Non-introduction has been found, in many instances, to produce both inconvenience and vexation. Persons who had long known each other by reputation, and who would have rejoiced in an opportunity of becoming personally acquainted, have met in society, without being aware of it till afterward; and the opportunity has never recurred. One of our most distinguished literary Americans was seated at a dinner-party next to an European lady equally distinguished in literature; but as there were no introductions, he was not aware of her presence till the party was over and the lady gone. The lady knew who the gentleman was, and would gladly have conversed with him; but as he did not speak, because he was not introduced, she had not courage to commence--though she might have done so with perfect propriety, considering who _he_ was, and who _she_ was.

Still worse--from not knowing who are present, you may inadvertently fall upon a subject of conversation that, for private reasons, may be extremely irksome or painful to some of the company; for instance, in discussing a public character. Severe or mortifying remarks may unintentionally be made on the near relative, or on the intimate companion, of one whom you would on no account desire to offend. And in this way you may make enemies, where, under other circ.u.mstances, you would have made friends. In such cases, it is the duty of the hostess, or of any mutual acquaintance, immediately to introduce both parties, and thus prevent any further animadversions that, may be _mal-a-propos_, or in any way annoying. It is safest, when among strangers, to refrain from bitter animadversions on anybody.

In introducing a gentleman to a lady, address _her_ first, as for instance--"Miss Smith, permit me to make you acquainted with Mr.

Jones"--or, "Mrs. Farley, allow me to present Mr. Wilson"--that is, you must introduce the gentleman to the lady, rather than the lady to the gentleman. Also, if one lady is married and the other single, present the single lady to the matron, as--"Miss Thomson, let me introduce you to Mrs. Williams."[4]

In introducing a foreigner, it is proper to present him as "Mr. Howard from England"--"Mr. Dupont from France"--"Mr. Wenzel from Germany." If you know of what European city he is a resident, it is better still, to say that he is "from London,"--"Paris,"--"Hamburg." Likewise, in introducing one of your own countrymen very recently returned from a distant part of the world, make him known as "Mr. Davis, just from China"--"Mr. Edwards, lately from Spain"--"Mr. Gordon, recently from South America." These slight specifications are easily made; and they afford, at once, an opening for conversation between the two strangers, as it will be perfectly natural to ask "the late arrived" something about the country he has last visited, or at least about his voyage.

When presenting a member of Congress, mention the State to which he belongs, as, "Mr. Hunter of Virginia"--"Mr. Chase of Ohio," &c.

Recollect that both senators and gentlemen of the house of representatives are members of Congress--Congress including the two legislative bodies. In introducing a governor, designate the state he governs--as, "Governor Penington of New Jersey." For the chief magistrate of the republic, say simply--"The President."

In introducing an officer, tell always to which service he belongs--as "Captain Turner of the Navy"--"Captain Anderson of the Army."

We regret the custom of continuing to give military t.i.tles to militia officers. Foreigners are justly diverted at finding _soi-disant_ generals and colonels among men who fill very subordinate stations in civil life--men that, however respectable in their characters, may be deficient in the appearance, manners, or education that should belong to a regular officer. This foolish practice can only be done away by the militia officers themselves (those that really are gentlemen--and there are many) magnanimously declining to be called generals, colonels, &c.

except on parade occasions; and when actually engaged in militia duty.

Let them omit these t.i.tles on their cards, and request that no letters be directed to them with such superscriptions; and that in introductions or in conversation they may be only addressed as plain Mr. It is still more absurd to continue these military t.i.tles long after they have ceased to hold the office,--and above all, to persist in them when travelling in foreign countries, tacitly permitting it to be supposed that they own commissions in the regular service.

English tourists (even when they know better) make this practice a handle for pretending, in their books, that the officers of the American army are so badly paid, or so eager to make additional money, that they exercise all sorts of trades, and engage in the humblest occupations to help themselves along. They tell of seeing a captain st.i.tching coats, a major making shoes, a colonel driving a stage, and a general selling b.u.t.ter in market--sneeringly representing them as regular officers of the United States army. Is it true that we republicans have such a hankering after t.i.tles? If so, "reform it altogether." And let one of the first steps be to omit the "Esq." in directing a letter to an American citizen, for whom the t.i.tle can have no meaning. In England it signifies the possessor of an estate in the country, including the office of justice of peace. In America, it means a magistrate only; who may live in a city, and own not an inch of ground anywhere. But why should all manner of men, of all trades, and professions, expect to see an "Esq." after their name, when with reference to _them_, it can have no rational application?

An introduction should always be given in a distinct and audible voice, so that the name may be clearly understood. The purpose is defeated, if it is murmured over in so low a tone as to be unintelligible. And yet how often is this the case; for what reason it is difficult to divine.

It is usual for the introducee to repeat the name of the introduced.

This will prove that it has really been heard. For instance, if Mrs.

Smith presents Miss Brook to Miss Miles, Miss Miles immediately says, "Miss Brook"--or better still--"Miss Brook, I am glad to meet you," or something similar. Miss Miles then begins a talk.

If you introduce yourself to a lady whom you wish to know, but who does not know _you_, address her by her name, express your desire to make her acquaintance, and then give her your card. Replying that it affords her pleasure to meet you, she will give you her hand, and commence a conversation, so as to put you quite at ease after your self-introduction.

In introducing members of your own family, always mention, audibly, the name. It is not sufficient to say "my father," or "my mother"--"my son,"

"my daughter"--"my brother," or "my sister." There may be more than one surname in the same family. But say, "my father, Mr. Warton,"--"my daughter, Miss Wood"--or "my daughter-in-law, Mrs. Wood"--"my sister, Miss Mary Ramsay"--"my brother, Mr. James Ramsay," &c. It is best in all these things to be explicit. The eldest daughter is usually introduced by her surname only--as "Miss Bradford"--her younger sisters, as "Miss Maria Bradford"--"Miss Harriet Bradford."

In presenting a clergyman, put the word "Reverend" before his name--unless he is a bishop, and then, of course, the word "Bishop"

suffices. The head of a college-department introduce as "Professor"--and it is to them only that the t.i.tle properly belongs, though arrogated by all sorts of public exhibitors, mesmerists and jugglers included.

Where the company is large, the ladies of the house should have tact enough to avoid introducing and placing together persons who cannot possibly a.s.similate, or take pleasure in each other's society. The dull, and the silly, will be far happier with their compeers. To a woman of talent, and a good conversationist, it is a cruelty to put her unnecessarily in contact with stupid, or unmeaning people. She is wasted and thrown away upon such as are neither amusing nor amusable. Neither is it well to bring together a gay, lively woman of the world, and a solemn, serious, repulsive dame, who is a contemner of the world and all its enjoyments. There can be no conversation that is mutually agreeable, between a real lady of true delicacy and refinement, and a so-called lady whose behaviour and talk are coa.r.s.e and vulgar,--or between a woman of highly cultivated mind, and one who is grossly ignorant of every thing connected with books, and who boasts of that ignorance. We have heard a lady of fashion say, "Thank G.o.d, I never read." The answer might well have been, "You need not tell us that."

In inviting but a small company, it is indispensable to the pleasure of all, that you ask none who are strikingly unsuitable to the rest--or whose presence will throw a damp on conversation. Especially avoid bringing into the same room, persons who are at notorious enmity with each other, even if, unhappily, they should be members of the same family. Those who are known as adversaries should be invited on different evenings.

Avoid giving invitations to bores. They will come without.

The word "bore" has an unpleasant and an inelegant sound. Still, we have not, as yet, found any subst.i.tute that so well expresses the meaning,--which, we opine, is a dull, tiresome man, or "a weariful woman," either inveterately silent, or inordinately talkative, but never saying any thing worth hearing, or worth remembering--people whom you receive unwillingly, and whom you take leave of with joy; and who, not having perception enough to know that their visits are always unwelcome, are the most sociable visiters imaginable, and the longest stayers.

In a conversation at Abbotsford, there chanced to be something said in reference to bores--those beings in whom "man delights not, nor woman neither." Sir Walter Scott a.s.serted, humourously, that bores were always "good respectable people." "Otherwise," said he "there could be no bores. For if they were also scoundrels or brutes, we would keep no measures with them, but at once kick them out the house, and shut the door in their faces."

When you wish an introduction to a stranger lady, apply to your hostess, or to some of the family, or to one of the guests that is acquainted with that lady: you will then be led up and presented to her. Do not expect the stranger to be brought to you; it is your place to go to her.

If you are requested by a female friend to introduce her to a distinguished gentleman, a public character, be not so ungenerous as to go _immediately_ and conspicuously to inform him of the fact. But spare her delicacy, by deferring the ceremony for a while; and then take an opportunity of saying to him, "I shall be glad to make you acquainted with my friend Miss Morris. Come with me, and I will introduce you."

When the introduction has thus taken place, you may with propriety leave them together to entertain each other for awhile; particularly if both parties are capable of doing so. And then, after a quarter of an hour's conversation, let the lady release the gentleman from further attendance, by bowing to him, and turning to some other acquaintance who may not be far off. She can leave _him_ much more easily than he can leave _her_, and it will be better to do so in proper time, than to detain him too long. It is generally in his power to return to her before the close of the evening, and if he is pleased with her society, he will probably make an opportunity of doing so.

If he is what is called a lion, consideration for the rest of the company should admonish her not to monopolize him. But lions usually know how to get away adroitly. By-the-bye, she must not talk to him of his professional celebrity, or ask him at once for his autograph.

We saw no less a person than Charles d.i.c.kens compelled, at a large party, to devote the whole evening to writing autographs for a mult.i.tude of young ladies--many of whom, not satisfied with obtaining one of his signatures for themselves, desired half a dozen others for "absent friends." All conversation ceased with the first requisition for an autograph. He had no chance of saying any thing. We were a little ashamed of our fair townswomen.

Should it fall to your lot to introduce any of the English n.o.bility, take care (before hand) to inform yourself exactly what their t.i.tles really are. Americans are liable to make sad blunders in these things.

It may be well to know that a duke is the highest t.i.tle of British n.o.bility, and that his wife is a d.u.c.h.ess. His eldest son is a marquis as long as his father lives, on whose demise the marquis becomes a duke.

The wife of a marquis is a marchioness. There are a few marquises whose fathers were not dukes. The younger sons are termed Lord Henry, Lord Charles, Lord John, &c. The daughters Lady Caroline, Lady Augusta, Lady Julia. The family name is generally quite different from the t.i.tle.

Thus, the name of the Duke of Richmond is Lenox--that of the Duke of Rutland, Manners. The family name of the Duke of Norfolk (who ranks first of the English n.o.bility) is Howard. The present Duke of Northumberland's name is Algernon Percy. Arthur Wellesley was that of the great Duke of Wellington. His eldest son was Marquis of Douro, and his second son Lord Charles Wellesley. The children of a marquis are called Lord Frederick, or Lord Henry, and Lady Louisa, or Lady Harriet.

The next t.i.tle is viscount, as Viscount Palmerston. The next is earl, whose wife is a countess, and the children may be Lord Georges and Lady Marys.

After the viscounts come the barons, whose children are denominated the Honourable Miss, or Mr. John Singleton Copley, (whose father was Copley, the celebrated American painter,) is now Baron Lyndhurst. His eldest daughter is the Hon. Miss Copley. In common parlance, barons are always termed lords. Some few have two t.i.tles--as Lord Say and Sele--Lord Brougham and Vaux. After William the Fourth had suddenly dissolved the parliament that held out so long against pa.s.sing the reform bill, and the king, appointing a new cabinet, had placed Lord Brougham at the head of the ministry, a ridiculous comic song came out at one of the minor theatres, implying that now his majesty has swept out the whole parliament, "he takes up his broom and valks," (Brougham and Vaux.)

When the widow of a n.o.bleman marries a man who has no t.i.tle, she always retains hers. Thus when the widow of the Earl of Mansfield married Colonel Greville, (a nephew of the Earl of Warwick,)--on their door-plate the names were--"The Countess Dowager of Mansfield, and the Hon. Colonel Greville,"--a rather long inscription. A n.o.bleman's daughter marrying a commoner, retains her original t.i.tle of Lady, but takes his surname--thus, Lady Charlotte Campbell, whose father was Duke of Argyle, became, on her marriage with Dr. Bury, a clergyman, Lady Charlotte Bury. It will be understood that if a n.o.bleman's daughter marries a n.o.bleman, her t.i.tle merges in his--but if she marries a commoner, she retains what t.i.tle she had originally--her husband, of course, obtaining no rank by his marriage.

The t.i.tle of a baronet is Sir--as Sir Francis Burdett, Sir Walter Scott.

His children are Mr. and Miss, without any "Hon." affixed to their names. Baronets are a grade below barons, but the t.i.tle is hereditary, descending to the eldest son or next male heir. In directing to a baronet, put "Bart." after his name. A knight is also called Sir, as Sir Thomas Lawrence, Sir Edwin Landseer, &c.; but his t.i.tle being only for life, dies with him.[5] It is always conferred by the sovereign touching his shoulder with a sword, and saying, for instance, "Rise up, Sir Francis Chantry." In writing to a knight, put "Knt." The wives of both baronets and knights are called Lady. The wife of Sir John Franklin (who was knighted) is Lady Franklin--not Lady _Jane_ Franklin, as has been erroneously supposed. She could not be Lady Jane unless her father was a n.o.bleman.

A n.o.bleman always signs his t.i.tle only, without designating his exact rank--the Duke of Athol signing himself "Athol"--the Duke of Bedford, "Bedford"--the Marquis of Granby, "Granby"--the Earl of Chesterfield, "Chesterfield," &c. The wives of peers give their Christian name with their t.i.tle--as Isabella Buccleuch--Margaret Northampton--Elizabeth Derby, &c.

The English bishops are addressed in letters as the Lord Bishop of Rochester, the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is Primate of England,--(Head of the English Church,) is called His Grace, or Your Grace. The bishops are all (by virtue of their office) members of the House of Peers or Lords. They sign their Christian name with the t.i.tle of their bishopric, as John Durham--William Oxford.

All full n.o.blemen have an hereditary seat in the House of Peers, which they take on attaining the age of twenty-one, and it continues while they live. Their younger sons, the Lord Johns and Lord Fredericks, can only have a seat in the House of Commons, and to that they must be elected, like the other members. Baronets, not being peers, must also be elected as commons.

Americans going to England would do well to look over a book of the British Peerage, so as to save themselves from making blunders, which are much ridiculed in a country where little allowance is made for republican habits and for republican ignorance of what appertains to monarchical inst.i.tutions.[6] It would not be amiss even to know that a full coat of arms, including shield, supporters, crest, and scroll with a motto, belongs only to the chief of a n.o.ble family; and that the younger branches are ent.i.tled only to the crest, which is the head of the same animal that stands erect on each side of the shield as if to support it, such as stags, foxes, bears, vultures, &c. A baronet has a shield only, with a b.l.o.o.d.y or wounded hand over the top.

Our countrymen abroad sometimes excite ill-concealed mirth, by the lavish use they make of t.i.tles when they chance to find themselves among the n.o.bility. They should learn that none but servants or people of the lower cla.s.ses make constant use of the terms "my lord," and "my lady"--"your lordship," or "your ladyship"--"your grace," &c., in conversing with persons of rank. Formerly it was the custom, but it is long since obsolete, except, as we have said, from domestics or dependants. Address them simply as Lord Derby, or Lord Dunmore--Lady Wilton, Lady Mornington, &c.

FOOTNOTES:

[4] It is well to present a lady or gentleman from another city, as "Miss Ford of New York"--"Mrs. Stephens of Boston"--"Mr. Warren of New Orleans."

[5] Distinguished men of all professions, doctors, lawyers, artists, authors, and officers of the army and navy, frequently receive the honour of knighthood.

[6] It would be well if all the public offices at Washington were furnished with copies of the British Peerage. Perhaps they are.

CHAPTER VI.

CONDUCT IN THE STREET.

When three ladies are walking together, it is better for one to keep a little in advance of the other two, than for all three to persist in maintaining one unbroken line. They cannot all join in conversation without talking across each other--a thing that, in-doors or out-of-doors, is awkward, inconvenient, ungenteel, and should always be avoided. Also, three ladies walking abreast occupy too much of the pavement, and therefore incommode the other pa.s.sengers. Three young _men_ sometimes lounge along the pavement, arm in arm. Three young _gentlemen_ never do so.

If you meet a lady with whom you have become but slightly acquainted, and had merely a little conversation, (for instance, at a party or a morning visit,) and who moves in a circle somewhat higher or more fashionable than your own, it is safest to wait till she recognises you.

Let her not see in you a disposition to obtrude yourself on her notice.

It is not expected that all intimacies formed at watering-places shall continue after the parties have returned to their homes. A mutual bow when meeting in the street is sufficient. But there is no interchanging of visits, unless both ladies have, before parting, testified a desire to continue the acquaintance. In this case, the lady who is eldest, or palpably highest in station, makes the first call. It is not customary for a young lady to make the first visit to a married lady.