regretted that the subject should be so generally treated by the intelligent classes with a sort of contempt, and regarded somewhat as a necessary evil, which must be thought about as little as possible; while, with the exception of a few health reformers, the only people who devote time and trouble to it are those who, looking on dress wholly as a means of display, employ their energies to outdo their neighbours in the brilliancy and costliness of their attire. The true value of dress as a means, under favourable conditions, of preserving health, or, under unfavourable conditions, of destroying it, is not understood as it ought to be; and though I would not have it thought for a moment that I wish to discourage any one from taking pains to obtain "things of beauty" in the way of articles of dress for themselves and their children, I must contend that at least equal care should be taken that those things are such as to be conducive, not injurious, to health—for health, like beauty, is most assuredly "a joy for ever."
From the earliest times the object of dress has been twofold—first, to cover; secondly, to adorn. Amongst savage nations adornment has ever been considered the more important function, but sanitarians are popularly regarded as having no sense at all of its importance.
This misapprehension is probably owing to the fact that certain ladies, calling themselves the apostles of rational dress, go about in costumes so utterly hideous and, to some people's tastes, immodest, that they bring ridicule upon the prin-
