Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11936, 9 January 1901, Page 5

One of the London daily papers lately opened its columns to a discussion up?IN on the absorbing question of MOXET. whether woman is extravagant

in .the matter of dress. Men, as well as women, joined in the disctißßion ( which rapidly developed into a controversy, in the course of which tlie most diverse opinions were expressed. Correspondents branched off, too, into a side issue, which related to the

amount of the allowance that a husband

dhould niake tb his wife for the pilrpose of providing herself with dreßs, Upon this subject, as well as upon that around which the discuSeibii at first centred, there was again a wide variety of views. The expenditure of a woman upon dress is necessarily regulated by tlife position ih society whiolt she fills. A mechanic's wife plainly does not require the number or the,quality of dresses that a lady moving in the most fashionable English society needs;—afad tho ehanceß are that she jg quite as happy in her cottonß aB the gritndo dame js in her silks and furs. A single dress worn by a performer in a pantomime now running in Melbourne is Eaid to bave cost "over £500, and it is likely tliat quite as much is paid for the tnaklng of ntany of tI)G cos* ' tuines that are worn at "swagger" fancy dress balls such as that given by the Duchess of Devonshire during the Diamond Jubilee festivities. ThoSe ajre exceptional disbursetabnts, but it.ie. quite clear that a lady who is , in fashipn'B giddy whirl, necessitating the possession of dinner dresses, ball dresses, and ' opera dresses, to say nothing of morning and afternoon dresses and the special costumes required for special evehts, ordinarily distributes to her dressmakor and her milliner a sum Which to a person of modest tastes would pay for her clothing for her iifetime. " A Poor Sister," who is one of the parties to the controversy in the columns of the London daily, rather pathetically states, indeed, that a sum (Jf £10, for which some unfortunate lady complains that she can only get a badly-fitting dress, would seeta to her a fortune, with which she could get a pgrfeot outfit for herself and two babies that would last them a year. And an officer's daughter, who, since the death of her father, has,been obliged to earn her own living, and who has found that if she Wants pretty fiats' and frock" she must make them , herself, confines hor dress expenditure within I £20 a yeai 1 ; and, She artlessly says, she is told that she always looks smart. / A curate's . wife tells the story, too, of how on a united ificomc of £118 her husband and she live, pay their "rent, and dross. Their household is conducted doubtless on the lines on which that of the retired mechanic, who saved money, •was' managed: " My wife and me pulled the same way: Rent first, food next, clothes last of all" Another story altogether is that of an oilly daughter, discontented witli her lot, whose father, with an income of £1300, allows her £26 for all her personal Expenses, excepting doctor's bills. Then thete are some men ' who make their wives no allowance for dress. 'It nSver occurred to them to do so. Their wives have a fixed sum for household expanses, and it is presumed that they use what is left for personal adornment. One man of this class; having followed the controversy, now perceives why there was a former discussion about the bad cooking of English wives: " the money that should be spent in the kitohen goes oh the back!" British soldiers have acknowledged that no part of their work in South • burning Africa has been niofe disagreeFAitir- able to them than the burning HOUSES, of farmhouses and the eviction of the Women who ocoupied them. It is unpleasant eVeh to read of occurrences of this kind. They are among the painful nefeesSities Which the peculiar conditions of the war have created; arid they-are extreme steps resorted to only in extreme caSes whire'the occupants are guilty of deeds of treachery of of the concealment of spies or of munitions. "These fire-raisings and all their attendant abominations" Mr John Morleyj described them in forwarding to Tbe

Times, for publication a long .letter from a Boer girl, named Ellie \ Cronje,. living near Winburg, whose story was tho record of the plundering and burning of a Boer farm by British soldiers, and the expulsion and depdr-. tation of women and children to Winburg. But Ellie Cronje's letter was not complete. She had omitted to add some details of interest. She had omitted, for one thing, to put on record tho fact that arms wore found in her house. The omission has been supplied by an officer serving in Lovat's Scouts; who took part in the burning of the farmhouse, and who, at the time at which Ellie Cronje's letter was published,' happened to be in Scotland. He promptly communicated the other side of tho story to the Scotsman, He states that Mrs Cronje could not account for the absence of her husband. She denied having arms, and none were found in the house, but in the barn, under some sheaves, were several cases of Mauser ammunition. The house and some Capo carts were thereupon burned. " This looks hard," writes the officer, "but it is tie quickest and most effectual way to stop the war." Many other private letters have bcon published about farm burning, and in a large number of cases the fires have discharged boxes of cartridges which the innocent Boor had concealed in his innocent-looking house-roof. The fact is that it is the whole Boer population that is fighting against tho British army. Tho men are employed as riflemen, the women and children ns members, of tho commissariat and intelligence departments, using the farmhouses as forts and magazines, and sometimes even taking their places beside their brothers and fathers in tho commandoes; one. and all without any murk to distinguish non-com-Jiatants from combatants. The Boers themselves have' compelled the adoption, "of measures which no one regrets more than those whose duty it is to carry them'out.