Chapter VI: The Staunton Affair (1)

We must anticipate the events of a few months, in order to place the discussion with Mr. Staunton where it properly belongs, viz., with Morphy's achievements in England. I do not think I have omitted a single fact or incident connected with an affair which has now become history, and my readers will agree with me that Mr. Staunton has suffered a far worse defeat by not playing the match than if he had been vanquished, as everybody says he would have been.

In dealing with this most delicate question, I feel desirous of letting facts, as far as possible, speak for themselves; but as it is the province and the duty of historians to seek the causes of events and to criticize the actions of their _dramatis personae_, I shall record, in all honesty and kindliness, what I believe to have been the motives at work in this contest. And, in order that nothing may remain unsaid, I shall give all the correspondence on the subject, both _pro_ and _con_.

Paul Morphy's principal object in coming to Europe was to play a match with Mr. Staunton. I am well aware that a young gentleman travelling for the first time in foreign countries must have many objects in view; but in this particular case, the pretext for the voyage, the very inducement for his friends to consent to his journey, was to repeat that challenge personally, in England, which Mr. Staunton had declined, on the ground of the place of combat not being in Europe. It is necessary that this point should be understood, because much of the controversy hinges upon it. If we examine the challenge addressed to Mr. Staunton by the New Orleans Chess Club, we find therein two main ideas: 1stly. That Mr. Staunton is a representative of European chess. 2ndly. That American players challenge him to combat with their representative. Mr. Staunton's reply raised but one objection; and that objection led Paul Morphy across the Atlantic, in order to remove the only stumbling-block in the way of the contest.

I was constantly with Morphy after his arrival in London, and a frequent subject of conversation between us was the match with Mr. Staunton. That, too, was the first, the principal topic at all the London Clubs we visited, and every thing but the date was looked upon as decided. Mr. Staunton, however, had not, as yet, stated explicitly that he accepted the challenge, but he did so _viva voce_ shortly after Mr. Morphy's arrival, and subsequently, in the _Illustrated London News_.

It seems as if Mr. Staunton had refrained from accepting the _defi_ until a somewhat accurate estimate could be formed of his challenger's strength. Previously to the latter's arrival, Mr. S.'s opinion of him was not at all equal to that entertained by his countrymen in America, nor did any player in England give him the rank which he now holds. There were no means by which to judge of his force. Not a dozen of his games _all told_ had been seen in Europe, and his antagonists were comparatively unknown, with the exception of Mr. Charles H. Stanley. But that gentleman had, for some years, withdrawn from the chess arena, and his play with Morphy did not, certainly, equal his former exploits with Rousseau and Schulten. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to await the result of his play with some known European antagonist; and I feel confident that the stature of his ability was measured on his first twelve or fifteen games with Mr. Barnes. Judging from these _parties_, Paul Morphy was little, if any thing, superior to that gentleman, but time had not been allowed him to recover from the fatigues of his voyage, and I have always remarked that travelling, even by rail, seriously deteriorates Morphy's game.

In accepting the challenge, Mr. Staunton postponed the commencement of the match for a month, "in order to brush up his openings and endings." This was too reasonable for Morphy to decline. Subsequently, as will be seen by the latter's correspondence, Mr. Staunton obtained a postponement until after the Birmingham meeting, in August. In the mean time, the young American had won the match with Herr Loewenthal, beaten "Alter" in a set contest at "pawn and move," and startled the chess community by the imposing manner in which he had triumphed over every opponent. Public opinion had changed in respect to him. This was evinced by the way in which the London players, almost universally, spoke of the proposed match. I have heard gentlemen at the London Chess Club, the Divan, nay, even at the St. George's, declare repeatedly--"Mr. Staunton now knows too well what antagonist he will have to deal with. Depend upon it, he will find means of backing out." This language, repeated at every turn, necessarily caused Paul Morphy some anxiety. On myself, however, I can conscientiously declare it had no effect. I did not believe it possible that any man having so publicly accepted a challenge, would attempt to avoid a contest, and expressed this opinion to Mr. Morphy, "It will be well not to accept all that one hears. Mr. Staunton has numerous enemies; do not allow yourself to be prejudiced by them, but look upon his acceptance of the challenge as a certainty that the match will come off."

With yet unshaken confidence in Mr. Staunton's intention to play, Paul Morphy addressed him a short note, ten days prior to the Birmingham meeting; to this he received a somewhat lengthy reply, the main point in it being that Mr. Staunton still required "a few weeks" for preparation. Morphy responded forthwith, entirely removing all ground for further excuse by "leaving the terms to himself." Here was an unjustifiable mode of putting an end to diplomacy! Mr. S. could not continue a correspondence with one so overwhelmingly courteous, and he left London for Birmingham without even acknowledging the receipt of the letter.

Much argument has been built up against Paul Morphy on his non-appearance in the tournament, and one writer has endeavored to prove from it that he was afraid to meet Mr. Staunton. Before leaving London, the latter gentleman assured his young opponent _that he should not enter the lists, but should confine himself to simple consultation games_. Why Mr. S. changed his mind, it is not for me to say; although I might argue that Mr. Staunton sallied forth courageously when he was certain that "Achilles keeps his tent." However, Paul Morphy's first reason for not entering the tournay was that, his main object being to meet Mr. Staunton, and that gentleman having stated his intention of confining himself to a mere consultation game, as in past years, there was no chance of their crossing swords, and, consequently, no use of his spending two or three weeks in a contest which never could be a decisive test of skill. But, when repeated telegrams assured him that the English champion had decided on becoming a contestant, there were still stronger reasons for his continued declination. These reasons were the consequences of Mr. Staunton's own acts, added to the opinion of nearly every London player, that that gentleman was seeking an opportunity to evade the match. All these occurrences had somewhat shaken Mr. Morphy's faith, and he could not but be suspicious of his antagonist's movements. _He therefore declined positively and finally to enter the tournament, under the belief that, whether he won or lost in that contest, it would be equally to the prejudice of the challenge. Mr. Staunton might say, "I have beaten Morphy; what is the use of further contest?" or "He has beaten me, I am consequently out of play. It would be madness to attempt a set match."_ This, and this only, prevented Paul Morphy from visiting Birmingham at the commencement of the tournament. Had he gone there when requested, every influence would have been brought to bear to induce him to alter his determination, and he merely consulted the interests of the contest he had so much at heart, by keeping out of temptation until the tournament was too far under way to admit of his entering it.

But the meeting of the association afforded an admirable opportunity to obtain from Mr. Staunton the naming of the day on which the match should commence. Part of the proceedings of the anniversary was a public soiree, and Paul Morphy resolved that he would then ask his antagonist, in the face of all present, to fix the date. I had the pleasure of accompanying our hero to Birmingham, and I witnessed the disagreeable _contre temps_ which upset this admirable intention. Crossing the courtyard of the college on the morning of the soiree, we met Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Staunton, Mr. Avery, and, I think, Mr. Wills. Now I do not know whether Mr. Staunton had got wind of what was to occur, but his action certainly frustrated Morphy's plan, and, for the moment, gave him the advantage. In all such rencontres the man who gets the first word has the attack, and Mr. Staunton instantly availed himself of it. He opened fire by declaring that he was entirely out of play--that he had long been engaged on a great work--that he was under bonds to his publishers accordingly--that he might subject them to a loss of many thousands in playing at the present time, and so forth. But he never stated aught that appeared to intimate the possibility of the match not coming off eventually, his plea being that he required further time, in order to put sufficient matter into the hands of the printers, and to prepare himself subsequently for the contest. It was now Morphy's turn, and the attack changed hands. The question was put: "Mr. Staunton, will you play in October, in November, or December? Choose your own time, but let the arrangement be final." The answer was: "Well, Mr. Morphy, if you will consent to the postponement, I will play you at the beginning of November. I will see my publishers, and let you know the exact date within a few days." The association now looked upon the affair as decided, and Morphy left Birmingham, firmly believing that the match would come off after all.

On the 28th of August, within a few days of the above conversation, the following extraordinary announcement appeared in the _Illustrated London News_:

A SPECIMEN OF MR. STAUNTON'S STYLE OF PLAY.

ANTI-BOOK.--As you surmise, "knowing the authority," the slang
of the sporting paper in question regarding the proposed
encounter between Mr. Staunton and the young American is
"bunkum." In matches of importance it is the invariable
practice in this country, before any thing definite is settled,
for each party to be provided with representatives to arrange
the terms and money for the stakes. Mr. Morphy has come here
unfurnished in both respects; and, although both will no doubt
be forthcoming in due time, it is clearly impossible, until
they are, that any determinate arrangement can be made. 2. The
statement of another contemporary that the reduction in the
amount of stakes from L1000 aside to L500 was made at the
suggestion of the English amateur is equally devoid of truth;
the proposal to reduce the amount having been made by Mr.
Morphy.

I was perfectly astonished when I read this statement. "Mr. Morphy had caused the stakes to be reduced from L1000 to L500 a side." Without mentioning Englishmen, there were Americans in London and Paris who asserted that Morphy could be backed against Mr. Staunton _for L10,000, 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 L10,000 against Mr. Staunton or any 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 the _Illustrated London News_ from 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 antagonists _could_ or _might have_ won, 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."

Mr. Morphy judged from this unexpected change of tone that Mr. Staunton either believed that these contests 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 the _Illustrated 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 the _Sunday Times_ published 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 the _Illustrated 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 the _Illustrated
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 the _Illustrated London
News_, _Bell's Life in London_, _The Era_, _The Field_, and
_The 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.

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 L500 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 victories _accounted 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 the _Illustrated London News_. He positively invites explanation in the most charitable and 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."

The _Illustrated London News_ did 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
sacrifice is, 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 games _sans facon_.

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.'s games, but promised it and his own response "next week."

On Saturday the 24th of October, the two following effusions graced the columns of _Bell's Life_. They had also been sent to _The Era_, _The Field_, and _The 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 the _eclat_ which 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 an _unequal
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 an _unequal contest_ when 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 slightest
obligation 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
actually _en 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 in _Bell's Life_ addressed 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 before 1859, 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. This _defi_ remained 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 to drop 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 lengthy _protocoling_ would 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 the _Illustrated 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 this _defi_ in the _Illustrated
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 the
_Illustrated 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 pawn and
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
Loewenthal, 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 the _Illustrated London News_ of April 3d. So much was
it Mr. Morphy's desire to play him, and so little his
intention 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 the _Chess Players' Chronicle_ have 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_:--