DEAR SIR,--The questions you send me regarding my opinion of the present style of ladies' dress cover too large and varied a field to be disposed of in a moment--that is, if one _could_ dispose of them even after many and many a month, let alone moments. The one virtue of the women's dress of to-day is its variety and individuality. Those who are really _dressed_ and not merely clothed, have their dresses "created" for them, and they belong to each other. The fair and the dark, the lean and the reverse, do not now bedeck themselves with the same all pervading tint or cut, whether it suits them well or ill, just because it is "all the go." Even the almost universal cut of to-day is most usually graceful and of quiet tone. And somehow girls seem to be of taller growth, and of better health and colour, and to walk better than ever before. The adoption of _bits_ of bygone fashions is now and then deplorable. One sees queer jumbles of Marie Stuart ruffs and "Empire" bonnets, or of any other period except of the Marie Stuart head-gear. Suppose a poor simple masher of the male kind should try some historical head-gear--say a cocked hat or a Charles II. with a wreath of feathers and lace--and mount a jewelled sword, as a new incident to his usual Piccadilly attire? It would be in no worse taste than the various mixture of "periods" that some of the dear creatures of to-day startle the student of costume with now and then. My ideal of "a beautiful woman, beautifully dressed," is not yet defined. I am not very narrow-minded with regard to either point. From the Princess in gold and white samite, to the nut-brown maid with her gown of hodden gray and her bare feet, there are thousands that are good enough for _me_. The only bad ones are the pretentious and vulgar (dirt and fine feathers). I saw a little "æsthetic" creature the other day, with a sad, woe-begone costume in flabby colours, a mop of tousled hair, a painted mask of a face, all in keeping, except the boots--"side-spring," if you please (if anything so squashy could have a spring). She was only a passing vision--but enough. I could but repeat with Madame Roland under the guillotine (_was_ it Roland?) "O Liberty (and Co.), what crimes are committed in thy name!" The subject is a fascinating one; but there are limits.--Yours faithfully, GEO. H. BOUGHTON, A.R.A. MR. G. A. STOREY, A.R.A. 39, Broadhurst Gardens, N.W.