THE STAUNTON AFFAIR.
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.
[Illustration: MR. STAUNTON. MR. BODEN. HERR LOeWENTHAL.]
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_:--
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 Hoerwitz, the
other with Harrwitz. I wonder that he should not have told us
that Hoerwitz 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 Hoerwitz, 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 L250. 2. If the challenge is
taken up by a player resident in this country, the amount of
stake shall be from L100 to L150. 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 L250 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 L100 for men whom I do not fear, but L250
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 L250, 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 "_divinae particula
aurae_?" 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 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." 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,
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 L70 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 competition_. Hence he did not take
part in the little contests at Birmingham. He civilly assented
to the alteration of time--he civilly left Loewenthal, 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 Loewenthal, 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 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 the _Illustrated 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
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 L1,000 a side to L500 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 this _defi_
in the _Illustrated 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 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 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 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 the _Illustrated 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 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 _Illustrated 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 _Illustrated 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 _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."
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 Association, 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 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 I aware
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
America _solely_ with 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 the _Illustrated 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 regret that 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 the _Illustrated 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."
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."
Mr. Staunton's short-sighted policy with regard to Paul Morphy, had not
only caused him to be condemned _vis-a-vis_ of 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 the _Chess Players' Chronicle_,
(now defunct,) and in the _Illustrated 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. Destiny _did_ prove 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 be our 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 the
_Illustrated 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 the _Illustrated London News_ merely 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 has been effected. So solicitous has Mr. Staunton
been to trade as long as possible upon his past reputation,
that it has been written in the _Illustrated London News_ since
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. Staunton _has_ said 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 were
afforded 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 the _Illustrated 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
the _Illustrated London News_ of 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 the _Illustrated London News_? Why are
Mr. Loewenthal and Mr. Brien, quondam editorial _proteges_, now
never spoken of but in terms of disparagement? Why should Mr.
Staunton call upon the _cercle_ at 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. What better 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 of _The 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.
It is difficult in any country, and quite impossible in England, to
struggle successfully against public opinion. Mr. Staunton had kept
silence as long as possible, but there was but one course for him to
pursue, namely, in one way or another to own that he was wrong. The chess
circles in which he was once the most welcome of all comers, now turned on
him the cold shoulder; the first clubs in the kingdom, _and amongst them
the St. George's_, were signifying their desire to offer Paul Morphy
public dinners; such eminent players as Captain Kennedy volunteered
subscriptions towards a national testimonial for the young American, not
more as an evidence of their admiration for him as a master in the game,
than as marking their esteem for him as a man.[C] Mr. Staunton could no
longer resist such a pressure, and besides, he owed some apology to his
paper for the suppression of the famous paragraph; he therefore addressed
the following communication to his chief, the editor of the _Illustrated
London News_:
MR. STAUNTON'S EXPLANATION.
_To the Editor of the Illustrated London News_:
SIR,--My attention has this moment been directed to a passage
in a letter of Lord Lyttelton to Mr. Morphy, wherein allusion
is made to the "suppression" of a portion of Mr. Morphy's
letter to me, which you published, together with my answer, in
your paper for Oct. 23. I have not seen the epistle to which
Lord Lyttelton's is a reply; but I plead guilty at once to
having omitted, when sending you Mr. Morphy's jeremiade and my
answer, a couple of paragraphs from the former. My reasons for
omitting them were, in the first place, because they appeared
to me to be irrelevant to the main point between Mr. Morphy and
me; secondly, because I know if the letters extended very much
beyond the limited space you apportion to chess, they were
pretty certain of being omitted, or, as Mr. Morphy phrases it,
"_suppressed_" altogether; and, thirdly, because I had already
written to a friend in Paris with whom, through my
introduction, Mr. M. was living upon intimate terms, an
explanation touching the notice Mr. Morphy professes to be so
concerned at; and from my friend's reply, which intimated that
Mr. M. was about to write to me in an amicable spirit, I of
course supposed there was an end of the matter, and that I
should be permitted to pursue my work, and this young gentleman
his play, without further misunderstanding. That, after this,
and in the face of my endeavors through your Journal to set his
blindfold and other chess exploits before the public in the
most advantageous light--in the face of every civility which to
the extent of my opportunities, I have endeavored to show him
from the first moment of his arrival in this country--he could
reconcile it to his sense of honor and honesty, to impute to me
a wilful suppression of any portion of his letter, does,
indeed, amaze me, and I can only account for it, by supposing
he is under the influence of very ill advisers, or that his
idea of what is honorable and honest, is very different from
what I had hoped and believed it to be.
I am, sir, yours, &c.,
H. STAUNTON.
_November 15._
P. S. That you may judge with what likelihood and with what
propriety Mr. Morphy attributes the omission of the _excerpta_
to sinister motives, I enclose them, and shall be obliged by
your giving them the additional publicity he craves, as soon as
your space permits:--
"A statement appeared in the chess department of that Journal,
(_The Illustrated London News_) 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 much 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 consonant with fact."
"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 most desirous that our true position
should no longer be misunderstood by the community at large. I
again request you to fix the date for our commencing the
match."
Mr. Morphy was not desirous of prolonging the discussion, after so full
and entire an indorsement from Mr. Staunton's fellow-countrymen, or he
could easily have driven that gentleman further into the mire. But Mr. S.
made two statements in the above letter, which Paul Morphy could not allow
to pass unrebuked, and he accordingly denied, publicly, that he had
received any introduction whatever from that gentleman, or that he had
even hinted his intention of writing Mr. Staunton, amicably or otherwise.
The latter part of the letter is in questionable taste. As though Mr. S.
had acquired any right to misrepresent facts, publish misstatements, and
deny reparation, on account of "having set his (M.'s) blindfold and other
chess-exploits before the public in the most advantageous light."
By so doing, Mr. Staunton merely fulfilled his editorial duty; for the
entire chess world was on the _qui vive_ after Morphy's exploits. _His
games were being published throughout Europe, to the exclusion of nearly
all others_, and surely Mr. S. could not allow his paper to be behind
other journals. _But he knew full well that, after the first fortnight or
three weeks, Mr. Morphy never gave him a single partie, being hurt at the
ungenerous treatment evinced towards him in the notes._ Mr. Staunton was
using the columns of an influential journal to crush a dangerous opponent,
and, at the time he penned the above letter, he well knew that Paul Morphy
resented from the first such unfairness, and had positively forbidden any
of his games to be sent to him.
Mr. Staunton makes reference, in conclusion, to "very ill advisers." I
suppose I must take this mainly to myself, more particularly as it is not
the first time of his using the expression during the discussion. Without
attempting to defend myself, I would say to Mr. Staunton: "I can reconcile
it with my sense of honor and honesty, to impute to you a wilful
suppression of the paragraph so frequently referred to. Had you given that
paragraph, you would, _per force_, have been obliged to give your reasons
for the assertion therein contained. And I would remind you, sir, that, in
all this discussion, you have never touched the real point at issue--never
apologized for the misstatement of which Mr. Morphy complains with so much
cause. Paul Morphy is acquainted with the reason for that misstatement,
but he has never evinced a desire to force you to state it publicly. He
can afford to be generous."
It may be cause of regret to some that the match between these two
_athletae_ did not take place. Such a contest would not have afforded any
test of comparison, inasmuch as Mr. Staunton is not now the player he was
eight or ten years ago. But an infallible test exists by which to judge of
their respective merits--viz. _their games_. "By their fruits ye shall
know them."
* * * * *
MORAL.
Mr. Staunton's weakness was want of sufficient courage to say, "He is
stronger than I." Loewenthal said it _before his match with Morphy was
finished_; Mr. Boden openly avowed his inferiority, as also Mr. Bird, and
many other eminent players. And Saint Amant, in Paris, led the young hero
up the steps of the throne, and seated him beside Labourdonnais,
proclaiming, "Voici notre maitre a nous tous." Had Mr. Staunton so done,
he would merely have anticipated the verdict of posterity, and honored
himself in the eyes of his countrymen and the world.
FOOTNOTES:
[C] CAPTAIN KENNEDY'S OPINION OF PAUL MORPHY.
_To the Editor of the Era_:
SIR,--As I understand that Mr. Morphy contemplates another
visit to England before his return to America, will you permit
me, through your columns, respectfully to suggest to the chess
community of this country the propriety of offering him a
public entertainment, together with some adequate testimonial
which may serve to mark our sense of his transcendent ability
as a chess player; and also our appreciation of him as a
chivalrous, high-spirited, and honorable man--a character which
I hope Englishmen know how to value far more than even any
amount of skill at chess.
Should this proposal take any definite shape, I shall be happy
to be allowed to contribute L5 towards its accomplishment.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
A. A. KENNEDY.
BATH, _Jan. 1, 1859_.
[Captain Kennedy, we feel sure, in this communication, expresses the
feeling of a large majority of English chess players, and we have little
doubt but that his suggestion will be entertained and carried out. For
ourselves we shall be happy to aid to the utmost in any plan that is
formed for the purpose.]