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.
[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.
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 (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.