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 Hörwitz, the other with Harrwitz. I wonder that he should not have told us that Hörwitz 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 Hörwitz, 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 £250. 2. If the challenge is