(Vol. viii., pp. 229. 298.)
It is my misfortune entirely to differ from MR. DAWSON (p. 229.) and MR.
CROSSLEY (p. 298.) as to the pronunciation of _humble_; and permit me to
say (with all courtesy) that I was unfeignedly surprised at the latter's
assertion, that sounding {394} the _h_ is "a recent attempt to introduce a
mispronunciation," as I have known that mode of pronunciation all but
universally prevalent for nearly the last forty years; and I have had
pretty good opportunities for observing what the general usage in that
respect was, as I was for some years at a very large public school, then at
Oxford for more than the usual time, and have since resided in London more
than twenty-five years, practising as a barrister in Westminster Hall, and
on one of the largest circuits. If, therefore, I have not had ample means
of judging as to the pronunciation of _humble_, I know not where the means
are to be found; especially as I doubt whether _humble_ and _humbly_ are
anywhere so frequently used as in courts: a counsel rarely making a speech
without "_humbly_ submitting" or making a "_humble_ application." Now the
result of my experience is, that the _h_ is almost universally sounded; and
at this moment I cannot call to mind a single gentleman who omits it, who
does not also omit it in many other instances where no doubt can exist that
it ought to be sounded.
MR. DAWSON believes the sounding the _h_ to be "one of those, either
Oxford, or Cambridge, or both, peculiarities of which no reasonable
explanation can be given." Now I believe MR. DAWSON is right in supposing
that that usage is general both at Oxford and Cambridge, and I rather think
that not only an explanation of the fact may be given, but that the fact
itself, that in both the Universities the _h_ is sounded, is extremely
cogent evidence that it is correct. It cannot be doubted that the fact that
a word is spelled with certain letters is clear proof that, at the time
when that spelling was adopted, the word was so sounded as to give a
distinct sound to each of the letters used, and that clearly must have been
the case with words beginning with _h_ especially. When, therefore, the
present spelling of _humble_ was adopted, the _h_ was sounded. Now, whilst
I freely admit that the utterance of any word may be changed--"Si volet
usus, quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi"--still it cannot
be questioned that the usage must be so general, clear, and distinct among
the better educated classes (where-ever they may have received their
education) as to leave no reasonable doubt about the matter; and that it
lies on those who assert that such a change has taken place, to show such a
usage as I have mentioned. And when the number of the members of the
Universities is considered, and their position as men of education, it must
at least admit of doubt whether, if a general usage prevailed among them to
pronounce a particular word in the manner in which it originally was
pronounced, this would not alone prevent a different pronunciation among
others from having that general prevalence, which would be sufficient to
justify a change in the utterance of such word.
But let us consider whether the usage of the Universities is not very
cogent evidence that the _h_ is generally sounded throughout England, 1.
Each University contains a large number of the higher and better educated
classes. 2. The members come from all parts of England indiscriminately. 3.
Infinitely the majority come from schools; and some of the large schools
have generally many members at each University. By such persons the
pronunciation of the schools cannot fail to be represented. 4. Every one on
entering the University is expected at least to know his own language. 5.
There is no instruction, as far as I know (however much the fact may be to
be regretted), ever given in English at either University. 6. There is a
perpetual change of about a third of the members every year, few remaining
above three years. Now can any one, who candidly considers these facts,
doubt that a usage in pronouncing a particular word at _either_ University
if generally prevalent, is very strong evidence that the same usage is
generally prevalent throughout England; but if any one does entertain such
a doubt, surely it must be done away, when he finds that the same usage
prevails at _both_ Universities; though there exists such a degree of
rivalry between them as would prevent the one from adopting from the other
any usage which was liable to any the least doubt, and though there is no
communication between them that could account for the same usage prevailing
in both.
MR. CROSSLEY appeals to the Prayer Book as a decisive authority, and
instances "an _humble_," &c. If any one will examine the Prayer Book, he
will find that it is no authority at all; as "an" is at least as often used
erroneously before _h_ as not. In reading over the first sixty-eight
Psalms, I found the following instances--Ps. xxvii. 3. and Ps. xxxiii. 15.,
"An host of men;" Ps. xlvii. 4. and Ps. lxi. 5., "An heritage;" Ps. xlix.
18., "An happy man," Ps. lv. 5., "An horrible dread;" Ps. lxviii. 15., "An
high hill." And in the same Psalms I only found _one_ instance of _a_
before _h_, viz. in Ps. xxxiii. 16., "A horse;" and in this case the Bible
version has "An horse." In the first Lesson for the 19th Sunday after
Trinity, Dan. iii. 4., "An herald," and 27., "An hair of their head,"
occur; and in the next chapter (iv. 13.), "An holy one." It is plain from
these instances (and doubtless many others may be found), that the use of
"an" before _h_, in the Bible or Prayer Book, can afford no test whatever
whether the _h_ ought to be sounded or not.