Among the Anglo-Saxons and their pagan ancestors the desertion of children sometimes occurred, but as the influence of Christianity increased, it was regarded as a crime, and a law was passed for its repression. For fostering a foundling the State allowed 6s. the first year; 12s. the second; and 30s. for the third year; and afterward the foster parent was to receive a sum varying according to the appearance of the child. Children bereft of their father, remained under the mother's care, but until the eldest child became of age were subject to the guardianship of the husband's relations. Mothers usually nursed their own children, cradles were used, and for the first few months their clothing was swathed with a bandage. In this compact form they were more easily carried, though the constraint to which they were subjected, probably prevented that free development of the limbs, which we now consider so essential to health and beauty. If very poor, the father was allowed to sell his son into slavery for seven years, providing the consent of the child was obtained, and one ten years old could give evidence. Until a daughter was fifteen years of age, her father could marry her as he pleased, but afterwards had no power to do so. A boy of fifteen could enter the monastic life if so disposed, and a girl at a somewhat later period. Monasteries offered the best education then procurable, and the clergy were directed to "teach youth with care, and to draw them to some craft." Schoolboys appear to have been kept in order, by the dread of personal chastisement, and great respect and reverence was exacted by their elders.
In the dress of the Blue-coat School (Christ's Hospital), we see the ordinary costume of boys of the Tudor period. It consisted of a long coat reaching to the heels and knee-breeches, a striped vest, yellow stockings, and a small round cap placed on the side of the head. The dress of little girls may be found on various monumental effigies, in which they appear like their mothers, in full skirts, sometimes distended by a fardingale, the body imprisoned in whalebone to the hips, a folded ruff encircling the neck, and their stockings (according to Stubbs) were of the finest yarn, silk, thread, or cloth that could possibly be had, of changeable colours, cunningly knit, with curiously indented points, clocks, and open seams. The shoes were of black, green, white and yellow velvet, or of leather stitched with silk and embroidered with gold and silver all over the foot.
The paintings of Vandyck bring graphically before us the picturesque elements of the dress of the Stuart era. There is an air of richness and refinement about the long skirted silken frocks embellished with lace, the pointed collars, and beaver hats with trailing feathers universally worn, and the quaint lace caps, which, by a turn of fashion's wheel, have been remodelled for the children of today.
At no period in the history of costume were the styles so offensive to those with a true conception of colour and form than in the first half of the nineteenth century. We have only to turn to the sketches of Leech and contemporary artists to find bare necks and arms, conspicuous underwear, very short skirts distended by a stiffened petticoat or crinoline, white cotton stockings, low shoes fastened by a strap and single button, mushroom hats, aprons and pinafores devoid of elegance and grace, and the hair cut close to the head or arranged in rows of stiff ringlets. Nor did the boys of England, in trousers buttoned high on short jackets, or with tunics worn with frilled linen collars and leathern belts, show to greater advantage. Queen Victoria inaugurated a new system of clothing for boys, when she dressed the young Princes in Scotch and sailor suits, and the wardrobes of all classes have been considerably extended of late, by the open-air life and outdoor sports in which every self-respecting lad indulges. Cricket, tennis, boating, football, and cycling, all imperatively demand appropriate apparel, and tailors now give reasonable attention to this important branch of their business, and provide fabrics and designs suited to the needs of the rising generation.
Habits of personal cleanliness and the influence of dress on the minds of growing girls is hardly realized except by those directly concerned in education. Many a sensitive child's character has been warped by the thoughtless jeers of schoolfellows, who were quick to perceive that her clothing was not up-to-date or of such good material as their own. On the other hand, vanity, envy, and uncharitableness have been engendered by foolish mothers, who have provided their daughters with inappropriate and extravagant outfits.
Though many advocate uniforms with distinctive trimmings for girls' colleges, there are drawbacks to the scheme being adopted. Such a course would probably destroy the individuality which we all desire to see applied to the choice of clothing, and it would leave no field for original ideas. Children must be trained to select and wear their clothes to the best advantage, and it is folly to think that they will do so by intuition. Some may possess naturally an artistic sense and a keen eye for colour, but they are certainly in the minority, and rational dress reformers have pushed sensible ideas to the verge of absurdity, till now the name is almost regarded as a term of reproach.