LADIES’ GOSSIP.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11252, 26 April 1897, Page 2

LADIES’ GOSSIP.

[“ Canterbury Times.”] The National Council discussed many matters during its recent session, and these are now, so to speak, before the public, awaiting its criticism and close consideration. Now is the time for men and women—for the interests of both sexes are so welded together as to be absolutely inseparable—to treat these debatable questions in a broad and generous spirit,.forgetting sex. prejudices and harrow points of view. It will be well to remember, too, that the single-hearted women who composed the Council did not come together from any motives of selfseeking, or for any personal ends. They were actuated solely and simply by the desire to better , the condition of others—of those who are unable to help themselves. They hid counted the cost, and knew they ran the '■ risk of being; misxmderatood, even.by those who are hot' afraid to. think , a little for themselves between whiles, but these pioneer women were not afraid. We mast remember, too, that they have devoted much time tb the consideration of matters that lie very close to their heart, and it is small wonder if they went a little further than the unthinking were quite prepared to follow them. Yet that is the loss of the latter, not of the Women’s Council, It is not for the rank and file to revile the standard-bearer, who nimbly climbs the mountain side to point the way—theirs is to follow as*best they may, keeping their flag constantly in view. But what if our standard-bearer goes too fast, and loses himself in the clouds? It would have been far better if he had waited patiently for the army to catch up to and support him. This is what the most- eager amongst us must hear in mind. ■We must not leave a gulf between us and the crowd which will take a century or more to bridge. Reforms are needed, wrongs must be righted, and there is much brave work to be done; but “Rome was not built in a day,” and we have not yet, I think, discovered any spiritual dynamite that will blast away abuses that have centuries of growth behind them. The methods of Nature are slow, and work from the centre outwards. Let ns each, as far as in us lies, make clean our own hearthstone. Let each mother see to it that every daughter in the home-nest is safe-guarded on every hand by gentle precept and •xample. And let each father do the same by his hoys, sparing some time from his pursuit of money-making for the infinitely ■ more important one of soul-preserving and developing—a science we too often leave to take care of itself.

The other day, when I was shown into the sanctum of a friend who is peculiarly what some people would call a “ woman’s woman,” I noticed the inscription, “ Put yourself in his place,” carved above the quaint chimney piece, that, like the rest of the furniture, was designed, if not carved, by herself. “Is that not a splendidreminder ?’’ she said, when she saw that I noticed the inscription. And she went on to tell me that’she had. always, been given to forming .hasty judgments about people, and even about her friends, until the habit became almost second nature, and caused her many hours of bitter grief when she came to reflect on her words afterwards. Then she came across Charles Eeade’s book bearing that title, and it flashed upon her .that she never put herself into her friend’s place. She was delighted with the remedy for her bad habit, and difficult as it was in its. application she persevered in her’determination until she cured herself. She kept the simple injunction constantly before her, and so schooled her tongue that she at length became popular and trusted among her friends. Lot me whisper that no woman is ever trusted or liked so long as she carps at the conduct of anybody—save herself. It is terribly bard to break a habit when once it has been formed. We all know that. It is well, too, that it should ho so, for none of us wish to break off our good habits. They are all right. It is the bad ones that trouble us—that we must conquer, and in order to do so effectively we should not despise any means, even if they are partly mechanical, taking the shape of a motto, or of membership in some society

for the repression of scandal. Such societies flourish in various, parts of the world, and do very good work in discountenancing all unkind talk, wherever they may hear it. Australia has several branches formed on similar lines. One of these, the Order of the “ Daughters of the Court,” was established some time ago by the wife of the Bishop of Melbourne in that city, and has already a very large membership. The object of this institution is, as many people will surmise, to put down the habit of speaking evil of others, and to cultivate that of helpfulness, for the two habits go naturally together. The initiation of a similar order among us by some influential lady would be welcomed by hundreds of earnest women, the present or future mothers of men and women who should scorn to entertain any xxnkind thoughts of others, or sully their lips by uttering them. A subtle but none the less noticeable change is coming over the spirit of the fashionable woman’s mode of dressing for the theatre and evening party. Not many years ago the costume de r ig\eur for such functions was full dress, or, as some people would say, “undress.” Now, however, the high-necked dress is taking the fancy of those who pride themselves on their correct dressing, and during the recentlyended London season more high-necked evening dresses were worn than ever before. It would bo interesting to know what causes have combined to bring about this innovation. Probably they are numerous, the chief ones being the prevalence of influenza, and the bicycle. Many doctors refuse to permit their convalescent patients to court lingering disease and death by insufficient clothing. Let ns hope that the good sense for which women are beginning to make themselves a reputation, has also assisted in so wise a reform. The bicycle has done much, too, in the way of inculcating ideas on sensible dressing, and it will undoubtedly do much more in this direction in the future. Ido not by any means underrate the beauty of a wellcut corsage, if worn by a woman with pretty neck and arms, but I most emphatically do object to the donning of such gowns by over-thin or over-plump women, or by those who foolishly run the risk of catching cold, merely for the sake of wearing a decollete gown. I wonder that our enterprising youngcolonial women have not yet applied themselves to the study of architecture. It is a profession in which they ought to succeed, for there are endless small things about p house which do not add to its cost, but which, if properly arranged, save a vast amount of exertion in those who have to do the domestic work. No one is so likely to understand these as a woman who has her wits about her. Then there is the muchvexAd question of cupboards—and clever indeed is the architect who can please the housekeeper in this respect. Who is so likely to know exactly the kind of cupboard and the proper place for it as a woman ? Mrs Norman, the author of “Gallia,” who is also an undoubted authority on home management, thinks that until we have women architects for dwellinghouses, we peed not expect to meet with many ideally designed homes. This is rather crushing criticism, but -what Mrs Norman means is that the ordinary house built merely for letting purposes is, as a rule, badly arranged. Such details as a water-tap upstairs, a scullery next the kitchen, or an upstairs pantry are far too often wanting, while cupboards are noticeable by their absence, or by their inadequacy to the needs of the household. Mrs Norman is as unconventional as a clever woman could well be, and her ideas on the work open to women are worth quoting. She told an interviewer lately that if she wished to earn her living by housework, she would infinitely rather be a cook than a governess. “A cook,” she says, “is on the whole far better paid for the amount of skill displayed than a teacher, and there is more individual freedom, and far more possibilities of health in such work.” It is evident that Mrs Norman would cordially agree with the Women’s Council on the question of “Economic independence.” “ Every girl,” she says, “ ought to have a profession. I feel certain that a great many marriages would have a better

chance from the start if women bad an economic position. That is the difficulty. Far too many -women marry merely for the sake of a home, and thus take a false position from the beginning of their married life.” The whole interview makes pleasant and interesting reading, for there is a delightful breeziness about Mrs Norman’s way of thinking- and expressing herself, duo, doubtless, to a life lived almost wholly in the open air. Here is one of her characteristic little speeches on the question of women’s dress that brings out this quality of originality. “ Some people,” she says, “ ask whether a woman should wear a short dress and gaiters on a muddy day.” And here is her reply : —“ If it were a new question put to a new race of intelligent beings without a congestion of conservatism in their brains, it would have, no doubt, one answer, ‘ Yes, if she wants to.”’ This is positively refreshing, and from a dweller in London, too!