womanly grace and modesty.

A life-sized enlargement of a fashion plate from _Myra's Journal_, dated
June 1, 1882, was next shown. The circumference of the waist was but 12¾
in., involving an utter exclusion of the liver from that part of the
organization, and the attitude was worthy of a costume which was the _ne
plus ultra_ of formal ugliness.

Having shown another and equally unbecoming costume, selected from a
recent issue by an Oxford Street firm, the lecturer asked, Why did women
think small waists beautiful? Was it because big-waisted women were so
frequently fat and forty, old and ugly? A young girl had no waist, and
did not need stays. As the figure matured the hips developed, and it was
this development which formed the waist. The slightest artificial
compression of the waist destroyed the line of beauty. Therefore, the
grown woman should never wear stays, and, since they tended to weaken
the muscles of the back, the aged and weak should not adopt them. A
waist really too large was less ungraceful than a waist too small. Dress
was designed partly for warmth and partly for adornment. As the uses
were distinct, the garments should be so. A close-fitting inner garment
should supply all requisite warmth, and the outer dress should be as
thin as possible, that it might drape itself into natural folds. Velvet,
from its texture, was ill adapted for this. When worn, it should be in
close fitting garments, and in dark colors only. It was most effective
when black.

Turning for a few moments, in conclusion, to men's attire, the lecturer
suggested that the ill-success of dress reformers hitherto had been the
too-radical changes they sought to introduce. We could be artistic
without being archaic. Most men were satisfied without clothes fairly in