H.M.I.: Some Passages in the Life of One of H.M. Inspectors of SchoolsSneyd-Kynnersley, E. M. (Edmund McKenzie)
History
H.M.I.: Some Passages in the Life of One of H.M. Inspectors of Schools
Sneyd-Kynnersley, E. M. (Edmund McKenzie)
Education -- Great Britain; School management and organization -- Great Britain
A. (1) The French Revolution led to such an extraordinary amount of
work on Pitt, who was then Prime Minister that he was overtaxed, and
could not contend against it therefore he resigned and led a life
of seclusion. Burke who was a great writer overtaxed his mind with
writing about the Revolution that he became partially insane. Fox was
noted for writing his celebrated Book of Martyrs about this time, he
also was forced to lead a life of seclusion on account of worry, and
anxiety of the revolution.
(2) Pitt and Fox were great rivals in the House. Burke was in France.
The Revolution occurred in 1857, and these three men who were clever
and had a lot of foresight banded themselves together so that they
could be able to quell any signs of a rebellion in England. They all
saw what a lot of mischief had been done in France, and thought it
wise though differing in politics to be on the safe side.
(3) Pitt, Burke, and Fox were strongly opposed to the French
Revolution, they foretold what would happen but the remainder of
Parliament would heed their warnings. Pitt rose from his sick bed and
ministered unto them but to no effect.
(Note: The reader will have some difficulty in awarding the
prize among the last batch. Fox, the religious writer; Pitt, the
ministering angel: these are two great conceptions.)
Now we come more clearly to another form of idiocy, the Happy
Conjecture; which enables a candidate wholly ignorant of the matter in
hand to evolve an answer of considerable length out of some familiar
word in the question. Here is an illustration. In 1641 a Bill was
introduced “for the utter abolition of Archbishops, Bishops, Deans,
&c.,” and a forcible epigrammatist of that day called it the “Root and
Branch Bill.” In 1901 an inquisitive examiner put in the History paper:
“What was the Root and Branch Bill?” “Root?” said the candidates;
“Branch?” said they: “it can do no harm ... here goes:”
(1) It was passed so that no one could cut down the trees or take the
wood without the permission of the king.
(2) A bill dealing with the root of the matter, and certain branches
relating to it.
(3) It was drawn up The Root to represent the whole of the crown money
and the branch part of it the loans and money added to the crown money.
(4) A Bill that was made to shield the Presbyterians from the
Protestant community.
(Note: In No. 4 which was the Root?)
In the same paper they were asked to explain the term “Villeins”; and
in like manner they said to themselves “‘villains,’ archaic spelling,
pedantic examiner” and they conjectured; one as an indignant Dissenter,
another as a bigoted Churchman, a third as an undenominational idiot:
(1) Men who committed dastardly and vile tricks. Many of them were
becoming clergymen in the reign of Henry II it will be remembered
until it was decided that they should be tried by the King’s Court.
This of course stopped their treacherous games.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account