The Church Times. November 22nd, 1912.
The Convocation of Canterbury had met on the Tuesday. In the
Lower House, the discussion of the Committee's Report on the Royal
Letters of Business (Prayer Book Revision) had included amendments
to the Office for Public Baptism. The Church Times
reported: "The House refused to give up 'the vulgar tongue',
although Canon Hankey said nine out of ten poor people thought 'the
vulgar tongue' meant bad language, and Dr A. W. Robinson thought
'mother tongue' would be a better phrase."
IF THE Houses of Convocation must waste their time in the
discussion of niggling and ridiculous alterations to the Prayer
Book, all we can say is that it is a pity their proceedings are not
conducted with closed doors. That fine old phrase, "the vulgar
tongue", has been made to appear a stumbling-block to many who
might other-wise be drawn to the Church. We venture to affirm that
it gives offence to none but those who imagine that persons of a
certain class are likely to be annoyed by it, as though it had a
contemptuous reference to themselves. If it were conceivable that
it had such a reference, the people to whom it applied would be
blissfully unconscious of the fact, for they would never connect
the word "vulgar" with their own social condition or their peculiar
manners. As for the rest of the community, so far as they ever
trouble themselves about the exact meaning of terms, their feelings
would not be hurt by the expression "the vulgar tongue", so that
there would appear to be no earthly reason why it should be removed
from the Prayer Book. We confess that our patience is tried by the
makers of proposals of this finicking order.