“You cannot thus account for our term _bishop_,” observed Mr. Seymour, “as our kings and queens have never had such attendants.” “Nor is it very easy to ascertain the period at which it was introduced,” replied the major; “in Caxton’s time it was styled the _elphyn_. I should think it probable that the change of name took place after the Reformation.” “It is probable that the pieces not only underwent changes in name, but changes in value or power,” observed Mr. Seymour, “as the game descended through different ages and countries.” Mrs. Beacham, who had been for some time listening with much interest to the curious discourse we have just related, here ventured to ask a question. “As you appear to have taken some trouble to ascertain the origin of this game, you can perhaps inform me at what period it was introduced into England.” The major replied, that the learned Hyde supposed it to have been first known in our country about the time of the Conquest; but that Mr. Barrington believed it to have been introduced during the thirteenth century, upon the return of Edward I. from the Holy Land, where he continued so long, and was attended by so many English. “It is certain that our ancestors played much at chess before the general introduction of cards,” observed the vicar, “as no fewer than twenty-six English families have emblazoned chess-boards and chess-rooks in their arms, and it must therefore have been considered a valuable accomplishment.” “Cards,” observed the major, “must have been known in England previous to the time of Edward IV.; since a statute was passed in that reign against their importation; but they did not become general for many years, and the progress of the custom appears to have been extremely slow.” “Check,--and mate!” exclaimed Mr. Seymour. “Upon my word, I have lost the game. Mr. Twaddleton, I lay this to your account,” said the major; “you ought not, sir, to have intruded your antiquarian discussions at such a time.” “You have lost the game, major, because, like Charles XII. of Sweden,[73] you are too fond of advancing your king; but it is quite natural that you should feel mortified by your defeat: a person never likes to be beat at chess, because it is a trial of skill and address; chance has no place, and no one, therefore, loses except in consequence of the superiority of adversary. You may remember that William the Conqueror, upon being _check-mated_ by the Prince of France, knocked the chess-board about his pate, an event which became the source of much future enmity. I must say,” continued the vicar, “that this, in my view of the matter, is an imperfection in the game; for, if it be the type or representative of a military campaign, fortune should have some share in deciding the fate of the day; and, if I remember correctly, Sir William Jones has stated that the use of dice, to regulate the moves, was formerly introduced in the East.”