to ladies of fashion.

Is a being whose avowed object is to imitate as exactly as possible the
cosmetic tricks of the _demi-monde_ likely to prove an influential ally
in a crusade against cheap finery? Is a mistress whose head-gear
resembles the art-trophy of an eccentric hair-dresser, and whose
clothing is described as nothing to speak of "until you get very nearly
down to the waist," the person to be especially selected to preach
propriety of dress to her maid? Or is it that a "Clergyman's Wife"
objects to overdress only, and not to underdress; and that, while she
would repress with severity any attempt on the part of "females of the
lower order" to adorn their persons, she looks with a tolerant eye,
among "ladies of position and fortune," upon the nude? We are curious to
know at what point in the social scale she would draw the line above
which an unblushing exhibition of the female _torso_ is decent, and
below which earrings and a parasol are immoral.

As a matter of fact, so far from discouraging the passion for dress
among their female dependents, ladies of position and fortune are apt to
insist on their dressing smartly. They like to see some of their own
lustre reflected on their attendants. A dowdy in sad-colored print or
linsey is by no means to their taste. This has been well pointed out in
a letter in which a "Maid-servant" replied, through the _Pall Mall
Gazette_, to the project of reform proposed by a "Clergyman's Wife."
Looking at the question from her own point of view, she described in
plain words how, when she first went into service, she had wished to
dress simply, but was quickly made to understand that she must either
spend more of her wages on dress, or seek another situation. We believe
that her experience would be endorsed by the great majority of her
class. If a "Clergyman's Wife" would take the pains to inquire into the
facts of the case, she would not be long in ascertaining from what
quarter the signal for unbecoming finery among "females of the lower
orders" really comes.

The plain truth of the matter is, that a reform in the dress of "lower
class females," and maid-servants in particular, can only be brought
about in one way. The reaction in favor of a neat and simple style must
come from above, and not from below; in the way of example, not of
precept. When "ladies of position and fortune" cease to lavish their
thousands on millinery, their copyists in the nursery and kitchen will
cea