KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 309, 24 May 1911, Page 3

KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY.

To the Editor. ' Sir,—ln your issue of to-day you quote Mr. Percy-Smibh's remarks re the advisability of requiring a knowledge of history on the part of would-be legislators. There is no doubt that historical knowledge is not a strong point with our legislators, and, consequently, as Mr. Percy-Smith says, we are continually worried with legal formulas which have been tried aot once, but over and over again in the history of the world, and have failed. An instance of the way in which history repeats itself recently ca,me under my notice in the course of my reading. "The first and mpst essential duty of a government is to love the people and to procure them the real advantages of life, which are plenty and pleasure. To accomplish this object it would suffice to inspire every one with the unvarying principles of rectitude, but as all might not observe them, the State should explain the manner of following these precepts, and enforce observance by wise and inflexible laws. In order to prevent the oppression of man by mail, the State should take possession of all resources of the Empire, and become the sole master and employer. The State should take the entire management of commerce, industry, and agriculture into its own hands, with the view of succouring the working classes and preventing their being ground to the dust bv the rich." Anyone r(lading the above lines might well be pardoned if he imagined that they were written by one of our Socialist writers of today. Yet they are a translation from the writings of Wang-rigan-clie, a celebrated Chinese philosopher and statesman, who died about the year 1120. As he was not shackled by the fetters of Parliamentary Government, Wang was more fortunate than his modern imitators. He won the favor of the young Emperor, Chen-Tsoung, and was enabled to put his' theories into practice. Some of his regulations have a strong resemblance to laws which are not, I think, unknown at the present day. For instance, tribunals were established throughout the Empire, which fixed the price of provisions, merchandise and wages; taies were imposed—to be paid by the rich, from which the poor were exempt (the tribunals deciding who were rich and who poor). The money thus collected was set aside to be distributed to aged paupers, to workers out of employ, and to whoever should be judged to be most in need of it. The State became the sole proprietor of the soil, regulated the kind of seed to be sown and the price that was to be paid for it when grown. All this, as 1 said before, has a familiar sound in our ears to-day. and it is interesting to note the results. The edict which brought about the above regulations, and many others of a similar nature, was promulgated in 1069 (just three years after the Battle of Hastings). In the year 1129, the followers of Wang-ngan-ehe were driven out of China, and the bones of that statesman wore dug up and burned. Later, Chinese historians inform us. instead of making things better, the result of these laws was just the reverse. The nation became more plunged in misery than ever, and half the people were engaged in acting as inspectors, etc., over the other half. This latter attribute seems to be rapidly attaining prominence in another country which boasts somewhat of its "Socialistic legislation." There are a number of other points in Chinese history which are well worthy of study by some of our would-be legislators of to-day.—l am, etc., JR. C. TEMPLER. Mav 20, 1(111.