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 naïvely 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 adviser 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.
[Illustration: President Li Yuan-Hung and the General Staff watching the
Review.]
[Illustration: March-past of an Infantry Division.]
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.[16] 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 for ever 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 practiced
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 peoples 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 continue 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 to-day. 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
régime, 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'état_ of the 4th November,
1913. But Yuan Shih-kai's first care after that _coup d'état_ 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[17]--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 dismisses 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[16] It is perhaps of importance to note that Dr. Goodnow carried out
all his studies in Germany.
[17] 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.