a quarter of a century later they were adopted by the Court circle and some of the upper ten thousand, but the form of garment was merely casings for the legs gathered into a waistband, and draping the limbs in thin material without properly covering them. Even then nurses and mothers stood out against the "new-fangled notion." "Trousers for girls!" they exclaimed, "quite unnecessary; why, they would look like boys! and such things must be unwholesome." It was in this spirit that the Countess of Mountcashel, who wrote a book upon the care and management of children, said: "It has lately become the fashion for children of both sexes to wear trousers at an early age; but I recommend mothers not to allow boys to wear them under the age of four, and girls—never!" Even the medical world shook its head at the innovation, and, although giving its sanction with some hesitation to children wearing the new garment, maintained that it should be surrendered as soon as girls entered their teens.
It would sound rather odd at the present time to hear one lady ask of another if her "Mary had left off her trousers yet," but it was formerly an equivalent to the question, "Has Mary taken to long frocks?" which we often hear. The medical sages of the old school prophesied that the coming generation would not enjoy the stamina of its ancestors if it adopted customs borrowed from the Sybarite East; and even in the upper classes a considerable section of the male sex viewed the change in dress with dislike. Like all useful innovations this was
