The Harrison times. (Harrison, Boone Co., Ark) 1876-1938, 1898-05-14

Vicghad no kerchief, her stays were
cut Epw to expose her charms, and
groFsque patches dis6gured her face.
lthwas otherwise with the frail
beaHties of ancient times. Even Pop
pea SO Taeitus tells us, covered a
par of her face, not from modesty, it
is Z pc, but from art, that she might
mo strongly excite the magma
tiod
AEbuck" of about ninety years
agoHs thus described by a satirical
wrlHkr: "A coat of light green with
slee IS too small for the arms, and
but pms too big for the sleeves; pair
Of Manchester fine stuff brooches,
wit out money in the pockets;
clodded silk stockings, but no legs;
a CD Of hair behind, larger than the
- -. s.=aha&=af=the.siss
Of sixpefi5 on a'block not worth a
farthing
Milk and me have each been used
for the badh Of beauty. Poppea
bathed in asses milk. Modern
young ladies have had to be satisfied
with that of COVE, But when the
wrinkles begin to appear they have
bathed in wine, white wine byprefer-
ence, because its astringency reduces
these tell-tales. Lord Shrewsbury de-
manded an increased allowance from
the Government when he guarded
Mary, Queen of Scots, because of the
great expense to which that royal
lady's wine baths came.
In vain, from age to age, have
sumptuary laws been levelled against
ostenta tioL and luxury in food and
clothing. The love of liberty has
proved stronger than the love of
monopoly. at is no ones business
how spend my money say the
persons who own it. This is quite
true if we make one exception. The
moralist has the right to criticise
their method if it should appear to
be against good taste and public
morality. Liberty allows us to do
many things that are not for the
common good. Aud it is from the
lash of the satirist and the increasing
good sense of the community, and
not from legislation, that moral inn
provements are brought about.
Vices are killed by scorn and ridieule
and public disapprobation, and not
by Actof Parliament.
1t is ompetent, therefore, for any
one Who can afford it to spend a
thousand guineas on orchids to
adorn single banquet, but it is also
within the right of the moralist or
political economist to enquire if ex-
travagance such as this is for the
public good or evil,
One of the many proclamations of
Queen Elizabeth against "the excess
of apparel" mentioned 1.-THE wasting
and undoing of great number of
young gentlemen, otherwise ser
yiceable and that others, seeking by
show of apparel to be esteemed as
gentlemen, and allured by the vain
show of these things, not only con-
sumo their goods and lands, but also
run into such debts and shifts, as
they cannot live out of danger OF
laws without attempting unlawful
acts" And so she threatened to
have them rated in the subsidy books
according to the costliness of their
dress. Yet while Elizabeth babe ev-
eryone else to set good example,
she had in her wardrobe three thous-
and dresses that had only been worn
once We read in Stuart times of
five hundred pounds for a knights
cloak; of embroidery for a lady's
gown at fifty pounds yard; of one
lady wearing over one hundred
thousand pounds worth ofjewels at
a time; of gentleman in crimson
velvet and beaten gold" of a duke
one blaze of diamonds from head to
foot, and these he often shook from
him to see the maids of honor scram-
Bile for them; and of the great aud
wise Sir Walter Raleigh wearing on
court days seven thousand pounds
worth Of precious stones on his
shoes, having his armor of solid sill
yer, and his sword and belt afame
with diamonds, rubies and pearls.
Thus the ostentation of former
times was far in excess of ours, New
ertheless there Is still vast room for
improvement. From the highest to
the lowest the practice is much too
nrevalent Of living beyond ones