" ENGLISH" AND " ENGLAND "
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In reply to " Anglus in Scotia," I agree that the en- thusiasm of the Glasgow audience was misplaced, and that " England " is a word of poetic memories, but I think he will agree that Englishmen usually conveniently forget to use " Britain " in the right place.
As my training has been more scientific than literary I appreciate the sweeping statement of Sir W. Beach Thomas that whenever he or his colleagues spoke of English troops some angry and parochial Scotsman would write to protest. His postman would have had my deepest sympathy. I do not remember ever coming across an example of " British " used in error for " English."
I am sorry " Ayrshire " has not realized that I objected to the incorrect use of " English," etc., and that I did not insist on the substitution of "Scottish," etc. (even for advertisement), and left it to be inferred that the use of " British," etc., would be courteous (without lacking in dignity). As I am not with- out humour I recently submitted to the Editor of a leading humorous weekly the following subtitle appearing in a leading English daily paper—" The English Empire Loaf." I do not know yet if the humour of it appealed to the Editor I Might
I suggest that the next time " Ayrshire " is in England he should make a point of buying English daily papers and attending a few political meetings. The humour will appeal ! Breadth of outlook can still be compatible with exactitude. 1 would commend to " Ayrshire " the letter by Rose in your issue of June 28th, which sums up the position.—I ant,
[We agree with "Thistle " that the use of " English," " England," and " Englishman " where British," &e., are correct is undesirable. We do not, however, agree that there is any malice in it, as he seems to suggest ; and objection is sometimes taken to it where it is perfectly. correct. There are minor faults of courtesy on both sides, but not, we are sure, any intention of a slight.—Eo. Spectator.]
Previous page
