Year: 1865

The true explanations of tho pre-
vailing extravaganza in costume is
that women dress for ono another. In
other words, they dress for eyes which
can appreciate the material and csti
mate the cost of every separate article
they have on. 1t is quite true that
many men care as much for, and are
as competent to give an opinion, on
the appearance oftheir wives, or sis
ters, or friends, or any number off
maleacquaintances; but the grounds
upon which the two classes of critics
will base their several judgments will
always be distinct, and the conclusions
themselves not unfrequently quite op-
posite. Ask a man and woman to
tell you who is the best dressed girl at
a ball, and you will hardly ever find
them agreeing in their answer. Go
step further and compare the costumes
which have been selected, and you
will discover almost to q certainty
that the woman has singled out the
most expensive dress in tho room,
whereas the man has simply ask.
ed himself which is the most becom-
ing


The one has suffered herself to be
so impressed by the richness of the
material, tho elacorateness of the en-
broidery, the costliness of the trim
mings, that in the end she has found
it simply impossible to leave those
things out of the calculation. The
other, happy athis ignorance, has look.
ed only at the general effect, and has
probably given the preference to a
young lady whose gown, has no other
merits than those OF being scrupuous.
ly cut, and perfectly well made, We
submit, therefore, that if that Difference
to tho masculine taste which is SO fire.
quently professed, really existed in
any appreciable measure, it would sup.
ply an antidote to many of the griev-
ances under which society now Ia
bors.


A week or two back, the CORES
pondence of an evening cotemporary
was largely taken up with the sorrws
Of parents who have to see that thei I
daughters look like other people, and
at the same time mako both ends meet
and we have no doubt that as soon as
the elections are over the columns oi
the 1imeS>will be thrown open to an
endless repetition of similar complaints
My daughters. gown must sweep the
pavements as they walk, cries ono
hcart-hroken mother, or if they do SC
far consult their pockets as to looI
them up, their under skirts must be
founced and embroidered until they
become as costly as the gown. There
is no necessity in the case, interposel
"a sterner moralist; young women
should have no wish to dress beyond
their means merely for the sake Of ri
valling their richer friends. 1t is here
that our theory comes in and harmon,
ICES these opposing views. No man
ever felt any thing but irritation al
seeing q womans gown doing the bus
mess oftho crossing-sweeper, or at
tached any valne to the amount o.
open work displayed beneath looped
up skirt,


Ifyoung ladies would but believe il
or rather if they did but attach any
Importance to it when they do believe
it-za man will be perfectly satisfied
with their appearance so ia, as these
considerations are concerned, if their
petticoats are spotlessly clean and
their stockings guiltless of q wrinkle
We do not say that even these char.
actoristics, when added to the we'll fit.
ting gowns for which we have already
stipulated, are to be attained without
some expenditure of money; for clean.
illness, at least in London, is not O
cheap virtue, and it is not ovcry dress
maker who knows how to make q
dress. But, at an any rate the pro
pcsod standard is good dcal easier
of attainment than the spurious fine
lanyism after which so many women
tiol in vain and we cannot but be-
lieve that, ifgirls did but thing more
Of pleasing the other sox, and less Of
vieing with their own, their parents
would see reason to bless the change
the next time they came to look over
their milliners bills.-London Satur'
day Revieto.