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.