

190 
KIDD’S OWN JOURNAL. 

may not be held the last week in April, when 
Auriculas, Polyanthuses, early Tulips, Hyacinths, 
Narcissus, and other spring bulbs may be shown 
to advantage. Acacias, Hoveas, Chinese Prim- 
roses, Cinerarias, and many other greenhouse 
plants, can be seen in the greatest perfection about 
the same time; and the superb Camellia Japonica 
will be in its best season of bloom. ‘There is no 
month in the year when such a gorgeous display 
can be made—to say nothing of forced Roses, 
Azaleas, and other plants —PEREGRINATOR. 
[Thank you, sir, for this bit of way-side news. 
The Manchester boys are indeed good fellows! 
We ought to say this, emphatically; for our 
JouRNAL is their idol. Let them send us further 
particulars, and we will gladly report progress.] 

“ Spinster,”— Whence its Origin 2—Amongst 
our industrious and frugal forefathers, it was a 
maxim, that a young woman should never be 
married until she had spun herself a set of body, 
table, and bed linen. From this custom, all un- 
married women were termed spinsters, as is still 
the appellation in law proceedings.— ANGELINA. 

A “ Trio” on Modern Deformity and Modern 
Education.—Your own pen, and that of your 
slashing correspondent “‘ Walter,” are setting our 
good city half crazy. You take such striking like- 
nesses, that however deformed the general picture, 
its correctness in details is undeniable. We are 
all in one roar of laughter. You area brave man, 
thus to open a running fire upon fashionable 
mammas and their “expanding” offspring (see the 
round-about drapery referred to by ‘‘ Walter” at 
p. 254, Vol. ILL, as filling up the window of Sykes 
and Co., 280, Regent Street.*) However, go 
on, my dear sir; goon, I say. Your remarks are 
not only facetious, but they tell with terrific force, 
inasmuch as they are simply true. Our women 
ARE beautiful, as you say; but their fitting-up is 
monstrous indeed! They try their utmost, to 
‘“‘prove”’ to us that they have no minds ; and seem 
to glory in that fact, if one may judge by their 
conversation. That article on a Modern Lady’s 
Head-dress (p. 68) will immortalise our JoURNAL. 
I believe it speaks the honest sentiments of every 
real gentleman in the kingdom. You once re- 
marked, very naively, that God created women 
exquisitely beautiful,—perfect ; and you as naively 
added,—‘* Why then does she take such unceasing 
pains to annihilate all traces of that beauty?” I 
quite agree with you, that the way in which women 
now plaster their faces over with whisps of hair 
(more like straw), drawn down by “high art” 
from the seat of knowledge, is abominably dis- 
gusting. If men will ape the monkey, be it so. 
* We passed this house a very few days since ; 
and saw the enormities referred to, in the window. 
It is a large window, and will hold just three of 
them! They are gigantic, stiff gauze “ casings,” 
extending laterally in most fearful shoots,—the 
hole for the stem—the waist of a lady—being 
get-at-able by some mechanical hocus-pocus im- 
palpable to a man’s perception. This is the base 
of the fabric. Over it is to come the building! 
We have “heard” of petticoat government. Here 
we see it! And “these are the gods we wor- 
ship!””—Ep. K. J. 


We simply say, “ Ht tu brute!” and pass on; but 
our women,—our idols,—our “domestic gods,”"— 
for them to be assimilated with monkeys,— 
it is a barbarous “ fashion”? indeed! You 
have said, in a former number, that when at the 
Zoological Gardens you always found the ‘‘monkey- 
house’’ full of women—juveniles, adults, and grey- 
headed. I have noticed the same to be true; and 
the keepers fully confirm it. They say, the women 
had better ‘live with the monkeys.’ Entre nous, 
they must have been “‘ adopting” the “ fashions” 
from these prototypes; and hence our domestic 
misfortunes! What, I wonder, will be the next 
achievement towards effacing the image of the 
Creator from his creature !—Areus, Oxford. 
[Alas! good Argus, although so nobly supported 
by yourself and “ Walter,” our task is endless. 
Our modern ladies wear coats of male. 'They are 
impenetrable. We fire at them, but our shots 
take no effect. We ask them “ who can paint like 
Nature?” They answer,—‘ Rowland and Son.” 
We tell them we love a petite figure ; and when 
they have made their toilette, to “‘ astonish’’ us 
they come forth somewhat less in girth than the 
far-famed Norfolk Giant; and with faces like 
Peeonies. We have turned to our Modern Dic- 
tionary in disgust; and therein have we marked 
against the words beauty, modesty, nature, sym- 
metry,—‘“ obsolete.” A correspondent writes us 
privately, that he attributes all these deformities 
in the minds of females to “‘ their perusal of novels 
and tales of fiction,—at once demoralising and 
subversive of all that is good and natural.” Young 
ladies certainly do pick up some very strange 
notions at the circulating libraries, and we feel 
no hesitation in saying that our correspondent’s 
remarks are correct. We are often thunderstruck, 
when we reflect on the indiscriminate permission 
granted to our young ladies to select and read just 
what they will. Their minds are thereby cor- 
rupted at a very tender age. Our correspondent, 
commenting on this, says—A parent would rush, 
in the greatest agony of alarm, after a child that 
was indiscriminately eating wild-fruit and berries 
in the fields. He would do this, lest his child 
should be poisoned. Yet will he let this same 
child’s mind be poisoned by the indiscriminate 
use of books; thus laying the foundation for incal- 
culable evil in later life. There needs no dwelling 
upon this. The practice has existed so long, that 
we imagine WE shall never live to see it alter. 
It is a “ fashion” so universally popular (and so 
universally bad), that we indeed despair of ever 
seeing it out of date. But what has moral reason- 
ing to do with that which is “ pleasing, needful, 
and fashionable?” Just nothing at all. There- 
fore, we will bring up our children as we like best ; 
and leave others the same privilege. We wish 
however that our sentiments should be known ; 
and here they stand recorded, quantum valeant. | 


The Study of Photography.—I have read with 
much pleasure the various articles you have writ- 
ten on this subject, and I have resolved to render 
them available in my studies, which I purpose 
commencing forthwith. I dare say I shall have 
to ask you many questions as I proceed ; and I too 
well know your delight in being able to please and 
instruct others, to attempt to offer any apology for 
being troublesome. “ Our Editor” is distinguished 

