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 which does not refer to, the other is written upon, the actual subject. That a few lines should be devoted _not_ to 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 the _Berliner Schachzeitung_ of 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 Horwitz, the other with Harrwitz. I wonder that he should not have told us that Horwitz publicly announced his inferiority to Der Lasa and Hanstein, and that Harrwitz _at the time mentioned_ received P and two moves, but in the same year defeated Horwitz, 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 best answer 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 compet.i.tor'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, I _wish_ to 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 compet.i.tor. "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 "_divinae particula aurae_?" Des Chapelles was then irreverent, and I am an iconoclast. Is he self-elected? Then away with parliaments and a.s.sociations 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 coryphaeus 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." a.s.sures 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 cla.s.sed amongst our British roses? Des Chapelles tells us that Philidor cla.s.sed Legalle as a player on even terms, Verdoni as one to receive p.a.w.n 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 a.s.sociation at Birmingham; that he did not play there, sending different answers for his non-appearance; and, a.s.suming 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, but to 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 paid _nearly seven-eighths of the prizes offered to public compet.i.tion_. Hence he did not take part in the little contests at Birmingham. He civilly a.s.sented to the alteration of time--he civilly left Lowenthal, 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. _He_ must be satisfied, at all events, as Lowenthal, 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 a _bona fide_ acceptance 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 of _Bell's Life in London_, do not profess to argue the question, but are merely _argumenta 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_.

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 he _be_ the champion, he has _no right_ to plead "want of practice," "literary avocations," or such like excuses, for "_semper paratus_" must be a "champion's" motto.

If he be _not_ the 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, "I _was_ the 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 plea _after all that has pa.s.sed_, 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 the _Ill.u.s.trated London News_ PART of 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 given _in extenso_ two weeks previously by four weekly London papers, and a copy sent to his editor-in-chief. _Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat_ was 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 pa.s.s 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, a.s.serted 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 lat.i.tude 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 a.s.sert 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 a.s.sociation of English Chess-players:

MORPHY'S APPEAL TO THE BRITISH CHESS a.s.sOCIATION.

_To the Right Hon. Lord Lyttelton, President of the British Chess a.s.sociation:_

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 this _defi_ in the _Ill.u.s.trated 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 engaging me "to antic.i.p.ate 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 a.s.sure you, my lord, that Mr. Staunton enjoys a reputation in the United States unsurpa.s.sed 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 a.s.sociation. 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 a _fait 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 a.s.sociation 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 the _Ill.u.s.trated 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 s.p.a.ce 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 me _privately_. 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 the _Ill.u.s.trated London News_ of 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 the _Ill.u.s.trated 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 the _Ill.u.s.trated 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 letter _what 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 a.s.sociation, I appeal to yourself, my lord, as the _Maecenas_ of 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 a.s.sociation, 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 I aware that any one has done so. But, in the circ.u.mstances, I shall not perhaps be blamed, if I go somewhat further into the matter. In the general circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.sed, that Mr.