The following are some of the answers the unhappy Wilmer received from the fair ones of Sheffield: “Aperil 5, 1869. Sir—seeing Advertisement In the Independent that you are in Wants a partner for life so i hoffer myself as a Candate But Befoare there Is much More caresspondenc I should like an intearew with you. Notes the adress....” A more dignified lady says: “Wilmer Lambert: The under singed quite feel disposed as you call it. I am considered by my friends good looking and they think I shall make a good wife. I am the age 22 and dark. If W. L. answers this pleas to send cart de visite. Address by letter.”
The next correspondent is anxious to make a match, if not to find a husband for herself: “Sir,—I with pleasure saw it advertised in the Independent to-day you was in wants of a partner and would be obliged if you will acpt Miss A. M. A——, tall, dark hair, dark eyes, and what the world calls good looking (age 23), or my sister who is (24) good looking. A widdow no children. A fortune at her own disposal willed to her by her late husband Mr. R——, or if you would Prefer a light young lady my friend Miss C. M. C——, who is at present residing in Sheffield, but is scotch, light hair, blue eyes, and affectionate will accept you please to answer in Tuesday Independent and you shall hear fearther from me.—Please not delay as I shall be ancouse to know which you prefer.” This lady’s anxiety to rush in and try her hand at match-making will perhaps in some way account for the contemptuous tone of the “but is scotch,” though, continuing the description, we find that even the Scotch young lady has forgotten the caution peculiar to her people, and so distasteful to her match-making friend, and has decided to accept the auger-filer.
A fifth is also affectionate, but cautious: “My dear fren Iv Sean in to Day Nuse Paper you Wanting A wife I shall be glad for a good husborn But I should Be very Glad to now you age firs 2 I should like to now Wether you are Good temper. My age is 24 years and a little Incom for Life and if you are Really in Wants of A Wife I should be happy to seay you after you Have Sent you Liknes and then I will meat you at my sisters and then We Will talk the Matter Over. Short aquantress Som times makes Long Repentnc. But, I Would Mak you Comfortable Wile I Liv and A Little After I am Dead Weakly Incom PS Excuse my Riting PS Anserr by Next Post.” This is indeed a gem which would have gladdened the heart of Isaac Pitman; and with a wife who will make her husband comfortable after death, we must conclude our examples. There are other letters, one from “a publican’s daughter, twenty-three years of age, and as no objection to be a Partner if bouth sides sues tgether;” and several which bear the appearance of having been written for the purpose of hoaxing. After some little time spent in hearing the case, the defendants agreed to apologise and pay the costs, upon which Wilmer Lambert, auger-filer, felt that his honour was appeased, and stated that he would withdraw from the prosecution.
In Belgravia, of six or seven years back, there is an article on matrimonial advertisements and the answers to correspondents which are peculiar to certain of the penny periodicals. It enters so thoroughly into the subject, and contains so much information as well as amusement, that a selection from it will be found agreeable. Speaking of the “answers,” the writer says, after alluding to one or two of a different sort: “By far the greater number of correspondents are, however, concerned about matrimonial affairs. The London Journal is, perhaps, the periodical which does the largest business of this kind. In a single copy there are no fewer than twenty-three paragraphs relating to this subject, many of them referring to four or five separate correspondents, besides two long lists of announcements of cartes-de-visite wanted and received. The study of these paragraphs is curious and edifying. ‘P. Y. R.,’ who seems to be a favoured personage, has in some previous number asked for a wife. In reply he is told that ‘Nellie Vernon, twenty-two, accomplished, rather tall, dark, and considered handsome; an English Gem, nineteen, pretty, lady-like, and the daughter of an independent gentleman; Emilie R., twenty, handsome, and of good family; and Eveline de Courcy, eighteen, fair and pretty, and will have a nice fortune—wish to correspond and receive the carte-de-visite of the favoured one.’ Next comes the announcement of a forlorn swain. He tells the sympathetic readers of his favourite ‘weekly’ that he ‘is twenty-three, tall, dark, and good-tempered, and has an income of £500 a year,’ and he asks to correspond with ‘a pretty and amiable young lady.’ One of the softer sex comes next. ‘Emma G., a well-informed girl of nineteen, rather dark, genteel, five feet eight inches in height, a domestic servant, is very much in want of some one to love.’ The domestic servant is, however, eclipsed by the lady whose announcement of her wishes is to be found in the same column. ‘Queen Adeline’ flies at higher game—evidently desires, in a word, one of the earls or marquises who figure so magnificently in the serial novels of the journal—and thus expresses her wishes: she is, she says, ‘tall, dark, handsome, and has £400 a year,’ and she would like to have ‘the carte-de-visite of a tall, dark, and handsome man, not too old. She is twenty-two. He must have well-formed and small hands and feet, and plenty of money.’ It is difficult to imagine that these announcements and their like are published in good faith. Of course, we can understand why ‘Emma G.’ or ‘Sergeant D.,’ a non-commissioned officer of the line, should publish their wants in this very open way; but as for the ladies and gentlemen with £400 and £500 a year, who appeal to the editor for partners for life, que diable viennent-ils faire dans cette galère? Is it possible that there are people in the world who, unless they have some irremovable stain upon their characters, find any difficulty in disposing of their incomes and themselves amongst their own friends?
“This is probably a sufficiently business-like way of arranging a ‘matrimonial alliance’ for the tastes of most people, but there are even more commercial methods in existence. People who want wives or husbands sometimes find it advisable to make their wants public by advertisement—a method of proceeding which is very commonly practised in some of the northern and manufacturing districts. Matrimonial advertisements are excluded from the respectable journals of the metropolis, but the scarcely less influential and respectable journals of the cotton capital insert them readily and receive the answers. They are generally very matter-of-fact—romance would, indeed, be out of place in such a connection. Now and then some of them are, however, comic enough. ‘A handsome young gentleman, aged twenty-three, wishes to correspond with a young lady with not less than £300 a year,’ was an advertisement which appeared several times in one of the journals of Cottonopolis. Whether the advertiser’s expectations were ever realised the present writer is, of course, unable to say; but from his own experience he is inclined to think it rather doubtful. Some few months back, having nothing very particular to do, he inserted an advertisement in a certain Manchester newspaper, stating that ‘a young professional man, handsome, amiable, and intelligent, and possessing an income of £500 a year, was anxious to meet with a suitable mate.’ The replies came in shoals. Within four days, between sixty and seventy letters were received, all, with one exception, evidently bonâ fide. The exception was a high-flown composition written in a disguised hand, and on paper profusely scented with musk. Of the remainder, the majority were rather touching. A great many came from servant girls, who always included two things in their applications: first, they declared that their parents were eminently respectable—generally professional men—and that it was only through family misfortunes that they had been compelled to ‘go to service;’ and secondly, they treated their correspondent to a great deal of bad spelling and worse grammar. The following is a verbatim copy of one of these communications:—‘Dear Sir. Having notised your advertizment we beg to offer ourselves. Are 2 sisters Lottie twenty one and dark hand tall and Tottie fair and pritty which I never hexpected to go to survice having always been brought up quite genteel. I am Sir Yours and c. —— ——. P.S. Please adress your letter Miss ——.’ Young ladies in shops and warehouses contributed somewhat liberally to the batch of answers. They generally wrote the flashy hand taught at ‘young ladies’ seminaries,’ and sometimes quoted poetry of a tender character. The grammar of their epistles was, however, somewhat dubious, and their spelling worse than that of a charity-school boy. Strangest of all was the following, which was written in a beautifully firm and lady-like hand upon good paper:—‘I have seen your challenge to the ladies in the ——, and I fancy it must be genuine, and that you expect it to be taken up in all frankness.... I am twenty-five, and am the daughter of a solicitor. I have been well educated, and you may judge of my personal appearance by the enclosed carte-de-visite. I shall be entitled on my marriage to about £5,000 in the funds, and at my mother’s death I expect to receive a similar amount. My reason for this bold and perhaps imprudent letter is that I am tired of home, which is too stiff and formal for me. If you would like to know more about me you must give me all particulars about yourself. Write to Miss ——, under cover to ——.’ The portrait enclosed was that of a really handsome girl of about the age mentioned in the letter. The name given was one not altogether unknown to the writer, and the person under cover to whom the reply was to be sent was evidently a servant. It need scarcely be said that the matter went no further, and that the carte was returned forthwith. Still, it is rather melancholy to think of what may be the fate of this girl. She evidently suspected no harm, and she confided in an utter stranger with singular frankness and simplicity. In all human probability she would become the prey of the first fortune-hunting scoundrel who came across her path, unless she had, as the writer sincerely hopes, a big brother with a strong arm and a thick stick.”
We have before us at the present moment an accumulation of the very extraordinary applications for wives and husbands which are constantly appearing in the cheap publications of the day, but the specimens already given will doubtless be found sufficient for the purpose. Two from our heap, however, we feel in duty bound to give, not because they are very different from the rest we have garnered, but because they are fair samples of a style often adopted by the Benedicks and Beatrices of the London Journal. One is from a lady and the other from a gentleman. Let us take the lady first:—
Agenoria says that she has natural golden-brown hair, fair oval face, laughing mischievous eyes, dark arched eyebrows, roguish expression of countenance, is eighteen, ladylike, sensible, merry, good-natured, highly respectable, and has good expectations. She longs to be married to a tall, studious, benevolent, affectionate, well-principled gentleman, who would think it a pleasure to instruct and assist her endeavours to obtain a thorough knowledge of English, French, and drawing; and in return she would try to be an apt pupil, and a loving and obedient wife.
The pseudonyms adopted by these young ladies are often provokingly funny: sometimes loving hearts take the name of a favourite heroine, whose virtues and temptations, joys and sorrows, are at the time attracting their attention in the Journal; but sometimes they take higher flights, and in attempting high-sounding names they have heard, succeed in inventing others, just as the old chemists, in trying to discover the philosopher’s stone, found things much more valuable—with the difference, of course, that the new titles are only valuable to future writers of the fiction believed in most by the fair correspondents. Agenoria requires a good deal, but her effort is of the weakest compared with that of our next friend, who, provided he had a big stick, would prove himself a true hero—say on a box of eggs:—
L. S. W., twenty-one, dark, and considered handsome, lithe in figure, of the medium height, and of a good family, would like to receive the carte-de-visite of a young lady, a blond preferred. He is shortly going abroad, probably to Mexico, or some of the republics adjacent, where he intends to make a name and fortune. He is very ambitious, and intends joining an army where there is active service. He wants a wife who would encourage his plans and undertakings. One who would share with him the toils of a camp life, or who would rule in Courts. One who would receive homage from the savage tribes of Northern and Central America, or would maintain her husband’s position as an officer and gentleman of honour both at home and at Court. He is of a very loving disposition, though rather hasty, and to a lady who would do as he wished he would be an affectionate, loving husband, companion, and protector.
That matrimonial clubs or agencies are still in existence is shown by a case tried quite recently before Sir James Hannen in the Divorce Court—a wife’s petition for a judicial separation on the ground of her husband’s cruelty. The counsel for the petitioner stated that she was a lady of property, residing in Liverpool, and that the respondent was a clerk in a firm in the same town. He was a member of a Matrimonial Club, whose object was to secure for its members wives with good fortunes; and as an instance of what kind of alliances result from the interference of these establishments, we give some of the evidence. The respondent, whose chief object was to get money, was very violent on finding soon after the marriage that his wife had not nearly so much as he had anticipated. He was guilty of drunkenness and assaults, and treated his wife in a very brutal manner. The petitioner said that her father died on Christmas Day, 1866. On his death she had an income of £400 for her separate use. She made the acquaintance of the respondent some two or three years before, and he was at that time a clerk in a firm of shipbrokers. At the marriage no settlement was made; but a few days after the respondent asked for any papers she might have. She gave him them. She had £675 in a building society, and he wrote out a form that she signed, and the money was transferred to him. He often said that £400 per annum was a very paltry sum, and that if he had a few thousands he could go into business. Petitioner’s mother had a considerable sum, and her name being the same, had led the defendant into the error of marrying a woman with only a “paltry £400 a year,” instead of a lot of ready money. Soon after the marriage he took to drinking, and was violent in his language. The latter, the petitioner believed, arose from his being disappointed at the smallness of her fortune. She found a letter of a very immoral character addressed to her husband. She was much annoyed, and sent the letter to the office. When the respondent returned he brought a friend with him, and used most violent language. After the friend had gone to bed the respondent pulled her on to the floor, bit her in the neck, ground her beads into powder, and bit a piece out of a glass. This latter act, it must be admitted, is a rather novel way of showing disappointment, even in matters like these. The friend was at once called for, and assisted to hold the disappointed man down. In August 1870 defendant tore a piece of skin from her arm. He had been drinking for some time, and tried to prevent her seeing her mother, who only lived a few hundred yards away. The mother was doubtless a sore point with him. He said that once a month was often enough to see her, but witness went more frequently. The family doctor saw the injuries which she sustained. In the same month the respondent called her very foul names, and threatened to strangle her and throw her out of the window. His threats were so violent that she never expected to see the morning. On one occasion he came home drunk, and partook of three large bottles of champagne. This would be a dangerous experiment for a sober man to make in these degenerate days. Afterwards he fell backwards, and she had to stay with him all night. In March 1871 she went to her mother’s to tea, and when she returned he used very bad language, and made all sorts of charges about her conduct, which were false. When sober, he said she ought not to take any notice of this. Her first child was born in 1870, and her medical adviser told her to go away. She was anxious to take the child with her, which her husband would not allow, and during her absence he sent it from home. On hearing of this she at once returned, and he refused to tell her where the child was, until she wrote a letter which he forced her to write. On a Sunday after this he returned home drunk, and when she remonstrated with him, he said that he was not half drunk, but soon would be so. He then took the decanters out of the cupboard, and threw them at her. This was, to say the least, eccentric, as a means to the end of drunkenness. She was so frightened at his conduct that she had to seek protection amongst neighbours. On the 20th of December witness was in the house alone with respondent, who threatened to kill her, stating that he often wished to do so, and now that they were alone there was a good opportunity. He then got hold of the carving-knife, and stood over her with it. He then said that would not do, but a pistol or razor would. Corroborative evidence as to the violence was given by the doctor who attended the petitioner, and noticed bruises on her; and by a servant who formerly lived with the parties to the suit. His lordship granted a decree of judicial separation, with costs, the wife to have the custody of the child. Marriage for money and money alone, without any consideration as to whether the contracting persons are at all suited to each other, is almost bound to end in unpleasantness, more especially when the fortune-hunter finds that he has married the daughter instead of the mother, and has only a “paltry £400 a year” and a little ready money to subsist on.