SELECTIONS.

Cromwell Argus, Volume XXI, Issue 1032, 29 January 1889, Page 3

SELECTIONS.

FANCY MUTILATION. Evideutly the time lias not yet come (says the Lancet) when Nature is to be regarded as a competent judge of what ought or ought not to appear in her own handiwork. Her products, no matter how normal their development, do not necessarily meet with man's approval. If his eye for neatness in form is not satisfied, he still claims a right to prune or otherwise alter her creations to his liking. In particular is this true with regard to those animals iu which he takes an interest. As a rule be does not, at least in a civilised state, care to operate, save in cases of disease, on his own person ; but here his "agreement with natural modes of development ceases. He crops aud docks his dogs, dishorns his cattle, blinds his pet-birds, and otherwise exhibits a cruel originality in his self-assumed office of critic which on the whole does him little if any honor. iEsthetically considered, this practice of mutilation is of at least doubtful value. Tastes may differ ; but, as a rule, the majority of those who weigh their reasons for a decision will prefer to accept the work of Nature as it stands rather than an artificial modification of it. On the ground of fellow-feeling (for such undoubtedly exists between the lower creatures and the lord of the creation) mutilation is even less defensible. In the young animal, which is usually the subject of such treatment, sensation may not, indeed, be so acute as in the older ; but the fact remains that at any age pain is hard to bear, and, if unnecessary, is cruel. The natural conclusion from these considerations bids us, therefore, both from the motive of humanity and of truth in taste, to desist from such mutilation and to let Nature's well-done work alone.

MRS OSCAR WILDE ON CHILDREN'S DRESS. I am glad that the fashion papsrs are beginning to take up the question of little boys wearing hoods out of doors. It is terrible to see baby-boys going out with their ears exposed to bitter winds, their hair eveti being cut quite "short, to prevent any possible protection. It is scarcely to be wondered at that little boys suffer dreadfully from earache. The matter is "carried to the other extreme in the case of a [little girl's head-dress. -She ha§ a great heavy plush structure, frilled and wired and crinkled, pution the poor'little, head. I should like to. see.gmallj"close-fitting hoods worn by boys and "girls either:perfectly plain or trimmed all round with a band of far. It would also be a very good plan -.'to > do away with all idea of ■-emphasising;the ;sex of >; a- child by; its dress. Surely boys and girls of three or four years of age'might wear in the, whiter, double-breasted coats and small close-iittingdioods exactly alike, while in the t; summer, both could wear light smock-frocks, and wide hats to protect the eyes from the sun. How .pretty are these old En^lishsrhock-frocks that have of late become so,fashionable for .children.of all ages !;.'. .The smocking is perfectly elastic,', and the frocks are such a pretty shape, not emphasising the waist:: alwavs~th 0 largest part of a child, and consequently'' the part'to be least brought under notice. Tin; little straight French bib lis es with .full sleeves gathered ii to a band, make charm;.ing overalls for hui-m rv .<ud co'intiy we,.o\ ba) it is the only Fifn-i. is.bion bli.it 1 npln Id for English children.—Ft 0111 the Woman's World,