S. W. STANLEY.

S. W. STANLEY, or, as for many years better known as Master Stanley, can now fairly drop the latter title, as he legally entered man's estate by celebrating his twenty-first birthday on the 25th of last month.

Stanley, though born in London, first learnt to play at Bristol. When quite a boy he seems to have been much impressed by what were then considered the enormous breaks made by means of the spot stroke, and he consequently almost entirely confined his practice to the spot, working hard at it sometimes for five or six hours a-day. He consequently soon became extremely proficient in this particular stroke, but was by no means a good player in the ordinary all-round game. Still, as we have had occasion before to remark, no one can play even the spot well without possessing some decidedly natural talent for the game, a keen eye, a steady hand, patience in practice, and, above all, a good nerve.

S. W. Stanley

It is, perhaps, somewhat difficult exactly to define what is understood by nerve in billiards. It is a certain species of pluck, and in Stanley's case developed itself at an early age; for, when at school at Margate, a boy in jackets, and when he could swim only a few strokes, he jumped in out of his depth to rescue a child of about two years of age that had fallen in off the pier. The child is, however, the father of the man; those few strokes that he could swim had embued him with perhaps a false sense of his own powers in the water, and those who have played billiards know how important is this same feeling of self-confidence.

To watch Stanley play the spot is an amusing treat. He strikes his ball, and is off to be ready for the next stroke, perhaps at the other side of the table. From his manner it is evident that the idea that he should miss putting in the red has never even crossed his mind. When failure, however, comes, even after making perhaps 200 off the balls, Stanley's look of extreme astonishment is simply comic. He looks at the top of his cue, or on the cloth, to see what could have turned the ball off, and his face bears a puzzled look. The idea that he should be in fault evidently never occurs to him.

Now this quality of overweening confidence is very conducive to success. There are certain players who, when they get behind, or still more when they get caught by a superior player who concedes points, seem simply demoralised. There are few players that we have ever witnessed who seem better able to retain their powers of play under adverse circumstances than Stanley. However to this we will advert later on.

Stanley, so far as learning the game is concerned, appears to have been self-taught. Practising, as we have mentioned, at Bristol, this spot stroke almost incessantly, at fifteen years of age he succeeded in making 50 hazards, or a break of 150.

Of course, this precocity of play was soon noticed, and his first match for money was made with Moss, of Manchester, for £25 a-side. This match was won by Stanley—who was backed by Mr. Platford, of Platford's Hotel, Manchester— with comparative ease.

In this match Stanley showed himself so great a master of the spot that a return match was made, one half of the game being with the spot, and the other half spot stroke barred. In the first half Stanley reached 500 to Moss's 200, and eventually won this match almost as easily as he had done the first.

The number of matches that Stanley has played are far too numerous to be recounted in detail. Undoubtedly one of the most successful ones (for £200) was with Cook, which was played at Smith's Rooms, in the Strand. In this match Stanley received 300 points in 1,000. Cook caught Stanley during the first half of the game, actually reaching 500 first; but, notwithstanding this, Stanley succeeded in winning the game.

Stanley has, of course, been beaten, the most signal defeat he ever experienced being at the hands of Timbrell, of Liverpool, who beat him level when playing for a stake of no less than £1,000.

Stanley has, in the course of his career, which is not a very long one, made some wonderfully fine breaks, the largest, we believe, being one of 608, which occurred in a match with Richards, played at Poland-street, Oxford-street. On another occasion, on Christmas eve, when playing Taylor, he made a break of 578, and the following week, in a game at Lewisham with the same player, he made 489.

The finest play that we ourselves have ever witnessed on his part was in Bailey's handicap, which took place in February in the present year, at the Montpellier Tavern, Walworth Road. Stanley, who had played a match in the afternoon at Purcell's with Alfred Bennett, in which he scored a break of 120, had the same evening, first of all in Bailey's handicap, to play Louis Kilkenny, the well-known champion player of Yorkshire.

Kilkenny reached 348 to Stanley's 178, the heats being 500 up. Nothing daunted, however, Stanley first made a good break of 92, and then another of 188, and won the game with ease.

He was now left in with Cook, who conceded him 100 points in the 500, and had to play the best of two games out of three. The first of the three games Stanley lost; the second game he followed up a break of 92 with another of 202, and won.

The third game another break of 100 was almost immediately followed by one of 221 and Stanley thereby won the 100 guinea table, the first prize in the handicap. These breaks, all made in one day, speak for themselves.

It has been supposed by many that Stanley cannot play the all-round game; this was to a certain extent true in the early part of his career, but the great handicap played some time ago at the Guildhall Tavern, in which the spot stroke was barred, was won by him, receiving 200 points in 500 from the scratch men. In this handicap Cook was first favourite and Taylor second favourite.

The last match that Stanley played was on a championship table with E. Bennett, an account of which appeared in our last issue, and in it he made three good breaks for a championship table, 59, 62, and 57, and won the game, as we are glad to be able to state that Bennett has very wisely told the stakeholder to hand over the stakes, in accordance with the decision of the referee.

We believe a brilliant career is open to Stanley in the world of billiards. At an age when youthful follies are easily forgotten, let him bear in mind—

WE trust that the unpleasant dispute that occurred over the recent match between S. W.Stanley and F.Bennett may result in some better method being adopted for the future in arranging matches. It should be remembered that, though the law does not recognise betting, yet a stake is recoverable at law. When, therefore, in any match a sum of money is staked by two players in the hands of a third party, it is of the utmost importance that some clear understanding should be come to beforehand as to who has the power to decide any disputes that may arise.

As a rule lawyers seem incapable, or perhaps unwilling, to draw up the simplest agreement without covering many folios with writing quite unintelligible to any but themselves; on the other hand, a nod on the Stock Exchange is often sufficient guarantee for many thousands of pounds. Perhaps some intermediate course may be found between the treating every one as a rogue and that implicit faith in honour that may be applicable to cases like the one in point.

Had each man signed some simple document stating he was willing to abide by the decision of the referee on any point of dispute that might arise, and that they fully admitted the power of the referee to award the stake to whichever player he chose, it seems to us that all the lawyers in England would be incapable of making a case out of the affair whichever way it ended.