The Monarchy Movement Is Opposed

THE APPEAL OF THE SCHOLAR LIANG CH'I-CHAO
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.
FROM REPUBLIC TO MONARCHY
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.
I. THE QUESTION OF KUO-TI
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 . 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.
II. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST CHANGE
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 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!
III. RES JUDICATA
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 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!
IV. THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONSTITUTION
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? 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 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.
V. FALLACIES OF THE MONARCHISTS
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: whether or not the merits and personal influence of the predecessor will continue effective after his death, and 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.
VI. THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION LAW
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 . 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.
VII. THE CASE OF DIAZ, THE DICTATOR
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 . 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. . 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.
IX. "DIVINITY DOTH HEDGE A KING"
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 . 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?
X. THE UNRIPE PEAR.
This is why I say we should not deliberately create trouble for the Republic at this time to add to the worries of the Great President so that he might devote his puissant thoughts and energies to the institution of great reforms. Then our final hope will be satisfied some day. But what a year and what a day we are now living in? The great crisis has just passed and we have not yet had time for a respite. By the pressure of a powerful neighbour we have been compelled to sign a "certain" Treaty. Floods, drought, epidemics and locusts visit our country and the land is full of suffering while robbers plunder the people. In ancient times this would have been a day for the Imperial Court to remove their ornaments and live in humiliation. What do the people of our day mean by advising and urging the President to ascend the throne? To pluck the fruit before it is ripe, injures the roots of the tree; and to force the premature birth of a child kills the mother. If the last "ray of hope" for China should be extinguished by the failure of a premature attempt to force matters, how could the advocates of such a premature attempt excuse themselves before the whole country? Let the members of the Chou An Hui meditate on this point.
The odes say, "The people are tired. Let them have a respite." In less than four years' time from the 8th moon of the year Hsin Hai we have had many changes. Like a bolt from the blue we had the Manchu Constitution, then "the Republic of Five Races," then the Provisional President, then the formal Presidency, then the Provisional Constitution was promulgated, then it was suddenly amended, suddenly the National Assembly was convoked, suddenly it was dissolved, suddenly we had a Cabinet System, suddenly it was changed to a Presidential System, suddenly it was a short-term Presidency, suddenly it was a life-term Presidency, suddenly the Provisional Constitution was temporarily placed in a legal position as a Permanent Constitution, suddenly the drafting of the Permanent Constitution was pressed. Generally speaking the average life of each new system has been less than six months, after which a new system quite contrary to the last succeeded it. Thus the whole country has been at a loss to know where it stood and how to act; and thus the dignity and credit of the Government in the eyes of the people have been lowered down to the dust. There are many subjects respecting internal and diplomatic affairs which we can profitably discuss. If you wish to serve the country in a patriotic way you have many ways to do so. Why stir the peaceful water and create a sea of troubles by your vain attempt to excite the people and sow seeds of discord for the State?
XI. THE ASSEVERATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
One or two points more, and I am finished. These will be in the nature of a straight talk to the Chou An Hui. The question I would ask in plain words is, who is the person you have in your mind as the future Emperor? Do you wish to select a person other than the Great President? You know only too well that the moment the President relieves his shoulder of the burdens of State the country will be thrown into confusion. If you entertain this plot with the deliberation of a person bent upon the destruction of the country, then the four hundred million of people will not excuse you.
Is the man you have in mind the present President? Heaven and earth as well as all living creatures in China and other lands know what the President swore to when he took the oath of office as President. Rumours have indeed been circulated, but whenever they reached the ears of the President he has never hesitated to express his righteous mind, saying that no amount of pressure could compel him to change his determination. All officials who have come into close contact with the President have heard such sentiments from the lips of the President on not a few occasions. To me his words are still ringing in my ears. General Feng Kuo- chang has conveyed to me what he was told by the President. He says that the President has prepared a "few rooms" in England, and that if the people would not spare him he would flee to the refuge he has prepared. Thus we may clearly see how determined the President is. Can it be possible that you have never heard of this and thus raise this extraordinary subject without any cause. If the situation should become such that the President should be compelled to carry out his threat and desert the Palace, what would you say and do then?
Or, perhaps, you are measuring the lordly conduct of a gentleman with the heart of a mean man, saying to yourself that what the President has been saying cannot be the truth, but, as Confucius has said, "say you are not but make a point to do it," and that, knowing that he would not condemn you, you have taken the risk. If so, then what do you take the President for? To go back on one's words is an act despised by a vagabond. To suggest such an act as being capable of the President is an insult, the hideousness of which cannot be equalled by the number of hairs on one's head. Any one guilty of such an insult should not be spared by the four hundred million of people.
XII. THE CHOU AN HUI AND THE LAW
Next let me ask if you have read the Provisional Constitution, the Provisional Code, the Meeting and Association Law, the Press Regulations, the various mandates bearing on the punishment of persons who dare conspire against the existing form of state? Do you not know that you, as citizens of the Republic, must in duty bound observe the Constitution and obey the laws and mandates? Yet you have dared openly to call together your partisans and incite a revolution . As the Judiciary have not been courageous enough to deal with you since you are all so closely in touch with the President, you have become bolder still and carry out your sinister scheme in broad daylight. I do not wish to say what sort of peace you are planning for China; but this much I know, that the law has been violated by you to the last letter. I will be silent if you believe that a nation can be governed without law. Otherwise tell me what you have got to say?
It is quite apparent that you will not be satisfied with mere shouting and what you aim at is the actual fulfilment of your expectations. That is, you wish that once the expected monarchy is established it may continue for ever. Now by what principle can such a monarchy continue for ever, except that the laws and orders of that dynasty be obeyed, and obeyed implicitly by all, from the Court down to the common people? For one to adopt methods that violate the law while engaged in creating a new dynasty is like a man, who to secure a wife, induces the virtuous virgin to commit fornication with him, on the plea that as a marriage will be arranged preservation of her virtue need not be insisted upon. Can such a man blame his wife for immorality after marriage? If, while still citizens of a republican country, one may openly and boldly call meetings and organize societies for the overthrow of the Republic, who shall say that we may not in due time openly and boldly call meetings and organize societies for the overthrow of the monarchy? What shall you say if in future there should be another foreign doctor to suggest another theory and another society to engage in another form of activity? The Odes have it, "To prevent the monkey from climbing a tree is like putting mud on a man in the mire." For a person to adopt such methods while engaged in the making of a dynasty is the height of folly. Mencius says, "a Chuntse when creating a dynasty aims at things that can be handed down as good examples." Is it not the greatest misfortune to set up an example that cannot be handed down as a precedent? The present state of affairs is causing me no small amount of anxiety.
XIII. A POSTSCRIPT
A copy of Yang Tu's pamphlet, "Constitutional Monarchy or the Salvation of China" reached me after I had finished writing the above discussion. On a casual glance through it I alighted upon the following passage: "What is known as a constitutional country is a country which has definite laws and in which no one, from the ruler down to the common people, can take any action that is not permitted by law. Good men cannot do good outside of the bounds of law; neither can bad men do evil in violation of it." This is indeed a passage that breathes the very spirit of constitutionalism. Let us ask Mr. Yang if the activities of the Chou An Hui, of which he is the President, are acts within the bounds of law? Mr. Yang is a good man. It is therefore possible for him to believe that he is not doing evil in violation of the law; but has he not at least been doing good outside of the bounds of law? If an advocate of constitutional monarchy is capable of doing such unlawful acts, we may easily imagine what sort of a constitutional monarchy he advocates; and we may also easily imagine what the fate of his constitutional monarchy will be.
Mencius says, "Am I argumentative? I cannot help it." Who would have thought that a man, who cares not for the question of the form of state like myself and who opposed you--Mr. Yang Tu-- during your first campaign for the change in the form of State-- you were a Republican then--would be opposing you again now that you are engaged in advocating another change in the form of state? A change in the form of government is a manifestation of progress while a change in the status of the State is a sign of revolution. The path of progress leads to further progress, but the path of revolution leads to more revolution. This is a fact proved by theory as well as actual experience. Therefore a man who has any love for his country, is afraid to mention revolution; and as for myself I am always opposed to revolution. I am now opposing your theory of monarchical revolution, just as I once opposed your theory of republican revolution, in the same spirit, and I am doing the same duty. My belief is that since the country is now in a most weakened state, we may yet fail even if we do all we can at all times to nurse its wound and gather up its scattered strength. How can any one devote his time and energy to the discussion of a question of no importance such as the form of state, and so obstruct the progress of the administration? But this is not all. The whole country is now stirred up to an excited state and is wondering how long this ever-changing situation is going to stop. The loss caused by this state of affairs, though unnoticed, is incalculable. In the Odes, it is written "Alas! my brethren. Befriended of the countrymen. No one wants rebellion. What has no parents?'" Let the critics remember this--let them remember.
Some will say to me that a revolution is an unavoidable thing. Of all things only the facts cannot be undone. Why then should I bother myself especially as my last effort fell on deaf ears. This I realize; but it is not my nature to abandon what is my conviction. Therefore, although aware of the futility of my words, I cannot refrain from uttering them all the same. Chu Yuan drowned himself in the Pilo and Chia Sheng died from his horse. Ask them why they did these things, they will say they did not know. Once I wrote a piece of poetry containing the following lines:
"Ten years after you will think of me, The country is excited. To whom shall I speak?"
I have spoken much in my life, and all my words have become subjects for meditation ten years after they were uttered. Never, however, have any of my words attracted the attention of my own countrymen before a decade has spent itself. Is it a misfortune for my words or a misfortune to the Country? My hope is that there will be no occasion for the country to think of my present words ten years hence.