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 _Ill.u.s.trated 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 ent.i.tled 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 a.s.sociation) 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 _Ill.u.s.trated London News._"
_17th November, 1858._
Mr. Staunton was able to cite but one instance of an a.s.sociation 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 pa.s.sed 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 circ.u.mstances 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 const.i.tutes 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. .h.i.therto 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 circ.u.mstances," 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 n.o.bleman, 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 _Ill.u.s.trated 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 circ.u.mstances 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 _Ill.u.s.trated 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 _Ill.u.s.trated 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 _Ill.u.s.trated 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 Sat.u.r.day 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) circ.u.mstances are the more to be deplored at present because of the frank, courteous, and una.s.suming 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 un.o.btrusive 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 _Ill.u.s.trated 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 _Ill.u.s.trated London News_ of last Sat.u.r.day, 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 un.o.btrusiveness and so much good feeling as that of Mr. Morphy? Why is Mr. Harrwitz always to be run down in the _Ill.u.s.trated London News_? Why are Mr. Lowenthal 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--
p.a.w.n-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 _Ill.u.s.trated London News_:
MR. STAUNTON"S EXPLANATION.
_To the Editor of the Ill.u.s.trated London News_:
SIR,--My attention has this moment been directed to a pa.s.sage 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 s.p.a.ce 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 s.p.a.ce permits:--
"A statement appeared in the chess department of that Journal, (_The Ill.u.s.trated 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 _Ill.u.s.trated 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 _Ill.u.s.trated 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."