SOME HISTORY BOWLERS

Evening Star, Issue 21316, 21 January 1933, Page 22

SOME HISTORY BOWLERS

7Written by Examiner, for the ‘Evening Star.’] To examine some hundreds of matriculation papers in history is quite an interesting experience. To some extent, of course, certain bare facts recur with deadly'similarity in paper after paper; but the task is also lit up with Hashes of conscious or unconscious wit from time to time. Speaking generally, however, the day of the “ howler ” seems to he passing. Perhaps our young people know too much, or aro too respectable. Yet there will always be, for instance, wild shots where candidates do not really know the answer to a question. This is probably why someone said that it was John Buchan who refused to pay ship money, and someone else that Wat Tyler “ prepared a tale against Roman Catholics, causing that sect to bo most cruelly persecuted.” There is a distinct contemporary note in the answer that Tyler led a march of “those who objected to cuts in their wages.” • Tho exact part certain great men have played remains doubtful to some,, c.g., when it was answered that Bruce and Carlyle were both candidates for the throne of Scotland, though another person thought Wallace and Burns were the two persons concerned. _ Doubtless many Scotchmen would willingly have had the latter a king. Augustine was hardly a famous Roman general. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, by those who did confuse him with the historian, was usually connected with New Zealand history, though not a few thought' he was “the first governor of the colony,” and some even rated him as a great missionary. One wonders, however, what was in the mind of the candidate who said that Wakefield’s great ambition was _to have an “idle” colony in New Zealand. A question as to who was the “ Morning Star of tho Reformation ” brought forth many suggestions, ranging from Augustine and Bede, Peter the Hermit and Thomas a’Beckett, to John Wesley and Knox. Pope Gregory was another suggestion, though Adam Bede, named by several candidates, was surely the plum. This difficulty in fitting a person into Jiis right period was a fruitful source of error. Thus “ in 55 B.C. the Romans brought Christianity to England,” was twice affirmed; also that “Disraeli put the matter before the League of Nations.” It was stated that “in the Norman manor all water was drawn from a common pump ” ; while even earlier, “in 700 A.D., the Dutch swarmed over into England.” There was a similar confusion in the mind of tho candidate who said Henry VIII, “ passed Six Articles of religion, also known as the Gag Acts.” Mis-spelling—needless to say—is often the cause of unconscious humour. There were several who spoke of the “ pocket-burrows ” of 1832; the “ HolySea ” was another slight error, while a remarkable number spoke of “ Prodistants,” which possibly suggests Irish ancestry. “ All vestments were abolished except the * surplus.’ ” In Edward Vl.’s reign “ surf’s ” were the bottom rung in the manorial ladder. And one could not expect to miss Wat Tyler as loading tho “ pheasants ” to London. “ Votes to artesians ” is distinctly redolent of Canterbury; “ Belial ” for Balliol, the Scotchman, is surely quite unmerited. There is surely real wit in the statement that “ Pitt was unable to grant Catholic Emancipation, as when ho suggested it, King George’s insanity threatened to return.” One wonders, however, if it was conscious in the assertion that “ Disraeli gave the vote to everyone in England with a bank account, and to eyery educated person.” Sir Robert Peel was brought near home when it was suggested that he “ founded the Bank of New Zealand.” Another labelled him as the “ man who introduced policemen and was an Oxford student who got double first class honours.’’ One cannot hut agree that “ a parliament at Gibraltar would bo a white elephant for ever.”