The Monarchy Plot

THE MEMORANDUM OF DR. GOODNOW
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. 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.
DR. GOODNOW'S MEMORANDUM
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 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.
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 --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, no opposition should be aroused, the law of succession must be properly settled, 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 that any usurpation of the Throne would infallibly lead to rebellion in China and intervention on the part of Japan, 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, that all Yuan Shih-kai's sons were worthless, the eldest son being semi-paralyzed, 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, 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: 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 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.