by David Lawson
But now, with the bold deletion of the most telling part of Morphy’s letter (about which Lord Lyttelton later said in his letter to Morphy of November 3, 1858, “I cannot see how it is possible to justify or excuse it”), Morphy finally agreed (after much urging from Edge) that it should be put on record that the match had failed to materialize through no fault or deficiency on his part. He therefore addressed the following letter (actually written by Edge) to Lord Lyttelton, president of the British Chess Association:
Café de la Régence, Paris, Oct. 26, 1858
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 apologize 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 23rd 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 [Aug. 28], 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 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, 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
Lord Lyttelton replied as follows:
Bodmin, Cornwall, 3d November, 1858
Paul Morphy, Esq.
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 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 suppression 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
In a letter to Fiske dated April 3, 1859, Edge related the long struggle he had had to get Morphy to sign his name to the final letter to Lord Lyttelton:
And when Staunton published Morphy’s letter, suppressing that important paragraph, I said that the latter (Morphy) must now address the British Chess Association and claim justice, Morphy laughed in my face, and replied: “the matter need go no further.” I immediately sat down, boiling with rage, and penned the letter to Lord Lyttelton. I took it right away and submitted it to Mr. Bryan (Staunton’s old second) who returned to the hotel with me and induced Morphy to sign it. . . . When Lord Lyttelton sent his capital reply, Morphy declared that it should not be published: seeing it was vain to hope for his consent, I waited until he was out of the way, and then sent it to the London papers.
Lord Lyttelton’s letter almost but not quite closed the public discussion of the Morphy–Staunton match, the match for which England, Europe, and America had been waiting for Staunton to set the date. It would appear that Lord Lyttelton had expressed the general sentiment in the country, as did the following resolution of the Manchester Chess Club:
November 17, 1858; 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.
Of all the English clubs, only one accepted and approved Staunton’s tactics and explanations:
November 26, 1858—Resolved: 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.
The Era of December 12, 1858, took strong exception to the Cambridge resolutions:
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.
Also, a very long letter appeared in the Field (see Appendix) from a former warm friend of Staunton’s, strongly supporting Morphy. Although the letter was signed “Pawn and Two,” the writer had revealed his identity to Mr. Boden, the editor. On December 4, 1858, Staunton took notice of the letter in his chess column, asserting that “the writer labours under an egregious mistake in supposing Mr. Staunton declines a match at chess with Mr. Morphy from any apprehension of his prowess.”
Finally, Lord Lyttelton’s letter drew a response from Staunton in the Illustrated London News of November 20, 1858, although not in his chess column:
(To the Editor of the Illustrated London News) Nov. 15, 1858
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 be irrelevant to the main point between Mr. Morphy and me; secondly, because I knew 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. Morphy 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. Morphy was about to write to me in an amicable spirit, I, of course, supposed there was an end of the matter, and I should be permitted to pursue my work, and this young gentleman his play, without further mis
understanding.
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 the country—he could reconcile it to his sense of honor and honesty to impute to me a willful suppression of any portion of his letter, does, indeed, amaze me, and I only account for it by supposing he is under the influence of very ill advisors, 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
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.”
It would seem that Staunton, in endeavoring to justify his deletion of a portion of Morphy’s letter, was again guilty of another misstatement in saying in the above letter