Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Debtor's Chess

     There are myriads of ways to spend your free time.  Some people feel anxious unless they are doing something productive; others are quite satisfied with banal pursuits or mindless entertainment.  Whatever the case, it might be partly the freedom to choose how you utilize such time that's ultimately most important and being denied that choice might  be both dehumanizing and repressive.

    Rod Edwards of  Edo Historic Chess Ratings"  sent me a clipping from the March 23, 1851 edition of The Era,"  a British weekly, which had a brief response to a letter to the editor under the heading, "How poor debtors are treated at Lancaster Castle."
     The article mentions chess, but isn't chess-specific. However it does inspire in my mind certain thoughts about the value of such games.


                             But first let's talk a bit about the background. 
     Up until 1869 a debtor in England who was unable to pay his creditor could be imprisoned until the debt was settled. (After 1869, one could only be imprisoned if able but unwilling to satisfy one's debt).  These prisons were generally unpleasant, but one could pay for improved accommodations. Sometimes entire families, free to come and go, would join the prisoner.
     Mr. Edwards commented to me that the story below was almost Dickensian. In fact, when Charles Dickens was a child of 12, his father was sent to a debtor's prison named Marshalsea because of money he owed a baker, forcing Charles to leave school and to go to work in a blacking factory to support himself. Later Dickens wrote a serialized novel, "Little Dorrit," in which the father of the protagonist, Amy "Little" Dorrit was imprisoned at Marshalsea for debts owed.

 

     The people in the article below were imprisoned in Lancaster Castle, a famous London prison for criminals of all sorts. According to Lancaster Castle's website:
"Lancaster Castle housed between 300 and 400 debtors at any one time. Insolvent debtors were required to work within the prison and, in return, received, 3 ozs bread and 4ozs oatmeal daily and 1oz salt and 10lb potatoes weekly.
If the debtor still had access to money, life was quite different. A choice of 22 rooms was available, priced from 5s (25p) to 30s (£1.50p). The fee included fire, candle, use of culinary utensils, and the services of a "room-man" who did the cooking, cleaning, and waiting-on. Debtors could have beer, wine and tobacco but not spirits. They could buy newspapers, food and clothing, follow their trades or professions, and have visitors from 8 am to 8 pm. Their days were spent playing games in the courtyard, and any musicians who were imprisoned would often play at concerts or dances to amuse their fellow debtors. A debtors' market was held in the Castle Yard where meat, bread, butter, groceries, vegetables, fish and fruit could be purchased.

     The 1850 book, "The London Prisons,"  by William Hepworth Dixon claims:
"A man may exist in the prison who has been accustomed to good living, though he cannot live well. All kinds of luxuries are prohibited, as are also spirituous drinks. Each man may have a pint of wine a-day, but not more : and dice, cards, and all other instruments for gaming, are strictly vetoed. Chess, however, is permitted ; and to a chosen few the game serves to relieve the tedium of a duress which has no other time-consuming occupation."

     The newspaper article below shows this wasn't always the case and things could change on whim.


Lancaster Castle

 
Reading the letter and the reply, one realizes the tremendous value those without means and deprived of liberty place on things beyond the bare necessities.  Deprivation of diversions such as games that occupy the mind - chess, draughts and dominoes - were specifically singled out, among all the possible complaints,  as cruel and unreasonable treatment.  



TO THE EDITOR OF THE ERA

Sir,--We, the inmates of Lancaster Castle, are suffering under oppression by authorities of this place,  who have forced us to quit the civil side, confined for debt,  where we had an uniterrupted range of a large yard,  but we have been transferred to the side of the Castle hitherto occupoed by felons.   They have divided us into several classes, and given us small yards and apartments to live in,  which were built for criminals.  They have changed the dietary from from an allowance in food of 2s. a week to a poor one only now in value 1s. 3d., as follows:-- 10½  lb. of bread, seven quarts of gruel, 2 lb. of potatoes, ¼ lb. of meat and 1½  pint of soup per week,  which corresponds exactly with the Barham Union, and for which the inmates recently revolted.
     We are anxious to know, in the replies of your paper,  if the games of chess, dominoes, and drafts are unlawful games, and if the magistrates have power to seize them under the pretext of calling them gaming instruments?  as these are visiting justices, on transferring us to the criminal side of tha goal,  examined all the debtors' effects -- upwards of 100 in number -- and took from us our chess, drafts,  &c.
     Owing to their illegal acts,  we be that you will insert this letter in your next paper and write an article in your leader on the subject of their proceedings and the charge.
      We are, for the debtors and ourselves,
               Your obedient servants,
                         John Quail and Wm. Brown.
     Lancaster Castle,  March 4, 1851.


There is no occasion to omit the names of the above complaints, for depend upon it they have nothing to lose.   But to come to the hardships they particularize,  they really seem to be such as they ought not to have inflicted upon them.  Governors, and others higher and lower in authority,  are apt to imagine, that a prisoner for debt is an offender deserving no more lenity than a criminal is entitled to.  But the former may be merely unfortunate, and, at worst, improvident, and detained there,   not as a punishment,  but in order to bring his affairs to a settlement (for the spirit of the reformed law is opposed to incarceration for debt) ; while the latter, after his trial (previous to which all are innocent), must be undergoing a penalty whose limits have been legally fixed.  Some of the best men living as well as dead have been imprisoned at the suits of their creditors, that the inmates and who shall say that the inmates of Lancaster Castle are not deserving the sympathy of their fellow-countrymen?  Shut up as they are in a goal where peculiar severity is practiced,  their case comes before us as one deserving special consideration -- for what is their fate to-day may be to-morrow that of those who little expect a reverse of fortune.  Surely certain magistrates will be moved to look into this matter.  It is, indeed, their duty to do so.  Why make bad worse?  Why introduce a starving ecomomy?  Why is he confined?  To our thinking, the law does not empower officials to treat them other than as persons for whose custody they are responsible  But we hope to be better informed upon this subject.

     In contrast, the superlative chess players can't easily be denied their game.

     Alexander Alekhine  wrote, "My first serious blindfold games were played soon after the Mannheim International Tournament of 1914.  As is well known, this tournament was interrupted during the first days of the war and I, together with other Russian participants of the congress, found myself interned at Rastatt Prison. With me there were Bogoljubow, Romanovsky, Bohatyrchuk, Ilya Rabinovich, Weinstein and others.  We had nothing else to do but to while away our free time by playing chess.  Since, however, we did not have boards at our disposal, we had to resort to playing blindfold.  That way I played many games with Bogoljubow and others; some of these were later published in the press."


Rastatt was a German POW camp in which the prisoners were treated relatively well.  Alekhine and his fellow chess players only spent a short time imprisoned at there. Below is a picture of American prisoners at Rastatt receiving packages from the American Red Cross.  Alekhine would spent the next couple of years working for the Russina Red Cross.




One of the blindfold games between Boboljubow and Alekhine at Rastatt in Sept. 1914.

 





 

 





Comments


  • 12 months ago

    batgirl

    Thanks.  I got much information from the book, "The London Prisons,"  by William Hepworth Dixon and assumed, I guess, that Lancaster Castle was in London.  I've never been to England, so I'm glad to have some first-hand information.

  • 12 months ago

    Frankem51

    Warm thanks to Batgirl for the excellent historical articles on matters chess and non-chess.  But one small correction.  Lancaster Castle is not in London but in Lancaster, the county town of Lancashire in the north-west of England.  The Castle is still there, is no longer a prison but is used as administrative offices .  The most famous debtor's prison, the Marshalsea, was in Southwark, a district of London on the south side of the River Thames opposite the City.  The building has gone but is remembered by street names.

  • 12 months ago

    batgirl

    You're right; I'm completely off-base. 
    While there are indeed laws in place regarding usury, the laws vary from state to state and often don't apply or are ineffective.  Besides the high rates legally allowed there are other even more devious methods used by unscrupulous lenders to extract extra money from those who used those services out of either perceived need or ignorance.  While I totally disagree with the politically inspired notion that people are being imprisoned by the government simply because they owe money, some people do, in a broader sense, become indentured servants through becoming victims of injudicious borrowing. 

  • 12 months ago

    ModularGroupGamma

    batgirl said: "Urury is also rightfully illegal."

    Is it?

    In the United States, the average credit card APR is about 14%, and many people carry APR of 25-30% or more.  There is no legal limit on credit card interest rates in the United States.  Payday lenders legally charge fees and interest rates to recurring borrowers at rates equivalent to an APR of 400-700%.

    If that's not usury, I don't know what is.

  • 12 months ago

    batgirl

    "Creditors per se aren't evil.  But predatory lending is evil.  And usury is evil."

    Urury is also rightfully illegal.  Certainly some creditors can, and sometimes will,  take advantage of people - hence the need for laws; but by the same token, there are creditors who get suckered too. Just as there are slum lords as well as landlords who get stuck by rentors.


  • 12 months ago

    ModularGroupGamma

    batgirl said: "While I'm sensitive to people who owe debts beyond their means, I also don't buy into the idea that creditiors are evil- as the political spin seems to infer"

    Creditors per se aren't evil.  But predatory lending is evil.  And usury is evil.

  • 12 months ago

    McAlbion

    Getting back to the chess: great blindfold game. A little disheartening to think that players like that could be me, literally, with their eyes shut! Good  game though. Bogoljubov stumbles briefly in the opening when he moves his  knight out to a3 and then reconsiders, but other than that develops well. Alekhine always seems a step ahead, though.

  • 12 months ago

    batgirl

    The quote, "Under the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, but rather for failing to respond to court hearings, pay legal fines, or otherwise showing "contempt of court" in connection with a creditor lawsuit."  tells me that the debtor could easily avoid the possibility of jail, not by paying the debt, the act of which would define the term  "debtor's prison," but simply by abiding by the requirements of the courts. The problem isn't the incurred debt, which might be due to unfortunate circumstances, but rather failure to act, which is possibly, maybe even likely, due to one's choice.

    While I'm sensitive to people who owe debts beyond their means, I also don't buy into the idea that creditiors are evil- as the political spin seems to infer.  Creditors are those who have loaned money to others with the idea of gaining a profit from the interest - making the loaning of money a worthwhile endeavor - and of seeing the return of the principal according to proscribed terms.  Debtors who haven't complied with the proscribed terms, whether through mismanagement or unforeseen difficulties, are the offenders.  Should people be jailed for this?  Of course not, unless the act involved fraud.  Should they be ignored? I don't see how. Creditors do need the money they shelled out.  Maybe they made imprudent loans, maybe a lot of things.  But there is a great difference between imprisoning someone indefinitely simply because they failed to repay a creditor and giving someome a set jail time because they decided not to show up for court when being sued.  There's far more to this than political capital.

  • 12 months ago

    NimzoRoy

    BG Wrote (or typed): Well, maybe... but the imprisonment isn't for debt but for contempt of court for failure to appear or respond properly.  That seems more like a situation of one's own making than one of unfortunate circumstances.

    BG maybe you have a lucrative career ahead of you - working for a collection agency. Or maybe the legislators in IL don't know what they're doing or talking about:

    Under the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, but rather for failing to respond to court hearings, pay legal fines, or otherwise showing "contempt of court" in connection with a creditor lawsuit. That loophole has lawmakers in the Illinois House of Representatives concerned enough to pass a bill in March that would make it illegal to send residents of the state to jail if they can't pay a debt. The measure awaits action in the senate.

    "Creditors have been manipulating the court system to extract money from the unemployed, veterans, even seniors who rely solely on their benefits to get by each month," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said last month in a statement voicing support for the legislation. "Too many people have been thrown in jail simply because they're too poor to pay their debts. We cannot allow these illegal abuses to continue."

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html

  • 12 months ago

    batgirl

    "You mean they use to put people in jail for not paying their debt? Why didn't they just file for bankruptcy?"

    In England people who could not pay their creditors could be imprisoned until the debt was satisfied, even if that was for life up till the passage of the Debtor's Act of 1869 which only permitted imprisonment if the debtor with the means to pay refused to pay his debt.  This worked hand-in-hand with the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 which allowed individuals to file for bankruptcy with the agreement of his creditors (who are usually more interested in payent rather than punishment) as  opposed to only businesses as had previously been the case.

     

    "A timely topic, now that imprisoning people for debts is making a big comeback right here in the United Corportations, er States of America..."

    Well, maybe... but the imprisonment isn't for debt but for contempt of court for failure to appear or respond properly.  That seems more like a situation of one's own making than one of unfortunate circumstances.

     

    "To stay human. . ."

    I think that hits the nail of the head. One needs to first survive, then to affirm one's humanity is a place that tries to rob one of their individuality.

  • 12 months ago

    NimzoRoy

    A timely topic, now that imprisoning people for debts is making a big comeback right here in the United Corportations, er States of America...

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html

  • 12 months ago

    DesertNomad1948

    You mean they use to put people in jail for not paying their debt? Why didn't they just file for bankruptcy?


  • 12 months ago

    Bubatz

    Interesting article, it made me think about what I would miss most in case I were imprisoned and liberties were curtailed. To stay human, I guess that (apart from food and a place to sleep) I'd definitely need some time on my hands to spend freely and an equivalent of ink, pen and paper ...

    Edit: No, that's not quite enough. I'd also need access to a well equipped library. :)

Back to Top

Post your reply: