THE LATEST IN OFFICERS' UNIFORMS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7296, 8 January 1902, Page 1

THE LATEST IN OFFICERS' UNIFORMS.

■ ♦ The tailoring tendencies of the War Office hay© furnished many occasions for cheap wit by quidnuncs and for expensive outlay by officers; and its latest efforts in this direction seem likely to crown all the rest. What is known as Sir Archibald Hunter's Committee on Officers' Dress, whioh for some time past has been steadily at work inventing innovations, has at last completed its labours, and separated. According to a well-informed military correspondent in Louden, a decision has been arrived at upon two principal points, the Mess dress and the dress for " Society functions " and "walking out." This latter reminds one of Thomas Atkins and his nursemaid. '* The shell jacket is not ito be abolished after ali. The arguments against it were strong, tbut the objections to the tail coat still stronger. The latter could never have become a soldier-like garbj and it would have been hopelessly confused with either tail coats, Household, hunting and fancy dress ; moreover, it could never have been worn on duty with a sword, as must sometimes happen with a Mess dress. The shell jacket was not exactly pretty upon an elderly gentleman, but that was hardly rea.son enough for doing away with it. As to the 'walking-out dress' it has been fully recognised that there should be something between the working jacket and the fulldress tunic, and the committee recommends the reintroduction of the frock coat. This is seemingly an immortal garment, it disappears and returns- with unfailing regularity, in some new shape or other. What the tailors will invent for the next pattern, oannot be foretold with any great confidence, but it is expected to be very simple and to approximate as much as possible to the fashion* in Civil life." But "very simple" or not, we may bet our bottom dollar, as our American cousins Bay, that the cost of it and th© other " innovations" will not present a "very simple" problem to the majority of officers. " Unilorm " is a heavy enough item in an officer's expenses when it is kept uniform ; but when it is as multifont as faddists make it in the British Army it becomes nothing less than a scandalous tax and a nuisance. The correspondent already quoted adds sententiously: — "If Sir Archibald Hunter and- his colleagues have come tc anything like a final decision the Army must be very grateful to them. Permanence in our military costume is very -much wanted for a few years." Quite so, but there is* no such thing as " permanence "in this matter ; it is the one department of the War Office where activity and change are always visible. ' .