[...] Mr. Mudie-Smith thinks [...] that the special costume of clergyman sometimes acts as a force against equality and fraternity. [...] I agree upon the basic point that any symbol invading equality and fraternity should be avoided. But for my own part, I should be inclined to suggest another solution of the matter. I think a clergyman, justly proud of his high calling, might wear a uniform.

But why should he be the only person to wear a uniform? Why should we not all be made equal by all carrying about the insignia of some honourable trade? Why should we not be permitted to know that a man is a chartered accountant by some approved external symbol, such as his charter hung ostentatiously round his neck or long white robes covered ornamentally with additon sums? Why should not the stockbroker instead of confining himself to the rather rudimentary ritual of wearing the hat very much on the back of the head have some wilder outfit, such as a pair of bull's horns and a bear-skin?

These examples perhaps are hasty and a little flippant. But I think seriously that the dignity of work would be very advantageously enhanced if it had its own colours and its own heraldry like religion and like war. So far, therefore, from looking forward with Mr. Mudie-Smith to the possibility that clergymen will abandon their very extraordinary collars, I rather look forward (with an ill-concealed joy) to the possibility of seeing Mr. Mudie-Smith himself walking down the street in the robes of purple and gold (not yellow) appointed for a distinguished journalist.

-August 26, 1905, Daily News