SPECIMEN EXAMINATION PAPERS

I

"REFINED policy ever has been the parent of confusion, and ever will be so, as long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as easily discovered at the first view as fraud is surely detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is a healing and cementing principle. My plan, therefore, being formed upon the most simple grounds imaginable, ınay disappoint some people when they hear it. It has nothing to recommend it to the pruriency of curious ears. There is nothing at all new and captivating in it. It has nothing of the splendour of the project which has been lately laid upon your table by the Noble Lord in the Blue Ribbon."

66

1. What were the admirable traits in the character of this 'Noble Lord"? Why does not history hold him in greater honour? Give reasons for your opinion.

66

it?

2. Describe the "project" referred to. In what did its splendour" consist? On what grounds did Burke criticize

3. Wherein does Burke think his own plan preferable to that of the "Noble Lord"? If he preferred his own, why does he here seek to disparage it?

4. Summarize each of the resolutions comprised in Burke's plan.

5. In what division of the speech does this passage occur? What is the function of this division, according to the ancient rhetoricians, and how far does Burke conform to their views?

6. Give a list of the words in the passage which Burke evidently employs in order to awaken unfavourable ideas in the hearer's mind. State the precise effect of each of these words.

What by

7. What does Burke mean by "refined policy?" "confusion?" What "refined policy" had been employed, or was it proposed to employ, in dealing with the Colonies?

8. (a) Would it have been better if Burke had used the expression, "immense force,' " instead of "no mean force"? Give reasons. (b) Why not "pruriency of itching ears”?

9. Wherein does Burke here seem to be a follower of the Sermon on the Mount? Did he ever advocate hostility to other nations, and, if so, on what grounds?

II

1. In the early part of the speech, what reasons does Burke adduce against the employment of force in dealing with the Colonies? Had he chosen to introduce these reasons elsewhere, what would have been the proper place for them, and why? Why did he prefer to have them where they stand ? Do they not constitute an interruption in their present position, and, if so, why should they not be removed?

2. Under what circumstances is it proper to introduce Scriptural allusions in a speech, and what effect do they produce? State as many reasons as you can why an orator should be familiar with the Bible.

3. Give four instances in which Burke's statements are confirmed by history. Give as many as you can where his statements or views are not substantiated by the best authorities.

4. Under what distinct heads, in the Introduction, does Goodrich discuss Burke? Summarize his opinions under each of these heads.

5. Illustrate Burke's use of irony and sarcasm by quoting three passages illustrating these figures, distinguishing between the two. Do irony and sarcasın render a speech more interesting? if so, explain why.

III

1. Quote a fine passage, not less than three hundred words in length, from the speech. Underscore the words which should be emphasized in its delivery.

2. Goodrich says: "So quick and delicate were his perceptions that he saw his way clearly through the most complicated relations, following out the finest thread of thought without once letting go his hold, or becoming lost or perplexed in the intricacies of the subject."

If this is true, why did Burke apparently dislike subtlety both in reasoning and in practice? Did he merely wish to persuade others that he was a man of plain common-sense, while really displaying remarkable acuteness? If not, how do you reconcile the seeming contradiction?

3. What did the Americans object to in the "Act for the impartial administration of justice"? What was the chief provision of the Boston Port Bill?

4. What arguments did Dean Tucker adduce in favour of allowing the Colonies to separate from England? How does Burke dispose of this proposition? If Burke was right, what shall we think of Tucker's plan? If Tucker was right, what shall we think of Burke's arguments?

1775. Conciliation with 1775. Revolutionary 1775. Sheridan, Rivals. America.