Although this extraordinary pamphlet was soon accepted by Chinese society as a semi-official warning of what was coming, it alone was not sufficient to launch a movement which to be successful required the benign endorsement of foreign opinion. The Chinese pamphleteer had dealt with the emotional side of the case: it was necessary to reinforce his arguments with an appeal which would be understood by Western statesmen as well as by Eastern politicians. Yuan Shih-kai, still pretending to stand aside, had kept his attention concentrated on this very essential matter; for, as we have repeatedly pointed out, he never failed to understand the superlative value of foreign support in all his enterprises,—that support being given an exaggerated value by the public thanks to China's reliance on foreign money. Accordingly, as if still unconvinced, he now very naively requested the opinion of his chief legal adviser, Dr. Goodnow, an American who had been appointed to his office through the instrumentality of the Board of the Carnegie Institute as a most competent authority on Administrative Law.
Even in this most serious matter the element of comedy was not lacking. Dr. Goodnow had by special arrangement returned to Peking at the psychological moment; for having kicked his heels during many weary months in the capital, he had been permitted in 1914 to take up the appointment of President of an American University on condition that he would be available for legal "advice" whenever wanted. The Summer vacation gave him the opportunity of revisiting in the capacity of a transient the scenes of his former idleness; and the holiday-task set him by his large-hearted patron was to prove in as few folios as possible that China ought to be a Monarchy and not a Republic—a theme on which every schoolboy could no doubt write with fluency. Consequently Dr. Goodnow, arming himself with a limited amount of paper and ink, produced in very few days the Memorandum which follows,—a document which it is difficult to speak of dispassionately since it seems to have been deliberately designed to play into the hands of a man who was now openly set on betraying the trust the nation reposed in him, and who was ready to wade through rivers of blood to satisfy his insensate ambition.
Nothing precisely similar to this Goodnow Memorandum has ever been seen before in the history of Asia: it was the ultramodern spirit impressed into the service of mediaeval minds. In any other capital of the world the publication of such a subversive document, following the Yang Tu pamphlet, would have led to riot and tumult. In China, the home of pacifism, the politicians and people bowed their heads and bided their time. Even foreign circles in China were somewhat nonplussed by the insouciance displayed by the peripatetic legal authority; and the Memorandum was for many days spoken of as an unnecessary indiscretion. [Footnote: It is perhaps of importance to note that Dr. Goodnow carried out all his studies in Germany.] Fastening at once on the point to which Yang Tu had ascribed such importance—the question of succession—Dr. Goodnow in his arguments certainly shows a detachment from received principles which has an old-world flavour about it, and which has damned him forever in the eyes of the rising generation in China. The version which follows is the translation of the Chinese translation, the original English Memorandum having been either mislaid or destroyed; and it is best that this argument should be carefully digested before we add our comments.
A country must have a certain form of government, and usually the particular form of government of a particular country is not the result of the choice of the people of that country. There is not any possibility even for the most intellectual to exercise any mental influence over the question. Whether it be a monarchy or republic, it cannot be the creation of human power except when it is suitable to the historical, habitual, social and financial conditions of that country. If an unsuitable form of government is decided upon, it may remain for a short while, but eventually a system better suited will take its place.
In short, the form of government of a country is usually the natural and only result of its circumstances. The reasons for such an outcome are many, but the principal one is Force. If we study the monarchical countries we will find that usually a dynasty is created by a person who is capable of controlling the force of the entire country and overthrowing other persons opposed to him, working towards his goal with an undaunted spirit. If this man is capable of ruling the nation and if he is a rare genius of the day, and the conditions of the country are suited for a monarchical government, he as a rule creates a new dynasty and his descendants inherit the same from generation to generation.
If this is so, then the solution of a difficult position of a country is to be found in a monarchy rather than a republic. For on the death of a monarch no doubt exists as to who shall succeed him, and there is no need of an election or other procedure. Englishmen say, "The King is dead, Long live the King." This expresses the point. But in order to attain this point it is necessary that the law of succession be definitely defined and publicly approved; otherwise there will not be lacking, on the death of the monarch, men aspiring to the throne; and as no one is qualified to settle the dispute for power, internal disturbance will be the result.
Historically speaking no law of succession is so permanently satisfactory as that used by the nations of Europe. According to this system the right of succession belongs to the eldest son of the monarch, or failing him, the nearest and eldest male relative. The right of succession, however, may be voluntarily surrendered by the rightful successor if he so desires; thus if the eldest son declines to succeed to the throne the second son takes his place. This is the rule of Europe.
If instead of this law of a succession a system is adopted by which the successor is chosen by the monarch from among his sons or relatives without any provision being made for the rights of the eldest son, disturbance will be the inevitable result. There will not be a few who would like to take possession of the throne and they will certainly plot in the very confines of the palace, resulting in an increase of the sufferings of an aged monarch; and, even if the disaster of civil war be avoided, much dispute will arise owing to the uncertainty of the successor—a dangerous situation indeed.
Such is the lesson we learn from history. The conclusion is, speaking from the viewpoint of the problem of transmission of power, that the superiority of the monarchical system over the republican system is seen in the law of succession,—that is the eldest son of the ruler should succeed to the throne.
Leaving out the nations of ancient times, the majority of countries in Europe and Asia have adopted the monarchical system. There are, however, exceptions such as Wen-ni-shih (Venice) and Switzerland, which adopted the republican form of government; but they are in the minority while most of the great nations of the world have adopted the monarchical form of government.
During the recent century and a half the attitude of Europe has undergone a sudden change and the general tendency is to discredit monarchism and adopt republicanism. The one great European power which first attempted to make a trial of republicanism is Great Britain. In the Seventeenth Century a revolution broke out in England and King Charles I was condemned to death by Parliament and executed as a traitor to the nation. A republic was established and the administration was called republican with Cromwell as regent, i.e. President, Cromwell was able to control the power of government because at the head of the revolutionary army he defeated the King. This English republic however, only existed for a few years and was finally defeated in turn. The reason was that the problem of succession after the death of Cromwell was difficult to solve. Cromwell had a desire to place his son in his place as regent after his death, but as the English people were then unsuited for a republic and his son had not the ability to act as chief executive, the republic of England suddenly disappeared. The British people then abandoned the republican system and readopted the monarchical system. Thus Charles II, the son of Charles I, was made King not only with the support of the army but also with the general consent of the country.
The second European race which attempted to have a republic was the American. In the Eighteenth Century the United States of America was established in consequence of the success of a revolution. But the American revolution was not at first intended to overthrow the monarchy. What it sought to do was to throw off the yoke of the monarchy and become independent. The revolution, however, succeeded and the circumstances were such that there was no other alternative but to have a republic: for there was no royal or Imperial descendant to shoulder the responsibilities of the state. Another factor was the influence of the advocates of republicanism who came to America in the previous century from England and saturated the minds of the Americans with the ideas of republicanism. The minds of the American people were so imbued with the ideas of republicanism that a republican form of government was the ideal of the entire race. Had General Washington—the leader of the revolutionary army—had the desire to become a monarch himself he would probably have been successful. But Washington's one aim was to respect republicanism and he had no aspiration to become King. Besides he had no son capable of succeeding him on the throne. Consequently on the day independence was won, the republican form of government was adopted without hesitation, and it has survived over a hundred years.
There is no need to ask whether the result of the establishment of the American Republic has been good or bad. The republican form of government is really the making of the United States of America. But it should be remembered that long before the establishment of the republic, the American people had already learned the good laws and ordinances of England, and the constitution and parliamentary system of England had been long in use in America for over a hundred years. Therefore the change in 1789 from a colony into a Republic was not a sudden change from a monarchy to a republic. Thorough preparations had been made and self- government was well practised before the establishment of the republic. Not only this, but the intellectual standard of the American people was then already very high; for ever since the beginning of American history attention was given to universal education. No youth could be found who could not read, and the extent of education can thus be gauged.
Soon after the formation of the American Republic, the French Republic followed in her footsteps. Now in France a monarchical government was in existence before the declaration of independence, and the supreme power of administration was in the hands of the King. The people, having never participated in the administration and lacking experience in self-government, made a poor experiment of the republican system which they suddenly set up. The result was that for many years disorder reigned, and the tyranny of the military governments held sway one after another. After the defeat of Napoleon, the monarchical system was restored as a result of the intervention of other Powers. The second revolution in 1830 again resulted in the restoration of the monarchy but the power of the common people was considerably increased. The monarchy was again overthrown in 1848 and a Republic formed in its stead—the nephew of Napoleon was then made President. This President, however, once more discarded republicanism and set up a monarchy for himself. It was not until after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 that Napoleon III was overthrown and the final Republic established which has lived for half a century now, there being every likelihood of its continuing in its present form.
Indeed the Republic of France has every prospect of being permanent, but the permanency is only the result of a hundred years' political revolution. For a hundred years the foundations were being laid by means of an energetic and persistent campaign of education, which increased the political knowledge of the people. The people were also allowed to participate in political affairs, and so gained experience in self-government. This is why the French Republic is a success. Then in France and America they have found a solution for the difficult problem of the nation, that is the problem of succession of the government in power. The President of France is elected by the Parliament while the President of America is elected by the people. The people of these two countries are all experienced in self-government as a result of participation in political affairs. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these two countries have all laid emphasis on universal education by having an extensive system of schools, subsidized by the Government. The intellectual standard of these two people is therefore fairly high.
As a result of the examples set up by France and America, at the end of the Eighteenth Century the Spanish colonies in Central and South America also declared their independence one after the other. The conditions then prevailing in those countries were somewhat similar to those of America. When their independence was declared, it seemed that the republican system was best suited to their condition. For on the one hand there was no imperial house to direct the people, on the other hand the Republic of North America was a good example to follow. Public opinion was at that time unanimous that since the republican form of government was the ideal form, it was suitable for any country and any people. The idea thus quickly spread and almost every country became a republic. The independence of these countries, however, was secured only at the cost of a hard struggle and once the spirit of rebellion was aroused it became difficult to suppress in a short while. And since education was not then universal the intellect of the people was low. What they were expert in was in autocratic methods. No task is harder than to establish a republic in a country, the intelligence of whose people is low. These republics, therefore, reaped no good results although they tried to retain republicanism unnaturally. The consequence is that the republics of Central and South America have been a living drama of continuous internal disturbance. One after another their military leaders have grasped the power of administration. Occasionally there has been peace but this peace has only been secured by the iron hand of one or two powerful men holding the power. Such powerful men, however, seldom pay any attention to educational matters, and one never hears of their establishing any schools. As to the people under them, they are not allowed to participate in political affairs by which their experience in politics may be ripened. The result is, on the man in power becoming sick or dying—and the iron rule relaxed—that those who wish to usurp the power of the state rise at once; and as the satisfactory solution of the problem of succession cannot be found, those undertakings which have made progress during the time of peace are swept away without a single exception. In extreme cases the disturbances continues to such an extent that the country falls into a state of anarchy. Thus the social and financial factors of the whole country are trodden on and destroyed under foot. The conditions now prevailing in Mexico have been many times duplicated in other republics in Central and South America. For this can be the only result from adopting the republican form of government where the political and financial conditions are unsuited. Diaz, a military leader, once held the power of state in his own hand, and when he became the President of Mexico it looked as if the political problem was solved thereby. Diaz, however, did not push education but instead oppressed the people and did not allow them to participate in politics. When he was advanced in age and his influence decreased, he lost entire control once the banner of rebellion was raised. Ever since the overthrow of Diaz, military leaders of that country have been fighting one another and the disturbance is developing even today. In the present circumstances there is no other means to solve the political problem of Mexico except by intervention from abroad. (Sic.)
Among the republics of Central and South America, however, there are some which have made fairly good progress, the most prominent of which are Argentina, Chili, and Peru. For some time there was disorder in the first two republics immediately after the adoption of the republican system, but later peace was gradually restored and the people have been enjoying peace. As regards Peru, although some disturbances have occurred since the establishment of the republican government, the life of the Republic as a whole has been peaceful. All of these three countries, however, developed constitutional government with the utmost vigour. Even as far back as in the earlier part of the Nineteenth Century Argentina and Chili were already endeavouring to excel each other in their progress, and as for Peru, its people were encouraged even while under the Imperial regime, to participate in political affairs. The success of these three republics is, therefore, not a mere chance happening.
The study of the experiences of these republics of Central and South America and the history of France and the United States brings forward two points which we should carefully consider:—
1. In order to make a satisfactory solution of the problem of succession to the chief executive in a republican country, it is necessary that the country be in possession of an extensive system of schools; that the intellect of its people has been brought up to a high Standard by means of a patient process of universal education; and that they be given a chance to participate in political affairs for the purpose of gaining the needed experience, before the republican form can be adopted without harm;
2. It is certain that the adoption of a republican form of government in a country where the people are low in intellect and lack experience and knowledge in political affairs, will not yield any good result. For as the position of the President is not hereditary, and consequently the problem of succession cannot be satisfactorily solved, the result will be a military dictatorship. It might be possible to have a short-lived peace but such a period of peace is usually intermingled with periods of disturbances, during which the unduly ambitious people may rise and struggle with each other for the control of power, and the disaster which will follow will be irremediable.
This is not all. The present tendency is that the European and other western Powers will not tolerate the existence of a military government in the world; for experience shows that the result of military government is anarchy. Now this is of vital importance to the interests of the European Powers. Since their financial influence has extended so far, their capital as well as their commercial undertakings of all branches and sorts have reached every corner of the world, they will not hesitate to express their views for the sake of peace, as to the system of government a country should adopt, although they have no right to interfere with the adoption of a form of government by another nation. For unless this is done they cannot hope to get the due profit on the capital they have invested. If this view is carried to the extreme, the political independence of a nation may be interfered with or even the Government may be replaced with some other organ. If such steps are necessary to attain their views the Powers will not scruple to take them. Therefore no nation will be allowed hereafter to choose its own form of government if that results in constant revolution, as in the case of South America in the last century. The Governments of the future should, therefore, carefully consider the system to be adopted for the maintenance of peace; otherwise control by foreigners will be unavoidable.
We will now proceed to consider what significance these points reviewed above have for the political conditions of China. China, owing to the folly of an absolute monarchical system, has neglected the education of the masses, whose intellectual attainments have been consequently of a low standard. Then, there is the additional fact that the people have never had a voice in the doings of their government. Therefore they have not the ability to discuss politics. Four years ago the absolute monarchy was suddenly changed into a Republic. This movement was all too sudden to expect good results. If the Manchus had not been an alien race, which the country wished to overthrow, the best step which could then have been adopted was to retain the Emperor and gradually lead him to a constitutional government. What the Commissioners on Constitutional Government suggested was quite practical if carried out gradually until perfection was reached. Unfortunately the feeling of alien control was bitter to the people and the maintenance of the throne was an utter impossibility. Thus the monarchy was overthrown and the adoption of a republican system was the only alternative.
Thus we see that China has during the last few years been progressing in constitutional government. The pioneering stage of the process was, however, not ideal. The results could have been much better if a person of royal blood, respected by the people, had come out and offered his service. Under the present conditions China has not yet solved the problem of the succession to the Presidency. What provisions we have now are not perfect. If the President should one day give up his power the difficulties experienced by other nations will manifest themselves again in China. The conditions in other Countries are similar to those obtaining in China and the dangers are also the same. It is quite within the bounds of possibility that the situation might threaten China's independence if internal disturbance should occur in connection with this problem and not be immediately put down.
What attitude then should those who have the good of the nation at heart, take under the present circumstances? Should they advocate the continuance of the Republic or suggest a change for a monarchy? It is difficult to answer these questions. But I have no doubt in saying that the monarchical system is better suited to China than the republican system. For, if China's independence is to be maintained, the government should be constitutional, and in consideration of China's conditions as well as her relations with other Powers, it will be easier to form a constitutional government by adopting a monarchy than a Republic.
However, it must be remembered that in order to secure the best results from changing the Republic into a Monarchy not a single one of the following points can be dispensed with:
1. Such a change must not arouse the opposition of the Chinese people or the Foreign Powers, which will cause the disturbances so energetically suppressed by the Republican Government to appear again in China. For the peace now prevailing in the country should be maintained at any price so that no danger may come therefrom.
2. If the law of succession be not definitely defined in such a way that it will leave no doubts as to the proper successor, no good can come from the change from Republic to Monarchy. I have said enough about the necessity of not allowing the monarch to choose his own successor. Although the power of an Emperor is greater than that of a President, when the majority of the people know nothing, it is more respected by the people. But the reason for such a change will not be valid if the change is brought about merely to add to the power of the chief executive without the question of succession being definitely settled. For the definiteness about succession is the most prominent point of superiority of the monarchical system over the republican system.
3. If the Government should fail to make provisions for the development of the constitutional government, no permanent benefit will result from the change of a republic into a monarchy. For if China wishes to occupy a suitable place among the world powers, the patriotism of her people must be made to grow so that the government will be more than strong enough to cope with outside aggression. The patriotism of the people will not grow if they are not allowed to participate in political affairs, and without the hearty assistance of the people no government can become strong. For the reason why the people will assist the government is because they feel they are a part of the government. Therefore the government should make the people realize that the government is the organ which aims at bringing blessing to the people, and make the people understand that they have the right to superintend the government before the government can achieve great things.
Every one of the points mentioned above are indispensable for the change of the Republic into a monarchy. Whether the necessary conditions are present must be left to those who know China well and are responsible for her future progress. If these conditions are all present then I have no doubt that the change of the form of the government will be for the benefit of China.
The first illuminating point, as we have already said, to leap up and lock attention to the exclusion of everything else in this memorandum, is that the chief difficulty which perplexes Dr. Goodnow is not the consolidation of a new government which had been recognized by all the Treaty Powers only two years previously but the question of succession to the supreme office in the land, a point which had already been fully provided for in the one chapter of the Permanent Constitution which had been legally passed prior to the Coup d'etat of the 4th November, 1913. But Yuan Shih-kai's first care after that coup d'etat had been to promulgate with the assistance of Dr. Goodnow and others, a bogus Law, resting on no other sanction than his personal volition, with an elaborate flummery about three candidates whose names were to be deposited in the gold box in the Stone House in the gardens of the Palace. Therefore since the provisional nature of this prestidigitation had always been clear, the learned doctor's only solution is to recommend the overthrow of the government; the restoration of the Empire under the name of Constitutional Monarchy; and, by means of a fresh plot to do in China what all Europe has long been on the point of abandoning, namely, to substitute Family rule for National rule.
Now had these suggestions been gravely made in any country but China by a person officially employed it is difficult to know what would have happened. Even in China had an Englishman published or caused to be published—especially after the repeated statements Yuan Shih-kai had given out that any attempt to force the sceptre on him would cause him to leave the country and end his days abroad [Footnote: The most widely-quoted statement on this subject is the remarkable interview, published in the first week of July, 1915, throughout the metropolitan press, between President Yuan Shih-kai and General Feng Kuo-chang, commanding the forces on the lower Yangtsze. This statement was telegraphed by foreign correspondents all over the world. Referring to the many rumours afloat that titles of nobility would be revived as a precursor to the monarchy the President declared that even if he seized the Throne that would not increase his powers, whilst as for transmitting the Imperial Yellow to his sons none were fitted for that honour which would mean the collapse of any new dynasty. Here General Feng Kuo-chang interrupted with the remark that the people of South China would not oppose such a change ultimately, though they thought it was too early to talk about it just now. Thereupon the president's features became stern and he declared in a heightened voice: "You and others seem still to believe that I harbour secret ambitions. I affirm positively that when I sent my sons to study in England, I privately ordered the purchase of a small estate there as a possible home. If the people of China insist upon my accepting the sceptre I shall leave this country and spend the remaining days of my life abroad." This interview, so far from being denied, has been affirmed to the present writer as being substantially correct.]—that Englishman, we say, would have been liable under the Orders in Council to summary imprisonment, the possibility of tumult and widespread internal disturbances being sufficient to force a British Court to take action. What are the forces which brought an American to say things which an Englishman would not dare to say—that in 1915 there was a sanction for a fresh revolutionary movement in China? First, an interpretation of history so superficial, combined with such an amazing suppression of contemporary political thought, that it is difficult to believe that the requirements of the country were taken in the least bit seriously; secondly, in the comparisons made between China and the Latin republics, a deliberate scouting of the all-important racial factor; and, lastly, a total ignorance of the intellectual qualities which are by far the most outstanding feature of Chinese civilization.
Dr. Goodnow's method is simplicity itself. In order to prove the superiority of Monarchism over Republicanism—and thus deliberately ignoring the moral of the present cataclysmic war—he ransacks the dust-laden centuries. The English Commonwealth, which disappeared nearly three hundred years ago, is brought forward as an example of the dangers which beset a republic, though it is difficult to see what relation an experiment made before the idea of representative government had been even understood bears to our times. But there is worse. The statement is deliberately made that the reason for the disappearance of that Commonwealth was "that the problem of succession after the death of Cromwell was difficult to solve." English historians would no doubt have numerous remarks to offer on this strange untruth which dismiss a remarkably interesting chapter of history in the most misleading way, and which tells Chinese political students nothing about the complete failure which military government—not republicanism— must always have among the Anglo-Saxon peoples and which is the sole reason why Cromwellism disappeared. Even when treating the history of his own country Dr. Goodnow seems to take pleasure in being absurd. For he says: "The mind of the American people was so imbued with the idea of republicanism that a republican form of government was the ideal of the whole race"; then adding as if to refute his own statements, "Had General Washington—the leader of the revolutionary army—had the desire to become a monarch he would probably have been successful." We do not know how Americans will like this kind of interpretation of their history; but at least they will not fail to note what dismal results it hastened on in China. With the experimental Eighteenth Century French Republic; with the old Spanish Colonies of Central and South America; and above all with Mexico, Dr. Goodnow deals in the same vein. Vast movements, which can be handled only tentatively even in exhaustive essays are dismissed in misleading sentences framed so as to serve as mere introduction to the inevitable climax—the Chinese Constitutional Monarchy of 1915 with Yuan Shih-kai as Emperor.
Yet this is not all. As if in alarm at the very conclusions he so purposely reaches, at the end of his Memorandum he reduces these conclusions to naught by stating that three impossible conditions are necessary to consummate the Restoration of the Monarchy in China, (1) no opposition should be aroused, (2) the law of succession must be properly settled, (3) full provision must be made for the development of Constitutional Government. That these conditions were known to be impossible, everyone in the Far East had long admitted. Had Dr. Goodnow paid the slightest attention to the course of history in China he would have known (a) that any usurpation of the Throne would infallibly lead to rebellion in China and intervention on the part of Japan, (b) that Yuan Shih- kai's power was purely personal and as such could not be transmitted to any son by any means known to the human intellect, (c) that all Yuan Shih-kai's sons were worthless, the eldest son being semi-paralyzed, (d) that constitutional government and the Eastern conception of kingship, which is purely theocratic, are so antithetical that they cannot possibly co-exist, any re- establishment of the throne being ipso facto the re-establishment of a theocracy, (e) that although he so constantly speaks of the low political knowledge of the people, the Chinese have had a most complete form of local self-government from the earliest times, the political problem of the day being simply to gather up and express these local forms in some centralized system: (f) the so- called non-patriotism of the Chinese is non-existent and is an idea which has been spread abroad owing to the complete foreign misunderstanding of certain basic facts—for instance that under the Empire foreign affairs were the sole concern of the Emperors, provincial China prior to 1911 being a socio-economic confederation resembling mediaeval contrivances such as the Hanseatic League—a provincial confederation not concerning itself with any matter which lay outside its everyday economic life, such as territorial overlordship or frontier questions or the regulation of sea-port intercourse etc., because such matters were meaningless. It was only when foreign encroachment in the POST-Japanese war period (i. e. after 1895) carried problems from the fringes of the Empire into the economic life of the people that their pride was touched and that in spite of "their lack of experience and knowledge in political affairs" they suddenly displayed a remarkable patriotic feeling, the history of China during the past two decades being only comprehensible when this capital contention, namely the reality of Chinese patriotism, is given the central place.
It is useless, however, to pursue the subject: we have said enough to disclose the utter levity of those who should have realized from the first that the New China is a matter of life and death to the people, and that the first business of the foreigner is to uphold the new beliefs. The Goodnow Memorandum, immediately it was published, was put to precisely those base uses which any one with an elementary knowledge of China might have foreseen: it was simply exploited in an unscrupulous way, its recommendations being carried out in such a manner as to increase one's contempt for the men who were pushing the monarchist plot with any means that they could seize hold of, and who were not averse from making responsible foreigners their tools.
We have already referred in several places to the extraordinary role scholarship and the literary appeal play in the governance of China. It is necessary to go back to the times of the birth of the Roman Empire, and to invoke the great figure of Cicero, to understand how greatly the voice of men of recognized intellectual qualities influences the nation. Liang Ch'i-chao, a man of some forty-five years, had long been distinguished for his literary attainments and for the skill with which, though unversed in any Western language, he had expounded the European theory and practice of government to his fellow-countrymen. To his brain is due the coining of many exact expressions necessary for parliamentary government, his mentality having grown with the modern growth of China and adapted itself rather marvellously to the requirements of the Twentieth Century. A reformer of 1898— that is one of the small devoted band of men who under Kang Yu Wei almost succeeded in winning over the ill-fated Emperor Kwang Hsu to carrying out a policy of modernizing the country in the teeth of fierce mandarin opposition, he possessed in his armoury every possible argument against the usurpation Yuan Shih-kai proposed to practise. He knew precisely where to strike—and with what strength; and he delivered himself over to his task with whole- hearted fervour. It having become known that he was engaged in preparing this brief for the people of China, every influence was brought to bear to prevent such a disastrous publication. Influential deputations were sent to him to implore him to remember the parlous international situation China found herself in,—a situation which would result in open disaster if subjected to the strain of further discords. For a time he hesitated launching his counter-stroke. But at length the Republican Party persuaded him to deal the tyrant the needed blow; and his now famous accusation of the Chief Executive was published.
Its effect was immediate and very far-reaching. Men understood that armed revolt was in the air. The almost Biblical fervour which pervades this extraordinary document shows an unusual sense of moral outrage. The masterly analysis of the Diaz regime in Mexico coupled with the manner in which—always pretending to be examining the conduct of the Mexican—he stabs at Yuan Shih-kai, won the applause of a race that delights in oblique attacks and was ample proof that great trouble was brewing. The document was read in every part of China and everywhere approved. Although it suffers from translation, the text remains singularly interesting as a disclosure of the Chinese mentality; whilst the exhaustive examination of political terms it contains shows that some day Chinese will carry their inventive genius into fields they have hitherto never openly invaded. Especially interesting is it to contrast the arguments of such a man with those of a decadent such as Yang Tu.
Before I proceed with my argument I wish to make plain two points. One is that I am not one of those reformers whose ears are their brains, and who are intoxicated with the doctrine of republicanism. I have, therefore, no partiality for the republican form of government nor any bias for or against other forms of government. This can be proved by my literary work during the last ten years. The second point is that I am not one of the veteran conservatives who lay so much stress on the importance of having a dynasty. For such are the thoughts of men who only seek to adjust themselves to existing conditions. If one wishes to consider the present situation of the country without bias or prejudice he must disregard the rise or fall of any particular family. Only those who bear in mind these two points can read my argument with real understanding.
Some time ago I said that, as political students, we should only care for Cheng-ti, i.e., the form of government and not for kuo- ti, i.e., the form of state. Do not call this trifling with words, for it is a principle which all critics of politics should follow and never depart from. The reason is that critics of politics should not, because they cannot, influence the question of kuo-ti. They should not influence the question of kuo-ti because so long as the question of kuo-ti remains unsettled the major portion of the administration remains at a stand-still. Thus there will be no political situation properly so called and there will be no political questions to discuss (here the term political means really administrative). If a critic of politics, therefore, interfere with the question of Kuo-ti, he will be leading the nation into a condition of political instability, thus undermining the ground on which the people stand. Such critics can be likened unto a man trying to enter a house without ascending the steps or crossing a river without a boat.
They cannot influence the question of Kuo-ti. The force which drives and steers the change of one form of State or vice versa is generally not derived from mere politics. If the time is not ripe, then no amount of advocacy on the part of critics can hasten it. If the time is ripe, nothing the critics say can prevent it. He who indulges himself in the discussion of the problem of Kuo-ti— i.e., the form of States, as a political student, is ignorant of his own limitations and capacity. This is as true of the active politicians as of the critics; for the first duty of an active politician is to seek for the improvement and progress of the administration of the existing foundation of government. A step beyond this line is revolution and intrigue, and such cannot be the attitude of a right-minded active politician or statesman. This is looking at it from the negative side.
From the positive, that is, the progressive point of view, there is also a boundary. Such actions under one form of government are political activities, and under the opposite form of government are also political activities. But these are not questions of political principle. For only when a man sacrifices the ideals which he has advocated and cherished during the whole of his life does the question of principle arise. Therefore the great principle of looking to the actual state of administration of the form of government and leaving the mere form of state in the back- ground is a principle that is applicable under all circumstances and should be followed by all critics of politics.
No form of government is ideal. Its reason of existence can only be judged by what it has achieved. It is the height of folly to rely on theoretical conclusions as a basis for artificial arbitration as to what should be accepted and what discarded. Mere folly, however, is not to be seriously condemned. But the danger and harm to the country will be unmeasurable if a person has prejudiced views respecting a certain form of government and in order to prove the correctness of his prejudiced views, creates artificially a situation all by himself. For this reason my view has always been not to oppose any form of government. But I am always opposed to any one who engages in a propaganda in favour of a form of government other than the one under which we actually live. In the past I opposed those who tried to spread the republican form of government while the country was under monarchical government, and the arguments I advanced in support of my views were written in no fewer than 200,000 words. Even so late as the ninth month after the outbreak of the Revolution I issued a pamphlet entitled "The Problem of the Building of the New China," which was my last attempt to express my views respecting the maintenance of the old form of government.
What obligations had I to the then Imperial House? Did it not heap persecution and humiliation on me to the utmost of its power and resources? I would have been an exile even to this day had it not been for the Revolution. Further, I was no child and I was fully aware of the disappointment which the then Government caused in the minds of the people. Yet I risked the opposition of the whole country and attempted to prolong the life of the dying dynasty. I had no other view in mind except that there would be some possibility of our hope being realized if the whole nation would unite in efforts to improve the administration under the then existing form of government. I believed that because the people were not educated for a change. But if the status of the country should be changed before the people are educated and accustomed to the new order of things, the danger and hardship during the transitional period of several years would be incalculable. In certain circumstances this might lead to the destruction of the nation. Even if we are spared the tragedy of national extinction, the losses sustained by the retarding of the progress of the administration would be unredeemable. It is painful to recall past experiences; but if my readers will read once more my articles in the Hsin Mim Tung Pao during the years 1905 and 1906 they will see that all the sufferings which the Republic has experienced bear out the predictions made then. The different stages of the sinister development have been unfolding themselves one by one just as I said they would. It was unfortunate that my words were not heeded although I wept and pleaded. Such has been the consequence of the change of the state of the country—a change of Kuo-ti.
Yet before we have hardly ceased panting, this talk of a second change is on us. I am not in a position to say exactly how this talk had its beginning. Ostensibly it was started by the remarks of Dr. Goodnow. But I am unable to say whether Dr. Goodnow actually gave out such a view or for what purpose he expressed such a view. From what he told the representative of a Peking newspaper he never expressed the views attributed to him. Be this as it may, I cannot help having my doubts. All Dr. Goodnow is alleged to have said bearing on the merits of the monarchical and republican system of government as an abstract subject of discussion, such as the necessity of the form of state (Kuo-ti) being suited to the general conditions of the country and the lessons we should learn from the Central and South American republics, are really points of a very simple nature and easily deduced. How strange that among all this large number of politicians and scholars, who are as numerous as the trees in the forest and the perch in the stream, should have failed for all these years to notice these simple points; and now suddenly make a fetish of them because they have come out of the mouth of a foreigner. Is it because no one except a foreign doctor can discover such facts? Why even a humble learner like myself, though not so learned even to the extent of one ten-thousandth part of his knowledge, more than ten years ago anticipated what the good doctor has said; and I said much more and in much more comprehensive terms. I have no desire to talk about my work, but let my readers glance through the copies of the Hsin Min Tsung Pao, Yin Ping Shih Wen Chi, the "Fight between Constitutional Advocates" and "Revolutionary Advocates," the "Question of the Building of the New China," etc., etc. My regret is that my eyes are not blue and my hair not brown, and hence my words were not acceptable to the nation!
I do not say that the merits or otherwise of the republican system should not be discussed, but the time for such a discussion has passed. The most opportune time for such a discussion was in 1911 when the Revolution had just begun; but since then further discussions should not be tolerated. There might have been some excuse if this subject had been brought up for discussion when the second revolution broke out at Hukow on the Yangtsze river or before the President was formally inaugurated, or before the Powers formally recognized the Republic; but the excuse even then would have been a weak one. Where were you then, advocates of monarchy? Could you not at that time have brought out an essay by one of the great scholars of the world as a subject for discussion? Could you not have cited the cases of American republics as a warning for us that these republic were by no means peaceful? Yet at that time when the heroes of discretion were daily pushing the progress of the republican cause, stating that republicanism was the panacea for all the world's administrations and that republicanism was not a new factor in Chinese history, a humble and ignorant man like myself, then a stranger in a foreign land, was burdened with the fear of the unsuitability of the republican system to China and wrote articles in support of his own views and wept till his eyes were dry.
Do you not realize that the State is a thing of great importance and should not be disturbed carelessly? How can you then experiment with it and treat it as if you were putting a chest into a dead hole, saying "Let me place it here for the moment and I will see to it later." The status of the State can be likened to marriage between man and woman. The greatest care should be taken during courtship. The lady should then exercise care to see that the man whom she is taking to be a life companion is worthy of her. During this period it is the duty of her relatives and friends to point out to her any danger or misunderstanding even to the extent of offending her feelings. But if you leave her alone at this stage when there is plenty of time to change her course, and—what is more—urge her to tie the knot despite incompatibility, what right have you afterward to make the impudent suggestion to the wife that her husband is not a man to whom she should cling for life? Is such a course a charitable way of doing things?
If indeed the republican cause is enough to cause the destruction of the nation then you, the advocates of monarchy, have placed the country in a position from which she has no hope of ever coming out independent. You are the men, who—to the best of your ability—inculcated and pressed the adoption of the republican cause. The proverb says, "If now, why not then?" How many days can a person live that you, not satisfied with one great sin, are again to commit another. It is not long since the Republic was first established; yet you, the veterans of republicanism, are the leaders today in advocating the overthrow of the Republic. Yes. It is indeed strange that I, a man who once opposed the republican cause, should now be opposing you. Nothing is stranger and nothing is so fateful.
But our modern critics say we prefer a constitutional monarchy to an autocratic republic. Now whether we are constitutional or not is a question concerning the administration, while the question whether we are republican or not is a question concerning the form or status of the country. We have always held that the question of Kuo-ti is above discussion and that what we should consider is the actual condition of administration. If the administration (government) is constitutional, then it matters not whether the country is a Republic or a Monarchy. If the government is not constitutional then neither a republic nor a monarchy will avail. There is no connexion, therefore, between the question of Kuo-ti and the question of Cheng-ti. It is an absurd idea to say that in order to improve the administration we must change the Kuo-ti—the status or form of the country—as a necessity. If this idea is to be entertained for a single moment the changes even in constitutional countries will be endless. But the curious paradox is that in former days the critics said that only a republic, not a monarchy, could be constitutional; whereas, the critics now say that a monarchy, not a republic, can alone be constitutional!
Let me therefore lay down a simple definition of what a Constitution is before discussing whether the contentions of the critics are reasonable. My opponents will agree with me that the main principle of a constitutional government is that the legislative organ should always balance the executive and that the exercising of the administrative power is always limited to a certain extent. They will also agree that the most important point of a so-called constitutional monarchy is that the monarch should act as a figurehead, and that the establishment of a responsible cabinet is an indispensable accompaniment. If these simple principles are recognized then we must put up the theory for discussion. Let us then raise the question who shall be the monarch. In plain words, is the person in our mind the President? or any other person? (In view of the repeated declarations of the President that he will never consent to become an Emperor, this suggestion on my part is a gross insult to his character, but I crave to excuse myself as this is only mere speculation and supposition.) What shall we do with the President if we find another man? The President, having so long borne the burdens of the State, will certainly be only too willing to vacate his post to live in retirement as far as his own person is concerned, but can we imagine that the country will allow the President to retire? If not, then are we going to ask the President to form a responsible cabinet under a figurehead monarch? Even if we take it for granted that the President, out of love for the country, would be willing to sacrifice his own principles and yield to the wish of the country, it will be dangerous indeed if he—a person on whom the whole nation depends—is placed in the path of parliament. Therefore the contention that a constitutional monarchy will be attained if a person other than the President be made a monarch is false and baseless.
Shall we then make the present President a monarch? Of course the President will not consent to this. But leaving this aside let us suppose that the President, in consideration of the permanent welfare of the country, is willing to sacrifice everything to satisfy the wish of the people, do we expect that he will become a mere figurehead? A figurehead monarch is, to adapt the saying of the west a fat porker, a guinea-pig, that is, good as an expensive ornament. Will it be wise to place so valuable a personage in so idle a position at a time when the situation is so extremely critical?
Even if we are willing to suffer the President to become a figurehead it will remain a question whether a responsible cabinet can ever be formed. I do not say that the President will not allow a responsible cabinet to exist under him. My contention is that there is no one within my knowledge, who commands respect enough and is capable of taking over the responsibilities of President Yuan. For who can replace the Great President in coping with our numerous difficulties? If we select an ordinary man and make him bear the great burdens, we will find that in addition to his lack of ability rendering him unequal to the occasion, his lack of dominating influence will disqualify him from exercising authority. It was for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the existing conditions that the Cabinet system was changed into a Presidential system—an excellent substitution for a weakened administration. Conditions in the next two or three years will not be very much different from what they are now. Therefore, the contention that the administration will be changed overnight for the better after a change in the form of the State is, if not a wicked untruth to deceive the common people, the ridiculous absurdity of a bookworm. Thus the theory that a constitutional monarchy will immediately follow, if the President consents to become a monarch, is also fallacious.
Can it be possible that those who are now holding up the constitutional principle as a shield for their monarchical views have a different definition for the term "constitution"? The Ching (Manchu) Dynasty considered itself as possessing a constitution in its last days. Did we recognize it as such? Let me also ask the critics what guarantee they have to offer that the constitution will be put into effect without hindrance as soon as the form of State is changed. If they cannot give any definite guarantee, then what they advocate is merely an absolute monarchy and not a constitutional monarchy. As it is not likely to be a constitutional monarchy, we may safely assume that it will be an imperial autocracy. I cannot regard it as a wise plan if, owing to dislike of its defects, the Republic should be transformed into an Imperial autocracy. Owing to various unavoidable reasons, it is excusable in spite of violent opposition to adopt temporarily autocratic methods in a republican country. But if the plan proposed by present-day critics be put into effect, that on the promise of a constitution we should agree to the adoption of a monarchy, then the promise must be definitely made to the country at the time of transition that a constitutional government will become an actuality. But if, after the promise is made, existing conditions are alleged to justify the continuance of autocratic methods, I am afraid the whole country will not be so tolerant towards the Chief Executive. To assume outwardly the role of constitutional government, but in reality to rule in an unconstitutional manner, was the cause of the downfall of the Ching Dynasty. The object lesson is not obscure. Let us take warning by it.
If, on the other hand, the present day critics are really in earnest for a constitution, then I am unable to understand why they believe that this cannot be secured under the Republic but must be obtained in a roundabout way by means of a monarchy. In my view the real hindrances to the adoption of a constitution at the present day in China are the existing conditions, viz. the attitude of the officials and the traditions and intellectual standards of the people. But these hindrances have not resulted from the adoption of republicanism. Therefore they cannot be expected to disappear with the disappearance of the Republic. For instance, from the President downward to the minor official of every official organ in the capital or in the provinces, every one inclines to be independent of the law, and considers it convenient to deal with affairs as he pleases. This is the greatest obstacle to constitutional government. Now has that anything to do with the change or not of the form of State? Again, the absence, on the part of the people, of interest in political affairs, of knowledge of politics, of political morality and strength, and their inability to organize proper political parties to make use of an inviolable parliament, are also hindrances to the attainment of a constitution. Now what have these things to do with a change in the form of the States? If I were to go on naming such hindrances one by one, I should count my fingers many times over and I should not be through. Yet it is quite plain that not a single one of these hindrances can be attributed to republicanism.
To say that what we cannot get under the republic can be secured immediately upon accepting a monarchical regime, or to say that what can be secured under a monarchical regime can never be secured in a republican period is beyond the understanding of a stupid man like myself, although I have searched my brain for a valid reason.
My view is that if China is really in earnest for a constitution, the President should set the example himself by treating the Constitutional Compact as sacredly inviolable and compel his subordinates to do the same. Every letter of the compact should be carried out and no attempt should be made to step beyond its limits.
Meantime give the people as many opportunities as possible to acquaint themselves with political affairs, and do not stifle the aspirations of the people or weaken their strength or damp their interest or crush their self-respect. Then within a few years we shall be rewarded with results. If, instead of doing all these things, we vainly blame the form of State, we are, as Chu Tse says, like a boat that blames the creek for its curves.
The most powerful argument of those who advocate a change to a monarchy is that there is every possibility of disturbance at the time of a Presidential election. This is a real danger. It is for this reason that ten years ago I did not dare to associate myself with the advocates of republicanism. If the critics want to attack me on this point to support of their contentions, I advise them not to write another article but to reprint my articles written some time ago, which, I think, will be more effective. Fortunately, however, we have discovered a comparatively effective remedy. For, according to the latest President Election Law the term of the President is to all intents and purposes a term for life. It is therefore impossible for such dangers to appear during the life of the President. What concerns us is therefore what will happen after the departure of the present President for another world. This, of course, is a question that we do not wish to touch upon; but since every one, even the patriarchs must die some day, let us face the matter openly. If Heaven blesses China and allows the Great President to devote himself to the country for ten or more years—during which he will be able to assert the authority of the government, cleanse officialdom, store-up strength, consolidate the country, and banish all hidden dangers—then there will be nothing to choose between a republic or a monarchy. If, on the other hand, Heaven should not be pleased so to favour us and takes away our Great President before he is half through with his great task, then the fate of China is sealed. No changes in the form of State will avail under any circumstances. Therefore the question whether China will be left in peace or not depends entirely on the length of years the Great President will live and what he will be able to accomplish in his lifetime. Whether the country is ruled as a republic or a monarchy, the consequences will be the same.
Do you still doubt my words? Let me go deeper into the analysis. The difference between a republic and a monarchy lies only in the methods of succession of the head of the nation. It is evident that although a certain law of succession may be made during the life-time of the Head, it cannot take effect until his death; and whether or not the effect thus intended will come up to expectations will depend on two factors: (1) whether or not the merits and personal influence of the predecessor will continue effective after his death, and (2) whether or not there will be unscrupulous and insubordinate claimants at the death of the Head, and, if any, the number of such men and whether the point of dispute they raise be well-founded. If these are taken as the basis for discerning the future we will arrive at the same conclusion whether the country be a republic or a monarchy.
The Presidential Election Law, however, provides that the successor should be nominated by his predecessor, and the name of the successor so nominated is to be locked in the golden box in the stone strong-room. The President may now, on the one hand, multiply his merits and strengthen his personal influence so that the whole country will gladly bow to his wishes to the extent that even after his death they will not want to disobey his last wish, and on the other hand, the President may quietly ascertain the likely causes which would produce dissension, and take suitable steps to prevent and be rid of them. If the seed of dissension is in the ordinances, then alter the ordinances so that they may not be used as a tool by possible claimants. If the seed of dissension is in a person then cultivate that man, lead him to righteousness, place him in a suitable position so that he may be protected from temptation. Meanwhile let the President carefully select his successor on whom he may eventually lay the responsibilities of State (according to the Presidential Election Law the President is at liberty to suggest any one he likes, his own son or some one else). Let the nominee be placed in a responsible position so as to bring him to public notice. Give him real authority so that he may establish his influence. Place his name at the head of other men of little consequence in the golden box. Then there will be absolutely no ground for dispute when the time comes to open the box.
If every President will do likewise this system can be used without fear of a break for hundreds of years. Otherwise we will have only the Imperial system on paper to rely on for assistance, which is not even to be thought of. A glance through the pages of Chinese history will show the numerous cases in the reign of Emperors when princes fought in the very confines of the Emperor's palace while the corpse of their royal father lay unburied in the hall. Thus it is seen that the hidden cause of the safety or otherwise of the country does not lie with the mere formality of a constitution either in a republic or a monarchy.
The critics bring up the example of Mexico where live rivals have been struggling with each other for the presidency, and the internal confusion of the Central and South American republics as well as Portugal, as an unquestionable proof of their contention that a republic is not so good as a monarchy. I imagine that the idea of these critics is that all these disturbances can be avoided if all these republics were changed into monarchies. Let me tell them that Diaz ruled over Mexico for thirty years, and only died as an exile in May last (I am not quite sure of the exact month). If indeed the struggle in Mexico was a fight for succession then the fight should not have begun until this year. And indeed if it were necessary to have a monarch to avoid the disturbance, and supposing that Diaz, thirty years ago, had a man like Dr. Goodnow to make the suggestion, and men like the Chou An Hui to spread it, and suppose that Diaz boldly took the advice and set up an Imperial system for himself, would Mexico then have a peace that would last as long as the ages?
If Diaz had assumed the throne I am positive he would long ago have been an exile in a foreign country before his imperial system could have come into effect or he himself become the proud founder of a new dynasty. What he would have held as an imperial charter would have become a mere scrap of paper. If he could not prevent rebellion even during his life-time how can we expect an empty Imperial system to prevent it after his death. Even a child can see this. The disturbances in Mexico were unavoidable no matter under a republic or a monarchy. The reason? It is because Diaz, under the mask of a republic, actually played the role of a despot. During all the thirty years he held office he never devoted himself to the strengthening of the fundamental things of State, but diligently strengthened his own position. He massed an enormous number of troops for his own protection so that he might overawe the people. For fear that the troops might become arrogant and insubordinate, he provoked disagreement among them in order that he might play them round his fingers. He banished all those who opposed him, relying on force alone. In dealing with those who were really patriotic, he either corrupted their character by buying them with silver or removed them by assassination. He was a vainglorious man and spent money like water. From the foreign capitalists he borrowed in a most indiscriminate manner, while on the Mexican people he levied all sorts of cruel taxes. Thus the strength of the people was drained and the resources of the country were exhausted, creating a position over which he eventually had no control whatever. Ten years ago I wrote an article in the Hsin Mim Tsung Pao remarking that Diaz was a matchless fraud. I said then that a nation-wide calamity would befall Mexico after his death and that the Mexican nation would be reduced to a mere shadow. (My friend Mr. Tang Chio-tun also wrote an article, before the internal strife in Mexico broke out, on the same subject and in an even more comprehensive way). Luckily for Diaz he ruled under the mask of republicanism, for only by so doing did he manage to usurp and keep the presidential chair for thirty years. He would long ago have disappeared had he attempted to assume the role of an emperor. This is also true of the other republics of Central and South America. Their presidents almost without a single exception used military force as a stepping-stone to the presidential chair. We have yet to see the last military aspirant. The unsuitability of the country to the republican system is of course one of the reasons but I cannot agree with those who say that this is the only reason.
As to Portugal it is true that the change from the monarchy to republic has not stopped internal disturbance; but is it not a fact that Portugal became a republic as a result of internal disturbance and was it not during the existence of the monarch that the disturbance started? It is ridiculous to suppose that a republic will surely court disturbance while a monarchy will surely ensure peace and order. Is not Persia a monarchy? Is not Turkey a monarchy? Is not Russia a monarchy?
Read their history in recent decades and see how many years of peace they have had. There have been no election of presidents in these countries. Why then such unrest?
Again, why was the state of affairs during the Sixteen States of the Five Dynasty-Period and the Ten States of the Five Successions as deplorably miserable and disastrous as the state of affairs now prevailing in Mexico, although there was no election of Presidents then? In quoting objective facts as illustrations the critic should not allow his choice to be dictated by his personal like or dislike. Otherwise he will not be deceiving others than himself. Soberly speaking, any form of state is capable of either ensuring a successful government or causing rebellion. And nine cases out of ten the cause of rebellion lies in the conditions of the administration and not in the form of state. It cannot be denied, however, that the chances of rebellion and dissension are more frequent and easier when the form of state does not suit the conditions of the people. That is why I did not advocate republicanism; and even now I am not a blind believer in republicanism. In this I agree with you, the Chou An Hui people.
The reason why I have not decided to advocate boldly a change in the form of state is because for years my heart has been burdened with an unspeakable sorrow and pain, believing that ever since the mistake made in 1911 the hope for China's future has dwindled to almost nothing. On one hand I have been troubled with our inability to make the Republic a success, and on the other I have been worrying over the fact that it would be impossible to restore the monarchy. The situation has so worked on my troubled mind that at times I seemed to be beside myself. But as the whole country seemed to be already in a state of desperation I have come to the conclusion that it would not do any good to add pain to sorrow. Therefore, instead of uttering pessimistic views I have been speaking words of encouragement to raise our spirits. In this, however, I have exhausted my own strength. My friend, Mr. Hsu Fo- su, told me some five or six years ago that it was impossible for China to escape a revolution, and as a result of the revolution could not escape from becoming a republic, and by becoming a republic China would be bound to disappear as a nation. I have been meditating on these words of ill omen and sought to help the country to escape from his prediction but I have not yet found the way.
Now my friends, you have stated in a worthy manner the reasons why the republican form of state cannot assist China to maintain her existence; now let me state why it is impossible to restore the monarchical system. The maintenance of the dignity of a monarch depends on a sort of mystical, historical, traditional influence or belief. Such an influence was capable of producing unconsciously and spontaneously a kind of effect to assist directly or indirectly in maintaining order and imparting blessing to the country. In this lies the value of a monarchy. But dignity is a thing not to be trifled with. Once it is trodden down it can never rise again. We carve wood or mould clay into the image of a person and call it a god (idol). Place it in a beautiful temple, and seat it in a glorious shrine and the people will worship it and find it miraculously potent. But suppose some insane person should pull it down, tread it under foot and throw it into a dirty pond and suppose some one should discover it and carry it back to its original sacred abode, you will find the charm has gone from it. Ever since the days of monarchical government the people have looked on the monarch with a sort of divine reverence, and never dared to question or criticize his position. After a period of republicanism, however, this attitude on the part of the common people has been abruptly terminated with no possibility of resurrection. A survey of all the republics of the world will tell us that although a large number of them suffered under republican rule, not a single one succeeded in shaking itself free of the republican fetters. Among the world republics only France has had her monarchical system revived twice after the republic was first inaugurated. The monarchy, however, disappeared almost immediately. Thus we may well understand how difficult it is for a country to return to its monarchical state after a republican regime. It may be said that China has had only a short experience of the republican regime; but it must also be remembered that the situation has been developing for more than ten years and in actual existence for about four years. During the period of development the revolutionists denounced the monarch in most extravagant terms and compared him to the devil. Their aim was to kill the mystic belief of the people in the Emperor; for only by diminishing the dignity of the monarch could the revolutionary cause make headway. And during and after the change all the official documents, school textbooks, press views and social gossip have always coupled the word monarch with reprobation. Thus for a long while this glorious image has been lying in the dirty pond! Leaving out the question that it is difficult to restore the monarchy at the present day, let us suppose that by arbitrary method we do succeed in restoring it. You will then find that it will be impossible for it to regain in former dignity and influence.
Turning to another aspect, the most natural course would seem to be a revival of the last dynasty. It might have been possible for a Charles II and Louis XVIII of China to appear again, if not for the hatred of racial domination. But since the last dynasty was Manchu this is out of the question. If a new dynasty were set up it would require many years of hard labour and a great deal of organizing to succeed. Even then only a few have succeeded in this way in prolonging their dynasties by actually convincing the people of their merits. Therefore for several years I have been saying to myself that it would be easier to strengthen the country and place it on a sounder basis if it were possible for us to return to our monarchical state. And to revive the monarchical government there are two ways.
One is that after thoroughly reforming the internal administration under the leadership of the present Great President, that is, when all the neglected affairs of the country have been well attended to, every family in the land made happy and prosperous, the army well-trained and all the necessary bitterness "eaten," the President, when a suitable opportunity presented itself, should have the rare fortune to gain a decisive victory over a foreign foe; then his achievements would be such that the millions of people would compel him to ascend the throne, and so he would hand his sceptre on to his descendants for endless ages.
The second possibility is that after a second great internal disturbance, resulting in the whole country being thrown into a state of utter confusion and cut up into small independent states, the President should suppress them and unite the country into one empire. We will, of course, not pray for the second possibility to come about as then there will be little left of the Chinese people. And no one can be certain whether the person who shall succeed in suppressing the internal strife will be a man of our own race or not. Thus the result will not differ very much from national extinction. As to the first possibility, we know that an exceedingly capable man is now in a most powerful position; let him be given time and he will soon show himself to be a man of success. Does not the last ray of hope for China depend on this?