in any manner you may wish.

Your letter has but one professed object; that we should declare that it is not your fault that the match between yourself and Mr. Staunton has not taken place. To this the reply might be made in two words. I cannot conceive it possible that any one should impute that failure to you, nor am Iaware that any one has done so. But, in the circumstances, I shall not perhaps be blamed, if I go somewhat further into the matter. In the general circumstances of the case, I conceive that Mr. Staunton was quite justified in declining the match. The fact is understood that he has for years been engaged in labors which must, whatever arrangements might be made, greatly interfere with his entering into a serious contest with a player of the highest force and in constant practice, and so far the failure of the match is the less to be regretted. Nor can I doubt the correctness of his recent statement, that the time barely necessary for the match itself could not be spared, without serious loss and inconvenience both to others and to himself.

But I cannot but think that in all fairness and considerateness, Mr. Staunton might have told you of this long before he did. I know no reason why he might not have ascertained it, and informed you of it in answer to your first letter from America. Instead of this, it seems to me plain, both as to the interview at which I myself was present, and as to all the other communications which have passed, that Mr. Staunton gave you every reason to suppose that he would be ready to play the match within no long time. I am not aware, indeed (nor do I perceive that you have said it), that you left Americasolelywith the view of playing Mr. Staunton. It would, no doubt, make the case stronger, but it seems to me as unlikely as that you should have come, as has been already stated (anonymously, and certainly not with Mr. Staunton's concurrence), in order to attend the Birmingham Tournament.

With regard to the suppressions of part of your last letter, I must observe, that I am not aware how far Mr. Staunton is responsible for what appears in theIllustrated London News. But whoever is responsible for that suppression, I must say, that I cannot see how it is possible to justify or excuse it.

I greatly regret the failure of a contest which would have been of much interest, and the only one, as I believe, which could have taken place with you, with any chance of its redounding to the credit of this country. I still more regretthat any annoyance or disappointment should have been undergone by one, who—as a foreigner—from his age, his ability, and his conduct and character, is eminently entitled to the utmost consideration in the European countries which he may visit.

I am, dear sir, yours truly,

Lyttelton.

Paul Morphy, Esq.

Mr. Morphy could not do otherwise than avail himself of the permission accorded him by Lord Lyttelton, to publish so full a justification. He thus put himself right on the record, and prevented any further misrepresentation. Numerous clubs in the United Kingdom took action upon the letter, and the following resolution of the Manchester Chess Club—one of the most influential in the country—shows what was the general feeling upon the subject.

RESOLUTION OF THE MANCHESTER CHESS CLUB.At a special meeting, called in compliance with a requisition numerously signed, it was resolved—"That this meeting, while recognizing Mr. Staunton's right to decline any chess challenge which he might find inconvenient and incompatible with his other engagements, deems it proper (inasmuch as Lord Lyttelton has only felt himself at liberty to answer, in his private capacity, Mr. Morphy's appeal to him as President of the British Chess Association) to declare its full concurrence in the opinion expressed by Lord Lyttelton in his letter to Mr. Morphy, of the 3d inst., that in all fairness and considerateness Mr. Staunton should have told Mr. Morphy, long before he did, that he declined the proposed match."That copies of this resolution be sent to Mr. Morphy, Mr. Staunton, and the editor of theIllustrated London News."17th November, 1858.

RESOLUTION OF THE MANCHESTER CHESS CLUB.

At a special meeting, called in compliance with a requisition numerously signed, it was resolved—

"That this meeting, while recognizing Mr. Staunton's right to decline any chess challenge which he might find inconvenient and incompatible with his other engagements, deems it proper (inasmuch as Lord Lyttelton has only felt himself at liberty to answer, in his private capacity, Mr. Morphy's appeal to him as President of the British Chess Association) to declare its full concurrence in the opinion expressed by Lord Lyttelton in his letter to Mr. Morphy, of the 3d inst., that in all fairness and considerateness Mr. Staunton should have told Mr. Morphy, long before he did, that he declined the proposed match.

"That copies of this resolution be sent to Mr. Morphy, Mr. Staunton, and the editor of theIllustrated London News."

17th November, 1858.

Mr. Staunton was able to cite but one instance of an association sufficiently hardy to oppose its opinion to the verdict of Lord Lyttelton. A select circle of Mr. S.'s friends, the close-borough Cambridge University Chess Club, ventured the following resolutions, which were forwarded for publication to several journals, as a would-be antidote to that of the Manchester Club.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY CHESS CLUB.At a meeting of the Cambridge University Chess Club, held November 26, 1858, the following resolutions were passed unanimously:"That the Cambridge University Chess Club, recognizing the important services rendered by Mr. Staunton to the cause of chess, and seeing with regret the ungenerous attacks which have for some time past been directed against him by a certain section of the press, notorious for its anti-English tendencies, are of opinion"1. That under the peculiar circumstances in which Mr. Staunton found himself placed, it was scarcely possible for him to do otherwise than decline the proposed match with Mr. Morphy."2. That his allowing the challenge to remain open so long as there appeared the slightest hope of his being able to play, was, beyond all question, the proper course to be adopted by one really anxious for the encounter."

RESOLUTIONS OF THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY CHESS CLUB.

At a meeting of the Cambridge University Chess Club, held November 26, 1858, the following resolutions were passed unanimously:

"That the Cambridge University Chess Club, recognizing the important services rendered by Mr. Staunton to the cause of chess, and seeing with regret the ungenerous attacks which have for some time past been directed against him by a certain section of the press, notorious for its anti-English tendencies, are of opinion

"1. That under the peculiar circumstances in which Mr. Staunton found himself placed, it was scarcely possible for him to do otherwise than decline the proposed match with Mr. Morphy.

"2. That his allowing the challenge to remain open so long as there appeared the slightest hope of his being able to play, was, beyond all question, the proper course to be adopted by one really anxious for the encounter."

I cannot do better than give the remarks upon the above resolutions by the "Era" newspaper; they make mince-meat of the Cantabs' reasonings. The "Era" answers thus:—

THE "ERA'S" REMARKS."It will be seen that the Cambridge University Chess Club constitutes itself the champion of Mr. Staunton against "ungenerous attacks directed against him by a section of the press, notorious for its anti-English tendencies." We wish the Cambridge gentlemen had pointed out the section they refer to. We were not aware that chess was of any country, or that there were any anti-English tendencies in connection with it. The fact is, that the section of the metropolitan chess press, conducted by foreigners who have made their homes in England, has hitherto refrained from expressing any judgment in the dispute, contenting itself with giving the letters ungarbled and unmutilated; but in chess columns, conducted by Englishmen, have appeared the remarks pointed at by the Cambridge Club; so here we have the anomaly of anti-English Englishmen. With regard to the resolutions which follow the preamble, it is impossible to cavil at. (1.) There is no doubt that under what are delicately called "the peculiar circumstances," Mr. Staunton was right in not playing Mr. Morphy. If a man feels he would have no chance, it would be foolish for him to venture on a contest. Resolution (2) is not so impervious to criticism. Coming from so learned a quarter as Cambridge, we are rather disappointed at the looseness of its wording. The intention, of course, was to justify Mr. Staunton in taking the course he has adopted, but it does not do so. It says he was right in "allowing the challenge to remain open" till the last moment. If, indeed, Mr. Staunton had kept the challenge open as long as possible no one would have blamed him, but that was precisely what he did not do. He accepted the challenge, and thereby closed with it, and his friends subscribed funds for the stakes. What Mr. Staunton did allow to remain open was the day; and, after repeated promises to name it, that has been postponed to—never. This is what is complained of in Mr. Staunton's conduct, and Lord Lyttelton was right, and expressed the judgment of the great majority of English chess players, when he wrote that Mr. Staunton might and ought, at an earlier date,to have informed Mr. Morphy of his inability to play. We say nothing of the paragraphs which have appeared in the journal of which Mr. Staunton is the chess editor, insinuating that Mr. Morphy's money was not ready, because he (Mr. Staunton) may not be answerable for them, but confine ourselves, in conformity with our English tendencies, to an expression of our concurrence in the views of an English nobleman, the whole of the members of the Metropolitan Chess circle, and those of the provincial clubs who have communicated with us on the subject."

THE "ERA'S" REMARKS.

"It will be seen that the Cambridge University Chess Club constitutes itself the champion of Mr. Staunton against "ungenerous attacks directed against him by a section of the press, notorious for its anti-English tendencies." We wish the Cambridge gentlemen had pointed out the section they refer to. We were not aware that chess was of any country, or that there were any anti-English tendencies in connection with it. The fact is, that the section of the metropolitan chess press, conducted by foreigners who have made their homes in England, has hitherto refrained from expressing any judgment in the dispute, contenting itself with giving the letters ungarbled and unmutilated; but in chess columns, conducted by Englishmen, have appeared the remarks pointed at by the Cambridge Club; so here we have the anomaly of anti-English Englishmen. With regard to the resolutions which follow the preamble, it is impossible to cavil at. (1.) There is no doubt that under what are delicately called "the peculiar circumstances," Mr. Staunton was right in not playing Mr. Morphy. If a man feels he would have no chance, it would be foolish for him to venture on a contest. Resolution (2) is not so impervious to criticism. Coming from so learned a quarter as Cambridge, we are rather disappointed at the looseness of its wording. The intention, of course, was to justify Mr. Staunton in taking the course he has adopted, but it does not do so. It says he was right in "allowing the challenge to remain open" till the last moment. If, indeed, Mr. Staunton had kept the challenge open as long as possible no one would have blamed him, but that was precisely what he did not do. He accepted the challenge, and thereby closed with it, and his friends subscribed funds for the stakes. What Mr. Staunton did allow to remain open was the day; and, after repeated promises to name it, that has been postponed to—never. This is what is complained of in Mr. Staunton's conduct, and Lord Lyttelton was right, and expressed the judgment of the great majority of English chess players, when he wrote that Mr. Staunton might and ought, at an earlier date,to have informed Mr. Morphy of his inability to play. We say nothing of the paragraphs which have appeared in the journal of which Mr. Staunton is the chess editor, insinuating that Mr. Morphy's money was not ready, because he (Mr. Staunton) may not be answerable for them, but confine ourselves, in conformity with our English tendencies, to an expression of our concurrence in the views of an English nobleman, the whole of the members of the Metropolitan Chess circle, and those of the provincial clubs who have communicated with us on the subject."

Mr. Staunton's short-sighted policy with regard to Paul Morphy, had not only caused him to be condemnedvis-à-visof that gentleman, but his former career was also dragged into discussion and severely commented upon. The following letter appeared in the "Field" a week after the appeal to Lord Lyttelton; and, as will be seen, it is from the pen of a once warm friend of Mr. Staunton:—

MR. STAUNTON AND MR. MORPHY.Sir,—I am desirous, with your permission, of saying a few words upon the relative position now occupied by Messrs. Staunton and Morphy, whose proposed encounter has been brought to such an unfortunate, though not unforeseen, termination. Now I am well acquainted with Mr. Staunton. I have been concerned on his behalf in the arrangement of one of his (proposed) matches, with a player whom he has never ceased to vituperate since that period when I endeavored so strenuously to bring them together. I have fought Mr. Staunton's battles for him by pen and by word of mouth on sundry occasions. I wish, indeed, I could do so now; for, as a chess player, and as a laborer in the field of chess literature, I place him on the very highest pinnacle. Since the time of M'Donnell, I believe that no player in this country—not to say Europe—has ever reached so high a standard as was attained by our English champion when he did battle with St. Amant. Since that time he has been the rather concerned in editorial duties, and in intimating to real or imaginary correspondents in theChess Players' Chronicle, (now defunct,) and in theIllustrated London News, (full of vitality,) what he could do on the chequered field, if those who dreamed of approaching him could but muster sufficient money to meet his terms, or what other and peculiar restrictions (owing to delicate health and "nervous irritability") he should impose upon any adversary with whom he engaged himself.From what I have seen of Mr. Staunton, I should think the term "delicate" thoroughly inapplicable to his condition, but that he is highly irritable, and nervously susceptible of all antagonistic impressions, no one who knows him can for a moment doubt.How easy 'tis, when destiny proves kind,With full-spread sails to run before the wind.So sings the poet. Destinydidprove kind to Mr. Staunton when he played his match in Paris with St. Amant. The Englishman made the most of it, and achieved a splendid triumph. At the great Chess Tournament in 1851 destiny was not quite so obliging. The champion from whom we expected so much had a head-wind against him, and he was beaten. I saw much of Mr. Staunton at that time. I believe—in all justice let it be said—that he was thoroughly unnerved, that he was utterly unequal to an arduous contest, and that his great merits ought not to be gauged by his play upon the occasion alluded to. He deserved (he did not receive, for he had never given the same to others) every sympathy under circumstances which were intensely mortifying to himself personally, and to us nationally.Since 1851 it has been pretty generally understood that Mr. Staunton's irritability has not diminished, and that his literary responsibilities have the rather multiplied. Consequently we had no right to expect, nationally, that he would again beour champion, and contend with the young American, whose reputation ran before him to Europe, and has accompanied him ever since his arrival from the United States. We had no right, I say, to expect this,but for one reason. That reason is to be found in the chess department of theIllustrated London News, of which Mr. S. is the acknowledged editor. It has been there constantly implied—nay, it has been over and over again unequivocally stated—during the last eight years, that the vanquisher of St. Amant is still the English champion; that as such he has a right to dictate his own terms, and that if any one is prepared to accede to those terms, he (Mr. Staunton) is prepared for the encounter. It matters not whether the correspondents to whom these implications are made are real or (as is generally supposed) imaginary. It is sufficient that certain statements are made with the intention of conveying a false impression to the public as regards Mr. Staunton's desire to play and capability of playing. This is where he is so greatly to blame; this is the point on which he has alienated from himself during the last few years so many of his warmest friends. No one blames Mr. Staunton for not playing with Mr. Morphy; but every one has a right to blame Mr. Staunton if, week after week, he implies in his own organ that there is a chance of a match, if all that time he knows that there is no chance of a match whatever. This, I affirm deliberately, and with great pain, is what Mr. Staunton has done. It has been done times out of number, and this in ways which have been hardly noticed. If the editor of the chess department of theIllustrated London Newsmerely states as a piece of news that Mr. Morphy is coming to England from America to arrange a match at chess with Mr. Staunton, and Mr. Staunton (being that editor himself, and being burdened with literary responsibilities which he knows to be so great as to prevent his playing an arduous contest) fails to append to such statement another, to the effect that he has given up public chess, and has no intention of again renewing it, he is not acting in a straightforward and honorable manner. But much more than this hasbeen effected. So solicitous has Mr. Staunton been to trade as long as possible upon his past reputation, that it has been written in theIllustrated London Newssince Mr. Morphy's arrival in this country, that he (Mr. M.) is not prepared with the necessary stakes for an encounter with Mr. Staunton. What truth there was in such averment may be gathered from the admirable letter in your impression of last Saturday from the young American to Lord Lyttelton. Why is not Mr. Staunton content to say (what those who like him best would be glad to be authorized to say for him): "I have done much for the cause of chess, but I am not equal to what I once was; and I am hampered by engagements which do not admit of my playing matches now. I cannot risk my reputation under such manifest disadvantages as would surround me in a contest with Mr. Morphy." The public at large would then respect Mr. Staunton's candor, and have a larger appreciation than they now have of his great merits. It is true that Mr. Stauntonhassaid this at last; but he has been forced to say with a bad grace what ought long ago to have been said voluntarily with a good one.These unpleasant (not to use a harsher term) circumstances are the more to be deplored at present because of the frank, courteous, and unassuming conduct of Mr. Morphy upon every occasion since he set foot in Europe. I have seen him play in London and in Paris; and I have noted those obliging and unobtrusive manners which secure to him the good-will of everybody, and surround him by troops of friends. How is it that Mr. Staunton is not surrounded by troops of friends likewise? Is he not a scholar and a gentleman? Has he not many qualifications for the distinguished literary position he now fills? Undoubtedly he has. But he has never been able to merge the personal in the general—to regard his own individuality as other than the first consideration. Brought into contact many years ago with players who were not refined gentlemen, an antagonism was immediately established between the two parties. Unhappily for the chess world, literary opportunities wereafforded in the columns of rival newspapers for the indulgence of malevolent feelings on both sides. To this warfare there has never been a cessation. So notorious is the fact of its existence that it is impossible to rely, in one paper, upon any statement having reference to the London Chess Club; it is equally impossible to rely, in the other, upon any statement affecting the St. George's Club. Ladies who are devoted to "Caissa," and write to theIllustrated London News, are not aware of these things. Imaginary correspondents, of course, are utterly ignorant of them. But we who live in and about London, who have been behind the scenes at both theatres, know how much reliance is to be placed upon a certain kind of chess intelligence with which two rival journals regale their correspondents and the general public every week. Look even at theIllustrated London Newsof last Saturday, and you will see a letter professing to come from Birmingham, (I think it is a misprint for Billingsgate,) which is absolutely disgraceful. Why should Mr. Staunton try to bolster up his reputation (which is European) with sentiments and language of a purely (I mean impurely) local character? Why is one player always to be cried up at the expense of another? Why are ungenerous and ungentlemanly insinuations to be made against a youth whose conduct has been characterized by so much unobtrusiveness and so much good feeling as that of Mr. Morphy? Why is Mr. Harrwitz always to be run down in theIllustrated London News? Why are Mr. Löwenthal and Mr. Brien, quondam editorialprotégés, now never spoken of but in terms of disparagement? Why should Mr. Staunton call upon thecercleat Paris to insist upon Mr. Harrwitz progressing with his match with Mr. Morphy at a more rapid pace, when the German had pleaded ill health as the cause of the delay? Who has drawn so largely upon the patience of the British public, on the score of ill health and "palpitations of the heart,"et hoc genus omne, as the generous and sympathizing writer who thus stabs a rival player when he is down? It is time, sir, that these things should cease. We are all weary of them. Whatbetter opportunity for crying a truce to these mean and petty warfares of the pen than the one which now presents itself? Mr. Staunton is our champion no longer. We must turn to some one else to uphold the national flag upon that field where Labourdonnais and M'Donnell fought and struggled. So anxious am I that good feeling should be restored, and that we should be united as I see chess players united in other countries, that I have put together hurriedly these reflections, which, however imperfect they may be, are true and just. And because I have observed that the chess department ofThe Field, which you so ably edit, is peculiarly free from personalities and remarkably authentic in its information, I ask you to help me in the good cause by giving publicity to this letter. I am not ashamed of what I have written, nor do I desire to shrink from the responsibility of revealing my name, if it is necessary. I enclose my card, as a guarantee, and prefer, if it meets your views, to appear only under the name of—Pawn-and-Two.

MR. STAUNTON AND MR. MORPHY.

Sir,—I am desirous, with your permission, of saying a few words upon the relative position now occupied by Messrs. Staunton and Morphy, whose proposed encounter has been brought to such an unfortunate, though not unforeseen, termination. Now I am well acquainted with Mr. Staunton. I have been concerned on his behalf in the arrangement of one of his (proposed) matches, with a player whom he has never ceased to vituperate since that period when I endeavored so strenuously to bring them together. I have fought Mr. Staunton's battles for him by pen and by word of mouth on sundry occasions. I wish, indeed, I could do so now; for, as a chess player, and as a laborer in the field of chess literature, I place him on the very highest pinnacle. Since the time of M'Donnell, I believe that no player in this country—not to say Europe—has ever reached so high a standard as was attained by our English champion when he did battle with St. Amant. Since that time he has been the rather concerned in editorial duties, and in intimating to real or imaginary correspondents in theChess Players' Chronicle, (now defunct,) and in theIllustrated London News, (full of vitality,) what he could do on the chequered field, if those who dreamed of approaching him could but muster sufficient money to meet his terms, or what other and peculiar restrictions (owing to delicate health and "nervous irritability") he should impose upon any adversary with whom he engaged himself.

From what I have seen of Mr. Staunton, I should think the term "delicate" thoroughly inapplicable to his condition, but that he is highly irritable, and nervously susceptible of all antagonistic impressions, no one who knows him can for a moment doubt.

How easy 'tis, when destiny proves kind,With full-spread sails to run before the wind.

How easy 'tis, when destiny proves kind,With full-spread sails to run before the wind.

So sings the poet. Destinydidprove kind to Mr. Staunton when he played his match in Paris with St. Amant. The Englishman made the most of it, and achieved a splendid triumph. At the great Chess Tournament in 1851 destiny was not quite so obliging. The champion from whom we expected so much had a head-wind against him, and he was beaten. I saw much of Mr. Staunton at that time. I believe—in all justice let it be said—that he was thoroughly unnerved, that he was utterly unequal to an arduous contest, and that his great merits ought not to be gauged by his play upon the occasion alluded to. He deserved (he did not receive, for he had never given the same to others) every sympathy under circumstances which were intensely mortifying to himself personally, and to us nationally.

Since 1851 it has been pretty generally understood that Mr. Staunton's irritability has not diminished, and that his literary responsibilities have the rather multiplied. Consequently we had no right to expect, nationally, that he would again beour champion, and contend with the young American, whose reputation ran before him to Europe, and has accompanied him ever since his arrival from the United States. We had no right, I say, to expect this,but for one reason. That reason is to be found in the chess department of theIllustrated London News, of which Mr. S. is the acknowledged editor. It has been there constantly implied—nay, it has been over and over again unequivocally stated—during the last eight years, that the vanquisher of St. Amant is still the English champion; that as such he has a right to dictate his own terms, and that if any one is prepared to accede to those terms, he (Mr. Staunton) is prepared for the encounter. It matters not whether the correspondents to whom these implications are made are real or (as is generally supposed) imaginary. It is sufficient that certain statements are made with the intention of conveying a false impression to the public as regards Mr. Staunton's desire to play and capability of playing. This is where he is so greatly to blame; this is the point on which he has alienated from himself during the last few years so many of his warmest friends. No one blames Mr. Staunton for not playing with Mr. Morphy; but every one has a right to blame Mr. Staunton if, week after week, he implies in his own organ that there is a chance of a match, if all that time he knows that there is no chance of a match whatever. This, I affirm deliberately, and with great pain, is what Mr. Staunton has done. It has been done times out of number, and this in ways which have been hardly noticed. If the editor of the chess department of theIllustrated London Newsmerely states as a piece of news that Mr. Morphy is coming to England from America to arrange a match at chess with Mr. Staunton, and Mr. Staunton (being that editor himself, and being burdened with literary responsibilities which he knows to be so great as to prevent his playing an arduous contest) fails to append to such statement another, to the effect that he has given up public chess, and has no intention of again renewing it, he is not acting in a straightforward and honorable manner. But much more than this hasbeen effected. So solicitous has Mr. Staunton been to trade as long as possible upon his past reputation, that it has been written in theIllustrated London Newssince Mr. Morphy's arrival in this country, that he (Mr. M.) is not prepared with the necessary stakes for an encounter with Mr. Staunton. What truth there was in such averment may be gathered from the admirable letter in your impression of last Saturday from the young American to Lord Lyttelton. Why is not Mr. Staunton content to say (what those who like him best would be glad to be authorized to say for him): "I have done much for the cause of chess, but I am not equal to what I once was; and I am hampered by engagements which do not admit of my playing matches now. I cannot risk my reputation under such manifest disadvantages as would surround me in a contest with Mr. Morphy." The public at large would then respect Mr. Staunton's candor, and have a larger appreciation than they now have of his great merits. It is true that Mr. Stauntonhassaid this at last; but he has been forced to say with a bad grace what ought long ago to have been said voluntarily with a good one.

These unpleasant (not to use a harsher term) circumstances are the more to be deplored at present because of the frank, courteous, and unassuming conduct of Mr. Morphy upon every occasion since he set foot in Europe. I have seen him play in London and in Paris; and I have noted those obliging and unobtrusive manners which secure to him the good-will of everybody, and surround him by troops of friends. How is it that Mr. Staunton is not surrounded by troops of friends likewise? Is he not a scholar and a gentleman? Has he not many qualifications for the distinguished literary position he now fills? Undoubtedly he has. But he has never been able to merge the personal in the general—to regard his own individuality as other than the first consideration. Brought into contact many years ago with players who were not refined gentlemen, an antagonism was immediately established between the two parties. Unhappily for the chess world, literary opportunities wereafforded in the columns of rival newspapers for the indulgence of malevolent feelings on both sides. To this warfare there has never been a cessation. So notorious is the fact of its existence that it is impossible to rely, in one paper, upon any statement having reference to the London Chess Club; it is equally impossible to rely, in the other, upon any statement affecting the St. George's Club. Ladies who are devoted to "Caissa," and write to theIllustrated London News, are not aware of these things. Imaginary correspondents, of course, are utterly ignorant of them. But we who live in and about London, who have been behind the scenes at both theatres, know how much reliance is to be placed upon a certain kind of chess intelligence with which two rival journals regale their correspondents and the general public every week. Look even at theIllustrated London Newsof last Saturday, and you will see a letter professing to come from Birmingham, (I think it is a misprint for Billingsgate,) which is absolutely disgraceful. Why should Mr. Staunton try to bolster up his reputation (which is European) with sentiments and language of a purely (I mean impurely) local character? Why is one player always to be cried up at the expense of another? Why are ungenerous and ungentlemanly insinuations to be made against a youth whose conduct has been characterized by so much unobtrusiveness and so much good feeling as that of Mr. Morphy? Why is Mr. Harrwitz always to be run down in theIllustrated London News? Why are Mr. Löwenthal and Mr. Brien, quondam editorialprotégés, now never spoken of but in terms of disparagement? Why should Mr. Staunton call upon thecercleat Paris to insist upon Mr. Harrwitz progressing with his match with Mr. Morphy at a more rapid pace, when the German had pleaded ill health as the cause of the delay? Who has drawn so largely upon the patience of the British public, on the score of ill health and "palpitations of the heart,"et hoc genus omne, as the generous and sympathizing writer who thus stabs a rival player when he is down? It is time, sir, that these things should cease. We are all weary of them. Whatbetter opportunity for crying a truce to these mean and petty warfares of the pen than the one which now presents itself? Mr. Staunton is our champion no longer. We must turn to some one else to uphold the national flag upon that field where Labourdonnais and M'Donnell fought and struggled. So anxious am I that good feeling should be restored, and that we should be united as I see chess players united in other countries, that I have put together hurriedly these reflections, which, however imperfect they may be, are true and just. And because I have observed that the chess department ofThe Field, which you so ably edit, is peculiarly free from personalities and remarkably authentic in its information, I ask you to help me in the good cause by giving publicity to this letter. I am not ashamed of what I have written, nor do I desire to shrink from the responsibility of revealing my name, if it is necessary. I enclose my card, as a guarantee, and prefer, if it meets your views, to appear only under the name of—

Pawn-and-Two.

Back to IndexNext