“What comes so expensive when one has to go to work straight on, say for the first six months of the year, is the having to keep up the same standard of respectability in the ‘between season’ time as at other times. The holidays always come between the seasons at school or college, and it does not matter much what one wears. But at the office by April I felt that I had simply ‘nothing to wear,’ and yet I hardly knew what to buy, as it was too early to get summer things. If one once got into the way of getting inter-season clothes as well, the expenditure would be enormous.” No. 6 writes:-- “I walk a great deal in all weathers, and boots and walking dresses are subjected to hard wear. I generally have about three new walking dresses a year, at about 4¹⁄₂ guineas each on the average. My boot-bill is extra heavy, because my boots have to be made to order.” And in answer to further questions on this latter point:-- “I find that my average expenditure on boots and shoes for the year I gave you and for the year just ended (September 30) is £4 14_s._ 9_d._; I never kept my accounts before, so that I cannot be sure about my permanent average, but I should say it was generally about 5 guineas. This year was a very dry year, and not so ruinous as usual, and I cycled more and walked less.” It should be noted that the three office workers who spend over £40 on dress are all dissatisfied with the result, and consider that they have to exercise rigid economy to keep their expenditure down to that limit. At the same time, all three are a little ashamed to find that they spend so much. This arises from the fact that the expenditure is always compared with that of the girl living at home on an allowance. The comparison is not justifiable. The office worker wears out more clothes and has no time for making or mending. I lay stress on this because one difficulty in the way of obtaining accounts is a fear of incurring the disapprobation of the censors who think that to devote half one’s time to managing to dress well on £30 a year earned by some one else is less extravagant than to earn £300 a year and spend £50 of it on dress. I asked a journalist, one of the very few working women of my acquaintance always suitably and prettily dressed, if she would let me have her accounts. She owned she had not the courage to confess what a large proportion of her income had to go for clothes. Later on, after reading the journalistic comments on the expenditure tables submitted to the British Association, she told me how thankful she was she had withheld hers--“They call £40 a lavish expenditure!” And yet I have little doubt that few people could under the same circumstances produce so good a result at the same expense; while at the same time from a business point of view such an outlay in my friend’s branch of journalism repays itself with high interest.