The British colonies follow the jealous usage of the mother-country. Even in Canada the lawless American example is not imitated. I have before me a "Table of Titles to be Used in Canada," laid down by royal warrant, which lists those who are /Hons./ and those who are not /Hons./ in the utmost detail. Only privy councillors of Canada (not to be confused with imperial privy councillors) are permitted to retain the prefix after going out of office, though ancients who were legislative councillors at the time of the union, July 1, 1867, may still use it by a sort of courtesy, and former speakers of the Dominion Senate and House of Commons and various retired judges may do so on application to the King, countersigned by the governor-general. The following are lawfully /the Hon./, but only during their tenure of office: the solicitor-general, the speaker of the House of Commons, the presidents and speakers of the provincial legislatures, members of the executive councils of the provinces, the chief justice, the judges of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts, the judges of the Supreme Courts of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the judges of the Courts of Appeal of Manitoba and British Columbia, the Chancery Court of Prince Edward Island, and the Circuit Court of Montreal--these, and no more. A lieutenant-governor of a province is not /the Hon./, but /His Honor/. The governor-general is /His Excellency/, and so is his wife, but in practise they usually have superior honorifics, and do not forget to demand their use.
But though an Englishman, and, following him, a colonial, is thus very careful to restrict /the Hon./ to proper uses, he always insists, when he serves without pay as an officer of any organization, to indicate his volunteer character by writing /Hon./ before the name of his office. If he leaves it off it is a sign that he is a hireling. Thus, the agent of the New Zealand [Pg121] government in London, a paid officer, is simply the /agent/, but the agents at Brisbane and Adelaide, in Australia, who serve for the glory of it, are /hon. agents/. In writing to a Briton one must be careful to put /Esq./, behind his name, and not /Mr./, before it. The English make a clear distinction between the two forms. /Mr./, on an envelope, indicates that the sender holds the receiver to be his inferior; one writes to /Mr./ John Jackson, one's green-grocer, but to James Thompson, /Esq./, one's neighbor. Any man who is entitled to the /Esq./ is a /gentleman/, by which an Englishman means a man of sound connections and dignified occupation--in brief, of ponderable social position. Thus a dentist, a shop-keeper or a clerk can never be a gentleman in England, even by courtesy, and the qualifications of an author, a musical conductor, a physician, or even a member of Parliament have to be established. But though he is thus enormously watchful of masculine dignity, an Englishman is quite careless in the use of /lady/. He speaks glibly of /lady-clerks/, /lady-typists/, /lady-doctors/ and /lady-inspectors/. In America there is a strong disposition to use the word less and less, as is revealed by the substitution of /saleswoman/ and /salesgirl/ for the /saleslady/ of yesteryear. But in England /lady/ is still invariably used instead of woman in such compounds as /lady-golfer/, /lady-secretary/ and /lady-champion/. The /women's singles/, in England tennis, are always /ladies' singles/; /women's wear/, in English shops, is always /ladies' wear/. Perhaps the cause of this distinction between /lady/ and /gentleman/ has been explained by Price Collier in "England and the English." In England, according to Collier, the male is always first. His comfort goes before his wife's comfort, and maybe his dignity also. /Gentleman-clerk/ or /gentleman-author/ would make an Englishman howl, though he uses /gentleman-rider/. So would the growing American custom of designating the successive heirs of a private family by the numerals proper to royalty. John Smith /3rd/ and William Simpson /IV/ are gravely received at Harvard; at Oxford they would be ragged unmercifully.